The CUP and Variance passed
Moscow Progressives: you should be very proud of Linda Pall. She did everything in her power to torpedo this event at every turn and every motion. However, none of the board members fell for it, not even allowing her to add criteria that no one could meet (seizing private property along Mountain View and putting in a bike path).
You owe her something for her valiant but futile attempts tonight, though. She voted 1-4 on every motion, even seconding motions to try and push your agenda.
Live blogging from the 2 Aug 2016 Logos School Conditional Use Permit hearing.
There are about 200 people present in the room, and lots of people overflowing outside.
Conditional Use Permit for school & church facility on 1515 N. Mountain View Rd.
CUP for in single family (R-2) residential, and variance request for school/gym.
Development in 3 phases.
Variance for school & gym is 46 ft. To allow for regulation sized gym to host regulation sporting events, school building will match for scaling.
Showed a map with the surrounding areas.
Showed the flood plain for Paradise Creek including the floodway, and 100-yr flood plain as well as a topological map.
The study is the 2002 study for the flood plain, updated after the 1996 flood.
Showed a map of the zoning. City Counsel rezioned and annexed the land for the Logos Campus.
Churches & schools are conditionally permitted in R-2 zones.
Max allowed building height in R-2 is 30 ft. Proposed building height is 46 ft — that’s the variance for tonight.
Discussed streets & access.
Discussed proposed map of the school layout.
Discussed the two retention ponds on site that disperse water into Paradise Creek.
Showed the Phasing Plan.
Showed drawings for the building: Collegiate Gothic Style.
Engineering Department input was provided.
There are other variances throat the city for height variances: HIRC (2003), St. Mary’s School/ Gymnasium (2005).
Staff recommends approval of the variance.
The staff provided their CUP recommendations & conditions.
Questions from the Board about distances.
Questions about the location of the chapel.
Linda Pall asked about the setback.
Linda Pall said that the school needs to play by the rules and not ask for a variance. [But that’s the purpose of the variance].
Linda Pall discussed whether to open a public hearing (it was closed last time). Moved, seconded.
Linda asked to restict remarks to 3 minutes and not be repetitive.
Passed to reopen the public hearing.
Linda takes testimony in favor, then opposed, then general, then rebuttals.
Preston Evans spoke first as student body president of Logos.
Linda Pall interrupted for Preston to address the variance request.
Phil Rheingans discussed the the easement thru his property.
Darren Doane: About speed down Mountain View. That the school would slow things down there.
Darrell Paul, lives 1 mile north of proposed site. Farmed that land for many years.
John Carnahan: Activities Director at Logos School. Hope to host district & state tournaments at the site. Full members in Idaho White Pine League. Host first classe events at the school. These required the heights we’re asking.
Carl Berglund: kids at Logos for the last 10 years. The reason for height restrictions is to block vliews & eyesores. This proposed development doesn’t meet any of those criteria for those restrictions. The gym has to be this height to host those kinds of events.
Caroline Nelson Troy, State Rep. From District 5 — commends this variance. This project embraces our city’s diversity and commmitment to education.
Kirsten Miller. Both daughters were high school athletes. They had to play games in locations with the wrong height.
Larry Stevenson, Sup. at Logos School. We’ve done our due diligence. All studies said that these 30 acres were appropriate for this school. Erosion: seeded & sodded fields, and wetlands expert said how to deal with any wetland issues. Better erosion plan than currently. Wildlife: more presents, ducks, geese than now due to the retention ponds. We love the trees on the property. Our landscape plan calls for boulevard trees. 540 ft to the nearest neighbor for an 11ft. variance. 3/4″ loss of site plan.
Linda Pall: why didn’t you buy the Thompson Property?
Larry: the county & city said that this spot is the best spot, and the Trails said that they would sell to us.
Linda Pall: “not my problem, but our problem; and your problem.”
Daniel Anderson: it will increase the property values.
Eric Nelson: round about & access are in the flood zone. This will narrow the stream. Current plan doesn’t do anything about the narrow flood plane. So water will pool upstream where I live.
Janis Willard on Darby Road. Pictures of the Flood Plain. 6 Photos from 30 Mar 2012 of the stream flooding. Lived there since 1983. Rather than discrete events, I look at interconnected events, watching this stream as it floods.
Note: Janis didn’t talk at all about the variance request; and Linda Pall did not cut her off when she droned on for 10 minutes. All I can figure is that she & Linda Pall are aquaintences.
Diane Beingald (sp)? Concern with wetlands.
Sean Rengald (sp?) Concern with wetlands and flood response. Upstream considerations. Concern with grainstrucks getting around that roundabout. Also concerned about the infrastructure and who is paying for it. City has to maintain it.
David Hall on Waller road. Wetlands, transportations, visual. 99% of Palouse Prairie is gone.
Ross Coats (sp?): charmed by all the children here. Not sure what they are learning. I dn’t hvae a big objection about this. I’m sitting at an unfamiliar table. Elderly people live on 4th street. No motorcycles or jeeps. Kids learning to ride bikes. Don’t worry about people driving around the corner. You cannot get more space just because you have the money. Share with other groups. On F Street there’s a high school & grade school. Worried about water & wetlands. Not just because you have the money doesn’t mean you could or should do it.
Note: lots of repetitions between speakers. Linda Pall still didn’t shut anyone down like the proposed speakers.
Name (?): anyone with money can get what they want. If you aquiance, that’s not planning & zoning. Mountain View & D street are crazy. The school will negatively impact everyone who lives out there. Suggests putting thru a road on 3rd St. Worried about the flood zone.
Sonya Alist (sp?) — lived here 25 years. Wether has become more extreme. The chance of unpredicted flooding is greater than in the past, even if precipitation is lower.
Lesley Baker (Moscow): traffic safety. My daughter attends Moscow Charter, crossing Mountain View at F-Street. The city is not willing to stop traffic at F-Street. A lot of those students cross at F-Street every day. 400+ students coming down Mouuntain View / F-Street. Large athletic events. I like that we can allow our kids to walk to school.
Tony Clark: have they filed nation-wide permit 39 for institutional development w/ the Army Corps of Engineers. In 2005, MSD did present a proposed levy to the city to build MHS on this property. The only difference is that in 2005, that was a public undertaking. There was tremendous debate. This is a private debate, and only the abutting residents are informed. In 2005, the foundational debate are the same as what’s presented tonight. The only thing that’s changed: students & automobiles have increased. Full cost of all development will be provided by Logos. It was a bad plan in 2005, it’s a bad plan today.
Darrell Faircloth (Moscow): neutral. I’m FEMA insurance owner. Certificate of elevation to decrease flood insurance. When MHS levy was out, the school was placed further NE and fields more south. This is an observation by recollection: I think this design is great. RE height variance: flat roofs are an option.
Mariyln Coates: wish Logos the best. You are in a beautiful landscape. Are all the roofs 46-feet? That’s my concern. Were’ talking esthetics. I don’t have a problem if just the gym has that variance. So you have a flat line. Flood is serious. In the mid-90s, the water went in that direction. Water is going to come towards our direction across the fields.
Jean (June?) Elliott (resident of the Midwest): near interchanges — dead animals on the road. Proposed underpasses for the wildlife.
Note: just to make sure that the elk, moose, and deer are safe to cross the road: raise Mountain View Rd.
Scott Becker: floodplain, wetlands, transportation safety, height of school, and MSD.
1. MSD turned it down for financial issues. Nothing was discussed for environmental.
2. Flood plane: yes, it will pass 100ft flood. We model in our office for flood plane. We have to get thru the Corps of Engineers. Since this is on the cusp of county/city, both flood plane coordinators will review our work.
3. The height issue is insignificant from any resident. 540 ft isn’t blocked by an extra 11 ft.
4. Shelly Gilmore has done the flood plane study & maps. Mitigate the flood plane. Where the bridge goes, we’re following standard practice for every bridge that’s put in. We work with the Corps of Engineers.
5. Nationwide-Permit 39 hasn’t been applied for yet because we haven’t applied for any permits yet. That would be getting ahead of the game. We’re looking for a height-variance tonight. Then we’ll go thru the permits. We need to know what we can build first.
6. Transpo Safety: widening Mountain View 1100-1300 ft. Working with Public Works to monitor & implement suggestions that they have.
Linda: how do you deal with the roundabout & truck transpo?
All roundabouts have a concrete apron ion the inside, and that’s designed for combines & trucks.
Bike lanes & sidewalks along Mountain View?
Work w/ public works w/ whether to have a bike lane,walk, ETC. We’d work thru that w/ public works. It’s just not designed at this time.
Annette Lanord: retention ponds?
We design retention ponds that release at a pre-development rate. These ponds will retain additional water — capture & use for future irrigation. If the ponds are full, release at a pre-development rate. #2: capture additional water: net-benefit to the flood plane.
Larry S: questions about walking paths, senior citizens. (Showed landscape plan). We’ve asked the city to extent the walking path across the road across our development and by both of the ponds to the track. We are going to extend the walking path, roads, utilities will be paid for by Logos School. Almost 1 mile all the way around. The neighbors have a nice walking path. Also for the cross country team. No place for our students to run by A-Street.
Here’s the demographics of the Logos teachers & families. 40 miles less traffic congestion by Logos moving.
Linda: doesn’t relate to the conditional use request. I’d like to conclude before I qualify for more Social Security.
We have never said that we wouldn’t put in a bike path or walkway. We’re about safety about all the kids. We won’t compromise that. We stand committed to put the best way to get our kids safely to Logos.
Wayne Olsen (architect): about the height variance. Regarding esthetics: not all roofline’s will be 46 feet. One story is a wider footprint. We’d like the attic to have a mechanical messinie. Yes, you can make low-slope roofs. But they can turn into swimming pools. Taller ceilings for kids, like this room does. Taller windows for more light. The roundabout and development will be more traffic calming. Yes, an increase of volumes. Eventually the connector roads will come thru. Everything happens off-site. I think it’ll work just fine.
Jerrie Hudek (sp?): community members that use Mountain View Park. Their view will be affected by the height of the school.
Diane Walker (opposed): D-Street is congested. Logos isn’t a neighborhood school.
Dan Bradaway & Tony Driver: Letter to the Editor in the Daily News. Logos would endanger all kids & parents in Moscow.
Deborah McKinna: opposed school & housing on Mountain View. Churches don’t have same tax responsibilities.
Don & Judy Adams: not well served by current streets.
Dottie Dotie (sp?): regular user of Mountain View. D-St at Mountain View as well as F-St is terrible.
CUP and Variance.
Marshall: listening to the testimony, I’d like some perspective. The property has been reasoned to R-2. If we look at CUP in R-2, it would be a 30-acres subdivision of 120 single family homes there. Asphalt & roof structures. Those there without CUP. If the property had remained non-R-2, grain silos, fairly farms, sawmill, no height restrictions. But it’s been reasoned R-2. We could have 120 homes there. If the back yards abutted the property lines, then it could go 35-feet. With perspective CUP used for with what it could be used for w/o the CUP, that’s important. Traffic is a concern for me. I’ve seen the increased traffic. I’m not sure that’s totally a Logos problem. Look at the new Holmes. It’s important that we have roads to accommodate these. I negotiate F-Street every day. I hope the city looks serious of that. At some point, the city needs to redesign that intersection, but not a Logos problem. The next thing is the height variance. If it was a forestry zone, there would be no height restriction. I dn’t think the height issue is a big deal. Without the CUP, height variance goes away.
Mark: I’ve been on this board a number of years. WA CUP meets the should be approved, but a variance is trickier. Jerry is a vociferous opponent of variances. CUP: If it meets it, we should approve it. TIf we can make it would, we ought to.
Mark: start with the CUP.
Mike: address the variance first because tall approvals have to be met.
Linda: variance first. Accept a motion or to deny the proposal.
Marshall: move to approval of the variance with no conditions.
Discussion: Marshall: perspective. 11ft variance, distance from property line is considerable. One of the closest is Mountain View Park and neighbors are even farther. And closest neighbor south had no problem with the variance.
Mark: compelling the activities requiring a regulation- height gym. And we’re talking 3/4″ when looking at it.
Linda: I wasn’t able to confirm it, and I’m not buying into it. The consideration is what is that height boing to do. ?
We dealt with the Saint Mary roof. They dug a little further down. Here, the water table doesn’t permit that. I doubt whether this is the best site for this school. But that’s the issue in front of us.
Mark Hune: no huge objections to height extension. There are bufferr trees taller than the buildig. Most of the landscape issues work will with the structure of the building. I don’t think 11 ft is too large of an issue in a scale this large.
Annette: I don’t think the 46 ft height is a big issue.
Vote on motion: approve variance requesting 11 ft accomodation on this site.
Vote: 4-1 (Linda Pall voted nea).
Move: to approve the details by the staff. Moved & seconded.
Linda: I’m concerned. If Logos takes this plan to the Corps of Engineers, like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxie. If they get the permit and the folks at the federal level dissapprove…
Marshall: Then it won’t happen. If it doesn’t meet the standards, the project won’t happen.
Passed 4-1 (Linda voted nea).
Conditional Use Permit has more detail.
Criteria & Standards for Approval of a CUP
Marshall & Annette concurs.
Mark Hume: odd place to see a university building.
Linda: doesn’t fit well in the neighborhood. But they are doing a nice landscape proposal. If it meets the Article 39, that could work as well as the alternate — sell this to a developer and put 120 houses on it. I’d rather see a gothic building w/ natural trees to a developed housing with backyards and fences.
Linda: I’m impressed with the expressed willingness of the administrator wanting to be a good neighbor. Logos has been in the cooperation business. If we have that spirit of corporation continue?
Mark M: there’s no place in the city. We’d be having the same discussions/concerns regardless of where the school relocates. A piece of farmland would go by the wayside. Will a gothic building fit out there? No building would match the wheat fields.
Linda: I can think of architects for the job.
Linda: It’s a wet place out there.
Marshall: the permitting process will make them look at all those things: permits, engineering studies done, and anything that has to remedy the flooding situation. I believe that those problems will be remedied thru the permitting process.
Mark M: the issue is increased traffic.
Linda: Look at #4.
Mark M: Marshall’s point is well taken. We could have 120 single family homes with 2 cars coming and going at all times. Marshall: your comments are persuasive to me.
Linda: Mark M: thoughts of an environmental impact statement.
Marshall: we could add a condition to address traffic problems.
LInda: wetlands, impact on water & floodplane. Would an environmental impact statement be a reasonable thing to reques, so they could show the probable consequences.
Marshall: that’s part of the process anyway.
Mike: why treat this any differently than any other property in town? FEMA worked closely w/ us. This ordinance was completely rewritten last year.
Linda: what I heard from citizens and a month ago was concern whether the 100-yr floodway was correct. This is a very sensitive area.
Mike: the 100-year flood plane is the only one we go off of. Those photos are consistent with the 100-year floodplane.
Marshall: they’ve hired Shelly to follow all the regulations. I don’t think that additional studies and regulations are required since they are already required.
#4: location/design/size of the proposed use adequately serve by existing streets.
Mark H: as of now, no.
Linda: not a chance.
Mark: the main problem if F-St * Mountain View. That all needs widening.
Linda: that’s not their problem. We’ve asked for assistance, but the area of the dog-leg to the property. I’d like to see a further indication that there will be a conditional use requirement that along that approved section of Mountain View that there’ll be sidewalks/bike paths, etc.
Marshall: put an additional condition on Logos to do that. Asked Les to address traffic studies.
Les: a lot of proposals pending. Mountain View traffic is like City Park near 1st St.
The school’s impact on traffic doesn’t bother me as a traffic perspective. Look at the records, pulling data back to 2005. On Mountain View, there were 8 accidents. That’s quite low. 1 incident with pedestrians, 2 with bicycles.
Linda: I think that we have to think about the future. Not just a body count on North Mountain View.
Marshall: question about additional stop sign for F-Street?
Les: we can look at that again, and we’ve discussed that in the past. But we can look at it again.
Marshall: specific problems at certain times?
Les: Thre are restrictions to right-of-way. We have a limited right-of-way available.
Linda: that’s part of the cost of development.
Linda: the the board with to add anything?
Marshall: community & city problem. Not a total Logos problem. I’m reluctant to put it in the conditional use permit.
Mark H: question for Logos: do you have a timeframe on the three phases?
Larry S.: 30 months before we started, when we have the money in hand.
Annette: agree with Marshall — this isn’t a Logos problem. What if 120 homes were built there.
#5: Will the proposed use endanger the public health & safety?
Mark H: street issue, and flood plane.
Mark M. I don’t think it endangers public health or safety. We wouldn’t be sitting here talking about this if there were 120 single-family homes out there. The county has some conditions.
Marshall: I think there’s a city condition that has to deal with some of these things.
#6: Does the proposed use meet all applicable development standards of the zoning code? Yes.
#7: will the proposed use be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan? Yes.
Linda: some discussion about alterations to go in the standards.
Motion to accept / reject the proposal ?
Mark H: move to accept the proposal with staff conditions for the CUP for that site. Mark M seconded.
Passed: 4-1 (Linda nea).
Linda: address relevant criteria & standards. Page’s 9 & 10 of the document passed out.
Mike: better to address the conditions.
Linda: is the complete list of conditions?
Linda: I’d like street development of Mountain View.
Marshall: That’s not part of the motion.
Linda: I was hoping a new relevant criteria. Sidewalks, etc, shouldn’t be part of this?
Marshall: not part of the relevant criteria.
Mark H: add to criteria #5 — sidewalk & bike from property to Swanniker.
Linda: that’s an addition to page 11.
Marshall: we are voting on Mark’s motion to approve recommendation of staff. We should have added it beforehand.
Linda: motion to reconsider?
Linda: Second? Linda seconds it. We’d like a motion for reconsideration.
Mark H: Logos said that they’ were happy to widen….
Marshall: you need a vote on reconsidering the motion?
Mark H: the developer is will to do this. Sidewalk & possibly bike lane. We should have that as an inclusion.
Marshall: can we address this?
Les: it’s a constrained right of way with homes. That’s challenging. If sidewalk onone side, maybe. I don’t think we’ve looked at bike lanes.
Marshall: is there a complication as to how much along that roadway not city limits?
Les: portions are not in city limited. So we’ have to work with the highway area.
Linda: the applicant was willing to negotiate so that this could wor. But a number of people said that there’ good will here to do the job right the first time, and not redoing it in 5-10 years. Mark’s motion is one that can be accomplished w/ relatively muss and fuss. Doing it right now is better than doing it again.
Les: I agree about the good will. I don’t know that we’ve heard from the people on the frontage about widening the roadway. We don’t know their response. I suggest that you put some flexibility in that motion.
Marshall: suggest we vote on this motion. If it fails , we have a new motion. Failed.
Mark H.: move to include a sidewalk & widening possibly sidewalk on one side of the street, within the negotiating limits.
Mark M: making a good faith effort,
Failed for lack of a second.
Mark M: we’re trying to control things out of our control. That’s setting up for failure. What we’ like to do it a requirement for good faith for making these improvement. That’s the best we can do.
Linda: suggest that we add to #5, “the developer will make every good faith effort to make the Moutain View development as a full street with bike lane, sidewalk, and adjacent approvments.”
Mark M: we’re trying to control things out of our control. We’re trying to impose affirmative condition. There are things we can say “you must do”, but the other things are out of our control. I’m concerned about putting on conditions a that are outsid of their control and outside our control.
Linda: we don’t have a motion to amend.
Mark M: we have reopened discussion on #5. Add language that the applicant will act in good faith…
Marshall: additions of approval or relative criteria?
Mark M: I’m comfortable that the applicant is willing to act in good faith. “Act in good faith in working with the other entities in thee accoutrements.”
Les: I’m squirming about “good faith efforts”. Perhaps something to the effect of working with the city staff to work with the city staff …
Mark M: So moved. Seconded. Passed. 4-1 (Linda: nea).
Relevant criteria & standards
Mark M: I have no objections. I move that we adopt the relevant criteria & standards as proposed by staff. Seconded. Passed 4-1 (Linda nea).
So we have an approval of CUP and Variance.