1998 11-10MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1998
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:05 p.m. by Malcolm MacCoy.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Borup,
Mark Nelson.
OTHERS PRESENT: Eric Rossman, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg, Shari Stiles.
MacCoy: First order of business this evening is our minutes from the previous meeting
of October 13th
. Commissioners what do you want to do with it?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have a correction on page 39. Bottom third of the sheet I
believe two comments that are attributed to me are actually Commissioner Nelson’s
comments. I didn’t see the appearance of his shop and how well kept it was. I think
that was Commissioner Nelson.
Nelson: It was.
MacCoy: Okay any other changes?
Smith: None.
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson do you have any other changes?
Nelson: No.
De Weerd: I have none.
Borup: I have none.
MacCoy: What’s the recommendation?
Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that we approve the minutes as
written and corrected.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: We’ll commence with our agenda this evening, but before we do I’ll make a
general statement to the public so each time we have different people here so you
know how we plan our evening. I will introduce the subject matter. I will ask then for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 2
the staff to make any comments that is pertinent to the subject we’re working on. After
that we’ll call the applicant forward to make a statement about his project, his or her
project and then we’ll call if it happens to be a public hearing we’ll call the public and I
will call per our new layout from our attorneys I’ll call those people who are for the
project. I will then call all of the people who are sitting here who are opposed to the
project to have them speak. We ask that each one of you as you come up here to
speak keep it short if you can to five minutes or less, keep it pertinent. If somebody has
already said what you’ve said, that’s fine. It’s been recorded. It’s all on tape and it
goes down in typed form after that so if your concern has been recorded, feel assured
that it will be listened to and read as a concern of your own. After we finish the round
with the public the applicant is asked to come back forward to answer any comments
that he’s heard from the public pro or con. Then we’ll close the public hearing and the
commissioners will discuss that and make their recommendation. Is there any
questions by the way? I have gone through this thing just kind of briefly and I think
once we get started you’ll understand what we’re up to. This is suppose to help us
according to our attorneys to go faster in our meeting, because we have 18 items on
the agenda tonight. If you look at your agenda and we’d like to get out of here at a
decent hour like 10:30 if that’s at all possible and that is also for your benefit as well as
ours because after about that time we all get kind of hard to go through the facts and
figures and do a decent job we feel. All right moving on to item one.
ITEM NO. 1: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR PROPOSED
FIRST MERIDIAN PLAZA BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP – SOUTH OF GEM
AVENUE BETWEEN MERIDIAN ROAD AND E. 1ST
:
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners we have received the additional information that
we requested. The applicant is proposing a 15 foot setback for landscaping on
Meridian Road. A five foot setback on Gem Avenue. They have submitted some
proposed covenants that will be forwarded to City Council for their review. Other than
that I believe they have addressed the comments that we’ve made on the project.
MacCoy: All right thank you Shari. Bruce?
Freckleton: Nothing additional to that.
MacCoy: Okay thank you. Will the applicant come forward please.
BRIAN IVERSON WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Iverson: This is as you stated a continued public hearing from actually I believe back in
September. It took us a while to get organized and get the additional material which
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 3
was requested which were the landscaping plan and primarily the landscaping plan and
the restrictive covenants which we submitted to staff last week and there were some
changes to (Inaudible)
MacCoy: Okay is that it?
Iverson: That’s it.
MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant?
Smith: As a point of record, I don’t have a copy of the landscaping plan in my packet.
Borup: Do you have an 8 by 10?
Smith: I’m sorry, strike that.
Borup: You don’t have a full size.
MacCoy: All right, Commissioner Borup do you have any questions?
Borup: I have no questions.
De Weerd: I have none.
Smith: I have none.
Nelson: I have none.
MacCoy: Okay you may sit down. I’ll call forward now anybody here that is favor of this
project or wants to have a chance to speak and come forward? Seeing none, anybody
who is against this project would like to speak. They can come forward at this time.
That’s interesting nobody else. Commissioners what’s your direction? This is a
continued public hearing.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I guess just a comment. I guess I’m confused why we are only
requiring a 15 foot landscape setback on this parcel and we’re asking Mr. Biss across
the street to provide 35 foot. Maybe Shari can talk to that.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, when the Biss property along with Troutner
Business Park was annexed which was recently since our comprehensive plan was
adopted that was a specific requirement as part of their annexation. This property has
been annexed for many years and we don’t have the ability to impose a development
agreement on property that’s already been annexed. I don’t know. Maybe legal
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 4
counsel can advise whether we can set minimum landscape requirements on a plat.
Rossman: You know that’s a question on the ordinance as to whether there’s a
provision in the ordinance. I’m not aware of any that will allow you to do such a thing. I
do believe if in fact Mr. Biss’s property was part of the development agreement in the
annexation the 35 foot setback or 35 foot landscape then that certainly can be imposed,
but with property that has already been annexed and part of the city, I’m not aware of
any provision, but I certainly could reserve and advise you on that later, but I don’t know
of any provision in the ordinance that will allow that.
Smith: This was something that was tied to the entrance, gateway, corridor text.
Stiles: The Biss annexation, is that what you are talking about?
Smith: No, just entrance gateway corridors into the city.
Stiles: There is no set requirement for a minimum in the ordinance. The 35 foot was
what was established by policy as being requested of new annexations.
Borup: Mr. Chairman I would just like to say I had the same concern that was just
expressed and mainly because of the gateway aspect of it. But I guess I felt if a nice
landscaping job was done, that it would accomplish the purpose that we’re trying to on
the gateway. So I think maybe that’s in my mind I decided maybe that’s what we’re –
maybe be the benefit is a nice landscaping job. A nice landscaping job on 15 feet could
look as nice as lousy landscaping job on 35.
MacCoy: You raise a good point. Okay that’s discussion and we can continue that
later. What about the public hearing?
Borup: I move we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: What is your desire?
Smith: To vote.
MacCoy: Okay all in favor of closing the public hearing. I’ll finish that up just to make
sure that we’re covered by the legal part of this.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: All right. What is the action for the item here?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 5
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval of the
preliminary and final plat for First Meridian Plaza to City Council.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
OUTSIDE SEATING BY TODD MASON D/B/A MOXIE JAVA – 106 E. WILLIAMS:
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, once again they did not post the property for the
notice of the hearing. I finally get a hold of them and they have assured me they will be
attending the December meeting.
MacCoy: All right thank you. Commissioners, what’s the next –
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion we continue this public hearing until
December 8th
meeting.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR AND SERVICE BY JOHN BISS – WEST OF
MERIDIAN ROAD:
MacCoy: Since it is a public hearing, staff?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe you have in your packets additional
information that’s been submitted by the applicant. He has submitted a revised site
plan showing where he intends to have some additional parking in the back, has
modified the plan to show the additional landscaping setback. I’m not aware of the
outcome of the problems with the actual survey that’s been done. I don’t know if Bruce
has any answers on that, but maybe Mr. Biss could address that as part of his
testimony.
MacCoy: All right I’ll open the public hearing. It’s a continued public hearing. But we’ll
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 6
open it for tonight. Is the applicant here to make any more statements before we move
on to the public?
JOHN BISS WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Biss: Well hopefully we got everything we need to get it to go. She had a question
about the survey. I talked to Glenn Bennett about that and he said that it was right.
The only thing that from Balentyne the only concern he had was he thought the lines
were a little off and there was one line that Mr. Glenn Bennett actually had marked as a
north line and it was supposed to be marked as a south. That’s actually been filed with
the county and been correct. Just that Balentyne hadn’t caught that. I just talked to
Balentyne a while back and said he didn’t have a problem with it no more.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Biss: I changed the landscaping for the 35 feet like they asked for, added some
additional parking. One of my concerns was I thought I’d be able to use the rest of my
property for additional parking later if I need to, but the way I understand it I can’t so I
just made the additional parking in the back so I won’t need no additional parking out
there. I took the signage off the side of the building. I just left it all in the front so
hopefully we don’t have no more hang ups so we can get going on this.
MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Biss?
Borup: You took both signs off the building?
Biss: No, the signage off the sides of the building.
Borup: Yeah, both of them? I don’t remember – I don’t remember that we specifically
said you needed to do that so that’s all I was wondering.
Biss: Somebody asked me – (Inaudible)
Borup: I just was wondering about that.
MacCoy: He just commented on the aesthetics of the building which he thought to
make it a more presentable building and it was just a suggestion.
Borup: I think the other thing was waiting for was ACHD report and we’ve received that.
De Weerd: Did you have any comments to ACHD’s report and recommendations?
Biss: The way I gathered it, they just granted a temporary approach until I redevelop
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 7
the property and Pennwood whatever gets developed and nobody will guarantee
Pennwood’s going to be developed. So at this point in time I don’t see a problem.
De Weerd: When and if that is ever done how will you fill in the temporary entry and
where would you put the entry off of Pennwood?
Biss: Well I still have an argument there ACHD when that day does come with the fact
that they’ve put in writing that they guarantee that approach and now they tell me they
don’t so I don’t really have the time right now to completely argue that fact with them so
if and when I ever – I may never develop any more on that property so if and when I do
then that will become a new concern, but to answer that question if we had to away with
it, we just continue the landscaping on across to be a way to button that up.
De Weerd: And you have configured this so if you get the entry off Pennwood you
would have –
Biss: It’s pretty tight so if and when somebody’s motor home comes in it will have to
jockeyed into the shop to get it in the door.
De Weerd: In the very back of your lot and the unimproved site area where you have
your imagine a couple of trees, is that going to be sod or gravel?
Biss: Around it, it’s just going to be undeveloped property until I figure out what I’m
going to do. Hopefully eventually later I’ll be able to pave all that back there and at that
point in time continue the landscaping all the way back. The landscaping down the
sides.
De Weerd: Okay how much of that is still undeveloped?
Biss: All of it.
De Weerd: And how much is that?
Biss: I’m using approximately half the depth of the property now. There’s a – the
property is 533 feet deep.
De Weerd: For some reason I thought when we asked you to come back we wanted to
know what would be done with that part. And I saw that you did extend it back
somewhat.
Biss: I added some parking back there. At that time I thought I could just gravel the
whole thing and I could use it for additional parking but they tell me I can’t gravel it or
use it for additional parking so at that point in time I’m going to leave it like everything
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 8
else is back there until we get moving along further so just keep the weeds down. I’d
rather gravel it and use it for additional parking if I had to but they tell me I can’t.
Smith: Who told you that?
Biss: The staff. I thought it would be easier to gravel it than it would be keep control of
weeds.
Nelson: It is my understanding what we wanted to do was just on this development –
Biss: If things were to go the way I would like them to truly go I would like to move the
lube shop back there with a couple stall car wash back there and pave the whole thing
and landscape it but that’s going to really depend on what they – I don’t know what I’m
going to do with that piece of property until they know what they are going to do with
Pennwood. If Pennwood never goes through I’m going to do something completely
different back there than if it does. What you do with that is going to completely depend
on how you get back there. If Pennwood never goes through, then I’ll probably
eventually just pave the whole thing and just make it parking. If Pennwood goes
through then I can do something else back there.
Nelson: It is my understanding in my mind what we had wanted on your plan just to
kind of notate that either nothing was either happening with that or – so there wouldn’t
be any question although I see you did extend the parking. Because before we showed
nothing that you had planned on gravelling. This ungraveling is a new thing.
Biss: Shari said we had to put in this conditional use permit that we weren’t going to
use this for anything if nothing was going to go back there so I am assuming that still
holds.
Borup: I think that’s what it says. It says unimproved site so that’s not even taken into
consideration.
De Weerd: I have nothing further.
MacCoy: All right thank you. You can sit down.
Biss: One thing it does sound like I’m going to be the only one on Meridian Road with
35 feet of landscaping. I still think it’s somewhat funny there.
Rossman: Let me expound upon that a little bit as what I was indicating before just so
you understand what the legal position is on that particular issue. Properties that are
already within the city that were not recently annexed in with a development. When
they come before the commission and the City Council what they request for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 9
preliminary and final platting of a subdivision. There are specific standards set forth
within the ordinance that they have to comply with and if they comply with those
standards, approval of the particular application should be granted. There isn’t really
the flexibility in a subdivision ordinance or under Idaho law for the commission to
impose an additional landscaping setback requirement on those properties. When an
applicant comes in as they did with your property before you purchased it and asked for
annexation of that particular piece of property, a development agreement can be
imposed with that annexation that spells out what has to be done and apparently
included with that development agreement was a 35 foot setback. Now the commission
in this particular case can certainly recommend approval to the City Council that they
approved the conditional use permit on your property. They could also impose should
the P & Z Commission determine it necessary or appropriate in light of the fact that you
are one of the few properties out there with that requirement that the City Council
consider waiving that requirement. That’s certainly an option. But that’s up to the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Any comments on that? You understand?
Biss: I don’t really have a problem with 35 foot setback. My biggest concern is that
everything I’ve got is going to be pushed further back and I got no real problem with that
if everybody else is pushed back it will look well, but if I’m the only one pushed back
that far, I think it’s going to look funny.
Rossman: Well ideally all of them would be back that far. The problem is they can’t
impose that requirement on the other properties. So the only options are have yours
and the other annexed properties be the only ones with that requirement or recommend
that the City Council waive that requirement of your development agreement.
Borup: I’ve got a question that Mr. Chairman probably for Shari. How much property
did that effect? You said it was when Troutner was annexed and this was part of that
same annexation? And then the question beyond that is what would be the status of
the properties to the south of this? Are they also waiting for annexation or are they in
the same under the same stipulation? What would be the status there?
Stiles: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, the Troutner Business Park
included this as part of the annexation because they needed another access into the
property, which they got through Norm Fuller and an existing 50 foot wide easement.
As part of that they also had to annex Norm Fuller’s property and that 35 foot
requirement was put on Troutner along their full frontage on Franklin Road and was
also put on this piece. As far as additional properties south of this there’s one home I
think it is just north of where the Transportation Department has their gravel pile. And
that gravel pile that are not annexed. Everything from the freeway north to Cherry on
Meridian Road has already been annexed.
Borup: So what’s the setback on those other properties already annexed? The 15
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 10
feet? I don’t mean the setback. I mean the landscaping.
Stiles: Most of the other property is already developed.
Borup: To the south?
Stiles: No, not to the south.
Borup: What I’m getting at I think the same thing Mr. Biss was if that whole street is
developed and he is the only one I think that’s going to defeat what we’re trying to
accomplish there. There needs to be some consistency.
Stiles: He has a legitimate argument.
Borup: It may or may not be. That was my question if the properties on both sides are
eventually going to develop and be the same then I think that can be a nice looking
area along there. But if his truly is the only one and everything else is different then
that’s going to look out of place. So if that is the case then I would recommend that City
Council that they waive that. But if that’s not the case and is there a way for that to be
determined before it goes to City Council and what the other properties could end up
being or if that same restriction could be there. I we’re talking one little lot here that is
going to look out of place.
Stiles: It would include the lot that Mr. Biss has purchased and the undeveloped
property to the north.
Borup: That would be it.
Stiles: Pretty much, yeah.
Smith: We can pass that recommendation on to city Council that they with the direction
of staff to have that information available to City Council to as far as the landscape
setbacks north and south of this property that they consider waiving the 35 foot
landscape requirement based on that adjacent setbacks so that it’s consistent with the
adjacent properties.
Rossman: Well of course we’re going to have a public hearing at this level. There
won’t be a public at the City Council level. However there’s nothing that would prevent
staff from providing a report to City Council in accompanying the application as it goes
on.
Smith: Just as long as they have the information there so they can say yes or no.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 11
Rossman: You could move to recommend approval with consideration for an
amendment for a amendment of the development agreement to require only a 15 foot
landscaping setback.
MacCoy: Or you could even put it to the point that they make the determination
whatever that is.
Rossman: Just ask that they consider it because they are going to make the final
determination. It won’t be made here.
Borup: Mr. Biss if there was a reduction in the setback would you be open to maybe
increasing some of the landscaping along there? Or is what we have – was that
intended to be the landscaping plan or just a conceptual or?
Biss: Yeah, I still have the original plan where I had 20 feet. I really thought when Shari
said we needed 15 feet across the street, I figured I would go with 20 feet and play it
safe.
Borup: So you made –
Biss: I’d go back to 20 feet pretty simple.
Borup: Well I’m going back to what I said earlier. I think with some nice landscaping 15
feet or 20 feet can be nicer than 35 if it’s done right. That’s what I was wondering if
you’d be open to maybe doing a little more landscaping if it was decreased back to –
Biss: I’m sure I could.
Borup: I guess that what I would – I would rather see that and then be consistent with
the rest of the street and I guess we don’t know what the rest of the street would be.
Biss: I guess what I would really like to know is what Arthur Berry is truly going to do
with his piece of property.
(Inaudible)
Borup: We don’t know at this point. But some of us we may have an influence on some
of that.
Biss: I mean if he was going to do 35 feet, I wouldn’t have no real problem, but if he’s
just going to be 15 foot. Like I said it just pushing my whole project back a little further
and like I said real good chance it just looks funny.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 12
Rossman: For clarification was the Arthur Berry property was that annexed with the
development agreement? Well it’s going to be difficult if not impossible for the
commission to impose such a requirement on them if there is no development
agreement. If they just come in with requesting plat approval.
Borup: That’s directly adjacent to yours to the south. That’s what would make a
difference in how it would look.
De Weerd: Now does our ordinance state that it’s a minimum of 15 feet or it’s only 15
feet? Doesn’t that give us some latitude?
Stiles: What was the question?
De Weerd: In our landscaping ordinance, is it a minimum of 15 feet or is it just 15 feet?
Stiles: It’s not even 15 feet in the ordinance. The 15 feet would be a minimum building
setback requirement, however the 15 feet for the First Meridian Plaza came from their
voluntary – that was what they volunteered to do when they came in with the site plan
for the whole site before Godfathers, before Rockets came in there. They had a whole
site plan for that whole site. That was what they proposed at that time was the 15 feet.
If you wanted to actually go with the ordinance and what it would require, they could get
by with four feet from the right-of-way.
Smith: So we’re asking for beyond minimum requirements. I mean you did it on
Dakota. I think all of us are after just the consistency down the street.
Borup: Something that is going to look nice.
MacCoy: Just for comment Commissioner Borup and I sat on that with the Rockets and
the Godfather thing. I remember the discussion we had on that and we went back and
forth and finally agreed that 15 was a pretty good measure and bought that at that time
and that kind of set the scale for that moment based on what Shari just said you know
we decided we were going to decide on something. Are you ready to –
De Weerd: Close the public hearing?
MacCoy: No, not yet. It’s still a continued public hearing, so if we’re finished with Mr.
Biss I’ll ask him to return to his seat.
Nelson: I just have one more. So we’re discussing the possibility of sending this off
with a reduced requirement. So basically what we’ve asked him to do at this point we
just document his site as per the requirements of the development agreement; is that
right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 13
Stiles: And/or the annexation.
Nelson: Okay.
Stiles: The development agreement that was established for this may have only
included the Troutner Business Park, but I believe the 35 foot landscape requirement
was a condition of the annexation itself.
Nelson: Okay so this documentation – the changes we asked him to make just brought
it up to what those requirements were.
Stiles: Yes.
Nelson: Okay that makes sense to me. There for a minute I was thinking it required
him to do a bunch of work and then ask him to put it back the way he had it. So it would
be appropriate that we’d ask you to do these changes so when it went to City Council it
was documented per the requirement. Does that make sense to you?
MacCoy: Anything else Mr. Biss? Okay you can take your seat. Since this is a
continued public hearing, is anybody in the public here who would like to speak for the
project? If not anybody here willing to or wants to speak on the other side of the fence
the con side? If not Commissioners, what’s your choice?
Borup: Move we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: The public hearing is now closed. What is your desire now for the item?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we recommend approval of this
conditional use permit with the consideration by City Council to – let me back up. I’d
like to make a motion that we ask staff to prepare information on required landscape
setbacks on the property south and north of Troutner Business Park and Mr. Biss’s
property and that we recommend approval to City Council of this project as designed
with the consideration that they reduce the landscape requirement to 20 feet as stated
by Mr. Biss with additional landscaping beyond what the minimum is required if that is
appropriate with adjacent setbacks of landscaping.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 14
De Weerd: I’ll second that.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM 4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.84 ACRES FOR PROPOSED OLIASON PARK
SUBDIVISION BY TONY HICKEY – EAST OF 603 E. PINE:
MacCoy: Staff.
Borup: This is just findings.
MacCoy: That’s right. After I said that I thought that. Commission what’s your desire
on this? You’ve all read the material.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I would like to move the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Okay I am going to have a roll call on this I think.
ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as set forth with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
as requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth within these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and any other
conditions required by the Meridian City Council.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All right. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 5: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSED OLIASON PARK
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 15
SUBDIVISION BY TONY HICKEY – EAST OF 603 E. PINE:
MacCoy: In the first place, does staff have any comments on this one?
Freckleton: Chairman, members of the Commission, we received written response to
our comments. I believe everything has been addressed and we have nothing further.
MacCoy: Is the applicant present at this time? Come forward and be sworn in.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman I have a question a point of inquiry. Hasn’t there already been
a public hearing on this matter and if so has that public hearing been closed? And has
this matter just been tabled? The agenda indicates that this is just a matter that was
tabled. It doesn’t indicate that this is a continued public hearing.
MacCoy: Well I don’t have any information on it. So I don’t know. That’s what I’ve got
on mine.
Rossman: Just a question for Mr. Berg I guess. If you recall.
Nelson: It seems like this was tabled just so that it fell in the right order in today’s
agenda.
MacCoy: I think you’re right.
Nelson: I think we closed the public hearing last week.
Rossman: If the public hearing was closed we can’t really reopen the public without
proper notice.
MacCoy: That’s true.
Berg: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my recollection is that the hearing
was never closed but the motion was to table it. I’ll look that up in the minutes to double
check.
De Weerd: It’s on page 52. It states our Chairman said I’m going to close the public
hearing for now and the commissioners will make their decision. And then
Commissioner Nelson moved that we table this item.
Rossman: In light of the fact that the public hearing has been closed if you want to
reopen it, we’re going to have to provide proper notice and continue this to the next
meeting.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 16
Smith: I don’t want to reopen it.
Rossman: So I guess there’s no need for testimony.
MacCoy: All right Commissioners, having had the material returned to us through the
staff, you reviewed it. What is your decision?
De Weerd: I guess I just have – there were not any changes. Is that correct Shari? So
it still stand on what we had at our last meeting. Okay. I have no further questions.
Nelson: I have no questions.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval of this
preliminary plat to the City Council.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 12.21 ACRES BY MERIDIAN JOINT SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 2 – WEST SIDE OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN FAIRVIEW AND
USTICK ROAD:
MacCoy: Commissioners what is your desire?
Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Okay roll call coming up here.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, --
De Weerd: Can I wait for a minute? I would like Counsel in our motion to accept this or
to approve this with the findings we ask that a site plan review and I just got this right
before the meeting so I’m asking Counsel if it’s in the Findings.
Rossman: Commissioner De Weerd you might take just a couple of minutes and read
paragraph 17 on page 17 of the proposed findings. I think that should answer your
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 17
question.
De Weerd: Okay thank you. Aye.
ROLL CALL VOTE: De Weerd, aye. Nelson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Okay decision of recommendation please.
Smith: Mr. Chairman the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as set forth within these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law as requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth within these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that any
other conditions required by the Meridian City Council.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MacCoy: Oh, we didn’t get a second on that did we?
Nelson: I’ll second it.
MacCoy: Now, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 5.4 ACRE FOR PROPOSED MIDVALLEY BUSINESS
PARK SUBDIVISION BY HUBBLE ENGINEERING – NW OF EAGLE ROAD / I-84
INTERCHANGE AND WEST OF EXISTING TEXACO:
MacCoy: Commissioners, what do you have?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman there was a letter included in our packet from a Morgan Plant
and I really didn’t know what it had to do with this particular item. Was it supposed to
be with this?
MacCoy: Shari, what is that letter? I can’t find it in my packet.
Stiles: There’s a letter from Mr. Plant, but it had to do an entirely different property. Mr.
Plant his property is located south of Franklin Road and east of Locust Grove so I don’t
know – (End of Tape)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 18
Rossman: If the public hearing has been closed prior to receiving this letter, there
would be a proper motion raised by one of the Commissioners that needs to be stricken
from the record because it does have to be submitted during the public hearing.
Perhaps if the applicant wants to or whoever submitted this letter wants to try to have it
considered by the City Council at their public hearing they are certainly welcome to but
it wasn’t submitted during the public hearing in this matter. So it can’t be considered by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
MacCoy: Thank you Counsel.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman there is also a second letter in this packet from Shawn Nickel.
This wasn’t part of our public testimony either. Shari, do you have any comment on this
letter?
Stiles: We did receive that after the public hearing was closed. I don’t believe that we
can consider that. I would like to reserve maybe the right I don’t know if you can do it in
your Findings to go to City Council and see if there is a possibility we can work out a
development agreement and restrictive covenants that would take care of our concerns
at to not providing conditional uses for every lot, but as far as whether we can do that
and you can strike it from your Findings or add something to the effect that all uses
would be under the conditional use permit or site plan review as recommended by P &
Z or approved by City Council. I think we could take care of them all on a site plan
review. We have been trying to be pretty consistent in requiring the conditional uses for
all uses. In some cases it has been a detriment to the property owner as far as being
able to market the property, but I feel we do need to retain that control in all of those
mixed plan use development areas. But not necessarily through a separate conditional
use permit for every use.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I have a question for Counsel. Is this the proper agenda item for
this letter to be considered or would we be better off having that under the preliminary
plat?
Rossman: Well you basically have two options with it on this particular matter in that
the public hearing has been closed on this particular application on the annexation and
zoning. You can’t consider new evidence. Certainly you can consider comments by
staff, but you can’t consider a new letter that’s been submitted by anybody including
Hubble Engineering. Your options are either to renotice it and have another public
hearing and submit it into the record at that point or make a determination on the record
that you have before you and send it on to City Council. They will have their own public
hearing and they certainly can consider it during their public hearing.
Smith: Well I guess the question is if we want to impose the conditional use permit as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 19
part of the development agreement, would we be able to do that as part of the request
for the preliminary plat which is the next agenda item or would it have to be included in
this annexation and zoning?
Rossman: It would have to be in the annexation and zoning. I don’t see any –
Smith: Mr. Chairman in that regard then I would like to make a motion that we strike
this letter from Hubble Engineering and the letter from Morgan Plant from the record.
MacCoy: Is there a second?
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Do you have any recommendation for the project?
De Weerd: Shari have we received any word from ACHD?
Stiles: Mr. Snead informs we they just have a draft report. I haven’t seen any kind of a
report. Apparently they are meeting tomorrow about this access road that comes off of
Eagle Road at the light there. I think that is going to be mandatory that that road be
completed prior to much more development out there, but no we have no comments
from Ada County Highway District.
De Weerd: So you anticipate them discussing lot 2 which open up access to the signal.
Stiles: Yes. I don’t know what the timing of that road construction is.
Smith: And when you talk to restricting development in that area until that access road
is built, are you talking about city restricting it? Ada County Highway District restricting
it?
Stiles: City.
MacCoy: So what is your desires?
Borup: Well I think that some of the things that we’re alluding to and thinking about
either is going to have to be handled by – well it’s going to be handled by City Council. I
would think the applicant would rather us move this on and let them approach City
Council on any other concerns they have. Does anybody agree that’s probably what
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 20
they –
De Weerd: Well the fact is we can include those into our Findings anyway.
Borup: I know. The only thing I’m still wondering is the ACHD report.
De Weerd: As far what?
Borup: If there’s anything we should be concerned about, but I think they are handling
that. The other thing I noticed the other day this is a little bit off the subject, but it’s in
the same area they are not going to be able to not too far west of this project is the
boundary for where the mixed use area ends according to the comp plan anyway so
that all that property is not going to be developed as things now stand. So the comp
plan is going to prevent it expanding all the back anyway.
MacCoy: We don’t know that yet.
Borup: The present comp plan will. But there’s probably enough time for something.
Anybody else have any other comments?
Smith: I guess we could move the annexation and zoning along. Then you know we
have a request for preliminary plat also which nobody can talk to the fact that we don’t
have a ACHD report on that agenda item and not have to hold anybody up.
Borup: Sounds like a good idea to me. Mr. Chairman I move the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
Smith: Second.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Decision and recommendation?
Borup: Mr. Chairman I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as set forth within these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law as requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth within these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and any other
conditions required by the City Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 21
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 8: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR PROPOSED MIDVALLEY BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION BY HUBBLE
ENGINEERING – NW OF EAGLE / I-84 INTERCHANGE AND WEST OF EXISTING
TEXACO:
MacCoy: Before we move on does staff have anything to add to this?
Stiles: We have no comments. They have addressed the comments we made
previously and submitted a revised plat.
MacCoy: Are you speaking for both you and Bruce or is he – fine thank you. He say
yes. This is a continued public hearing. At this moment I want to request the applicant
come forward and if he wants to add anything to the record right now.
SHAWN NICKEL HUBBLE ENGINEERING WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Nickel: Mr. Commissioners, members of the commission, thanks for moving on that last
item. I believe the reason we had this item tabled was to address that ACHD issue on
the preliminary plat. Steve I don’t know why we don’t have the final report. I do have –
I would like to submit tonight a copy of the minutes from the October 7th
ACHD meeting
that is signed by the commissioners. I could either read it into the record or present. It
tells of their action on this application. I believe that would be sufficient as far as
needing the final approval from them.
MacCoy: Is it a short statement or is it four pages?
Nickel: It’s pretty short.
MacCoy: Okay you go ahead and read it then.
Borup: Mr. Chairman maybe if he could read the parts he thought would be pertinent.
Rossman: Preferably submit the copy into the record and read into the record just the
portions that are relevant at this point.
Nickel: It’s a preliminary plat for Midvalley Subdivision. It’s got the numbers. It says
that the staff modified the conditions to provide for a deposit to the public rights-of-way
trust fund for the site’s share of the cost of construction of a traffic signal and roadway
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 22
improvements for the east west roadway. The cost will be computed by dividing the
roadway cost by the size of the 110 acre subdivision. Staff will modify the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for this requirement. Commissioner Richardson moved to
adopt this application as amended. Commissioner Huber second and the motion was
carried out unanimously.
MacCoy: Okay would that be our copy or you want to – all right thank you.
Nickel: So I believe that does address the ACHD issue. In addition I did submit to
Shari a revised preliminary plat that basically what we’ve done is we’ve enlarged the lot
that our Hubble Engineering office will be on by 40 feet to give us more room for parking
and minor modifications to the site so we submit that at this time.
MacCoy: You just gave it to her recently or –
Nickel: Last week I presented it to her.
MacCoy: Shari is the map we have with us reflect that?
Stiles: The plat?
MacCoy: Yes.
Stiles: You should have a copy of this revised plat. I believe he submitted ten copies.
MacCoy: Okay thank you.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could have an identification into the record as to
the revised plat so that we can understand which one we’re talking about.
De Weerd: The plat received November 5th
.
Rossman: Okay and it indicates November 5th
in the bottom right corner. Just so City
Council understand which one we’re talking about.
MacCoy: That’s the reason I asked Shari. I never what we have. Proceeding ahead
anyone here that would like to speak for the project can step forward now. Okay seeing
that we have nobody anybody here opposing this project if they have anything to say
they can come forward now. Pretty quiet crowd tonight. Okay Commissioners what
about the public hearing?
Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 23
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Do you have any discussion now or do you want to make a recommendation?
Nelson: I’d like to make a motion that we approve the preliminary plat and send it on to
City Council.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor of that?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 24,560 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING,
EQUIPMENT YARD AND GARAGE WITH SECURITY FENCE, ASSOCIATED
LANDSCAPING AND PARKING BY HUBBLE ENGINEERING – 621 ALLEN STREET,
NORTH OF I-84 AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD:
De Weerd: I guess I would just like to ask Shari if there are or Bruce are there any
changes to your comments before they are submitted along with these Findings?
Stiles: Commissioners I don’t think changes to my comments would be relevant to the
conditional use permit. They may have been to the annexation, but the applicant has
met with me regarding some site plan modifications that I don’t consider to be
significant, but those could go back through you as a site plan review. I don’t have any
problem with what they have submitted. I don’t have any additional comments on the
conditional use permit for this lot.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Smith: Mr. Chairman just as a point of record page 6, item 5E and 5H. Until that
access road is built to the light on Eagle Road I don’t agree with those as part of the
planning. Because this parcel is not currently served adequately by a central public
facilities such as highway streets and it does not have vehicle approaches to the
property which shall be so designed as to not create an interference with traffic on
surrounding public streets. Just want to reiterate that as part of that access road needs
to be built to the light on Eagle Road before those statements are in fact true.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 24
MacCoy: Counsel do you have anything you want to say about that?
Rossman: Was there a particular question that was asked?
Smith: I just took exception to item 5E and 5H.
Rossman: Yeah you are certainly welcome in your motion to approve them to move to
approve them with that particular provision stricken or with any corrections that you
would like to make rather than revising the written document and resubmitting it at next
month’s meeting.
Smith: I guess my biggest problem is I hate to see this facility get up and running and
then it be a hazard to these people who are working there as well as everybody else
who uses Eagle Road and I’m one of them, but that’s – I mean there’s a lot of traffic out
there and it’s a hazard to get on Eagle Road from Jackson’s there. It’s not safe unless
you are just doing a right turn.
De Weerd: Well this is part of a conditional use permit wouldn’t you want these to stay
in there since they have to assure that these are taken care of?
Smith: I guess what I’m getting at is I would like to make sure somehow that that access
road is developed before this parcel is developed.
Rossman: You can always add a condition too if that is what you want to include in
your motion.
MacCoy: That would be the way to do it. Put it in that direction.
Smith: Well if I don’t have any exception from anybody else I would be willing to put
something into a motion to that affect.
Nelson: Would it be possible to limit rather the construction of the project but it’s
occupancy?
Smith: That would be appropriate I think. There’s no reason to not permit.
(Inaudible)
Smith: Yeah, they are going to have construction crews and things going in there
working on it, but I think we could – I could see my way through to that.
Borup: Commissioner Smith is your concern on the subdivision as a whole or the
particular office building?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 25
Smith: Well both.
Borup: I mean the four lots or three lots.
Smith: Any additional development in that area I think warrants having proper access
to Eagle Road prior to occupancy.
Borup: Do we have any type of time table of when that light maybe in?
Smith: Well that’s the big question is when is that thing going to go in? There was a
statement made under I think the annexation and zoning item that Shari said there
wouldn’t be any probably any more future development out there allowed until there
was proper access to Eagle Road and I asked who that was the City or ACHD and she
said the city. I would hope that the City Council would see their way clear to make the
right decision in the best interests of the public safety.
Borup: Well at this point we don’t even know what type of traffic to count the proposed
building would generate.
Smith: Well I don’t have the site plan in front of me, but there was a parking lot there
that seemed to accommodate quite a number of vehicles.
Nelson: That was the only real concern that the people living there now begs us for –
Borup: And I would certainly agree on any – I don’t know are we talking about restricting
them even doing their office building? I guess that’s where my concern is. I don’t have
any concern about any future development on the other lots. But you know they are
looking at moving their specific business here.
Smith: And I think they should have safe access on Eagle Road.
Borup: Yes.
Smith: Well I mean I want to see them go and get going, but I have a safety concern
and I can’t in good conscience keep approving developments when we don’t have
proper highways to service them.
MacCoy: Can you put that into a motion?
Smith: I could. Commissioner Borup seems to have a concern and –
Rossman: The problem I see Commissioner Smith, I mean it’s not a problem but with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 26
the ordinance the Planning and Zoning Ordinance as it reads presently for the City of
Meridian this is the only public hearing that we’ll be having on this particular application.
City Council will not have its own public hearing. They will make a final determination
based solely upon the record before this Commission and so if there are any
unanswered questions or there is any further ambiguity it maybe necessary or
appropriate to have the applicant provide further testimony or to take additional
evidence or to do further fact finding, perhaps the better approach would be to continue
this to the next date, next month, and reopen the public hearing and take that testimony
before send this on to City Council. Shari?
Stiles: As this is part of an annexation they do have another conditional use permit
public hearing at City Council.
Rossman: That’s correct. It is a contingent with an annexation request and so there will
be a public hearing on that.
Smith: Well and even if they didn’t, they acted on our Findings on the Dakota
development with taking out Commissioner De Weerd’s request for additional
landscaping in the parking lot. If we added a request for access road be put in prior to
the development they could take that out too if they wanted to.
Rossman: That’s exactly the problem. That’s exactly the reason I just raised that is the
Dakota application so that we can avoid that and that we can have – a problem arose
after one was closed. The public hearing was closed and that condition was put in the
motion and the City Council gets screaming from the developer that he wasn’t allowed
the opportunity to address that particular issue whether he was in fact was or wasn’t
allowed that opportunity. The best approach if there is any question to leave the public
hearing open or reopen the public hearing and make sure all the testimony gets in
before it’s sent on those issues, but Shari is correct. On this particular application there
is going to be another public hearing because there’s annexation involved and so that
problem will not arise in this particular case.
Smith: I would be comfortable with making a motion to add that as part of the
requirements as part of the Findings of Fact given the fact that the applicant will have
further opportunity to testify before City Council and the City Council can basically do
with these Findings what they want to anyway so it’s a recommendation by us.
Rossman: That’s correct. All we’re doing here is making a recommendation to City
Council. City Council issues the final decision on all conditional use permits,
annexations and subdivisions.
Smith: I’d be ready to make a motion if Commissioner Borup doesn’t have – I mean I’m
not positive I understand your concern.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 27
Borup: If the light is going to be five years before it’s in.
Smith: Well the light is in. It’s the road we’re waiting for.
Borup: The road I mean. And the City Council has an opportunity to hear from ACHD
by that time I am assuming.
Smith: Right.
Borup: If we wanted to back track I think we could even do that tonight. But let’s move
on.
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 of
Law with the amendment that the access road to the signal light on Eagle Road be in
place prior to occupancy of this development.
Nelson: Second.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Decision and recommendation?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they
approve the conditional use permit for the uses set forth within these Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law as amended as requested by the applicant for the property
described in the application with the conditions set forth within these Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law and as amended and any other conditions required by the
Meridian City Council.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: I would just like to comment at this point now that you’ve gone this route
Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Borup. I appreciate your discussion in this fact
and the fact that you did make the motion the way you did because one of the things
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 28
that I’m working very hard with our attorneys and with our Council is that when they get
to a point where they have a question or so on that they ask us and if they can’t get it
resolved they send it back to us and not just a scrub and go on and do what they like
with it so I think this commission has done all the homework and has the best
knowledge of the project.
Borup: But I don’t know that we did all the homework on this one.
MacCoy: Well you’ve got a lot more than the Council does I’ll tell you when they get
through with it.
ITEM NO. 10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.2 ACRES BY ROBERT F. BEEDE – 800 W.
OVERLAND ROAD:
MacCoy: Commissioners what do you have?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law.
Smith: Second.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Nelson: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as set
forth within these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as requested by the
applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth within
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and any other conditions required by the
Meridian City Council.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
7.84 ACRES BY PAUL HOFFMAN (MERIDIAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH) –
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MERIDIAN ROAD AND USTICK:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 29
MacCoy: Staff? Shari you coming up with something here?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, I trust you all have a copy of our comments on
this project. There are some issues involved as far as the legal description. We did
receive a draft today and it appears to meet the requirements of the Tax Commission. It
does need to be stamped and signed by the registered professional engineer. The
applicant has requested an R-4 zone. While that is consistent with the existing zone in
the county and R-4 zone in the county would allow a church, it specifically prohibits
churches in that zone so it would be appropriate for the applicant to request another
zone and amend their application to reflect the proper zoning for the intended uses on
the project. We did ask that some specific requirements be made as a condition of the
annexation which would include removal of the existing house which encroaches in the
existing right-of-way. Provision of pedestrian walkways in the form of five foot wide
sidewalks along both Meridian Road and Ustick Road and throughout the development
for the entire frontages of the property on those roads to supply proof of dedication of
the additional needed rights-of-way and to connect the existing house to sewer and
water and abandon the private services.
MacCoy: Bruce, do you have anything?
Freckleton: I don’t nothing further.
MacCoy: This is a public hearing so now I’ll open the public hearing and ask the
applicant to come forward.
PAUL HOFFMAN WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Hoffman: I’d like to respond to the comments from the planning department. I would
have like to have responded to Shari directly. The comments didn’t get into my hands
until last week and I had to visit with my client. Let’s see the comments are item one is
just a statement of fact. Item two regarding the legal description we are happy to
provide whatever is appropriate and necessary. We’re working on that. As far as the
zoning, I apologize. I was aware that the Meridian Zoning was not exactly compatible
with – well I should say compatible, but not identical to the Ada County zoning. The
current zoning is R-4 in Ada County. But as I was looking over the Planning and Zoning
book the church is permitted is a P designated in an L-O. Although I would at this point
assume that that wouldn’t be compatible with the master plan, the master zoning plan.
However if you give me a moment, I would like to suggest that the – my client the
church is interested in pursuing that course. It’s their feeling that this is going to be a
highly traveled intersection, Ustick Road and Meridian Road. In deed Ustick Road is
going to be one of the main arterial roads out in Nampa. It’s already an arterial in Boise.
And it stands to reason to us that that kind of – in any neighborhood that’s going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 30
have that kind of traffic you should have a buffer similar to a limited office which is done
successfully in a number of neighborhoods in Boise. So I’m not sure exactly how to
address that issue. There are two other zoning classifications R-8 I believe and R-15
that would allow a church in a conditional use. I’ll have to – maybe we can come back
to that in a moment. Item four the northern most home encroaches significantly on
existing Ustick Road right-of-way. Yes, we are aware of that. The church acquired a
special zoning certificate from Ada County and the former property owner entered into
an agreement with Ada County Highway District in 1995. That building reads as
follows, this easement is also subject to a small residential building located on the
easterly portion of the easement, which building extends approximately eight feet into
the easement premises. It is agreed that at such time as Ustick Road is widen Ada
County Highway District may at its discretion pay to have said building relocated on to
the adjacent premises. So essentially the building goes away or gets relocated once
the road is widened. Item five any existing irrigation or drainage ditches crossing or
adjacent to the property shall be tiled per ordinance 11-9-605. The existing drainage
ditches that are on the property are for the purposes of irrigating the property itself.
Although the water does feed down to adjacent properties. It is not owned or operated
by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The church spent I would say between five
and ten thousand dollars developing a system that interrupts a portion of that irrigation
system, runs the water underneath the parking lot into another box and then kicks it
back out to the ditch. So in response to this item I guess what I’m saying is we’ve
already dealt with a portion of that problem. Yeah, ultimately when that side is
developed it’s going to have to be tiled to use that expression. But we haven’t
developed a master plan for this site. We don’t know where we need the water and
when. Ultimately we’d like to put a ball field and some other improvements out there,
recreational kinds of improvements and possibly employ the use of that water. But how
that comes to pass, we don’t know so to ask for us to do so at this time would be very
difficult and may end up being a case of having to rip it out and start over again. So I
leave that to your consideration but basically the response from the church is that hey,
we think we’re doing the right thing. We’re trying to make it right and we would expect
over time as the site gets really developed that that would be taken care of. Item six
yes there is a domestic well that supplies the house on the corner. In order to connect
to the water system in Meridian Road, we would have to rip up Meridian Road and
make a connection at that point. The sewer is already connected to Meridian City. So
that part of that requirement is taken care of. The church would like to ask that this
requirement be waived until such times in the future if that corner is developed in a
different manner and that house removed which is entirely likely. That the water system
would be hooked up. I mean the church building itself which is a new facility which is
almost complete is connected to the domestic water off of Ustick Road. But to connect
the house to it, you would have to come 500 feet down through the lot. In other words,
it’s kind of a costly item. Item eight, conditions of item eight include removal of the
existing house. I already addressed that. Item b provision for pedestrian walkway,
when the former owner Robert Strausser subdivided the lot, he entered into an
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 31
agreement with Ada County Highway District and he deposited a $7,400 deposit with
them. That is towards improvements of sidewalk for the entire length of the property
both parcels and that agreement extends until 2005 at which point if the improvements
aren’t made the money is returned to the church or they can be rolled over again into
that fund and given that we know that Ustick Road is going to eventually get widened.
It stands to reason that we would wait until that time. Those funds would be used for
that purpose and coincidentally the ditch that runs down the side of the road at that time
could also be piped so we can take care of both problems at the same time. I know
that’s a mouth full. Just in a general kind of statement, I guess the church was a little
taken back by all of the requirements. They really weren’t prepared to spend the
additional funds to make the improvements noted although I’ve already attempted to
address several of those and those are provided for. They were basically acting under
the assumption that the site was going to be taken more or less as is for the
annexation. That may have been a mistake in belief. But we would hope that you
could consider what I have offered and one final item the church including myself and
other representatives are meeting with the parks and recreation on Thursday to further
discussion regarding joint use of some of the site for like ball fields, soccer fields, things
like that. We would certainly like to devote our energies in that direction as opposed to
some of these other improvements.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Hoffman: No, I think that’s enough.
MacCoy: All right, commissioners, do you have any questions?
Smith: Shari what zone would you feel would be appropriate and just as a matter of
point of record Mr. Hoffman, churches are permitted under a conditional use permit in
R-8 and R-15 zones and C-C zones and are permitted uses in L-O, C-N and O-T
zones. What zoning would you feel would be appropriate Shari?
Stiles: Not having any idea what their overall plan is I couldn’t answer that. It is
designated as single family residential area in the comprehensive plan. Therefore none
of the commercial zones would be appropriate. L-O would probably be more
compatible with what’s there and what’s surrounding it than any of the commercial
zones or even the R-8. R-8 maybe able to work but any future building on this site, they
will be submit to conditional use permit.
Smith: Churches to me, churches fit into neighborhoods very nicely and whether or not
it’s appropriate to have a light office zoning in the middle of a residential neighborhood
or not is not what I’m trying to debate. It’s the fact that I think a church is appropriate in
a residential area. Whether it’s prohibited in an R-4 zone, then maybe we have a
problem with our ordinance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 32
Stiles: I don’t think so. Not when you’ve got the church running 50 people in and out of
their house and you live next door to them. I think you would change your mind about a
church being appropriate for a subdivision.
Smith: I guess let’s not compare good design and bad design as far as ingress and
egress out of a church parking lot. It’s on a main arterial road. It’s not going through
any subdivision streets. In that respect I don’t see a problem with it being tucked into a
residential area. I mean we’ve got them all up and down Cherry Lane. There’s a
number of churches that access off Cherry Lane that but up against residential
neighborhoods.
Stiles: True and I don’t see any problem with these being included in the areas that
they are. They can go in lots of areas that are designated single family residential in
our comp plan and they have, but to say that they are appropriate in an R-4 zone is not
true.
Smith: I just don’t want to see another Crossroad Subdivision and Dakota Development
confrontation where we’ve got residential approved in a light industrial zone and this to
me it seems like we are going down the same road if we’re going to – I agree with your
– to sum it up I agree with your item three in your report to the fact that an R-4 zone
churches are prohibited and we should designate another type of appropriate zoning for
them to ask for this facility. I guess getting down to the fact that the northern most
home encroaches significantly on the Ustick Road right-of-way, I guess I have a
problem annexing and zoning this property into the city and then expecting the tax
payers of this county pay for removing the house and I would hope that the new owner
of the property would do that at their own expense. Under item eight, removal of
existing house, I think we need to be a little more specific as far as which house it is we
need to remove. And I don’t what is the concern about getting the existing house and
I’m assuming it’s the one that you’re not asking to be removed. What is the concern
about having that hooked up right now to sewer and water and abandoning private
services?
Stiles: City ordinance requires it.
Smith: Okay. That’s all I got right now.
De Weerd: I guess I would have one comment and that would be about the five foot
sidewalks. I understand your rationale but there is going to be a park on the corner on
the opposite corner and that means kids will be walking down that busy street. If your
deposit to ACHD (End of Tape)
De Weerd: ..requiring a sidewalk until 2005. That puts a lot of kids at risk walking down
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 33
that street to church or to the park or anything.
Hoffman: Actually as a point of clarification the deposit when you deposit the funds,
ACHD can only hold them for ten years. The deposit was made in 1995. And the
deposit is made on the premise that ACHD is going to make an improvement sometime
in that ten years. So it could be that we get there to 2005 and they still haven’t elected
to make improvements to that road. But it could sooner is what I’m suggesting.
De Weerd: So Shari if we are to require the sidewalks can ACHD be asked to use that
deposit and put in those improvements?
Stiles: I think it would be appropriate if Steve Snead from the Ada County Highway
District would address that. We have requested in the past that sidewalks be built even
Ada County Highway District didn’t particularly want them built. Our policy has been
that if the sidewalks are not going to be built in a five year period and are included as a
funded project on the five year plan, then we want the sidewalks built.
Snead: ACHD’s policy is with the road trust money is not necessarily deemed at a
specific unless it’s in our five year work plan to place those sidewalks. What we would
do if the City of Meridian were to require the sidewalks to be placed, the applicant would
place the sidewalks and then we would refund that money back to the person who paid
the road trust with interest.
Rossman: Sir, could you please identify yourself?
Snead: Steve Snead, Ada County Highway District.
Rossman: That’s just for the record so she doesn’t think the applicant is providing your
testimony.
Snead: And that is correct a ten year period. Actually the seven year period the
applicant may make a request for those funds to be released. We have the option to
hold them to ten. If at that time there is not anything in our five year work plan or we do
not deem putting those improvements in, we do refund the money at that time with
interest back to the applicant. And just for the record we very rarely do sidewalk road
trust. Now we almost always requires those improvements to be put in. That was the
way it was done prior to the staff’s recommendation at this time. Normally we get those
improvements put in.
De Weerd: Great, thank you.
Borup: A question for Mr. Snead and that Commissioner Smith brought up. The point
on removing the existing house that was in the encroachment. The right-of-way has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 34
already been – has the right-of-way already been deeded and acquired for Ustick
Road?
Snead: Do you have a copy of our staff report?
Borup: Yeah and then they crossed it all out.
Snead: Right, but if you look at the note between item 2 and 3 the required right-of-way
has been previously acquired by the district through an IFA except for the area in which
the building encroaches into the right-of-way. The district will defer that acquisition
under we widen Ustick. I’m not familiar with the agreement that Mr. Hoffman referenced
about moving the house or what our right-of-way department has –
Borup: That’s what I was confused on.
Snead: I’m sorry I don’t have that information.
Borup: Mr. Hoffman did you say ACHD was going to move the house?
Hoffman: This agreement is between Robert Strausser the former owner and ACHD.
Here is it. There’s the item regarding the house.
Borup: Could you repeat that again? What it said was happened to the house.
Hoffman: This easement is also subject to a small residential building located on the
easterly portion of the easement which building extends approximately 8 feet onto the
easement premises. It is agreed that at such time as Ustick Road is widened the Ada
County Highway District may at its discretion pay to have said building relocated on to
the adjacent premises of grantors or their successors.
Borup: May. Mr. Snead does that mean that they could also choose not to? And then
in this case what happens to the building?
Snead: That would be very difficult to do and build our project. As a courtesy in other
projects we do move buildings. We do buy the property and we do relocate them.
Normally we buy the property and then sell the house, but again I’m not familiar with
that agreement or what we would do in this case on Ustick. That would probably be
something the commission would address through the design the ACHD Commission
and what they would do with that home. I don’t think I can really answer that.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Snead: But it is at ACHD’s discretion. So it’s going or the way I read it anyway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 35
Borup: Maybe while I’ve got the microphone, question for Shari. When the 56 acres
across the street was annexed for the park, not remembering exactly, but was that
annexed as L-O?
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: That’s what I was thinking.
Stiles: That was mostly to discourage prospective developers from coming in and trying
to get property from the city to develop all around the park.
Borup: How would that discourage?
Stiles: Because it’s not zoned for any housing. At the time that was annexed, we had a
lot of pressure from people who wanted to say give us ten acres here and we’ll give you
ten acres somewhere else and you know we weren’t really interested in trying to split
that up. We wanted to keep the 56 acres in tact.
Borup: Oh, you thought they were going to try and split the 56 acres.
Stiles: Yeah.
Borup: Well the city doesn’t have to do it. Just say no.
Stiles: I also wanted to point out that the house is probably encroaching more than 20
feet into the right-of-way right now with the additional needed right-of-way and I believe
that –
(Inaudible)
Stiles: From your site plan.
Hoffman: No, that’s a proposed future right-of-way that ACHD asked us to stay back of
in the development, but the current right-of-way is 33 feet from the centerline. The
building is 25 feet from the centerline.
Stiles: Well then we will require the additional right-of-way to be dedicated for a full five
lane width there. It looked from their notes here that they had asked for the 45 feet of
right-of-way from the centerline of both of those roads. And with their note it indicates
that they’ve already done that.
Hoffman: I’d have to check my records again but I don’t believe that we’ve actually
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 36
dedicated the additional 12 feet.
Stiles: The city would require proof of that dedication prior to any permits being given
on the site.
Hoffman: And how would that compensation come for that property?
Stiles: You would have to negotiate that with the Ada County Highway District. All
section line roads are a minimum of 90 feet wide and that’s standard practice, but I
believe the house has been built on, added on to, I mean not probably since the church
has purchased it, but apparently it was added on to into the right-of-way with no permit
whatsoever. There’s been improvements made to it. I don’t think it’s even on a
foundation.
Hoffman: Yes, it is.
Stiles: Is it? Cinder blocks.
Hoffman: But it’s a block foundation.
Stiles: I do think that definitely needs to be a condition of the annexation.
Hoffman: Well I can only respond the church invested $14,000 in that house a year and
a half ago so that it could be rented. If the condition is going to be that that thing has to
be moved I submit that they just may say never mind and walk away from it.
Borup: Walk away from what?
Hoffman: From the annexation request. That’s a lot of money to walk away from and
they knew it was going to go. They were gambling that it was going to be about five
years or more before Ustick Road was widened. At that point they were getting a good
decent return but I’m sure that they wouldn’t – I would be surprised. I mean I am just
offering that. I don’t know how it’s going to go.
Borup: I’m confused on the right-of-way then. 45 feet has – the way I read this 45 feet
has already been acquired from centerline. Mr. Snead isn’t that what your note you
referred to said is 45 feet has already been acquired?
Snead: I would have to review IFA 1995 to answer that. I do not have that document
with me. I would have to review the file to see exactly what was dedicated.
Borup: But item number one that was crossed out was saying that 45 feet is required.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 37
Snead: That is what it appears. But again I would have to review that IFA file just to
see exactly if it was 45 feet or if it was a lesser amount that was negotiated.
Borup: Mr. Hoffman what was your understanding of the right-of-way? Was it 45 feet
also?
Hoffman: Well I’ll profess to being somewhat confused and mainly because part of the
reason is the building. Because that part, see here I’m looking at a site specific
requirement. This is a preliminary report from 1995 I believe. Yeah, April that the
owner would dedicate additional right-of-way to 45 feet down the centerline of Ustick
Road. I need to get my final approval form which I don’t have here to see what in fact
ended up happening.
Borup: The way I read that I assumed that it had been dedicated. But the house
removal wasn’t going to be necessary until it was actually widened.
Hoffman: Right and that’s possible.
Nelson: I am beginning to wonder if there are too many open issues to continue
bouncing around on this thing.
Hoffman: Well I think the right-of-way can be dealt with one way or the other. It would
help to know if in fact the commission is going to recommend to the council that these
other conditions are required. I’m sure that the church would need to consider that
carefully before they proceeded any further.
Borup: I still think we need to appropriate some discussion on this, but would like to
hear if there is any additional public input before discussing any more.
MacCoy: Any more questions for Mr. Hoffman? Mr. Hoffman the document you held up
here that had the signature about that, can we get a copy of that?
Hoffman: You mean the easement?
MacCoy: Yes.
Hoffman: Yes, absolutely.
MacCoy: You can take a seat now. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here that
would like to speak for the project? All right, anyone here wanting to speak against the
project? So much for that.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I have a question for Shari. Is it my understanding that the
applicant needs to amend their application therefore come back to another meeting with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 38
what staff and/or this commission would deem appropriate zoning for this project? Or
can we do that here?
Stiles: I would defer to legal counsel, but I would think since it’s been noticed as going
for an R-4 zone, it is a significant change to request an office or commercial zone for
this property.
MacCoy: Also Mr. Hoffman has made the statement to us that there’s some other
questions that are concerning him and he would like to take it back to his church people
to find out if they even want to continue this.
Smith: Well we haven’t told him what we’re going to do either.
MacCoy: No, we haven’t just keep that in mind.
Rossman: My feeling is that with annexations what is really requested is the
annexation. The city can certainly impose whatever zoning designation they want to
impose. The real question behind it is, is there enough information within the record as
provided by the applicant to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to make the
determination as to whether or not another zoning designation other than R-4 is
appropriate for this particular property. If you need more information to decide whether
or not R-8 is appropriate then that’s another issue or R-15 or C-C or anything else.
Obviously you can’t grant it with the present ordinance in an R-4 district so you either
and it’s certainly up to the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you want a legal
opinion the legal opinion is that it’s not required. What they are asking for is annexation
and you can impose whatever zoning designation you think is appropriate or if the City
Council believes it’s appropriate.
Smith: Okay thank you and second question for Shari is the removal of the existing
house. Is it your intention that that be done now or when the Ustick Road is improved?
Because that also delves into Commissioner De Weerd’s concern about having the
sidewalk in place before and waiting five or ten years down the road until Ustick Road is
widened to five lanes.
Stiles: I guess I would prefer that it be made a condition of the annexation and be done
now.
Smith: Obviously that sidewalk can’t go in if the house is – it would be going right
through it. That thing probably wouldn’t rent for very much then.
Stiles: I guess I question why the church would have put so much money into a building
they knew had to be removed. And I really don’t know why they are requesting
annexation. Maybe Mr. Hoffman could answer that. If the only intent is to avoid double
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 39
hook up fees, because hooking up to sewer and water it maybe that this annexation is
not in the best interest of the City of Meridian at this time, but that’s up to you to decide.
Smith: I don’t have any further comments or discussion.
Borup: Question, when temporary sidewalks are put in. What location is that normally
done as far as relationship to the right-of-way?
Stiles: Well Steve would probably be better to answer this. I believe they usually ask
for them within one to two feet of inside the required right-of-way, future required.
Borup: And when the road is widened the sidewalks are removed at that time?
(Inaudible)
Borup: I mean they have to be because the grade is not established or anything.
Snead: Normally when we allow a road trust, or if we were to allow a road trust today,
that would mean that that project would be in the five year work plan, which could mean
it could be as a planned project which would be built maybe in seven years, but
normally it’s a short term window. We’re going to see that project or that would be a not
a very good use of funds to put in a temporary sidewalk to be torn out in five years.
Now again I do not have my current five year work plan with me so I don’t know when
that portion of that road is to be constructed.
Borup: Is ACHD been putting funds in for temporary sidewalks?
Snead: I beg your pardon?
Borup: Did I misunderstand what you just – you said that wouldn’t be a very good use
of funds.
Snead: No, we won’t do them as temporary sidewalks. We wouldn’t – if it’s in the five
year work plan, we would prefer no sidewalks in place.
Borup: Right, I understood that. Your comment on not very good use of funds. That
was if it’s in the five year?
Snead: Right. To put the sidewalks in, we would preferred to have that money placed
in a road trust and those funds would be utilized into the general fund.
Borup: That makes sense. So in this situation, there is no way to get the sidewalk in
and have the house remain? Is that what we’re saying?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 40
Snead: I don’t know how close the house is to the existing edge of pavement at this
time. If there could be a temporary –
Borup: That is what I was leading to. If it’s a temporary sidewalk, why does it need to
be at the edge of the right-of-way or what difference does it make as long as it’s a safe
distance from the roadway.
Snead: Yeah, I don’t know without the –
Hoffman: I’m thinking about what you said about the park about having a sidewalk. It
stands to reason to me that the former owner put a sidewalk on Meridian Road. All the
housing is to the south. There’s nothing to the north, not for a couple of miles. There’s
basically nothing to the west until you get down there a mile or more and there’s
something right across the corner there. There’s some housing. I would think that if
kids or children are going to approach the park, the last thing we really want them to do
is to go down along Ustick Road and then run across the street. They are going to want
to go across the intersection at Ustick and Meridian and then go down to the park either
north or west. Does that make sense? I mean it seems to me that even if we put the
sidewalk there we’re still encouraging kids to dart across Ustick Road. At least for the
short term. Of course there’s some housing and I was just trying to think of an
approach. Is there a way to get some sidewalk. There is a small residence there on
the corner. I don’t know if the city bought that property or not. Did that come with the
purchase?
Borup: Yes, it did.
Hoffman: And so did the city impose upon itself the requirement for a sidewalk?
(Inaudible)
Hoffman: Then there will be a sidewalk down along that frontage. That would seem to
me to make the most sense that that’s how you would get to the park especially since
everybody is approaching from the south. I don’t know if you feel about the same way.
Smith: I agree with that as far as going to the park, but what about the church?
(Inaudible)
Borup: Yeah traffic from the church to the park. My question is how that sidewalk ends
at the corner. Does it make a slight curve around the corner or does it stop? Is there a
good access across that intersection with the existing sidewalk? I can’t remember. I
think it is, but they normally do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 41
(Inaudible)
Borup: Okay so there’s a full sidewalk width clear to the corner. That is what I was
wondering.
MacCoy: Are you ready to close the public hearing or where do you stand?
Nelson: I’m not sure it would appropriate to close it.
MacCoy: No but –
Nelson: I would like to maybe discuss the sidewalk issue. I’d like some input from staff
on the tiling of the canal there. What’s customary there? The ditch.
Freckleton: Commissioner Nelson, members of the commission it is city ordinance to
pipe the ditches when you annex. What is customary is that it is done at the time the
property is brought in.
Nelson: Because obviously we couldn’t –
(Inaudible)
Nelson: If everyone wanted to wait until it was more convenient –
Borup: Well either way the variance needs to be requested to City Council; is that
correct?
Freckleton: That’s correct. It is an ordinance requirement.
Borup: There’s nothing we can act on that aspect anyway so they would need to
request a variance to City Council so I think that’s the only direction we could give them.
Nelson: So as far as the applicant is concerned at this point we’re looking at tiling the
ditch, possibly requiring some sidewalk and –
Borup: Well this is one of them that makes sense to me to ask for a variance until the
rest of the property a design is established. You know until the ball fields are put in at
one location and it doesn’t make sense to tile something and have to tear it out next
year to relocate them or whatever is going to need to happen. But there’s not much we
can do about that at this body.
Nelson: What is the benefit of annexing at this point?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 42
(Inaudible)
Rossman: Mr. Hoffman you will have to step up to the microphone. This is being
recorded. If you would like to offer more testimony please step forward.
Hoffman: I’ll reiterate that the park now is a finger extension of the city boundary
around the church parcel. When the church first bought the property in 95 they
approached the city council at that time with the proposition that we would like to be
considered for annexation but we weren’t contiguous with any part of the city at that
time.
Nelson: I understand that you can now, but my question is the benefit –
Hoffman: What benefit to the city?
Nelson: To you to go through all this stress over annexation at this point.
Hoffman: The church wants to be a Meridian Church. Ms. Stiles is correct. We have
an agreement with City Council that they would refund a portion of the impact fees.
That just gave us the (inaudible) to do it again. But we did have and it is on record that
initially we did approach the City with the possibility of being annexed because we want
to be part of Meridian City. I don’t know how else to elaborate. It just stood to reason
now that we were surrounded or at least partially it would make sense to do so.
Smith: Mr. Hoffman maybe you can help me here. Staff’s comments, just item by item
which ones are you in agreement with and which ones are you in disagreement with?
Hoffman: We’ll get item two squared away. Item one is just a statement of fact. We’ll
get item two squared away. Item three, we would like to propose an L-O zone quite
honestly. If the parcel across the street is L-O, we’re a permitted use in L-O.
Smith: So you agree with that one, item four.
Hoffman: Given the church’s investment in the building and our agreement with ACHD,
we’d like to leave the building as is. Given the investment in existing irrigation ditches,
and the lack of a master plan for the site, we’d like to leave the ditches as is.
Smith: Would be in favor of asking for a variance from the City Council until future date
when the site is developed.
Hoffman: I may not be in favor of, but that might be okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 43
Smith: You’d be willing to consider that.
Borup: You realize that that is a city ordinance and the only way you get around that is
ask for a variance.
Hoffman: I do now and I understand what you are saying.
Smith: Same thing would apply to item six.
Hoffman: Okay, right. We would then I guess have to approach City Council for a
variance.
Smith: And then item eight.
Hoffman: I guess 8A is the same as number four. Do I assume that?
Smith: I would assume that yes.
Hoffman: B, well if the funds are already there, I suppose we could do it although it
doesn’t make sense to me to do that if it’s getting ripped out.
Smith: It doesn’t make sense to anybody if it’s getting ripped out – I’m sorry I didn’t
mean to put words in anybody’s mouth.
Borup: Well that’s the standard policy. If it’s five years –
Hoffman: C, I will supply and we will do whatever it takes if it’s 45 feet, it’s 45 feet.
There’s no argument about it. I mean we’ll do it.
Smith: And then item D talks about back to item 6.
Hoffman: Yes.
Smith: Okay, thank you.
Hoffman: Thank you.
Smith: Okay.
Snead: May I make a statement to the commission regarding the sidewalk. Maybe we
should clarify it just a little bit more. Current policy as was stated now we try to put
almost all the sidewalks in. We put them located between one and two foot from the
new dedicated right-of-way at an elevation of approximately existing centerline grade of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 44
the road or slightly above. That is our best determination where that sidewalk’s ultimate
location is going to be because it will be a detached sidewalk with our best guess at this
time. Now normally the few that we have seen have worked. They have remained. It
has not been a temporary sidewalk and I think maybe I needed to clarify that for
Commissioner Borup. The sidewalks that we place now that are required that go in
we’re not deeming those as temporary sidewalks. We think those sidewalks hopefully
will remain in tact that when we do the ultimate build out of the road, hopefully we do
not have to remove those sidewalks.
Borup: So then there will be a strip between the sidewalk and the curb.
Snead: Correct.
Borup: Of approximately how much?
Snead: I don’t know. I can’t answer that. It just depends on what the ultimate roadway
section is for that area.
Borup: Okay well that puts a different light on things for me.
Smith: So if this is in your five year plan do you have enough information design wise
on how that is going to be constructed to make that determination?
Snead: It’s possible, but if that were the case, it was to say in five years. We would
strongly recommend to the City that those improvements not be put in to let us put
those in with the project. Then we know they will be placed in the correct location. If
that makes sense. I would have to check our five year work plan but to the best of my
knowledge this project is not currently scheduled. The placement of the sidewalk would
not be temporary. It would hopefully be place that ten twenty years from now it would
remain.
Smith: Thank you.
MacCoy: What do you want to do?
Nelson: I would really like to know for sure where this project falls whether it’s five or
ten years so that –
MacCoy: You mean the road project?
Nelson: Yeah, I mean if they’re not sure.
MacCoy: Well they figure out five years right now in the books and sometimes that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 45
goes to seven as he said.
Nelson: No, my question is I understand the policy, but we haven’t confirmed yet where
it stands with ACHD; is that right? You’re not sure off the top of your head whether –
Snead: Yeah, that’s correct. I don’t have the five year work plan with me to see where
it’s stated. I don’t know if any of the members –
Nelson: So the issue is that it’s potentially ten years from now I would be inclined to
push the sidewalk issue. That I would like to know, and I would be inclined to keep the
public hearing open until that issue could be addressed because it affects the house
quite a bit. Does that seems like a reasonable piece of information?
Smith: That does to me and also you know some clarification on the right-of-way.
Where was it?
Borup: On the exact footage of the right-of-way and whether it’s already been deeded.
Smith: Right. I mean it doesn’t seem like if we continue this item that the church would
be at any disadvantage given the fact they’re already under construction and moving
towards occupancy. They could already occupy the building under Ada County and
we’re not going to hold them up from finishing if we continue this to next month.
Borup: That’s what would seem to me. Should we ask Mr. Hoffman if he can respond
to that.
Smith: Do some information, do some research with ACHD. Maybe Steve and him can
hook up and find out when this is in deed slated to be done. So I would be willing to
make a motion to continue this item under our December 8th
hearing.
Rossman: Point of clarification Commissioner Smith would you also like further fact
finding and reporting and reporting at the next hearing on the compatibility of this
particular application with an L-O zone or an alternate designation?
Smith: I would.
Rossman: That would certainly be something the applicant would deal with staff on.
De Weerd: I would second that if you didn’t have a second.
MacCoy: Mr. Counsel do you need to rephrase his motion based on what you just
said?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 46
Rossman: Not necessarily. I think –
De Weerd: Just to amend it to add to it.
Rossman: Yeah I think as stated the motion was to continue it on the issue represented
by Commissioner Smith with the addition that the applicant and staff be prepared to
report on the compatibility of this application with the L-O zone at the next hearing or an
alternative zone under the Meridian City Code or Planning and Zoning ordinance.
Smith: That’s correct. That’s what I would like the motion to state.
MacCoy: Okay we’ve got a second.
De Weerd: That is what I seconded.
MacCoy: Everybody in favor or what is the vote?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: It’s about 17 after 9:00. We’re going to take a break for about ten minutes
and we’ll be back. You can do the same thing.
MacCoy: Okay we’re going to reconvene our meeting.
ITEM NO. 12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
7.30 ACRES BY QUEENLAND ACRES, INC. – ¼ MILE WEST OF OVERLAND FROM
MERIDIAN-KUNA ROAD SOUTH SIDE BORDERING WEST SIDE OF RO-HO ENT:
MacCoy: Staff? We’re on item 12.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we received this request for annexation and
zoning on a piece of property that’s designated as a single family residential area in the
comprehensive plan. We are in the process of amended that comprehensive plan.
However I think as part of our ordinance in Section 11-2-416D 2, if a zoning amendment
application requires an amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, no action
should be taken on the zoning amendment until that comprehensive plan change is
made. I realize there are changes in the area that may make a commercial designation
appropriate. The applicant was informed of the requirement for the comprehensive plan
change to take place prior to the annexation and zoning of this property to C-G as well
as his representative. Having not had come up against this before since our ordinance
does say no action will be taken. Is it possible to defer this for eighteen months? Or
until our comprehensive plan is actually changed? The applicant is welcome to submit
a request for amendment to the comprehensive plan. However since we are in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 47
process of going through the entire process for the entire area of impact, I would prefer
that no action be taken or comp plan change amendment be considered until we have
our consultant on line and are going through the public hearing process for the entire
plan.
MacCoy: That’s going to be sometime you’re right. It’s going to be a year to eighteen
months. We’re just getting that started. So you’re saying we’re on a stop situation right
now on this one.
Stiles: That’s the way I read the state code and the zoning ordinance.
MacCoy: How do you want to handle this? Do we table it now or do you want – do you
have any questions?
Rossman: If I may offer my two cents worth. I don’t believe as Shari indicated, it’s
going to take considerable period of time for an amendment to the comprehensive plan
and there isn’t any ambiguity in the state law or the Meridian ordinance provision 11-2-
416 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission really can’t take any action on this thing
so rather than just tabling it perhaps perpetually, the appropriate manner to proceed
would probably be to deny the application as in consistent with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan until it’s amended.
MacCoy: I think you’re probably right. In fact I know you’re right.
Rossman: I don’t see any other way around it.
MacCoy: All right Commissioners, I want a motion.
Nelson: Do we need to let the applicant –
Rossman: This is a public hearing.
Nelson: This is a public hearing. We haven’t given the public an opportunity.
MacCoy: I want to ask the Counsel on a case like this, we’re in a position where it’s like
null and void I think. I want to find out. Counsel? Since we are on a public hearing to
hear this is not going to be worth anything so what’s our procedure at this point now.
I’m really lost as to how you want to handle this.
Rossman: It’s a matter of law. There’s no factual testimony that could change the law
in this case or the ordinance or state law, so I don’t see any need for a public hearing or
that the hearing even be opened. Just be denied as a matter of law.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 48
MacCoy: So can I just have a motion from our Commissioners and we’ll go through it
that way.
Rossman: Unless the applicant, I guess you could open it and I guess the applicant
can enlighten us as to some way that the City Council some legal position that the City
Council – Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council could act on this
particular application short of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. I don’t know
if the applicant is prepared to do that or not.
MacCoy: Are you recommending we open the public hearing?
Rossman: You might as well open it so that – I’m vacillating here. You might as well
open it so that the applicant can say their two cents worth and certainly if they have
some legal precedent that would support their position, we can certainly review that, but
they should be given that opportunity.
MacCoy: All right, based on our attorney’s viewpoint, I will open the public hearing. Is
the applicant here this evening? Would you come forward and be sworn in please?
THERON SCOTT WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Rossman: Now without testifying really about why this would be – why from a factual
perspective this application should be approved, do you have anything any legal
position or is there any legal argument that you want to put on the record that would
indicate how this commission can act on this application?
Scott: No, just that everything around there is already zoned commercial.
Rossman: And that may be.
Scott: And then on the corner of Linder and Overland, you’ve got on that’s zoned
commercial on the south side of the road, and we own all the houses except one that’s
on Overland Road. And we intend to turn that whole 1/8 mile buffer zone into
commercial to keep it away from the housing.
Rossman: And that maybe, but do you understand that the appropriate procedure is –
Scott: I’ve got to go through the other process first.
Rossman: That’s correct.
Borup: I don’t know that you have to go through the process. Are you familiar with the
zoning map and the comprehensive plan map and what it designates there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 49
Scott: Yeah, but I understand that that can be amended.
Borup: Well Ms. Stiles stated that the City is already in the process of starting on that,
so probably a good recommendation would be for you to get involved with that part of
the comprehensive plan and do some input at the proper time when the testimony be
available.
Scott: How do you find out about that?
Borup: Well it’ll be announced. I don’t think there’s definite – there is not definite dates
at this point. It’s a long process as already stated.
Scott: In other words, there’s no way to change the Comprehensive Plan?
Borup: Yes.
Scott: I understood that there was a process. Why can’t I go through that?
Borup: Shari would you like to enlighten that? There’s not a process that one individual
can do on their own is there for one comprehensive plan?
Stiles: Anyone can submit an application for an amendment to a comprehensive plan.
It’s probably not likely and I certainly wouldn’t recommend that it be done for one
property. You can change the Comprehensive Plan once every six months. We have
had other requests for changes to the Comprehensive Plan just falling short of actually
applying for the change because it is a costly application. We’ve got a lot of public
hearings, a lot of notifications and changes to the text and to the map. Like I say he’s
welcome to submit an amendment application to the Comprehensive Plan. I just don’t
know how successful it would be or whether it would be appropriate for one piece of
property.
Borup: Do we have time frame at this point on the revisions?
Stiles: We are getting statements of qualifications from interested planners that should
be submitted by the 20th
of this month. Hope to have them under contract by next
month. Then we’ll start with some of the focus groups for the different areas of the
Comprehensive Plan, land use, transportation, all of those different areas that are
identified in the Comprehensive Plan and once they make their recommendations, then
we will start the public hearings and get input from the rest of – anybody that’s
interested and bring it before P & Z and go through City Council. But even the process
for the Mr. Scott to go through it, you’d be talking at least the six months to even go
through the minimum process.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 50
Borup: The City’s process you’re probably talking six to nine months at least?
Stiles: Probably closer to because are talking a pretty extensive update and really want
to focus on some of the issues particularly this map. We’d be looking more at a year to
eighteen months.
Nelson: And I would submit that it would be detrimental to have a process within a
process of changing the process. I think it might be effective for you to participate in that
process than try to start your own.
Scott: Well, I agree there. The only think I’m looking at is we’ve got all of it north of
Overland Road and Overland Road is going to be a commercial road, and what we’re
thinking is we want to get rid of the houses, because when they widen the road, those
houses are going to be anywhere from 25 to 30 feet from the road anyhow, which is
detrimental, and we want to go through and put an 1/8 of a mile buffer zone between
Overland and where housing will be put in.
Borup: Are you planning on doing that in the next six months?
Scott: No, no. We got somebody – the people that are putting in whitewater want to
put an RV park on this particular piece of ground.
Borup: Okay, so you’ve got a purpose for this right now then.
Scott: That’s what they told us, because they want an RV park close to support Water
World or what is it? Where they go drown each other, but that is what we understand is
they want to put in an RV park in this area. But with this comprehensive plan we got a
problem.
Smith: Eric, was I to understand you correctly that you said when the comp plan itself is
already in the process of being updated, that we can’t go through another comp plan
revision?
Rossman: Planning and Zoning Commission go through a comp plan revision?
Smith: Right on this particular project.
Rossman: He can certainly apply for it. I don’t know and there’s nothing that would
prevent City Council from granting it. It’s just a question of whether they would deem
that advisable at the particular time for one piece of property to change the
comprehensive plan for one particular property when they’re in the process of reviewing
the entire area.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 51
Smith: So it’s not just – there’s no legal – (End of Tape)
Smith: … to be able to do that.
Rossman: No, he could certainly do that and on this application I mean this isn’t final
action. You’re entitled to another public hearing before the City Council and maybe if
you go up there and raise your position.
Scott: Whine real loud.
Rossman: Whine real loud, maybe that will spur them on. I don’t know. From a legal
perspective those are your rights. You can either continue this application up to the City
Council and raise your comments to them. Although their hands are going to be tied as
much as the Commission’s is.
Borup: Continue it or appeal it?
Rossman: This is annexation request. My understanding is there is just a
recommendation to City Council and there’s another public hearing.
Borup: But we have nothing to recommend to City Council.
Rossman: Recommend denial of the application. Unless you want to table this thing
perpetually and I’m not sure that’s the appropriate way to go. Once you deny an
application, there’s no precedential effect. There’s no prejudice involved. He can
always refile his application later.
Borup: Well in this case it might be a benefit to deny it and then you can have your
hearing before City Council, which would be better than us.
Scott: In other words you deny it and then I go before the City Council and –
Smith: We recommend denial. It’s just a recommendation.
MacCoy: And then it goes to them anyway.
Scott: Go to them anyhow. Then I could go and approach them.
Rossman: Not that their hands are going to be any less tied than the Commission’s.
Scott: Well I understand that. But I hate to give up.
Rossman: Well they are really the people that really are holding the strings on this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 52
particular matter and you know these type – Comprehensive Plan amendments, they
take time. There’s no question about it.
Scott: I understand that, but I don’t want to give up.
Rossman: So you are certainly entitled to do that.
Scott: If this is denied here, and it goes to the City Council, do we have a meeting and
all of the good stuff there too?
MacCoy: That’s right. You come before the City Council and make your statement.
Scott: Okay I’ll try it. I’ve got nothing to lose.
MacCoy: All right we’ll do that for you then.
Scott: I got nothing to lose.
MacCoy: No, you haven’t.
Scott: Thank you.
MacCoy: All right Commissioners, what is the statement here?
Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion to close this public hearing.
Rossman: Perhaps we should ask if there is anyone else who –
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Well I can do that.
Rossman: You might as well if you’re going to open the public hearing. On the legal
issues only.
MacCoy: Is there anyone here for this item? If they are, they can come forward. If not
is there anybody against this item that they want to come forward. I guess we don’t
have anybody. Back to you Commissioners.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to close this public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 53
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that we recommend denial of this
application for annexation and zoning to the City Council.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Just a matter of note to the Commissioners, when we start into this process
this next year all of you are going to be involved in this material as to when we get
through all this work so you’re going to know inside and out.
ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A RETAIL CARPET STORE BY CLAY HARTZ d/b/a FASHION FLOORS AND
INTERIORS –126 KING STREET:
MacCoy: Staff any comments? Item 13.
Stiles: Commissioner Chairman, commissioners we have reviewed the application and
submitted our comments. Everything is pretty standard as far as the comments.
Ordinance requirements, I guess I would like to hear from the applicants if they have
any objections to any of those comments or to Ada County Highway District that I don’t
believe we have in our packet.
MacCoy: Is that it?
Stiles: We have been by the property, I don’t think it’s an inappropriate use for what is
surrounding the area, but it is in old town so it requires a conditional use permit. Ada
County Highway District does have quite an expanse of right-of-way in front of this
property and it’s an unimproved right-of-way. There is also as you can see from the site
plan, there is a ditch running along the property within the right-of-way. We would still
ask that a sidewalk be located along the frontage of this property, and that coordination
with Ada County Highway District take place to allow that to happen. If the changes
that are requested are made, I would recommend approval of the project.
MacCoy: Bruce do you have anything? Bruce hasn’t anything. Okay, is the applicant
here? Would you please come forward and be sworn in.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 54
CLAY HARTZ, 1700 N. LORRELL, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Hartz: Basically I’m just trying to open a carpet store. I’ve been here in Meridian for
four years. We are at 313 W. Cherry Lane right now. It’s a very small facility that is
rented. We are trying to buy this and get a larger show room. We are a destination
business. We do not have posted hours. We are open by appointment, we are mainly
contractor oriented. Do not plan on storing anything on site. We will show and display
our goods there and have clients meet us there. We have a basic client count of
approximately five to seven people per day that come into our show room.
MacCoy: Commissioners any questions? Mr. Hartz?
Borup: Did you have any comments on the staff comments?
Hartz: We met with the highway department and we are in agreement with everything
that they are recommending. They are recommending that we put a sidewalk in front
and pave our driveway area and the area adjacent to the back, because we are
planning on putting in some parking in there too, to comply with the handicap access
building. I think there is a plan or drawing of what in there of what we are doing.
Borup: You are going to take care of the gravel walk also?
Hartz: Yeah, we are going to put a concrete in and probably put an entrance on the
back that is handicap accessible(Inaudible) patio there.
Borup: That’s all I have.
MacCoy: Any other commissioner have any questions? Commissioner Nelson do you
have any? Okay. I just got one thing that happened to hit me when I looked through
this, you say you are not going to store anything on your property, yet you have storage
written all over this thing.
Hartz: Well, storage for our—inside the—for our displays and our smaller items.
MacCoy: That type of storage, it’s not rolled carpet.
Hartz: No that’s right, we have offsite storage.
MacCoy: Okay, you can take a seat. Opening the floor now to a public hearing for
anybody who is in favor of this in your community. All right, going to the other side of
the aisle or fence, whatever you want to call it, anybody who would like to speak
negatively on this side of the fence. Okay, come forward.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 55
TIM ZIMMER, WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Zimmer: Okay, it’s a residential area that we live in. We want to see it stay as
residential area, it is old town. We have a lot of businesses just a block away on east
1st
, we get a lot of heavy traffic through this area and there is a lot of kids in the
neighborhood and we just don’t want to see anymore traffic. Just like to see it not get
developed anymore than it already is. We are sitting in a little area between two main
roads, East 1st
and Franklin a lot of big trucks and traffic use. King and East 2nd
where
we live as detours around the main parts of town. We are just afraid that anymore—
allowing any kind of business in there any farther into the residential area is just going
to create more traffic, more problems.
MacCoy: Any questions?
Borup: How far down is your residence from this?
Zimmer: Half a block, a couple of houses and over a ways.
Borup: Your address was?
Zimmer: (Inaudible) E. 2nd
.
Borup: So it’s on the next street.
Zimmer: On the corner of 2nd
and King.
Borup: Okay so it’s the next block over.
Zimmer: Half a block.
MacCoy: Was there anyone else?
LINDA ROBERTS, 133 E. KING, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Roberts: One of the comments other than what Tim had to say is we live just kitty
corner across the street. We are right on the corner of 2nd
and King. The traffic really is
terrible. I’ve been thinking that we need to find a way to get the trucks to not use that
as a detour because it is old town, it is residential right there. I don’t know how many
near accidents and accidents have been right at that intersection. We have a five year
old and I’m very concerned. There are kids in the neighbor, I’m very concerned about
this with having more traffic and just keeping it residential and keeping it old Meridian. If
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 56
we are going to go residential—I mean commercial, maybe we ought to zone it all
commercial, but otherwise, I think we need to keep it residential.
MacCoy: Any questions?
Borup: You mentioned that truck traffic—what type of truck traffic is—just delivery
trucks that type of thing?
Roberts: You name it. There are dump trucks going, not just when they are doing the
road over here. They take detours through there to go up to maybe Hal’s Meats or not
even that…
Borup: So you are talking large trucks, one ton and greater.
Roberts: You name it, instead of diverting from 3rd
, or going up to another, they use 2nd
.
Borup: Do you believe this application will increase the truck traffic.
Roberts: Well, it would be some, yeah. Not only that, like I said, my child—we live just
across the street, kitty corner just across the street there and the traffic right now is so
bad and the near misses and accidents. The kids can hardly ride there bikes or
anything out there.
Borup: Well, I was trying to get a feel for what this project was going to do for that truck
traffic.
Roberts: I’m just worried that any additional traffic would just be additional to what we
already feel as…
Borup: So your concern would be more about the traffic, not the truck traffic from this
project.
Roberts: Right. Well, traffic in particular, I’m concerned about all the traffic.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Anyone else, go ahead.
ENO TIDDENS, 213 E. 2ND
STREET, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Tiddens: Well this is definitely an inappropriate use of this property. Right now it has
about a seven year old home on it. It’s a beautiful home with a double garage, both the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 57
back yard and front yard are beautiful landscaped. It’s in a strictly residential area,
there is no other piece of property on East King Street that is commercial. It’s all
residential. The only commercial property close to us is all on East 1st
Street, which is
appropriate. We want to keep commercial out of there mainly because I feel that it will
devaluate my property. Anytime you have a nice residential and you go putting a retail
store in the neighborhood, this would devaluate it, which is proven by a fact that if you
go to sell that house in a few years, that’s thoroughly one black mark against that
house. So you won’t get as much out of the property as you should because of it going
commercial. That’s my main objection to it. It’s not as much the traffic as it is just—it’ll
just make it a more undesirable place for the people who live there, more noise, more
air pollution and more traffic. Thank you.
MacCoy: Any questions of him before he takes—none okay. Anybody else? Go ahead
lady. Oh, got two ladies went up.
EMMA SCHMIERER, 127 E. KING, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Schmierer: Well, I live right across the street from what came to be a store and I want
to keep it residential. That’s what we need there and want nothing commercial in there.
MacCoy: Is there anything else you have to offer?
Schmierer: No, I just…
MacCoy: Thank you very much, we understand what you are saying though. You’re
next lady.
TAMMY ZIMMER, 234 E. 2ND
, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Zimmer: My question is basically about sidewalks. Everybody seems to be concerned
about sidewalks. You put sidewalks in front of this, he gets this residential and you put
a sidewalk in front of him, on both sides of him there is no sidewalks. There is no
sidewalk going to East 1st
, there is no sidewalk going to East 2nd
, all the sidewalks we
have now are great big bundles of boulders that we can’t get nobody to fix anyway. So
what is the sense of putting in a sidewalk one house long?
MacCoy: Okay, let me turn this over to Shari. She has the answer to this.
Stiles: Pedestrian walkways are a requirement of development when any other
development comes into that area, they will be required to improve there section. Mr.
Borup was involved in a project where he was required to put in a sidewalk in front of
his building. After his building was approved, the parcel next to him put in a sidewalk
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 58
and now Tate Rents is putting in a sidewalk all along that corridor, so it’s true that there
would just be one section of sidewalk, but if you don’t at least get a section at a time,
there will probably never be a sidewalk.
Zimmer: I believe in sidewalks. I have a sidewalk (Inaudible) can’t get no attention to
at all because we are in the old part and the tree roots have pushed it up. Just as a
grandmother of five living on that corner, you have no sidewalks, you have all these
crazy drivers and I’m talking about crazy, you have Meridian Lock and Key, we have the
hub cap people, we have the Coca Cola Company—all those people zoom down those
roads. Anybody is welcome to come sit in my house during the day, because I’m on the
corner of King and 2nd
and watch them fly by. So that’s why I protest. Thank you.
MacCoy: Thank you, is there anyone else? Okay, back to the commissioners, what do
you have for discussion?
Nelson: I personally would be inclined to agree with the resident on all this. I want to
set a precedent in old town and converting some homes over there to commercial use.
I’d like the applicant to have an opportunity to respond to the residents.
MacCoy: Would you like to come up please.
Nelson: If he wants to respond to the residents.
Hartz: Of course we are not planning on turning this into a—we don’t depend on traffic
for our business. I doubt if we bring anymore traffic to the area than a doctors office.
The fact is some doctors offices would bring much more than we do, since we do have
a low traffic count. I just don’t feel that the traffic is a huge item. We are lower than—
according to ACHD we are lower than 50 per day with our stated what we do for the
(Inaudible) for business, so it’s not going to add an awful lot to the neighborhood. It
would do a lot for us, simply because it is pretty property. We do want our customers to
feel more at home and it’s larger than what we have. We do want to become a more
permanent part of the community.
We are leasing at this time and we started here, we want to continue here, but we are
growing and we do plan on making our home if it’s possible here in Meridian. If we can
do that, if you have any questions (Inaudible). Okay, I would certainly be able to
answer—or be willing to answer any questions you may have. It seems to me that the
type of business that we have would not be inappropriate, the property right next to that
we are going into adjacent to us is owned by the lady that owns the herb tree. She
owns kind of a dilapidated warehouse and then there is a condemned house right next
to the property. So we are basically adjacent to commercial property. There are two
lots between us, but the same lady owns them all and she plans on selling them as
commercial. The house across from us is vacant and as I understand it has a lot of
weeds and is run down, that is right behind the hub cap place. So we are not that far
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 59
off of the beaten trap as far as business is concerned. It just seems to me that it would
be an appropriate use.
MacCoy: Mr. Nelson anything else for you?
Nelson: No.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Any other commissioners want to discuss before we--okay, do you want to
come back up.
Rossman: If I may make a point real quickly before, anybody who wants to come up
and offer rebuttal testimony, make sure it’s new testimony that you haven’t already—just
don’t come up and restate what you said before, make sure it’s something new that you
want to offer in response to what the applicant indicated.
Tiddens: He says his business right now might be five to six people a day, but he’s
expanding and hopes for increasing his business. How do we know from a year from
now it’s 50 or 100 people coming in and out of there? As they expand? Also,
(Inaudible) else I was going to say. It’s just an inappropriate use of property. Most
people don’t want this here because it’s business and like he says he is next door to
property that is on East 1st
street that is old commercial. Well, the next people next
year can say okay his property is commercial, I’m next door to this or I’m across the
street from this, so why don’t you make us commercial. It can spread through there and
I’ve got my life savings in this house, I retired about seven years ago. I bought this
house and I’ve got my life savings wrapped up in it and I just hate to see it go to pots,
when there is plenty of places to locate.
Rossman: Sir, could you indicate in the microphone what your name was, just so the
record is clear.
Tiddens: My name is Eno Tiddens.
MacCoy: We have another hand go up over here.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe just a point of clarification. As far as the zoning, all of this
is old town. The business on East 1st
are already zoning old town, it’s not a separate
commercial zoning is my understanding. So a zoning—they are not asking for a zoning
change. The zoning is already there. I think that was maybe misunderstood.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 60
MacCoy: He’s asking for a conditional use. I saw another hand go up here. Does
anybody want to say anything? A rebuttal? Okay as the attorney has mentioned, use
your name and lets move on.
Roberts: I’m not sure if some of this hasn’t been mentioned. I’m a little unclear. My
other concern I think somebody had mentioned, but I just—I don’t know. Another
concern I have is my property value being right across the street. Also, if the rest of us
say—I guess I’m unclear, is this commercial property then? All of this—all that is zoning
old town is commercial? Is that true?
Borup: Old town is a separate zoning designation by itself.
Roberts: So it can be anything?
Smith: Anything—there is some permitted—there is conditional use…
Borup: Most of it is conditional use, there are a few permitted uses. It’s a mixed use
type of thing they are talking about having public and cultural, financial and recreation
and general business mixed in with high and low density residential.
Roberts: Okay, I guess my concern was—had probably been aired about the value of
the property also.
Borup: So do you feel that commercial property sells for less than residential then?
Roberts: You know, I’m not real sure, but I’m just thinking—I called the Planning and
Zoning, I can’t remember who I talked to. I wanted to have a portable storage unit to
put out there so I didn’t have to carry stuff out to the truck and haul it down and do all
this stuff. I was told that I couldn’t do that even though it was temporary because, you
know, Meridian wants to make sure that the street, you know, that they look good. I
informed him, they haven’t been in our neighborhood, because down the street there
are weeds growing up and you know. So, are we going to have some kind of
commercial in our neighborhood, but we don’t want somebody to put something out
here temporarily? I have a little problem with that so. I want to keep it residential, I
guess is what I’m saying.
MacCoy: Okay. Alright, thank you very much.
(Inaudible)
Tiddens: During the break I was talking with a gentleman back here and I think it was
overlooked that they are going to put a sign up too, which anybody going through to
look for a place to live or a place to buy will see that commercial sign and take it right as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 61
a commercial business. Whether they might not want to live that close to a commercial
business. Especially with a sign up advertising it.
MacCoy: It has to go before a sign committee in the first place before a sign will be
granted. Anymore? Okay, we’ve heard our rebuttals. Commissioners, what is you
desire?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to close this public hearing.
Nelson: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Okay, what’s you final viewpoint here?
Nelson: What is the intent of old town? (Inaudible) history of Meridian, what’s the plan?
Borup: I guess I could summarize what’s here in the zoning ordinance, maybe Shari—
Do you want me to attempt and let Shari expand on it better, or maybe she ought to—
as I read it here, it’s a short paragraph that says it’s to accommodate and encourage
further expansion of the historical core of the community. They are talking about
encourage renewal, vitalization, growth, and public and cultural and financial,
recreational center of the city, says a variety of these uses integrated with general
business, medium to high density residential and other related uses is encouraged, in
an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activity. It goes on from that and says
everything will be by conditional use. So it’s been my understanding that old town is to
encourage a mixture. There is quite an area that is zoned as old town and I guess you
know maybe in my mind some of it is more old town mixed use encouraged than others.
I guess where do you draw that line between those areas and strictly residential, I don’t
know. It’s hard to draw a line as things are growing and expanding. It is adjoining a
property that is a business use right now.
Smith: That would be west?
Borup: The property to the west. Maybe something to encourage improvement of that
property wouldn’t hurt. This might do that, I don’t know.
Nelson: I have a question for Shari. From a planning standpoint, I know we’ve got the
Comprehensive Plan provision through, what does the planning department—how do
would they like to see old town developed? Because it almost needs to have a plan
within old town as to what which part remains more residential and which part more
commercial, in my mind. It’s pretty open ended right now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 62
Smith: You mean vague?
Nelson: Yeah, vague that’s a…
Shari: I prefer not too constraining.
Nelson: Not too constraining. Okay. In my mind I would be inclined to encourage the
applicant to do what he is trying to do but in an area more appropriate, is there a plan,
is there a direction, is there a vision?
MacCoy: There is, let me point out this morning I went to a meeting, followed by a
meeting which was called old town. There is a whole group of people and outsiders as
well putting together a revised plan of what old town should look like in the future. The
visionary plan and they are making considerable progress on this so that will be turned
over to the mayor of our city at the end of this year as a formalized plan which will be
sent out to the public for review and so on.
Borup: That is something that would be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan? Is
that what they envision there?
MacCoy: Yes, they are getting a head start because they know this is coming up.
Borup: My point we just approved a project a month or go so that was the same
distance off East 1st
as this. A bridal saloon, which again was limited traffic.
MacCoy: Well, we’ve denied some and we’ve passed some depending on how it fits
the neighborhood. How we feel.
Borup: I’ve seen more—I know probably the area between East 1st
and Meridian is
probably been more of the old town development than west of Meridian—I mean East—
yeah west of Meridian and east of East 1st
. It depends on how far out from the city
center you are too.
MacCoy: Let me just give you the information that there is a plan being put together
right now so it will be presented to the mayor at the end of this year. It’s your choice
what you want to do with this.
Smith: Shari, is all the property south of King Street between East 1st
and East 2nd
, is
that all currently residential use?
Stiles: All of it?
Smith: Between East 1st
and East 2nd
on the south side of King Street.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 63
Shari: No. There is a hub cap store right on East 1st
Street.
Smith: Okay, this map had me confused.
Borup: The streets aren’t labeled.
Smith: (Inaudible) Okay, I know where I am.
Borup: Well, the streets aren’t labeled.
Smith: I know that.
Borup: Franklin is called Cottonwood or something.
Smith: Right, I found Meridian Road and I was think that—okay, I know where I’m at.
Then, what about the parcel right behind the hub cap place, is that commercial or
residential?
Stiles: I think it is residential, it is primarily residential beyond the first lot on east 1st
Street.
Borup: You get down to Bowers Street and it’s commercial, well, all the way till it ends,
mixed in.
Nelson: What’s the chances of half of this being commercial in the next five years
anyway?
Borup: Five years, I wouldn’t say they are great. I don’t think it’s going to grow that—I
don’t think it’s going to happen that fast. The type of things that are going to go into this
type of thing are going to be small type businesses. At least that’s what we’ve seen so
far, something that is—I don’t know, it could be accountants office or things like that, but
small type businesses that are looking at that major retail traffic, because they are just
not going to be attracted to little places like this.
De Weerd: Some more designation type of businesses.
Borup: Well, that’s my guess, but what do I know?
MacCoy: I think you are going to find that they are all homes businesses that will go in
like attorney’s, CPA, and so on that will use the home as it is.
Borup: Yeah, they are not going to tear it down, like north end of Boise.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 64
Nelson: Let me make this one last comment before I make a motion. Some of the
other developments of this type where they’ve taken homes and want to make them
commercial, in a lot of cases, the neighbors are almost encouraging it because they
would like the value of their property to raise in a commercial fashion also. Here we
have a case where most of the residents aren’t inclined to move that way, which for me
would weigh heavier toward the denial. I haven’t seen anyone stand up here saying
that as soon as this is approved that I’m looking at selling my house in two years.
There you have it.
Borup: The other aspect that was brought out, this is a conditional use permit. It’s not
a permit commercial zoning, any other business that went in there would have to come
back for another conditional use, if this business…
MacCoy: That’s true.
Borup: Well, maybe that’s a question.
Nelson: They have their complaints probably.
Borup: The applicant stated that the traffic is by appointment only, rather than a walk in
type. I guess that could be made a condition of approval. I’m assuming that could be.
It may be a little hard to enforce but that would be part of the conditional use.
MacCoy: What’s that going to (Inaudible)?
Borup: Neighbors too concerned about too much traffic.
MacCoy: Well, the traffic could still increase if he gets to be well know to the point
where they would beat a path to his door. Which every (Inaudible) would like to have,
phone calls or not.
Borup: I’m thinking out loud.
De Weerd: I guess the considerations that I’m seeing is we need to remain sensitive to
the residential flavor. Certainly, you wonder on the properties coming off of East 1st
,
how the resale value are—is in anything other than commercial, being so close to such
a busy street and how those residences are kept up, would probably be another issue.
I haven’t seen the property so I don’t know for that block stretch if those are well kept
properties. The properties, except the property that is before us—I’ve heard someone
mention that one is a boarded up house and in poor condition and the home on the
other side across the street is weed infested and not kept well either. If businesses
were to go in there and again, I wouldn’t imagine a business that depends on traffic
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 65
driving by there going in those locations. They would be more service designation only
type of businesses. At least those places would be kept up. Maybe those would keep
your values for the residential. Or if you want to just try and see who buys those types
of properties, I don’t know, that’s a hard call.
(Inaudible)
Rossman: Ma’am the public hearing has been closed, can’t have anymore testimony.
De Weerd: But I guess those are the issues. I understand them wanting to keep their
neighborhood residential and once you start commercial in there, it’s going to go
commercial.
Nelson: I’m inclined to make a motion that we send this to City Council with the
recommendation for denial.
De Weerd: Based on the lack of support from the local residents and the ambiguity of
old town anyway. I think it’s appropriate.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, one nay.
MacCoy: It’s approved. Mr. Attorney you can draft it that way to the council.
Rossman: It will be in form of a recommendation to the City Council under the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Ordinance there will not be another public hearing before the City
Council. They will make there determination based upon the record that was submitted
today. There are—under the Meridian Planning and Zoning Ordinance there will not be
another public hearing before the Meridian City Council on this matter. It will be
decided—their decision will be based solely upon the testimony at this hearing. There
are appeal rights, that are set forth within the Planning and Zoning Ordinance that you
can file an appeal. You can contact Shari Stiles office if you would like to review the
ordinance.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Council, would you repeat the recommendation?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 66
Rossman: Yes, Commissioner Nelson raised a motion to send the matter on to the City
Council with the recommendation of denial of the application and that motion was
approved by a three to one vote.
MacCoy: The speech is in your favor as homeowners, so it’s a good thing that you
came out.
Nelson: Just for the benefit of the audience, the City Council makes the final.
MacCoy: (Inaudible) come forward and ask the question of what, us, or the…
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: The council just said it’s not an open meeting (Inaudible) it’s not a public
hearing, you can go and listen to it, but it’s not a public hearing where you can speak.
ITEM #14: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A PHOTOGRAPHY
STUDIO IN BY MARK WIARS –860 E FINCH CREEK:
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners you have our recommendations before you in
your packets, hopefully, they were submitted late, you may not have had them until
yesterday. We have made the standard comments for the majority of it and however,
we do need some clarification on the use of the garage, how much of that garage is
being used for a photography studio or being proposed to. There is an ordinance
requirement that they have a garage capable of housing two vehicles if that is not the
case with what they are proposing we would recommend that that be denied.
MacCoy: Is that it?
Stiles: Yes.
MacCoy: Open the public hearing now, will the applicant come forward now please.
MARK WIARS, 860 E. FINCH CREEK, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Wiars: My wife is a professional photographer. We recently, about a year and three
months ago we moved into this house and we set up the garage as a photography
studio. Unbeknownst to us and our neighborhood and matter of fact for a home based
business you need an accessory use permit and we found out solely by chance that we
need one and didn’t want to do anything dishonest so we went ahead and made the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 67
paperwork and filled out papers and started the process. As a professional
photographer, she has about maybe three to five cars a week come to the house. Most
professional photographers are portrait photographers is what she is. She is here at
the schools or at churches for weddings, or down at the park for family portraits or
things of that nature. She either will usually go to their house or at the school to go over
pictures or through the mail or occasional they come to the house. As my wife said she
spends more time at her girlfriends house than people that come to our house.
(Inaudible) photographers in Boise, or the Boise area are home-based businesses. As I
mentioned most of t he pictures are done off site. There was one objection raised to
the accessory use permit. Unfortunately he is moving—according to the letter he stated
that he had objections with opening a photography studio citing traffic concerns. Our
business, or my wife’s studio is so unobtrusive that he didn’t realize that she had been
doing business for over a year. He wasn’t aware of that. After I talked to him, he didn’t
realize it and he also agreed that our neighbors kids, teenagers they park more cars
and drive up and down a whole lot more than the one or two that my wife brings in. He
was going to go ahead and contact the planning and zoning department and withdraw
his objection, however, he was in the process of moving and probably with moving and
selling his house, it appears he didn’t do as he said he was going to do to me.
MacCoy: Excuse me, what is his name?
De Weerd: Brian McDonald.
MacCoy: I want to find out if that’s the letter that we have.
(END OF TAPE)
Wiars: …saying that traffic. She has known that we have had a home based business
in there since we moved in. IN fact, there is other people who have it as well. She was
willing to write a letter stating that there wasn’t any type of concern of traffic problems or
anything like that and she has know the business has been in existence. The
comments that were attached. I was given a phone call late last night and picked them
up this morning. I was requested by Bill at the water—no, I was requested to tell Bill at
the water department that Chip said to ignore his comments and he said if you had any
questions give him a call. I called him at a quarter to five this afternoon and he said he
was misunderstanding, he thought there was going to be development of chemicals and
things of that nature in there and he didn’t realize it was just my wife taking pictures or
people coming in to pick them up.
MacCoy: Would you mind elaborating about how the business is run from the
standpoint, the chemicals and…
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 68
Wiars: There are no chemicals. A senior would come in—in fact I brought a couple of
pictures I bet you probably have seen them up and down. A senior would come in and
stand in front of—or sit in front of a backdrop, my wife has a couple of studio lights and
stands. She takes the pictures, she sends it to—she uses Nickels which is a
developing lab over by the airport and they develop it. She either drops them off at the
school or they come back and pick it up. Then she takes them—for like senior pictures
she takes them to the school. For weddings she goes to the church and she meets
them at their house and finds out what they want to do and what type of pictures they
want and to what extend some people just want snapshots, other people want
everything recorded on film.
MacCoy: I understand, but no processing though.
Wiars: There is no processing at all.
MacCoy: That’s the main thing.
Wiars: It’s just snapshots, it’d be taking pictures. Then in the garage it’s set up where
it’s all open. So the garage is totally. The garage doors are still there and pull cars in if
we so desire—we’ve opted not to desire, but we can, there is no obstructions, no
reconstruction per say over and above what the original house was built for. I only had
one other concern or question, it was on here under title no. 2, the City of Meridian—I
guess two of the Planning and Zoning from Bruce and Shari, item no. 2 said sanitary
sewer and water facility and had some concerns. There is no additional—they come in
and take a picture and leave. There is no additional water usage, or sewer (Inaudible)
or anything of that nature. It’s a home based business, we are just trying to follow the
law.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Wiars: No sir.
MacCoy: Commissioners?
Borup: Just one, it sounded like the only concern Shari really had was on the garage
item. So you are saying that the garage is open and you can park two cars in there if
you want to drive them in?
Wiars: Correct.
Borup: So it wouldn’t be any different than half the houses in town that have too much
storage in there they can’t get a car in anyway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 69
Wiars: Yes, a lot of our neighbors have that problem, or they are parking their boat in
there or camper or something, yes.
Borup: So there is no walls or other obstructions that would prevent a car from driving.
Wiars: No, we deliberately set it up for resale purposes, where if we wanted to move a
year or two or three years from now that there would be no problems with resale.
Borup: Thank you. That’s all I have.
MacCoy: Any other commissioners? It’s a public hearing, is there anybody here in
favor? We’ll be talking to nobody pretty soon here. Anyone against this proposal?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we approve the accessory use
permit for a photography studio.
Smith: Second.
Borup: Do you mean to recommend approval? No, this is accessory use. This doesn’t
go to City Council does it?
De Weerd: So do we order findings?
Rossman: I believe that’s correct, it’s an accessory use, you have final authority, so you
will need to have findings prepared and approved at the next public hearing, or next
meeting.
De Weerd: Okay, I’ll withdraw that motion.
MacCoy: Okay, let make another motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we ask the city attorney to draw up
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to approve the accessory use permit.
Smith: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 70
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: You can go home and tell your wife she has a place to work.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification, was the comment regarding one of the
departments comments as not being applicable, so we can follow up on that, which one
was that?
MacCoy: That was water.
Rossman: Water department? Okay.
Borup: I thought it was sewer. Oh, on the reduce pressure back flow assembly.
MacCoy: We have both directions, we have the use of water, plus. (Inaudible)
quantities…
Borup: They could pressurize irrigation there.
MacCoy: I think that is probably true, but that’s water control.
Borup: That’s from the sewer department.
ITEM NO. 15: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING OF .96 ACRES (OLSON
BUSH INDUSTRIAL PARK) BY RAY ROBNETT – 3036 LANARK STREET:
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners you have in your packets our comments. The
comments that we have made are based mainly on the existing conditions here and
ordinance requirements the applicant may have some comments on some problems he
has. I think his main problem has to do probably with the Evans Drain that is located
adjacent to the railroad tracks at the northern boundary of this property, but other than
that, he can address if he has any problems with these comments.
MacCoy: Is that it?
Stiles: Yes.
MacCoy: Is the applicant here? Come forward please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 71
RAY ROBNETT, 1011 S. STAR ROAD, STAR, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Robnett: We’ve requested for this property at 3036 Lanark to be annexed into the city.
The primary reason for that is because we need water hook up, water meter to the
property. This project has quite a history to it, not all real charming history, but none the
less, we came into Meridian City. If you know where Lanark is you know where YMC is
and Ron Van Auker’s office over there just off of Eagle Road, a little street there. I was
sure that was in the City of Meridian so I came down and requested for—would like to
make application for a building permit and at that time I was told that it was not Meridian
City, but Ada County. I went down to Ada County and they said yes that is our
jurisdiction and you need to do a traffic development study on the property and then we
can issue a building permit on it. So we paid the fee, spent two months—Ada County
Highway District did their traffic development study, we’re required to put sidewalks in
front. They only have three employees there, so it didn’t have an adverse impact on the
little infrastructure street there or Eagle Road. We got all finished with that and that
took several months and I spent about $10,000 on architectural plans and engineering,
they called me, they said your permits are ready to pick up. The owner in the mean
time had given notice, he’s been 15 years down on Front Street and had given notice
there, the bank loan is done—we are all ready to go and they said by the way you need
to get your letter from Meridian City giving you water from Central District Health
approving your septic system and from the Nampa/Meridian drainage system for the
drainage. We did all of the Central District Health, that was just getting our septic tank
approved. There is going to be sewer there that thing I was talking to Bruce and that is
in fact going to happen. We went ahead and spent $1,000 at above ground sand
mound system approved in the event that this thing doesn’t go through. Central District
Health was okay with that. Nampa/Meridian has been notified three times on this
project. Two traffic development studies that I had to do—didn’t do the first one right,
the second one we got right. Then for this meeting here tonight. Then I came to Bruce
and I said before I had even started the project, I called up—I’ve done this, it’s all I’ve
ever done in my life as a builder. I’ve done it for 25 years. I miss some things, but
usually I try to be pretty thorough. We do about three or four of these buildings a year
and that’s it. We are not big operators. So in covering my bases, I called and I said
what do we do to get a water meter and he said you either have to annex into the city or
pay double hook up fees. He said if I remember right, $700. I said okay fine. So
knowing that I had to either annex into the city which I didn’t want to do, then I’ll just pay
the double hook up fees. When I come down, I just walked into his office with my
checkbook and I was going to pay the double hookup fees so I can get my letter. Bruce
informed me that he not only could not give me a letter, but that I had been denied a
water meter at all. I had never been notified of any public hearing regarding a water
meter. I’d never been told that that choice to either annex into the city or pay double
fees was not my choice, but it was either the commissioners or the City Council’s
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 72
decision. I think that went before City Council, right Bruce? I’m not saying that he
misinformed me, there was just a little bit more to the story. When I did this annexation
and applied for this annexation, I stopped and talked in Shari’s office there to Brad and I
said Brad if someone has a piece of property and they’re in the county but they are next
to Meridian City and they got to have Meridian City water, how do you do that? He said
you have to either annex into the city or pay double fees. I said really? And he says
yeah really, you just pay double fees or you annex in. That’s the truth, but that’s not
what I’m allowed to do. So here I am down there, I’m in Ada County, this building is
built and the way these conditions of approval are read, we are laying carpet in on
Friday. The staff comments is they are made in such a way that I’m going to build this
thing and I’ll meet all the conditions that Meridian City has. Well, as I read through
them, I think the ones that really have concerns, setbacks, parking and landscaping and
everything, we meet all those fine. I needed to get my letter. I went to the mayor and I
explained my dilemma to him and he said if you will get me a letter from the owner of
the property stating that you will annex into the city, then I will give you a letter saying—I
will give you that Meridian City will not deny you water. The letter that I got from Mr.
Mark Nelson the owner, says I’m Mark Nelson owner of Wheel City Inc. of Idaho do
willfully agree to the annexation of 3036 Lanark, Lot 4, Block 1, Olson Bush Industrial
Park, City of Meridian annex to the city of Meridian, I am the owner of the above
described property. We will comply with all landscaping and parking as described by
the City of Meridian, thank you for your timely consideration of this matter and we will be
excellent contributers to the area in the City of Meridian. I gave that—this letter is
addressed to Robert Corrie. I gave that to him, when he had that in hand, he gave him
a letter, I went down to Ada County I got a permit and I built the building. When I—what
I thought the annexation, the extend of it would be that I’m just taking my property and
putting it into Meridian City, because it’s Meridian City all around. There is this little
island that is Ada County. I thought it would be a fairly simple procedure. Some of the
requirements that we’ve been asked to comply with City of Meridian owns and
maintains the water line and Lanark adjacent to the subject site at this time the sewer is
not available, however, the Van Auker sewer extension will provide sewer to the site.
The applicant went before City Council to request service while outside of the city limits.
The City Council denied the applications, staff has not been informed of a reversal of
denial of City Council. It may be that annexation can take place prior to water service
being needed. We don’t need water service till around December. You know, we’ve got
another month. I don’t know how long it takes to get the annexation. I did get a letter
from the mayor saying that I could have a water meter. I have a fire hydrant right on the
corner of my property. I have a letter in here saying that it does not—the fire
department has no problem with it as far as the water is concerned. I understand that
it’s kind of like the twilight zone, I really been trying to work with it. It’s extremely
frustrating, we are a small operation--It’s me, my wife, we’ve got two boys and my
brother. To take—Shari kind of implied when I first come up with the problem I sit down
and had a meeting with them. They said, well, just get everything back from Ada
County, annex it in from the City of Meridian and then go back to the City of Meridian
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 73
and reapply for your building permit. Well, that’s a six month void in my work schedule.
I don’t have--I’m not like Stead (sic) or somebody that’s got a bunch of buildings going.
I’ve got this one, when this is done, I’ll go to the next one. I can not stop, or could not
stop and address all of this at the time. That’s one of the conditions, I don’t know, what
does that mean? Does that mean I’m going to get a water meter after I’m annexed into
the city? Does it mean that I’m going to—you know, the mayor asked me to—he says
will you meet all the landscaping requirements and all the parking requirements? They
want a 35 foot setback from the frontage, well, we are 40 foot. We are 10 foot from
property line, we’ve got a letter here from Central District Health saying that we are
okay. I’ve got a letter from the fire department—the Meridian Fire Department will not
have a problem with this annexation or zoning. The Nampa/Meridian Irrigation, they
have no comment on this because they’ve already commented on it twice. They have
no problem with it. I have that letter that I can show you where they said it’s fine, they
are not requiring us to tile the ditch, they don’t want the ditch tiled. They said if we do
tile it and want to park on it, that’s okay, but that’s a $15,00 dollar item to tile that ditch
because it’s got to be a 48 inch pipe. I’ve got—oh here’s one that really concerns me
from the water department, it says the city needs to develop another water source
before anymore development takes place in this area. Now, I’ve got a water/fire
hydrant on the corner of my property. I’ve got a brand spanking new 8-10-12 inch line,
10 inch line in front of my property, it’s about two years old. I’ve got the fire department
that says it’s okay. Meridian—or Ada County gave me a building permit and I don’t
know what—this could mean a lot of things. The city needs to develop another water
source, I know that there’s Van Aukers next door and he’s on a well. We do have city
water and we are going to have city sewer. If any of you drove by the project, it’s a nice
building. We’ve taken to our neighbors around there for this annexation, we’ve shown
them site plans, colors, we’ve worked with them. Everybody is please with the building.
I would not be here before you tonight requesting an annexation if I had understood or
had gotten a more direct answer on my original question. What do I need to do to get
water service to my property. It was said that you either annex into the city or pay
double fees. On this project $700 wouldn’t have hurt us, we could have just paid that
and that’s all I thought we needed. I really feel like—you know, this is my life, this is
what I do. I feel like someone is playing ping pong with it between Meridian and Ada
County and I go down there and I meet all their requirements. Shari and Bru---I’m just
being factual here about stuff. I’m not saying that they did do, didn’t do, but all of this
stuff that I’m talking about is just factual stuff about—I don’t even know how much my—
excuse me, I know it’s late and I’ll try and be brief. I don’t know if it’s best to be first or
last, but I wound up being last and I really feel like I need to say what I come to say.
I’ve been about six or seven months in this, I don’t even know what my latecomers fees
are going to be on my water line. During that course I’ve called Bruce five, six, seven
times—take your time, I’m not in a big hurry, but I do need to know. To this day I do not
know what my latecomer fees are going to be on that water line. During any of those
conversations, I was never told, by the way Ray, you are not going to get a water meter.
You are not going to—you know, it’s something that we decide or you have to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 74
annexed into the city or anything, not that he had to give me that information, but I feel
like, not willfully, there is a lot that I could‘ve been told that would’ve never brought me
to this. I’m annexing into the city. I think it’s a great thing. It probably needs to be
done. Clean up the area a little bit. I feel like we are doing it , we’re meeting most of
the conditions, all the building department issues, I don’t have a problem with any of
those. You know, we are not building a substandard building or any of block
construction. We are ten feet away from property lines. Some of these conditions, I
just have a problem with.
Smith: Mr. Robnett, if I might interrupt you just a moment here.
Robnett: You sure can.
Smith: You are starting to repeat yourself and it is getting late, but on one hand you’ve
gone through this dissertation on how your only concern is getting hooked into water
and you were told you have to annex into the city because—or you have to pay double
hook-up fees, but there seems to be some kind of glitch in there. Now you are starting
to talk about you have a problem with these conditions about being annexed into the
city. I guess that I’m just confused here on about what the whole issue is here and
maybe Bruce…
(Inaudible)
Smith: We’ve heard this on other applications tonight already. If you don’t annex into
the city you are paying double hook-up. If he doesn’t annex into the city, is it true he
can’t get a water meter off the city?
Freckleton: Commissioner Smith, members of the commission, the procedure is if you
are outside the city limits and you want water service, you pay the double hook-up fee
but it has to be under the approval of the City Council. City Council has to approve
connections outside the city limits. During this whole process, someone understood
that because the owner of the building wrote a letter requesting, making that request to
City Council. It went to City Council, it was denied. (Inaudible)
Borup: Could you elaborate on why it was denied? I don’t think that has been brought
out, does anybody know?
Freckleton: I’ll let Shari address that.
(Unknown): It was recommended for approval wasn’t it Bruce?
Shari: No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 75
Freckleton: I wrote a memo to the city clerk, he wrote me a memo asking me what my
recommendation would be. I recommended that the property should be annexed, that
should be the proper procedure. That way the application goes through the city for
building permit, it would be built to city standards, parking requirements, landscape
requirements, signage, the gamut. That was my recommendation.
Robnett: See my understanding was that I could pay double fees, I’ll give you $700
dollars more, I get my permit at Ada County and we are not having this discussion.
Borup: You never understood that it had to be approved by City Council.
Robnett: Absolutely not, the letter that he’s talking about that got written was written by
the city engineer. That actually was written to them, we did make the application, but it
was not till the whole process was already foregone and well under way.
Borup: I think Shari is going to comment on why City Council denied it.
Stiles: Part of the reason that they denied it was that Van Auker had come in and
wanted a building permit on some of the property that they already annexed. City
Council said until the sewer is there we are no going to allow any building permits in the
area. So when he came in with his request they saw that, you know, further
ammunition to try to get that sewer line through, I believe. Just because they denied
the Van Auker building permit, felt they also needed to deny this one.
Borup: What’s the status of the sewer line now?
Stiles: Hopefully construction within the next 90 days.
De Weerd: They denied it after Ada County had approved his building and sent
everything else.
Stiles: It was during the same process.
Robnett: See Ada County is where I make application for building permit because the
lot is in Ada County.
Stiles: But Mr. Robnett is also well aware that if this comes up again he’ll come to the
city first.
Robnett: It doesn’t go without learning something, I agree.
De Weerd: The process you went through, you got a letter from the city saying that you
would have that hook-up and that’s how you got your building permit in Ada County.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 76
Robnett: I got a letter from the mayor.
Borup: It appears the mayor wrote a letter and didn’t have the authority to really…
De Weerd: The mayor should have said I don’t have the authority to do this.
Smith: Bruce can you talk to the comment by the water district that the city needs
development of their water service before any development can take place in this area.
Borup: I have a question on that too.
(Inaudible)
Freckleton: It could be a 24 inch but still if you don’t have the flow and the volume, it’s
not there.
Borup: Is this (Inaudible) waters source for family center? The same water line?
Freckleton: It’s south of…
Borup: Is it tied in?
Freckleton: We have a pressure zone in the west or eastern end of town there.
Borup: My concern is if there is not enough water for this, do we have enough water for
the family center?
Freckleton: We are in the process of acquiring a well off of Franklin Road. It’s our
hopes that that will alleviate this problem and Gary Smith is working on that. We are
also working with consultants. We are trying to bring a water main across the interstate,
which will connect up another pressure zone we have on the south side of the interstate
to this side. All of these projects are all to alleviate this pressure flow problem.
Borup: My questions still is if—a business with three employees is going to cause a
hardship but a 800,000 foot complex doesn’t?
Freckleton: I would agree that this is a pretty minimal impact, compared to the family
center.
De Weerd: Because of that…
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 77
Borup: The family center needs the same—I mean the water applies more to that than
this.
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: But either way it’s still (Inaudible)…
Freckleton: Correct. We have had some discussions with the developer of the family
center regarding a well site.
Robnett: So then the problem is being—in process of being solved?
Freckleton: I believe that we are working on it, yeah.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Mr. Robnett you said there are 15 items on staff recommendations. Care
(Inaudible) problems with some of those?
Robnett: Well, staff is uncertain if all city ordinances are being met and request that
plans be provided to the city, even though Ada County may have already issued a
building permit. They’ve not only issued a building permit, the building is done.
Borup: Well, but—how can staff state that any different. Without seeing the plans there
is no way they’d know if it met all the city ordinances.
Robnett: Well, I agree with that, but what if there is something there that they do not
like? I’m in Ada County, the lot is in Ada County.
Borup: You address that at that time.
Robnett: I agree with that, but do you see where I’m coming from Keith? I mean I’m
over there in Ada County, I pulled out the (Inaudible)…
Borup: No, I understand.
Robnett: I’ve built it just like Ada County said to do it.
Borup: Is that the only one that you’ve got a question on.
Robnett: I don’t think there is a real—I’ve made all the setbacks, I talked to Shari about
all the setbacks, I meet those.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 78
Borup: Then there is probably not a concern. A lot of stuff they do is stuff that needs to
be stated.
Robnett: Everything else…
Borup: To me you haven’t really brought up anything that sounds like a problem with
any of staff comments.
Robnett: I agree.
Borup: Okay. I still—you know what I’m wondering? Why are we annexing one lot at a
time? Why are the whole subdivision annexed at once?
Robnett: I think this is the last lot.
Borup: Not according to the plat that you submitted, or is in our packet.
Freckleton: There are two additional lots west of this particular lot before you get to
what is Olson Bush No. 2. That annexation for Olson Bush No.2 came in about—just
guessing, I think it was about three years ago, two or three years ago.
Borup: Okay, the plat we’ve got shows them one to the south. It shows I-L to the three
lots to the west or to the east rather.
Freckleton: The lots that Ron Van Auker’s offices sit on are annexed into the city.
Borup: And he’s south of Lanark?
Freckleton: He’s on the north side of Lanark, east of the subject site.
Borup: Okay those are I-L. Those show that those got the –
Freckleton: Correct. Everything else in Olson Bush No. 1 are in the County.
Borup: Okay then there’s only three lots right now that are annexed. My question is
still why wasn’t the whole thing annexed at once?
Freckleton: I made that comment as well back two or three years ago when they came
in to annex Olson Bush No. 2. I said well let’s take in all of it, and I don’t recall off the
top of my head what their reasoning was to not do that. I think it was something to do
with the multiple owners of the lots. Ron Yanke owns some property on the south
where YMC is and then Van Auker’s piece. There two or three other owners. I think
that was probably the reason.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 79
Borup: That’s not an instrumental problem.
Freckleton: No, it’s not.
Smith: This whole plat is incorrect.
Borup: No.
Smith: It’s all showing as being in the county.
Borup: Yes, except for those three lots.
Smith: Calling that I-L. That’s not a city zone.
Borup: Yeah, it is. Light Industrial.
De Weerd: Can I ask a question. Is there any chance you can repeal this to City
Council and they can clean up the mess the city started?
Freckleton: I personally don’t have a problem with the annexation.
Nelson: That is my next question is the story is all interesting but can’t we just approve
the zoning then comes the city issue and the water?
Stiles: Your biggest deal is the drain; is that right?
Robnett: That’s correct.
Stiles: He needs to address that with the Council anyway. I mean I don’t know why –
Smith: In the form of a variance.
MacCoy: So let’s go ahead with it.
Borup: That’s the standard procedure.
Smith: Well let’s get this thing moved off the dime and get it up to City Council where it
belongs.
Borup: In the past City Council has hooked up city water with the stipulation that an
annexation be applied for.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 80
Robnett: Right.
Borup: It sounds like that’s all we need to do here.
Smith: Maybe they just issue of the process of what was –
Borup: That may be.
De Weerd: Politics.
MacCoy: Let’s move on.
De Weerd: I would be in favor of making a motion to close the public hearing if all is
said and done. I move that we close – sorry. We need to let the public have a voice.
MacCoy: Is there anybody here that wants to speak for this or even against it? If not
it’s an open public hearing. Commissioners, what do you want to do now?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: All right, what’s the next motion?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to City Council
for approval of annexation and zoning of Olson Bush Industrial Park.
Borup: Could we also add and I don’t know if it would make any difference, but
recommend that they provide water hook up while that process is taking place and –
MacCoy: You can say it.
Smith: I would like to amend my motion to include that we recommend that they
provide water hook up while –
De Weerd: At the earliest possible date.
Borup: Well recommend water hook up to the city on condition that the applicant
proceeds with annexation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 81
Rossman: Council is not going to be able to do anything any quicker than they can
decide on the annexation anyway.
Borup: Well yeah they can okay the water hook up.
Rossman: When?
Borup: Well at their next meeting. That would get it for them in time to open up.
De Weerd: He needs it in December.
Borup: Well the next meeting is in December.
MacCoy: Let’s keep moving here.
Smith: That the motion be amended to include that the recommendation that City
Council approve water hook up while the applicant proceeds with annexation and
zoning.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 16: SITE PLAN REVIEW BY R.H. VALLA – NW CORNER OF FRANKLIN
AND MERIDIAN:
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Larry Knopp and Mr. Rick Valla are here to present a site plan for your
review. You have that in your packet. They’ve also got a color board here and some
photographs of (inaudible) as well as a letter from Mr. Valla about some of the problems
he’s experiencing with that piece of property for your consideration.
MacCoy: Okay is the applicant here?
LARRY KNOPP 355 S. 3RD
STREET, BOISE
Knopp: I’m kind of at a loss. I guess why we’re here is because we’re in a – (inaudible
– off the microphone) We’re on a corridor for the city and the city has a requirement for
minimum amount of landscaping in certain areas, and this piece of property has been
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 82
gone through many considerations. One of which we just I think got worked out the
ACHD on some additional takings on right-of-ways. Egress and ingress into the
property and I think we’ve got that taken care of. But it’s compromised the site to a
great degree and the City of Meridian policy or ordinance is looking at a 20 foot
landscape condition I think from what I can tell from Shari Stiles on Meridian Road and
Franklin Road. This imposes additional hardship on the amount of development that
we can do on the site and still accommodate what we need to do to get a reasonable
return on an investment. What we’re proposing is to come up with a landscape theme
that will do what the city wants, improve the entrances and the corridors into the city
and give us a feel and a look that the city is trying give without coming up with a 20 foot
landscape area that imposes additional hardship on the land. So what we ended up
with is we have maximized as much what’s left over after we’ve set up building and we
feel we need to put on this size of a corner lot and the parking and the setback
requirements. We have some easement problems and utility right-of-ways to the north
of this project in a vacated alley situation. There’s 30 feet back there so we can’t shove
the building back any farther. So we’ve elected to have some parking and circulation
around the back of the building and put the parking out in the front. What we’d like to
do and what we’re proposing is fairly extensive and costly improvements in landscape
situation where we’re raising some planter beds in some areas, putting the landscaping
in, which gives us some visual blocks and barriers. It also gives a little more screening
and a sense of berming situation and then we’re mixing some ground cover and
landscaping in between those raised planter tree box areas. We’re also electing to
improve the street corner. If you’re aware of what the ACHD has done out there, they
put their signal lights in. They’ve also stuck a huge traffic signal control box in on our
corner which isn’t helping us too much, but we’re trying to deal and accommodate that.
Where we have some raised planter beds on the corner where you see some brick
inset. (inaudible – off the microphone)
De Weerd: Sir, you can use that microphone.
Knopp: So we are trying to accommodate some pedestrian traffic along with the
vehicular traffic that we’ve got in the area. We’ve got the traffic control box is locate
approximately right here for the signal lights and the new ramping in here for handicap
and then access and we’re hoping that these raised areas and planter beds we can use
for seeding for the public. We feel that what we’re proposing and how we’re handling it
is definitely an addition and a compliment of what the city is trying to do as far as
establishing some very nice entrance corridors and landscaping corridors to the city.
That’s basically –
Smith: How high are those raised planter boxes?
Knopp: They are only about 24 inches. They’re not that high. They will be such that a
person can sit on them, but when we raise them up, we have to consider the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 83
landscaping that’s involved in it and to make sure that the size of the planter boxes and
the trees that we’re putting in there and the fact that we’re raising them up that we’re
not killing them in the winter time. So we still have to keep the root system fairly close
to the nature grade so that they don’t die over a period of time. This has been done by
Harvest Design, which is a landscape architect.
MacCoy: Just a question about the tree you are showing is that a ten year down the
road tree or is that what you are going to put in now?
Knopp: Probably in scale they are what they will reach in maturity, but we’re looking at I
think a minimum of what I think 3 inch caliper is what we have to put in here, so it’s a
pretty good size tree.
Smith: And the Japanese Maples are noted on the landscape plan are six to seven
foot.
Knopp: Yes, they are.
Smith: Six foot to seven foot. Six foot seven inch? That’s what it’s noted as.
Borup: I bet it’s suppose to be six to seven foot.
Knopp: This is the size at planning (End of Tape)
Knopp:… they develop to. This is an elevation from the street. Whether it’s Franklin or
whether it would be Meridian Road looking back into the project. This is the section
through it. Development on the inside street, sidewalk on the outside.
Borup: You never stated what the width of the landscaping. Is that ten feet?
Knopp: I believe we’re at ten feet in here, and we’re seven feet in here.
Borup: You had made a statement about abandoned alley in the back. I don’t see that
on the plat. It shows the sewer and water easements.
Knopp: There’s a vacated street or an alley that –
Borup: Well if it’s vacated, how does that affect you?
Knopp: They still have easements on the utilities.
Borup: Okay, that’s –
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 84
Knopp: Still utility easements involved.
Borup: Well at one time there was a diagonal easement through this whole property. I
believe we vacated that a year or so ago, which really placed a hardship on doing
anything on this.
Knopp: Yes, it did. I think this site has had a history of items that it had to contend with.
Borup: Are there utilities in those easements?
Knopp: Yes, there are.
Borup: Is that the 8 inch sewer line that’s back there back in the corner. Is that what’s
preventing the building from going back any further.
Knopp: I think it’s the sewer plus there’s some water back there. Isn’t there?
(Inaudible – off the microphone)
Knopp: Power line that comes in there.
De Weerd: How wide are those planting strips beside the building?
Knopp: In here? They are normally six foot. I’d have to check my drawing to see, but
normally minimum is about six foot. This looks like it’s a little wider here. But we’re well
within the landscape ratio in the City of Meridian’s ordinance as far as landscaping
goes. I’m not sure like I said I am still a little confused on what it is whether it’s approval
from Planning and Zoning on the landscaping or it’s a variance. I’m not sure exactly
where we’re at on that.
Stiles: The ordinance does allow site plan review for any project. This one particularly
since it’s virtually the center of Meridian at Franklin and Meridian Road. Another issue
we have is that there is residential use across the street which the ordinance has a
provision for 20 foot planting strip requirement to shield those properties from
commercial use. It is a trailer park, but those are those people’s homes. They own the
lots. So that was the reason to bring it before you and see if you had any suggestions.
Whether you want them simply to go through the variance for the planting strip
requirement. Whether there is some kind of compromise you feel is in order for this
development. Basically to get your input.
Borup: And it’s not going to go on to City Council anywhere passed here, is it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 85
Stiles: Well we may for the variance on the planting strip requirement on Meridian. It
doesn’t apply on Franklin.
Borup: From Franklin, Meridian is okay.
Stiles: Yeah.
Smith: This is going to be offices or retail?
Knopp: Retail. It could be a mix of office and retail on it.
Smith: Where are you with your required parking versus your provided parking?
Knopp: We’re over it. I believe we’re on the recap I think we’re over the required by
like two.
Smith: Two. That doesn’t help.
Knopp: One or two. Yeah, we’re not excessive on anything.
Smith: One thing I would like to see is this trash enclosure to be moved to the rear of
the site as opposed to having it right on Meridian Road there. I think probably jockey
some things around. The parking stalls or whatever and maybe your one way works the
other way so your garbage truck can pull straight in and pull that dumpster out by
moving it to the other end of the back side there.
Knopp: I think that’s probably a possibility, especially in the back corner.
Smith: There’s a note on the landscape plan. It says a lawn, it’s right behind where the
bricks indicated that – it’s in the middle of the parking lot and I’m curious where the lawn
is.
Knopp: (inaudible) he had some ground cover on it, but actually what I think had
happened is at one time we had some lawn in here and we replaced it with brick pavers
or stamp concrete.
Smith: Okay, and this blueprint that we have you actually provided access into the site.
This shows some more shrubs here and this actually extends through.
Knopp: Right. Yeah, there are some modifications that I felt would be conducive to the
project that I made with the landscape architect.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 86
Smith: And this handicap parking here isn’t the stall width nine feet? This calls for
eight. I suppose you could pick that up along this length if you were two spaces over
and still meet your parking requirements.
Knopp: I’m not sure.
Borup: Is the total I’m not sure, maybe Nelson knows, what is the – the van handicap
parking is different than the other –
Smith: I was just making it nine and I got –
Borup: Well you got eight there in the middle. Is that unload area required to be –
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: Malcolm are you paying attention? We’re talking about handicap parking
and you are our expert, right?
MacCoy: Yes.
De Weerd: How wide do they have to be?
Borup: The question is in the unload area.
Stiles: Eight feet with an eight foot access aisle.
MacCoy: Yeah, that’s what you got to have.
Borup: Okay that’s just what he’s got.
Knopp: It’s ADA. It’s according to ADA, but everybody –
Borup: That’s what I thought with that access aisle between them it was different than if
it –
Knopp: Everybody likes to put their own little input into it. Do you know what I mean? I
may have eight feet here. This is according to ADA’s –
(Inaudible)
Smith: Yeah I wouldn’t ask for more than –
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 87
Knopp: Well I have been asked for more by other not Meridian but other areas.
Everybody has their own little thing, we want you to do this. We want to do that. The
ramp has to be this long, this wide, so we modify it but this is according to ADA.
De Weerd: So do you have parking all along the one way area?
Knopp: Parallel parking in the back for employees only. The reason we did that like I
said we got a 30 foot setback easement over there on utilities and we can’t build the
building back any farther so what it works out is we got a one-way drive with some
parallel parking back there that will accommodate some parking for employees and use
on the building.
Borup: Do you feel you need the access to the back of the building either way, even if
you couldn’t move it back? You still desirable to have vehicle access back there?
Knopp: It’s desirable to have access whether it’s loading and unloading.
Borup: That’s what I was wondering some back door access. Have you considered an
L-shaped building? But I don’t know that that helps anything.
Knopp: We kind of looked at all aspect of land laying the side out and where we could
put the building and we moved it around about every place on the site to get it to work
and we ended up with the egress and ingress from ACHD we had it located farther up
on Meridian Road. At one point in time and they moved it down to here. So that was
ACHD’s move.
Smith: Why would they move it closer to the intersection?
Knopp: They wanted to control that ingress egress more.
Smith: But usually their concerns always that it’s too close to the intersection.
Knopp: Absolutely.
Smith: I’m kind of this line of thinking in that I’d rather see the building closer to the
intersection and parking in the back and without sitting down and working with the site a
little, I don’t know if it even works with the parking you need to have and reconfiguring
the building.
Knopp: We moved the building up to the front at one point in time and had the building
located up here in this area, had parking around the back of the building. But it ended
up with the back of the building being the front of the building. I mean all the parking
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 88
and access to the building would be here and we’d eventually have two fronts to the
building.
Borup: And I think that works real well in a pedestrian type area, which this probably
isn’t.
De Weerd: You are right. It’s not.
Borup: I mean it’s not close to other stores or other businesses if people be walking
from one to the other.
Smith: Well then that brick to the corner –
Borup: It’s all show.
Knopp: It’s all show and – well we’re hoping that at some point in time that pedestrian
traffic would develop more and there will be a need for that access.
Borup: But there is a vacant ground kitty-corner that something should happen some
day. I don’t know anything about the history of that.
Smith: Where the snowmobile place is?
Borup: Yeah, and –
(Inaudible)
Borup: I think it’s a pleasing landscaping design. It looks to me – I don’t know maybe –
your problem is the setback variances that you are going to have to work out which we
don’t have any authority to do anything about apparently. Is that correct?
Stiles: You can give some –
Borup: Some input.
Stiles: Yeah.
Knopp: You mean the landscape variance?
Borup: From ten to seven.
Stiles: From 20 to 7.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 89
Borup: 20 to 7?
Smith: 20 to 12 actually. I personally I just have reservations about you know how the
whole – I don’t think it’s any mystery to anybody in here that I don’t like parking between
the street and the building necessarily. That comes from a design standpoint and I
think it’s better designed and I think a lot of people share that opinion. It’s not just my
opinion. Of course I haven’t sat down like Mr. Knopp and had to work within the
constraints of the site and easements and setbacks and how big the building has to be
and how much parking he has to be provide and so forth so it may not work. I just wish
we’d start getting away from this kind of stuff.
Nelson: I would agree. Every project we’ve done so far, we said well this site it was too
hard on and besides there’s nothing close by that encourages pedestrian traffic on the
street so therefore it doesn’t make sense today, and I imagine we will be making that
same comment about 90% of the projects that come through. I would think that if we
didn’t encourage the development to the street, your kitty-corner development isn’t
there. I can’t imagine that ten years from now that the value of that mobile home area
is going – I don’t know. I hate to say this, but you’re (inaudible) opinion Byron. I’m
starting to agree with you.
Smith: I think when you have the parking oriented on the site the way it is now, that you
have to make a real attempt to screen the parking from the street and I think that that’s
what they are trying to do here with the reduction and the widths though, that doesn’t
give you a hell of a lot of opportunity to work with the elevations and do that, and I think
the size of the landscaping would go a long way to accomplishing that. I don’t know
that it’s just all with the raised planters and the shrubs. I like what’s been done on that
aspect, but I’m not sure that maybe the trees are large enough is what is showing there
it still looks pretty sparse even that’s after it’s been matured, and I don’t know that you
would want to space them any closer, but maybe a consideration of some evergreens
and maybe some larger caliper trees intermixed with that.
