2002 10-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 3, 2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, October 3, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Michael Rohm, and
Leslie Mathes.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Dave McKinnon, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith,
Brad Watson, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers
X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm
X Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled
meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for October 3rd
. We'll begin
by roll-call attendance.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: And for the first time this evening we do have a new commissioner,
Commissioner Michael Rohm. Now I did not get a chance to talk to the Mayor. I
assume the City Council must have approved it, because you're here. I have been out
of town for a bit. Commissioner Borup is here.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Our adoption of the agenda does not include minutes of the meeting of
September 16th
. Those of us who were at that meeting I think have read the minutes.
Would we like to add discussion of the minutes to this meeting or --
Borup: The 19th
minutes?
Zaremba: September 19th
. Is that what I said? Oh, I said 16th
, didn't I say the 19th
.
Borup: Yes. I think that we definitely want to include that. We do have the minutes
with us. In fact, didn't we already do the 5th
?
Zaremba: If we are going to discussion them, I have a couple comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 2 of 84
Borup: Okay. Yes. Both of those on the -- and your comments?
Zaremba: Okay. This is the minutes of the meeting of our regular Thursday,
September 19th
, meeting. On Page 14 near the bottom, the Chairman is quoted as
saying anything else from the Commission and then I am quoted as saying any
comments from the staff. I believe Chairman Borup made most of -- both of those
comments. Second, on Page 16, not the last time I'm speaking on that page, but the
next to the last time, it's a fairly large paragraph. In the middle it says -- I think there are
two words that got transposed. In the middle of it it says -- some of the worry about the
traffic going west, should be that word, then the first word in the next sentence should
be when, instead of the other way around. Then on Page 94, again, the large
paragraph in the middle of page attributed to me. I was making a motion regarding the
item and I said include all staff -- include all comments of the staff memo with the
following -- and I believe the word should be exceptions, not exemptions. Exemptions
would be misleading. Those are my only comments.
Centers: Chairman Borup?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I perused the minutes, even though I wasn't here. On Page 94, it refers to my
name as making a comment. Anyplace in those minutes should not have the name
Centers.
Borup: Page 94?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Well, yes, your name should not be admitted as making that, I just don't see it is
all on Page 94.
Centers: I thought I had noted the page correctly, but --
Borup: I saw it on a different page. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from any
of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Centers: I move that we approve the minutes of the meeting of September 19th
as
amended.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to approve the minutes. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 3 of 84
Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 02-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.7
acres from RUT to C-G zones for James R. Wylie by James R. Wylie –
northeast corner of Venture Street and East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: The first item on the agenda is Public Hearing AZ 02-015, request for
annexation and zoning of 1.7 acres from RUT to C-G zones for James R. Wylie for the
northwest corner of Venture and East Fairview Avenue. We would like to open this
Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If I can direct your
attention to the overhead, we will start there. Basically this is a site layout of where the
property is. As the Chairman stated, the property is located on the corner of Fairview
and Venture Street in the Northwest corner of the intersection. The property is,
according to our Comprehensive Plan, to be zoned commercial when annexed and this
is the annexation, so we would be talking about zoning tonight. I point that out
specifically, because this is not a development application, this is an annexation.
Development will take place at a later date and many of the conditions that would
typically be placed on such a development application are not included in this, because
this is only for annexation. The property is 1.7 acres in size. The applicant has
submitted a proposed development plan. The proposed development plan is for a
commercial retail building. The building has no specific tenants at this time. The
applicant has, as shown in the staff report -- which I assume you all have a copy of --
the applicant has requested that he be allowed to have a reduced landscape buffer on
Fairview Avenue. The reduced landscape buffer does fall within guidelines found in the
landscape ordinance that would allow for a reduced buffer and staff has no qualms
about going -- when development happens to reduce the landscape buffer in
accordance with the Landscape Ordinance. Again, this is just an annexation. We are
not dealing with the development of this property at this time. The staff report did not
include language for a Development Agreement at this time. Should you wish to
include a Development Agreement to limit the type of development on this site you
could do so at your pleasure. With that I would ask if there is any questions of staff.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear you correctly. Obviously, there is no Development
Agreement and why are we talking about the landscape buffer at this time with no
development?
McKinnon: The reason for that is just to let you guys know. There is no specific finding,
no specific conditions in the annexation, just to let you know that in the future, because
the requested use is a permitted use, it would not come back before you. If it's a
permitted use it goes on staff level approval and would not come back in front of you.
Should you choose, however, to do a Development Agreement and require a
Conditional Use Permit, it could be brought back in front of you, but just for your
informational purposes we included the language about landscaping.
Centers: Thanks.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 4 of 84
Zaremba: Since we are not likely to see this again under your scenario, I will ask a
couple questions. Do you have a site plan?
McKinnon: You should have a site plan and it was in your packet. You got it right there.
Sonya didn't put this in the application, so the site plan is roughly just -- this is just a
picture of the site right now.
Zaremba: What I was going to ask is if I'm interpreting it correctly that there are two
driveways onto Venture Street?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Zaremba: One in the rear of the building and one in the front of the building and my -- I
mean this is proposed anyhow.
McKinnon: Correct.
Zaremba: Is the first driveway far enough back from Fairview?
McKinnon: It would be -- it would have to be in compliance with ACHD requirements
and ACHD hasn't placed any requirements on this. If you can refer to ACHD's
comments, ACHD specifically states that there is nothing that's granted on Page 4 of
the ACHD report, the access points, it discusses the access points would be allowed.
Then there are site specific conditions of approval and they have bold language that
says that this is an annexation and rezone and when they receive a development
proposal, then that would have to be discussed. They did not make a --
Zaremba: So they assume we are attempting to give the applicant some feel about
how it's going to go when it happens?
McKinnon: That's the reason why they have given the site specific comments.
Zaremba: All right. Then the driveway that does onto Fairview, is that -- am I
interpreting right that that access will connect to the next property for when that's
developed, too, so that people don't have to go out onto the roadway to go between the
two properties?
McKinnon: Yes. That's exactly the way I see it.
Zaremba: Okay. Looks good to me.
Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the applicant's
representative here this evening and would like to come forward? State your name and
address for the record.
Wylie: My name is James R. Wylie, 1676 North Clarendon, Eagle, Idaho, and I'm the
owner of the property and the developer. The proposed development that you have in
front of you is an idea that we have. We don't have anything concrete at this point. We
have been working trying to get utilities over to that site, water and sewer, and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 5 of 84
marketing the property for lease. We intend to a building and lease it. Traditionally, I
like to building small -- small user multi-tenant commercial buildings, retail buildings,
and that would be our intention here. Of course, if somebody comes up and wants to
lease the whole thing in one big junk, then we'd look at changing that around. To
comment on your concerns with the driveway, ACHD did not bring anything to my
attention regarding the two approaches there on Venture. If they do have a problem
with that, then, we will, of course, address it at that point. The one approach that does
go onto Fairview is -- the reason it's located there is to line up with the approach that's
across the street, under ACHD guidelines. That was the only way -- the only location
we could put an approach onto Fairview. The adjoining property owners already have a
driveway there and so we basically would be just expanding the existing approach and
improving it. Right now it's pretty narrow. I'm here to answer any other questions for
you, if there is any.
Mathes: Did you see the comments from like Sanitary Services?
Wylie: I saw the comments from Sanitary Services. I called them. Their concern was -
- because he did not have a copy of the Development Agreement -- or, excuse me, of
the development plan, so he did not know what was going in there. When I showed it --
I faxed it over to him -- his concern was that he would need to back into it, so he did not
want -- on the plan that we had, he didn't want the trash enclosure there, he wanted it at
the other end, so he would have more room to pull in and pull out. I did not see any
problem with that.
Mathes: Thank you.
Borup: Any other Commissioners?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You have read the staff comments and you're in full
agreement, which is two?
Wylie: Yes.
Centers: You're fine there?
Wylie: Yes.
Centers: Great.
Borup: Mr. Wylie, you had mentioned usually a small -- small business -- small tenant
type business.
Wylie: We try and set it up that way, yes.
Borup: Have you looked over the permitted uses in a C-G zone?
Wylie: Yes, I have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 6 of 84
Borup: Are there -- are you requesting to have all of those uses included or would you
have any problem if some of those were restricted? Have you looked over the list of
permitted uses and --
Wylie: The intention would be primarily retail uses -- or probably exclusively retail uses.
When I looked over the permitted uses, I didn't see any problems. Is there a concern
with any of those permitted uses?
Borup: I don't know at this time. There may be. That's why I asked.
Wylie: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from any other Commissioners? Anything else you
wanted to add?
Wylie: Nothing.
Borup: All right.
Wylie: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? If so,
come forward.
Earl: How are you all doing? My name is Ren Earl. I live at 1920 North Venture Street,
which is just a little bit down that road. Yes, I'm on the corner of Venture Street and
Venture Circle, right where your E is. What they are not really showing you on the -- the
picture of the Fairview access doesn't depict that it is in -- to the east of the farmhouse,
the original farmhouse for the -- you can't see it here, but the farmhouse is right here,
the circa 1947 home.
Borup: The Petals and Stems store.
Earl: Yes. Exactly. It's about 25 feet from that front porch to Fairview. There is no way
to put an annex onto Fairview on the other side of that without demolishing that
farmhouse. There would have to be two entrances and it wouldn't easily be visible
between the two properties. What it also doesn't show is the -- north Fairview has a
home development area there. Those homes -- there is about 300 of them -- will, when
they fully get built, there will be required, as there is on this portion, a curbed left --
protected left turn lane. When they do that, there will be no left turn from this property
out to onto Fairview. Ada County Highway has already suggested that they would have
to do that right here. For all these homes in here, in order to escape, for them to turn
left across onto North Venture Street, this will be a protected turning lane, just as this is
into Wal-Mart. There would be no left turn access for this property at all. That's one of
the difficulties. Then for him to exit out onto Venture Street there is not enough room to
have people pulling in, pulling, and swinging around, especially delivery trucks, down a
residential road. In all likelihood, we cannot predict what's going to happen, I can't read
the future, but if any of you were to live there and see the cars that are already trying to
cut from here over to Cloverdale, that zoom down here at about 40 miles an hour, turn
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 7 of 84
around, and then zoom back out, with our small kids playing in the street, it's rather
dangerous. It's a residential area -- and I would certainly like to see it remain
residential, it's zoned residential right now, stick another house on it. There is plenty of
buffers. It's a great place to live. You can walk across the street to Wal-Mart.
Borup: Who told you it was zoned residential?
Earl: I looked in the book of plats.
Borup: And what did it call it?
Earl: It calls it residential -- or strikes that. It calls it agricultural and --
Borup: Okay. There is a difference.
Earl: My memory is lapsing. I can picture it. I believe it is zoned R-1 when I looked it
up right now.
Centers: RUT?
Zaremba: Our notes say Rural Urban Transition.
Centers: Not much. It's in transition.
Earl: Transition to a usable -- housing -- a senior retirement center, something that
didn't have a large amount of traffic zooming up and down the street would probably be
fine. Commercial for this little tiny area seems non-necessary, when just down Fairview
and -- there is 25 acres that's right across from the street -- I mean there are plenty of
commercial strips available on Fairview. If somebody really has to build on Fairview,
there is more than sufficient real estate still available to be built on. Intermountain Arms
or Intermountain Outdoor Sports just went out of business. There is a huge chunk of
building that isn't occupied there. Meridian has got a lot of places to stick buildings.
Borup: So you think that traffic is too much for that there? I mean it's going to allow too
many cars and you feel retirement people would be better with a lot of traffic.
Earl: I would feel that in a retirement home where they are not doing a lot of out and
driving around, that a comfortable home type setting is wonderful. There is a
tremendous amount of traffic going on Fairview. I have to wait five to seven minutes to
turn left when I go home at anywhere between 4:00 and 6:00. It would get even worse
with a restricted lane and this will eventually have a light across it and, heavens to
mergatroid, you have seen, I'm sure, what happens when Cloverdale is backed up for a
little bit. We asked Ada County Roads if they would put one and they turned us down,
but said when it got bad enough that they would put in a stop light there. When they do,
then, you stop -- then Cloverdale -- or Fairview won't be able to continue, Cloverdale
will get blocked up and it will be a traffic impasse. I would invite any of you to stand on
that corner that you have in the picture at say 4:30 to 6:00 and just watch the traffic and
see how it moves in the area, if you're not familiar with it. Then come and stand on my
driveway when the people are going zooming up and down our road. It can be
dangerous. I look out for my kids. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 8 of 84
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Come on up.
Hall: My name is Bill Hall, I live at 4225 Venture Place, and my property is on the V, so
my property abuts Mr. Wylie's property. This is all really interesting tonight, because
they never contacted any of us to tell us what he planned or anything, so we didn't know
anything about driveways heading out on our street or anything else like that. Like Ren
just said, our traffic is awful. We have -- we have people making u-turns here. Some
day somebody is going to get killed. They come up here, pull a u-turn, we have got
gravel all from the shoulder all across the road here from people making turns, getting
on the shoulders, and so forth. Right now, it's really dangerous and I know Mr. Wylie's
property should be commercial, but my main concern is retail sales, because you're
adding more and more traffic there. Like Ren said, one of our neighbors waited 20
minutes to get out and when they develop the other two parts of the properties on Eagle
Road, you can imagine what it's going to be like. You folks have a real challenge here
to solve some traffic problems right now and this is just a minor one. It's going to get
awful. I mean I wouldn't even want to rent the building out there as a business,
because nobody can get in and get out of it. It's going to be worse than Milwaukee.
Seriously. I am not opposed to Mr. Wylie putting in a commercial development. I'm
really opposed to him putting in retail sales that's going to generate a lot of traffic and
it's all going to be dumped on my street. I have lived there 27 years and I knew that this
time was coming, but, you know what, we have got to kind of watch what we do and
what we have out there, because it's a real finite resource. A lot of people live out there
and, like Ren said, little kids live there, you have got people coming in there -- I bet you,
you can count 50 cars every 15 minutes coming in and making u-turns, because they
can't figure out how to get back to go west on Fairview. There is just limited access as
to how they can do that. We sure don't want Mr. Wylie's development dumping onto our
street. I go to work at 6:30 in the morning so I can get out. I don't have to, but I do so I
can get out. It's that bad so I'd really ask you to really think hard on this, to think of all
the property owners that are on there. I know that 360 acres on this site is going to be
developed, too, and it's good property, I don't blame him. I used to be in that business,
there is going to be a lot of houses and homes going in there so you got to really start
watching what's going in. I mean you have got a Wal-Mart and a ShopKo and all that
on one side, it is already strained on that intersection, one side of that intersection, if
you start developing the rest of them you got to be really careful what you put in.
Because up and down the street, like you said, the more retail sales you put in there,
the more traffic you generate and that really, folks, is one of the main corridors going
east and west through the valley. I'd ask you to think about this for us.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hall? Mr. Hall, you stated you realize that some type of
commercial thing was going in there and you're not opposed to that. What type of
commercial would you visualize?
Hall: Mr. Wylie said office or -- like a dental office or things like that. I'd really hate to
see someone putting in a shop in there.
Borup: Well, but that is the commercial zoning that would be --
Hall: I know and what I would think would be more in line, Mr. Borup, is like an office
building complex that he says he usually builds and not have retail sales in there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 9 of 84
Borup: All right so you're talking about having an office zoning, then, rather than
commercial zoning?
Hall: That's correct.
Borup: Okay. You had stated earlier as commercial.
Hall: Well, to me commercial is the same thing, but I realize what you're saying. I'm
opposed to retail sales in there. He also said that --
Borup: Because the commercial zoning would allow a service station, a truck stop, that
type of thing.
Hall: That's correct. That's what I hope you guys won't allow to go in there. Like Mr.
Earl just stated, there is 350 houses right now trying to drive into this single-street and
turn left, turn right, and somebody is going to get seriously hurt out there, really and
truly. Traffic moves through there awfully fast.
Borup: Well, most of those houses are also going onto Cloverdale.
Hall: Some of them are but we still get a lot of traffic through there. Also, we have a lot
of semis that come down right there and they go into Wal-Mart along there, too. So --
let me show you. Right here there is a divider and the semis come down this way and
turn into Wal-Mart. When we come home -- I get home this way, we have people
coming into the Wal-Mart and, I'll tell you what, ask any of the people that live there,
they will tell you that there are head-one collisions almost twice a week trying to get
through there.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Hall: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. Wylie, do you have any final -- any other
comments you would like to --
Wylie: For one, I'm sorry if I did not communicate with the neighbors. I looked at the
zoning on the Comprehensive Plan and since there hadn't been any negative
responses at the Comprehensive Plan meeting or hearings, that I didn't think there was
any concerns with the commercial zoning, which is pretty consistent with everything
else -- or not everything else, but a large majority of the properties that are on the
street. The property directly east has a commercial use, which is the Petals and Stems,
and further east of that is, of course, more commercial development -- to the west -- or
the southwest is Wal-Mart and commercial all the way out. Yes, I think that it's a
consistent use what I'm proposing with -- or commercial is a consistent use and the
people that drafted the Comprehensive Plan, obviously, thought it was a consistent use.
As far as the traffic goes, I'm more than happy to work with ACHD in whatever they
want to do. We have had a couple of meetings already, as evidenced by your packet in
your -- in the application. So whatever --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 10 of 84
Centers: Yes if I can interrupt. Along those lines, what was your presentation to ACHD
and their lengthy report when they really don't know what you're going to put in there?
What, did you give them a scenario? Was that it?
Wylie: I gave them a plan that you have and what they are --
Centers: I mean as far as use. Business use.
Wylie: Commercial retail use.
Centers: Okay. With no specific type business?
Wylie: That is correct.
Centers: And I question ACHD in doing a traffic study when they don't have a specific
type use. How can it be?
Wylie: They can go off a chart of what general retail is going to be. It's what they are
going to do. It's not --
Centers: Well, a building a convenience store or Fast Eddie's or something like that,
will draw a lot more traffic than, you know, another type use. That's my point.
Personally, I think it's a good one. I don't see how they can judge the traffic without
knowing the specific use.
Wylie: Well, I think what they are going to do is when we get a development application
-- a specific development application --
Centers: You have to go back.
Wylie: Yes. We have to go back and then they will make whatever conditions at that
time. They have -- you have seen in their request that we improve with concrete
sidewalk Venture and widen Venture. Also that we would have a concrete sidewalk on
Fairview so at this point they are not asking us to widened Fairview, but put the
sidewalk in the location that they want. We will be addressing some concerns, but
mostly that will come up with the development plan that will go to ACHD at the time of
that application. I'd just like to reemphasize that it was commercial zoning at the
Comprehensive Plan and I'd like it to remain that way. Anything else?
Borup: Do you have any comment on office use? Are you -- is that one of the
possibilities you're looking at or --
Wylie: That could be a possibility, yes. I would not like to limit it to office use at this
point.
Borup: But you're also seeking office tenants?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 11 of 84
Wylie: I would be more than happy to have a dental office in there. I've had a couple
dentists in other buildings in Caldwell and Nampa, but, again, I'm so preliminary, I'm just
trying to get it zoned so --
Borup: Right so the market place would take care of a lot of that.
Wylie: Yes. I can't really market to anybody until know what I have. As far as other
people's properties on Fairview, well, I don't own those, so I can't -- I'd like to.
Borup: Would you have any problems with restricting some of the uses? I wrote down
just a few, but -- and I don't know if there is -- service station, truck stop, hotel, motel,
outdoor entertainment, are the four that I know of --
Wylie: What is outdoor entertainment?
Borup: I assume like a miniature golf course or --
Wylie: I have no problem with limiting a hotel, motel, and outdoor entertainment.
Borup: And a truck stop, service station?
Wylie: I would like to be able to have a service station, convenience store, but I don't
see a truck stop going in there.
Borup: Okay. A convenience store, in my mind, is a little different use than
neighborhood retail.
Wylie: Than a --
Borup: Than a neighborhood retail store would be at least as far as the traffic and the
amount of customers, but --
Wylie: My intent is not to put in a gas station or a convenience store. Possibly a
convenience store, which would fit with the neighborhood commercial, wouldn't it?
Borup: It's approved in the commercial --
Wylie: I'd like to be able to have a convenience store.
Borup: In a C-G zone.
Wylie: It might be useful for the neighbors to have a convenience store there, too.
Centers: The bottom line is you get the commercial zoning and you slap a sign up and
build to suit and go down the list of prospects to call and if they want it and it applies to
the zoning, you build it.
Wylie: That's correct, but --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 12 of 84
Borup: Unless there is some restrictions placed right now.
Centers: Right. Right.
Wylie: And I don't believe the site is suitable for a motel. I don't think it's big enough.
Borup: No.
Wylie: If you want to limit it, that's fine.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any Commissioners?
Centers: No.
Wylie: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, sir.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Staff, the only contiguous city property is kitty-corner?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, that's correct. Kitty-corner.
Centers: And we have determined in the past even across the street?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Any discussion?
Centers: Well, I guess, Chairman Borup, I lean -- you know, he gets the commercial
zone and he can put up whatever he wants, other than he agreed to a hotel, motel, and
no miniature golf and I guess I can't see -- I can see his neighbors' concerns with heavy
traffic and I guess the question for staff, can we annex it with a CUP requirement?
McKinnon: Commissioner Centers, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, with
the Development Agreement you could put a requirement in place that all development
on that property shall be through a Conditional Use Permit. You could also limit the
type of development on there with a Development Agreement. The Development
Agreement would become a recorded document that would go with the title and it would
be --
Centers: If you had a Development Agreement, you really wouldn't specify, it would just
mean -- it would -- the bottom line would say that with this Development Agreement
comes a CUP.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 13 of 84
McKinnon: It could actually say both, if you would like it to.
Centers: And I guess I would have a question for the applicant. Would you be in
agreement or disagreement with that? In other words, we would like to see the project
that you put on that corner.
Wylie: That's fine.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Well, that was answered, then, rather than specifying not allowed uses.
Centers: Right. Exactly. It would create more work for us, but I think --
Borup: That was one -- the list I went through were ones I thought would probably be
objectionable. There were a couple others that -- you know, a rail station was another
one listed that -- I don't think that's going to -- and a bus station. Okay.
Zaremba: Well, the other option would be to zone it as an L-O zone. Those would be
much lighter uses.
Centers: But then you're in deference to our Comprehensive Plan, because the
Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial, whether it was right or wrong, the applicant
was correct, we had no opposition to that, in my recollection when I was there, so -- and
I guess that makes sense, too, depending on who you talk to.
Borup: A retail store is not an allowed use in an L-O zone, would be the other factor
there. That would limit it strictly to medical and office-type uses.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion -- and I hopefully get some support --
that we recommend approval of AZ 02-015, request for annexation and zoning of 1.7
acres from RUT to C-G zones for James R. Wylie, northeast corner of Venture Street
and East Fairview Avenue, including all staff comments and, in addition, require a
development agreement, which would refer to a CUP for the applicant to come back
into this body for all future projects.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 14 of 84
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: For anyone that has any questions, what that's saying is that anything
developed on that property would be under a Conditional Use Permit and there would
be another Public Hearing at that time for those uses. That's what that motion just said.
Centers: You would get a letter to attend another hearing at that time.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 02-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
building lots on 13.77 acres in a C-C zone for Silverstone Subdivision
No. 3 by Sundance Investments – southeast corner of East Overland
Road and South Eagle Road:
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing PP 02-017, request for Preliminary Plat
approval of six building lots on 13.77 in a C-C zone for Silverstone Subdivision,
southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle. I think this is the same
project that was made reference to in the last meeting. I'd like to open this Public
Hearing and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'll do a brief
presentation on this application. This is just a re-subdivision of a subdivision you have
heard many times in the past. Essentially, the applicant is requesting that four lots,
that's Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7, and portions of three other lots, that's Lots 8, 10, and 11, be re-
subdivided into six building lots, so that they would actually be configured in an
arrangement that they could build buildings on each lot, rather than crossing lot lines.
The application falls within the guidelines of the Meridian City Code, the Public Works
comments, and the Planning and Zoning comments are found on Page 3 of the staff
report. We are in support of this -- in support of this subdivision and would ask if there
are any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Do we have a presentation by the applicant?
Anderson: My name is Ryan Anderson. I reside at 1453 Shellbrook here in Meridian. I
didn't prepare any comments. Mostly I was just here to respond to any questions or
comments with regard to the project.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Thank you.
Anderson: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 15 of 84
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 02-
017, request for Preliminary Plat approval of six building lots on 13.77 acres in a C-C
zone for Silverstone Subdivision No. 3 by Sundance Investments, southeast corner of
East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, to include all staff comments.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ 02-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.26
acres and rezone of 2.40 acres from RUT and R-4 zones to R-8 zone for
proposed Tully Cove Subdivision by Ted Mason – west of North Linder
Road and south of West Ustick Road:
Item 7. Public Hearing: PP 02-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 39
building lots and 10 other lots on 7.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
the proposed Tully Cove Subdivision by Ted Mason -- west of North
Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road:
Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing, AZ 02-021, request for annexation
and zoning of 5.26 acres and a rezone of 2.4 acres from RUT and R-4 zones to an R-8
zone for proposed Tully Cove Subdivision by Ted Mason. The adjoining application is
PP 02-018, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 39 building lots and 10 other lots on
7.3 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Tully Cove Subdivision by Ted
Mason. This is at west of North Linder Road and south of Ustick, across from Tully
Park. We would like to open both these Public Hearings at this time and start with the
staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If I could, again,
direct your attention to the overhead. Showing you the location of the subdivision. As
you can see, it's directly across the street from Tully Park, which is located,
approximately halfway between Ustick and Cherry Lane on the Linder Road. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 16 of 84
proposed subdivision has 36 attached single-family homes and three detached single-
family homes. I'll go to the site plan really quick. It's just showing the location. It's a
vacant field. Onto the Preliminary Plat. Within the preliminary the applicant has shown
that he has got 36 building lots and three building lots that would not be attached
homes. Those three building lots -- there is one located -- if I can get my pointer to
work -- one in the north, one is located centrally, and one located, if I can remember
right quick, it's --
Zaremba: That one?
McKinnon: Thank you. Right there. There are three detached single-family homes
within the subdivision. The remainder of the subdivision, again, is attached single-
family homes. There are two somewhat large landscape lots, approximately an 8,000
square foot landscaped open area in the south central portion of the property and up in
the northeastern -- northwestern, excuse me, corner of the property there is about a
9,000 square foot open space lot. Within the subdivision there is a number of open
landscape buffer lots. All the homes within the subdivision actually -- well, actually front
onto open space or landscaped lots, they actually do not front on each other, they
actually front to the landscaped lots. Within the subdivision, the applicant has asked for
a reduced street width, 29-foot street sections, and ACHD has approved those street
sections and we, as staff, have no concerns with the reduced street sections. The
applicant has agreed to provide for no parking mainly on the 29-foot street sections
down in this corner where parking would only be allowed on one side of the street. Staff
supports the project. They have submitted a new revised site plan. You should have all
received a copy of the revised plan. I have been in contact with the Ada County
Highway District and you should have a copy of the e-mail sent to me by Craig Hood
stating that Ada County Highway District does not have any concerns with the revised
site plan. It was submitted to them. ACHD is in support of this project and we are in
support of this project as well and it provides a connection to the Turtle Creek
Subdivision and it provides for multiple housing types within one project. The open
space makes up approximately 8.5 percent of the project. It is a project that we can
approve. One thing that we did have a problem with from an ordinance standpoint was
the proposed landscape buffer on top of the berm they propose to have a three-foot
fence and the Landscape Ordinance does not allow fencing within the landscape buffer.
The removal of the three-foot tall fence from the landscape buffer would bring this plat
into compliance with all sections of the Meridian City Code and Subdivision Ordinance.
With that I would ask if there is any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: We have in our packet a copy of the letter from the applicant to ACHD asking
for an exception to the separation distance between two streets. Is it your assumption
that the e-mail that you just referenced also incorporates approval of the way the
applicant wants that to be?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 17 of 84
Centers: And, Mr. Chairman -- and this has been an issue in previous subdivisions with
narrower streets and the Fire Department issue and -- which I don't have a problem
with, but in that particular case they wouldn't install no parking signs -- without me going
into your comments. Did you require no parking signs every so many feet and has the
applicant -- or you didn't address that?
McKinnon: It's addressed -- the applicant has actually got on his site plan that he would
provide for painted curbs. As far as signage --
Centers: Curb? Right.
McKinnon: Painted curb. For fire lanes.
Centers: Good.
McKinnon: One of the issues that we come down to with the no parking on one side of
the street is that who is going to enforce that? If the city puts up the signs, then the city
is required to enforce that and then we are enforcing a subdivision. The applicant has
addressed that by providing the striping in the southern area and up in the northern
area around the cul-de-sac for no parking.
Centers: Which is probably is better.
Borup: David, would that be addressed in the covenants? The homeowners
association would take care of maintenance on the painted curbing?
Centers: Good point.
McKinnon: I haven't looked through the CC&R's --
Borup: Or does ACHD do that?
McKinnon: That would be something that the applicant would do.
Borup: Okay. So that should be included, I assume, in --
McKinnon: The applicant is here tonight and he would be the best person to address
that.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to
make a presentation?
Mason: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ted Mason. Bob
Rainford and I are co-developing this property. Bob has owned this property since
1995. We have an office at 4323 North Sharon Drive in Meridian. I appreciate the
opportunity to address the Commission this evening. I have held several meetings in
the neighborhood with the surrounding property owners. Both in their homes and at
Tully Park and I have also attended a meeting of the Turtle Creek Homeowners
Association board meeting and have resolved a lot of the concerns and issues with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 18 of 84
neighbors at that time -- at those times. We are proposing single-story homes for
downsizing empty nesters here. The homes will be 1,200 to 1,600 square feet in size.
Above average finishes. We are targeting buyers who have owned a home and in
many cases this will be their last home purchased. The homes will sell for 120,000 to
160,000 dollars. There is extensive landscaping that has been eluded to by staff this
evening. The front yard landscape and the common area landscape of each home will
be done in common, as will the snow removal, that would be paid for by homeowners
dues, so homeowners will feel comfortable in leaving their homes for a month or a few
weeks or however long they choose to leave in the winter or summer and know that
things will be looked after. We feel this is an ideal location for the retirees to downsize
that we are targeting, because of the proximity to Tully Park and shopping and feel that
this is a compatible -- compatible with the surrounding land uses and in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan and I agree to all of the staff report conditions and I
respectfully request your approval this evening.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Mason?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mason, do you intend to maybe take trades? Yes. I
know your project visually, because directly behind my office, which sits at Emerald just
east of Orchard, you came in and did an in-fill with the same type -- you're going to
have townhouses built in duplex form.
Mason: Yes. That's correct.
Centers: And I think, what, you put in 16 to 18 back there?
Mason: That's correct.
Centers: And I think most of them are sold.
Mason: Yes.
Centers: And I commend you with the idea and thought -- and, in fact, I spoke to one of
the buyers recently and he was just ecstatic and he was a downsize, empty nester, and
I think Meridian needs something like that. Your location is -- you're lucky that it --
Borup: Would it be -- turn back to my question on the painted curbs. Would that be
part of the homeowner’s maintenance?
Mason: Yes. It would be included in the CC&Rs.
Borup: Is it included at this point?
Mason: I don't --
Borup: Probably not.
Mason: Is it not at this point, but we can certainly include that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 19 of 84
Borup: Okay. I agree with what Commissioner Centers -- I think had mentioned that
that's probably -- do more good than the signs, but after 10 years and that's all gone
and faded, it wouldn't be any good at that point. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mason.
Mason: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none --
Centers: I think the applicant should be commended for meeting with the neighbors.
He must have done his job and homework. We don't have any neighbors. That's great.
Borup: I was going to comment on that, too, but I think that shows what having the
neighborhood meetings prior to can accomplish.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Thank you for doing that.
Zaremba: Just as a comment, I'm not familiar with the project that Commissioner
Centers mentioned earlier, but I can see this as a good addition to Meridian. It's a little
higher density project than the ones around it and that's good, right on a major
thoroughfare. There will be plenty of transportation access on Linder Road and I think
building greater densities near the transportation corridors is a good idea. It sounds like
it's a good design. They will benefit by being near Tully Park and a few denser projects
will eat up less farmland.
Centers: Well, in addition, irregardless of what the school district says, I don't think
there is going to be an impact to our school system, because I know the neighbors
behind me and Mr. Mason's project, so we have got tax monies with no children to
impact the school, so -- I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: If I could jump in, please.
Borup: Please do.
Freckleton: Hoping that -- I had not seen the landscape plan until just a few minutes
ago. Looking at it, I'm noticing that they have got some building footprints that are
encroaching in an easement. There is an existing piped Settler's Irrigation Ditch that
runs right across here and comes down and then south through Turtle Creek. I looked
through my packet here tonight and I don't see that we have any comments from
Settler's Irrigation District as far as what kind of requirements they would have. Maybe
the applicant's representative could address that.
Mathes: There is one in the packet from Settlers.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 20 of 84
Centers: I read that, too.
Freckleton: Is it brief? Could you read it?
Mathes: Sure. Settler's Canal currently is tiled along the northern boundary of the
property. The tile and easement must be protected. It also appears that all storm
drainage will be retained on site. Therefore, no further review is necessary.
Freckleton: Okay so no encroachments would be allowed within that easement.
Zaremba: That just restricts the size and shape of whatever building would be on --
Freckleton: Lot 12.
Zaremba: -- the lot where the pipe makes a turn.
Borup: Which would be 11 and 12; would that be correct?
Freckleton: Yes, lot's 11 and 12. There is -- where it does make an angle change in the
middle of Lot 12 right up here, there is a manhole in those people's backyard, so, you
know, access issues to the manhole probably should be addressed.
Zaremba: The hearing is still open, so please speak.
Hornick: My name is Lance Hornick. I work for Treasure Valley Engineers. Business
address is 1117 Caldwell Boulevard in Nampa. Earlier we were talking about up there --
it's hard to see the lot numbers -- pull out my viewpoint here. Lot 13, as you see, is a
common lot. There is -- that's -- right there. The canal -- the canal does pass through
that lot. The building in Lot 11 and 12 will be configured to stay outside that easement.
The landscape plan that you may have had in front of you was a concept to show that
buildings with either be attached or detached single-family homes. They don't
necessarily reflect the actual footprints of the buildings, just as the Commission has
indicated. The homes will be designed to fit into those areas. The Irrigation Company
should be able to go ahead and access the back of that lot through that common lot on
the west. We have got about 20 feet into the property line and that's not uncommon on
a lot of these other developments and as Settler Irrigation has said in their letter, they
have looked over the plan or the plat and they have no further comments or need for
review.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might, while he's still up there, I would recommend -- I
believe that there is an existing fence along the north boundary that separates this
project from the Turtle Creek common area. Access to that manhole would be kind of
hard with that fence there. I would recommend that there be a note on the plat that
specifically notes the existence of that ditch and the easement and restricts the
encroachments within the easement. There may be -- this may be something for their
legal counsel to look into, but there may be a -- it might be a good idea to have
something in the CC&Rs that -- for those two lots, you know, that talks about the
existence of a pipe and the access to the pipe and the manhole can't be restricted.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 21 of 84
Centers: Well, again, providing access through the common lot, Lot 13, would be
adequate, wouldn't it, Bruce? As he stated. From this property.
Zaremba: That gets you about -- that gets you within 20 feet of the manhole, but it
doesn't get you to the manhole, if I understand.
Borup: So you have got a common area -- you have got a common area by Lot 13.
Freckleton: Correct. But there is nothing to prevent them from erecting a fence on this
boundary as well, so --
Zaremba: Just to mull it through. Whatever is developed on this lot in particular, if it
has to stay short of that easement whatever building goes there, and the association is
going to care for common area, might it not make sense to extend this common area
and shorten that lot a little bit. So that the common area, this lot, actually goes to the
fence here, and would include the manhole in that common area.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, as you will recall, typically
when we have a ditch like this we require that this easement area be included in a
common lot, but it's not even -- we don't allow an easement of a ditch across a building
lot. This one -- there is two lots that are affected. It's affected pretty minimally. I think it
would kill this back lot if you excluded that easement area and made it a common lot. It
would also create kind of a weird little hiding place back there.
Mathes: How hard is it to move the manhole? Is that difficult?
Freckleton: That's a big ditch.
Mathes: Oh. Okay.
Hornick: It would be extremely difficult to move the manhole.
Zaremba: Yes and typically they want manholes where it changes direction.
Hornick: Absolutely.
Borup: Will you state your name again, please?
Hornick: Excuse me. Lance Hornick, Treasure Valley Engineers. It would be difficult to
move the manhole. The manhole is there, as you have indicated, specifically for
change in direction. What we could do is between Lots 12 and 13, make a requirement
that if there is any type of fence, it would be a fence with a removable section, so if any
type of maintenance is required, they could get a vehicle back in there for maintenance.
Centers: You mean 11 and 13.
Hornick: I mean between 12 and 13 you could access that manhole. And there are no
other manholes on the --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 22 of 84
Centers: This is -- okay. I had it marked wrong. I have seen it on deeds, permanent
access easements. You could do that with lot 12 only. As Mr. Freckleton stated, if it
stayed on the plat, then the buyer of Lot 12 understands that with that -- and, you know,
you would have to consult your legal beagle, but permanent access for maintenance of
-- that could be in the deed.
Hornick: Sure.
Centers: For Lot 12.
Hornick: And the way that the Irrigation District has that easement, it's there to protect
their rights to get in and maintain that.
Centers: Someone has the right to walk in that person's backyard is all that you're
telling the world when you record that.
Borup: Well, the deed that's already recorded is there, but I think a good reason to put
it in the plat is most people don't pay any attention --
Centers: When they buy it.
Borup: -- to that and that's just -- that's just further notification.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, that was simply the purpose that I had, was we just get it out
there for the world to see. They don't have to go and search a recorded document in
county records, it's right on the face of the plat, the buyer of that lot is going to see it, so
--
Hornick: We have no objection and we would be willing to put that note on the plat.
Borup: I think that makes good sense.
Hornick: If there is nothing else, I will --
Centers: Very good. Thank you.
Zaremba: Yes. I would support making sure that the buyer of that lot has no surprises.
Centers: We have a motion and a second.
Borup: Yes, we do. I'm sorry.
Centers: That's all right. I just wanted to remind you.
Zaremba: Call the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 23 of 84
Borup: That motion was to close the Public Hearing; right?
Zaremba: Correct. On both items.
Borup: Right. Do we want a little bit of discussion before we formulate a motion or are
we ready? We discussed the note on the plan for access on lot --
Centers: Well -- and I think specifically it should be on Lot 12.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: On the plat. Right on the Lot 12, that -- however the legal person wants to
word it, that the Settler's Irrigation District has access to their canal via the manhole
cover in the back.
Borup: Right. The plat shows the easement, but a note saying that they do have an
access --
Centers: To come and maintain the --
Wollen: Excuse me, Commissioner Centers. Would that be on both Lot 11 and 12?
Centers: Not my understanding.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend putting it on both lots. In the note
reference both lots. The easement goes right across both lots -- the manhole is on Lot
12, but I mean --
Borup: Right. The pipeline is the whole way.
Freckleton: Exactly. It isn't a big issue when it's a common lot, but there is two home
lots there that -- I think it's -- I mean if you can reference one, it's just as easy to
reference two. Make reference to the recorded easement document in that note, the
instrument number. That would be right on the final plat as well.
Centers: Which, Dave, and his department, approved anyway, so -- well, I'd like to
make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I'll make a stab at it. I'd recommend approval to City Council of Item 6, AZ 02-
021, request annexation and zoning of 5.26 acres and rezone 2.4 acres from RUT and
R-4 zones to R-8 zone for proposed Tully Cove Sub by Ted Mason, west of North
Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road, including all staff comments.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: And by staff comments, did you mean the item on -- never mind. I'm sorry. I
just caught on. We have a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 24 of 84
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: And continuing, I would like to recommend approval to the City Council on
Item 7, PP 02-018, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 39 building lots and 10 other
lots on 7.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Tully Cove Subdivision by
Ted Mason. It is west of North Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road and -- with
a time out here. The acreage doesn't total up. In the annexation and zoning, we have
7.66 acres and in the Preliminary Plat agenda, we have 7.30.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason for that is because
the legal description for annexation and zoning includes adjacent right of way.
Centers: Okay.
Freckleton: The legal description for a plat is exclusive of the right of way.
Centers: Okay. Thank you. Continuing on and recommend approval of the
aforementioned, including all staff comments and, in addition, the Final Plat would have
wording across Lots 11 and 12 noting to potential buyers that the Settler's Irrigation
District requires access through their property or would require access through their
property should they need to go in and maintain the pipe and canal. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 02-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
wireless communications facility consisting of a 125 foot monopole and
supporting equipment in an I-L zone for Verizon Wireless by Mericom
Corporation – 3735 North Ten Mile Road:
Borup: Thank you. Item Number 8, Public Hearing CUP 02-025, a request for
Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication facility consisting of a 125 foot
monopole and supporting equipment in an I-L zone for Verizon Wireless by Mericom
Corporation at 3735 North Ten Mile Road. We would like to open this Public Hearing
and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again to the
overhead. The site that we are going to be discussing tonight for a new cell tower is
located adjacent to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant, the highlighted portion of the
map in front of you. The bolded area is the Ten Mile Mini Storage area and that's where
the proposed cell tower would go. The proposed cell tower would be approximately 650
feet to the west of Ten Mile Road. Here is a picture of the site. Currently on the site
Ten Mile Mini Storage is constructed to this point. It's about 600 and some odd feet
back from Ten Mile. The proposed cell tower would be located adjacent to -- a few
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 25 of 84
yards away from the existing building right now. The second photo, which you see
here, is actually stepping back from the road that leads to the Wastewater Treatment
Plan to show you the large cottonwood and poplar trees that are growing up at this
location right now that would help to shield the size of the tower. The location -- if we
can go back to that picture really quick. The building that you see right here is this
building right here on the site plan. You can see that this building -- the cell tower would
be located fairly close to the existing building at this time. When Ten Mile Mini Storage
continues to build their storage unit, they will continue to build them at the angle
following the property line. Eventually they would surround the material and the
prefabricated buildings that would be located there to house the electronics for the cell
tower. The cell tower in question is a 125-foot tall steel monopole. The reason for it to
be 125 feet is so they can get the height for their antenna arrays and to allow for at
least two additional antenna arrays to be placed on the tower. The industry typically
likes to have 15 feet of separation between the antenna arrays and the applicant has
provided two additional locations for that, one at 90 feet and one at -- 95 -- well, be 110
and then go backwards to 95. They would be allowed to have additional antenna
arrays placed on this building. The building that would house the electronic equipment
for the tower would be a 12 by 28 building. It would be a prefabricated building. I
talked with the applicant tonight and the applicant stated that they may need to increase
the size of that prefabricated building to house the electronics to be a 12 by 30 foot
structure. Staff has no objections to that at this time. The reason for that is as Ten Mile
Mini Storage continues to construct buildings closer to the tower, they will be
constructing buildings similar to this around the electronics equipment shed, so
basically what you will see is a cell tower sitting directly behind the equipment shed -- I
mean the storage unit. It would be a cell tower that would be surrounded entirely by the
storage unit, located in an industrial zoned piece of property. There is no residential
property immediately adjacent to this. In addition to the information presented in front
of you, I know that you have all seen the proposed Cell Tower Ordinance that we have
discussed and just to let you know this would comply with the Cell Tower Ordinance that
has been discussed.
Centers: What is the distance from building that --
Zaremba: The fall zone?
McKinnon: The fall zone is tied directly to the residential specifically.
Centers: Totally?
McKinnon: The way the ordinance is written right now it's tied to that.
Centers: Well, there are no occupants in the surrounding building. I guess that makes
sense.
McKinnon: Yes. Hopefully there is no one living in a mini storage unit.
Borup: Good homeless housing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 26 of 84
McKinnon: So with that -- and staff does support this project as far as cell towers go. If
you have any questions I will entertain them at this time.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission for staff?
Zaremba: I'd just say on record I had a discussion with David earlier about an existing
radio -- or cell tower that is kind of kitty-corner from this on the block between Ten Mile
and Linder and Ustick and Cherry Lane. My question was how high is that tower, just to
get a sense of how high this one. The answer was the one that appears to be so
obnoxious to everybody is 300 feet tall. It's a major factor in the skyline day and night
from almost anywhere in Meridian. That's not quite three times as tall as the one that
we are talking about here, so this would not stick up anywhere near that high. I would
just make one comment to staff under site -- can't talk -- site specific requirements and I
guess this is our discussion. I would add a sixth point that no signs, flags, or banners
be on the tower, except perhaps in the lower 10 feet, signs that are required for safety
reasons. Is that acceptable?
McKinnon: Staff has no objections to that.
Zaremba: Okay. I will ask the applicant that also. Those are my only comments.
Borup: Thank you. Isn't that -- that is in the proposed ordinance also, isn't it?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Borup: So that's why you wanted to add that that it was in the proposed ordinance?
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
McFadden: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is
Cameron McFadden. Our office address is 7819 West Priest Drive in Boise, Idaho.
83704. I am employed by Mericom Corporation. We are the development services
representative for Verizon in this area. As described by staff, we are proposing a 125
foot monopole to be placed at the Ten Mile Storage at 3735 North Ten Mile in the light
industrial zone. Great care was given to the selection of this site and as pointed out by
staff, it would just lend itself to harmony with the neighborhood, because of the way that
Ten Mile Storage is going to develop their property. We are in the luxurious position
that we are going to be able to place our monopole and put in our prefab shelter before
or while they are constructing their storage units, which will totally, obscure our
equipment. It won't obscure the 125-foot monopole, of course. The shelter, as
mentioned by Mr. McKinnon, is going to be 12 by 30, unless we have a practical
problem. Verizon has changed their requirements in the last month since we have filed
this application and so they have increased the size of their shelter by two feet, to
include generators, largely as a result of the September 11th
crisis that we had. They
have new specifications for their facilities. Our lease area with Ten Mile Storage is 16
feet by 56 feet long. Again, we are trying to roughly stay the same size as their storage
units, except for the monopole's positioning. It will be enclosed by a fence until they are
completely constructed and then the fence will only be inside the storage unit. These
storage units, if I'm correct, are going to be the open bay storage units for the likes of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 27 of 84
motor homes, et cetera, so on the interior of that, you know, we will have fencing to
keep us separated from the other units. The staff has recommended conditions of no
climbing fence in 20 feet unless we are under construction and that's, of course,
agreeable to us for under maintenance is what I'm trying to say and that we paint it an
earth tone. That's also agreeable. However, I guess I would ask that they maybe
narrow it a little bit and say brown or green. Earth tone covers a spectrum in our
business from sand to charcoal and we have had to paint them all the above. If you
want to leave it at earth tone, then we will pick one, just to be in accordance with the
wishes of the community. We'd like to have a little bit more direction or what earth tone
means. I don't want to create a problem if there isn't any, but that would make it easier
for me. And also as requested, no lighting unless required by the FAA and preliminary
results are that we will not be required to light it, which is good news. As with all
facilities, Verizon Wireless is a good tenant and a good neighbor. They will comply with
all governmental regulations, including the FCC, FAA, all state and local ordinances,
including the Meridian ordinance on Conditional Use Permits, which is 11-17-3. We are
compatible with all the general standards announced in that ordinance A through I. The
one that is most talked about, in my experience, are compatible and harmonious and,
again, with our siting in this -- with the other neighbors and with our siting in this we got
extremely lucky, the City of Meridian is to the south of us and the way that we are going
to be able to construct it with Ten Mile Storage, I think we are extremely compatible.
With that I would stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I would first like to commend you for preparing to co-locate other users of it,
so that we don't have to have cell towers all over the city. Your -- it's not a storage
shed, but your equipment shed, I assume you make that divisible in such a way that if
you do have co-located competitors they don't need to have access to the entire place
there?
McFadden: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioner, that's -- actually, we don't share our
shelter with them. What would happen in that event is -- if, for example, AT&T wanted
to locate on the pole, they will approach Ten Mile Storage and they will probably rent
the bay right next to us and put their shelter down in there. That's pretty standard in the
industry these days for the ground space requirements and then of course, we have got
the tower space for them.
Zaremba: Okay. You don't have any problem with our adding a condition that there be
no signs or banners hung from the pole?
McFadden: Mr. Commissioner, absolutely not. That's fine.
Borup: Do you have any recommendation, based on you experience, on a color? You
said you'd like to narrow it down a little bit. Has there been one that's been --
McFadden: Well, Mr. Chairman, honestly, that's -- my recommendation is to leave it the
galvanized steel finish, because it's reflective. Painting a tower means a maintenance
issue on the tower when the paint peels and deteriorates, it can become far more
unsightly than you might imagine. There are jurisdictions, namely, to name a couple of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 28 of 84
them, Flagstaff, Arizona, there is a couple in Oregon now that have reversed their
ordinance and are now asking us to take paint off, because of that very reason. So --
but other than that, I think for that area an earthen tone, because it has a backdrop -- or
a brown, I should say, the language on it, a brown -- on the spectrum of brown would be
better than anything, because the foothills are our backdrop from any distance, you
know, Bogus Basin, that type of thing. I think personally that would be my choice if they
have to be painted.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes and I really hadn't thought of it, but I can't think of any that
I have seen that are painted. Are you familiar with the three that are very visible as you
go across the connector on Emerald?
McFadden: Yes.
Centers: How tall are those?
McFadden: Well, I believe they are around 90 feet. I'm not exactly sure. I know the
one that is on Five Mile and the freeway there, just before you get down to Emerald
where the three are, that one is 96 feet and they are about -- they are about the same,
in my --
Centers: None of those are painted.
McFadden: Right.
Centers: Okay. I can see the maintenance issue. Peeling. It would become unsightly
in probably a couple years and getting paint to adhere to that is difficult, isn't it?
McFadden: And we have all the same practical problems a homeowner has in that
three years from now the same paint may not be available and if we do get co-locators,
getting AT&T, getting the same matched paint that Verizon has -- you know, these are
perfectly acceptable conditions, but you can see the practical problems that we run into
at times.
Centers: I understand. Thank you.
Wollen: I had a question or two. Your tower is going to be 125 feet. Is that outside of
FAA jurisdiction or is there a height limitation where underneath they won't get
involved?
McFadden: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wollen, no, that is -- there is no limit. It has more to do
with proximity to airports.
Wollen: Okay.
McFadden: And the magic number outside of -- if we were within a short distance of an
airport, is about 250 feet. Once you get up to 250 feet, the FAA is usually going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 29 of 84
require you to light it, mark it, something. Other than that, it has more to do with
proximity to other objects. There we are lucky, we don't have anything. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. David, any comment on the painting?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bruce and I did a little bit of
talking here at the table while you were going through your questions with Mr.
McFadden. The buildings that are out on Ten Mile right now are painted an earthen
color and it might be best to match the color -- a similar spectrum of color as the
existing buildings on site, so the lower portion of the tower would blend. That same
color would blend with the foothills, a kind of brown dusty color that we have got in the
foothills for most of the year, except for the spring. The painting can be problemsome,
problematic, but we have to weigh that against whether or not the galvanized steel is
more in -- the word just escaped me -- intrusive than the painted. A galvanized steel
pole sticks out a lot more than a pole that's painted a specific color. There are poles in
the valley that are painted. I could think of a couple of them down in the central location
of Boise City in the Garden City area. They were required to paint those. Right now we
don't have a current ordinance that requires that. It would be something that could be
placed by either condition and if it were something that was removed, staff wouldn't
have an objection to that. It's your decision.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: My concern, David, I can understand the paint and the appearance and I think
it's a short-term fix. I think the first couple of years it's going to look beautiful -- or
better. Not beautiful. Who is going to police it when it starts peeling and required to be
repainted and -- you know, et cetera, et cetera. We don't have those kinds of police
powers.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Centers, we
may want -- if we want to go with the painting condition, site specific requirement
Number 1, we could add some additional language to that that would require continual
maintenance. That would be something that code enforcements officers could handle.
There could be some sort of tickler file also that could be set up saying let's make sure
that we take a look at this in this specific time frame. Language could be added to
continually maintain the painting. That would probably be the best suggestion if we do
decide tonight to go with a painted structure.
Zaremba: Let me throw out an alternative, as opposed to having it galvanized and then
painted. I'm not enough of a paint expert to know this, but I do know that it's tough to
get paint to stick on galvanized. My question would be could the manufacturer
somehow impregnate the galvanization process where the color would be permanent?
Centers: Be expensive.
McFadden: Mr. Commissioner, I have never seen that, to be honest, so I couldn't
adequately answer that question. We always paint them. The only thing close to that --
you know, I have seen some specialty poles constructed -- I'm sure you have seen the
pictures that they look like trees -- are supposed to look like trees and things like that,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 30 of 84
but even those are not -- the tower manufacturers themselves don't do that, that's
applied after the fact, so -- if that helps.
Borup: Do you know whether something that size -- would that normally be painted
before it's erected?
McFadden: In my experience, Mr. Commissioner, they paint it while it's lying on the
ground.
Borup: That's what I meant.
McFadden: Out on site.
Borup: That's the way I would want to do it.
McFadden: Yes. Yes.
Centers: Have you ever watched them repainting? Excuse me. Go ahead.
McFadden: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, yes, the repaint is, of course,
done climbing the pole. I wouldn't want to do that personally, but, yes, that's definitely
how they do it.
Borup: Do you know whether something that size can be powder coated?
McFadden: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea.
Borup: Okay.
McFadden: I could certainly find that out.
Borup: That's just a painting method that would have a lot longer life.
Centers: Like stucco. Color-coded --
Borup: No. Called powder coated.
Zaremba: Bake the finish on it and make it pretty near permanent.
Borup: Does that need to be done inside a building on smaller -- they do it on wrought
iron -- external wrought iron. I guess that wouldn't work with this. Thank you.
Mathes: Does the city have anything on painting the building?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, I don't believe the city has anything
specific for the building. The building itself, the 12-by-28 or the 12-by-30 building, will
eventually be completely encompassed from the exterior view by the Ten Mile Mini
Storage building being built around it.
Mathes: So it won't matter.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 31 of 84
McKinnon: Eventually it won't matter. In the short period of time it won't matter.
Centers: What color are the mini storage buildings? Do they have red roofs or --
Borup: Right up there. It looks like brown.
McKinnon: It's more of a tan color that's there right now.
McFadden: I don't know what the technical color is, Mr. Commissioner, but it is -- I
would call it a greenish brown.
Centers: White roofs.
McFadden: Yes. They are white roofs.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Did I ask if we had any other testimony on this application? I don't believe I
did. Do we? Seeing none --
Centers: I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: I guess what it boils down to, if we are going to require paint, we better
require maintenance every two or three years and require them to repaint it every two
or three years. How long -- the Public Hearing is closed, but maybe the applicant could
respond anyway. You said you painted a lot at your last visit here. How often do you
repaint them? That's okay. You don't need to come, just --
McFadden: Mr. Commissioner, Commissioner Centers, to answer your question, I can
give you my -- my frame of reference is from Oregon. I'm only in Idaho about a year
now, but over there in Portland area they are painting them about every 5 to 10 years,
because of the coastal -- the heavy rain in the coastal -- the sea salt and all that type of
stuff. There is a little bit more abrasive nature to the elements there, but that's -- as a
ballpark, that's what I -- what we have seen -- what I have seen.
Centers: Okay. So if we said every five years --
Borup: Well, as needed.
Centers: Pardon?
Borup: As needed. Wouldn't that be a better wording?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 32 of 84
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would suggest possibly -- at
least for the first few times a review hearing may be -- or some sort of review to be set
up between Code Enforcement and either applicant or applicant's successors where it
can be determined by Code Enforcement if there is a repainting that's needed. Let's
say two years down the road, three years down the road, since we have really no time
period to reference with this climate.
Borup: There is no sense to require it painted if it's not needed.
Centers: Right.
Borup: And it's going to depend on how it's applied -- I mean I think if they do an Anson
wash or a sandblasting or something, the paint's going to adhere better and last longer.
Centers: Well, that's if you agree with staff that you want to have it painted.
Borup: True. Do we have any other discussion? What's the feeling of some of the
other Commissioners? Commissioner Centers?
Centers: I guess that isn't all bad. I mean I can understand where staff is coming from,
that if we went with the approval without painting and if the City Council objects, then so
be it. You know, let the applicant be ready for the City Council and with his homework
and the same way with staff. Then we don't get into muddying up the waters if you
don't approve it. I don't know. I'm indifferent but --
Borup: I think it's --
Zaremba: So the direction you're going, you're saying leave it as written and --
Centers: No. Just remove the paint requirement.
Borup: Well, my first impression is I think anything we can do to make it less obtrusive
is a good thing, but we have got a location here that's different than maybe looking at a
lot of others.
Centers: That's what I looked at.
Borup: I see the see city is worried about the view from all the guys working at the
sewer plant. No? But -- and things may change in the future, too.
Centers: They almost changed in the past, but --
Borup: I mean this is a location that is probably not as maybe critical as others, but 125
feet is up there a ways. David, is there another tower on Ustick Road, kind of west of --
east of --
Zaremba: It's just slightly northeast of Ustick and Linder.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 33 of 84
Borup: Okay. Yes. Was that the one you were referring to when you asked how tall it
was?
Zaremba: No.
Borup: I didn't think so.
Zaremba: No. This is a second one.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the one that you're referring to is
the one that was actually approved out in the county that one is currently a galvanized
steel pole.
Borup: Right. I knew it was. That's why -- do you know how tall that is?
Freckleton: It would be a guess, but it would be somewhere probably between 85 and
125.
Borup: That narrowed it down, didn't it?
McKinnon: The reason why I say that is the typical monopole is anywhere between --
the shortest they typically go is around 80 feet and the highest is around 150. Above
that you get into lines and guy poles. That's a monopole. I haven't gone out there. My
trigonometry is not so good, so --
Centers: Mr. Chairman, what our legal counsel states, you know, sounds good,
especially the way he said it, but the Code Enforcement Officer is not going to have that
on his calendar -- now it's time to go out and check that monopole. The only time a
code enforcement officer generally gets involved is if someone complains. And how
people are going to be watching that pole and say, well, the paint's peeling, I better call
the city. I think what legal counsel says sounds good, but I don't think it's the real world
for the City of Meridian, who has one code enforcement officer -- I think. With the
proposal to hire maybe a couple more. Has it been approved? Okay. But, anyway, you
get my point. Actually, I'm indifferent. I mean if you want to require it to be painted,
that's fine, but I don't think it's make a lot of sense. It makes sense, but the
enforcement and the repaint -- I look down the road.
Borup: David, are you familiar with any that have maybe been sandblasted or
something to dull the finish and have a little less reflection?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the site specific requirement
for a match finish so it would be a non-gloss finish, as far as sandblasting of a
galvanized pole, I have no clue.
Borup: And maybe some other -- is that one of the concerns, other than being metal, is
the reflection?
McKinnon: That's correct. And the way the site specific requirement is written right
now, it's otherwise camouflaged so that if there some other way to do it, other than
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 34 of 84
painting it, staff would be even more than happy to be approve that as well. But as far
as my own personal knowledge, I have none, other than painting.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Is there a current specification for utility towers that -- or transmission lines, the
painting of them, or any reference to that?
Borup: No, I don't believe so.
Rohm: I was just curious. In essence, it's the same thing, it's just a taller structure.
McFadden: Are they painted? Are the utility poles painted?
Rohm: They are a dull finish. I think they are just a dull finish.
Borup: Yes. They don't have any glare to them.
Rohm: And maybe that's the issue here, not necessarily having them painted, but just
the fact that it has a dull finish, so that it doesn't provide the glare off of the structure
itself.
Centers: Right. I wonder out loud if we were to require a dull, non-glare finish, that the
applicant would be able to comply?
Borup: So let them choose if they want to -- if there is a way to do the finish or paint it
or it be their choice.
Centers: Yes.
Rohm: That seems to address the issue.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Very good.
Borup: Are we ready for a motion, then?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we approve forwarding to the City Council recommending approval of
CUP 02-025, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communications facility
consisting of a 125 foot monopole and supporting equipment in an I-L zone for Verizon
Wireless by Mericom Corporation, 3735 North Ten Mile Road. To include all staff
comments, with the following exceptions. On Page 4, site specific comment -- site
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 35 of 84
specific requirement Number 1, is reworded to say, the monopole structure and antenna
array shall be treated in any manner that reduces the glare and visual intrusiveness.
We will add a Paragraph 6 that says, no signs slash banners anywhere on the tower,
except the required safety signage may be attached within 10 feet of the ground level.
Centers: Well, you mentioned the structure and we are not requiring the structure, we
are talking about the monopole and antenna. The structure is going to match the --
Zaremba: The monopole structure is what I meant, not the building.
Centers: Yes. Right. Not the building.
Zaremba: I'd just leave the word structure out and just call it the monopole and the
antenna array.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: So amended.
Centers: Second.
Borup: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 02-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
3817 square foot Carl’s Jr. restaurant with a drive-thru in a C-G zone by
Clayton Jones – on South Main Street, north of the Meridian Road and
Main Street intersection:
Borup: Thank you. Item Number 9, Public Hearing CUP 02-026, request for Conditional
Use Permit for a 3,817 square foot Carl's Junior Restaurant and drive-thru in a C-G
zone by Clayton Jones. It's on South Main Street, north of Meridian Road and the Main
Street intersection. I'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the
staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a project
that should be familiar to most of you. This is the building that was originally housing
the Kentucky Fried Chicken at the location of the intersection of Main and 1st
-- Main
and Meridian Road. The building that is currently on the overhead in front of you, it
looks like the building has been painted from the last time that it was brought in front of
you and it was moved. The project was originally -- when the A&W-Kentucky Fried
Chicken was approved for the site just to the south of the existing building. One of the
site specific comments that was made and was approved in the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law was that the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken building would no
longer be allowed to have a drive-thru. That was based on configuration that had a
drive-thru on the north side of the building and now we are talking about either
rebuilding or building a new building at this location to allow for the Carl's Junior
restaurant to be located on the site. The building that's in front of you will be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 36 of 84
transformed into a Carl's Junior at the site plan -- it will be razed. Thanks, Bruce. This
is the new site plan. I will go over it just briefly with you and just point out a few things.
One of the original problems with this entire site was the lack of parking. There is not a
great deal of parking for the A&W restaurant and a large portion of the parking for the
A&W restaurant is this entire area and taking up some of the former Kentucky Fried
Chicken parking. A new configuration of the building on this lot would move the drive-
thru lane from the north side of the building to the south side of the building, so people
would enter along the western side of the property in the build and around the side of
the building on the east side of the building, essentially, and change the location of the
drive-thru and allow parking to come in on this side of the building and do some parallel
parking on this side of the building. In addition to that, it would keep the parking spaces
that are here and they have asked for parking spaces to be placed along the
landscaping buffer and taking out a portion of the landscape buffer that's currently
existing, however, they will only be reducing the buffer to the amount that would 20 feet
from the back of the sidewalk, which is approximately the ten percent exception that we
have talked about before. In the landscape ordinance it says if you have a narrow
piece of property, you can reduce the required landscape buffer to 1/10th of the depth
of the lot. The lot is approximately 170 feet deep from this point to this point, and that
comes out to about 210 feet. It meets the intent of the ordinance by providing
landscaping within that buffer and it increases the amount of parking on the site for both
restaurants to be 50 spaces, which actually exceeds the amount of required parking for
both restaurants. Because this a new building and not the existing building, the
restriction on the type of -- the restriction on no -- excuse me -- the restriction on no
drive-thru for this build is no longer applicable, because it applied only to the existing
building that's on site. Within the staff report there is a number of requirements. I
assume that you have those. The applicant is here tonight and staff supports this
project. However, we do recognize that there is limited parking and that there is a high
volume of traffic that will be generated by this project in an area that already has a high
volume of traffic. However, it does meet the minimum requirements of the code and with
that I would ask if there is any questions.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commission?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman so they are tearing this building down and starting over?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, that is my understanding, that the
existing building will be torn down and a new Carl's Junior will be built in its place.
Centers: And I guess I don't agree with the high volume of traffic. The reason I don't
agree is because you're going to have it there -- people aren't going to drive to Carl's
Junior, they are going to be -- they are, but most people I think are going to be in the
area. There are cars that are going to drive through and get a sandwich and maybe
instead of going to KFC, so I don't think you are -- that's going to draw a lot of people
there. Would you agree?
McKinnon: I would agree with that, Commissioners Centers. One of the main concerns
on the high traffic volume would be on the interior. We have a Taco Bell, we have a
Carl's Junior, and we have an A&W. That's pretty congested. Then when you consider
that this is a two-way lane of traffic right here with people entering on Meridian Road,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 37 of 84
people entering and exiting onto Main Street. With the Taco Bell drive-thru exiting here,
people coming around from Taco Bell here, A&W-KFC exiting, you have got a lot of
traffic converging on this traffic lane between Meridian and Main and there is congestion
there.
Mathes: Is that Bolo's right there also?
McKinnon: No. Bolo's is actually further back this direction.
Mathes: So they can get off on that new road?
McKinnon: Bolo's would have to come off on these exits right here.
Mathes: Okay.
McKinnon: That does not exit directly onto Corporate.
Zaremba: In the ACHD comments they ask that there be provided a recorded cross-
easement access among the parcels to the north for access to the public street.
Wouldn't it make sense for all of the parcels to have cross-easements? There is only
one way in on one street and one way in on the other street and everybody has to use
those driveways, which means that the new KFC-A&W would also have to be part of
the process and access agreement.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe there is actually an
existing cross-access easement that's shared by Bolo's and the A&W-KFC, Taco Bell,
and I guess --
Zaremba: That covers all four properties.
McKinnon: I believe it does. The applicant can address that as well, but that's my
understanding, there is one in place and the successor Carl's Junior would also be
applied to that.
Zaremba: Because I was going to say, it doesn't make sense to leave out the south
property. They need this driveway, too. Okay. Good.
Borup: This is still one property, isn't it?
McKinnon: That's correct. It would still be one property.
Borup: KFC and Carl's Junior is one lot owned by the same -- I don't think it has been
divided.
Zaremba: Okay. I have one other question on configuration, which I will also address
with the applicant, but let me pass it by staff. I have used the -- I have patronized the
Taco Bell and I expect to patronize the Carl's Junior. This part of the driveway is very
unworkable. I realize that ACHD's concern is what happens out in the street, but
because of -- and I'm glad to see that this will no longer be the drive-thru for this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 38 of 84
building. Because of this being a drive-thru for the Taco Bell, there is traffic heading this
direction, people who attempt to exit this area, using this driveway to get onto Meridian
Road, have traffic going this way on their right, which essentially is wrong way traffic to
most drivers. Consequently, they tend to move over far enough that they are in this part
of the lane to exit and particularly if they are intending to turn left. That stacks up traffic
out on Meridian waiting for these people to clear. My suggestion would be that this
landscape and curb area be cut off, so that the driveway is widened an additional 20
feet, so that it comes perpendicular from the roadway and this is -- this sign here by
maybe three or four feet and at least widens the entrance to the driveway, so that
people who want to come out and turn left aren't preventing people from turning in. Is
that something that can be required?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, Ada County Highway District does
limit the width on those accesses, so that you don't have people coming in across other
lanes of traffic and they try to narrow those down. They need to be wide enough that
people can get in and out and you can have a left turn lane, but typically into a
commercial project they do not like to exceed 35 feet in width on those. If you
remember, the original Kentucky Fried Chicken-A&W application that came before you
showed that the site down here had a 40-foot wide access. Ada County Highway
District asked them to channel that down and make it less wide. That would be
something Ada County Highway District would have to approve to do that, something
that may -- there is two things about this site plan that I think need to be pointed out.
Number one, this isn't the newest revised plan, there have been some changes to the
location of the reader board and that this area -- this island here has been removed and
now it continues in a curved, linear line right here. Just wanted to point that out. There
have been a few changes in the parking that have been modified a little bit. Sorry I
don't have the correct site plan in front of you. The Taco Bell information we have been
talking about has people come around -- the actual drive-thru starts in this location and
wraps around the side. As you said, it's wrong way traffic. I think the thing that we
need to address is the width between these -- I guess the drive width between this area
-- very seldom does Taco Bell wrap all the way back and around that would push the
traffic over to the -- to the south so far that it would block traffic coming in on Meridian
Road and something that may be more appropriate would be looking at some sort of
straightening, rather than widening, making it perpendicular, rather than an angled route
to turn in on. Right now they are coming at less than a 90 -- this is actually a wider than
90 degree angle -- I think it's actually less than 90. Making it straighter may be the way
to go, rather than having it in curves.
Centers: David?
McKinnon: Yes.
Centers: But now that we are looking, did they need those four parallel parking spaces
to meet the minimum-parking requirement? All I see that they do right here is
contribute to what Commissioner Zaremba is talking about and cause congestion and,
you know, on the plan you have four stations here. Are they really needed?
McKinnon: Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, per the ordinance it
would not be required. However, based on market standards, which are different than
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 39 of 84
the city standards, those spaces are going to be used. They need the spaces on that
site. If Carl's Junior opens there with A&W-KFC, Taco Bell, the first lunch rush that all
three of those buildings will take up all of their parking spaces that are available, even
though it meets the minimum requirements. The applicant is here tonight and he has
stated in his letter -- and I know he is prepared to talk about this, is they talked about
securing off-site parking for employees and if there is off-site parking that could be
secured for those employees, I would have no problems saying we should eliminate
those parking spaces. I do believe that there is going to be parking spaces that are
going to be necessary, unless they have off-site parking.
Centers: Well, you didn't answer my question, I don't think. Are they necessary to meet
the code requirement for number of parking spaces per square footage on a retail
operation such as --
McKinnon: They are not required per our code.
Centers: Okay. Thank you. Then the applicant will address whether he really has to
have them or doesn't have to have them. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Any further questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Jones: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Clayton Jones, I live at 14071 West
Rochester Drive in Boise. I'm the franchise partner for Green Star Foods, which is a
franchisee of Carl's Junior here local. I'm pleased to present this project for your
approval and it's a great spot and I think it's a great use for our building. I would ask
that on the Conditional Use application, that you amend or change the square footage
to 3,901 is what -- is what's on your new site plans. Yes, we do propose to remove the
old build KFC building and construct a new Carl's Junior restaurant more or less with
the configuration in front of you up there. Exactly as the -- as what's in your packet.
We had a few goals in mind when we came up with the site plan. Number 1, to provide
adequate parking and, Number 2, to kind of decongest the center as it is and make it
flow just a little bit better. What we did to hopefully improve the flow in there was to
increase the space between the old KFC, which will be the new Carl's Junior, and the
Taco Bell. You have got the Taco Bell, the drive-thru, then adjacent to that is a 24-foot,
two-way aisle way, and then the parallel parking. I believe there is adequate room for
all of those things and I would -- even though the parking isn't necessary to meet the
requirements for parallel spaces, I think it would be helpful, as David did indicate, that,
you know, lunches are pretty busy and I'm sure we will use all of that parking.
Borup: What did you say the driveway width -- drive-thru --
Jones: Twenty-four feet. You got the existing Taco Bell drive-thru lane, then 24 feet,
and then the parallel spaces.
Borup: I don't remember. Is there a curbing off the Taco Bell lane?
Jones: No, there is not.
Borup: So it's just pavement?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 40 of 84
Jones: Right now it's just open. In our business, you know, we do encourage our
employees to come together when -- you know, ride share and stuff like that whenever
possible. We do generally have two shifts that work, those that work in the daytime,
those that work in the nighttime, and when all possible we always like people to share
rides, especially in tight parking lots such as this. We will encourage our employees to
do that. That's pretty much my presentation and would entertain any questions.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Mr. -- was it Jones?
Jones: Yes.
Centers: On your site plan -- do you have a plan in front of you?
Jones: I do.
Centers: Where you talk about the four spaces at 23 feet equals 90 -- okay. Four times
12 -- so each space is 23 feet in length or depth?
Jones: Right.
Centers: And they are nine feet wide?
Jones: Yes. I believe that's what code is for parallel parking.
Centers: Okay. I was trying to see how you arrived at your arithmetic of 24 feet. So
you're really not certain of the Taco Bell drive-thru width, are you?
Jones: I don't have that information, no.
Centers: And we looked at a subdivision earlier where the minimum number went down
to 29 feet, was it, Mr. Chairman? And then we --
Borup: No parking on one side. That was 29 less nine, so that would be -- if they had
parking that would leave 20.
Centers: Yes. Yes. Okay.
Borup: But that's still tight. I mean theoretically we are talking four cars in 24 feet. Is
that correct? One a drive-thru, one in parking, and two going each way --
Zaremba: The entire width between the buildings is 46 feet --
Borup: Oh, right.
Zaremba: -- six inches.
Borup: I'm sorry.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 41 of 84
Centers: But you're on the right track there, four times nine is 36. That's if they are
stacked side by side.
Borup: There is only 10 feet to divide between --
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: The driving lane and the roadway is how wide out on the street 12?
McKinnon: It depends on the speed of the road as well, Commissioner Zaremba.
Bruce and I just did the math, Commissioners, and the drive lane for Taco Bell is 12 feet
wide. There is a 24-foot distance between the drive lane and the nine-foot wide parallel
parking space. They do have a typical 12-foot wide aisle for two-way traffic between
the drive-thru and the parallel parking.
Rohm: I think on the map is -- I think what the Commissioners are saying is, you know,
even though the math is there, it's still a very congested area and we are just trying to
find a solution to that congestion.
Centers: Well -- and we have seen the congestion.
Rohm: Exactly.
Centers: Personally I have seen it. Now the drive-thru on the other side, you know, of
course, that was a given. It had to be, but that --
Rohm: That will help, for sure.
Centers: Okay. Well --
Borup: Commissioner Centers, how -- or whoever mentioned that, part of the
congestion problem is traffic cutting across going into Taco Bell.
Centers: Yes and Mr. McKinnon pointed out that Taco Bell's drive-thru, they start back
in here, but that is not always true. I have been there and done that, haven't you,
Commissioner Mathes?
Mathes: Yes.
Centers: And you come through here and you flip a U and come in or --
Mathes: Or they come in off Meridian and --
Zaremba: Come off Meridian and --
Centers: Exactly and they come in through here both ways. I rarely see them using
this. Rarely.
Zaremba: I think the discussion is solving some of the congestion here by widening this
area from its existing narrowness.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 42 of 84
Centers: You can't widen it unless he moves the buildings.
Zaremba: Well, he has moved the building. That doesn't help me, though, with the
entrance and exit up here. The congestion that I'm focusing on is that little area right
there. I guess my question to the applicant would be, we know your proposal is to
rebuild this area and it would not be difficult for you to turn this, you're not planning on
doing any rebuilding on this side of --
Jones: I don't know that I have that authority.
Zaremba: So the difficulty is if ACHD says that this driveway can only be a certain
width, you can't solve the problem of turning the whole thing and making it square,
which puts me back to my desire to just widen it. What do we have to do with ACHD?
Borup: Well, you can put an island in there, I think, would be the other option. A
separate entrance, an island in the entrance.
Zaremba: Specific in and out with a sign that says in and out?
Borup: Well, no. Just a -- like an island in a subdivision entrance.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: I could see that helping the flow a little bit.
Borup: I'm not sure -- well --
Zaremba: Let me ask the applicant. What is your willingness to consider having this
curbing go straight out to the street and then cut that off and maybe putting an island
along what would be your property line?
Jones: I personally wouldn't object, as long as we were able to, you know, get through
ACHD and make sure that there was no objections from them as well and the property,
as long as he agrees as well.
Mathes: But you will still have problems with Taco Bell people coming in on that one
side of the island, though.
Jones: Might create a new problem.
Borup: Well -- oh, you mean driving in on the wrong way?
Mathes: Right. To get in the drive-thru.
Borup: Yes, but it would be more obvious. It's not -- and especially if that island
extends the curbing down a little ways.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 43 of 84
Zaremba: Just to make sure I stated this issue clear enough, the difficulty I see is that
people trying to exit there -- particularly if they are turning left, are often on the wrong
side of that roadway.
Borup: That's because of traffic turning in.
Centers: If you put an island maybe they will continue to do that.
Jones: Mr. -- Commissioners, an off-the-cuff comment. I would hope that by adding the
additional restaurant, maybe I would alleviate that problem of too many people in that
one drive-thru, that they would go into the other one just a little bit more.
Borup: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Come
forward.
Gibbs: My name is Jonathan Gibbs. I'm the administrative partner in G&H Enterprises,
the property owner, and I'm at 9502 Scorpio in Boise, Idaho, is my address. When we
submitted the application for the KFC, we tried to get a much wider drive-thru there and
because we used to have the drive-thru at the other end, where it's now parking, and
we were turned down by ACHD. They wouldn't allow any larger than that, and I agree
with you, it would be nice to have even another 10 feet there, but they were pretty
adamant on not letting us have anymore space there.
Centers: Right there?
Gibbs: Yes.
Zaremba: I tend to agree with ACHD probably 98 percent of the time, but once in
awhile they are wrong.
Gibbs: Yes. I think it would help congestion in that particular location, but I don't how
you -- whether you got some clout. We didn't.
Borup: Do you want to take a look and see if that configuration is something you think
may be feasible? Go ahead and take that. I just drew an island on there with a divider
extending back a little bit.
Jones: Okay. So, in essence we have a divided --
Borup: Just a divided entrance.
Jones: The entrance to the south, is that still a two-way entrance on your proposal or is
that --
Borup: Both of them would be one way. One -- you know, in and out. Do you want to
put that on the screen, David, would that help? Oh, we are not set up. That's all right.
Jones: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 44 of 84
Borup: Mr. Jones.
Jones: David is recommending or asking -- wondering if we just brought the extruded
curb from Taco Bell's drive-thru up a little bit to force them, would that solve the
problem, without confronting ACHD on their policy?
Mathes: Would that happen if you approved through Taco Bell, though?
Borup: Is that a different property owner?
Mathes: Or is it the same owner?
Borup: Some of the same principals, though. You could probably talk to them.
Jones: If I eliminated the parallel parking as part of my application, would that alleviate
the traffic that I really can't control on Taco Bell enough to take care of the problem in
your minds?
Zaremba: Well, that part of the aisle way is wide enough to allow for that parking. I'm
not sure that helps at the end of the driveway where I'm having a problem.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba specifically, the question is up in the
-- I guess it would be the western entrance and the concern is people going from Taco
Bell wrapping around, is that the major concern?
Zaremba: Concern is that people exiting are having to move themselves out to avoid
the opposite -- even if opposite direction traffic is very tightly aligned here, the outgoing
traffic is on the wrong side of the driveway.
Borup: I thought the concern was people turning in off of Meridian Road. Turning off
Meridian Road into it.
Zaremba: Yes.
Centers: I think the island is a good remedy.
Borup: Well, if they are following the drive-thru as it's intended, I don't see that much of
a conflict. I thought you were talking about conflicts turning in from Meridian Road.
Zaremba: The difficulty I have is -- and where I see problems is turning off of Meridian
Road into that driveway when there is somebody on the wrong side of that driveway.
Centers: Trying to get onto Meridian Road and turn left.
Zaremba: Yes. Traffic exiting this group is on the wrong side of that driveway.
Centers: Don't you think an island would pretty much force most of them to drive --
Zaremba: I like the island idea. I could buy into that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 45 of 84
Centers: Yes some of them could cut the corner, but I think the island would remedy
that.
Zaremba: And if that satisfies ACHD that it -- you know, if they are going to count the
two halves of the driveway separately and allow it, therefore, to function as a wider
driveway --
Centers: I don't know. Do you have to talk to ACHD just to put an island in on your own
property? I don't think you do, do you?
Borup: Well, you have to -- if it affects the entrance onto their road I think you would. I
think they have to approve the wider -- I mean the --
Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we will work including the Taco Bell
property and the other -- whatever will alleviate the congestion in that driveway area.
We are having problems with people coming into Taco Bell instead of going through the
driveway that's designed of going right out into Meridian Street and that's what's
causing the problem at this point. Whatever we need to do, I think it would behoove,
you know, all restaurants in the area to get it as workable as we can.
Borup: That's going to help your business if it flows smoothly for --
Gibbs: Sure.
Borup: Okay. So how do we want to handle -- oh, we got one more to testify. Go
ahead, sir.
Atteberry: My name is Phil Atteberry. I live at 1756 Stonybook, Eagle. 83616. I
represent Kentucky Fried Chicken - A&W. This is the first time I have seen this site plan
and if I could I'd like to point out some problems that we would have and some
problems we have right now, so you can consider that. This exist -- enter and exit
you're talking right here is just a mess. I'm in agreement with you. If somebody drives
a Suburban or a truck, pickup truck, when they come across here and pull out there,
they completely block off the entrance part of that. It's just the angle it's at nobody can
turn in. At lunchtime Taco Bell generally backs up into that enter and exit also. The
other problem is, is parking. On a Friday evening Bolo's normally takes up all of their
parking, all of Taco Bell's, and most of this parking up here. This evening when I left
there -- right now we have parking along side of the existing building, plus in front here.
We had one parking spot and cars waiting to take that one for two hours this evening.
Where you're going to get another restaurant here with another drive-thru -- and our
drive-thru we have ten cars up to here and for about two hours this evening we had 16
cars, which brought us up to here. Parking -- and it's a jam in there. Granted, at the
first of the month we have coupons out, so we are very very busy and that's not like that
every night, but the first of the month is people eat and go out at all the restaurants in
here, so the parking is just a big -- it's a disaster in there right now. Well, especially if
you add another drive-thru here, if the speaker is here, these cars here are going to be
out in here. Some of these parking spots, as tight as this is right now, it's hard for me to
tell if there is going to be enough room in there for a car to back out when you have got
cars in the drive-thru. I really think that before a decision is made, I think on an evening
when it's very busy out there or something, the Commissioners could go to that site and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 46 of 84
see what it's like out there. The other concern is having a playground inside here,
because people tend to spend a lot more time in a place where there is a playground
and it's a fast food restaurant, naturally, but I would think there would be a little bit of
concern about how long they are going to be there and parking. If we could really do
something that -- no matter what goes there, something really needs to be done with
this connection, because it just does not function at all. I don't know -- this one seems
to work out fine, but I just think the angle of that one when cars pull out they pull at -- if
they are coming from our restaurant they pull out into that at an angle.
Zaremba: Your building was approved before I was on the Commission. What's the
square footage of your building?
Atteberry: The square footage of our building?
Zaremba: Yes.
Atteberry: It's 3,400 square feet.
Zaremba: So the proposed Carl's Junior is like 500 square feet more than yours?
Atteberry: That's correct.
Centers: Mr. Atteberry, are you saying that for two hours straight you had a minimum of
16 cars in your drive-up?
Atteberry: At the max point we had -- sometimes we had 16 cars in that drive-thru.
Centers: Sometimes but you're not saying for two hours straight you had 16 in line?
Atteberry: I mean it dropped down to probably 12, then right back up to 16.
Centers: Yes and I would think that you or someone would talk to Bolo's --
Atteberry: Well, you know, we are all in there together. It's a little hard to prevent those
people from parking, other than towing their cars, but --
Centers: Yes.
Atteberry: You know, it's sort of a common area.
Centers: That's sure what I would do if I were a business owner there, you know.
Atteberry: You know, I don't know what they have going on Friday nights, if they have
live music or something, but it seems like it fills up -- they do quite the business there.
Centers: But --
Atteberry: You know I really don't know what Taco Bell does, because Bolo's really
encroaches on their parking. I mean it just completely wipes them out there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 47 of 84
Zaremba: Just a suggestion. The difficulty, probably, is that the Bolo's people would
stay much longer. It might be an idea for both your area and the Carl's Junior area to
mark all of those with 45 minute parking or something like that.
Atteberry: That could be a possibility.
Zaremba: Depending on how long people stay in your restaurant that are not using the
drive-thru.
Atteberry: And Bolo's is usually Friday and Saturday nights. In fact, I think they have
live music or something going on and people stay a long time or -- they have a huge
crowd. During the week I don't usually see --
Mathes: Over at the mall where Burger King and Cafe Ole' are together, in front of
Burger King all the signs are Burger King customers only. There has been employees
come out and tell people.
Atteberry: Right.
Centers: Yes. I think it's up to the individual business owners to control the use of their
parking in their facility and I don't think we should dictate how to do that. They are
business people and they should know how to do it.
Atteberry: Well, just like this evening -- like tonight, I mean Bolo's I don't think was in
the -- in the factor. Tonight is Thursday night and they don't usually have a big crowd on
Thursday night. We have parking -- we have parking right now along this side of the
existing building and it was -- tonight was completely -- we had all the parking full. Now
this right here would be all new parking, here, and here. This -- the parking that's here
and the parking that's here would go away that's existing right now. There would be no
--
Centers: You would be losing parking.
Atteberry: Yes, we would be losing parking. Well, plus the area around that drive-thru, I
mean it is -- it is hard to maneuver in this area right here right now, let alone have the
cars stacked out to here. I just don't know how it's going to work. I don't know if this is
the best design for this area or if this size building is workable, because if you go over
there now, this is a jam right here. Even when we don't -- we have cars to about right
here, well, it's a jam right here. Now I don't know if the design of the building is
different, you know, compared to -- you know. If you could overlay where the existing
building is, it might be easier for me to make a comment on it, but I know this right here
is a -- we are backed up in there when somebody tried to come through here or comes
back around. You're going to have these people here -- I don't know -- is this just
showing a different kind of -- see there, that's just a property line. If these people try to
exit around here and we have cars backed up here, we have got a mess there, too.
Borup: Anything else? Thank you. Come on up, sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 48 of 84
Munson: My name is Steve Munson. I actually reside at 11671 Jenilyn Court in Boise.
I'm coming as a consumer. I like Carl's Junior, I think they make good food, I like
Kentucky Fried Chicken, and I like all of them. Why there? I mean seriously. You
know, of all the places, there has got to be other places in Meridian. I have been in the
parking lot during rush hour. It's hard to maneuver without putting a fourth restaurant
there. It just doesn't seem practical. I mean it seems -- actually, it seems insane, to be
honest, because you're not adding any other parking, only that you're adding an extra
drive-thru, you're adding, you know, extra customers, it's just going to complicate an
already crowded area, end of story. It's already -- I mean it's not too crowded right now,
because they moved back and you know, created extra parking, but you put a high
volume restaurant like Carl's Junior in there, where are the people going to park? I
don't see how it makes good business sense, you know, to -- for any of them, you know,
to add that much more customers without having any compensation for extra parking or,
you know, as already pointed out obvious -- it's already hard to maneuver in there. You
add the other drive-thru, plus additional parking on that side that currently isn't there, I
just don't see how it's going to work and there has got to be other places in Meridian
that they can locate without crowding up that already crowded spot. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Any comments from any Commissioners?
Zaremba: I don't know if the applicant can answer this question or not. What is the
square footage of the Carl's Junior that's in Boise on Broadway?
Jones: The Broadway restaurant is configured a little bit different and it's -- with the
restroom I believe it's 3,600 square feet.
Centers: How about over at Crossroads?
Jones: Crossroads is a huge restaurant and this is quite a bit smaller. It is 4,600
square feet. This is 39. The difference is the playground area. It's not anywhere as big
as the one on Meridian in Eagle.
Mathes: Do you happen to know how big the existing old KFC is?
Jones: It's about the same square footage. I believe it's 3,400, 3,500 square feet. It's
just configured more in a square.
Mathes: Yes.
Jones: Could be 31.
Mathes: Thirty-one?
Borup: How big is your playground area?
Jones: Ninety square feet.
Borup: So your building without that would be 3,000?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 49 of 84
Jones: Yes and, actually, I put the original building and the original plan was -- was
without the playground. The site plan was identical. That whole big triangle out there
was, in essence, wasted space, so I was able to put a small playground on there
without changing the site plan at all. To address Kentucky Fried's concerns a little bit,
we did open up the backside of the drive-thru area by removing that -- that planter area
right there and it's addressed on your site plan. Actually, I do believe that we picked up
versus the existing old KFC and the KFC parking that's on there, I do believe we still
pick up 10 or 12 spots.
Centers: So this is your playground area correct?
Jones: Right. That's right out in --
Centers: So – yes and if you did eliminate that, you wouldn't pick up anymore parking,
would you?
Jones: Not one more.
Centers: It would be -- you would gain a little area in here.
Jones: The site plan was identical.
Schick: My name is Jeremy Schick. I'm the restaurant general manager of the KFC-
A&W. One thing I wanted to point out that hasn't really been touched much tonight is
the employee parking. Our restaurant, the KFC-A&W, we have anywhere between 35
and 45 employees. Even if they are ride sharing -- you know, we also have two crews,
morning and night, and during the day we have anywhere from 15 to 20, at night about
five more than that, even if they are ride sharing, that's a good seven, eight cars on top
of the -- all the spots that you're seeing for the existing KFC-A&W. I know they talked a
little bit about the off-site parking. I haven't heard where that would be or how easily
accessible that would be to either Carl's Junior or ourselves. I mean I think that's a
great idea, too, I just -- I can't see that as feasible, because right now even with
employees we take up a good 20 stalls.
Borup: Take up how many?
Schick: A good 20.
Centers: You don't have enough.
Schick: No.
Borup: Maybe we need to enact a CUP and have them remove their business?
Centers: Shouldn't have expanded there. I mean just -- well, but the site -- obviously,
your site and this site met code as far as parking requirements and I grilled our planner
heavily on that and nailed it down, it meets code, and I assume that yours did when it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 50 of 84
passed. I was here, but I don't recall -- yes, it did. I guess what you would be losing
would be some parking that's presently there that's vacant.
Schick: Yes.
Centers: And --
Schick: All I wanted to point out is we have a lot of congestion there and, you know,
with employee parking, it -- even if it is off site, it still takes up quite a bit.
Centers: I think what needs to be done is someone -- or the business owners there
need to talk to Bolo's, the business owners need to get together with someone and
encourage their employees to park at a rented site of their choosing. Down the street
behind Les Schwab there is a vacant lot that was just purchased by Les Schwab and
I'm sure they would make some kind of arrangement.
Schick: Only except for Friday night they really aren't a part of the issue.
Centers: Okay.
Schick: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Yes, sir.
Gibbs: I will address the employee parking. I have inquired of John's Auto and two
other sites there for 24 parking spots for employees, which would amount to six parking
spots for each of the four restaurants on that site. We do intend, if we put this project
in, to get some parking -- it will be across the street on one of those lots, and we are
looking at acquiring about 24 parking spots.
Centers: So you have --
Gibbs: We haven't done that yet. We haven't finalized -- we haven't finalized this
project, so --
Centers: So if we made that a requirement it would come to pass.
Gibbs: I bet it would.
Centers: You have opened some discussions for that and it's available?
Gibbs: Yes, it is.
Centers: By making it a requirement, what I meant to say, really, was that it wouldn't be
impossible to meet.
Gibbs: Oh, no.
Centers: Okay. Very good.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 51 of 84
Gibbs: I have got four restaurants there and they are good restaurants and we want to
-- you know, make them work and we want to have parking -- adequate parking and we
need to get some additional parking for the employees. I realize that.
Centers: And I commend you as the owner for being here.
Gibbs: Thank you.
Borup: Does that make it easier?
Centers: Yes, it does. Well, I think we ought to close the Public Hearing. I would make
that motion.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: I guess, you know, I totally agree with Commissioner Zaremba. I think this
applicant should have to widen that -- or whatever, make it better, ingress and egress is
ridiculous. I think leaving those four parking spaces would be preferable now that I hear
all this and make a requirement that the property owner and the applicant make
arrangements for at least 24 off-street -- or off-site parking spaces, because I think this
applicant I think deserves a chance to contribute to the City of Meridian's tax dollars.
Zaremba: I would go along with that kind of a motion.
Borup: Well, that was a discussion comment, wasn't it?
Centers: Yes. Well --
Zaremba: If you're going to phrase a motion like that, you have my support.
Centers: Go for it and I would agree with you.
Zaremba: Did we close the Public Hearing?
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: All right. In that case, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP
02-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,901 square foot Carl's Junior
restaurant with a drive-thru in a C-G zone by Clayton Jones on South Main Street, north
of Meridian Road and Main Street intersection, to include all staff comments, with the
following changes. On Page 1 of the staff comments there is a typo at the bottom of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 52 of 84
page -- there is a sentence that says the following uses surround the subject property.
There is a correct listing and then, again, it says the following uses surround the subject
property and there is a listing that does not relate to this property. I would delete that
second mentioned. In addition, I would add the requirement that there be provision
made for 24 off-site parking spaces to be used by employees of any and all of the four
existing restaurants. In addition, I would make the requirement that some solution be
made to the ingress-egress driveway at Meridian Road to be worked out between the
applicant, city staff, and ACHD. Whether that involves widening it and putting in an
island in the middle of it, that would be my suggestion, but whatever they work out, that
that be solved.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, a couple questions based on that
motion. The first one stemming from the employee parking. If they were required to
provide the 24 off-site spaces, would you require that prior to occupancy of the
building?
Centers: Oh, yes.
Zaremba: Let's add that. Yes.
McKinnon: Okay. And the second question with that is if ACHD says we don't want any
changes to that intersection, how would that last requirement to the comment be
enforceable?
Zaremba: If ACHD simply refuses to consider any of the other alternatives, including
widening it and putting an island in there, I'm not sure we have any way of enforcing
that.
Centers: Well, the last alternative would be at least an island.
Zaremba: No. Widening and an island.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the island would be something
that Ada County Highway District would have to approve. Recommending approval on
the project without ACHD's approval -- you want to have something written back from
ACHD prior to this going to Council? At this point are you going to want to continue it
and see what those changes are or would you like it to move on to Council without
knowing what the result would be?
Zaremba: Would you be comfortable if that solution was provided to you two weeks
before City Council hearing?
McKinnon: What will go to the City Council would be a recommendation and the only
thing that we would be able to add to that recommendation that you make tonight would
be a position statement from staff. Position statements are fairly simple to write, we
could make those comments with plenty of time to spare, because it's not a rewrite of
the staff report. However, Ada County Highway District, if it's something that is in
opposition of their policy, it may require that they go in front of the Commission, which
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 53 of 84
would not have enough time to make a recommendation prior to this going to Council.
That would be my concern if ACHD --
Centers: Well, if I could interject. Personally, I think they should have it prior to Council
and if that's not the next meeting or the meeting after, then so be it. I think they should
have it prior to Council.
McKinnon: I agree. I think it needs to be prior to Council.
Zaremba: I think the issue is whether we should continue this and have that settled
before we -- before it goes forward or whether we should forward leaving that hanging.
McKinnon: And that's your call. We can make those requirements. However, if the
City Council doesn't have the opportunity to review what ACHD has done, I guess they
would have to table it at that point, but if you're comfortable with making a motion
saying that whatever can be worked out --
Zaremba: I'm comfortable with not having to see it again and I assume that something
will be worked out or can't be worked out.
Borup: And that would move it along sooner.
McKinnon: But then you move it on to Council with the recommendation that they tried
and they discussed with ACHD and themselves and the current configuration would be
acceptable?
Zaremba: It has to be.
McKinnon: That would be acceptable? Okay. That's fine. I just wanted some
clarification.
Zaremba: Yes.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Borup: Was that a strong enough statement that Mr. McKinnon just made? Try?
Zaremba: Well, I mean --
Borup: I guess --
Zaremba: I don't know if I want to add to my motion the result of it if it can't be worked
out. I think that becomes -- the default position is if otherwise can't be done.
Borup: No. I think your motion was a little stronger than he stated.
Zaremba: I would leave the if not out of the motion. We all just understand that if not, it
can't be done.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 54 of 84
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, question for our Legal Counsel.
Nick, how do you feel that that language should be written? You're the one that's going
to be writing the recommendation, so I'd like to hear how you --
Wollen: It's kind of tough, because not only do we have ACHD in there, but we also
have the other property -- we have the other businesses, the other property owners
involved in this as well.
Centers: There is one property owner.
Wollen: Well, I'm sorry, okay. We have the other businesses involved as well. It's
going to be -- it's going to be tough on the enforceability issue and -- I mean we have to
worry about putting in something where there is no muscle behind it, just, you know,
best efforts provision in the rec. At the same time I don't know how much we can do
having ACHD basically having veto power over any entrance -- entrance and exit
provisions we make.
Borup: That's why it would be important to have ACHD already looked at it and make
their ruling prior to City Council.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: The comfort zone with this is that I got the sense that the applicant
understands what the problem is and is anxious to solve the problem as well. I don't
have any difficulty leaving it in the applicant's hands to wrestle with ACHD.
Centers: Well -- and if ACHD is unwilling to cooperate, then City Council knows our
feelings. If they want to take the issue to City Council, you know, it's on record, they
know that we feel that there is an access problem there and so I think they are going to
make the best effort with ACHD.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we still can write into the
recommendation that we get some sort of written comment back from ACHD prior to
Council.
Zaremba: An explanation --
McKinnon: An explanation.
Zaremba: Either approval or an explanation of a disapproval?
McKinnon: Prior to Council. I think a written one would be the best way to deal with
that, so that there is no misunderstanding. If ACHD says, yes, this is what they
propose, this is what we feel about it, and then we have got something in writing that
says here is what ACHD has to say about it and there is no hearsay or third-party
interjection.
Borup: They can make their comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 55 of 84
Zaremba: I will add to my motion that the ACHD response, either of approval or a
reason for denial, is required.
Borup: In writing.
Zaremba: In writing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? Do you have any questions on that
motion, Nick?
Wollen: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's something that I'm going to look at the minutes prior
to the drafting the final recommendations for approval of the City Council.
Borup: That's what you said the last time we had one of those types of motions.
Wollen: Just because it's going to take some time to draft out, I believe, what -- as far
as the ACHD portion of it, that would be something that I will certainly look at the motion
itself and I'll word it how I believe Commissioner Zaremba intended it to be worded, but
--
Zaremba: Just for clarification, I would only add that there were three elements. One,
that there was a typo on Page 1, two, 24 off-site parking spaces, and a resolution of this
entrance-exit on Meridian. However those are worded, those are the subjects.
Wollen: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10. Public Hearing: RZ 02-003 Request for a Rezone of 4 acres from R-4 to
L-O zones for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Cherry Lane Christian
Church – 2511 West Cherry Lane:
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 02-027 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Preschool and school to prepare children for Kindergarten and move up
one grade a year in existing classrooms and existing building in a
proposed L-O zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Cherry Lane
Christian Church – 2511 West Cherry Lane:
Borup: Thank you. Our last items, Number 10, and 11. Number 10 is Public Hearing
RZ 02-003, a request for rezone of four acres from R-4 to L-O zone for Cherry Lane
Christian Church by Cherry Lane Christian Church at 2511 West Cherry Lane and a
CUP 02-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a preschool and school to
prepare children for kindergarten, et cetera, on the same project. I'd like to open both
these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 56 of 84
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again to the
overhead. The site that we are talking about is located on the south side of Cherry
Lane. The existing Cherry Lane Christian Church. The church use will remain.
Essentially, what they are asking for is a rezone to the proper zone. Currently it's zoned
R-4 and in the R-4 zone a church use is not a permitted use. They were essentially
grandfathered. With the change to the L-O zone, it would become a zone that would
allow for the church uses, so that can clean up on the rezone. With the rezone, finding
staff has no concerns with those. Staff supports the rezone. If we can skip ahead to
the Conditional Use Permit for the private school or preschool. There are a few issues
that come into play on this. I'll address the issues with the private school first and then
some overall site issues that we need to discuss tonight. Concerning the private day-
care, preschool, kindergarten, the intent is at this time for the church to open this as a
preschool with an afternoon session and a morning session, approximately 24 to 28
children in each one of those sessions. They have two classrooms that would be
dedicated for that within the church at this time. In the future, the church would like to
have the opportunity to let that preschool develop into a private school with additional
grade levels. You know, if they started there at preschool, they could take kindergarten
and first grade there, second grade there, it would be a continuum of education at the
same location with similar teaching staff in a similar location. As part of that we need to
discuss a little bit about whether or not you'd like to see this project come back before
you as it starts to expand as the use becomes greater than a preschool. Would you like
to see this project come back to you for approval as a private school, rather than just
approving it now as a preschool and a private school? That's an issue that needs to be
determined tonight and if you will notice that in the site specific comments for the -- for
the Conditional Use Permit, that is something that Steve has brought up and that's Item
Number 6 under the private school on Page 10 of the site specific comments. Steve
has written into this staff report that there be an Option A or an Option B with the
students. Staff does not have a concern with the preschool at this site. However,
preschools and private schools are considered separately in the schedule of use control
and we would like to have your opinion concerning whether or not you would like to see
this in front of you again at a future date as they expand their use. In addition to that,
the number of students, which is Item Number 5 on Page 4, will obviously go up as the
number of classes go up as well. That would be an item that I would like to draw to
your attention, that you might want to discuss the enrollment numbers for this school.
There is a demand in the City of Meridian for schools. Obviously, a private school is
something that is a good alternative to the public education system if it's done right.
Staff has no indication as why this would not be something that would be a well-run
program. On the site there is a few issues now that I'd like to address, if we get over to
the site plan. One of the major issues that we have with this site is that currently the
east side of the project has a Nine Mile Canal that runs right up through this area. On
the site plan in front of you, it shows that they would like to tile that Nine Mile and place
parking on top of it. In addition to that, put in a pedestrian pathway and one of our
multiple use pathways that would go -- traverse down the length of this ditch, which
would no longer be there, so it would be essentially a pathway adjacent to the church's
parking. In our Comprehensive Plan for the year 2002, which is the newest one we just
adopted, we have some requirements that say that those drains and those canals,
including the Nine Mile, be left wide open and that a pathway be installed along that.
However, this application was submitted prior to the adoption of the 2002
Comprehensive Plan, so this falls under the auspices of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 57 of 84
The 1993 Comprehensive Plan did not indicate that there should be a pathway at this
location and it did not indicate that that Nine Mile Drain could not be covered. One of
the required findings that you have for the Conditional Use Permit is item number I on
the findings, that would be on page seven, and the question is posed to you that you
have to make a finding on is if a proposed use will not be result in the destruction, loss,
or damage of a natural, scenic, or historical feature considered to be of major
importance. In the 2002 Comprehensive Plan, the Nine Mile Drain was considered by
the city to be one of those areas and so in order for them to tile that ditch, you have to
make a finding that them tiling that ditch would not be eliminating something that's a
significant, scenic, or natural importance. That's something that we need to take
special consideration on. Steve has written that into his report. Again, on Page 9 of the
site specific requirements, Steve has written in two separate alternatives, an Option A
and an Option B for the parking lot expansion. If you choose not to expand the parking
lot, in Steve's staff report, there is a number of parking spaces that currently exist on the
site that are adjacent to the Nine Mile that are not asphalted. If we go with Option
Number -- Option Number A under the site specific comments, that all the parking on
site, including the non-improved parking, be brought into compliance, regardless of the
tiling of the ditch. I think that's something that needs to be added, because we don't
want the non-improved parking to continue in its current format with just the gravel or --
and dirt that is there right now. The parking spots that they are using for that location
right now are just the railroad ties. Furthermore, I will continue on with a little bit more
on the site. On the east side -- excuse me, the west side of the property -- having a
problem with directions. Should have learned that by now -- on the west side of the site
the church has a five-foot wide buffer between the land uses. That land use buffer is
not currently landscaped right now, it is just cinder rock and the City of Meridian
landscape ordinance requires that there be at least one tree every 35 feet on center in
that landscape buffer. After Steve had written the report and sent the report over, he
found out from the applicant and from the ditch company that that's actually an
easement that runs along the east side of the building for a ditch that's piped under that
location and that's the reason why there are no trees in that location, because the
drainage or irrigation company would not allow that to be placed within their easement
and the applicant is here tonight to address that issue. Getting some nods from the
applicant. Those are the major issues that we see with the site. Obviously, if you have
read the staff report, you recognize that the sign that's on the site right now is a
nonconforming sign, according to our Sign Ordinance. Steve has brought it out in the
rezone that it should be considered a legal nonconforming use, even without requiring
that, that's exactly what it is, it's a legal nonconforming use. I have laid out the major
issues that Steve and I had and then Bruce has a couple issues that he'd like to
address from the Public Works side of things concerning some sewer issues and the
easement on the east side of the property and I will turn some time over to Bruce and
then we will open ourselves up for questions.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one thing I wanted to
point out is the City of Meridian maintains a 21 inch sewer interceptor line that runs on
the east side of the Nine Mile Creek down through this area. The site plan that was
submitted did not -- did not show that line, so I can't really tell exactly where it is in
relation to the improvements that they are proposing, so I just ask in the comments that
they do locate that on the plan, so that we can see that impact of the landscaping and
that sort of thing. We do need to -- we do need to maintain an access to that sewer that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 58 of 84
has to be a year around 24-7 type access. We need to have the ability to traverse the
length of the trunk line as it goes all the way down and wraps clear around down by
Meridian High School. The sewer is within a 20 foot -- excuse me -- 20 foot dedicated
easement through there and so, again, I need to be able to see that easement on the
plan, so that we can see how the landscape would work. If you have any questions on
that, I would happy to answer.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Freckleton? The sewer easement, how was that
generally done? I mean is that usually from the center of the --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe this easement is an offset easement. I think it's 15
and five. I can't remember which way the 15 goes.
Borup: Hopefully it's on the east, is what you're --
Freckleton: I think it is. I think the 15 are on the east and five on the west. When we
looked at it, just scaling it all out -- I didn't have a lot of reference points to look at on the
construction plan, because it was installed back in the '70s, but in looking at it, it looks
like it might go right through the edge of the parking lot underneath the asphalt, so --
Borup: Your easement lines?
Freckleton: No. The sewer line itself.
Borup: Oh, really?
Freckleton: Yes because the ditch would be, what, right through here, Dave? Pretty
much.
Zaremba: It's over here.
Freckleton: Okay so this isn't showing the additional parking?
Zaremba: Right. The other --
Freckleton: Right. Okay. Sorry.
Zaremba: An aisle parking wider than this --
Freckleton: Okay. I'm messed up. So, yes, the ditch would be tiled through here and
there is another row of parking that looks like the sewer line might clip through the edge
of it.
Borup: We don't have a large scale of this, do we?
Zaremba: Yes. I think it was in our revised packet that was given to us. Actually, on
the landscape plan it shows the whole thing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 59 of 84
Borup: I think we are done, unless the Commission had any other questions. Let's go
ahead and have the -- did you have anything else, Bruce? Okay. Let's go ahead -- we
can go ahead with the applicant -- presentation from the applicant.
Zaremba: I'll ask a question while he's getting ready. Actually, two questions. For it's
current use and square footage of buildings, does it comply with the required amount of
parking without adding --
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, this is similar to the
situation we just talked about where the actual requirements of the City Code are not
necessarily adequate for the use that's placed in there. They meet the minimum code
requirements, but whether or not they actually meet the minimum required parking
spaces for their congregation at specific times is a question that can be answered by
the applicant, but as far as code, they meet code without the additional --
Zaremba: And the second question, this is -- the eventual discussion about the CUP,
this is not a day-care center, but for day-care centers there is a formula of a certain
number of square feet per child. Is there the same for schools, a certain number of
square feet of classroom per child?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba that is correct. With the day-care it
is one child for every 35 square feet and there are some calculations that take out some
non-inhabitable space for a building, utility closets, bathrooms, that type of thing, are
taken out and they can determine that. Additionally, for that in the Uniform Building
Code there is a specific occupancy load for different types of structures. Typically a
church building is an A type of occupancy. The A stands for assembly and there are
different requirements for the amount of people in that. If this is turned into a school, it
has to meet the E occupancy requirements and those are listed in the Uniform Building
Code. As far as secondary education or primary education -- a day-care I don't know
the difference, but for day-care or for the preschool, it would be one for 35 square feet.
Calculations for parking for a day-care would be based on one parking space for every
ten kids, plus one for each employee.
Centers: One last question, Dave. Nine Mile, Five Mile, Ten Mile, were in the
Comprehensive Plan. It stated they should be left open waterways? The '93 Comp
Plan; correct?
McKinnon: That's in the 2002 it's not in the 1993.
Centers: Oh, it's not in the '93.
McKinnon: It's in the 2000, but not in the 1993.
Zaremba: Well, the '93 says in a general way that they should not be covered --
McKinnon: In a general way.
Centers: Have we allowed the covering and piping of those in other areas? Have we
made an exception before?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 60 of 84
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one example that came to
mind from staff overhearing you talking, was Storey Park. Through Storey Park is
actually a piped ditch. Which ditch is it, Brad? The Nine Mile is actually piped
underneath Storey Park.
Centers: That's the only example? I don't see that as a good example. A development
or a commercial property, have ever allowed it?
Borup: And related to that, what is the Nine Mile doing to the north and south of this
property, too?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, without looking I can address
what it's doing to the south. The property -- the Nine Mile follows -- it has a
maintenance road that runs directly behind the subdivision. It's the Vineyard
Subdivision. That's on the east side of the church property. It goes along the backside
of that and it continues to follow the path -- continues to follow the Nine Mile around the
Meridian High School and that goes back onto the road, but there is a maintenance
road that continues through that area. That's around by the high school, then it goes up
through the subdivision, but it is open in all those locations. On the north side -- let me
look for just one moment. It's continued to the north -- it actually continues all the way
up to the wastewater treatment plant completely uncovered.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Go ahead.
Woodard: My name is Larry Woodard. I'm one of the associate’s ministers at Cherry
Lane Christian. Up until a few months ago I was the chairman of the elders. I have
with me tonight Steve Pardue from BRS Architects, who will be working on the final
architectural plans, Cleve Cushing from Petra Construction, who is helping us with this
timing issue. I have the chairman of the elders here, Dale Newberry, and Brian Doser,
our children's ministry, and also Sandra Hemmer, who is our business manager. If we
get into technical questions I may defer to them. We are experiencing the same kind of
growth that the City of Meridian is experiencing. A few years ago we were a church of
500, now we are 1,300, and so to maximize our current campus and to accommodate
the many young families and kids that are coming to our church, we are trying to
formulate some adjustments here to our facility to handle that growth. Because of our
location, you know, the city gets a number of uses out of our building. It has been used
regularly for elections, Girl Scouts, Cub Scouts, 4-H, guide dogs for the blind, Alcoholics
Anonymous, Meridian Chamber luncheons, and, of course, we have the upcoming
Mayor's State of the City Luncheon hosted at our facility next week. We have offered
our neighbors that live within 300 feet of our property two open houses in May on the 9th
and the 15th
to discuss this proposal and we had no show up and then they held
another one this past Monday night about the amendment regarding Nine Mile Creek
and, again, no one showed up. To date we have not heard any adverse comments
regarding our proposal. My comments tonight are just going to track with the staff
report, which you have before you. Just let me say this, that we are pleased with the
objectivity of the staff report and except for some minor issues that I think we can
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 61 of 84
negotiate at a later date, we are comfortable with the recommendations that they have
given to you. Let me start on page two where it begins discussion the zoning change
from R-4 to L-O. When we began talking to city planning, they recommended that we
seek this change and we agree with the staff recommendation. The only problem we
have had is regarding the site specific finding Number 4 regarding this buffer on the
west side of the property, which they have already mentioned, which was --- when we
built four years ago by our gymnasium our family life center, Shari Stiles insisted we put
so many trees on our property. We purchased those trees and a number of those were
to go along that west side, but when we discussed this with Nampa Irrigation District,
they refused to permit those trees, so she made us put them out front towards Cherry
Lane. We have actually got double the number of trees out front and so I think this is a
moot issue now, because we have been through this once before and they just flat
won't permit trees out there. The north and south sides of that west boundary are grass
and, as the staff has indicated, in between we have a five foot cinder mulch for about,
oh, two-thirds of the length of that west side. On Page 5 the staff addresses our plan to
modify our existing building to handle growth and the proposed preschool and later a
private Christian School and on this drawing in front of me in purple are the three
building modifications that we would propose on there. On the west side is a small area
for teacher supplies. We want to expand our lobby. We are running three services on
Sunday morning and trying to shuffle 250 people out and in through that small lobby
has been difficult. That's the purpose of the lobby expansion and then we have a
fenced tot lot out towards Cherry Lane that we would like to make all weather and just
to cover that over. Those are the three building modifications and based upon staff
recommendation there doesn't appear to be any problems with those. On the top of
Page 9, then, the staff picks up our two school proposals -- we have had a lot of
requests for a preschool use at our church. This is not a day-care center, we would hire
professional staff and it would be a quality program and the only issue we have with the
staff report here is item number four about capping the preschool at 56 students. Let
me just clarify, because I think in our communication we got this all mixed up. We have
to classrooms that we are going to start out with next fall that would have maximum of
14 students in each classroom. We have a morning shift and an afternoon shift. So we
could have 28 in the morning, 28 in the afternoon. That's your 56. Those students
would come on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Then on Tuesday and Thursday
there would be another morning shift and another afternoon shift. We could enroll
technically over 100 students, but at any one-day the most that would be there would
be 56, see. So that's where the -- I think the question is. We would not like to have a
top cap put on, but would rather have a cap that would simply say we would have no
more than 14 per classroom. Next year or the year after, we may want to go to three
classrooms and the year after to four classrooms and so I think that would solve it, just
cap it at 14 students per classroom. We envision that if the preschool went well, we
would look down the road at a Christian school and staff on the top of Page 10,
Paragraph 6, have recommended that we come back before you for a CUP or a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance when we get a little closer to a firmer school proposal
and schedule. Frankly, we agree with that, and so --
Borup: Do you understand those two options? The one option would come back to us
for a CUP. The other option was just a Zoning Certificate, which would just be working
with the staff that would not come before a Public Hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 62 of 84
Woodard: Well, we have good relations with your current, but I think we'd like to leave
our options open, so I think what we'd like to do is just take that aspect --
Borup: So you would take the option of which way you wanted to go.
Woodard: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Woodard: Yes. Lastly, I think we want to focus our discussion on this Nine Mile tiling,
because I think that is the bigger issue. We are short of parking and you can imagine
we have 161 parking spaces and 1,300 people coming in a given week. You just do the
math on that. We are currently running a bus shuttle between the Seventh Day
Adventist Church, the medical facility across the street, and Albertson's there at the
corner of Ten Mile and Cherry Lane to try and handle this parking situation. The map
doesn't show it here, but this one does, that the Nine Mile Creek area is to the east of
our current property. This -- if we could do this, this would add 85 spaces for us and we
would also provide the first 450 feet, approximately, of a bike path or pathway, as you
call it, along Nine Mile Creek. From Cherry Lane up -- on the north side of Cherry Lane
it's my understanding Nine Mile is already covered through those subdivisions.
McKinnon: It's not.
Woodard: It's not?
McKinnon: It's not.
Woodard: It's open?
McKinnon: Open.
Woodard: Okay. So --
Borup: Maybe just -- the plat -- the paper we had shows no separate lot or anything.
Those lots in that subdivision go clear across Nine Mile; is that correct, David? I'm just
looking at the -- I'm just looking at the vicinity map that we had in our packet.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I wasn't sure I followed the
question correctly, but the pathway -- or not the pathway, but the ditch is open all the
way up to the Wastewater Treatment Plant and beyond.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: According to our -- it's tiled where the road goes over the top, but,
obviously, that's the only coverage.
Borup: The vicinity map does not show a separate lot or --
McKinnon: No, it sure doesn't.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 63 of 84
Borup: It's an easement and the property lines go --
McKinnon: As far as being open, it's very apparent from the map on the wall that is
back here that it is open.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
Woodard: From Cherry Lane on the north side around towards the school and ending
up on Linder, that's six-tenths of a mile and we would propose to tile one-tenth.
Roughly. That's what we are talking about in terms of coverage.
Centers: That's 528 feet.
Woodard: Okay. Well, ours isn't that far. We would be pleased to have your 2002 plan
with this pathway. We think a landscape area with trees would some day shade the
pathway and give the neighbors, particularly to the east in the Vineyard Subdivision,
some shade as those trees begin to mature. Provided we obtain your approval and the
Council, we would remind you that as discussed by the city engineers, we would need
to get a landscape consultant and negotiate with the irrigation district and the city
planner before this could be finalized. We would want an agreement that was mutually
acceptable to all parties. Of course, we would also need to get our final engineering
plans in place before we could cover it. The staff findings regarding tiling of Nine Mile
are sprinkled through the report, but beginning with paragraph I on Page 7 where it
addresses the 1993 Comprehensive Plan. Then on the top of page eight where it
addresses the 2002 plan, we believe it would be in the best interest of Meridian to
permit this tiling and to have this bike path at least started and landscaped in
accordance with your latest plan. We have some photos that show pictures of this ditch
through the area that we are proposing. There are some natural wetland values right
near the south end of this proposal, but they are a quarter acre of willows and cattails
that are in the Vineyard Subdivision and our proposal would not affect that. Then on
Page 8, the staff has a series of special considerations, followed by two options, which
they have mentioned, and we would support Option B, which states that it's in the best
interest of the city to allow the piping of the Nine Mile Creek and approve the proposed
parking lot expansion. Now we have looked at your pathway at Tully Park and we had
suggested originally an eight-foot pathway -- I think your new park plan calls for 10. We
have looked at that one and we would agree with the ten-foot asphalt pathway. We are
assuming that there would also be a barrier at the entrance to Cherry Lane so people
could not drive down that pathway once it's asphalted. That would give you access to it
also. Again, we got to negotiate this out with the sewer people and also Nampa
Irrigation about the -- their needs in there. I guess our only concern is is our proposed
parking lot. We had a drive lane of 28 feet of length -- of width between the two sides
and we are okay with the 10 foot bike path, but if you start reducing that drive path with
all the SUV’s, we don't want people coming to church scratching cars and coming in
cussing the church because of the tight parking spot. I guess we would like to see if we
couldn't maybe split the difference and get a little wider drive angle there. We may very
well have to -- if you stick with the wider pathway, a 25 foot pathway, we may have to
refigure our driving into a herringbone approach just to avoid what I was talking about.
So we are open to any questions you might have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 64 of 84
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I had a note here -- is it Mr. Woodard?
Woodard: Yes.
Centers: -- that if we were to not allow the covering of Nine Mile, then improve existing
land that is now gravel -- do you have some other property that you could make into
parking? That's the question, I guess.
Woodard: On the west side of Nine Mile Creek we are currently -- we have permission
from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation to have a gravel parking area that's just off the edge of
in this picture here and we have been using that.
Centers: You don't own it?
Woodard: We don't own it.
Centers: Or lease it?
Woodard: No.
Centers: Just a written agreement to use it?
Woodard: We use it.
Centers: They don't need it?
Woodard: They don't need it. That's right.
Centers: Is that part of the parking that you referred to earlier? I have -- what did you
say --
Woodard: One hundred sixty-one. No, it does not include that.
Centers: How many parking spaces are there? Approximately.
Woodard: About 25.
Centers: If we were to eliminate the landscape buffer -- you know, the staff would like to
see no more than 12 spaces in a row without a landscape planter, is that what you were
referring to earlier?
Woodard: No. No. Let me get over here. What they are referring to are planters like
this.
Centers: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 65 of 84
Woodard: And I think if we were to asphalt this area here and make additional parking,
that's an appropriate thing.
Centers: Okay. That's about all I had.
Mathes: The five smaller classrooms that are noted in the staff report, will they hold 14
people plus staff?
Woodard: Yes. They are smaller than the two that we plan to use, but they still hold 14.
They are larger. Okay.
Borup: Your first two are larger -- or smaller than the others?
Mathes: The five that are noted smaller are actually larger?
Doser: I'm Brian Doser, children's ministry of Cherry Lane Christian Church, and we
have five additional rooms -- and I will point them out here. Along here, there is one
large classroom that takes up this space right here. Then there is four along here and
they are -- I would say specifically this one is quite a bit larger than the two that
currently are right here. As well as our proposed addition would be enclosing this area,
which doubles the amount of room we have there. The room space isn't really an issue
and these ones have plenty of room for 14 kids.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Woodard, maybe just to summarize, on the first application, that of
rezone, I didn't have -- you did not -- you didn't have any problems with any of the staff
comments on that area; is that true?
Woodard: The only issue we have regarded tearing out the mulch on the west side --
Borup: This is on the rezone, the first application.
Woodard: Yes and it's in that part of it that that issue came up.
Borup: It might have been in the comments, but I don't think it's in -- I mean it might
have been in the initial, but I didn't see anything in the site specific comments or special
conditions.
Woodard: Okay. Then if it is, we are comfortable, of course, to go with L-O.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: I think everything was in the CUP.
Borup: Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify there. We didn't have any issues on the
rezone. Then on the -- actually, the requirements start on Page 9 of the bottom
paragraph, other than -- other than special consideration things, but I -- is that correct?
Special consideration items for discussion, they weren't part of the staff's requirements.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 66 of 84
McKinnon: That's correct.
Borup: So as far as the staff's requirements, we have item number one, which is on the
parking lot expansion. The applicant prefers Option B. I think you said you're okay with
a 10-foot pathway.
Woodard: Yes. Item 2 of the -- right at the bottom of Page 9, I'm assuming now that
that is no longer an issue.
Borup: Right.
Woodard: Okay.
Borup: So we would need to make note of that. That was per ACHD. I mean per
Nampa-Meridian?
Woodard: Right.
Centers: Well, on Page 9, Mr. Chairman, you know, we have to address the --
Borup: Number 1?
Center: Yes Number 4 up at the --
Borup: Right.
Centers: Do we want him to come back on a private school with a CUP approval?
Borup: Yes that's something that we would need to include in our motion.
Centers: Exactly.
Borup: Well, actually, any of that is open for our discussion. Do we need -- is there
anything else there that we need to have any concern on?
Centers: We could leave the Public Hearing open and --
Borup: I mean under special considerations. I just thought we'd get some of this out of
the way as we go.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: And then you are essentially saying -- you expressed your feeling on Number 1
and then 2 through -- I mean and then Number 2, I understand the Nampa-Meridian is
going to allow that, so 3 through 7, did not have any concern with any of those?
Woodard: Again, other than -- are you comfortable with our recommendation that if
there were a cap it would be 14 per room?
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 67 of 84
Woodard: Okay.
Borup: Right and that's --
Woodard: Item Number 5.
Borup: Assuming the rooms are equal to or larger than the rooms that this 14 was
based on.
Woodard: Yes and so Number 6 we would defer based -- or take off the table tonight.
Borup: I think you're saying you would like to decide on which option yourself on, rather
than have us dictate that.
Woodard: Yes.
Centers: Well -- and I guess the way I look at it, to be honest with you, Mr. Woodard, is
that people in the future may have -- may want to voice their opinion --
Woodard: Sure.
Centers: -- around your neighbor about school age children and additional traffic, et
cetera, et cetera. You know, I'm leaning towards you having to come back, because
when they get -- when you --
Woodard: That would fine. If you want to include your recommendation that way, that's
fine.
Centers: Because, you know, that's us.
Woodard: Yes.
Centers: And let the people have a voice and --
Borup: Well, that --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one thought. On Item
Number 5, the number of students, the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire
Code has set standards for educational facilities and assembly facilities, such with what
the church has. Instead of putting a cap on 14, it may be more appropriate to say that it
shall be limited to the number of children that would be allowed per the Uniform Building
Code and the Uniform Fire Code, rather than arbitrarily picking a number at 14, so the
applicant has some more flexibility. In addition to that, they would still have to meet the
parking requirement and so if the parking requirements -- as more students get to the
building, the parking standards are going to go up. I doubt that they will ever exceed
the parking requirements for a school, but I think arbitrarily picking the number at 14
without knowing the size and dimensions of the rooms in question, is the wisest choice
at this time. I think it might be that we would limit the number of students to those that
are allowed for the Uniform Building Code occupancies.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 68 of 84
Borup: I would certainly agree with that.
Woodard: Yes.
Borup: So we don't find ourselves in trouble in the future.
Centers: He earned his pay tonight.
Borup: Okay. Any other things you wanted to add?
Woodard: No.
Borup: I don't know that we have any concerns on anything from any of the
Commission, so I don't know if we need testimony from anyone else, unless they are
feeling a real need to. Do we have anyone that wanted to -- do we have any questions
from any of the Commissioners that we --
Zaremba: I would only comment that it's nice to have a church that's growing and
thinking of providing new services that they haven't provided before. I am aware that
you and your congregation provide many services to the community as well and I,
myself, have voted on your property. I was aware that you were shuttling people back
and forth to other parking lots, which I think is a wonderful way to handle a problem,
although it would be nicer to have a parking lot close to you. My only comment at this
time is that I think this group has been a good asset to the community and we need to
do what we can to help them.
Borup: I agree. I was thinking the same thing. It's nice to see a church that's growing,
not -- there was an article in the Statesman awhile back that was indicating just the
opposite, so glad to see Meridian is not following that trend. Are we ready to proceed?
Centers: Yes. I think the only -- not the only, but the basic major decision to be made
here is if you want to cover Nine Mile. That's the biggie on the table. I think that's what
you have to decide. You have heard staff. It's not covered anyplace else and the
applicant wants to cover it for over 500 feet, that's -- I get no parking with covering that.
Borup: Right.
Centers: Other than 35 spaces.
Borup: You know, I think there is nice amenities to open -- to the waterways, but my
feeling is I'd much rather see -- I think the pathway was more important than an open
ditch with a lot of weeds.
Mathes: And if you're opening a child care facility in there, it's probably going to be
safer to tile that ditch.
Borup: But what we have to contribute is 500 feet of pathway. How long it's going to be
before the rest of it gets connected to it may be awhile, but I think there is some
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 69 of 84
benefits to having a pathway, at least in that stretch down. And I don't think it's a big
problem to have the open waterway and then go for 500 feet with a nice landscaped
area without it. As I say, I have been a strong advocate of the pathways all along. I
think that, just in my mind, answers --
Zaremba: What progress -- let's see. My recollection is that it was kind of left hanging
that Nampa-Meridian -- that sort of approves the concept of it, but --
Borup: Yes. I assume it will be agreed on this Nampa-Meridian.
Zaremba: And then also with Public Works to make sure there aren't trees planted
where the roots would grew into the sewer system and --
Borup: Well, I think the other thing that does need to be addressed is the engineering
showing the exact location of the existing sewer to make sure there is going to be
access for possible services that need it.
Centers: I think if you don't allow the covering of Nine Mile, you don't have a project.
And I -- you know, I respect their wants and desires to grow and I don't see a problem
with it, to be honest with you.
Zaremba: And the justification is that the '93 Comprehensive Plan, under which this
application was filed, is not as specific as the new one is. Any future applicant in
another area is going to be subject to the new Comprehensive Plan. So this does not
set a precedent for tiling it all over the place.
Centers: That's our caveat.
Borup: And, Bruce, is there something specific that you would like in there on the
location on the sewer line relating to this property? What would be necessary to cover
your concern there?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, all I'd like to see is the revised
site plan and we can work out the details as far as landscaping. Our main concern is
having large, deep-rooted trees over the top of sewer lines that we may have to dig it
up. Typically, we don't allow trees to be within the 20 foot easement. If the location of
the sewer ends up being close to the location of where the pathway way would be, we
may be able to incorporate that pathway into more of a multi-use pathway, so it would
serve as our access way over the sewer and also serve as the pathway. If that is the
case, we would need a 14 foot wide travelway. Excuse me. There is several ways we
can do that. I mean if they wanted to put in a ten foot wide and make the rest of it a
gravel shoulder or a grass creet shoulder or something, we can work those details out,
but --
Borup: Did you say 14 feet? Did we say earlier in a roadway is 12 feet?
Freckleton: For sewer access, a roadway over the top of our sewer --
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 70 of 84
Freckleton: -- has always been 14.
Borup: I was just curious why it would need to be 14.
Freckleton: We have -- our cleaning equipment is trailer mounted.
Borup: You need to be able to get --
Freckleton: So we have a truck and trailer having to maneuver down those roads.
Borup: Yes. You're also driving 50 miles an hour down other roads that are narrower,
for that matter. Or do you need a backhoe along the trailer to -- has that been --
Freckleton: You need operating room.
Borup: In your standards? Is that the --
Freckleton: That's the standard. Correct. And then there is a manhole somewhere up
in this vicinity. It's an angle point in the trunk line as it comes underneath Cherry Lane
there is an angle point and it changes directions. I think there is only -- no, I take that
back. There is two manholes. There is one here up in this area on the trunk where it
changes directions and then there is another manhole a little further down where a
mainline from the Vineyard Subdivision dumps into the trunk. So a couple of area there
that we need to be able to maintain access to. But, like I said before, it's -- from our just
scaling things off, it looks like that sewer trunk might be underneath the row of parking
that they are proposing over here and if that's the case, we have our access through
the parking lot and we wouldn't need additional width for a travel way.
Centers: Bruce, I had put a number as seven on page five. Would that be correct?
The applicant identified sewer easement on plot plan. That would be appropriate?
Freckleton: Yes. I thought I covered that.
Centers: So you wanted the applicant to identify the location of the sewer easement on
a plot plan, I was going to show as number seven on page five.
Freckleton: That's fine.
Centers: At the top.
Freckleton: Sure.
Borup: And you had mentioned in the written and I don't think it is in the written.
Centers: No, it's not. He wanted it added.
Freckleton: It's number seven on page ten.
Centers: Oh, so you had it and didn't know?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 71 of 84
Freckleton: No. I knew it was there.
Centers: You were saying earlier that --
Freckleton: I was just reiterating the point.
Zaremba: May I ask the staff for a sense if -- either Bruce or David -- are the issues
that are currently unresolved, are they sufficient to require a continuance of this or can
we resolve them with our language?
McKinnon: I think Bruce and I are in agreement they can be resolved with language
when you guys make your recommendation tonight.
Zaremba: The applicant working together with staff?
McKinnon: The applicant can work together with -- when you do make your motion,
make sure that you include the fact that Nampa-Meridian has to approve this as well.
The staff language that -- number one, Option A or B, it doesn't include the language
about Nampa-Meridian Irrigation being a part of that approval and if Nampa-Meridian
doesn't give approval for this, then they are kind of out of luck. This is something that
needs to be in place. We do have a letter that says they conceptually -- what is the
word? That they conceptually -- they conceptually consider --
Zaremba: Which is warm and fuzzy, but it's a little vague on approval.
McKinnon: It's a lot vague.
Freckleton: The issues with that, I believe, are legal in nature. I think operationally I
think the district would like to see it tiled. I mean it's less maintenance for them. So it's
the legalities of making it happen, license agreements and that sort of thing. I think
that's the issues.
Borup: Do you want to come on up?
Cushing: I can identify myself. I'm Cleve Cushing. I live at 4681 West Moon Lake
Drive in Meridian. I'm a member of Cherry Lane Christian and I'm also the CFO of
Petra Construction. I have done a little work on trying to get the ditch tiled and helping
the church with that process. When we approached Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, they
wholeheartedly embraced the fact that they would prefer to have it covered and the
wording that we have is predicated on the fact that we haven't supplied them with about
an eight or nine hundred dollar applicant fee. We didn't want to pay the money unless
we knew we were going to be able to tile it. So when we get approval to tile the ditch,
we can then complete the rest of the paperwork with staff and Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation, and hopefully make this go forward as quickly as possible. And that would be
what I'd like to add. If you got any other questions regarding that. We have procured
the services of a gentleman by the name of Lonnie Fox, who is a civil engineer, who is
licensed to do the water survey, so that we can meet all the requirements of Nampa-
Meridian. We found an 11 foot arch that is a piece of excess pipe that we are going to
be able to -- or hopefully be able to procure that will meet the zero rise requirements of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 72 of 84
the ditch and so that in the event of a 100 year flood, the water will be no higher than
Cherry Lane in what it would be right now with the open ditch. So we have tried to meet
all of Nampa-Meridian's concerns that they would have up front. We made sure that the
engineering will work before we even brought it you. So our hope is that we have
identified all of the issues that would help you have a favorable ruling on this.
Borup: Okay.
Cushing: Any questions?
Zaremba: So the only dead lock is they are waiting for us and we are waiting for them?
Cushing: It's a Mexican standoff, yes.
Zaremba: So if we move ahead they would move ahead?
Cushing: We would get to move ahead. Thank you.
Borup: Are we clear on what we need to do?
Centers: I think so.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on both these items.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Now I think on the first item, on the rezone, there were no issues.
Centers: I'll make a stab at it while it's fresh in my mind and my notes. I think we have
a consensus here. I'd like to recommend approval for -- and make a motion to approve
RZ 02-003, request for a rezone of four acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Cherry Lane
Christian Church by Cherry Lane Christian Church, at 2511 West Cherry Lane,
including all staff comments.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Continuing on. I would like to make a motion to recommend approval to the
City Council for Item 11, CUP 02-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
preschool and school to prepare children for kindergarten and move up one grade a
year and existing classrooms and existing building in a proposed L-O zone for Cherry
Lane Christian Church by Cherry Lane Christian Church at 2511 West Cherry Lane,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 73 of 84
including all staff comments and as amended. I'm going to go slow here for counsel.
My motion would include the fact that the church would have to come back for a
separate CUP when they intend to add or expand their school to kindergarten, first
grade, et cetera. Under site specific requirements, page nine, strike Option A. Option
B would be part of the motion. This would be further subject to Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation approval in writing. Bottom of page nine, remove number two and all
comments associated with it. Page ten, item five, number of students, 14 per
classroom or per Uniform Fire Code, the more restrictive of the two.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, if we could strike the 14 and Commissioner Centers, just --
whichever is more --
Centers: Strike the 14?
McKinnon: Strike the 14.
Centers: Per Uniform Fire Code.
McKinnon: Uniform Building Code.
Centers: Strike the 14.
McKinnon: International Building Code.
Centers: Item six. Has been covered. Strike both options. We would require a CUP
for the higher grades. All other comments and requirements to remain as is. Anyone
see anything else?
Borup: No.
Wollen: I just have one question and that concerns the condition that you had
mentioned after site specific comment on page nine, to strike Option A and make
Option B part of the motion. What was that next comment that you made?
Centers: After that?
Wollen: Yes.
Centers: Strike number two, which refers to existing parking lot.
Wollen: Okay.
Centers: And all comments with number two.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Rohm: I will second.
Borup: And a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 74 of 84
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you. Okay. One other item of business. I think each of you was called
about a special meeting on the 24th.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner.
Zaremba: If a motion is in order on that subject, I move that we have a special meeting
on October 24th to begin at 6:00 p.m. to cover only the subjects provided by the school
district and no additional subjects.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission.
Borup: Another thing did come up. Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have had another
application that we would like to place on the special meeting. It would be for a day
care. It was for the -- you previously heard the application for Kinder Kollege and they
were denied or withdrew, however the -- the end result was that they are not going to be
able to use the location that they wanted and they'd like to find a new location, but they
have lost the lease on their building and in order to let them get a Conditional Use
Permit for a different location prior to being -- prior to being removed from the building
they are in, they would like to place it on that special meeting. I talked with Brad. Brad
would like to have it placed on the 24th, if that would be agreeable to the rest of the
Commission.
Zaremba: That is not agreeable to the maker of the motion.
Centers: Our first meeting in November is the 7th, that's two weeks later.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Are they going to get kicked out before November 7th?
McKinnon: I believe it's November 1st is when they lose their lease on the existing
building.
Centers: When their lease is up? Or do they have to be out November 1st?
McKinnon: I believe that's correct.
Borup: And from what staff has said, apparently -- is she probably downsizing the size
of her --
McKinnon: She will be downsizing it and moving it into her home until she can find a
new location.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 75 of 84
Borup: She's just looking at 12 students in her own home. It shouldn't take as long as
we normally take on a -- a normal day-care center, which is usually not too long, unless
there are a lot of neighbors.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might, the applicant has
stated she's never bothered her neighbors in the past. That's where she originally
started her day care was at that location.
Centers: Is this the same applicant that didn't show up on the application originally?
McKinnon: I'm not sure.
Mathes: It is.
Centers: Yes.
McKinnon: I wasn't at that meeting, but -- oh, she sent a representative. Okay. I heard
about that.
Centers: And the representative didn't know --
McKinnon: That's right. She was out of town. Correct. I do remember that now. It's
up to you to make a decision and setting your own agenda, so I was asked to present
that to you tonight. In addition, Brad asked me to ask you if you'd like to place any of
the other items on the November -- first meeting in November on that meeting. You
have one, two, three, four -- you guys have a couple of really big subdivisions, you have
got Moser Farms, Berkeley Square and Havasu Creek, which is about the same size as
Heritage Commons was. On that meeting as well is another day-care application and
rezone and then a preliminary plat. You have got quite a bit on your first meeting in
November as well. Brad asked me to let you know if you wanted to you could put some
of those on the 24th and we could notice for that as well. But it is your decision.
Borup: We run the danger of not having comments back on moving something up.
McKinnon: I can get them done.
Zaremba: Okay. The application for moving the day-care into her house, is that a
CUP?
McKinnon: It is a Conditional Use Permit.
Zaremba: Is it legitimate for one of those conditions to be a period of time? In other
words, she can only do that for six months while she works on some other
arrangement?
McKinnon: I would --
Zaremba: Or 12 months or some finite period?
McKinnon: I haven't even reviewed the application yet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 76 of 84
Centers: When did she make the application?
McKinnon: The application I believe was complete today.
Centers: When?
McKinnon: Today.
Centers: A day ago?
McKinnon: Today, as in earlier this afternoon.
Centers: What if we weren't meeting on October 24th?
McKinnon: She would be completely out of luck.
Centers: In fact, it's a first for me. We've never had three standard meetings in one
month.
Borup: Oh. Since you have been on we haven't?
Centers: Not a regular meeting, Keith. We had a special -- three public hearings that
had to be noticed. We have never had three in one month. By the way, if you want to
wish me happy anniversary, tonight is my two years.
McKinnon: Happy anniversary.
Zaremba: At the moment my motion is dying for lack of a second and I would be happy
to withdraw it, if somebody wants to make an alternate motion.
Centers: No. I'll second your motion and then will see what happens.
Borup: What was the motion again?
Zaremba: My motion was that we have a special Public Hearing on the 24th of October
to deal only with the two school district subjects. And specifically to have no other items
added to it.
McKinnon: Mr. Commission, Members of the Commission, is it a 6:00 o'clock meeting?
Zaremba: Yes. To meet at 6:00 o'clock.
Borup: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? No opposed. The
ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 77 of 84
Borup: She may just need to stay there and let them evict her, go through the eviction
process or something.
McKinnon: Okay. That would be on the 24th at 6:00 o'clock. Sharon, you got that, it's
just for those -- the only ones we are going with?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Is a motion in order to adjourn?
Centers: No. I'd like to hold it just one moment.
Zaremba: We didn't actually wish you happy anniversary. You mentioned it, but -- I
move we wish Commissioner Centers a happy anniversary for his two years of service.
McKinnon: I would second that.
Centers: And, really, compared to most on the record --
Borup: No one wished me a happy anniversary. I forgot when it was. It was August, I
think.
Zaremba: In retrospect we also wish the Chairman happy anniversary as well.
Centers: I had the bright idea and -- because I wanted it on record, we have come to
be professionals. I always wonder, you know, should I wear the shirt I wore to work,
should I wear my tie, should I wear a sport shirt -- we all look fine, but I thought it would
be great if the City of Meridian bought us all a shirt and we all looked the same. We
would know what to wear every --
Borup: That says Planning and Zoning Commission on it?
Zaremba: I was advised one time by City Councilwoman de Weerd that it is possible to
budget expenses of this Commission and --
Centers: It really doesn't matter to me. If people don't want to wear a shirt the same, it
really doesn't matter to me, but I just thought --
Zaremba: I think if we had a uniform that would be tremendous.
Centers: Look professional and -- whatever. You don't have to worry about what you're
going to wear.
Borup: Do you know of any other commissions that do that?
McKinnon: We usually bought -- the other commission I worked for, we used to buy
them shirts when they left.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 78 of 84
Zaremba: That could be arranged.
Centers: It sounds like Garden City to me.
McKinnon: That's something I can bring up with staff -- with Brad, our new acting
planning director, and the liaison with the City Council happens to be the
aforementioned Tammy de Weerd that she mentioned to you. So it sounds like it is
something that we could work with. I would volunteer for the use of my own Meridian
shirts, because I don't get a whole lot of use out of them. It's absolutely something that
we could provide for you if it's in the budget. We will have to look. Do you have a
preference as to what type of shirt you'd like?
Rohm: They would all have to be the same color, but I kind of like your polo shirt, you
know, that looks appropriate.
Borup: Well, if I had a preference it would be more of a dress shirt, kind of like what you
have got on.
Centers: Well, I have seen the denims. They look nice, like what --
Borup: Well, I'd like something -- I mean you were talking about a professional look, I
think something a little dressier.
Centers: That's fine.
Zaremba: I am not a fashion expert, so I will not give an opinion.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will talk it over with Brad and
see if we have got any money in our budget and if we do I will bring in a catalog for you
at the next meeting.
Centers: Well, that's the last I'll hear of that. Move to close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: At 10:47. We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:47 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 3, 2002
Page 79 of 84
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK