HomeMy WebLinkAboutMoxie Java CUP 01-026BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
C/C 10-16-01
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A NEW
DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW
FOR AN EXISTING MOXIE
JAVA COFFEE SHOP IN A C-G
ZONE LOCATED AT THE FRED
MEYER SHOPPING CENTER
ON FARIVEW AVENUE,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
AVEST LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA
COMPANY DEVELOPMENT
APPLICANT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CUP-01-026
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The above entitled conditional use permit application having come before
the City Council on October 2, 2001 and cominued until October 16, 2001, at the hour
of 6:30 p.m., at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and Shari
Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and appearing and
testifying on behalf of the Applicant was Larry Durldn, and appearing and testifying with
comments/concerns or in opposition were: Police Chief Richard M. Wofley, Josh
Vanderbloug, and Jonathan Scott, and the City Council having duly considered the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Ax/EST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY / MOXIE JAVA / (CUP-Ol-026)
- 1
evidence and the record in this matter and the Recommendations to City Council issued
by the Planning and Zoning Commission who conducted a pnblic hearing and the
Council having heard and tal<en oral and written testimony, and having duly considered
the matter, the City Council hereby makes the following denial of the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order to-wit:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A notice of a public hearing on the conditional use permit was published
for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 2,
2001 and continued until October 16, 2001, before the City Council, the first
publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or
purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the
property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with
the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration
more than one week before said hearing and the copies of all notices were made available
to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the
~-natter having been duly considered by the City Council at the October 2, 2001 and
continued until October 16, 2001, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property
owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction
of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY / MOXlE JAVA / (CUP-01-026)
-2
2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set
forth in Idaho Code §67-6509, 6512, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-17-5
as evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of
Posting filed with the staff report.
3. The property is located at the Fred Meyer Shopping Center on Fairview
Avenue, Meridian, Idaho.
4. The owner of record of the subject property is Avest Limited Partnership,
Boise, Idaho.
5. Applicant is owner of record.
6. The subject property is currently zoned C-G. The zoning district of C-G
is defined within the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 1 i-
7-2.
7. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit for an
additional drive-through window for an existing coffee shop. The C-G zoning
designation within the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance requires
a conditional use permit be obtained for most uses including those requested by the
Applicant. (Meridian City Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-8-1).
8. The Meridian City Council recognizes that the proposed application is in
compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY / MOXIE JAVA / (CUP-01-026)
-3
conditional use as determined by City Ordinance.
9. The Meridian City Cotmcil takes judicial notice of its Zoning,
Subdivision and Development Ordinances codified at Titles 11 and 12, Meridian City
Code and all current zoning maps thereof and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian, and Maps and the Ordinance establishing the Impact Area Boundary.
10. The proposed uses within the subject application will be harmonious
with and in accordance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance because:
10.1 The subject property is designated on the "Generalized
Land Use Map" as "Mixed/Planned Use Development".
11. The use proposed within the subject application will be hazardous and
will be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
12. The use proposed within the subiect application will be served adequately
by central public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
13. The use proposed within the subject application will involve uses,
activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be
detrimental to persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production
of traffic, but no excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
14. The development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
natural or scenic feature of major importance relating to the property.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DM(OTA COMPANY / MOXIE JAVA / (CUP-01-026) - 4
15. The proposed use, along with the existing heavy traffic in the general area,
~vould add to the traffic concerns and public safety.
16. The proposed use would be incompatible with the existing businesses.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the
"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975" hereinafter referred to for convenience as the
"Act" codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. {}67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council may exercise all the powers required and
authorized under the "Act" except the power to adopt ordinances by the establishment
of a Planning and Zooming Commission by ordinance pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-
6504 which the City Council of the City of Meridian has established by the passage of
the "City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance" at Titles XI and XII,
Chapter I, Meridian City Code.
3. As part of a zoning ordinance the City Council can, subject to hearing and
notice provision required, provide for the process of special and/or conditional use
permits which a proposed use is otherwise prohibited by the terms of the ordinance but
allowed with conditions under the specific provisions of the ordinance which the City
of Meridian has done in the adoption of its zoning ordinances.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY / MOXIE JAVA / (CUP-01-026)
-5
4. The City Council has the duty and responsibility to review the facts and
circumstances of each application for special use permit to determine prior to granting
the same that the evidential showing supports the finding that the following standards
are met and that the proposed development: (Meridian City Code § 11-17-3)
a. Will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City policy;
b. Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
and this Ordinance;
c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area;
uses;
Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring
e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such
as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
~vater, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional
use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
f. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community;
g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
xvelfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed
as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and
i. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
5. Prior to granting a conditional use permit in a General Retail and Service
Commercial District (C-G), a public hearing shall be conducted with notice to be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY / MOXIE JAVA / (CUP-01-026)
-6
published and provided to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred
feet (300') of the external boundaries of the land under consideration for the conditional
use permit all in accordance with the provisions of Meridian City Code § i 1-17-5 City
of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, which provides as follows:
"Prior to approving a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant and the Co~nmission
and Council shall follow notice and hearing procedures provided in Chapter 15
of this Title. Provided, however, that conditional use applications for land in Old
Town and in industrial and commercial districts shall only be required to have
one public hearing which shall be held before the Planning and Zoning
Commission; and after the recommendation of the Commission is made, the
application shall go before the City Council without a public hearing and the
Council may approve, deny, or modify the recommendation of the Commission."
6. Following the public hearing and within 45 days after the contusion of
the public ~eariug the Commission shall, transmit its recommendations to the Meridian
City Council with supportive reasons. The Commission shall recommend that the
application be approved, approved with conditions or denied. The Commission shall
ensure that any approval or approval with conditions of an application shall be in
accordance with Meridian Comprehensive Plan, City of Meridian Zoning and
Development Ordinance, and Idaho State law. (Meridian City Code § 11-17-6)
7. When the City Council approves a conditional use permit it may impose
conditions of that approval that reasonably:
A. Minimize adverse impact on other development;
B. Control the sequence and timing of development;
C. Control the duration of development;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY / MOXIE JAVA / (CUP-O1-026) - 7
D. Assure that the development is maintained property;
E. Designate the exact location and nature of the development;
F. Require the provision for on-site public facilities or services; and
G. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required, in this
Ordinance.
8. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 21,
1993, Ord. 629, January 4, 1994 and Maps.
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby ORDER
and this does Order that:
1. That the above named applicant is denied a conditional use permit specifically
due to the fact that the proposed use, along with the existing heavy traffic in the general
area, would add to the traffic concems and public safety, and would be an incompatible
use.
2. That the City Attorney draft an Order of Denial of Application for Conditional
Use Permit in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and
City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY / MOXlE lAVA / (CUP-O1-026)
-8
Zoning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting
notice.
3. In order to obtain approval of the requested drive through, the applicant will have
to propose a different design that ~xdll eliminate the potentially hazardous intersection
with the existing drive through lane that sen,es the TCBY business on the west end of
the building.
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which ~nay be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this
decision and order seek a judicial revie~v as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the
of
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN RON ANDERSON
COUNCILMAN ICEITH BIRD
COUNCILWOMAN TAMMY deWEERD
VOTED
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY / MOXIE JAVA / (CUP-01-026)
-9
COUNCILWOMAN CHERIE McCANDLESS
VOTED__~at-~
MAYOR ROBERT D. coRRIE (TIE BREAKER)
DATED: ///-- ~7-'a/
VOTED
MOTION: ~
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
Copy served upon Applicant, Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and the City Attorney.
~L'i~y' Clerk ' g ~'
Dated:
Z:~Work~M~Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Moxie Java CUP01.026 Denial~CUPdENIALFindings01026.doc
ir;.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY / MOXIE JAVA / (CUP-O1-026)
- 10
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A NEW DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW
FOR AN EXISTING MOXIE JAVA
COFFEE SHOP LOCATED IN A C-G
ZONE LOCATED AT THE FRED MEYER
SHOPPING CENTER ON FAIRVIEW
AVENUE, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
BY: AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O DAKOTA COMPANY
APPLICANT.
) CUP-01-026
)
C/C 10/16/01
ORDER OF DENIAL
OF APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
The above entitled conditional use permit application having come before the
City Council on October 2, 2001 and continued until the 16a' day of October, 2001,
at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 6:30
o'clock p.m., and the Council having received the record of this matter from the
Planning and Zoning Commission including the Planning and Zoning Commission's
Recommendation to City Council, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning
Administrator, appeared and testified, and appearing and testifying on behalf of the
Applicant was Larry Durkin, and appearing and testifying with comments/concerns or
in opposition were: Police Chief Richard M. Worley, Josh Vanderbloug, and
ORDER OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY AVEST, LLP - MOXIE JAVA/(CUP-01-026) 1
Jonathan Scott, and the Council having duly considered the matter makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The City Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivisions and
Development Ordinances codified at Title 11 Mtmicipal Code of the City of
Meridian and all current zoning maps thereof and the Comprehensive Plan of the
City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance #629 - January 4, 1994
and Maps.
2. Staff has complied with the requirements of I.C. § 67-6509 and 67-
6512 and §§ 11-2-416 E and 11-2-418 E.
ORDER OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND GOOD CAUSE
APPEARING, the above named applicant is denied a conditional use permit
specifically due to the fact that the proposed use, along with the existing heavy traffic
in the general area, would add to the traffic concerns and public safety, and would be
an incompatible use. This application is therefore denied.
The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves this
Decision and Order of Denial.
ORDER OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOP,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY AVEST, LLP - MOXIE JAVA / (CUP-01-026)
-2
DECISION OF DENIAL
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON
COUNCILMAN BIRD
COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS
VOTED_~~a,~
MAYOR ROBERT D. COmE (TIE BREAKER)
DATED: //t/- 7-- ~//
VOTED
MOTION: /{~ ~
APPROVED~ ~..
DISAPPROVED:
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and the City Attorney.
City Clerk
Dated:
\~'q PA_NT S40_PD CxS E RVEK_Z~Wo r kXiMkMeridian~leridJ an 15360MkMoxie Java CUP01-026
Den i aI~FFCLOrdCUPDenialO 1026.doc
ORDER OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY AVEST, LLP- MOXIE JAVA/(CUP-01-026)
-3
Page I of 1
Will Berg
From: TdeWeerd~aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:44 AM
To: be~lwi~ci.meridia n,id .us
Subject: City Council Meeting - Nov. 7
To: Mayor Corrie & City Council Membem,
Subj: Moxie Java drive through request - Agenda Item 3.f
RECEIPTED
NOV - 5 2001
City of Meridian
City Clerk Offlee
I wanted to ask the City COuncil to delay acting on agenda item 3F until I can be them to be a part of the
discussion. As you all know, the applicant has asked for reconsideration.
The Council has worked to avoid reconsiderations of any kind, however, I believe that action on this CUP was
premature. I would like to discuss this and the options we have to limit the presentation and discussion to two
basic items: an actual proposal to turn the drive to the east; and elaborate on a condition the attorney
suggested to pull the CUP if the drive through is deemed haza~lous.
This is private property and a permitted use. While I feel strongly that safety comes first and we should not
approve an alternative proposal without seeing it, I do believe as strongly in property rights, consistency, and
a fair hearing without having to mille and pay new fees to see a second option.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
11/5/2001