2002 08-01Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 1, 2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, August 1, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Keven
Shreeve and Leslie Mathes.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith,
and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers
X Leslie Mathes X Keven Shreeve
X Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin the August 1st
session
of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission regular scheduled meeting. Begin
with roll call of the Commissioners in attendance.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes from July 11, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from our July 11th
meeting.
Do we have any questions or comments from any of the Commissioners? Seeing
none, do we have a motion?
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: I move that we approve the minutes from the July 11, 2002, Planning and
Zoning Commissioners Regular Meeting.
Centers: I second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 02-013 Request for annexation and zoning of 40.48
acres from RUT to R-4 zones for a Meridian Middle School for Joint
School District No. 2 by Lombard Conrad Architects – east side of North
Linder Road, north of West Ustick Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 2
Borup: The next item on the agenda, the first Public Hearing is AZ 02-013, request for
annexation and zoning of 40.48 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Meridian Middle
School for Joint School District No. 2 on the east side of North Linder, north of West
Ustick Road. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can see on the screen above you the vicinity
map. It is along Linder Road north of Ustick. As far as the name goes, just to keep
from any confusion, I'd like to point out that most of the documentation references
Meridian Middle School, but there is a school formally called Meridian Middle School
and this is not it. This would be a new school. I would prefer to call it Linder Road
Middle School and we'll move on from there. It is a site that's just over 40 acres. The
project will include a middle school, of course, and associated facilities, such as two
soccer fields, three softball fields, a track, a baseball field, six tennis courts, and five
basketball courts. The existing site is basically farmland out there on the west side of
Linder -- or east side of Linder. I'm sorry, and you should have a staff report dated July
17, 2002, in that the findings for annexation are made. There are just five comments on
this one and staff recommends approval of this annexation with the comments included
in the staff report. Stand for any questions.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Mr. Siddoway, would staff have a problem with Page 2, Item C, changing the
verbiage where it states, staff finds that the property will be developed in a manner
consistent with the new zoning. I would state traditional public school uses are the
intended permitted uses in an R-4 zone.
Siddoway: That would be just fine. I assume you're getting at the controversy that has
come from other nontraditional schools?
Centers: Correct.
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: So I would offer that we amend it as stated, that the period following zoning
would read traditional, public school uses are the intended permitted use in R-4 zone.
That's all. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Does the applicant have a presentation they would like to
make?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 3
Hansen: Good evening. My name is Scott Hansen, Lombard Conrad Architects
representing the Joint School District No. 2 with this school project and annexation. We
have had an opportunity to review the staff report and have no exception to take, no
exception to the staff report, and I can answer any questions you may have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Were you aware of the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Saleen?
Hansen: Yes. That was included in the staff report where they suggested that they had
no objection to the project, except they wanted a fence and we plan on fencing the
entire property.
Centers: Six-foot fence, I would imagine?
Hansen: Yes. Six-foot chain link fence.
Borup: And the plans I thought showed a six-foot fence on the site plan. Okay. Thank
you. Do we have anyone else here that would like to testify on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 02-013.
Mathes: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any other discussion or comments? If not, do we have a motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 02-013,
request for annexation and zoning of 40.48 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for a middle
school to be named later for Joint School District No. 2 by Lombard Conrad Architects,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 4
east side of North Linder Road, north of West Ustick Road. To include all staff
comments of the staff memo of July 17th
, with the one change --
Centers: I think he made note of the amendment.
Zaremba: We made note of the amendment on Page 2, Item C, to be a traditional
public school, uses are intended, in an R-4 zone. That's the end of the motion.
Mathes: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 02-014 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.39
acres from R-2 to L-O zones for Treasure Valley Baptist Church by
Treasure Valley Baptist Church – 1300 South Teare Avenue:
Borup: Thank you. Item Number 5, Public Hearing AZ 02-014, request for annexation
and zoning of 4.39 acres from R-2 to L-O an zone for Treasure Valley Baptist Church by
Treasure Valley Baptist Church at 1300 South Teare Avenue. I'd like to open this Public
Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, you have a site plan in front of you. The
subject property is located between Overland Road and I-84. It's outlined in black. This
is an out-parcel that's currently county property, but surrounded completely by city
limits. The site size is just over four acres and Treasure Valley Baptist Church owns the
property north and east of the subject parcel and it's already annexed and zoned L-O.
They are proposing to annex and zone the remainder of the property, which they own to
the same zone, which is L-O, and will be used for similar church uses. You should have
a staff report dated July 16th
. Again, we recommend approval of this re-zone with the
condition noted in the staff report. Stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Is the applicant here for a presentation?
Thomas: Yes. I'm Darrell Thomas and I represent Treasure Valley Baptist Church. I'm
on staff there. Our attorney is pleased with the staff findings and we will just follow
through with what they suggest.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you, sir.
Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commission?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 5
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: I make a motion to approve AZ 02-014, request for annexation and zoning of
4.39 acres from R-2 to L-O zones for Treasure Valley Baptist Church by Treasure Valley
Baptist Church, 1300 South Teare Avenue, including all staff comments dated July 16,
2002.
Centers: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 02-018 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
1,406 square foot Sonic Drive In restaurant with a drive-thru in a C-G
zone shopping center by Boise Food Service, Inc. – 2150 East Fairview
Avenue:
Borup: Thank you. Okay. We are moving along so far. Next item is Public Hearing
CUP 02-018, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Sonic Drive-In restaurant with a
drive-thru in a C-G zone in an existing shopping center at 2150 East Fairview Avenue.
We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed Sonic Drive In restaurant is
located in the Oakbrook Plaza Shopping Center where Norco currently is. It is outlined
for you on the screen. I just went passed. There we go. This is an existing site photo.
You can see the existing Norco building in the background and the adjoining shopping
center. The location for the Sonic Drive In would be in this vacant pad in the
foreground. This is a site plan and you can see those existing buildings as they are on
site, the multi-tenant retail building on the west, Norco on the north, and this location
right here is where the proposed Sonic Drive In is. The one-way entrance and drive-
thru over here. Here is a close-up of that with the Landscape Plan and you should have
a staff report about this one, dated June 28th
. This is a Conditional Use Permit. There
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 6
is one letter that has been received by a Mr. David M. Wolff in opposition and I'd just
like to make note of that. With that I will --
Zaremba: Actually, there are two letters in opposition also.
Siddoway: I just have the one.
Zaremba: Madsen’s have reported in.
Siddoway: Thank you. I do have the existing elevations as well. Oh and they have a
proposed sign. It’s a monument sign for their use in addition to the existing multi-tenant
sign that's out there now. Their drive-thru signs and that's it. With that as an intro, I will
stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the applicant here?
Hofferber: I'm Ed Hofferber with Boise Food Service and I have read the staff report.
We are in agreement with everything on the staff report, any needs that they have. I
would like to address the letters. If you could stick up the 300 foot --
Borup: So you were in agreement with all the staff requirements, then?
Hofferber: Right.
Borup: No questions on any of those?
Hofferber: The homes -- the two letters are -- with the addresses, one is on the
backside, and the comment was regarding lights. We are actually in front of the Norco
building, so the lights are going to be blocked, of course, by the Norco building. There
is also landscaping that will be put in, the existing landscaping, and also a six foot fence
behind the Norco building. I don't think that will be a problem as far as any lights or
noise as far as a buffer for that also, so --
Borup: What did you say about the fence behind Norco?
Hofferber: There is a six-foot fence behind Norco.
Borup: There is one there now?
Hofferber: That's correct. As on top of landscaping. I drove the area yesterday and the
one house is on the backside.
Borup: There is a microphone right there.
Hofferber: This is the one right here. There is the one house that had the concern with
the noise. As you can see with the Norco building here, and the other lot was this one
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 7
right here and with the fence and the landscaping and everything, I believe there would
be no problem with noise or any other abatement that we need to put up as far as
landscaping, which we are adding to our site.
Zaremba: Using the site plan that is currently up there, it would appear to me that the
Norco building and your building -- not necessarily your building, but where your menu
board and speaker are going to be, are oriented in such a way that the sound could
easily pass by the Norco building to that lot. Is there a way you could turn your
signboard or something to mitigate --
Hofferber: Well, the one -- actually, when you pull up your car will be in front of that as
a buffer.
Zaremba: The car will be in between?
Hofferber: Yes and all the order taking stations as you see on the right side, they will all
be facing Fairview Avenue, the speakers, so that the noise -- and I know if you're in say
the end stall there, two stalls down, you can't hear the speaker, because each car
blocks it. We are talking -- they are within a three-foot proximity of the speaker. We
have it turned down that it's -- you know, some drive-thrus I know they can blow you out
of your car, but ours are -- we are turned down to the point where it's just a comfortable
right with the car, the person talking to the car. With the drive-thru, like I say, it will be --
every car will be blocking the noise going back to the neighborhood. That's all I have.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman. Page 4 of the staff report, Item 6, states as part of the
Conditional Use Permit the City of Meridian may impose additional restrictions and
conditions. You're comfortable with that? I just read it for you.
Hofferber: Okay. I'm -- which one now?
Centers: Page 4, Item 6.
Hofferber: Okay and when you say --
Centers: What comes to mind there is business hours.
Hofferber: Okay. We are currently right now, as of today, 11:00 through the week. We
are 10:00 on Sunday. During the summer, it's 11:00. My guess is in the wintertime it's
going to be more like 10:00, 9:00, on Sundays. We -- Sonic this year had what they call
Sonic Nights where they wanted you to stay open until midnight, but then it's still what
the traffic bears. If the traffic is not good we don't stay open, that’s why we are at 11:00,
and by September the 1st
, we will be back to 10:00 and 9:00 on Sundays. We are open
earlier than that, because we do serve breakfast, but we don't open until 7:00. We are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 8
not open late at night like, if you will, Taco Bell, Burger King, 1:00, 2:00 in the morning.
We do not do that.
Centers: Well, those roller skates might freeze up in the winter.
Hofferber: Roller skates could be tough in the wintertime.
Centers: So would you be adverse to hours -- restricted hours?
Hofferber: So long as it wasn't prohibitive of the business, if the business is there, you
know 11:00 -- I could say we would not ever be 24 hours or past midnight.
Centers: Well, don't get me wrong, people in business are entitled to make money and
you can only --
Hofferber: Yes but we are not -- personally I own a business here in Meridian already, I
have the Taco Time up in the Parker's Alley park, 10:00 -- I mean if the business is not
there it's not, and especially during the school year. I wouldn't be opposed to that if it
was reasonable hours.
Centers: Okay.
Hofferber: You bet.
Centers: Thank you.
Hofferber: You're welcome.
Zaremba: Let me ask you a little bit about decor if I can. We have some drawings, but
my recollection is --
Hofferber: Internal or external?
Zaremba: External. My recollection is that these often are neon lights and a rather
silvery looking building is that correct?
Hofferber: They are not. As a matter of fact, if you could go back to the exterior -- there
you go. What we are doing, we have matched the block, which matches the block on
the Norco building, the brown block, as does our trash area. The stucco above will be
matching the stucco and we will keep the integrity of the whole center.
Zaremba: You'll match the center? Good.
Hofferber: So there is neon, we have neon on there with a band, but as far as the silver
stainless steel flashy, no.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 9
Zaremba: Okay.
Hofferber: So there is -- I mean --
Zaremba: I'm just thinking this is one of our entry corridors and --
Hofferber: Right.
Zaremba: -- having it blend in is helpful.
Hofferber: We are blending in. As a matter of fact, the sign, too, if you will go to the
sign. There you go. That sign is existing. That's there now. It says Norco, and Mr.
Kissler has made arrangements for us to purchase that sign from him and just replace it
with our face. There is absolutely no signs being added, other than what's there now.
Centers: So he's giving his sign up and just having --
Hofferber: He has the large sign for the whole area. What we have is that he has
allowed us to purchase, because it is right in front of the pad and then we have one, like
everybody has in front of their space in line. We have a four-by-eight sign that will be
on top of the building -- if you go back to the -- there, you go. The one-by-eight sign
above the foyer way and that's the total of our signage. We are trying to be as user
friendly and blend in with, you knew, strip centers, but rather than, like you say, gorish
colors or whatever.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Hofferber: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? You need to come
forward.
Byington: I'm Jay Byington, 2379 Grapewood. My big concern is noise and smell. My
house happens to be this one right there.
Zaremba: Indicating this one?
Byington: Yes and the way the Norco building and the way that site is laid out, it's going
to reflect right into my backyard. The fence is six foot, but I'm concerned about sleeping
at night and stuff like that. Thank you.
Zaremba: Let me ask you. I probably could ask the applicant also. There is a fence
between you and Norco?
Byington: Yes, there is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 10
Zaremba: Are there any trees along that fence on either site?
Byington: My side.
Zaremba: Not on the other site?
Byington: If they are, they are small. Mine are big.
Shreeve: Are there any security lights on the corner of Norco?
Byington: Actually, on the back right there, on the back corner, they do have trucks that
come and unload. I'm -- as you're looking at Norco they are -- all their loading and stuff
is off the corner of that lot, which does keep me up quite frequently and I'm just worried
that even more noise would --
Shreeve: What are the hours? How --
Byington: They go all night sometimes there at Norco, because they -- their delivery
trucks come in and out to load up and prepare for their route, but -- I'm sure that's what
they are going. That's what --
Shreeve: And do you anticipate that the Sonic would add to that noise or --
Byington: I'm just worried that it will be even more noise coming from my back yard
and, unfortunately, my bedroom is on the back of the house, so I'm real close to it.
Centers: How long have you lived in your location?
Byington: Three years.
Centers: Was Norco there before or after?
Byington: No. After.
Centers: After. Okay.
Borup: Mr. Byington, it looks like there is a space between the Norco building and the
fence line is that correct?
Byington: Yes.
Borup: Is that landscaped, that area, or --
Byington: It's not a mound it's flat grass.
Borup: It is grass in there? There is not any trees in that area on the building side?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 11
Byington: I can't remember. My trees are so big that I don't -- I can't tell if he's got
some back there or not. I know right at the corner of my lot there is absolutely nothing.
Of course, I can see from my back deck to Norco all the way down to Fairview.
Borup: All the way down to -- and you're here?
Byington: Yes.
Borup: Well, Commissioners, that's what I was -- when I was looking at the site it
looked to me like that was probably the only spot on the whole thing that there would be
much noise or lights or anything coming from the project. I mean the building blocks all
the rest of the way, but Mr. Byington was the lucky one to get that lot.
Zaremba: It's your lot that I thought was one of the other people that was writing in and
that's the one I was looking at when I saw the orientation of it there.
Centers: I don't mean to be offensive, but when you moved there did you realize that
possibly commercial or --
Byington: They did tell us the Norco building and, unfortunately, I couldn't make the
Norco building planning. They did --
Centers: But you knew it wasn't going to be residential correct?
Byington: Right. Right.
Centers: All right. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Anyone from the public? Okay.
Hofferber: I know Mr. Kissler --
Borup: State your name again.
Hofferber: Ed Hofferber with Boise Food Service. I know Mr. Kissler and I would be
willing to talk to him if -- should taller trees be needed. I think there is one tree, it's a
rather larger tree, there may be some Alder that are slimmer that go up in a row that
maybe help block whatever sound or anything. I could talk to him and I would be willing
to share in the cost with him on that, because that is on his property and to help
alleviate any noise or light, which I think would eliminate the lighting problem.
Borup: So this little area here that's next to --
Hofferber: That's correct. I know we have landscaping at the back of ours. If you show
the Landscape Plan, we have trees and everything.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 12
Zaremba: I was going to ask if you could increase the trees here, but if you can work
together with the owner of Norco and increase them up there, it would solve
everybody's problem.
Hofferber: And I would be more than happy to talk to Mr. Kissler about it. An Alder,
whatever the tall, slender trees that you could put together, would help with the light, but
in the wintertime with no leaves you're going to have --
Zaremba: It would be appreciated by all concerned.
Borup: Do we know about how far that is? My site plan is so small I can't see a -- it's
got to be on there, but I can't read it.
Zaremba: If a parking space is 19 feet wide --
Centers: They are 19 feet long.
Borup: There is probably 50 feet there, then, from the building to the edge of the
property --
Hofferber: Oh, from there that is probably 20 feet.
Borup: Well, a parking spot is 19, at least.
Hofferber: Okay. You're just talking from the back of the building to the fence?
Borup: No. No. I'm sorry. The back of the building to the property line to the east.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the site plan shows 20.
Borup: The parking spot take less than half of that distance. No. No. Here 51. I was
guessing 50. I was a foot off. I'm sorry. What I was getting at is rather than just leaving
it open ended, I think it might be nice to have guidelines of how many trees we'd like to
see there or something along that line.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can -- personally, I don't think we, as a
Commission, can require trees to be planted on property that is not related to this
applicant. I think it's very commendable for him to say that he's going to talk to the guy
at Norco, but that's on Norco's property.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: The Sonic is the same location, too, isn't it? No? Steve?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 13
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Centers, I believe that it is all one lot. It's
a -- the Sonic Drive In is on a pad site within that lot, but the Conditional Use Permit
does allow for a condition to be placed on the lot itself.
Centers: Who is going to maintain the trees?
Siddoway: Well, I assume they would have the maintenance company that's
maintaining all of their landscaping out there.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: It was never platted. I think it's one lot.
Zaremba: Does the applicant know that there is a common area of maintenance? He's
probably going to have to contribute to it. You would have seen that in your lease.
Okay. There must be a way to maintain it.
Borup: It was stated earlier. There is some landscaping back there.
Centers: So we could require it?
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: I have a semi-related question. I don't know whether this entire piece of
property has a time limit -- well, if the Norco building has a Conditional Use Permit,
whether there is a time limit on it, but just in general, if there is a limit on somebody's
hours of operation, is that just the hours they are open to serve the public or should that
include deliveries and everything else that might go on there?
Siddoway: I'd say that's up to the Commission. I know in the case of Wal-Mart over
near Crossroads, they limited the hours for delivery services and things like that. The
City's Noise Ordinance talks about public disturbance noises between the hours of
11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. That in and of itself doesn't prohibit businesses from being
open, but does, you know, prohibit public nuisance noises during those hours. Whether
it's -- the hours of operation are just for being open to the public or deliveries as well, in
the case of a Conditional Use Permit is up to the Commission and Council.
Zaremba: And we don't know if Norco has such a limit?
Siddoway: I don't know.
Zaremba: It doesn't have to be answered now, it's unrelated to this applicant, but I'm
just curious.
Siddoway: I don't know.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 14
Borup: It's a C-G zone. I don't know that it needed a Conditional Use, did it? Like you
say, it's unrelated.
Siddoway: I think they had a CUP because they were in a mixed planned use area in
the Comp Plan.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: If the gentleman who lives behind it called and complained about trucks
being there at midnight, would that do him any good?
Siddoway: If there is a public nuisance noise after 11:00 P.M., it would be the Police
Department that enforces that ordinance.
Zaremba: So that's just a general ordinance that covers everything?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: I think there is room for three nice trees along there.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any discussion or do you want to formulate a motion first?
Shreeve: Well, were you thinking three? What kind of trees?
Borup: I'm not specific on the type. A screening tree of some kind.
Centers: The applicant said Alders.
Borup: If you're talking small, narrow columnars, then it's going to take more than
three. If it's going to be some narrow ones, three is not going to be enough. You know,
the normal tree planting is recommended 35 feet apart. If you put three in there, they
would be about 25 feet apart, which would be fairly dense.
Shreeve: Well, in addition would be the neighbor's trees.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 15
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? If the intent were for the screening of light and sound, I
would say that an evergreen tree would be more effective, because you lose a lot of the
sound and light screening in the wintertime with a deciduous tree. Year around you
would have more of an effect using some conifers.
Borup: Be less expensive anyway. Okay. Sounds like that would be a good
recommendation.
Centers: Like two evergreens?
Borup: I think three --
Centers: Five feet in height or --
Borup: Six, at least.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: And then, they can grow. I'm thinking three. If you get one on each end and
one in the middle, that's still 25 feet apart. That's --
Centers: How do we feel about hours of operation? Or closing time at night I guess
would be the critical --
Borup: I don't think it's too late.
Centers: I think the applicant said 11:00. You know, that's -- yes. I would agree with
that. No limit on opening, but just the closing time.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve CUP 02-018,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,406 square foot Sonic Drive In restaurant
with a drive-thru in a C-G zone in an existing shopping center by Boise Food Service,
Inc., 2150 East Fairview Avenue, including all staff comments dated June 28, 2002.
Also included is the limitation of hours, that they close by 11:00 P.M. every night, as well
as work on the property of planting three evergreen trees in the --
Zaremba: Northeast corner.
Shreeve: Northeast corner of the Norco property, with the initial height being six feet.
Centers: I would second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 16
Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 02-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
office and shop for transmission service and repair in a C-G zone for
Bobby’s Transmission by Treasure Valley Engineers – south of 835
East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Thank you. The next item is CUP 02-019, request for Conditional Use Permit
for an office and shop for a transmission service and repair in a C-G zone for Bobby's
Transmission by Treasure Valley Engineers. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and
start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, this application still has some issues that
need to be worked out, which I will go over. You should have a copy of the staff report
dated July 25th
. Briefly, first to orient you, it's on the south side of Fairview. The Norco
project we were just talking about is further east about a mile. The surrounding
properties adjacent to this site include the car wash. It's an Ultra-Touch Car Wash just
north of it. There is also the Daewoo car lot in this location just east of it. To the south
and southeast, there are existing residential subdivisions. Those would be Sterling
Creek just to the south and Danbury Faire to the southeast and then to the west is
Creekside Arbor Apartments. These are some existing site photos looking north. You
can see the Ultra-Touch Car Wash in the background here. The subject property is just
off to the left of this existing private road. Looking -- turning around and looking down
that private road to the south you can see the existing residential subdivisions that back
up to the subject property. This is looking along the south property line with Danbury
Faire and Sterling Creek. You can see the Creekside Arbor Apartments in the
background. That's a little hard to see, but this is the --
Zaremba: Did you say those share the property line with this property?
Siddoway: They do. Yes. On this site plan, the existing subdivisions share the
property line to the south down here. The existing apartment complex is on the west,
but just up to where Five Mile Creek crosses the property. Here are the proposed
elevations. With that, I'm going to start walking you through the staff report a little bit.
This is a Conditional Use Permit. Because of its use as an automobile repair shop, it's
10,800 square feet with proposing 10 work bays. In addition to the transmission
service, they are also proposing a limited number of used car sales and though it's not
noted in the staff report directly. I believe they are also talking about maintaining some
snowplows on site for a snowplow business during the winter. We need to get that
verified as well, so that it's clear that that will be part of this operation, if it is. On Page
2, Item A, under standards for Conditional Uses, there is a large flood plane on the site.
I'm going to turn back to the site plan. This contour line that cuts through the corner of
the building and up through the site is the 100 year flood plane line, so more than 50
percent of the site is in the flood plane for the Five Mile Creek. As far as parking goes -
- I'm in the second paragraph under A on Page 2 -- they are required to have 21 stalls
and they are currently showing 20. They shouldn't have any problem adding another
one at a minimum to meet that requirement, but they are required to add an additional
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 17
one to meet their minimum. With their proposed car sales use, they don't have an area
shown for that, but it would have to be a separate designated area and they could not
use up required parking spaces for that. There is another issue, which I will let -- yes.
Zaremba: Since we are on that subject, would it be acceptable to say that they can
have as many cars for sale as they have spaces in addition to the 21?
Siddoway: Actually, the staff report recommends a maximum of five. If you look on
Page 7, Item 11, we are recommending that they are restricted to a maximum of five
vehicles at any one time, no off-premise signage, and that they must submit a revised
site plan that designates that vehicle display area. That's our recommendation.
Borup: Isn't five consistent with some City Ordinance already? Am I thinking of
something else?
Siddoway: I think you're thinking of the State Statute that says if they sell over a certain
number of cars they need to have a license to do so and that number may be five. I'm
not sure.
Borup: Okay so there is not city regulation on the number, then?
Siddoway: No.
Borup: All right.
Siddoway: There is another issue that has come up since the writing of the staff report
related to parking that we need to get some resolution on by the applicant tonight. That
is that there is apparently some kind of an agreement between the current owner of this
property and the Ultra-Touch Car Wash that they will provide 15 parking spaces on the
subject lot for the employees and such for the car wash. If so, that 15 spaces will have
to be in addition to their 21 and I will let -- we'll just have to hear from the applicant on
what that agreement is. Moving on to Item B on Page 2. The Comp Plan talks about
natural resources and hazardous areas. It says in this paragraph that staff is
concerned about the storage of abandoned vehicles and vehicles in disrepair that are
proposed within 100 feet of the Five Mile Creek floodway and from the flood plane. As
you saw, most of the parking area where these cars will be stored, as well as the
storage area south of the building, are all within the flood plane. There are spelled out
there several policies at the bottom of Page 2 and the top of Page 3 that deal with those
environmentally sensitive areas. We have some reservations as to how it will interact
with those sensitive areas along Five Mile Creek. The flow pattern is from the
asphalted area towards Five Mile Creek in this location. Moving on to about halfway
down Page 3. There is an underlined section that talks about the pathway. There is a
pathway shown on the Comprehensive Plan along Five Mile Creek. The applicant has
not shown that pathway on his site plan and we recommended that he have a
discussion with the Parks and Recreation Director, namely, Tom Kuntz, to make a
determination about the pathway requirement. The next paragraph deals with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 18
Landscape Ordinance and there are two sections of that ordinance that the proposed
site plan does not comply with. The first one deals with the five-foot minimum perimeter
landscape strips that are adjacent to any vehicular use area. Such areas would be the
property line between the existing asphalt here and the existing auto sales and car
wash uses north of it, as well as along the private drive. We would recommend that the
applicant revise the site plan to add a five-foot landscape strip along those boundaries.
There has been some discussion with the applicant since the writing of the staff report
suggesting that he intends to sell off this undeveloped portion that you see as proposed
for undeveloped on the site plan. The compromise may be that instead of following the
property line, that he follow the edge of his proposed asphalt at a minimum, so that
when that -- if and when that becomes a property line, there is an existing perimeter
buffer in place per the ordinance. Moving on to the bottom paragraph. There is also an
ordinance requirement that an auto repair use, which would be considered a Class Four
use in the Landscape Ordinance, next to single-family residence, which would be
considered Class One, needs a buffer between land uses of at least 25 feet. Then the
area adjacent to the multi-family would be classified, as Class Two and it would require
at least 20 feet. We would recommend that they revise the site plan to provide that full
25 foot buffer along the south adjacent to those existing residences and along the east,
while it -- there is an easement along the Five Mile Creek, which is not shown on the
applicant's site plan, that will likely preclude the planting of trees. Therefore, we would
recommend that that tree planting for that buffer be just along the outside edge of
where ever that easement lies and we need to find out where it lies. Item C on Page 4
deals with compatibility issues. We certainly feel that the proposed transmission shop
use is compatible with the three adjacent automobile sales and car wash facilities to its
north, but there are certainly some possible incompatibilities with the adjoining
residential uses to its south and possibly to the west. Whether or not there is,
incompatibilities will depend largely on noise and visual screening, which we will have to
discuss with the applicant tonight. Skipping on to Item G on Page 5. This deals with
noise, fumes, glare, and we do feel that a lot of that will depend on how much is -- of
the work is contained within the building and the hours of operation. We have in here
that the applicant should submit a written statement. They have. You should have a
copy of that tonight. They are stating that their hours of operation will be between 8:00
A.M. and 6:00 P.M. That's dated July 31st
and signed by Larry Palmer, the owner. I'd
just like to make sure that's noted for the record. Skipping down to the bottom of Page
5 and the top of Page 6, under additional considerations. This property was annexed
back in 1996 by the current owner Mr. Lamont Kuba. I hope I said that properly. One
condition of the annexation that was placed on it was to enter into a Development
Agreement. We have discovered that that Development Agreement was never
completed or signed. Thereafter, we recommend that that Development Agreement be
finalized and -- prior to issuing a Certificate of Zoning Compliance on the project. Most
of the things we have just discussed show up in the site specific requirements, so I'm
just going to hit a couple things that have not been mentioned yet. One is Item 9 on
Page 7, which says that the applicant shall submit 10 copies of the south elevation prior
to the P&Z hearing and that has not yet been done. Item 10 talks about the need to
add at least one off-street parking space, but we need to make sure that we address
whether or not they need an additional 15 to accommodate the agreement with the lot
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 19
to the north. We just went over Item 11 earlier talking about the maximum of five
vehicles and I think that's enough for me to start with. I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any Commissioners for staff?
Zaremba: When I was reading through the materials, the alarming question was the
Development Agreement. It's been six years. This was August of 1996, six years ago,
and I wonder whether the annexation is even valid. Is that -- if two parties make an
agreement that one is going to do something and the other is going to do something
and one of them hasn't done it, is the annexation valid?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I -- maybe I'll turn to Legal Counsel, but I'll give my opinion.
The annexation itself was finalized and was given an ordinance and published. I
believe that it's a fully legal annexation and is in force without any problems. It's just
that one condition of that has never been followed up on and needs to be cleaned up.
Wollen: I would agree. I mean I believe if the city has treated it as an annexation and
the city has compiled with its part of the bargain, then it can hold the property to be
annexed into the City of Meridian. I believe that it is valid.
Borup: Just an item of note, Sharon has mentioned that in the past a lot of times that
was done after the annexation and the policy now is it's done before or – before, or at
the same time. That type of problem shouldn't be happening in the future.
Zaremba: This is the third or fourth time in the last few months that something has --
Borup: It has.
Zaremba: And I agree but that's on an old issues, I guess it's not happening anymore,
but we are still having a few of them to clean up it looks like.
Borup: I'm sure we do.
Zaremba: I certainly would want to see that happen before this moved forward.
Borup: Any other questions from any Commissioners?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'll point out one final thing. That is on Page 6 in the first site
specific requirement it does talk about the fact that this Conditional Use Permit does
need to comply with the conditions of that Annexation Ordinance. Without going
through them in too much detail, the one that's in Item E in the staff report talks about
needing to meet the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Then reviewing those
this afternoon one of note is Item 19-E on Page 23 of the Findings of Fact, which says
that there shall be no wrecked, demolished, or junk cars kept or stored on the property,
unless they are totally screened from view. We need to make sure that any
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 20
automobiles that are in disrepair must be completely screened from view in order to
meet that finding in the annexation requirement. That's all. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening and would like to make
their presentation?
Schultz: Mr. Chairman, Members of the P&Z Commission, my name is Art Schultz from
the Treasure Valley Engineers and I'm representing the owner, who will probably have
an opportunity to speak up. I'd like to address some of the comments that have been
brought up here. First, I'd just like to remind everybody that there is water and sewer
that comes down a private road --
Borup: Could you maybe just bring the microphone up just a little bit closer? Thank
you.
Schultz: That serves the property. It runs all the way down from the north to the south
and then if you will notice it runs along the south boundary and then up -- the sewer
does, runs along the south boundary and then up along Five Mile Drain. Can you turn
back to that picture?
Siddoway: Which one? Oh, the site plan or the picture?
Schultz: The site plan, please.
Siddoway: Okay. Sorry. There we go.
Schultz: So what you see along the bottom boundary there is --
Borup: Will this help you?
Schultz: You can see along the bottom boundary there is a sewer line that is a City of
Meridian sewer line and it runs up along parallel with Five Mile Drain. What you have is
a 20 foot buffer there already, which is -- which is an easement that you can't landscape
or anything over that. It has to be a continued easement that has to be used by the city
services. For the most part, as far as the landscaping that we request be made to it, we
are prepared to add some additional landscaping through here and some -- and I
believe this is landscaping as required from the city. I guess I wasn't aware until tonight
about the issue about the additional parking spaces that are promised to the adjacent
property owner. You can see that we spent -- certainly have plenty of additional area to
add parking if we need to and so we will certainly add those parking places as required
and I believe that we can work that out easily. It's dealing with the gentleman here on
the staff. As far as the storage area here, apparently if we do have to have a buffer
through here, we are going to have to make that considerably smaller. We'd like not to
have to go 25 feet in addition to the 20 feet that we already have there. That would be
45 feet from the property line. We would like to have some sort of Variance to that
additional 25 feet. What we were proposing there was just some additional trees there
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 21
with about a five-foot landscape buffer. Again, you're -- this is a fence -- a wood fence
along here and you got 20 foot and then we'd like to have the five feet. That's what we
were kind of hoping for would be that -- that would be the 25 feet or 20 foot easement
and the five foot for landscaping and adjust that a little bit, because this just seemed
unreasonable to add another 25 feet over the 20. Additionally, through here the same
thing. You know, we are prepared to do a little landscaping along here, but again, to not
have to have that full buffer screen. As far as the drainage, right now all of this area
here drains down that private drive. You probably noticed in the photographs there the
inverted ground or gully that runs down the middle into a ditch that ends up to a
pretreatment area and then into a drain area, which is our intent, is to capture all the
water that comes through here and continue using this area. Obviously, we are going
to have to increase the size of that and certainly, we can do that during the design. As
far as some of these other issues, one of them was having a south elevation and I have
got some photographs here of similar buildings, if I may give you guys a copy of that.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Art, if you will provide us with those photos we can put them
up on the screen.
Schultz: Okay. This is a photograph of a building that's already over in the Meridian
Business Park that was built by the same builder who will be building this site for Mr.
Palmer and similar colors and everything. In fact, this is why the contractor was
involved -- is involved, because the owner has seen this building and he liked the way it
looked and felt it would be a very good use for his building. Basically, what you're
looking at in the pictures is -- those little color sketches don't really do it justice. More or
less what it's been modeled afterwards.
Centers: Excuse me. What you're saying is we can enter into the record that the
building will look like this?
Schultz: Very similar. It will have a different front entry.
Centers: I think we need to know exactly what it looks like.
Schultz: You have copies of that.
Borup: We have the elevation.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: We just don't have the south --
Schultz: The color code and how it will appear. What's missing in the record is what
they have asked for. It's an additional comment --
Centers: The south elevation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 22
Schultz: There really is not much to add to that south elevation. I guess my mistake for
not showing it on there. It's going to look just like the rest of the building, except for it
doesn't have any openings in windows and the doors, it's just going to be a plain -- but
have the same double colored look with the wainscot brought all the way around it and
so that's really the intent.
Borup: So it's a solid wall with the same trim, no doors, and no windows?
Schultz: All the way around it. No doors, no windows. Same trim. Everything. As far
as additional areas for the build area, this was the first that I have heard of that, but I
believe that we currently have room to add parking on this site, so we feel quite
comfortable with that.
Borup: Was there intended to be a sales area there?
Schultz: I wasn't aware of it.
Borup: Okay. That's what you meant, you weren't aware --
Schultz: But certainly, it appears that we have room to do that. We are fortunate to
have a fairly large site and so some adjustments can be made. As far as the flood
plane issues, we are fully aware of those things and we will design the building and set
up it above the flood plane. I think the comment is made about the storage area and
making sure, that's above the flood plane. Actually, I think it's a good one, because we
don't want to have to worry about that potentially, any drips or anything being washed
into it, in the flood area. We will certainly take care of that.
Zaremba: On that subject, do you know how your elevation compares to the homes
that would be behind it? Are you higher or lower or --
Schultz: Well, we will be roughly --
Zaremba: Ground level?
Schultz: -- higher, because those homes would have to also be above the 100 year
flood plane and that whole surface area is relatively the same through there. It will
probably be about the same.
Zaremba: The end result you're saying?
Schultz: Yes but those are our comments. We totally intend to comply. We have done
a lot of projects in Meridian and I feel like we work well with the planning staff and we
will certainly work those items out and make it work out. Therefore, I stand for any
questions.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 23
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? You did not have any concerns
with any of the staff comments, then is that correct? Or is there something that you
clarified or --
Schultz: The only one thing we'd like to not have to have is the 20-foot for the sewer
line and then another 25 feet.
Borup: Okay.
Schultz: They are not going to allow us to landscape the 20 feet where the sewer is,
but they don't mind if we paved it, but that's an additional cost that --
Centers: If I could go back to the site. You own the entire property right here?
Schultz: Correct. That's what we were encompassing at the time, just that portion.
Centers: What I'm wondering is could that building be situated differently on the land?
You have plenty of room?
Schultz: Oh, yes. We were hoping to not go too much further to the west, because Mr.
Palmer had some future intent for that.
Centers: Because that's what I looked at immediately was this storage area, which is --
abuts the neighbor's home -- there is existing homes right here. Then the barbed wire
fence at the top as a security fence for this storage area, I think I would find that very
offensive if I were a neighbor. That's what I was wondering if you could resituate the
building on the land.
Schultz: That's something we could certainly discuss.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? It's looks like we
have none. Commissioners, do we have a little discussion? The applicant mentioned
the one item that they were in agreement with on the staff report was buffering on that
area on the south. Anybody have any comments on that?
Centers: I guess feel like the applicant should comply with the Landscape Ordinance
and I think -- I think we are looking at a continuance. I think the Development
Agreement must be signed. I think we need to talked to Tom Kuntz at the Parks and
Recreation and read our staff -- the staff report in detail and see if they can come back
with a clean proposal. It doesn't appear that we have neighbors here objecting to this,
so I think if it came back with those things done -- personally, I don't like to see that
storage area abutting the neighbors, but the neighbors aren't here to talk about it and I
can't speak for them.
Borup: I don't know if that -- it hasn't mentioned whether it's a site reducing fence or
just an open chain link. I think that's something we could discuss.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 24
Centers: Yes.
Borup: The other thing would be the landscaping buffer itself.
Zaremba: On that project --
Borup: I think there is merit to -- you know, there is already 20 feet there, but also I don't
think six feet is enough to have much of a landscape screen either.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: I'm leaning in the direction of a compromise in there, the 20 feet that has to
stay blank and maybe another 10 feet that's -- I don't know whether it needs to be
bermed or not, but at least has a lot of trees on it. It would be a total of 30 feet from the
property line, but only 10 feet from the -- I would agree to absorb the whole 45 is a
pretty heavy requirement.
Borup: Well, there can be some -- and I don't remember how it's stated -- some
mitigating things on the landscaping where you can increase -- I believe can't we in
some instances increase the number of trees and -- with other reductions?
Zaremba: In exchange for not requiring an additional 25 feet?
Siddoway: That would be something that would be possible through alternative
compliance. You just have to make the finding that what the compromise is meets the
intent of the ordinance.
Zaremba: I kind of -- Commissioner Centers has made the point that the neighbors are
not here, but I think this is something we would hear about afterwards. The storage
area needs to be screened pretty well from the neighbors, whether they are here or not.
Borup: I think that's one of our responsibilities. Mr. Freckleton, did you have a
comment?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out -- if this might help you at all -- even
though we have 25 -- or a 20 foot easement through there for the sewer, as long as I
have got a 14 foot wide gravel road over the top of the sewer for access to the
manholes, I don't have a problem with them landscaping the balance of it with grass
and ground cover type things. We certainly wouldn't want large trees in that area, but
I've got no problem at all incorporating the balance of the easement into some
landscape scheme.
Borup: Well, that kind of answers my question. One of the things -- or the thing I was
thinking of, by the time those trees reach maturity, six feet definitely is enough to handle
a tree of any size. It is going to extend -- extend over that. Even 10 feet would not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 25
handle a tree of any size. If we have got another six feet onto the easement for tree
growth and maybe a little more on the other side, but I'm -- I like what Commissioner
Zaremba said, a compromise is --
Zaremba: I picked 10 feet out of the air. Maybe it should be 12 but I agree, it does --
it's uncomfortable to say it has to be 25 plus 20.
Borup: It sounds like as far as landscaping, you know, five of that comes from existing
easements.
Zaremba: Well, certainly the trees could overhang it. They couldn't be planted in there.
Borup: Right. Right and we definitely need that so I think 10 or 12 feet would probably
be --
Zaremba: New drawings have to be done that show the parking areas corrected and --
you know, my personal feeling is I'm thrilled we have a business here that's growing and
needs a bigger place and I think that's wonderful. At the moment, the Development
Agreement is a showstopper for me, but these are things that can be resolved.
Borup: At what point should the Development Agreement be signed?
Siddoway: We have in our staff report that we recommend that it be finalized before
staff issues a Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
Borup: Okay. That's -- which is normally --
Siddoway: Which is prior to Building Permits, but after this process.
Borup: And that's kind of the point I'm getting at there. It's not something that needs to
be done before it comes here. That staff would be in control of whether a certificate
was issued.
Zaremba: There is a way to force it to be done.
Borup: I don't think anything was mentioned on the Five Mile Creek. Did staff -- you
mentioned Five Mile Creek on the adjoining properties either. Do you know what the
Parks Department wants to see there?
Siddoway: I don't. The pathway was not addressed at the time that the apartment
complex came through. Therefore, my guess is that it's going to have to be on the
north side of Five Mile Creek through here and would then pass through this property
here. I can't say for sure, because I don't -- I assume it's not piped in the existing
subdivision, is it, Bruce? It's not piped, so I think it just needs to be addressed by the
Parks Department. I don't know.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 26
Borup: Okay. They may or may not want something there, but at this point, they
haven't been contacted, so we don't know.
Siddoway: Correct.
Borup: Okay.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: I agree with that buffer. I think that to have a net of 45 feet is pretty
excessive. I think -- my suggestion on that would be to leave it to staff to come up with
a reasonable -- just depending on the tree growth, roots not getting into the sewer,
whatever a reasonable additional amount would be, but probably around 10 to 15 feet,
anyway, would probably be a -- I would guess would be a reasonable window.
Otherwise, I think the applicant just needs to go back and clear up some of these
issues. You know, the additional 15-foot stall -- or 15 parking stalls, if, in fact, that was
something that needs to be taken care of and shown on the plan, but, otherwise, I don't
-- I don't have too many problems with this, just a matter of showing it as it's going to be
built.
Smith: Mr. Chairman? I would like to note that the Parks Department does receive
their transmittals at the same time you do. I mean he's had ample time to comment and
I just noted his lack of comments on this. I will give him a call tomorrow and let him
know that we are looking for some information from him.
Borup: That's true. He's usually pretty good about commenting if he had one and
stating if he didn't have any -- any comment. I'm not sure why we don't have that on
this one.
Zaremba: Well, I'm of the opinion that the issues that need to be resolved are
reasonably clear to the applicant and staff.
Borup: I was just going to say if we are going to --
Zaremba: Is a motion in order to continue?
Borup: I think so. I'd just like to maybe see the issues laid out specifically, so --
Zaremba: I'll defer to somebody who wants to do that.
Centers: So we need to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Well, if we are going to continue it --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 27
Centers: Continue it. Yes.
Borup: And that is -- the date is going to be a little bit tricky with what we have already
got on the agendas. Maybe we need to -- how much time would be necessary?
Information from the applicant, how much time do you think you'd need to do the
redesign? Okay. For the record he said it could be done in a week or so.
Zaremba: The general -- the time frame would be that staff would have to have
everything by Monday, the 5th
, for us to deal with it on Thursday, the 15th
. The applicant
is nodding his head.
Borup: The 15th
had a Public Hearing on Fairview Lakes and Lochsa.
Zaremba: Big ones.
Borup: Then one small -- and then one small one, but basically those would be the two.
Or if the Commission had taken care of it two weeks ago --
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Thank you. When I was gone.
Centers: Took care of one of them.
Shreeve: You know we typically don't do continuances on the 5th
, the first Thursday, but
possibly the 5th
of September, probably.
Borup: We have 12 items -- well, we have, -- well we have quite a few -- eight items.
Two subdivisions. Two residential subdivisions.
Zaremba: I'm not sensing that this one is going to add a great deal of length to
whatever meeting it goes to.
Borup: That's what I was going to say.
Zaremba: I personally don't have a problem with that for the 15th
, you know. It may be
a six-hour meeting, but this is only going to add 10 minutes to it.
Borup: If everything gets worked out.
Zaremba: Yes so if staff can handle getting the stuff on the 5th
and the applicant can do
it on the 5th
, then I don't have a problem continuing it to the 15th
.
Shreeve: Well, with the condition, I guess, that staff is pleased with the progress that's
been made and it's prepared and it's ready to go on the 15th
. Otherwise, let's don't take
the time to hash it out again. I guess that would be a judgment call of the staff.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 28
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, that said, we still have to set it to a date certain in order for
the public to know when to show up again. We can't just say, well, we might do it on the
15th
, but if we are not happy, it will be here.
Zaremba: Well, we'd have to continue -- you know, we'd continue it again if things are
not ironed out.
Siddoway: If the applicant has stated to staff that they will have everything back to us
on the 5th
, if that's the case, I don't see why we couldn't review it and have revised
comments for the Commission for the 15th
.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: And the applicant and staff are fairly clear what the issues are? Okay. Mr.
Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would make a motion that we continue the Public Hearing on CUP 02-019
until our meeting on the 15th
of August. That's the motion.
Borup: Okay. Do we want to outline any specifics that need to be covered or we feel
that's been done?
Shreeve: I think they are spelled out.
Zaremba: I don't think they need to be --
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 02-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
professional beauty salon in an R-15 zone for The Designing Team
Salon by the Designing Team Inc. – 1226 East 2 ½ Street:
Borup: Thank you. That's continued to the 15th
. The next Item is CUP 02-020, request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a professional beauty salon in an R-15 zone for The
Designing Team Salon at 1226 East 2 1/2 Street. Love the name of that street. I'd like
to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 29
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The subject property is on the east side of 2 1/2
Street directly across the street from where the proposed gymnasium site was for Cole
Valley Christian School, just to get you oriented. It's adjacent to the Old Town area,
northeast of where we sit tonight, and these are some existing site photos. It is an
existing home. Proposed to be remodeled into a hair and nail salon. This is the
proposed site plan. You should have a staff report dated July 29th
. I'll just hit a couple
of highlights. Like I said, it is a proposed beauty salon. It will include nine hair-nail
stations. They will also provide products for retail sales to patrons. Their improvements
include a new driveway, additional parking in the rear, and additional landscaping.
Given the limitations of the site and pre-application meetings with the applicant, we
have worked out what we believe to be the best possible layout, which includes a 16
foot wide drive aisle along the south side of the building. There are proposed parking
stalls in the rear that are nine by 16 and a 22-foot driveway or drive aisle behind that.
They are surrounding the entire property with a landscape buffer and providing trees
within that. I believe they are every 35 feet on center. Those reduced dimensions for
the drive aisles and the parking do not meet current ordinance. Staff does not object to
those reductions given the existing site limitations, but the applicant will have to apply
for a variance to get such approved. I would note for the record that the applicant has
applied for that Variance and it is being processed and will catch up with this application
as it goes on to City Council. Under site specific requirements on Page 4, I would just
point out proposed limitation on their hours of operation from 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.,
due to the abundance of adjoining residential use. With that as an introduction, I will
stand for any questions. Staff does recommend approval with the conditions in the staff
report. That's all I have. Thanks.
Zaremba: I do have a question. In the Variance, for the size of the driveway access
and parking does that get run through police or fire or the emergency services that have
to use it to express an opinion about it?
Siddoway: Yes, it does and I want to say that they have talked with fire, but I don't
know for sure. I will let the applicant address that.
Zaremba: Okay. Then the other questions for Mr. Freckleton. Again, this is an existing
building -- business that's growing and moving and that's always appreciated. Are there
any issues with the waste that would go into sewer from beauty salon chemicals?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we do have a Pretreatment
Coordinator that will be reviewing the application as it goes through. They will be
looking at the type of use and what the waste will be and make that determination.
Zaremba: Pretty standard?
Freckleton: Yes.
Borup: Is the applicant here this evening?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 30
Galaspy: Well, Commissioners, I'm Perry Galaspy and I'm representing The Designing
Team Salon. After reviewing the staff report, we agree with all conditions that have
been presented to us. If there are any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Centers: I have one question for yourself and staff. I assume that we met the parking
requirements based on square footage of the building, but you had 10 hairdressers -- I
mean nine --
Zaremba: Stations.
Centers: And do you think you have adequate parking? I mean --
Galaspy: Yes. The reason they think they had adequate parking is usually there is five
to six employees there at a time. They rotate.
Centers: So you're really not going to have nine hairdressers there at one time.
Galaspy: No.
Zaremba: They have nine customers, I mean -- okay. Eighteen right there. May I -- I
mean --
Centers: That's all right. Go ahead.
Zaremba: I just want to clarify. This is an existing residence being converted to a
building. Nobody's planning to live there once it's converted?
Galaspy: No.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on CUP 02-020 be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 31
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP
02-020, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a professional beauty salon in an R-15
zone for The Designing Team Salon by the Designing Team, Inc., 1226 East 2 1/2
Street, Meridian. To include all staff comments and the requirement that there be a
variance for parking and access.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 02-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
preschool and childcare facility in an R-15 zone for Kinder Kollege by
Kathy Jordan – 1930 North Linder Road:
Borup: Thank you. The next Public Hearing is CUP 02-021, request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a preschool and child care facility in an R-15 zone for Kinder Kollege by
Kathy Jordan. This is located at 1930 North Linder Road. We'd like to open that Public
Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed day care, called Kinder Kollege, is
located at 1930 North Linder Road. It is at the intersection of Linder Road and Storey.
You can see it outlined in black. Cherry Lane would be to the south just off the map
here. Tulley Park would be just farther up to the north. The staff report is dated July
22nd
. In the summary it talks about the number of children being requested being 70
plus or minus. I believe the applicant's response indicates a maximum of 63. I will let
her address that number for the record. There are some parking issues with this, which
I can go over on the site in just a minute. They are proposing to utilize off-site parking
at Meridian Assembly of God Church, which is south of the property and staff is
recommending that we continue this application tonight. Of course, we will need to
hear the testimony, but the ACHD Commission has not finalized their report on this and
we feel that that needs to be done before sending this on to City Council. It is -- this is
also an existing -- well, it used to be an existing home. It currently has a business in it.
You can see the site photos on the screen. This is alongside the side yard looking west
towards Linder Road. The property would be off to the left here. This is the rear yard of
the property. Currently cars come in and park just in the gravel area off the existing
Linder Road paving. On the proposed site plan the issues that rise come from the fact
that they are -- ACHD is purchasing quite a bit of right of way for the future widening of
Linder Road, which takes away the ability for such parking to continue. There is a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 32
sidewalk at the Meridian Assembly of God Church that ends and that's another issue
that needs to be addressed, is for the off-site parking. There is not a sidewalk that
connects the two properties at this time. This is the site plan that was submitted with
the application. The applicant has also submitted a revised site plan today, which
maybe I can get up there. I think our projector needs a new bulb. On Page 2 of the
staff report, Item A, it talks about the finding that whether or not the site is large enough
to accommodate all of the required improvements. We find that the site is not large
enough to accommodate the required number of off-street parking stalls, which would
be a total of at least 13. That would increase as the percentage of children under 18
months that are being cared for, because that's how the parking requirements are
determined. Just underneath that, we have got the off-street parking analysis, which
Brad Hawkins-Clark has put together. In here his first sentence -- or second sentence
in there states that ACHD is prohibiting access to the property from Linder Road. They
have -- staff has revised their initial report, which initially just prohibited access off of
Linder Road to giving an option either none or a one-way only access, which this
revised site plan is depicting. It would have to be located 10 feet north of the south
property line. Now on this site plan north is to the left. Linder Road is out here at the
bottom of the drawing. This would be the south property line and 10 feet north of that is
where they could take a one-way access off. Like I say, that is still in draft version, has
not been acted on yet by the ACHD Commission. Another issue is the parking that is
on the north side of the house is in violation of another City Ordinance that states that
when sites abut residential uses, which there are residential uses across the street and
behind, parking shall not be permitted in the setback area. There is a side setback here
of 20 feet as a street side setback in the zone. I'm not -- I will let the applicant talk
about their modification to the site plan, because it just came in and I haven't had a
chance to look at it, but one question would be as to whether they have been able to
shift those out of that required setback area. The bottom of that page it talks about the
shared parking arrangement with the Meridian Assembly of God Church. Staff does
believe that the City Ordinance would allow for shared parking, but our concern is with
the lack of pedestrian access from the church parking lot to the childcare center. As
noted there is no sidewalk that connects the two and if the Commission and Council do
approve the shared parking arrangement, staff recommends that the applicant provide
a continuous off-street -- it says all-weather surface in the staff report, basically. At
least asphalt and five foot wide that would connect the two. This would actually require
obtaining approval from the property owner between the two, because it would have to -
- you know, they couldn't just go and put it in, they have to get that approval.
Zaremba: I think you are clarifying one of my questions. There is an unrelated property
between these two?
Siddoway: There is an unrelated property between the two and it has a residence on it
and this is Ardis -- I'm going to botch that one. Schlafke? Thank you. She's the
property owner between the two sites. The other thing related to that would be that the
applicant would need to confirm that the church would not be under their minimum
required parking spaces, which one per five seats in their auditorium if they do provide
spaces to the day care.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 33
Shreeve: Is there 13 or 12 parking stalls required?
Siddoway: Good question. It contradicts itself. A total of 13. I believe it's 13.
Zaremba: And your point is we need to verify that those 13 are surplus as far as the
church is concerned?
Siddoway: The applicant just handed us a letter from the Meridian Assembly of God on
their letterhead that states that they have seating for 1,200. Using the ratio of one
space per five seats, we would need 240 spaces. They have 447. So providing 15
shouldn't be a problem.
Shreeve: I don't think that's enough.
Siddoway: Okay. Moving on. There is a requirement for handicapped parking and I
believe the applicant on this revised site plan is showing the handicapped parking
space at an angle here. We would like to make sure that the required handicapped
space at least is on the site, so it's directly adjacent to that for good access. In order to
utilize these parking spaces, if they are not outside of the required setbacks, they would
require a Variance from the City Council based on a hardship on the current site
configuration. Item C on Page 4 deals with compatibility and I would just point out that
they are trying to address the compatibility issues with the new landscape buffers. It
appears that they are proposing planting fairly heavily the south side of the property.
Technically, another buffer would be required along the east, but I believe the applicant
addresses that in their response, so I will actually just leave to that her to address. I
think there is some existing heavy plantings on the adjacent property. Item B deals with
their proposed hours of operation, which they stated closing by 6:00 P.M. We find that
to be reasonable and just wanted to note that. Page 5 under additional considerations,
there is, what, one, two, three -- three of them. The first one is Linder Road landscape
buffer. As an arterial Linder Road would require a 25 foot landscape buffer by the letter
of the ordinance. The Landscape Ordinance does address reductions to that buffer. It
states that under no circumstances should the buffer be reduced less than ten percent
of the depth of the lot. That would be I believe 12 feet. I think the site is 120 feet deep.
Does that sound right? If -- let's see. The underlying portion at the bottom of Page 5
states that the applicant needs to consider the options and submit a revised site plan
that shows some type of landscape buffer along Linder Road. I believe what we have
before us right now would be their proposal, which would be a landscape buffer in this
section. I'm not sure its width. It looks about five feet and then it, of course, goes away
at the entryway and it looks like it goes away again over here. I'm not sure if that would
be okay with ACHD or not. There is something that will need to be worked out there.
The second item, item two under the additional considerations on Page 6, talks about
the required buffers between the residences. I have already mentioned this, so we will
just have the applicant discuss the buffers on hers and adjoining properties. Item
Number 3 deals with a freestanding sign. The ordinance in this case would have a
maximum size of 16 square feet. The applicant has a sign that they wish to use that is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 34
24 square feet, a difference of just eight square feet. Staff is recommending here that
we accept that -- that additional size, but require the -- reduce the maximum height of
eight feet to six feet as a compromise. The Commission will need to consider that in
their request. I think the last thing I have would be flipping over to Page 8, Item 14,
where we ask the applicant to state the specific maximum number of children being
proposed and that the Commission and the Council need to determine the appropriate
number through the testimony tonight. With that I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Is the applicant --
Zaremba: I do have some. Isn't there -- this may be an ACHD requirement, but isn't
there a requirement that a driveway be a certain distance from an intersection? It looks
like the exit driveway they are proposing is right at the intersection.
Siddoway: There is and I don't believe that this is proposed to be an exit. I believe that
we may need this landscape buffer to continue down this corner -- it will have to be
worked out if it's to go through, but their requirement is that they cannot exist onto
Linder Road at all. Their exit has to be at least 50 feet from the intersection on Storey,
which I believe is about at this point. They would be proposing a one-way loop that
then exits right up here where this arrow is.
Zaremba: Can you go to the -- I guess you call it an area plan? It's not really the site
plan, but it shows the location of this lot and the church.
Siddoway: Oh.
Zaremba: Let's see. Can you, if you know, identify for us on the church property where
is the parking area of the church property?
Siddoway: I'm going to ask the applicant to do that, because I have not personally been
out to the site recently.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: And, Steve, if you could go back to the site plan, please.
Siddoway: Oh, the new one?
Centers: Yes, please.
Siddoway: Okay.
Centers: Linder Road is intended to be widened in 2007 correct?
Siddoway: I don't --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 35
Centers: I think I read that. How much of the front portion of that property would they
lose at that time? Five years from now, I guess.
Zaremba: I think their drawing indicates the loss. There is an existing edge of road and
then the dotted line is their proposed -- what they would lose.
Centers: So the drawing has provided for the easement?
Siddoway: Yes. I don't have an architectural scale with me. It looks like it's drawn at
1/8th
inch equals a foot, so it's about two inches, roughly, so 16 feet. The applicant can
maybe address that better.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: ACHD says they were taking 45 feet from the centerline on this side. Is that an
existing 50-foot right of way?
Siddoway: I believe it's more -- I don't know what is existing.
Borup: Okay. If it's an existing 50, they would be taking 20. Okay. Any other
questions from the Commission?
Centers: No.
Borup: Is the applicant here and would like to make their presentation?
Mooney: My name is Amy Mooney and I am representing the applicant. She is unable
to attend. On the number of children, in speaking with the Fire Department you have to
allow 35 square feet per child. Our maximum number of kids on this building would be
63. Then as far as the parking, I was wondering if someone else could speak to you
guys on that, because I'm not real comfortable with that, because it's kind of -- the
parking was just revised the other day and I --
Centers: Is there someone here?
Mooney: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Wolff: My name is Barbara Wolff and I actually had a conversation with ACHD, so I will
disclose that conversation and why we changed the plan and answer questions on it.
ACHD indicated when I met with them on Wednesday that they have various concerns
on traffic backing up onto Linder or onto Storey if we had two entrances and two exits
off of those two streets. Originally our application had a drop-off area off of Linder and
then a parking area off of Storey and in conversation with Craig Hood and one of the
traffic supervisors. They indicated that they would probably support a one-way parking
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 36
-- a one-way driveway with just one entrance as far from the front as we could get on
Linder and one exit as far from the frontage as we could get on Storey.
Centers: Let me interrupt. You would be losing the parking along Storey, then?
Wolff: No. We would still keep those. Actually that --
Centers: You would still have enough room to keep those?
Wolff: That's the old -- that's the first one. Okay. That is the second one. We would
keep two spaces on Storey for the van parking.
Centers: You're proposing to keep two. I think the --
Wolff: That's correct.
Centers: I think the planning staff is stating you would need a Variance.
Wolff: That's correct. We are aware that there would be a Variance required to see if it
would be approved for those sites.
Centers: Excuse me.
Wolff: Those two spaces would be the van parking. They do take kids to and from
school at the lunch hour and they do take -- pick up kids from after school. Then we
revised it to allow for one parking space for handicapped near the -- near the -- or the
sidewalk that would go to the entrance. That's the handicapped and then directly east
of that there would be a five foot wide drive -- or sidewalk to the entrance. There is a
tree in this northwest corner of the lot, about 20 inches around, and we -- the reason
that parking lot or that driveway goes around that tree is strictly to save the tree. We
are aware that in the event we have to put a parking buffer across Linder and it would
extend close to the corner of that, it would have to come out and we would have to plant
additional trees. The reason it makes that little dip there in front is strictly to safe the
mature landscaping. There would be no exist off of that one-way parking -- one-way
driveway, except for the part on Storey. We eliminated the three additional parking
spaces on the south side of the lot. We had six on the original proposal. We went with
two for the van parking and one to accommodate the wheelchair access.
Mathes: Do you have something on there so that they don't drive --
Wolff: There would have to be curbing in order to -- I think probably to retain the -- or to
move the water to keep it from going in the gutter, as well as so the cars couldn't leave,
other than in the assigned entrance and exits. We figured we could probably have
approximately five vehicles in that lane at any given time, which means we shouldn't
have backup on either street. The kids come and go over about a three-hour period in
the morning and about a three hour in the afternoon, so they don't all come at once.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 37
There is not like, you know, 63 kids worth of cars there at any given time. Some of
them come together, some families have more than one child, and some of them go
directly to school and are just picked up at the lunch hour and they come over a three-
hour period. You don't have, you know, 60 kids worth of cars at any given time.
Mathes: How far is it from that tree to that edge?
Wolff: Oh, we are about 12 or 13 feet, I think, is where we are at.
Mathes: Enough room so cars can --
Wolff: Exactly and still have landscape around it.
Centers: How many cars could back up here?
Wolff: How many cars could back up? Well, we anticipate that the drop-off area would
be along Storey, because that's where the entrance through the gate -- you have to --
Centers: Okay so then they are coming here and back here and drop off --
Wolff: They would drop off back there, so they would not be dropping children off on
Linder, the Linder side of that, because they can't get their kids out of the car and into
the facility. They would have to go along the Storey side, which is where the entrance
into the facility would be, so that you won't have people stopping right on Linder to let
the kids out, they would have to pull on around to the Storey side.
Centers: So a number of cars --
Wolff: Yes. You should be able to get five or six cars on there at any given time, so it
shouldn't back them up, where it's not the beginning of the one way drive or you drop
them -- or let them out of your car, it's towards the end of the one-way drive. That
should eliminate the safety issue as far as cars backing up onto Linder.
Mathes: Do people actually drop their kids off and they walk in by themselves?
Wolff: I think -- I actually don't -- I don't know that, because I'm not involved in the day
care end of that business. I would think that they would have an employee that would
be there to take the children as people drop them off, would be what I would anticipate,
and we have proposed this with a gate -- oh, just down from your flashing cursor --
there we go. Right there. That would be the entrance area to come in for someone --
obviously, you just wouldn't let your two year old out, there would be an employee that
would take that child.
Mathes: So if they wanted to bring them in, they would have to park down at the
church?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 38
Wolff: Actually, they could still drop their child off and what I understood from the
applicant, the rule would be that if they would like to speak to them, they need to let the
children off in the drop-off area, so there would be no children walking from the church
to the day care, so it would be adults only.
Centers: Whose is using most of the parking at the church?
Wolff: Nobody during the week. There is nobody there.
Centers: No. I mean the day care. Who would be the primary users?
Wolff: The employees or parents that would like to come in and have conferences with
the day care.
Centers: And so you're saying that half of the 63 drop off at one time and the other half
at another time at various times?
Wolff: No.
Centers: So there are 30 some --
Wolff: No. They come over a three-hour period in the morning and then over about a
three-hour period in afternoon.
Centers: Sixty-three in the morning, sixty-three in the afternoon?
Wolff: No. They would -- sixty-three pick-ups in the afternoon, sixty-three drop offs in
the morning.
Centers: Over a three-hour period?
Wolff: Over a three-hour period each would be the maximum that you would have at
any given time.
Centers: But most of them at one time -- I mean they are not going to come every 10
minutes over three hours?
Wolff: Actually, I'm not involved in the business end, so I can only tell you the specifics
that the applicant gave me. She said that the national reports say that 4.65 or
something traffic -- car trips per day. When she had figured her actual parking, she
actually figured 1.66 trips per day per child. The reason it's less than two, because,
obviously, you'd think you would have to have at least two, a pick up and a drop off, but
you have a lot of kids that come in more than one vehicle -- more than one child in a
vehicle. Plus those -- if you have eight children in a car that you pick up from school,
that's the first time they come to the day care, they are only 1/8th
of a trip, you know, so
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 39
it moves the average way down to less than two car trips per child per day for that
facility. I don't know if I answered your question.
Centers: That's 126, then, car trips, 63 kids.
Wolff: Yes. If everyone actually had, one pick up and one drop off per day.
Centers: Yes. Well, I was just quoting your statistics.
Wolff: But the averages is that if you have eight children in a car, children that go direct
to the school, they don't come to the day care in the morning -- some of them. You pick
them up at lunchtime, you have eight kids in the car, you don't have eight pick ups, you
have one car that has 1/8th
per child, so they are not a full carloads per child on pick-
ups. It brings the average way down.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Some clarification. In the packet that you should have
received tonight, the front of it is a fax to Tara and Shari from Brad Hawkins-Clark. It
says Kinder Kollege info. If you go in two pages there is a sheet that's titled trip
generation. It's states what the lady at the microphone is saying about the 1.6 trips per
day. You're saying that with 63 proposed maximum enrolled, that would be just over
104 trips per day.
Centers: That was submitted by the applicant correct?
Siddoway: Correct.
Centers: Yes and I guess I didn't know where they got all their statistics from.
Siddoway: Well, it's based on their current location.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: They are trying to refute the really high numbers that were generated by the
traffic engineers in the ACHD report as far as trip generation. I don't know off the top of
my head what the total was in their report, but it would be more than double that
number. They are trying to provide what they think is the actual trips based on their
current business.
Borup: Any other questions on parking or ACHD issues? That's what you were here to
talk about. Okay. Thank you.
Mooney: Okay. I'm Amy Mooney again. On the sidewalk issue, going from the church
to the proposed business, ACHD had expressed if, indeed, we do use that for employee
parking and the neighbor is not willing to let us cut across her property, that there is
probably enough -- there is adequate shoulder there for us to walk from the church to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 40
the proposed school. None of that is firm or whatever. That's just -- they thought that
that would be adequate for us -- staff members to walk --
Zaremba: My question was is there adequate space now or later?
Mooney: Yes. There is adequate shoulder now.
Zaremba: But when you take another 20 feet or whatever it is.
Mooney: Yes. I don't know after they take their chunk or whatever.
Mathes: When they widen it are they putting a sidewalk on Linder, so can't the people
use the sidewalk?
Borup: Once they widen it in 2007.
Zaremba: Their widening includes a sidewalk?
Borup: Yes.
Mooney: And the whole church thing is strictly -- we aren't proposing that any kids be
over there at all. I personally don't feel that that's safe, so they would all have to be
dropped off. As far as the kids being dropped off and thrown in the day care or
whatever, the parents actually have to come in the facility and clock their kids in and
out. They are never left unattended, you know. Even if the parents are in a hurry, they
just have to come in.
Centers: Well, that was the concern, that that would be the natural assumption we
would make and then the cars would start stacking up.
Mooney: Typically we have -- I mean in the mornings and even in the evenings when
parents are picking up, everyone's schedules are so staggered that I think the most we
have every had with our -- I think we have 35 students enrolled right now. The most
cars we have ever had backed up is like three at a time.
Centers: So you're going to have --
Mooney: So we may have five or six cars, you know, but with the proposed thing with
Ada County, that's feasible, I think. I mean --
Centers: How many under two years old do you have or under 18 months?
Mooney: Right now we only have one.
Centers: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 41
Mooney: And we aren't currently taking any more infants.
Centers: Oh, you're not?
Mooney: No and then on the landscaping, Kathy is going to have to request a Variance
on that, because what we are proposing here is we would like to reduce the
landscaping along Linder so that we can save some of the more mature landscaping.
You know, of course, if that's not going to go, then we can comply with something else.
Zaremba: Just as an opinion, again, I'm thrilled that we have a business that's
expanding. I am questioning whether you're expanding enough. How long are you
going to be able to survive in this small of an expansion?
Mooney: I honestly don't know. I don't know if she wants to expand more than this or --
you know, 63 kids is quite a bit. Meridian is growing rapidly. I spoke with someone at -
- I know Christine Donnell, the Meridian School Superintendent, and just in the last year
the growth in the schools have been phenomenal and there have been over 1,000 new
students in Meridian just in the last year. The potential is unlimited, probably.
Zaremba: And what I'm feeling is we are working so hard to shoehorn this into this
small property and then you're limited, because of the square footage you can only
have -- your growth is determined. Sixty-three is it.
Mooney: Yes but it doubles our growth. I mean it doubles our --
Zaremba: Yes.
Mooney: -- current enrollment. Which is what we need. I mean you have phone call
after phone call. I mean I have been turning people away all week, because we are full.
Borup: Which may not be enough as you say, but for a business, that's doubling their
size, that's a pretty good increase.
Zaremba: That's true.
Borup: A lot of industries would like to do that.
Mooney: And then, I think there was a question on our sign. I don't see a problem at all
reducing the height to six feet. I don't -- I don't know where the eight feet came from,
but I think six feet isn't a problem at all.
Zaremba: I didn't see an indication on the site plan where that sign would be located.
Are you thinking it would be like in the middle of the berm on Linder?
Mooney: Probably.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 42
Zaremba: There are some required setbacks from the corner for the visibility triangles.
So you're saying whatever sign you locate, it would be likely to be here?
Mooney: Possibly. I don't know. I'm not sure of where the location on that would be.
Zaremba: Okay. Is that an issue for staff?
Siddoway: Somewhat. It's -- there are also requirements for how many feet it can be
from the right of way. I believe it's only like five feet, but they have only got about five
feet to work with, so at least in that area. So -- I don't know. It will just have to comply
with the ordinance or they will have to get a Variance.
Zaremba: Okay.
Mooney: And then I had a question kind of on the -- they were saying on the site
specific requirements a six foot tall non-sight obscuring fence with gate shall be
required around the entire perimeter of the children's play areas. Would that -- would
the city -- would they consider like a four-foot wooden fence with lattice on the top of it
or does it have to be chain link or -- my argument on that is kids love to climb and, you
know, I mean I have seen kids try to run right up a chain link fence. Would a cedar
fence with a two-foot lattice on the top be appropriate?
Siddoway: I'll leave that up to the Commission. It's not an ordinance requirement per
se. The intent in here was just to provide visibility into the play area.
Borup: From the building?
Siddoway: From the building, from the street, just having -- we didn't want hidden
corners. That's the issue that we were trying to address with this comment.
Borup: I'm not --
Shreeve: Chicken wire.
Zaremba: Well, I know this has come up on other school and child care facilities and
it's always been chain link, so --
Mooney: Well, we currently have chain link.
Zaremba: And that's a valid point, because I used to be one of those that did climb it
and I could climb an 18 foot one in a few minutes.
Mooney: I just was wondering if that would be a consideration at all.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 43
Borup: Well, I'm wondering the purpose to have non-sight obstruction from the street.
Is that an advantage or would it be better for people driving by and walking by not to be
able to see in there?
Siddoway: In terms of a day care, I honestly don't know if it matters, frankly, but I know
in terms of like public pathways, you know, anyplace there is people, if they are hidden,
there is always more problems than if they are just visible from the street. The more
eyes you have on them the less potential for problems you have. Where this is a
monitored playground, controlled situation, you know, it may be different.
Mooney: Well, we did have Internet observation equipment outside and inside the
school, so --
Mathes: But you have staff also?
Mooney: No.
Mathes: Your kids go out and play without anyone out there watching them?
Mooney: No. No. They are supervised at all times.
Mathes: Okay.
Borup: So what's your ---
Mooney: I’m just saying as far as, you know, people having -- I mean it wouldn't be
public viewing, you know, with a fence, but --
Borup: What type of fence would be your preference?
Mooney: I would like to see like a four-foot cedar fence or something with a two-foot
lattice on top or something. Something that, yes, you will be able to still look in if you
want. It's not going to be so tall that you can't see in, but it would deter the kids from
trying to jump ship.
Zaremba: I never tried to escape. I just liked to sit on the very top of it.
Siddoway: I don't know if it's an issue, Mr. Chairman. I'm just thinking through in my
mind the existing day cares that I can think of. I know the New Horizon Child Care
Center on Meridian Road has play areas in front and back that are chain link. I know
that the play area at the one on Franklin Road that looks like a castle is -- their play
area is chain link. You will have, you know, the visibility through it and I have not been
there enough to notice kids climbing, if it's a problem or not.
Zaremba: Did we specify on the one that's going into -- is it Carol Subdivision on Eagle,
we specified chain link I think or at least through vision.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 44
Centers: The one on Overland Road has chain link, too. The Learning Center.
Siddoway: Yes.
Mooney: That's really not a real big issue. I just wondered and then there was some
concern about handicapped parking. We did -- you know, we addressed the proposal
to ACHD and that's still up in the area. Again, Planning and Zoning wanted to know
specific maximum number of children. That is 63 and the rest I just -- she's going to
have to -- on Page 9, I did have a question on the underground pressurized irrigation it
said year around. Well, in the wintertime, you know, I don't think we are going to be
using the sprinklers or whatever to take care of the landscape. I didn't really know what
-- you know, I'm sure she would comply with that. Right now, I don't think -- there are
no sprinklers on the property. She would have to take care of that.
Borup: Is there irrigation water available?
Mooney: I don't know.
Centers: Well, that's what they are saying. They want pressurized irrigation provided
and not utilize city water. That's what they are saying.
Mooney: Right now the business is currently on city water, I believe.
Borup: I mean irrigation for the property.
Mooney: I have no idea.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I might be able to clarify this a little bit. It certainly is our
intention that if there is surface irrigation water available, that it be utilized instead of
more expensive city water. Excuse me. Is there -- this home is fairly old, I mean it's
been there a long time. Is there an existing well on the site or was it always hooked up
to city water or do you know?
Siddoway: We'll need you at the microphone.
Borup: Why don't you come on up and clarify that. May as well get in on this.
Rhodes: My name is Mary Rhodes and I currently own the property that we are
speaking about. It did have a well at one point and I'm the second owner of the home.
The previous owner was Meryl Larsen and she had to take it off the well, because there
was not enough pressure for the sprinkler system that -- we do have a sprinkler system
in our yard now, but we didn't hook it up to city, because there was not enough -- I
guess the water table in the well -- I'm not familiar with wells. It didn't have enough
pressure to disburse the water out the sprinkler system, so then she had it connected to
city. Am I --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 45
Borup: So there is a well there --
Rhodes: There was.
Borup: -- that's capped, but --
Rhodes: Yes.
Borup: -- could possible still be used if it --
Rhodes: That's something I don't know about.
Centers: It sounds like the pump was bad.
Rhodes: Well, I don't know. This was before I bought the home. I bought the home in
'91 and I have been there -- and I have an existing business now also there and it has
been a business there since Meryl Larsen owned the place. She -- and it was built in
'76 I do believe. It's not a real old home. I mean it was built in the latter '70s, so, yes,
you know, and it's all -- it's a very -- you know. Any other questions about it? I'm not
really sure about the well, but there was a well at one time. The adjacent property
behind my property that was her property also. The well might be on that property,
because she sold that piece to him or to the previous people before we bought it. It
might be on that property.
Borup: And that wouldn't do us any good if --
Rhodes: That's all I can tell you about that.
Borup: Thank you. Did you have some more to add on that?
S. Rhodes: I'm Sam Rhodes. The well is on the adjoining property that was owned by
the previous owner. When they divorced, they split it and that's why we do have
sprinklers in there, but they have been disconnected, because the well went with the
property behind it. There is irrigation that runs down the front of the property, too, that
comes in at the adjoining neighbor's house and there is a piece of wood at the
southwest corner of the property that covers the ditch, it's out by the mailboxes, so it
could get out of that ditch with a pump if you want pressurized irrigation. I had another
deal on the concern of the sidewalk from the church. If that's such a concern, how
come 200 kids a day walk down that street coming home from school? Why would nine
people that work in that business be more of a concern than all those kids coming from
school? They walk there every day. That's all I have.
Centers: Good point.
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 46
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, on the irrigation issue, I'd like to just maybe propose a
modification and that is that if surface irrigation water is available, that it be utilized.
The city water can be used as a backup source or if surface water is not available, I
don't see that this is a big area to worry about. They could go ahead and hook it up to
the city water as well.
Borup: Okay. I think that was the point in the staff comment was during the time when
the -- or the irrigation water is not available you still need to have something available to
irrigate the landscape there in those few weeks. Did you have any other comment on
the buffering? Is that where you're getting to next?
Mooney: On the buffering, she's going to have to request a Variance on that or
something, too, because -- I mean a lot of this depends on what Ada County Highway
District says, too. You know, on the drawing that we have up there, we have added a
lot on the south side of the building, because there is a neighbor to the south of us that
doesn't want us -- doesn't want the noise. We are willing to heavily shrub that area or,
you know, whatever we need to do to try to work that out with her and, again, we are
also trying to save the more mature landscape, too. There is a big tree there that we'd
like to try to save and -- but these are issues that Ada County Highway District is going
to have to work out with us, too. I think that was about it.
Borup: Okay.
Mooney: I do have a letter from our current neighbor. I'm not sure if you guys have a
copy of that --
Borup: Yes, we do.
Mooney: -- or not and then I also have copies of our daily schedule. I don't know if you
guys have that. Because of the neighbor on the south being concerned about the noise
and stuff, we have actually printed out a daily schedule and -- to kind of reassure her
that our hours of what we are doing probably aren't going to necessarily affect her
much.
Borup: Did you share that with her?
Mooney: I don't know -- did you get this schedule? I guess she didn't.
Borup: Didn't do a lot of good, did it?
Mooney: No, it didn't but did you guys --
Borup: We did not have that in our packet.
Zaremba: I don't find it, no.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 47
Borup: Give that to the clerk. Does that conclude your --
Mooney: I guess so.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Mathes: I have a question about trash. You have like trash cans do you take out to the
curb?
Mooney: We do. We currently have two of the big green garbage cans. If we double
our occupancy, obviously, we are probably going to have to go to a small dumpster or
something.
Mathes: So where is that going to be located on here for the trash people to get in?
Mooney: I don't know. I'm not sure.
Mathes: Was there a trash area?
Borup: Not on the site plan there isn't.
Mooney: We might possibly just increase our trashcans then. Sorry.
Centers: I had a question. Your name again?
Mooney: Amy Mooney.
Centers: Amy? Kathy Jordan didn't show up tonight?
Mooney: She is out of town.
Centers: Is she the owner-manager?
Mooney: Yes.
Centers: She's out of town?
Mooney: Yes.
Centers: I have a feeling that there would have been a lot of questions that could have
been answered by Kathy Jordan. Is that -- I think I'm correct. I find it a little disturbing
that the applicant -- no disrespect -- sends someone that doesn't have all the answers.
Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 48
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you, Amy. Do we have
anyone that would like to testify on this applicant? Either way. Come forward.
Martin: My name is P.J. Martin. I live on the infamous Storey Street where the entrance
and exist is proposed for the business. Noise has been mentioned once or twice. I
have got a lot of kids and I have got grandkids. They are noisy and I don't have 63 of
them in a room about this size. There are 50 chairs out there. It's extremely noisy from
start to finish, this operation will be. By the way, my property adjoins Ardis and I have
been there 13 years and I haven't been informed of any of this by the proposed
purchaser.
Borup: You're on Storey to the east?
Martin: I'm down three houses onto the east, yes, on Storey Street.
Borup: On which side of Storey?
Martin: Be the south side by the church's parking lot.
Borup: By where the arrow is there?
Martin: Yes. That's me.
Zaremba: Can I ask you to raise your voice just a little bit?
Martin: Yes. So noise --
Zaremba: We are all having difficulty hearing.
Martin: So noise and -- I call it overcrowded conditions for 63 people -- 63 kids, plus
nine supervision people, that's 72 people in a room about this size all day long. I have
sanitation concerns for this 72 people in this converted three house -- or four bedroom
house and traffic, which leads to just a safety question. The noise, overcrowding,
traffic, just my main objections. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Schlofke: I'm the lucky one sandwiched between the church and the property. We
bought our home --
Borup: State your name for the record, please.
Schlofke: Ardis Schlafke. We bought our home in 1976. It was five acres. There were
all -- it was all farmland and we have seen it grow from farmland to highly populated
subdivision. There will be a day -- we have a well and I had a sprinkler system put in,
because my husband got Alzheimer's, he passed away in September, and so now I can
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 49
sprinkler. We did irrigate. There is no irrigation water available to us or to them. When
the library put in their pipes, they put in too small of pipes, so there is not enough
pressure to bring down the water to our property, so I -- when my husband got ill I sold
the four acres of our pasture to the church for a parking lot. I thought that was much
nicer than a lot of houses over there and it's worked out great, they are wonderful
neighbors. There is no -- the water that goes down in front of our house is not irrigation
water, it is drain off water and there isn't enough there to pump anything or anywhere.
I'm strongly opposed to it, because this is my home and it's been my home for so long
and I try to take care of it and make it presentable. I -- just the thought of that many
children and that much traffic is a nightmare to me. I just can't imagine, since it's been
a residential area all along, still is a residential area, and it will be -- there will be a time
in 2007 when they will take the front part of our yard and they will extend the sidewalk
from the church on down. Right now it stops at the church and so the people that walk
out around our yard on the road to walk, because there is a ditch in front -- well, they
walk through the ditch, but -- and they ride their bicycles through the ditch, but they go
out and walk on the road. It is, it's a great concern to me, because I love my home and
now that my family is gone, I rest a lot more after I do my yard. Sometimes I go to bed
at 6:00 or 7:00. I really am concerned about that many people and that much traffic and
I think it's way too small an area for that much -- that many people to be in there. Thank
you.
Borup: Thank you, Mrs. Schlafke. Any questions?
Centers: Ma'am, would you mind if I called you Ardis?
Schlafke: Please do.
Centers: That last name is --
Schlafke: Oh, I laughed at it when I first heard it, too.
Centers: By the way, you don't look 71. That's --
Schlafke: I have had it 43 years. Finally learned to pronounce it.
Centers: What was -- I was trying to find it when you were talking. What was the
business that is there now or was there?
Schlafke: A beauty shop with just one -- one lady who does hair and one lady who
does nails.
Centers: Okay and they have been there for a long time?
Schlafke: No. Yes. She's only been there about four or five years.
Centers: And what was there before that? The house?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 50
Schlafke: The house. Yes. When we bought it was five acres and when they -- they
lived there when we bought and it was five acres and it was their home.
Centers: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Borup: That was the same question I had.
Rhodes: My name is Mary Rhodes and the property is a hair salon at this time. It was
acquired by my ex-husband. My ex-husband and I owned it together. He was a hair
stylist. That was -- he was there for about four years prior to that and then Meryl Larsen
had it as a beauty salon with Meryl's Curls from the '70s on.
Centers: Okay so you're the first user of a business there?
Rhodes: No. I'm the third user.
Centers: You mentioned your original husband, then. A Conditional Use Permit was
obtained?
Rhodes: Yes. Meryl Larsen back in the '70s. She was there with Meryl's Curls for
many years.
Centers: Meryl's Curls?
Rhodes: Yes, then it was Mr. Scissors and then now it's now Hair and Nails. It's been a
business all these years.
Centers: So it's been a salon all these years?
Rhodes: Yes. Yes. It has been and the --
Zaremba: And is it correct that it's essentially one hair station and one --
Rhodes: Well, no, I have three -- I have four hair stations and then I have room for
three nails techs, but I chose not to do that, because if you know any about salons, if
you get a bunch of women together it just doesn't work out, to be honest with you, and -
-
Zaremba: Is that limited to salons?
Rhodes: No. I was in the nursing field for 20 years. It's not limited there but like my
husband addressed about the kids coming from school on a daily basis, they don't have
to walk in that ditch, there is a -- okay. There is a ditch, then here is a pathway -- a
pathway, and then there is Linder Road. There are several kids that come and go down
that road and my home isn't a small home, it's 24 square foot --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 51
Centers: 2,400?
Rhodes: Yes. Oh, 2,400, and it's not small and it's -- and I have a lot of clients. I have
a full clientele and sometimes we work late. Ardis' garage is adjacent to our property
and then is her living area. Then here is her garage and the kids aren't out all day long
in a day care, they are only out for short bits at a time. They are not out all day long,
and so the noise issue -- you know, if you go around -- a good friend of mine owns
Healthy Beginnings and she does have a cedar fence around her play area. She's a
good friend of mine and those kids aren't out all the time. Another thing I wanted to
address was -- oh, I don't know. This makes me really nervous. I have never done
anything like this before. Oh. My clientele. I have a lot of mothers that come in to see
me and they are ecstatic about a day care at that end, you know, to be able to use it
and utilize it, because they have road blocks all the time about day care. They are too
full, they are too this, and they are really looking forward to having a neighborhood
community of a day care. You have got the church also that has activities with children
all the time on Sundays, on the weekends, and that church parking adjacent, there is
kids throughout all the time, because they have a lot of youth groups and there is a lot
of noise. That's all I have.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Did the applicant have any final comments? Commissioners, are there any
other information we need?
Centers: I guess I would have a question for staff. We want to see something from
ACHD?
Siddoway: I would say that we at least need to see the ACHD report and a chance to
go over this site plan and any one that may follow it based on ACHD's final report
before it comes back.
Zaremba: Well -- and once that's produced, there are still landscape issues, signage
issues, parking issues.
Siddoway: That need to be resolved. Yes.
Zaremba: That need to be resolved.
Siddoway: And we would like to have the sign location nailed down before sending it
on.
Centers: Well, I think Mrs. Jordan could answer that at another time. I guess speaking
my peace, I have empathy for Ardis and the noise, but I will be very, very honest with
you, my more concern is for the traffic issues. The present use has been that use for
years and you haven't had much traffic. Right. A lot of coming and going, whereas with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 52
63 children -- I mean, you know, the traffic generation is my main concern. I -- ACHD.
That's a definite. Yes.
Zaremba: Well, I agree with Commissioner Centers. In my opinion, anyway, a salon is
a very quiet, low impact business to have near you. You could have a salon next to you
and not even know it's there, probably. Just -- I guess to express an opinion, I like to
see a business growing, but I'm not convinced that this is the right location for this
business. There are an awful lot of issues to squeeze it into this piece of property.
Shreeve: I think there are several more questions. Garbage being one. I think that's --
just the housekeeping questions of this facility. I think there needs to be just some more
things thought out and presented before us and, of course, ACHD as well. With that, I
make a motion that we continue this, unless there are any other questions. Comments.
Centers: I would agree, but I think we want to pick a date.
Borup: We have to pick a date.
Shreeve: I guess before I do that, I don't know if the applicant is clear on, you know,
what our concerns are, if you can go away and come back with some answers, again
related to ACHD, garbage, landscaping.
Zaremba: Parking. Signage.
Shreeve: Parking. Signage.
Centers: Traffic.
Borup: Steve, do we know when -- does ACHD have an approximate time when they
will have their report? Did they even say that?
Siddoway: We are checking the report right now. I don't know off the top of my head.
Centers: But on the other side of the coin -- there are two sides to every coin -- there is
a need for day care centers and I totally agree with that. There are a lot of issues that
need to be resolved.
Siddoway: The draft staff report we have, Mr. Chairman, states August 7th
as the
hearing date for ACHD.
Zaremba: If they are having their hearing, then it's several days before a report would
be generated, probably, so there is no way it is going to make our August 15th
. I think
the same thing applies. You need everything by August 5th
before we can see on it
August 15th
.
Borup: And we are pretty full on that day.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 53
Zaremba: Besides we just tacked on something else to it, so -- I would assume there is
no value in putting this onto August 15th
, because the materials aren't going to be ready.
We are talking September 19th
.
Borup: And the applicant would be able to get back with staff on any of those questions
they had on site design, et cetera. That would be -- would that be correct?
Siddoway: They have been working with Brad Hawkins-Clark and what we would like to
do is have you give your laundry list of issues that you would like to have resolved, so
we can make sure we get them addressed for the next meeting.
Borup: Probably everything was in the staff report.
Centers: That's what I was going to say. Yes.
Zaremba: Plus refuse.
Centers: Plus Commissioner Mathes brought up an excellent point on how the trash
trucks are going to get in and out of there. Did we have a report from SSI or -- what did
they say, Commissioner Mathes?
Mathes: They said need to bill commercially.
Centers: They don't have enough room.
Zaremba: Is there any requirement that -- when it's a CUP that it must be a scale
drawing?
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: So September 19th
?
Shreeve: Yes. I propose that we continue this to September 19th
, CUP 02-021.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you and that concludes the Public Hearings for this evening. Did I notice
we also have a meeting on the 29th
?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 54
Centers: At 4:00.
Borup: At 4:00 in the afternoon.
Shreeve: He brought up that idea, 4:00, with a free dinner.
Borup: Oh, that's the reason that --
Centers: Do we want a motion to adjourn?
Borup: Yes. I just want to remind everybody of that August 29th
meeting and then
unless there is anything else that needs to be brought up, I think we are ready to --
Zaremba: Assuming that's essentially a one subject meeting on ordinance issues.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: We are not hearing any hearings or --
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, it's a two subject meeting, the ordinances, and the Meridian
Development Corporation Urban Renewal Plan.
Siddoway: Right.
Zaremba: And that's just a presentation to us?
Siddoway: It will be a presentation, probably, by me. The MDC needs the -- or State
Statute requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a finding that the Urban
Renewal Plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, so I will be preparing a
presentation of both the Renew Plan and how it complies with the Comprehensive Plan
for you at that meeting.
Borup: But this is not a Public Hearing?
Siddoway: It's not a Public Hearing. It does have to be done in a public meeting as far
as a published agenda, but it doesn't have to be a Public Hearing.
Borup: So it essentially is one type of agenda. We are not having any Public Hearings,
which I assume is what you meant anyway.
Zaremba: Yes.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we adjourn and then we can -- if there is
any other housekeeping, maybe we could do that.
Centers: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 1, 2002
Page 55
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK