HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMENDMENTS TO REC CITY CouncilMemo
To: Mayor & City Council
From: Brad Hawkins-Clark`S\C—
CC: Shari Stiles, Clint Boyle (Hawkins -Smith), File (City Clerk)
Date: 01/18/00
Re: Amendments to Recommendation to City Council — Files #AZ -99-019 & #CUP -99-034
For discussion at tonight's City Council meeting, below are proposed amendments to the 12/23/99
Recommendations to City Council from the Legal Department for the Annexation and Zoning and
Conditional Use Permit applications for Walgreen's Pharmacy with Drive Through Window.
Annexation and Zoning Recommendation
• Pg. 2, #10 — to "development of a Walgreen's drugstore," ADD, "and a 7,000 s.f., single story,
multi -tenant retail building"
• Pg. 3, Recommendation — Note that the October 7th Staff Report includes a condition that the
Development Agreement exclude four permitted C -G uses for any future development on the
subject property: a) Automobile Service Stations, b) Storage Facilities, c) Truck Stops, and d)
Heavy Equipment Sales & Repair.
• Pg. 3, #1.1 — CHANGE "That the driveway be limited to one," to "That the drive thrus on the
entire site be limited to one." OMIT "as designated on the proposed drawing."
• Pg. 3, #1.2 — CHANGE "...will be vacated prior to finalizing the annexation" to will be approved
by City Council to vacate the easements prior to the P&Z Department issuing] a Certificate of
Zoning Compliance."
Conditional Use Permit Recommendation
• Pg. 2, #5 — ADD to end of first sentence of paragraph, "and a 7,000 s.f., single story, multi -tenant
retail building."
• Pg. 3, #1.1 — CHANGE to read, "Incorporate complete construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter
concurrent with building construction with the condition that the Locust Grove right -turn lane on to
Fairview westbound by completely designed." Staff believes this more accurately reflects the final
P&Z Commission motion.
0 Page 1
• Pg. 3, #1.3 — CHANGE 72 feet' to 72 square feet'
• Pg. 3, #1.4 — CHANGE to read, "that a choker design be used on the Carol Street ingress/egress
drive;"
• Pg. 3, #1.5 — CHANGE "only one drive thru is approved for the entire site."
• NOTE: There is a discrepancy in the Recommendation between the P&Z Commission's condition
and ACHD's condition on the design and construction of the Locust Grove Road improvements. As
noted above in paragraph 1.1, the Commission is requiring construction of the Locust Grove
sidewalk concurrent with the building and the right turn lane to be designed. However, ACHD is
requiring an $8,000 deposit for the sidewalk and dedication of Locust Grove future right-of-way,
with construction to occur sometime in 2001 or 2002. Both the Commission and Staff feel it is
important to have pedestrian access along Locust Grove concurrent with the construction of
Walgreen's. Understandably, the Applicant does not want to have conditions placed on them for
which they have no control.
• Page 2
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR AUTUMN FAIRE
SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT
THE SW CORNER OF BLACK
CAT AND USTICK ROADS.
BY: GEMSTAR PROPERTIES,
L.L.C., APPLICANT
Revised C/C 08-15-00
Case No. PP -00-009
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY
PLAT
The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public hearing before the
City Council on June 6, 2000, and continued until June 20, 2000, July 5, 2000, and
tabled at the July 18, 2000 meeting and then re -noticed for public hearing on August
15, 2000, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., and at the June 6, 2000 meeting, Shari Stiles,
Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and the partner of the
owner, Dean Langley, appeared and testified, and appearing and testifying on behalf
of the Applicant were: Scott Stanfield and Dave Mortenson, and appearing and
testifying with comments/concerns or in opposition was: Linda Williams, and at the
August 15, 2000 meeting, Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Tom
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 1
Kuntz, Parks and Recreation Director, appeared and testified, and appearing on
behalf of the Applicant were: Scott Stanfield of Earl &. Associates, and Susan
Wildwood, and appearing and testifying with comments or concerns were: Linda
Dettero, Monty Janicek, and Dean Langley, and the City Council having received a
report from Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician III, and Brad Hawkins -Clark,
Planner, and the City Council having received as part of the record of this matter the
recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
applicant having submitted the "Preliminary Plat Drawing, Drawn By: wcw, 1-26-00,
Revision Dates 1.) 5-30-00, 2.) 6-12-00, 3.) 6-23-00, and 4.) 7-31-00, SHEET NO. 1
of 1, Job No. 000999, DWG No. 00099901PP2, Client: Gemstar Properties, L.L.C.,
Drawing Title: Autumn Faire Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Earl &,Associates, Inc.. -
Surveyors, Engineers &. Planners," submitted for preliminary plat approval and which
preliminary plat for approval application is herein received and adjudged by the City
Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 12-3-3. Therefore the City Council makes
the following findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan by reason of the fact that it lies within the existing Urban Area
as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 2
Infrastructure Planning Analysis Comprehensive Plan and Map, adopted December
21, 1993, and the property is presently zoned Low Density Residential District (R-
4), and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System. [Meridian
City Code § 11-7-2 C.]
2. The preliminary plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629.
3. It is determined that Urban Services can be made available to
accommodate the proposed development if the plat complies with the requirements
and conditions hereinafter set forth as conditions of preliminary plat approval.
4. The proposed development is a continuity of the proposed development
within the City's Capital Improvement Program and if the conditions which are
requested by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the Assistant City Engineer
and as proposed by the developer as stated on the preliminary plat there will be
public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development.
5. The development if built in accordance with the conditions and as
proposed, will not create health, safety or environmental problems and there have
been no specifics of any such concerns brought to the Council's attention.
6. It is found that the Recommendation To City Council of the Planning
and Zoning Commission is reasonable and appropriate for the conditions of approval
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 3
of the preliminary plat as hereinafter set forth.
7. The applicant has submitted for consideration of this approval drawing
of the preliminary plat herein designated as: "Preliminary Plat Drawing, Drawn By:
wc,,v, 1-26-00, Revision Dates 1.) 5-30-00, 2.) 6-12-00, 3.) 6-23-00, and 4.) 7-31-00,
SHEET NO. 1 of 1, Job No. 000999, DWG No. 00099901PP2, Client: Gemstar
Properties, L.L.C., Drawing Title: Autumn Faire Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Earl &
Associates, Inc.. - Surveyors, Engineers &. Planners."
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City
Code § 12-3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are
herein adopted:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER
1. The Preliminary Plat of the applicant as evidenced by "Preliminary Plat
Drawing, Drawn By: wcw, 1-26-00, Revision Dates 1.) 5-30-00, 2.) 6-12-00, 3.) 6-23-
00, and 4.) 7-31-00, SHEET NO. 1 of 1, Job No. 000999, DWG No.
00099901PP2, Client: Gemstar Properties, L.L.C., Drawing Title: Autumn Faire
Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Earl &. Associates, Inc.. - Surveyors, Engineers &.
Planners," is hereby conditionally approved; and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 4
.T-
.
V'` f
2. The conditions of approval are as follows to -wit:
Adopt the Planning and Zoning and Engineering Department Recommendations as
follows:
2.1 Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving
the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to
conform.
2.2 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public
Works Department.
2.3 Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via extensions from existing
mains adjacent to the proposed development. Subdivision designer to
coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department.
Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south
and west sides of the centerline.
2.4 Water service to this site shall be via extensions from existing mains
adjacent to the proposed development. Applicant shall be responsible to
construct the water mains to and through this proposed development.
Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the
Public Worlcs Department. Provide the Public Works Department with
information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements
for the proposed site. Water service to this development is contingent
upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis their computer model.
Flow and pressure from the existing mains shall be monitored with the
Meridian Water Department.
2.5 Two -hundred -fifty- and 100 -watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall
be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department.
All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical
locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
2.6 Underground year-round pressurized irrigation shall be provided to all
landscape areas on site. Submit hook-up and design details based on the
proposed landscaping. Due to the size of landscaped area, primary water
supply connection to the City's mains shall not be allowed. Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 5
shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the
primary source. If City water is proposed as a secondary source,
developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire
common open area.
2.7 Applicant has not indicated whether the pressurized irrigation system
within this development is to be owned and maintained by an
association or the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. If the system
is being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the
irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as
part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the
pressurized irrigation system O&M manual shall be submitted prior to
plan approval. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation
systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well
source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water
system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the
developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the
common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City
Engineer. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer
shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common
open area.
2.8 A note shall be added to the plat stating that this subdivision is subject
to the terms of the Right to Farm Act pertaining to adjacent agricultural
parcels.
2.9 As shown on the plat, the Usticic and Black Cat landscape buffers shall
be a minimum of 22 -feet in width beyond the required ACHD right-of-
way and constructed by the developer as a condition of the plat. Staff
encourages a slight berm and similar treatment as provided in the
Ashford Greens development. The landscape buffer shall be placed in
common separate lots (as shown). Fencing is not to encroach upon 'these
buffers.
2.10 Detailed landscape plans for the Black Cat and Usticic landscape buffers
and the internal common lots (Lot 10, Block 12, Lot 11, Block 15 and
Lot 11, Block 13) shall be submitted for review and approval with the
Final Plat application. A letter of credit or cash surety shall be required
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 6
for the improvements prior to City signature on the Final Plat.
2.11 Six -foot -high, solid, perimeter fencing shall be required along the full
western boundary of the subdivision and along the north side of Block
15 (Crossridge St). Submit detailed fencing plans for review and
approval with submittal of the Final Plat. All required fencing is to be in
place prior to issuance of building permits. A letter of credit or cash
shall be required for these fences prior to signature on the final plat.
2.12 There are three lots designated on the plat as storm retention areas. Lots
shall be designed to provide usable open space for the subdivision
residents. The storm retention area shall be designed as such that
accumulated water is disposed of within a 24-hour period.
2.13 Avehicular connection shall be provided to the 1 -acre parcel abutting
the north side of Block 1. Stella Court shall be extended across
Clearwater Way and stubbed to the 2.7 acre parcel south of the site.
2.14 Sweetwood Avenue exceeds the City's maximum block length of 1,000
feet. Applicant has revised the street/block lengths in the preliminary
plat. McNealy Street to the east shall be extended across Eveningside
Avenue and across Block 10 to improve the interconnectivity of these
blocks and to reduce the block length.
2.15 The applicant shall provide stub streets as per the request of the Ada
County Highway District.
Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway District as follows:
2.16 Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Black Cat Road
abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or
execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or
other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business
days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested
material. The owner shall be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated
as an addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee
revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application
to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 7
with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance # 193.
2.17 Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Usticic Road
abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or
execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (Or
other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business
days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested
material. The owner shall be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated
as an addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee
revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application
to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance
with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance # 193.
2.18 Construct 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Black Cat Road abutting the
parcel. The sidewalk shall be located two feet within the new right -of-
way of Black Cat Road. Coordinate the location and elevation with
District staff.
2.19 Construct 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the
parcel. The sidewalk shall be located two feet within the new right-of-
way of Usticic Road. Coordinate the location and elevation with District
staff.
2.20 Construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street
sections with curb, gutter, and S -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -
feet of right-of-way.
2.21 Stub Sagewood Street to the west property line approximately 600 -feet
south of the north property line as proposed. Install a sign at the
terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE
EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub
street with District staff.
2.22 Do not Stub Autumn Faire to the west properly line.
2.23 Stub Dayside Avenue to the south property line as proposed. Install a
sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that `THIS ROAD WILL BE
EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 8
street with District staff.
2.24 Provide a stub street off Clearwater Way to the south property line
located 340 -feet west of the east property line, in alignment with Stella
Court. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS
ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign
plan for the stub street with District staff.
2.25 Locate Autumn Faire off Black Cat Road to align with Moon Lake
Drive.
2.26 Locate a public street off Black Cat Road approximately 850 -feet north
of the south property line.
2.27 Locate Clearwater Way to align with Talamore Boulevard.
2.28 Locate a public street off Ustick road as proposed approximately 690 -
feet west of Black Cat Road.
2.29 Construct turnarounds at the termini of Stella Court, Crossridge Street,
Sagewood Circle and Julia Court. Provide a minimum of a 45 -foot
turning radius for the turnarounds. Submit a design of the turnarounds
for review and approval by District staff.
2.30 Construct center turn lanes on Black Cat Road for the three public
street intersections. The turn lanes shall be constructed to provide a
minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for the approach
and departure directions. These turn lanes shall be constructed prior to
the issuance of any impact fee certificate in the subdivision. Coordinate
the design of the turn lane with District staff
2.31 Construct a center turn lane on Ustick Road for the proposed public
street intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a
minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the
approach and departure directions. These turn lanes shall be constructed
prior to the issuance of any impact fee certificate in the subdivision.
Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 9
f y't
2.32 Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not
allowed unless approved in writing by the District.
2.33 As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and
locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this
parcel.
2.34 Other than the access points specifically approved with this application,
direct lot or parcel access to Ustick Road and Black Cat Road are
prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application,
shall be stated on the final plat.
Adopt the Recommendation of the Fire Department as follows:
2.35 Common areas shall need to be kept clean of trash and weeds.
2.36 No parking of vehicles or trailers in cul-de-sac.
2.37 All roads shall be installed before building is started with appropriate
street name signs.
Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as
follows:
2.38 The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be
submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality.
2.39 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
2.40 Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge
to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water
quality.
2.41 The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject
project shall obtain current best management practices for stormwater
disposal and design a stormwater management system that prevents
groundwater and surface water degradation.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 10
Adopt the Recommendation of the Nampa &. Meridian Irrigation District as
follows:
2.42 The District reserves the right to claim what they deem necessary to
operate and maintain the District's Eightmile Lateral that courses along
the North boundary and the Sky Pilot Drain which courses through the
middle of the proposed project.
Adopt the additional requirements from the City Council meeting of August
15, 1999 as follows:
2.43 Applicant shall be required to develop a minimum 30 foot pathway,
shown on the preliminary plat adjacent to the south boundary of the
lots in Phase Five, that shall be required to be rough graded at the
developer's expense. In order to accommodate the 30 foot pathway the
affected lots shall be shortened in depth by 10 feet.
2.44 Construction materials and type of fencing along the pathway shall be
subject to the Parks and Recreation Department and Planning and
Zoning Department's approval.
2.45 Upon approval of the final plat of Phase Five, applicant will donate land
for a public park, 6.8 acres or more in size. Applicant has identified a
6.8 acre site in what is part of the proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision
No. 2. The value of this land is $204,000.00.
2.46 As a condition of approval of the final plat Phase One of Autumn Faire
Subdivision, the applicant will post a letter of credit with the City in the
amount of $204,000. This letter of credit will be in lieu of park impact
fees for Phases One through Five of Autumn Faire.
2.47 If; at approval of the final plat of Phase Five, applicant does not deed
the 6.8 acre park to the City, and if the applicant fails to provide 6.8
acres or more of park space in Phases Three, Four or Five of Autumn
Faire, or if more than three years elapse after adoption of these Findings
and the park site has not been donated, then, the letter of credit shall be
exercisable in favor of the City. If the 6.8 acre park site is donated as
represented by the applicant within three years of the date of adoption
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009) - 11
of these Findings, the letter of credit shall become void.
2.48 Applicant, at its expense, will provide stubbed street, sewer and water to
any proposed park site during construction of Phase Five of Autumn
Faire.
2.49 Applicant agrees, at City's option, to provide rough and fine grading of
the park. site. City shall reimburse applicant for the unit cost (but not
move in, move out, or mobilization costs) of the rough and fine grade
work done on the pari. site.
B action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ly�day of
2000.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON
COUNCILMAN BIRD
COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD
COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (Tie Breaker)
VOTED C A--
VOTED4411—
VOTED
--
VOTED GL.
VOTED
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and City Attorney.
In
City Cleric
Dated:
msgfZ:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Autumn Faire Sub AZ and PP\FfClsOrd.PP
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GEMSTAR PROPERTIES, AND LANGLEY FARMS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP / FOR AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION / (PP -00-009)
- 12
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
HAWIUNS-SMITH DEVELOPMENT CO.,
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
WITH A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW
(WALGREEN'S), LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRVIEW
AVENUE AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
02-09-00
CASE NO. CUP -99-034
ORDER OF
CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
This matter coming before the City Council on the 15`j' day of February, 2000,
under the provisions of § 11-2-418 E Municipal Code of the City of Meridian for
final action on conditional use permit application and the Council having received
and approving the Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the
Council takes the following action:
1. That the Applicant and owner of the property is granted a conditional use
permit for the proposed application request of a conditional use permit for the
construction, development, maintenance and use for a 15,120 sq. ft. retail store and
pharmacy with a drive-thru window as described in the PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN,
Dated: 1/24/00 (revised) and stamped JAN 25 2000, Project Name: Meridian
Walgreens, Drawing Title: Preliminary Site, Drawing No.: C-1 99-163-01,
C:\Clint\Walgreens\Meridian\Fairview SL Locust Grove\Meridian Walgreens l .dwg,
HUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. - Architects, for MERIDIAN WALGREENS, for
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 1 OF 6
HAWKINS-SMITH (WALGREENS) / CUP -99-034
the development of the aforementioned projects and which property is described as
follows:
HAWKINS-SMITH DEVELOPMENT
DORIS SUBDIVISION PROPERTY
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land being all of Lots 1,2,7, and 8 of Block 1 of Doris Subdivision as
recorded in Book 16 of Plats at Page 1080 of Ada County Records, and also a portion
of the streets adjacent to said Lots and lying within the Southeast 1/4 of the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M., Ada County,
Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Section 6;
Thence N 00°00'00" E, along the East boundary of said section, also being the
centerline of Locust Grove Road, a distance of 452.21 feet;
Thence N 90°00'00" W, along the centerline of Carol Street as shown on said
subdivision plat, a distance of 418.50 feet;
Thence S 00°00'00" W, along a line being the extension of and the west boundary of
said Lots 2 and 7, a distance of 452.09 feet to the South boundary of said Section 6;
Thence S 89°59'00" E, along said South boundary being within the right-of-way of
Fairview Avenue, a distance of 418.50 feet, to the Real Point of Beginning,
containing 4.34 acres of land, more or less.
2. That the above named applicant is granted a conditional use permit for a
15,120 sq. ft. retail store and pharmacy with a drive-thru window, located at the
Northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho,
subject to the following conditions of use and development:
2.1 Construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Locust Grove abutting the parcel in
compliance with ACHD plans and specifications for Locust Grove Road, prior
to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.
2.2 That the hours of operation be limited from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m..
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 2 OF 6
HAWKINS-SMITH (WALGREENS) / CUP -99-034
2.3 That the new signage be a 72 ft. monument sign, but the existing sign on the
property currently used by a chiropractic clinic will remain and be available for
use.
2.4 Only one drive-thru is approved and it will be for the 15,120 sq. ft. building
only.
2.5 The applicant will maintain the unfinished right-of-way (approximately 20
feet) and will not allow it to be weed -infested.
2.6 The landscape strip adjacent to Fairview shall be 25 feet wide.
2.7 The proposed detached sidewalk design along Locust Grove shows a 5 -foot
planter strip between the sidewalk and road section. As long as this planter
remains in the ACHD design plans, Staff support the 15 -foot landscape strip
shown since the total buffer width will be 20 feet.
2.8 There shall be no parking stalls adjacent to the Carol Street side of the parcel.
Parking stalls may be placed adjacent to the north side of the proposed multi -
tenant building.
2.9 Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road
abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or
execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other
required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to
process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material.
2.10 Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Fairview Avenue from the west
property line to the proposed driveway, approximately 130 -feet east of the
west property line. Coordinate the location of the sidewalk with District staff.
2.11 Construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel.
Improvements shall be constructed to one half of a 37 -foot street section.
Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street with District staff
2.12 Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway on Fairview Avenue located
approximately 220 -feet west of Locust Grove Road. Pave the driveway its full
width and at least 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Fairview Avenue
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 3 OF 6
HAWKINS-SMITH (WALGREENS) / CUP -99-034
and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway
edge. Construct a six-inch raised median in the center of Fairview Avenue,
from a point 10 -feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50 -Feet
west of the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location
of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the
District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval.
2.13 Construct a 41 -foot wide driveway on Locust Grove Road located
approximately 220 feet north of Fairview Avenue. Pave the driveway its full
width and at least 30 feet beyond the edge of pavement of Locust Grove Road,
and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway
edge.
2.14 Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the west to use this
parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or
other required permits).
2.15 Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct
lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue is prohibited.
2.16 There shall be no north -facing illuminated signs on the pad site as well as on
the main store.
2.17 That all lighting be shrouded to direct light down and to keep it out of the
neighborhood to the north.
2.18 Applicant shall construct a decorative, split -face block wall with a row of
colored block on the north side before construction of any buildings is started.
2.19 Applicant shall construct a 207foot landscape strip with a screening wall
adjacent to Carol Street.
2.20 All landscape areas will be watered by pressurized irrigation. Applicant will
submit hook-up and design details for each landscape area. Applicant will
develop a water source separate and not a part of the City's potable water
distribution system.
2.21 All driveways on the site shall be "right -in" and "right -out".
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 4 OF 6
HAWKINS-SMITH (WALGREENS) / CUP -99-034
2.22 Applicant will construct a screen wall with adjacent 20 -foot landscape planting
buffer strip along the west property line, adjacent to the existing residence,
extending from the fence that will border Carol Street at least the same depth
as said residential lot.
2.23 The existing building now on site which currently houses a chiropractic clinic
will be removed within 60 days after the multi tenant building is ready for
occupancy.
2.24 After consultation with Sanitary Service Company, applicant will construct
screened trash enclosure locations, which will include a screening fence on
three (3) sides. The trash compactor area must be thoroughly enclosed to
prevent disturbance to neighboring residential properties.
2.25 Applicant shall install a minimum of one (1) three-inch (3") caliper tree for
every 1,500 square feet of paved surface.
2.26 Except as modified by this document, applicant shall construct the landscaping
as shown on the last landscape design plan submitted prior to February 1,
2000.
2.27 Handicap parking, associated signage and building construction vNdll meet the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Staff recommends the
number of handicap -accessible stalls be increased beyond the ADA -required 1
to 25 ratio.
3. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall
meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional
use permit.
4. Notice to Permit Holder, this conditional use permit is not transferable
without complying with the provisions of § 11-2-418 J of the Municipal Code of the
City of Meridian, a copy of which is attached to this permit.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 5 OF 6
HAWKINS-SMITH (WALGREENS) / CUP -99-034
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 7_)!� day of
iM,1V2e�A-- , 2000,
r
joWD. Corrie, Mayor City of Meridian
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and City Attorney.
By:,— Dated:
City Cleric
msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Walgreens\CUPOrder
3_x_00
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 6 OF 6
HAWKINS-SMITH (WALGREENS) / CUP -99-034
Position Statement
Case No. CUP -99-034
Name of Applicant: Hawkins -Smith
To: Meridian City Council C,z
From: Clinton Boyle
I have reviewed the Findings and Recommendations with which I disagree as follows:
The following Findings and/or Recommendations should be deleted: [refer to section number in
the Decision and Order]
Section 2.22: [should be deleted]
r-esidenee, e-xtending fTem the fettee that will border- Care! Street at least the same depth as
said residential let. (This requirement was not a condition of approval imposed by the City
Council nor was the requirement listed in the Planning Commission recommendation. The
item is addressed by adoption of the Preliminary Site Plan dated 1/24/00 (revised) and
stamped Jan 25, 2000))
The following Findings and/or Recommendations should be modified: [refer to section number
in the Decision and Order]
Section 2.1: [should read] Construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Locust Grove abutting
the parcel if approved by ACHD and in compliance with ACHD plans and specifications
for Locust Grove Road, prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 2.20: [should read] All landscape areas will be watered by pressurized irrigation.
Applicant will submit hook-up and design details for each landscape area. Appheant will
develop a water- souTee sepafate and not a part of the City's potable water disftibtAie
system. (In discussions with City staff, the City allows connection to potable water for
landscaping if the area to be landscaped will be 2 acre or less. If no other means is
available the City allows even larger landscape areas to connect to potable water. The
existing wells on site will have to be abandoned due to the location of buildings and other
improvements. The only known option for pressurized irrigation is connection to the City's
potable water system)
Section 2.27: [should read] Handicap parking, associated signage and building construction
will meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Staff r-eeenunends the
Dated this 15th day of February, 2000.
Signed:
Receivedi the record:
By, Agz
Q�'-
William G. Berg, Jr,;
Memo IRECEIVED
To: Mayor &City CouncilCITY` ' Off. MERIDIAN
� �- OFFICE �y ?i)6.�`
From: Brad Hawkins -Clark'
CC: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Clint Boyle (Hawkins -Smith), File (City Clerk)
Date: 03/06/00
Re: Proposed Modifications to Walgreen's Conditional Use Permit — Locust Grove Sidewalk
Construction & Pedestrian Walkways - File #CUP -99-034
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the subject application are on the Consent Agenda of the 3-7-
00 City Council meeting. This memo recommends two modifications to previously proposed Staff conditions.
We feel the modifications are not substantial and should not force a reconsideration of the plan by the P&Z
Commission.
A. Item 2.1 on page 11 of the CUP Findings, dated 2-8-00, requires curb, gutter and sidewalk on Locust Grove
abutting the Walgreen's parcel to be constructed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. (This condition is also
noted in the Annexation Findings (Item 16.12, pg. 13)). I'd like to recommend the last phrase, "prior to
obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy" be deleted.
This condition was originally recommended to ensure pedestrian access into the site even if ACHD had not
yet constructed the new Locust Grove right turn lane. Ideally, these two projects would be done
simultaneously, but Walgreen's will likely be constructed before ACHD is prepared to start the road
widening. It is listed in the ACHD Five Year Work Program to be reconstructed in FY2001. Since the
original ACHD construction plans showed a detached sidewalk on the west side of Locust Grove, we did
not think this requirement would present a hardship to the Applicant. However, the most recent ACHD plans
show an attached sidewalk along Locust, which eliminates the possibility that the sidewalk could be
constructed separately from the road, curb and gutter. According to ACHD and Gary Smith's review of the
plans, the sidewalk must be built after the curb, gutter and road section. (Attached is a letter from Steve
Arnold at ACHD further explaining their position.)
Staff believes ACHD's initial engineering draft of the Locust reconstruction project that shows a detached
sidewalk is still the preferred design. We have not been informed of ACHD's reason for changing the
design. One alternative for the Council to consider is to require a temporary asphalt walkway adjacent to
Locust Grove that would not conflict with the permanent road and sidewalk construction project but would
provide safer pedestrian access until the ACHD project is complete. The justification for such a temporary
walkway would, of course, depend upon ACHD's construction schedule (i.e. 1 year, 2 years out).
B. The second modification relates to new pedestrian access into the site. After the Commission's and
Council's approval of the CUP Site Plan, the Applicant approached Staff with a request to add two, five-foot
wide pedestrian walkways to the plan. One walkway would connect the main store entrance to the Locust
0 Page 1
Grove sidewalk and the second walkway would connect the main store entrance to the Fairview sidewalk.
The portion of the walkway the traverses the parking lot would be painted. Attached is a copy of the
Council -approved Site Plan with these proposed walkways added.
Staff supports the Locust Grove connection but does not recommend approval of the Fairview connection.
The Locust Grove connection eliminates only one (1) parking stall while the Fairview connection eliminates
three (3) stalls and has a more awkward position in the parking bay. The main impact to the site is the loss
of one (1) stall. They would, though, still meet the minimum parking requirements for the site with the
proposed walkways. The loss of landscaped area with the sidewalk cutting across the berm would be more
or less reclaimed by widening the landscape islands at the end of the parking row.
If the Council agrees, Staff recommends this new Site Plan (dated 2-22-00) be referenced as the approved
plan. If Council does not agree with the modification and/or would otherwise delay approval of the CUP
Findings, the Applicant has clearly stated they do not want the walkways and would prefer to move ahead
with the old Site Plan.
• Page 2
4cla x e •
coGLl2L G 4way
�
.IIIf�V Paa\/cV_rlcrr Drocirla.,!
- - ""' ' ' --" 316 Last 37th Street
Dave Bivens, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499
Marlyss Meyer, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100
Sherry R. Huber Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391
Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada,id.us
DATE: Tuesday March 16, 1999
MEETING: Wednesday, March 24, 1999
TO, Shari Stiles
FROM: Steve Arnold
Planning and Development
RE: MCUP99-034/MAZ99-019 n/w/c Fairview Ave/Locust Grove Rd Walgreens
On December 1, 1999, the Commission reviewed MCUP99-034/MAZ99-019, a request
for conditional use approval to construct a 14,300 -square foot Walgreens, and a 7,000 -
square foot retail pad site. The 4 -acre site is located at the northwest corner of Locust
Grove Road and Fairview Avenue. This development is estimated to generate 1,100
additional (250 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation manual.
As a condition of approval the applicant was required to:
Provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of
constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the
parcel.
Normally the applicant would be required by the District to construct the sidewalk along
their frontage prior to ACRD approval of an occupancy permit. The applicant would not
normally be required to construct curb and gutter. However, This segment of Locust
Grove road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road is listed in the Five Year Work
Program for reconstruction in FY 2001. There are several inherent problems with the
construction of street improvements prior to a scheduled ACHD project, unless there is
a uniform design for the street segment. Those problems are as follows:
• The grade for the street may differ significantly from the sidewalk in order to facilitate
storm water drainage,
• Shift in roadway centerline location from side to side maybe made in order to avoid
existing features, such as irrigation facilities, property improvements, or utilities.
• The chance that sidewalk installed today will fit the final design alignment and grade
is relatively small.
There is a disruption to traffic at two different occasions.
Z0 39V8 9NINNb-1d QHOV E6E9-L8E-80Z 9Z:bT 000Z/b0/E0
There would be duplicate engineering costs.
The District may be required to remove the improvements at an additional cost to
the District,
The District has 95% complete plans for the roadway design, and is planning the
reconstruction of the roadway in the spring of FY 2001. The District appreciates the
City's concerns for pedestrian facilities and would like to reassure the city that the
District will be reconstructing the roadway and the sidewalk in the near future. The
District respectively requests the City to not require the applicant to construct sidewalk
on the Locust Grove Road frontages based on the inherent problems, listed above, at
this time, but to honor the District's requirement for a Trust Fund deposit for the cost of
the sidewalk.
If you have any questions, please call me at 387-6178.
Sincerely
Steve Arnold
Planning and Development
E0 39dd JNINNb-Id QHOd EGE9-L8E-80Z 9Z:bZ 000Z/b0/E0
W
�b
19L'0Y9t M W.00AO N SkOW =Sr= 3 3`�
117 00
I
I
I
I
I
I
IUIHIS SMIXAVH 60899LC80Z XV3 6C:Zi 00/ZZ/ZO
Iz
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cl"i (CLERK FILE CHECKLIST
Project Name:_ File Number:
Planning and Zoning Level: Hearing date:// LIq q
❑ Transmittals to agencies and others: / Iq/
❑ Notice to newspaper with publish dates: I / / and
❑ Certifieds to property owners: q/ /
❑ Planning and Zoning Commission Recommends: Approve ❑ Deny
Notes:
City Council Level: Hearing date:
❑ Transmittals to agencies and others: IA4/
❑ Notice to newspaper with publish dates: / / and 114-lef
❑ Certifieds to property owners:
❑ City Council Action: -Approve F-] Deny on: / /
❑ Findings / Conclusions / Order received from attorney on: / /
❑ Findings / Conclusions / Order:
❑ Approved by Council:
❑ Copies disbursed:
❑ Findings recorded (if appl.)
❑ Development Agreement:
❑ Sent for signatures:
❑ Signed by all parties:
❑ Approved by Council:
❑ Recorded:
❑ Copies disbursed:
❑ Ordinance No. and / or Resolution No.
❑ Approved by Council:
❑ Recorded:
❑ Published in newspaper:
❑ Copies disbursed:
Notes:
Resolutions:
Original Res / Copy Cart Minutebook
Copy Res ! Copy Cert: City Clerk
City Engineer
City Planner
City Attorney
Starting Codifiers
Project File
Copy Res/Original Cert:
Ada County (CPAs)
Applicant (non -CPAs)
Recorded Ordinances:
Original: Mlnutebook
Copies to: City. Clerk
State Tax Comm.
Starting Codifiers
City Attorney
City Engineer
City Planner
Project file
Applicant (if appl.)
Findings / Orders:
Original: Minutebook
Copies to: Applicant
Projectfrle
City Engineer
City Planner
City Attorney
Record Vacation Findings
Recorded Development Agreements:
Original: Fireproof File
Copies to: Applicant
Project file
City Engineer
City Planner
City Attorney
Meridian City Council M ,g
February 1, 2000
Page 26
Bird: Okay. And what kind of decorative? There's a lot of decorative stuff, and
you can make and get very expensive or you — if you do something like we did
up at the baseball field, not very much more than regular block; it's just a split -
face block.
Anderson: I think just a split -face block would — maybe a row of colored block
would be appropriate.
Bird: Okay. That's all, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. With that addition, approve the second then?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote.
Roll -call vote: Mr. Anderson, aye; Mr. Bird, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from 01/18/2000: CUP 99-034
Request for a conditional use permit to construct a single -tenant
commercial building with a drive-thru window (Walgreen's) by
Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. — NW corner of Fairview and
Locust Grove:
Corrie: All right, I'll open the continued public hearing on the CUP, ,request for
conditional use permit to construct a single -tenant commercial building for the
drive-thru window of Walgreen's, Item No. 6. At this point, I'll open the public
hearing, and I will ask if people that made the comments in the early one wants
to have the same comments inscribed into the Item No. 6, we'll do so. Okay.
Then I'll open the hearing and staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, I would just ask that the comments from the previous
public hearing be incorporated into this public hearing.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. The developer. Do you have any more that you want
to say on this one?
Boyle: Just the same.
Corrie: Okay. We'll enter that same testimony then on this one. Hearing that,
I'll open the public hearing to anyone else who didn't testify before understanding
that their testimony on the first one will be entered into as testimony on the
second one. Mr. Jones.
Meridian City Council Mc g
February 1, 2000
Page 27
Jones: Jay Jones, 1426 North Carol. Mr. Mayor and Commissioner Bird, your
comments regards to the entrances to this additional building are very valid and
very concerned that there be no signage on the northern portion of that future
pad site. I think that's very important that there's no elimination anyway. They
have little doctor signs or whatever they have there, I think that would be
appropriate, but I think the elimination on that side would definitely distract from
the privacy of the neighborhood. The comments that I made earlier, also, if you
would address the shades on the lights in this portion of the hearing. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony?
Woodall: Hi. My name is Debbie Woodall, 1950 West Carol. The only
comment I had was the developer commented several times about his trucks
negotiating into the site in order to make deliveries. My main concern is that the
hours of operation that those deliveries are going to be made if in a conditional
use permit, those deliveries could be made at reasonable hours between the
hours of, say, 8:00 and 6:00, 7:00. That subdivision does have a lot of children
in it, and I just don't want to see trucks pulling in at 9:00 at night with there being
— you know, they make a lot of noise any way you cut it, and I would really like
them to be reasonable as when the deliveries are made. The other concern I
have they are traveling down Locust Grove. With a big semi truck. Chief Joseph
is very close to this site. School starts at 8:55. You have a ton of kids on that
road not to mention school buses. We already have problems with the crossing
guards at the stoplight of Chateau, I believe, this is what the street is, that Chief
Joseph is on. I would really like to see, you know, if we could have those hours
of deliveries after school starts and we know the kids aren't going to be out on
that road. Kindergarten runs — they get out at noon. Some limitations because
I'm concerned they are traveling down Locust Grove, Right now, it is just two
lanes on — one going each way. There's not much room for kids, and I just
would hate to see something happen to the kids. You we're putting some big
trucks on that road now. It's hard for them to stop. That's my main concern.
Corrie: Anyone else?
Woodall: Dan Woodall, 1950 West Carol, Meridian, Idaho. In addition to my
previous comments which I thank you for entering, into this, I'd like to note that
there is a lot of talk tonight about the residences way across the street. You
should also note that there's a residence immediately north of that future pad site
that's very close. I would like to have you in assure in the conditional use permit
that illumination on that side of the parking lot and on that side of the future pad
store also be restricted so as to not shine in their windows. Also, I don't know
how many of you have been on Carol Street, but it makes kind of a pea -shape.
It's a natural turnaround. I'm a little bit concerned that the delivery truck may be
going up Locust turning into Locust Grove going up Carol Street and turning
around in our subdivision to come back our onto Locust Grove and make his
turn. I don't know if there's any restrictions you can put on truck access to
Meridian City Council W 0
February 1, 2000
Page 28
residential areas for their deliveries, but that would be greatly appreciated if you
could.
Corrie: That would be part of ACHD's —
Woodall: ACHD's — okay. Another thing, just a sanity check on microphone
speakers and seven -foot walls. On a quiet Meridian night, you're going to be
able to hear that quite a distance. The traffic quiets down, and you don't get the
background noise, and you're going to be hearing, "Welcome to Walgreen's.
Can I take your order?" not just across the street, but well into our subdivision.
The — I would really implore you to keep restrictions on the hours of operation of
the drive-thru so that we can sleep with our windows open at night and not have
to listen to that. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else? Hearing none —
Houghacre: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Brian Houghacre with Hawkins
Smith, 845 West Franklin. I just have some comments that might help to clarify
some of the questions that have come up and then I know Mr. Boyle has some
other items. On the speaker issue, you know, we've built — are in the process of
building three in the city of Boise. They've all had the same concerns, mostly
because it is the neighborhood use — store — we're always around residential
uses. We have worked with the City in doing some studies of the decibels of the
speakers and so forth, and we have found with the manufacturer of the speaker
that the decibels are at such a level that they are not to exceed from the site.
Not going to say that you're never going to hear them from off our site, but you
have to remember with prescriptions, it is a sensitive, personal issue.
Walgreen's already takes that into consideration to try to minimize any of that
personal information from getting out. So I just — I should have shared it earlier,
but I thought that might help you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Boyle: Just one quick comment again. Clint Boyle, 8645 West Franklin Road,
Hawkins Smith. As far as the truck deliveries go, the truck will only be delivering
to the store when there are employees there. So if the store is restricted from
7:00 to 10:00, the truck will be there between 7:00 and 10:00 in the morning. As
far as the truck goes itself, the deliveries to Walgreen's, it is a large truck that
comes in and delivers. A typical Walgreen's store, that truck is there once a
week, maybe twice a week. So this is not a truck — you could place a condition
that it won't deliver every day. That would — Walgreen's — it wouldn't make a
difference because the truck deliveries, and I'm talking their main truck deliveries
they may get the Pepsi guy or Coca-Cola guy in there. I don't know what their
schedule is with their smaller trucks, but as far as the large semi that services
Walgreen's, it's typically a once- maybe twice -a -week delivery, so it's not
something that they're going to have coming in there every day. Then, again,
with the sound, Brian pretty much covered the sound as Walgreen's is sensitive
Meridian City Council M( 0
February 1, 2000
Page 29
to that. The other thing about is that if we are limited in our hours to the 7:00 to
10:00 at night, that seems to be a pretty reasonable time to be getting some
noise from the street or just your typical background noise. Once the store is
closed, it always is gone. If we are limited to the 10:00 in the evening from 10:00
on, there's no noise from speaker. So anyway, I just again would welcome your
approval on the conditional use permit. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question for him. Mr. Boyle, I've got a concern with
your area — I don't know whether your bring in a 27 -footer or a 40 -foot semi that
comes in for Walgreen's. Safetywise, the way you've got the drive -up going, and
I take it the drive -up will come out and come right down between the two — the
future pad —
*** End of Side 2 ***
the back, travel to the south and then backs into this area. It's actually not a
dock. It's all at -grade, and it's got a roll -up door that they lift up, and they've got
a little conveyor.
Bird: But then you're going to have — I realize that it isn't good for the subdivision
to have them come in after hours, but safetywise, would your drive -up, I've got
some real questions. I've also got some real questions how that guy's going to
get out of there if he's got a 40 -footer. 27 -footer would be no problem at all, but I
guess you can hope somebody didn't park down there — are you going to just
shoot straight out —
Boyle: Straight through would be the intent, and then he'd have to turn right and
get out traveling westbound on Fairview.
Bird: But you're only 38 feet from that drive -up canopy to the landscaping.
That's a pretty tight turn right there. I would guess that drive-up's probably, I
don't know what kind of scale you've got there, but I'd imagine it's 30 or 40 feet
back to the corner of the building where the drive -up is? That has nothing to do
with a conditional use permit —
Boyle: I can tell you Hubble Engineering that designed this, they've placed truck
radiuses on and this store prototype has been designed and done all over the
place. They've got them in Boise now. We've got them going up in Salt Lake,
so Walgreen's is comfortable with getting their trucks around. Hubble
Engineering, our engineer's comfortable with it.
Bird: But is all your conditional use permits based on delivering during —
between 7:00 and 10:00? None of it is done in the late night?
Meridian City Council M(
February 1, 2000
Page 30
Boyle: Depends on the store. We have some stores that are limited that aren't
25 hours, so it's during those hours of operation that we have some that are 24-
hour stores that —
Bird: They never receive any freight outside of store hours you're telling me?
Boyle: What I'm telling you is they have to have employees there to unload the
truck, so —
Bird: Yeah, but you can unload — you can have somebody come in and unload
at two, three o'clock in the morning if that's when the trucks are going to come in.
Boyle: Typical retailer isn't going to call their employees in to unload a truck in
the middle of the night. A typical retailer like this that's a small retailer — yeah. I
don't know on that. I don't know. Again, if you want to restrict it — (inaudible)
Bird: (inaudible) restrictions on that. So in case of the truck coming in at one,
two o'clock in the morning and the manager and one of his employees come
down there and do it, got a restriction, he's going to sit there until 7:00. On the
same token, if we're going to be unloading drugs and stuff at night, then we get
back to the issue of the lighting. I don't like the time restriction of when they can
deliver and not.
Boyle: Yeah. I guess that's the decision for the Council to make. My
understanding on the deliveries is typically they're in the morning hours, seven,
eight in the morning is what I've heard from the other stores.
Corrie: Any other questions? Comments? Council? I take that back. Staff?
Comments of Staff? Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion to close the public
hearing on Item 6.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 6 for
the conditional use permit for Walgreen's. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Council, discussion, recommendations, Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we approve the CUP for
Walgreen's by Hawkins Smith Management and instruct counsel to draw up
Meridian City Council M(" 7
February 1, 2000
Page 31
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with a favorable approval subject to
staff comments with two additional items one being that there be no north -facing
illuminated signs on the pad site as well as on the main store, and that all lighting
be shrouded to direct light down and keep it out of the neighborhood to the north.
Bird: Done? I'll second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order staff recommendations and
with the two additions that no north signage be on the buildings and also that
lighting be directed down and out of the neighborhood.
Anderson: One correction, Mr. Mayor. No north -illuminated sign. I don't mind if
they have other signs.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I have one question to ask yet. Mr. Anderson, now on the
lighting down, but you do mean enough lighting to make it safe back there, right?
Anderson: Right. .I just want it shrouded so that it won't be shining into the
neighborhood.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote.
Roll -call vote: Mr. Bird, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Public Hearing: Amendment of Fireworks Ordinance and
adoption of new fees:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a public hearing. This is an amendment of the fireworks
ordinance and adoption of new fees. I'll open the public hearing and invite staff's
comments first. Chief.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, I'll give you a little history on
this ordinance. It's been on the books for many, many years. This ordinance
also did not go too much in depth of how we were going to investigate people
that have businesses that were setting fireworks off for shows. In the past, there
has been a $10 fee for a fireworks permit which was taken out through the City
Clerk's office. That was — the same permit was used for safe and sane fireworks
or the fireworks that was put on by the big companies for the shows. A lot of the
wordage in this new ordinance has come through Bill Gigray, our attorney, trying
to help City Clerk Will Berg do his job on his side of it a little easier. As I said in
the past, there's only a $10 fee for both. We would like to split that up in the
fees; a $25 fee for permits for safe and sane fireworks, $125 for the fees for the
January 26, 2000
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: FEBRUARY 1, 2000
APPLICANT: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REQUEST, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A,SINGLE-TENANT COMMERCIAl. BUILDING
WITH A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S)
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: SEE JANUARY 18, 2000 ITEM PACKET
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
CATH FR
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
January 14, 2000
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JANUARY 18 2000
APPLICANT: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 10
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE -TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH
A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S)
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
I
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED RECOMMENDATIONS
REVIEWED
SEE ATTACHED
"NO REMARKS"
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
OTHER: LETTER FROM THE RESIDENTS OF DORIS SUBDIVISION
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
KATHY J. EDWARDS
IULIEKLEMFISCHIR
WK F. 0GRAY, III
D. Smgu 7oHNsoN
WiLuAMA. MORROW
WILLIAM F. NICHOLS
CHI2ISTOPHI3i S. NYE
PHILIP A. PETERSON
STEPHIIQ L. PRuss
ERIC S. RossMAN
TODD A. RossMAN
DAvro M. SWARTI,EY
TERRENCER. WHITE
William G. Berg, Jr.
City Clerk
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE
Posr OFFICE Box 1150
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150
TEL (208) 288.2499
FAX(208)288.2501
E-MAIL: 4M@wppm9.001I1
December 23, 1999
NAWA OFFICE
104 NINM AVENUESOUTH
POST OFFICE BOX 247
NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247
TEL. (208) 466-9272
FAX (208) 4664405
PLEASE REPLY TO
MERIDIAN OFFICE
Re: Conditional Use Permit for 15,120 sq.ft. Pharmacy with Drive-thru
Window
Applicant: Hawkins -Smith Management, Inc.
Dear Will:
Please find enclosed the original of the Recommendations to the City Council by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on the above referenced application. Please note this matter
will be heard before the City Council on January 4, 2000.
Shari Stiles and Gary Smith have been given copies of the above Recommendations so
they can be prepared at the hearing to specifically address the Recommendations of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Very truly yours,
2David!M. Swa
Enclosure
ey/Z:\Work\MWerid1an 15360M\Wa1greens\CUPCIkEnc.1tr
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A 15,120
SQ.FT. WALGREEN'S
PHARMACY WITH DRIVE
THRU WINDOW
HAWKINS-SMITH
MANAGEMENT, INC.
Applicant
Case No. CUP -99-034
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL
INTRODUCTION
1. The property is located at the northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and
Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho.
2. The owner of record of the subject property are:
John and Cheryl Wardle of 8995 Chinden Blvd. Meridian;
Kevin and Lila Bates, 1515 S. Carol, Meridian;
Adrian and Cheri Mansayon, 1555 S. Carol, Meridian;
Brent Luana Barrus, 5720 Overland Road, Meridian.
3. Applicant is Hawkins -Smith Management, Inc. of 8645 W. Franklin
Road, Boise.
4. The subject property is currently zoned C-2 and R-8 and has an
application for rezoning to General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G). The
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 15,120 SQ.FT. WALGREEN'S PHARMACY
WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW — HAWIUNS-SMITH MANAGEMENT,
INC.
zoning district of C -G is defined within the City of Meridian Zoning and
Development Ordinance, Section 11-2-408(11).
5. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit for a 15,120
sq.ft. pharmacy with a drive-thru window. The C -G zoning designation within the
City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance requires a conditional use
permit be obtained for most uses including those requested by the Applicant.
(Meridian City Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-2-409).
6. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that the
proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as
enumerated in the Recommendations of Approval to the City Council for Annexation
and Zoning of the Subject Property.
7. The use proposed within the subject application Nvill in fact, constitute a
conditional use as determined by City Policy.
8. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that the
proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as
enumerated in the Recommendations of Approval to the City Council for Annexation
and Zoning of the Subject Property.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 15,120 SQ.FT. WALGREEN'S PHARMACY
WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW — HAWIUNS-SMITH MANAGEMENT,
INC.
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use
permit as requested by the applicant, subject to the following:
Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows:
1.1 Incorporating complete construction of sidewalks with Ada County
Highway District with the condition that Locust Grove development be
completely developed;
1.2 that the hours of operation be limited from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.;
1.3 that the signage be a 72 ft. monument sign;
1.4 that a chokage design be used;
1.5 only one driveway is approved.
Adopt the Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Department as follows:
1.6 The applicant made verbal commitments to Staff that they intend to
maintain the unfinished right-of-way (approximately 20 feet) and will
not allow it to be weed -infested. However, Staff feel this deserves more
discussion and, at a minimum, we recommend a written commitment be
obtained from ACHD to the City and Applicant that the Locust Grove
improvement will be started no later than 1 year from occupancy.
1.7 The landscape strip adjacent to Fairview is now 24 feet wide instead of
the original 14 feet. The Applicant has also modified the landscape strip
on the west side of the Fairview driveway to also be 24 feet wide. Staff
recommends that the 35 -foot -vide landscape setback be provided to the
extent that parking requirements will still be met.
1.8 The proposed detached sidewalk design along Locust Grove shows a 5 -
foot planter strip between the sidewalk and road section. As long as this
planter remains in the ACHD design plans, Staff support the 15 -foot
landscape strip shown since the total buffer width will be 20 feet.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT— 15,120 SQ.FT. WALGREEN'S PHARMACY
WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW — HAWIQNS-SMITH MANAGEMENT,
INC.
1.9 Staff recommend the three parking stalls in the northeast corner of the
parking lot adjacent to Carol Street be omitted and the landscape strip
be increased to 20 feet.
1.10 A revised landscape plan incorporating the recommendations herein
must be submitted prior to the City Council public hearing.
Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway District as follows:
1.11 Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove
Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision
plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building
permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to
30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of
all requested material.
1.12 Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Fairview Avenue from the
west property line to the proposed driveway, approximately 130 -feet
east of the west property line. Coordinate the location of the sidewalk
with District staff.
1.13 Provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund
for the cost of constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust
Grove Road abutting the parcel.
1.14 Construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel.
Improvements shall be constructed to one half of a 37 -foot street
section. Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street with District staff
1.15 Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway on Fairview Avenue located
approximately 22) -feet west of Locust Grove Road. Pave the driveway
its full width and at least 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of
Fairview Avenue and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting
the existing roadway edge. Construct a six-inch raised median in the
center of Fairview Avenue, from a point 10 -feet west of the stop bar at
the intersection to a point 50 -feet west of the western edge of the
driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 15,120 SQ.FT. WALGREEN'S PHARMACY
WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW — HAWIUNS-SMITH MANAGEMENT,
INC.
District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic
Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval.
1.16 If a driveway is requested on Carol Street, located the driveway a
minimum of 50 -feet vest of Locust Grove Road. Construct the driveway
as a 24 to 30 -foot wide curb cut driveway. Pave the driveway its full
width and at least 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Carol Street.
Coordinate the location of the driveway with District staff.
1.17 If a driveway is constructed on Carol Street, construct a traffic choicer
west of the driveway. The back. of curb to edge of pavement width of the
traffic choicer shall be 24 -feet wide. Coordinate the design of the traffic
choicer with District staff.
1.18 Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the west to
use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a
building permit (or other required permits).
1.19 Other than the access points specifically approved with this application,
direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue is
prohibited.
ey/Z:\Work\M\N(eridian 15360M\Wa1greens\CUPRec.Nvpd
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 15,120 SQ.FT. WALGREEN'S PHARMACY
WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW — HA.WIUNS-SMITH MANAGEMENT,
INC.
S
Meridian Planning ana _oning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 60
De Weerd: You can withdraw yours, though.
Borup: I take it your not withdrawing your second?
De Weerd: I –
Borup: Okay. Let's vote on the motion. All in favor? Opposed? We have a tie vote.
I'll vote nay. Someone have an alternate motion?
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to City Council,
conditional use permit of the retail Fiber Arts Supply Store by Jennifer Oak to include
staff comments as written with one modification changing the required off-street parking
from five spaces to three.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE TO ONE.
ITEM 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES
FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C -G (WALGREEN'S) BY HAWKINS SMITH
MANAGEMENT, INC.—NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST
GROVE ROAD:
Borup: Thank you, Commissioners. Do we have anyone here from the public that is
here to testify on Item No. 8 and 9, the Walgreen's Store? Show of hands if there are.
And is the applicant here? Okay. Let's – I'd like to open the public hearing: Annexation
and zoning of the 4.34 acres from C-2 to R-8 and R-8 to
C -G, Hawkins -Smith Management. I'd be open for a motion to continue this hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this until our November 9th meeting.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 9. "PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A"
SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU
WINDOW (WALGREEN'S) BY HAWKINS=SMITH MANAGEMENT,
INC.—NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Meridian Planning and _ening Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 61
Borup: Item No. 8 – Item No. 9, public hearing: Conditional use permit to construct
single -tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window by Hawkins -Smith
Management. The same situation.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for conditional use
permit until November 9th.
Brown: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded to continue until November 9t". All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you. This probably is an appropriate time for a short break. The break
starts now.
(At which time the meeting was in recess at 10:30 p.m.)
Borup: I'd like to reconvene the Planning and Zoning meeting. Is that what this is?
Brown: Can we poll the audience to find out which projects they're here for?
.ITEM 10. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR OVERLAND
MINI -STORAGE OF 7.25 ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
WITH ACREAGE TO COMMERCIAL LOTS AND MINI -STORAGE
FACILITY BY OVERLAND MINI -STORAGE, LLC -1230 OVERLAND
ROAD:
Borup: Well, we've only got two left. Have we got anybody here for the mini -storage?
Okay. I think that answers that question. Okay. That is the next item on the agenda.
Item 10, annexation and zoning for Overland Mini -Storage of 7.25 acres. Staff, I take it
is Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is for the property on Overland Road just
west of Locust Grove Road. This was the very popular 300 -unit apartment complex that
was denied here. We have Nine Mile Creek running along here. We also have a sewer
easement running along there. Sportsman Pointe right over here. We have the
Treasure Valley Baptist Church here, recently a contractor's yard and additional area for
the church was approved at this location.
De Weerd: What's that K. D. Roofing?
Stiles: Yes. We have submitted our comments. They have responded to our
comments. They seem pretty much in agreement with everything. We still do need to
have easements shown because we need to know where that Nine Mile Creek
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: OCTOBER 12 1999
APPLICANT: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC ITEM NUMBER: 9
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL
BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S)
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
SANITARY SERVICE:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
eL11 AV� �U1 1S 8645 W. Franklin
C Hawkins -Smith
���—
SMITHBoise, Idaho 83709
fel G (208) 376
-8521 Phone
Commercial Developers / (208) 376-6804 Fax
Fax Transmittal Memo
To: Will Derg Fax No: 888-4218
Meridian City Clerk
From: Clint BoyleDate: 10/12/99 �, ,..A
Site Development Project Manager '�;''
`JiLV Ci.0 "k VS!rl i -e
Re: 10/12199 Planning Commission Pages: 1
❑ Will follow via overnight service
❑ Other:
proposed annexation request and conditional use permit hearings for
corner of Fairview and Locust Grove) be tabled to the November 9, 1999
Planning Commission Meeting.
I haven't had time to address items listed in the staff report, nor comments received from ACHD
(Ada County Highway District). In the interim before the next meeting, I will work with the staff
and ACHD on addressing site related issues.
If you have any questions please contact me at 376-8521.
04tr 900
Site Development
Project Manager
If this transmission Is unclear, or you do not receive all the pages,
please call the office number listed above.
OCT 12 '99 16:40 2083766804 PAGE.01
November 5, 1999
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: NOVEMBER 9, 1999
APPLICANT: HIAKINS-SMITH MANAGEMENT ITEM NUMBER: 5
REQUEST: CUP TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE -TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A DRIVE-THRU
WINDOW (WALGREEN'S)
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITYATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE`
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
SANITARY SERVICE:
OTHER:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
%5
t irr
November 5, 1999 ,;:•F�
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: NOVEMBER 9, 1999
APPLICANT: HAWKIN"MITH MANAGEMENT ,
REQUEST; ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES FROM -C-:/
(WALGREEN`S)
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MAP
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
SANITARY SERVICE:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
352► (,�ia,�n F ,r -PA Y, + 3-1 c,
NO 90T 200 ,20,TO S--03
sauiS #GW0 SJd 03S/NIW 3GOW
NUIGI83W d0 A1I0
V089 9L£ 80E T 80:92 SO/TT TT
WOad/01 3WI1 31UG
TO'30Ud 60:9T 66, S0 nON .d0 SU ** idOd38 NOIi WaIdN00 X1 **
Meridian Planning ah_oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
25
pertinent because what has been proposed and what has been approved is what is
before us.
Borup: That seems to make sense.
Hawkins: I would say it is a multi tenant shell which those shells—tenant
improvements. You could allow anything that is permitted in the C -G technically.
Borup: But it is not going to go from a single story to a two story.
Hatcher: It could be a PaPa Murphy's or Subway going into one of those suites, but
your not going to see a Pizza Hut or McDonalds go into this shell.
Hawkins: You could have a small accounting office in one and a clinic in another.
END SIDE 2
Borup: I appreciate you bringing that out Mr. Hatcher because I think that is very
pertinent. Where does that leave us?
De Weerd: I have nothing else. No, I think you need to practice. I will be stepping off
of here. Okay, I'll do it.
Borup: At this point we are talking about the motion on the annexation zoning with the
exceptions of staff.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we recommend approval of
annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to CG, limiting the drive thrus to
one and with the proposed drawing and to include all staff comments.
Brown: I'll second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: I needed to find out first if I needed to ask for a development agreement.
The attorney said that is taken care of.
4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:G6NEIVONAL USE' PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW
(WAILGREEN'S) BY HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC.—NW CORNER OF
FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE:
Borup: Brad, is there anything additional that you would like to add?
Meridian Planning an _oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
26
Hawkins: Nothing further. Please incorporate previous comments.
Borup: Any comments, questions from the commission? Again this is another public
hearing as stated. All testimony that has been given previously will be incorporated into
this hearing, but there is an opportunity for anyone who would like to come up and add
anything additional. Would the applicant like to add anything first? That is a good point.
Boyle: Again, Clint Boyle, Hawkin Smith. Just briefly to remind you as far as the staff
comments go, we would like to propose the plan as submitted with landscaping as
presented here as far as the buffer along Fairview and Locust Grove and also at this
point of time, we would like to go with the pylon sign on the corner for the Walgreen's
building and then to keep the existing chiropractor sign for the multi tenant building.
Borup: Where was the third sign going? Are you proposing two signs?
Boyle: Two signs. We would have the one on the corner for the Walgreen's that is
indicated on the plan. Total of two signs.
Borup: You just want to have the wording changed. Exact same signs?
Boyle: The sign would remain the same and it would just be depending what tenants go
into the (inaudible) that sign would change.
Borup: The latest application we have had two Walgreen's signs. That is why I was
wondering.
Boyle: One sign for Walgreen's.
Brown: Is there one on the building?
Boyle: They do have signage on the building and I believe that you have the elevations
for the building. Should have been submitted in a previous packet. It shows our
signage on the building, so—
Borup: Okay, the packet we have with two signs—your proposing a new sign which is
smaller then the original—that what this is indicating?
Boyle: Actually, what that packet that you have there, that just shows two of our proto
type signs and the one that is 24 feet in height, 100 square feet, that is our proposed
sign for Walgreen's. 100 square feet would be the total sign copy area including the
reader board.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, had a question for Brad. Brad is it a requirement of the
ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan that there be a 35 foot landscaping buffer.
Hawkins: Comprehensive Plan.
Meridian Planning an",. _oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
27
Rossman: And, wouldn't that require that they proceed with —that is a requirement of
the Comprehensive Plan. I want to make sure that a variance is not required here
because this commission does not address variances.
Borup: Another question for Brad. Do you know what the property to the east Fred
Meyer, does it have a 35 foot set back or do you know what that is.
Hawkins: Fred Meyer does have a 35 foot set back, yes. All on Fairview.
Borup: Is there something you want to look up first Mr. Rossman?
Rossman: We currently have (inaudible) requirement of the ordinance of the
Comprehensive Plan and obviously there is—this commission does not have the power
for the authority to grant. If it is just a recommendation then you obviously would have
the desecration to divert from that recommendation.
Boyle: Again, as far as our buffer we feel that we have substantially tried to adequately
buffer the site on all corners. We could compare to Fred Meyer. We'll actually have
more landscaping then they do along our Locust Grove side. (inaudible ACHD follows
through with their plans for the 5 foot planter. We could go across the street and say
Hollywood Video fairly new use has a 24 foot buffer. We've got the same buffer. We
don't want to sit here and say this use has this and we have that. Our proposal is that
we feel that we've adequately landscaped the site. It will be a benefit we believe to the
city and certainly Walgreen's wants to be in within Meridian and we've done our best to
provide fairly decent landscaping, I believe for the site. We hope you feel the same
way.
Borup: I think that is the position that we have taken on other applications is, is can be
better to have a nicely landscaped smaller set back then the 35 foot with minimal.
Rossman: I would agree. It is just a question of whether or not the Comprehensive
Plan or ordinance gives you the authority to do that.
Borup: I believe it is the Comprehensive Plan.
Rossman: Were you able to find anything Brad.
Hawkins: It's not a requirement, no.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Boyle? Thank you. Anyone from the audience.
How about Mr. Amy,
Amy: I think we covered it and I was going to let it go. But since you called my name I
thought I'd come up. Quickly, as we mentioned before currently with no Carol Street
access we have two right ins to the property. I wanted to point out and there is no
Meridian Planning ani _oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
28
mystery there that that would leave the Carol Street entrance for all traffic turning left
except for those coming down Fairview that would somehow have some incentive to
turn into Idaho Athletic Club parking lot. It just came to mind to me that with that access
except for those folks, two entrances to turn right into the facility and now we have one.
Carol Street to turn left so I question the amount of traffic that will be coming in that way.
We all ready talked about that. Thank you.
Borup: Be coming in which way sir?
Amy: On to Carol Street with one entrance turning left. Those folks coming down
Fairview, if they don't have the incentive to turn into previous where they can turn left as
Tammy pointed out, that you can not—it is a right in right out of Fairview so turning — So
those folks that are turning left are going to need to be knowledgeable enough to do it at
Athletic Club otherwise we will have all that traffic coming around coming back into
Carol Street as well as the other traffic through the intersection. Just an observation of
mine.
Borup: Anyone else? Commissioner's.
Ray: Dennis Ray. 1872 E. Carol. Turning in and out turning out of Carol onto Locust
Grove at traffic hour right now is all most impossible. You don't turn left. If you can turn
right you are lucky. What would this do if we had a store there? How would that work.
Borup: Turning right would be easier because you'd have another lane.
Ray: Right now turning right, I can sit there sometimes for -7:30 to 8 o'clock, .turning
right I can sit there for five minutes.
Borup: So another lane would help you your thinking then.
Ray: No, another lane would not help me because if they had a left hand turn lane, that
would be an impossibility. You can't turn left.
Borup: No a right hand lane. Another lane, coming down Locust Grove to Fairview. A
whole other lane so you —you said you can't turn right but you ask how that effect that.
This project would add another lane. That is how it would effect that. It would make
that easier turning right.
Ray: The only way I could see anything that would work is to have a light there, which
is an impossibility because your too close to Fairview to have a light. Right now like I
say, during traffic hour there is no way of turning left there. If you have all this traffic
coming out of retail business I just don't see it happening. You only have 2 ways, you
have a right turn in right turn off of Locust Grove. On Fairview you have a right turn in
and right turn out only unless you go down to the west and that is near the athletic club,
I don't know how you would funnel traffic in and out of this retail business without a
major problem.
Meridian Planning ant zoning Commission Meeting t
December 14, 1999
29
Borup: Any questions? Come on up sir.
Dealy: Mark Dealy, 1445 Carol again. Another question, if you add a second lane to
Locust Grove travelling south, the people coming off of Carol to head east on Fairview,
that means they have another lane of traffic to cross and the traffic all ready is backed
up probably, I'd say 40 cars deep beyond Carol Street. You just are doubling that
amount of traffic coming down Locust Grove. It is all going to Fairview and that means
the people that are turning south from Carol onto Locust Grove now have to cross 2
lanes of traffic so they can get to Fairview to turn east. I don't see where it is going to
help Carol Street. Again, the only thing that we suggested at the other meeting, ACHD
was possibly a traffic light and they said no way. It's too close. It is just going to get
worse. The traffic there is going to become unbearable. That is all.
Borup: Thank you.
Harris: I am Helen Harris and I live at 1835 Carol. Every morning I have to turn left off
Locust Grove to go to work. I feel like I take my life in my hands every morning now
because there is no escape lane. Once you get out of there you've got to get in traffic.
Borup: So you saying you'd like to see a turn lane on Locust Grove.
Harris: There is a turn lane, but it only goes into Fred Meyer or—
Borup: I mean which would be on a 5 lane road that would be the 5t" lane. It is a turn
lane that goes the whole length. Center turn lane. So your saying that would help.
Harris: The only thing that would really help is a stop light or a 4 way stop. Make
people stop there because we can't get out. I will sit there sometimes 10 or 15 minutes
to get out in the morning to turn left. I highly disapprove of this anyway. I have been
there since 1980 and I don't want a Walgreen's in my subdivision. I really don't.
Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Harris. Thank you.
Hill: Galen Hill. 1404 Carol. I just wanted to cover also the –a couple of the
Walgreen's are 24 -hours and had some concerns that this one we'd Like it not be 24 -
hours.
Borup: That was brought up last month and they said it was not.
Hill: They said they did not need it to be, but what's to say down the road—could it turn
into 24 -hours. That is what our concern is.
Borup: That could be one of the conditions. Anyone else.
Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing for discussion
Meridian Planning ant oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
30
Borup: That probably true. We've had some additional public testimony. Mr. Boyle do
you have any final comments or did you conclude earlier. I do have a question for you
Mr. Boyle. Last week you said 8 in the morning till 9 at night would be the operating
hours. Okay Colby said that. Any problem with the restriction if that is one of the
conditions. We are going by your testimony last month.
Boyle: I'll let Colby respond. I won't be a 24-hour store as far as hours go.
Hawker: Their normal operating hours are 8 to 9, 9 to 9. We would not ask for that
restriction being placed. We certainly would be open to a 24-hour restriction being
placed on the stores. I don't know—they all vary depending of their location of their
hours. Their typical hours are from 8 to 9 in the evening.
Borup: Your saying you want to go same hours as Fred Meyer or something.
Hawker: Sure. I don't know what the specific hours are. I do know that they do not
want to operate 24 -hours there.
Borup: Okay. Other question I have, do you still have a viable project without the
access onto Carol. Would you go ahead with the project?
Hawker: You know I guess our concern is and it has been a concern from the very
beginning, we presented an access that took full access from Locust Grove. Our
concern is number one that the site would probably have to change some to get our
truck into the site. Right now, the truck would access from Carol Street, come around
the building and exit south right out on to Fairview Road. So the site would have to be
changed to accommodate our truck to get into the site.
Borup: Would the truck be coming down Fairview anyway?
Hawker: I don't know their truck routes.
Borup: I am assuming it is not coming down Locust Grove.
Hawker: It is more logical that they come down Fairview.
Borup: I am not seeing where that would be a problem. Are you saying the truck needs
to back in along a loading dock—that what's on the left side of the building there.
Hawker: That is correct.
Borup: And, if it came in from Fairview facing the wrong direction, so you'd just have to
drive around the existing parking.
Hawker: That's correct. We would have to circulate completely around the building.
Meridian Planning ani —oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
31
Borup: How often do the truck come.
Hawker: Approximately once a week.
Borup: That does not sound like a big problem once a week.
Hawker: Like I said, we would have to modify the site plan to make it work as far as the
parking stalls to make the circulation work. I think that the biggest problem is, and I
think ACHD thought this as well, in the over all safety of everyone concerned, if the full
access is not there on Carol Street, then everything is forced onto Fairview. Not only
the neighbors of Carol Subdivision but all of the people which the majority of Meridian is
north of Fairview, as we know a lot of the population. Again, your forcing your traffic on
Fairview to come and turn left on to Locust Grove and head north. The second
concern, and this is the one we raised with the neighbors, why we felt when ACHD was
going to require (inaudible) access onto Locust Grove, there is a median that is going to
go the full length of Locust Grove down there. What we feel is going to happen is
people are going to turn and going to be heading home on Locust Grove going north
realizing that they can not get into our development and then they are going to turn into
Carol Street and then come back out and then turn into the subdivision. We feel
strongly that there are going to get more traffic in their neighborhood without an access
on Carol Street by far then if an access on Carol Street were allowed. Those people
don't have any way to get into the site so they are going to turn feeling they can and
they are going to turn back around and they are going to head south and they are going
to come in that right in movement.
Borup: That is exactly what I would do. I think anybody would do that. If your heading
north on Locust Grove --
Colby: Maybe they do only do it once but —if forces those people in there and you know
we've made a large argument that the people in our subdivision now, if we sign it they
are still going to turn into there and I guess the argument is they will only do that once. I
think it is a safety concern. I think that is why ACHD recognized it in the fact that there
is a lot of people that will use the site that need to go north and they all will be forced to
exit onto Fairview and then go north and I think with that median there, there will be one
of two things. They will turn into Carol Street or they will do a U-turn around the
median. That is going to cause major complications for the intersection of Carol Street
and Fred Meyer with the people leaving Carol, with people leaving Fred Meyer.
Borup: Any comment on the existing stacking during the peak hours, morning and
evening that has been stated. It is very difficult turning left as it is. People might find
another way to go and avoid that during those periods.
Colby: I guess my comment would be, the traffic that's there is there now. Certainly our
Walgreen's development as we stated earlier, draws from a mile and a half to a two mile
radius of people. The people that are coming to the site are the people that live in this
Mayor
HUBOF TREASURE VALLEY
UfB T D, CORRIEA
ncil Members
GOOd PIaCe to LIVeLEGAL
--ITY OFE
'CS MERIDIAN
DEPARTMENT
(2-08) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
ROUNTREE
GLENN BENTLEY
33 EAST IDAHO
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
RON ANDERSON
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
(208) 888-4433 •Fax (208) 887-4813,
KEITH BIRD
City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be co
Planning &Zoning Commission, please submit your comme considered by the Meridian
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: nts and recommendations
y
TRANSMITTAL DATE: SEPTEMBER 9 1999 OCTOBER 1 1999
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 12 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99.034
REQUEST:
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT:
TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
—THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER JR, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
_.ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON,,C/C
_CHARLIE ROUNTREE. C/C
KEITH BIRD, C/C
GLENN BENTLEY, C/C
_SEWER D8PARTME
SANITY SERVICES
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
—CITY ATTORNEY
—CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
___MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
— ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
______ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
___CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
- _______NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
_____SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO -(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
__,IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: 9._,,,,_
------_
------------
SEP 13 1.999
Meridian City
Water Superintendent
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: OCTOBER 1, 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: SEPTEMBER 9. 1999 HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 12 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99-034
REQUEST: CONTRUCT A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A
DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S)
BY: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT INC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND
LOCUST GROVE RD.
TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER JR, P/Z
_KEITH BORUP, P/Z
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C
KEITH BIRD, C/C
GLENN BENTLEY, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITY SERVICES
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
YOUR CONCISE R
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
Mayor
ROBERT D. CORRIE
A Good Place to Live
City Council Members
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CHARLES ROUNTREE
33 EAST IDAHO
GLENN BENTLEY
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83612
RON ANDERSON
(208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813
KEITH BIRD
City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: OCTOBER 1, 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: SEPTEMBER 9. 1999 HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 12 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99-034
REQUEST: CONTRUCT A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A
DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S)
BY: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT INC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND
LOCUST GROVE RD.
TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER JR, P/Z
_KEITH BORUP, P/Z
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C
KEITH BIRD, C/C
GLENN BENTLEY, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITY SERVICES
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
YOUR CONCISE R
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: December 1999
APPLICANT: HAWKINS SMITH NLANAGEMENT, INC. ITEM NUMBER: 4
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL
BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S)
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT.
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WASTEWATER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
SANITARY SERVICE:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
SEE PREVIOUS PACKET
Sk�r
v
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Meridian Planning a. Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 8
Borup: No one has ever told us that.
Rossman: You are welcome to do that here or you can do it the way—piecemeal if you
want.
Borup: I like that idea. Let's open the public hearing for Item 5.
ITEM 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A
DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S) BY HAWKIN'S SMITH
MANAGEMENT, INC. – NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST
GROVE ROAD:
Boyle: Clint Boyle. The address is 8645 Franklin Road in Boise. Good evening
planning commission, Chairman and Commissioner's. This evening 1 come to you in
behalf of Hawkins Smith, commercial developers in Boise, Idaho as well as Walgreen's.
Just a brief history, Hawkins Smith has been developing commercial projects around
the Boise area for roughly 20 years now. They typically own the sites they develop and
some of those site you can see around town. They have developed some WinCo
stores. They are in the process of developing some Walgreen sites around the city and
they are committed to the community. They are committed to maintaining those
projects because they are owning those with tenants to lease the site. Since this project
has been continued from the last meeting we specifically requested that, because we
felt in the staff reports that were provided to us from not only from ACHD but also from
Meridian City Staff, that we wanted to meet with them a little further to try and work on
some of the issues that were presented in those reports. I think that through that
process we have been working with ACHD and their staff as well as Meridian City.
Unfortunately, most of the staff time that we have devoted to Meridian City has been
with Brad Hawkins Clark who is not at the meeting this evening. To start with I just want
to say that we believe that what we have proposed this evening is a win win situation for
both the community, the neighbor's as well as Hawkins Smith and Walgreen's. I am
basically, since we have both public hearing's open, I am going to try and combine my
comments rather then separate them into the annexation and zoning and conditional
use permit. To begin with, I'd like to talk about some comments related to the
annexation and zoning. This is getting into the technical meat of the staff report. First
of all what I'd just like to mention is within the staff report, it was mentioned that there
are two commercial lots and those commercial lots would be the southern two lots,
which the lot lines aren't outlined on there and if you will allow me, I have a laser pointer
and I am not sure if these are allowed, but if anybody is in line with it will close their
eyes. Those lot lines, there is basically a lot in the southeast corner and one in the
southwest corner. This lot contains an existing chiropractor business. There is also
another commercial building that sits behind it that will be removed as part of this. It
currently contains a bookstore. That was not mentioned in the staff report, so we just
wanted to call that to your attention. Actually, currently three detached commercial
buildings. The one on the corner is a two story multi -tenant building, as f as the
Meridian Planning an, -oning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 9
existing buildings go. As far as the conditional use permit comments, I just wanted to
possible clarify a couple of items on that. The elevation you received in your box—we
submitted that last week to Brad with the City of Meridian and basically, what we wanted
to do is as part of this application, we wanted to make sure that the area indicated as a
future pad site was included as part of this application. Previous to that, they had stated
that that particular pad site, as it is labeled here, would have to come back through the
process again. We had in mind that we wanted to do a retail multi -tenant building there
and so to get that incorporated as far as this application, that was one of the changes
that were incorporated into our proposal since it was continued from the last meeting.
Therefore, you do have elevation. That elevation pertains to the area labeled as the
future pad and our concept right now is that it would be a multi -tenant retail building and
a combination of retail users. We've also (inaudible) and it is not know at this time
whether or not that option will be exercised for the potential for a drive thru window that
would be located on this back side to accommodate something similar like a Moxie Java
type of a site. That is the proposal that you have there as far as the elevation plan and
that is what we had proposed on the pad site. As far as the specific comments in the
staff report, in going through the site specific comments, Items 1 through 3, we agree
with those. Items 1 related to restricting some of the more intensive uses and we don't
have a problem with limiting or restricting our commercial development so that it does
not contain any of those uses that are listed under Item 1 in the site specific comments.
The next item is that we will dedicate all right of way along Locust Grove and Fairview
as well as Carol Street that's required by ACHD and again we will comply with the
requirements from ACHD as far as right of way dedications and some of which you do
have shown on this plan along Locust Grove. We are dedicating another 10 feet of
additional right of way to ACRD. Along Fairview Avenue, since the public hearing was
continued, we met with ACHD and they will not be requiring any additional right of way
dedication along Fairview Avenue and part of the reasoning for that is across the street
in the Fred Meyer complex, which you don't see on this plan, but their sidewalk is
developed out the full width of what the future roadway will be along Fairview when it is
improved. That is the ultimate build out along Fairview and our sidewalk on this
proposal lines up directly with that. Basically, their thoughts were the additional was
roughly 10 feet of right of way that they originally requesting along Fairview Avenue.
That additional 10 feet of right of way basically all they would be able to accomplish
from (inaudible) that would be to relocate the sidewalk because as their designs show
the design on Fairview Avenue would include a two foot utility strip, a sidewalk, a 5 foot
planter buffer and then you would be out into the asphalt. So basically they are allowing
us to leave that right of way where it is existing so the line that you see on the plan is
the right of way line that ACHD will be requiring from us. Just to reiterate, we will
comply with the right of way dedications that ACHD requires as pertaining to the staff
comments in Item 2. In Item 3 again there was some mention regarding some utility
easements. We are aware of those utility easements. They travel through the middle of
the site and there is also some crossing east/west and we will comply with that
requirement and have those vacated prior to pulling any building permits on that. We
will comply with the provisions to vacate those easements. Related to the conditional
use permit itself, Items 1 through 3 and I apologize. Those first comments I was
addressing were related to the annexation request—site specific items. The next items
Meridian Planning an, toning Commission Meeting `
November 9, 1999
Page 10
which are items through 3 in the site specific comments on the staff report, we will
conform to all of the requirements that relate to assessment of fees, water and sewer
connections, utilization of pressurized irrigation for landscaped areas. We will comply
with items 1 through 3 in the staff report. Items number 4,5,6, and 7 on the staff report
relate to ACHD requirements and again we are willing to comply with any the
requirements and restrictions that ACHD will require of us as part of this. We have
been meeting with ACHD and this was since the public hearing was continued. At this
time I would like to enter a revised site plan into the record and I have copies for the
Commissioner's if that would be appropriate at this time. I apologize is some of the
neighbors or other members of the public can not see this. I actually have an overhead
that I prepared. I don't know if it is possible to get it up there or if we should just
circulate a site plan, but I do have that available. Mainly what I'd like the
Commissioner's to look at is this proposal and the revisions that are shown on it relate
to the access points specifically. Basically everything else is the same as what you see
on the screen, other then the access points. What I would like to point out first of all is
(inaudible) ACHD and with their requirements through their staff, they would like to see
the access point indicated by the laser pointer, is the northern most access point that
we have proposal on Locust Grove. They would like to see that shifted toward the
center of the project and it would be restricted to a right in right out only. There is
(inaudible) a median barrier down Locust Grove as part of their build out in 2001 so that
would further restrict that to right in right out. First of all, our proposal would be to move
this access toward the middle of the site as indicated on that site plan. That would be
restricted to right in right out. Furthermore, in complying with ACHD's requirement on
the site, we are proposing as part of this proposal to take access from Carol Street as
another access into the site. That access would be roughly where the laser pointer is t
and where it is indicated on that site plat. Now we had an ACHD commission meeting a
couple of weeks ago, since that time we haven't had a chance to meet with the
neighborhood regarding the desire on Carol Street. We have spoke with ACHD and
(inaudible) in favor of the design we have proposed, and it is the design with
accordance with what their commission recommended at we look at as far as access
into the site. At this point, the commission has (audible) with ACHD as well until
December 1St and that is because they wanted to see the access onto Carol Street,
which at that time we did not have shown on the site plan. As part of this access onto
Carol Street, and understanding we do have a residential neighborhood—the Doris
subdivision here, we are proposing to minimize the conflicts with traffic as much as
possible. What we have proposed on the site plan is what ACHD refers to as a choker,
which means we would extend this landscaping out in kind of a bulb shape where our
access point is located. What that does, and in addition we would wider an additional
lane along our project frontage on Carol Street. What that accomplishes is, it provides a
wide street as you are coming in our project, then as you pass our project point, that
street narrows down to a 24 foot wide pavement section which is what ACHD
recommended and that is the minimum width that they will allow, utilizing those chokers.
From that point on, it widens back out to the existing street section that is on Carol
Street today. In addition to that we will erect or place some signage out in that
landscaped bulb that reflects that it is the Doris Subdivision that you will be entering
once you pass that point. Basically what we are trying to do is minimize any
Meridian Planning and :oning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 11
commercial traffic that may travel through the Doris Subdivision. By widening and
installing an additional lane on Carol Street, what we do is accommodate a right turn
only lane and then a thru lane and a left combined lane as well as the lane coming into
the Doris Subdivision. So, basically what we are doing is as far as (inaudible) along
Carol Street, it will have double the capacity that it has now because we will be installing
a right turn lane which is currently doesn't have. What that will do, that will actually
provide a free right out for the residents on Carol Street, at least until the point in the
future that ACHD widens the section that is north of our project. As part of our proposal
that was mentioned that Locust Grove would not be improved as part of ACHD's
requirements. We have met with ACRD. We want to make this an attractive looking
for the City of Meridian and we are trying to coordinate with ACRD. They are working
on their final design for Locust Grove. We would like to improve Locust Grove curb
gutter sidewalk asphalt, that is (inaudible) I guess the only hang up we might have with
that is we don't want it to slow the project down if ACHD doesn't have final design for
that. Assuming that ACHD has a final design on this road by the time we are pulling
building permits on this, we would actually like to improve this to their future build out at
the time that we construct the project. We are willing to construct those improvements
along Locust Grove as part of our project, assuming that we can get a final design on
Locust Grove from ACHD so in 2 years they don't come back and tear up all the
improvements we just made. Moving on to Item number 8 in the staff report, relating to
the landscape stripes, along Fairview Avenue right now we have 24 feet of landscaping
proposed so from the right of way line into the parking is 24 feet of landscaping and
again since we have worked out the right of way line with ACRD, that will truly be 24
feet of landscaping on our property that we will maintain. We feel that this was similar
and compatible to some of the surrounding uses that have developed. There is a
Hollywood video that sits across the street to the southeast and their buffer there is
roughly 22 to 24 feet along Fairview Avenue. We do feel that it is compatible with some
of the surrounding tenants that are of a similar size to what we are proposing.
Additionally, moving on to Item 9 as far as the landscaping on Locust Grove, we are
proposing a 15 foot landscape planter from the right of way line back to where the
parking starts. Now this actually is similar to the Fred Meyer site across the street.
Fred Meyer from the right of way line back to their parking, has roughly a 12 to 13 foot
landscape planter. They do have roughly 5 to 6 feet that is actually out in the right of
way so it gives you the effect of a larger buffer that is actually on their site and what we
would propose is, in our discussions with ACRD, Locust Grove, the design that they will
have that will include a 5 foot planter. Effectively what you will have is the asphalt out in
the street, the curb gutter and then a 5 foot planter with street trees, then a 5 foot
sidewalk, then a 2 foot utility strip or landscape strip and then you are on to our site.
Effectively, with the ACHD's proposed street section on Locust Grove, effectively we will
have 22 feet of landscaping from the street until you get to our parking. That is
combining our 15 with the 2 foot utility strip and the 5 foot planter, but effectively you will
have a 22 foot landscape strip in addition to the sidewalk. So essentially from the
street, you will have 27 feet from the gutter of the street until you hit our parking—the
majority of which will be landscape outside of the sidewalk. Again, we feel that this is
compatible and again, I guess that we would like to say yes, we will comply with what
Fred Meyer has done across the street. We actually have a couple more feet of
Meridian Planning ani. oning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 12
landscaping on our property. And again, the buffer that they have—part of that is in the
right of way. We'd like to also go along those same lines with our proposal here. As far
as Item number 10, which was the 20 foot of landscaping with a screening wall with
adjacent to Carol Street, we would still propose that with the 20 feet of landscaping and
then we will have a block wall that runs from our access point on Carol down to the
northwest corner and then from the northwest corner of the property, it will extend down
to the south to roughly mid site. That block wall is a 7-1/2 foot high block wall on our
side of the property and if you look at this detail, you can see that on the neighborhood
side, we will have a slight birming to that to help give them a better look so their not just
looking at a 7-1/2 foot block wall. They will be able to see more of the landscaping on
the Carol side but on our side, there will effectively be 7-1/2 high wall from grade. Item
number 11 is relating to the (Inaudible) and reserve strips and that is related to this
particular area along the west side of our proposal. Again, I guess what we'd like to
look at there is that is to provide some distance and some buffering between
incompatible features. What we would like to look at is that provision provides that you
will have a 20 foot planting and reserve area. We will have this driveway indicated here
that will provide some separation from the property line which is 24 foot wide drive isle.
We also have an additional roughly 4 feet of landscape considering both sides of the
block wall. In addition to that, that planning and reserve strip does not require a block
wall but we are providing one and that is to further buffer the Doris Subdivision.
Currently adjacent to this right here in this location is a pasture and the actual
residential home sits to the west of that pasture land. So we feel that is a good
neighbor there. Right now there is cedar fence that runs right on the property line. We
would propose to replace that with a block wall. As far as Item number 12, which
relates to the chiropractic building and that is an existing building on the site and
location indicated by the laser pointer there. It was stated that that would need to be
brought up to code and several of the structures to the rear be removed and at this point
there is a 3 year lease on that building and that is I guess part of the reason that this
actually is not being redeveloped as the rest of the site is because of that lease and the
commitments of that lease. There is an existing lease there with the existing property
owner. We would like to see that building removed as part of our project, however, due
to the lease and the constraints there are in, we are able to see that happen. As far as
removing those structures I guess at this point of time we would have to defer that to the
existing owner of this property. His name is John Wortal and I am not sure that he is in
the audience, but if you have questions related to that item and discussion related to
those structures related behind it, it would probably be best to defer those to him. Item
number 14 we don't have a problem complying with that and we will screen all of the
trash enclosures. They are typically screened with opeake fencing as well as the trash
compactor behind the building. That will have a fence, an opaque fence around it, so
we don't have problems with complying with that requirement. Item number 14, which
relates to handicapped parking, again with (inaudible) to that, our thoughts are that we
will comply with the ADA requirements for handicapped parking related to our parking
layout. It was stated that the staff felt that the handicapped parking we were providing
would not be adequate for this type of a use and I guess what we would have to say for
that is Walgreen's emphasises convience in optaining their pharmacy items and that is
the reason for having the drive thru here, so our thoughts on that are, we are trying to
Meridian Planning ani –oning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 13
actually trying to accommodate people –persons who may have disabilities in that they
will be able to go through a drive thru to pick up their prescriptions without ever having
to leave their car. But we are planning on conforming with the minimum ADA
requirements for the handicapped parking on the site. Item number 15 which relates to
signage on the site, and I am not sure if you have received our proposal for signage.
again we have been working with Brad and we have given him elevations of our sign
and told him the locations of the sign, which is indicated on this site plan here. We have
provided him with some elevations. If you do not have those, I have a copy of them but
our proposal is for a pylon sign and it would roughly be 25 feet in height and
approximately 142 square feet in total sign copy. That would be the only site that we
would request for the Walgreen's site, so we would not request any additional
monument signs for the Walgreen's site, assuming that we could get their standard
pylon sign there. Then there is an existing sign related to the chiropractor business that
exists today that is a smaller sign that is also a pylon sign roughly 12 to 15 feet in height
and that would remain for the chiropractor business and they may also want to put
another small reader board on that for this future pad site as well. Again, if they want to
propose anything in addition to that we would come back through the sign and review
process that we will have to go through with application for the signs. So if you need
the sign elevations, I have those. They have been submitted to the city previously, so
hopefully you do have a copy of our proposed signage.
Borup: We've got them.
Boyle: Okay. I am not sure the copy you have may include an electronic reader board.
It has been stated by the staff that their feelings on the reader board would not be
appropriate type of a signage there, so we will not be doing the electronic reader. It will
just be a standard reader board with the letters that you have to manually change.
Number 17 relates to the landscaping and again, we do have our landscaping proposal
in this plan. You can see the trees indicated as well as our planning schedule and we
just ask that you approve it with the landscaping as proposed on the site. We feel that
we have provided our most extensive landscape buffering along the Doris Subdivision
side of things. That is our intention is to keep them well buffered so we are proposing
extensive amounts of trees along that side to help accommodate buffering that
residential area. That's basically the points—on Item 19, 1 all ready discussed the multi -
tenant building, so I won't get back in to that. We believe that this is a plan that can be
a win win situation for the neighborhood, for the community and also something that will
work for us and be a beneficial project to all parties involved. If there is any questions,
I'd be happy to answer those now. Thank you for your time.
Borup: Commissioner's, any questions for Mr. Boyle? Does that mean, not at this
time?
Barbeiro: The existing building where the chiropractors office is at that has a 3 year
lease, is it your intent to perhaps to remove that building at the end of the lease?
Meridian Planning ank, zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 14
Boyle: That is actually not our intent. As part of this proposal, we will actually be right
now there is four existing lots. We are going to be combining those into 2 lots with a lot
line that will run north south between our building and the other two buildings. It will
basically split this drive here. As part of this project, we are processing this as a
combined application, however, our ownership will be everything that will west excuse
me, east of the lot line that will run north south. Basically, we will maintain control over
the Walgreen's parcel, the parcel that is to the west here will actually be under a
separate ownership.
Barbeiro: Thank you. That wasn't clear.
Boyle: Again, John Wortal that owns the Idaho Athletic Club next door would be—I
don't know if he is here, but anyway there will be cross access agreements in place
between Idaho Athletic Club, the parcel indicated with the chiropractor and the future
pad and our site. They will have full cross access between those sites.
Borup: This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this
application?
Hill: Gaylen Hill. I live at 1404 E. Carol. I'd just like to say that I am opposed to
annexing the two lots that are currently single family residence which are on the north
side of that property. That subdivision is closed loop subdivision. It was never met to
be a commercial development. I would also like to say that if this does go through, that
access on Carol Street is also ----I think that would be a disaster as well. There is no
reason to have an access to that business on Carol Street. It is a fairly quiet
neighborhood. The children are out playing and riding bikes and to increase the car
traffic through there, I think would be dangerous for the residents that live there.
Borup Any questions for Mr. Hill? You say you live on Carol? How far down are you.
Are you adjacent property or down a little bit.
Hill: We live in this lot right here, which now we look out and see houses along there.
As it is now, we'd look out and see a commercial building there, which here is fine,
that's out on Fairview which is a busy street. In closer to the subdivision is not a very
desirable thing.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Hill. Anyone else.
McRoberts: Jennifer McRoberts and I'm at 1490 Carol Street. We just purchased our
home there. Some questions that I have that weren't answered in the presentation are,
what are the hours of operation of this business. Is it a 24-hour? What about the
lighting in the parking if this is approved. That's all I have right now.
Borup: I can maybe address the lighting. That's always been a concern for –and that
was one of the staff comments that the lighting would not (inaudible) to the neighbors,
so that—the lighting has been considered. Anyone else like to come forward?
Meridian Planning ani.. _oning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 15
Ray: My name is Dennis Ray. I live at 1872 E. Carol. I am just across from Mr. Hill. I
feel the same way that having an access out of there into our area. Right now we are a
p -shaped, dead end area. It keeps traffic down and I don't want to see traffic come in
there. We have a very hard time getting out on Locust Grove right at the present time,
because of the traffic at Fred Myers. As far as I can see it would be a traffic disaster. I
can't see how it—commercial is just not conducive to that area. Also, on Fairview,
turning onto Locust Grove, north, you also at times of the day it backs up considerable.
This would just add to the congestion because of having another retail business in
there.
Borup: Anyone else?
Hawkins: For the record, my name is Colby Hawker. I live at 8645 W. Franklin. I am a
developer with Hawkins Smith that has assembled all the property here and just wanted
to make a couple clarifications first. The two residential pieces of property that are part
of this annexation and rezone – we have spend considerable amounts of time with the
neighbors of the Doris Subdivision themselves. There was a restrictive covenant that
was in place in the neighborhood that restricted certain lots from being residential uses.
Certain lots to be commercial uses. All of the frontage property on Fairview Avenue had
a commercial zone and was allowed for commercial purpose. The lots interior to Doris
Subdivision have a residential restriction and can only be used for residential purpose
only. In 1986 there is a piece of property on the far west side, just follow Fairview
Avenue down to the west side and then go one lot deep. It is the larger lot deep right
there. That was—there was an amendment done to the restrictive covenants of Doris
Subdivision that allowed that lot to come into commercial use. Again through several
month process, we have met with the neighbors of the Doris Subdivision and had a
restrictive amendment signed by the majority of the neighbors of the Doris Subdivision
stating that if we did the buffering along Carol Street with the planning of the 20 foot
landscape strip, extensive 7-1/2 foot block wall, put a block wall down the west property
line that this would be an acceptable use for them. Again, I would just like to state that
we feel, coming in here, this is a natural place for commercial development to occur.
You see the Fred Meyer across the street. All the other commercial uses coming in
here. The (inaudible) of course is in the over all planned development for the city. I just
see it as Clint said before, being a win win situation for the city. We get an opportunity
to take ( inaudible) out of the ground out of the county that should be in the city anyway,
we have an opportunity to improve the corner by putting gutter, sidewalk around the
whole thing. We are going to construct a better looking commercial structure, retail
structure that you'll see in the valley. There is 2 of them that are open today, one at
Fairview and Milwaukee, one at Overland and Orchard. Walgreen's builds a good
looking building. They are strong community oriented tenant. They are excited to be
involved and come to the city of Meridian—in this neighborhood in fact. They view
themselves very much so as a neighborhood tenant. The reason they have chose this
location is because the neighbors are all ready here and the traffic is all ready here.
Again, we have met with ACRD. I feel tonight this is an annexation, a rezone issue,
not an access issue. We are working with ACHD to take access into our site. How they
Meridian Planning an' mooning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 16
feel is best appropriate for access and safety of the (inaudible). In closing, I would just
like to thank the planning staff and Brad. He has been a pleasure to work with. I think
we've come a long way. I think we presented a win win situation here for the city, for
the neighbors and Walgreen's coming into the market. We thank you very much and
certainly ask for your approval.
Barbeiro: When you made your presentation to the Doris Subdivisions residents and
pickup up their majority petition to change the CC&R's, at that time there was no access
to your store off of Carol Street in your plans.
Hawkins: That's correct.. And again, we went in front of ACHD with a plan to take
access off of Locust Grove Road that did not have access on to Carol Street. ACHD
said that they wanted access onto Carol Street because the properties that go north
bound on Locust Grove Road right now, if you go out there, you will see several of
those properties for sale. What they envision is those properties that are fronting Locust
Grove Road, those will continue in a commercial development and that access is
needed on that site. It is the most clear —it allows one clear, concise area of traffic
movement. You can see all four intersections come together at that one place. Again,
what we are doing with the plan that you see in front of you, (inaudible) to widen the
intersection inside Carol Street, approximately 80 to 90 feet in, which would be the only
extrusion as far as any Walgreen's customers would be concerned into the site. We are
opening it to 3 lanes which gives them better movement and we also increased the
capacity along Locust Grove by adding another lane there. So the stacking trouble they
have right now is the fact that there is only one lane on Locust Grove. (Inaudible) the
people that are turning right and going straight are stacking back past (inaudible) right
now. Once the other lane is opened up in there just increases the capacity.
Barbeiro: Understanding of that, there is only about 80 to 100 feet of access that would
be into Carol Street. Still, when the neighbors signed off on the majority to change their
CC&R's, they did not take into account that Carol Street would be an access into your
property. This council of course can not address CC&R's specific to the site. My
concern is that when you present this new site plan to the neighbors, those neighbors
who signed off on the majority may wish to revoke their signature for the changing of the
CC&R's.
Hawkins: I don't have any control over where ACHD takes access to their public
streets. Those are public streets and I have absolutely no control over where they take
access to. My hands are tied about what ACHD is going to do and again we are going
to abide by what ACHD is telling us to do. The guess the way I understand it is
Meridian has let ACHD have the control over their roadways to decide what is best for
the public. In their opinion, an access on Carol Street is the best access for the public
in this case.
Barbeiro: Mr. Rossman, I wanted to make sure my line of questioning was not out of
line because we don't deal with CC&R's but we are dealing with public who have seen
one site plan and now the site plan has changed.
Meridian Planning ani. mooning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 17
Rossman: Well and I understand that. There is no obligation certainly in the ordinance
to deal with CC&R's or have anything that relates —modify your project in accordance
with CC&R's. Certainly people are entitled to show up and object and obviously when
they see an access point go in there, there may be an issue with CC&R's, but all we can
enforce here is our ordinance and whether or not is complies with it.
Barbeiro: If I may, I'd like to ask Mr. Hill and Mr. Ray to address this and if they did sign
off as a majority on the change of the CC&R's.
Hawkins: I can answer the question for you right now. Neither of them signed the
original agreement.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher do you have ---
Hatcher: Not as this time.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to come forward at this time. This may be your last
chance.
Hill: My name is Heidi Hill. I am Gaylen's wife. My question I've heard both of the
gentlemen say comments regarding getting the neighborhood to sign off. I've never
seen anything about a signing off. I've never—reading this in the paper was the first we
heard. How would we find out about signing off or giving our input to either ACHD
issues or this particular Walgreen's issue.
Rossman: If I may. As far as signing off, I think he was referring to CC&R amendments
which is the covenants you have with your home. Obviously if you have an issue
regarding that, you should probably your HOA and probably get some information from
the developer as well. As far as having you say as far as ACHD is concerned, they
have their proceedings and they are required to provide notice in accordance with—
Hill: Should we have received some kind of —
Borup: If you are within 300 feet you should have received—
Rossman: Are you within 300 feet of this development?
Hill: Yes.
Borup: The city would notify within 300 feet. ACHD probably publishes theirs.
Anybody have any questions for Heidi? I had one on traffic concerns. Anyone else.
Meridian Planning anc _oning Commission Meeting t
November 9, 1999
Page 18
Hatcher: I wanted to ask a few questions of staff. The first one, when this was
originally reviewed and you compiled your staff reports and recommendations, at that
time what was proposed was the parking count versus landscape ratio. It looked like it
was pretty tight both ways and if there was very much increased in landscaping they
would need parking and a fine balancing act between them. What that count at that
time taken into consideration the property lines as described earlier this evening
between the Walgreen's and the other development.
Stiles: Commissioner's, Commissioner Hatcher the we didn't know that was the intent
when they submitted this application and if you look at the application for the conditional
use permit, it is for a single tenant commercial building with a drive thru window. That is
what their application is for. It was not for multiple buildings on a lot. It wasn't for 2
drive thru's and at that time when they submitted this, we weren't aware that they
wanted to re -subdivide this property. It is 4 existing lots. We knew they'd have to do
some kind of re -subdivision but no, since they don't show any proposed lot lines, we did
not take that into account. By looking at this right now, if you just took were they are
showing a line on this revised plan they submitted, it appears that for the Walgreen's
store itself, it would meet minimum parking requirements.
Hatcher: So the 4.34 acres that was submitted includes all 4 lots. Not just the 2
eastern lots.
Stiles: Correct.
Hatcher: Can you clarify for my benefit —1 drove by the site and you'd mentioned in your
recommendation the removal what looked to be like storage sheds in the back of the
chiropractic business. Give me some clarification where you were heading with that.
Stiles: Well, Brad did prepare these comments. It's, 1 think, I can't remember what
those buildings were used for. It seems at one time they were used for a fruit stand. I
am sure they meet no codes what so ever to be usable and that was why the statement
was made to remove those buildings.
Hatcher: So this (inaudible) the fruit stand not any attachment. It looked like there was
some attachment, sheds if you will, on the back side of the building.
Stiles: I think there is just a lot of stuff.
Hatcher: Another questions, has the Planning Dept. or even the developer received or
have documentation from ACHD addressing these issues of not needing this much right
of way here and that much right of way there. As of right now, we only have the
developers word on that. I would want to see the documentation in writing.
Stiles: All we have is the draft report. I believe he stated they are not going to be
before the commission until December 1St
Meridian Planning an( _oning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 19
Boyle: Yes, that is correct. We have met with ACHD commission once all ready. We
have met in front of the ACHD Commission and at that time our proposal did not
include access onto Carol Street. As part of that first commission hearing there
proposal to us was that we come back an access to Carol Street. Since that time, we
have talked to their staff and again your right, this is developer's word on this. I guess
what our proposal would be is that we are willing to provide 24 feet of landscaping on
our property adjacent to Fairview Avenue. That leaves it in our hands to make sure that
right of way is where it is at. If they are picking up another 10 feet of right of way, we
would have to provide our buffer behind that right of way. I guess we could even go
further, if it was going to hold up this commission to say that if the ACHD right of way
along Fairview Avenue were to chance substantially to 10 feet additional or what ever,
we would come back in front of this commission. We would be willing to do that
because we are confident with our discussions with ACHD staff that that is all they
require it what's existing.
Hatcher: Hold on a minute, I got a couple questions. Could you bring the site plan that
you have back up. My first question is, is when you were talking earlier you were talking
about this being a separate development from this and that you could not address any
of the issues that we or I see on the west side. Is that correct?
Boyle: They are a part of the same application. Can I use this laser just for a second.
This pad, our store will be developed pending our approvals, within the next year. The
existing chiropractor would stay. This future pad, we don't know what the time table
would be on that. It depends on how fast we could get tenants as far as the
construction schedule on that. However, the improvements as far as the parking area,
the landscape islands that you see internal, those would all be constructed as park of
our overall application. The only thing that you would be left with for the short term, this
pad area here, we would propose that that remain in just a gravel base until we have
the tenants. Actually this property owner will be the one getting those tenants for that
building so—
Hatcher: But you are representing that—
Boyle: We are representing that as well and we will develop it.
Hatcher: You'll develop it all together at the same time.
Boyle: That is correct. The only think that will not be developed —
Hatcher: That is the only thing I needed to know. You'll be doing the development.
Once a right of way set back is established and the property line is established, I don't
see an adequate landscape buffer here. I support staff here. Whatever agreement you
come up with with ACHD on these two locations is negotiable, but my biggest concern
for the entire development is what is with the new site that was submitted to us tonight,
what you are doing is taking a chunk out here for access. This is all getting pulled down
and then basically all that landscape disappears and it is all road. There is no buffer for
f
Meridian Planning an Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 20
half of the Walgreen's site. These are the issues and concerns that I see and once you
are to make the required adjustments to meet those requirements per city ordinance, I
then concerned that you aren't going to have your adequate parking count. Even
though you have cross access easements, as these two being separate parcels, each
parcel has to stay on its own.
Boyle: Yeah, and my understanding, as far as the parking on the site and may the staff
can correct me if I am wrong, but we are well over on our parking requirements for this
site for retail type users. I think originally, part of what they may have been looking at is
this pad is a potential restaurant type use or something like that. It will be just a multi -
tenant retail. The type of restaurant type of use that you may see would be something
like a Moxie Java, which isn't a big sit down attraction or even a fast food like
McDonalds's. As far as the buffering goes here, your right. This buffering up to the
point where our proposed access is, would be reduced down to about 10 feet, if you
look on that plan. Basically you'd have about 10 feet of landscaping there. There is a
couple of reasons for that. One, this came out in ACHD commission meeting, they are
in favor of having the duel egress out of Doris Subdivision, if you may. The right turn
out as well as the straight thru left, to elevate stacking of what would occur back into
Doris Subdivision and provide them easier access out of Doris Subdivision. So your
right, accommodate that extra lane, we do have to add some pavement on that
landscaping. The item is, one of the reasons that the access point is where it is on that
plan is, directly across the street, there is a driveway that goes into a garage for an
existing residential home that is across the street. The reason that we put the access
there was so that that access wasn't closer to the intersection of Locust Grove because
ACHD would allow that to be within to be 50 feet away from that and we are back
roughly 80, 90 feet. Had we put the access closer out to Locust Grove and provided
more landscape buffering up to our access point, all of our traffic would have had their
lights shining right in to their windows. So what we tried to do was line it up with the
driveway across the street. In talking with the residential user across the street and
again this is ACHD's feelings, that property right now, just due to the Fred Meyer
shopping center, has lost any additional value that it's going to have as far as a
residential user. This residential property will no longer appreciate residentially. How it
will appreciate, is commercially, and I think it has all ready been proven. This
residential user here, has had some appraisals done and his commercial value is
substantially higher then his residential and continues to climb as commercial areas
develop. Two points. One is that, your right, the buffer through this will be down to
approximately a 10 foot buffer. The assumption is that this property more than likely, at
least at some point in the future, will convert to a commercial doctors office, dentist,
what ever you have there. At that point of time the access points between the two
would be aligned as well. For now, we've pushed that drive back so that all of the traffic
exiting our site, that may be exiting there, the headlights would be shining on to a
garage rather then directly into the house. Did that address those concerns
adequately?
Hatcher: That addressed them.
Meridian Planning ani. mooning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 21
Borup: Mr. Boyle, could you comment on the hours of operation.
Boyle: I do know the hours of operation will not be 24 hour. I believe they will be
roughly from 9 in the morning until 9 at night. I do know for a fact that this will not be a
24 hour store.
Barbeiro: What are the operating hours of the other existing Walgreen's?
Boyle: You are really putting me on the spot now. Maybe Colby with our office could
answer those questions.
Hawkin: Walgreen's has different hours of operations for different stores depending on
where they are located. They've got a neighborhood store which this store is. Their
hours typically run from 9 in the morning until 9 at night. Maybe 8 in the morning until 8
at night. Their location at Fairview and Milwaukee for instance is more of a regional
location and it is a 24 hour store. They vary. This is not a 24 hour store and the hours
will be some where around 9 to 9, 8 to 9, something like that.
Barbeiro: You have another store out off of Overland.
Hawkin: Overland and Orchard. That one is open and it is a 24 hour location.
Barbeiro: So, right now the only 2 Walgreen's in this town are 24 hour operations. Is
that correct?
Hawkin: (totally inaudible) The intent is not to have a 24 hour store in this location.
Barbeiro: Thank you. Mr. Chairman if I may ask the staff. Shari today we've learned
that there will be two separate ownership's on this lot, while they will be developed by
the same developer we have a property that is sub -divided. Knowing that the property
is sub -divided, would staffs comments differ greatly in any way or would it be advised to
go back in as a staff and review this again looking at the amount of parking, keeping in
mind that each ownership in each ownership must provide adequate parking on its own.
Stiles: Commissioner's, Commissioner Barbeiro. We were looking at the application
that was in front of us as far as the single tenant building with a drive thru. That is what
they submitted the conditional use permit for. They did not submit the conditional use
permit for more then one building on a lot or for a second drive thru. You did receive an
elevation that indicates possibly another drive thru, but the comments that we made as
far as the parking, we probably considered the whole 4-1/2 acres. That's what we
looked at as far as what they indicated would be the square footage for the Walgreen's,
the possible square footage of a future building, but we did not look at it as separate
lots. Obviously, depending on the actual square footage of some of these buildings,
they may not meet the over all parking requirements.
Borup: Do we know what the square footage would be for the Walgreen's store?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 22
Stiles: One per 200. It would be 76 1 believe, 76 parking spaces.
Borup: Okay. I just counted about 92 on the revised plat.
Hatcher: On the east lot?
Borup: So it looks like they are over.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, keeping in mind the public hearing is still open, staff comments
do not reflect the use of the existing building or the future pad and they were unaware of
this as well as while it is under one development, it will be two separate ownership's. I
am left to wonder if we should not await staff's comments with this new information prior
to making a recommendation to City Council
Borup: Have you decided what other information you'd think you'd be looking at on –for
one I assume—looking at re -subdivision, legal descriptions? What other information
would you—
Stiles: They would have to re -plat it. They are going to have to vacate it. We would
like to see signage in accordance with whatever your direction is for the signage and do
not want to see multiply applications for signage. I think we should consider this as a
whole.
Borup: I think the main concern from Commissioner Barbeiro was the aspect of two
separate parcels, how that effect the original comments and taking that in light, would it
would they substantially chance.
Stiles: We are working on transfers of conditional use permits through the city
attorney's office. I believe that will go to City Council next week. Right now, in order to
transfer a conditional use permit from one owner or one applicant to another, they would
have to start over. That is probably not how is it going to be when the ordinance
revised.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, further clarification on that. Shari is there any clarification or
adjustment that the applicant needs to do to the submitted paperwork due to this
change. We know that we are talking three buildings, 2 lots. Once it is re -platted the
applications been submitted as one building, one lot. Is there any clarification in your
paperwork that needs to be done for it to be a legal application.
Stiles: I believe their application needs to be revised and they need to request in their
conditional use permit what they are now requesting.
Boyle: Sorry to take up your time here tonight. I just wanted to respond. The site plans
that we presented, right now you have in front of you a plan that shows landscaping.
We have also submitted to Brad a plan that show with the Meridian City Staff, the lots
Meridian Planning and _,)ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 24
Rossman: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Rossman.
Rossman: I guess a question we can expedite this — the question is, Shari, do you
need further analysis on this or is there something that is needed before we can
address this application? I mean — debating over whether or not they submitted it right
or were asked to submit it right or whether they told Brad or anybody else, the question
is, is there something more that needs to be done by Planning and Zoning
Administration in light of the fact that they are asking for more than they originally
requested.
Stiles: I think they need to revise the conditional use permit application.
Rossman: Okay. That seems to answer the question.
Stiles: Stating what they're —
Borup: Stating two parcels or —
Stiles: If they're proposing two drive-throughs, they need to show that. I know that Brad
did work extensively with them. Unfortunately, I don't think that our staff can be held
responsible for filling out their application for them. I also think in light of what has been
stated about Ada County Highway District tonight, we have no evidence of that. I'd like
to see a revised site plan that incorporates what we have requested and what Ada
County has requested prior to your action on this project.
Borup: Mr. Boyle, you say ACHD's meeting on December 4th or December 1St
Boyle: December 1St; that's correct.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: Maybe what I would suggest is that we — on this — actually, on both of these
Items, continue them to the December meeting after the applicant has had a chance to
meet with and receive documentation from ACRD. That way, we also have it. I'd also
give time for the applicant and the Planning Department to come to a consensus on the
Staff comments. I know that Mr. Boyle's stated numerous times that he's worked with
Brad and everything, but without Brad here, again, we're taking your word for it.
Boyle: Unfortunately, Shari's time is valuable and she hasn't been available to work
with; though, we would have liked to have some time to work with her, but she hasn't
been available for any of the meetings that we've had.
Meridian Planning and -oning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 25
Borup: Either way, we would want to see the documents.
Boyle: That would have been worked out in meeting with their staff — revised site plan,
et cetera. Now, as far as the documentation you want from me, ACHD, I think that you
probably have their staff report that showed that indicated the access onto Carol Street.
Could you just clarify for me what additional documentation you need from ACHD as
well as from the Planning staff so we know where to proceed?
Borup: I think just the final report rather than the draft report. Anything else,
Commissioners, on the ACHD —
Hatcher: ACHD — yeah. It just needs to be the final report and it needs to address the
specifics of your agreement with them based upon this revised site that you submitted
tonight. Their draft report is generic in their requirements, whereas what you've
described and presented tonight is specific. That's really what we need to have in front
of us from ACHD.
Borup: Okay. Then, additional, you addressed some of the Items mainly on the
buffering. I guess it'd be up to how the rest of the Commission feels. I think you've
addressed those fairly well. The one thing you may want to take a look at is on the
signage issue. I think we've been fairly consistent on monument signs as opposed to
the pylon signs.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, back to that ACHD thing before we get off track. The number
one concern is why I was saying we needed to have some ACHD documentation is
because of their change of right-of-way requests and your agreement with ACHD that
they're not going to need what this typically requested.
Boyle: Okay. I guess — that's fine if that's what you're comfortable with. I guess what I
was asking for was just that you to place a condition on the approval that they not
require any additional right-of-way other than what we're representing, and if they do
require an additional right-of-way that we would have to come back before this
Commission. Along Fairview Avenue; do you understand? Do I need to clarify? So,
basically, I guess what we would like to see would just be if you felt that you could move
ahead with an action, it would just be that there be a condition placed on it, that if ACHD
required any additional right-of-way along Fairview Avenue that the application would
come back in front of you.
Hatcher: That is something that we can do.
Boyle: For that one item.
Hatcher: For that one item, right. That's the buffering and — buffering of the revised
plan and Staffs comments and stuff like that. Basically, I would —
Meridian Planning and boning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 26
Boyle: I guess we'd also just like to get a little bit of clarification. As far as the pole sign
on the corner, we are just requesting that the one pole sign for Walgreen's and then that
the existing chiropractor sign remain. If we are limited to monument signs, what we
would like to propose at that time would be that we would be allowed to have two
monument signs; one at our entry point on Locust Grove and one at our entry point on
Fairview Avenue.
Borup: That's why we brought that up now so you could have time to look at that.
Barbeiro: I'm in agreement with Mr. Hatcher that I wish to continue the public hearing to
our December meeting.
Borup: Okay. Make a motion.
Barbeiro: Did you make a motion?
Hatcher: I didn't make a motion, but I motion that we continue this public hearing until
our December 14th meeting.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: The motion is seconded. All in favor?
Barbeiro: That was for Item 4 and Item 5.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Shari, have you got any additional comments on the signs?
Monument signs and (inaudible) Is that in general compliance with the City sign
ordinances such as it is?
Stiles: It would be my preference to see those signs. I think if they're talking about a
single tenant sign, they (inaudible) --
Borup: (inaudible) I give them from now to next meeting to have a design brought to us.
Stiles: I think the 72 feet would probably be acceptable for one tenant.
Borup: It would seem to me. (inaudible) building -- the building signage, et cetera, what
you've already got there, but — okay. It has been pointed out that this would probably
be a good time for a break. We are — do have several more items on the agenda, but
hopefully we can get through them. I can tell you last month we went to 3:00. That will
C
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 27
not be happening tonight or probably ever again. We will address that as the hours
approach. Have a short break at this time. Thank you.
(at which time the meeting was in recess at 9:17 p.m.)
ITEM 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO
R-4 BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC --SOUTH OF E. FRANKLIN
ROAD AND EAST OF S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to go ahead and reconvene tonight's Planning and Zoning
meeting, conditional use permit for 283 -lot planned development by Woodbridge
Community. Shari -- Is Shari doing this? Okay.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is for the annexation and zoning of two
separate parcels of property. The parcel here is adjacent to what is called the
Stonebridge Industrial Subdivision. They've requested a zoning of LO. Staff has
recommended that all uses be developed under the conditional use permit process as a
planned development. This 80 acres here they are proposing for a 283 lot single family
subdivision. I would like to address both--
Rossman: Shari, I wasn't here at the last proceeding but wasn't the annexation and
zoning all ready addressed in a previous—we are just dealing with a conditional use
permit. We certainly don't want to rehash that one.
Stiles: Oh, I'm sorry. No we certainly don't. This is just the general vicinity map. It is
Greenhill Estates Subdivision here. Magicview subdivision here. Eventual access is
proposed to hook up with Magicview and go be able to access the signal on Eagle Road
so there would be access all the way from Eagle Road to Locust Grove. Down here is
where they are currently building the Jabil Mfg. Plant, These two properties right here
are currently designated in our Comprehensive Plan as single family residential. Staff
would recommend as part of the update to that that these be designated for a use other
then single family residential. Probably the most controversial issue and what the few
people are here for tonight I guess is the issue of connection of this road to this
subdivision. We did get a draft report from Ada County Highway District. They are
recommending that the full 50 foot right of way be constructed on the Woodbridge side
with curb, gutter and sidewalk and that this section from Autumn to the north property
boundary of Woodbridge be constructed as a 24 foot wide paved section with no curb,
gutter or sidewalk, for permanent vehicular public access. Staff does agree with the
recommendation that this be continued through as a public roadway, however, we
would support a condition that they go ahead and pave that 24 feet, provide ballads at
the property line to prevent vehicular access in the short term. Still build the 50 foot
right of way street section on the south side and as such time as Ada County Highway
District and the City agree that needed to be a permanent public access, that the
ballads would be removed at that time, but we would imagine it would be sometime
before they would cross the Five Mile Creek area and actually need that access. We
Meridian City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 67
not fair to those people that were under the impression that we were not going to
have a public hearing. —
*** End of Side 4 ***
Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2
and R-8 to C -G (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management,
Inc. — NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct a single -
tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window (Walgreen's)
by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. — NW corner of Fairview
and Locust Grove:
Hawker: -- I understand that.
Bird: I understand your dilemma
Hawker: It's an unfortunate situation, I guess. We've just been involved with this
process for so long, and our commitments that we can make to the landowners
out there — you know, the property that we're taking down as part of this, there's
a huge financial commitment that we have to make to go ahead and close on
those pieces of property, and without knowing that my development is approved
as part of this, there's a huge financial risk that I take there.
Bird: When do you have to make the commitment?
Hawker: Well, our commitments have to be made by the end of this month.
Bird: By the first of February? You couldn't get a 15 -day extension on those
guys? I don't think somebody's going to jump in and buy it up (inaudible)
Hawker: I don't know. (inaudible) approach them and make that
recommendation. That's my concern.
Bird: And I apologize for the — you know, we can only go so much —
Corrie: The thing is, you wouldn't get a commitment from the Council anyway
until they voted the 1St if they had it tonight. So you're still in a Catch-22. They
have to approve the Findings of Facts on the 1St, so you're not in time anyway.
Hawker: Sure. I understand.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Meridian Planning ana —oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
32
area. We certainly —we are not going to travel from 6 miles away to visit the Walgreen's
because their a convenience use and there is going to be closer. You go to the one
closer to you. So I guess my answer is, the traffic is all ready there. It is simply the
people that are travelling on those roads that are going to use our site. Walgreen's itself
again is not a fast type of use where it dumps a whole bunch of traffic out at one time.
For instance a movie theatre type where everybody leaves at once and hops onto Carol
Street and goes. They check out at the register, one people walks out the door, gets in
their car and drives away. It is more of a steady use. If you look at any of the stores
around town right now you will see that there is hardly ever any stacking getting out of
the development.
Borup: The one I am most familiar with is Milwaukee and Fairview. Do you know what
the how that was handled as far as access in. Is the one on Fairview right in right out?
Colby: There is a access on Fairview right in right out and then further down Fairview
there is a left in which is in line with a Grand Auto Supply that is next to Walgreen's at
that particular development. There is a right in right out between the Walgreen's and
the Grand Auto Supply and then further down the road there is full access. Similar
things happened at Overland and Orchard where we have a store open as well. On
Orchard Street there is a full access granted into the Key Bank that is there with
Walgreen's and there is a right in right out on one of the street. At Ustick and Five Mile,
we have full access on both sides of the street.
Borup: I thought those first two would be similar to what you've got with the full access
at the athletic club it sounds like. The full access is off site on the Fairview Milwaukee.
Colby: That is correct. Yes.
Borup: I have driven in there several times and that's one of the busiest intersections in
town. I hope Meridian doesn't get to that stage. This would be the one to do it wouldn't
it.
De Weerd: So they only have one access and so it would be similar to that off of
Fairview with the two drives that they have. Is that what you are saying.
Borup: The one on Milwaukee and Fairview is similar to this. He said they have a right
in right out and then they have—
Colby: The access on Fairview on the other location would be similar to the access
here where they would have a right in right out and then a full access down the road.
Then the access on Milwaukee, they have a full access. Where their full access would
be is where Carol Street would be. They have the depth there. Again that is why
ACHD suggested that that's where we take access because is lines up with Fred Meyer
and you have direct conflict points going staring across from each other rather than off
set conflict points.
Meridian Planning ani —oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
33
Boyle: Clint Boyle again. Just one final comment after Colby here and that is with
regard to the question as to whether or not Walgreen's would come in or not with out
this access. The proposal we submitted to Walgreen's to develop this site was with a
full access out to Locust Grove. So whether or not they would still come in, I guess we
don't know. We would have to take it back through their committee approvals to see if it
would be approved or not.
Watson: My name is Robert Watson. I live at 132 Carol. I am also subject to quite a
financial loss because of this. I just bought the property there. It seems as though the
needs for the developer are being met pretty regularly by everyone simply by taking—
they say maybe not, maybe so. We probably won't do this, we probably will do that. To
give them the authority to go ahead on that basis, I think is very unwise. I don't think
that business has been that responsive to the needs of the neighborhood or people to
give them that kind of authority. Another thing is that to require an opening on Locust
Grove because they have to have a trunk in once a week to deliver a load, I don't think
that is within reason to ask that. Another part of it to is that they can, he said in his own
words, that it would require a change in the way it was being developed to make it easy
for the truck to get around the building. I have to ask why not do it that way. Why not
leave our homes alone.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Watson. Commissioner's. We can sit or someone make a
motion.
Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing.
Brown: Second
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I assume we'd like discussion.
De Weerd: Would you like me to share my issues? I think that the developer is willing
to put in the sidewalk. I do believe that ACHD is just going to have to develop the plan
so the sidewalks can go in. I agree with staff that that is a necessity and that I see it as
a condition. Their pylon sign is 100 square feet. I know that we have been trying to
stay around 72 square feet if I remember right and the City Council has been strongly
suggesting "monument" signs. I have been told I'm not suppose to use that term, but
that's not a pylon sign or at least a cover pole. I do have concerns about the size of
their sign. Under the conditional use permit to reiterate the condition that this is only
approved for one drive in or drive thru. I would still have concerns about the
landscaping on Fairview. We do have along that strip—Fred Meyer has 35 feet and that
is one of our corridors that is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an important
intersection.
t.
Meridian Planning ani -oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
34
Borup: You talking about distance? Okay. Anyone else.
Barbeiro: In regards to hours of operation, I think recommending the hours of operation
not be outside of 7 am to 10 pm would be fair. Any parking lot light be a directional
parking lot lighting to prevent the lighting from seeping over to the existing
neighborhood. Any design, the choker design that we have here on our overhead be the
consideration design, not the design that was presented in design A.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, my last issue was the access onto Carol. I don't see their
gaining any benefit of having the access onto Carol and having the left turn when it is all
ready difficult anyway and it is only going to intensify.
Borup: The difficulty is during high peak hours—morning and afternoon. The rest of the
day—
Brown: And the reason that that will get better is that more lanes that there are then the
stacking (inaudible—not close enough to the microphone).
De Weerd: They have been talking about improving Locust Grove for how long?
:.,. IIS,
Borup: Next year for right of way acquisition and construction the following—It is a
funded project. I think that is probably the next thing—that will be happening. It is only
one issue.
Barbeiro: Getting back to Mr. Ray's comments in regards to the need for Carol Street
and the developer is not even certain—he did not say it wasn't a viable plan. On the
other hand, the developer is actively encouraging the neighbors in Carol Street
(inaudible) to get past Locust Grove and to get onto Fairview—either being left turn or
right turn.
Borup: I think they recognize it in the future as the stacking increases that it gives the
residents access to Fairview. I don't that he wants to cut through traffic either.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman my points of discussion are comments concerns on this project.
If this project was recommended for approval tonight, at minimum I think a condition on
the project would be that as originally proposed by developer to ACHD that the street
improvement and sidewalk for Locust Grove be done for the full length for this project
and not be put off or funded. If ACHD's design isn't ready, the project doesn't proceed
until it is ready. At minimum, the southbound traffic should be improved to assist in the
stacking problem in traffic. The access to Carol Street I look at I can see the pros and
cons for both sides and my immediate response or feeling is that project if reanalyzed I
think could still be made possible and still move forward without access to Carol Street.
Thus, giving the subdivision their immediate desire—no access to Carol Street. In the
long term plans whether this project existed or another project was done where the lots
Meridian Planning ana —oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
35
stayed as they are now. The problem of access from Carol Street to Locust Grove is
going to continue to get worse, no matter what. With this project putting access to Carol
Street as proposed on the over head, in the big picture in the long term, this
improvement is a benefit to this subdivision and improves the immediate access that
they have. Not desires but it is an improvement to existing conditions. Long term
conditions can not be improved upon by this project or any other project. I am in
consensus with the other Commissioner's that by no means this project be a 24 hour
store, that close to a residential subdivision. Being a resident of Meridian for as long as
I have, it seems to me there are several other viable sites for this project. I know that
Walgreen's built on busy intersections and relatively middle to high density areas.
Everybody has to make a buck and that is what they need. I think Meridian has other
viable sites. I think there are better sites for Walgreen's then this site. I am kind of torn
in the fact that we are tearing down two houses to build a commercial project and
encroaching upon a residential subdivision. If access to Carol Street is made a
condition, then at the absolutely minimum all discussed requirements of a choker and a
sign needs to be added and even signage on Locust Grove, do not block intersection
sign, so that left turns still be made during stacking. These are things that are going
through my mind on this project and quite honestly I am at odds with myself on this
project. I certainly would not want to be a resident of this subdivision and have to deal
with the increased traffic, but it is all ready there. This project is not creating the
problem. It is adding to the problem some, but a pharmacy does not generate high
density traffic. It generates low density traffic over a given period of time. It is adding to
the problem not creating the problem. I think it is the location and configuration.
Borup: Has everyone said something? Commissioner Brown, your not going to say
anything. Brad or, have you had a discussion with ACHD on developing of this section.
I realize they don't have the whole mile d design. I just don't see why it is such a
problem to engineer half a street. If the grade is all ready established on the east side
of the street. The whole length of Fred Meyer has a sidewalk, curb, gutter in, I am
assuming if it is like most other streets, the grade is going to be the same.
Hawkins: That is correct. Go figure.
Borup: So they should be able to fast track this length of design couldn't they.
Hawkins: I would point out that the applicant has talked —there is a funding issue going
on with ACHD that I can't speak too. In terms of actually having the funds to—they are
in the design. They have 3 phases. They fund money one year to design it, another
year to purchase the right of way and another year to construct it. Typically 3 year
deals. They are obviously having problems with their funding being sufficient enough
right now to do this pronto. I continue to believe that the city—if we are going to take
care of our traffic problems we need to take a lead roll and ask ACHD what we want to
do and I think this is part of your responsibility.
Borup: That might be discussed at tomorrow nights meeting with ACHD too.
Commissioner's any discussion. I've got 7 items and they are one the walk they built
Meridian Planning and z_oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
36
(Inaudible) be built at this time the other that Locust Grove be fully developed. Some
questions on the signage. The drive thru be limited to one. The landscaping buffer on
Locust Grove. Hours of operation. If access of approved to Carol that it would be with
the choker as in the latest design. Did that cover everything.
Hatcher: No 24 hour.
Borup: You saying no 24 hour rather then the 7 to 10 limitation.
Hatcher: I think 7 to 10 limitation would cover it.
Borup: Actually I would say 8 to 10. The applicant said their normal hours are either
open at 8 or 9.
Barbeiro: Fred Meyer was opening up at 7.
Borup: They would be closing earlier then Fred Meyer. At 10. 1 don't think that
matters. 10 o'clock has been stated. Your saying don't limit the hours.
Hatcher: Why should we govern their business.
Borup: Well what is the difference between 24 to 2 in the morning to 6 in the morning
close.
Hatcher: Maybe they might find that opening up at 6 in the morning brings in more
business then staying open till 10 at night. Who are we to govern that.
Borup: I think the time of night is more pertinent then. The evening hours—someone
driving at 6 in the morning is probably not causing a lot of problems. Well then, if we
are going to have a motion included in there we sure need to come to some consensus
based on that item.
Hatcher: I just don't want it to be a 24 hour store. That is all I really care about.
De Weerd: Does anyone else have anything on the conditions that were read.
Borup: I tried to write down the ones I heard from the Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Commissioner De Weerd was it your recommendation that they not have the
pylon sign or that they reduce the pylon sign to 72 square feet.
De Weerd: If we are going with recommendations that have been made in the past with
in regards to pylon signs and the desire right now of the city with the monument, yes I
would suggest not to have a pylon sign, but the copy should not be any more then 72
square feet.
Meridian Planning and toning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
37
Brown: (Inaudible- not up to the microphone)
De Weerd: They did not specify anything.
Borup: I think that condition was written before the sign design was turned in.
De Weerd: Signage be to staffs recommendations.
END OF SIDE 3 **
Hatcher: You are also asking that condition 8 be complied with, with reference to the
landscaping.
De Weerd: That would be my recommendation, but I have not heard anyone else.
Borup: I would rather see a denser well done landscaping at 24 then a sparse at 35. 1
think that is what you got a Fred Meyer. The trees are sparsely scattered along there.
It is not that much of a landscaped area in my mind. Drive by it all the time. Think
about it. Do you remember any landscaping there? You got to look for it to even see.
De Weerd: They have a nice green area there.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman if I may, I'd like to make a motion and put it before us.
Hatcher: Can I bring up one point before you do that. I think before anyone states a
motion, one other item that needs to be thought of is the existing chiropractor sign. I am
in favor of getting rid of the existing sign and replacing with a standard monument sign
that this board has typically suggested. I am also in support of the chairman's view on
the landscape. Smaller is better than bigger and bare, but then I am also in support of
reducing the size of pylon sign as proposed.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman either you or staff could answer this. Do we have the ability to
have the existing chiropractor sign removed or because it is existing the applicant has
the right to use that sign and put on a new cover over the sign.
Borup: My understand is that it's a whole new project. There is nothing grandfathered
there, correct.
Hawkins: I believe that legal counsel may have something—on a site that with coming
in for a new application and its coming in to be annexed in to the city, the city can place
conditions on that site and removal of sign, modification of sign, maybe modify the one
that is there. Those are things that can be placed as conditions on annexation.
Borup: Otherwise, if it is grandfathered they could use the existing sign on the corner
which is way bigger then they are proposing. No problem there. I would rather see a
Meridian Planning and -oning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
38
little leeway — rather see a larger monument sign then—well—guess what I am saying
something—I rather see a 100 foot monument sign then a 100 square foot pylon sign.
De Weerd: Could we leave it with staffs discretion that the sign package be approved
by staff. Would that be adequate Brad with—
Hawkins: I think staff at a minimum would appreciate whether they are pylon or
monument type size restrictions.
De Weerd: Well, if they put a pole cover on that does it make it a monument sign?
Hawkins: The sign industry does not like word monument. Free standing, I think the
issue is whether or not your looking for low profile, and if it is a pylon then I think the
requirement that it be covered poles is very reasonable. The issue is more one of
height then bulk then it is just calling it monument or pylon.
De Weerd: And did staff come with recommendations or do you..
Hawkins: Yes our recommendation would be the 72 square feet including the base.
Barbeiro: I move that we recommend to City Council approval of Item 4, conditional use
permit to construct a single tenant commercial building with a drive thru window
Walgreen's by Hawkin Smith Management on the northwest corner of Fairview and
Locust Grove to incorporate staff comments, to include the complete instruction of the
sidewalk in cooperation with the Ada County Highway District that the Locust Grove
development and additional lane be completely designed and that allowing Walgreen's
to incorporate that into their design. That the landscaping be as per staff
recommendation. That the hours of operation be limited to the hours of 7 am to 10 pm.
That a signage be free standing or monument sign and that no pylon signs be placed
there including the removal of the existing pylon sign at the chiropractors office. That
the choker design as per the overhead be used and that only one drive thru, the drive
through the Walgreen's, be approved.
Borup: We have a motion. Do we have a second unless someone wants to request an
addition to that motion.
Brown: So as I understand you motion, you have requested that the right hand turn
lane of Locust Grove be constructed. Is that what I understood.
Barbeiro: Keeping in mind that the right hand lane would not be constructed until 2001
or 2002 that ACHD's design be complete but that right hand turn lane not necessarily be
in place at that time allowing Walgreen's to complete their sidewalks to asphalt all the
way through to the existing_ Locust Grove and that there be no demolition of any of
Walgreen's construction.
Borup: Your saying they would construct sidewalk, curb and gutter.
Meridian Planning ani mooning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
39
Barbeiro: Yes.
Borup: But no paving?
Barbeiro: If we required them to wait until Ada County Highway District completed the
paving, they would not be able to (inaudible) for 18 months to 2-1/2 years.
Hatcher: They can do it on their time.
Barbeiro: Yes they can.
Borup: Proceed ahead your saying.
Barbeiro: In that case I'd like to amend it to have design complete by ACHD and that
the additional lane for Locust Grove be complete. (inaudible)
Brown: I'll second that.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I need clarification on the signage. You want it monument.
Did you put in a square footage or a height for anything.
Barbeiro: No I did not.
Borup: He just referred to staff comments.
De Weerd: Okay, so you would like it just monument, but if they just put a pole cover to
make it monument, it could still remain 25 feet high.
Barbeiro: That would never be my intent of it. No.
De Weerd: Well they could.
Barbeiro: What would be a customary height for a monument sign that you might
prefer.
De Weerd: I think staff would just be
Barbeiro: Low profile be sufficient.
De Weerd: Is that what the requirements have been in the past Brad. What is the
definition of a monument sign.
Hawkins: The way that we have been interpreting that and requesting that for the last
two years or so has been 72 square feet which is a measurement of height times width
which would include the base. Essentially you are looking at, if any height at all is put
a
Meridian Planning and –oning Commission Meeting f
December 14, 1999
40
on there, it's 72. Like a 9x8 is 72 square feet, but I would incorporate maybe 3 foot high
base on a birm with like another 6 foot high sign on top of that base or any combination
there of where 72 is not exceeded. That is something many of the business along
Fairview and Cherry, if they have come in for a conditional use permit have complied
with.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if I may I would to amend the motion to reflect the customary
72 square foot monument sign or free standing sign.
Borup: Second agree with that. Any other discussion? Seeing none we are ready for a
vote. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 1 NAY
Borup: Okay, that concludes this item. For the public information this will be -
recommended to City Council at which time there will be another public hearing and City
Council will take both these same items on their agenda. This is probably a good time
for a 5 minute recess and we will proceed with Item number 5 when we return.
Borup: Okay we'd like to reconvene our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting. I might mention we do have a new City Attorney is replaced Eric Rossman,
David Swartly.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN OLD TOWN TO A
FINGERNAIL SALON, ELEGANT NAILS BY CHRISTY P. FIELDSTAD-1026
N. MERIDIAN:
Hawkins: Commissioner's this application requests approval to convert an existing
single family residence in Old Town to a finger nail salon. The overhead currently
points out. It is on the southeast corner of Meridian Road and Carlton Avenue. It is
zoned OT. It is in Old Town. Old Town requires a conditional use permit for this type of
conversion. I would ask that you incorporate our staff comments as put forward in the
December 3, 1999 memo. The applicant has responded in writing to our staff report
and has stated that they intend to comply with all the condition use requirements. The
primary issue on this is relating to the parking and this layout here which Carlton Street
has kind of a redesign handwritten and there has been a resubmission of this layout.
They are basically swapping the orientation of the parking stalls. So when your
coming—they are moving the entrance further east down on Carlton so the cars will
actually head in facing west instead of east. That is one of the principle changes. I
would also point out the letter that was submitted December 9, 1999 regarding timing.
The applicant is needing expediting of this relating to some financial issues, if you have
not seen this I point it out in your packets.
Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here?
t
Meridian City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 68
Anderson: In light of that and the hour, I would make a motion that we table the
two public hearings on Items 9 and 10 until the 1 St of February's meeting.
Bird: Don't you mean continue the public hearing?
Corrie: We'll need to continue —
Anderson: Continue the public hearing.
Corrie: It'll (inaudible) public hearing (inaudible) --
Anderson: Did we even open it?
Bird: Yeah, but he's up there testifying.
Gigray: You should just open it and then continue it.
(inaudible discussion)
Anderson: So the correct motion would be a motion to continue the public
hearing until February 1St
Bird: Second.
deWeerd: It still needs to be opened first. Doesn't it need to be opened to
continue it?
Corrie: It will be opened — continue the public hearing, it will be opened on
February the 1St due to the hour. Okay. A motion has been made and seconded.
Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Then the public hearing will be on February the 1St on Items No. 9 and
10.
(inaudible discussion)
Item 11. Request for hookup to city water and sewer on properties located
on Lots 13A and 13B in Van Hees Subdivision by Randy Ware —
on Linder Road approximately % mile south of Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is request for hookup to city water and sewer on properties
located on Lots 13A and 13B in the Van Hees Subdivision on Linder Road
approximately % mile south of Franklin Road. Okay. Shari, staff, this was a —
Gary.
Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting
January 18, 2000
Page 10
zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H.'Moore
Company — Eagle Road and Magic View:
Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2
and R-8 to C -G (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management,
Inc. — NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct a
single -tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window
(Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. — NW corner
of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I just might note on the regular
agenda, and I don't know if the Clerk's office has this, but with Ordinance —
proposed Ordinance 853 on the Solid Waste Collection Services and Franchise,
there should be an agreement also with SSI as a follow-up to that ordinance. I
believe I have gotten .a transmittal from their attorney, Mr. Freeman, that they
have, in fact, signed that agreement, and I think we've got a copy of their
corporate resolution. That's an item that the Council if it doesn't take action on
tonight should come fairly soon and then I would encourage the Council to take a
look at Items 7 and 8 and 9 and 10, and the Mayor as to whether or not 7 and 8
and 9 and 10 might be considered a motion to combine those companion
applications for public hearing purposes only. That's something you've tended to
do and can speed up the process subject to consent of the applicants and
anybody appearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, getting back to — I've got one question. On Gary's proposal
concerning the latecomers fee, by approving that, is that the proposal, Gary, that
you want to implement? We don't have any real facts and figures on there that I
can see. You've got an approximate and something like that.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Bird, I just wanted to change —
propose that change to the policy. There is not specific language that I wanted
you to approve tonight, but I wanted to get your review and your comments
concerning the format as far as how we return latecomer fees to those that
extend sewer and water lines.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Gary, don't you believe that is something that we could take
about 10, 15 minutes in the workshop this month and discuss?
Smith: Yes, sir. You bet. Sure could.
Bird: So, would you be offended if we agree with you on this proposal but pull it
from the Consent Agenda and bring it to the workshop?
f
Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting
January 18, 2000
Page 11
Smith: No, not at all. We've got several latecomer agreements in the process of
being finalized, determined, et cetera. I just want to get the language straight in
those agreements so that we can return this fund and it will have to be taken care
of in the agreement with that particular language or that specific language.
Bird: Maybe City Clerk could get us a copy of each one of the Councilmen and
the Mayor a copy of that latecomers fee, generic, I know they're all different, but
the generic agreement to let us look at when we're doing that.
Smith: I'll make you a copy of an example agreement that we presently have
approved and under contract, so to speak, that's operational right now.
Bird: Then we'll put that on the 28th workshop agenda for a short meeting.
Smith: Okay.
Corrie: That's fine. Anticipating, you being the Council President, we need to sit
down and discuss what we can put on the workshop. We might take a half a day
on some of these things because there's a lot of ordinances coming up.
Bird: I wouldn't have a problem with that, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else, any other questions that Council has?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray, on this Ordinance No. 853, did you say to hold that — you
didn't say that. I just wondered. I didn't think you had, just the agreement's
coming in. Okay.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, all I'm saying is we have prepared
an agreement, we have worked with SSI on the terms and conditions of that
agreement. That has been approved all the way around. SSI has taken
corporate action to enter into the agreement, and I'm just saying it is appropriate
in my view if the Council wishes to consider it, that agreement could be approved
following the passage of that Franchise Ordinance.
Corrie: Thank you.
Item 3. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning (R -T TO R-4)
by Charles Crane — located at 3610 W. Ustick Road:
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had a question on Item 3 that public hearing and the
request for annexation for Charles Crane. Refresh my memory. What was the
deal on that one and what were we waiting on?
Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting
January 18, 2000
Page 10
zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore
Company — Eagle Road and Magic View:
Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2
and R-8 to C -G (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management,
Inc. — NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct a
single -tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window
(Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. — NW corner
of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I just might note on the regular
agenda, and I don't know if the Clerk's office has this, but with Ordinance —
proposed Ordinance 853 on the Solid Waste Collection Services and Franchise,
there should be an agreement also with SSI as a follow-up to that ordinance. I
believe I have gotten a transmittal from their attorney, Mr. Freeman, that they
have, in fact, signed that agreement, and I think we've got a copy of their
corporate resolution. That's an item that the Council if it doesn't take action on
tonight should come fairly soon and then I would encourage the Council to take a
look at Items 7 and 8 and 9 and 10, and the Mayor as to whether or not 7 and 8
and 9 and 10 might be considered a motion to combine those companion
applications for public hearing purposes only. That's something you've tended to
do and can speed up the process subject to consent of the applicants and
anybody appearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, getting back to — I've got one question. On Gary's proposal
concerning the latecomers fee, by approving that, is that the proposal, Gary, that
you want to implement? We don't have any real facts and figures on there that I
can see. You've got an approximate and something like that.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Bird, I just wanted to change —
propose that change to the policy. There is not specific language that I wanted
you to approve tonight, but I wanted to get your review and your comments
concerning the format as far as how we return latecomer fees to those that
extend sewer and water lines.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Gary, don't you believe that is something that we could take
about 10, 15 minutes in the workshop this month and discuss?
Smith: Yes, sir. You bet. Sure could.
Bird: So, would you be offended if we agree with you on this proposal but pull it
from the Consent Agenda and bring it to the workshop?
Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting
January 18, 2000
Page 11
Smith: No, not at all. We've got several latecomer agreements in the process of
being finalized, determined, et cetera. I just want to get the language straight in
those agreements so that we can return this fund and it will have to be taken care
of in the agreement with that particular language or that specific language.
Bird: Maybe City Clerk could get us a copy of each one of the Councilmen and
the Mayor a copy of that latecomers fee, generic, I know they're all different, but
the generic agreement to let us look at when we're doing that.
Smith: I'll make you a copy of an example agreement that we presently have
approved and under contract, so to speak, that's operational right now.
Bird: Then we'll put that on the 28th workshop agenda for a short meeting.
Smith: Okay.
Corrie: That's fine. Anticipating, you being the Council President, we need to sit
down and discuss what we can put on the workshop. We might take a half a day
on some of these things because there's a lot of ordinances coming up.
Bird: I wouldn't have a problem with that, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else, any other questions that Council has?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray, on this Ordinance No. 853, did you say to hold that — you
didn't say that. I just wondered. I didn't think you had, just the agreement's
coming in. Okay.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, all I'm saying is we have prepared
an agreement, we have worked with SSI on the terms and conditions of that
agreement. That has been approved all the way around. SSI has taken
corporate action to enter into the agreement, and I'm just saying it is appropriate
in my view if the Council wishes to consider it, that agreement could be approved
following the passage of that Franchise Ordinance.
Corrie: Thank you.
Item 3. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning (R -T TO R-4)
by Charles Crane — located at 3610 W. Ustick Road:
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had a question on Item 3 that public hearing and the
request for annexation for Charles Crane. Refresh my memory. What was the
deal on that one and what were we waiting on?