HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem Packet
e
June 2, 2000
e
CUP 00-022
June 6, 2000
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT Cole Associates Architects
ITEM NO.
zo
. c-
REQUEST Cup for revitalization of existing building to house a restaurant and offices
in Old Town - East First and East Idaho
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
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:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See attached PI minutes
See attached recommendations
'~
\v f v l
V~
~f
)~
w~'
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~IOv\oL @ UrU AZf~lJW-ttkJ S-1-\-
e
e
{)J llv &(t
WIllTE, PETERSON, PRU~~ MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Ta (208) 288-2499
FAX (208) 288-2~01
NAMPA OFFICE
104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTII
POST OFFICE Box 247
NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247
TEL. (208) 466-9272
FAX (208) 466-4405
JULIEKLEJN FISCHER
WM. F. G1GRAY, III
BRENT J. JOllNSON
D. SAMOFL JOllNSON
WILLIAM A. MORROW
WILLIAMF. NICIlOLS
CIIRlSTOPIIER S. NYE
PIlILIP A. l'ErERSON
STEJ:'HENL. PRuss
ERIC S. ROSSMAN
TODD A. ROSSMAN
DAYIDM. SWARTLEY
TERRENCER. WIllTE
200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE
POST OFFICE Box 1150
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150
PLEASE REPLY TO
MERIDIAN OFFICE
May 18,2000
.RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2000
CITY OF MERIDIAN
To:
Staff
Applicant
Mfected Property Owner ( s)
Re:
Application Case No.
Hearing Date:
CUP-OO-022
Tune 6, 2000
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Staff, Applicant and/or Mfected Property Owner(s):
Please note that these Findin~ and Recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be presented to the Ci~ Council at the public hearing on the above
referenced matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters
which the City Council must decide, and to insure your position is understood and cleat, it is
important to have a consistent fonnat by which matters are presented at the public hearings
before the City Council.
The City Council strongly recommends:
1. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and
Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be
I'repared to state your position on this application by addressing the
Findings and Recommendations of the Planri:illg and Zoning Commission;
and
That you carefully complete (be sure it is legible) the Position
Statement if you dIsagree with the Findings and~ecommendations
of the Planmng and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement
form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office.
It is recommended that you prepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the
City Clerk prior to the hearing, if possible. If that is not I?ossible, please present your Position
Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along with eight (8) coples. The copies will be
:Qresented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Worb and the
City Attomey. If you ~re a part of a group, it is strongly recommended that one Position
Statement be filled out for the group, wliich can be signed by the representative for the group.
2.
Iy!
e
e
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MAITER OF THE )
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL )
USE PERMIT FOR )
REVITALIZATION OF )
EXISTING BUILDING TO )
HOUSE A RESTAURANT/ )
OFFICE IN OT ZONE )
)
COLE ASSOCIATES, )
Case No. CUP.OO.022
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL
Applicant
I. The property is located at Generations Park Plaza Building 1 at I st
Street and Idaho, Meridian, Idaho and is legally described as Lot 4, Block 5, Meridian
Townsite, Tax #R567200073I.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is Stewart Laney Benoit of
Meridian.
3. Applicant is Cole Associates Architects of Boise.
4. The subject property is currently zoned O-T. The zoning district of O~T
is defined within the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section
11-7 -2L.
5. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit for
revitalization of an existing building in the OT zone to house a restaurant/office. The
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - I
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING
BUILDING IN OT ZONE - COLE ASSOCIATES
e
It
aT 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 11-8-1).
6. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that the
proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
7. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a
conditional use as determined by City Policy.
8. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes the concerns of
Mr. Champion dated May 9,2000.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
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 Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff as follows:
1.1 Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance Section 11-13-4 and/or
as detailed in site-specific requirements, and in accordance with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
1.2 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct
illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with
City Ordinance Section 11-13-4.C.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING
BUILDING IN OT ZONE - COLE ASSOCIATES
e
e
1.3 Sanitary sewer and water to this facility would be via existing service
lines. Assessments for sewer and water service are determined during the
building permit application process. Applicant will be required to enter
into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian. An
assessment agreement is a vehicle that protects the City of Meridian and
the Developer in the event that estimated assessments are not in line
with actual usages. The agreement provides for reimbursement to the
developer for over payment of assessments and payment to the City of
Meridian of any shortfall in assessments. The overpayment/shortfall is
determined after adequate historical usage.
1.4 As part of a conditional use permit, the City of Meridian may impose
restrictions and conditions in addition to current City Ordinances.
1.5 Applicant shall coordinate the location and construction requirements
of the required trash enclosure with Meridian Sanitary Service, Inc., and
provide a letter of approval from their office when applying for a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance. All trash areas are to be enclosed by a
screening fence.
1.6 Submit a letter of plan approval from Ada County Highway District
when applying for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
1.7 All required deciduous trees are to be a minimum of 3" caliper at the
time of planting; any conifer trees are to be a minimum of 6-8' at
planting.
1.8 Handicap parking, associated signage and building construction shall
meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
1.9 No signage has been proposed, and none is approved with this
application. All signage will be subject to design review and require
separate permits. Temporary signs, banners, flags, etc., will be
specifically prohibited.
1.10 This conditional use permit shall be subject to review upon ten (10)
days notice to the applicant. The current applicant is shown to be the
architect, Cole Associates. The applicant should be the owner of the
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING
BUILDING IN OT ZONE - COLE ASSOCIATES
e
.
property (Laneyland). Transfer of the conditional use permit will need
to be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator for any new
owners/tenants.
1.11 Any outdoor seating areas need to be defined for review as a part of this
application. Pedestrian walkways (minimum width of five feet)
associated with any outdoor seating areas need to be provided on the
applicant's own property. This may entail reduction in size of the
building.
1.12 The existing alley is proposed to be vacated. One-half of the alley (eight
feet) would go to the subject property, the other half would revert back
to the City of Meridian to be included as part of the expanded
Generations Plaza. The current site plan shows the encroachment of an
awning over the future property line. This needs to be modified to
prevent such encroachment.
1.13 . Applicant has proposed an alternative parking arrangement whereby cars
would enter the applicant's parldng lot from Pine Street and either exit
through the City's parldng lot on Pine Street or eastward down the
alley. This proposal would require the one-way designation on this -alley
to be reversed and also require parldng lots to be reconfigured/restriped.
If this proposal is approved, all costs to reconfigure existing parldng lots
and the alley (including, but not limited to, ACHD-imposed
requirements, paving, signage, curbing, landscaping, irrigation, etc.)
should be borne by the applicant.
1.14 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or
engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for all
off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed
of on-site. No drainage shall be diverted to City of Meridian property.
1.15 Applicant is proposing to vacate a portion of the alley. The City has an
existing sewer main in this alley. If the alley is vacated, the applicant
will be required to provide an easement to the City for maintenance of
this line. The easement agreement shall include provisions that, should
the sewer line need to be repaired, all costs to replace improvements on
applicant's property will be borne by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING
BUILDING IN OT ZONE - COLE ASSOCIATES
e
e,
1.16 The lack of windows on portions of the east side of the building seems
to detract from the overall project. The Planning & Zoning Commission
should state their design criteria concerns and mal,-e recommendations
to the applicant. Also, please provide a south elevation, as this design
should receive particular attention due to its adjacency to the City's
Generations Plaza.
1.17 To prevent confusion with City-owned facilities, the project should be
named something other than Generations Plaza.
There are many issues to be considered with this project. Staff considers two of the
most significant issues the lack of parking and redirection of the one-way alley.
One school of thought on the parking issue is that surface parking lots are an
inefficient, unsightly, and counterproductive use of space in the downtown core and
result in lower densities. They contribute to more automobiles in the downtown core
searching for parking. This creates a less inviting environment for pedestrians seeking
to use the downtown core to socialize, recreate, shop and work Whenever possible,
opportunities should be explored to replace surface lots with pedestrian friendly
parks, plazas, outdoor eateries and shopping courts to enhance the overall appeal and
vitality of our downtown.
The City's current parking requirements reflect the dependence on the automobile.
The applicant has indicated a willingness to ask employees to park in an area other
than the adjacent surface parking lot. However, this requirement can also cause
problems in recruiting prospective tenants and employees due to the inconvenience.
Some jurisdictions actually have a maximum amount of allowable off-street parking.
Other business owners in the downtown core are understandably concerned about the
lack of parking. Paisano' s Restaurant received a variance from the off-street parking
requirements. The City needs to explore parking alternatives/solutions, which could
include the following:
. Forming an assessment district that could charge individual properties based on
required vs. provided parking spaces (e.g., for every space the applicant does
not provide, the applicant would pay a set fee).
. Provide periphery parking lots/parking garage with a shuttle service to the
downtown area
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING
BUILDING IN OT ZONE - COLE ASSOCIATES
.
.
. Impose time limits on all downtown parking which would require employees to
park elsewhere.
. Signage to direct shoppers to alternate parking sites.
As for the one-way alley issue, the Meridian Fire Department and Police Department
need to seriously consider this option and the consequences related thereto. Specific
design criteria needs to be established to facilitate adequate turning radii and signage.
Adopt the Recommendation of the Meridian Fire Department as follows:
1.18 Applicants shall satisfy all fire code requirements including those
pertaining to water flow and fire hydrants.
1.19 Fire sprinlder systems will need to be approved by Meridian Fire
Department.
Adopt the Recommendation of the Central District Health Department as follows:
1.20 Applicant shall submit plans for review for a food establishment.
Adopt the Recommendation of Sanitary Services as follows:
1.2-1 The dumpster enclosure and gates are too small. This complex will
generate approximately 3 yards of waste per week, 21 to 25 cans per
week.
The Planning and Zoning Commission further recommend that the sidewalk on the
north side of the building be deleted.
ey{Z:\W ork\M\Meridian 15360M\Recommendations\ColeAssocCUP022.wpd
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING
BUILDING IN OT ZONE - COLE ASSOCIATES
~ r
Meridian Planning and Zag Commission
May 9,2000
Page 62
e
Brown: I recommend approval of the preliminary plat of approximately 277 lots on more
than 78 acres for the Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star, LLC on the southwest
corner of Ustick and Black Cat subject to staff recommendations with the inclusion of
the two stubbed roads (inaudible) by the applicant and the access on the northeast
corner also.
Norton: I will second that motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Our policy is to close this meeting by 1 o'clock
END OF SIDE SIX
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING BUILDING TO HOUSE A
RESTAURANT/OFFICES ZONED O-T BY COLE ASSOCIATES-
GENERATIONS PARK PLAZA BUILDING 1-FIRST AND IDAHO:
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would move that these people don't sit through this. We are
not going to get to those last two items. I just don't see that we are going to do it and
these people are going ---
Borup: We had one public testimony on this item, but I would tend to agree. You
proposing that we move it to the next meeting.
Brown: I just don't see it happening and I feel really poorly for these people that sit here
and at 1 o'clock we tell them we are not going to go. That is my feeling.
Borup: Your proposing that we move 16 and 17 to next meetings agenda. Do we have
enough room on that agenda to add-
Hatcher: If we were going to move it, we should have moved it hours ago. Not now.
Borup: This could be first on the agenda of that meeting because it will not be noticed
so we could revise that agenda. How do you commissioners feel?
Hatcher: I concur with Kent's idea. We are probably not going to get to this within the
next hour, but if we were going to propone it we should have done it several hours ago
so these people did not have to sit here all night only to hear that we are postponing it.
Borup: I think we brought that up.
Meridian Planning and Zag Commission
May 9, 2000
Page 63
e
Brown: I did bring that up.
Hatcher: And, it was not dealt with at that time.
Borup: For some reason we did not have our physic here to tell us how long the
testimony was going to be.
Norton: I would go with the pleasure of the people sitting in the audience.
Borup: How many people for Item 16 and 17 would like to see if we get to it tonight or
guarantee that it will first on the next times agenda. We can accept written testimony.
How many for postponing it? How many would like to proceed ahead tonight? The 24th
we have a special meeting. Not on this item we wouldn't. The letters would go out on
the other items. This has all ready been noticed so the notification would be tonight. At
the special meeting we have that set at 6:30.
Norton: Mr. Chairman do you require a motion for that? I am prepared to move that we
move Item 16 and Item 17 to be first on the agenda to table it tonight, move it to be first
on the agenda at our special meeting on May the 24th at 6:30 p.m.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES, 1 NAY, 1 OBST AIN
Borup: If this gets done in 15 minutes we will see if we made a mistake or not.
Hawkins Clark: The next two items are related, however they are 2 different legal
parcels. This deals with what is being called Generations Plaza 1. The current site is
located here. Did you receive comments that were just completed by Shari today. They
are dated May 9. There was written comments that should have been sent over earlier.
You mayor may not have received those. The couple main things to point out, this
Variance application did go before City Council on the 2nd of May for this site regarding
off street parking and the City Council did approve the variance. They are requesting 2
different uses. Retail for the lower level and office for the second floor. The existing
alley-no that is on Generations 2. We will have to get you copies of this. Here are site
photos of the building here that is currently exists. As I understand it they are proposing
now to demolish this building and construct completely from ground up. There has
been discussions with the park department regarding this addition which would be
outdoor seating. Here is Idaho and the alley behind. There is an agreement that needs
to worked out with the City regarding this area. As I understand, this small sliver here to
the north is the city is not willing to negotiate with in terms of use for this project.
Meridian Planning and zag Commission
May 9, 2000
Page 64
.
Cole: My name is Stan Cole. I represent (inaudible) who are developing these two
sites. I respectfully request that we can with my discussion address both Generations
1 and 2 at the same time. Our project consists of two buildings. Now they both are
going to be new buildings, two story. To the east of Generations Park we are proposing
approximately 6,000 square foot two story building that would accommodate restaurant
in the first level, office in the second level. To the north we are proposing approximately
12,000 square foot building which would accommodate retail, restaurant on the first
floor and office on the second floor. We are proposing to vacate the alley. This would
help address some of the park issues. Help expand the park towards the north. Help
us get more pedestrian flow through both buildings adjoining the park. We feel that this
is a real asset to the downtown part of Old Town Meridian that would help front
generations park, help get pedestrian flow through those areas.
Hatcher: Quick question Stan. For clarification, did I catch something the existing
building that is to the east of the park is no longer being-the CUP was submitted for
revitalization of the existing building. But, you now are coming to us this evening
(inaudible) that building.
Cole: Though our investigations, our structural engineer would now decided that the
structure is not sound to renovate. We are proposing to expand the existing foot print
pretty much as is except a little to the north which we have property for us. We are
adding approximately 360 square feet total, each floor for the footprint. The design will
not change. We are staying within the same perimeters we had initially. It will just be a
new structure.
Hatcher: Was there any attempt or plans of salvaging the historic phasod to the south.
Cole: We talked to the Historical Commission and they don't feel this building warrants
any consideration. It will be somewhat similar to what is there now. We aren't
modifying our design and our design was based on original structure. This is
Generations 1 which is the building to the east which was existing. Our plan is to
replicate our design with a new structure other than extension in the back to
accommodate more square footage. Generations 2 which is to the north has a phasod
which represents some of the historic downtown nature. I think your elevations that
were presented as part of this (inaudible) delineate that further. I have some drawing to
add to it. In terms of the findings that were submitted to us by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, I would like to also compliment the staff. We worked very closely with
T om Kuntz the Park Director and the Mayor and the Planning and Zoning Staff to get
where we are today and without their assistance this project would not come about. In
terms of some of the comments we have some concerns with. Item number 11, the
outdoor seating is really part of the amenity to what we feel the buildings present to the
park. We would like to work with the city staff and at least 28 to 30 spots for seating on
the outside. Number 12, we will modify the awning to accommodate the property line.
Number 15 which is relevant to the sewer line. The sewer line is actually at the center
of the alley. We would like to work out some kind of a compromise with the city. If its
Meridian Planning and ze,g Commission
May 9, 2000
Page 65
.
truly in the center line then it really becomes property shared by both parties, because
the vacation of alley goes through the center line. Item 16 regarding the windows on
the east side of Generations 2 we have made every attempt to make as much g lass as
we can. We also have some concern with security on that site being that it is not
exposed to some of the pedestrian traffic on the parking side. We will consider some
other name. Any questions?
Norton: Will one of these buildings take the same place where Stan's Lawn Mow repair
is---
Cole: That building will be demolished and Generations! will be in place of that. It will
front the street similarly to what is there now-the edge of the sidewalk and
accommodate maximize the property each corner to the north south east west. We are
providing new parking as part of this project to the east of the new building.
Norton: Do you have any other names in mind.
Cole: I'll let Gary Benoit speak to that.
Norton: One more about the signage. There are no signs proposed and that they
would require a separate permit. I want to make sure we are all on the same page on
the sign thing.
Cole: We understand that is a separate permit and they will probably be signage on the
building itself.
Borup: At this point, has the Parks Department reviewed the set of plans that we have
in front of us.
Cole: Yes, we have been very heavily in reviewing our development. We are working
with the landscape architect that is working with the Park so that our two projects mesh
together.
Borup: Tom do you have any comments at this point?
Kuntz: The only comment I think Brad covered is that if you look to the north of the
patio, there is a small sidewalk that connects to a - right there. We have requested that
be deleted and I believe that was acceptable. Actually the park has been designed
differently than what you see as far as the park goes there. I can get you a copy of
those plans so the Commission can see what the park will look like. We have been
working very closely with Mr. Cole and our landscape architect.
Borup: Anyone else wish to come forward. Sir do you want to-
Meridian Planning and ~ng Commission
May 9,2000
Page 66
.
Benoit: I'm Gary Benoit with Stewart Lanee Benoit one of the partners in this project.
We just got the information. We have a name change for the project. We have not had
a lot of time to talk about it. I am assuming-we would like to keep it-we want to
identify with the Generations Plaza because every one knows where that is. If there is a
consensus if there is confusion with it we would probably opt to do something similar to
what they have done at the Grove where you have center on the Grove and the hotel.
We would probably fall in line with the name Generations Center. We need to give that
a little more thought but I am sure we can come up with something that side skirts the
plaza question. There was another question and Tom where did we stand on that side
(inaudible) on the Generations 2 building. There was a question as to whether we
needed to have a sidewalk there next to the patio. The way Shari has written this it
indicates that they would like to see that. If we do that, that will actually create 2 parallel
5 foot sidewalks.
Kuntz: I don't think that as been final as far as resolution. Your talking about a sidewalk
that would go where the alley is now?
Benoit: Yes.
Kuntz: I don't think that issue has been totally resolved.
Benoit: Shari put it in her write up. I don't know if that is cast in stone of if this is the
time to address that.
Kuntz: Our position is that if that alley is abandoned we going to have a 16 foot
easement through there which is more than adequate as far as sidewalk. I don't want to
speak for Shari and her staff so I think that is an issue that we need to sit down and
discuss with them and come up with a solution.
Benoit: I would have no further comments.
Brown: What condition was that Gary.
Benoit: Number 11. On the Generations Plaza building number 2, right here there is a
16 foot alley that we vacating here. 8 feet will go to the city and 8 feet will belong to our
property here. We are proposing or like to have an outdoor patio. Not an extensive
patio but enough patio there that it creates this people wandering type of a thing which
we feel is part of this whole growth of Generations Plaza setting. The question is, the
city is proposing they are going to have a side walk here. The way that Shari has
written this up they would want us to take and put another sidewalk immediately parallel
to it, which doesn't make a lot of sense to our way of thinking. As long as the city has a
sidewalk here, the patrons if they choose to walk out here and go on should be able to
use the sidewalk as much as they would if they exited off the front of the building onto
any other kind of sidewalk. That is the only question that we have at this point. We
would like to not be obligated to put any kind of a sidewalk in and be able to use that for
Meridian Planning and Ze,g Commission
May 9, 2000
Page 67
.
patio area and then use this common area sidewalk for park patrons and for our building
patrons.
Norton: Is that patio in conjunction with a restaurant that you are planning on being
there.
Benoit: We are interviewing several people. Starbucks are looking at it right now. We
anticipate probably a coffee house kind of use. Not a full service restaurant.
Norton: I was just wondering how many Mexican Restaurants the City of Meridian is
going to be getting in here.
Benoit: We've talked bakery, ice cream shops. We want that whole building and that
whole area to be fun and a gathering place.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I was going to point out is there is an
existing main that runs down that alley and with the alley only being 16 foot wide, what
we put in our comments was that there needs to be the whole thing needs to be
covered by an easement down through that area. If we had to dig that thing up, your
going to need all of 16 feet to dig it up. That is in our comments. An easement would
have to be dedicated down what was the alley.
Borup: What's the option? Right now there is no easement.
Freckleton: When the alley is vacated an easement would have to be created.
Benoit: We would have not problem dedicating an easement there for the use of the
sewer line. The one question that Stan alluded to is the way it is written now, they
would require if there were any work done on that alley, that we would foot the bill. We
are saying well it is a 16 foot alley and 8 feet belongs to us and 8 feet belongs to the city
so it would follow-half the bill would go to the city and have to us as opposed to 100
percent to our nickel.
Freckleton: That is certainly how we were thinking about that. We weren't thinking you
would foot the entire bill. If you put in a lot of improvements over there and they have to
be removed for construction, that is what we were getting at.
Benoit: I don't think the improvements have been finalized. It probably with this new
easement in mind I am sure what we will end up with is pretty much what the city will
end up with. We are not going to spend a lot of money on something that maybe has to
come out of there.
Borup: Is that sewer line going to have to be replaced in our life time.
Meridian Planning and L4tng Commission
May 9,2000
Page 68
e
Freckleton: Well it is one of the oldest ones. I think it is an 8 inch line. It is probably
clay or concrete. There are methods of doing rehab without digging up large areas. I
think a minimum of 8 is what we want. I believe part of Shari's concerns were on the
site plan. It did appear that there was some over hangs or something that went beyond
the 8 feet.
Benoit: Stan when he drew that did draw that and does appear that way and we will pull
that back in.
Borup: Is there any outside restroom usage in the design here.
Benoit: No, we talked with Tom Kuntz a little about this and we can't see how it really
fits or how we can fit it into what we are doing. A suggestion Tom and I had addressed
was porta potties for major events. Tom had mentioned that maybe the city could
dedicate some land and create their own. We could work with the city and redesign the
building and dedicate some of our land to that. The one thing we did feel comfortable in
doing was committing the inside restrooms that now belong to the Smokey Mountain
Pizza people. We can't commit those to public use. If there were a reasonable
opportunity to do something like that we would certainly try. Reasonably opportunity
would be something that we did not have to maintain or be liable for. We thought about
putting the restrooms in side of our walls but if you do that you run into certain
maintenance obligations or questions or legal liabilities. If somehow the city needed to
have a 6 foot strip off the back of the building to create some restrooms, we could work
out an agreement of some sort with that if they were willing to build the restrooms back
there. If the city wanted to take on that responsibility we certainly would work with them
to provide some land of some sort or do something. When I say provide we in to that
land at $33 a square foot so it is not land we want to give away.. The whole project
financially is upside down right now because we have to spend extra money to tear
down the building. Before, we might have felt a little more generous. We are not nearly
as generous now because it is starting to hurt.
Kuntz: I think the concept was and actually is was Councilman Anderson who felt real
strongly that some type of out door restroom would be beneficial to special event type of
things. I don't disagree with Mr. Benoit. I think he raised some good points. The
concept I had in mind would be a restroom that would be unisex that would be used by
employees of the restaurant, not the people using the restaurant and during special
events could be locked from the inside of the restaurant and then opened from our side.
During these special events it would be used by the city and be responsible to maintain
it clean it with crews the next day. We'd be responsible for damage and that type of
thing. If consideration were to be built inside the walls of their facility as an employees
restroom that we could use for special events, then there would need to be some kind of
cost sharing from the city side to help pay for that restroom if we were going to use it.
Borup: How many special events a year would you anticipate.
Meridian Planning and ~ng Commission
May 9,2000
Page 69
e
Kuntz: The new design of the park incorporates a small stage area and then a raised
grass area for people to sit on, so I guess we are hoping to host music events once a
week in the summer. So, maybe once a week for a 2 month period. The tree lighting
ceremony at Christmas. Dairy Days. Probably a total of 10-12 days a year.
Benoit: I still see it a difficult thing to do while we would like to cooperate as much as
we can, we still have tenants to appease. These people are paying good money to be
there and it is difficult to go to them and say your employees restroom, we'd like to turn
it into a public restroom now on certain events.
Hatcher: If I understand what I am hearing an 8 foot by 8 foot unisex restroom adjacent
to the exterior wall at Generations Plaza can not fit at all into the floor plan.
Stanfield: We are really constrained because the building (inaudible) is only 30 feet
wide and to get anything that we don't have in there now is going to be a big impact on
the design of the (inaudible) and tenant space. It may sound like a small piece of the
puzzle but it has a major impact. The other issue if you really do use this and it
becomes popular, one unisex restroom isn't going to be enough to accommodate the
use. Your still going to have to provide-
Borup: The question would be then on these events, where are the people going to go.
Stanfield: Porta potties.
Borup: What is going to keep them from going into the restaurant and distributing that
business.
Stanfield: They will probably put a sign on the door and do the best they can to keep
them out.
Hatcher: Question for Tom Kuntz. Prior to this project what were you planning on doing
for special events at Generations Plaza.
Kuntz: Actually the issue never came up before because we weren't planning special
events until that was brought to the attention to the Council that they would like to see
the Parks Department provide some kind of after hour music, gathering events and that
type of thing. The Christmas Tree lighting ceremony is short enough and cold enough
where people don't want to stay around for much longer than an hour or so. I think the
porta potties are a valid -we use those now at other park sites when we have large
special events. I do have one question. Gary commented on land toward the back of
the building where we could add a small unisex restroom. Would that fit within outside
the footprint and still allow alleyway.
Benoit: I don't think it would fit outside the footprint because of some of the questions
that we have all ready addressed. It would have to be inside the footprint I think. My
biggest question is for all the pain that one unisex restroom would cause, would that
Meridian Planning and "'g Commission
May 9,2000
Page 70
e
really accommodate the needs. If you have 300 or 400 hundred people out there and
one restroom, you have a problem.
Kuntz: I guess I am thinking outside the box here a little bit to where I can see families
coming to picnic there on weekends, work days, workers eating their picnic lunch, for
maybe 45 minutes to an hour. To have a restroom available there may not be a bad
idea. If there is a way it could fit into the over all plan I think a little foresight now would
save us a lot 10 years down the road.
Benoit: The other question I have, in Boise a lot of their restrooms are locked during the
day. You go to Ann Morison Park, Greens Park and you can't use those restrooms
because they have had problems.
Norton: Just to throw out another idea to our staff, if in fact the City of Meridian
purchases the Valley Shepherd Church for City Offices, is it possible that the City could
open their doors to the city residents during these events. It is across the street so
you'd have to cross with the light, but it might open up more restroom facilities for
people.
Hatcher: To make it as clear as mud, I think we need to think within the box and reality.
-this is not a destination park. People are not going to get in their car and drive to this
park unless there is a special function. The occasional person who will go to this park is
to meet with a spouse for lunch, bring the kids down on a hot summer day to play in the
fountain. Surprisingly in the first year, it has gotten a fair amount of use, but it is not a
destination use. I personally feel that the porta pots are appropriate solution for the
issue at hand and we should be done with it and more on to the next issue. I would like
to address Item 16 from Shari's letter. The lack of window~ on portions of the east side
of the building seem to district from the overall project. The' parking lot side Generations
Park Plaza 2. I am looking at this elevation.
Stanfield: I have given a new elevation to the City Clerk that shows all the elevations.
South and north are pretty much mirrored so we did not feel a need on that one, but I
have (inaudible) on the new elevation. In regards to her comments, we provided as
much glass as we possibly can other than in restroom and elevator areas.
Hatcher: So, this portion here your saying (Inaudible).
Borup: It is on the board up there too. Your saying this is glass at this end.
Hatcher: We are dealing with (inaudible) can we do (inaudible) windows to the other
side to balance it out and create some (inaudible).
Stanfield: I don't think that would accommodate your needs. I think we can do
something with score lines to break up the wall a little bit At this phase a parking lot is
not really what we consider -
Meridian Planning and "g Commission
May 9,2000
Page 71
e
Borup: That's what I was going to say---worried about the parked cars having a view.
Hatcher: If I am going to come to this building, that is the site I am going to see.
Stanfield: The sites we're concerned with are the ones that address the streets that
people see when they pass the building and we can't always accommodate windows in
every portion of the building.
Hawkins Clark: We'd like to request one issue related to number 12 on the vacation of
the alley. We talked about this. The vacation request do need to be submitted to the
city as well as Ada County Highway District. I don't believe there was one submitted yet
anyway.
Benoit: We met with the Mayor, and several people and Shari included and nobody
was quite sure where that application went. The actual application goes to Ada County
Highway District and they have it and will be heard May 24 and then it takes 90 days
after that. The City of Meridian wrote a letter endorsing the vacation was how they
handled that. That letter has been sent to the Ada County Highway District as part of
our application.
Kuntz: Just two things. One is we sent a letter of support and then also we received
notice from Ada County Highway District this week. I think it came to the Clerks office
and we received a copy asking-anyway Ada County sent a request for comments on
the request to vacate that alley and we received that this week. Gary Smith has sent a
letter in regards to the sewer easement, so it is just a matter of us replying to their
request for comments.
Hawkins Clark: If I'm not correct, the City both bodies need to act on vacation requests
of public rights of way.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, the City Council has to give consent and that's it. State law
requires that petitions be given for the easement holders. They relinquish their rights.
The highway district has to act upon it but the City Council because it is in their
jurisdiction.
Hawkins Clark: Which I don't believe formally has been done.
Brown: The City Council could give their consent -this goes to them-they act upon
this right.
Hawkins Clark: As a CUP right.
Brown: If staff wrote it up, they could put it as a consent.
Meridian Planning and 4ng Commission
May 9,2000
Page 72
e
Borup: Your saying is has to be on our agenda.
Brown: It doesn't have to be on our agenda.
Hawkins Clark: Correct me if I'm wrong, this site plan shows that there has been a
proposed change in the directions of the traffic flow.
END OF SIDE SEVEN
Hawkins Clark: City parking lot located here coming down the alley moving west bound
and then going out north through this and it has been changed to enter on their parking
lot. ACHD has asked for that to become an alley through the isle way there, go east
bound and then exit through the city parking lot. Item 13 on the comments does talk
about the fact that since this alley way is currently the opposite direction in terms of
traffic flow, it will effect other property owners further down the alley.
Stanfield: The reversal of this traffic flow is based upon discussions with ACHD. It was
not a request but a recommendation and we followed this recommendation with reverse
flow. Another issue with some of the findings is that requirement of paving the alley to
the other end. We'd like to pave it to the extent of our property.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, maybe Dave could give us some guidance on the vacation
issue as to how we need to proceed on that.
Swartley: Is there an application pending. No body knows. You say it was lost. Don't
you usually receive a vacation application of an easement at the planning and zoning
department.
Borup: We have in the past.
Swartley: Then I'd guess that's the procedure. Have you put an application in with the
city as well.
Benoit: Not with the city. We were not told to do that. We were told-matter of fact
talking with the city they told us they did not have control over Ada County Highway
District -
Swartley: Is it their easement then. It is not a city easement.
Benoit: No, its Ada County Highway District.
Swartley: Then I don't see why the city would need to get involved.
Benoit: What they did need they told us was the endorsement of the city which we got
through the form of a letter from the Mayor's office.
Meridian Planning and Z.g Commission
May 9,2000
Page 73
.
Champion: Brian Champion. I own the property that's east of the city parking lot. 129
E. Pine. I have some concerns with this project. However, on first glance it looks like it
is a very advantageous project for everybody in the community. The deeper I am
getting into this project the more concerned I am getting. I did sign a statement that I
would be an alley vacation, but the statement that was sent to me... if you could send
the picture back up of the alley that's vacated. What I approved showed an awning right
here and I was told that this alley would become part of the park. Now I am
understanding that it is going to be Starbucks outdoor seating. That is number one. I
also had written down on the alley vacation that the alley I would agree to it if the alley
was paved all the way down. I did my conditional use permit I had to pay for my portion
of the alley and put it into a fund. The County would not let me pave that portion alone.
They said as soon as other developments come into the area we are going to do it all at
once. It is very important to me that it gets paved. I have all ready paid my money.
Currently, all of the alleys in this city all run from the east to the west What they are
proposing to do in this change is change this so its going to run the opposite direction of
all other alleys in the city. Everything that they are requesting to do, benefits them but it
hurts me. I have customers that drive in and turn into my parking lot here, I am going to
have to redirect them to come up east (inaudible) turn right come down the parking lot
go down here and then turn in. It is inconvenient. I am all in favor of working out a
solution with these people so they can build this project, but first with this sending up the
flag to me. With the becoming Starbucks Coffee, that's the second flag. Now the fact
that we are going to have all of this as adjacent parking are still not enough room with
this alley vacated to put in a rest room. That is the third flag for me. Redirection of all
the alley's - that is the fourth flag. The fifth flag is they can't afford to pave the rest of
the alley. That is 5 flags that I've got.
Norton: Mr. Champion, I am not familiar with your business. What type of business do
you own.
Champion: I own it's a cottage house. It has been renovated into a business. There is
a physiological services that are in there and a environmental company. I am going to
be the one looking at that windowless wall.
Borup: Are you the landlord or do you run one of those businesses.
Champion: I am the owner. The landlord.
Borup: Your not actually in the building.
Champion: My wife is.
Borup: She is one of the tenants. One of the two businesses. Could you explain a bit
more about this alley fund. You say you contributed to that. To what extent. To the
frontage that you had on the alley.
Meridian Planning and .ng Commission
May 9,2000
Page 74
.
Champion: When I requested a conditional use permit, the county request that I pave
clear down to the end of the alley. I thought that was quite excessive being that I owned
the very center of the 60 some feet of the alley. We worked out an agreement that I
would put the money that they figured that it would cost to not just repave it but to dig it
up and redo it because they were concerned about lines in the alley at the same time.
These sewer lines. I put the money in the account with ACHD.
Borup: Enough money to pave the whole alley.
Champion: No. To pave behind my portion of it and I was assured that it would be
done when the next project came online. I did not force the issue and get that in writing.
My money is just sitting there with ACHD right now. In a fund, yes. There is going to be
a big increase in traffic going up and down this alley with these businesses here. I am
in favor of this project. I just don't want to take the whole brunt of all of the negative
aspects because they are working on $33 a foot. I limited my project and didn't
increase the size of my project, stayed with the scope of the property and I don't want to
be negatively impacted for renovating a piece in Old Town. That is what Old Town is
supposed to be is renovated and bring it up but what I am seeing is we are going to
have two brand new buildings that are maximizing every possible square inch and
giving me a view of a nice wall and wanting to take my alley access away. For the love
of God, I don't know how any semi truck is going to make the turn to get off that alley.
There are semi trucks that deliver food to existing businesses right now.
Borup: Presently the alley is one way. So right now your clients would come -they
come that way and then they have to go out through the city parking lot. That's
assuming they are coming from the south. You say there is a median going in on east
1st? Brad.
(Inaudible - people talking off microphone)
Borup: Your saying there is a median strip down Pine. So what is the problem.
Champion: The traffic won't be able to come from this direction and turn.
Borup: Mr. Benoit maybe you can clarify this. This cement median strip that is on your
property or out in the middle of Pine. That's in the middle of Pine.
Benoit: (Inaudible - not on microphone)-so people won't come the wrong direction
and turn that way. In our conversations with Ada County they're saying well maybe you
don't need the median because people aren't going to go against (Inaudible) on way
sign.
Borup: So anyone coming from the north or south would turn down Pine and in there
just like they do now.
Meridian Planning and .g Commission
May 9,2000
Page 75
.
Hatcher: The current parking of the adjacent lot comes from the east of the alley. I
don't understand the advantage of reversing the flow of traffic down the alley way.
Benoit: Ada County Highway District wants to reverse that flow of traffic because what
it does -the direction of this alley is coming out on E. First street. This is a huge hazard
here. No, light or signal. By sending them out over to Pine street they can come out at
a signalized intersection. Second, they reversed the direction and brought them in this
way and out that way because this entrance is too close to the intersection and they
would have only been able to give a right turn only. Here they can go out and turn right
or left. No restricted turn there.
Borup: That is over 315 feet.
Benoit: 175 is the requirement and it is 180 on this one. This is a collector road.
Hatcher: I still don't understand the advantage of reversing the alley has to do with that.
You take your parking lot and reverse it so that you enter here and exit here. Even if
you put a median up here to keep people from criss crossing the thing that you are
doing by reversing the alley is that this parking lot right here, which is your new parking
lot, would then exit then this way or down the alley way.
Benoit: We are trying to get it so we can exit out here and come out at the signal light.
Hatcher: I understand that and I am not arguing against that. You proceed with
reversing your parking lot -keep the alley way the same way. Have the alley way come
from the east side and turn right here into your flow. Your going counter dock wise and
its coming from the east. I don't understand-what the benefit. Proper paint on the
, -
asphalt will address that.
Benoit: When Ada County Highway District looked at and I'll address one more element
of this too, Brian made mention of this is going an opposite direction. There is no
connecting alley on this side and on this side, so it is an isolated one block section of
alley that does not tie in with anything. ACHD looked at it and said what really works
the best.
Hatcher: Stan can you address-
Borup: Does anybody know and maybe Richard this may answer your question too.
Does ACHD have any problem with ending the alley designation at this point right here.
Stanfield: I don't think ACHD cares which way the alley flows. Their main concern is
where the curb cut is in relationship to the relationship to the intersection.
Meridian Planning and _ng Commission
May 9, 2000
Page 76
e
Hatcher: That is exactly my point. Do what we need to do for this parking lot but lets
not change existing (inaudible) work this out and find a happy medium.
Benoit: Mr. Champion's customers-I've done quite a few surveys down there because
parking has been a question on this. The only person that seems to park behind his
building is an employee. There is only one car I have ever seen there. Front Street
there is seldom any cars there.
Champion: I do have the required amount of parking spaces. Whether they are being
fully used is in-consequential. With the variance that they been given for off street
parking, the fact that there use to be positions in the front of my building is going to be a
has been. There is not going to be a place on the street to park for blocks around. I do
need to protect my parking places. The variance that was given, they will have 40
employees at the pizza joint and another 40 at the Generations plaia that are parked 8
hours a day. That to be is like another 80 cars.
Borup: That is quite a business that would hire that many employees.
Benoit: The other thing Mr. Champion the city (inaudible) 2 hour slots around there so
an employee that works 8 hours a day can't park in a 2 hour slot.
Champion: They are not 2 hour slots in front of my-
Benoit: A variance was issued and I think you were out of town for that variance
meeting but we presented a evaluation of the downtown parking conditions and off site
parking was sited in several areas. I am on the Mayor's new committee for the new
downtown renovation and the answer is not immediately available, but it is there. We
can see all kinds of real estate and ways to reorganize things to get parking for
downtown. As we saw it, the real question downtown wasn't so much the lack of
parking as it was the lack of customers. We see this as a huge step in the right
direction to create a parking problem downtown. That is the best problem we could
have because we can fix that. It is hard to fix where there is nobody down there. You
can park anywhere you want downtown. We are hoping to fill it up and to help these
other businesses up and down the street. I don't think is will take your parking because
it is all ready for the most part 2 hour parking.
Champion: Gary is correct in the fact that the parking lot is now fairly empty. Before he
did his survey and before the 2 hour signs went up, it was filled with one business.
There is a telemarketing company with some 20 employees that fill that parking lot and
left nothing. That is what made to city come out and enforce a 2 hour parking. Now it is
available. We do need more customers down there. I am in favor of their project. I am
not in favor of re-directing the alley and I want somebody to show me how the existing
semi truck are going to exit out of that new alley. (Off the microphone)
Meridian Planning and 4ng Commission
May 9, 2000 -
Page 77
e
Benoit: Ada County Highway District outlines that. They are identical. They are both
60 foot lots and the flow on both sides will be exactly the same. They also have turning
radius and prescribed to us, they know what is required to get semi's in and out of there.
Borup: I would think it would be a delivery truck not a semi.
Norton: I can add to that. My husband is a semi truck driver that delivers groceries for
Associated Food Stores and he takes his big semi into very itty bitty little mom and pop
grocery stores and it is hard for him to get in and out of them.
Champion: I approved his going for the vacation of the alley, but if all these other
changes are going on and the alley is not going to get paved and I got to change my
direction, I resend my approval of the vacation of the alley and I will oppose it. To work
with you keep the traffic going my direction.
Brown: Mr. Champion, this is truly a highway district issue. They talked about when the
vacation is coming up. If you, have a comment you can take it up with their traffic
engineers. The city does not have traffic engineers. They can explain the turning. I
know from me working downtown and I saw trucks turning in and out of tighter parking
lots.
Champion: It is a City of Meridian issue because I am a business owner in the city.
Brown: I understand that sir. We are not traffic engineers and that is why I said there is
where the issue is. You wanted to resend your vacation, that's where you resend it.
They are the agency that does the vacation.
Champion: Okay, that's great. Last issue then. On the side of the building that Mr.
Cole said that there is nobody to look at. That's me. I am nobody. My business that I
think I did a real nice job in proving it to be part of the community not to be excluded
from the downtown area, will be the one that looks at the blank wall.
Borup: You think the building that is going up is a step down from what you are looking
at now.
Champion: Three sides of it are very attractive. The back side is ugly.
Borup: Compared to what is there now?
Champion: Good night sir.
Borup: Any other comments from the Commissioner's.
Meridian Planning and "g Commission
May 9, 2000 .
Page 78
e
Hawkins Clark: I did check. We do have a requirement for the City Council to hold
public hearings on vacations and public rights away. It is a separate application for the
city that is going to be required. It is 12-10-2.
Borup: So you say it needs to be or all ready scheduled.
Hawkins Clark: It needs to be a separate application that-the way it reads is that the
commission reviews it but does not have a hearing. This body has dealt with them
numerous times. You simply make a recommendation. No public hearing. Then City
Council acts on it as a hearing. City ordinances can be more restrictive than state
statute. That is what we've got in this case.
Borup: Do we need a written request or can it be verbal.
Hawkins Clark: I think if you put it as a formal recommendation I guess that I don't see
the ordinance is not clear that it requires from this body. I think that will take care of it if
you just included whoever makes the motion that should be a condition added. We
would need an application submitted.
Borup: I don't know how to address it if you don't feel you received one. Just now
looking how the ordinance was written. That's got to come to you first and then to us. If
you can state you considered you received it than I guess we could address it here.
So we could still act on this and address the other application later. I'd rather do that.
Hatcher: Let's address each issue.
Brown: I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Hatcher: I am ready for a motion.
Brown: I would say we need to do some deletions on item number 11 or condition 11.
Talking about the dual sidewalk issue.
Borup: From the site plan we have that sidewalk from the patio to the north was
deleted.
Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for the conditional
use permit for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new building
Meridian Planning and .ng Commission
May 9,2000
Page 79
.
as identified by the applicant as Generation Park Plaza 1, east of Generation Park to
include staff comments and to no additional comments attached.
Borup: Do you want to mention the sidewalk from the patio to the north was deleted.
Hatcher: I was going to do that with the next building.
Borup: That is the wrong building though. No, no it wasn't. I don't think staff had
mentioned it that Mr. Kuntz had in his comments. I think Brad made mention of it also.
There was a sidewalk coming from the patio north on the building shown on the site
plan.
Hatcher: That is in the park area.
Borup: Right. This little thing right here.
Hatcher: Oh. That is in the scope of work as proposed. So the issue is what.
Borup: Mr. Benoit was that-well never mind. We all ready closed the public hearing.
Was there agreement on that wasn't there.
Kuntz: There was agreement with the applicant to delete that sidewalk to the north of
the patio. Is it shown in the existing plans before you. I would like to have it deleted in
the motion then.
Hatcher: Add it in. That's fine.
Brown: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 NAY
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AUTO GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 2
STORY RETAIUOFFICE ZONED OT BY COLE ASSOCIATES-BLOCK OF
FIRST & PINE:
Borup: Again, we have heard testimony on this. We'd like to open the public hearing.
Hatcher: I would be more than happy to put a motion together on this one but would
like a little discussion on this first.
e e
-" ,
Ada CounfyJh hway ;])ijfricf
Judy Peavey-Derr, President
Dave Bivens, Vice President
Marlyss Meyer, Secretary
Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner
Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner
318 East 37th Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499
Phone (208)387-6100
Fax (208) 387-6391
E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us
May 19, 2000
.RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2000
CITY OF MERIDIAN
TO:
Ward Schwider
Cole Associates Architects, P.A.
960 Broadway, Suite 240
Boise, 10 83706
FROM: Steve Arnold, Principal Development Analyst
Planning & Development
SUBJECT: MCUP-00-023
Two Story Office/Retail Building
1st & Pine
The Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District on May 10, 2000 acted on your application
for the above referenced project. The attached staff report lists conditions of approval and street
improvements, which are required.
If you have and questions, please feel free to contact me at (208) 387-6170.
Cc: Planning & Development/ehren/project file
City of Meridian
Construction Services - John Edney
Drainage - Chuck Rinaldi
J. Patrick Laney
Stewart Laney Benoit
910 Main Street, Suite 240
Boise, 10 83702
"[ic flilhy
0~fo/OO
[+-bVVl ~ '20
e
e
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Planning and Development Division
Development Application Report
MCUP-00-023
MV AR-00-008
830 East 1 st Street and 111 east Pine Street 2 Story Office/Retail Building
An application has been submitted to the City of Meridian for conditional use approval. The
application has been referred to ACHD by the City for review and comment. The conditional use
application is a request to construct a two-story commercial/office. The applicant is also requesting a
variance for the off street parking. The 0.2l-acre site is located at the southeast comer of the 1 st Street
and Pine Street. This development is estimated to generate up to 200 vehicle trips per day
(approximately 100 trips per day were estimated for the previous development on this site) based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual.
Roads impacted by this development:
East First Street
East Pine Street
Alley
ACHD Commission Date - May 10,2000 - 7:00 p.m.
STATE
PINE
II.........
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.
i
01
z'
NI
,
01
a::!
""I
I-
CI)
N
..--
" ".~.~.~_...__...., ~~._-- .-"~_._.._._.....,..~..."...__._.._--_....~..~^"".,,.~......._.
'."~':-~""~_.~,.,.._"-~_._._.,.,.~
,
i
,
~'''''''''''''m_...~~~~___..._._...._.._... .......,=w~____..._.__._~., "'"' ~.__
IDAHO
MCUP00023.cmm
Page 1
e
e
~
/f Ue"l<:llaf1i 20BBBBSBS4i Ma,..21.00 2:24PM; Page 9/9
j I I I I ' i 'I I . I
,,:---/' - "- I I,'
III I' _ -_',
~ -=- , ' rr I r '. ~ I-j-ri rli-{'L i
. "I I ,.11 \ . I . l.~ I lLlj, ,
I -i ,: I I~'I~~~- . - _ -, Ii -T(- I I
I I I, _ . ) : I I
I ! h r"~.: " . ~..- ---~'l'FTlim
'. = !. . , fW.,e.
i -: I r' -'lr- -i -
-,.:.. ---J. I- -i , I
II L.l "., I '
- ,-" j ! I I It. ., ' ~'- -- ! I
, I I I .- I ' - I~ I
_1 _: I L-, I,. D _ ~ "! _ ~. _ : _i
--. -I ,. .....l,&lO,....sr_~ - . M __
dE ~ ' ,-- -'1-/ I
Itj r (rr-=--r ~ Er" rd~ /11 [L~~_ ~ t; !
'~ :' :~.W := L~,~._.~iJ~j _~-=-IJ 'J j
:!I-_1i 1-- -n" _. I ,'; ~ - - 1 i
111- j I i I " I -<:' ,', I! I
;i~ _ / III'~ ~ ~I'~"'" I ::I"'~:~~':~:::': .' I~ = -=: !
-": I ' I ' .~<:::> ',:;}~......~..._ I ,i
1!, i I I ./ I' .,..~.<}(~~ ',::., .......1 1_ _ _ ~ I
I : 3c:JO
e
e
~
~~
cia
Po-
.
....,.
. _H""r I .-t,
1:1;1.""
(]jjj
~
,~ ~
~ !
B
~
lu
w
c:
I-
en
I-
~
I-
en
.~
PINE STREET
~
s
I
~:
~i
i~~~ ~'
; ~ I
~~~
~ ~ I
5
o
o
t~
,v"u:y . .._ .
. .~~.-.-
_VII~~-.......-....,._
---.
.
cole I associates. P.
@ur~[h~~ce~~~
SITE PlAN
~ ...,-It
l
~
".
... NM.., ""'- _ .,. 111I -. D An. 1Jm) )JI.~ -. IEIII >>I~:U""
GENERATIONS PARK PLAZA II
V fltAT10N
~tS$U-"
e
e
Facts and Findings:
A. General Information
Owner - Stewart Laney Benoit LLC
Applicant ~ Cole and Associates, Stan Cole
OT - Existing zoning
0.21 - Acres
3,100 - Square feet of proposed building ( estimated)
N/ A - Square feet of existing building
o - T otallineal feet of proposed public streets
268 - Traffic Analysis Zone (T AZ)
West Ada
Meridian
- Impact Fee Service Area
- Impact Fee Assessment District
East First Street
Minor arterial with bike lane designation
Traffic count of 17,392 on 11/30/99
F -Existing Level of Service
F -Existing plus project build-out Level of Service
160 -feet of frontage
80 -feet existing right-of-way (40-feet from centerline)
No additional right-of-way required
East First Street is improved with a 52-foot street section (two travel lanes, a center turn lane
and two on-street parking lanes) with curb, gutter and sidewalk abutting the site. The adjacent
East First Street/Pine Street intersection is controlled by a traffic signal.
East Pine Street
Collector with bike lane designation
Traffic count of 3,875 on 11/30/99
B -Existing Level of Service
B -Existing plus project build-out Level of Service
120 -feet of frontage
80 -feet existing right-of-way (40-feet from centerline)
No additional right-of-way required
Pine Street transitions abutting the site. Near the intersection with E. 151 Street/Pine Street has a
28-foot street section with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. At the site's eastern boundary, Pine
Street widens to a 60-foot street section with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. There is a section of
missing curb and gutter abutting the project site. The adjacent E. 151 Street/Pine Street
intersection is controlled by a traffic signal.
Alley
Alley with no bike lane designation
No traffic count available
MCUP00023 .cnm1
Page 2
e
e
120 -feet of frontage
16 -feet existing right-of-way (8~feet from centerline)
The alley abutting the south side of the project site is paved but is not paved between this site
and E. 2nd Street. The alley operates as ONE WAY, westbound. The applicant is proposing to
change the alley to ONE WAY east bound. Staff supports the directional change, however, this
will require the applicant to pave the alley from the site's east property line to 2nd Street to keep
gravel from being tracked out onto the roadway. The applicant should coordinate the signage
plan lalley paving with District staff.
B. On April 24, 2000, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and evaluated
the transportation system in the vicinity. On April 28, 2000, the staff met as the District's
Technical Review Committee and reviewed the impacts of this proposed development on the
District's transportation system. The results of that analysis constitute the following Facts and
Findings and recommended Site SpecifIc Requirements.
C. E. 1 st Street has 17,392 existing vehicle trips per day which is a Level of Service F (LOS F). An
acceptable Level of Service for this segment of roadway is D (LOS D) or 12,500 vehicle trips per
day. The proposed application will add approximately 100 vehicle trips per day on E. 15t Street.
D. The East First StreetlPine Street intersection operates at a Level of Service D (LOS D), and is
listed as one of the 100 critical intersections in Ada County. The subject site's additional traffic
is not anticipated to decrease the Level of Service at the intersection.
E. In 1998, the District conducted an analysis of the downtown roadway sections of Meridian. The
District recognizes the level of congestion on E. 15t Street and developed several alternatives for
long term improvement. These alternatives have been submitted for review by the City of
Meridian and other affected parties. A final determination has not yet been made.
F. The applicant has applied for the vacation of the western portion of the alley (approximately 100-
feet) abutting the project. The vacation request includes a proposal to dedicate a new, north-
south alley to from E. 151 Street to Pine Street. The alley intersection with Pine Street would be
located approximately 1 DO-feet east of East First Street. The District will review the alley
vacation request under a separate agenda item.
G. Request for Variance:
The proposed new alley intersection with Pine Street shows that the alley intersection with Pine
Street would be located approximately 100-feet east of East First Street. Current District policy
requires a minimum intersection offset distance of 175-feet from the signalized intersection with
East First Street. The indicated variance is requested because there is no location on the
applicant's site which meets District policy. Staff supports the requested variance for the
following reasons:
. The alley traffic will connect with a collector street, Pine Street, instead of an arterial, E. 151
Street. Pine Street is a lower volume road.
MCUP00023.cnUll
Page 3
e
e
· The alley will be one-way southbound from Pine Street. At the south property line of the
site, the alley is proposed to be east-bound.
· The proposed intersection aligns with an existing driveway intersection on the north side of
Pine Street
H. The site has an existing curb cut driveway on E. 1 sl Street that is not proposed to be utilized by
the site. District policy requires the applicant to close any unused curb cuts on E. 1 st Street and
Pine Street abutting the project site. Any new construction should include curb, gutter and
sidewalk to match the existing improvements. If the alley is approved for vacation, the applicant
should also be required to close the alley/E. 1 sl Street approach. Coordinate the alley vacation
with the District's Right-of-Way staff.
1. The transportation system will require improvement in order to accommodate the additional
traffic generated by additional development. Additional traffic will exacerbate the traffic
problems. The reconstruction of East First Street is not listed in ACHD's Five year Work
Program. However, the District has developed a plan to convert East First Street to one-way
northbound operation. Meridian Road would serve as the complementary one-way southbound
operation. The Transportation system would be adequate with this roadway configuration
project.
Special Recommendation to the City of Meridian:
1. E. 1'1 Street has 17,392 existing vehicle trips per day which is a Level of Service F (LOS
F). An acceptable Level of Service for this segment of roadway is D (LOS D) or 12,500
vehicle trips per day. The proposed application will add approximately 100 vehicle trips
per day on E. 1 sl Street.
2. The East First Street/Pine Street intersection operates at a Level of Service D (LOS D),
and is listed as one ofthe 100 critical intersections in Ada County. The subject site's
additional traffic is not anticipated to decrease the Level of Service at the intersection.
The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval:
Site Specific Requirements:
1. Replace unused curb cuts on E. 1 Sf Street and Pine Street with standard curb, gutter and
concrete sidewalk to match existing improvements.
2. Replace damaged curb, gutter and/or sidewalk on E. 1 sl Street and Pine Street with new curb,
gutter and/or concrete sidewalk to match existing improvements. Segments to be replaced shall
be determined by ACHD Construction Services staff. Contact Construction Services at 387-
6280 (with file number) for details.
3. No access points to E.l sl Street have been proposed and none are approved with this
application.
MCUP00023.cm111
Page 4
e
e
4. Locate the approach to the entrance only alley on Pine Street approximately 100-feet east ofE.
pt Street. Construct the approach as a 20-foot wide curb return with IS-foot curb radii. Sign
the alley for entrance only. Coordinate signage plan with District staff.
5. Pave the new north/south alley 20-feet wide through the site to District standards. Dedicate 20-
feet of right-of-way for the new alley through the parcel.
6. Ifthe east/west alley is changed to east bound, pave the alley from the site's east property line
to 2 nd Street.
7. If the alley is vacated along the south property line the applicant shall be required to close the
alley/E. 151 Street approach with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to match the existing
improvements. Coordinate the alley vacation with the District's Right-of-Way staff.
8. Other than the alley access specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel
access to Pine Street is prohibited.
Standard Requirements:
1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein
shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request
shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation
of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written
request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for
ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the
Commission on the next available meeting agenda.
Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action
do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and
report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those
items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission.
2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action
shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the
action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall
specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of
data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request
for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the
Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified
ofthe date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard.
3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in
accordance with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact
Fee Ordinance.
4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District
Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services
MCUP00023,cmm
Page 5
.:p;:..
.'
-----
-,..-..;;
...
procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An
engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required pemlits), which incorporates any required design changes.
6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way.
Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to
ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full
business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact
ACHD Traffic; .operatiolJ_s. 387-6190,in the eyent any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are
compromised during any phase of construction.
8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use ofthe property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans,
Of other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in
interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject
property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant
to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought.
Conclusion of Law:
1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development
Division at 387-6170.
Submitted by:
Commission Action:
Planning and Development Staff
May 10.2000
MCUP00023,cnun
Page 6
.....~.
,;", 111
. CJ u.,;'
L- '______"
"'I
UD/~D/~~~U l~;~l
J
~
~
t
!
I-
sa
I-
~
I
I
j!-
~
k
~
~
~
e
e-
Q ~
.t'~ =
= i
=
c-.J
.~ ril (.0
I
.~o :z: ~
\Jri4 => 0
~ -.., ~
" _9-.
J13~lS OH'VOI
'-."'1 r/
._-, ill,
::1
III
r"I'
I :
,......
W
w
a::
r-
Vl
I-
Vl
....
,~ll i ~
I, : u.1
2:....
w ~,"
::i",
~I L I
~>>'
o ~.
.,,, ,... - -
''-~ '" ~,
.... ~. " a:~
~ z: ~1,I1 >- ~ '-'VI .J' 0"
'"
~ ;';,', \'>"-IJ':' ~~ l~~ ;: I'~ lit-! ~ 'z '-0'
" ~ 1'\' ~
...J (i ~$t .'1: ~ ~<f
0( 5r :7"'~ -, ~
,; {,.l.... it I- I,J .... "P:" ......... ~~ ~ ltlrl
,,- - -..
J,
20"d
. ~ri
"
I
.~
~j I;
5 ~ .,
~I ~
~J 3
[ft
00
at=:
~<
Q
~ ~
rf1 ..
<z
:I: <
o...~
~
1--1
~
~
~
<
NZ
j<
~~
Q
~
cn~
z~
o~
~
~~
~o
~~
z~
~.......
0u
~
G
~
~Lt:Ot oo-so-un~