Knopp: Mr. Smith let me ask you this, if the building was moved closer to the
intersection and to the street this 20 foot landscaping that we’re talking about is what is
your feeling on that and how that would effect that? I mean are you talking about a
diminished landscaping situation in that design solution?
Smith: Less than 20 feet?
Knopp: Yes. If the building was jammed up against the –
Smith: It could be less. You could even berm up against the building and have glass
along that whole elevation if that was offices, but you said it’s retail.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 90
Knopp: Well I think it’s going to go towards retail. I mean they’re trying to leave it
open. These people own the land. They are trying to develop it as an owner
investment building. I’m sure that if offices if somebody comes to them and say we
want to put some offices in here, they are not going to say no. The location and access
to the City is probably more in the retail basis. So you know I’m assuming that whoever
comes in that will accommodate the needs of the building and their needs as far as the
landowner goes, they would probably look at entertaining any tenant type situation.
Smith: The way the building is sited on the site right now, you’re definitely kind of
creating an alleyway behind the building, which is a service oriented kind of look and
approach to it.
Knopp: And like I said one reason for that was the 30 foot easement that we have back
there for utilities. We’re stuck with that. We can’t do much on it. We can’t build over it.
We can drive over it and park on it, but that’s about all.
De Weerd: Is there a reason why the landscaping is 7 foot along Franklin Road?
Knopp: It’s just the 30 feet we’re looking at here, the size of building, we’ve got a ten
foot sidewalk and an overhand with columns out here as the pictures depict. So that
we’re trying to get some relief some depth on this, some overhand effect. And then
we’ve got the parking and the driveway widths and –
De Weerd: What is the driveway width?
Knopp: We had 25 feet I believe is what we’ve got on the driveway. It’s Meridian’s
requirement.
De Weerd: Well personally when you go and look at those corners this is going to far
exceed anything there. I like it. I think you need to give them credit for the raised
planters and the pavers and I think that should compensate for some reduced
landscape width. So that said that was my piece.
Borup: I think I stated earlier I’d rather see some nice landscaping in ten feet than
mediocre in twenty.
Knopp: Yeah that’s what is happening in a lot of cases now, they are requiring twenty
foot setbacks and people are throwing a bunch of grass in it and a tree here and there.
Smith: A tree about that big around.
Knopp: Yeah, we thought we could go in here and create a situation that was with the
limited area that we had to work with and really be a benefit and it’s not something that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 91
the City is compromising on. I mean it would be a lot cheaper for us if we had the land,
but the problem is the twenty foot land and the cost of it and what’s left. I mean we’re
not putting a big building on here. We’re not talking a big building. I mean you know
we’re 8200 square feet or something. This is not a huge building and it’s not a big lot.
You’re on the corner and ACHD takes their right-of-way and they take sidewalks and
they restrict access on it. We end up with a situation that’s hard to work with and the
owner of a piece of property is tough to deal with.
De Weerd: So where do we go with this Shari? Do we make motions? What do we
need to do?
Stiles: Just send him on with your recommendations and I’ll proceed from there with
him. What are you telling him? Do you like what you see? You don’t like what you see.
De Weerd: I like what I see. It’s something different and I would like to a little bit more
in width. I understand the constraints that he has, but I guess because he’s doing
something different and raising the landscape up, that should compensate for some of
the width. So I like it.
Knopp: I’ve also discussed with Shari that I would be willing to reduce the width of the
driveway and add it to the landscape area if that was a possibility. Personally I hate to
see it reduced too much. I know the City of Boise allows 22 feet for driveway width on
two way traffic, but there’s always a concern with traffic. People backing out and in and
so I mean you give one area and you’re stuck with a new problem in another area.
MacCoy: You say you’re two parking spaces to the good?
Knopp: Yeah.
MacCoy: I never have liked straight in parking. I like diagonal parking. I was just thing
that since you can’t use the back area anyway but you can put asphalt on it and you
can put striping on it. In this case I agree with Commissioner Smith I would like to see
the building brought forward like you had it and park on the back side. It really
accentuates your building face with landscaping which would be if you do glass it would
be beautiful or even partial glass would be a nice asset to it and that way you still have
your parking. Trying to use that back space for something worthwhile to you.
Knopp: Well I thought we probably used it to some extent you know usefully where
we’ve got the 30 feet. And so we obtained some back entrances. There’s not loading
areas. These are just man doors so it’s just back service on a retail basis or a office
basis type use on the building and not service use. There really is not enough area
back there for service. It will accommodate one way traffic for UPS and band service
and that’s about it on a very limited congested basis. I mean there is not anything
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 92
excessive in this and like I said I moved the building to the front. We looked at it at one
time. We ended up with two fronts of the building. In other words if you’re parking in
the back and you are coming in and using the front then do we have back service doors
fronting the streets to service these back areas or do we service the space whether it’s
retail or office through the front door and also then what kind of utilization do we get on
the floor plan? Do we split the building in half and half of it is accessed from the street
side and half of it’s accessed from the parking lot side. So on a building like this where
it’s not downtown. We don’t have a lot of foot traffic and it doesn’t orientates itself to that
kind of use. It’s tough to design them up on the front of the street.
Borup: From Franklin Road you only got one parking stall. I don’t think that’s excessive
amount of parking showing from the road. I’m still confused on the city
recommendation ordinance or whatever we got on the setback amount. Shari, we
talked about that earlier up and down Meridian Road from five or six on up to 35 or four
feet on up to 35. What specifically are we looking at as far as policy or ordinance?
Stiles: The difference on this parcel is because it’s directly across the street from
residential. That’s where we get the 20 foot planting strip requirement.
Borup: And a 90 foot road doesn’t count for anything for a buffer.
Stiles: It doesn’t do much buffering.
Smith: I need a visual aid here. We got two extra spaces. We could omit these two
spaces and pick it up in the landscape area. Or omit these two spaces and clip this turn
off and add it out in this area here on the corner. Add landscaping out here. That will
help minimize this narrow affect and provide more of a transition here between the
street and the parking in the building. You’ll get more landscaping out in this area.
You’re not required to have the two extra spaces and we’re talking about landscaping
reduction variance. Take those two spaces out and put them in the landscaping.
Borup: I don’t see (inaudible) that much. I mean another option is to knock three feet
off the building and do ten feet along Franklin. That hasn’t been mentioned but I don’t
think you want to mention that.
Knopp: Well it hasn’t been mentioned, but it has been looked at and we’re sitting
economically at a point like I said we’re talking a fairly small building anyway and we’re
trying to subsidize a lot of improvements. There is a point in time where it’s a
diminishing return where it doesn’t make sense for the owner to put up a building
because he can’t recap his investment.
Borup: I’m sort or comfortable with ten feet especially with what you’ve designed there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 93
Knopp: I think we can like I said I mentioned to Shari that we could pull off a foot.
Maybe we do nine foot overhangs at the front of the building and maybe we do a 23
foot drive and we pick up some area to give some additional landscaping on the –
Borup: Is that what you are looking at a ten foot overhang at this point?
Knopp: Yes, we got a ten foot – a nine foot overhang and a ten foot sidewalk.
Borup: And you see I think that’s real useful in a complex where there’s a lot of traffic
from one building to the other.
Knopp: This afford some design on the building but it also affords some southerly
protection for all the store fronts that’s on the building.
De Weerd: Well you know what I’d rather see rather than taking out those two parking
stalls out of the building is to put in a courtyard where you can have outdoor seating so
someone can have a little restaurant in there.
Borup: So we don’t have to come back with conditional use for outdoor seating. We’ve
had four of those this year.
Knopp: Four of those lately, huh?
Smith: You pick up all those – you take those two stalls out, you pick this area here and
this area here. It’s not going to be asphalted.
De Weerd: (Inaudible)
Smith: Or give them a variance to reduce two more spaces and you get all this extra
space here. It’s just my idea.
MacCoy: What’s your decision? We’ve got to move this along so he can do something
and we can get on with some more. We got more material left to go tonight.
Smith: Block those two spaces out then you can tighten that radius up and come
around and still –
De Weerd: (Inaudible)
(Inaudible)
Knopp: (Inaudible)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 94
Smith: Well if you did this one, you’d just lose these two and you just keep those or you
take those two out and then this is the only piece you pick up.
Borup: I don’t think this is a problem. I think this area looks great. The planters are
something we haven’t seen anywhere yet.
(Inaudible)
Knopp: (Inaudible – off the microphone)
Smith: Just a recap on a couple of things. That trash enclosure would be – the trash
enclosure moved to the back. I guess –
Stiles: -- approve that with parking here.
Smith: You can change the one way to the other way and they can pull straight in the
other way.
Stiles: They’ve only got 24 feet total there and you got nine feet taking up as parking
space.
Smith: He says he’s got to have 30 feet there.
Knopp: I’ve got 30 foot setback –
(Inaudible)
Smith: Are they going to pick that up when cars are parked there? So I’m going to have
a garbage man telling me my trash dumpster has got to go right along the gateway into
the city because he doesn’t want to back his truck up.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Well they’ve added another tree on that design. That helps.
Knopp: We also had a special problem also on this site is we have some buried
underground irrigation ditch that we have to contend with and that also adds to the
design solution that if we bring the landscaping up, bring the trees up then we can plant
and work over the tiled ditch and we should be –
(Inaudible)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 95
Knopp: The tiled ditch runs the full length. This is an irrigation box and irrigation box
right here. (Inaudible)
Smith: Shari do you have what you need from us?
Stiles: More.
Smith: Thanks.
(Inaudible)
Smith: My understanding is we’re just giving Shari some comments on the site plan
review and there’s a landscape setback that you need to get a variance from and she’ll
go to City Council with our recommendations and they’ll –
Knopp: This is a variance then I’m looking at?
Stiles: I have yet to get the interpretation from the attorney. Well the way that planting
strip ordinance is written can be interpreted different ways. I mean when it’s talking
about a 20 foot planting setback when you are next to residential areas, we have used it
in the past including the cross roadways to screen them from view. I would hate to see
him have to go through a variance application for this, but I also hate to see kitty corner
across the street when JJ Recreation leaves and the building’s demolished which it will
be. They’re also going to use the same argument well look what’s around us? They
only did this. They only did that. I mean we come up against that all the time.
Borup: I don’t think they can say that here. This isn’t an only. I think this we got
something for them to a standard form to try to meet. Other than that distance so
maybe that’s what you are saying they’re only seven feet.
Stiles: I’d like to see if they can increase it at least to ten feet and if you like this plan, I
don’t want to have to run them through a variance application.
Borup: Well maybe that can be settled right now. Can you take two feet out of this
building? Out of the walk overhangs and still get the same visual effect? I mean I feel
you can.
Stiles: And with the ditch that’s going to be there, are they guaranteeing that they are
going to be able to do this landscape plan?
Knopp: We can do the landscape. I don’t see that’s a problem. The problem that we
are going to have is to make sure that the plants that we put there and that’s what I said
raising the trees up and putting them in these planter beds, we can accommodate that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 96
Now I’m also – Rick is this ditch is servicing one other piece of property down the line; is
that it? Yeah that tiled ditch out front along Franklin.
Borup: That’s it? Two houses?
Knopp: Yeah, it’s a 12 inch tile ditch I believe isn’t it?
(Inaudible off of the microphone)
Knopp: I think that the landscaping can be put in there and accommodated. I’m not
sure how deep the ditches are. I think there must about 12 inches of cover on it.
Borup: So you can do some shallow plants. Shari, you are saying you would
comfortable if this was increase from seven to ten feet then they would not have to
worry about a variance.
Stiles: With that plan I would rather work with them like that, but I have severe
reservations that Nampa Meridian is going to allow them to do that.
Borup: Have you run this by Nampa Meridian?
Knopp: No, we haven’t.
Stiles: You say this is a users ditch in this area?
Knopp: Yeah, it’s there. It’s existing.
Stiles: Okay.
Borup: I’m sure you would rather not go through a variance wouldn’t you?
Knopp: Oh, absolutely. I mean we’re trying to get an okay so we can go ahead.
Borup: And Shari you feel a ten foot there would take care of not having to –
Stiles: I’m going to get flack either way.
Borup: But you feel you would have an argument there and you’re tough. You can
withstand that. Well is something you feel you can comment on the design without
cutting down the driveway? Going to a ten foot on Franklin Road.
(Inaudible – off the microphone)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 97
Knopp: There is a foot or two of landscaping that is there available that’s left between
the property line and back of sidewalk. Is this correct? ACHD’s taking? Yeah I think
it’s one or two feet that I don’t think you guys normally take into consideration, but I
mean it is landscape area.
Borup: But you are going to be able to put planters in that area probably.
Knopp: Yeah it will be part of the planter.
Borup: (Inaudible) It’s the area there that’s in the right-of-way from back of the
sidewalk to the property line.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: So if we were to say that we’d feel comfortable recommending this if he
modifies the seven foot to a ten foot wide along Franklin.
Borup: And let them decide how they want to get that ten feet without decreasing the
driveway.
Stiles: And you’ll be my back up partners in crime. I don’t want to run them through a
variance because I don’t think you should get a variance for that 20 foot planting strip
requirement, but I don’t want there to be the precedent that’s somebody’s come in and
had a variance on it.
Borup: Again I think someone looks at this project, if it’s going to look like it looks here.
De Weerd: Shari we’re giving an allowance because of the raised planter boxes and the
pavers and the uniqueness of the design. How’s that?
Stiles: And I think there is a provision in the ordinance or other suitable screening as
approved by Planning and Zoning Commission.
De Weerd: Yes and if we were on a point system, he would be getting extra points.
Stiles: For staying here past midnight.
MacCoy: Okay do we need to do anything else Shari for you just pass it on to you? All
right. Let’s get finished with the rest of this thing.
ITEM NO. 17: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: RE: 98-29-PDC/98-25-ZC
BIG BEAVER PROPERTIES, LLC:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 98
De Weerd: Shari do we need to write that up or does Eric need to write that up? Does
our city attorney need to?
Stiles: I recommend denial of both of them. 17 and 18.
MacCoy: Well I don’t understand 17. Because I couldn’t even read the diagram.
Stiles: You don’t understand it?
MacCoy: No, I don’t.
Stiles: Look at that fine site plan? Hey Byron do you think we do a little better job than
Ada County there?
Smith: I was just reading through the rezone applicant statement again.
Stiles: Apparently spelling is not required either there.
(Inaudible)
Stiles: I would like to respond to Ada County telling them that we don’t approve of the
project. The site plan is not to scale. It’s impossible to read. Water is extended to the
western boundary of the property and could be hooked up. Sewer is not available to
the site. They need to tile ditches. They need to meet some ambiguous landscape
setbacks.
MacCoy: In other words you’ve got a handle on this thing right.
Stiles: Provide paved parking. I mean can’t tell anything from this. It’s a mess.
Smith: 22 foot access drive does not meet 25 foot width requirement.
MacCoy: What do you need from us? Just the fact that we concur with you?
Stiles: Just a motion I would like to recommend denial and if they propose to turn this
into commercial property they get annexed into the City of Meridian and meet our
requirements.
Smith: Second.
De Weerd: Question.
MacCoy: It’s been motioned and second –
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 99
Stiles: And Bruce did mention that they are only showing egress, so they have no
ingress.
MacCoy: Okay is there any discussion? If everybody is in favor of the motion –
Smith: I would like to make a motion that we recommend denial of this item to Ada
County and if they do approve it to be commercial, that the property be annexed and
zoned into the City. Does that cover it?
Stiles: Sure. I will write a letter to them.
Smith: That Shari write a letter to Ada County stating same.
De Weerd: With all the points that she made previously.
Borup: Did these people (End of Tape)
De Weerd: Okay, I second that.
MacCoy: Did you get the first part? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Shari will write a letter.
ITEM NO. 18: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – RE: 98-27-ZC RICK
LEININGER:
Stiles: I would also recommend denial. Our Comprehensive Plan requires that all
properties within our impact area that are not served by municipal sewer and water will
be limited to five acre minimums. It doesn’t matter if it’s the one you know Will.
Borup: We talked about this at the workshop a little bit, not about this, but about—
opportunity for larger lots, but that needs to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan,
is that what you are saying?
Stiles: I think—in our area of impact within annexed areas that we are proposing for
development to have some larger lots. I don’t think just because there is a one acre
subdivision across the street that that’s a reason. A reason for having that five acre
minimum in our Comprehensive Plan is the very fact that Ada County went out and
chopped everything up. Anybody that walked into the door with one acre subdivision
was approved. It’s going to be impossible to develop that to urban standards and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 100
provide sewer and water because nobody is going to want to do it because they’ve got
their septic. It’s very cost prohibitive to provide municipal services to those sites once
we actually have services out there.
Borup: For acre lots.
MacCoy: Okay, where is my motion?
Borup: We look at what Eagle is doing and…
Smith: I don’t know that I agree.
Borup: Well, this is probably too close in.
Smith: At the point in time where you start annexing in all these one acre subdivisions,
does it make sense to have to start running municipal water out to them if they have
adequate wells on site?
Borup: It depends on what is around it. This is pretty close in, well maybe it’s not that
close in. I think we need somewhere in our Comprehensive Plan to allow for some
estate size lots.
MacCoy: We’re going to have to get it, we know that.
Borup: This may not be the area that it’s appropriate for…
Unknown: It’s past Ten Mile…
Borup: Well, that’s appropriate then. Oh, that’s right, this is Overland, for some reason I
thought this was Cherry Lane. It’s clear out in the boonies. We are never going to have
services out there.
MacCoy: What do you want me to do Keith.
Stiles: If this property was across the street it would be a ten acre minimum.
Borup: Across the street from where?
Stiles: To the west.
Borup: On the other side of Nola?
Stiles: Actually on our impact area boundary line.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 101
Borup: They are trying to—oh, I’m sorry I had this mixed up with the one that is coming
before us next month. I got ahead of myself. They’re just trying to get a place for their
kids to live there with them. This is clear out on the top of Overland and Ten Mile. I
don’t have a problem with it.
Smith: I don’t have a problem with it.
Stiles: Then you better change the Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: Well, grandpa is trying to get their kids with him.
Stiles: They could try for a temporary living quarters then. You can’t recommend this if
it doesn’t comply with the Comprehensive Plan. I will not write a letter recommending
approval for this.
Nelson: Because they have other avenues if they want to build a temporary home.
Smith: Why didn’t you say that at the beginning?
Stiles: I did.
MacCoy: She did, nobody’s listened to her.
Smith: No, earlier she said she recommends, now she says she will not. She could’ve
made this a lot easier. I’ll make a motion that we deny this application and direct Shari
to write a letter to Ada County stating because it does not comply with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
Nelson: Second.
Borup: Now why, well I was at the Ada County talking to a planner just two days ago. I
think they understand that, why didn’t they tell these people that it doesn’t comply with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Stiles: It depends on which planner they talk to.
Borup: Okay.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 102
Nelson: I would like to make a motion that we adjourn.
Smith: Second.
Borup: Well, I’ve got one question if I may about that—Shari, did you ever receive a
letter from Ms. JoAnn Butler?
Stiles: About what?
Borup: An apology letter.
Stiles: Some half-baked apology letter, I think one was sent to me, I think the attorney
got one. It didn’t out and out admit total lies, but…
De Weerd: I want one.
Borup: Okay I understood that she was directed to submit an apology letter to you and
to this commission, but…
Stiles: I think Bill got a copy.
Rossman: Along those lines, she did ask me if she could send a letter to the
commissioners and I told her she couldn’t. She had to go through City Council. I didn’t
give it to you because it wasn’t part of the record. If you want it, I’ll give it to you now.
De Weerd: I would.
Berg: Did she write one to City Council?
Rossman: Yes, I got one, it wasn’t much of an apology, it was more of an explanation.
Borup: She didn’t stand before City Council and deny things six times in a row.
Smith: She lied.
Stiles: She lied.
Smith: An attorney?
De Weerd: As hard as that is to believe.
Smith: Did we have a motion to adjourn? I move that we adjourn.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1998
Page 103
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK