Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 1, 2003Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 16 of 107 Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval for Item Number 7, RZ 03- 005, it's a request for a rezone of 4.738 acres from R-4 to L-O zone for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church, at 1406 West Cherry Lane, including all staff comments from their memo dated May 1, 2003, received April 25`h, including all staff comments. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I would also like to recommend approval of Item 8 on our agenda it's CUP 03- 012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for achurch/preschool in a proposed L-O for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church at 1406 West Cherry Lane, including all staff comments from the memo dated May 1S`, which was received April 25`". Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify operational hours and change building placement from original approved CUP in a C-N zone for Cherry Crossing by Hawkins Companies -northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Item -- next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-013, request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify operational hours and change building placement from the original approved CUP in a C-N zone for Cherry Crossing by Hawkins Company. This is at the northwest corner of Cherry Lane and. North Linder. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I put up a map showing the location of the subject property. It's at the northwest intersection of Cherry Lane and Linder. The applicant is here to modify a CUP, which has already been approved by Council. The basic modifications are to the location of the uses and the operating hours. The original CUP was for pharmacy retail with dual drive-thru, fast food restaurant with drive-thru, office retail building, and a 24-hour fuel facility. The proposed CUP is, again, for a pharmacy retail with dual drive-thru, fast food restaurant with drive- thru, office retail building -- the change will be rather than the 24 hour fuel facility, there will be a 5,500 square foot retail building. Staff is requiring that permanent landscaping be installed before Occupancy Permits are obtained by the applicant. The existing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 17 of 107 home on the property must be removed prior to the development. Potentially - I know that the applicant is working with the Fire Department -- the Fire Department is going to use a training exercise. They are going to burn down this house, so they will need to be careful to make sure that that is resolved before they start construction and able to receive C of O's on the site, that the home would have to be demolished on the site previous to that. This application consists of three lots. The applicant meets all parking requirements. They also will need to obtain across-parking access agreement between the three lots to supply parking to the proposed development. Staff is recommending -- we don't really have a great detail here. Staff is recommending that the applicant modify the drive-thru. The current drive-thru configuration -- I believe that there is a proposed Pizza Hut that will go in and that's the southwest corner. The drive-thru -- the exit of the drive-thru puts vehicles into the oncoming --the oncoming traffic coming into the development and, again, that's the southwest corner. We recommend that they move the building and perhaps reconfigure the drive-thru, so that we don't have the traffic directed into oncoming traffic coming into the development, because that seems dangerous. Overall, staff recommends approval, with the note that we'd like a reconfiguration of the drive-thru. Are there any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On Page 5, Item Number 4, second sentence, where you say -- you're talking about the removal of the older home. Kirkpatrick: Correct. Centers: You say which should be removed. Do we want to line that and put must be? Kirkpatrick: It must be removed. Let's change that. Centers: That was the inference I got from you and that's all I have. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I have a question on the parking. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: If there is across-access, Cross-Parking Agreement in place, is there actually a surplus of parking? Kirkpatrick: I believe there is a surplus. I think eleven spots. Zaremba: Okay. Because if -- in some configuration they have adrive-thru, they are going to lose two or three spaces that are currently being counted, probably, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 . Page 18 of 107 Kirkpatrick: Correct. I think that they are not expecting to immediately put in that drive- thru, but they want to go ahead and get approval for that drive-thru with this application, so we need to consider those spots being taken out. Borup: Yes. When would the new drive-thru -- are you anticipating the staff would review that new design? Kirkpatrick: I guess between now and Council meeting they need to submit a new design. They are asking for approval with this application for the drive-thru. That needs to be configured either this evening or before Council. Borup: Okay. Well, maybe the applicant will have some comment on that anything else from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Huffaker: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. Brian Huffaker with Hawkins Companies, 8645 Franklin Road. We are glad to be before you, because this project -- or this land has been kind of in the mix for years and, hopefully, through approval tonight we will kind of instigate some of that development and get some things rolling here and see some progress. I appreciate staffs work, the clarity that's in their staff report. It's really been a smooth ride in trying to get some of this to work. I do need to ask for one report clarification on my error. I need to ask for your formal approval or acknowledgment that would allow the pharmacy building to be up to 14,600 square feet, as opposed to the 13,500 that I listed on the application. That was my error in overlooking the size of that -- the potential size of that building,. We -- you know, we do concur with most of the staff report. In fact, I think the only item of condition of approval that we need to discuss in detail tonight is the potential drive-thru for the Pizza Hut. When we get to that point, I will turn that time over to Mr. Bill Strite, who is representing Pizza Hut to address that. I do have a couple of questions or I guess comments in working through the special conditions portions of the staff report. Just out of clarity, as I was talking with Mr. Siddoway, there was some uncertainty regarding the non- Development Agreement and what we are allowed to do -- or what the steps are that we are allowed to do. It's my understanding that all of the infrastructure and public facilities have been installed as part of our plat approval process, so I believe everything has been installed that would allow us to submit for a building permit for a commercial building and to begin that construction. The way that he states that no development on the property is allowed until the required improvements are in place, I believe all that's done and, certainly, it is intention to comply with the non-Development Agreement, but we want to move it ahead. Borup: So, you're stating that all improvements are in place? Huffaker: All of the -- all of the required infrastructure and public facilities, sewer line, water line, have all been extended to all the appropriate parcels in the commercial. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meefing May 1, 2003 Page 19 of 107 Borup: Okay so, maybe just a clarification. Is that what the staff comment is, is the required infrastructure improvement? You're not talking about any other improvements, are you? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Steve's comment is -- and it's pretty general. Borup: That's what I -- Freckleton: We do require that those utilities be in place prior to, so Mr. Huffaker is correct, they are installed, services are available to each lot, and Public Works doesn't have any issue. Borup: So, I don't see that as a conflict, they are just saying they need to be in place, you're saying they are in place, so you're saying they are in compliance. Huffaker: Right. The last time Steve and I talked, he wasn't sure what the code definitions were and we didn't get back together. Borup: Okay. Huffaker: I'll skip Number 3, then. We concur with special condition Number 3 also. Special condition number infers that the existing house needs to be removed prior to any occupancy of a commercial building. I just had a voice mail from Deputy Chief Johnson today stating that their scheduled activity is to do a burn on that house the last week of October or first week of November, right after the academy finishes their training for the new recruits. I think they plan to do some other types of training in the house prior to that, knocking doors down or whatever it is that they may do. You know, there really is no insensitive to Hawkins Companies whether we keep the house there to wait for them or whether we have them burn it now, so I'm going to leave that decision up to you as to when that schedule has to occur. It certainly would be nice to be able to provide that for the new recruits as an opportunity, but I'll leave that decision up to you. Centers: Mr. Huffaker? Huffaker: Yes. Centers: You quoted that wrong. It said it must be removed prior to development on the site. You mentioned occupancy. It's prior to development. Huffaker: Okay. Let me check that again. Centers: Page 5 Number 4. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 20 of 107 Huffaker: Okay so, I guess let's go back to my comment on special condition Number 2. I guess what is the development of -- or what is the definition of development? Is it any construction activity at all? Centers: That would be mine. When you start to dig a hole. Zaremba: Break ground for a foundation, I think. Huffaker: Okay. Borup: Is that going to affect your time schedule? Huffaker: Well, no, because we will just require the Fire Department to burn it earlier Borup: I mean right now you're anticipating starting before October, I assume? Huffaker: Oh, yes. I mean we expected that Pizza Hut may be open by September, unless it's delayed, so they are -- you know, there is three or four months that you could overlap of actually having a business open and having that house there. The four months is important for us to have our tenant open, but I'll let you decide if that's an important event for the Fire Department. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I believe our planner would like to -- Kirkpatrick: Okay. Another alternative would be to require the house be demolished prior to issuance of the C of O for that building. We would allow you to start construction, but you cannot occupy the building until the home is gone. Huffaker: You know, I'm sure that would help the Fire Department and that's fine if we want to go that route. Maybe having them burn it in July, as opposed to now, might help them to schedule some training. Our expected schedule is, you know, as soon as we get our approvals through this process, the Building Permit, we want to start construction and, then, open the building as soon as building is done, so -- Borup: Well, the Pizza Hut is going to be the first building -- Huffaker: That's right. Borup: And the rest of the site is staying undeveloped? Huffaker: At this time yes. Borup: Because you can't progress very far with that house there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 21 of 107 Huffaker: Correct. Right now Pizza Hut is the -- the applicant that is proceeding the fastest and none of the other three buildings have any approved use, if you will, that would have any construction prior to this fall anyway, so -- Borup: So, if that -- if they -- okay. I assume the two south entrances would be in use for the Pizza Hut? Huffaker: You know, as part of -- to my understanding of getting an Occupancy Permit for the first commercial use, all of the landscaping around the entire perimeter needs to be completed, all the landscaping around whichever use that may be, but we will focus on Pizza Hut, will need to be completed. It's our intention to complete these access improvements -- we have got three left. That one and these two, we would complete that during the construction of the Pizza Hut. Mathes: And you will have ample parking? Huffaker: Yes, we will. Yes. I'm not sure if Pizza Hut is one of those that might be short on their physical part, but we will look at that and make sure that we meet code in that phasing of that portion. I don't have a problem with that condition and I'll let you write it as you need, I just wanted to let the Fire Department know that we are rooting for them and we will help them out in any way that we can. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, another potential solution would be to have a condition where, since Pizza Hut is on its own separate lot, to condition the removal of the building -the Pizza Hut development would not be contingent on -- the other lots in the subdivision would be contingent on that home being removed from the lot. We can separate out the Pizza Hut lot. Zaremba: The existing home is contained entirely on a lot that doesn't overlap the Pizza Hut? Kirkpatrick: Correct. It's on a separate lot. Huffaker: Actually, it's not. Kirkpatrick: Oh, sorry. I thought it was going to work for you. Huffaker: The current lot line runs right -- about right through here and this bottom piece is one parcel. What that resulted from is the initial Save-On application that had their pharmacy and their joint fuel facility here was all in one parcel. These two north buildings are on separate parcels, and that's the reason why we are asking for the Planned Development as far as application is, so that we can get the approval to have two buildings on this parcel -- our intent is, as soon as we get through these approvals, that we will submit for a re-plat or a plat to create four separate parcels. We are requesting a Planned Development, so that a -- two buildings can be approved at this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 22 of 707 point on this parcel, although the timing wise it's still going to work out, we will just have one building at one time. Centers: Staff, the way I had changed it here was the building must be removed prior to a certificate of occupancy on any building. Kirkpatrick: Actually, we could limit that to proposed retail building B, rather than -- Centers: Well, then, that dictates him to build that first. I guess if he knows that he's going to. Huffaker: To build the Pizza Hut first? Centers: Right Huffaker: Yes and that's our plan. We don't have a plan here for this pharmacy that would get them designed and even started construction before. Centers: That way, let's hope that the chiefs trainees know what they are doing. Huffaker: Yes. I guess I ought to let Mr. Strite address whether his client has any objections. Okay. Well, again, we will accept whichever -- however you want to write that condition. Kirkpatrick: And, actually, one more comment that I wanted to make. Due to the increase in square footage of proposed retail space -- and I think it looks like we will be subtracting at least three spaces because of the drive-thru, staff wants to make sure that they meet parking requirements before it goes to Council. The condition that they meet all parking requirements. Huffaker: Sure. Okay. My last item of concern is Item Number 8. The original Conditional Use Permit required the installation of volume limiting devices or alternative speaker systems for the drive-thru facilities. That original CUP, again, had the pharmacy with the dual drive-thru's right here at the Pizza Hut location it had adrive- thru up here at the northeast corner and the fuel facility down here where we are now proposing the pharmacy speaker system. In short, at least as far as our portion of the application -- and, again, I will let Mr. Strite address the Pizza Hut, but, in short, our application moving that pharmacy away from the residential uses, which is now almost 350 feet from the nearest residential, I don't think would have any impact or nuisance to those residential uses. Most jurisdictions -- anything beyond 300 feet from a residential use typically doesn't even require any type of special approval for a speaker system. I certainly have some data and a page of notes that I can go through in detail if there are questions, but I will just keep it simple and request that we eliminate that condition for volume limiting devices for the pharmacy drive-thru on this particular project. Other than that, we concur with the staff report. Maybe after Mr. Strite addresses the drive- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 23 of 107 thru, I'd like to just take a minute to sum up and see what develops through that and wrap up my time with that. Any questions before we -- Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. Just on the subject of the speaker. Huffaker: Okay. Zaremba: This is a part of a larger project, all by the same applicant; right? Huffaker: We came in -- yes. There are six residential homes that were part of the land and the subdivision that was done on the north side of Emerald Falls. There is a cul-de- sac right here with new residential lots being built -- it would be right here. Those two portions of the residential development are being annexed into the Valerie Place Homeowners Association at this point. Those are completed. The infrastructure is in, the lots are there, we are now only asking for a change on the -- these changes on the commercial portion for what was previously a larger scope Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: Can you go back to the picture that was there for like half a second, between -- this one. This is residential? Huffaker: Yes, sir. Zaremba: In this area over here? What is the distance from here to your speaker? Huffaker: Well, again, I'm just addressing this speaker here for the pharmacy use and that's about 350 feet that way and close to 350 feet this way. I will let Mr. Strite address this one. It may not even be an issue, but I'll let him address that. And the other thing to remember, there is a six-foot CMU wall placed on this portion of the residential property that's in place now that previous to the decline in the decibels that would that travel through to those residential homes. That's a lot of detail I can go into if you want to, but -- Borup: But your request is -- on Item 8 is to remove that requirement for the pharmacy? Huffaker: Yes. Yes. Centers: And, Mr. Huffaker, this is the first building to be built? Huffaker: No. The Pizza Hut will be the first building to be built. Centers: So, the staff comment would be incorrect that prior to occupancy of the pharmacy building. Borup: That's building B. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 24 of 107 Huffaker: Here is the pharmacy building. Centers: Okay. Huffaker: Yes. Borup: They were saying prior to occupancy of that building. Centers: And that's the first one going in? Huffaker: Yes. The Pizza Hut is the first one going in. The original CUP had the pharmacy situated right here. We relocated that, pushed it away, which is one of the reasons why we think that a limiting device really isn't necessary for -- of the new location. I will conclude with that and, then, just wrap up after Mr. Strite, unless there are any more questions. Borup: Thank you. Mr. Strite Strite: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of Pizza Hut, obviously, in favor of this application, and I'm here primarily to -- if I can, maybe discuss the pick-up window. This is, in effect, not the traditional drive-thru that we are all used to seeing in the fast food industry, this particular pick-up window is used primarily by either the delivery people and/or pre-call- in orders. In other words, people do not pull up to the speaker system, which I will address in a second, and order a pizza and sit there for 25 minutes, which is the average time it takes to develop a food item that's being ordered. I think the point I'm trying to make here is that in the traditional style of drive-thru you're going to see four or five, six cars, which, hopefully, for all the drive-thru users, would be adequate. In this case, we don't see more than one or two at a time and, generally, that one is the delivery person himself. He knows how to get in and out of there, so he's not in a situation where oncoming traffic, Number 1 would be a major concern, because it's not a peak hour, if you will, destinational use. I think with that, I will discuss just briefly the speaker system. We do have a limited speaker and I think as Brian mentioned, not only do we have asix-foot high block wall on the west elevation we also have 30-foot of buffer there. Our speaker is approximately a hundred feet -- I think it's 96 feet from the concrete block wall to the speaker on the east. That speaker, incidentally, faces northeasterly or into the center. Any noise that's generated by that speaker, which is minimum at best, would be directed towards the center. And in going through our studies, as Brian has already mentioned, he has been here a number of times as well, the ambient road noise out there right now is greater than 55 decibels and that speaker system is far less than 65 decibels at a distance of ten feet away. I think that -- I guess I -- if, in fact, we can arrive at a compromise on the pickup window configuration, we would certainly ask that the speaker system be approved as this application and that the limiting device be that that is approved by Pizza Hut. With that I will open it up for any questions. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 25 of 107 Borup: Mr. Strite, you're saying you already are -- have -- including a limiting device on the speaker, so that's -- so that would be in compliance with the staff comment from the previous -- Strite: That's correct. Borup: --application? Strite: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Strite: And that may become -- Mr. Chairman, may become a moot point if we cannot come to agreement on item number four, but that is, in fact, the case, yes. I'd like to also suggest to you that Pizza Hut, in their numerous studies -- at this particular point in time nationally, less than ten percent of their business -- outside business, call-in business, if you will, is done through what they refer to as the pick-up windows. I think that's an important number. Because I think we all traditionally think of drive-thru as, you know, rather circuitous, number one, number two, generally, they are more heavily used than to be in this case and so we feel that the configuration, in fact, does work and, actually, works better for our delivery people. With that I will answer any questions that you might have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. Is there signage at the entrance of that driveway warding off people who would think they could drive in and place an order that way? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, there is signage there. However, I'm not certain that we would be able to ward anybody off. If they wanted to order a pizza and, then, they are told that you're going to pick this pizza up in 20 minutes, my guess is, first of all, they are going to be a little frustrated, but my guess is they may go out and go someplace, do their business, and come back. You know, when we have pre-ordered pizza, we don't even have a lot of people come into the store and sit and wait if, in fact, that is the case. They have a convenient place to wait. But I don't think you will find too many people that hang around for 20 minutes waiting for their pizza to be delivered -- prepared. Excuse me. Borup: Is that intended for the drive-thru to be one way or is that two-way? Strite: That pick-up window is a single drive one-way. Borup: Eighteen foot wide? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 26 of 107 Strite: That's correct. We did that, because we felt that if the ordinance in effect required a bypass lane, we were able to allow that person that perhaps does not want to sit there to get around that person who is there with -- Zaremba: I was going to ask how they would escape. Strite: Well, that's how they would do that, because it's wide enough for two cars. The primary thought there is some of the other delivery people, if they choose to use the delivery door on the east, they can come back out, drive around that way and out and so that was the -- that would be the thought beyond that. Zaremba: Have you had people come in and order one slice of an already prepared pizza or order whole pizzas? Strite: I will tell you what, that's a very good comment, Mr. Chair, if might briefly. They are experimenting with that now to see how single piece pizzas are going to work. I have not tried that myself, I'm not even sure it's available in this market yet, but it's being experienced throughout the country, but you can, in fact, go ahead and order one piece. In that case Iguess -- it's well thought, is that somebody could come in there, order a slice of pizza, and drive through. At this point time we don't do that in this Boise or Idaho market, so I'm not sure if that, in fact, would -- I'm not even sure if that's going to work in this particular market. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to give you an additional consideration. Potentially, if this Pizza Hut were to ever go out of business and another restaurant were to move in, they would not be required to come in for another Conditional Use for that drive-thru, unless they were to expand that restaurant. Think about the potential if another restaurant were to move in and use this existing drive-thru configuration for a traditional fast food restaurant. I mean it's just a consideration to make -- that potentially could happen. Strite: Mr. Chair, if I might, we certainly would entertain having that as a commitment as a condition to this approval. Centers: For your occupancy only. We have done that in the past, Mr. Chairman. Strite: That has been done. Centers: I guess I have got to concur. I have never heard of a drive-up for a pizza place. I think of one out on Overland passed Five Mile or right near Five Mile where they have it identified for pick-up drivers only or something like that. You know, why would you be against identifying it that way? Strite: Mr. Chair -- Centers: And not adrive-up for customers? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 27 of 107 Strite: Well, I'm not sure we would object to that. I think the thing is that while this test program is going on, I think we would be reticent to agree to that until such time as we know how this is going to operate and if, in fact, the condition is written such that you want us come back, we would be happy to do that. Centers: Come back for what? Strite: To entertain that very comment, that the signage would have to change, if, number one, the occupancy changes or at the time that we, in fact, install the drive-thru lane. See, the situation here is that if we go in there today and do not accommodate the drive-thru by underground utilities and the like inside, it's going to be difficult to retrofit. We'd like to get that in here today and if it's your choice to have us come back at the time we actually install it, that's certainly fine with us as well. Borup: But at this point you do not have a date for the drive-thru? Strite: Mr. Chair, we do not have a date for the drive-thru. However, the construction of the building would include a separate room with separate electrical mechanical for -- Borup: I understand that. No. That's just good thinking ahead. I think the main concern was, still, the entrance out of the drive-thru was, you know, about 60 feet from Cherry Lane. That was the -- my understanding the reason for the staff comment is the traffic confliction. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, another way you can condition this is the potential is you very narrowly define this as a pick-up window only, where it would not be a drive-thru pick-up and to go ahead and provide a definition for the pick- up window. Borup: No orders. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: Well, the difficulty is once the building is in place -- and, as you say, all the utilities and the fore thinking that has to be in place to even make that happen, coming back isn't the point, because you can't move it at that point. Strite: That's absolutely correct. Zaremba: I think I would like to see that drive-thru exit problem solved now as a condition of where that building is going to be located and I think the thoughts are either the building needs to move a little bit more so the drive-thru can pass south of the building back into the parking lot, instead of into the driveway, or -- what other solution could there be? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May t, 2003 Page 28 of 107 Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, I think that the only other solution would be to try to do something internally with the drive-thru and pick-up window, but that would get into revising the entire prep storage delivery systems and we are trying to move the drive- thl-u window to the north, if you will. I think another thing you might consider is that we all think of traffic in terms of peak hour and you have to understand that these people are not open for breakfast, they are open in a 6:00 through 8:00 period, so that the only opportunity for peek hour configuration or confliction would be in the evening hours and I trust that having the stack lane that Ada County Highway District has required there, we still have three automobiles stacked prior to exiting that device. Somebody moves out of there before somebody can move in. Now, they can, in fact, make a u-turn and go back, but I don't think that that's going to be what most of them will do, especially the delivery drivers, since they are on timing. Zaremba: Let me make sure we are talking about the same thing. My assumption is that the problem staff has is that the people exiting the drive-thru or the pick-up window, whatever you want to call it, are going opposite direction of travel -- cars that are coming in this driveway are opposite direction. These people are going the wrong way on the wrong side of that. They would be southbound exiting that? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, that -- you're absolutely correct. I think if you got up into the center generally in any of the traffic patterns, that's the reason that that particular pick-up window configuration is turned back to the west. It does not -- or due south. We turn it into the west, so that we have approximately a 60-degree angle to the incoming traffic, which gives you the ability to visually see somebody pulling in before you pull out. You know, from our standpoint, the ideal situation would be to run that thing straight forward and try to exit right at the island that delineates the in and out, but we, obviously, felt the same as staff in the sense that at least this configuration -- and I think that configuration, quite frankly, could be moved another five or six feet to the back -- to the north. As you probably know, some of delivery kids drive a little larger cars than some of us. We chose to make the worst-case scenarios, so that they could make that turn back out to the southwest, if you will. Centers: Mr. Chairman, this might be a solution --and backing upon your comments -- is just to flat deny adrive-thru, not approve the drive-thru, and --whatsoever and if you want to come back for adrive-thru, that's up to you if you want to take the chance later on without moving that building back or changing the drive-thru. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Centers, that's certainly your prerogative. Centers: Yes. Strite: I mean it would be an investment on our part to say, okay, let's go ahead and put the infrastructure in with hopes that we prevail. They may or may not want to do that. I guess I'm not in a position to suggest that that's an alternative that certainly Pizza Hut -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 29 of 1D7 Centers: So, what you're saying is if they do sell single piece pizza in the future, you want that opportunity. I think you alluded to that, because now you really don't need a drive-thru, the pick-up guys could park in the back, go in, and get their load and leave. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, you're absolutely correct. Centers: So -- okay. Well, I can see the traffic problem, but - Borup: Any other thoughts from any of the Commissioners? Have you had -- Mr. Strite, have you had much time to consider another design on this? Strite: Mr. Chair, I did discuss this with the Pizza Hut folks. They are out of town. I think their thought of having to push that building back 18 to 20 feet would probably be unacceptable. In my own thinking I suspect that Commissioner Centers probably hit it right, as much as I hate to say it, but we would probably request that it be denied and we take it on to City Council. It's more important to have that building pushed to the front for exposure, than shove the building back 20 feet behind the future buildings to the west -- to the east. Excuse me. Borup: Have you considered orienting the building differently? Strite: Mr. Chair, we have. Centers: Flipping it? Zaremba: That was going to be my question. If you just take the area from driveway to driveway and flip it mirror image, so that the building is over here instead and, therefore, the drive-thru actually exits the same direction as the traffic is going -- is that a possibility? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, we have looked at that and that was not acceptable by Pizza Hut. Yes, we have. Centers: I'm sure you have looked at all of them. Strite: Well, I think Brian could tell you yes we have had it all over that site. They were very nice in allowing us to take up almost as much ground as we needed and we had it moved all over the place. One of the other concerns that -- two of those alternatives that you just mentioned, it did affect the parking. Right now the way I calculate it, if the drive-thru window is approved, we need five spaces for that, we need 17 spaces for -- if one for 200 square feet, puts us in the neighborhood of -- I believe it was 22 spaces. Today we have 34, I believe. We will lose four at the time and I believe Commissioner Zaremba said -- and made a good statement that at the time we do that drive-thru we are going to lose the northerly four spaces, so we are back down to 30 or three over what we are allowed. I think all of this has to come to grips tonight, basically. I think -- as Brian has already alluded to, we want to move forward and we are going to move Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 30 of 107 forward one way or the other and so we are just asking your reconsideration of item number four. That's all I have. I will turn it back over to Brian; unless there are more questions of me. Thank you. Borup: That's all right. But before -- thank you. Before Mr. Huffaker comes back up, do we have anyone else to testify on this application? You're all alone. Huffaker: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Brian Huffaker, Hawkins Companies. I guess just to state our, obviously -- our obvious support of Pizza Hut's design, we will support them on what they need to do. I think it's important to understand some of the site conditions that we have out here. You have got asix-foot or taller block wall that runs clear down Cherry Lane here and up here, you know, at the same face as the Pizza Hut building. Pushing that back any further really eliminates any of that visibility, view corridor, from Cherry Lane itself. We have such a large setback here with the city ordinance of 30 feet, plus, there is a lot of land between the property line and the existing curb, another 15 feet. You have got a building that's almost sitting 50, 60 feet off the road now, which is typically further away than most retailers like to sit in this size and in this type of use. I think we can certainly look at that as -- with appropriate signage. I don't know if there is anything physically to restrict people from -- you know, from getting confused and driving in, but, obviously, a stop sign so that the pick-up and delivery people know that they need to stop for traffic before they exit out can occur. As far as how that is incorporated into the rest of the site, we are comfortable with how that is and feel that we can support that. Just so you know. Centers: Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the thought about the signage, but Mr. Strite was very honest with us when he said that in the future they would want to possibly use that for adrive-thru. It's either approving as is or deny and let you take your case to the Council. Huffaker: And my view -- I mean I live by Five Mile and Overland and we go to that Pizza Hut there and use the drive-thru pick-up window all the time. We never go in. There is a sign somewhere that says deliveries here. Centers: You call your order in? Huffaker: We, do, yes. I think under that scenario I think this -- well, under any scenario, if we properly signed it, whether there is speed bumps or something to slow that car down or make them physically stop as much as you can -- I mean this is not a steady stream of cars. If people will stop, look, and it's clear for them to go, but I -- I digress. I'm sorry. Just in summation, I think we just wanted to address the conditions, obviously, of the drive-thru window. The drive-thru speaker system for the pharmacy use, that it -- that we eliminate the volume limiting devices on that condition and if we wanted to add on the condition of approval, the statement regarding the timing of when that house must be removed or burned by the Fire Department. If we could do that, I think we have got a good application and we are excited to move ahead and would appreciate your approval tonight. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 31 of 107 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Centers: We have a plus. Didn't see any neighbors show up, so -- Huffaker: You know, the neighborhood has been extremely well to work with. We have worked with them in some of the designs here to bring a basketball court in and give them that annex into their neighborhood and they have been very supportive of us. We appreciate that. Centers: Thank you. Huffaker: Thank you. Borup: Okay. I would be interested in any staff comments on the -- as I see it, we really only have one issue. Centers: Right. I wanted to get Mr. McKinnon's opinion. I see where Mr. Siddoway drew this up. Zaremba: If I can make a comment. Borup: Or anybody's opinion, I guess. Zaremba: For you to -- Dave, if I can make a comment for you to throw into the mix. McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: If you have driven into Hewlett-Packard from the -- or, actually, driven out of Hewlett-Packard at the Chinden entrance and exit, there is signage there that says yield to incoming traffic and it seems to work. It's a little different configuration. It's a 90- degree intersection, but I have seen it work other places. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just two comments. I'd have to agree with Steve. I think the location of the exit on the drive-thru is too close to the Cherry Lane access. That's the westernmost access. If there is a redesign, you well know Council's decision making on items that go to them that have been resigned where you have not approved it. If you do want to have a redesign, our recommendation would be to continue it to the second meeting and have them work with us, if that's the case, or to outright deny it and let them go onto Council with that. If you want to see a redesign, I suggest that for your -- just so it doesn't get remanded back to you in the future and take up more of the applicant's time, that would be the most appropriate way to handle that. The second item that I would just address was the expansion of the pharmacy, that they requested going from 13,000 some odd feet to 14,000 some odd feet. The City Code allows us, as a staff level, to approve modifications to Site Plans to allow up to a 20 percent expansion so, you don't need to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 32 of 107 make any motion on that tonight. We can approve that at a staff level. One of the caveats to that are they have to continue to meet parking and landscaping requirements. We can review that when that comes in for their certificate of zoning compliance, so that as long as it's less than 20 percent we are okay, so don't worry about that. Back to the final statement you made about Hewlett-Packard. Having worked in that area and having numerous friends work in that area, there is a lot of dynamics working there. It's a much higher speed traffic area than what we are dealing with here. Signage may be a part of the solution. I don't think it's the full solution, though. Centers: I think the applicant would agree that just a flat denial by us and, then, them go to the Council with possible signage or whatever they think they can sell to the Council, then, we don't delay anything. I received a nod from Mr. Strite that -- so -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, just one other item Bruce whispered in my ear to address was the building B, which is the pharmacy building, and that's where the house sits right now. If you are to make --just for the record, that's a special consideration, it's not a condition of approval right now. After reading through Steve's staff report, he did not include that as a condition of approval. If you were to be silent on that, I think we will be okay, because they can't build that building on top of that house it's going to have to go away. If we just leave the report silent on the conditions of approval and make no changes to that, I think we are sitting in a good situation. Centers: And one other question for staff. I had made note of it and it didn't make sense at the time. You wanted to add something where that they meet all parking requirements of the city and you already have parking covered in item six. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, that's the item that we were addressing with the square footage and Wendy brought up the fact that they would still have to meet the parking requirements. Again, Ijust -- Centers: So you want that included? McKinnon: It does not need to be included. Meridian City Code allows staff to handle that. Borup: Any other staff comments? Zaremba: Any problem with eliminating the requirement on the pharmacy building for a muted speaker? McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, you addressed it earlier and it's been addressed a little bit tonight about the 300 foot separation and there is more than the 300 foot separation there. It's not part of our code, but that's the standard Boise Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 33 of 107 City uses. They dropped their 55-decibel at 300 foot, because it was hard to enforce the decibel reading. I think we would be okay dropping it there. Borup: I think Mr. Centers had talked about -- and I don't know if we want to discuss that any, the -- eliminating the drive-thru and just -- unless I misunderstood you, eliminating the drive-thru and allowing the pick-up window. Is that what you were referring to earlier? Centers: Just eliminate the drive-thru request period. Borup: The whole thing. Centers: I don't think they - Borup: Well, I thought earlier you were talking about maybe allowing the pick-up, but not the -- Centers: Because Mr. Strite was honest with us that they want that for future sale of single piece orders or something of that kind, so -- Zaremba: Well, the potential is there and even though Pizza Huts tend to be stable, the potential is also there, as staff mentioned, for this to be a different drive-thru at some time -- a drive-thru -- a different business. Borup: Well, that limitation could be put on there. It would be applied just to this business, but -- Centers: Well, you know how they are going to exit. Borup: Well, that's still a concern, yes. Centers: Yes. Especially Pizza Hut, I mean they are really busy. They get a lot of those drivers coming in and out. Borup: Was there any other --are we looking for any other testimony? Centers: Well --and that was -- what I saw, no neighbors here regarding the speakers, so, you know, I don't have a problem with that, eliminating the volume limiting devices. Anyway, I would move we close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 34 of 107 Centers: I don't know if there is any discussion -- you know, I'd like to give him adrive- thru. I see where staff is coming from and it appears to be a little dangerous, even though I haven't been out there to really look at it, but -- and maybe the Council -- maybe they can do something prior getting to the Council to convince them to allow it. We have a clean application, other than that. Zaremba: But you're thinking to eliminate the drive-thru -- any possibility of the drive- thru or pick-up from our recommendation? I would agree to that. Borup: That would be modifying staff comment Number 4 -- or staff condition Number 4. Centers: Yes. It would be a future drive-thru is not allowed end of story. Borup: Not approved. Centers: Not approved. Right. Zaremba: It's eliminated. Centers: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to recommend approval for CUP 03-013. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify operational hours and change building placement from the original approved CUP in a C-N zone for Cherry Crossing by Hawkins Companies, at the northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road. Including all staff comments dated May 1S`, which also states received April 25th. On Page 5, under special consideration --well -- Borup: That's not part of the condition. Centers: Well, we are talking -- I was wondering about the house removal. We just won't worry about the house. That was the plan. I guess -- it was mentioned on Page 6 regarding limiting the volume devices that would be stricken, in that Paragraph 8. Borup: Now, you intended that to be just for the pharmacy or any building? Centers: I guess I don't have a problem with -- Borup: Mr. Strite had testified earlier their intention -- that their design had that device on the Pizza Hut already. Centers: If they are not going to have adrive-thru, they are not going to have -- Borup: Oh. That's true. Okay. Centers: And on Page 6 under conditions of approval Item 4, future drive-thru is not approved by this Commission so, all staff comments included end of motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 35 of 107 Zaremba: Second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of approved 192 unit apartment to 96 units and allow 5,500 square foot office park for Fairview Lakes by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: I think we took longer on that one than the previous six. Next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-014, a request for Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of approved 192-unit apartment to 96 units and allow a 5,500 square foot office park for Fairview Lakes by Fairview Lakes, LLC, at 824 East Fairview Avenue. We would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to come to the front, so I can make sure I can see all of you. I have got a few things I need to explain to you about this application that may be somewhat confusing, so I wanted to be able to see your eyes, to make sure that you're all on the same page. This is, again, another application concerning Fairview Lakes. We have heard a lot of applications about Fairview Lakes. Commissioners Centers says three before -- I think it's been more, but -- if we can go to the next slide, Wendy. Again, this is just more background concerning the area. It's all well known. At this point, this is where we start seeing some changes with this Site Plan. The central area -- if I could get you to highlight that, Bruce. Right there. Originally, we had 196 apartments included in this area and the applicant wants to revise that at this time to include up to 25 apartment buildings and get rid of the apartments and just leave 96 apartments on the north. Here is where it gets confusing. When the application came in, the applicant submitted the application for a detailed Conditional Use Permit and was charged for a detailed Conditional Use Permit, not a Conceptual Permit. The difference between a conceptual Conditional Use Permit and a detailed Conditional Use Permit is that they would have to come back for a Conditional Use Permit for every use other than residential in the future. Every one of those 25 offices, as they developed, would have been required to come back in for a Conditional Use Permit. There were a few items that were not submitted with the application that would typically be submitted with a detailed Conditional Use Permit and I can see that it's being handed across to you right now. I had an opportunity to talk with the architect prior to this meeting and we found out what the misunderstanding was. The application and the information that was provided led us to believe that this was a conceptual approval, rather than a detailed approval, and one of the items that was missing was a detailed Landscape Plan. We now have a copy of the detailed Landscape Plan. I have reviewed it and it does meet a majority of the landscaping requirements. In fact, there is just one item that needs to be revised on that to make