Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 17, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 43 of 76 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries. Newton-Huckabay: I didn't make good notes to make the motion. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Maybe I made enough notes. I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing PP 05-001, to include all staff comments and conditions of staff memo dated February 11th for Public Hearing date of February 17th, with the following exceptions. On page three under street sections, delete paragraph two on the preliminary plat condition. And was that the place to add the other notation, director? That would be the appropriate place to add the reference to refer to? Canning: You could substitute the reference for that. Borup: Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, for paragraph two, substitute -- that should make a reference to item eight, page eight, of the development agreement of the previously approved Saguaro Canyon and also on page six, paragraph nine -- paragraph eight, last sentence, these measurements shall be based on the back of the curb dimensions, paragraph nine, of the proposed 21 lot subdivision, it should read in the first part of the sentence, but a total estimated population of 61 residential at build out. That concludes my motion. Canning: And, Chairman Zaremba, just for the record, on that first -- regarding number eight, page eight, that was of the development agreement. Borup: Okay. Oh, I didn't mention that. development agreement. My notes said it -- but, yes, it was a Rohm: Did you want to state the owners of record to Farwest Development? Borup: Well, yeah, maybe if -- yeah, I don't think that is necessarily in the staff recommendation. About page two of the -- a report, the one of record, is Farwest Development. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for retail uses in a C-N zone for The Shops at Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 44 of 76 Cherry Lane by High Point Equities, LLC - SWC of West Cherry Lane and North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: We are ready for Item 12 and I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 04-054. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for retail uses in a C-N zone for The Shops at Cherry Lane by High Point Equities, LLC, southwest comer of West Cherry Lane and North Ten Mile Road. And we will begin with the staff comments. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, as stated, the proposed -- the subject property is near the intersection of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. It's here along the canal. Albertson's property and Grocery Bag Subdivision is immediately to the east. As you can see, there is quite a bit of residential development on the other side of the canal and across the street. I believe staff -- the site plan in the staff report, the original landscaping plan, is based on a different site plan than what's being proposed by the applicant tonight. As you read through the staff report you might have noticed that there was kind of two options flowing around for this site plan. The applicant has selected a site plan and that's this one that's before you. I believe you have received it in a memo from Mr. Wilson as well. It didn't make it into my packet. It made it into Bruce's packet. Hopefully, it made it into yours. Okay. Okay. So, that's the site plan I'm going to be referring to in my description. The applicant has proposed just two structures. They are retail -- this is also going to be a bank in this location and, then, two drive-thrus as well. The first drive-thru would come -- as you come in off of Cherry Lane, you'd both come down and if you come around the east and, then, north side of the building where it says drive-thru being on the west side of the building. The second drive-thru comes down -- and you will notice the entrance to it here and, then, it would exit to this drive aisle next to Albertson's, which is located over here. The major issue from the planning department said was the provision of parking in addressing some of those issues, the applicant is actually proposing to removed six existing parking lots on the Albertson's property. This is the property line. But in exchange they would build what appears to be now 20. I think the staff report says 21, but I knew it would be 20, as shown here. And, then, the applicant is proposing parking on their own site as well. Joshua went through quite a bit of work comparing the necessary parking for the Albertson's, as well as this combined, and they do have sufficient parking to meet those -- the requirement for retail. this development. Wanted to point out this is a request for multiple buildings on a single lot, so it does require a planned development approval and that's why it's before you as a PUD and, as you know, they are required to provide another voice with a planned development and let me point this out for you. We are worried about the edge. The open space along the creek. The other one is an eight- foot sidewalk along Cherry Lane and, then, there is a park bench amenity located down here between the drive aisle and the trash-can and a parking space right in front of it. I talked to the applicant -- at a minimum 'dlike to see the parking space in front of that amenity go away and so that there is a little more room, an opportunity for some landscaping in that area, if deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Right now it's just a single parking space. There is not another one next to it, but there is just one long parking space on the other side of this drive-aisle. There Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 45 of 76 were initially some concerns with the police department regarding the drive-thru windows, particularly this one back here. There are two conditions in the staff report that cover that currently. One is that they still need to meet with the -- that police department to insure that they have satisfied their concerns about the drive up. Staff added another one that this could not be subsurface uses, such as, in particular, an ATM machine back there, so -- but no matter how much lighting you did back there, this would not be a good place to have an ATM that's far too secluded. So, we offered that condition and I think the applicants were fine with that as well. The bank that's proposed is up in this location, which was much more visible to the rest of the site. I'm going through some of the special considerations that Josh has pointed out. They are asking for a reduced width of the street buffer. When the landscape ordinance was written, we anticipated circumstances where you had shallower lots with a lot of frontage or odd shaped lots with a lot of frontage, exactly like this, where the full requirement of the landscape buffer, in this case 25 feet, would pay an undue burden on the property and this appears to be one of those case. They are proposing 20 feet. They, then, need to request for alternative compliance or for a reduction in the width of that, but staff is generally supportive of that, because they are kind of an odd shaped property and they don't really have much effective depth when you consider that most of their depth is gone by the time they get to this part of their property, the lower two-thirds. Mitigation of trees. There are a number of trees on site and they will need to mitigate for those existing trees. I already spoke about the police concerns. We also have added conditions that they need to get a cross-access agreement and consent of the adjacent property owners, because this project does rely heavily on these 20 parking spaces that are actually on the Albertson's property, we felt that we need the consent of those adjacent property owners and we have asked that they provide that prior to the City Council hearing on this application. And, then, associated with that there is a cross-parking or cross-access agreement with them as well. And I think those are the significant issues from the planning department side. I know that there was some public works issues that were originally raised. I don't know if Bruce wants to talk about them a minute. Freckleton: Thanks, Anna. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, at the time the application was submitted and I did my review, the thing that jumped out at me, first of all, is that when the Albertson's store was constructed and the shops adjacent to the west -- we do not have any sanitary sewer in Cherry Lane through this stretch, so when Albertson's was constructed, we pushed to have them install a sewer -- sewer line across the front of the store to provide service to this out parcel and also to get water to this out parcel. One of the requirements for Albertson's was that they had to have a fire hydrant on this location, so they did extend the water main down and put in a hydrant right at this -- this location here. We pushed for that water main to be extended on over to this parcel. There was a lot of debate, a lot of time spent on that issue, and the results of all of that was that it did not get installed. However, easements were provided from the ends of the existing mains over to this parcel, so that some day it could be extended in the future. So, after the date of my report we had quite a bit of dialogue with the applicants and they did provide me with quite a bit of documentation on the easements that they have and provided me with a lot of the detail of conversations that Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 46 of 76 they have had ongoing with -- with the Albertson's folks and I believe that they can get it all worked out and as long as the applicant is willing to do whatever it takes to get services to that site, I would withdraw my recommendation for a continuance. Zaremba: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioner? I had one to begin with on the landscape street buffer. Do we know the depth of Albertson's street buffer? Canning: I don't know offhand, although I think Albertson's was developed long enough ago that I doubt they had to do as wide a street buffer as would be required at this time. The applicant may-- Zaremba: So, a reduced street buffer for this project would, actually, make it in line, probably, with what Albertson's has. Canning: There appears to be a line on Albertson's. They appear to be using the same line of parking that Albertson's does. Zaremba: Okay, Commissioners, any other questions? Canning: The applicant may be able to answer that question a little better. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Okay. Is the applicant ready to speak? Come forward. Canning: Sir, we have it figured out. It lines up with the Albertson's one. You can see it here. So, it lines up with that location, because, then, they have got the drive aisle. So, let's say from the drive aisle up it would be less than what Albertson's has, but before that point they have lined up with what appears to be about 28 feet for Albertson's. I'm sorry, that -- Zaremba: They have to make a transition, because I think on the other side of that canal or creek or whatever it is, there is a short landscape area and, then, a fence, which is not 25 feet from the roadway I'm sure, so that -- I'm trying to justify not requiring 25 feet on this property, that the surrounding properties probably don't have 25 feet. Canning: I remember a few years ago I did an analysis of this general stretch and the landscape buffers varied from about five feet to 20 feet or 30 existing. So, there is quite a bit of variation along Cherry Lane to break this -- in this kind of two-mile section. Zaremba: So, this would not stand out noticeably -- Canning: Not at all. Zaremba: -- with everything else that's around. Canning: No. They are, actually, asking for not really alternative compliance in the usual sense that you see it, it's in the sense that there is specific allowance for a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 47 of 76 reduction in the buffer when you do have a property that meets certain criteria and this one does meet those criteria. The short distance from here to here being -- and the average distance from here and here ends up being about mid point between the line, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Sir. Dixon: My name is Brent Dixon, I am the applicant. My address is 23675 Southwest Robson Terrace, Sherwood, Oregon, 97140. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission for holding this hearing tonight. Could we go back to the aerial for a moment? I'm currently in the process of purchasing this parcel of property right here, which is just over an acre. It's immediately west of the Albertson's shopping center. The property is currently zoned commercial. However, it has the same zoning designation as the Albertson's store. Unfortunately, unlike the Albertson's store, which in the mid '90s went through the CUP application, this parcel of property did not get the conditional use permits which would allow neighborhood retail, hence, we are -- I'm here this evening. In 1996 when the Albertson's was developed, there was some talk about developing this property right here. Ultimately, Mr. Wylie Levan, who was the property owner at the time and the developer of the Albertson's center, he just couldn'tcome to terms on -- on a fair price, consequently, it wasn't developed. Although the numbers that the City Council and the Planning Commission I think recognized the fact that at some point this area would be developed and it was compatible with the shopping center use here and as a result, as a condition of approval for the Albertson's center, a right of access was granted to the Levan property and I will go ahead and get that -- Canning: It will take me a minute. It will take a moment. Hold on. Dixon: Okay. Very good. So, here is the Albertson's center right here. Here is the -- what's referred to as the Levan property right here. And, then, here is the drive aisle coming into the Albertson's center. And, then, where my -- this pointer is right here is this private access road, which is already in place. In addition to the private access road, Mr. Freckleton has referred to a couple of other easements, which are the utility easements with the water and the sanitary, that have been provided to this area. And, then, in addition to these three easements that I refer to, there is also in place a cross- easement agreement between Albertson's parcel -- there is actually three parcels in file. There is the Albertson's parcel, which is parcel two. There is. the shop space next to Albertson's, which is parcel one. And, then, this is referred to in the legal documents of the Grocery Bag Subdivision as parcel three. And there is already in place the cross- easement agreement, as well as the declaration of uses and restrictions between Albertson's and the property. In terms of retail, if you want to go back to the site plan. We are proposing neighborhood retail, which would be compatible with the adjacent center. I have had a lot of interest from different types of retail tenants. Planning director Anna referred to this space right here, which I have got a letter of intent from a bank. The types of retail that I'm not interested in doing is fast food. I don't think that that lends itself to this area. I don't think -- I don't think a service station would be appropriate for this area. But shop space similar to the Albertson's center, which is right Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 48 of 76 here, I think does and my idea for this development right here is really to give it the same look and feel of one development. What would this have looked like if this had been developed simultaneously in 1997. And so one of the discussion points that I'm having with Albertson's right now certainly is what can we esthetically do with the architectural elements to make it feel like one center and that's also why you see the site plan the way it is. It's really designed to get customers the vehicular circulation between both parcels, just kind of the same -- the same feel. I'd like to briefly just talk about compatibility with the surrounding area. Certainly it's compatible to the area east, which is the Albertson's center. In my judgment retail -- commercial retail use here is compatible with -- with the frontage that you have on Cherry Lane. You know, certainly, your retailers; they love that exposure to the intersection. They love the exposure to a five-lane highway. And, then, in terms of something that Anna had mentioned a moment ago and that's residential and I am sensitive to the -- some of the comments that perhaps we are going to hear in a moment from some of the neighbors and I want to be a good neighbor and do the right thing. I believe that -- that this canal area right here does act as a somewhat of a buffer. You have a canal easement here of 30 feet on this side, you have a canal easement on this other side of another 30 feet, so you have -- you have some barrier, so to speak, between -- between the retail and the neighborhood residential in the area. I have got a few more items, but I will probably hold off on those until we hear perhaps from some of the other people who had signed up to speak and so I'll sit down at this point, unless there is some questions. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Dixon: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: On removing the parking space on the south -- Dixon: Yeah. That-- Newton-Huckabay: -- are you in agreement with that? Dixon: Yeah. That should come out. Sometimes when you're -- when you have looked at so many iterations of site plans they become a blur and I appreciate staff for picking up on that, because that -- you know, I guess the only person that could park there is the -- well, I don't know who would park there, but it's just one space, so I'm okay with that. Thank you. I will be back. Zaremba: I do have a question for you, too, Mr. Dixon. On the Conditional Use Permit application, the description of the present use does say resident slash equipment maintenance and storage. Dixon: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 49 of 76 Zaremba: The equipment maintenance storage is the maintenance facility for the city's golf course leased to the present owner of this property and that's the only maintenance facility. Do you know what's going to happen to that? Dixon: I don't know what's going to happen to that. That's a fair question and I think that would probably be best answered by Anita Levan, who is the current property owner and she's not here this evening. But that's a fair question. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Dixon: Okay. Zaremba: We do have people signed up to testify. Stan Kelly is the first on the list. Please begin with your name and address for the record. Kelly: Stan Kelly at 3492 West Fir Creek Court. Thank you, Commission and Mr. Chairman. I wanted to add this, that I have 28 signatures and it's basically the people that are just affected around the perimeter, it's not -- I didn't go clear back into the nl3ighborhood, it was the ones that this would directly negatively impact on these two streets right here and right here. And so -- and they are all unanimously -- I didn't find one that said this was a good idea. I mean it's very obvious that you take one resident out of there and, then, put an entire shopping center in there and if you would go to even Albertson's during Valentine's Day or Super Bowl or something, this parking lot is already full up there. Now, Mr. Waller that did own -- that's passed away, the family there, did argue against a service station and thank goodness the Planning and Zoning made the right decision in not putting a service station there, because of various reasons. There is a lot of reasons for a shopping center and residents backed up to the backyards. The buffer zone here, just to give you an idea, that's about -- to the other side of the canal is about less than ten yards. There is a small road in there, but that's about ten yards. So, that's how much -- that's how much buffer zone we would have in our backyard with the -- with the lights -- headlights, signage, and neon lights here, parking lights here, maintenance -- parking lot maintenance -- it already keeps you awake when the trucks are going by there at night sweeping things and so it just makes sense that the esthetics, just lighting, the size of buildings up there, or possibly even a big -- even a big -- some kind of fence or something back up there -- we are kind of a way spot where we have -- because the canal, the way it had to come up to go over the top of the canal, and the next one would be noise, all hours of the night, especially if you had a -- and I don't know why this isn't a drive-thru when there is cars driving through there. So, that's headlights affecting all of these houses here, affecting these houses here. The next thing is cut out all the -- they did ask to cut down all of the trees in here and so that has offered us some buffer between Albertson's - the nuisance that Albertson's is already and the main one that I would think, besides dumpsters and car doors slamming at all hours of the night, which -- in our backyard, the other thing would be decreased property values. You know, my property probably is assessed at 190,000. With this it would probably be somewhat less than that, 190 to 200 thousand. So, while the developer takes off with a pocket full of money, you know, he leaves us Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 50 of 76 with lower property values. And, then, the last thing is I think that there is a good reason for not wanting -- for the zoning laws the way they are. Now, I can't speak for everybody that signed the petition, but I can speak for myself. I wouldn't mind if like on the other -- can you put that other thing up there? This is the -- Canning: What other thing, sir? Kelly: The aerial view. Canning: Okay. Kelly: I wouldn't mind if like, for instance, they put in a daytime office or, you know, this is a doctor's office or possibly even one bank or something, without all the obtrusive parking lot lights and noise and everything. But retail just doesn't fit to move one residential house out and cram a shopping center in a residential neighborhood to me is just kind of a no brainer. Now, Albertson's was built here, so that everybody that built in here had the decision to make, well, I'm going to build it -- you know, Albertson's is already built here and this was already zoned, so those that built around here, you know, had that decision to make, do I want to live next to Albertson's, Well, we don't have that same choice right now. So, I'd like to just submit thank you for your time and - - well, I do have one question. I don't know if you can answer it. It's -- again, it was brought up about the -- the golf course maintenance vehicles that are there. I just want to make sure that there is no conflict of interest, that this is decided on its merits without any kind of a back door deal with -- you know, with the city golf course, because that has been a concern about the family that's leasing the golf course has this long term lease that really wasn't open to public -- you know, that's just -- I have lived here for 26 years, so that's why I know about that, but -- so I'd like to submit all these 28 scriptures that are asking you not to change the zoning at this time. Zaremba: The city clerk will take that. Thank you. Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Kelly, I have one. Is there -- isn't it a concrete wall that runs behind Albertson's and where does it end? I failed to drive by there again to double- check that before the meeting. Kelly: I'm not exactly sure, because I live up in this area, but maybe -- but it's not like a sound barrier of any type. I mean you can hear the refrigerator trucks -- Canning: Sir, you need to talk into the microphone. Kelly: Okay. I think, you know, you still hear sound from refrigerator trucks clear back here. This is the only place I know about a wall is back on this side. There is no wall over in this area. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 51 of 78 Kelly: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, a couple questions. One concern -- you had mentioned that there is only a 30 foot buffer. Are you saying that this information is incorrect? It shows a 60-foot right of way for the Eight Mile Lateral? Kelly: Well, alii can say is from the corner of my fence here it goes to across this canal, about above -- to the far side of this canal -- not the clear side. The clear side is probably about 12 to 14 feet is all. Borup: You have measured that? Kelly: No. No. But it's pretty obvious it's not -- it's pretty obvious that it's not 20 yards or 15 yards, it's pretty obvious -- Borup: Do you know whether your fence is into that easement area, the irrigation easement? Are you encroaching on the easement, then? Kelly: No, we are not. There is, actually, a road and that's -- there is even that part there. And this is way farther -- there is a common green area. You can kind of see it here. And so most of the neighbors all there have added to that green area with just their traffic lane. Borup: Our testimony previously and the submittals we have show a 60-foot easement for the canal. Kelly: Possibly. Their easement -- I don't know. I'm telling you that -- or I'm, in fact, sure that this -- from the edge of this fence line here to the far side of the canal, to where the canal is cut in is -- Borup: The easement is 30 feet from the -- Kelly: From the middle of the -- Borup: -- canal here. On your side 30 feet -- Canning: Chairman Zaremba, could I ask a question? On this copy of -- that the applicant has provided of Grocery Bag Subdivision, it does show the easement and it does show Rod's Parkside Creek, which must have been existence when Grocery Bag was platted and it does show a 60-foot easement, but it also does show that those homes go to the center line -- to the edge of that easement. It goes to the centerline of the canal. Borup: So, the fence would encroach over the easement? Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 52 of 76 Canning: Probably. There seems to be a fence line, but that label is not shown on this copy. Borup: Okay. The other thing just you might want to point out -- you may not be aware of what was up here, but our site plan does show a fence all along the property line. Kelly: Is that a noise -- how high -- I don't know how high it is, if it's -- if it's a 20 foot noise barrier, that would have negative affects of its own. If it's less than that, it doesn't shield us from anything. Borup: It shields you from the lights that you were talking about. Kelly: From neon lights on the street? Borup: No. You had mentioned car lights was your concern Kelly: Yeah. Most all these houses here are two story. It would not. Unless it's -- unless it's 20-foot high it would not. Borup: Okay. That's a tall car. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Nancy Kelly. You need to get to the microphone, please. N.Kelly: Nancy Kelly, 3492 West Fir Creek Court, Meridian, Idaho. And I'd like to go on record as being opposed. Zaremba: Thank you. Becky Odle. Odle: Becky Odle, 3416 West Elm Creek, and I would also like to go on record as being opposed. I'm directly behind that little drive-thru that -- that one. And, like he said, from our back fence to the center of the canal is just a short short distance, Zaremba: Would a quieter business without a drive-thru be less concern to you? Odle: Yes. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Commissioner Rohm, did you -- Rohm: That's what I was going to ask. What would be acceptable? I think the thing about this application that hadn't been brought out is this is a Conditional Use Permit, which is in a parcel of ground that's already zoned commercial, and so it's not like they are trying to change the zoning, they are just trying to find something that would work and I'm kind of struggling with -- from the comments made what would work for you folks that are adjacent and that's kind of where I'm -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 53 of 76 Zaremba: We will deal with Mike Odle first. Canning: Is the public testimony done? Because this applicant -- or this fellow has already testified. Zaremba: Let me go through the list before -- we may ask you a question again. Mike Odle. Borup: Maybe while he's coming up, just a quick question for staff. If this was only one building on this site, would the Conditional Use Permit even be required? Canning: For the drive-thrus it would. Borup: Just for the -- if there is a drive-thru. Okay. Because we have the bank. Right. Thank you. M.Odle: Mike Odle, 3416 West Elm Creek. On the plot map it's Lot 15, which is the -- if you look down the headlights of them cars, it's the lot right there behind it. And that's the biggest concern. As was stated, our lots are a little bit depressed because of the build up. They are all two-story houses there, second story, which is where all the bedrooms are. It's very bright. We have blackout curtains in our upstairs bedrooms due to Albertson's and even with Albertson's, they reduced the light height and put shields on the residential side. That helped a lot, but it's still awful bright. Their lights do shut off at night. We get a lot of hot rodders in that parking lot, so the noise is definitely there. The drive-thru I agree will not work or am totally opposed with that. Office, the 8:00 to 5:00 hours, medical plaza with 8:00 to 5:00 hours, would be perfectly acceptable. As far as the canal goes, there is an access road on our fence side of our fence. The canal access road, a canal, and, then, it's immediately the property of the farmhouse that's there or the Albertson's fence. There is no walkway or anything on the far side of the road, so that 60 foot buffer there, I'd kind of be curious about. Albertson's also has this very large buffer on the Cherry Lane side. It's a great big grass knoll with trees on it and it's at least 25 to 30 feet wide. It's a big buffer. I would be curious to measure that. Like I said -- Rohm: Well, that's just right here. M.Odle: Yes. Exactly. They have got a great big grass knoll here. On that was stated right now there is some reefer trucks that will park in there at night and they will leave their reefers running all night long. They are a problem. Albertson's sends their little sweeper through once a month. They are a noise issue. So, something of low impact would be great and would be preferable, something other than drive-thru with headlights pointing in the backyard. Like I said, our houses are depressed in that neighborhood because of the canal, the way they had to build it. So, everything comes in the second story. And so, yeah, you could put up a fence and knock it all out, but, then, we do have somewhat of a view and them trees that are there are pretty nice trees, so I would be kind of sad to see them all get cut down, too. So, there is a lot of issues that need to be Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 54 of 76 addressed before you just put a - you know, a Jack-in-the-Box or a Taco Bell there or something, so -- I definitely wouldn't want to see that. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you, Borup: Just one for Mr. Odle. You talked a lot about the car lights. Are you concerned with the car lights from the bank or from the retail building? M.Odle: From the building at Retail B, I mean it looked like to me that that's a drive- thru. I mean why else would you put a -- Borup: Right. No. And I was trying to -- if you're talking about -- and I understand on the Retail B, I think you said, but are you concerned about the bank, too? M.Odle: It depends on where their drive-up teller is, because that can be 24 hours a day. I mean if they put the drive-up teller or the ATM out front where the headlights wouldn't be an issue and, then, maybe limited the access around it at night that would be something to consider. But, you know, something that would be open 24 hours a day, like a Taco Bell or a Wendy's or something like that, that would be way out of line, because Albertson's doesn't stay open 24 hours and they do shut down at night. The lights do go off, they come back on at 5:00 o'clock in the morning, I'll have anybody over at my house -- when Albertson's lights are on, it's amazing. You don't need lights in the upper bedrooms. That's why we have blackout curtains, as I say, so -- anything else? Borup: Thank you. M.Odle: Thank you. Zaremba: I believe Commissioner Rohm would like to ask Mr. Kelly a question. Rohm: Oh. I -- yeah. Zaremba: And maybe -- you alluded to it, but part of the issue is this property is already zoned CoN and it is a commercial property, even though there is, apparently, a residence on it, so -- Rohm: Yeah. And, basically, I was just going to say what business would you support going into this -- Kelly: Well, the same kind that's backed up -- you know, if you can go back to, again, that other property. Doctor's offices. Dentist's offices. Consistent with this -- you know, good neighbors. Basically it's that simple. It's just somebody that's a good neighbor, that's not 24 hours a day, that's a daytime office type. Newton-Huckabay: But that's a different type of zoning. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 55 of 76 Zaremba: Things without drive-thrus? Kelly: Things without drive-thrus. And not cramming -- I mean right now do you think probably -- you know, you cram three retail centers on that little lot and that's the reason that the City Council gave for -- that it wasn't a good idea to put a gas station in there in the first place. This parking lot is full on Valentine's Day, Super Bowl days, and that's without even all the rest of the -- Albertson's is the only game out there. That's without even all the residences going in. You have enough cars trying to park every which way and it's just a bad idea. You know, if you had something that was closer, just a little bit away from the neighborhood, a little smaller over towards Albertson's, back to where we do have some esthetic views from -- I don't think Meridian wants to just, you know, have strip malls from here until Losangelesidafornia type thing. I think if you -- if you back this up a little bit, put it out here away from the neighborhood, that would have -- then you could have a buffer zone here, leave some of the trees in, make it nice looking, and still -- and I'm not suggesting -- again, I'm not speaking for my neighbors, I'm just speaking for myself, I would be fine with that. But this is just kind of -- this just doesn't make sense, really. I don't know how you're going to park -- have three businesses in here and park all the cars in here when Albertson's is over -- is pretty much overflowed now, so -- without all the new residential development that's going every which side. Every which side. You guys know, so -- Rohm: Not speaking for the Commission, but just asking a question, this drive-thru associated with the bank seems logical and it's -- normal traffic is going to be during regular business hours. There may be -- on occasion there will be an ATM vehicle that will pull through, but this one here I can see more concern for the drive-thru here than I can for this one, just because of the nature of the business that will be occupying that front property. Would you be in more support if, in fact, this Commission moved to have this drive-thru either eliminated or relocated? Kelly: I would be in support of having -- if you go back to that plan again, if you had a bank that was backed up off the street, the same -- you know, because, see, you're going to have something way out front of the retail that's there, way out front of Albertson's, and if it was just kind of -- you know, just a -- put as much space as you can with, you know, the same kind of buffer zone that's in front of Albertson's all the way around here and put one right there, so that you have the parking for it, I personally wouldn't be opposed to that. I would be opposed right now to putting up big, high 19 foot signs right here, you know, a low sign to drive in, the signage is a big issue, if you had a -- and, you know, Albertson's has got a 19 foot sign, but that's clear out on the intersection where it doesn't really affect, but if you put in above -- or at eye level to all these bedrooms here, put a small -- like a bunk sign -- like the bank that's on the other corner would be fine, Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think he's up to answer Commissioner Rohm's question. Did that get answered? Rohm: Yeah. I think so. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 56 of 76 Kelly: Yeah. I would be fine with that bank. Not this close. If you made it -- this is -- that the lighting would definitely affect us right here. If you moved it back to where you had parking to support it, I would be fine with that. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Kelly: Thank you. Zaremba: Do we want a discussion before the applicant comes back? Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Zaremba: Any questions for the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: No, but I have a question -- when we recommend -- if we recommend approval for this CUP, does that also allow both those drive-thrus or does the rule of having to have another CUP for a drive-thru to precede that and they have to come back again for the drive-thru? Canning: No. We are also requesting approval of the drive-thrus at this time. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Dixon. Dixon: I have been taking notes as fast as I could and -- very good. The 28 signatures, I -- I'd like -- I'd like this Commission to know that I did offer a neighborhood meeting last week. I had the clubhouse secured and sent out my letters to all of the adjacent property owners, it was from 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock, and I was fortunate that there was a television in the clubhouse, because that's what I did from 7:00 to 8:00, because none of the residents in the neighborhood came to the neighborhood meeting that I hosted to voice any of their public concern. Let me address one issue and that is on the use. Earlier I had mentioned that there was a cross-easement agreement and a declaration of uses and restrictions between the Levan parcel and the Albertson's property. Part of that declaration of uses restricts what can be used on parcel three. No part of parcel three within 200 feet of the building on parcel two shall be used as a restaurant or as a medical-dental professional or building office. So, in terms of the uses on that property, I am restricted on what I can do in exchange for having access to the Albertson's parking lot. Some of the concerns that Mr. Kelly addressed, as well as the others, surround lights, they surround noise, and one of the issues that they didn't bring up, but often is a concern for residences that are close to a commercial development is any kind of odor or smell that might -- that might drift over. In terms of -- in terms of the lighting, there is a few things that we can do -- that developers can do from an engineering standpoint to try to minimize some of that overflow of lighting. We are open to doing all those things. My architect is here and he whispered in my ear on my way Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 57 of 76 up that there is some things we can do to reduce the candle light, that there is certain reflective lighting elements that can be installed in the parking lot lights to minimize those and we are open to all of those suggestions. In terms of noise -- and before I move passed lighting, some of the drive-thru concerns of lighting, these were identical to the concerns that the City Council and the Planning Commission had heard in approving the Albertson's application several years ago and those concerns were mitigated by the construction of that wall and I do know where that wall runs. If we could put that -- the aerial photo back up, I can show you exactly where that wall goes. It's just the aerial. Yeah. So, here is -- you have got this -- this -- it's really nicely done. It's -- the wall -- and the wall is intended to do two things, it's both for lighting and for noise. It's not a cedar fence or anything like that, it's a -- you know, it's a sturdy wall and I would be open to continuing that wall up the property line. But that wall goes to this point right here and, then, beginning at this point right here there is a cedar fence that divides these two properties. So, those are a couple of things that we can do to address the lights. And, then, in terms of the noise, I think that wall will negate some of the noise, but also on the noise component, here is Cherry Lane right here. This is, as you all know, a five lane major east-west arterial. I don't think that there is going to be anything that we can do right here that will overshadow the noise element that really exists there in that area as is stands today, but I am open to, as I said, putting up some sort of rock -- rock wall to act as a barrier. What other -- Newton-Huckabay: Put up a six -- or a six-foot rock wall? Dixon: I would be open to just the existing rock wall that's there now. And I think it's six feet. Is it about -- four feet. Okay. If as a -- then, as a condition of approval if this body would like to have a six foot fence, that's okay and even though the existing one might only be four feet, I'm okay with making it higher and doing whatever sound proofing we need to do to eliminate that. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I think that the term the applicant might be looking for is a six-foot concrete masonry wall, rather than a rock wall. Just to clarify that. Zaremba: Yeah. I think the existing wall is cinder block, if that's what you mean. Dixon: Yeah. Other questions or concerns? Moe: Yeah. I have a couple. In regards to the drive-thru area basically on the south side, how important is that and -- I guess I have a couple -- I'm going to play junior designer here, with your architect behind you there. Dixon: Okay. Moe: The other shops over, you know, to the west of Albertson's, they do not have any access from behind, do they? Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 58 of 76 Dixon: They have a little bit of -- Moe: They are in front of both those facilities? Dixon: The tenants themselves have the outdoor access and they have a little common area where the employees to go take their breaks. Moe: Well, I just -- a couple things I'm curious is that -- if they were even thought about was basically moving Retail B back, getting -- forgetting the drive-thru to the south and taking Retail B back towards the property line and, then, taking -- Dixon: This in here? Moe: Yes. Taking it right down to the south, Retail A and A 1, bringing those down to the south to where your drive-thru would then be in line with Cherry Lane, as opposed to where you are at now. There is a similar drive on Idaho Credit Union on the other corner where they have got their drive-thru and that -- Dixon: You're talking about this southern drive-thru? Moe: Well, number one" I want to get rid of your southern drive-thru and push the building to the south. That way, then, the building is up -- A and A1 could, then, scoot south so you could put your drive-thru on the north side, as opposed -- and facing Cherry Lane as well. Dixon: I think -- I think I understand what you're saying. Moe: Then that takes care of a lot of the lighting for cars and whatnot through your drive-thrus. And the other thing, I'm kind of surprised that I didn't hear it in testimony. Quite frankly, I live right across the street from your -- of the publication or I would have got that notice, too, and your drive-thru on the south, that goes to the south there, that's going to be a nice little raceway for quite a few people to go hit, Albertson's, so they don't have to go through the other main parking entrance there. Dixon: You're talking about this way right -- Moe: Yes, I am. Dixon: -- like this. Moe: Yeah. That just really bothers me, so -- but I am kind of curious as far as reconfiguring your building. Dixon: Yeah. I shouldn't have touched that, but it still works. The issue with moving Retail B closer to the property line has to do with that canal easement and encroaching Meridian Piannlng & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 59 of 76 upon the canal easement. We have had discussion already with the irrigation district and they are okay with us encroaching on the easement with some of our drive aisles. Borup: If I can interrupt. It looks like you have only got about seven feet that you -- Dixon: That's -- I don't know if it's exactly seven, but that probably would be pretty close. And so moving one of these permanent structures onto the easement -- and I'd love to do it, but I don't think our friends at the irrigation district would allow that. Then, something else that Mr. Kelly had mentioned, though, and that is just that it's just -- he said, I think, basically it just feels really, just feels really crammed, but, you now, in reality, we are in compliance in totality with all of the parking requirements for the city and, then, not to mention, you know -- this is an entirely new -- all of the parking stalls that have proposed that -- that really eases the parking in the center and I'll tell you, I have been to this center at many different times during the day and, you know, it's never an issue of kind of finding a parking stall or not, it's more of an issue of how far will I have to walk. Because there is ample parking there. At least during the hours that I have been there. And, then, what is an issue, though, that I think lends itself to this configuration and that is the fact that Cherry Lane becomes more and more of an arterial, one of the issues that you could have -- if you can imagine that the intersection is about where my pointer is right here and you have -- you have car stacking from that intersection at certain hours during the day, which makes -- which makes access -- really, you have only got one access point right now into the center from Cherry Lane and, then, you have, you know, at 5:30 in the evening where you have car stacking at the intersection and it becomes a little bit problematic. By adding this additional entrance lane here, you take some of that off of the -- you know, just in terms of safety away from the intersection. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple questions. If you could address the building that you have labeled as Retail A, is the bank the only businl3ss in that location? Dixon: No. It would be -- Borup: There is two businesses? Dixon: Yeah. It would be -- it would be two retailers. Well, I should say this space right here, as it is configured, is just one retail, but there would be nothing that would prevent me from subdividing that and having two businesses -- Borup: Okay. But the bank is taking the -- Dixon: Yes. The bank is committed, they are taking 3,500 square feet. Borup: Well, I realize this is preliminary at this point. Has there been any -- do you know if there is any indication if they would have an A TM and where that would be? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 60 of 76 Dixon: Yeah. They would have -- there is two places that they sometimes have their ATM. Sometimes they have them in kind of an entrance, a vestibule type area and, then, sometimes they like to use one of their drive-thrus as ATM compatible. Where they are going to put that, I don't know at this point. I can tell you, though; that this drive-thru right here, their site plan calls for a small canopy to overhang their drive-thru, If you have seen some of the modern banks, they like to have the canopy, so that what that canopy does -- well, there is a couple things. It means that you don't have to have overhead lighting right here that will filter over into the neighborhood, because it's much more contained. And, then, there is also because that lighting helps on the security for the ATM. Borup: One final question. You had mentioned at the beginning that you did not see fast food as one of the uses here; is that correct? Dixon: That is correct. And as a condition of approval, we want to list Wendy's and Taco Bell and some of the fast food restaurants and -- Borup: So, you're anticipating possibly a restaurant? A sit-down restaurant? Dixon: No. Borup: Okay. Dixon: And also -- Borup: Well, you had said earlier and I -- Dixon: Yeah. Then, the restaurant use -- although the restaurant use -- it would not prohibit like a Subway, you know, some sort of -- Borup: Fast food. Dixon: Well, fast food in the sense of like a Wendy's or a drive-thru, you know, where they are all about volume, that's not what this is. But a sandwich shop, a Blimpie's, that kind of thing. Borup: Okay. Dixon: But I should confess, I have not received any interest as of yet from -- from that -- Borup: And the reason I ask that was the use of the drive-thru, so if it's not a fast food, I was wondering what business would use a drive-thru, other than a fast food -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 61 of 76 Dixon: Your coffee shops. Right now your mocha -- basically, your -- basically your coffee shops and, then -- and, then, they use the drive-thrus usually during the morning hours. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's a big coffee shop. Dixon: But it -- yeah. Right. It would -- that if they took all 3,200 square feet, that would be a monster coffee shop. Yeah. And I will pursue the coffee shops. Right now Starbucks is taking about 1,500 square feet. In fact, most of them aren't taking -- taking it, really, anymore than 15 or 18 hundred square feet max and so what this -- what this would allow is perhaps a coffee shop adjacent to another small shop user. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, a moment ago you looked like you had another question you were going to ask. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. I was just curious what type of retail user you are marketing to. Dixon: Yeah. That's a great question. Banks. Cell phone companies. Sandwich shops. Hallmark. Ice cream. Those are the ones that -- a video. Those are the ones that come to my -- to mind immediately. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Okay. Rohm: Could you live without the south drive-thru? That would be this one right here. I think that the opposition to your project is more centered on the drive-thru than the other. If I were to try and encapsulate what I have heard, it seems like this one is more objectionable. Or maybe it's more objectionable to me. I don't know. Dixon: Right. Zaremba: Your suggestion that even in the A building, that the drive-thru be either on the north or the east side, as opposed to the west side. Dixon: on the east side or the north side -- you all are not in an enviable position trying to compromise, you know, some of the testimony that you have heard and I think that, you know, at the end of the day we all have to live and work together and so in the spirit of compromise I think -- I don't think you're asking for anything that's really unfair. Rohm: Thank you. Dixon: And so, you know, to the extent that -- that I need to compromise to move this forward, it doesn't feel good, but I'm willing to give up -- give up that drive-thru. Borup: Maybe a couple of comments. I don't have a concern with the bank building, the drive-thru, where it's located. And I don't know that something still couldn't be done on the other building limiting the hours of operation, so it's not an all-night establishment Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Paga 62 of 76 or even a drive-thru on the east side may be a design ,possibility. That's -- it would be up for your architect to decide, but -- Dixon: Could we word the approval in such a way that - that Retail B does not have a drive-thru that is on the -- that is on the south or the west side? Zaremba: That, actually, is a condition staff asked for already. What the Commission is discussing no direct -- Dixon: Right. Well, what they are -- what they are asking for is specifically is the ATM. A self-service facility. Zaremba: Yeah. That's true. In my notes I added drive-thru, as they didn't. Dixon: Commissioner Rohm, I would -- I would defer to the Commission's -- you know, deliberations on that. My preference is, obviously, to have the drive-thru perhaps reconfigured on the east side. I understand what these good neighbors are feeling, though, and, obviously, the concerns that they have are real and so I leave it in your hands. I would ask for -- for one change. I'm okay with all of the conditions that have been -- that staff has recommended, the tree, the application, that I need to submit in writing, perhaps we can change the wording, though, on point number three. It reads -- Zaremba: Is that page seven? Dixon: Page seven on point three. The way it reads now is prior to the City Council hearing on this application, the applicant shall provide notarized consent of the adjacent property owners. There is two adjacent property owners. I can provide the necessary notary on the parcel right here, that's just one single owner. On the Albertson's center, they are a big company and they just move so slow. I think that we could probably have that before the City Council meeting. If we could substitute some language in there, if it read something like prior to the issuance of any certificate of zoning compliance or building permit on this application, the applicant shall provide notarized consent of the adjacent property owners, specifically Albertson's. Like I said, I received some of the verbal commitments, there is already a cross-easement in place, there is already the right of way that's in place, but they are a big company and they have got a huge legal department and I'm just, you know, another -- another guy waiting for a telephone call to be returned. Zaremba: That comment is noted. Rohm: Good comment. Dixon: Okay. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Maridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 63 of 76 Dixon: Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, before Mr. Dixon gets sat down, if I could ask him a question. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: If now is the appropriate time. Could you just address the sewer water situation? Dixon: Yeah. The sewer water -- right now we have -- we have a sewer -- we have to tap into the sewer right here, which is in front of this -- this shop that's right here. There is not an easement granting the Levan property access to the sewer across this property line. Our easements are north on the Albertson's side. So, I need to -- I need to secure the property owner of Lot 1 the right to connect to the sewer at that point. That's where the stub is. And I'm -- and I'm okay with that condition, by the way. You know, all of the -- getting his -- his permission. And, then, as far as the city water, right now there is a -- there is a six inch line and we submitted to staff the plat map that shows where that easement line goes. It runs right along Cherry Lane right here and that's where we will be connecting to water. So, again, water up here, sewer down here. Zaremba: Thank you. I think we have had some good discussion and since this is already zoned commercial, there are elements of this that can be attractive. I agree with -- what I think is the sense that there should not be a drive-thru on the B building, However, the applicant has already said he can't help with my biggest hurdle and that is the current use of this property as the maintenance facility for the golf course. If there is no other arrangement made for the maintenance facility of the golf course, the city's golf course -- or the city itself as the landlord, if we lose this property as a maintenance facility, the city will be in a position of possibly having to emergency agree to something even less desirable than what we already have and I don't think it's in the best interest of either the general taxpayers or the City Council representing the city, to not have an answer to where the -- to where the current use of this property is going to go. If the city's golf course needs to have maintenance and -- Newton-Huckabay: I think Director Canning has a comment to that. Borup: I think that makes sense, but you're assuming that there is no other provision for maintenance on the golf course property -- no provisions for a location to put something? Zaremba: No. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think you have raised a legitimate concern. I guess my only advice to you -- legal advice to you is that it isn't really the subject of this application. The obligation of the tenant of the golf course, the vendor of the golf course, is to maintain it. There isn't an obligation in the lease to the city that Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 64 of 76 they maintain it by having a maintenance shop. It isn't required that they maintain it in a building. There isn't a requireml3nt -- they can rent equipment every day and mow it and spray it. It does not require that they own it or keep it or fix it. They don't have to do any of it. So, the lack of a facility -- although you have raised a very valid concern, isn't a requirement of this lease that they currently have. So, the fact that this could eliminate their maintenance facility and their traditional way of maintaining it was to own the equipment, repair it, fix it, and maintain it, they aren't required to do that. So, there is no impact to the city for that reason for you to have to concern yourself with this application. If that's of any help to you. Moe: I guess I would just ask the question -- one other thing and that is this applicant is wanting to purchase the property and whether or not -- and it is already zoned for commercial use. I mean what is to say that he doesn't go ahead and purchase it anyway? That equipment has to go at that point anyway. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner, you're exactly right. I mean there is no -- there is nothing that is part of this application to indicate that that vendor isn't going to maintain that equipment in some other location or in some other fashion. But their arrangement or their requirement with the city is to simply maintain the property. How they chose to maintain it -- they could hire a landscaping company to main the facility if they wish. They can rent equipment to maintain it. So, they are not required to have a maintenance facility anyway. And, you're right, if he purchases the property there is no prohibition that would prohibit that regardless. Zaremba: Okay. That leaves me with one related question and I guess this would be for Mr. Freckleton. The current use requires storage of fuels and solvents and fertilizers. Is there any environmental protection -- is there responsibility, if any, toward perhaps the new owner to make sure it's a clean property, that there hasn't been leaks or spills or -- Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the vender that's been operating the golf course and using that maintenance facility, there is a private entity, so that's not the city's responsibility. So, if there is environmental concerns, then, that would be this purchaser's due diligence responsibility to verify that, but that's not the city's concern. Not an issue for the city. Zaremba: I'm the person who always has the side issues and those side issues have been addressed. I'm uncomfortable with the answer, but, apparently, that is the answer. Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on CUP 04-054 be closed. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 65 of 76 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: What can we resolve? Rohm: Where in the staff report does it speak to the two drive-thrus? Borup: Page seven, number seven. Zaremba: Page seven, number sevl3n. It talks about the automated teller and I would add drive-thru to that. Rohm: What I'm trying to do is find where we limit to one drive-thru for Retail A and no drive-thru for Retail B. Zaremba: I would adjust paragraph seven on page seven to say what you're desirous to say. Rohm: Got you. Does anybody have a significant concern of the way the drive-thru for the proposed bank is oriented right now? Zaremba: I personally would like to see it on the north or the east, rather than the west side. Borup: Banks close at 6:00 o'clock. Zaremba: Banks have shorter hours. Newton-Huckabay: I think that the flow of traffic -- somehow put the vehicles facing this way. I mean all the traffic flowing here is like, you know, down to here. Could be -- Zaremba: I'm not hearing you. Newton-Huckabay: Could it be reconfigured so that the -- the cars are now going through this way, instead of this way? Okay. Could you move the building this way .- I mean -- I don't like the fact that -- the way this -- that the back of the building faces Cherry Lane. All of these buildings the front of them face Cherry Lane. I think it would look nicer if somehow this was more oriented towards Cherry Lane. But as I am not a land planner, I am also not a land developer. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, I know the Public Hearing is closed, but just to follow up on -- Zaremba: We are holding a discussion amongst staff and Commissioners. Canning: Okay. In looking at this, I mean the staff hasn't had a long time to review this and I think that sitting here tonight we have some concerns getting this in a build-able Meridian Pianning & ZOning February 17. 2005 Page 66 of 76 fashion that allows this car to pull out and come back here, so I would anticipate that you will see quite a bit of redesign on this little area right here. It looks like they are going to have to lose one of their -- one of their drive-up windows there, but they do need to be able to -- because they are entering the site this way, they do need to be able to loop around and they do need to have it on that side of the window, so that people are -- the driver is making the transaction, so that -- that's what was meant by it would work in London, but not here. Newton-Huckabay: Right. I understand that. I mean, you know, you could turn the building another way, so they were coming -- you know -- Nary: Mr. Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: It's late, Director Canning. Nary: I don't know if this would be available or if you are interested. It sounds as if the applicant had a neighborhood hearing and nobody came. It sounds like tonight you have had a lot of information that you have all gathered similar to a neighborhood meeting, as to some configurations, locations, and those types of things. I don't know if the applicant is interested in having this set over for two weeks and giving the staff and the applicant another opportunity to talk about some of these issues you raised tonight. Since you have all raised different concerns as to where the drive-thrus are, where the locations would be, maybe that would be helpful, rather than continuing, but just a suggestion. Rohm: I'd just like to read what I have reconfigured item seven to be and see if we have a consensus among the Commissioners. Except for the facilities, such as automated teller machines, ATM's, or drive-thru, shall be prohibited for Retail Building Band acceptable for Retail A. And that way we eliminate the one on the south building and leave the configuration on Retail A and staff can work with applicant to make that drive- thru workable, whether they have to eliminate one of the lanes, so that it all works with the staff and leave it at that. Moe: Well, I guess I would ask one question, then, because the applicant did bring it up that the ATM's are sometimes at the front of the building and I would make another condition that no A TM on the west side of the bank building or Retail A, therefore, when the bank closes at 6:00, there is no more traffic, so lights wouldn't be a real problem and they'd just have to park and walk up to the ATM at the bank. Newton-Huckabay: I think that's a bad idea. Borup: I think she's probably concerned about safety aspects. Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, getting out of your car in the dark and -- if I owned a bank and you told me I couldn't have the ATM in my drive-thru, I likely would not -- that Meridian Planning & Zoning Fabruary 17, 2005 Page 67 of 76 would be an issue, because most people want to stay in their car to use the ATM, you have a small child or it's cold, it's dark, and I'm not using an ATM in the dark. Borup: My preference would be number seven as written by the staff, with the addition of: Or a drive-thru. And that being the only change. Rohm: Just elimination of the drive-thru for Retail B? Borup: No. I'm saying as the sentence -- as staff has written it and adding the phrase: Or drive-thru after ATM. Zaremba: Well, you're saying the same thing, Retail B is the southern most building. Borup: Right. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to suggest that we take Mr. Nary's stance and continue -- Borup: Well -- and that may be good, but one of the -- and I do have a concem that, you know, there was opportunity to handle most of this stuff at a neighborhood meeting, which the neighbors didn't feel too concerned to attend. Rohm: I just don't think that there is going to be anything we are going to be able to come up with in the next two weeks that we don't already know and it seems to me that if we can come up with something that's acceptable tonight, get it off the table, and move forward. And it seems that we have got an agreement by the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru on Retail B and staff has commented that the drive-thru on Retail A may have to have some modification to meet just the configuration of the property. And those two things being said, the rest of it is -- in my mind, has been resolved. Zaremba: Well, I would add to that that the applicant has agreed to continue the block wall all along the rest of the property, at least I think that's what I heard. Has agreed to modify lighting to make it less of -- less intrusive and to have a canopy over the bank drive-thru. There are issues that I think can be satisfied tonight. Borup: Well, I still think the drive-thru concerns can be handled by eliminating on the west and south side and perhaps hours of operation Rohm: You want to make a stab at it? Zaremba: You're saying we would eliminate the drive-thru for the southern most Building B and put hours on Building A? Borup: What I'm saying is that -- Zaremba: Maybe I didn't hear you correctly, That's why I'm -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 68 of 76 Borup: Okay. No. I'm saying I think the issue of the drive-thru can be handled by eliminating on the west and the south, just as the staff report says, and, then, go beyond that to limit the hours of operation. Moe: But the staff is -- that's just the southern most building? Borup: Right. Moe: Okay. You're saying Retail A would stay as is. Borup: Yes. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: I'm more comfortable with no drive-thru on B, because the stacking lanes are going to have to be somewhere. Even if the drive-thru window is on a different side, the cars are going to circulate the building just exactly in the same way they are going, the only question about moving the window is where they stop. My instinct is to have no drive-thru on Building B. Rohm: That's what I -- Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, I believe -- Borup: Yeah. And it's not up to us to redesign the project, but, you know, the traffic could come down here and right through here and have as much or more stacking than they have now. I mean it is possible. I don't know, you know, that the architect or a site planner would have to determine that, but -- I mean there is ,other options. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba -- it's getting late. But the kind of things they would need to do to get parking and have the drive-thru on something other than where it shows for Retail Building B, would be a substantial change from what you're seeing here. I think that of the other things you have talked about tonight, this is a small site, I mean we can hammer out these details before it gets to City Council, I'm confident, but I do think that that one would be a substantial redesign of the project if the -- if the Commission and the applicant are interested in pursuing that, then, that's probably one that should come back to you. The other ones are -- are easy enough to accommodate before City Council. Borup: I would be interested if the applicant has a preference there, maybe he could let staff know. And the question would be whether he would like to do the redesign or it sounds like the direction that the Commission would be going is no drive-thru at all. If you would let staff know that, then, we don't have to open the hearing again. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 69 of 76 Zaremba: The other question was on the timing of the notarized consent. Are we flexible on whether that's -- it would be desirable before City Council hearing, but do we want to put some other limit on it? Rohm: Yeah. Let's -- I agree with the applicant that large corporations can move rather slow, so, let's see, I'm just -- maybe a slight modification to three. Borup: And he did give some suggested wording. Did anybody write that down? I didn't get it all -- prior to the issue of zoning compliance or building permit and that -- was something else said? Rohm: I think just if we change provide to initiate, then, they are working towards it and they will get it when Albertson's is so inclined. That would -- Borup: Well, it has to be before some point. Zaremba: I think there needs to be a result. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, maybe some suggested language would be to strike the words the City Council hearing and insert issuance of CZC, certificate of zoning compliance. Zaremba: And I think that's one of the suggestions the applicant made as well. Freckleton: Correct. Rohm: Thank you. Okay, That being said -- Moe: Are you ready to act on the sewer and water as well? Rohm: The sewer and water is an issue between the applicant and the adjacent property owner and they got -- Newton-Huckabay: They were in agreement with the -- Rohm: Yeah. They were in agreement with staff -- Moe: It says it may be necessary to provide a level of service different from a residential use. I think it needs to be, will be required, not just be necessary. Rohm: Where are we at, Dave? Moe: Page eight, item eight. Borup: I don't think that other property has city services, does it? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 70 of 76 Zaremba: I thought the testimony was there is service that could be brought to it, but they are like a hundred feet away or something. Borup: Yeah. But the existing house that's there doesn't have city service, Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if you want to scratch the last sentence of Item 8 on page eight. Rohm: Got it. Freckleton: That was carry over. It shouldn't have been in. Rohm: It's gone. Moe: All right. Borup: Then, Mr. Chairman, did we have any comment from Director Canning? Canning: Sorry. The applicant would prefer to move forward tonight, rather than come back with a redesign. They are willing to give up the drive-thru and Retail B. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I'd like to move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-054, including all staff comments, dated February 11th, 2005, for the hearing date February 17th, 2005, with the following changes: On page seven, item three, change the first sentence to read: Prior to issuance of zoning compliance on this application, the applicant shall provide notarized consent of the adjacent property owners for the application, so on and so on. But the issuance of zoning compliance is the operative portion of that. On item seven, self service facilities, such as automated teller machines, ATM's, or drive-thrus, shall be prohibited for Retail Building Band acceptable for Retail A. Add Item nine. Applicant will construct a six-foot block wall along the southwest property line from one end all the way to the other. And item eight on page eight, delete the second sentence starting with upgrading. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: RZ 04-016 Request for a Rezone of .27 acre from R-4 to O-T zone for Serendipity Place Subdivision by Susan Howard - 1305 West 151 Street: