Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 1, 2003Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeOng May 1, 2003 Page 68 of 107 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: I would be in favor of just going through it just exactly as written by the staff. They have got the parking agreement covered on the site-specific. I don't think we need to add anything, do we? Zaremba: The only thing I would add would be to confirm that Meridian Development Corporation has had the opportunity to comment. I guess we can just handle that as -- we don't need to make that part ofthe -- Centers: Okay. Well, I would recommend approval of CUP 03-016, request for Conditional Use Permit for a craft store and coffee house in an O-T zone for The Library by Craig Rittenhouse at 141 East Carlton, including all staff comments from their memo, again, dated May 1st, 2003, and it was received April 25th. Zaremba: Second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 03-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Jr. restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones - north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street: Borup: Okay. The next item is CUP 03-017, request for Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior restaurant with adrive-thru service by Clayton Jones, north of the intersection of South Meridian Road and I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development for the construction of 2,124 square foot drive-thru fast food restaurant. And you can see where it's located off of Meridian Road. And I think on the other side it has aKFC-A&W. The applicant is here for a Planned Development. Currently, there are two buildings on site, the Planned Development requirement comes in, because they are demolishing -- planning to demolish the existing -- it was the old KFC restaurant and establish a new Carl's Junior restaurant. Because they are demolishing the existing building and proposing a new building, they are required to do a Planned Development, because it will be two buildings on site. And also I wanted to follow it up with when the original -- or the current A&W-KFC building went in, it was prior to the requirement of the Planned Development code that required two amenities and we provided -- that will come up later this evening, but when that building came in, that was not a part of an ordinance. It Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 69 of 107 is currently. That will apply to this new Carl's Junior. Let's see. Before we get into the staff report, I wanted to -- kind of as part of the record go through some of the history. This application went to Planning and Zoning and City Council in 2002 and I wanted to go through some of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that City Council found. Again, this meeting was November 26th, 2002. I wanted to go through some of the reasons why this application was -- tonight, originally, as you can judge, whether the same modification is going back or -- I just wanted to -- I wanted you to have this background when you make your decision this evening. Let's see. I'll kind of briefly go through this. Let's see. I want to go ahead and address some of the issues with the drive-thru. I will just go ahead and read this verbatim: That the proposed use would be a Carl's Junior with adrive-thru. The proposed restaurant would replace the existing building that formally housed a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, located between the existing Taco Bell, the new A&W-KFC restaurants. When the new A&W-KFC restaurant received approval of their required Conditional Use Permit, one of the conditions of approval was to abandon the drive-thru use of the, then, existing KFC building and a proposed use, now requests construction of a 3,901 square foot Carl's Junior restaurant with drive-thru and said drive-thru was for the new A&W restaurant. Let's see. I'm going to go through some of the problems they had found. The proposed use would significantly impact the traffic and add to congestion in the area. More likely than not, the additional proposed use with adrive-thru in the same lot area would increase the problem sited earlier in regards to traffic. The proposed use would not allow adequate on street parking for employees and providing that the off-site parking for employees, which I do not believe is a part of this application. It was not discussed with the businesses located on the site. Actually, that's not pertinent to this evening. Let's see. I'm going to go through their Conclusions of Law. The proposed use would be detrimental to other businesses in the same block, because of the traffic congestion it would create. The proposed use would be detrimental to other persons, because the traffic congestion created by the use would create safety problems. The site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed use. That the design and operation will not be compatible with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and such use would adversely change the essential character of the same area due to traffic congestion, that the proposed use would be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, and that the proposed use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities. And this is their last Conclusion of Law. That the proposed use would involve activities or processes and conditions of operation that would be detrimental to persons, property, and the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic and noise. I just wanted to give you that background on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law from when this was denied by Council in 2002. This is a different application here that's before you. Wollen: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to clarify that this was a different application. It was CUP 02-026 was what the City Council had voted to deny and according to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that were prepared and apparently signed on or about November 26th of last year, Councilman Bird, de Weerd, and McCandless all voted to deny it, Councilman Nary was absent during the hearing, apparently. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 70 of 107 Kirkpatrick: I would point out that that original application was for a much larger fast food restaurant and also included a children's play area. It was a different application. I just wanted you to have that background. Borup: Do you know what the previous size was? Centers: Four thousand was the -- Kirkpatrick: And the application we are looking at tonight is 2,124 square feet. Let's see. There are a couple issues I wanted to kind of note for you. Let's see. Again, I wanted to just kind of make you aware, when the new A&W-KFC restaurant received approval of their Conditional Use Permit, one of the conditions of approval was to abandon the drive-thru of the exiting KFC building. While the proposed application is for the construction of a new building and a new drive-thru, which will be constructed in a different location than the previous drive-thru. The Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, when this application goes to Council, should determine whether the intent of the condition of approval was to prohibit a second drive-thru on the property or whether that was just addressing the previous drive-thru, which has been abandoned. Staffs primary concern with this application was -- is the configuration of the proposed drive- thru of the restaurant. The configuration requires customers of the restaurant to cross through the drive-thru of the restaurant to access the entrance of the restaurant. The applicant -- we met with the applicant earlier this week and they have since submitted a revised Site Plan, which you can see up there. They are proposing to put some fencing to separate the parking area from the drive-thru. There will be one raised -- I believe paved area where pedestrians will access the restaurant and these are improvements that have been made. And I believe the applicant is also now proposing two amenities and I will discuss that this evening. Those two amenities will be required for a Planned Development. Staff finds that this application is generally compatible with the other commercial and restaurant uses in the general vicinity of the subject property. We don't have any comments from ACHD addressing traffic. I talked with staff from ACRD and they felt that this wouldn't be creating any new trips. Staff is concerned that while maybe perhaps new trips will not be generating new traffic or new -- the left turns in and out of Carl's Junior restaurant would be potentially be created, however, we don't have comments from ACHD. That's just a staff concern. Some of our site-specific requirements would be that the drive-thru of the restaurant be reconfigured so that pedestrians do not pass through the drive-thru of the restaurant, although the applicant has revised the drive-thru configuration, they have improved that. We are requiring two amenities be provided. The applicant must apply for a planned sign program for the proposed sign. They must comply with current landscaping regulations. Additionally, we want for --this is not -- for the pavement to be improved in this area. There is a poor quality of the pavement there at the current building. I believe that is -- staff recommends approval of the proposed application with the conditions that the configuration of the drive-thru be modified so that pedestrians do not cross the drive- thru to access the restaurant and that two amenities are provided for the proposed Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 71 of 107 Planned Development. If these modifications are not made, staff recommends denying the proposed application. Any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Mathes: I have a question. What is that - is that a sidewalk or what is that that goes clear to the -- yes, that thing. Kirkpatrick: That is a sidewalk. Mathes: So, that's just because the customers have to go back out and around or can they cross the sidewalk? They can? Okay. Borup: Anything else, Commissioners? Does the applicant have a presentation? Mr. Strite. Strite: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. I guess, if I could, I'd like to start by suggesting that at the time that this Commission approved the previous application there was two major issues that were not only discussed at length, according to the minutes -- incidentally, I wasn't here, but I have read all the minutes -- both by the Commission and also by the adjacent users, those two specific items included the access to Meridian Road and also the parking situation as it presently existed. Since that point in time, the applicant has met with the users, he has also met with the staff, as Wendy has already suggested, and a number of concessions have been made. I think the very first one I will start with would be the Meridian Road access. We have provided a raised median, which channelizes the access in and out off of Meridian Road and this was, in fact, approved by Ada County Highway District. There was considerable conversation, as you might recall. I believe it was Commissioner Zaremba who aptly brought up the fact that he uses this facility quite frequently and getting in and out of there was quite difficult. Sitting down with Ada County Highway District we were able to hammer out an additional width of access, again, channelizing the in and out with a raised median. I think that issue I would trust is -- has been addressed, but, certainly, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. As it relates to parking, the first thing that came up was the amount of parking. In the concession process, the applicant and the owner both have suggested that some off-site parking be acquired and the way I understand it, the adjacent users were not too excited about that, however, this application certainly feels that off-site parking for employees would be a good idea and supports it, if, in fact, the owner is able to supply same. But I think the big concessions, if you will, come into the picture when you look at the size of the building. The size of the building now proposed is 2,100 square foot, as opposed to 3,900 square feet. That's a 46 percent size reduction. More importantly, the seats went down from 94 to 44. That's a 56 percent reduction. At the same time, we have added parking to the north, parking has been re- striped - or we are proposing re-striping the parking on the west -- east. Excuse me. That has an increase in parking of 22 percent. All in all, I think the concessions made by not only the applicant, but also the owner, in relationship to the two major concerns Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 72 of 107 that were discussed the night of your approval, have been addressed. I think the interesting thing relative to parking that should be brought up -- because I talked to the staff today and the existing 2,900 square foot building that's there today, if, in fact, we removed the drive-thru, which was the edict as noted in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, we'd still have 2,900 square feet. Those 2,900 square feet can still house 85 to 95 seats. In other words, this particular application before you tonight, the seating capacity is half of what would be used in that building today and, more importantly, if they wanted to use that building today, put that 85 seats in there, there would be no reason to come back to see you. It's allowed. It's an allowed use. It's a principal fitted use. All it has to do is go through CZC, which is your certificate of zoning compliance, and, in fact, requires no Conditional Use. Obviously, if they put in the 80 seats plus, they are exacerbating the parking situation. I think it should be made clear that the reason we are here tonight is two fold. One is to bring to your attention the fact that they were here earlier, 2002, and these issues were brought forth. These issues have been addressed. As it relates to the amenities, the first thing we thought of -- and I think was very appropriate at this particular point in our country's history is we are suggesting that we provide a memorial bench with a three flag arrangement just west of the entry there -- entry doors to the facility, wherein we are proposing to have those three flags, United States flag, the Idaho flag, and, if, in fact, the City of Meridian has a flag, we would be prepared to have that flag there as well. The second amenity we are proposing on the plan before you is a raised bominate or paved walk that goes from the facility out to East 1st Street. That was what was just mentioned by Commissioner Mathes. The third amenity, if, in fact, the city has any request for us to do so, is that we are prepared to provide at the entry to the City of Meridian a sign that welcomes you to the City of Meridian. We believe that those three amenities should, in fact, suffice. I would like to make one comment, however, in my opinion and in my opinion only, incidentally. This is an individual in-fill and in the in-fill amenities are not required, because a planned unit development is not required. However, we are prepared to provide those, nonetheless. Having gone through that, I'd like to discuss this drive-thru. And in an attempt to try to maximize the parking, minimize the congestion, we made the concerted effort to extend the length of our drive-thru -- it also avoids any conflict of them coming out and going -- drive-thrus on the top of the other sites and having done so, we felt that it was imperative that we put it in the location that does, in fact, require the pedestrians cross over it. However, we have provided safety -- what we believe to be adequate safety remedies by providing a decorative guardrail on both sides of the drive-thru. We have a raised bominate or stamped concrete or brick walkway and we are providing signage, which should alert anybody that's coming into that driveway of the actual pedestrian walk, if you will, as they enter and proceed southerly towards the speaker system. And I trust there is going to be a lot of testimony and I'm here with the applicant. Certainly, they would be prepared to discuss this. And I think it's maybe more appropriate at this particular point in time, since I have thrown out all the percentages, that questions might be in order and, if not, I would be happy to come back and would insist that I be allowed to come back in rebuttal, because I understand, as I read the minutes, that there is going to be some adjacent users, who I'm not certain whether it's the competition or the actual concern with the congestion, I think we have certainly handled the congestion part. And, again, I want to preface in my summary that Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 73 of 107 we wouldn't have to be here tonight and still build 85 seats in that facility, which would require greater parking that would have been -- than is out there today and this particular plan addresses that and I will open it up for questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Not a question, but a comment. I think the Meridian Road entrance is a great improvement certainly over what's there. I can see by the change in the design that it would flow much better and get traffic in and out off of Meridian. I think that was a good solution. I like that. Strite: Thank you. Zaremba: That said and knowing that I like Carl's Junior and would patronize it my sense of the City Council's denial was no drive-thru there period, no matter how you configured it. Strite: Mr. Chair, if I might, Commissioner Zaremba, I read that very thing. I have all the minutes, I'm sure you have all the minutes. The Findings of Facts, actually, makes a comment by the city attorney and, then, also on the accepted staff report it makes note -- it refers to existing building. It did not suggest that a new building -- at least in my interpretation -- that a new building would be discouraged or could not, in fact, have a drive-thru. And if I could rapidly find that, I believe that you will find in there that it does suggest existing -- and I think that was the key word. Borup: And my memory is one of the main reasons for that was the location of the existing drive-thru window. Strite: The Chairman is absolutely correct. I think there was considerable conversation and I have those minutes here before me, but those are -- Zaremba: Your previous submittal moved the drive-thru -- Borup: Right. You're talking about -- I think Mr. Strite is referring back to the drive-thru that was at the Kentucky Fried Chicken. Zaremba: The drive-thru in the existing old Kentucky Fried Chicken building, that isn't where you proposed it last time. You had moved it from there. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, that's correct. Zaremba: And still the City Council denied it. Centers: Correct me if I'm wrong. The last one it was kind of adjacent to the Taco Bell? Strite: That's absolutely correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 74 of 107 Centers: And we saw some conflict there and I think that's what City Council had -- Strite: If I can, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I think there was some verbiage in there which I had a little struggle with myself, but as I went back through their minutes and, then, I went back through some of the staff comments, it seems clear to me that they didn't mean that there could not be a drive-thru, it just could not be in that location and certainly not, if, in fact, we were going to be re-using the KFC building. Perhaps counsel may have that. I -- for some reason -- Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, actually, I have a copy of that and I can read that or, if need be, we could run and make copies if you want -- Borup: You want to just summarize? Strite: It does say on there existing, isn't it? The key word, I think, is existing. Kirkpatrick: Let's see. It reads that drive-thru on the existing building shall be abandoned as soon as the new drive-thru is operational. And that's the wording from that. Strite: And I -- oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. Zaremba: I'm sorry. You're saying that was -- that was the operative condition in the CUP that allowed the new building to be built? Kirkpatrick: Correct. When it was approved at Council. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. Centers: Excuse me, Mr. Strite. I have a question for staff. You know, your bottom line here is that the staff recommends approving it if the configuration of the drive-thru is modified. This was the revised plat -- or revision of that. You didn't -- or I didn't hear any comment that you're satisfied with the revision. Strite: She's not. Centers: This was just received today. Kirkpatrick: Correct. We met with the applicant earlier this week and I -- I mean while this is an improvement -- I mean I, as a planner, this is your decision to make, I mean I feel this site is too small and that's why we have this comment on this configuration. Centers: Is this the revised one that we have here? Strite: Yes, it is. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 75 of 107 Centers: And Mr. Strite's comment is correct, you're still not satisfied with this? Kirkpatrick: I'm not. Strite: As it relates to the drive-thru and the pedestrian access. But I think, if I might, Mr. Chair, make a comment to Commissioner Centers. I think what we have -- we have an extremely difficult site, obviously. I mean that's a no brainer. But, however, I think considering the testimony that you have before you, both by the adjacent neighbors and that that came out of the City Council, the two concerns were primarily based upon the amount of parking and the access and I think that that's fairly well documented. Centers: Well -- and previously it was the drive-in -- the drive-thru. Strite: That's correct. And I think, specifically, because of its location on the site. We felt that the concessions made by the applicant, which I have to deem considerable, and the improvements made on the site, including the addressing of additional parking, and the owner, as I understand it, is still prepared to look for off-site parking if demanded by -- or requested by the Commission. Excuse me, for their employees. So I -- Centers: That's what was said the last time, too. Strite: That's correct. Centers: Could you take this or do you have your own? Strite: I don't have one, no. Centers: Could you take this and direct traffic in through the drive-thru and out and from both entrances from 1st Street and Meridian? Because Ican't -- Strite: This ought to be a trip. Centers: Okay. Strite: Well, let me see here. If I'm coming off Meridian Road and I want to come in here -- Centers: Uh-huh. Strite: -- I want to come in here like this, I'm going to go over here, I'm going to go down to the Taco Bell. How is that? Is that okay so far? Centers: You are. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 76 of 107 Strite: Thank you. I want to come in, I want to go this way, and I am going to go around through here. Boy, I feel like I'm shaking. I'm going to the KFC. Okay. I come this way, I come down here, I turn into here, I wrap around this direction, and I exit out this way in the new facility. The one that came before you before had the drive-thru on this side, which was basically almost not quite parallel, but I believe was mostly parallel to Taco Bell. The concern by staff is this little element right here, is that people coming this direction would be conflicting with pedestrians coming here. Now, I would also like to point out to you that the applicant has suggested to me that this 2,100 square foot store, with only 44 seats, does approximately 70 percent of its business in the drive- thru. So, that would lead me to believe that there would be less conflict, because there is going to be less people parking and the parking is available to other people. However, getting back to this, as we come back through here, you can either go this direction, which probably would not be wise and I doubt that very many people would do that, and the reason we did not curb this raised wall in this location was to avoid people from having to do that. We want this thing to continue all the way down here and come back all the way out to the sidewalk and that would be the raised bominate or stamped concrete that would delineate a pedestrian accessibility from East 1st -- East 1st over to the facility. Now, I trust, Commissioner, that I have got you through the process here or have I missed something? Is there something I'm still missing? I mean there is still the ability for the Taco Bell people to come this way and down here all right they can proceed on north up here to Bolo's. Centers: How about people coming off 1st Street and going up and wanting to get through the drive-thru? Strite: People coming up East 1st would come this direction, they would turn and go westerly, if you will, there is a turn right here, come this direction, and we are back into the same drive-thru right here. I think it's actually less confusing, quite frankly, than the original design, but, obviously, when you take 4,000 square foot and put in 2,100 square feet, you give yourself an opportunity to do a little better job of increasing the site parking and I think the configuration is, obviously, far superior in terms of any motor vehicle conflict and I'm convinced that safety issues are addressed by virtue of the raised concrete and the safety rails, which are a decorative piece as well, I think limits the problem that the staff has suggested in conflict right here, if you will. This is pretty neat. Centers: You ought to get one. Strite: No, thank you. Zaremba: Clarify for me -- I guess I jumped to the conclusion that the pick-up window was here. Strite: You're absolutely correct. Zaremba: It is here? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 77 of 107 Strite: Yes, sir. Zaremba: So this traffic -- Strite: That's correct. Zaremba: This is just an escape if they are in there somewhere for the wrong reason -- Strite: That's correct. Zaremba: --and they would be already turned this way if they are making spick-up. Strite: That's correct. Zaremba: What you just said gave me the impression that it was over here, but it is actually here. Strite: I'm sorry. The additional benefit I think in this particular Site Plan, as opposed to the one you had in your original packet before we added the amenities, is that we are able to provide a landscape island between the drive-thru and other north-south -- southwesterly driveway that you just mentioned. It allows those cars to be confined within the drive-thru lane with a landscaped bearing between those and any opposing traffic. For instance, somebody coming out of KFC heading north, if you will, is not going to be in conflict with the drive-thru people, that's correct, because they can go directly out and take -- I believe it would be a right turn -- I'm left-handed, so I have to think about that ---onto East 1st. Zaremba: Well, I can see you also addressed the issue -- if I remember the testimony last time, the manager of the KFC was objecting to a plan that had your drive-thru parking stacking -- your drive-thru people were stacking here, which blocked their access to their drive-thru and you have solved that problem -- Strite: That's correct. And have provided them additional parking. There is six or seven spaces on our -- I guess I'll call it our south boundary or his north boundary. Actually, that parking will be used by them, not by us, but the whole idea of this thing, as I looked at it after reading the minutes, is that I think our task was to try to provide, first of all, a workable solution. Secondly, provide additional parking. And maybe first and foremost your problem with the access and I think it's a very valid point. I mean that's dangerous and I think that Ada County Highway District feels strongly that this is very workable. Zaremba: Well, I certainly appreciate the work on the driveway. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Mr. Strite, you had mentioned 22 percent more parking? How many spaces is that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 78 of 107 Strite: I believe that this particular proposal alone will net 37 spaces. Borup: More? Strite: No. The original one was like 32 that you approved last November. What we did is we re-striped -- Borup: So, it would be five more? Strite: Seven more, I think it is. Borup: You said 32 to 37? Strite: Thirty-nine. Borup: Thirty-nine. Strite: I'm sorry. Thirty-nine. Yes. Borup: Okay. Strite: We re-striped the -- those on East 1st and, obviously, as I mentioned, we added those to the north, to allow KFC parking spaces -- Borup: Do you know what the 56 percent fewer seats would -- how would that convert to required parking? Strite: Well --and, unfortunately, in your ordinance it doesn't equate to -- Borup: No, on the square feet. Strite: Staff has tried to do that. In square footage your ordinance requires one space for every 200 square feet. I think if you recall reading the minutes, everyone was well aware that that was not sufficient for a restaurant use. However -- Borup: That's why we talked about the off-site parking, I believe. Strite: That's correct. That's correct. And it was my understanding that the owner was attempting to do that. I don't know where that stands and I do find in the minutes that the two adjacent users were not happy with that approach at all. Borup: It looks like the square footage, as far as the ordinance, would reduce it about nine, is my rough estimate. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 79 of 107 Strite: Yes, plus or minus. I think, in reality, yes, per your ordinance. But I mean this thing is -- you know, if you want to look at it, you go out there today, it's over parked, according to your ordinance, but certainly under parked in reality. And I don't think I'd get any argument from anybody in that respect. Borup: Well, you added seven and reduced it by nine. That's what I'm trying to -- there are 16 parking places there. I don't remember how many off-site were even discussed. Strite: Twenty-four. Borup: We were discussing 24? Strite: Yes. There are a couple of references in here as to the number of employees and that's how the 24 was arrived at. Borup: Well, I assume that if the size is reduced the number of employees is reduced also? Strite: Oh, you bet, although this particular applicant did not have a problem with that. This particular applicant was willing to participate and would like to see the off-site parking. I think that you all know that in the more urban areas off-site parking is very common, they do that all the time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other testimony on this application? Now is the time to come forward. Gibbs: Jonathan Gibbs, partner in G&H Enterprises, which is the owner of the property. I just wanted to address the drive-thru on the old building. I was definitely involved in that. We only had -- from the drive-thru, we were backing out in the street with five cars and so that was not adequate. We knew it wasn't adequate, you guys knew it wasn't, and so that's why when we built the new building it was said that that building could not be -- a drive-thru could not be used with that existing building, because it -- it wasn't set up for it and it was -- it was added on, you know, after the KFC was originally built and it was -- you know, it was a poor job from day one and that was the reasoning on that. And it was strictly on that old building at that time. You know, I think someone in the City Council, when we had the next meeting, kind of construed that that meant no drive- thru for that site ever again. That wasn't the intention when we built the KFC and it wasn't -- from Planning and Zoning or the City Council or anyone at that time never addressed never having adrive-thru again. Borup: Thank you. Gibbs: And as far as off-street parking, we will probably do some off-street parking. The total parking for those two sites -- for those two buildings on that lot is 55, which is - - really meets the code even for Boise, I think, at this time. It's certainly double what Meridian code is required, which you guys don't feel it's adequate and we don't feel it's Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 80 of 107 adequate either. I have talked to Bolo's, they would like some off-street parking, and I probably will provide that for them. But KFC and Taco Bell I don't think wanted their employees to have to park off street and we certainly don't want anyone to park off street and the parking for those stores is certainly adequate for the codes. It's maybe not adequate when Bolo's has a lot of customers that are long term in there in the evening and it does cause some problems with them. If they-- Brad Bolicek would like to have some parking and we have talked to maybe going over to the Wendy's site, which they have a lot of extra parking across the street, which is not very far from Bolo's anyway, just directly across. We will probably do something with parking regardless of what we do, at least for Bolo's. Borup: So, I assume you own the property next to Wendy's, then? Gibbs: We own the Bolo's and the Taco Bell and the -- no, we don't own that, but they - - Ihaven't talked to them about it, because I haven't resolved anything with you what we are going to do with the site. But they do have a lot of extra parking that is not being used at this time. They have a site at the other end that they may develop some day and -- but there is a lot of parking there and a couple other options that are a little further away also available. Borup: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. Do we have anyone else to come forward? Atteberry: Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Bill Atteberry, I represent Kentucky Fried Chicken and this new site proposal they have here, the size of the building we think is great. The parking is extra parking, that's a good thing. The divider they put on the entrance and exit along Meridian Road there, that's a really good thing. The drive -- having an additional drive-thru in there, though, in this small site where it's already very congested is just not a workable thing, in our opinion, and the last City Council they had a -- the configuration was a lot the same, the one they denied. They weren't referring to the old Kentucky Fried Chicken they had a new design from Carl's Junior. When it passed through here, the design was a lot the same. Borup: Are you concerned there is not enough stacking? Atteberry: Well, there is not -- the stacking, if the cars were to get out -- if I could show you. If the stacking should ever come out to here, this would really make congestion here. You have cars driving in here, Taco Bell -- that's Taco Bell's edge of their building. Their window, I believe, is about right here. Their pick-up window. Their menu board is right back here. You have cars coming down here, you have cars coming in here, exiting out here, and you have cars coming in here. It is just -- an additional drive-thru in there is just going to make it completely congested in here. To determine where you want to go as you come in here, whether you want to go to Taco Bell, come in here, or go here, is going to be -- to me would lie very confusing. It's very congested now going in there. Centers: Were does the Taco Bell sit right now? Imean -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 81 of 107 Atteberry: That's the edge -- that's their building right there. Centers: Okay. Atteberry: It's right here. It's part of this driveway. It's right on the edge of this driveway. Centers: And I have been in their drive-thru, but Iguess -- Atteberry: Even Taco Bell's -- I don't think you're going to be able to see it. Here is Taco Bell right here. Their pick-up window is about right here. Centers: Well, I thought Taco Bell, when you went through the driveway you had to exit onto Meridian Road, pretty much. Atteberry: No. Their drive-thru comes around this way. Comes up this way. They exit this way. But you can go around the building and exit this way if you like. And having a crosswalk across the drive-thru also, I -- is just something when you put in drive-thrus, had gone away a long time ago, crossing -- having a crosswalk going across adrive- thru, just for safety issues. And I don't know that an additional fence here is going to add any safety if you have a young child behind that fence, that car is not going to be able to see them. If they come across here, that could create a problem. Borup: You mean they are not going to be able to see them through the wrought iron fence? Atteberry: Well, it could obstruct their view to the person in a car. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Atteberry: No. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Skinner: Chairman, Council Members, my name is Dan Skinner. I'm with Taco Bell. And I kind of want to echo what Phil was saying. Iguess my only concern is --and just so you will know, I am a fan of Carl's Junior, personally, even though they are a competitor to us, as a consumer I enjoy visiting their facilities and eating their food. I think they have a great product. As far as that is concerned, that's not an issue when it comes to competition. What we are concerned about, the same things we expressed at the last meeting and that is the congestion. Already we are dealing with that everyday and it is becoming an issue. On top of that, we are also concerned about the safety when we go to look at adding an additional drive-thru or a facility with an additional drive-thru. Really, those are the two areas of my concern in regards to this proposal. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 62 of 107 Borup: Any questions of Mr. Skinner? Thank you, sir. Skinner: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Jones: Yes. Clayton Jones, 14071 West Rochester Drive in Boise. I am the applicant, but I'm thankful that Billy took the helm on this one. But I did want to point out -- and Phil almost made our argument for us. The last time we came through, the serious problem was congestion. It was congestion of the Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru backing up and our stack pretty much backed up into the same place. We addressed that by completely separating the two, thus, eliminating that congestion. We do have the issue with crossing the drive-thru, that some of the patrons will have to cross the drive-thru in order to access the building, though we do have the necessary safety precautions in place, I think that will take care of that, and with the addition of -- or I guess the reduction of the seating, 46 seats in the building, really, really, will limit the space inside. People will use the drive-thru, they will come in and out -- I think it's going to flow quite well. Mathes: How many cars can you stack in that driveway? Jones: From the window back to the entrance is 11 to 12 cars. It's a huge stack Centers: What kind of -- was this wrought iron, did the chairman say, or -- Jones: Yes. The proposed fencing was wrought iron I believe it was 36 or 30 inches high. To eliminate multiple cross points just to get it to one point. Borup: Do you know if there were very many other drive-thrus that have crosswalks across them? Jones: You know there is a couple. I hate -- I don't like to mention them, but most restaurants have at least some people crossing the drive-thru to get into -- to get into the front doors. For example, our other Meridian location, there are only seven parking spots that are around the building, similar to the way KFC is. You will notice that KFC -- everyone has to cross their drive-thru in order to get into their building as well. KFC would be an example, Carl's at Meridian Crossroads a large number of people have to cross the drive aisle to get in. If you have ever been out there, there is our building and, then, directly north is the new Baja Fresh with a huge parking area in between. Well, most of our customers park in that parking area and do cross the drive-thru in order to get into our building. There is no problem there. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Jones. Jones: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commisslon Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 83 of 107 Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. Strite. Strite: For the record again. Billy Ray Strite. I think I'm allowed a little rebuttal time, although I don't have much rebuttal relative to Mr. Atteberry or Mr. Skinner. I would, however, suggest to you, again -- I just did a quick calculation and using two plus people per auto, if Mr. Gibbs decided he wanted to build the restaurant in his existing facility, not requiring Conditional Use, not requiring approval from this Commission, City Council, he could do so. That particular facility built out would require 42 parking spaces additional to what you see up there now. I think to talk about congestion, I think the situation could be exacerbated if Mr. Gibb solely wanted to take his existing facility, build it out to the max, which he's, I guess, prepared to do and, then, you could really see some congestion. I think what you have here is you have a compromise situation where you have added the additional parking spaces as requested by the Commission, by the neighbors, by the City Council. I think, all in all, it made the on-site circulation considerably better and the compromise, of course, is the crosswalk and I believe it's -- as has been mentioned, the safety precautions are there with the railing, the raised walk, the signage, I think it's very doable and I believe that it should be acceptable and ask for your approval. Centers: Mr. Strite, you're probably right, I don't know, he could open that restaurant, you know, and require a lot more parking, but I don't think you would have adrive-thru with it. Strite: Mr. Chairman -- Centers: Based on what I -- Strite: -- Commissioner Centers, you're absolutely correct. I suggested, as I mentioned earlier, that they could open this restaurant without the drive-thru, because I think that's the edict from the Council, but the point is you're seating 42 in this particular -- 44, excuse me. If he wants to sit -- maximize his building existing, he can sit 84 to 92 I think the way we have it laid out. He can better than double the amount of seats and if you just equate that to two plus people per car, three people per car, if you wish, you're not going to reach the same compromise here as you have before you tonight, based on maximizing the parking, minimizing the congestion and I think that's the applicant's argument and I think a sound one. Zaremba: I think the tradeoff is, as you're saying, to have the drive-thru means that you may have cars that are on this property for five minutes, ten minutes, while they place their order and get it picked up. If this were any other use and people actually had to park and go in, then, each of those cars are probably there for a half hour, 45 minutes, and you end up -- I think as long as it circulates, having the drive-thru is probably the better choice than having all those people park. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner that was our consensus as well. If you read the minutes, Mr. Atteberry mentioned that, quite frankly, that when .Bolo's is flying and they Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 84 of 107 have music apparently a certain amount of time, there isn't any parking. The reason being is because sit there for an hour, maybe two hours, maybe three hours, and the whole idea here is a quick turnover and I just ask the question what the transaction time is for a typical Carl's and the transaction time for the drive-thru is four minutes. I think that frees up a lot of parking. I think enough said. I vvill answer any other questions otherwise, I will get out of here. Borup: Okay. Questions? Okay. Strite: Thanks. Borup: Final comment from --any final comment from staff? Kirkpatrick: No. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, I would comment on the -- on the walkway having to cross the drive- thru. Borup: In my mind that's really the main issue that they are looking at. Zaremba: I have seen places where somebody exited the entrance of a building and had to cross adrive-thru driveway and there -- to a person in a car, the pedestrian is appearing out of nowhere, because they are almost always configured where you're walking along an edge of a building and, then, stepping into the driveway. The advantage to -- that I see to this one is anybody coming or going from the entrance is well away from the walls of the building and, you know, as long they are taller than the rail, they ought to be pretty visible. Borup: The other thing that I can see different here is they are funneled to one designated spot. Zaremba: The pedestrians are. Borup: Yes. Yes. I'm thinking of Arby's. I have walked across that one and you've got a wide area where you can go and you're not sure -- Centers: Mr. Chairman, do you know what this is? Borup: That's a measurement line. Centers: Okay. Thank you. I would like to see the walkway, if you don't like it, move it right here. Then -- because my scare is someone coming around here and whipping in there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 85 of 107 Borup: That's the thought I -- Centers: But I wouldn't have much problem if it were moved to right here. I think it would be safer. Borup: I was debating the exact same thing and I'm not sure about coming through there, but are they going faster after they have had a little bit of a straight distance or are they going faster after they have turned the corner. I don't know. Centers: You know I don't know the visibility right here either. You know, there might be some obstruction. Borup: There is no landscaping shown there. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: Well, another advantage to moving it the way Commissioner Centers is suggesting is that they would walk into the parking more central to the available spaces right and left. In the current configuration they may have to walk some to get to their car. Centers: Uh-huh. I even looked at, you know, putting it back here, but I see where their entrance is. You know if you could put it here, but -- I agree with the applicant -- Zaremba: Do we want a comment from -- the hearing is still open. Do we want a comment from the applicant on that? Borup: So, you're saying maybe move it 40 feet? Well, no, I was saying maybe three or four parking spaces -- three or four parking spaces, four and a half. Zaremba: It still isn't along the wall of the building, which was my objection to other places. Strite: The reason I -- Mr. Chair, Billy Ray Strite once again. The reason I asked to show this is because that one amenity we have would be compromised. However, I see a solution - and I think this is a very astute point that you bring up. I think if we can move that thing say three spaces to the south, I think, number one, it does a number of things. First, it centers it on the parking that's adjacent to Meridian Road where the landscape entry corridor is set and I think by doing so we can take our amenity, flip that, if you will, mirror image it, and center it around so that it's adjacent to the handicapped stall, which, actually, would be quite nice, because we can ramp up and onto that memorial setting with the flag pole. I don't think we would have any problem with that. I think that's a good suggestion. Centers: So, you're saying three parking spaces? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2D03 Page 86 of 107 Strite: I would say two, but if you'd prefer three, we could do three. Two parking spaces -- Centers: To the south. Strite: -- is eighteen feet. That's another full automobile. That's why I chose two, as opposed to three. That would give you one full length of automobile. And I think the comment made is you're coming around a corner and I think it's a good one, as you get around that corner you have another full automobile before you reach that crosswalk, so that would certainly be acceptable by us if staff was so inclined. Borup: It looks like the 20 -- you know, approximately 20 feet or whatever would still have a very good access to the entrance. And that was the only thought I had. If you move it too far, then, you're -- then you don't have the entrance to the site and may not follow that designated walkway. Strite: Well, Mr. Chairman, keep in mind we have -- we are suggesting that you would have the same railing on the -- Borup: Right, on both sides. Strite: On both sides. As you mentioned, you're channeling it into one location, regardless of what you do. The one point of contention might be that corner of the building limits that space to probably less than eight feet. We were hoping to get a little more landscaping there. However, I think if we move it over two, we would still have landscaping either side of that walkway and, then, our amenity to the north of that and I think that would work well. Borup: The thing I see different from this one than the other crossing is that none of the others have any fencing. Strite: Not here locally, no. But we have done it in numerous locations -- other locations. Borup: Does it work well? Strite: It works very well. Centers: Thank you. Strite: Thank you very much. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question of staff. Is it factual that that existing building can be reoccupied without a Conditional Use Permit? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeBng May 1, 2003 Page 87 of 107 Kirkpatrick: It would, I believe; require a certificate of zoning compliance and possibly would have to come into compliance with current parking regulations. It also may be debatable, depending on how long this building has been abandoned, whether they could continue with a nonconforming use or whether they would actually have to come back with another Conditional Use. Rohm: So, is that a yes or a no? Borup: Now your statement it could continue as a nonconforming use, what do you mean by that? You mean the old KFC? Kirkpatrick: Excuse me. It's not a nonconforming use, because the building has been abandoned or has not been used for over a year, potentially.. I -- Borup: Was the original KFC a CUP? Kirkpatrick: I believe it was a Planned Development, so that would take in -- it was a CUP, because it was adrive-thru. Borup: In the prior -- Kirkpatrick: I'm repeating what Dave is telling me here. Without the drive-thru it would be a principal permitted use, would still require a certificate of zoning compliance and would have to meet today's parking standards. Borup: Even though it's an existing building? Powell: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I do want to say Mr. Strite called earlier and we did inform him that, indeed, he could occupy that structure, so I don't want you to think that he's trying to misinform you, because he's just telling you what we told you earlier. Now, the question since then had or -- I'm sorry. He's telling you what we told him earlier. The question came up later about the certificate of zoning compliance, but I have a question in my mind whether the approved PD would have approved that building with a use in it, so there is some question in my mind as to what the originally PD approved and, obviously, I don't know the particulars of that right now. So, it was a qualified yes is what the answer was, Mr. Rohm. Borup: I guess we need to see what -- how it passed City Council, but my remembrance was -- I'm not sure how many were here when the KFC went in, but the drive-thru needed to be abandoned and they were anticipating another restaurant going in that building. That has been awhile, though. Wollen: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it was my understanding, even though I was not here during that -- during the previous approval, but it was my understanding that the building itself was to be abandoned at that time, when the new KFC -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 88 of 107 Borup: Abandoned by KFC. Wollen: Yes. But I -- and at that time I believe that -- well, it was the understanding of Mr. Nichols, too, that at that time the building, essentially, became a nonentity for occupation, but -- and that's just my understanding. Borup: That wasn't mine. And Mr. Gibbs is here if we'd like clarification. Any Commissioners have any question on that? That's not pertinent right now. Let's continue on, then. Centers: I guess I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Any other discussion? We've discussed moving the walkway Rohm: You know, I think it's -- Mr. Chairman, I think it's safe to say that this configuration is a vast improvement over the last one and I think it addresses many of the issues that were brought up and discussed very thoroughly and so to that end, you know, I would applaud the folks that have put this together and it is, it's much better. That entire development, though, is very congested and I can't get passed that. It's just -- it's a congested development even with that being a vacated building currently and I don't know exactly where I'm going with this, other than the fact that I think that we have all seen that that area has more traffic than what is capable of handling without any congestion and that being said, I will quit. Centers: Yes. And I guess I will give my comments. You know, when I read the application prior to coming to the meeting, you know, I have to be very honest with you. I was negative. Of course, saw it before. But I guess I am impressed with the redesign and if they would be willing to move'the crosswalk. The way I look at the congestion -- and lagree with you, the last time we acted on this and we approved it, the next night I went to that location and I thought, my gosh, you know, how could we have done that. However, if I don't want to fight that congestion, I won't go. You know, I won't go back. So, the congestion within there really doesn't bother me. They have solved the getting in and getting out. I think they have a lot of stacking room for the drive-up if the people want to come in there and get in the drive-up. That's my feeling and, you know, the staff may not recommend it and they may have a tough time with Council, but I'm swayed, especially, if they move the crosswalk. Zaremba: Well, I had a similar instinct when I was reading the materials and my thought was it has adrive-thru, it's not going to fly. Further considering it, I tend to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 89 of 107 agree with the applicant that the drive-thru is the best solution. The alternative is to say if we were to choose to deny this as it is, with the improvements that have been made, it's almost the alternative saying there is nothing that could be approved in that location. It has to be leveled and turned into a parking lot and I don't think we need to go that far. I think -- I agree there is going to be some congestion in there, but I think the traffic flow is probably about the best design that it's going to be and I'm inclined to pass it on to City Council. Centers: Well, let a business operation if the business wants to do that, to give us some tax dollars, let them do it. Borup: And that makes sense. If it's too congested, you don't go there. But I have been there. I guess I -- different hours. I have never been there when it's been congested. Zaremba: I choose when I go there. I like to go there, but I choose when I go. Centers: How do you feel about the -- I mean I don't know if we can make a condition that all employees for this facility park off site. Do we need to worry about the parking? They have plenty of parking now. Borup: Well, I mean I think it would be nice if there could be some, but what I was looking at is we had approved it before and we gained 16 spaces from what we had before. Centers: Sixteen. Borup: I was talking about 24 off site. I mean if we use -- I don't know where we came up with the 24. We haven't -- oh we didn't ask them how many employees they have in the new store. You know, previously, there was only eight different and they will probably have a reduction of that many employees. Well, maybe not. Some off site would probably help. Again, I think, like you said, that may be up to the businesses to decide that themselves. If the owner of the property has tenants that are not able to operate successfully, they are not going to be staying there. Zaremba: I would be inclined to leave that as their own self-interest, rather than trying to mandate it. I'd leave it pretty general anyhow. We wouldn't -- if we mandated that there had to be offsite parking, we wouldn't specify where, because where could be convenient today but may change if something gets built on it, so -- Centers: And that may be hazardous, too, if they parked across the street and, then, they are jaywalking to get to their place of business. I would like the applicant to write the three amenities on a note and pass them up, because we didn't have them -- or did someone note them? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 90 of 107 Borup: I remember two of them. I think staff could probably clarify that for us, couldn't you? One was the -- Kirkpatrick: I believe they have the memorial bench, the three flags, and the -- Centers: That's with the memorial bench, the three flags. Kirkpatrick: I think the memorial bench was aseparate -- the three flags and, then, we had a pathway. Borup: And also offering a Welcome to Meridian sign for the city, so -- Centers: Right. Kirkpatrick: Okay. If you do all approve those amenities, those are alternative compliance amenities you will want to make a note of that. They are not listed as approved amenities in our code. These are alternatives. Centers: Right, definitely alternative. Borup: Okay. Centers: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I guess it sounds like we are in agreement and I saw Commissioner Mathes nodding her head. Of course, we don't have to be in agreement. We are overriding staff. Kirkpatrick: Commissioners, Chairman, I want to make one more note. If you do recommend approval, they will be required to put a landscaping island and Dave is pointing out where that is. They will be required to do that in the landscaping plan. It's not shown in the revised Site Plan or in the staff report. We will have to add that as a condition of approval. Centers: The landscape island at what location, Mr. McKinnon? Let the record indicate where the dot is? Let's pin it down. Borup: Basically, the east end of the -- Zaremba: East end of the parking between the two buildings. Southeast end of the south parking lot. Centers: What? Borup: Doesn't Meridian Road go north to south? Meridian does. 1st doesn't Centers: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 91 of 107 Borup: Separate the parking from the drive-in. Centers: I will make a stab at it here. I would like to recommend approval of CUP 03- 017, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior Restaurant with drive- thru service by Clayton Jones, north of the intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street, including all staff comments from the memo dated May 1st, received April 25th -- getting late. Additionally, applicant to provide a landscape island at the east end of the south parking lot. Applicant to move the crosswalk let's call it, from the parking area to the restaurant three parking spaces to the south. Correct. South. Applicant to also provide amenities -- Borup: You want the three? Earlier we talked about maybe two Centers: At least two amenities -- Zaremba: No. Moving the walkway at least two -- Centers: I'm sorry. I said three. Borup: Right. That's why I want to clarify. Centers: Yes. He preferred two, but you know we can't give him everything. Borup: Okay. Centers: I'd like to move it clear around here if I could, but that's not reasonable. Okay. Applicant to provide the amenities as stated earlier, which would be the bench and three flags, a Welcome to the City of Meridian sign, and the raised sidewalk. That's a given, the raised sidewalk out to 1st Street. Thank you. That's it, as far I know. Anything else? Borup: That's the motion. Zaremba: I will second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 03-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the demolition of one of the two existing buildings and replacing with one new building for the same use -child care in a C-C zone for New Horizon Child Care by New Horizon Child Care -1830 North Meridian Road: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-019, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for demolition of one of two existing buildings and placing one new building of the same