The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 05-03MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2001 The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Bird, Keven Shreeve, Jerry Centers Members Absent: Sally Norton, Bill Nary Others Present: Larry Moore, Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: ____Sally Norton __ __ Jerry Centers ____Bill Nary ____ Keven Shreeve ____Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We would like to begin our regularly scheduled May 3rd meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and start with the attendance of the Commissioners. Sally Norton is excused this evening and Bill Nary also so we do have a quorum. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of March 15, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting: Borup: The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the March 15th meeting. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to make a motion that we approve the minutes of the March 15th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Borup: Do I hear a motion? Shreeve: I second that. Borup: Second, any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 Ayes, 2 Absent Borup: I guess we know which two will be making motions tonight. Just might mention for those that are here especially if maybe anyone’s here for the first time we do have some sign-up sheets in the back for those wishing to testify on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 2 any of the applications. We will start the testimonies with those people that have signed up on those sheets. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: AZ 00-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 01-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Christian Ministry for office space and an Aftercare/Transitional home for men, serving as a group- living environment for 14 men and 1 live-in House Supervisor in an R-4 zone for Whole Life Restoration House by B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries, Inc – 1304 West 1st Street: Borup: The first item is a Continued Public Hearing from our April 19th meeting on Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. Is the developer or any of the representatives here this evening yet? I know they were planning on it. If it’s alright with the other Commissioners why don’t we go ahead to Item No. 7 and then come back to this after that point. That should leave, I would think time for – and if not then we’ll take a look at it at that point and see how we need to proceed. Does that sound alright with the staff? How many do we – did we have anyone else besides Mr. Young that was here to testify on Tuscany Lakes? Thank you. If it looks like it’s going to be long we will probably look at taking your testimony rather than waiting until the very end which it may be. If they don’t show up it’s going to be continued I would assume. Item No. 7 which is the next on the agenda. The request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Christian Ministry office space and an Aftercare/Transitional home for men. This is that R-4 zone at 1304 West 1st Street. We would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Chairman Borup and Commissioners this application is for – it’s called the Whole Life Restoration House. It’s a request for a Conditional Use Permit by B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries. You should have our staff report dated April 13, 2001 and we’ll just briefly touch on the main issues. First of all the location as you can see on the screen is on the corner of West 1st and Cherry Avenue. This would be Meridian Road from this location and it sits on this corner. This is a photo of the house as it is today. We have some other site photos of the surrounding properties looking kiddy corner and looking north down West 1st . Turning looking south and also west of the home across the street. You can see the general residential character of the neighborhood. This is the proposed site plan, the existing house sitting on the lot. They do have an alley in the rear and will be proposing five parking spaces off of that alley. This is a rendering of what the house would look like after the garage is remodeled into a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 3 meeting room I believe, a multi-purpose classroom. The proposed home is a transitional home for men who have been recently discharged from Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities, trying to integrate them into a normal life. The home can hold up to 14 men and one live-in supervisor. They also have a proposed office within the basement of the home to run the ministry that (sic) B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries from. We already talked about the modification of the garage. Page 3 of our report, we start to go through the findings for a Conditional Use. Under A on the last paragraph, the professional office that’s requested to run the ministries out of here we find is specifically prohibiting the R-4 zone. It would not actually constitute a Conditional Use under City policy. Professional offices are prohibited in R-4 zoning. The remaining use as – which is an institution, basically is not defined in the schedule of use control so they could apply for a Conditional Use Permit for that use. The next finding which is B, whether it – actually I’m going to skip ahead a little bit. Which is that it will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. We are just suggesting as staff that we rely on the public testimonies tonight to determine that. Under V, the conversion of the garage to a classroom is a problem. Our Ordinance does require that all houses and all single-family zones maintain a two-car garage so converting it to a classroom would actually violate the Ordinance. In terms of potential public facilities, ACHD has stated that it can work but they are requiring paving of the alley up to where they are plus the driveways. Under site specific comments No. 1 on Page 5, they are proposing a sign a 12 inch by 14 inch black brass plaque which isn’t very large but the Zoning Ordinance does prohibit the use of all signs in residential zones for home occupations. There is an issue on No. 4 regarding tree mitigation. They are proposing removing some very large trees that were showing the (inaudible). The Landscape Ordinance required mitigation of the trees unless they are deemed as hazard trees. They would have to coordinate that with the (inaudible) and the Park’s Department where they are growing in the power lines. I don’t know if they would deem that hazard tree status or not but to just point that out. The last thing would be the requirement to bring the house into full compliance with the American Disabilities Act as it would be a public facility and that would require several modifications see the stairs in front of the house, the restrooms are going to have to be modified, et cetera. So with that I believe that covers all of the issues that I have to present at this time. Borup: Okay, thank you. Any questions from any of the Commissioners for staff at this time. Is the applicant here this evening and would like to come forward and present your application? Durham: Hello, my name is Mike Durham and I’m the Executive Director for B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries. I’m the property owner as well. My wife Sandy and I own the property. We have proposed this transitional aftercare facility for men coming out of substance abuse (inaudible). To tell you a little bit about B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries we are a non-profit organization established approximately two years ago. For the last year we have been focusing on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 4 start-up of this transitional aftercare home in Meridian. We have a nine-member board of directors and basically the mission and purpose of our ministry is to facilitate transitional aftercare for substance abusers that are coming out of treatment environments. In the Meridian area there are currently no aftercare facilities for substance abusers and in the Boise area there are very few. One of the things that’s very important to the future development of our communities is dealing with the substance abuse issue in a very proactive way. I have a number of years of experience in this area. I have struggled much of my own life with substance abuse issues and for the last 13 years have been drug and alcohol free and in recovery myself. For the last 7 years I have been involved in working with substance abusers as the chaplain at the Boise Rescue Mission. Both the guest services chaplain and the program chaplain at the Boise Rescue Mission. I currently am employed with the Nampa Salvation Army as the Director of Family Shelter Services and then involved in a Shelter Program over in Nampa and the capital campaign and the building of a brand new shelter facility in Nampa. With that said I don’t want there to be any confusion with regard to my own occupations as B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries at no time currently or in the future has any plans of trying to start a homeless shelter in Meridian, Idaho. An aftercare facility is part of the continuum of care or dealing in effective matter of substance abuse issues. Substance abuse is a scourge to our community. We don’t have to go very far outside our front doors to see that there is a substance abuse issue in Meridian, Idaho. Two blocks away just a few weeks back, a major drug bust, a cash of weapons were found. I have good contact with police and the probation of parole officials in town and there are a number of addresses that they’re keeping an eye on within just a couple of blocks from where we’re located. Substance abuse is a very real issue in this community and we need to help to address this issue in a proactive way. Aftercare is essential. When people come out of substance abuse treatment they need to have clean, safe and sober environments to live and to transition back into our community. Our program is a very structured program, we’re talking about men who are required to work full time, they are required to plug into local churches in the community. They are required to have a mentor and they are required to be financially accountable in paying their own way. That is very important in the transition process. We moved into the house last May, the end of last May. We have been there for about the last 11 months doing a trial program in the house. We are based on the Oxford model. Many of you may not be familiar with what the Oxford house model is but the Oxford house model is a very successful transitional aftercare program that now operates 725 facilities throughout the country. Fifty-five of those facilities are in the State of Oregon, 74 of those facilities are in the State of Washington. Currently Idaho does not have any aftercare, any Oxford house models operating we want to be the first. Our program is based on the Oxford house model in that there are three major requirements. The three major requirement is that it is a self-governing house; a self-supporting house and that if you use you’re out. Men are held strictly accountable in this type of environment. Frequent urine analysis, drug tests and breathalyzer tests are given and the men are required to work full time and do Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 5 recover meetings in the community. They are also encouraged to plug into civic organizations and churches. That’s how they begin to rebuild their life. Very important, very important to our community. I’m a husband, I’m a father, I’m a property owner in this community and when I think of the fact that we don’t have facilities to help deal with this issue in an effective manner, I’m very discouraged. There are very few in the whole State of Idaho, very few of these programs and they’re very needed. Now the Oxford house model is a model that is by our understanding protected under the Fair Housing Act of 1988 in R-4 zone neighborhoods. We believe that we have legal standing to be in this neighborhood. Now I want to address very quickly the neighborhood. There’s a Grade School a block and a half away. The men who will come into this house are screened. Background investigations are done on these men. This is what’s called an NCIC investigation. It’s pulled of check. It’s pulled of any criminal background or history. That NCIC check will reveal if there’s a background, what criminal or background they might have. No individual who has a history of violence or sexual misconduct will ever be allowed into this house. We believe that we can run a structured program in this house. Our tests over the last 11 months has been with three to ten individuals and during the last 11 months there has not been one incident where there has been – the police have been called for any reason to the house. We’ve lived in harmony in this community for the last 11 months, running a quiet program under the Oxford house model and have not had any incident or any problem with our neighbors. We believe that we can continue to do that with regard to the office and with regard to the garage enclosure. We would be willing to withdraw those from our Conditional Use application if that’s impossible to do so. If it is in violation of the R-4 zoning process. Perhaps what we needed to do there if we wanted to have those was we went the wrong routes then we should have applied for a rezone on the property rather than just the Conditional Use Permit alone. We would be willing to withdraw that from the application if it would be in violation to the R-4 zone. The reason that we wanted to have the education in the garage area and the classroom space is so that we could enhance our programs. The reason that we wanted to have the office space in the basement was truly so that there would staff onsite at all times and once again enhance the supervision and the services offered in our program. Basically that’s it, that’s our proposal and we would encourage you to vote in favor of our Conditional Use for the transitional aftercare facility. We would be willing to amend our application to bring it in line with the Planning and Zoning requirements in any way we can. One more thing I would like to say. We desire to have a facility in a home that enhances the neighborhood and is an asset to the neighborhood and not something that’s going to bring down the property values. Whenever you’re starting something of this nature there’s a thought that comes in it’s known as NIMB, not in my backyard. Not in our backyards, if we’re not taking steps in our own backyards to address this issue in a positive and proactive manner than in whose backyard are we going to do it? I thank you for your time. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Durham? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 6 Centers: I have a number of questions. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Thank you. No. 1 why are you coming to us tonight if you’ve been there for 11 months, what prompted you to see us? Durham: Really the thought that we want to do the education center in the garage. We want to do the basement, classroom area. We want to do the parking to enhance the facility and those are some of the issues that are (inaudible). Centers: What is the maximum number of occupants that you proposed? Durham: We’re asking for 15, which (sic) would be 14 individuals and 1 live-in house supervisor. Centers: What’s the square footage of the home or the living area? Durham: The living area as it stands right now is about 2,700 square feet. That square footage might seem small for the number of people that we’re talking about. This house is laid out in such a way that there are three family rooms, six bedrooms, a very large dining room and it’s laid out and it’s very – Centers: -- is that 2,700 square feet above ground? Durham: Yes, it’s not including the basement. Centers: Or the garage? Durham: Not including the basement or the garage. Centers: Then if you were to give up the garage you were going to convert to a classroom correct? If you were to give that up and give up the office space are you going to have enough room? Durham: Well right now what we’re doing with the house is we’re using the three family rooms. We’ve got a living room in front, a back family room and an upstairs family room. We’re using those as our classroom spaces. Centers: But my point is if you’re willing to give up the garage that you wanted to convert and give up the office space is that the right location for your proposed home? Durham: We believe so. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 7 Centers: Because you’re giving up space already that you were hoping to get for a classroom meeting room. Durham: We believe so. The classroom would have enhanced the program and given us the opportunity to set up – we’ve had eight computers donated for a computer lab for the guys. We’ve had eight computers donated for that purpose and we would like to be able to hold regular meetings for the guys and we would be giving that up if we weren’t able to convert the garage. Centers: How long have you owned the property? Durham: We took possession of the property in May of last year. Centers: So you purchased it with this intention? Durham: That’s all I have thank you. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Of course you’ve been running this operation now for several months. Why all of a sudden now come before us when theoretically it’s been not legal to begin with? Durham: We don’t believe that it’s been illegal at all. We believe that these houses are permitted under the Fair Housing Act of 1988 in an R-4 neighborhood and that’s been our understanding. There are 725 models of this throughout the nation right now. Shreeve: So you’re basing you right on then the Fair Housing Act which I’m not familiar with – that’s all I have. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: One follow-up. I am familiar with the Fair Housing Act, parts of it but it’s – you said it’s your understanding. If that were the case do you have a copy of the section that you’re referring to? Durham: I can obtain that for you. Borup: Could you go ahead and paraphrase that? Durham: I can’t at this time I apologize. My understanding comes through our affiliation with Oxford House Incorporated. Oxford House Incorporated is a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 8 national organization that has been helping with the startup of these homes throughout the country for a long time. They have in fact defended the right of these homes to be in R-4 neighborhoods throughout the nation all the way to the Supreme Court level on several occasions. My understanding comes through our affiliation with them. Centers: With all due respect I think you should have brought a copy of that with you – Durham: -- I do apologize. Centers: -- and you would have been a little further ahead but that’s alright. Borup: Thank you. Durham: This is the first of two meetings I understand. Borup: The next one will be at City Council. I have a couple of questions for staff. One on the – how is this different from a group home? Is it considered a different – Siddoway: -- a beehive house (inaudible) with the seniors? Borup: Yes, I mean those – well go ahead. Siddoway: I’m not sure if they are different. They are different in terms of age and reason for being there but they aren’t both group homes. Certainly the senior housing has been allowed in all zones including R-4 -- the beehive homes existed – Borup: -- that’s what I was just thinking of some of those group homes – some of them are senior, some of them are handicapped and that type of thing too. Both physical and mental I believe. Siddoway: Yes, if there’s a difference it might be the counseling nature -- Borup: Yes I can see some differences. They are going to have more, not necessarily nursing care but that type of care where here they’re a little more independent. I’m wandering on the zoning – Siddoway: -- senior group care homes are permitted in really any zone including R-4. Borup: That’s why I was after the testimony. That’s why I was wandering how this was any different than that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 9 Siddoway: I don’t know, legally you can’t say – Borup: -- that maybe is going back to the housing act, maybe referring to the same thing. Isn’t that what that group care homes are based on the same act? Siddoway: Yes there may even be an Idaho State Code referring to them. I would defer to Legal Counsel on that one. Borup: Question on the – well that same thing on the group care. It seemed like some of the ones that came before us they had some type of office for the staff to be in. Some type of a room for the staff to be in. I wander what the definition of office space is as far as our Ordinances. Siddoway: I mean if it were just a desk for the staff person of this house I don’t necessarily be an issue. Our understanding was that it was more than that that it was for all of B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries services not just for (inaudible). Borup: Okay, we can get clarification on that. Then the garage you mentioned that is in an all – we’re out of the Old Town area. Siddoway: Yes you’re out of Old Town 20 miles – Borup: Just barely? Siddoway: Yes, Meridian Road is the changing point. Borup: It just seems like there’s – on Meridian Road. I know there’s a lot of houses on Meridian Road that don’t have garages and I don’t know how many west of Meridian Road fall in that situation. Siddoway: I don’t know I haven’t (inaudible) – Borup: Okay, Mr. Durham are you familiar? Does everybody around your neighborhood all have garages? Durham: No, there are a number of houses that don’t have garages and there area a number of houses that don’t have two car garages they have single garages also. Borup: My assumption is that that happened before the Zoning Ordinance went into effect and they were grand fathered is what I would suspect. The office use that you were planning on was Mr. Siddoway correct that was to run the whole organization or just an office for this building – this house? Durham: Our whole organization right now is – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 10 Borup: -- is that building? Durham: -- is a very small organization is that building and the whole purpose behind our organization is what we’re doing in that – Borup: -- so it would not be an office for off-site use or any other areas? Durham: Our goal in the future would be to establish other houses in the area but that is not the case at this time. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Center: One last question, excuse me. Did you read the Fire Departments issue with the property? Durham: I read through the entire – Center: -- regarding the basement and two exits out, one direct to the outside? That’s not a problem for you I take it? Durham: Well we want to do whatever we could to comply there and we would go to up that expense if it was necessary. Borup: Was the Fire Department assuming – what use – was it going to be to use in the basement other than the office? Durham: That was it. Borup: So it wasn’t a sleeping quarters or anything? I don’t know whether the Fire Department understood that. The building code thing is – you showed – was this what you felt you needed for parking spaces? It shows five off of the alley and I guess four in the driveway it looks like is what you could get? Durham: Yes, we wanted to insure that there would be adequate parking for the house. Most of the individuals that live in the house do not have drivers licenses or vehicles. Borup: Okay so either a bicycle or – Durham: -- bicycles and some have their own vehicles but a ministry van would be available for those who don’t. Borup: That’s what I was wandering how that was handled as far as the parking. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, one more questions. Also just looking at the Police Department and I don’t know if this is necessarily what they are asking but Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 11 maybe to rephrase it my way anyway is how long would these gentlemen be in the home? Durham: In an Oxford house model the average is about one year. We do not – this type of program because you’re talking about a number of different individuals, personal issues with regard to finances and other things that are necessary to work through. It would be an open ended program but the average has been about one year for a successful transition. Shreeve: Then what do you do review their progress at that point or intermittently I’m sure there’s a review process? Durham: There’s actually a weekly review that’s going on, a progress report that’s going on reviewing financial accountability, keeping track of the meetings that are being attended. There’s a constant process that’s taking place on a weekly basis and the individuals in the house get a weekly report that would tell them what their progress is and the areas that they’re falling short or what areas that they need to work on. Borup: Thank you. There were several people that had some questions I’m sure that you may need to be answering. Not now, I think some – we don’t know what the questions are yet just that several people have put down on their list. We would like to start with public testimony and we have quite a number who have signed up who would like to speak first and favor. I don’t know if there’s anyone – if there is someone that would be a spokesman for everyone that would be a nice way to go. If not – well maybe I’ll ask that question first. Do we have one especially – a (inaudible) for those that are speaking in favor of and there’s quite a number? Is there a spokesman that would be speaking for those people or do all of you want to come up one at a time? Hughes: I’ve been elected. Borup: Your name sir? Hughes: My name is Jim Hughes I am the Chairman of Board of B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries. I’m the Development Director for the Idaho Council in Economic Education in my real life. I would like to just acknowledge those people that indicated that they wanted to speak in favor of this just by standing for a second here. I’ve been elected as their spokesperson you can go ahead and sit down now. Borup: Yes, I was going to ask you to do that anyway so I appreciate you having them stand up. Hughes: We don’t want to take all evening. If there’s a question I will go ahead and answer it now. I would like to just say that as Chairman of the Board, this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 12 organization came into being a couple of years ago out of what we felt is a real need in this area in Ada County. To provide, not a homeless shelter, not anything like that but a terserary kind of care level where you see so many times where people don’t ever quite make it out of the cycle of substance abuse. They don’t ever quite get it together; they don’t ever quite become really substantially out on their own and make it out of this into the cycle of real life positively. This kind of model we felt was really necessary. I come to it as a fund raiser, that’s my background and I just wanted to make the point that some of the things that you’ve talked about in terms of this particular house we saw would be things that we would go to foundations, corporations, businesses and individuals that support our ministry to try and take care of. We weren’t sure exactly what (inaudible) were going to be required but we come to you now in anticipation of the needs that this particular home and also other homes that might be called for in Ada County area. I personally write grants to organizations like that and we’ve done a little of that so far not with great success mostly because we’re not really established very much yet. So I just come to you saying that this is a self- supporting faith based ministry and I guess the last thing want to say personally is that if we’re not part of the solution then (inaudible) part of the problem. We all know what kind of problems are in Ada County with regard to substance abuse problems with alcohol and drugs. I just say to you we’re here to want to be worked with. We’re willing to do this we would like you to tell us what you need to have in order for us to exist so that we can really be part of the solution. Rather than (inaudible) just wanting to have approval, we want to see if whether or not we can mesh positively into the community, address the concerns the neighbors have, address the concerns that neighbors could have and really work with the Meridian community in doing this. I really can’t say anymore except our Board of Directors is very dedicated to wanting to see this happen. Obviously this is a small step in what we see is a giant problem in the community to really stem substance abuse problems. Again, maybe the last thing I want to say is that this is a male ministry right now, it serves males with this issue. (Inaudible) ultimately we would like to see the same kind of thing working with people in Ada County to do the same thing with the female population. Obviously not in Meridian, we don’t know where that might be but as the ministry grows and becomes self-sufficient and it becomes financially able to take care of that we would like to work with those providers of care, other people in the community to try to work that out for the female population as well. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hughes? Hughes: Other questions that I might not have addressed very well? Borup: Thank you sir. Hughes: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 13 Borup: Did we have anyone – did Mr. Hughes cover the comments – is there anyone else that is speaking in favor of that still wishes to come up? Come on sir. Peters: My name is Gene Peters and I live just a little bit to the northeast on Meridian Street of this property. Borup: What is – Peters: Pardon me? Borup: Yes can we go ahead and get your address? Peters: 1323 North Meridian Road and I’m here tonight – I’m not affiliated anyway with this organization that’s asking to run this program. I’m here – I went to the open house as a neighbor and I like what I see. I’m going to try to explain why I say that as a neighbor. First off I want to let you know I’m a family man. I have a wife, I have two daughters, I have three grandkids that are at my house quite often. I have little or no concern about them being in any way, in any harms way of any of this going on behind here like I feel like some of the neighbors do. I don’t know if any of the neighbors here tonight who aren’t for this went to the open house or not. I would like to address before I say anything else about that I have lived in my home for approximately 11 years this spring and we have a definite problem in this (inaudible) Subdivision with people not taking care of their property. This home has been a pile of debree and junk for a long, long time and I am tickled to death to see someone come in who gives a care about – and it’s very obvious already. When I was there at the open house, Mike, the owner of the home showed me that he had paint in the corner waiting for the first even 70 degree chance that he had he’s going to put everybody to work. They’re painting, they’re fixing the yard, they’re willing to do stuff in the alley as you have seen with this asking for the parking and so on. I am very happy to see that. I fought with Century 21 people when they tried to sell that home for about I would guess 6 months or more. The police can come out and pick up the garbage. If you want to sell something make it look presentable. The man that – I even got a hold of the Real Estate Board of Commissioners and finally we got something done but it took a lot of work. I picked up barrels, garbage barrels and barrels of debree and set them out on my own so I could get the garbage people to haul it off. Including there was oil and everything else. Anyway, No. 1 I am tickled to see that someone is trying to come in and take care of this place. I want to also mention something. I’ve got a list of addresses. I hope I don’t have to go there with them. There are so many places in this neighborhood that are trash and people have shown no effort whatsoever of taking care of anything. It’s absolutely no concern to them how their place looks and how it’s presented from the front or the back. It’s very annoying to me as I try to live in this. I take care of that entire alley generally but that’s neither here nor there. That’s a choice I made no ones forcing me to do that I just want to pick up and keep it halfway Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 14 decent. My concern on that regard is that when someone comes in, a group or a person or a family or anybody we should probably not condemn them in regard to so much as to what they’re planning on doing. Especially with this organization looking to me like it’s very well put together. They told us, I did not even know what was going on as far as the type of organization but I’ve met a couple of these men in my alley way and I’ve enjoyed visiting with them. All of them have told me where they worked. I haven’t become close friends or anything with them but I see absolutely no threat to them being there whatsoever. As a human being who has my own problems and who’s had my own problems in life, I’ve got an open heart – let’s give these people a second chance to make something happen. Our neighborhood, our neighbors in the entire City of Meridian which is growing leaps and bounds we do need to look at some of these programs. The old saying is you know I don’t have an alcohol problem I don’t go to those meetings. That’s truer (sic) than we realize it. Meridian’s full of a need for this type of thing. There are a lot of people that probably would qualify to be asking for help if there probably ended up being a place like that. That’s really all I have to say. I just feel that this is not a threat to our neighborhood and I love to see the idea that someone’s here trying to improve it. That tickles me because we need some improvement in here. Borup: Thank you Mr. Peters. Peters: Thank you. Borup: Does Gayle Wilde still have – you mentioned you had some questions. Wilde: My name is Gayle Wilde, we own the duplex across Meridian Road 1319 and 1317 on West 1st . I can see the house out my kitchen window and I do agree with Mr. Peters that the place looks much better than it did when it was sitting there collecting trash with the for sale sign in front of it. I didn’t go to the open house because I didn’t know anything about it. I really realize there is a definite need for some kind of post substance abuse treatment transition homes but I do have some doubts about potential neighborhood problems if one of the residents should decide to relapse and look for a vehicle and money with which to do so as well as a possible decline in property values my husband expressed. Mr. Durham addressed many of the questions that I had on my list. The one that he didn’t was the professional or academic background of the live-in counselor that will be working with the residents day after day. Another one I had was, do they have liability insurance including coverage for any acts that the residents might commit? While we applaud what they’re doing and see the real need – and I know that Mr. Durham has worked with the Salvation Army program. They have been very successful with their substance abuse treatment programs. We are concerned about the safety of our 90-year-old tenant and all of the school children that are going up and down the road to and from school. Those are the only concerns I have left on my list. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 15 Borup: Thank you ma’am. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Does Mr. Newberry still wish to come forward? Newberry: I live over on West 2nd . Borup: You need to go ahead and repeat your name and address for the record. Newberry: Richard Newberry, 1337 West 2nd and I feel a lot like the lady just said the school close and people (inaudible) and get off in there didn’t want cars and money or something -- going and looking for them. Basically are my concerns. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Did Mr. Wills still wish to come forward? Wills: My name is Ben Wills I’m 1336 West 2nd Street across the street from Mr. Newberry. I feel really strongly that this should not go in. We currently have I don’t know what you call it a group home or a senior citizens home behind us right now and had had many problems with that place. That just really makes me not want to have something else go into there as well as what other people have said. What if they do decide to relapse and I really do think it will only take one time with the school being that close. Kids walk by there every day going back and forth to school which my son will be going there not this fall but the following fall. I just strongly feel against that, I mean it will only take one time for one of those guys to get desperate enough because obviously they are in desperate situations and if they feel they need to do something they’re going to do it. Borup: What are you concerned they’re going to do? Wills: Either molestation or what not they could do anything. Borup: I’m just wandering how that ties in your mind with what one of them mentioned that after the police check that there was no one that would have any history – Wills: Yes but just because they don’t have a history that doesn’t mean that they’re not going to do it or have not done it before and just not got caught for it either. Borup: So you’re saying the same thing applies to them as anybody on your street then? Wills: More or less. It’s the same thing but these guys are in a little bit more of a desperate situation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 16 Borup: You would feel more secure with having a neighbor that can drink and have all of the drugs they want as opposed to someone that’s tested every week? Wills: No, I’m not saying that. There are a lot of problems in the neighborhood – ***End Of Side One*** Wills: -- yes like I just bought my house last September and have done quite a few fix-ups to it. I don’t like to see the people with the rundown houses either nobody does. I can take pride in my house and the value thing is very important to me. I don’t want my house dropping in value in a few years after this goes in and fails maybe. I feel strongly against it that it shouldn’t go in. There’s too many possibilities, too many risks in my opinion. Borup: Could you maybe expand on some of the problems you said you’ve had with the group home behind you? Wills: I don’t know if there’s anybody here from there. I don’t know if it was – and some of these people said it was the owner go out and start a snowmobile at 11:00, 2:00 in the morning and run it around, start his motorcycle up at night. Borup: This is a group home that has snowmobiles and motorcycles? Wills: Yes the owner has group homes. There are a few neighbors that didn’t show up today that could say that this is very well true. Borup: Well I was looking for more problems that had something to do with the group home. Wills: Well the fact that people were never taken care of. People would walk out back of the house at all hours of the night didn’t look they had a bath since 1907. Windows were broken and people just weren’t taken care of. One guy being accessed to drugs and stuff and shooting my dog with a bee bee gun while he was high on some substance. That’s all I have. Borup: Thank you. Did Trent Atkinson – Atkinson: Irma. Borup: Oh, I’m sorry. I can see that now. Atkinson: I thought my penmanship was better than that. I printed even, Will you didn’t let him read -- I’m Irma Atkinson I live at 1124 North Lightning which is nowhere even in the neighborhood. I do however have a child who goes to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 17 after school program at Meridian Elementary. I guess I’m here torn in several different ways. I’ve been a Social Worker for 20 years. I’m familiar a little bit with the Oxford house model. From what Mr. Durham presented it just sounds like a really well thought out plan so I think I support it that way. There is of course a slightly paranoid side as I said I have a child at the after school program. I also spent 6 years working for a local Sexual Abuse Treatment Agency and I currently do a lot of assessments for the Ada County Court system. I guess what I need as a parent is clarification probably from Mr. Durham and perhaps a request that this might be a condition if you choose to approve. On those background checks Mr. Durham said no history of violence or sexual misconduct. I guess I need to know more because when I look at background checks I can see what the individual was charged with originally and what perhaps a good attorney – nothing against Mr. Moore, I like attorneys. A good attorney can get a sexual abuse charge an L and L charge flea bargained down to a non-sexual charge like a battery or an assault. I guess I would want some assurance that he is – Mr. Durham and his people are looking at the total record and realize that things do get flea bargained to non-sexual charges. So that they are indeed looking at the history not just the conviction. They are looking at the charges there. That would make me feel a lot better. I think it would make probably the school and the after school program staff feel a lot better. I guess that would be my request if that could be made a condition not just a – I’m sure Mr. Durham’s a nice man but I just would feel better if that was a condition if you chose to approve it. Questions for me? Borup: Questions for – in your – you said you’ve had some experience with – Social Worker and stuff. Is there a correlation between alcohol abuse and sexual molestation? Atkinson: That’s a good question. I’m not sure I have the definitive answer. Borup: I hadn’t – that’s why I was wandering. I don’t know either. Everyone seems to be implying that and I’m wandering if there’s any correlation at all. Atkinson: I don’t know. My concern was just some people have multiple problems and I just wanted clarification there. Don’t say Social Worker like it’s a dirty word okay? Borup: I didn’t. I was trying to remember what it was you had said, I was thinking. Rhonda Englander did you still wish to come forward? Shelly Breton you mentioned you had some questions? Breton: Good evening gentlemen. Yes I do I have several questions. Centers: What’s your name and – Borup: -- yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 18 Breton: My name is Shelley Breton. I live at 133 West Cherry Avenue. I’m about one house away from this location. I can appreciate the concerns brought forward by the folks that are questioning this. I commend Mr. Durham for what he’s trying to put together. I do have some questions. I would like to know how many of his staff, of his board, his board of nine is going to live within the one- mile radius of this place. I guess I would also like to know from – where are these drug and alcohol rehab programs? Are they locally within the state, are they coming from the state prison system? Are they coming from the Ada County corrections people? Are they coming out of voluntary programs? I guess I want to know a little bit more about what kind of programs they’re coming out of. I would like to know if these gentlemen, when they move into this house if they’re required to be employed before moving in. There are some concerns about – I realize that they are proposing parking places in the alley and there’s room to park in the driveway. I just wander if there can be a limit put on a number of cars so that there’s a parking spot for every car. Potentially, if they’re all doing well towards the end of their first year, all 15 people can have an automobile, where are they going to park. I understand his referral to the nimbi, not in my backyard and I have to say that yes I’m sure that we are all feeling a little bit of that. I think that might be a little less of a reaction maybe if his numbers were a little bit smaller, maybe half. I would like to know if these gentlemen are on a curfew. Are they required to come in before it gets to be very late in the evening and we have a lot of extra traffic that’s waking up children or people that are – I would assume that they were coming in early because obviously they are going to be employed. I guess I just want to know, kind of back to what Mr. Wills was saying, are we going to have lots of late night noise? Make sure I’ve covered all of the things I wanted to ask here. I guess I want to know, is this program being subsidized by the State of Idaho, I would like to know that. Borup: I’m not sure how that’s pertinent. Breton: I understand that it’s supposed to be a non-profit organization and he said something that the house is supposed to be self supporting. I guess my question is, is it completely self supporting based on these gentlemen working or are they being funded by some outside source? Borup: Well I understand the question but I’m not sure how it’s pertinent I said. Centers: As a neighbor how is that relevant? Breton: Then that’s basically exactly – because they are proposing to bring a business into our residential neighborhood basically that’s why I wandered. Then I would just like to speak to the fact of being a single mother, there are children walking back and forth there. Over the last 10 months I have noticed individuals that I did not recognize walking up and down the sidewalks. Because Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 19 I don’t recognize these people as somebody that I know, okay that person lives across the street at this house, I’ve asked my daughter not to play in our front yard. Simply because I don’t recognize the people walking around all of the time. My last question is if you have 14 different people living in this home that’s 14 different families. I would assume, and that’s a big word that all of them will have family members coming to visit. I just wander how much increased traffic parking by having this many different families coming to visit, is there adequate parking for visitors? I’m sure that you all have families, whether it be children, grandchildren or whatever I am concerned about our children. If there are relapses in their program and what they’re trying to recover from is that going to effect our kids? Can we except more increase police control those kind of things? Thank you. Borup: Thank you, any questions for Ms. Breton? Thank you. That was all that had signed up did we have anyone else that came in that something pertinent they wanted to say? Okay Mr. Durham I think we have some questions for you. That was what just passed. Come on up if you want to that’s why I asked if there was anybody else. Dalrymple: I’m Dave Dalrymple I live at 133 West Cherry Avenue. Are the individuals in your program – Borup: -- you need to address – Dalrymple: Okay are the individuals in your program funded by the state? So if you’re not paid – Borup: -- you need to address the Commission sir. Dalrymple: Okay. Borup: Or it sounds like a lot of these questions could have been answered if more of the neighbors would have gone to the open house. Dalrymple: Well they probably could have. We were doing something else, we got the notice that there was going to be an open house the day or the day before it happened. We already had plans to do something else or we would have gone and asked a lot of these questions. Borup: Does it have a phone number on the information sheet? Dalrymple: I don’t know if they did or not. If somebody is going to bring something and sell it to me I expect them to bring it to the door and stand there and sell it to me. I don’t expect them to walk up, push a flyer in the screen door and run away like a thief in the night. I expect them to come and face me and sell it. That’s what’s really what’s happened. They basically snuck into the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 20 neighborhood 11 months ago, started their program, and now they’re running up sticking a flyer in the door and telling us hey we’re here and we hope you like it. That’s essentially what happened, nobody’s come to sell this program. Borup: And you said you had some questions? Dalrymple: I do. A lot of these – I’m working with some doctor’s right now to put a similar type hospital for children somewhere else. All of these children are funded by the state, every one of them. The numbers you have are 15 men, why do you have that number? Borup: That’s your first question? Dalrymple: That’s my first question. We’re not going to respond here, we’re just going to ask questions? Borup: If you’re done will get an answer. Dalrymple: That’s the first question is why do we have a number of 15. The next question is most of these organizations, most of the reasons these are put together is because somebody’s paying some money. Somebody’s paying for these guys to be there. I want to know where the funding is coming from and if they’re running to – moving into a residential district and running a business. I’m not – don’t get me wrong I’m not necessarily against them, I don’t know enough about them and that’s really the point. I think that Mr. Durham’s works cut out for him here. I’ve listened to the neighbors and the majority of them don’t seem to know really what’s going on and they’re not for it whatever it is. So I’m going to let it go at that. Borup: If you hurry. Carrel: My name is Rusty Carrel and I live just kiddy corner. I’m one on of the pictures that they were referring to earlier. Borup: What was your address? Carrel: 1231 it’s the house on the left right there. 1231 West 1st yes. Anyway, my concern is – and I would like to just make a few comments on some of the things that everybody else talked about as far as I’m concerned about the school being a block and a half away. I bought my house there about five years ago. I bought it because there was an Elementary School close by. I know some of the houses weren’t maintained but they’re older houses, 50 years old or better and there’s character in that neighborhood. I feel like if anybody wants to buy these homes they can develop that. I’m not taking away the fact that the homeowners now right there – I mean I’m glad to see they’re fixing it up and stuff but I think anybody could do that with that house. I’m concerned really with the number of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 21 people they got coming in there, everybody’s mentioned that already. I’ve got a six-year-old daughter. She likes to run around in the sprinkler in her swimming suit in the summer and I don’t know the background of these guys. I do have a question and that is they did have a director there awhile back and I just meant Mike a few days ago when he was handing out the pamphlets for the open house. I met him Saturday and the open house was Sunday. Before that I hadn’t seen him. There was a guy by the name of Mac they called him Grandpa Mac, he was an older guy. I would like to know what happened to him. I didn’t know him, I never talked to him but rumor has it he got fired because he helped one of the guys that was wanted or relapsed. He helped him to the bus station so he could get away so I kind of have a lot of questions towards the ability of this program in this zoned area. I don’t know – I mean the program I think is a needed program but I don’t know that this is the location that would really be ideal for the program. That’s where I’m coming from. Borup: Thank you sir. Mr. Durham? Durham: I will try to address – Borup: Well that’s what I was going to ask. Have you got notes or do you want me to go through my list? Durham: We could go through your list if you would like. Borup: Either way. Durham: I don’t think I remember. Let’s do your list. Borup: Okay. Durham: And anyone who’s interested we had guidelines for our program and we would be willing to (inaudible) guidelines and packets so that everyone can everyone can understand what our program entails, what the level of structure and supervision is for the program and just what – how the program works. Borup: You might want put (inaudible). Yes why don’t we – since you mentioned that we probably want to get that on part of our record too. Durham: I think I did turn in a copy of the guideline to Planning and Zoning so (inaudible). Borup: Okay the first question was the professional background of the supervisor. Durham: Right now we are in the process of replacing our house supervisor. I am living on-site right now myself. I’ve already addressed my own professional Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 22 background. We are looking for an individual, because this is a Christian ministry we’re looking for an individual who has pastoral background and possibly an individual who has worked closely with substance abusers in either a rescue mission environment or in a substance abuse treatment program. We have a number of people who have shown an interest. We haven’t found the right individual yet. If I may – Borup: -- does that lead into Grandpa Mac? Durham: -- yes if I may go ahead and explain that. The rumor is correct. I wanted to tell you that Mac McKinley was our house supervisor and we had an instance where a young man who was on the program relapsed into drug and alcohol use. That young man was on probation, we reported him to his probation officer. That young man had been court ordered to complete our program and he failed to do so. His probation officer was about to what’s called, violate him and take him to jail and take him back before the judge with regard to his treatment issues there. Mr. McKinley, our house supervisor did in fact aid and abet this young man in packing up his stuff. He wasn’t living at the house he had already been terminated from our program, packing up his stuff and taking him to the bus station. The young man basically absconded from supervision. Because of that issue I did terminate Mr. McKinley as our house supervisor. Centers: You just said you had previously terminated him. Durham: No, I terminated the young man from our program. I terminated the young man from our program and he had already – he was living elsewhere. Mr. McKinley I guess was fond of this young man and did ask that – this young man did ask him to help him get his stuff to the bus station and that was just unacceptable behavior on our part. I wouldn’t tolerate that and I did have to ask for Mr. McKinley’s resignation. He did so and parted company with the ministry. We believe that we have to have a very close working relationship with those in the treatment environment, those in the probation or parole and those in the police department. We have to cooperate for the good of our clients and Mr. McKinley messed up and the consequence was that he was asked to separate himself from this ministry. Borup: There’s a question on liability insurance? Durham: Yes and we are covered right now as 1,000,000 dollars and we also have directors and officers insurance for our Board of Directors. Borup: That covers any of the residents? Durham: Yes it covers anyone who’s living in the house and the immediate area of the property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 23 Borup: Question on the background checks on whether they were just on the convictions or on their original charts and previous history. Durham: I’m pretty familiar with reading an NCIC investigation and you can generally tell if something has been flea bargained down. Usually if it’s a sexual crime it would be flea bargained down but it would be flea bargained down to an assault or another crime that would be considered violent and therefore also exclude that individual from our programs. Would it be alright if I addressed something? You asked if there was a correlation earlier between substance abuse and alcoholism and drug abuse? I am not aware of any studies whatsoever that link sexual abuse to drug abuse or alcoholism. I think that to do so in this hearing is inflammatory. I think that there are men in this house that feel in a way violated by that assumption that somehow because they have substance abuse issues that somehow that turns them into child molesters and everything else. Now we don’t have to go very far in our neighborhoods to see that there are people carrying in 12 packs of cases of beer into their home every evening. We don’t have to go very far in our neighborhood to see that there’s a substance abuse problem not very many doors down right in front of us. I think it’s completely and totally unfair to somehow use this inflammatory content to somehow skew this hearing. I think it’s wrong. Borup: That’s why I asked that. I was not aware of any correlation at all. A question was what programs – other question what programs will they be coming from? Durham: Port of Hope, the Walker Center, and the VA Treatment Center. The Ada County Jail has a SAP program, Substance Abuse Program and North Idaho Correctional Institute through their what they call their Writer Program also has a Substance Abuse Program. Those are the programs thus far that we have accepted referrals from. Borup: On employment you said they need to employed – the question was is that before they come into your home or – Durham: Many times they’re coming straight from Substance Abuse Treatment environments – Borup: -- so they have a time period? Durham: -- so they have about a two-week time frame and we work with them to get them employed and work out their transportation issues back and forth to work and all of those things. Borup: Is there any curfew? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 24 Durham: Yes there is a curfew. The curfew is 10:30 on weekdays and 11:30 on weekends. There’s a daily structure to the house. On weekdays all of the men wake up at 5:30 in the morning and there’s a daily devotion at 5:45 in the morning. The house structure, the daily structure of the program moves on from there. Getting up at 5:30 in the morning – Borup: -- you’re definitely ready to go to bed by 10:00. Durham: -- a lot of time for the nightlife. Weekends our wake up is at 9:00 am and we have a 9:30 devotion time in the morning. Borup: Is there any subsidies or anything else was – Durham: Where was the money coming from? B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries is a Christ centered non-profit organization. We’ve received at this time no federal, state or local government money and we’re not asking for any. The programs that we offer are supported through Christian charity. We are going to be gong after some foundational grants and things of this nature to help enhance and support our programs but the house itself, the living area where the guys live, each one of these guys pays his own way in the house. The house contribution is 75 dollars a week – Centers: -- for man. Durham: Per man and that pays for his room and his board. His laundry and everything. That 75 dollar a week fee covers the cost of elaborating the house. Right now that house has about a monthly budget of 2,800 dollars a month. With 10 guys in the house that 300-dollar a month figure would leave a 200-dollar a month surplus for programming and staff. Part of the reason we want to have 15 guys is so that we can offer more in the way of programming and staff. Centers: Is that the max 15? Durham: 14 would be the number of programmed participants with one house supervisor. Borup: How about visitors? Do they need to make visits here or people go home or – Durham: Both, this is not a lock down facility. Most of the guys in the house go to the homes of their friends and family members and yes we do have people visiting the house on a regular basis. We encourage that we want them to be making that connection in the community with friends and family members. We haven’t seen a huge amount of traffic that’s created a parking problem at the house. With regard to the parking, Planning and Zoning when I was talking with them indicated one parking spot was needed for every sleeping room and there Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 25 are a total of six sleeping rooms in the house. Those sleeping rooms are five two-man rooms, one room that we would hope to be either a four to six man room. It’s a large master bedroom that we would like to convert to a dormitory style room and one single room for the house supervisor. Borup: That was all of the questions that I had. Do any of the other Commissioners have any? Any notes or questions? Centers: I have one question Mr. Chairman. Your Liability Insurance just really is that an extended Homeowners Policy is what it is? Durham: Yes it is. Centers: You’re not covering these men when they go off the property? Durham: It just said the mediate area of the property. Centers: For the property. Durham: For the property itself not onto the neighbors properties at all no. Centers: That’s all. Borup: Doesn’t that normally cover – I mean a Homeowners Policy usually covers damage done by someone at the residence to a neighboring property doesn’t it? Durham: My understanding is that it covers our property – any damage that might be occurred on our property. Centers: I guess the question it should be specific. If one of these individuals went off of your property and caused damage to an adjoining landowner, property owner would you have insurance to cover that? Durham: I don’t believe we do at this time. But then I don’t believe that most people insure that way either. Borup: So it would be the same as any other situation that the person would have an opportunity to sue. Any (inaudible) comments you have Mr. Durham? Durham: Not at this time. I just – Borup: -- well this is probably going to be your last time so that’s why I’m asking. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 26 Durham: Well I would just encourage you to work with us here. As I say we really desire to create something that is going to be a benefit to this community and not harm the community. We will be diligent to do so. Borup: Thank you. Durham: I’ll set these back on the back table. Borup: Please do. Any other comments from staff? Do you have any more thoughts on the difference between this type of group home and other group homes that – Centers: -- I have a question for staff. If they were not requesting the office space in order to merge into the garage would we be here tonight? Siddoway: I believe so. The – as an institutional use, it’s not defined in the schedule of use control. In the past all uses that are defined specifically in the schedule of use control have been deemed Conditional Uses. Borup: What’s the definition of institutional use? And Mr. Moore I think maybe look for your opinion on – Moore: The opinion here that I have is, the Supreme Court case that Mr. Dunley’s talking about is not a case that says you can go into any community that you want and plop down one of these homes. It simply says that you cannot keep them out of an R-4 zone, that they are allowed to be in those zones. They still have to come before this Commission and apply for a Conditional Use Permit to put such a place up which they have not done it to this point. Siddoway: The definition of an institution, building and land designed to eight individuals in need of mental, therapeutic, rehabilitative, counseling, or other correctional services. Borup: So how is that different – would that be different from the other group homes we were talking about then? Siddoway: Yes I think so because I don’t know that the group homes are necessarily aimed at correctional services. Borup: But the counseling part probably not. Thank you. Commissioners? Centers: Hi, I have another question for Legal Counsel. By coming tonight for the CUP have they made application – satisfactory application for the permit? Moore: To establish such a home I believe so yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 27 Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Just one more question for staff. Were you aware that they were housing these gentlemen for the past 11 months or not until they came forward at this time? Siddoway: We were not aware. Not until they came forward and asked for a permit. Borup: Would we like some discussion at this time? The Public Hearing is still open at this point. Centers: I guess I would move to close the Public Hearing Mr. Chairman. Shreeve: I second that. Borup: Motion second to close the Public Hearing? All in favor? Any discussions all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 Ayes, 2 Absent Centers: I guess, Mr. Chairman I would not hesitate to go first here. I kind of listed 43 names of people that were notified and I count six or seven that really aren’t totally against this. They like the concept and they like what they’re doing. It is the nimbi I guess and I guess I can understand that without a doubt. We have one individual that’s a close neighbor that just – he welcomes them. I’m concerned about the square footage for the number of people. Fifteen for 2,700 square feet is 180 square feet per person. However, I guess if it works it works. I think at the outset Mr. Durham said that if they were willing to drop the office and the garage conversion then I ask the question would we be here? We still would but they would have to get a permit. This is a tough situation. I think the applicant and the people in the audience know that. That’s all of the comment I have. Borup: Questions for staff. On the office question is – that was just used strictly for the in-house supervisor, would that be in the same category as you – Siddoway: No, I don’t think it would be. If it’s the same thing as me having a desk to run my house, pay my bills type thing. If they’re running other houses and additional ministry services out of that then it becomes a – if they’re commuting to the house. I think the concern was – Borup: -- that’s what I thought that it was referring to – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 28 Siddoway: -- use it as an office and (inaudible) resident that’s different but if they are commuting to it as an office that is prohibited. Borup: So it looks like as far as those two aspects the garage is really need – on the other – and there’s not really any – there’s not provision for relaxing that is there? Any comments Keven? Shreeve: My only comment would be, probably when it’s all said and done with would be just the zoning issue just keeping the integrity of the zoning alive. Centers: My comment Keven would be that the zoning does allow for it with a Conditional Use Permit correct? It doesn’t allow for the office space or the conversion of the garage. I know of other similar homes so to speak in new subdivisions very close by in an R-4 zone. Would you comment on that staff or I think you know the subdivision I’m talking about? Siddoway: I’m sorry I really don’t know what you are asking the – Centers: -- well the zoning does allow it with a permit. As long as they’re not wanting to go for an office – Siddoway: -- it is not defined specifically in the scheduled use control. In the past for him neither is cell towers defined in the scheduled use control. It’s been determined that uses that are not defined require a Conditional Use Permit for consideration. Borup: I think maybe that’s something that needs to be pointed out. This is a Conditional Use Permit this is something that can be revoked. In fact that’s always standard wording. That wasn’t mentioned in here but isn’t it 10 days? Isn’t that the standard verbiage? Siddoway: The standard comments yes the Conditional Use Permit can be revoked upon 10 days notification to the applicant. Borup: -- of anything of violation? Siddoway: Yes, if they’re in violation of a Condition of Approval they have 10 days to bring it into compliance or it can be revoked. Borup: One of the staff comments had suggested maybe also a review period? You said that would be conducted by the City? No. 13 under – Siddoway: What page? Borup: Page 6. Under site specific for – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 29 Siddoway: -- yes that’s getting at what – Borup: -- with which is in addition to what’s usually – Siddoway: -- yes this is an additional requirement and it’s not usually placed on a Conditional Use Permit because of the type of use. We were suggesting that there would be an annual review by the City to make sure they are in compliance with the conditions of approval and not in violation of anything. Borup: The normal would be unless – would be initiated by a complaint – Siddoway: -- a complaint – Borup: -- from someone usually. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Well as far as – and it looks to me like the office would not be an issue. I guess it would just need to be stated that the office was for that specific building for (inaudible) not for any off-site. Yes there’s no really provision to allow any variance there is there. Siddoway: The standard is 11-10-6. All single-family detached housing units shall have a garage capable of housing at least two standard size automobiles at a minimum. I guess you could debate whether this is a single-family detached housing unit but that is the wording that is in the Ordinance. Borup: I think it currently is and it could become that again. Commissioners? (Inaudible) make a motion one-way or the other. Centers: Mr. Chairman I’ll jump right out. I would like to make a motion and recommend to the City Council that the Conditional Use Permit 01-014 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Christian ministry without specific office space and an aftercare/transitional home for men serving as a group living environment for a maximum of 12 men and one supervisor be allowed in the R-4 zone with no conversion of the garage. I move that we approve as I submitted. Borup: Including other staff comments? Centers: Including all other staff comments I’m sorry. Borup: I’ll second that. For sake at least for sake of discussion. Do we have any – wait it’s been moved to second do we have any discussion? Seeing none we need to vote, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 1 AYE, 1 NAYE, 2 ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 30 Borup: I’m going to vote Aye. I feel that with the aspect of a Conditional Use Permit it can be reviewed if there’s any non-compliance – the Conditional Use can be revoked. TIEBREAKER VOTE: 2 AYES, 1 NAYE, 2 ABSENT Centers: That’s why I put 12 on there for Item 13, the maximum of 12. I tried to split the difference with the applicant. Borup: So it’s two to one in favor then. I would like to thank everyone for coming. We mentioned earlier there will be another Public Hearing at City Council. Everyone that received would receive a notice again as before. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do we want to take a short break now or move into the next one? We do need one. Five minute break. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: AZ 00-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: CUP 00- 052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned residential development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Borup: Okay we would like to reconvene our meeting this evening. Anyone is welcome to continue their discussions out in the foyer, outside. We’re reverting back to the original schedule and it will be Items 4, 5, and 6 which are Continued Public Hearings from April 19th . First for the request for annexation and zoning. Can we not have a fight in here please? Mr. Van Hees? The first Item was a request for annexation and zoning for 156 acres R-T to R-4 for Tuscany Lakes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 31 The second was a Preliminary Plat on the same project and third was a Conditional Use Permit for a planned residential development again by the same Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership. We continued this item at our last meeting to receive information on three items. One was the water model that the Public Works Department was going to do. The other was we asked for some revisions on the plat and the third was the wetlands issue for asking for a letter from the (inaudible) of engineers. I need to make a break here just in case. I don’t know if anyone’s here for the Cell Tower. Was anyone here on the Cell Tower issue? That item has been withdrawn so we didn’t want someone to be waiting all night for something that was not going to be on the agenda. Those are the three items so again I would like to begin with the staff report. Siddoway: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission I think Mr. Chairman you pretty much covered my staff report. We did have the three outstanding issues. The water, the wetlands getting a complete plat. I will save the water for Bruce. We did receive a letter from the Corp of Engineers regarding the wetlands stating there are wetlands on-site however they are not regulated by the Corp. of Engineers. So they are not protected wetlands except along the Ten Mile Creek specifically but the area that we were concerned with down in the south corner parcel it’s not a regulated wetlands area. The complete plat was submitted yesterday, I believe it’s stamped May 2nd . We had not been able to corporate that into the presentation so you still see the previous one. My understanding of most of the – the basic layout is exactly the same. This stub into the school shifts down to mid block and the extra distance that was along the Riddenbaugh now has been given to those lots. I have not had a chance to do any detailed review of the plat so I’ll let Mr. Brown – I believe they also did the emergency access out to Locust Grove that was asked for. I’ll let Mr. Brown cover the changes that were made during his presentation. Site photos – seen them there the general area for anyone in the audience that’s not familiar with the project. On the south side of Victory Road from Eagle to Locust Grove touches Thousand Springs Subdivision on the north – ***End Of Side Three*** Siddoway: -- on the south side of Victory Road from Eagle to Locust Grove south of Thousand Springs. That’s all I have. I will turn it over to Bruce for comments on the water model. Freckleton: Thanks Steve. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission first of all I would like to apologize to Mr. Brown. We had talked at our last meeting about getting this water model done and I had stated that I didn’t see any problem getting results and my goal was to try and give him at least a week to review the analysis results. I did not provide that to him so I apologize. I got the memorandum from our consultant at 3:30 this afternoon so it did come in pretty late. The analysis did reveal that the City of Meridian’s water system is adequate Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 32 to provide service to the first phases at least to this development. It’s our understanding that the development is going to start on Locust Grove and proceed east in six phases before they reach the Riddenbaugh Canal. The analysis was pretty detailed but I’ll just kind of summarize that a main extended down Locust Grove from the Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision and then into Tuscany with a 12-inch line as a backbone can provide the service required in the necessary fire flows. With each phase, as those Final Plats come in, I would propose that we just kind of go back and do a re-check on the model. Mr. Brown had indicated that there expect timeframe is about a three year timeframe for those first six phases before they get to the Riddenbaugh Canal. As you all know a lot of development can happen in three years and there water systems not going to be the same in three years as it is today. I would just propose that with each phase as they come in with their Final Plats we kind of do a re-check and re-evaluate things. At this point in time we do have positive, good results. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Mr. Brown have you got any additional comments you would like to make? Go ahead stand up. Brown: Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland Road with Boise, Idaho is the business address. Borup: Would you like to maybe just explain – we have the plat up here but maybe just for the benefit of the plat adjustments that you made. Brown: On our north cul-de-sac against Locust Grove, adjacent to Locust Grove staff. Steve particularly had asked that we put in an emergency access. We would expect that that lot would have a deed restriction or a non-build on it to provide a secondary means of access into that development. That’s very typical in dealing with a singular access. Then when we make our connection around the Riddenbaugh Canal and connect back to Victory that we would then remove that temporary access and that would become a buildable lot. Centers: Do you have it in here now? Brown: It’s on the drawing yes. It’s shown on there at 20-foot temporary, secondary access. I just make note of that. We also moved the entrance to the school down. It seems there – we were willing to work with the school and we were continually willing to move that around. We plopped the school on there but obviously the School District would massage that how best serves them. We’ve just kind of taken their architectural drawing and plopped it on there. So if they need to move it or they need a second access that best serves for their parking lot and busses we would do that but I think as I recall I told you just for grins I would move it down if that would make you feel better about it. Then we removed the 20 feet along the east side of the Riddenbaugh and added those footages to the lots. I believe that that’s all that you asked for. I did meet on a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 33 sunny day with Greg Martinez and we went out and looked at the wetlands area that was in concern. He reiterated that they’re concerned about natural streams which would be Ten Mile and Eight Mile. Eight Mile is a manmade one and they said that’s what makes the difference. There was a question about why Butch got in trouble and I would imagine it’s because it’s along the Boise River that’s supposedly a natural stream. So there – any changing of that would constitute (inaudible). Are there any questions? Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Yes Mr. Young. Young: My name is Rex Young I live at 2950 East Victory Road, Meridian. I don’t want to go over a bunch of information we’ve already discussed but I’ve got three items – Borup: -- thank you. Young: -- that I wanted to bring up. It’s concerning the relocation of the roadway to the west so that it ties in with Brandy’s Jewel. Based on the testimony at the last meeting, Mr. Johnson indicated one of the reasons that he was not interested in moving that roadway to the west was because of the steep grade or the steep slope there. That property slopes to the south and it also slopes to the west and grade would not be a problem. Another item that was brought up was that the Traffic Engineer, from the way I understand it – that the Ada County Highway District said he would approve no location other than the one that was proposed by the developer. The people at Ada County Highway District indicated to me that the Brandys Jewel exit, which I’m suggesting that the exit from this subdivision tie in with met the minimum standards. For a Traffic Engineer to if you will ignore standards set by his organization and say that he isn’t going to approve something at a location that meets his standards seems ridiculous to me. The other item that I wanted to bring up is, that Mr. Johnson indicated that the policy of Meridian School District and bussing laws that they buss people who are outside of the section involved. I talked with the people at the Buss Transportation Office and they indicated that the Meridian School District bussing policy is that they buss anyone who lives in access of one and one-half mile from the school. Then I called the district office to see if I got the same answer from them and I talked with a Mr. Bruce Guestrom and he re- affirmed that policy that the Meridian School District policy is that they buss anyone who is greater than one and one-half miles away. With that being the case everyone in Thousand Springs is going to be walking to school who uses that school. There has got to be provisions made and with the current plan without a road tying in with Brandys Jewel or at least a walkway there and some kind of a traffic control it’s going to be a very dangerous and untenable situation for the children concern. That’s all I have do I have any questions? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 34 Borup: Any questions for Mr. Young? Did the School District indicate – did they say that was the only conditions under which they would buss or – Young: -- no – Borup: -- just over a mile and half they definitely will? Young: They definitely will. Now they went on to indicate that they do take a look at individual cases if there are extenuating circumstances that they will look and consider bussing people less than that distance. Their standard policy is one and one-half miles. Borup: Yes and I think that’s been standard for a long time. I was trying to remember what Mr. Bingham had said when he was here. I and maybe someone else can (inaudible) – I thought he had said that if the traffic warrant says that they do – but I think like you said they look at it on a case-by-case basis. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify? De Chambeau: My name is Mary De Chambeau and I reside on the Mortener farm, 2015 East Victory Road. You can tell everyone’s pretty discouraged by the amount of attendance you have here tonight to testify but I’m here. What we were concerned about was they did a study on you’re talking about the City water but we still have concerns about the flow of the irrigation water. I don’t think that’s been addressed. I know you gave me that study and the guy said it was okay. When I tried to call him there was no answer, he has no answering machine, I looked it up in the phone book and there was no name of business. I could not get a hold of him because I wanted to ask him a few questions because generally how that back part of that property worked was we would ask our neighbors to hold off irrigating until we could get our final crop off. That’s how that worked and I just haven’t been able to get any response. I want it on record so that if our crops do flood out that someone is going to be held accountable as a concern. I don’t know if that’s been answered by anyone. I think we’re still in confusion of it. It’s hard when you don’t get reports until the last minute for us to study them and make a testimony for it. Borup: So you’re saying the way it is now the property that – who was it you were asking to hold off irrigating the Sod farm or someone else? De Chambeau: No the place behind us. That’s the way it’s always been (inaudible). Borup: So if they’ve got a crop on there they can’t water their crop you’re saying? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 35 De Chambeau: They never had a crop on there. That whole pathway was nothing but pasture. He ran cows on that the whole time I was growing up because – Borup: -- okay that’s what I was trying to understand what – De Chambeau: -- so we just asked him not to irrigate until we got our crop off. Borup: So at this point there’s no – De Chambeau: -- according to the study – Borup: -- there’s no drainage on that property then to – drain (inaudible). De Chambeau: Well I’m just saying I don’t know how this is going to work out. This is still – this is zoned agricultural area still. You’re asking to annex this and we’re still in the process of farming and will continue to farm for a while. That is our major concern and we want to make sure it’s on record that – Borup: -- but the way it is right now if that property is irrigated then it runs off onto your property? De Chambeau: That is correct and I did check with Jim Patterson the person that farms there. I do want to make a statement concerning a question that someone (inaudible) to me. They asked if I actually farmed the land. I don’t know what that – how to do it. Let me explain that my father has been gone since 1976 and we have had help farming that property since 1976. So this isn’t just a recent thing that we’ve had somebody helping us farming the land we have held onto it all of those years. This is not an unusual thing for us. Also, I don’t know if you’re aware, my mother is still living and I am representing her in these testimonies. We are abiding by her wishes. This isn’t just a bunch of kids that want to make trouble for people. We know that eventually things are going to change in the area but until they do this is still agricultural property. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. De Chambeau: And I do have a letter to submit from two of my other siblings. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mary I understood that the main concern was migrating ground water? De Chambeau: Yes. Freckleton: Is there a circus water runoff problem too? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 36 De Chambeau: Yes. I did not – yes because I was talking to Jim Patterson about that and he said you need to make that really clear. He said who are you going after? Somebody has to be made accountable and you better put it on record. If somebody said it’s sprinkling – I don’t know. I don’t know how this works I’m not a water expert but I just know in the past when there are no houses (inaudible). That’s how it works we’re taught that for years. Freckleton: During – Borup: -- go ahead Bruce I’m sorry. Freckleton: During the design process there is -- and we do require that a Soil Scientist prepare those reports and do the groundwater studies to try and determine what the issues are and how to rectify them. They are licensed professionals. The Licensed Professional Engineer that’s with Briggs Engineering, he’s going to be putting his stamp on those drawings. They are going to have to build some cutoff drains like they said in the report that will pick up the migrating ground water. De Chambeau: So this is an engineer that works for Briggs is that correct? Freckleton: No. De Chambeau: That’s their own engineer? Freckleton: No, the guy that did the report is with Associated Earth Sciences. De Chambeau: Yes right and I tried to get a hold – I couldn’t find any information on him. I mean I left him a message even though I had – Freckleton: Yes and perhaps Mr. Brown could get you in contact with him. Between the two of those individuals they are the ones that are responsible to come up with a design that will ensure that that ground water is not a problem. De Chambeau: So I guess my question is how can we be assured of that. Once that development is in there, hey there’s not a whole lot we can do? Borup: I guess one of my questions and concerns would be if someone else owns that property and wants to farm it and have a crop that needs irrigated on a regular basis – De Chambeau: We work with them. We do, we work with them. It’s never been a problem in the past. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 37 Borup: Yes because it’s been pasture. It’s not a crop that’s going to die if it doesn’t get water. De Chambeau: That’s right. Borup: But if someone – you’re saying you wouldn’t want a farmer in there either. De Chambeau: Well a guy did farm it as you recall but the land is so bad. There’s a reason why it was only pasture for years and years and years. Borup: It won’t grow crops? De Chambeau: Not real good. It’s not real good let’s just put it that way. The way it looks different is because the previous owner brought in soil and elevated that. I don’t know if that was (inaudible) or not but – Borup: -- but I don’t have – De Chambeau: -- it maybe – farmers do kind of work together. They kind of know when one crop is – they do. It’s kind of the old ethic I guess the old – the way things used to be done. Borup: Well I don’t have anything scientific but I’ve lived in Meridian since 1965 so I’ve seen a lot of (inaudible) irrigate and I’ve done that in my time. There’s just a lot of runoff that comes from farming. De Chambeau: Yes. Borup: That’s the way you have to irrigate which is something you don’t see in a subdivision. You don’t have the runoff because there controlled. People that want to pay for more water than they need to on watering their lawns. I think as far as – I don’t know how it’s going to exactly effect the ground water but as far as runoffs I think you’re going to be better off than someone irrigating that property. De Chambeau: I’m also – probably shouldn’t say this but I’ve just became recently aware that you’re a Building Constructor and I just thought that was kind of interesting. Borup: How so? De Chambeau: Well I know you’re building houses across the street so this is probably an advantage to you to continue to develop is that correct? Borup: No. I don’t know why that’s really pertinent but – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 38 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) De Chambeau: Well I knew you would and I shouldn’t have done it but it does concern me. I’m wandering conflict of interest – is that? Borup: Well we’re real aware of conflict of interest and there have been times in the past there has been that I’ve stepped down. You need to be aware of what conflict of interest regulations say. Yes, we’re very aware of that, all of us are. If there is any, those individuals will step down at that time. De Chambeau: Yes, I know. I apologize I know it didn’t make any favor here but it’s probably why there’s no one else here to testify. People are discouraged. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Any final comments Mr. Brown? Commissioners? Shreeve: I move we close the Public Hearing. Borup: All three of them? Shreeve: All three of them yes do I need to read those? Borup: Just I think – just mention all three of them. Shreeve: I move that we close the Public Hearing for request for annexation AZ 00-023, request for Preliminary Plat PP 00-024, and a Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-052. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion second, all in favor? Any discussion? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Before we – Shreeve: I’ve got a couple of comments that certainly I would like to make. Two of the, probably in my opinion certainly of the biggest issues is the intersection coming off on Victory Road. I still believe and have driven that and have looked at that, that I think that provisions could be made to move that. I think in the future there could be some real headaches having basically three major intersections. Victory – or excuse me Thousand Springs is a big subdivision with lots of traffic. Tuscany Lakes with the school will also generate a lot of traffic. Then of course you’ve got the intersection of Victory and Cloverdale. Yes it’s true that there’s a blind section there on Victory Road but I think with some Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 39 construction. Even without construction there are minimal standards that certainly were acceptable during the Thousand Springs point. I don’t believe that that road is located in the best interest to the City nor of the surrounding communities – or excuse me property subdivisions. Secondly, is the school. I am concerned about the school location. Not only the location but also having it interior to lots. I know there have been discussions on that but again my opinion is that I don’t like it behind property. Those are basically the two comments that I have in relationship to this project. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: For the staff, in previous comments and of course this project or these three applications have been before us for a few months now. You’re comments were no comment until we get this, this, this and this. Are you totally satisfied now with what you have? I guess you know what I’m referring to. I looked back on your comments and you weren’t willing to make a recommendation because you needed something. Do you have all of the something’s? Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, from Public Work’s perspective we’ve addressed the sewer, we’ve addressed the water, we have computer analysis on both of those. That issue is addressed. I do – this groundwater issue is a very serious issue. I’ve had – I’ve done work with Associated Earth Science. I think that that’s the best approach is to have a Soil Scientist doing the analysis and working directly with the Civil Engineer on the job. I think that the – well that’s required. I think that the problem that’s out there is not unsolvable with the proper design. I think from our perspective the issues have been addressed. As far as a recommendation I don’t know if I want to go there. Centers: Well the only other thing I would add and in due respect to my colleague here I’m not prepared to second-guess the highway – the County Highway -- the Ada County Highway District I’m not prepared the School District who recommended the site and stood up here and raved about the site. I may disagree with it but I’m not prepared to second-guess him or the Highway District. That would be my only comment. Borup: I think I’ve got the same concern on the entrance. Did you have another comment Steve, I’m sorry? Siddoway: I was just going to say that all of the missing pieces of data that we’ve been asking for are now here. So it’s complete in that sense. We still maintain that we don’t want the school site wrapped around with housing. All of the issues that we’ve kind of gone over and over there’s a question in the annexation about all of the out parcels that it created – it creates an enclave of County property and whether that’s a good thing. It is complete. We still have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 40 concerns but all of those concerns are spelled out in the staff report. The application is complete and it’s up to the Commission to make your recommendation based on all of the facts. Centers: There again to reiterate on the School Districts or the school site that was you as a Planner’s personal opinion or your personal opinions disagreeing with the School District Representative correct? Siddoway: That’s correct. Borup: I guess I would have the same comment. I don’t know how we can second-guess the School District. We asked some pretty direct questions to him when he was here. I’m wandering how much thought ACHD put into a different location. I’m not sure. They’re requiring stacking tapers on both directions from that Victory entrance and that maybe part of the consideration too. I don’t know if that effects it much either way. Again we’ve got a fairly lengthy report from ACHD but that doesn’t mean we can’t make another recommendation separate from what they recommended. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: I don’t think we’ve seen a good report on how that grad would effect things either. It may be even more dangerous to be coming out of the subdivision on the street (inaudible) where you can’t see what’s coming either direction. I don’t know that we have the information – but that’s the same concern coming out of the subdivision going up hill not being able to see what’s coming the other way. Maybe that’s what they’re thinking on the taper lanes would help alleviate some of that stuff too. Centers: Well I was starting to say, they of course don’t appear here. They don’t give their vision to us but I know what they’re paid to do. They’ve submitted a report and as I said I’m not prepared to contradict them. Borup: I think didn’t we have the letter and then last time we had a separate letter in addition to the report where they had been asked that very question? I know it’s in this stack somewhere. Mr. Shreeve, you were going to – Shreeve: Well you know the thing is again even though ACHD studies it it’s their department, they’re the professionals and it’s their roads. Certainly you can prove anything by studies. Again, not having studied it quote unquote, but certainly having looked at it the grade I don’t believe, would be a major issue in coming right off of the Thousand Springs. Why make something worse? What I mean by that is I truly believe in a non-study fashion but having thought about it considerably these last couple of weeks that if you’ve got basically three major intersections you’re going to have children walking from Thousand Springs. You’re going to have a lot of commuting from the Thousand Springs area that -- I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 41 think that there’s going to be problems. If you’ve got school lights, you’re going to have school lights at three major intersections right there close to each other. To have the entrance from Tuscany come off of – adjacent to Thousand Springs, basically you would have one light. Now the blind hill now would be the time to take care of that blind hill period. Now would be the time to get in there and work out what needs to be happened for the benefit for Tuscany Lakes, for the benefit of Thousand Springs, for the benefit of everybody that runs up and down Victory Road. Borup: I was referring to the blind hill coming out of Tuscany. You’re going to be coming up out of hill there also. Shreeve: Well but it levels off when you come off – you’re required to come up to a plateau as you would enter on to Victory. I don’t foresee that that should be a problem. Borup: Yes that should be (inaudible). Centers: See that’s my point, Commissioner Shreeve. The Highway District knew Thousand Springs was there when they made their recommendation and their study. I just – they are the professionals not me. That’s just my view. Borup: I don’t know if I have any other comments at this point. That’s something you could certainly include in a motion Mr. Shreeve. Shreeve: Well and let me make another comment that Steve did remind me of quite frankly in terms of another thought is just simply the expansion. I think just expanding much further out and with the County enclave there is also a concern of mine in terms of managing the development of the City. With that I am prepared to make a motion. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: I propose that we deny the application for Tuscany Lakes. The request for annexation AZ 00-023, also deny the Preliminary Plat PP 00-024, and also deny the Conditional Use Permit 00-052 for the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. Borup: Do we have a second? Seeing none, that motion (inaudible) in lack of a second. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 42 Centers: I would move that we recommend for approval to the City Council the request for annexation and zoning AZ 00-023, 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership including all staff comments. That would do it on the – Borup: -- on the annexation. I take it Mr. Shreeve you’re not open to seconding that? I’ll second that. Discussion. We have a motion to second, any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAYE, TWO ABSENT Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: We would like to make a motion to approve and recommend to the City Council for approval request for Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership which is PP 00-024. The temporary access to remain until the City allows it to be removed which is located in the northwest corner of the said plat. I believe in lots 7 and 8. I couldn’t determine the block number but I think that’s the specific location. In addition the City shall do a water model after each phase to determine the sufficient water and including all of staff comments. Borup: Okay we have a motion. Mr. Centers would you be open to maybe some wording to perhaps have ACHD take a second look at the entrance on Victory Road? Centers: I would be very open to that. I would like to recommend that the Ada County Highway District take a second look based on the recommendations provided to this Commission over the many hearings, present those comments to the Commission and the Highway District and see what their views are. Borup: About moving the entrance. Centers: But I don’t want to recommend a location. I’m not the expert but I would certainly be open and I think the developer should be open to them listening and if they determine that it would be in their best interest to move then move it. That would be part of my motion if you’ve got that? Unidentified Speaker: Yes in general. Borup: I would second that then. Motion is second, any discussion? All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAYE, TWO ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 43 Centers: Mr. Chairman I would recommend that we make a motion and recommend to the City Council for approval CUP 00-052 request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned residential development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership with all staff comments and conditions. Borup: I’ll second that. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAYE, TWO ABSENT Borup: Okay all three. I just maybe – it’s going to be a few years before we get over to that entrance so I would – since it is starting from Locust Grove. I hope that would be enough time for ACHD to thoroughly look at the situation. Shreeve: That’s only hopeful thinking though. Borup: Well it all depends on the market place. That was the previous testimony. I do think having a subdivision there would be a help to ground water. I guess the other thing that influenced me was the neighbors testified that they are planning someday to develop their property also. They are planning on wanting to put in the subdivisions and it kind of works both ways. Centers: Well it’s contiguous right now. Borup: Well then that’s the other thing. Even though it is at the outskirts of the City it can be serviced with existing sewer lines. Some of the projects that we have that are close in don’t have the sewer lines and we’re not going anywhere on those. Item 8. Public Hearing: RZ 01-004 Request for a rezone of 8.29 acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision by John Goade – south of Troutner Business Park, between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 01-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Waltman Court Subdivision by John and Sandra Goade – south of Troutner Business Park, between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road: Borup: Next Item No. 8, Public Hearing for a request for a rezone of 8.29 acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision by John Goade south of Troutner Business Park. Also related that is a Preliminary Plat on the same project for 6 building lots and 1 other lot on the same project. I would like to open this Public Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 44 Hearing and start with the staff report. Have we seen this before us before? Was the previous one for – in fact what was the previous one for? Siddoway: This was previously before you to be annexed and zoned. It was given two different zoning districts. You can see the general commercial zone that’s existing along this side and the limited office zone on this side. It was – the zone that was given for the C-G was specifically drawn, not along a parcel line but with an intended parcel line was my – it was not platted at the same time. Now that they’re ready to plat they have a different configuration and – maybe it was platted but not recorded, that’s right. It was not Final Platted. The applicant may have more history than me on the previous application. It was previously annexed with both L-O and C-G and those zones followed their proposed lot configuration. They have now decided to revise that lot configuration and request that all of the property be zoned C-G or general commercial. The L-O was originally approved to provide for – let me go back – a buffer between the existing residential uses in this subdivision and the commercial use that would have been further away. ACHD the Ada County Highway District has since built a storm drainage lot on what would be the proposed lot 1, block 2 of this subdivision which abuts that existing subdivision and will provide a distance from the development within this subdivision. I guess we are in support of the rezone to C-G based on the buffer that currently exists if you will by providing some distance by that drainage lot. This is the only site photo I have. It was taken from the – well let me – Ten Mile Creek courses around the south side of the property line down here and the photo was taken from approximately this location looking across the site this way. Having said that, the area in the background behind the fence is the subject property with the slope going down the Ten Mile Creek and the foreground. This would be the proposed lotting of the plat. This is the existing subdivision. Lot 1, block 2 is right here that has the ACHD drainage pond or swale fuel. Just to highlight a couple of things from the staff report. Item 6, Page 2, there was an original condition on the Development Agreement when this was annexed that all uses were required to be developed into the Conditional Use process. Shreeve: Steve, sorry to interrupt you but I don’t believe we have your staff report. Siddoway: Okay. Centers: The one transmittal I have mentions annexation and zoning. We’re not annexing anything. Siddoway: Yes it’s a rezone and a plat. Centers: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 45 Siddoway: Yes, comments are dated April 30, 2001 from Shari Stiles and Bruce Freckleton. That’s all I can tell you. I can get you a copy. Borup: Well go ahead and continue with the report and maybe definitely hit the highlights. Siddoway: Yes the main highlights. One is that when it was annexed, the condition of the Development Agreement was that all uses in this subdivision would require a Conditional Use Permit. This was because we wanted to review anything that might be going in it next to that adjacent subdivision. Now that that’s already been developed that primary concern goes away and we support removing the requirement for separate Conditional Use Permits on each individual lot and would allow it to be developed in accordance with the requested zoning. To do that would require amending the Development Agreement however. I also want to point out there is a requirement for a multiple use pathway along the south side where Ten Mile Creek is. The plat does not show the easement for Ten Mile Drain. It does not show the easement for the pedestrian pathway and they need to be shown on the plat and the plat needs to be revised to show that. We have a couple of notes that need to be modified. Not particularly substantial but we want them to submit 10 copies of a revised plat at least a week prior to City Council. Our recommendation would be to approve the application with the conditions in our staff report even though you haven’t had a chance to read them. If clarification of the outstanding issues are resolved to your satisfaction -- those issues would be provision of the pathway along Ten Mile Creek. There is also – the Highway District storm drainage pond in a bit of an eye sore. It should have required a Conditional Use Permit under the existing Development Agreement but was put in without the City’s knowledge. We want to see it beautified in some fashion and whatever landscaping is agreed to tonight if the developer can agree to anything we can deal with specific Landscape Plans during a Final Plat process. We would like to address the beautification of that storm water drainage area. Bruce disappeared but I don’t know if there are any outstanding issues on water, sewer, storm drainage or pressurized irrigation. With that I’ll stand for now. Borup: Was there any contact with ACHD at all after the last application? Because I think that was discussed before that they – Siddoway: -- I don’t know. Borup: -- had not done any landscape so no one from staff contacted them as far as you know? Siddoway: I don’t know. Yes, I didn’t contact them and I don’t know if anyone else did. Borup: I don’t remember were you the one that was at the meeting last time? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 46 Siddoway: I don’t know what meeting you’re talking about. Borup: On the previous application for this property? Siddoway: No I was not here then. I don’t know when that was but I was not involved with that application then no. Borup: Because I thought something had been said about contacting ACHD to see if they couldn’t do something – Siddoway: -- I’m not – Borup: -- it’s been awhile though I don’t remember. We can come back to Bruce and see if he’s got anything else. Is the applicant here and would like to make a presentation? You don’t have anything to say at all. We would like to know at least whether you agree with the staff comments. Goade: John Goade and I reside at 5855 Becky Drive in Meridian. We have talked to the ACHD about getting a Licensing Agreement to landscape along their drainage, along Corporate. Borup: On their drainage as well? Goade: Right on their property yes. Centers: Are they agreeable, no problems. Goade: They seem to be but they don’t have to pay yes. Borup: So you’re saying you’re getting an agreement with them and you’ll be doing the landscaping? Goade: Yes that’s I guess what it comes down to. Borup: So you’ve got no problem with putting that in as part of the condition? Goade: Right, in fact I’ve talked to the Meridian City about it a little bit about it if they don’t get too carried away on their landscaping. Borup: Would that fall into the Landscape Ordinance? It’s kind of a different finger isn’t it? Siddoway: Yes. Not specifically because the requirement for those storm drainage lots to be graded at three to one and be fully – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 47 ***End Of Side Three*** Siddoway: -- as if they’re being incorporated into required landscape areas. Borup: So it’s not like the City’s saying if they can do something to make it a little more presentable and – Siddoway: There should be a buffer between land uses here adjacent to that residential. We like to beautify certainly the street Corporate which will be a fairly significant street as an extension of the existing Corporate Drive west of – or east of Meridian Road. I don’t know I don’t think – we’re not going to require that the entire thing be graphed as a swale but we do want to work with the developer to have it beautified at least around it. Keep the weeds down and – Borup: -- and were you wanting the Landscape Plan prior to going to City Council then or at what point? Siddoway: Well you know if we could get at least something conceptual before City Council then that would at least show the extent of what they’re thinking they can do that would certainly be helpful. Then we can deal with detailed review of species and things like that later with the Final Plat. Borup: Is that acceptable John? Goade: Yes what we had discussed was trees, maybe some rock with the drip system but not a grass. Borup: Something that would be easy to maintain? Goade: Something yes, because I’ll have to maintain it. Borup: So the two issues were, one – can you get a conceptual thing before it goes to City Council then for the staff? Goade: Yes I should be able to. Borup: Then also on the easement that was missing from the plats on the easement for the Ten Mile? Goade: For the walk path yes? Borup: Well wasn’t both the Ten Mile Drain itself and the pathway? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Yes an easement that would indicate both. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 48 Goade: Okay. Borup: I think the plat doesn’t even show an easement there. It labels it but it doesn’t – Goade: All that we’ve discussed is with the Parks and Recreation to put out the path. I wasn’t aware of the other. Borup: I think what staffs saying is that needs to be – since that’s intersecting the property the – Siddoway: -- the staff comment, I’m sorry Mr. Chairman, says the – there is an easement for the Ten Mile Drain that needs to be shown and actually should be platted as a separate common lot. That’s what we’re recommending. Borup: Do you have a copy of the staff comments? Goade: No I don’t. Siddoway: I seem to have the only copy. Borup: Are we going to get a copy tonight or can you come in (inaudible) in the morning? Siddoway: I can get a copy right now if you would like. Goade: Parks and Recreation was going to work with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on the pathway and then I was going to deed them the additional property they needed for the pathway. Borup: I think the staffs recommendation was just to get it on the plat. It should indicate that on the plat. Any other questions for Mr. Goade? Centers: Just one Mr. Chairman. The landscape buffer that you referred to. You’re talking next to Franklin Square Sub? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: I see trees drawn on the plat here. I don’t know who drew them but they’re there. Goade: I think those might be on the other side of the property line. Borup: Is that what that’s indicating? I think that’s existing trees that are on the other property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 49 Centers: So that wasn’t the big issue? Borup: But ACHD did they buy all of lot 1 (inaudible) a whole lot? Goade: Yes. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you John. If we have anyone else here who would like to comment or testify come on up. Townly: My name is Loren Townly and I live at 521 Waltman Lane which is on the south side of Waltman. I’ve got a few – I’m behind Mr. Goade. I’ve lived there since we built the house in 78. We’ve seen that area grow up. Mr. Goade’s taken very good care of that home, we know a lot of history of it. He’s a good neighbor, even though he doesn’t live there when they have the business there. They are very quiet. Believe me, my job I would be after them if they weren’t. I’ve got a few questions and I remember the last time I was here for the meeting they were talking about Corporate. Before they were going to abut to the field in here he had to put Corporate Lane through. Also, I’m interested about the bridge because there was talk about that and the landowners and the Highway Department and how they were going to go together and build a bridge to bring it down to Waltman Lane. Somewhere either on Joe Lorchers or Haddocks property there. I haven’t heard anything talked about on that or does that come up when you ask for CUP, I don’t know? Borup: As far as whatever was agreed on previously would still be what would apply here. This application was just rezoning the existing that was already there. Maybe we could still get some more information (inaudible) if the bridge was still planned? Townly: Well I was wandering how Corporate’s still coming down Waltman because there has been talk that they wanted to close the intersection down there at Meridian Street and 1st . Borup: I don’t know if – yes. I don’t know if we’ve got an answer to that. If ACHD’s gone to that extent. Does staff have any information on it? Siddoway: I talked to the other Planners in the office this afternoon. My understanding is that ACHD is requiring that the applicant pay for half of the bridge cost to cross the Ten Mile Creek. I was just looking for an ACHD report. Borup: I’m not remembering that they had any specific timetable on that. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: I think it was some – is that what your remembered too? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 50 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Townly: My memory was if it touched up there they had to be working on it. I don’t know if there was an agreement – Borup: -- on the bridge or on Corporate? Townly: On both. Corporate had to be in before they could start building it I understand that. It’s about the bridge. If there property touched up into it, it had to be worked on. I do know there’s an agreement between Mr. Goade and Mr. Faude and those people in the north about going in and helping pay for the bridge. I’ve got a copy of that. Borup: I think that’s what Steve was referring to. My recollection was that they weren’t sure if the bridge wasn’t going to go in until it was needed and ACHD would be determining. Townly: We talked to ACHD and they said they wanted to close that intersection. Borup: Well then that’s when it would be definitely needed I would think. Townly: I’ve got one other question. They talk about this pathway. Is this pathway on the south part of his property or the south part of the canal? Borup: The canal. Townly: Okay. Siddoway: No that’s not right. Borup: No, that is not right. Siddoway: The south part of his property. Borup: It’s not along the Ten Mile Drain? Siddoway: It is along the Ten Mile Drain on the south part of his property. On the north side of the drain, the south side of the proposed application. Until it reaches the bridge at which point it’s intended to cross over the bridge and follow the south side is my understanding. Townly: I talked to both of the other property owners and they had no knowledge of it. They own the property right – their lines right there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 51 Borup: Theirs is on the south side – yes so that’s probably why because that’s on the other side of the canal. Townly: Right. Okay, I’m done. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Okay seeing none. Centers: Mr. Chairman I would move that we close the Public Hearing for Item No. 8 and 9. RZ 01-004 and PP 01-007. Shreeve: I second that. Borup: Motion is second, all in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to make a motion that we approve and recommend for approval to City Council RZ 01-004, request for rezone of 8.29 acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision by John Goade, south of Troutner Business Park between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road including all staff comments. Borup: Have we got – Centers: -- we’re just talking zone there. Borup: Right okay. Shreeve: I second that. Borup: I’m sorry I missed that or did you already say it. Motion is second, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Next Item. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: First with the comment. I read staff comments on Item No. 4, Page 2 and I think they’ve covered all of the items they wanted addressed in there if we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 52 simply included staff comments. We’re taking care of on the easement, the pathway, et cetera, et cetera. Borup: Then Item – Centers: Item 4, Page 2. Borup: Right and where did we cover the landscaping around ACHD? Do you have that because I’m not seeing it right off? Centers: That’s there isn’t it? Did we miss it? Borup: There we go Item 6. Siddoway: It just talks about concern over of the (inaudible). Borup: No. 6. Siddoway: There’s not a specific comment about timing to get a plan prior to City Council. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend for approval to City Council, Item PP 01-007, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots and 1 other lots on 8.29 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Waltman Court Subdivision by John and Sandra Goade, south of Troutner Business Park between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road. Including all staff comments and specifically Page 2, No. 4, this to be completed prior to submission to the City Council and Page 3, Item 6 also to be completed prior to submission to City Council. Shreeve: I second that. Borup: I didn’t know if you wanted to expand that. On Item 6 I think staff just expressed a concern they didn’t say anything specific should be done. Centers: Well they have to get it addressed. They have to approve it prior to City Council don’t they? Borup: There wasn’t any – I think the applicant said that he had a discussion with ACHD and he was willing to do the landscaping at his expense which was not mentioned in the staff report. Centers: So you’re saying subject to staff approval of his submission? Borup: Well no, I just – I guess I was looking at saying that that was – that the applicant has committed to doing that and that they can have a Conceptual Plan Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 53 prior to – whether it needs to be prior to City Council prior to a Final Plat or which ever – Centers: (Inaudible) prior to City Council too. Borup: The staff was not that specific is all I was saying. I think maybe that needs to be added as part of the motion in addition to staff specific comments if that sounds alright with you. Centers: No that’s fine. Borup: Okay that applicant will submit a Conceptual Landscaping Design for the ACHD drainage ponds and coordinate that with staff. Centers: So included in my motion. You got that – Borup: Motion is second – did we have a second? Motion second all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 01-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties – 119 South Linder Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 01-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for commercial development with fueling stations, drive-thru, coffee shop, carwash and future retail in a proposed C-C zone for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties – 119 South Linder Road: Borup: Item No. 10, John are you going to use these? You are welcome – no on your plats? I realize you’ve got some changes to make but you’re welcome to have those if that will help you. Item No. 10 request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties at 119 South Linder Road. Along with that is also Item No. 11, request for a Conditional Use Permit for the same project. I would like to open both of these Public Hearings and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, this is the vicinity map of the application. It’s the lot that is crosshatched at the intersection of Franklin Road and Linder Road. This would be some existing site photos. The Hark’s Corner property from Franklin looking kitty corner from the property from the intersection of Linder and Franklin. Looking east and north (inaudible). The other corners are already zoned commercial, not yet developed. This is the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 54 proposed site plan it’s got a little – give you some overview of it in just a moment. Building elevations and – do you have this staff report dated May 1st ? Borup: We do have this one. Siddoway: The request is that the zoning be changed first of all, from R-1 which currently is in Ada County to C-C community commercial. The main issue with that is the Land Use Map of the current Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan designates it as single-family residential and not commercial which is the zone that is requested. The – I’ll come back to that issue in a minute. The Conditional Use Permit is requesting it for a service station with four fueling islands in this location out here paralleling Franklin Road. The service station and C-store being behind it. Fast Food restaurant it looks like the (inaudible) would be incorporated and the drive-thru for the running along the backside of the building. Freestanding coffee shop in this location with two drive-thru windows and a car wash in this location. They are proposing five separate lots; have detailed plans for just three of the five lots. On Page 3 there is an area that’s underlined. The request to have the property zoned C-C upon annexation rather than requesting a single-family dwelling zoning such as R-4 is not in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. However, there are various policies within the text that are harmonious and would support the requested zoning designation. There are several findings that need to be made in relation to the Conditional Use Permit. Again, the question be is it harmonious and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan is something that’s going to have to be addressed by the Commission. There will be question to Legal Counsel about the ability to zone it not directly in compliance with the Land Use Map. To move onto other issues the – if you go to Item D on Page 6, will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. They are showing the vacuums for the carwash abutted right up against the south property line. There is an existing residence south of this property and I’m not sure if the landowner’s here tonight but I assume he may be here to testify. We have concerns about noise, that that would generate and are suggesting that they be relocated. Also the same kind of concerns for the speakers on the drive-thru and where they will be located in relation to the property to the south. We want the applicant to address the hours of operation. We do not feel this location would be appropriate for a 24-hour operation. That should be addressed by the Commission. That issue comes up in Item G on Page 7. Then getting into the site-specific requirements, along that south property line the current Landscape Ordinance would have a requirement for a 25 foot landscape buffer between the proposed commercial use and the existing uses. I believe the applicant will be proposing tonight a modification through an alternative compliance where he will provide buffering but reduce that width. Shari Stiles, earlier in the report has suggested that this application should be processed as a Planned Development and some additional fees are due. Through that Planned Development process we do have the ability if the Commission sees fit to modify such conditions without a formal variance. The trash enclosures and the vacuum base both Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 55 should be relocated so they don’t encroach into the landscape buffer that is provided along that south side and then trees added. Item 3, a six-foot masonry fence along the entire southern property line is what staff report says. I’ve heard discussions about that going to eight feet. Eight feet would be allowed by the requested zoning if it’s approved. I will allow – have the applicant address the specific height of that. They need to provide additional trees specifically in the street buffers to come into compliance. They will need to submit a plan sign program with Planning and Zoning. Depending on – we will need on Item No. 6, I’m still on Page 8, the revised – we are requesting several revisions to the Conditional Use Permit and a revised site plan based on those needs to be submitted prior to City Council. There is a need for an additional trash receptacle next to the coffee kiosk. I’m going to skip some and go down to Item 11 on Page 9. There is some RV parking show and we want to make sure it’s not for overnight use. It’s simply for patrons of the commercial establishment. Again, Item 12, the hours of operation comes up again we want that to be addressed. Item 14, since lots one and two of the proposed subdivision do not have any proposed uses we suggest requiring those lots to develop under the Conditional Use process so that City can do a detailed review of those. Then skipping to Page 11 the recommendation. The second paragraph under the recommendation, we agree that the property should ultimately be zoned for a use other than single-family. Staff agrees that it’s suited for commercial purposes at this location but we want to make sure that Due Process is followed in making such a change in light of the Comprehensive Plan. The third paragraph raises the issue of, if we approve one zoning change request that is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan does that set precedence and encourage other developers to try the same thing. We just need to think about the precedence of the issue. I’ll let Legal Counsel address the specific legality issues of the Comprehensive Plan and stand with that unless Bruce has anything. That’s all we have. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Just to clarify that the eight-foot buffer you’re talking is on the south side of the property? Siddoway: That was an eight-foot tall masonry wall. The required landscape buffer width is 25 I believe. Borup: On the south. Siddoway: Yes. By providing a wall you may have a case for reducing that. Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant or the representative here to come forward? Van Hees: My name is Larry Van Hees I reside at 8870 North Gadwall Lane in Garden City, 83714. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 56 Borup: Mr. Van Hees I would like maybe you to try to address the staff comments and let’s leave the zoning map issue till last and maybe get through the other items first. Would that be acceptable? Van Hees: That’s fine. Borup: I don’t know if you’ve got any comments on – have you had a chance to review the staff report? Van Hees: I have. Borup: Any comments on that or any of the – Van Hees: Well I’m a little bit concerned about the 25 foot in the back. We’re given 25 – we’re 250 foot deep and we have a 25-foot landscape strip along Franklin Road and the same along Linder Road. As far as the additional trees that staff talked about, you tell us how many trees and we’ll put them in. We want it to look as good or better than you do and that’s not a problem. To give up another 25 foot we’re squeezing like mad to get good traffic flow through that site. Borup: What’s the width of that buffer now? Van Hees: They wanted 25, we’re eight feet now. Most of the way – Borup: I don’t think the plat indicates that’s why I – Van Hees: I think it is eight feet wide. We agreed to put in a masonry wall there from the very beginning because we felt it was very important for us to dampen the sound. We specified we were going to do it six foot. The owner of that home that is to our south which is our family home, that was where I was raised but the owner is here, Tom Roam and he’s going to speak a little bit later. I talked with him today, he would like that to be an eight-foot wall and we’ve agreed to that. That’s not a problem if it will help a little bit with both the sound ending and the light glare. Borup: And Steve you were saying if it’s a PUD then we can approve the change to an eight-foot wall? Siddoway: The Zoning Ordinance allows for eight feet – up to eight feet in that zone, in the requested zone. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 57 Van Hees: If we’re hearing in a PUD and it specifies that you need another 185 dollars I do have a check here if you would like to collect tonight. I want to make sure that – Centers: -- well I have a question too. Excuse me. Would that also apply to the 25-foot landscaping buffer on a PUD situation? Siddoway: Yes, the benefit to the PUD which may have been Jerry’s question is that we can toy with some of the standards without a formal variance if it is a Planned Development. Borup: The other question I need to ask is the other choice would be – Van Hees: -- we’re talking about the 25-foot buffer – Siddoway: -- the 25 feet would be required along the back by the letter of the law in the current Ordinance. Yes and through the Planned Development if the Commission is happy with the proposed alternate that could be done without a formal variance under the Planned Development process. Borup: So the only reason to go through the Planned Development is just for that southern buffer? Siddoway: No. Borup: There are other reasons too? Siddoway: No, that’s – I don’t know specifically why Shari had requested that it be done as a Planned Development. I can’t answer that. Borup: Can we do a variance to that without going through PUD? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: City Council – I mean we can recommend – Siddoway: Yes. Borup: But it will be a separate variance hearing? Siddoway: It would be a separate variance hearing with – at City Council if it went to it as a variance. Borup: Do they need to make a separate application for a PUD or can that be done tonight? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 58 Siddoway: It’s basically done. All that it’s missing is a few extra (inaudible). Borup: Don’t worry about that part that will take (inaudible). (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: I don’t think money’s the issue Larry. Van Hees: Okay. Borup: Not at this point. So you’re saying that (inaudible) be done it could proceed on that basis? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Okay that’s what I wanted to clarify. Centers: You’re talking about the 25 foot some compromise and then go with the variance on it, is that what you’re talking about Mr. Chairman? Siddoway: I’m saying it wouldn’t require a variance. Centers: If you went with a PUD? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Now do you remember where I interrupted you at? Van Hees: I’m not sure. A question on the additional trash receptacles at the coffee kiosk. Are you just talking like maybe nice looking trash cans there for people to throw things in or – I don’t – Borup: -- yes they’re not talking about the big collection ones. Van Hees: I mean we would provide that anyway but I didn’t really understand what – Borup: No I think – Siddoway: That’s all we’re talking about. Borup: So you’re saying you are agreeing with the staff comment on that? Van Hees: Now the RV parking I think they misunderstood what we meant RV parking. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 59 Borup: Well they just want to clarify that’s all. Van Hees: Yes, well what we’re talking about is when large vehicles come in and they want to go into Arctic Circle when the man that owns that is going to be right in that (inaudible) right here. We want to make sure that we can get as many people packed in there and we need places for them to park and that’s what those are there for. If we catch somebody camping out in that place at night I’m sure we’ll have a word with them okay. Hours of operation? We’re anticipating 18 hours, six through midnight. It’s a possibility we could go five to midnight, we would wait and see what the morning traffic is if it warded it. Centers: Excuse me, all businesses? Van Hees: No. I want to clear one thing here because this is a modern day and everything’s run with computers and satellites and all of that. Twenty-four hours a day somebody can come in and go to the pumps swipe a card and fill up. Is that authorized – is that a problem. I now they’re doing it all over and that’s what we plan to do. Twenty-four hour day gas fill up if they have the correct cards. Now as far as Item 13, which is the alternate methods of carwash warning systems, speaker systems like a telephone or whatever to try to keep it as quiet as possible. In my talking with Mr. Roam today, I just let him know that we’re going to do our best and not make it a real noisy place. I’m not sure what we can do to eliminate the noises of the operation. There will be some noise but we’re hoping that our eight-foot wall will buffer out a lot of that. We will be definitely be using state of the art in whatever we do as far as the equipment and all. I would just like to – I don’t know if I’ve covered all of these. Do you have any questions because I have just a little bit that I want to say? Borup: Did you want to address the vacuum locations? Van Hees: You know what I don’t have a problem with them. I think maybe when Mr. Roam comes up he wants to talk about it a little bit because I talked with him about moving them. He’s concerned – he thinks maybe that where they’re at is the best up against that eight-foot wall and for a fact – Borup: So the noise won’t come up over it? Van Hees: Yes the noise might reflect away instead of being out further and buzzing. Then it has a tendency maybe to – Borup: -- go over the wall. Van Hees: -- to amplify I don’t know that it will. One thing I have told him is my lands if – if they’re terribly noisy we will try to find away to work it because we don’t want to be ugly neighbors. We want this to work. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 60 Borup: That thing was staff comment on revising the plans. I assume all of that’s acceptable? Van Hees: Yes and we’ll talk about that but I hope that would be a requirement. I hope it would be something that we could work out with the neighbors. I don’t think you have a problem where they’re at if nobody objects is that true? Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay do you want to address the – Van Hees: -- just a little bit. I spent all day preparing this I want to have an opportunity. Borup: I wanted to get the other stuff out of the way. Van Hees: You do good I appreciate that. I think you do a fantastic job. I just want you to know I am a Builder Developer but tonight I am here representing Van Hees Properties which is made up by members of my family. The property that we’re asking to be annexed was bought by my parents in 1946. My mother is 88 and her wheels are really bad or else she would be here tonight. She lives in Whitestone Estates. That’s one reason we did that subdivision because my sister and my parents – my dad was alive at that time wanted to move back out there on the farm. We did the development, my dad passed away and my mom lives there. She told me to not do anything to embarrass the family okay. I just want you to know that. Borup: She knows you real well doesn’t she? Van Hees: Thank you. We’ve never pushed to develop this ground. I want you to know in 1997 ACHD purchased the frontage from us on Linder and Franklin. At that time Jodie Graham appraised the ground. The other three corners were all commercial and they were all paid something like two and a half dollars a square foot to the ground. She said we’re residential we could only be paid I think it was 68 cents a square foot. We argued about it a little bit and we made some deals. One of the deals was that we got all of the utilities installed and whatever but she made a comment. She said why haven’t you rezoned, why aren’t you pushing. My comment to her was someday it’s going to happen and when it happens we’re going to be ready. Well I want you to know that in 1998 the world was widened. In April of 1999 we received a letter from Robert McQuaid. It’s almost like you’re being drafted. Greetings from your County Assessor. We’re just warning you your assessment’s going up. They said it’s going up from 40,000 dollars to 640, 000 dollars on four acres. You all have a copy of that letter. Pardon? Borup: They waited until after the road was widened. After they – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 61 Van Hees: -- yes they waited till after the road was widened. Well we kind of went up into a flap and we had several meetings. We argued and they refused to make any changes and I said fine. They sent me a letter to protest and I sent it in. I was going to go see the Commissioners. They contacted me and they said the Commissioners didn’t want to see me that they wanted it solved before I got there. It took a couple of meetings and we got the assessment lowered to 200,000. However, we were warned that it’s on yearly review they believe it is artificially low. They feel it’s time. They don’t’ care whether your Comprehensive Plan says it’s zoned right or not it still has that value. This was a real wake up call to us. It was kind of a message to us that we better get on the ball. Having it fenced, having horses in there and receiving 300 dollars a year is not going to pay our taxes. We decided we were going to put a business in there that would have return. We decided to name this complex Hark’s Corner after my father Harland. His nickname was Hark. In 1997 I wrote a letter to P and Z staff, you have a copy of that letter in your packet. I requested rezone at that time. I knew that the time was coming when we were going to do something. We’ve met as family and we discussed it. We tried to avoid what we’re facing right now. We talked to them on a constant basis. In 1999 I was told that the process was underway to do a new Comprehensive Plan, there was no question about the zoning and it was going to be adopted in the year 2000. I was assured it would be in 2000. We’re now in 2001 and it appears that it will not be adopted until this fall. I want you to know that a couple of months ago I was asked by staff, why didn’t I get into that wholesale one where you allowed people to make changes prior to putting the lock on so you couldn’t make any changes to the past Comprehensive Plan. I want you to know I never knew about that, nobody ever told me when it happened. Our letter was on file down there and they knew we wanted to rezone. They knew that sometime we were going to be hit but I was never given the opportunity to do that. I wasn’t really following it very well. I really felt that having written that letter that we should have had somebody down there being concerned for the fact whether we are going to be in here when you guys are the bad guys. In this packet it says something about we’re under the gun. I want you to know we are under the gone. We tried to avoid that we really did. I don’t like it that we’re in here in opposition. We’ve completed Preliminary Plans for our projects. We’ve put together a whole team, we have a management team, and we have the fast food restaurant all lined up and ready to go. We have a young fellow to move in there with a great cup of cappuccino if you like cappuccino or whatever for the morning fix. We work with the – there are some big changes in this alley that are happening and you probably haven’t seen them I haven’t seen them. Chevron and Texaco are merging. When they merge there is going to be some real changes and Shell Oil is going to be playing a big role in this valley. Shell is committed to putting their name on our station and help us financially with tanks, with the canopy and pumps. However I want you to know they put a constraint on it that it has to be done in a certain amount of time. We’re really not sure what that time is but they want us under construction by summer time and we’re really going to have to push to be there. That is the reason that we made this application prior to the change of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 62 Comprehensive Plan. I want you to know that when I did fill out all of this stuff and all of those massive documents that you have there and did all of that , that at that time we were still told that the Comprehensive Plan was going to go to Public Hearing in April of this year. That’s right that was last month and it’s being delayed , and it’s being delayed because there are some real changes out west in that section and to the intersection on Ten Mile Road. I want you to know that the last two days I’ve learned more than I ever wanted to know about Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Plans. I’ve read case law on lawsuits, the Supreme Court and I want you to know that I personally feel – I’m receiving a legal opinion that you have a right to vote in the affirmative tonight for us. I do – JoAnn Butler I would like to bring her up at this time and I would like her to give you her opinion and some facts that might help you to be able to vote on our behalf tonight. JoAnn if you would like to come up here. If you have any further questions for me I will do that. I had some big pictures I was going to show you but I was told by Steve over there that if I put them up you keep them and I don’t want to give you my big mounted one. Borup: Okay. Van Hees: I’m going to give these to – actually I’ve got big ones over there and I brought these and I’ll give each one of you one. I want you to know that this really, really is a very, very nice place. We’re not going to be selling this property. We felt it was a great thing that our parents did for us. I can take it back. If you wanted to keep it – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Okay Ms. Butler thank you. That was the question I had asked Larry a while ago. That’s what I as hoping to get around to is some legal precedence for this. Butler: Thanks. JoAnn Butler 101 South Capital Boulevard in Boise. Yes – and the two lawyers can get into this. As you can tell from Larry’s conversation we’re not really in opposition we just need some clarification on the Comprehensive Plan issue. Borup: I think you should offer them the staff report that staff has recognized both sides of this and they’re in favor of the project that they’re just worried about the legal aspect. Butler: Exactly. So what you’ve go there in front – one of the things that I passed out was just a summary not unlike what the staff did in how this project meets the various elements of your Zoning Ordinance for annexation, rezone and Conditional Use. The last page on attached I’ve got the Franklin, Overland, Five-Mile – I’m sorry the Franklin, Overland, I84, mixed use elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the goals and policies under the Comprehensive Plan. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 63 Those are some of the goals and policies under the Comprehensive Plan that promote mixed use, commercial in this area. In addition you’ve got the policies that staff mentioned in the report promoting commercial and mixed use all along this area. This area is already in the area of impact and of course the City made the legislative determination years ago that you were going to annex into the area of impact. It’s within the Urban Service Planning Area even under the proposed Comprehensive Plan where you propose to pull the area of impact in – or not the area of impact but the Urban Services Planning boundary in it’s still within that Urban Services Planning boundary and that makes a lot of sense because all of the utilities are there, and all of the facilities are there. The issue – the current Comprehensive Plan actually does designate this as commercial and that’s why I’m giving you all of these policies. Borup: The current Comprehensive Plan does? Butler: The current Comprehensive Plan does. The Land Use map which is a generalized Land Use Map sets it as single-family. I remember going through this stack in 1993 – Borup: -- what is it the Land Use Map part of the Comprehensive Plan? Butler: It’s one of 11 or 13 elements. What the case law says is that you have to take that in contact of the whole Comprehensive Plan and trying to impose a patter on it and say what are the goals and elements of the Comprehensive Plan Map. What the courts say and I will give you a quick couple of citations in a minute, is that you cannot zone based on the Comprehensive Land Use Map because that would elevate the map to that of a Zoning Map and it’s not a Zoning Map. The courts are real clear that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide for the City and that the plan can’t be elevated to that level of zoning law. I will give you a couple of quotes on that. In fact we are in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan because what the courts say and for Larry the case is stemmed from back in 1984 where he had Bone vs. City of Lewiston and Taylor vs. Board of County Commissioners which is a 1993 case and the most recent statement of this was the 2000 case out of the Supreme Court Yarudia vs. Blaine County. What they say is that when you interpret your – the request to rezone in light of the Comprehensive Plan our case law and we’re fortunate in this state because we’ve got this (inaudible) legislation of the state which says you plan first and you zone based on your plan or in accordance with the plan. What the cases say is you define in accordance with the plan as a factual inquiry to whether the requested rezoning that Mr. Van Hees has put forward tonight, reflects the goals and takes in – of the Comprehensive Plan and takes into account those factors in the Comprehensive Plan in light of the present factual circumstances surrounding the request. That’s a quote out of Taylor. So what we’re looking at is the Comprehensive Plan, not in 1993 but in 2001. What the Comprehensive Plan says – 1993 says this whole area should be mixed use, commercial, retail. The factual circumstances in 2001 today are you have got a proposed Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 64 Comprehensive Plan including a map which continues what you said in 1993, this should be retail and commercial throughout this Franklin area and your Comprehensive Plan Map has been brought into present factual, present day circumstances and shows us as commercial with all utilities there. If you look at – and Larry’s right we’ve been undergoing this review of the Comprehensive Plan for about 18 months so present circumstances show that he’s doing exactly what your Comprehensive Plan asked him to do in 1993, go towards commercial. The present circumstances indicate that – ***End Of Side Four*** Butler: -- yes I will try to get – Yarudia said that the court – this court has held that a Comprehensive Plan does not operate as legally controlling zoning law but rather serves as a guide. A guide and advice – read the letter wrong – advise as the local government agency is responsible for making zoning decisions. The board, in this case they were referring to the Board of County Commissioners of Blaine County. The board may refer to the Comprehensive Plan as a general guide. Given this distinction then they turn to the zoning and subdivision Ordinances. Basically it repeats what both Bone and Taylor did over the last 20 years indicating that the Land Use Map could only be used as a guide. Borup: Note and that was Idaho Supreme Court case. Butler: Yes Idaho Supreme Court. Then I will give you the exact opposite situation. The case in Bone vs. City of Lewiston was a case where a man came to the City of Lewiston and said the Comprehensive Plan Map says – let’s use single-family, says single-family. So I want my property zoned single-family. The court said that they did not agree and this was what the court said. They wouldn’t rezone the property based on the Comprehensive Plan Land Map because the overall plan was promoting something else and it talked about the fact that the map was just a single element. The court said adopting – in that case Mr. Bone’s interpretation would elevate the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map to the status of Zoning Ordinance. They wouldn’t go along with that result. What we have here is the exact opposite where the court in this case would be something where the court would recognize this as just one element . Then in light of present day factual circumstances I think that it make all sorts of sense and doesn’t open up this City to lawsuits. I appreciate the fact that staff is worried about the fact that you might open up Pandora’s box so let me address that real briefly. Each circumstance when somebody comes to you for annexation and rezoning is based on their own circumstances, their own facts and so could somebody else come and ask for annexation? Yes but you would have to look at what the Comprehensive Plan says for that particular piece of property and the request they’re making and make a determination at that point. It doesn’t – anybody can ask for an annexation at any time but it doesn’t necessarily open up Pandora’s box. I hope that answers and helps to clarify – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 65 Borup: I think so. In fact I think that’s with the – I think I would like to cut you off there and then maybe we could address other questions. In fact at this point do any of the Commissioners have any questions? I think that gave us some information we wanted to know. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify that hasn’t – Mr. Roam had indicated – come forward? Roam: Tom Roam and my house is 115 South (inaudible). Borup: And you’re the property right to the south of this project? Roam: Yes. You discussed a 25-foot buffer and you know – I guess from what – I don’t know as everybody else here – Borup: -- that was mentioned – that is in the – that’s in our present Ordinance. We realize that there’s difficulty with this site and that’s why I was saying there needs to be a revision. Roam: I would rather, personally since my property is next door and I’m the one that this impacts more than anyone else. I would rather see a wall – an eight foot wall for the sound, the noise, and the exhaust something to block me. A 25 foot buffer isn’t going to do me jack. Frankly, all of the noise is going to be there it’s going to do nothing for me. I want a wall. The reason I want a wall is for the noise, the light and the reason I want an eight-foot is frankly an eight-foot is harder to climb. I can get over a six-foot fence. Borup: That’s you. Roam: The reason – Centers: -- let me interrupt you, do you own the entire (inaudible) property on the south border of the entire property? Roam: The entire property yes. For me, it’s privacy, security, and noise is why I want a wall. The 25-foot thing just doesn’t – for me it doesn’t get it. I want the wall. Eight foot is fine in my eyes anyway. The next thing, as far as the vacuums go, that’s a real issue. Noise is a funny thing. Putting them – Larry had said they were talking about putting them up higher on it. I was thinking I don’t know the wall may just deflect that noise away from me which is – I’m interested in noise because my deck is where I like to have barbecues -- is out back there and I really don’t want to hear vacuums running all of the time. The more we can cut the noise down the happier I am. Obviously it’s going to make noise. I’m okay with that. During the day so what. I obviously don’t want – do the best we can or Larry can do the best he can with what he’s got to work with and cut the noise down as – which he says he’s going to do so I figure that is good. Borup: So you’re okay with that location then? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 66 Roam: Yes I mean who knows where the noise is going to be the best. I think – you put the vacuums up there and it’s like yes it might be better there. Is there some plan that tells you how noise travels and how a vacuum – nobody knows? My thoughts are reflecting off of the wall, if you’ve – Borup: -- rather than further away where it could come over the wall. Roam: Yes it’s going to bounce away from me maybe. Maybe it won’t but that’s my guess. Borup: We have had testimony that it does bounce off of the walls. Roam: Yes away from me which is what I was thinking. Let’s see the other thing I would like to see was – and I talked to Larry about it. I would like to see the wall constructed first before the rest of the construction goes on. The reason for that is that way I don’t have the dust. The rodents that are over there will make their home on my landscaping because they will go over as soon as the digging starts and there’s a lot of moles and I don’t want to have to fight more of them. I’ve been through this before. Plus just the noise and the dust and everything else if the wall was there first it would help as far as noise and during the construction so I would like to see that done first. The real important thing to me and I’ve brought some pictures is I’m really into landscaping and anyone who knows my house is – Larry and his family does – knows that I’m into landscaping. I brought some different pictures of – this is the picture looking at my house from his property and some trees. Centers: Would this be – Roam: -- this is the property – Centers: -- right on his property? Roam: Yes this is the property where it’s going to be built and this is my property line where the trees are. Centers: Okay. Roam: That’s this south boundary. Centers: So the wall would be right in front of the trees? Roam: -- in front of the trees. Shreeve: So where are you standing? On basically Franklin shooting across the property? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 67 Roam: Yes. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Roam: These trees of mine go along here and that shot is coming in this way. So the wall would be right here and there’s – the trees will be behind the walls. It’s still going to look good as far as aesthetic looks. It will help on the whole thing. These are just some more of the same side of the property. Centers: This says big concern is that because it’s a big tree? Roam: Yes it’s just – I like my lodge poles. Those are along my property and which brings me to my next concern. I want those lodge poles to stay. I realize that sometimes in construction they die and they get killed. Borup: How close are they to the property line? Is that what your concern is? Roam: They are right on it. They are within a foot of my fence. The lodge poles – Borup: So the question is how do you put a wall up? Roam: How do you put a wall up with a two-foot, digging down a couple of feet and not kill the trees? Good question. Borup: What’s the answer? Roam: That is a concern. I want the wall but at the same time I don’t want to lose my trees. You can put more in but great when I’m dead they’ll be big again. Oh wow, we really enjoyed them. I really would like to see these trees live. After talking to Mike, he doesn’t want to landscape in front of mine. If when digging, if you’re careful in constructing the wall that can be done. With anything over – a root anything over an inch in size you can put a – I don’t know what it’s called. This stuff on the roots – yes wrap and you be very careful you can keep the trees and not kill them if you’re careful. Which is what I would like to see. I would like to see my trees saved and I would like to see the wall there. Centers: How many trees are you talking about going around? Roam: Well you see in the pictures there, there is quite a few. If you – I’ve got a real good one there. That one, these lodge poles are pretty much on the line. These are quite a ways away these bushes here. The lodge poles are just right along the property line. There are rose bushes that go in between I don’t care about those, rip them out. They’re just wild roses and I could care less about those and they kind of go on both sides. The other concern I had was I do need Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 68 my irrigation. Larry had said that he was going to tile the ditch and the ditch comes across his property and I don’t want to – I’ve seen other people lose their irrigation water from construction going on next to them. I don’t want to lose my irrigation. I need my irrigation for my fields. Borup: You’ve seen others lose it permanently or just temporarily? Roam: Yes – no the construction comes in and the ditch doesn’t get put in and they don’t get their irrigation so I want to make sure I get my irrigation – Borup: That’s happened in this town? Roam: Yes, I’ve talked to people that have lost they said make sure you don’t lose your pipe. I talked to Larry and he said yes he was planning on piping that in. Let’s see – right hand turn. You had said from – somebody had told me I think it was at (inaudible) zoning the other day that they’re going to put like a concrete bar coming down so you can only make a right hand turn out of the back exit of the property on the – Centers: -- on Linder Road? Roam: -- on the other map. Where is the other one that was on there? There you go. Down Linder there – see the rear exit there? Borup: Yes that is what ACHD had on their report, that’s true. Roam: They are going to put a bar down. Van Hees: Can I make a comment to that. I think maybe this is a good time to do it if you don’t mind? Roam: Go ahead. Van Hees: ACHD when we went – then entrance down at the bottom, the one with the arrow and the one up right there, that one. They specified those were the only two that really served this spot. They wanted them both to be right in right out. If you look down on this other one, down here on Linder Road, if you go a right in right out – if you’ve got anybody coming down there in the neighborhood we’re trying to serve and come up that road they can’t turn in. They go up, they turn left on Franklin Road and they can’t turn in. I said (inaudible) so I hired a Traffic Engineer, Dave Split, worked for ACHD for years and he showed me six case studies where they took it to the Commissioners and the Commissioners changed it. He assured me that’s not a problem the Commissioners will change it. There will not be a divider on that road right there. There will be on Franklin Road but not on Linder Road. Does that make it – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 69 Roam: Well kind of but it was the opposite of what I was going to say. I didn’t mind the idea of the divider strictly because it causes people waiting to get in – they’re not parked in front of my house idling waiting to get in. You have to only turn right which your visibility would be real good to the right where – from the left I guess when you’re pulling out. Your visibility to the right isn’t that good. Borup: I think that’s ACHD’s concern that’s why they (inaudible) to do it. I think the other thing if you pull right they may be going down and turning around in your driveway so they can get back on Franklin. Roam: Exactly so now they’re going to – turn right around. It’s kind of a weird little thing there so I thought I would bring that up. Other than that the lights were – and I talked to Larry about the lights. The lights were the only other issue. Since they put in the traffic light and the lights at the corner I’ve noticed that I can lay there in bed and watch the red, green and yellow hit my walls. I’m thinking wow this is really neat. I was kind of concerned about lights and I’ve been told that they can do something so I have a little concern there that they are not focused on my house lighting it up at night. I like being able to switch them on and off. Other than that I guess that’s it. Centers: Next question, how do you feel about the hours of operation? Roam: Well you know I don’t know. I didn’t even think about it until you guys brought it up tonight. I like the idea that it’s closed a little bit. That’s one of the concerns of the eight foot wall was like I said, security from it. The noise in the middle of the night I wouldn’t like the idea of two, being open at 2:00 and having a bunch of clanging going on. I usually stay up fairly late so I don’t know. How much noise is there I don’t know? I’ve never lived next to one so I don’t really know how noisy it’s going to be. I’m not a biggy on noise I can’t hear that well anyway so – Centers: Well you know really if you feel that way – you’re the only adjoining landowner? You’re the one that the developer has to satisfy in my opinion. I had a question – that’s all I have. Thank you. Roam: Done with my pictures or are you (inaudible)? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: You had a question? Centers: Yes maybe staff – the other three corners I think -- a Legal Counsel or it was referred to either the other three corners are already zoned commercial? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 70 Siddoway: If you look up on the wall this would be Hark’s Corner is proposed. The property across is zoned C-N, neighborhood commercial. The property up here is zoned C-C, community commercial and the property across Franklin Road is zoned I-L, light industrial. Centers: Thank you. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Any other questions from Commission? Mr. Van Hees? It sounds like the only concern that you hadn’t addressed was the wall before starting construction. Van Hees: I (inaudible) if that’s first Tom you’ve got it. That’s easy. If we’re going to put it in we’ll just make it the first thing. Centers: And around the roots. Van Hees: Well now when it comes to his trees and I looked at Tom today and I said Tom I want to tell you something. When you dig down, when you put a wall in we’ve got to go two foot below frost, below the ground for frost. We’re going to be digging down there and I’ll do my best to save his trees but I told him there were no guarantees. Borup: Have you heard of that of a coating the roots? Van Hees: That was another question, do we have to have a tree doctor on site while we’re -- see I think they were looking for work for this (inaudible). If I takes that I guess we’ll do it. Hey I have a question. What are the hours of operation of the restaurant? Unidentified Speaker: The latest we would be open is until 11:00. Van Hees: Yes 10 to 11 so it closes a little earlier, the drive thru cars from the Arctic Circle. Borup: So the drive thru is going – 10 on weekdays and 11 on weekends? Van Hees: It kind of depends on how many people are coming through and I think that (inaudible) the market but usually that’s – Borup: So just the C-store would be the only – would be till 12:00 is all then? Any other questions from Commissioners? Shreeve: Yes let me just make sure I understand this so basically we would be eliminating then a buffer zone in lieu of a wall? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 71 Borup: Well no the – Centers: -- we haven’t done that yet. Borup: The buffer zone would be as drawn on the plat. We would be reducing it from 25 feet to eight feet. It would still be there and the mitigating part would be putting an eight-foot wall to allow the reduction. I would have to agree with Mr. Roam I would rather have an eight foot wall then an extra 25 feet of grass or an extra 17 feet of grass and a few trees in there. Any other questions, Keven. Shreeve: Well I don’t know if it’s appropriate or not but just the thought that crossed my mind is possibly moving the fence and not putting it right on your property line. Moving it, offsetting it another foot or two just to get that much further away from the trees. Van Hees: Well let me tell you something 250 feet, and all of the stuff that we’re trying to put in there and every inch of that property is really, really important to us. I want you to know that. Borup: Excuse me – Keven are you saying reduce the eight-foot? Shreeve: Right. Borup: Just move the fence but don’t move the building or anything else. Just have less buffer area? Shreeve: Right. Borup: But part of the buffer area being on the other side of walls is technically all it would be? Shreeve: Technically, right. Borup: Larry he was just saying still keep your eight feet but move the fence over. Van Hees: Oh, and move it within that? We might be able to – even put a job in it there around his trees. I don’t know I would have to look at that. I don’t want to say yes to that. Borup: That would give you six feet of landscaping on your side of the fence rather than – Van Hees: I don’t know exactly where the pin is. Now Tom said he knows where the pin was at the time I don’t know if he could locate it now. He says it’s on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 72 fence line there. You know I’m kind of mad at him for planting his trees so close to my line. Borup: Is he the one that planted them? Van Hees: I’ll tell you if it doesn’t hurt our traffic flow and all moving that fence over I’m not going to complain about that. I want you to know that the entrance there that’s down towards his property is real close to the boundary line to come in there. If we put that in there – and I’m a little bit concerned about an eight-foot fence and how close we are going to come. He would like it to be right to the property line. That hardly works when cars come and they have to look. I’m not sure that we would even want that fence to be there and that we might want to stair step it down or something to get it low enough so we can see to the right or it’s very unsafe. Borup: (inaudible) in the City require that anyway? Van Hees: What’s the setback? Siddoway: Twenty – well there is a site triangle. Yes, fences have a 20-foot setback requirement. Van Hees: That’s what I told Tom today. Tom said I would like have it to the lot line but 20 foot would help you for a few of those trees to save their lives. Centers: Well you would still have the wall. Siddoway: You can put a four-foot. Van Hees: Four foot high? Siddoway: Yes I think it’s four. Van Hees: Can you see over a four-foot? You’re (inaudible) say three. Siddoway: Yes. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: There you go. This is a three feet. Borup: So three feet? Van Hees: Tom and I will work this out. He’s a big, tall and strong guy and I’m not going to arm wrest him but we’ll talk it over. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 73 Borup: Well but the site triangle thing is something you’ve got to – it’s not an option. Van Hees: I want you to know that he and I are not going to have a problem. We’ll work it out. If he’s willing to give a little bit I am too. We’ll get it done. Borup: And Steve as far as staff or City concern is there any problem with building a fence? He can still have his eight foot buffer there it does it matter where the fence is within that buffer? Siddoway: No, I – as long as there’s probably five feet maintained for areas where those tree requirements are. At least five feet for those – Borup: So it sounds like you could move that wall a couple of feet and not have to worry about it. Van Hees: I might be able to move it in. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: That would give you – loan you enough for the landscaping on your side of the fence. Shreeve: Just don’t dip into his property get more. Van Hees: We do want to make the landscaping there kind of look good and I’m not sure what we’re going to do (inaudible) trees and maybe some shrubs. I just want you to know that we are going to retain ownership of this place and we want it to look pretty sharp and we’re going to landscape it nice. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Van Hees? Thank you Larry. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman if I might I just wanted to maybe address the lighting issue. That is something that we’re going to be taking a pretty hard look at. I would like to – we’ve been requiring downcast lighting and canopy lights is one thing that we’ve had problems with. Borup: For some people Van Hees: What do you mean when you say canopy lights? Freckleton: The lights that are mounted under the canopies. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 74 Freckleton: No I’m not saying don’t have them I’m just saying some of these canopies we’ve had trouble with the type of lighting that they’ve used. They’ve used a surfaced mount not a recess can. Van Hees: What recess cans are pretty good, you’re saying (inaudible)? Borup: There’s a couple of examples we could show but – Freckleton: So what I’m saying is I guess we would like to take a look at your lighting plan when you get that developed and we’ll work with you on that. Van Hees: Okay. Borup: I think the example is the Chevron there on Fairview. That’s what we’re saying we don’t want. The one by Fred Meyer. Unidentified Speaker: I wasn’t going to say that, JoAnn’s here. Borup: Anyone else testify on this? Okay come on up quickly we’re getting late. Hall: My name is Jeffrey Hall I am the GM for Hark’s Corner. There are two things I want to address. Number one is staff’s recommendation or I should say concern about the vacuums. I have talked with the manufacturer and we can put enclosed cement barriers around that and still use the vacuum so they’re sound proof. The only thing you are going to hear is a little air out the nozzle and that’s about it. So on that that can be taken care of if there is a problem and if Tom is hearing some excessive noise then we’ll take care of that. The other concern is the hours of operation. We have done extensive studies and we pay a lot of money to have these studies done. We are looking at , like we said 18 hours of operation. We would like to close at midnight and reopen at five or six a.m. in the morning. That is for the convenient store only. Keep in mind though that they can come in as we said earlier for fuel sales. Fuel sales will be open 24 hours a day and they can swipe their card and do fuel sales so you still will have cars coming in and out of the property. Also we have an option of closing down the carwash throughout the evening hours and we may exercise that option because it is very costly to have it open and have it lit throughout the night. So we may end up closing that throughout the night also. We just want to address that and make sure that you understand that this operation of the fuel sales is 24-hour operation. Borup: Yes we understood. Thank you anyone else? Thank you Commissioners? Are we ready to move on? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 75 Shreeve: I make a motion that we close the Public Hearing for AZ 01-007 and Item No. 11 the Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-011. Borup: Do we have a motion? Centers: Second, excuse me. Borup: And a second, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Are we ready for a motion or do we need some discussion first. Shreeve: Well just one more question to ask our attorney here just to make sure that what their attorney has said works and that all is clear. Moore: Commissioner Borup, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup and I spoke about this and basically we said exactly the same thing that she said. You cannot use your Comprehensive Plan as the only reason to disapprove something. If that’s your only reason you’re going to get shot down. Supreme Court has done it before and they’re telling you that’s a guide it’s not written in stone. Borup: And likewise the map is to be intended as a guide. Can’t we also make in the motion just for future clarification that this would no way endorse any future rezone requests that was not in compliance with the – I don’t know that it needs to be – Moore: -- if you’re asking for a legal opinion that’s not necessary. That’s your decision as a Commission and it isn’t necessary to put it in a motion on one item. Centers: I have a question for staff. Do you need the hours of operation included in any motion for any approval of the CUP? Siddoway: That is what we were suggesting. You can choose to send that on without that in which but yes that is what we were asking. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Yes maybe just for clarification are we considering this as a PUD application also then? Van Hees: Do you want my check? Siddoway: It is noticed as a CUP, it’s on the agenda as a CUP I guess – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 76 Borup: I meant a PUD, I’m sorry. Siddoway: Yes but it’s noticed as a CUP I would state it’s a CUP I guess. Borup: So we don’t need to worry about the other then we can still go – well I already asked that question once I’m sorry. I said that the buffer setback stuff can be handled? Siddoway: Yes so look at legal, I don’t know. Borup: -- have a Conditional Use? Siddoway: Yes if it’s a Conditional Use Permit it should request a variance? Moore: Yes the only thing we need is you’ll have to apply for a variance to cut down your 25-foot area. Borup: Yes so that needs to be applied to City Council? Moore: Right exactly. Siddoway: (inaudible) easy to do. Centers: For a variance to the Landscape Ordinance. Borup: Well it’s not just a Landscape Ordinance it’s the Zoning Ordinance I believe is more of the concern, the reduction. Siddoway: The reduction is in the Landscape Ordinance. Borup: That was the landscape not the Zoning Ordinance? Siddoway: The 25 feet, yes. Borup: That was the landscape? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Which is the simplest – that sounds like that’s the simplest way to go. Keep it like it is and apply for a variance rather than going as a PUD. Siddoway: Unless legal thinks we can change the app to a PUD, I don’t know what else we can do. Borup: I thought (inaudible) we could consider this as a PUD application. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 77 Siddoway: That is what the staff comments from Shari says and that’s all I know. Borup: That this could be considered as a PUD already. Siddoway: (Inaudible) yes. Legal Counsel is shaking their heads no I would say – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Moore: (Inaudible) suggestion is that it be changed to a PUD which (inaudible) is for a Conditional Use Permit. Centers: If we did that we would have to send him back and then he would have to come back. Moore: He would have to come back for a variance. Borup: Well the variance would be at City Council anyway. Moore: Exactly. Borup: I don’t know if I helped or confused things there. You were about ready to make a motion Commissioner? Shreeve: I recommend approval of AZ 01-007 request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties with all staff comments and as noted. Centers: Second. Borup: Well staff comments was a little ambiguous on – well no, their comments are all pertinent I’m sorry. It’s in their recommendation that they got wishy- washy. Motion is second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Item No. 11? Shreeve: Request approval of CUP 01-011 request for a Conditional Use Permit for commercial development with fueling stations, drive-thru, coffee shop, carwash and future retail in a proposed C-C zone for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties with all staff comments as noted. Including an eight foot wall to the south, that the noise be mitigated, that the wall be constructed, the eight foot wall be constructed before construction of the site and the irrigation Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 78 remains alive. That the lighting meets City standards and of course that you apply for a variance of the Landscape Ordinance on the 25 foot offset or buffer. Unidentified Speaker: Where were you going to put the wall? Move it in two feet or were you going to put it around the roots? Borup: I think we can leave that up to them. Other than they need enough area for their landscaping to be adequate. Shreeve: Probably with the location of the eight-foot wall to include the motion of just that the property owner – that the two property owners work it out and staff approval. Borup: I think I covered that. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman may I interject to clear up two things? One based on the discussion I don’t think we want to approve it with the staff comment on the Planned Development. We probably should strike that one if we’re saying – Borup: -- I thought we did – we didn’t – Siddoway: No you did. Borup: -- oh that staff comment you want – Siddoway: -- that comment – if we’re sending it through as a CUP and requiring that they get a variance that comment should probably be stricken. Shreeve: You don’t remember what number that was? Centers: No. 10 on Page 9 is one that I believe was mentioned earlier as well – oh yes on the first page, second paragraph as well but in the requirements yes it would be No. 10, Page 9. The second issue would be, I don’t know if you specifically mentioned supporting the reduction from 25 feet to eight feet along the back but that should probably be mentioned specifically as well with inclusion of the wall. Borup: So noted. Centers: And then the hours to be – Item 12 on Page 9, staff comments just like that? Borup: Well we can – that is on the record do we need to put it in the motion? Centers: Yes I think that’s fine. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 79 Siddoway: Yes maybe just say hours of operation shall be as testified during the hearing if that’s what you desire. Shreeve: Operation shall be as testified – operation hours. Borup: Have you deleted Item 10 then? Shreeve: Then lets delete Item 10, Page 9 and probably all other references to a Planned Development that may exist in staff comments. Borup: Did we get – (inaudible) specific, oh? Moore: Chairman Borup I have a question. Are we just eliminating Item 10 on Page 9 or are we eliminating the entire Page 9? Borup: Just Item 10 on Page 9. Moore: (Inaudible) I’ve got it now. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: There was verbal references to it I don’t know if there’s any other written or not. Then did we get the reduction from 25 to eight in there somewhere? Shreeve: Yes and basically to restate a reduction of the buffer from 25 to eight feet. Borup: On the south property line? Shreeve: (Inaudible) for a variance, right. Borup: Which is also the same as submitted by the applicant that coincides with the site map. Centers: I second that. Borup: Mr. Moore is that – any question on the motion? Moore: No I think I’ve got all of the conditions. Borup: Okay all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you and you understand Mr. Van Hees that you need to apply for a variance? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 80 Van Hees: I understand. Would you remind me of that when I’m in there? Thank you very much I do appreciate you. Shreeve: That’s the nicest neighboring neighbor that we’ve seen for a long time. Siddoway: Larry? Borup: Mr. Van Hees? Siddoway: Mr. Van Hees could you approach the staff table please? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 01-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with a drive-thru in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East Fairview: Borup: Let’s – if we can move these next few along. Commissioners are we ready to see if we can move along a little bit faster? Item No. 12 is a Public Hearing request for a Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with a drive-thru in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Moxie Java. In interest of time let’s go ahead and start with the applicant’s report and then we’ll come back to staff report if we need to. Is the applicant here? Come on up. I realize we’re doing this a little bit backwards but we’re ready to move along. Mason: Amen to that. I’m Todd Mason I’ve got the Moxie Java at 1800 North Locust Grove. I reside at 1566 Shenandoah in Boise. I’ve never done this before so you might have to help me out a little bit here. Borup: The first question would be have you had a chance to review the staff report? Mason: Yes. Borup: Any concerns or questions with any of that? Mason: Well I don’t know if you’ve got it or not but I submitted 38 new blueprints this morning. It’s got a single drive –thru on it and that was a lot of the concerns with the staff report was of the double drive-thru of taking up too much room. I would rather go with the double drive-thru but if we can only get through as a single drive-thru that’s what we’ll do. I have a double drive-thru down on 1st Street and it would really run a lot smoother with a double drive-thru. You’re not going to have near the stacking, you’re not going to have near the waiting time because you can get people through a lot faster on a double drive-thru versus a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 81 single drive-thru. It really, technically doesn’t take up that much more room. One of the comments it said a normal vehicle is seven to eight feet wide. I think it’s probably more like six to seven feet wide and our building is eight feet wide. We could cut that down a foot too so that would get it to, instead of eight feet wide get down to seven feet wide. That makes up two of the feet and I think we’re only three feet short on that south berm. Then we’re only arguing over a foot. As far as the – it says that the – on the three parking stalls for the employees. We never have more than two employees on at any given time and that’s just a short time in the morning from 7:00 in the morning until 10:00 in the morning and that’s Econo Lube’s and everybody else’s slow time. That’s the other thing that you’ve got to remember that our busy time is from 7:00 until 10:00 in the morning. About 75 percent of our business is done before anybody else’s business is done. I didn’t really understand staff’s comment on the backing of the – or somewhere. It said 100 feet on the 100 feet it backed up into Fairview. It doesn’t even come close to backing up into Fairview. I didn’t understand that. Borup: You just said it needed a minimum and staff said it’s got plenty. Mason: Okay, was I right then? Borup: Yes. Their concern was if there were more than three cars and stacking. Mason: Like I said we’ve – I’ve owned the one down here and we never – where we can run two one on each side a double thru, we never have more than three at a time and that’s very rare to have three at a time. Now if you’re going to run in – if you’re going to do a single drive-thru then the odds are pretty good that you are going to end up with three to four a lot of the time. Borup: Will those essentially (inaudible)? Mason: Yes. Borup: And we still may have some other questions we started this a little bit – Mason: Yes that’s fine. Borup: -- Steve we went ahead and started his testimony while we finished up the others. Why don’t you go ahead and give your report. Siddoway: I may be able to clear up some of this with a bit of the staff report. Borup: Yes his main concern and comments was on the double access and single access. Go ahead did I have a – yes I opened the hearing let’s go ahead and do the staff report now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 82 Siddoway: I assume everyone knows where it is by now on Fairview in front of Econo Lube and Tune. Mason: The other thing those parking place that for the Econo Lube that we’re taking out none of those are ever being used. There’s never anybody that ever uses them. If they need those type of parking places they actually park the cars in the back behind the Econo Lube because they’ve got a lot of parking back behind also. Siddoway: Econo Lube sits on the back part of the lot here, Schuck’s is next door and D and B Supplies here. Is it Elm Tree Plaza that is adjacent on this side, (inaudible), Fred Meyer being in this location. This is the revised site plan that did just come in today. It addresses many of the concerns that were the recommendations for our – the reasons for our recommendation of denial in the staff report. I believe we could support this configuration with following comments. On the parking, if you’ll look at that on – it’s Item 2, on Page 2 of the staff report. There is a requirement for five reserved spaces. They’re showing three. We would – if they prefer to stay with three it would require a variance but we have a proposed solution that would get around a variance and that would be to do – if they did two parallel parking spaces in this area here they have 70 feet which is more than enough to do that. The two – they could sign those for employee parking or whatever – Borup: Just let him finish his report first. Siddoway: -- if they had two parallel parking spaces here they would have a total of five for the proposed Moxie Java. The overall site would still be too short for the Econo Lube and Tune. It would require 13 additional ones from them – they would have 11. This project was originally approved together with the Schuck’s as one Conditional Use Permit and the Schuck’s site has additional parking more than they need. If they could get a simple cross parking agreement with Schuck’s to make up the deficit of the two missing parking spaces for Econo Lube and Tune and provide two spaces then on the south – or on the north side. North is down. Then we can support this without needing a variance on parking. The other issues that were addressed were the vehicular access. Ada County Highway District was requiring a minimum of 100 feet stacking depth from Fairview Avenue. The original site plan had the Moxie Java stand further west and by shifting it this way they have 100 feet plus so they would be in compliance with that. We also had concerns with the fact that this location of the Moxie Java was originally further south and encroached into the drive isle and would conflict with two-way traffic in here of two cars that are trying to dr9ive side by side. With this site plan it actually maintains 25 feet between the edge of where these cars are show n to the landscape island so we can support based on the driveway configuration now meets the required minimum dimensions. In our staff recommendation we had said that if the shifted the coffee hut north, eliminated the north service lane, provided a one-way service window and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 83 variances on the parking we could support it. I believed, based on what I just described those issues are addressed. So instead of a recommendation for denial based on this configuration – ***End Of Side Five*** Siddoway: -- if they can provide the two parallel parking spaces and get a Cross Parking Agreement for the other two. That’s all I have. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Question on the parking spaces for a drive-thru, can you understand the rational? Are they assuming people are going to get out of the car and go up to a window? Siddoway: I questioned that one too. Borup: Or was this written back before we had this type of – Siddoway: -- I think that it is somewhat outdated and is more geared towards Hungry Onion type drive-in establishment where you – the old A & W’s and things where it was a drive-in and a certain number of windows but that is still the Ordinance and there’s not a provision for – that defines it as anything else. Borup: A drive-in is a drive-in there’s only (inaudible). Siddoway: Yes it clearly is a drive-in and it’s defined that way so – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: -- that was written before this type of business even existed so it maybe something that’s not really covered. Siddoway: -- that could be changed yes. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Was the main concern on the double is the other the drive lane between the parking and the other curb? Siddoway: It was two fold. One was the ability to have two-way traffic in the driveway here and it was conflicting with that because it was encroaching into it. Second of all it was constricted such that if cars were stacked as this is currently shown if they had – and before it this was further west and three cars would actually stack back to here then there wouldn’t have been room for cars that wanted to leave this way to then get out. They would be blocked off. That was our concern is how it – Borup: -- I understood that but it looks – but you get 50 percent more cars the other way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 84 Siddoway: That’s the concern yes. Borup: I mean with the double you’re going to have more cars in there so they’re not going to need to stack is the other side of that. Why don’t you go – he’s done his staff report so do you want to address – Mason: What I don’t understand is it says a drive window is supposed to have 100 feet of stacking depth. Borup: That was the comment from ACHD -- Mason: Right. Borup: -- from their review with them. Mason: Right and is that part of your concern that that is going to get out too far? Because the idea behind having the two is not needing near the stacking depth. Borup: Well there was a double concern. One was to have the 100 feet which is ACHD and then the other was a concern of if it starts stacking back there then the people in the north lane won’t be able to get back out. Mason: It shouldn’t happen though. It shouldn’t – the idea behind it is to split it. Siddoway: They are separate issues it’s not 100 feet per window. I can understand if you had two it would certainly cut that back. The way it was written this window would have to have at least 100 feet from this intersection and from this way back would have to have 100 feet from where the intersection is off the site plan. Mason: There again I think it’s an outdated thing because when this law was probably written there was probably only a single drive-thru in establishment. Siddoway: That I don’t know that’s an ACHD requirement. Borup: Not necessarily that I think that’s just another separate thing. It still looks to me like – Siddoway: -- with the double service windows – actually it was more of the driveway width maintaining the ability for two-way traffic. Borup: That’s why I asked that to start with. That was my first question I think was the driveway width the main concern? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 85 Siddoway: Yes. Mason: But I think I addressed part of that too. If we narrow the building down another foot and cars I don’t believe are seven to eight feet, more like six to seven. That’s two more feet that you gain. It’s still tied into what’s recommended but I think they get down with either a foot or two feet which is not (inaudible). Borup: You’re saying you did the building so you would have 31 feet, 31 and a half feet instead of 30? Mason: Our building here that we’ve got is eight feet wide and we could go to a seven-foot building. Borup: Which gives you 31 and a half between the building and the other curb. The 25-foot driveway is what is needed and recommended so that only gives you six and a half feet for your cars. Mason: Well most cars are what seven feet? I don’t think cars are eight feet are they? Borup: No but they’re going to be a foot away from the building so that’s – Mason: -- okay that’s another foot so that’s what you guys are (inaudible). Borup: (Inaudible) they won’t have the 25 feet there. Mason: Right. Borup: And the concern there is cars being able to pass both ways safely which looks like is the biggest problem there. Mason: Biggest concern. Borup: Anything else you had a comment on? Mason: Is it possible that we could cut that landscaping berm of Econo Lube’s probably not? Borup: Any other comments? Anything else from the Commission? Thank you. Do we have anyone else testifying on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: I would like to move that we close the Public Hearing relevant to CUP 01-010, Item 12. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 86 Shreeve: I second that. Borup: Motion second, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Maybe our Legal Counsel here – I’m with the Chairman here. This parking requirement is ridiculous. Borup: On this type of building. Centers: Do we have to require that or does – if we don’t we’ve got to go for a variance? Borup: It’s part of the Ordinance you may want to clarify that Mr. Moore but if it’s in the Ordinance there’s not much that we can do. Centers: You mean we are going to require him to put in two additionals? Borup: No we’re suggesting – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Moore: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, it’s necessary unless you make him get a variance application and you can vary that. You have that ability but as the law now states he has to have those parking spaces. He has to apply for a variance if it’s any different. I realize what you’re saying but until you change the law he has to comply with it. Centers: Could he go to the City Council with a variance request at the same time? Moore: Yes. Centers: Are you listening? Shreeve: Yes. Borup: Okay but do the extra two that staff talks about it’s just a matter of striping. Centers: Yes I understand that that’s fine – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 87 Borup: -- that area’s already there. Centers: -- trying to go and get an agreement which we will and then he can get his variance request before he goes to City Council. Shreeve: Well I don’t think the agreements with him as it is with (inaudible). Centers: We’re going to require him to go to Econo Lube and get an agreement for two more parking spaces. Siddoway: Actually it’s between Econo Lube and Schuck’s. Econo Lube is one that becomes too short and – Borup: It could – parking spaces out front is that correct? Siddoway: It is currently all parking spaces along the front side here. Borup: I’ve never seen any cars there but – and I drive by there a lot. Any other discussion? It looks to me like the double lanes is going to have less stacking. Centers: Yes I agree with that but – Borup: -- but the problem – yes I think they’re okay. I think that could be made to comply with but the concern is still the distance the other way which is a safety concern. So I guess at this point the applicant has resubmitted a plan that staff supports and the only thing you need to do is just request a variance – submit a variance application on the parking. Centers: No, that would be up to him and that’s why we need part of the motion (inaudible). Shreeve: Steve just hypothetically if he presented a variance from the five spaces and say you only wanted three then theoretically those two could go back to Lube and Tune? Siddoway: Yes. If they applied for a variance under this application and to this site configuration yes. The other two don’t become an issue. You do a variance and simply take care of it that way. Borup: The only other option would be to reduce the curbing there at Econo Lube huh? Cut it back and we can figure the parking area there? Siddoway: Reduce the curbing where? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 88 Borup: Here, cut that back that way. Well I don’t know I’m assuming there’s some extra room there in the handicap but maybe not. Siddoway: No I don’t think there is. I think it’s eight plus eight. Borup: Never mind. Did we close the Public Hearing? Do we have a motion? Centers: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that we approve CUP 01- 010 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding coffee hut with a drive-thru in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Moxie Java. Including all staff comments and per the most recently submitted drawing dated May 3rd . Adding two parking spots or parallel parking spots near the drive-up window with the applicant approaching or obtaining the agreement from Lube and Tune and Schuck’s to have an additional, two parking spaces unless the applicant chooses to go with a variance and that requirement to the City Council. I think that’s it including all staff comments. Borup: Do we have a motion and a second? Shreeve: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 01-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 building lot and 1 ACHD Park and Ride lot on 6.36 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Travelers Corner by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc – southeast of Interstate 84 and Meridian Road: Borup: Item No. 13 request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 building lot and 1 ACHD Park and Ride lot on 6.36 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Travelers Corner by Pinnacle Engineers southeast of Interstate 84 and Meridian Road. I would like to open that Public Hearing and start with staff report. Now we had a previous Public Hearing on this. I’m trying to remember what we did last time. Annexation is that what we did? Shreeve: I don’t remember that one that was before my time. Borup: Let’s go ahead and start with the applicant if he would like to start first again. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 89 Boyle: Planning Commission, Chairman, Commissioners, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise Idaho. This application in front of you has been before you previously. It was a year ago I believe in July that it actually went up to City Council and that was a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an ACHD Park and Ride lot. I’m going to just point to it here. The Park and Ride lot would be the western most portion of this proposed subdivision leaving another buildable parcel potentially on the remainder of the site. This particular parcel sits on roughly six acres of land. The zoning on it is currently in a C-G commercial zone. There is no change requested in the zoning so essentially this is just a lot split so to speak with some right-of-way dedications. What we’re looking at doing as far as right-of-way is there will be a street extending north south that will then turn to the west and end in a cul-de- sac with a Park and Ride beyond. All of that plan has been in front of you previously and was approved through the Conditional Use Permit process. So essentially tonight what we’re doing is part of that Conditional Use Permit before a Building Permit could be pulled on the second parcel as I’ll call it. The parcel to the east. There was a requirement at that time that Preliminary Plat be submitted before a Building Permit could be pulled. One clarification that the staff was going to clarify and I believe that they’re in agreement with is with regards to the staff report there was a comment made in the application summary that’s the second paragraph down that begins with, last year the Commission and Council approved the Conditional Use Permit. The comment that is made there is that the remainder of the development which would be the parcel to the east would be contingent upon the approval of the subdivision and the dedication of right-of-way. The applicant has a tenant that is interested in that side and wanting to move forward with Building Plans on that side. The Conditions of Approval based on the Conditional Use Permit for the Park and Ride lot stated that a Building Permit would be allowed on the eastern most parcel once a Preliminary Plat was submitted for the overall site and then of course the Final Plat would have to be approved before a Certificate of Occupancy was granted on that parcel. Outside of that we agree with the remainder of staff comments. There is a note in there related to a variance. I believe it’s Item No. 1 under site specific and that application has been filed and will be carried forward to the City Council with this application. The overall length of the road is approximately going to 650 feet and if you look at the surrounding street pattern, the reason for that variance request is we are constrained by the Interstate I-84 on one of the extents of the subdivision which also limits any access onto Meridian Road in this location. Essentially the only potential access for this parcel is down to Overland Road. I think that this is in accordance -- this variance request that we have submitted to the City Council is in accordance with the surrounding development patterns. Currently we have the Meridian (inaudible) parcel that sits adjacent to our piece so it is surrounded by parcels that are already developed. That is developed with a dead end street that is also approximately 650 feet long. It is constrained as far as what can be done with the street system there so we think that that will hopefully offer me with a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 90 favorable recommendation when that goes forward to the Council. I guess with that I’ll answer any questions and you can hear from staff. Borup: Do we have things staff would like to add? Siddoway: Very little. There is an outstanding issue that needs to be addressed regarding a fence. One of the – in the motion from this body there was a requirement specifically made in the motion and discussed at some length of requiring a fence along the edge of this property to keep this residence horses in. Due to a clerical error that was omitted from the recommendation to City Council and never went forward. That needs to be clarified. I think it was clear that it was intended to be in there and we should just simply state that that needs to be done. It’s not written in this staff report anywhere it just was brought to my attention recently. The applicant’s right about the wording in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law about the no development on the 3.25-acre parcel prior to submittal of a Preliminary Plat application. They will have to provide all of the necessary services to the site prior to getting the Building Permit issued. That needs to be clarified by Shari Stiles in particular as to what does have to be in place prior to the issuance of those Building Permits. For example there is – the Preliminary Plat is now filed but there’s no fire flow to the site, there are no hydrants and there fencing has been done. We need – there are services that must be in place still prior to issuance of a Building Permit. We just need to make sure they understand that. That’s all I have. Borup: You’re referring to the Building Permit on lot 2 you mean? Siddoway: Yes if lot 2 is the parcel that (inaudible) was looking at. Borup: Right separate from the parking? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Any comment on the fence Mr. Boyle. Boyle: Yes let me just clarify a couple of things and I believe that the developer and owners of the property are clear that those utilities will need to be extended to those sites prior to obtaining the Building Permit for the site. There’s essentially a water line extension that will be necessary. The sewer actually – there’s a sewer line that runs along the current north boundary of the site. Borup: You will still be able to stub into that sewer line? Boyle: We’ll just be able to stub into so sewer line is essentially already in place other than just the connection to that sewer line. The water line will need to be extended from a connection out in Overland Road and they are aware of that as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 91 Borup: That does show on the plat? Boyle: Yes and that’s indicated on the plat there. The fencing issue I – this is the first that I’ve been aware of that fencing issue and Jonathan Seel with W.H. Moore is here. He might be able to address that he might have more the background on that. Borup: I remember that specifically – Boyle: I’m not free to commit to the fence because I don’t know the history but he could address that I believe. Borup: Well why don’t we go ahead with that one. Seel: Jonathan Seel W.H. Moore Company 600 North Steelhead. Yes, when ACHD did come in for their CUP there was a discussion about a fence. ACHD did agree to construct a fence on what would be the south side of that new road and also on what would be the westerly side of that road. That is a requirement on their part. That’s my recollection and I don’t recall whether or not in the CUP that’s been put in or not. Borup: Just for clarification you’re talking along this – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Seel: -- on the southerly part right there and then on the westerly part of that. The Thulps had been here and they had requested that because that concerns about their horses so that’s correct. Whether or not that was included in the CUP or what I’m understanding that was left out of the Findings of Facts. Borup: But that was the way it – Seel: That’s the way – and I guess what we probably need to do with the atrocious City of Meridian is approach ACHD and remind them that they need to do that. They did agree on that and I do recall that. I think that’s fair. I think if there’s some language put in I would like to have it specified that was a requirement of the CUP which of course was with ACHD. That’s not implying that it’s W.H. Moore Company that’s responsible for it. We’re not arguing that it’s not required – just the clarification that that’s part of the CUP. Borup: You’re interested in a lot too. Seel: Yes and I can talk to Steve Specklemeyer. In fact I plan on talking to him because the horses are over there in that lot anyways right now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 92 Borup: I think that was a requirement of ACHD because that was the only individual we had to talk to at the time. Seel: Yes Mrs. Cook came up and she was concerned about that. Borup: Well the point is I think if this other application is before at the same time it may have been a shared – Seel: Our application was – and they just submitted a CUP for the Park and Ride in the – Borup: -- that’s what I’m saying. So they’re the only ones we had to of make that requirement out of. If you’re application would have been at the same time I don’t think it’s unlikely that it may have been required by both to share in that equally. Seel: No I’m not sure I would agree with that. Borup: How do you know what this body would have requested? Seel: Well I don’t know but the issue didn’t come up at that point so I don’t think that’s fair to mean that in. I’m not arguing the fact that the fence doesn’t need to be there and it will be constructed, I’m just saying that that was not a requirement of the W.H. Moore Company – Borup: -- no I agree with that. Seel: -- ACHD. Centers: But shouldn’t that be worked out between you and the – Borup: -- I think his point is at this point it’s in the past and it’s a new point. I was just saying and I probably shouldn’t have brought it up if they were both applied at the same time then I think it might have been different but that’s a past issue. Seel: I guess what I’m saying is that it was agreed to with ACHD the fact that it was not put in their CUP Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law was an oversight but it was agreed with ACHD. We were not involved in that discussion. We were not applicants in that. I’m just saying that if they want to bring it up now I think just clarification that that’s a requirement of the CUP that was done last year you could put it in and then I will certainly talk to ACHD about it. It needs to get in I’m not arguing with the fact that it needs to be done. That’s all. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 93 Siddoway: No problem with that clarification. It was a requirement of the Conditional Use Permit on ACHD but I also think we need to state that it needs to be there before we issue a Building Permit on the Gold’s Gym lot because we don’t want the horses roaming into the construction site. Seel: Well I agree with that I think we have to get that either way even if you didn’t we need to. I don’t disagree with that. We’re going to have to get the fence in because they’re going to be out there in fact the Gold’s Gym is already out there and we’ve mentioned that. I think that’s a concern. I guess if I was to say that I will work with ACHD and that it needs to be done – Borup: -- (inaudible) motion of defense needs to be put in. We don’t need to specify who does it just that it needs to be there. Seel: I can intend to talk to Steve Specklemeyer about that – Freckleton: Mr. Chairman maybe one other point of clarification and that is in regards to the essential utility extensions. My office currently is reviewing the plans for the water main extension into this site. We anticipate that we will have review approval on those perhaps yet this week, tomorrow. That’s one item that needs to be extended. The other thing that I just wanted to make clear for you Jonathan is that we do have to have a road that will support a fire truck before a Building Permit can be issued. The water main has to be in. I don’t know the timing of the road construction for the Park and Ride lot but we have to maintain an access into the Gold Gym site if construction is taking place. Seel: See what I would like to do is be able to work that with you where it’s a little bit beyond our control with ITD but I can work with you on that I understand that. We’ll accomplish that one way or the other. Borup: Thank you anyone else on this application? Wheeler: My name is Josh Wheeler Managing Partner for Pinnacle Fitness, Gold’s Gym. The only question I’ve got is that the timing of the fence and the road is that been set or determined or anything like that? Borup: I think just an extent of the road needs to be in or a road that can support a fire truck needs to be in before an issuance of Building Permit did I state that correctly? Wheeler: That was my understanding. My question was though has there been a date set to complete it to begin it does – Borup: For that you would need to talk to – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 94 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Wheeler: So my understanding is that we can’t do anything – Ada County needed a CUP for – they had to have the fence up before they got the fence up correct? Borup: No, that was just part of their CUP requirements that it needed to be up before – Shreeve: It should have been part of their CUP requirements. Wheeler: So does the same stand for us on that property? That the fence has got to be up prior to any CUP or anything like that? Borup: Yes the fence will need to be up prior to starting construction. As far as who puts the fence up that’s between you and ACHD I guess. Wheeler: That’s it thank you. Borup: Any other comments from the Commissioners? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: I move that we close the Public Hearing for PP 01-008. Centers: I would second that. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: So do we have a motion? Shreeve: I’ll make a motion that we approve Item No. 13 Public Hearing for PP 01-018 request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 building lot and 1 ACHD Park and Ride lot on 6.36 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Travelers Corner by Pinnacle Engineers Inc. with all of the notes and conditions listed in the staff report including that there be a fence constructed on the west side of the road and south side of the property before a Building Permit is issued – Borup: -- do you want to just maybe add as per – Shreeve: -- as per previous agreements at the time the CUP was issued. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 95 Borup: It would probably be as per the motion of this Commission during the CUP. Apparently that didn’t get to City Council but – Shreeve: As noted. Also that the road be constructed sufficient to support a fire truck also before a Building Permit is issued and that the water line be extended or connected and extended before a Building Permit is issued. Centers: Second that. Borup: Motion second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. We’re going to be out of here by midnight. Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 01-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the manufacturing of inflatable boats in an I-L zone for Elliott Business Park by H2NR, LLC – east of Locust Grove and south of East Wilson Lane: Borup: Item No. 14 request for a Conditional Use Permit for the manufacturing of inflatable boats in an I-L zone for Elliott Business Park by H2NR, LLC. I would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. I believe a lot of this was discussed at the time that Butte Fences project came before us. In fact the site plan had this already included in didn’t it? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners you’re correct this site was reviewed during the plat process for Elliott Industrial Park. This is a Conditional Use Permit for the property on the south end of that. It’s located off of the end of Wilson Lane, south of Fairview and east of Locust Grove in the crosshatched area shown. This is the proposed site plan. North is to the left on these plans. The Butte Fence Site Plan that came through with the plat is in this area. The proposed tenant for the back half of the light would be as known as AIRE. They are an inflatable raft company and outcast which is a manufacturer of small fishing boats. They are proposing a man made pond in the back where they will demonstrate their inflatable kayaks and their boats. The staff report you have I’ll simply point out a few of the site-specific requirements. One the – on Item 1, detailed Landscape Plans are needed. I want to point out that the CUP Landscape Plan shows their trees as three-inch caliper. The current Ordinance allows them to reduce that to two-inch caliper if it’s approved per the proposed plan. Three inch caliper trees would be required I believe they’re wanting to reduce that to two inch as the Ordinance allows. Second the man made pond needs to be a design in the matter that will not become stagnant and will provide circulation and we’ll have to have verification of that to the Certificate of Zoning Compliance process. There is also a requirement for construction of a ten-foot asphalt pathway along the Jackson Drain. This is their building elevations Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 96 involved long industrial manufacturing building. That’s really all I want to point out specifically. The other staff comments are as written and with that I’ll stand for questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Is the applicant here and would like to come forward? Ramp: Hello I’m Greg Ramp from Mayer Corporation. We’re currently operating in Garden City at 110 West 33rd . I’ve read through the staff comments and I think it’s all pretty good. I agree with everything they said. Borup: I assume you would like to reduce the trees to the west caliper too? Ramp: Yes we’ve got quite a few trees to plant because of the lanes of the lot and it’s going to be pretty expensive to go to the three-inch caliper so I would like to get that reduced. I think that there’s going to be trees on the other side of the road too going down the lane on Elliott’s lot that have to be put in too so there’s going to be a lot of trees out there. We have quite a bit of landscaped area if you can include the pond into that. Borup: And that makes sense. There’s quite a difference between a two-inch and a three-inch (inaudible). Ramp: Yes. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you sir. Do we have anyone else that wants to testify on this application? Seeing none do we have a motion? Shreeve: I would move that we close the Public Hearing for Item CUP 01-013 which is Item 14 on the agenda. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion is second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Centers. Centers: I would like to make the motion that we approve Item 14 Public Hearing CUP 01-013 request for a Conditional Use Permit for the manufacturing of inflatable boats in an I-L zone for Elliott Business Park with the reduced Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 97 comments by staff for the size of the trees to the two inch and including all staff comments as submitted. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion is second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you for sticking with us. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Item 15. Public Hearing: CUP 01-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a communications tower in an I-L zone for Office Value Cell Tower by Crown Castle, LLC – 3055 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: I would entertain a motion to accept the application – or the letter of withdrawal for the CUP 01-012. Do we have a motion to that effect? Just for clarification we do have a letter requesting that. Shreeve: So noted. I move as noted there. Borup: All in favor? Centers: And they don’t even want to come back right? Borup: Well I don’t know if we’re going to get through this next one should we continue it? Centers: But Item 14 doesn’t want to come back correct? Shreeve: Yes they had a full withdraw they said they had another site. Item 16. Public Hearing: RZ 01-004 Request for a rezone from an R-8 to L-O zone for Meridian Water Department by Meridian Water Department – 2235 Northwest 8th Street: Borup: I would like to open the Public Hearing on request to rezone from R-8 to L-O zone for the Meridian Water Department by the Meridian Water Department. Didn’t this come up once – open the Public Hearing and start with staff report. Didn’t this come up once before and this was just kind of a housekeeping thing that needed to be taken care of? Did it come up once before? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 98 Siddoway: It needs to be cleaned up. The Water Department is in a R-8 zone. They want to do a remodel and we basically told them they’re at the wrong zone. We’re trying to clean up the zoning. It also happens to house the Boise State University Electrical Lineman’s Training Facility. We do note that if either the Water Department or the BSU use ever proposes to expand they will have to bring the site into compliance with current Landscape Ordinances which currently does not meet those. We can – it standard to require those changes when there is a Building Permit request which there is not at this time. We simply noted that and we recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report dated April 30th . Borup: I wanted to know if this was – okay thank you. Centers: I don’t have any questions. Shreeve: Can we put Bruce on the spot? Borup: Yes. So if we deny this does the Water Department have to move? Freckleton: That would be one way of controlling (inaudible) Chairman. Borup: Shut down the Water Department. Siddoway: Actually they could stay as grand fathered use they just couldn’t remodel their building to look nicer. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman I recommend that we close the Public Hearing of RZ 01-004. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Shreeve: Mr. Chairman I recommend approval of Item No. 16 RZ 01-004 request for a rezone from an R-8 to L-O zone for Meridian Water Department including all comments in the staff report. Centers: I second that. Borup: Motion is second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Shreeve: Mr. Chairman I vote, recommend that we adjourn. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 99 Borup: Move to. Shreeve: Move to adjourn it sounds right. Centers: I would second that. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at 12:02 a.m. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK