Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWalgreens AZ 99-019 CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 8364~2('~ _ ~2IIg) 587-z2II • Fax 887-IZ97 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4811'3,~J~~J~~PLANNING AND ZONING KEITH BIRD City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 yy~ _" DEPARTMENT Sf~p 1 3 1999 ~2os> 884-5533 • Fai 887-1297 CI'i~ 0~` iR~13IAN PLANNING & ZONING TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN HUB OF TREASURE:UALLEY Mayor LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live ~2pg) 288.2499 • Fax 288-2501 City Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: OCTOBER 1, 1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE: SEPTEMBER 9. 1999 HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1999 FILE NUMBER: AZ-99-019 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C-G (WALGREEN'S) BY: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT INC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NW CORNER OF FAlRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE RD. TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEiRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER JR, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C .CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT SANITY SERVICES BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY_ENGfNEER CITY-PLANNER-~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION .CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) .IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: (208) 888433 Fax: (208) 887-4813 ~~i 5 EP 0 i ~~ L;I'TY ; r'' .. ~, ; ~ i l l~.i /~z.-a~1- oi~t APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OR REZONE PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: ~.~ i 4 2~~',v `~ GENERAL LOCATION:_ /'~iJ C~I.~c7~ or ~r~21~y-~~ ~ ~-v~L'S% (~vz~ TYPE (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL): Ga r~ ~F2~s~-L ACRES OF LAND IN PROPOSED ANNEXATION: ~ 3 PRESENT LAND USE:' ~-lU~iM c-7L~-~-L A-sv9 2~5~-~~~y ; ..~s-c. -.~=N~iGc i~4~'+~~tY PROPOSED LAND USE: _ Go ru,u ~t-c~,9-C: la E~~~ L PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT: G'- ~.. ~ ~ '~ ~'v+-ANT PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT: G ~' APPLICANT: /i~r~r~.riGy--~,s -5~~;-z~ PHONE: 3 7G'~S Z 1 ADDRESS: $6~.5 ~: ~-2~~~~ ~n_ y oss~,..zD 5~7~`~'. ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR PLANNER: J~~-~~3~~ ~N~%-~~`~~--PHONE: ~ Z ~' ~~ ~- ADDRESS: c~SSy ~.: ~~=T~-ft-~ ~'7-. % ~=~_ ~'J ~3~y`~ OWNER(S) OF RECORD: S~'~ ~'ri".~~e~l PHONE: ADDRESS: i ~ pe ~ Signature of Applicant .S~~r~ Dc=vEtaO-~t~"~ M~~v.4-G.E~ ht.4~/~= N6 S ~u~~ ~IAWIiII`IS -SMITH Development Co. Commercial Developers August 2, 1999 City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department 33 East Idaho St. Meridian, ID 83642 We are please to submit this application for Annexation and Rezone as part ofour-proposed development for the NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove. This application incorporates four parcels of approximately 4.34 acres, and is currently being used for both commercial and residential purposes. The north two parcels contain single family dwellings accessed off of Carol St. and are currently zoned R-8. The south two parcels fronting Fairview and Locust Grove, currently zoned C-2, have a single tenant and amulti-tenant building. If the proper approvals are obtained, the single tenant building would remain with an additional potential building pad being undeveloped at this time, and the multi-tenant building would be removed and a new single tenant building would be constructed for a Walgreen's pharmacy. Our proposal is to develop, a quality commercial retail use on these parcels that would enhance the use of this corner to be more compatible with the surrounding properties. Our development would be compatible with the Fred Meyer and the D&B Supply developments adjacent to this corner. This development would be designed in a professional manner as to appropriately integrate with the adjacent commercial uses, and adequately buffer from any adjacent residential uses. The frontage on Fairview, a main commercial roadway, and on Locust Grove, adjacent to the Fred Meyer development, are.. characteristics that would make the zoning desirable. The site improvements and building materials make the proposed development more desirable and harmonious with the surrounding uses. The proposed development does comply with the current City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan as it shows a corridor of desired commercial use at the corner of Fairview and Locust Grove. We are requesting that you annex these 4.34 acres into the City of Meridian, the south two with the existing commercial zone, and the north two to be rezoned to C-G. I have also read the contents of this application and verify that the information contained herein is true and correct. We will also arrange through City Hall for the property to be posted 1 week before the hearing stating that we have applied for Annexation and Rezone. BOISE • PORTLAND • SEATTLE • TULSA 8645 W. Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho 83709 (208)376-8521 Fax (208)376-6804 Would you please schedule us on the next available agenda to be heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission. If you need anything further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely,, Brian D. Huffaker Site Development Manager enclosures W Q ~ LL ~_ ~ ~ O' ~ ~ ~- ~` V O O ~ i ' ~ I i ~ `, ` •.~ _ ~ ti's,, ` ~ ,.. ., \ °~a, ~ ~ ~`,, ' N ~'~- '' ,, c~ C O ~. ~ O N m C °~• O O 0 O N 'V`~ O V ~ O v O tC a a ~ o° N ~ M ~, ~ ~ m ~ , ~ ~rQ 7 ~~ O AUG-03-1999 14.12 RUBBLE ENGINEERING rv- ~,r~ o ,~o ~SURVru~ HUB LE ENGINEERING, INC. $550 Beth I Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709 PROJECT. NO. 991 HAWKENS-SMITH DEVE~.QpIVIENT DORIS SUBDIVISION PROPERTY ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION July ~o, 1999 A PARCEL OF LAND -BEING ALL- OF LOTS 1,2,7, AND 8 Q1= BLOCK 1, OF DORIS SUBDEVISION ASR CORDED !N BOOK 16 OF PLATS AT PAGE 1080 OF ADA COUNTY RECORDS, AND ALSO A t~OR ION OF THE STREETS ADJACENT TO SAID LOTS AND LYING WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST 1!4 O THE SOUTHEAST 114 OF~SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, B,M.; ADA COUNTY IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6; 1. THENClr N 0°00'00" E, ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF. SAID SECTION, ALSO ~BE1NG THE GENTERLlNE F LQCU9T GROVE ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 452.21 FEET; THENCE' N 0°00'00" W, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF CAROL STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID SUBDIVIS{ON PLOT, A DISTANCE OF 418,50 FEET; THENCE S 00°00'00". W, ALONG A LINE BEING THE EXTENSION OF ANp THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SA! LOTS 2 AND 7, A DISTANCE OF 452.09 FEET TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE S 9°59'40" E, ALONG SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY BEING WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF- WAY OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE, A DISTANCE 4F 418.50 FEET, TO THE REAL P41NT OF BEGINNING,. CONTAINING 4.34 CRE$ OF LAND, MORE OR,LESS_ PREPARED BY:f RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. ~y ~~ P~~'~ ~D~a TRW/vw!Doris-RZ F •~ t~ ,~ TODD R. WAITE, P.L.S. 1 208 378 0329 P.02i02 .. 2x8/322-8992. Fax 208/378- TOTAL P.02 Aug-04-99 08:47A Barrus/Tuft/Tilby 208 678 1166 R.C ~LJ \.I ly,~~„ rIL -~_ 1 riles [ax = 1-41U-f1J-VY(y HUg 3 '`~ 11 ~~ ~ ~'. d~ A-u~-a2=mss a~-:~o~ l~~rr~~sj7uT't/TZlby.. ._ za!! 6~A lass r.~s - 1YIUVL/UVL - ~~ a, ~'1'I1'I~ DF iD,AK4 k ~LtLiNtY OF lII9~ - GPI tiddr~sa~ ~'.r~„~~_. __ ~ ''~. ` ~ bets ~au~-,~acn ~ (el~~r3 (~tate~ I . Ott i t1II tht te~ord cromcr of the pt'~pC~TLY dascrfbeld an tf~e attaelire. ^.ztd t ~a.ttt ~ p~~lrttaa~t too It'~~T taddstissl 1~ 3 ~ to sut~m# ~e ~cce+~up~ny4r~~ aPp~cxtiaa p~t'tilntrt~ to that prapti't~l. Sidi 2. i .ire; m fmdamati~r, dri'rtid arui be ~~y ~d~st'~ emptay~ bu~eaa lroe» .un-y cti~s3s ar 1s~,t~tlity- res~ilttn~ Mom ~-rty di+~p~t. ai to the tt~trrtts ~ntasaec h~nocaa bo the o~tr~iPes~e property b fsthe aut~}ect~thr. apRllcatx~n DEatedthi~ 3rd ~~_ August , tag - ~/yRl atu~~ SUg8CZt1D~~ A~ip BWC~,fii to bef~te mr ttt~ ~1~.1t ~tnd yttr first ~bovc written. " `-' y_. f,,,. rte- ~! c•~,„, r NO 6ltcfaz~ Maryland ~~ ~x ~~~ ~ My Cotnn~ssstan ebgrsrs.: ~ ~3 ~h - •--- `~~~, "°O1~ HA1fK11S SDIITH ~'FmAVI'T QF L~(~,AS, I1v~E~S~ ®002/00 STATE OF 1D,AH0 ss COUNi'Y OF ADA tname) , • {address) <.r~c ~ . ~.cr„r.: lxi~ first duly sworn ul (city) ~ oath, depose snd sstijr: (8tate~ 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on tli~ attached, and I grF my permission to (name) ~ .(address) 83~ to submit the accompanying application pertaining to thai: property. Meridian 2: I agree to indemnify, defend and hold City and it's eui~#c~rces harmless fr, any claim or liability rcaulting from any dispute as to th~;~tsi,~etrierits conta3r herein or as to the o,cvnership of the property which is the subs ect of the appl icati~ Dafied this Z _ u~ day StTBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first abo~re v~rritten. TcRRI PYNCtiON Noi~ry Public Stale of idotio Notary blic for Idaho Residing at Meti~dtcth~Ydcclno Priy Commission Expires:. S ~ AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST STATE OF IDAHO COUNTY OF ADA ss I, (name) (address) ,~-, being first duly sworn upon ~~,, f: ~~,~~~. oath, depose and say: (city) (state). 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to //~~~/r~~~vs S M=rrF 8h~~ Gr/: ~i2h`N!C csnl ~O. ~js~,~ (name) (address) g3w9 to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and ho~d'~ id ia~ity and-it's employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. ' ,19 Dated this ~~ day of SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. ~~oT~Rr i'~ #. S ~•~ v',~ :`AUB L1~ # 9y~1•~'r•.... ~O ~` Notary Public or Idaho Residing at 1ag8~ ~ ~~`~"' •~ My Commission Expires: Z ~ .,, ,,~ .~ Aug-03-99 02:31P Idaho AtF-iletic Club _ _ AF~`II?AVTr UP` L~GAY. INT~~tEST STA'L'E CF IDAl~iO ) ) ~ CQUN'LY O1~' ADA ) P.C .,w....~..... (Warne) ~ {address) (\A 1 ~ ~ ;~~ ~~ ~~ ~ being fist duly sworn c -r-- `~"'~'r`''~' oath, dt~pase and say: (city) (state) 1. That I am the retard owner of the property described an the attached, and Y g~ my permission to (name) (address} 83 to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. Meridian 2. 1 agree to indemnify. defend and bald City and~it's employees harmless 1 any claim or liability resulting from a~xy dispute as to the statements canto herein or al to the ownership ofthe pxoperty which is the sub)ect of the applica~ Dated thi$ ~` ~-' 19 ~-' ~ (_ (Si~aturc) ~' . SURSCRII3ED AND SWO~tN to before me the day and year first above written. ki~ ,' i '~ w `. .~cnrzy S~ s Cf- -•"' • • G :*= + • • Q ~ + Cly s, *~ .~ S ~ r••• ~.,, ty i ' t; ~'`'+rts«i~~.~+~ Cam;;. Notary I'ubLic for jdaha residing at v~..~,.', c~: C, , My Commission Expires: ,~..,-` t A Property Owners John & Cheryl Wardle 8995 W. Chinden Blvd Meridian, ID 83642 286-7786 Kevin & Lila Bates 151 S S. Carol St. Meridian, ID 83642 887-7809 Adrian & Cheri Marsayon 1555 S. Carol St. Meridian, ID 83642 888-7978 Brent & Luana Barrus 5720 Overland Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 888-2074 ' 08/02/99 Ml)N 12:47 FAX 208 X22 559Z_ .. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE f~ U+t •)~le~r~- wa~RS~~~ ~~€a ~~ ~~ For Value Received JACK S, F'ULLMER anJl PtARILYN PULLMER, huSbAnd and wife, of ftoutc 6, tlox 6897, Numpa, Ic7ciho 8365'1, .~ n the grantor s, da hereby graht, 6argaln, SCII and convey unto BREtJT E DAft12U5 and LUANA II_ CiARRUS; husband and wife, of 5720. west overlanQ, rlcric:ian, Idaho 83642, the granted ,the following destt-Sbcd premixes, sftuatcd to Ada County, State of Idaho, to-wf t: . Lot 8 in tslock 1 of DORIS SUtit3XVISION, according to the official plat thereof', filed in Book 16 of Plats at Page 1080, recoz;us of Ade~Caunty, id~ho; TogethRt wiL'h all Water, water r.iyhts, ditches and"rights of way for dltC}1C~ ajJpuYtenant thereto Or in anywi,sC ~ppcrtainind;. Subject to an easemt'nt-over said land in Favor of IDAHO PO~rt12 COMPANY, a corporztiOnr for (~Ower lines and inCir.7ental purposes as SCt Cortly`in art instrUlpCnt recorded OctobGC 22, 1921, in t3ook 152 of [7eeds at ?age 588, Offie;xal Records; Subject to ~]SCl11C•rit^,, rf_•`strictions and dCdiCatlOnS, if any, a5 shown on the official plat of said Subdivision; SubjeCC Co Restrictive and ProtrCtivv CoVCnant3 for Uoris Subdivision in Ada County, State oL Icltlho, recorded ::epr,Gtnbrr 11, 1959; ns .(n~lrument No. 4G 301.2, Flntl Ah~tuldfiC•nt and/Or Moditiciztir~rt 'Of Said covenants reCUrdad I7arch 7, 1961, .ls Instrument f1o. 49822T, official Records; • ','r4` Y'-~a.r TO HAVE AIV'i7 TO HQLD the sold prem[seq, a•ieh their appurtenances^ unto the said Grttgtees ,their heirs and assign, forevec. hod the said C,ranto~. do hereby covenant to and With the said Cranteeg, that they arg the owner ~ in fee sirtplr of said premises; that saSd premises are tree frpm ail incumbrances ' and that the yu~ill arrant and dcicnd the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. Dated: ~ y ~'%.~r', 1080. ~) -- ~~ L.l / N Jsck 5. .E'u,.lmcr_~~ Marilyn FuLl.mnr, STATE OF•IDAHO, COt3NTX OF ; J ) ~~. On this day off/ , ['J gp , before mr, a notary pui,ii¢ In a»d for SUid$talr; j7crsonal)y ahPrarrd `~'~"--` .'. JACK 5, FULLMER acrd MARILYIJ C-'ULLM1:1i, hu~bind sod wife, kno~en to me to hr. the pCrcon:, who!:r names ;ire subsctibcd to the withjpilnstrument, and, aC• knoa•Icdl;cd tome that r.hpyexecuted the same. ~ :% ,, .: ~~,. " ' ~ ~:Ivnta?•y I'uyl~e, . Residing, at ~ Y' 7 ~• u„~_:__.~' ,Idaho \~ a • 08/02/99 MON 12:43 FAX 208 X22 5597 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE s~ossaz~~ AU:. Ctn. ~[CORCER Yt115FOleASf~U1tNISItL•DCOURTE[YaF; J.I~F~~Iu I~:`Ir,,~~~ B015E 1~ & - ~.~c ow caitp ALLtAr,ct±mt~ ~ ~ ' 96 fiUG S Pf i ' +f .i o ' RF-ADk APPROVED II_Y GRnr~fl!Ctsl. _ ~~~_ F(: U ' _ ~~J RECORUcO „I TI![: nI.Q11F5T OF _ __. CII AOOVIIT{[L4 UN1y FOR RI~ORDINO OATA_ _ 51'A , .^ {OOitl} - _ OrdeY No.: 46067.763 SRC/PB WARRANTiX D~E~ FC1R VALUE RI+CEIVEll BARRY W. GWIN anti ET.,SZh1iETH A. GWIN, HUSBAND 111JD WZ Fl? . G1iAN'fOR(S), dDCS(do) hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY unto KEVIN b_ Bn'CES ' ItbID LILA L. BATIfS, HUSBAND AND WIFE • GRAN'i'EF_(S), who~c current address I.4: x5X5 S- CAROL STREET, MERIbSAN, IDAHO E3bQ2 the fotluwing described real property in ADA County, State of Idaho, more particularly dlscrilu:d as follows, io wit. I~at 2 in Block 1 0£ DORIS SUBDIVISXON, acceording to ttil. official Plat: thereof, f:tled in Book 16 ot- Flats at P;zge(:~1 1.hS0, retards e?t Ada County, zdaho. , 7'O HAVE ANA 'I'O HQLI7 dle said premises, with ihcir appurtenances unto the said Grantee(s), and Grantor(s) heirs and assigns forever. AI)d dlc said Grantor(s) docs(do) hereby covenant to and wltl) tltr said Grantce•(s), that Grantor(s) is/arc the. owner(s) in fa: simple o[ said premises; ttt:t! said prerrtisu~s arc free from all encumbrances, EXC>rtrt' those; to which this conveyance iz expressly made subject and Ihose made, cuft,:rcd „ or done. by the Grantee(s); :aid subjext to reservations, resvietie)ns, dedications, a-utanetus, rights c+f way and o agrean+cnt-c, (if any) of record, and gcncrnt taxes and assessments, (including irrifation an4 utility ate~smotds, if :tny) far the; current. year, which arc not yet due and payable, and that Grantor(s) w111 vrlrrrant and defend thu sallle Cront all lawful G11iu15 whaLUx;vtr. Dated: August o2, 1996 ~ C/' , ~~ t~j X W . WIN ~~ ~~ EL / ETH A. C~WTN lx _ STAI'li OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA } „ Un this 2nd day uC August , in the yc:u of 1996 , bctorc mc, the undersigned, a Nn41ry Alhlic in and for said SI:+IC, t~CtS0l~lly :IppG'trrd BARRY W. GWIN dnd ELIZABETIi h. GW CN known" or idcnti0cd,.M" ~LR6 t~ Person(s) whose nan~c(s) is/arc subscribed to tt,c wid)in inslnuncnt, aaet ackno~t tcdgcct to ~u:'tA~j~ief.kc~thq~wcccutul the s:lme. y_ ` 4,p~ ,r _ Signaturc~~ ~~.~c~;~~v7Y" •` .O • Q =, ~s G~CrC ' ~ Name: PAl!1~1~A ~T. HIGE1~Ow ,r _ ''-~'~~Ontio RcsidingaC BOISC, IDAHO ,~~-_-- My Commission Cx~ir~: OS/2tl/99 03/02/99 MON 12:49 FA.X 208 322 5597 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE ...;:: ,:.... ._..._ - . . :., . `~ :.:. :.w.._. ~...-~ j ~. 9u010558 ~ ~ ~ ,;.-`. %i~ "~- ~' •~ €~tcl~ir:i:;z ~:ri r: G :c).~;t ~tiv (;.;:~~;~~ n , cr,. . ?: -'~C~i?USN . . _ : L:.,.:.. ' ~~~ >h' : ~ ~ ,yr:~rto i);+YIG Mfr. i i -2 ; ~= ~.r.,h r_r_;\,!Irr ~ ~=` "'~ ~~~ , . sr is _:: . ;~;,~> ;~ _ a~i J;1! «' ~ ~1 ~ ~ c.c S!a!c s:rrc:, i L:uc,c, r~' a,o k;`rn~ ~ jtv. z; );. l~ 1 7% ~ _ . ~ ' f ,.... "~•r•vt1L T GF RFCQiiG? ~ /. F:.;H 1\r>r!h C'n:c E21uJ / [t;,t:~C, I:;o:!ici 51..;x: IZC7;=) 377•`"D'f ., r ~... ~) l ' ~, ~/\~ I ~ /.~' l , S,IUC7: A!K:\')- f i.k k[.(7/i!I); tir,T U.1TA _ r CC _..._. .t ,_ ... _. .. , _ - - _ _ .. -. -. •' - - -- ..~ a+, .4..4,..,1 a 7 r r, r- - ]'• '._ ... . u`.a,..,l. a.: t1:.al. w•;., . 1•~>r :': 7i: wi i? ,.~J , ~ J.r r•, 7,. 7•r 1'11%' . ~ _ . ..a• ... '1.11'.:4; %l..J. ,a,. ~:. ~? 7I1;!IlO i,i;".ri:C Ci.l:It, I::^ ..., 1 ~i.ilCt (: (71!i'(I}t.`•TI4'. ' ~ ~ ~ , ~ torpor; rinC -,( . rr ,a:.:cd 2:d ct:•.:i..^.F Im:!cr IPc lua,'s :'.(,6r f..:::c !d tu:ala, with ;1~ !~u;tripnl „fG:o :a Lam.' d 1rYU • Trl::hp j$ 1 of C:nt:.;ry of Ad1 St:ac of Idahp, - ~~ t'.r:uaur, l:crcay c''i,7:vt:1'S ur :J R:\!~T5 and ~':.'tKR:\'-'fS l!) JU;SS' ... „i>'r.itLE -5U CF:_r'i1. iLL1:UL'r, I!US..,.Si) /+ta7 t+'lFF; ~~ :~ c, .l ;7 for Ib~ ^trm id "' .~ ~ - r7 ~ t r 1... ~._ ~:. '~ 7:.;: UU.,,.,i+i•.S A;,U O'Ci.td C..1J!) i>tti) VAl,lil•.i!Li: Ch):,^,,IItE~.itATj('l:i----'------•---------- 1?t}LLAkS, ~• tl~c:ulia»iag d:•+; ri!•~:: tr..~.lkJ ri:and is Cuu::r;, Suac of Id;alp; ~- :'y T.i+T 7 T:: i:i.Ota( 1 0'r U'Jk1S £ti~Ul\iStU.';, :.(:(:n%r).r>:r. 'ru '1'kIE UF'Y1Ci,t.1. PI_r:': Ti(F,F.[;C7p, ~~ YILr_U _. cC7JF: 16 UY' i'Li,.5 AT . ~~.Cr. I(!f:U, I!4;(71,I:US (t E' /:!h\ CUL'`;T'i , TDr:cn_ `1 ;~ - Cj c :S _' :; ~` t.4CJaV1Q('RtY14rtr...'Iltrh,(::p~_rl)'_. 1=i6 'r'. ~1:I!:_._-•.,._',i'F,1:1,'f,,-'a?P:7117i, IDi:iiU Il.ih!« t'~ ~.~ TF.r. nii;;r:; ..l;u .ign :hi; ter ~ !~r:ci;. c:r:i(p th:,r :).i. J%cd .nd dlc trap+!r;, Ir.:r;c:cr.trd !~,•~r`')' aic ::atl.p:i:cd undrr a ~'- r. •.glGtiir7 .Jr:; ;ca Fc't~~ r'A,i;d of dir:::ra •. ai :hcr%~1'IR•r at ;. '.: GI) rarc:in7; luld r.::a ~- :< f,. ~:t to war...:. +a :crrri, rh: 1;r;1;lUt :,....,.. •:.I La ::,;t:r,.,::c r.: rn.:::IJ o-~al to !:r !::••~.:L'p atl,n:J by i.~ d:d)' ~:nl,cnn'A C:: et.~.~,%th?c •,n ~~~ _,_!f)rr.7C! a'i!il.~'i7C r.t,~'rff L::C _ i; ~ r v ~• ., r ... :-. rs ... _;~~~ .... ~: ,: .. i,.. :.,.. ; .I... ... .~. ..::..., .. i~...t .: C'...! 1!:^ i.'. ~ ail :.r :' I,. ..n !. n , ulC.i 1::;'.i ' L'.:^, r.l .., ! '(•; f rl ~ ,I ~ .. c.l `, :I:':,: ~1.!' . .. ... ... ... .. ..III:.: .... ~'~:: ':. r' .. rI';.) / r'~i" .I..•.i. ,. - ..... ,. -: ,.. ~ ,,. ,_ 0$102/99 MON 12:50 Fr~Y 20$ X22 5597 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE R~~QRdED-R~Qi]E5T U~ ADA COIfMTyy pCO~iDER ~ERST AIdrER~'CAN - .' 1. UAwD HANpRO n;,?sF, ra N FEF - ~~ Q~PU1'Y - ~~9 t~ ~~y~l~ ~9~5~~3 roR v#Ltrir ~csrvtn, ~-DAZ~IN C. 7v-I~'SAYOb~, c~rantar, dace h ~ +rby aanv~y, rslaasa, r~isa and faravar quitclaim unto CBERI L. , I'[A~iBAYQbT, farmarly knoxn as CHERI L. CORDER, as h4x sale a~1d s~parat• property. xhoa• address is 1556 Carol 8tz~at, ~lsridian, Idaho 836~~, thi fa110~ring daiG~:ibad prwtisaer iaaatod~ in the County of ~_~ 8tatt Of Idaho, ~ar• particularly descrfbad aea failoxs; - Lot 1, Sloak ~,, DQRTS BUHDIVxdIO~i, aaaardipq to the offiai~,l plat th«raof, filsd ~.a Baok 16 of flats at page x.060, racard~r at lIda County, Idaho. togsthir Nfth their appurtananaQS. Dated: „~, 1499. ., ]1D Ah' C. YON ~T~~B of IDARO y ss. coin a~ ADa 1 On this ~~day of , 1999, b~rfar• Na a ~t~ t Fublia i.n and' o the state of d~-ho ors ~ a cry xAN871Yd~i, kao~gt to ll! to ba t s parson Mho ~ln#.raspis asubsarib~d to the xithiYt iAStruAt+nt `and s,oknaMZsdgad to m• that bs aM,sautsd the saso. rai MrTM$61s 11HEREOF, = h#va h+~rrunta sat ~-y hand and affiarRd my official seal, th• day and year first ab ittan. ~. ~.• 1~ s .~4s~ ~pTA~~ *, ,~. ~ ~k pUBL~~ avtiai-~r ~~___.1~ Residing atr xy Camaa a on Exty Ydaho ~J ' 08/02/99- MON 12:50 FAX 208 a22 5591 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE ,. @I - .; ._ •.. Ij ,f •: f... + - i ... _. i .. ~ -i ... - ~. I I,_ j f j - - .. _..vl.l ...,~.I. tJ- ....... (_ r~ ,-, f_ i ~~. }~ N ! 3 ~°~ {.: •..i f.; ." •i f~~ _ .__ • _ i- - , `' i'.._ I .r f ~',' Fri I f.. ~ .r ..~ ~::, .N. ~.. _ ...::I ~ . ! i_: 1'I . (,~ ~.. 1I (-) F;" _ ,. i_ i_1 7 i it l_ r+,' r . '.~. •1 (_; is - . ~. ].: i.:' 1 (;~ l„' '-"1 n T •, ~,1'r:~ ;"~ i.5 1, i;) (i ; ` {'~ ,.~ =.! . ,:.. C'•.f_ ia;.'1:Si .f_ 'i:. , i"i,' i I- i`I r : }-; 'i ~ ' ) r•;,;++.!.., 1`,:r -~ (~~ 1.`y;l.. ~~ _- ~ f-t.l. (~;'' E%- (%1 .nt,~F: r-~ 1.._, r_i .-...,.. .., , _. ... , , . - - t 1 ,_ - t _ i _ ..: _ I .:..... , .: ,.• < r F"' ; --• E•, x ; L. .. - il:.. i - .. 1. _, 1 t ..... ~- .. _ .` ._ _~ .: .. .. .. . f , ..: 1- .. ..' s-i - .... . _, .. _ : . -. . ;:, ,,: r.. .. • , . ,I,.,. r:::,t- . ' , ~,I:arif<_ ~ ;_:,,:r:•:i T ., I l !~.i~.lf'i -~:: r•r i .. _. . ., .; _i f.. `C i , fit.) ~-:y;= ~''~";~ hJ Ci' "t l..~'=tf•f~) >-<t', - v r._ ~.. _ .... ~~' _ .-. ~ ._ - _ yy .. . ._...r. I. 1 Iii 1i:... • ~.1 ~: ~>~I ...f 1 .., .. .. ,..~ ..:., i ~ y. , L.'(.'i;~; 1. `; `;l..fi~; ~ 1 Z b 5S .~.~ V/ _. ~;; I._...f.. !..~ .. .- .. ... - (% l r . "'i r ,. ; ..;, rt, _ , , . ~~I[_i rr,'}';::rr•I Tc'~ _:r_',-~ - --~.;r_„..~,_, i , t. : tl I . ;...... ( .. - . - ... - i I ,.. .. ,.. f C) 08/02/99 MON 12:50 FAX 208 322 5587 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE -, r- .. r , • I .' r: I I r . - .... .... „ t _. .. 1. .. ... ! ,~i..,F ii .• _ ,., ... r ,,. ' .. f`a.:;f11r., 1~1~?!'•J'-., (.>~( i-lf.J i.., I,.. f - I ... t ( ? -;' .• r ........ ... . . , I I i ~ , _ ... . , fi . , . ,I i ; ..~~. - ,: , d ~ .. .. . , _ _ .1 ~ ~ , _ ~ :~.~ ..a .. L~;:~.... L_ c ;", i:. ~ ~~'i,-; rt; _ - , r ;l r ; hi t-1-i I:: k: _ i:.:i. • , L.~ t_;::,~1~`~~_~C~n:Ec~C?1G I`i :1 r. fit,:: :.. ._ • . r: Pa C i c::~ i' ;~, , ~ .,:, ,-,~ c r. ~.. r- ` ,, r i"' : 1 )I .. : it +- - f= .. <[1 ' . ~ ... • ` , .. . 1 ~ .,; , r •~ .. : ,, , , - ... •• . : , r ~.... . ,. C:~. _ _.... _ _ ,..:...rr, r,__I.~::.,j ,., .: -. .. I ~:-. , ... ~ c l....i -.. ; x _ r~- ;_. _ .. _ ' i' .. .. - , ,r• ; - .. t .... ~.. •. ~ ~.. .. • .. . _ ; .... ' .:., ,.... , ,. r, . - •' •- .. ,~ ..: . ;.. ~r ,-~ ,.. .., .i.'I) :~~F;S tlrl ~-~ ~' ' r'.'; 1 .- . ..''! - - . .<<..1r - = .- ?. ~ '.i... is ~;~_~ca! ~~ i. I~ ~ r .,-- -, '; ~ .... .. f-.. .:f ~' I''IE=F: TI?.i.=1r..1 1C. :_rj•1;.} I,,i ::, _ - r- . - .. ,, . . ,. - ~• ~ .. ..f / 1 I.. .::i .I ~ ..!. ~ ...i . _ .. -, ~i .I. I.... .. r r ~ -1 r°n..li:r) (j::.: _: r•r .I. `'~ ~. " ~- i.., ,,,~:,(lI ''e~llr r ~' ..: .. ... - ... t'~r.: I a_ ( ~ ,t - r.~ I i. 1~11c: ~ r is • .. ._ _~ , . ,. .. . - -... ~ I _ II! - I - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - 06/06/00 19:28 FAX 208766804 r ~iA~~.II~IS SMITI I Commercial Developers F a~ T ra r~ To: Brad Hawkins-Clark From: Clint Boyle %~~' Re: Walgreens at Fairview !Locust Grove HAWKINS S11iITIi IM ,. ~ooi Hawkins -Smith 8645 W. Franklin Boise, Idaho $3709 (208) 376-8521 Phone (208) 376-6804 Fax Fax No: Z08-888-6854 Date: 6/6100 Pages: 1 pnWUGlnfl crosa Original Documents: ^ Will follow via mail . ^ Wili follow via overnight service C1 Will not follow D Other. ~. COMMENTS:: :;:~>:..::::.. f Barad `~I wanted to fiorrnalize°~our phone conversation today regarding the Walgreens under construction at the norEh'vnrest' comer of Failiew Ave. & Locust Grove Rd. The existing approved landscape plan indicates a decorative block wall with the ground sloping up to the wal[ from Carol St. There was 4 ft, of exposed wall from Carol St. shown on the plans. The side of the wall facirtig Fairview Ave. h,as:approximately an 8 ft. exposure. The low height. poses safety issues from people climbing over the wall. On one side the finish grade would be 4 ft. below top of wa(I and on the other side $ ft. below top of wall. As I stated, we would like to have roughly 5 ~/2 ft. of the wall exposed on the Carol St. side to help alleviate this safety concern. We will still provide the same amount of vegetation along the Carol St. buffer. The only thing that changes is the exposed face of the wall. During this conversation, you approved the change to the exposed face of wall from 4.ft. to 5 ft. (Carol St. face). If you have any questions please contact me at 208-376-8521. Thank you. ~. ~ L ~~ ',, Site Development I~roject Manager ,; , ,. '' r ~,2 ~ , FEBRUARY 10, 2000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: FEBRUARY 15. 2000 APPLICANT: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: G REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4 34 ACRES TO C-G (WALGREEN'Sl AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: - NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: f BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. R,~CE~D E ~ ~ t Zt;O~ CI'I'Y OF MERIDIAN BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF HAWIQNS- SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC., THE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD, Case No. AZ-99-019 02-09-00 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on January 18, 2000, and continued to February I , 2000, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and appearing and testifying on behalf of the Applicant was Clint Boyle, and appearing and testifying' with concerns or in opposition were the following neighbors: Jay Jones, Dan Woodall, Jennifer McRoberts, and having received the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore makes the following Findings of Fact FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PFh~RMACY Sz DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Jaidicial Notice: The Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. Annexation: 1. The City of Meridian has authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code Section 50-222. The Meridian City Code § 11-16 provides the City inay annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 2 I , 1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4, 1994, and as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-16-3. 2. The City Council exercises its legislative authority in the annexation and zoning of annexed land. Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 665 P.2d 1075, 105 Idaho 65 (1983). Prior to annexation the City Council has requested and received a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission of proposed zoning ordinance changes for the area to be annexed in accordance with the notice and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION A1~1D ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY Sz DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) hearing procedures provided in Section 67-6509, Idaho Code and concurrently or immediately following the adoption of an ordinance of annexation, the City Council shall amend the Planning and Zoning Ordinance. [I.C. § 67-6525] [Meridian City Code § l I-16-1.] ZoJ 3. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Idaho Legislature in the "Local .Land Use Planning Act" codified at Chapter 65 of Title 67 Idaho Code which provides that the Council shall by ordinance establish within its boundaries one or more zones or zoning districts in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. [I.C. § 67-6511]. 4. The "Zoning Ordinance" of the City of Meridian applies and regulates all development of land within the City limits and property outside the City limits for which annexation has been requested. [Meridian City Code § I 1-1-3.] 5. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act" ~by the adoption of the "Zoning ,, Ordinance" of the City of Meridian, Idaho, which provides for various zoning districts. [Meridian City Code §§ 11-1 - 11-21.] 5.1 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides a zoning district (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial District which is defined as: [Meridian City Code § 1 I-7-2 I<.] (C-G~ General Retail -and Service Commercial District: The FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY ~ DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) ` the new zoning -for example, a residential area turning into commercial area by means of conditional use permits; 5.5.4 Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example; have the streets been widened, ne~v railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone areas; 5.5.5 Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; 5.5.6 Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; 5.5.7 Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; 5.5.8 Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; 5.5.9 Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; 5.5.10 Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PFh~RMACY ~ DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) 5.5.11The proposed uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and 5.5.12Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. J 6. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act", codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code by the adoption of Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4, 1994. Development Conditions: 7. The City is authorized by I.C. § 67-6511 A by the adoption of an ordinance to require or permit as a condition of rezoning that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject parcel which the City has enacted as a part of the "Zoning Ordinance" at Meridian City Code § 11-15-12 and if the property is annexed and zoned Meridian City Code § 11- 16-4. 8. Since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. See Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P2d 1075 (1983). 9. The development of the annexed land, if annexed, shall meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian including, but not limited to: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHAJEZMACY ~ DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) Meridian City Code ~ 11-2-4 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements; Meridian City Code § 12-4-13, which pertains to the piping of ditches; and Meridian City Code § 12-5-2 N, which pertains to pressurized irrigation systems. 10. The development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled for January 18, 2000, and continued until February 1, 2000, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (I S) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one ~veelc before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the January 18, 2000, and continued until February I , 2000, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PI-b~RMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-OI9) providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§ 67-6509 and 67-6511, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-16- l . 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Meridian City Code Titles 11 and 12, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4,1994, and maps and the- ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately 4.34 acres in size. The property is located at the northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road. The property is designated as Lots 1, 2, 7, and 8 Doris Subdivision, and described as follows: HAWIQNS-SMITH DEVELOPMENT DORIS SUBDIVISION PROPERTY ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being all of Lots 1,2,7, and 8 of $loclc 1 of Doris Subdivision as recorded in Boolc 16 of Plats at Page 1080 of Ada County Records, and also a portion of the streets adjacent to said Lots and lying within the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PF[~~RMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Section 6; Thence N 00°00'00" E, along the East boundary of said section, also being the' centerline of Locust Grove Road, a distance of 452.21 feet; Thence N 90°00'00" W, along the centerline of Carol Street as shown on said subdivision plat; a distance of 418.50 feet; Thence S 00°00'00" W, along a line being the extension of and the west boundary of said Lots 2 and 7, a distance of 452.09 feet to the South boundary of said Section 6; f Thence S 89°59'00" E, along said South boundary being within the right-of- way of Fairview Avenue, a distance of 418.50 feet, to the Real Point of Beginning, containing 4.34 acres of land, more or less. 5. The owners of record of the subject property are: John and Cheryl Wardle, 8995 W. Chinden Blvd., Meridian, Idaho; Kevin and Lila Bates, 1515 S. Carroll, Meridian, Idaho; Adrian ~ Cheri Mansayon, 1555 S. Carroll, Meridian, Idaho; Brent Luana Barrus, 5720 Overland Road, Meridian, Idaho. 6. Applicant is Hawkins-Smith, of 8645 W. Franklin Rd., Boise, Idaho. 7. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as C-2 and R-8, and consists of both commercial and single family residential development. 8. The Applicant requested the property be zoned as General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G). 9. The proposed site of the subject property is located at the northwest corner of Fairview and Locust Grove Road. 10. The subject property is bordered to the north by a residential FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PFC~~R.MACY Sz DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent to the east and west of the subject property. 11. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 12. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 13. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: development of a 15,120 sq. ft. Walgreen's drugstore with one drive-thru window, and a 7,000 sq. ft. single story, multi-tenant retail building. 14. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G). It is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Commercial/Mixed Planned Use Development. Further, this application is consistent with the following provisions of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: Population CYia~ter 1.6U -Encourage and support new businesses which offer higher-than-average-wage 'jobs and upward employment mobility to located in Meridian. Economic Develo,Pment Chapter 1.2 - ...set aside areas where commercial interest and activities are to.dominate. 1.4 -Positive programs should be undertaken to support existing commercial areas to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLLCATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PH,~RMACY ~ DRIVE-LIP (AZ-99-019) ensure their continued vitality.. . 1.6 - ...support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into ne~v or existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. Land Use Chapter 4.3U -Encourage new commercial development within under-utilized existing commercial areas. 4.4U -Locate new planned Neighborhood Commercial Centers (3-8 acres) on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement but not conflict with adjoining residential areas. 4.8U -Encourage commercial uses...to locate in the Old Town district, business parks, shopping centers. and near high-intensity activity areas, such as freeway interchange. 5.18U -Existing residential properties will be protected from incompatible land-use development. ...Screening and buffers will be incorporated into all development requests in this area. Transportation Chapter 1.5U -Encourage clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials. 1.9U -Encourage residential and non-residential developments to provide adequate easements for future pathways. Community Design Chapter 1.4 -Major entrances to the City should be enhanced and emphasized. 1.6 - -The addition of landscaping within existing commercial parking lots should be encouraged. 2.2U -Encourage area beautification through uniform sign design that enhances the community. 4.4U -Encourage landscaped .setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall' require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 15. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PFI<~1RMACY &. DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) affect the consideration of this application. 16. Giving due consideration to the comment received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the following conditions of development are imposed as a condition of Staff review and approval of development permits, and which restrict the use and development of the subject real property under the Commercial/Mixed Planned Use Development procedures and pursuant to the conditional use permit process, to-wit: 16.1 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 16.2. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Worlcs Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 16.3 A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. All uses on the property shall be developed as a planned development under the conditional use process. 16.4 The requested C-G zone is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent Avest Subdivision (Fred Meyer) and Idaho Athletic Club properties. It is an eligible zoning district under the Mixed/Planned Use Development comprehensive plan designation. However, given the high visibility and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY &. DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) arterial location of the property, staff .recommends the Development ..Agreement specifically exclude the following permitted C-G uses for the subject property in order to protect the existing neighboring uses: 1. Automobile Service Stations 2. Storage Facilities 3. Truck Stops 4. Heavy Equipment (Sales ~ Repair) 16.5 Applicant shall be required to dedicate all right-of-~vay along the access points only as required by ACHD prior to the issuance of any building permits. 16.6 Pursuant to the CUP Site Plan (Sheet CU-1), the Applicant is proposing to adjust the existing parcel lines from the quadrant configuration to a north-south split that separates the Walgreen's store from the t~vo smaller building pads. There are six-foot utility easements (3 feet on each side of the common lot lines) associated with the existing lot lines. Applicant will vacate the six-foot utility easements that are currently recorded with this plat prior to finalizing the annexation. Applicant intends to submit a vacation application through the City. 16.7 That the drive-thrus on the entire site be limited to one. 16.8 The 6-foot utility easements that are currently recorded with this plat will be approved by City Council to vacate the easements prior to the Planning and Zoning Department issuing a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 16.9 Applicant shall be allowed a 25 foot landscape buffer. 16.10 Applicant shall be allowed the current sign recommendation of 72- square-feet (total) and the existing sign at the chiropractic area shall remain. 16.11 The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. 16.12 The Applicant shall install all curbs and sidewalks before construction begins. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PFIARMACY SL DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) 16.13 The Applicant shall construct a decorative, split-face block wall with a row of colored block on the north side before construction of any buildings is started. 17. It is found that if the developer pays for the requested improvements and complies with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact, and all sub-parts, the economic welfare of the City and its residents and tax and rate payers will be protected, which requirement shall be included in a development agreement, a a condition of annexation and zoning designation. I8. It is found tha"t the development considerations which must be taken into account, in order to assure the proposedn development is designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner which is harmonious and t k appropriate in appearance with the existing, or intended character of the general vicinity, in order to assure that the proposed use will not change the essential y character of the affected vicinity and will insure that the proposed uses will not be 4, ~. hazardous or disturbing to the existing, or future neighboring uses, particularly considering the impact of proposed development on potential to produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare and odors, and is set forth in Finding No. 16. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PFI~~IRMACY SL DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) City Council does hereby Order and this does Order: 1. The applicant's request for annexation and zoning of approximately 4.34 acres to Commercial Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) is granted subject to the terms and conditions of this Order hereinafter stated. 2. The application is for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres. The legal description shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. The legal description for annexation must place this parcel contiguous to the Corporate City Limits per Ordinance No. 686. 3. Owners/Developer enter into a Development Agreement, and such Development Agreement shall also include and contain the conditions of and for the real property which provides in the event the conditions therein are not met by the Owners/Developer that the property shall be subject to re-zone and/or de-annexation, with the City of Meridian, which provides for the following conditions of use and development to-wit: Conditions of Use: 3.1 A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. All uses on the property shall be developed as a planned development under the conditional use process. Conditions of Development: 3.2 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PFII~RMACY ~ DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used For non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3.3 Any existing irrigationldrainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Worlcs Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 3.4 The requested C-G zone is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent Avest Subdivision (Fred Meyer) and Idaho Athletic Club properties. It is an eligible zoning district under the MixedlPlanned Use Development comprehensive plan designation. However, given the high visibility and arterial location of the property, staff recommends the Development Agreement specifically exclude the following permitted C-G uses for the subject property in order to protect the existing neighboring uses: 1. Automobile Service Stations 2. Storage Facilities 3. Truck Stops 4. Heavy Equipment (Sales Sz Repair) 3.5 Applicant shall be required to dedicate all right-of-way along Locust Grove Fairview and Carol Street as required by ACHD prior to the issuance.of any building permits. 3.6 Pursuant to the CUP Site Plan (Sheet CU-1), the Applicant is proposing to adjust the existing parcel lines from the quadrant configuration to a north-south split that separates the Walgreen's store from the ~~e-- lh~'~T-~''`"~ ` ~`'' .There are six-foot utility easements (3 feet on each side of the common lot lines) associated with the existing lot lines. Applicant shall be required to vacate these easements a i f~l y ~r ~. l o~ 1 ~`nt c.,~~ ~.s~,~.~..-~. 3.7 That the drive-thrus on the entire site be limited to one. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHf~~RMACY Sc DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) 3.8 The 6-foot utility easements that .are currently recorded tivith this plat will be approved by City Council to vacate the easements prior to the Planning and Zoning Department issuing a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 3.9 Applicant shall 1Yr~J~ ~ a 25-foot landscape buffe~ ~( 3.10 Applicant shall be allowed the current sign recommendation of 72- square-feet (total) and the existing sign at the chiropractic area shall. remain: 3.11 The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. 3.12 The Applicant shall install all curbs and side~vallcs before c dd~~`~ ~ .-b~ii~s. Ce~i {i CG~C 6~ 6C~U'~v~'~ 3.13 The Applicant shall construct a decorative, split-face block wall with a row of colored block on the north side before construction of any buildings is started. 4. The City Attorney shall prepare for consideration by the City ~ Council the appropriate ordinance for the annexation and zoning designation of the real property which is the subject of the application to (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial District (Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 IC). 5. Subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance provided for in section 4 of this Order the engineering staff of the Public Worlcs Department shall prepare the appropriate mapping changes of the official boundaries and zoning maps as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-21-1 in accordance with the provisions of the annexation and zoning ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 .AND DECISION AND ORDER~GRANTING APPLICATION -FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PI-h~RMACY.~ DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person is a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the annexation and zoning and who may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2000. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN RON ANDERSON VOTED COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD VOTED COUNCILPERSON TAMMY deWEERD VOTED COUNCILPERSON CHERIE McCANDLESS VOTED MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DATED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PF[~~RMACY Sz DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Worlcs Department and the City Attorney. By: City Clerlc msg~Z:\Work\Nl~Nleridian 15360M\WalgreensWZFfCIs Dated: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PI-i~~RMACY Sz DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) i \~<'" IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF HAWIQNS- SIVIITH MANAGEMENT, INC., THE. APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD, ~: F€~ ~ .9 2,yG~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL Cl~ ~- << - ~ N ~ ~ ` ~ ' „n l 3 ~~ ~~~ a- 02-08-00 Case No. AZ-99-019 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on February 1, 2000, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and appearing and testifying on behalf of the Applicant was Clint Boyle, and appearing and testifying with concerns or in opposition were the following neighbors: Jay Jones, Dan Woodall, Jennifer McRoberts, and having received the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore makes the following Findings. of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 AND- DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) Order: ~. STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Tudicicrl Notice: The Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. Annexation: 1. The City of Meridian -has authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries, and that said property lies within the area. of city impact as provided by Idaho Code Section 50-222. The Meridian City Code § 11-16 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ord: No. 629, January 4, 1994, and as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-16-3. 2. ~ The City Council exercises its legislative authority in the annexation and zoning of annexed land. Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 665 ,P.2d 1075, 105 Idaho 65 (1983). '` Prior to annexation the City Council shall request and receive a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission of proposed zoning ordinance changes for the area to be annexed in accordance with the notice and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 ANDxDECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PI-h%~RMACY & ~~ DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) hearing procedures provided in Section 67-6509, Idaho Code and concurrently or immediately following the adoption of an ordinance of annexation, the City Council shall. amend the Planning and Zoning Ordinance. [I.C. § 67-6525] [Meridian City Code § 11-16-1.] Zonin 3. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Idaho Legislature in the "Local Land Use Planning Act" .codified at Chapter 65 of Title 67 Idaho Code which provides that the Council shall by ordinance establish within its boundaries one or more zones or zoning districts in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. [LC. § 67-6511 ] . 4. The "Zoning Ordinance" of the City of Meridian applies and regulates all development of land within the City limits and property outside the City limits for which annexation has been requested. [Meridian City Code § 11-1-3.] 5. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act" by the adoption of the "Zoning Ordinance" of the City of Meridian, Idaho, which provides for`various zoning districts. [Meridian City Code §§ 11-1 - 11-21.] 5.1 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides a zoning district (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial District which is defined as: [Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 IC.] ~C-G~ General Retail and Service Commercial District: The FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 .AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PI-F~IRMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) ~. j y t tq S G~ l LLpurpose of the C-G District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which- are auto and service oriented arid are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal water and sewer systems of the City, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 5.2 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides fora "Zoning Schedule for Use Control" for land uses in various established zoning districts for permitted use,~conditional use and permitted accessory use. [Meridian City Code § 11-6-1.] 5.3 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides for a zoning District Map where the zoning districts established by the ordinance are shown. [Meridian City Code § 11-6-1.] 5.4 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides for general procedures for the initiation and process of zoning amendment applications including notice and hearing procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. [Meridian City Code § 11-15-1 - 11-15-6.] 5.5 The General Standards Applicable To Zoning Amendments include the following [Meridian City Code § 11-15-11 ] 5.5.1 Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan arid, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; 5..5.2 Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future; 5.5.3 Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the. fashion that would be allowed under FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR,ANNEXATION AND ZONING`/ WALGREEN'S PHARMACY ~ DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-OL9) the new zoning -for example, a residential area turning into commercial area by means of conditional use permits; 5.5.4 Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone areas; 5.5.5 Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; 5.5.6 Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; 5.5.7 Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; 7 ~~ 5.5.8 Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; 5.5.9 Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; 5.5. l O Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHA]f~MACY & DR1VE-UP (AZ-99-019) -~ 5.5.11 Will not`result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and 5.5.12Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 6. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act", codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code by the adoption of Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4, 1994. Deyelo~ament Conditions: 7. The City is authorized by I.C. § 67-6511 A by the adoption of an ordinance to require or permit as a condition of rezoning that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject parcel which the City has enacted as a part of the "Zoning Ordinance" at Meridian City Code § 11-15-12 and if the property is annexed and zoned Meridian City Code § 11- 16-4. 8. Since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. See Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P2d 1075 (1983). 9. The development of the annexed land, if annexed, shall meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian including, but not limited fo: Meridian City Code § 11-2-4 which pertains to development time schedules and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PF[ARMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) ` ~~ requirements; Meridian City Code § 12-4-13, which pertains to the piping of ditches; and Meridian City Code § 12-5-2 N, which pertains ~to pressurized irrigation systems. 10. The development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by ~° the Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive, weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled for February 1, 2000, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having-been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred (300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon -the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing; and, that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter. having been duly considered by the City Council at the February 1, 2000, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 AND DECISION AND,ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-01.9) evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§ 67-6509 and 67-6511, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-16-1. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Meridian City Code Titles 11 and 12, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopteda December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4,1994, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately 4.34 acres in size. The property is located at the northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road. The property is designated as Lots 1, 2, 7, and 8 Doris Subdivision, and described as follows: HAWIQNS-SMITH DEVELOPMENT DORIS SUBDIVISION PROPERTYp ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being all of Lots 1,2,7, and 8 of Bloclc 1 of Doris Subdivision as recorded in Boolc 16 of Plats at Page 1080 of Ada County Records, and also a portion of the streets adjacent to said•Lots_and lying within the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M., Ada County, Idaho,.more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at-the Southeast corner of said Section 6; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF,LAW - Page 8 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PFhARMACY ~ DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) Thence N 00°00'00" E, along the .East boundary of said section, also being the centerline of Locust Grove Road, a distance of 452.21 feet; Thence N 90°00'00" W, along the centerline°of Carol Street as shown on said subdivision plat, a distance of 418.50 feet; Thence S 00°00'00" W, along. a -line being the extension of and the west boundary of said Lots 2 and 7, a distance of 452.091 feet to the South boundary of said Section 6; Thence S 89°59'00" E, along said South boundary being within the right-of- way of Fairview Avenue, a distance of 418.50 feet, to the Real Point of Beginning, containing 4.34 acres of land, more or less. 5. The owners of record of the subject property are: John and Cheryl Wardle, 8995 W. Chinden Blvd., Meridian, Idaho; Kevin and Lila Bates, 1515 S. Carroll, Meridian, Idaho; Adrian & Cheri Mansayon, 1555 S. Carroll, Meridian, Idaho; Brent Luana' Barrus, 5720 Overland Road, Meridian; Idaho. 6. Applicant is Hawkins-Smith, of 8645 W. Franklin Rd., Boise, Idaho.z 7. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as C-2 and R-8, and consists of both commercial and~single family residential development. 8. The Applicant requested the property be zoned as General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G). 9. The proposed site of the subject property is located at the northwest corner of Fairview and Locust Grove Road. 10. The subject property is bordered to the north by a residential subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent to the east and west FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY SL DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) of the subject property. 11. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 12. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 13. Tlie Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: development of a Walgreen's drugstore, and a 7,000 sq. ft. single story, multi-tenant retail building. 14. The Applicant request zoning of the subject real property as General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G). It is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use~Map which designates the subject property as Commercial/Mixed Planned Use Development. Further, this application ,~ is consistent with the following provisions of the Meridian. Comprehensive Plan: Population Chapter 1.6U -Encourage and support new businesses which offer higher-than-average-wage jobs and upward employment mobility to located in Meridian. Economic Development Chapter 1.2 - ...set aside areas where commercial interest and activities are to dominate. 1.4 -Positive programs should be undertaken to support existing commercial areas to ensure their continued vitality.. . 1.6 ~ :..support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into new or FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / ~WALGREEN' S PHARMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and- development warrant. A Land Use Chapter 4.3U -Encourage new commercial development within under-utilized existing commercial areas. 4.4U -Locate new planned Neighborhood Commercial Centers (3-8 acres) on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement but not conflict with adjoining residential areas. 4.8U -_Encourage commercial uses...to locate in the Old Town district, business parks, shopping centers and near high-intensity activity areas, such as freeway interchange. 5.18U -Existing residential properties will be protected from incompatible land-use development. ...Screening and buffers will be incorporated into all development requests in this area. Transportation Chapter 1.5U -Encourage clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials. 1.9U -Encourage residential and non-residential developments to provide adequate easements for future pathways. Community=Design Chapter 1.4 -Major entrances to the City should be enhanced and emphasized. 1.6 -The addition of landscaping within existing commercial parking lots should be encouraged. 2.2U -Encourage area beautification through uniform sign design that enhances the community. 4.4U -Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 15. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this .application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PLiARMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) 16. Giving due consideration to the comment received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the following conditions of development are imposed as a condition of Staff review and approval of development~permits, and which restrict the use and development of the subject real property- under the Commercial/Mixed Planned Use Development procedures and pursuant to the conditional use permit process, to-wit: 16.1 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will -have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 16.2. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing. the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Worlcs Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 16.3 A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. All uses on the property shall be developed as a planned development under the conditional use process. 16.4 The requested C-G zone is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent Avest Subdivision (Fred Meyer) and Idaho Athletic Club properties. It is an eligible zoning district under the Mixed/Planned Use Development comprehensive plan designation. However; given the high visibility and arterial location of the property, staff recommends the Development Agreement specifically exclude the following permitted C-G uses for the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PI-i~°~RMACY &. DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) subject property in order to protect the existing neighboring uses: 1. Automobile Service"Stations 2. Storage Facilities 3. Truck Stops 4. Heavy Equipment (Sales & Repair) 16.5 `Applicant shall be required .to dedicate all right-of-way along the access points only as required by ACHD prior-to the issuance of any building 6 permits. 16.6 Pursuant to the CUP SiterPlan (Sheet CU-1), the Applicant is `proposing to adjust the existing parcel lines from the quadrant configuration to a •north-south split that separates the Walgreen's store from the two smaller building pads. There are six-foot utility easements (3 feet on each side of the common lot lines) associated with the existing lot lines. Applicant will vacate the six-foot utility easements that are currently recorded with this plat prior to finalizing the annexation. Applicant intends to submit a vacation application through the City. 16.7 That the drive-thrus on the entire-site be limited to one. 16.8 The 6-foot utility easements that are currently recorded with this plat will be approved by City Council to-vacate the easements prior to the Planning and Zoning Department issuing a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 16.9 Applicant shall be allowed a 25 foot landscape buffer. 16.10 Applicant shall be allowed the current sign proposal of 72-square-feet and the existing sign at the chiropractic area shall remain. 16.11 The hours of operation .shall be from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. 16.12 The Applicant shall install all curbs and sidewalks before construction begins. 16.13 The Applicant shall construct a decorative, split-face block wall with a row of colored block on the north side before construction of any FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY &. DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) buildings is started. 17. It is found that if-the developer pays for the requested improvements and complies with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact, and all sub-parts, the economic welfare of the City and its residents and tax and rate payers will be protected, which requirement shall be included in a development agreement, a condition of annexation and zoning designation. 18. It is-found that the development considerations which must be taken` into account, in order to assure the proposed development is designed; constructed, operated and maintained in a manner which is harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing, or intended character of the general vicinity, in order to assure that-the proposed use will not change the essential character of the affected vicinity and will insure that the proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing, or future neighboring .uses, particularly considering the impact of proposed development on potential to produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare and odors, and is set forth- in Finding No. 16. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the ., City Council does hereby Order and this does Order: 1. The applicant's request for annexation and zoning of approximately FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1~4 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) 4.34 acres to Commercial Retail and'Service Commercial (C-G) is granted subject to the terms and conditions of this Order hereinafter stated. 2. The application is for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres. The legal description shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. Tle~legal description for annexation must place this parcel contiguous to the Corporate City Limits per Ordinance No. 686. 3. Owners/Developer enter into a Development Agreement, and such Development Agreement shall also include and contain the conditions of and for the real property which provides in the event the conditions therein are not met by the Owners/Developer that the property shall be subject to re-zone and/or de-annexation, with the City of Meridian, which provides for the following conditions of use and development to-wit: Conditions of Use: 3.1 A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. All uses on the property shall be developed as a planned development under the conditional use process. Conditions of Development: 3.2 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 S AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PI-b~RMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) 3.3 Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall.be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. The ditches to be piped should'be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Worlcs Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 3.4 The requested C-G zone is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent Avest Subdivision (Fred Meyer) and Idaho Athletic Club properties. It is an eligible zoning district under the Mixed/Planned Use Development comprehensive plan designation. However, given the high visibility and arterial location of the property, staff recommends the Development Agreement specifically exclude the following permitted C-G uses for the subject property in order to protect the existing neighboring uses: Automobile Service Stations 2. Storage Facilities 3. '` Truclc Stops 4. Heavy Equipment (Sales & Repair) 3.5 Applicant shall be required to dedicate all right-of-way along Locust Grove Fairview and Carol Street as required by ACHD prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3.6 Pursuant to the CUP Site Plan (Sheet CU-1), the Applicant is proposing to adjust the existing parcel lines from the quadrant configuration to a north-south split that separates the Walgreen's store from the two smaller building pads. There are six-foot utility easements (3 feet on each side of the common lot lines) associated with the existing lot lines. Applicant shall be required to vacate these easements and re-subdivide the property from the existing four (4) lots to two (2) lots as a part of the annexation process. 3.7 That the drive-thrus on the entire site be limited to one. 3.8` The 6-foot utility easements that are currently recorded with this plat will be approved by City Council to vacate the easements prior to the Planning and Zoning Department issuing a Certificate of Zoning FINDINGS~OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY Sz DRIVE=UP (AZ-99-019) Compliance. 3.9 Applicant shall be allowed a 25 foot landscape buffer. 3.10 Applicant shall be allowed the current sign proposal of 72-square-feet and the existing sign at the chiropractic area shall remain. 3.11 The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. 3.12 The Applicant shall install all curbs and sidewalks before construction begins. 3.13 The Applicant shall construct a decorative, split-face block wall with a row of colored block on the north side before construction of any buildings is started. ~4. The City Attorney shall .prepare for consideration by the City Council the appropriate ordinance for the annexation and zoning designation of the m real property which is the subject of the application to (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial District (Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 K). 5. Subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance provided for in section 4 of this Order the engineering staff of the Public Worlcs Department shall prepare the appropriate mapping changes of the official boundaries and zoning maps as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-21-1 in accordance with the provisions of the annexation and zoning ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) • ~ °~ NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take enotice that this is `a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person is a person who r has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the annexation and zoning and who may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2000. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN RON ANDERSON COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD COUNCILPERSON TAMMY deWEERD COUNCILPERSON CHERIE McCANDLESS MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) DATED: VOTED, VOTED VOTED. VOTED, VOTED FINDINGS'OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PI-h~RMACY & DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-0 T9) MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: Copy served upon Applicant,.. the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Worlcs Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: City Clerlc msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Walgreens\AZFfCIs t FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING / WALGREEN'S PHARMACY ~ DRIVE-UP (AZ-99-019) 08'02/99 MON 12:50 FA.Y 208 X22 5597 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE ~ ! /~-I"~ ADA COl1HT RfCQRD~O•R~OUE5T OF ~. OAvIp ~jA qq~~~o E~ FIRST AMF~CAN ?15f~ IDHO D'~ F~~~pEPUI'Y ~oR9 X999 ~ ~H~:12 9950738 #Li1E 3t~CSriBD, ~1DitI~T C. x71~T671YCDI, Qrantor, does hsraDy aonvsy' relaas•, rasis• and forever quitclaim unto CBERI L. ~87-YObi, foryaarly ]tsto~n as CIILRI L. CoRDp,R, as her solo and s•parata pr°p•rtp, xhosa address is x55s Carol 8treat, Karidian, Idaho 83642, the fallowing 4escrib•d praatis•s located in the County °f Ada, Btata of Idaho, aura particularly desarfb•d sa fOlloMS: Lot 1, $loc]c t, DOjt=B BUBDIVIHIOb1, soaordiuq to th. oYfiaial plat thar•of, filed in Book 16 of Plats at page 1080, reaorQs of ylda county, Idaho. k together Nith Chair appurtaaanaas. Dated: ~z, 1499 . ~ ~ C • YOI~ eTaTg of Iauio ~ cotnt~rY a$ aDa ~ .. Oa this day of , 1999, before pubiio ix and~tha 8tat• o! 4aho a•, a ~totary 7Wi'Bi-YOIi, knorn to a• to b• t r .parson mho ~lnau •pi~ asubsaribx~d to `~ the ~-ithin instruaent and acknoMiadged to m• that he sz•auted the ~asY. 2N MIT~$,gH *ggREOp, = h#Ve her•Unto sat ap hand and affia[Rd gay official seal, the day and year first ab ittan. Q4~' ~yO'rA1Q~„'~~! ~° V B L~r" ~' ~' a I~~4 D O ~ ~~ ~- ~taafdiaq/at xy Comm s~ .~ y ~.`~ yi.fl ~:,. ~r ~:,~'. Position Statement Case No. AZ.-Q~I-O~~ Name of Applicant: ~~~~~ -Sm:k~. Ma,~~~~~, ~c~c, To: Meridian City Council \ From: ~,~~, ~~ a~ ~car~ 1 [name] I have reviewed the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission with which I disagree as follows: [Fill out only those sections that apply to your position. If your position is to reject completely the Findings and Recommendations or if there is inadequate space available, prepare a separate Position Statement using this format.] The following Findings and/or Recommendations should be deleted: [refer to section number in the Order] The following Findings and/or Recommendations should be modified: [refer to section number in order and set out how you request it should read] i3~ r § (~, " ~~~ [should read] '~ s ~. ~" ~ _ ~ _ t11 .. ~ c+~~ ~. _1w w.w CVaa"~- n[ ~-~ ~ 11flM~f0 § 3. ~~~"~ [should § : [should § : [should rea The Following Findings and/or Recommendation should be added: [First identify if proposed item is a finding or a recommended action then state how it should read.] ~C_C, Dated this r~~day of ~~ , 2000: Signed: ~~ ~ - Copy served upon Applicant, Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. Received in the record: / / By:~ William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk Meridian City Council Me~ February 1,,200~~_0"`- Page 9 ,... - ,. tem 5. rContinued;Public`Hea~ingYrom 01/18/2000: AZ 99=019 Request ffor-annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from G2 and R-8 to C-G (Walgre'en's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Corrie: Item No. 5 is a continued public hearing from. January 18, 2000, request for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G, Walgreen's, by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc., northwest corner of Fairview and Locust Grove. At this time, I'll continue the public hearing and invite Staff to bring us up to speed on where we are. Shari. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property on the northwest corner of Locust Grove and Fairview Avenue. Hopefully you got a copy of the memo from Brad Hawkins-Clark. They just recently submitted a new site plan. The major difference in the site plan is that they have deleted the access onto Carol Street due to the concern of the neighbors of the adjacent Doris Subdivision. They also removed the `parking along the north part of the property and some other.. stalls along the east part of the property. When they submitted this plan, we hadn't had a revised copy of the landscape plan. We have not reviewed that landscape plan and would not want them to consider this approval of what they've submitted for landscape plan. Hopefully you also have a copy of Brad Hawkins- Clark's memo of January 18, 2000, asking for some changes in the recommendations from Planning and Zoning Commission. They have always represented having another building on the lot. They did present elevations after they started the process and are asking for approval of that; however, this would only be approval for the Walgreen's drive-thru and another drive-thru is not permitted as part of this application. Ada County Highway District's recommendations were primarily based on that access to Carol Street if the applicant was proposing it. Staff still feels that in the future they probably will need an access there; the people from the subdivision may regret not being able to have that access through there, and maybe we could handle that as part of a, maybe putting a future cross-access easement in there to give them the opportunity to access through Carol Street should the residents decide we need to have that. Other than that, Staff has no further comment on this, and I'm sure there's a few people here on this project tonight. Corrie: Comments for Staff? -Bird: Mr. Mayor, Shari, just for the record, the new plat is dated 1/24/00, revised? It's received 25th, but the actual revised date down on the (inaudible) drawing is 1/24/00, revised. I just want it for the records for the attorney. Stiles: Actually, they don't have a revision date on what they've submitted. Bird: If you've got one like me, they do. Meridian City Council Mee February 1, 2000 Page 10 Stiles: That's the landscape plan, and that's what we're saying we're not (inaudible). Yes. That would be - on the left-hand side at the very bottom, it apparently was platted out on 1 /24/00. Bird: Revised. Thanks, Shari. I have no more. Corrie: Any other questions from Council? Anderson: Mr. Mayor, on that access there on Locust Grove, Shari, is that a right-turn only as you're exiting the parking lot, or can you go both ways on that? Stiles: I believe it's right-in, right-out only. Anderson: That probably should be that way because otherwise, you'll have people pulling out of Fred Meyer and when that road does eventually get approved, they're going to be running into one another in the center turn-lane. Stiles: Of course, you're going to find people trying to go that way, but I think when they rebuild that, the median, I believe, will extend down in front of that driveway. Anderson: That will be good. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Shari, is that existing cut the existing cut they've got now or is that moved down the road from the existing cut into the building that sits on the corner now? Stiles: I don't believe they even have a regular cut. Bird: They've got an entryway into it. Stiles: Whether that aligns, I don't think it does. I think it's a little further north Bird: That's what I thought. Okay. Stiles: Gary Smith also has some recommendations. I didn't know if you wanted to say anything about them. It was based on the recommendations to City Council from the Planning and Zoning as a way of clarifying maybe what some of these items were. I didn't feel out my little position statement today, but -Gary, do you want me to go through these items? Hopefully you all have a copy of the recommendations to the City Council. Corrie: This is the revision of 10/07/99 staff report? Is that what you're talking about? Meridian City Council Me. February 1, 2000 Page 11 Stiles: This would be what the attorney prepared dated December 23rd. !don't know how important this is, if new Findings are going to need to be prepared, and maybe we can address those in the Findings that it was basically clarifications. on how some of these recommendations were worded. Do any of you have this? Can I enter it into the record by giving it to the Clerk, or do you want me to go through item by item? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Director Stiles, it would a lot quicker, probably, if you have your comments noted on a copy to have a copy of that made and entered into the record, and then your comments are there or you can highlight your comments, but it would make preparation of the Findings much easier. t Stiles: Okay. Like l say, these are Gary Smith's comments on those recommendations. The requestthat we had from the Planning and Zoning Commission were referenced in our memo of January 18, 2000. Corrie: All right. Since this is a public hearing, is the developer here? Okay. If you want to start, give your name and address. Boyle: Mayor and City Council, my name is Clint Boyle, 8645 West Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho, representing Hawkins Smith Developers. I just want to thank you for the opportunity for hearing this project tonight. I know Walgreen's is excited about this store and being in the City of Meridian. Just to quickly answer a coupe of questions that were brought up for Shari. There will be a median constructed in Locust Grove as well as in Fairview. So, our access that is proposed on Locust Grove .will be restricted to a right-in, right-out by that median that is in the center of the street. That is found, actually, in your packet, and it's in the annexation packet. ~ It's ACHD's Facts and Findings, Page 6, states in there that Locust Grove, that to construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road from a point 10 feet from the stop bar at the intersection of Fairview and Locust Grove to a point 50 feet north of the northern edge of our driveway. So it, basically what that means is we'll be constructing a median in the center of Locust Grove from the intersection 50 feet beyond our project access point. That will restrict that to a right-in, right-out. Currently, there is an existing access. That existing access is closer to the intersection than our access. That is currently a full access, unrestricted turn movements that access the existing commercial building. So, hopefully that clarifies a couple of those items. I just wanted to kind of paint the big picture here. Walgreen's is a neighborhood tenant, so as far as the development goes, they cater to a neighborhood setting, usually a one mile, two-mile radius there is their pull area. So they're not ahigh-volume traffic generator. We think that this particular site cleans up that existing intersection with the access points that exist there. There's a couple of access points on Fairview. Those will be consolidated into one access that will be restricted to right-in, right-out. I'm just going to point out that location. There's two access points existing in this location that we will be Meridian City Council Me~ •* February t, 2000 Page 12 consolidating both of those. Currently they're full access. So we will be restricting access there, we will be pushing existing access that is on Locust Grove to the south further away from the intersection of Fairview and Locust Grove. So it cleans up the intersection. We're providing what we feel is some nice landscaping, better landscaping than is there currently, with this project. Hopefully through our meetings with the neighborhood and the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings that we've gone to, we've come up with an acceptable design. The design that you have in front of you tonight is a design that we submitted to the City. This is basically an outcome from the petitions from the neighborhood- as well as in going through ACRD and through their comments regarding Carol Street. In order to meet the needs of the neighborhood and meet their concerns, we have closed off that access to Carol Street, and what we had to do was have our engineers design an access so that our truck could still get into the site, and that's -the truck will enter from Locust Grove, will basically be traveling south on Locust Grove, and as it turns into the site, it will travel back to the north and circle around the building to service the Walgreen's store. So we've made that -that is the biggest change from the site plan that's been in place is that we've just eliminated that Carol Street access point. As far as the landscape plan goes, we did submit a new landscape plan just today. That landscape plan, though, if you will note in your packets, there is an existing landscape plan, and I believe it is in the annexation packet that you have. These landscape plans match. The difference is that there is no longer a driveway onto Carol Street: So as far as having a different landscape plan or revise -the revision was that we lost the Carol Street access. So, if you look at those plans and the plan that you have in front of you, they should be very similar other than the Carol Street access has been removed. There are just a couple of points that f want to go over tonight. We agreed with the majority of the Staff's findings at this point. I think our site plan for the majority complies with the Staffs recommendations. The one point that we, I guess would disagree with the Staff on is the requirement that we provide a 35-foot landscape buffer along Fairview Avenue for the project. Originally, this project came in and we had it proposed with a 14-foot buffer along Fairview Avenue. Since that time, we have increased the buffer, it is now a 25-foot landscape buffer from our property line to the parking. So the landscaping along Fairview Avenue is 25 feet. We feel that is compatible with the surrounding uses. Fred Meyer has a aittle larger landscaping than that; however, they are a much larger retailer with a much larger parking lot than the Walgreen's store. We feel this is incompatible with such stores as the Hollywood Video that is kitty-corner across the street. Actually directly south of us, that particular development doesn't even have any landscaping at this point in time. We would petition the Council that you grant a deviation from the staff's recommendation of the 35-foot buffer and allow us to go with the 25-foot buffer along Fairview Avenue. Originally, when they made that recommendation, they stated that we could lose the parking along Fairview Avenue and still accommodate that landscaping. At this point in time, we .wouldn't be able to do that because we had to lose some parking behind the store and along the northeast corner to accommodate getting our truck into the Meridian City Council Me~ February 1, 2000 Page 13 site. It's basically asemi-truck, so to make that radius and get it in there, we had to lose some of those parking spaces so that we could negotiate through the site. That was a result of closing that Carol Street access. Outside of that, that is basically the only issue that we have as far as a site-plan issue. The other points that we'd like to bring out is the signage that we have proposed. We are .proposing a signal pylon sign at the corner of, roughly, Fairview and Locust Grove. The proposed sign that we have is in your packet; it's 24-foot tall sign, 100 square feet in size, and that 100 square feet is the overall sign size. That includes the Walgreen's signage as well as the reader board, so it's 100 square feet total. We feel that is compatible with the signage that exists in the area; Fred Meyer has several signs in that location that are similar to this or even taller, and have a larger square footage than us. The existing signage on the site is - on this particular site right now is much larger than what we're proposing, so this will be a substantial reduction from the signage that is being used by the commercial tenants currently. We would also ask that the existing chiropractor's sign which sits just to the west of our access on Fairview Avenue that that particular sign be allowed to remain for the signage for the multi-tenant retailer user that will be going in as part of this project. That particular sign, I do have some elevations of that, and I believe those are in your packet as well. I think we've got a picture of that sign in there. Another item that we would like to point out is on our hours of operation. As we've always stated, that will not be a 24-hour Walgreen's location; .however, the Planning Commission picked some hours of operation for us, and the hours that they picked were from seven in the morning until ten at night. The Fred,.Meyers store across the street is open later than that, and they are one of our competitors, so I guess we would just petition to the Council that we're okay with the condition of not being a 24-hour store, but we would at least like to be allowed the same hours- of operation as the Fred Meyers that is across the street from us. Then, finally, the final point that I'd like to bring out is the improvements along Locust Grove. There's been some :;discussion in the .staff reports that have come out and our discussions with the City and ACRD, at this point in time, ACRD in their recommendations that you will find in your report, they state that we are just a bond (sic) for the sidewalk and they will be constructing Locust Grove within the next year to two years. Understandably, the Meridian staff would like to see those improvements occur faster than that. I guess that we're in somewhat of a Catch-22 there where we've got two different agencies giving us two different proposals of recommendations on how to proceed. ACRD being the authority in right-of-way, at this point in time they do not have the funds available to reimburse us for those improvements, so I guess we would petition the Council that we follow the ACHD recommendations along with Locust Grove - as far as Locust Grove improvements. So in a nutshell, what I propose tonight is that, again, the landscape buffer along Fairview be allowed to be the 25 feet as proposed on this site plan; that our signage be allowed to be 24 feet tall with 100 square feet as the maximum sign area; that our hours of operation be granted to be at least as late and as early as the Fred Meyers store across the street from us; that the ACHD recommendations for Locust Grove be the recommendations that were Meridian City Council Mee ~- February 1,.2000 -- Page 14 adopted by the Council regarding this project. I think that pretty much wraps up the points that I would like to make. I appreciate your time in this. I think this. is going to be a great project for us as well as for the City and I think the neighbors are pleased with what we've done here as well. Corrie: Questions from Council at this point? Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I had one on -you talked about the signage for the existing chiropractic building. Now, that's not shown on the plan you have here, but that's kind of in the middle of the parking lot in front of the future pad; is that correct? Boyle: It actually would be in the landscaping. My pointer here is almost sitting right on the sign. Anderson: So would that existing building -how long is that going to stay there? Boyle: The existing chiropractor? Anderson: Yeah. Boyle: Will be removed. as part of this project. As part of this project, what you will have is amulti-tenant retail user here, basically, just - I think you have the elevations. They've been submitted previously. It'll be amulti-tenant retailer and the Walgreen's store. The existing chiropractor -originally we had that proposed, there was some issues related to building code, removing some of the structures on it, and as part of this project, we decided to remove that building. So the chiropractor that exists will be removed. The signage, the pylon sign that is out by the street would then be used for the multi-tenant building. So the existing sign, the only thing that would change would be the sign copy itself on that sign. Anderson: My other question would be anybody coming to this from the western part of Meridian, how would they access this if they wouldn't be able to turn in on Locust Grove, and if they couldn't turn in on the second exit, they'd have to take this first entrance in? Boyle: What we will have is we will enter into across-access agreement with the Idaho Athletic Club, and the owner is here tonight if you have any questions of him regarding it. There will be cross-access between our site, this development and Idaho Athletic Club. The access that you see - *** End of Side 1 *** that is actually an existing driveway for Idaho Athletic would be an access point where those persons from Meridian that were in the western portion of the city Meridian City Council Mee • February 1, 2000 Page 15 traveling eastbound could access our site. That is a full, unrestricted access there. That would be our proposed location to get those customers into the site. Anderson: Then you're designing your building, the way you said you'd bring trucks in, it would have to come up through a residential area up there on Northview -- Locust Grove to get into that; is that correct? Boyle: The easiest route for a truck would be -wherever he's coming- from, he would have to be traveling southbound on Locust Grove to access the site due to the restrictions with the right-in, right-out. We looked at a design of bringing the truck in at this access at Idaho Athletic, but just due to asemi-negotiating all the turns that it had to negotiate the site, it basically eliminated a substantial amount of parking to where we just couldn't get it to work with the parking due to the amount that we would have to take out a substantial area here for (inaudible) as well as almost quite a bit of parking in the front here and reduce these down. What we're dealing with is having a semi negotiate this site. When you get into the turns here, it was more parking than we could lose, basically, to get him in that way. The only option that we had at that time was the Locust Grove. That's correct. They'd travel southbound on Locust Grove to access the site. Anderson: One last question. I read in the comments here that this whole project is restricted to the one drive-thru, and are you guys okay and are you clear with that, because that future pad site looks to me like a prime location that someone's going to come in later and going to be asking for another drive-thru. Boyle: Yeah. At this point in time, if that's the will of the Council, that is fine. We'II abide by that. We would just like to know that with the drive-thru restriction that we will restrict it to only one drive-thru on the Walgreen's realizing that this Walgreen's store is a double-laved drive-thru. What I mean by that is it's just Pike a bank. There's an outer lane here where they've got the tube that runs down where you can pick up your - so, as {ong we're clear.on that, yeah, that's fine. We will just keep one drive-thru for the Walgreen's building only. That's acceptable. Anderson: Do you know what Fred Meyers' hours of operation are that you are requesting to be the same as them? Boyle: There's probably people from the neighborhood that could answer that question better than me. I believe that on weekdays they're open until 11:00. I don't know that for sure. Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Be ready to answer some questions that come up later. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? State your name and address -- Meridian City Council Mee• February 1, 2000 Page 16 Jones: Jay Jones, I live at 1426 North Carol in Doris Sub. Mr. Mayor and Council members, there has been mixed feelings in our subdivision about this project from the very beginning, some, and I'm sure you'll hear testimony tonight that we would like this project not to be approved. There was some of us in the subdivision that had worked with Mr. Hawker early on and talked to him about this project. We felt that it is inevitable that something would go in on this corner, and if something goes in there, we might as well work with the tenant and maybe get some improvements that would enhance our subdivision rather than detract from the subdivision. What the - a couple things I'd like to make comment on are the landscape drawings that you received today. The revisions of 1/24. The original proposal that we received almost a year ago, complete with caliber bushes, caliber trees and everything on the northern side of that -block wall on Carol Street. We'd ask that if this is approved that those be adopted to be completed as drawn on that particular drawing. As you can see, there's quite a bit of greenery there as well as the cross-section shows the sloping berm with a 7'6" wall. Originally, when they proposed this, they came to us for one reason only, and that was to gain commercial use of the two residential lots that they're deleting in this subdivision. In order to do so, they needed to get an approval of the subdivision -the restricted covenants that allowed a commercial use of those properties. That was granted upon no access to Carol Street. l don't know exactly what the rules are that ,the Council or that they Mayor have in overriding subdivision covenants to annex two lots into - to annex it into the City as well as make it commercial, if it overrides the covenants, but that was one of the restrictions of the covenants that allowed that to go commercial was that no access be allowed to Carol Street. Couple requests that came up in the neighborhood meetings that haven't - I haven't heard addressed. One was. that this block wall be maybe a little more decorative than plain cinder-block wall. A split course -you .know, even just one down on the second course or some such thing. I don't know if you can require such a thing, but it would actually enhance it with very minimal cost to the developer. Also that when the Fred Meyers stare went in, there was great opposition with the lighting, and it took them, I think, years to finally conform to what they agreed to for shading of the flights. Where I'm back far enough in the subdivision, I didn't notice the difference that it makes, but after that discussion, I took special note and the shading of the lights on any lighting that's directed towards our subdivision has actually made a big difference in how much light is cast into the subdivision for those neighbors that are nearby. As of those -those things I just talked about be a requirement prior to occupancy for this development. Also, a question for the Council, can there be any restrictions or guidelines be given to the developer that maybe this block wall and maybe this part of this landscaping be put in on the early stages of the project to combat some of the dust and debris that comes from construction site? You know, I don't know what a difference it makes, whether it's done - to them whether it's done the first day of the project or the last day of the project, but for the subdivision and neighbors nearby, it would be very helpful, I think, to cut tdown on the amount of impact if that was done in the early stages of the project. Meridian City Council Mee• February 1, 2000 Page 17 Otherwise, you know, we've -there are some of us that have agreed to waive the commercial use of,this property given those stipulations. Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any comments from Council, questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Woodall: Hello. Dan Woodall, 1950 West Carol Street, Doris Subdivision. 1 assume this project will go in. I'm opposed to it; I don't think it's a good idea. I can see from all the gyrations they had to go through to get the truck in and out and such that it's probably ill-conceived, but I'll assume that it's going in. What I'd like to address my comments to is conditions to be prescribed in the conditional use permit. I'm not sure what is quite in there, but if it's already in there, then great, thank you, I'm not going -perhaps you can consider it. In Section 2-14-C, Number 3, to be harmonious and appropriate with the neighboring residences, conditional uses can be prescribed with respect to the lighting and noise - Corrie: Is that on the conditional use permit? Woodall: No, I'm sorry. This is in your Zoning and Development Ordinance, City of Meridian. Thank you, Mr. Bird, for lending that to me so I can get the ,record straight. I'm concerned about the noise from the drive-up window and from neon signs that. I've seen on other Walgreen's Drug Stores as well as the parking lot lights. I think that to meet this section of the zoning ordinance, prescriptions need to be made in the conditional use permit. Same section, 2-4-18-C, Number 4, to ensure the development will not be a disturbance to neighboring which is residential existing uses, conditions of use must be prescribed as to fighting and noise related signs, parking-lot noise, and such from the drive-thru. Same thing as -same concerns, different section (inaudible) other code that needs to be addressed. The next is the same section, number 7, to ensure development does not produce excessive glare, conditions need to be prescribed for the signs and lighting and hours of operation. 2-4-18-D authorizes you to prescribe conditions of use for the Walgreen's Drug Store. I recommend the following conditions: illuminated signage facing adjacent residences should be extinguished between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to allow people to sleep without lights shining in their bedroom windows. To control the noise in the drive-thru window, the hours of operation of the drive-thru should be limited to the same - well, I put opposite, but from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. they can be open, I think that would be fairly acceptable. To control glare from the parking lot lights, the lights should be installed to avoid directly illuminating a neighbor's window. As a note, Fred Meyers is not directly adjacent to residences, and so therefore, the comparison of hours of Fred Meyers, hours of Wafgreen's doesn't really hold water. They - Walgreen's needs to be compatible with the Meridian City Council Me~, February 1, 2000 Page 18 residences that it's going to be directly next door to and across the street from where Fred Meyers is surrounded by commercial properties. Also, the pharmacy at Fred Meyers closes at 9:00. So, asking for additional hours for a pharmacy could be competitive with Fred Meyers doesn't make a lot of sense because by the time Walgreen's would close - at least their drive-thru would close at 10:00, Fred Meyers is already closed. I can give you copy of this (inaudible) hand- written. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Any comments? Questions? Bird: I have none. Anderson: I have none. Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else? McRoberts: Jennifer McRoberts, 1490 Carol Street, Doris Subdivision. Concerning the lighting, where they have vacated public parking in the rear of the building for access of their truck in this new design, I recommend that the lighting in the rear of the building only be lighting the driveway so it'd be on the building, you know, light standards or poles in the rear of the building because there would be no public back there other than the cars driving through, so they could just light -put the lights on the building. Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. The developer has a chance to answer any of the questions. Did we ever find out - do they close at 11:00? They do. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Just a couple of points that were brought out. Understandably, the neighborhood's concerned about the {fighting. We certainly can work with them on that whether we shield the lights on the back side or whether we just illuminate that driveway. Mainly, we're just concerned about the truck visibility around that back side and safety on the back side of the building. Whatever we need to do if it's restricted to just some lights on the building that would light the driveway, that would be acceptable to us. We don't have a problem with that, or if the Council wishes, and we could put some poles in the back and have shields on them, we can live with that as well. We'll certainly work with whatever on the .lighting. We certainly want lighting in that rear area for safety reasons and for the truck access. As far as the drive-thru goes, there. was mention on the drive- thru about noise on the drive-thru, realizing that and not that it's a totally effective buffer, but we will have the block wall as well as having some pretty extensive landscaping along Carol Street. My guess is that the noise across Carol Street from the drive-thru is going to be very, very minimal if even audible at all. We've Meridian City Council Mee February 1, 2000 Page 19 got Evergreen trees along that back side. there, so there's some pretty extensive buffering with the Landscaping, with the block wall as far as cutting down on the noise from the drive-thru, and it's just a small speaker just like you'd have at a bank. As far as the signage was brought up about the signage, there will be no signage on the back side of the store: As far as any signage that would be pointing toward the residentia{, the back side, north side of the store will not have the large, Walgreen's illuminated scripts signage. The only signage that you will have around there is on the canopy. They have some small signage that just has drive-thru entrance and exit, and it points east-west on the canopy. So there isn't any illuminated script signage that says Walgreen's that is lit up on the back side of that building. As far as Fred Meyers' pharmacy closing at 9:00, that's fine. Walgreen's competes not only with the pharmacy at Fred Meyers, but for other goods as well,. so again, it goes `beyond just the pharmacy issue of having the pharmacies compete., but even further, they're into different goods. You can walk into a Walgreen's and have film developed or just pick up over-the-counter medicines, so there's a lot of other things that come into play where we are in competition with Fred Meyers. Hopefully that answered - 1 took notes and i hope I covered those. If I didn't, the Council can ask me some questions here, but again, we've been through a long process now with the City and we would certainly hope that the Council will come to a decision tonight on this for us so that we can move in whatever direction that we're requested to move in. Again, we're happy to present this project and think that it will be a benefit to the community. As far as commercial in the area, there is residential to the north of us across Carol Street just- as Fred Meyers across Locust Grove, there is residential. We do have a residential home that is to the west of us, there's actually an existing pasture area between us and that home, so he even has some buffering. We've gone to some pretty extensive lengths to put in block walls to adequately landscape the buffers between the commercial and residential, and we'd hoped that the Council would view that favorably and view the project favorably, and we'd ask for your approval tonight. Corrie: Two things. We have to have your name again. I'm sorry, I didn't get it the first time. Boyle: I'm sorry about that. Clint Boyle, Hawkins Smith. Corrie: Okay. A couple of questions I have asked about the decorative block wall rather than just having a cinder block and also that it'd be put up first before the other - Boyle: The block wall, if the Council wishes to place that condition on us, we could do a decorative wall. You start getting into some of those, and it does add some expense, but if the Council feels that would be of benefit to the neighborhood, we can certainly do that. At least in the short-term, that block wall will probably be fairly visible to the neighborhood, but once the landscaping that we've got in there with the Evergreens and some of the other trees start getting Meridian City Council Me~ February 1, 2000 Page 20 more mature, there's not going to be a lot of that block wall that's going to be visible to the neighborhood. As far as the timing- goes on it, again, our desire would be not to limit the timing on it. We've got a lot of things that we have to take care of on the site being that we've got some demolition work to do on it. We've got grading issues to bring it up to grade. The coordination on that, I'm not sure if the timing would be appropriate to put that block wall right at the first of the project or not. If it's the wish of the Council, then we'll certainly have to abide by that, but without going through and talking to our construction managers, I don't know how that's going to affect grading and drainage and whether or not we'll have to do some extra grading in there to put the block wall in before we demolish other buildings and grade the side. I don't know. Corrie: That was -- question from Council? McCandless: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Boyle, if there is problems with the drive-in window, and that's the pharmacy, correct, of staying awake or up very late, could you not close the drive-in earlier and still keep the pharmacy open on the inside of the store? Boyle: We could do that. That wouldn't be our desire. But we could do that. Walgreen's -the concept for Walgreen's, just like a lot of the businesses out there are convenience, and the drive-thru. is kind of their cream-of-the-crop for convenience. 1f you're sick you don't have to go in the store, just pull in, get your prescription and go. So I know it wouldn't be Walgreen's wish to have that restricted, but if that's what it takes to get the project done, then we'll do it. McCandless: Well, I'm talking about say after 9:00. Boyle: Same point would apply. I can tell you that they wouldn't want to do that. If they had to, they probably would just because that's really the business that they're pushing for is that convenient, drive-up, get-your-prescription-and-go. The drive-thru window, just so you know, the drive-thru window - it isn't like a McDonald's where there's cars stacked there waiting to get through. So even after 9:00, 1 mean, you could probably -well, (,don't have any numbers on it, but it's certainly less traffic that you'd have than going through a McDonald's or Burger King or some sort of fast-food restaurant, so it's not going to be something where you're going to have that drive-thru window constantly going. The people would probably hear the noise from Locust Grove more than they would ever hear the drive-thru window speaker going. Anderson: Does it have a speaker system or is it something where you'd phone ahead for a pharmacy and then you just pull up to the window? Boyle: You can do it either way. You can phone your prescriptions in. It does have a speaker just like a bank, it's got a little speaker on it so you can talk to them and say, I'm here to pick up my prescription. Meridian City Council Me~ • February 1, 2000 Page 21 Anderson: But there are no speakers strung all the way down the building. Boyle: No. Just right at the window. Just like you pull up at a bank and tell them, Clint Boyle here to pick up my prescription that I called in and they'll go grab your prescription and get you on your way. It's just one speaker at the window there. Corrie: Anything else, Mrs. McCandless? McCandless: Nothing else. Anderson: Between you and Cherie, you asked both the questions I was going to ask. about the wall and the hours of operation. So I'm happy. Bird: Mr. Mayor. 1've got a concern with the drive-up being in the back, we're trying to restrict lighting back there. You're going to stay open until dark. I would think that being into dispensing drugs and stuff back there that you would - is there a canopy over that drive-up? Boyle: That's correct. Bird: It's going to be well-lit, but it can be shaded? Boyle: Yeah. That canopy, lights in it are shining straight down off the canopy. So the lighting that we actually get back in this drive area would be something that on other projects, on some projects they have poles along the back that point back towards the drive, and on others they have them mounted right to the building with them pointing out into the driveway. Bird: I would think you want the -anytime you're dispensing drugs to have something through that with people in cars that you would want to -some fairly .good lighting, I would believe, or at least wouldn't want a dark place back there for something to be picking up drugs and stuff, so that's a concern I've got. Boyle: -And we certainly want to work with the neighborhood. We don't want lights in their windows anymore. than they do. So we're certainly -could live with shading, shielding the lights, similar to what Fred Meyers has done. You know, if we did have pole lights along the back, that's fine. If we had them on the building, we could do everything possible to keep within that drive-thru area. You do have a fairly good distance before you get to the residential from the back of our store. You've got 20 feet of landscaping with a block wall and another 40 feet of street before you get into the front yard, so -yeah. We'll certainly, if you want lights shielded, we could certainly accommodate that. Bird: I just - my concern is that we have enough lighting back there for safety and not bother the neighbors, too, but I believe that you've got to have a certain Meridian City Council Me>~ ~ • February 1, 2000 Page 22 amount of lighting back there. The neighbors should realize that for safety reasons you're going to have to if you're dispensing after dark which you would be doing. Boyle: That's correct. Corrie: Any questions? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I did. think of one more question. Looking at that future pad site, and I'm kind of envisioning that there would be businesses that may go in there that could face to the north; is that correct? Towards Carol Street? Boyle: On this particular pad? I can tell you a tenant that will be in there right now. The chiropractor that sits out here in front. So the chiropractor will be moving into it, and an idea on this pad is that you would have four, maybe five bays that would extend from the front to the back. This area in the back is mainly going to be for employee uses. The design on this is that all the customers will be parking in this front area. They'll all be facing to the south as far as their main doors into the business, and then I'm sure that they'll end up with an employee entrance door on this back side, but that's the intent on that mufti-tenant retail. Bird: You can guarantee us that there will be no store fronts on the north side? Boyle: I could do that. Sure. I mean, we can - Bird: I hate to do that. Boyle: We can place that as a condition. Bird: Okay (inaudible). Boyle: Yeah. Corrie: Questions? Bird: 1 have none. Boyle: Thank you very much. Corrie: Questions from staff? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Questions of Shari, some of the exceptions that they're asking for; in signage, landscape buffer and hours of operation, your thoughts, please. Meridian City Council Me~ February 1, 2000 Page 23 Stiles: Well, we are trying to be consistent on the signage and have restricted new annexations and conditional use permits to a maximum of 72 square feet total height times width. We are going to have problems if we just arbitrarily set different conditions for each property that's annexed in the City. The landscaping, they could increase it on the second lot there because they are overparked according to the ordinance. Kitty-corner from this property, Hollywood Video does, I believe, have 25 feet. The reason that was 25 feet is that they were matching what D & B Supply had done when they came in. We have tried to be consistent on the 35-foot requirement. As far as the landscaping being -- the landscaping has changed from what they initially proposed particularly in regard to near that future padsite on the west side. They had previously shown some tree plantings in there and with the latest plan they've removed all those trees and only have bushes. So they do have the 7'6" wall and some bushes, but no trees. They have reduced the width of that planting strip. Other than that, still the comment about the Locust Grove sidewalk; I still believe that's very important. Every other subdivision that has come in on an arterial like that has been required to put in their sidewalk. I would hope with as many times as Ada County Highway District has set back the reconstruction of Locust Grove that they have a design in place that they can -that they pretty well know where that sidewalk needs to go. So, .it's -the applicant has stated himself that this is a neighborhood store, and Ithink - I feel very strongly they need to get that sidewalk in there before they occupy the building. Anderson: Mr. Mayor, just a question of Shari or Gary. I would think that being this close to the project, when ACRD says they're going to do that in a year, it should be designed by now. Is it designed? So could the curb and sidewalk not be put in at this point since they already know the elevations for that? Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Anderson, I believe the -well, 1 know the design for Locust Grove from Fairview to Ustick is complete. In that regard, the curb, gutter and sidewalk could be installed to those elevations as designed. Yes, you're correct. Corrie: l believe the comment was that ACHD had no money for that. I question that. Bird: I do too. Corrie: We'll talk about that the 17th. Any other comments, questions that Council has? Anderson: I have one more question for our legal counsel. The question was brought up about subdivision CC & R's. How does that work in a case like this ,.just for my own knowledge because I'm not sure if somebody sells the property and that, then do those CC & R's still apply or if it's replatted or how does that work? Meridian City Council Me~ February 1, 2000 Page 24 Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and Council members, the question - I didn't quite understand the CC & R point. Is part of this property part of that subdivision and therefore, subject to those CC & R's? Am I understanding that correctly? Anderson: That's how I (inaudible). Nichols: If those covenants are part of the property, then the only way that they can be removed is by an agreement, basically. Anderson: With the entire Homeowners Association? Nichols: The particular -typically, covenants have some sort of provision in them for the amendments changes to them and how they are to be made. So you'd have to look at each one of those individually. It looks like Director Stiles has some comments on that issue. Corrie: Ms. Stiles. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I'm not aware of the specifics of their covenants, but I don't believe that the City is bound by any of the conditions of their covenants. We do not enforce covenants, and if there were a problem, they would. have to -the Homeowners Association would have to go through a civil procedure to enforce those covenants, but it wouldn't be done through the City. Corrie: I believe they worked that out from what I understand from the testimony. Okay. Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Anderson: I have no more. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion, then to close the public hearing on Item No. 5 for annexation. Anderson: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 5, the annexation and zoning of Walgreen's. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Council. Meridian City Council Me~ • February 1,'2000 Page 25 Anderson: Mr. Mayor. (inaudible) I would make a motion that we approve the annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G for Walgreen's by Hawkins Smith Associates subject to staff comments with the following exceptions. I would move that we allow the 25-foot landscape buffer; I would also recommend that we stay with our current sign proposal and our current proposal for the hours of operation; and I would also include in that motion that the block wall that be built be built before the rest of the project gets started, I guess in the early phases, I'm not sure exactly how to word that, but before construction of the buildings, and that that be a decorative wall at least to the homeowners' side so that as the landscaping is completed or as it matures on the commercial side, at least they have something attractive to look at on the other side; and with the addition of the curb and sidewalk if that is designed at this point that they be required to put the .street and sidewalk in at point of construction. Bird: Second. Currie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the annexation of the Walgreen's store subject to staff comments with the exceptions of one, two, three, four, five -four, excuse me, exceptions that are stated by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Attorney, do you have all those down? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I could have a point of clarification. Councilman Anderson, with regard to the sign, are we talking about the 72-square-foot height, width recommendation or are we talking about a different recommendation with regard to the sign? Anderson: I would - I think there were two exceptions they were asking for. One was to keep the sign in front of the chiropractor and then to go to 100-foot sign, and I recommend that we stay with the 72-square-foot sign for them and that they be allowed to keep the existing sign at the chiropractic area -the chiropractic sign that's there now. Nichols: Thank you. Currie: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Bird: Mr. Mayor. One clarification on that block wall. You meant before they started on the actual building of the store. Their site and stuff has to be done before that block wall goes in, but you're just actually meaning that physical building of the store. Anderson: Yeah. Site work could be started, but construction of the buildings couldn't until the wall would be. Meridian City Council M171eet~ February 1, 2000 . Page 26 Bird: Okay. And what kind of decorative? There's a lot of decorative stuff, and you can make and get very expensive or you - if you do something like we did up at the baseball field,. not very much more than regular block; it's just asplit- face block. Anderson: I think just asplit-face block would - maybe a row of colored block would be appropriate. Bird: Okay. That's all, Mayor. Corrie: Okay. With that addition, approve the second then? Bird: Yes. Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote. Roll-call. vote: Mr. Anderson, aye; Mr. Bird, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from 01/18/2000: CUP 99-034 Request for a conditional use permit to construct asingle-tenant commercial building with adrive-thru window (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Come: All right, I'll open the continued public hearing on the CUP, request for conditional use permit to construct asingle-tenant commercial building for the drive-thru window of Walgreen's, Item No. 6. At this point, I'll open the public hearing, and I will ask if people that made the comments in the early one wants to have the same comments inscribed into the Item No. 6, we'll do so. Okay. Then 1'll open the hearing and staff comments first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, I would just ask that the comments from the previous public hearing be incorporated into this public hearing. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. The developer. Do you have any more that you want to say on this one? Boyle: Just the same. Corrie:- Okay. We'll enter that same testimony then on this one. Hearing that, .I'll open the public hearing to anyone else who didn't testify before understanding that their testimony on the first one will be entered into as testimony on the second one. Mr. Jones. .<~ - January 26, 2000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: FEBRUARY 1,2000 APPLICANT: HAWKINS SMRH MANAGEMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C-G (WALGREEN'S~ AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: SEE JANUARY 18, 2000 ITEM PACKET ~d--~~J ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: - - ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Materials presented at public meefings shall become property of the City of Meridian. a FACILITIES PLANNfNG AND 200 WILMOT ROAD DE 847-940-2500 P Q`ZOC? ~O Ex ': R LoaM N ,] L 7C W ~%~i,i~~ µ~ DRAWINGS/SPECIFlCATIONS BY: OWALflRfQ15 CONSULTANT ^ LANDLORD'S CONSULTANT ALL CONSTRUCTON WORK, IHJLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, BY: []WALGR1tEN5' CONTRACTOR OIANDLORD~S CONTRACTOR (TURNKEY CONSTRUCTON) STORE BUILDING NEW.......... ® REAWDOJNG... ^ NEW........... R0.0CATKMO... ^ E%ISiiNG...... ^ NEW SHELL ONLY ^ OTHER........ ^ a IS ~ scnLE: r = so' REc~~D JAN 2 5 2000 City of Meridian City Clerk Office MERIDIAN WALGREENS ~~ ~ 4iAtL NoT ~ usEO DRAWING TITLE 1DNS CF THIS PRQ[CT EXCEPT BY PRELIMINARY SITE HUNLE ENd1~ftllW', nc. HUBBLE DATE: STORE NO, 'D"`-"'0"` DRAWING N0. rNEERING, INC. B A:~" ~` -~- ~ C-1 SE, ID 83709 (208)322-8992 eD' ~ 99-163-01 i emo ~~~1 ~~;L~.?~~.i :~_.../_r ~. f ~ .~il / J ~c~-1 G;; To: Mayor & City Council From: Brad Hawkins-Clark•'Ql~ CC: Shari Stiles, Clint Boyle (Hawkins-Smith), File (City Clerk) Date: 01/18/00 Re: Amendments to Recommendation to Ciry Council -Files #AZ-99-019 & #CUP-99-034 For discussion at tonight's City Council meeting, below are proposed amendments to the 12/23/99 Recommendations to City Council from the Legal Department for the Annexation and Zoning and Conditional Use Permit applications for Walgreen's Pharmacy with Drive Through Window. Annexation and Zoning Recommendation • Pg. 2, #10 - to "development of a Walgreen's drugstore," ADD, "and a 7,000 s.f., single story, multi-tenant retail building" • Pg. 3, Recommendation -Note that the October 7"' Staff Report includes a condition that the `Development Agreement exclude four permitted C-G uses for any future development on the subject property: a) Automobile Service Stations, b) Storage Facilities, c) Truck Stops, and d) Heavy Equipment Sales & Repair. • Pg. 3, #1.1 -CHANGE "That the driveway be limited to one," to "That the drive thrus on the entire site be limited to one." OMIT "as designated on the proposed drawing." .. • Pg. 3, #1.2 -CHANGE "...will be vacated prior to finalizing the annexation" to "...will be approved by City Council to vacate the easements prior to the P&Z Department issuing a Certificate of Zoning Compliance ." Conditional Use Permit Recommendation • Pg. 2, #5 -ADD to end of first sentence of paragraph, "and a 7,000 s.f., single story, multi-tenant retail building." • Pg. 3, #1.1 -CHANGE to read, "Incorporate complete construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter concurrent with building construction with the condition that the Locust Grove right-turn lane on to Fairview westbound by completely designed." Staff believes this more accurately reflects the final P&Z Commission motion. • Page 1 r • Pg. 3, #1.3 -CHANGE "72 feet" to "72 square feet" • Pg. 3, #1.4 -CHANGE to read, "that a choker design be used on the Carol Street ingress/egress drive;" • Pg. 3, #1.5 -CHANGE "only one drive thru is approved for the entire site." • NOTE: There is a discrepancy in the Recommendation between the P&Z Commission's condition and ACHD's condition on the design and construction of the Locust Grove Road improvements. As noted above in paragraph 1.1, the Commission is requiring construction of the Locust Grove sidewalk concurrent with the building and the right turn lane to be designed. However, ACHD is requiring an $8,000 deposit for the sidewalk and dedication of Locust Grove future right-of-way, with construction to occur sometime in 2001 or 2002. Both the Commission and Staff feel it is important to have pedestrian access along Locust Grove concurrent with the construction of Walgreen's. Understandably, the Applicant does not want to have conditions placed on them for which they have no control. • Page 2 r January 14, 2000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JANUARY 18 2000 G APPLICANT: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT. INC. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: _ J REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C-G FOR. WALGREEN'S AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: SEE ATTACHED RECOMMENDATIONS CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: LETTER FROM THE RESIDENTS OF DORIS SUBDIVISION All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. . „ -_> I~2 S.P. 23 FT. ~'Ai.L `. - -~ obis z~ K~: li_1C- N~~J S(UN 24 F~'. TALL s ~ ,~ ~ -1t ~k= S'f!lND3PD PROTOTt'PR PYLQ!3 WALGREENS SITE SIGN HUB OF TREASUKE VALLEY Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live City Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 KEITH BIRD City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 MEMORANDUM: To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Assistant Planner ~,:- 3 a-~ Z--- December 13, 1999 REc~ ~~ DEC 1 c; 1999 City- of Meridian City Clerk Offico Re: REVISIONS TO 10/7/99 STAFF REPORT - WALGREEN'S APPLICATION by HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC. -File # CUP-99-034 - Annexation & Zoning of 4.34 Acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Lots 1, 2, 7, and 8 of Doris Sub.) - Conditional Use Permit for 15,120 s.f. Walgreen's Pharmacy with aDrive-Thru Window This memo is an update on the status of the subject application for the 12/14 P&Z Commission hearing. Since the November 9~' P&Z Commission hearing, Staff have met with the Hawkins Smith representatives and several modifications to the 10/7/99 staff comments have been discussed. In addition, the ACHD Commission heard the Walgreen's application at their 12/1 meeting and the final staff report/decision is attached. The following headers and paragraph numbers correlate to the October 7~' staffreport. ANNEXATION & ZONING SITE SPECIFIC 3. Hawkins Smith will vacate the 6-foot utility easements that are currently recorded with this plat prior to finalizing the annexation. They intend to submit a vacation application through the City. In terms of reducing the number of lots from four to two, Staff recommends this be conducted through Ada County prior to the City Council approving the annexation. The City of Meridian does not currently have an ordinance or mechanism in the Subdivision & Development Ordinance to perform lot reductions. The other option, as stated in the 10/7/99 staff report, is to re-subdivide the Doris Subdivision plat. CONDITIONAL USE SITE SPECIFIC 4. The final ACHD decision (Site Specific item #8) calls for a traffic choker west of the driveway accessing Carol Street. (Note the site plan in the P&Z packets showing a conceptual design of the choker.) The applicant is also proposing to provide a new neighborhood sign within the choker interior that will signify to the traveling public that they are entering a residential subdivision, thus discouraging commercial and non-subdivision traffic. Given the direct alignment of Carol Street with the Fred Meyer complex entrance on the east side of Locust Grove, the addition of the choker in Carol, the safety of left turns onto Locust Grove from Walgreens Revised Comments.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 13, 1999 Page 2 Carol, and the new right turn lane on Carol allowing for increased access to Locust and Fairview, Staff can support a direct access onto Carol from the site. One concern for Staff is the safety of Doris Subdivision residents who try to make left-hand turns out of this north driveway onto Carol Street. The driveway is designed to allowright- out only turns. Also, the subdivision sign may obstruct the clear vision triangle. 7. Staff are still concerned about the lack of sidewalks and a right turn lane along the Locust Grove frontage. This is a very high traffic volume intersection and will likely see increased pedestrian traffic between the Fred Meyer complex and this site. ACRD is only requiring dedication ofright-of--way and that deposit funds to their Trust Fund for the sidewalk be provided. It could be two to three years a$er construction of Walgreen's is completed before a right turn lane on Locust is constructed and a sidewalk is built. The applicant made verbal commitments to Staffthat they intend to maintain the unfinished right-of--way (approximately 20 feet) and will not allow it to beweed-infested. However, Staff feel this deserves more discussion and. at a minimum, we recommend a written commitment be obtained from ACRD to the City and Applicant that the Locust Grove improvement will be started no later than 1 year from occupancy. 8. The landscape strip adjacent to Fairview is now 24 feet wide instead of the origina114 feet. The Applicant has also modified the landscape strip on the west side of the Fairview driveway to also be 24 feet wide. Staff recommends that the 35-foot-wide landscape setback be provided to the extent that parking requirements will still be met. 9. The proposed detached sidewalk design along Locust Grove shows a 5-foot planter strip between the sidewalk and road section. As long as this planter remains in the ACHD design plans, Staff support the 15-foot landscape strip shown since the total buffer width will be 20 feet. 11. The Applicant has increased the buffering along the northwest boundary from two feet to ten feet of landscaping. With the inclusion of the block wall along this boundary, Staff feels the combination of wall and ten-foot landscape strip meets the intention of Ordinance No. 9- 605.G.1 which requires buffering between incompatible features. 12. The Applicant has now omitted the existing chiropractic building from the site plan; consequently, this requirement from the 11/6/99 report can be deleted. 15. Signa.ge proposed by the applicant was not included in the original transmittals. Staff recommends that the pylon signs proposed not be approved and that specific dimensions for monument signage be included in the conditional use permit and as part of the development agreement. Signage needs to be approved as part of this application. AZ-99-0 i 9/CUP-99-034 Walgreens Revised Comments.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 13, 1999 Page 3 19. Commissioners should have received copies of proposed elevations for the second building in the northwest corner of the site. Applicant is proposing a potential drive-through window in this building. Staffdoes not recommend adrive-through be permitted in this building. To be considered, a separate conditional use permit must be submitted for review and approval. Additional Requirements 1. Staff recommend the three parking stalls in the northeast corner of the parking lot adjacent to Carol Street be omitted and the landscape strip be increased to 20 feet. 2. A revised landscape plan incorporating the recommendations herein must be submitted prior to the City Council public hearing. Enclosures: Final ACRD report Revised Site Plan Proposed Sign Elevation AZ-99-0191CUP-49-034 Walgreens Revised Comments.doc ~ ~,~- ~~~ ~ ~. ,rte ~~;~. ,,,,,. ~~ ~~~~- J I } ,-.d.. r ~A. { H~ ~,$ ~ , ~s a%tiu ~~~ ~'~'. c'~ n s ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ r O C'1 i C t ~ 4/ N O m f b r m Z A m z O ~ `~ ~ ~ 3~a ~ 11 v D 2 K ~. - ~I~ ~ 0 i ~----- :; i -- ~ ! ' r - - - f _ ~'' I 4 ~g ~ _ ' .. _ f ~ ~ a~ 1 t ~~1 ~ y ~ ~ _~ ~ =~ r } ~ _; E ~ ~ f ' I n I~ ~ > r A 5 ____._._._. _.. w~_.. ~-..... ~ ~ n q I > f i a i I .rs1 f r-- ~~ t t _ ~ ~{+ ,~ ;; {; ~ t Q f { a t ~ r F . $ ~ f i { _ ~ ' f ~. 1 f _~_4 E. LOCUST GROVE - - - - ~ - `• x i ~ i ~'k'•'~'"X`x-i- ~~s.4.~~~~~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ b~j°~y~ ~ i~~i~ ~i jj +y x -~~ a a, _ ~ ~!r ~ a s s ~~~{r~ ; fix i -~~~-i : ?zf ~ s tf. y;~ r s ~ ~y ~ ~ #~ 3 ' ~ ~ ~ s;~~~ 4 s; '}= i ~~ • 9 i'+ 1 ,~;~ ; l ~,;F } t :~~ 1 - 7 6 ~ . 3f~~`~ o~ ~'~~~ ~ ' ~i 3k~ as ~~ s3 ~~ ~l~ : 3. .~ ~= ~~ ? WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW KATrtYJ. ED WARDS jut.tE ICl.EtN FISCHER 200 EAST CARLTON AVEiWE NAMPA OFFICE WM. F. GtGRAY, Iti D SAMUEL JOHNSON POST OFFICE BOX 1150 104 NlNttt AvENUESotIt1-t ' . W[[.LtAM A MORROW MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 POST OPFICE BOX 247 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247 WILLIAM F. NtCHOts TEL. (208) 466-4272 CHR1S'I'OPHERS. NYE TEL (208) 288-2499 FAX (208) 466-4405 PHtLtPA. PETERSON FAX (208) 288-2501 STEPHEN L. PRUSS ERIC S. ROSSMAN ~ PLEASE REPLY TO TODD A. ROSSMAN MERIDIAN OFFICE DAVID M. SWARTLEY TERRENCE R WHITE E-MAIL: dms@wppmg.mm December 23, I999 William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk Meridian City -Hall 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 REcE~D CITY OF MERIDIAN Re: Annexation and Zoning for Walgreen's Pharmacy &. Drive-Up Applicant: Hawkins-Smith Management, Inc. Dear Will: Please find enclosed the original of the Recommendations to the City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the above referenced application. Please note this matter will be heard before the City Council on January 4> 2000. Shari Stiles and Gary Smith. have been given copies of the above Recommendations so they can be prepared at the hearing to specifically address the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Very truly yours, David M. Swartley Enclosure ey/Z:\Work\M\1~Ieridian 15360M\Walgreens\CC1kEnc.ltr BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES WALGREEN'S PI-i~~RMACY ~ DRIVE-UP -Case No. AZ-99-019 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL BY HAWIQNS-SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC. INTRODUCTION 1. The property is approximately 4.34 acres in size. The property is located at the northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road. The property is designated as Lots 1, 2, 7, and 8 Doris Subdivision. 2. The ownerhof record of the sub}ect property are: John and Cheryl Wardle, 8995 W. Chinden Blvd., Meridian, Idaho; Kevin and Lila Bates, 1515 S. Carroll, Meridian, Idaho; Adrian &, Cheri Mansayon, 1555 S. Carroll, Meridian, Idaho; Brent Luana Barrus, 5720 Overland Road, Meridian, Idaho. 3. Applicant is Ha~vlcins-Smith, of 8645 W. Franklin Rd., Boise, Idaho. 4. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as C-2 and R-8, and consists of both commercial and single family residential development. 5. The Applicant requested the property be zoned as General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G). RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 4.34 ACRES OF LOTS 1, 2, 7 AND 8 DORIS SUBD. - WALGREEN'S - HAWIQNS SMITH 6. The proposed site of the subject property is located at the northwest corner of Fairview and Locust Grove Road. 7. The subject property is bordered to the north by a residential subdivisior Jand city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent to the east and west of the subject property. 8. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 9. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 10. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following ' X000 5.~. 5%-~.S~C•S~or . M~.~~'-~ mannerp:~ development of a Walgreen s drugstore. G:,,~ a > > ~ ~L~i~ ~~~~f~ 11. The Applicant request5zoning of the subject real property as General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G). It is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Commercial/Mixed Planned Use Development. 12. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 4.34 ACRES OF LOTS I, 2, 7-AND 8 DORIS SUBD. - WALGREEN'S - HAWI~INS SMITH RECOMMENDATION 1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the requested annexation and zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: . ,~,r,,,s ~ ~ ~k ehkr~t s ~~'~ 1.1 That the dnvew~y'be limited to one; on t e propose ~~ 1.2 The 6-foot utility easements that are currently recorded with this plat will be vacated riot to ~ulizi~ ~ *hP ~nnP~ *~~. f~ ~!~ ~~~~~ ~~`~`5 `~ Cer~.rj,~,4~e ~~ ~n~z~~ (tr,.r.~~ "- Z:\Work\IVI\IVleridian 15360M\WalgreensWZRec.wpd RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 4.34 ACRES OF LOTS 1, 2, 7 AND 8 DORIS SUBD. - WALGREEN'S - HAWIQNS SMITH ~d~ ~o~~~t~~~~~w~~~ ~~~t~~~t ~nerry K. huger, rresiaent 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey-Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlys Meyer Routson, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us DATE: ,December 9, 1999 3,~ TO: Patrick Dobie, PE Dobie Engineering, Inc. 777 Hearthstone Drive Boise, ID 83702 ~ECEI~~ FROM: Steve Arnold, Principal Development Analyst ~~~ ~ ~ ~aec~ ACDH Development Services Division City of i~~eridia.~ Dear Patrick Dobie: City ~'ierk ~f~4r- Your request for reconsideration regarding MCUP99-34/MAZ99-019 was considered by Ada County Highway Commissioners on December 8, 1999. At the meeting the commissioners elected to deny your request for reconsideration. A copy of the report describing the requirements of ACHD is attached. If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6178. Sincerely, 7 Steve Arnold Principal Development Analyst cc: Project File Plan&Dev Svsc-Chron/File City of Meridian ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report MCUP99-034/MAZ99-019 nlwlc Fairview Avenue/Locust Grove Road `Valgreens The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct a 1=L,300-square foot ~Val~reens, and a 7,000-square foot retail pad site. The 4-acre site is located at the northwest corner of Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue. This development is estimated to generate 1,100 additional (250 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. This item was deferred from the October 27, 1999, Commission meetin` to ;ive the developer the opportunity to meet with the neighborhood and discuss a driveway located on Carol Street. The developer has met with the neighborhood and is now proposing to access Carol Street as previously recommended by District staff. The developer has indicated that the one property owner does not support the proposed street connection. The developer is proposing to construct a traffic chocker on Carol Street to discourage commercial traffic from entering the subdivision. Staff does not believe that traffic destined for the Walgreens will travel beyond the proposed driveway on Carol Street because the roadway is essentially one big cul-de-sac. The following report addresses the applicant's revised proposal. Roads impacted by this development: Fairview Avenue Locust Grove Road Carol Street ACHD Commission Date -December 1, 1999 - 12:00 p.m. L - _. _ - - ----.- _ ~ - - --- - WIlL~O!N BR00_-_ _ OAKCREST_-.. ..,__-' - -----1,04P -- __ _. ~~ -- v C:4ROl~ _ .__- ~ .._... pAIRVIENJ w ,. i ~ ..-.. WILSON ._...._...._ ~ _ __ .-_. _ ~ ; , C7 > N ~ . _ -... _. _, . .- N, ,, . ~ Y. _ v __. w --: O J = _. ----- ____-CARj.TON ... _. .. w -- ~~ ..._._.~ STATE _.... ~ _ O LL ..._.__,~ .~ .~ ( . _ ~ ~ { E ~~ ~a ~ _. _. ___. ..__.,._IDAHO.___ ~. t ~ ~- i O ~ i ,\ I . ~~ ; 1, ~ ~ ; ~ -n Z ~ ~ ~, '~~ /'~ ~ A % ~~ ~~ ~,~ y~ rn O O cc O 0 s N O O p O O c~ .~.. z ~_ .i7 C m D i i' _ ~C~~``, ~^~~~ ~~ 'D~ ~~ ~~i ~~ ` ~ ) ;R` cn I; ' I _ ' i i 1 i ~ i i I i I 1 ~ ~~ .. ~ N- ..=\ ~\\© ~ Z I _ \ ` G N . ~` _~ _n ~ Z ~m ~z ~~ r~ ~~~ % ~' i' ~ ~~ 1 ~ a~a nc m c ~ 1 ; ~ ~ ~ ) ~ , o ~ ~ f 1 f i I u 1 1 I . ~ 1 1 1 111 _ ~~»~ A A 2 A ~ >~~ = X K ~ X ~ K ~m X ~ z A~.~ m~ n A ~ °° ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~Z$ ~~.~,-~ n _ O H~ C N 2 _ _ ~ 2 Z Z Z 2 Z ~ j'~~ ~ ' I ~ ~ ~ m m =m n ~n f7 n n [ 7 n ~ A - ~ ~ 0 0 = o n ~ ~ ~y > In f R> > i O n > ~ ~ A ~ n ' ' ~ ~ ~ n m,' ` ' I ( _ A I m m Q~ m f'1 y ~ ~~i N ~ 'm r ~ ~ G~ 't O n ~ j A A > A A r C7 C 2 n~ r 'm~ f ' I ~ m ~ ~ r. m ~ ~ ~ A z. r ' o n A Z Z ~ , rn S > ~ 7 ~ ~ A ~ O R ~n z r o \ I r A r m m m ~ m ~- z ~ ~ ~ II l ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ y~ ~ p. I~ a I Z 8~ I O a 1 1 = I V r A y. m O m m ~> r y ' 70. t' 1 5 0' 25.0' ~.r t t 7 0~ ~ S n ~. m x D y C 2 . ' ~ I I I ° ^~{ m' A ' A > z ^ i . F O r '„ ~ I c ~ Zr~ m ~ 1 6.0 20.C r Z G + ~ I i 25.0 ~ t 0' _ r ~ m351 C1 ., 25.0' {- ~ o o • 9.0 ~ I m • + ~ t o c 0 2 ' O to 5 ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ /~~~~ ~ ~ ~ o A ~ I I ~2. m .v p D :C7 ` s ~ N ~ _ ~ ~ 7 s s _ ~ I ~ ') r`'1 - TRASH W ~ I i ( ! i ~ j i ~ I 9' 4 COMPACTOR ~W ~ Nn z _ o I - - -_--- -i -- - ~ ~ I H~~- OH O >n m -'{ 70.2' 24.0' w _. 25.0' _'?'.L' ~ i ~T'~ 25.0' ' ' 6 0' 20 v ~O p 8.0 . - . . ! :, ! i ~ ~ a i ~ ~ t -x 8.5' ~ ~ 1 { I I > ~s I I i im X 5. 1 . 1 i D I ? } CY 1 . p m t~ ' r '' 1 ~I I I nn ~ Ix Z~ ~ ~ ~ I n~Hl - ~ ' y '"T'+ ~ i ' 1 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ,l i I ~ ` 1 mr o y ; 4 1 0 I ( o mm ~ ~ ~ m ~ d /~ / • N ~ I ~~ ~ ( 7[ y N I I r ~ m. Z ~ f I . ~ .- i ~ m I I N O ~ = ~ -~ C 1 } _ r Vf _ ~1 I w I j z C O r _ ~ ~ VI ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ 41~ I ( { , ~'O ~ 41.Q. DO O~ I ~ I h I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ v I ~ ~ I I ~ 41- 365.9-'' v J l -i j~ C I Z - - 7 . ~- o --~ - o ~ j _ _ ~ ~ p I £ XIST{NC LANDSCAPE BERM EXISTING LANDSCAPE B ERM { • lpyf~ 4~ ~ ~ E A ~~. ~~ _ _ . _1. ~ ______ . . _1=~ _ . ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~, I r' ~ -- - - " f~ ~ I ! ~ ~ ~ (~% - -- ~ ~ f ;\ I ~~ .~ ~~~ ~ -~ __ m .~ i ; ~ ? __~ 4 ! I i ----- ~ ~ { i i i •~, ~ 1 _ 1 _° 1 ~ ~ ; I Cm u4 ! ~ ti ~< ~ m ~ I ~ { ` Lam.. i i I j f~i ~ ~~, I ~ ~, t ~~-. r' _._ ;~ ~ ~. Z00~ ~~~ ~ ~,~,~ ~ ,~ ~ 1 `~ ;+ ~, H.LII4S SNI?IA~F G ~0899L£80Z ~ti;1 LT ~ LT 66/SOJTT Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner -Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. Applicant -Same C-2, R-8 -Existing zoning C-G -Requested zoning 4 -Acres 21,300 -Square feet of proposed buildin, 264 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Fairview Avenue Principal arterial Traffic.count of 23,782 on 10-21-97 400-feet of frontage 104-feet existing right-of--way (65-feet from sectionline) No additional right-of--way required. Fairview Avenue is improved with 5-lanes with curbs, gutters and sidewalks abutting-a portion of the site. From the site's driveway to the western property line, there are no curbs gutters, or sidewalks. West of the site, there are curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. T.ocust CTrove Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 6,737 on 9-29-98 380-feet of frontage 70-feet existing right-of--way (25-feet wlo centerline) 96-feet required right-of--way (48-feet from centerline) Locust Grove Road is improved with 3 to 4-lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. The segment of Locust Grove Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick-Road is listed in the Five Year Work Program for reconstruction in FY 2001. Locust Grove Road north of the intersection will be constructed with 3-lanes tapering to ~-lanes at the Locust Grove Road/Fairview Avenue intersection. ~'arol Street Local street with no bike lane designation No traffic count available 400-feet of frontage 50-feet existing right-of--way (25-feet from centerline) No additional right-of--way required NICUP993a.CN[M Page 2 Carol Street is improved with 30-feet of pavement, with no curb, nutter or sidewalk abutting the site. y B. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Constriction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. C. District policy requires the applicant to construct a ~-toot wide concrete sidewalk on Fairview Avenue from the site's western edge of driveway to the western property line. Coordinate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. D. District policy requires the applicant to provide an 58,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of- Way Tnrst Fund for the cost of constructing a ~-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel. E. District policy requires the applicant to constrict curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel. Improvements should be constructed to one half of a 37-foot street section. Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street with District staff. F. The applicant is proposing to constrict a driveway on Fairview Avenue located approximately 220-feet west of Locust Grove Road. There is an existing driveway to the west of the site that will be approximately 1~0-feet from the site's proposed driveway. There is an existing driveway on the south side of the road that is located approximately 260-feet west of Locust Grove Road. District policy requires that driveways on Fairview Avenue be located a minimum of 220-feet from Locust Grove Road for aright-in/right-out driveway, 440-feet for a frill access driveway, and aligned or offset 1 SO-feet from all existing driveways. The site's proposed driveway will meet District policy for aright-in/right-out driveway but not for a full access driveway. The applicant should be required to constrict asix-inch raised median in the center of Fairview Avenue, from a point 10-feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet west of the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. Note: When the median is constnteted,~~~ose v District staff it will restrict a driveway on the south side of Fairview Avenue Howev r their driveway is within 440-feer of .ocust Grove Road. The driveway does not conform with current District p9licy A letter will be sent notifyilla of theinstallation of a median tha will r s rig their drivew~,v G. The applicant is proposing to constrict a driveway on Locust Grove Road, located approximately 220-feet north of Fairview Avenue. Carol Street is located approximately 120- feet north of the site's proposed driveway and there is a driveway on the east side of the road that aligns with Carol Street. The driveway serves the Fred Meyer complex. District policy requires that driveways on Locust Grove Road to be located a minimum of 220-feet from Fairview Avenue for aright-in/right-out driveway, =140-feet for a full access driveway, and 1~0- feet from all existing°driveways. The site's proposed driveway will not meet District policy. MCUP993~1.CN1~( Pase 3 Staff recommends a variance of the 150-foot offset requirement from Carol Street for aright- in/right-out driveway located 120-feet south of Carol Street. The applicant should be required to constrict asix-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road, from a point l0-feet north of the stop bar at the intersection to a point ~0-feet north of the northern edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. H. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with past action by the District the applicant should be required to pave the driveways their filll width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Fairview Avenue or Locust Grove Road and install pavement tapers with 1 ~-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. I. The applicant is proposing to constrict a driveway on Carol Street, located approximately 7~- feet west of Locust Grove Road. Carol Street is located approximately 400-feet north of Fairview Avenue. The roadway does not meet the required 440-foot offset from Fairview Avenue for full access to Locust Grove Road. The roadway serves Dorris Subdivision, an existing single family dwelling subdivision to the north of the site. The applicant has met with the owners within the Dorris Subdivision and has indicated several of the property owners do not favor the driveway due to traffic concerns. The applicant is proposing to construct a traffic chocker on Carol Street to discourage commercial traffic from entering the subdivision. Staff does not believe that traffic destined for the Walgreens will travel beyond the proposed driveway on Carol Street because the roadway is essentially one big cul-de=sac. The proposed traffic choker will further discourage any commercial traffic from traveling beyond the proposed driveway on Carol Street. The proposed driveway location meets District policy and staff supports a driveway on Carol Street because the residents of Dorris Subdivision can access the site via the local road and not have to use Locust Grove Road, which is a minor arterial. The driveway should be constructed as a 24 to 30-foot wide curb cut driveway and located a minimum of 50-feet west of Locust Grove Road. Coordinate the location and design of the driveway with District staff. The back of curb to edge of pavement width of the traffic chocker should maintain a minimum of a 24- foot wide travel lane. Coordinate the design of the traffic choker with District staff. J. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with past action by the District the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Carol Street. K. District policy states that direct access to:arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building pernlit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a "similar agreement of the owner of the parcel to the west if they are the subject of a future development. application. ~ICUP9934.CM~[ Pace =1 L. At the December 1, 1999, Commission meeting the Commission heard neighborhood opposition concerning a driveway from this site on Carol Street. The Commission appreciates and understands the concerns of the residence with regard to adding the driveway connection to Carol Street, but because of the safety concerns in the vicinity, there is no other way for this site to have safe left turns to and from Locust Grove Road. The Commission thus found that the site should take access to Carol Street if left turn movement was required onto/from Locust Grove Road to/from the site. M. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Site Specific Requirements: Dedicate 48-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance tivith Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 2. Constrict a S-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Fairview Avenue from the west property line to the proposed driveway, approximately 130-feet east of the west property line. Coordinate the location of the sidewalk with District staff. 3. Provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of--Way Tnist Fund for the cost of constructing a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel. 4. Constrict curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel. Improvements shall be constricted to one half of a 37-foot street section. Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street with District staff. Construct a 24 to 30-foot wide driveway on Fairview Avenue located approximately 220-feet west of Locust Grove Road. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Fairview Avenue and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Fairview Avenue, from a point 10-feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet west of the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. MCUP993d.CyIM Pa~ze 6. Construct a 24 to 30-foot wide driveway on Locust Grove Road, located approximately 220- feet north of Fairview Avenue. Pave the driveway its frill width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Locust Grove Road and install pavement tapers with 1 ~-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road, from a point 10-feet north of the stop bar at the intersection to a point ~0-feet north of the northern edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. If a driveway is requested on Carol Street, located the driveway a minimum of ~0-feet west of Locust Grove Road. Constn~ct the driveway as a 24 to 30-foot wide curb cut driveway. Pave the driveway its frill width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Caro( Street. Coordinate the location of the driveway with District staff. y If a driveway is constricted on Carol Street, constrict a traffic choker west of the driveway. The back of curb to edge of pavement width of the traffic chocker shall be 24-feet wide. Coordinate the design of the traffic choker with District staff. 9. Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). 10. Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue is prohibited. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. Thie req~,~ shall specifically iden if~each requirement to be re~onsidererl anrt include a written er lane ion of why such a requirement would result in a substantial harrishin or ine4 ~i y The written request shall be submitted to h District no la er hen 900 a m on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of S 110.00. The req~~est for reconsideration shall ~necifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered anc~ ;n~liide written documentation of data that was not available to the ommis ion ~t rhP t;mP of its original decision The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the MCUP99;4.C~IM Pa~,e 6 Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building constriction in accordance with Ordinance X188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and constriction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Constn~ction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically`waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. S. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. y 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable , requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-185) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACRD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACRD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is ranted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. MCUP9934.CMiVt Page 7 Conclusion of Law: ACRD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. ~iCUP9934.CNt~I Page S lL/Var yy V.7JJ P:L1 GV OJI ll0004 r I~~It~,Il`~.S SMIT~i Commercial Developers RH11 I~11VJ Jllll ltla_, a . ':".' ~ i.' _ . _,_.J ~JL UUl ~' - Hawkins -Smith ,8645 w. FrarikTln Boise, Idaho 83709 (208)376-8521 Phune (208)376-6804 Fay Fax Transmittal Memo To: Brad Nawkins-Clark Fax No: 208-887-1297 From: Clint Boyle Date: 12/9/99 Re: Walgreens at Fairview /Locust Grove Pages: 8 n~~~~~~ Original Documents: ^ Will follow via mail ^ Will follow via overnight service Q Will not follow ^ Other: COMMENTS: Brad - I amsending a copy of the ACRD final decision form the Commission hearing. The IVleridian Planning Commission wanted to see a copy of the decision prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. If you have any questions please contact me at 208-376-8521. Thank you. ~a~e Site Development Project Manager DEC 09 '99 10 03 2083766804 PAGE.01 1~. VJ/JJ VJ JJ 1':L1 LVVJI UUV VY 11l1111f11~J J1111111 y~/. VUL 18 15 DEC 08, 1999 ID; 7A COUNTY HWY DIST TEL N0. 387-6 #3:3587 PAGE 2 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report MCUP99-034/MAZ99-019 n/w/c Fairview Avenue/Locust Grove Road Wale teens The applicazit is requesting conditional use approval to construct a 14,300-square foot Walgi°eens, and a 7,000-square foot retail pad site. The 4-acre site is located at the northwest corner of Locu ~;t Grove Road and Fairview Avenue. This development is estimated to generate 1,100 additional (25 0 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Genersi,tion manual. This item was deferred from the October 27, 1999, Commission meeting to give the developer the opportunity to meet with the neighborhood and discuss a driveway located on Carol Street. '.f7~e developer has met with the neighborhood and is now proposing to access Carol Street as pre~•~iously recommended by District staff. The developer has indicated that the one property owner doe:; not support the proposed street connection. The developer is proposing to construct a traffic cho~;;ker on Carol Street to discourage commercial traffic from entering the subdivision. Staff does not b~,,lieve that traffic destined for the Walgreens will travel beyond the proposed driveway on Carol Stc ~;et because the roadway is essentially one big cul-de-sac. The following report addresses the ap ~~licant's revised proposal. Roads impacted by this development: Fairview Avenue Locust Grove Road Carol Street ACHD Commission Date -December 1, 1999 - 12:00 p.m. DEC 09 '99 10 03 2083766804 PAGE. 02 lam. Vyr yy Vy. yV 1[111 4.VUyl Vyyy7 11/1 ~~1111~J J1111111 tel. VVJ 18~ 16 DEC 08. 1999 ID~ ~A COUNTY HWY DIST TEL NO~ 387-6" #3::58? PAGE 3 Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner -Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. Applicant -Same C-2, R-S -Existing°zoning C-G -Requested zoning 4 -Acres 21,300 -Square feet of proposed building 264 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Fairview Avenue Principal arterial Traffic count of 23,782 on 10-21-97 400-feet of frontage 104-feet existing right-of--way (65-feet from sectionline) No additional right-of--way required. Fairview Avenue is improved with S-lanes with curbs, gutters and sidewallcs abutting a ~~ortion of the site. From the site's driveway to the western property line, there aze no curbs gutters, or sidewalks. West of the site, there are curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Locust Grove Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 6,737 on 9-29-98 380-feet offrontage 70-feet existing right-of--way (25-feet w/o centerline) 9G-feet required right-of--way (48-feet from centerline) Locust Grove Road is improved with 3 to 4-lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. The segment of Locust Grove Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road is listed. in the Five Yeaz Work Program for reconstruction in FY 2001. Locust Grove Road north of the intersection will be constructed with 3-lanes tapering to 5-lanes at the Locust Grove Road/Fairview ,venue intersection. Carol Street Local street with no bike lane designation No traffic count available 400-feet of frontage 50-feet existing right-of--way (25-feet from centerline) No additional right-of-~vay required MCTJF ~l~934. CMM Page 2 DEC 09 '99 10 03 2083766804 PAGE. 03 - 18 16 DEC 08.-1999 ID~ ~A COUNTY HWY DIST TEL N0~ 387-6~ #3:13587 PAGE 4 Carol Street is improved with 30-feet of pavement, with no curb, gutter or sidewallc abutting the site. B. Utility street cuts in nets pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless appro•,~ed in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. C. District policy requires the applicant to construct a 5-foot wide concrete sidewallc on Fairview Avenue from the site's western edge of driveway to the western property line. Coordinate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. D. District policy requires the applicant to provide an 58,000.00 deposit to the Public Righ l:s-of--Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove:: Road abutting the parcel. E. District policy requires the applicant to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Cazol Street abutting the parcel. Improvements should be constructed to one half of a 37-foot street section. ~"coordinate the improvements to Carol Street with District staff. F. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway on Fairview Avenue located approximately 220- feet west of Locust Grove Road. There is an existing driveway to the west of the site that will be approximately 150-feet from the site's proposed driveway. There is an existing drivewa~,~ on the south side of the road that is located approximately 260-feet west of Locust Grove Roac., District polioy requires that driveways on Fairview Avenue be located a minimum of 220-feet from Locust Grove Road for aright-in/right-out driveway, 440-feet for a full access driveway, and a.igned or offset 150-feet from all existing driveways. The site's proposed driveway will meet District policy for aright-in/right-out driveway but not for a full access driveway. The applicant should be required to construct asix-inch raised median in the center of F~:urview Avenue, from a point 10-feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet west of the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with D is~trict staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review art d a letter of approval. Note: When the median is constructed. as proposed by District stag' it will restrict a dri ~reway on the south side of Fairview Avenue However their driveway is within 440 feet of ocust .rove Road. The driveway does not conform with current District.policv A letter will be cent notifvi;~.~ og f the installation of a median that will restrict their driveway G. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway on Locust Grove Road, located appr•::~ximately .220-feet north of Fairview Avenue. Carol Street is located approximately 120-feet norf:a of the site's proposed driveway and there is a driveway on the east side of the road that aligns with C' arol Street. The driveway serves the Fred Meyer complex. District policy requires that driveways on Locust Grove Road to be located a minimum of 220-feet from Fairview Avenue for aright-in/right-out driveway, 440-feet for a full access driveway, and 150-feet from all existing driveways. The site's proposed driveway will not meet District policy, MCUF'9934. CM1Vf Page 3 DEC 09 '99 10 04 2083?66804 PAGE.04 1817 DEC 08, 1999 ID~ `A COUNTY HWY DIST TEL N0~ 387-6: #3::3587 PAGE 5 Staff recommends a variance of the 150-foot offset requirement from Carol Street for aright-in/right- out driveway located 120-feet south of Carol Street. The applicant should be required t~~ construct a six-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road, from a point 10-feet north oi'the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet north of the northern edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to 1.he District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. H. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel l;~eing tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with past action by the District the applicant should bc: required to pave the driveways their full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of:(iairview Avenue or Locust Grove Road and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting tl~ie existing roadway edge. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway on Carol Street, located approximate ky 75=feet west of Locust Grove Road. Carol Street is located approximately 400-feet north of Fairview Avenue. The roadway does not meet the required 440-foot offset from Fairview Avenu,;: for full access to Locust Grove Road. The roadway serves Dorris Subdivision, an existing sing::e family dwelling subdivision to the north of the site. The applicant has met with the owners witl iinthe Dorris Subdivision and has indicated several of the property owners do not favor the driveway clue to traffic concerns. The applicant is proposing to construct a traffic chocker on Carol Street to dir~courage commercial traffic from entering the subdivision. Staffdoes not believe that traffic desti lied for the Walgreens will travel beyond the proposed driveway on Carol Street because the roadw:~y is essentially one big cul-de-sac, The proposed traffic choker will further discourage any commercial traffic from traveling beyond the proposed driveway on Carol Street. The proposed driveway location meets District policy and sta$'supports a driveway on ~:;arol Street because the residents of Dorris Subdivision can access the site via the local road and not have to use Locust Grove Road, which is a minor arterial. The driveway should be constructed as a 24 to 30- foot wide curb cut driveway and located a minimum of 50-feet west of Locust Grove Rc: ad. Coordinate the location and design of the driveway with District staff. The back of curl: to edge of pavement width of the traffic chocker should maintain a minimum of a 24-foot wide tra~~;el lane. Coordinate the design of the traffic choker with District staff. J. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel l; ring tracked " onto the roadway. In accordance with past action by the District the applicant should be: required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Carol Street. K. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted a, i.d that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy th~r applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the wes l: to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owner of the parcel t~~ the west if they are the subject ofa future development application. MCUF'9934. CMM Page 4 DEC 89 '99 10~a5 2083766804 PAGE.~S ~~~ 18 18 DEC 0B, 1999 ID~ ~A COUNTY HWY DIST TEL N0~ 387-6:- ~k3::587 PAGE ~ 6 L. At the December 1, 1999, Commission meeting the Commission heazd neighborhood ol:~position concerning a driveway from this site on Carol Street. The Commission appreciates and understands the concerns of the residence with regard to adding the driveway connection to Cazol Street, but because of the safety concerns in the vicinity, there is no other way for this site to have safe left turns to and from Locust Grove Road. The Commission thus found that the site should take ~iccess to Carol Street if left turn movement was required onto/from Locust Grove Road to/from the site. M. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional tra$~ic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Site Specific Requirements: Dedicate 48-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the ;parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 busi~aess days to process the right-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from .:cvailable impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the ~ impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordin~.iace #188. 2. Construct a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Fairview Avenue from the west property line to the proposed driveway, approximately 130-feet east of the west property line. Coordinate tl~ie location of the sidewalk with District staff. Provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of--Way Trust Fund for the cost of coy tstructing a S-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel. 4. Construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel. Improvements shall be constructed to one half of a 37-foot street section. Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street with District staff. Construct a 24 to 30-foot wide driveway on Fairview Avenue located approximately 22cJ-feet west of Locust Grove Road. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the ;:dge of pavement of Fairview Avenue and install pavement tapers with 1 S-foot radii abutting thy-existing roadway edge. Construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Fairview Avenue, fro;cn a point 10-feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point S 0-feet west of the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit ;i design of the median to the District's TrafFic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approv d. 6. Construct a 24 to 30-foot wide driveway on Locust Grove Road, located approximately 220-feet north of Fairview Avenue. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond -:he edge of pavement of Locust Grove Road and install pavement tapers with 1 S-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road, : rom a point 10-feet north of the stop bar at the intersection to a point SO-feet north of the northern edge of the MCUF 9934. CMM Page 5 DEC ~S '99 10 85 2083766804 PAGE.06 ice, v.~i .,r va...a .w~ ~v ~.,~ uu~vY u~nuii...r .,uu iu yJ ~~~ 18 20 DEC 08, 1999 ZD~ 9 COUNTY NWY DIST TEL N0~ 387-6? #3:::587 PAGE 7 driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit s design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approv ,il. 7. If a driveway is requested on Carol Street, located the driveway a minimum of 50-feet v~~est of Locust Grove Road. Construct the driveway as a 24 to 30-foot wide curb cut driveway. Pave 1 Ile driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Carol Street. Coordinate the location of the driveway with District staff 8. If a driveway is constructed on Cazol Street, construct a tragic choker west of the drivec~ray. The back of curb to edge of pavement width of the traffic chocker shall be 24-feet wide. Coordinate the design of the traffic choker with District staff. 9. Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the west to use this parcel for .access to the public `streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). 10. Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or paz~;:el access to Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue is prohibited. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined hei~~;in shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. The ~eouest shall, specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why s~ ich a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or~neauity The written request shal l be submitted to the District no later than 9.00 a m on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next availal~;le meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District a$er 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled. for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staffto remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items wilt: be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's a.rtion shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the a•;:tion and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifica;(1 identi each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision The request for reconsit.leration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If':he Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date anti time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in acs sordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction. shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway Distri~:t Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedurc: s and all MCUF~9934. CMM Page 6 DEC 09 '99 10:06 2083766804 PAGE.07 .. .., .. .,, ., .. .. .... . .. ..... .. .. .. .. i .. ..vv~ ..., ,..~.... ..,ul .,. ~ vvi, ` 1821 DEC 88, 1999 ID~ "~q COUNTY HWY DIST TEL N0~ 387-6?" #3::1587 PAGE 8 applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered. in the State of Idaho shall prepaze and certify all improvement plans. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building :permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. It is the responsibility ofthe applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-w.:ry. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACH>J~. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business: days prior to breaking ground within ACRD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Tra.f~ic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromise~a during any phase of construction. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in ~ ~Titing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized re~;~resentative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain ~.~rritten confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject ofth:is application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors :.n interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject propel l,y unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law i.i1 effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: ACHD requirements aze intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not I~ lace an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the ~- icinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 3 87-6170. Submitted by• Steve Arnold Date of Commission Action: December 1, 1999 MCUP'~934. CMM Page 7 DEC 89 '99 10 86 2083766804 PAGE.08 ,Ec~: ~~ To: Mayor, City Council, ACRD, and Planning and Zoning Commission ~ ~ C ~ ~ 999 City of Meridian From: ~ Residents of Doris Subdivision C i t C i e r k 0 ff i s Re: Proposed Walgreens 3~ ( ~~ We the undersigned residents, representing a majority of the owners of property in the Doris Subdivision, recommend denial of any proposed development that would include any traffic ingress or egress onto the interior residential streets within Doris Subdivision. The restrictive and protective covenants prohibit any commercial traffic ingress/egress onto Carol Street. We would also oppose any prospective business that intends to operate before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p, m. and /or carves on delivery practices that would be offensive to the immediate residents. In summary we realize that growth is an important part of our community but we would like serious consideration given to the protection of our property values and quality of life. We do not feel that this proposed development in its existing form is compatible with the existing residential property. Thank you, Residents of Doris Subdivision Owner of Real Property ~V~~~ ~i /Z l_or ~{ BtrCK 3 N/Z ter y 6t.ocK-3 Lc r (o gt-o c K 2_ (,.CT (~ glnCK Z Lot /Block within Doris Subdivision IJ ~Z Lo i (a ~ C.o cK tJ/z t,oT ~ B~ c~ 3 LdT I B~n~K 3 SIZ ~o-f S g(.oc~3 Lot 3 ~i_ac~ 1 S ~Z t-oT (p BL~cK 3 - 5 ~Z l-cr (o (3Lo c.K 3 Lo i ~-} Bloc K~ Z iJ /L l.cT 2 13ZoCK 3 ~3 /z ~.cr Z F3i.ock ~ hJ IZ t.cT s gtoCK Z ~ r1 ~~-- ~T 3 Bt.ocK 3 _ ~G` N ~Z 1~c r 3 Bt.oCK 3 ~-~ toT $ Bl..ocfc y Date Signed _i~_ ~~~~ /~-/y-~P /-i -g~ X370 ~/-, _ ~~ I~fNS _1~_~~ 1~{3Z ~ - / -l ~ li" l6 `y~ ~~9 //,/G -9~ f7~s i 370 I ~ `~' ll I ~4_ i ~ 5 0 // ~~ ~~ /~ .~ ~% J/ 1 5 ~ c ~i -~-~~y~ / y~ c - -~ ~q~~ f/-a~-s~ ~5 3S- ~/ ~~ ~~' ~~- Owner of Real Property ~- `~ .~ _ ~0 ~Q /Y L1.n.ti ~,P1.r.E.< a ~~ ~~~~_ Lot /Block within Doris Subdivision _ LbT Z gt..oc~L ~ for Z B~c-~- ~ tJ~2 LcT S Bloc-K- 3 s/L ~r 3 ~~~~- y S~Z. I~r 3 6i.oc~ ~ S ~Z ~o ~ ~ B~oc~ 3 S~Z DoT ~{ g~oGk 3 5(Z t..or 3 QLoc~ 3 LoT ~{ ~c,~c~ ~i !~~-wt . (~ . " ,t 9 u X10 ~ ~'Z LoT 3 Boo c.K '~ v ~(Z Le~T 3 g Loci ''~ Date Signed / -~ ~ y ~ -,ii - lr-3o~9~i j 87Z ~ 875 1936 ti -~~~,yy f` ~D.~' ~Z~~ i2-Fs-~~ ~qos ~`~oo X970 ~q~3~ i~-~- Lot /Block within Date Doris Subdivision Signed LoT 1 BLOCS y ~ a ~- ~~ ~~qo LoT - Brock ~-{ - ~/ i~'IZ~ L.o'r $ ~ y BL~~~ Z a~- ~~ s~~ ~T Z gL~ 3 /i-~~~ i ~ g3a 5/i L.oT 2 BL.oc-K- 3 // 31J~~ LoT 7 ~t,cf~ 7-- - L~ 7 Bl-oc1= 2 , ~~~ ~ C~ l - 30 - q l ~~ ~t ~~ ~ { (-~t5'~~ 1 ~ ~ 3 . S/Z L-oT ~ BLOCK-2- Owner of Real Property 0 N J .- ~ ~- , ,e v ~ ~,~ Sou r H C~! ke L J V W ~~~ . DA~K&.I~O A(L~A ~~,~KFS~r.-TS I..}o~s~Ho~05 j~~T HA'~~ SIC~rJ~D ~-JCLoS~D (~~TtTIofJ J V NoIe.TH CAF-o L City of M er id ian Planni ng & Z oni ng Memo To: Mayor & City Council From:. Brad Hawkins-Clark CC: Shari Stiles, Clint Boyle (Hawkins-Smith), File (City Clerk) Date: 01 /18/00 Re: Amendments to Recommendation to City Council -Files #AZ-99-019 & #CUP-99-034 For discussion at tonight's City Council meeting, below are proposed amendments to the 12/23/99 Recommendations to City Council from the Legal Department for the Annexation and Zoning and Conditional Use Permit applications for Walgreen's Pharmacy with Drive Through Window. Annexation and Zoning Recommendation • Pg: 2, #10 - to "development of a Walgreen's drugstore," ADD, "and a 7,000 s.f., single story, multi-tenant retail building" • Pg. 3, Recommendation -Note that the October 7th Staff Report includes a condition that the Development Agreement exclude four permitted C-G uses for any future development on the subject properly: a) Automobile Service Stations, b) Storage Facilities, c) Truck Stops, and d) Heavy Equipment Sales & Repair. ti • Pg. 3, #1.1 -CHANGE "That the driveway be limited to one," to "That the drive thrus on the entire site be limited to one." OMIT "as designated on the proposed drawing." • Pg. 3, #1.2 -CHANGE "...will be vacated prior to finalizing the annexation" to "...will be approved by City Council to vacate the easements prior to the P&Z Department issuing a Certificate of Zoning Compliance ." Conditional Use Permit Recommendation • Pg. 2, #5 -ADD to end of first sentence of paragraph, "and a 7,000 s.f., single story, multi-tenant retail building." • Pg. 3, #1.1 -CHANGE to read, "Incorporate complete construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter concurrent with building construction with the condition that the Locust Grove right-turn lane on to Fairview westbound by completely designed." Staff believes this more accurately reflects the final P&Z Commission motion. • Page 1 ..£ P LaserJet 3100 - SEND CONFIRMATION REPORT for rinter/Fax/Copier/Scanner City of Meridian 2088886854 Jan-18-00 2:09PM J ob Start Time Usage Phone Number or ID Type Pages Mode Status 1 86 1 /18 2:08PM 0'54" 1 208 376 6804 Send .............. 3/ 3 EC 96 Completed.................:...................... Total 0'54" Pages Sent: 3 Pages Printed: o 100 E. fAr~enAM.8M. 701 M~tlIRD O'76R Port (OOQMF~JJ Foc f100)005A061 i« 1tr,lin} bo,~ylt 14vaa ~M~' roo 3~t,-L804 u~ I-14-oc Nw~~ ~M~ 'S O~V~e~l Q unr,e ,otw IMw.w D n.r. canrerK O r+.... ~e.py O ri.... geyea ~.. KaraYl. FDwutns IIJIlE K1.ER7 FLSCtm~tt Wit. F. Gi(3FwY. Iu D. SMn1EI.Joffi+soN Wuz3n.~e A. Moxaow WIL7InMF. HICHOIS cawsxorimi S. NYE PHQ1P A PBxFRSON SiF3ffi2r L. Pxoss ERIC S. RUSSMA23 TODD A ROSSMA*1 Davin M. SwaenEY TEBRNxcL+R WHIYE WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LACY Z00 EnST CARLTON AvENI7E, SUITE 31 "POST ONCE Box 1150 MERIDIAN. IDAHO 83680-1150 TFl. (208)288-2199 Fax (208) 288-2501 liivinB.: dmudwpping.com December 23, 1999 ~Shari=Stiles,-P--Tanning=and=Zoning Administr'" atom Gary Smith, Chief Engineer Re: Annexation and Zoning for Walgreen's Pharmacy Sr Drive-ZTp Applicant: Hawkins-Smith Management, Inc. NAMYA OFFICE 10+3 9*" ,4vs. S. Posx OFrxce Box247 PAMPA mAHO 8'i653-0237 TEI,. ('..`081466.9:7: FAX (208) 466-3105 PLEASE REPLY TO 2~'IFRIDIAId OFFICg Please find enclosed a copy of the Recommendations to the City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the above referenced application. Please note this matter will be heard before the City Council on January 4, 2000. The City Council requests that you be prepared at the hearing to specifically address the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you disagree with those recommendations, please state which ones and the reasons. If you propose any additional recommendations, conditions, etc., please prepare your recommendations in writing so you may submit the same to the City Council at the hearing. The Council appreciates your attention to this request. It will assure that the Council has the benefit of understanding your position in this matter and it will help limit the need for testimony. Vern truly yours, i~ Davl -~dY. Sw ev`- ~~ Enclosure ~~' ~~~;~D C ~ 7 X999 }CITY ~_' UTAN ~".I.~i'tYl~t1~~.4 caG a.~~t~ ~! t ey/Z:~Work~M~:~teridian 15360YI~Walgreens~PZRout.ltr BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES WALGREEN'S PHARMACY & DRIVE-UP Case No. AZ-99-019 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL BY HAWIQNS-SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC. INTRODUCTION 1. The property is approximately 4.34 acres in size. The property is located at the northwest corner of Fairvietiv Avenue and Locust Grove Road. The property is designated as Lots 1, 2, 7, and 8 Doris Subdivision. 2. The owner of record of the subject property are: John and Cheryl Wardle, 8995 W. Chinden Blvd., Meridian, Idaho; Kevin and Lila Bates, 1515 S. Carroll, Meridian, Idaho; Adrian Sz Cheri Nlansavon, 1555 S, Carroll, Meridian, Idaho; Brent Luana Barrus, 5720 Overland Road, Meridian, Idaho. 3. Applicant is Hawkins-Smith, of 8645 W. Franklin Rd., Boise, Idaho. 4. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as C-2 and R-8, and consists of both commercial and single family residential development. 5. The Applicant requested the property be zoned as General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G). RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 4.34 ACRES OF LOTS 1, 2, 7 AND 8 DORIS SUBD. - WALGREEN'S - HAWIQNS SMITH 6. The proposed site of the subject property is located at the northwest ~, corner of Fairview and Locust Grove Road. ~ ,~ 7. The subject property is bordered to the north by a residential 4 subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent to the east and west .. ,, F of the subject property. 8. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area ~• of Impact of the City of Meridian. 9. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban ~~ Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. `~ 10. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: development of a Walgreen's drugstore. 1 1. The Applicant request zoning of the subject real property as General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G). It is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Commercial/MiYed Planned Use Development. 12. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 4.34 ACRES OF LOTS 1, 2, 7 AND 8 DORIS SLJBD. - WALGREEN'S - HAWIQNS SMITH ~ 5' RECOMMENDATION 1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the requested annexation and zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the follotiving: 1.1 That the driveway be limited to one as designated on the proposed drawing; 1.2 The 6-foot utility easements that are currently recorded ~~~ith this plat will be vacated prior to finalizing the annexation. Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Walgreens~AZRec.wpd RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 4.34 ACRES OF LOTS 1, 2, 7 AND 8 DORIS SUBD. - WALGREEN'S - HA.WIQNS SMITH ~- ' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 2 De Weerd: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN Borup: Item 2, continued public hearing for the same project for the conditional use permit. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we continue the public hearing for Touchmark Living Centers until January 11, 2000. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C-G (WALGREEN'S) BY HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC.-NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE: Borup: I noticed that staff does have a revised staff report. Would you like to summarize this application. Hawkins: I can do that. Up on the screen is the general vicinity and since it is continued, I won't go into the details of the surrounding areas. I think most people are familiar. We've got 4 lots that are currently in the county. That is the annexation request. Item 4 is the conditional use permit. The staff memo dated 12/13/99 does address I believe, most of the major issues since the last hearing. The key changes from the previous hearing to the site plan and this is their old site plan in your packet. You should have a revised site plan. I'll just put this up there simply for the benefit of the audience to point out that there are a couple of main changes to this. The access now is on the north that they are proposing. Carol Street having a direct access about 50 feet to the west of Locust Grove. The second key change from you last hearing is that they have removed the third building which is the existing chiropractor building just to the southwest of the main store. The third main change, they've added some rows of parking north of the multi tenant building and that should be shown on your revised- They have expanded the landscape strip on the west side of the Fairview Drive access. That was brought up at the last meeting. I guess the main items that I point out for P&Z discussion tonight that after meeting with the applicant, we feel probably should be addressed. On page one of the revised 12/13 memo, there is ACRD final decision was to recommend that access be taken on the north and they are mainly looking at-so they have a direct connection now into Fred Meyer. There is now a right turn lane with Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 3 what they are proposing which would be a new lane on Carol Street. It would allow right hand turns only as well as straight through and left turns. After-this was a tough on for staff. We originally recommended just a pedestrian or bicycle. I think that looking at these other considerations with congestion and the internal circulation, I think we can now support ACHD's decision. The second thing I think would be for the Commission tonight -the Locust Grove improvements and then we have asked that you consider putting a condition on this project that they have to-ACRD must make a written commitment that Locust Grove improvements will be started no later than one year after they start-they have sort of pushed this thing in terms of the expansion of Locust Grove several times and there is just no real telling when that could happen. We feel that with the athletic club, the other retail on the southeast, the Fred Meyer complex, that no pedestrian there sidewalk on Locust Grove and just leaving that indefinitely. It would be good to get a firm commitment. That is what number 7 is all about. The third thing to look at would be the 35 foot Fairview strip-the landscape strip. They are proposing 24 feet along Fairview. We have been encouraging and the Comprehensive Plan calls for 35 feet. If that whole row of parking on the south end of that lot was omitted and there was expanded to 35 feet, they could still technically meet the parking requirements. They would lose about 15 or so stalls. They are required to have 76 parking stalls to serve the Walgreen's store and that it could technically meet that. It would be right at 76, so -Then signage. You should have in your packets the sign that they are submitting--proposing a pylon sign 24 feet tall and it is smaller than the existing one. We have been encouraging as you know the monument type signs. Free standing is more low profile and we would encourage the monument low profile on Locust and then they have talked about one on Fairview, so two of those. I think those are the main issues to point out. Borup: Commissioner's, any questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. Boyle: Clint Boyle, Hawkin Smith Development. 8645 W Franklin Road in Boise. I appreciate the time and effort you spend reviewing this in the past. I also appreciate the time that the staff has put into this to help the project along and get through some of their items of concern. Tonight since we've seen this in a previous planning commission meeting just want to go over some of the new items that came out in the revised staff report with you. First of all, with Item number 3 related to the utility easements as well as the parcel reduction of re-subdivision of the lot. We will take care of that. That process. We have not determined whether or not we will go through the county or the city with that process. If we do go through the city, we will propose a re- plat of that subdivision so that it will meet the city ordinance and criteria for reducing those lots down to 2 lots. We will also take care of the Vacation process for those utility easements, dedicated easements were necessary to reroute any of the existing utilities that maybe in those. Namely, right now, there is a overhead power line that currently (inaudible) thought the site and we will work with Idaho Power on rerouting that and providing them with the appropriate easements as well as any other as they need them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 4 Borup: Mr. Boyle. I think what this Commission would appreciate is if you would just go through those-we do have the staff report, this one and the previous one. If there is any items on there that you have a concern with, those are the ones we would like to have addressed. If you are 100 per cent agreement with them, I think we need to cover those. Boyce: Briefly, Item number 4 then under the conditional use permit,.. site specific, there was mention in there regarding the choker design and clear site clear vision. Again, the reason for that choker design is striving to de-emphasize turning movements into the subdivision. That is also the reason that the left turn movement into the subdivision was not indicated on the site plan was just because we are trying to de-emphasize turning movements onto Carol Street from out of our site. Item number 7 under the conditions, related to improvements regarding sidewalks and turning lanes along Locust Grove. We don't have a problem putting gin the sidewalks at this point. We also do not have a problem putting in the improvements as far as lanes and what not. What happened is ACRD currently does not have the funding available to reimburse us for the cost of doing the lane improvements. At this point of time I am not sure how we need to work that out. Certainly we will work with ACHD as well as the city and if ACHD has the funding available at the point of time that we are under construction we don't have any problem with those improvements. Otherwise, we can certainly work with ACHD to at least propose to put the sidewalk in at this point of time. I think the other issues we are running into is they don't have final designs done. They are in the process of preparing those designs so rather then have us do improvements in a year or two or whatever might be down the road that they are proposing, rather then have us put them in and have them come right behind us and tear them out. They are proposing that we put money into a fund on the sidewalk, but we certainly don't have any problem with doing those improvements as long as we can work out the issues for reimbursement and what not with ACRD. Item number 8 relates to the landscaping on the site and I guess we are proposing 24 feet of landscaping. We feel it is appropriate considering the surrounding uses. We feel that with what is there today and considering the improvements that this will make to that corner as far as landscaping goes, we feel it will be a benefit with what we have proposed with the landscape planter. Moving on down, number 9, we don't have a problem with. Number 11 is fine, Number 12 is fine. Number 15 relates to the signage and again I believe you have our signage proposal. That is a standard pylon sign. The Walgreen's is requesting that it be out in the intersection of Locust Grove and Fairview. That signage is typically 24 25 feet in height and that is what we would like to see just due to the face that due to the fact that signage is critical to Walgreen's and to their customers and being able to easily notice the site. That would be the only signage other then wall signage that we would propose for the Walgreen's store. This is a substantial reduction from the signage that currently exists there today on the site. I have an overhead of the signage that exists. We would substantially reduce the height as well as the overall signed copy with the proposed pylon sign. The other proposal would be to keep the existing chiropractor sign for the new multi tenant building that would be proposed. So that is our proposal on the overall signage on the project. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 5 Borup: Could you point out where that existing sign is. You said existing chiropractor sign. Boyle: Actually I am not sure if this particular plan is the one that is in your packet. I'll point it out. Borup: The chiropractor building is there and the site is still there. What size is that? Boyle: I don't have the exact dimensions on the square footage. Rough estimate is it is probably 12 feet high maybe 15 in height. I actually have a picture of that sign on the site that I could provide the commission with. I don't have the exact dimensions of that particular sign. Again, this is on a overhead. This will give you an idea of what it looks like. It is the top sign in that photograph is the existing chiropractor sign. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, do you want to get the overhead out so that any residents that are here can also see this. Borup: We can do that. I think this may come up more when we start discussing sign (inaudible) I just-let's just see if the commission has any other questions. Boyle: The final item was number 19 with regards to the drive thru for the second building, the multi tenant building, and in our proposal this evening is that would also be allowed to have a drive thru window available to it. We do not know whether or not we will exercise that but we would like that available to that retail commercial building. That pretty much covers the points in the staff report. We feel that over all this project will help to clean up that corner and hopefully this will be a benefit to the city. This particular site plan that is up there now, the latest submittal we have into the city which is relayed in the staff report, we have taken out the chiropractor building so the existing building-I am going to do some pointing here with this. This existing chiropractor building we have removed from our site plan. That is why in the staff report until item 12 in the revised report, it states that the applicant has omitted the existing chiropractic building from the site plan, so again we were able to rework the site and eliminate that building which had caused some concerns in the prior staff report relating to bring it up to building codes and removing some structures on the back. We have eliminated that and moved this future pad to the south further and the landscape buffer along this edge which again is reflected in this revised staff report, is now a 10 foot wide landscape strip with a block wall. We have made those modifications and hopefully these are in your packets. Outside of that 1 am open to answer any questions you might have. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Boyle? Barbeiro: Mr. Boyle, Walgreen's will have a drive thru -is that correct for the pharmacy. Boyle: That is correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 6 Barbeiro: Along with that, does not Walgreen's also have a home delivery of some sort? Boyle: That 1 do not know and one of my co-workers may know that answer. Barbeiro: That is fine for the moment. The concern about a drive thru are, what kind of a drive thru is it going to be. It is going to be a Moxie Java-people getting out fairly quickly. Early morning or early evening. If it is going to be a bank, your drive thru stacking is going to be at noon and 5 o'clock. If we are going to have a McDonalds or something there, it is going to be all day long. It is very, very difficult to approve or in general to approve a drive thru when there are so many different types of drive thrus that could be put in there. That in combination -two drive thrus back to back, the stacking could be a disaster. Boyle. And I think it is difficult to go off the plan that is on the screen here just because it does not represent the changes that we've made, but given the distances that we have between the windows -the windows we have on the Walgreen's would be located on the north side and a proposed single window on this multi tenant building would be located on the west side of the building. Given that fact and the amount of stacking that could occur, we don't feel that there would be any conflict just due to the distance that vehicles get stacked. Based on that distance, you probably get into 10 cars stacked in there from this drive thru window around the back before we'd ever start coming close to having a conflict with Walgreen's because both drive thrus are not on the back of the buildings. This particular on is actually off to the left side. You are right. There is a lot of different uses. Again, the proposal on that is that it will be some kind of retail multi tenant type building. Whether or not a McDonalds would go in there is probably unlikely. They usually prefer to do a stand alone or a gas station combo rather then being in line with some retail users in a space. There is a possibility we would have something like a Moxie Java. A bank probably would be unlikely but again, at this point of time I guess our proposal is that we'd like to have that option available to them whether or not they exercise it, we don't know if they will do that or not. Barbeiro: You see that using the plan here, if the drive thru say in the middle of that future pad; 3 cars stacking would interrupt people being able to get in and out of the existing parking lot. Parked there cars going around that corner, 3 or 4 cars, the first 2 or 3 parking spaces on either side would not be able to back out. Boyle: Yes, that is correct and again at this point the way the sight is designed just as you stated, it is unlikely that that wil- be used for a drive thru. If it were, your right. If 3 or 4 cars were stacked in there they could very well conflict with that parking and I guess that the good thing about it is more then likely that will be employee parking. It is very unlikely that a customer is going to park behind the building and they walk around to the front. Since it is employee parking the likelihood of there being a conflict is minimized somewhat from what it would be if it were customer parking. Brown: Mr. Boyle. What is Walgreen's typical stacking for their drive up? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 7 Boyle: Normally, and I don't know if there is a norm on the Walgreen'5s that I have seen, I have never seen more then 2 or 3 cars at a time every. That is in my experience. Maybe one of my fellow workers has seen more then that. It is pretty low volume going through there. It is not something like a McDonalds or restaurant where you have having. a noon,or evening rush. The stacking.2 or 3 cars I'd say would be a maximum. Brown: I would be sure that Walgreen's has some number because-this is all that they do is the drive up. If you could .ask your people and come back with that because with your new plan, it seems that you would be in conflict if you have very many cars because they can't get off of Carol Street because it would be the end of the drive up. You have very many cars backing up there, then, it would back up the traffic that is trying to get along Carol Street and they would be backing up into the public right of way. You would have the same conflict if someone was coming off of Fairview and trying to go directly in. I know that your building really -does not line up, but if the cars are. backing up and they start coming around to the east side of the building and backing up, then they back up into that drive up. Boyle: And°again, they have the drive thru window and another drop box on there so. Colby can probably answer the questions better for you here. ' Hawker: For the record, my name is Colby Hawker with Hawkin Smith. Address 8645 W. Franklin Road. To be more~specific about this issue, each and every Walgreen's that they do has a drive thru. You have probably see the Rite Aides in town that have drive thru. They design them for a specific purpose and that is a convenience use. They. realize that when more then 2 oc 3 people are stacked in their lines, people are going to park in their parking lot and walk inside their store and do .their shopping that way. It is a convenience use. We have 2 stores in-Boise that are. open right now and as Cfint said, there is never more then 2 or 3 cars stacked in those bays there. It is simply a convenience use. You may think that there is going to be a problem, but they know-they have done these all over the country. They design them so their windows are on the far end of the building. They have the full length of their building to stack with and they just don't have that problem. The simple fact is, if there is that many people there, the people will go park in the parking lot and walk in-the doors. Brown: But you don't have. the full length of your building because you have the drive up from Carol Street before the full length of the building. It is coming in at your northeast corner. Hawker: There is still a drive isle there. People can turn in from the Carol Street and access around the drive thru with the people stacking there. There is a drive isle between the drive thru window and the .parking to the north. While people are parked and waiting in the drive thru windows, people can still, traverse around the property. Brown: Is there a reason why it's not down the west side? It seems to me that that would not be a conflict. It is more internal. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 6 Barbeiro: Along with that, does not Walgreen's also have a home delivery of some sort? Boyle: That I do not know and one of°my~co=workers may know that answer. Barbeiro: That is fine for the moment. The concern about a drive thru are, what kind of a drive thru is it going to be. It is going to be a Moxie Java-people getting out fairly quickly. Early morning or early evening. If it is going to be a bank, your drive thru stacking is going to be at noon and 5 o'clock. If we are going to have a McDonalds or something there, it is going to be all day long. It is very, very difficult to approve or in general to approve a drive thru when there are so many different types of drive thrus that could be put in there. That in combination -two drive thrus back to back, the stacking could be a disaster. Boyle. And I think it is difficult to go off the plan that is on the screen here just because it does not represent the changes that we've made, but given the distances that we have between the windows -the windows we have on the Walgreen's would be located on the north side and a proposed single window on this multi tenant building would be located on the west side of the building. Given that fact and the amount of stacking that could occur, we don't feel that there would be any conflict just due to the distance that vehicles get stacked. Based on that distance, you probably get into 10 cars stacked in there from this drive thru window around the back before we'd ever start coming close to having a conflict with Walgreen's because both drive thrus are not on the back of the buildings. This particular on is actually off to the left side. You are right. There is a lot of different uses. Again, the proposal on that is that it will be some kind of retail multi tenant type building. Whether or not a McDonalds would go in there is probably unlikely. They usually prefer to do a stand alone or a gas station combo rather then being in line with some retail users in a space. There is a possibility we would have something like a Moxie Java. A bank probably would be unlikely but again, at this point of time I guess our proposal is that we'd like to have that option available to them whether or not they exercise it, we don't know if they will do that or not. Barbeiro: You see that using the plan here, if the drive thru say in the middle of that future pad; 3 cars stacking would interrupt people being able to get in and out of the existing parking lot. Parked there cars going around that corner, 3 or 4 cars, the first 2 or 3 parking spaces on either side would not be able to back out. Boyle: Yes, that is correct and again at this point the way.the sight is designed just as you stated, it is unlikely that that will be used for a drive thru. If it were, your right. If 3 or 4 cars were stacked in there they could very well conflict with that parking and I guess that the good thing about it is more then likely that will be employee parking. It is very unlikely that a customer is going to park behind the building and they walk around to the front. Since it is employee parking the likelihood of there being a conflict is minimized somewhat from what it would be if it were customer parking. Brown: Mr. Boyle. What is Walgreen's typical stacking for their drive up? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 7 Boyle: Normally, and I don't know if there is a norm on the Walgreen's that I have seen, I have never seen more then 2 or 3 cars at a time every. That is in my experience. Maybe one of my fellow workers has seen more then that. It is pretty low volume going through there. It is not something like a McDonalds or restaurant where you have having a noon or evening rush. The stacking 2 or 3 cars I'd say would be a maximum. Brown: I would be sure that Walgreen's has some number because this is all that they do is the drive up. If you could ask your people and come back with that because with your new plan, it seems that you would be in conflict if you have very many cars because they can't get off of Carol Street because it would be the end of the drive up. You have very many cars backing up there, then it would back up the traffic that is trying to get along Carol Street and they would be backing up into the public right of way. You would have the same conflict if someone was coming off of Fairview and trying to go directly in. I know that your building really does not line up, but if the cars are backing up and they start coming around to the east side of the building and backing up, then they back up into that drive up. Boyle: And again, they have the drive thru window and another drop box on there so. Colby can probably answer the questions better for you here. Hawker: For the record, my name is Colby Hawker with Hawkin Smith. Address 8645 W. Franklin Road. To be more specific about this issue, each and every Walgreen's that they do has a drive thru. You have probably see the Rite Aides in town that have drive thru. They design them for a specific purpose and that is a convenience use. They realize that when more then 2 or 3 people are stacked in their lines, people are going to park in their parking lot and walk inside their store and do their shopping that way. It is a convenience use. We have 2 stores in Boise that are open right now and as Clint said, there is never more then 2 or 3 cars stacked in those bays there. It is simply a convenience use. You may think that there is going to be a problem, but they know-they have' done these all over the country. They design them so their windows are on the far end of the building. They have the full length of their building to stack with and they just don't have that problem. The simple fact is, if there is that many people there, the people will go park in the parking lot and walk in the doors. Brown: But you don't have the full length of your building because you have the drive up from Carol Street before the full length of the building. It is coming in at your northeast corner. Hawker: There is still a drive isle there. People can turn in from the Carol Street and access around the drive thru with the people stacking there. There is a drive isle between the drive thru window and the parking to the north. While people are parked and waiting in the drive thru windows, people can still traverse around the property. Brown: Is there a reason why it's not down the west side? It seems to me that that would not be a conflict. It is more internal. Meridian Planning and Zoning. Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 8 Hawker: It is a specific function of the way the building is laid out. When they have the corner of the building where it is right here in the southeast corner of the building, then the drive thru -the function of where the pharmacy is within their store. It is a proto typical store that they develop all over the country where ever the corner of the opening to get in the store is, the drive thru corresponds with where the pharmacy is. Brown: (inaudible) pharmacy is we should put up with a less then preferable place for the drive up to be. Hawker: Their storage room is on the other side of the building. The answer would be simply, there is never more than 3 people in the drive thru lanes. Their typical building has two lanes that you will see on here for stacking, so that drive thru that you see right there can accommodate 6 to 8 people in their drive thru lanes waiting, with out ever stacking past that building there. Brown: What kind of speakers do they have? Hawker: It is a small, 2 inch speaker that is similar to any that you would find in a drive thru banking facility. Brown: And your discussions that Mr. Boyle had about the landscaping, the reason you had a problem with the landscaping, I guess I did not catch that. You thought that 24 feet was adequate. Staff is asking for 35. Is there a reason why 35 won't work for you? Hawker: To answer that question I would say, we feel that we have done more than a adequate landscaping job on this site. If you take a look at the north property boundary line, we have taken an additional 20 feet of landscaping-it certainly is not required as part of code and to buffer ourselves from the neighbors across the street, we've put in block walls. The majority of the property length on the north side of the property as well as along the west, add an additional buffer on the west side of the property where you see the retain building here of 10 feet, so again our answer is, we feel there is more then adequate amount of landscaping if we consider the entire site together. Brown: Looking at the plan, and I do have your plan I guess I don't quite see your block wall is in that landscaped area on your westerly side and are you saying there is also one the north side. Hawker: That is correct. There should be a picture on the site plan there. Again, what you will see-it wi{I be 7 feet 6 inches high. What we have done is take that from the parking level on the Carol side you will find curb, gutter and sidewalk that is going to go all the way along Carol Street. There is the detail that Clint is pointing out on the overhead. There will be a 20 foot landscape set back from there to the block wall. There will be a birming effect, we will cover it up with plants and again, that's what we are asking a variance from what your requiring from the 35 feet, we feel that if we take the overall site into consideration what we have done is more than adequate than the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 9 normal site and because we put the extra landscaping on the back, we are asking for a reduction on the front. Brown: The part that is going into` Locust Grove, how do you plan on finishing off that? If you put in the sidewalk you have a distance of unimproved right of way that is not paved. Do you have any proposed- Hawker: No, I don't have any proposal. The highway district -we have to deed that to the highway district. It is there ground and I can't do anything with their ground. Brown: You definitely can. They do it all over the-both the entire county. They enter into a license agreement. You can landscape it. You can put gravel in there and treat it so that there is not a weed hazard. You can make it look nice. Hawker: We would certainly be willing to do that. Borup: Any other Commissioner's? Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. A question that can either be answered by yourself or Mr. Boyle or staff. Regarding line item 3. Keeping in mind that the City of Meridian does not currently have an ordinance or mechanism in the sub division and developed an ordinance for lot reductions, I am perplexed about what we are going to do with this. Don't we want to wait for Ada County to subdivide this or are we gonna go with what would be a (inaudible). Hawkins: We did talk about this together. This is an existing plat. This is recorded. There are easements recorded. These lot lines are recorded. Legally, the frontage and you can see here on these two north lots here, the frontage legally is only on Carol Street-right now. Is it a problem that the City does not have any mechanism for lot reductions, it would certainly be nice but I think it would be a lot simpler to have that be done to take care of their new proposed lay out, which is 2 lots split more or less with a north south lot line. That way, when the city takes it in, it is done, it is clean and-one thing to point out. ! am not sure what John Priest or the County Engineer feels about conducting this. There may be some issues on the plat and maybe Bruce can speak to you about that. That is what we feel would be cleanest. Boyle: Our only comment on that whether we go through the county or the city and granted, the city does not have a lot reduction per say. My understanding though is that we could do a re-subdivision or a re-plat of that and accommodate the same thing where we go down to the two lots and I guess at this point of time, that is what we are pursuing. We'd rather not have the annexation held up because of that, but if it was possibly a condition of the approval, we'd have to accommodate that lot reduction prior to pulling the building permits on this. I think at this point, what we are looking at pursuing is actually doing a re-plat that we would start through the city process and of course the annexation is going to have to occur before we can have the City Council act on the re-plat on it so l guess our proposal would be that as a condition of approval, you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 10 could (inaudible) that we take care of the lot reduction whether it be through a re-plat through the city or some other mechanism through the county that that be taken care of prior to pulling the building permit. Borup: Brad, any problem with doing the re-plat. Would that answer- Hawkins: Certainly not. I think that it would be more time conscience to do it-I think they call a lot combo in the county. It is a lot more simpler process. You re-subdivision, your talking about a public hearing at P&Z, City Council, running through a preliminary plat, a final plat the whole deal. You could, a re-subdivision would allow for vacating at the same time. Instead of having to vacate and then do the lot combination of the re- subdivision you could just take care of the easements that are all ready there and they would just assign new easements along the lot lines with the utilities and the subdivision. There is pros and cons on both sides. I guess our proposal is we just don't want to be tied down that we have to go through the county first. We would just like to keep our options open so we can explore both going through the county and doing the re-plat through the city. That is all we are asking is that the condition state thaf we take care of that whether it be through a re-plat or lot reduction through the county that it be a condition of approval say prior to pulling a building permit would be our request. Barbeiro: Brad, based on your experience it would probably take another 4 months after annexation to complete that process. Is that right? Hawkins: No. Barbeiro: We'd still have to go through the public hearing process with the city. Going through the city and going through the re-subdivision it would be about 4 months. Is that correct? Hawkins: I think that is fare. Borup: Commissioner Brown, your saying with the county it is a couple week process. Brown: It is a couple weeks process but the problem with the county's process they don't make the easements or any of those things that are dedicated on the plat go away. That process through us has to be submitted to the city and approved- before they can do the process at the county. You have to do the vacation before they can do a lot line adjustment of property line adjustment. Borup: Okay, so it sounds like the same your going to want to work out what is going to work best. I don't know that waiting right before building permits is the right time to - Boyle: Oh no and we will get what ever process we are going to do we are working on it right now, so it is not something that will wait until we have plans submitted we certainly those options running. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 11 Borup: If you are going to do a new subdivision I would need to be done. Any final comments. This is a public hearing and now is the time I would like to invite anyone from the public like to come forward and testify on this application. If there is anyone, step forward. Dealy: Commissioner's, my name is Mark Dealy. 1445 Carol Street. My property lies directly west of their new proposed site on Carol Street. I am opposed to this annexation or to their building permit. A couple of reasons why I am opposed. A couple things I asked for and it is besides the point with them to get my signature on their ballot. They would not give me what I asked for. That is besides the point. Now I am opposed because originally when Hawkins and Smith came in and asked for peoples signatures on their little ballot to get this thing rolling, there was to be no entrance on to Carol. They said no way, no how, no way would we allow an entrance on to Carol Street. Well, now that Ada County has said, well we think there needs to be an entrance on to Carol Street, the whole ballgame has changed. It is all nothing what they say. My feelings are that they need to go back and take another poll since this is their new plan, annexation and everything has changed according to what they originally told us and told the people in the subdivision, I think they need to go back and get a new signature sign up and see where they stand. I believe they have to have 50% to even get in here. Barbeiro: From City Attorney, this is a CC&R problem within the neighborhood and could you address that for us please. Rossman: Thank you. Mr. Chairman what you are referring to is a requirement most likely of you covenants and restrictions for your subdivision. There is no requirement of 50% approval in the neighborhood before they could bring in an application for annexation and zoning or a conditional use permit. If you have issues under your covenants, you need to deal with those privately. It is not an issue for the city. Dearly: Well, there was something they had to have 50% for. I am sure someone here knows something about it. They were required to get signatures to get their approval. Rossman: Check your covenants and if there is such a provision then you can pursue it through you homeowners association. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else. Watson: My name is Robert Watson. I live at 1432 Carol Street. Just across the street from Mr. Dearly. My objection to putting a access from Carol Street into that parking lot into the drug store is primary to begin with just exactly what he stated. They stated one thing and did another. The other factor is that future pad building, when you put in a drive thru window and you give them authority to use it without putting a stipulation to what you are using it for, you can all most guarantee that our street is going to become a thoroughfare. We are going to have no controls, no input on what kind of a thoroughfare it is. I am opposed to it on those bases. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 12 Borup: Any questions for Mr. Watson? Thank you. Hil{: My name is Galen Hill. I live at 1404 Carol. I did submit a petition the other day- last week signed by everybody in the subdivision. I hope you have a copy of it with you. We do oppose the driveway onto Carol Street. The original drawing did not show the entrance onto Carol Street. What people originally agreed to and what is happening now are different like Mr. Dealy said. That is one of our concerns. I was at the ACHD meeting and they did rule that if there is a full access that they recommended it be on Carol Street for safety because it does cross a Fred Meyer. They said an option to that is a right in, right out on Locust Grove which would then-that would give us our block wall back and our-the separation of the subdivision to the development. That is what I took away from that meeting was there did not have to be a driveway on Carol Street. If enough of us oppose it, which the-like I said, just about everybody in the subdivision signed that supporting our covenants -that we don't have an access on Carol Street. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hill. Barbeiro: Mr. Hill again, keeping in mind that we can not act on your CC&R's. Is it true that the CC&R's were amended? Hill: Not that part of the CC&R's. In 1986 there was one lot that fronts-well it doesn't actually, it is behind 2 lots that front Fairview and it does border Carol Street. That lot was rezone commercial. Somehow, someone'who ever did that came through and got enough signatures to rezone that commercial lot. It wasn't, when that was amended, it was stated that under no circumstances was a driveway was there to be any access onto the interior street in to Carol Street. It was never amended to have an access on to Carol Street. We would like that protected. Barbeiro: Those are things that the city attorney tried to explain. Those protections can be enforced through your own private homeowners association apart from the Commissioner's. De Weerd: Mr. Hill, did you attend that ACRD meeting. Did they explain to you why they wanted the access out on to Carol? Hill: Well, they had a couple of traffic engineers there and testified and it does make sense for safety, whatever, that the --come out of Fred Meyer there is a driveway, so and it lines up right across with Carol, so people turning left can go SIDE TWO** Hill: at the same time, so it does make it safer that way, but I was lead to believe that the option was still available to not allow that and just have a right in right out on Locust Grove. They did say that in 2001 or 2002 Locust Grove is going to be widened so that there will be two lanes coming out to Fairview so there could easily be a right in along Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 13 Locust Grove and not effect-not have the drive to Carol. Like I said, that is what I took away from the meeting. I sounded like they were going to recommend that to you guys and then it was still up to you guys if the driveway on Carol did happeh or did not happen. Hatcher: I am looking at the Ada County Highway District's report that we have on the latest package of this information. On page 6, let me back up a second. Page 5, Item G talks about the construction of the driveway on Locust Grove goes through their requirement and distance from Fairview and so on and so forth. Basically, what they are stating a right in right out driveway on Locust Grove would not meet the district's policies. It further goes on with on page 6, states that-items 7 and 8 if a driveway is requested on Carol Street, then it gives the perimeters in which they would want it. Number 8 says if a driveway is construction on Garol Street a traffic choker shall be installed. There is no requirement from ACRD that a driveway be placed on Carol Street. Basically what I am seeing here is based upon the latest site plan that has been submitted by the applicant, the drive isle on to Carol Street is not required by Ada County, it is just a best means solution for the traffic flow and it is a solution in which it would allow them to provide adequate circulation onto the site due to the fact that right in right out driveway will meet Ada County requirements without the Carol Street driveway. If you took the Doris Subdivision's request and removed the Carol Street driveway, this project would not be in compliance with Ada County Highway District and the best they could do would be the right in right out which doesn't give them adequate circulation for the facility in which they are proposing.. Borup: Mr. Hi11, you said you were at the ACHD meeting. Did you have a chance to testify at that meeting? Hill: Yes. Borup: And were all your neighbors there also? Hill: There were a few there. It was not convenient for everybody, but there was a few of us there. Borup: Were you the only one that testified? Hill: No. There were I think 6 of us total from the subdivision. Borup: Did you get any indication from the ACRD Commission as far as a reception to your comments? Hill: They were actually really impressed with how well organized we were and we had been talking to the developer. He has met with us and I think he'd like, as must as we would, not to have the drive way on Carol Street. Ifthat is the only way to gain a full access, that is his preference. We are kind of at odds, because the residents inside the Meridian. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 14 subdivision don't want the access onto Carol. That is his only option if he can't get a full access between Carol and Fairview. We are at a stand still I guess. Borup: I think you did understand that their preference was just as they have drawn here, and they did not originally intend to have access on Carol. It was because of ACHD- Hill: I understand that, but what I took away from ACHD's meeting that that was just their recommendation as far as safety, traffic flow, whatever. If there is still the option of right in right out. Borup: Have you looked at the choker design? Hill: I have seen one. Borup: Did that elevate any of the neighbors concerns at all? Hill: No. Borup: I am trying to get a feel of what the concern really is. Are you concerned that people are going to come onto Carol Street and then take a leisurely drive through you subdivision sightseeing? Hill: Well, I think that will happen. People will turn in there and maybe end up driving through the subdivision looking for that business or another business. Borup: Do you really believe that? Hill: I do. Another concern 1 have is that the other lot that is on the west end of Carol, if this is allowed to-if there is access taken here then down the road that just leaves the door open for that lots that is on the far end of Carol to also have an entrance for a business or - Borup: I thought you said that other lot agreed to some specific conditions. Hill: Yeah I did. Borup: That was the owner of that lot that agreed to that? Hill: If this one is given the green light then what is to stop them from putting a proposal in for having an access. Borup: Because they signed an agreement that they wouldn't. Thank you. Any other questions. Thank you. Anyone else? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 15 . Amy: My name is Dan Amy. I reside at 1935 W. Carol. Like a lot of us have talked all ready, I did not have that big of problem with the previous what was recommended in the wall etc. I too was down at the ACHD and testified. Part of the problem I do see that we talked about, at least my perception is, a lot of us moved into this neighborhood for a reason. It is one way in and one way out, large lots. It is very private neighborhood, secluded to some degree off of main cross streets, and with the thought of the access going in as we have talked tonight, my concern is that people would go through a choker coming out of the parking lot here and possibly turning in. I can see it happening. We had it happen today to some degree and any other issues in that area I think would just add to the confusion. I know there was some talk about the access onto Locust Grove and we talked about what violation that was. I would like to see some compromise that says what can the access be into this area that would not compromise our neighborhood and our activity and our privacy in that area. Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Amy? De Weerd: I would be curious as to what that would be. Did you have something in mind? What a compromise would be. Amy: No. ACHD-we've talked about how we could move the right in right out. They threw in some numbers as far as distance from Fairview and apparently as we've talked tonight that appears to be in violation. I guess I don't other then possibly 2 ends on Fairview. I realize there is some restrictions and limitations of what you can and can't do with a business like this. Certainly there is concerns of mine that we are going to see additional traffic in our neighborhood and the other though of traffic coming down, coming south on Locust Grove and turning a cross traffic on Carol Street to get into either A in the morning, cut across the parking lot to continue onto Fairview without having to deal with the stack up at the light. There was some discussion at ACHD about that so and realistic that would probably happen. How would that effect traffic? The residents coming out of Carol onto Locust Grove in the morning, time will certainly tell on that, but I see it as a potential issue there as welt. Borup: Does that happen now? Amy: Right now there is no entrance there. What you see landscaped there now. Borup: Not at that point but there is on the other lot. Brown: The commercial lot does have an entrance at it's northeast corner. Amy: Oh I see what you are saying. No that is not an issue at this point. Brown: People don't drive around that business. ACHD's policy with regard to the entrance required them to line up with things that are existing. The reason that the Fred Meyer had to put their driveway where it is, is because of Carol Street, so now with this development and the distance that they are from, what you consider a major Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 16 intersection, Locust Grove with the connection to freeway is going to be a major road. The stacking distance there would not allow them to put any right in right out from that corner and so they have to come from Carol Street. They are allowed to be within 120 feet with an offset on most roads, when it becomes a road like Locust Grove, it is 120 feet and that is the minimum and there is not room there on that corner for them to have any entrance off Locust Grove. De Weerd: With a choker and signage saying not a through street or dead end or something like that, clear signage indicating this will not get you anywhere, you really think that people will go into the subdivision? Amy: I do believe it will happen. It happens now to some degree. De Weerd: But people don't know where that road goes right now. Rossman: Sir don't speak from the audience. You need to testify at the microphone where it is recorded. Amy: Without question, a choker would definitely help the situation. I think all of us, as you seen by the petition, would recommend to you that we are not in favor it period. We just don't want it. We don't want it. We enjoy our quality of life. As much as progress and the conditions pain is all, okay. That is what we would like. I stand to you tonight that is my forthcoming to you. Borup: Thank you Mr. Amy. Next. McRoberts: Jennifer McRoberts, 1490 S. Carol. We bought our house in September. It is right across from the proposed wall. Our realtor told us a week before closing about the proposed Walgreen's, but told us the wall was there. Therefore, that is what we based our decision on in purchasing this home. Now having commercial access into the subdivision, doesn't do anything for my quality of my property. Whether you have choker there or not, anybody-if I ever wanted to sell it down the future, commercial access is going denigrate the value of my property so therefore, I am opposed to the access into Carol. De Weerd: I am sorry-do you know where the access is coming. Have you seen the most recent McRoberts: Yes I had a meeting with the developer. I know where it is. It is going to be right across from our neighbors driveway into their garage. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. Brad could you put back up the Carol Subdivision because I'd like Mrs. McRoberts to show me where her lot is. Borup: Mrs. McRoberts. Commissioner Barbeiro had a question on location of your lot. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 17 McRoberts: Right there. Barbeiro: Thank you. Enyth: I just want to make a quick comment. Dan Enyth (inaudible) West Carol. Actually, I am a little disappointed that Colby doesn't have the-let's get the drawing up that shows the entrance, the proposed entrance onto Carol Street. Borup: Do we have a transparency? If so we can get that set up Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, we'd like to make note that the drawing that was presented to us and the drawing that is up on the board are not the same. The one that we have before us does not show a choker. The one up here does have a choker. Borup: You got one of both. I did in my packet. No body else did? Barbeiro: We have an A and B but this one does not show the chiropractors office. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, the clarification on this is B is the old layout that we had spoke about last month. The revised plan which is labels as A which we have been looking at as our new layout. What we see in front of us is the new layout with ACHD's comments providing the choker. Borup: Okay the one we have did not show the choker so you just have to combine the two. Hatcher: It doesn't show the choker and it removes the three stalls on the northeast corner as per staff's recommendations. This is a modified version of this. Amy: Help me out here. As we move forward with these discussions I am curious as to what is going to be the final proposed drawing here. Is this what's the latest that is proposed to you guys and if so, how come we have an entrance on Locust Grove... I don't quite understand that. De Weerd: It is a right in right out. They can only turn right going onto Locust Grove Amy: Okay, so part of my argument earlier was that what I would like to see personally and I think for most of the people here in our subdivision is that no access onto Carol Street, but a right in right out onto Locust Grove. I am having a hard time understanding, especially when I brought this up at ACRD whether or not you could do this. I threw it out for discussion and that is with a right in right out you have an addition lane that those people turning out can access that lane. Are you with me on that or do I need to point it out? Hatcher: In future construction that lane will exist, but currently until Locust Grove is improved you won't have that extra lane. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 18 Amy: Okay, so the thought is, what if you did have a lane. What if you forget about the Carol Street entrance, have a right in right out. Shirley delivery trucks can come into Fairview and get back to their on ramp. There is some concern about trucks going north turning into or across Locust Grove. De Weerd: You will notice that the exist that you are talking about would be right out only. Then, the first entrance into their site is a right out only as well. There is a circulation problem there. There is no way to turn left out of their business until they go down to the second one then on Fairview. I think ACRD was coming up with a circulation or some way to move traffic through that project and without the access out onto Carol, they can not do that. No one will be able to access Locust Grove from those first two driveways. Amy: There is a six inch raised median required from the intersection going all the way to 50 north of the driveway and a 6 inch raised median at Fairview going from the intersection to that first driveway. That is probably not been made clear. De Weerd: It would be prohibitive to go straight, turn left at all, in either of those.two drives. I think that is why they felt necessary to open it up to Carol and try to make it as least desirable to enter into you subdivision. Barbeiro: If I may, presume that somebody from your own subdivision wanted to go into Walgreen's and that there was no access onto Carol Street. Of course they would come down Carol, turn here and turn in here. They could only make a right hand turn and go out. You could not make a left hand-turn and go back into your subdivision, which would require you t come down here and go all the way over into the parking lot for Idaho Athletic Club and wait for all that traffic, then you would have to turn left here, go to the stop light turn back left and go into your subdivision. That is the same problem that anybody up here above Locust Grove would have, while it is my understand that ACHD would allow that, the business owner obviously would not be in their best interest to have a requirement that people come al( the way over here to Idaho Athletic Cfub and turn out there. That is the best I can do as an explanation as to why the developer may have done that and of course I will leave it to Hawkin Smith to elaborate if they would. Borup: Mr. Boyle, do you have any closing comments? I think the Commissioner's may have some questions. Boyle: With regards to the access to Carol Street, again our original position was that we weren't going to take access to Carol and that was what we presented to ACHD. We would rather of had a full access out onto Locust Grove and going through their process and their hearings that was not allowed. That is why we are in front of you now with the access out on Carol and we are trying to make every provision that we can to de-emphasize traffic going into the residential subdivision by the choker by placing a subdivision sign, a rock or a sign whatever, we work out with the subdivision owners, that states your entering a residential subdivision. Dead end street, not a through traffic Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 19 sign, whatever type of sign is appropriate there and again, we've tried to de-emphasize as much as possible. ACRD in their reasoning I believe that one of the planning Commissioner's hit on it and that was, any traffic that wants to travel north after visiting the site, if we don't have the access out onto Carol Street, that complicates the Fairview and Locust Grove intersection, because just as was described, the traffic would have to go out onto Fairview and Locust Grove, then back through that intersection. The intersection is a busy intersection. It has a high volume of accidents right now and that is just going to complicate things as time progresses. I think another issue that came up in ACHD meeting was just the fact that not only does this allow Doris Subdivision into our site, it also gives them an alternative route rather then having to exit their subdivision on Locust Grove, they could actually go through our site and get out onto Fairview Avenue now. Whether or not that is a benefit to them, at this point of time I don't know. Depending how traffic works out there, again that options would be available to them, but we have tried to work with the neighbors and tried to get through the ACHD requirements and come up with an acceptable plan. We feel that this is the best alternative for us, for the neighborhood and we believe that the project will be a benefit to the city. It will help to provide some extra landscaping on the corner and hopefully clean up some of the uses that are there now and provide something that will be a win' win and a benefit to the city long term. That is our proposal. Borup: Mr. Boyle, could you fill me in a little bit on dimensions here-some distances. What is the length depth of your property from Fairview to Carol. Boyle: Fairview to Carol, I have to look it up but it's a- Borup: None of our plats have any dimensions on it. Boyle: It is about 360 feet. Some where between 360 - 370 Borup: And ACRD was wanting 440 for a full access. Did they even need the 440 with Carol Street? But that is an existing street, so- Boyle: That's correct, an existing street and again the required Fred Meyer line up with Carol street. Borup: And, what you've got drawn up there, is that Boyle: 220. From Fairview to the access is 220. That is correct. From the access to Carol Street is an additional 120. Borup: Commissioner's, questions for Mr. Boyle. Hatcher: I don't know if you've got this information or not but when Walgreen's was looking at building a facility in Meridian and looking at the demographics of possible sites and locations, how many other possible sites beside this one was researched. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commis"sion Meeting December 14, 1999 20 Boyle: That I would have to defer to Colby since he is the one working~on purchasing the land, but I can tell you that typically a Walgreen's store, they are looking at a mile to two miles out as being their dry area for customers. You'll notice that currently we've just got a couple open in the Boise Valley, but we have quite a few that are going through processes similar to these around the area. Typically they are a mile to two mile draws is what they are looking at and as far as how man more will come into Meridian, I don't know that. Hatcher: The question wasn't how many are coming into Meridian, the question was how many sites were reviewed for possible construction of this facility. Boyle: Of this particular project. Hatcher: One brand new Walgreen's coming into Meridian, how many sites did you guys study besides this one. Boyle: I will have to defer that to Colby. Hawker: We actually looked at two pieces of property to answer your question. The first piece of property-well first or second. The first property was not available and we could not put together. This is the second alternative. Hatcher: So out of your research and your study of demographics-only 2 sites were acceptable to Walgreen's criteria. Hawker: That is correct. Hatcher: And the first one was not available for sale. Hawker: That is correct. Borup: Any other questions. Commissioner's would your pleasure be to close the hearing or would you like to have some discussion first. I saw one nod. If no one makes a motion I guess the meeting is still open. It probably is appropriate for discussion. Would someone like to state what they feel what the issues are. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, so much of what I have heard in discussions from neighbors can be taken care of privately through their own homeowners association. I believe the vast majority of the discussion here with the neighbors were items we really are not in a position to act on. Borup: You talking about access to Carol Street? Barbeiro: Not specific access to Carol Street, but with regards to the petition and the CC8~R's of their own neighborhood with regards to the two lots that apparently were Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 21 changed in a majority vote that sometime in the past. I am still thinking of the neighbors could be working on this privately outside of our commission. Borup: That is definitely true as far as the covenants. I think that has all ready been stated, but I think access on Carol Street-that is before us. That is something that does pertain to this commission. We need to take into consideration of course the neighborhood and the people that it effects, but the other consideration is the city as a whole and those are the things we need to weigh. Commissioner Brown you look like you are ready to make a comment. Brown: Mr. Chairman, Brad, what is the required access for this site from the planning stand point. Is there a requirement for the amount of access that they have. If they have this right in and they have an access off of Fairview, is it strictly their desire to have a full access. Hawkins: The City does not have a required number of accesses per lot or parcel. Obviously, they have the one per frontage and technically what they are proposing is two lots, but to answer you question those access points onto public right of ways aren't addressed in the ordinance, they have always been dealt with through ACRD. Borup: Any other questions or comments? I think a right in right out on Locust Grove without an access to Carol would adequately serve things today. Often time planners are not looking to the future. My concern is and as Commissioner Brown mentioned, there is a proposed Locust Grove is going to be a busier street. It is going to go through to Franklin and over the freeway eventually-the time frame we don't know. What are the traffic going to be like at that point and what is going to be the best for the residents of this subdivision at that .point. De Weerd: The people on Carol Street will have difficulty getting in and out of there as traffic increases. The second building, I would not be in favor of approving a second building with a drive thru with out knowing what it is, so they would have to come back with a modification and a CUP or however, Moxie Java had done it at one point. I would not be in favor of a second building having a drive through. Borup: Without not know what business is going in there etc. De Weerd: Maybe I am looking-the applicant mentioned that it would be retail. Maybe even putting-I think staff had mentioned at one time limiting of what could go in there might not be a bad idea either. Borup: You mean with our without a drive thru. De Weerd: Without a drive thru. Borup: You say limited, what can go there as proposed right now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 22 De Weerd: Yeah. They are atalking about retail or food. Didn't you have recommendations Brad that this not be allowed. Certain uses not allowed in the second building. Original staff report.. E Hawkins:- Right. Original staff report did not address the second building per say. It was saying that if the City choices to annex this piece of ground,~they are asking for C- G, commercial general, which is an extremely broad category. We listed I think five different categories that are now permitted in the C-G that we would recommend not be allowed.:Things like automobile repair shops. Borup: Auto repair, service stations, storage facilities, truck stops, heavy equipment sales and repair were the four items they mentioned. Hawkins: To be part of the annexation ordinance that would forever restrict those uses on this ground. It is attached to the annexation, not attached to the CUP-that second building. Brown: Brad, is a restaurant allowed in that zone? . „ Hawkins: A restaurant, yes. Borup: Your amended staff comments did not delete any of the previous did it? There were a few: that -right-that is what I assumed. Commissioner's thinking there is some additional you'd like. to add beyond those, Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman have we discussed anything about the sign. Borup: Not yet. I was hoping that would come up. Barbeiro: The signs would be a part of.number 4, the excuse me number 3. The annexation and zoning. Borup: Do you want to discuss. it now or wait for that time. Barbeiro: If we may, I would prefer to wait for that time Brown: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing on the annexation of the Walgreen's site. Barbeiro: Second the motion. Borup: Okay, but Mr. Amy did have one comment and if it is pertinent to the annexation I would like to invite him up. If it's pertaining to the CUP that.would be the best time to do that. Okay,, let's wait then. Thank you. .Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 23 Dealy: Mark Dealy again. You were talking on a multi use retail building. My only concern would be -she was suggesting certain things that would be allowed. It would not be allowed in the multi use building there at that location. My question would be will they allow 2 story, 3 story buildings there looking in the back of the properties that are there or are they going to keep to a single story. There is other things that I would like to know if your going to--- Borup: Okay we can find that out when we talk about the conditional use permit. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Public hearing has been closed. Commissioner's it has been stated we have discussed several items that did not have pertinence to the item number 3. Do we have any other discussion on this? It looks like what has been stated is maybe conditions on usage. Staff has mentioned if that's done part of annexation, then it will not have to be addressed as a separate conditional use permit. Original staff report had mentioned auto service station, storage facility, truck stop, heavy equipment sales. Is there something that any commissioner wants to add to that. I guess we are making an assumption that that's going to be included in the motion. Is that correct? De Weerd: Well, Commissioner Brown had the question restaurants permitted and the zone that they are requesting. I don't see that it is permitted-is it? Hawkins: Yes in C-G restaurants are permitted. Brown: With fast food to be included in that. Hawkins: Well, if there was a drive thru it would have to have a conditional use permit, but yeah we would classify that as a restaurant. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. The number of drive thrus permitted on this parcel that would be handled under the conditional use permit. Borup: Well the drive thru would... yes. De Weerd: -Okay. Borup: Anything else. Any other concerns. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman can I make a motion without Commissioner here? Hatcher: Let's wait till he gets back. Commissioner Hatcher had to leave for just a--- Has anyone had a chance to review-any other permitted uses in the C-G zone that anyone has concerns on. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 24 Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would have a problem with a fast food use. Not necessarily a restaurant but a fast food use. Borup: Can that be handled through the drive thru condition. Would a fast food come in with out a drive thru? Yes it could. De Weerd: Commissioner Brown is your reason because of the drive thru Brown: It would be mostly because of the drive thru and the proximity to the corner. It creates a traffic problem. You look at other fast food restaurants that are near corners and intersections, the traffic is constant. It would definitely have a large impact on what Walgreen's is trying to do and they probably would discourage something like that, but they do have a big impact on the parking and the traffic flow within the site. The highway district is concerned about that and I am sure that they would look at that too, but i guess that is my concern is the proximity of a fast food type of a restaurant, the smells that are generated and then the proximity to the existing residents. That would be another reason why I would think about a restaurant being there. I have mixed feelings about that. Barbeiro: Would you quality a pizza parlor as a fast food? What would that be? Borup: So that is something you would like to add to staff comments? Brown: !definitely would like that added, if you are going to make a motion a fast food restaurant not be allowed. De Weerd: Perhaps a second option would be if it is a possibility that the second once the use is know that they have to come back for a public hearing, even though it would be permitted in the zone that it would be the desire to have this kind of a process so that the public has an opportunity to see what is being proposed there and we will have the ability to comment. Borup: Essentially, wouldn't that be annexing that parcel under a conditional use permit. Would not that be the proper--or handled in a development agreement. De Weerd: So then, require a development agreement for the zoning and annexation that the second come back. Brown: That would also take care of the concerns they talked about. The elevation of the building. Hatcher: I would remind all of you that in the original packets the building design has been submitted and if we were to approve this before us, we would be approving a one story retail building with the capacity of holding 4 suites, nothing more, nothing less. I think the discussion as to whether this is a bank, a two story, a restaurant is not Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 25 pertinent because what has been proposed and what has been approved is what is before us. Borup: That seems to make sense. Hawkins: I would say it is a multi tenant shell which those shells-tenant improvements. You could allow anything that is permitted in the C-G technically. Borup: But it is not going to go from a single story to a two story. Hatcher: It could be a Papa Murphy's or Subway going into one of those suites, but your not going to see a Pizza Hut or McDonalds go into this shell. Hawkins: You could have a small accounting office in one and a clinic in another. END SIDE 2 Borup: I appreciate you bringing that out Mr. Hatcher because I think that is very pertinent. Where does that leave us? De Weerd: I have nothing else. No, I think you need to practice. I will be stepping off of here. Okay, I'll do it. Borup: At this point we are talking about the motion on the annexation zoning with the exceptions of staff. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we recommend approval of annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to CG, limiting the drive thrus to one and with the proposed drawing and to include all staff comments. Brown: I'll second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: l needed to find out first if (needed to ask for a development agreement. The attorney said that is taken care of. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S) BY HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC.-NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE: Borup: Brad, is there anything additional that you would like to add? A ~G~CC ~OGIl2~Lj~l~7CCl2000GGl c~CJC:S~/^CCt Sherry R. Huber, President ~(i~'.:,~~,/ ~,~ 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey-Derr, Vice President ~ Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Nleyer Routson, Secretary ~E~ ~ ~ ,~~~~ Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-5391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner ~~'~y ~~ A ":-,~~ E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us ~. ..``~~~5 DATE: December 9, 1999 ~,W~"~ TO: Patrick Dobie, PE Dobie Engineering, Inc. b~~,~^.~.,~~ 777 Hearthstone Drive Boise, ID 83702- ~ECE1~Tl FROM: Steve Arnold, Principal Development Analyst ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ea ACDH Development Services Division City a`_3iericiian Citti C'ierk L~,''''ii: Dear Patrick Dobie: Your request for reconsideration regarding N1CUP99-34/MAZ99-019 was considered 6y Ada County Highway Commissioners on December 8, 1999. At the meeting the commissioners elected to deny your .request for reconsideration. A copy of the report describing the requirements of ACRD is attached. if you have questions or concerns, please feet free to contact me at 208-387-6178. Sincerely, d. Steve Arnold Principal Development Analyst cc: Project File Plan&Dev Svsc-Chron/File City of Meridian a. caC.NTY HIG~tiv ~Y DISTRICT j 1~ 1 ~,, Ptanninu and Development Div~slon M~I~ C -Development Application Repot ~, ~~ --~ r viCUP99-034r'titAZ99-Ot9 n/w/c Fairview AvenueiLoc~ist Grove Raad `~a~QCeens The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct a 1=I,3Q{)-square toot ~T~~ ~b"algreens, and a 7,Ot)0-square foot retail pad site. The ~-acre site is located at the north4vest ~~ -....,,corner of Locust Grove Road and~Fai~~ie~v Avenue. This d~velopcnent Is estlrnated to_venerate 1, I ~U~additional (Za0 existin~)•vehicfe trips per day basedon file Institute of Transportation "~' Engineers Trip Generation manual. ~~ ~. t`"~ ~ ~ This item vas deferred from the October 27, 1999, Commission neetln~ to v --., hb e : ~ ~, ,~ .. ~~,ve the de~"eioper the opportunity to meet with the nelg orhood and disc~~ s a~dr zw~a'y located+on Carol~Street. ~` The dzy"zloper has met with the neighborhood and is no~~propos~ng too access Cato( Street as previoiisly.recommended by District staff. The develope%•ahas indlc~ate~~that the=one,Prcperty owner does not support the proposed street connection. Tlie deve(operls nroposlria to construct a traffic chocker on Carol Street to discourage commercial'traffic~ fromnterino the "~ •:' ~~ '~X a Sili}~1VISion. Staff does not believe that traffic destined forthe 6Va~greens will-travel 6kyond the pro ~'~ driveway on Carol Street because the roadway is essentially one`E~a cui de-sac ~ ~~i d t' The folIocvlnQ report addresses the applicant's revised proposal. ~ ~~ ',~,~ --.,~,y ~'~ t ~ ~ `~-~--,.. Roads impacted by this development: Fa rview Avenue' Locust~Crrove Road ~. .. Carol Streeti'~ ~- s -I ~.. F t ~ ~ t ` t ~.. ~ ACRD Commission Date December 1, 9~, ~: ~' ~ ,l .•,~1 -~A. - ... -- ',:-""`fir 4 _-- _„ '_ WIIt~OW_BR00_.._ '-'-O~KCR .ST ,~ ~' ~~ .- ~: --. `,. ~ LOO P _ ____-- ~ __.,_~ r ~ v '",-Ci~ROL' ~ ~,," _,_ pAiRV1EW w ~ i~ t _~- ~~~""~--- ,__WILSON _.__.~. > _ ^ w„ O v . - _.. ,,. ~ _. N ~ __. _ H ` _.._. ._... ~ CV .... _. .,.,. ~ ~ ~ 3 ' V ! . c ' ~_ __ __ w ~ __ grarE p _ - --- _- - m . _ . _ ~ ~! ., o~ F ^ 1 _ .... Yg z _ ___ ..._.1D~?HQ_- _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I - -- ~_~ /~ ice` W \~ ~N~ ~ r ~ ~ I / ~ ~ ' ~ r o ~ .. ~ ~ ./ ~ ~ i -_ ~ ~ i I I ~ - ~~ C~ c ~ ~ ~ !o ~I N O O I to p O O "• D Z7 m D ~: ~ z ~ I ~ ;' j "7 G ~ ..,\ _ ,~~o ~~~ ~'. ~\ ~ ~ ~. ` ~` ~ N . ~.\ `\\ ~,` \ ~. ~.I ~`\`~\ I G W (J~ I ~i Z i i ~i r ~ ii i i! I~ (~ N G -p ~ a~ m C7 G ~ ~ (,~ N_ O Z ~; h ~ ~ i I~ I ~ ti '~ I N I ~ I ;~ i~ ~~ ~~ I ~\ /L `, ^~ `! Z G7 ~rn ~ Z ~ ~ I i 1 ~; ~~e ~n~ ~ °~ ~' 1 1r I i i I I I~ ~ i~ I ~y o _ i I t 7 = ~ b b> O r~ > n n n n n ^ rZ-~ ~ A n_ x ~, D A p ~ Z X X K x X t: O O D O y 0~ y N ~ ~ _~ C Z (~ r !1 N E b C7 C a n " Z ~ ~ f ~ N > R > > Ox > ~ ~ r r ~ n o . I S> n~ ~ n~ n r~1 N m r ^' > C III n r+~ A A ~ Ct Z X _n I ~ I ~ I N D 9 A r Z y~ n r, O n m "'~ Z b n " ~~ - I I ~ ' 1 I( I I I r S n ~~ ~ n~ ~ ~ ''' ~ Z Z '~ i v I n a O - R, ~ to r r ~o ~ >" Z z ~ r b n n f -- y r n r ~. I 'I~ IlII l .~ ~ m Z ~i i I .. Q; a't 360-~ ~ ..._4____5_~ _ ~ > ~ ~I -~ ~_ 8 S z _ n ~" I I ( " ( n I °' ~I ~ I I I I 1~ I N '. r' o~ n n s( ~ I I J I > r NI ~ n ~ I I I 9 l ©X O Z 70.1' f~ ~i..~- Z~.Q ., 111 ilk I I Ir~ ~ Sn >~ C ~ ~ O I I 1 ~ I ~ ~ O n ~ >~ ~ ~ Z ~ 1 I ~;_. I ~ ~ _~ ~ t6.0 2QC Z C I o0 ?.0' I 25.0' Ia =~ ~ a35(C ., 25.0' - 7~ ~. ~ ~ " ~ i"y ` ~ -D n N J p 4 ~ n ~ a '/„ ~ D ., ~ ~ ~ .. l v la ~ n! 1 ~ .. " ., " v, ~. - n I ,I ~ I ~_ f TRASH I Ica a ~l COAAPACTOR C.r I ~r 1 1 I 1 ~ q I -- ---- _ C7+ ~f ~~--+- OH f0 ~ ~ -i " 70.2' 2°•0~ " _. 25.0' ~_.v f - -~ 25.0' f 6.0' _ 20. ~0.0 I e.o' I `' ;~. ( ~.I _, I I' - 1• i •~ ~ I 1 i m x 5. ~ r i t Z Is I s m >N v) ~ ~ O >~ r ~I o ~ J nwH~ t~ o ~ ~, P 1i fl I ~ ( ~ ~ ~`~ 1 ~ it ~ ~ I I I I 0O mN D? ~ I I I.~ N -- +~ I I ~ r a Q r~.i ~N O C ', Or A2 J bI t ! ~ ~= L I i{~ I I ~ I ~ i to I { I I I~ ., 0. oo a~ ~ . v_ I I ,_ f I I ~ _;, I ~ (? Q N I ~ I ~ ~ ~1 I ~iJ II:D41 _ 361.9 r'' ti J ~ ~~ I i 11 ~ ' o ., - ~ I i t p a O v+ ~ ~1__ ___`_- - ~-_ _ - ~--~ E. LOCUST GROVE ~ ` z -.~ ~~ j ',~ ( f I l i 1" I i t I" ~" l 1 t _6~ I / v EXISTING IANOSCAPE BERM O /~ " EXISTING I.ANOSCAPE 9ERM 11 i/ ~O ^ `# j -~ i i ~i \\\\ ~ i i \~ < .:~ -__ m . - ~--~ ~ i ~' Z ,_C I . ~ F I _ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ i I 1 i I ~ i ~ ~ •,~. I ~ ~ ~o ~ l~ ~ I ~ ~ ~< C m "" ~~ ~ i ~ f ~ ~ I ~J ~ • ~ f 1~ ! I ~~- i .~ r~ ~_. ,; ,; /~ F, ~ ~ ~, rg~ j ~( ~ ~ , ~, ~ V , t~ ~`^y 1~ V `` 1 ,~~ ~ O ~ ©~' C. d ~ ~ Q v T` d ~~ N H.LIb\S SNI?I,~~'r G b0A99L£80Z ~tid LT ~ LT 66/50/TT 7.00~J L. At the December 1, 1999, Commission meeting the Commission heard neighborhood opposition concerning a drivetivay from this site on Carol Street. The Commission appreciates and understands the concerns of the residence with regard to adding the driveway connection to Carol Street, but because of the safety concerns in the vicinity. there is no other way for this site to have sate left turns to and from Locust Grove Road. The Commission thus found that the site should take access to Carol Street if left turn movement was required onto/from Locust Grove Road to/from the site. v(. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Site Specific Requirements: 1. Dedicate =13-feet ofright-of-~vay from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits}, whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking round, in accordance with Section 1 ~ of ACRD Ordinance +138. 2. Constntet a ~-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Fairview Avenue from the west property line to the proposed driveway, approximately 130-feet east of the west property line. Coordinate the location of the sidewalk with District staff. ;. Provide an 58,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of--Way Tnlst Fund for the cost of constructing a ~-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel. 4. Constrict curb, utter, and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel. Improvements shall be constricted to one half of a 37-foot street section. Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street with District staff. 5. Construct a 2=l to 30-foot wide driveway on Fairview Avenue located approximately 220-feet west of Locust Grove Road. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Fairview Avenue and install pavement tapers with 1 ~-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Construct asix-inch raised median m the center of Fairview Avenue, from a point 10-feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point ~0-feet west of the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. ~[CUP99;a.C~t~~t [-1~~e ~' Construct a ?=1 to°30-foot wide driveway on Locust Grove Road, located approximately ??0- feet north of Fairview Avenue. Pave the driveway its full width and at least ~0-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Locust Grove Road and install pavement tapers with 1 ~-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road, from a point 10=feet north of the stop bar at the intersection to a point ~0-feet north of the northern edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. If a driveway is requested on Carol Street, located the driveway a minimum of ~0-feet west of Locust Grove Road. Construct the driveway as a ?~ to 30-foot wide curb cut driveway. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Caro[ Street. Coordinate the location of the driveway with District staff. If a driveway is constricted on Carol Street, constrict a traffic choker west of the driveway. The back of curb to edge of pavement width of the traffic chocker shall be 2=~-feet wide. Coordinate the design of the traffic choker with District staff. 9. Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel"to the west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance `of a building permit (or other required permits). 10. Other than the access points specifcally approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue is prohibited. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. The r~ t s all S 1fis.: l~v id. n if~~a r (~~lirement to be reconSla_erP,~and include a written explanation of why such a rea~zement wo~,dd result in a substantial hard~hi.l2or ineq~itY~ The written r~gl.t_e,~S..~ha11 he si'ihmitxPd to the District no later than 9.00 a m. on the~da;i scheduled for AC'HD~'~mmission action.Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the ' .~ Commission on the next available meeting agenda.` , a. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 am. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modil=lcation, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. After ACHD Commisston action, any request for reconsideration ofthe Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of S 110.00. Th r'c}~~est For re~onsid cation shall v' w " ~ z that was not avail~l o t ('ommission at the time of its original decision The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the ~1CUP99;4.C~(~( • Pa~,e G Commission. If the Commission agrees to recoana~dvhich the~roecolnsidp~at on wilillbb herd. ed of the date and time of the Commission meets Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building constriction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. ~. All design and constriction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy iV[anual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Constn~ction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. ermit ~. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issrtance of building p (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design chances. Constriction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all e:cisting utilities within the right-of--way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLhIE (1-800-342-1580 at least Cwo full a around within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact business days prior to breaking ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACRD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant s authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the la~v in effect at the time the change in use is sought. ~tcUP~~~4.c~ttit Pa~,e 7 Conclusion of Larv: 1. ACRD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed useidevelopment will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planninv and Development Division at 387-6170. Sy,hmif d bv: ~t~v~ Arnold December L ~ ~)n9 ~~(CUP99;4.C~l~l Pave 8 • " Mavor HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ROBERT D. CORRIE Ci C i A Good Place to Live ~~~ ~~ yJ CITY OF MERIDIAN ty ounc l N(embers 1 - CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 ~ ~ RON ANDERSON ~ ('_OS) 858-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 KEITH BIRD City Clerk Fax (205) 888-4218 MEMORANDUM: December 13, 1999 ~E~~~~ To: Planning & Zoning Commission DEC 7 4 1999 _ ^ ` From: ~-~+ Brad Hawkins-Clark, Assistant Planner City of lieridian City Clerk Office Re: REVISIONS TO 1Q/7/99 STAFF REPORT - WALGREEN'S APPLICATION by HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC. -File # CUP-99-034 - Annexation & Zoning of 4.34 Acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Lots 1, 2, 7, and 8 of Doris Sub.) - Conditional Use Permit for 15,120 s.f. Walgreen's Pharmacy with aDrive-Thru Window This memo is an update on the status of the subject application for the 12/14 P&Z Commission hearing. Since the November 9~' P&Z Commission hearing, Staff have met with the Hawkins Smith representatives and several modifications to the 10/7/99 staff comments have been discussed. In addition, the ACRD Commission heard the Walgreen's application at their 12/1 meeting and the final staff report/decision is attached. The following headers and paragraph numbers correlate to the October 7`~ staff report. ANNEXATION & ZONING SITE SPECIFIC 3. Hawkins Smith will vacate the 6-foot utility easements that are currently recorded with this plat prior to finalizing the annexation. They intend to submit a vacation application through the City. In terms of reducing the number of lots from four to two, Staff recommends this be conducted through Ada County prior to the City Council approving the annexation. The City of Meridian does not currently have an ordinance or mechanism in the Subdivision & Development Ordinance to perform lot reductions. The other option, as stated in the 10/7/99 staffreport, is to re-subdivide the Doris Subdivision plat. CONDITIONAL USE SITE SPECIFIC 4. The final ACHD decision (Site Specific item #8) calls for a traffic choker west of the driveway accessing Carol Street. (Note the site plan in the P&Z packets showing a conceptual design of the choker.) The applicant is also proposing to provide a new neighborhood sign within the choker interior that will signify to the traveling public that they are entering a residential subdivision, thus discouraging commercial and non-subdivision traffic. Given the direct alignment of Carol Street with the Fred Meyer complex entrance on the east side of Locust Grove, the addition of the choker in Carol, the safety of left turns onto Locust Grove from Walgreens Revised Comments.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 13, 1999 Page 2 Carol, and the new right turn lane on Carol allowing for increased access to Locust and Fairview, Staffcan `support a direct access onto Carol from the site. s' One concern for Staff is the safety of Doris Subdivision residents who try to make left-hand turns out of this north driveway onto Carol Street. The driveway is designed to allowright- out only turns. Also, the subdivision sign may obstruct the clear vision triangle. 7. Staff are still concerned about the lack of sidewalks and a right turn lane along the Locust Grove frontage. This is a very high traffic volume intersection and will likely see increased pedestrian traffic between the Fred Meyer complex and this site. ACRD is only requiring dedication of right=of--way and that deposit funds to their Trust Fund for the sidewalk be provided. It could be two to three years after construction of Walgreen's is completed before a right turn lane on Locust is constructed and a sidewalk is built. The applicant made verbal commitments to Staffthat they intend to maintain the unfinished right-of--way (approximately 20 feet) and will not allow it to beweed-infested. However, Staff feel this deserves more discussion and at a minimum, we recommend a written commitment be obtained from ACRD to the Citv and Applicant that the Locust Grove improvement will be started no later than 1 year from occuvancy_. 8. The landscape strip adjacent to Fairview is now 24 feet wide instead of the origina114 feet. The Applicant has also modified the landscape strip on the west side of the Fairview driveway to also be 24 feet wide. Staff recommends that the 35-foot-wide landscape setback be provided to the extent that parking requirements will still be met. 9. The proposed detached sidewalk design along Locust Grove shows a 5-foot planter strip between the sidewalk and road section. As long as this planter remains in the ACHD design plans, Staff support the 15-foot landscape strip shown since the total buffer width will be 20 feet. 11. The Applicant has increased the buffering along the northwest boundary from two feet to ten feet of landscaping. With the inclusion of the block wall along this boundary, Staff feels the combination of wall and ten-foot landscape strip meets the intention of Ordinance No. 9- 645.G.1 which requires buffering between incompatible features. 12. The Applicant has .now omitted the existing chiropractic building from the site plan; consequently, this requirement from the 11/6/99 report can be deleted. 15. Signage proposed by the applicant was not included in the original transmittals. Staff recommends that the pylon signs proposed not be approved and that specific dimensions for monument signage be included in the conditional use permit and as part of the development agreement. Signage needs to be approved as part of this application. AZ-99-019/CUP-99-034 Walgreens Revised Comments.doc ,, .. t, _ ~~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report ~,~ MCUP99-034/MAZ99-019 n/w/c Fairview Avenue/Locust Grove Road Walgreens CCU ~~ The applicant.is requesting conditional use approval to construct a Walgreens with adrive-thru window., The 3-acre site is located is located at the northwest corner of Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue. This development is estimated to generate 1,100 additional (250 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. 1 Roads impacted by this development: Fairview Avenue ~~ Locust Grove Road ~-~--~ CCj :--~ ACHD Commission Date -October 13, 1999 - 7:00 p.m. 1 ~-E--~ CCU :---~1 __ -__ 1` ~~ _ ~ ,~ .~ , -~ z 3 a a :s a ~~ i ~i ,.. -...a~ , _ a T ~~ Ali I ~ _ i 1~ e Z ~ S .( r r ~ t~ ~ I ~ (((~''' # ~t ` o .5 ' ~'~ ~ iii' t `L ~ f S, - ~ S i j N_ ..t ;.. ~ ; I i° F' M Y ~~~ j ~' ~~_ F k ii-# ~ i..#. ~ li .1s _ f - ¢ I ~~ ~~ ,~ r ~ w ~ I 3 ~ .. ! ~ ~ ~ ~ S. ~..7 d. t".. tx' .. k ~ _ 1 +~~~° ~~ __ , ~. 6 ~ - I ~1 - .. i.. P .. . •. - .- n } k ~ ~1 ~ _. }, F r `~ ~ Y _ ~ ~^ j 5 %a 4 .. _ _ I . , ... ~~ ~ ~~~ a ~ i ~, 9 ; t i ' i ~, ; . `~~ i ~ \Y ~- _- ~ .-. j I ~~ ~^-'. ------- b. Facts and- Findings: C~ A. C~ ~--~ ~. C~ CCj ~~ ~~ CCU :---~ ~~ . C~ T~ 1 B ~~~--~ ~ C General Information Owner -Hawkins Smith Management, Inc Applicant -Same C-2, R-8 -'Existing zoning C-G -Requested zoning 4 -Acres - Square :feet of proposed building n/a -Square feet of existing buiYding - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) - Impact Fee Benefit Zone - Impact Fee Assessment District Fairview Avenue Principal arterial Traffic count of 23,782 on 10-21-97 400-feet of frontage 5~'~~~r ~'~`~ 104-feet existing right-of--way (~-feet from~e) 120=feet required right-ofway (60-feet from centerline) Fairview Avenue is improved with 5-lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Locust Grove Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 6,737 on 9-29-98 380-feet of frontage 70-feet existing right-of--way (-~-feet from centerline) 96'-feet required right-of-way (48-feet from centerline) 1 _ ~~ Locust Grove Road is improved with 3 to 4-lanes with no curb, gutter or side alk abutting tl site. The segment of Locust Grove Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustic ~ Road is lister in the Five Year Work Program for reconstruction"in FY 2001. Locust Grovf. Road north of the intersection will be constructed with 3-lanes tapering to 5-lanes at the I~~~cust Grove Road/Fairview Avenue intersection. t. ~;`~ ~~ ,n.~:~ Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old ar'e not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services a'~=387-6280 (v~ith file numbers) for details: ~Y. District policy requires the applicant to provide;ari $8,000.00 deposi~tto,the Public Rights-of- Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a S~ foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel. MCUP9934.CNIM - - Page 2 .~ ~ ~ ;= D. District policy requires the-applicant to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel. Improvements should be constructed to one half of a 37-foot street section. ~~ Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street with District staff. CCj ~--i E. District policy requires the applicant to provide an 58,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of- ~~ Way Tnist Fund for the cost of constructing a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on•Fairview Avenue abutting the parcel. ~ F. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway on Fairview Avenue located approximately 220-feet west of Locust Grove Road. There is an existing driveway to the west of the site that will be approximately 150-feet from the site's proposed driveway. There is an existing ~~ driveway on the south side of the road that is located approximately 260-feet west of Locust ~~-~ Grove Road. District policy requires that driveways on Fairview Avenue be located a C~ minimum of 220-feet from Locust Grove Road for aright-in/right-out driveway, 440-feet for a ~~ hill access driveway, and 1.50-feet from all existing driveways. The site's proposed driveway . will meet District policy. for aright-in/right-out driveway but not for a full access driveway. The applicant should be required to constrict asix-inch raised median in the center of Fairview 1 Avenue, from a point 10-feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point. 50-feet west of the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for ~~ review and a letter of approval. ~ Note: When the median is constructed, a~}~posed by•District staff, it will restrict a driveway r--~ on'the south side of Fairview Avenue.. However,~heir driveway is within 440-feet of Locust ~~ Grove Road. The driveway does not conform with current District policy A letter will be sent notify~g of the installation of a median hat will re trict heir driveway ~ G. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway on Locust Grove Road, located approximately 280-feet north of Fairview Avenue. Carol Street is located approximately 40- feet north of the site's proposed driveway and there is a driveway on the east side of the road ~+ that aligns with Carol Street. The driveway serves the Fred Meyer complex. District policy ~ requires that driveways on Locust Grove Road to be located a minimum of 220-feet from ~• 'Fairview Avenue for aright-iii/right-out driveway, 440-feet for a full access driveway, and 150- ~~ feet from all. existing driveways. The site's proposed driveway will not meet District. Staff recommends a variance of the 150-foot offset requirement from Carol Street fora right- ` ~ in/right-out driveway located 120-feet south of Carol Street. The applicant should be required to constrict asix-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road, from a point 10-feet north of the stop bar`at the intersection to a point 50-feet north of the northern edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a L~ design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of ~ •approval. ~ H. The applicant is not proposing to construct a driveway on Carol Street. The roadway serves an existing single family dwelling subdivision to the north of the site, Dorris Subdivision. `Staff) _, recommends"that`theyapplicai~t'be required.'to~constr~ct'a`driveway-on_Carol°Street'so that ~.~,~~_ . McvP9~~a.c~t~ - - Pa~~e 3 •, ~~ CU ~--~ ^~ I .. r w.:.... ski'-=.:,;. ---.~+. ~ ~ a ~w ~.- - r. ,as,..- ...r.~. w'~ri+nr+."*io+~;s. ~residenfs~"of Dorris`Sfiibdiv_sion.canlaccess,the site'via the`local-road'without havtng,to,use Locust Grove.Road~which is a minor arterial. The driveway should be constructed as a 24 to 30" foot wide curb cut driveway and located a minimum of 50-feet west of Locust Grove Road. Coordinate the location of the driveway with District staff. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the ~applicant'should'be_ er quir`ed:to.provide'a`recorded-cross'access`easement'for_the:parcel'to;the~ west. to_use~this'parcel°for.access~to.the public streets.pri'o'r'to,issuance_~ofa~building;perriiit,(or other required permits). The District intends`to require a similar agreement of the owner of the parcel to the. west if they are the subject of a future development application. -~-~ ~~--a J. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being CCU tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with past action by the District the applicant should ~""r be required to pave the driveway its. frill width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement ^~ of Fairview Avenue and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii `abutting the existing roadway edge. K. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. ~~~--~ `CCU '--a ~~ The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Site Specific Requirements: LF-~ C~ '--~ '~ j 2 C~~`-~~ 3 Dedicate 48-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel bypmeans of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in .accordance with`Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 1Dedicate 60-.feet of nghtaof way_from the centerline_of Fairview Avenue" abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. Provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of--Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel. MCUP993=l.CNIN[ _.. Page 4 .. ~_ 4. Constnict curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel. Improvements shall be constructed to one half of a 37-foot street section. Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street ~~"'~ with District staff. C~ '~ 5. Provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of--Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Fairview Avenue abutting the parcel. 6. Construct a 24 to 30-foot wide driveway on Fairview Avenue located approximately 220-feet ~ west of Locust Grove Road. Construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Fairview Avenue, from a point 10-feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet west of the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the. design and Location of the median with ~~ District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for ~-}-~ review and a letter of approval. CCU ^~ 7. Construct a 24 to 30-foot wide driveway on Locust Grove Road, located 'approximately 220- ~~ feet north of Fairview Avenue. Constnict a six-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road, from a point 10-feet- north of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet north of the northern edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median 1 with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. C~ 8. Construct a 24 to 30-foot curb cut driveway on Carol Street located a minimum of 50-feet west ~ of Locust Grove Road. Coordinate the location of the driveway with District staff. r-~ 9. Provide a recorded cross'access easement for the parcel to the west to use this parcel for access to the publicstreets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). 10. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Fairview Avenue and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. 11. Other than the access point specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel ~ ~ .access to Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue •is prohibited. CCj Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. The re nest ~_ shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and ;nrl,~de a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a siihstanti~l herd. hip or ineq~.ti y The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9.00 a m on the day scheduled for ~~ ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the ~~ Commission on the next•available meeting agenda.. CCU y ~'-~ Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action ~• do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and ~ICUP9934.CM~[ - ~ Page ~ i ~~ CCU ~~ ~~~- Cam, report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or' waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be-made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision The request., for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the,Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and-time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in, accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 4~ 5. CCU ~~ 6. 7. LI-~ CCU Z'+ 8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 4Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost fo ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two frill business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing, and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the~applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject'of this application, shall require the applicant to comply.with all rules; regulations, ordinances, plans, "~,~ or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in ~' interesf advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject '--a ~ property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements,or other legal relief is granted pursuant J to the~law in effect at the time the change~in use is sought. MCUP9934.CMN1 - - Page 6 ~ ~ . k a~ Conclusion- of Law: C~ 1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an CCU undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity .'--~ impacted by the proposed development. _. Should you have any questions or comments; please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. 1 Submitted by: Date of Commission Action t ~~ Steve Arnold ~-~---a CCj r--~ _+ 1 ~~ 4 CCU r--~ 1 ~~-~ CCU ~.~r---1 `J 4 •. ' [1 \~'1 _ V ~iCUP9934.Ci~iN1 - Page 7 November 5, 1999 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: NOVEMBER 9 1999 APPLICANT: HAWKINS-SMITH MANAGEMENT ITEM NUMBER: 4 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND .ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C-G (WALGREEN'S) AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MAP CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: E MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: ~' CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SANITARY SERVICE: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. lw ~ J -% t MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: OCTOBER 12 1999 APPLICANT: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC _ITEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C-G (WALGREENS) AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MER{D{AN POST OFF{CE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: a ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: - CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SANITARY SERVICE: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City.of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: OCTOBER 12 1999 APPLICANT: HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC ITEM NUMBER: 9 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S) AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POL{CE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SANITARY SERVICE: OTHER: ,All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City,of Meridian. ~~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place t0 Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT C~~ ,~ M C e CITY OF MERIDIAN (2pS) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 y ~~n~ em ~rs PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING KEITH BIRD`- City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT ` "~ _ , s ,y< (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 MEMORANDUM: October 7, 1999 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission ~`J;~; From: Bruce Freckleton,'Assistarit to City Erigine~F~~ ~ . , Brad Hawkins-Clazk, Assistant Planner ~~C: i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., : _~ Re: SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING (WALGREEN"S) ~, by HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC. ' -Annexation & Zoning of 4.34 Acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Lots 1, 2, 7, and 8 of Doris Sub.) - Conditional Use Permit for 15,120 s.f. ~` Walgreen's Pharmacy with aDrive-Thru Window ,~a, We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditidns of the applicant. These conditions-shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of~the Meridian City Council: LOCATION & SURROUNDING USES - M The subject property is generally located at the NW corner of Fairview Avenue and- Locust Grove Road and comprises four. (4) lots in the Doris Subdivision (Ada County). The northern two lots are currently zoned R8 and both properties have older single-family homes which front on Cazol Street. The southern two lots are currently zoned C2 and containdetached commercial buildings which front on Fairview Avenue - a two-story; multi-tenant retail building and a"single-story chiropractic office. The property is located in an area designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Comprehensive Plan. There is also a Commercial designation that incorporates portions of the two lots adjacent to Locust Grove. The surrounding uses follow: North -Immediately across Carol Street are two single family residential homes in the Doris Subdivision. South - a heavy commerical, automobile parts and transfer yard lies immediately south of this property on the SWC of Fairview and Locust and is in Ada'County. Across Fairview Avenue to the S W of this property is the D&B Supply retail store (within the City limits). East -The Avest shopping complex is directly across Locust Grove Road and contains Fred Meyer as the anchor tenant, Key Bank, McDonalds, storage units; and several small retail and service businesses. ~ ~ ~>- Walgreens.AZ.CUP.doc AZ-99-019, CUP-99-034 t k r f d i 4 .Mayor, Council and P&Z October 7, 1999 Page 3 Walgreen's store from the two smaller building pads. There are six-foot utility easements (3 feet on each side of the common lot lines} associated with the existing lot lines. Applicant shall be required to vacate these easements and re-subdivide the property from the existing four (4) lots to two (2) lots as a part of the annexation process. -r 4. The Applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City as ~a condition of annexation. CONDITIONAL USE GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City`of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance andlor as detailed in site-specific requirements. 2. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections 11-2-414.D.4 and 11-2-414.D.5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 3. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street pazking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 4. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential azeas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.D.3. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. 6. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with the design of site drainage plan. 7. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section ~11-9-606.B. 8. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS: Sanitary sewer and water service to this site will be via connection to the existing mains adjacent to the proposed development. 2. Assessment fees for water and sewer service-are determined during the building plan review process. Applicant shall be responsible for the actual physical connection of the existing Walgreens.AZ.CUP.doc AZ-99-019,CUP-99-034 Mayor, Council and P&Z October b, 1999 Page 4 building located within this development, and shall be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian. In addition to these assessments, "Late Comers" fees will also becharged- against this parcel to help reimburse the parties responsible for installing mains to their current points. 3. Underground pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Please submit hook-up and design details based on the proposed landscaping. Due to the landscape area, prunary water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common open area. 4. ACI-ID is requiring the Applicant to construct an access drive on the north side of the project to serve Carol Street and the residents of Doris Subdivision. While Staff understands the intention to improve access to the site for Doris residents, we believe apedestrian/bicycle access and not a vehicular access would provide a more compatible ingress/egress feature. There aze approximately 25 single-family homes utilizing Cazol Street to access Locust Grove.. Staff does not believe this number of households justifies afull-access drive into the project site; especially when considering the substantial traffic increase and•potential impact on their subdivision. We feel any vehicle stacking that occurs when accessing Locust Grove should be contained within the commercial project and not back-up into the subdivision. _ Arl~itinnol~. ~.rrlpr to mast AC`~'e 7d Z(1_fnnt nnr~.~~~q~j~~ent~ at-l~aS~t-four (4} .parkin a r Staff recommends the Applicant construct a 10- to 15-foot curb cut at some point along Carol Street to provide pedestrian/bicycle access into the site. The exact location of the pathway could be proposed by the Applicant, but Staff feels the most appropriate location would be within the ~0 et west of Locust Grove in order to facilitate pedestrian traffic off of Locust Grove offer a more direct route to the main entrance once internal to the site. 5. All driveways shown shall be restricted to right-in/right-out per ACRD policy. 6. ACRD is also requiring -the dedication of 60 feet of right-of--way from the centerline of Fairview Avenue. However, the Site Plan currently shows only 50 feet dedicated. Please correct/modify Site Plan to reflect the 60-foot dedication. 7. ACRD is not requiring the Applicant to construct a sidewalk along Locust Grove adjacent to their east property line. Staff strongly recommends afive-foot sidewalk be required in this location. Locust Grove is scheduled to be constructed in 2001, and ACRD wants all improvements to be held until that time. Acceleration and deceleration lanes and sidewalks AZ-99-019/CUP-99-034 Walgreens.AZ.CUP.doc .Mayor, Council and P&Z October 6, 1999 Page 5 should be constructed prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. Applicant is proposing a 24-foot landscape strip adjacent to Fairview Avenue. Once the additional ten (10) feet ofright-of--way aze reflected (per #5), the buffer will be only 14 feet wide. Fairview is identified as an entryway corridor in the Comprehensive Plan, which requires a 35-foot landscape strip beyond the required right-of--way. Staff recommends this project meet the City's standazd entryway landscape strip width of 35 feet. 9. Applicant is proposing a 15-foot landscape strip adjacent to Locust Grove. Staffrecommends this strip be increased t 20 fe~in order to maintain consistency with the Avest/Fred Meyer subdivision across the street. We also recommend a minimum three-foot-high berm be incorporated into the strip. ~~ 10. Applicant is proposing a 20-foot landscape strip with. a screening wall adjacent to Cazol ~ !~ ~~4c }Street. Besides the addition of the above-recommended pedestrianlbicycle pathway, Staff ~~~" agrees with this proposed buffering. 11. Applicant. is proposing to construct a screen wall along the west property line adjacent to the ~~ ~~ ~ residence.. City Ordinance No. 9-605.G.1, "Planting Strips and Reserve Strips," requires a ~ ~ minimum of 20-foot planting strips next to incompatible features. Applicant shall revise the Site Plan to include this 20-foot buffer. The buffer must extend from Cazol Street along the west property line a distance of at least the depth of the adjacent residential lot. ~12. The existing chiropractic building at the southwest corner of the proposed Walgreen's store ~~~ currently has temporary structures on the north side..lf the Commission approves the multiple buildings, Staff recommends the chiropractic building, at a minimum, remove the rear structures and the building meet all Uniform Building Codes. 13. Coordinate screened trash enclosure locations and construction requirements with Sanitary Service Company and provide a letter of approval from their office prior to applying for building permits. All trash areas are to be enclosed by a screening fence on three (3) sides. The trash compactor area must be thoroughly enclosed to prevent disturbance to neighboring residential properties. 14. Handicap parking, associated signage and building construction shall meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Two (2) handicap-accessible stalls aze currently shown on the Site Plan. Given the anticipated clientele at a pharmacy store (e.g. senior citizens, disabled), Staffrecommends the number ofhandicap-accessible stalls be increased beyond the ADA-required 1:25 ratio. 15. No specific signage has been proposed, and none is approved with this application. Signage AZ-99-019/CUP-99-034 Walgreens.AZ.Ci1P.doc ~~ ~~- Mayor, Council and P&Z October 6, 1999 Page 6 needs to be approved as part of this application. All signage will be subject to design review and requires separate permits. Temporary and A-frame signs shall be prohibited as a condition of approval, and will be removed upon 3 days notice. Staff recommends a maximum of one monument-type sign along each arterial frontage and removal of the existing pylon sign. 16. Particular attention .will need to be paid to lighting plans to ensure adjacent residential properties and the traveling public is not impacted by glare, as ~ determined by the City of Meridian. 17. A minimum of one (1) three-inch (3") caliper tree is required for every~1,500 square feet of pavement. Landscaping approved as part of the conditional use permit site plan shall not be reduced. s 18. This conditional use permit shall be subject to review upon ten (10) days notice to the applicant. Transfer of the conditional use permit will need to be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator for any new owners/tenants. 19. Applicant is proposing a pad site at the northwest corner of the property; no use is being proposed, but it appears to be set up as adrive-through facility. The, conditional use application makes no mention of this building except for showing it on the site plan. As no use is proposed, staff recommends that the pad site not be approved as part of this conditional use permit. Once required site plan changes aze made, parking requirements may not be met; the pad site should be eliminated. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES The 1993 Comprehensive Plan contains a variety of goals and policies that are relevant to this application. Staff has selected the following sections that most directly apply to the proposed project for the Council and Commission's consideration during the hearing process. Population Chapter 1.6U -Encourage and support new businesses which offer higher-than-average-wage jobs and upward employment mobility to locate in Meridian. Economic Development Chapter 1.2 - ...set aside areas where commercial interest and activities are to dominate. 1.4 -Positive programs should be undertaken to support existing commercial azeas to ensure their continued vitality.. . 1.6 - ...support shopping facilities which aze effectively integrated into new or existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. AZ-99-0191CUP-99-034 Walgreens.AZ.C UP.doc ;~ Mayor, Council and P&Z October 6, 1999 Page 7 Land Use .Chapter 4.3U -Encourage new commercial development within under-utilized existing commercial azeas. 4.4U -Locate new planned Neighborhood Commercial Centers (3-8 acres) on arterials or collectors near residential azeas in such a way as to complement 'but not conflict with adjoining residential areas. 4.8U -Encourage commercial uses...to locate in the Old Town district, business pazks, shopping centers and near high-intensity activity areas, such as freeway interchanges. 5.18U -Existing residential properties will be protected from incompatible land-use development. ..Screening and buffers will be incorporated into all development requests in this azea. Transportation Chapter 1.SU -Encourage clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials. 1.9U -Encourage residential and non-residential developments to provide .adequate easements for future pathways. Community Design. Chapter 1.4 -Major entrances to the City should be enhanced and emphasized. 1.6 -The addition of landscaping within existing commercial pazking lots should be encouraged. 2.2U -Encourage area beautification through uniform sign design that enhances the community. 4.4U -Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. AZ-99-0I 9/CUP-99-034 Walgreens.AZ.CUP.doc ~~ _ ~ ,, ~IAV'UKIl`IS ' ~-" ~ ~ Hawkins -Smith Franklin 8645 W 5MITI~ ~ . Boise, Idaho 83708 - ~ ~ ~Z G~ L " ~ C i / (208) 376-8521 Phone ~ -f~ ommerc al Developers (208) 376-6804 Fax Fax Transmi al Mem t~ o To: Will Derg Fax No: 888.4218 Meridian City Clerk ~ ~~ f , ~-, _T T_--TT~~ ~ ~ {~~ From: Clint Boyle ~ Date: 10/12/99 ,, ,,.~ ~ 1~~r Site Development Project Manager '' "~ ~ Re: 10/12/99 Planning Commission Pages: 1 "`~" ~~~~~1'~ ~'i~-`'i~=` A~~+a ~A Original Documents: O Will follow via mail...,. ^ Will follow via overnight service Q Will riot follow ^ Other. COMMENT5: i :am requesting that the proposed annexation request and conditional use permit hearings for Walgr~~ns (nartliwest corner of Fairview and Locust Grove) be tabled to the November 9, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. I haven't had time to address items listed in the staff report, nar comments received from ACRD (Ada County Highway District). In the interim before the next meeting, I will work with the staff and ACRD on addressing site related issues. If you have any questions please contact me at 376-8521. ~~ Site Development Project Manager If this transmission is unclear, or you do not receive all the pages, please call the office number listed above. k OCT~12 '99 16 40 2083766804 PAGE. 01 ** TX STATUS REPORT ** RS OF OCT 07 '99 08 54 PAGE.01 e PUBLIC WORKS DATE TIME TOiFROM MODE MINiSEC PGS CMDtt STATUS y ._ --_T08___10107_08_50__1_208_376__6804_-_-____EC__S 03',31','_ 008• ~ 085•-- -OK~ ROBERT D. C:ORRIE CIT'Y• OF MERZI~IAN I M~ Mayor PUBLIC WORKS /BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY GARY D. SMITH, PE. RON ANDERSON Public Works Director KEITH BIRn FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: 1 ~ - ~ - ~Gi Time: ~ •. ~ s Please deliver to: `.I~r Company /Department: ~~,.~k.,v`s ~,,,,`; ~-~,~ Fax No.: 31 ~ - ~ ~ $ o ti Phone No.: Total Number of Pages, Including This Cover Sheet: ~ From: ~~ ~a ~n..e r k ~ ~vv~ Fcxx No.: ~ ~~ - l 2 5 --~ Phone No.: ~ ~ `7 - Z ~ t t .. Comments: ~~~ ~ over s~•~-~' ~.o.~.~,~t.,,~-~ _ ~'`~ k s 200 East Carlton, Suitt: I00 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone (208) 887-2211 Fax (208) 887.129? ~..3. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report ~~ MCUP99-034/MAZ99-019 nwc Fairview Ave & Locust Grove Rd Walgreens Cv ~~ The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct a Wal~reens with adrive-thn~ window. The 3-acre site is located is located at the northwest corner of Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue. This development is estimated to generate 1,100 additional (250 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. 1 r Roads impacted by this development: Fairview Avenue _~ Locust Grove Road C~---~ CCj :---~ ACRD Commission Date -October 6, 1999 - 12:00 p.m. ~-I--~ CCU ~~ ~C ~~ ~"'~ ado i ~~~;~ 1' _~' ~~~~ ~: ~~ ~ z III V, m `__ll `ice+~ Ilr;~ r Facts and Findings: C.} ~ A. General Information ` C~ r--~ • Owner -Hawkins Smith Management, Inc T•~ ~ Applicant -Same C-2, R-8 -Existing zoning C-G -Requested zoning ~ '1 4 -Acres -Square feet of proposed building i~/a -Square feet of existing building ~~ -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) ~-~---I ~ ~ -Impact Fee Benefit Zone ''-'~ -Impact Fee Assessment District r-~ Fairview Avenue Principal arterial ~ ~" Traffic count 23,782 on 10-21-9~ 400-feet of frontage , 104-feet existing right-of--way (15±x,-feet from centerline) `~ 120-feet required right-of-way~(60-feet from centerline) - Fairview Avenue is improved with 5-lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. T .ocu~t Grove Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count 6737 on 9-29-98 ~ 380-feet of frontage 70-feet existing right-of--way (25-feet from centerline) 96-feet required right-of--way (48-feet from centerline) ' ~-4--~ ~ Locust Grove Road is improved with 3 to 4-lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the ~~ ~ site. The segment of Locust Grove Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road is listed ~'~'~' in the Five Year Work Program for reconstruction in FY 2001. Locust Grove Road north of the intersection will be constructed with 3-lanes tapering to 5-lanes at the Locust Grove Road/Fairview Avemie intersection. 1 B. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing<by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file`numbers) for details. M ~-i~~-~ ~ C. District.policy requires the applicant to provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of- r-+ ~ Way Tnlst Fund for the cost of constructing a S-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove ~~ Road abutting the parcel. ~~[~~• Y1CUP9934.CMM '~ - Page 2 - D. District policy requires the applicant to construct curb, gutter; and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel. Improvements should be constricted to one half of a 37-foot street section. Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street with District staff., ~--i ~E. ,District policy requires the applicant to provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of- ~'~ rsjr'~ Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Fairview Avenue abutting the parcel. ~ F. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway on Fairview Avenue located approximately 220-feet west of Locust Grove Road. There is an existing driveway to the west of the site that 'will be approximately 150-feet from the site's proposed driveway. There is a drivewa n the south side of the road that is approximately has an e ~ ing driveway on ive Mile Road, C}~..~ located approximately 150-feet south o verland Ro he applicant is proposing to close C~ the drivewa and construct a new driveway on ive ile Roa ocated 230-feet south of '--~ t ver an .There is an existing driveway on t e Bout side of the road that is located ~~ approximately 260-feet west of Locust Grove Road. District policy requires that driveways on Fairview Avenue be located a minimum of 220-feet from Locust Grove Road fora right- ,. in/right-out driveway, 440-feet for a full access driveway, and 150-feet from all existing 1 driveways. The site's proposed driveway will meet District policy for aright-in/right-out driveway but not for a full access driveway. .~,,.~ The applicant should be required to construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Fairview ~-~-~ Avenue, from a point 10-feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet west of ~ ' the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with r---~ District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's'Supervisor for ~~ review and a letter of approval. l~TntP• ~xlhen the median is constnuted,~}~p9~ derby District staff, it will restrict a driveway 1 ~T, t},P crn,th cinP of Fairview Avenue However., their driveway is within 440-feet of Locust Grove Road- The driveway does not conform with current District p91i~y A 1Ptter will be sent notifying ~f the installation 9f a me~»n th:,t will restrict their driveway. ~-~---~ ~ G. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway on Locust Grove Road, located approximately 280-feet north of Fairview Avenue. Carol Street is located approximately 40- ~~-"'' feet north of the site's proposed driveway and there is a driveway on the east side of the road that aligns with Carol Street. The driveway serves Fred Meyer. District policy requires that driveways on Locust Grove Road to be located a minimum of 220-feet from Fairview Avenue for aright-in/right-out driveway, 440-feet for a frill access driveway, and 150-feet from all existing driveways. The site's proposed driveway will not meet District. `~ ~ ~~ Staff recommends a variance of the 150-foot offset requirement from Carol Street for aright- ~,~ in/right-out driveway located 120~feet south of Carol Street. The applicant should be required ~ to asix-' in the center of Locust Grove Road, from a point 10-feet ;-~ north of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet north of the northern edge of the ~ driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. MCUP9934.CMM -- - Page 3 / 1 f !~ H. The applicant is not proposing to constrict a driveway on Carol Street. The roadway serves an existing single family dwelling subdivision to the north of the site, Dorris Subdivision. Staff ~,~ recommends that the applicant be required to constrict a driveway on Carol Street so that ~ residents of Doi~s Subdivision can access the site via the local road without having to use Locust Grove Road, a minor arterial. The driveway should be constricted as a 24 to 30-foot wide curb cut driveway and located a minimum,of 50-feet west of Locust Grove Road. Coordinate the location of the driveway with District staff. ~ I. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the ~~ west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or ~ other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owner of the parcel to the west if they are the subject of a future development application. :---~ J. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems- due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with past action by the District the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement 1 # of Fairview Avenue and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. C ~ K. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic ~ generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. ~~ The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Site Specific Requirements: ' 1. Dedicate 48-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Locust Grove.Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit_(or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to r~+""', 30 business'days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right- '--~ of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of :~j application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACRD Ordinance #188. ~ 2. Dedicate 60-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Fairview Avenue abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to ~~ 3,0 business days to process the right-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. C.~ ~ The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right- Cv of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of `~ application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section ~~ ~ 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. MCUP993~3.CMM '- - Page 4 lA Z W W J a A '~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ g ~ ~ b , ~ •~ U ••• N { ~o -sue - -r p ;-a I ~~i %i ~ , ~- J ~~ ~y ~ ~. '~ ~ ~ •~ -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~_ ~ Y~I4 ~ ~ 1 ry :.~ ,~' ~ :j l -J _- - = ~-, ~ ___.. ~- ' CJ .Si f t ~ ~T~ .~' ~ ~ . ~~ ~~ { 1 ~ ~ a ~ LL ~~ N ~~ ~ ~ F~ p d • p 1_p - 0 ~ > - ~~ ° ~~ 6 ~ ~~ ~~ ' 4 ~ ,__ anoao isnoo~ .,• _ _ - ._ ...- _' N 1 1 r~ f L 0 ~~ ~ E ~~~ 3~~~ °a_ ~~ Y ~~ A ~~ -p V ~ ~ I Od{ I I 3 t '~ 1 '~` .. ~~~ ~~ ~ o o z it ~'' 1 T0iT0'd 0S9LSb~ Ol L6zTL0009z S}Id0~1 OI~QfId dd 9T:0Z 66~ bZ d3S 3. Provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of--Way Trust Fund for the cost of _ constructing a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on.Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel. ~~I--~ ~ 4. Constrict curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Carol Street abutting the parcel. Improvements shall be ~ constructed to one half of a 37-foot street section. Coordinate the improvements to Carol Street ` ~~ with District staff. Provide an $8,000.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of--Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. on Fairview Avenue abutting the parcel. 6. Constrict a 24 to 30-foot wide driveway on Fairview Avenue located approximately 220-feet ~~ west of Locust Grove Road. Construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Fairview C-{---I Avenue, from a point 10-feet west of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet west of CCU the western edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median with r-~ District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. 7. Construct a 24 to 30-foot wide driveway on Locust Grove Road, located approximately 220- 1 feet north of Fairview Avenue. Construct asix-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road, from a point 10-feet north of the stop bar at the intersection to a point 50-feet north of the northern edge of the driveway. Coordinate the design and location of the median ~ ~ with District staff. Submit a design of the median to the District's Traffic Service's Supervisor for review and a letter of approval. CCU., "~ 8.p Construct a 24 to 30-foot curb cut driveway on Carol Street located a minimum of,50-feet west ~~ of Locust Grove Road. Coordinate the location of the driveway with District staff. 9. Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the west to use this parcel for access ~ to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). 10. Pave the driveway its full width-and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Fairview ~~ Avenue and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. 11. Other than the access point specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel ~~ access to Locust-Grove Road and Fairview Avenue is prohibited. Standard Requirements: i 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. The reauest ,~ hs all specificall, id n ify each regtiirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation C~ ; of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity, The written CCU reg1iest shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a m. on the dadscheduled for :--~ ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the -~ Commission on the next available meeting agenda. MCUP993a.CMM -" " Page ~ '~""' ~-~-r ~ r--a ~~ 2. ~ Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested.modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall spe ~fical y identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original dP~c;s~n The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the ,~ ~, ~ Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified ~ of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. CCj `"'~ 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 1 4. All design and construction shall,be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An ~~ engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. ~ 5. .--~ The applicant shall~submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for' occupancy. 1 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ~~ ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least rivo frill ~ business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact .'--~ ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACRD conduits (spare or filled) are Z"+ compromised during any phase of construction. 8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and ati authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. ~~ 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pt-rsuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. MCUP9934.CMM '- - Pale 6 8 a. r f1 Conclusion of-Law: ~~ CCj 1. ACRD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an $--~ undue burden on the existiri'g vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development ~ Division at 3$7-6170. 2. Submitted by: Date of Commission Action: ~~ ~~ Steve Arnold CCU r--~ 1 4~ CU ~---~ 1 ~-F~-~i ~r--,-±I V 1 C~---~ C~ V MCUP9934.CMM -" Page 7 p 200 E. Carlton Suite 201 Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 Fax: (208) 887-1297 Fa~c To: Brian Wulf, HawkinsSmith F~r+a~ Brad Wawkiru-Clark Fax: 376-6804 Pagese 2 .Phone: 376-8521 Datee 08/30/99 Re: Walgreen's Annexation & CUP Apps CC: © Urgent C7 Igor Review ELI Please Comment C] Please Reply ^ Please Recycle a~ Brian, `~~~`' Annexation application is ~ complete. There are stilt tvw (2) outstanding items for the Conditional ~~~~i~ Use Application: 1. On the landscape plan (which I am assuming is the first site plan you submitted), please indude,~a~ tree speaes,~k'f exact locations and height of the north and west screen walls, ands-any berms ~ site you are proposing. Also, we will require the street trees along Card to beat least 30-35 feet on center. Yea are currently showing trees over 120-feet apart. Please modify plan. A more ` detailed landscape plan will be requin~t at the buildng pem~t stage if your project is approved, but the R&Z Commission needs to see the above items for the initial landscape' review. 2. In the "Site- Recap° box, -please include the amount of `square footage and peroentage of landscaping You are prnposirtg (per~ntaige of totd site area). , 3. Please submit elevations of the proposed monument and pylon signs, if av~lable. Assuming tit required iterru are submitted by the Sept. 1 deadline, the applications will be placed on the October 12'" P&Z Commission . Thanks, Brian. i '. ~ a t w 200 E. Carlton Suite 201 Meridian, lD 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 Fax: (208) 887-1297 CIT Y O F M ERI DI AN Pla nnin g & Zo ni ng FaX To: Brian Huffaker, Hawkins-Smith From: Brad Hawkins-Clark Fax: 376-6804 Pz~es: 2 Plwne: 376-8521 Date: 08/04/99 Ree Walgreen's Annexation & CUP Apps CC: © tlr~gent ^ For Review 0 Please Comment ^ Pfease Reply ^ Ptease Recycle Brian, I've done an initial review of the subject applications. Blow are my c:orrtmerrts and requests for missing items required in the application: Annexation Bates Affidavit is for "Boise City" not "City of Meridian° (paragraph 2, indemnification). Please submit corrected affidavit. 2. Wf~le the project wiH be processed as a single parcel, the City still requires notarized consent from p,~-~ each of the current property owners of the four (4) ind~viduad lots. Submit notarized consent for both "' 0' the CUP and Annexation applications from: Wardle, Mansayon anti Bamas parties. Bates is only consent provided. C.U.P. ~ ;,1! Per application item #10, show proposed'locations of any outside trash reoeptadelendosure area (to scale). v2! Also on item #10, the application requires utilities to be shown on the site plan. Please show proposed locations of water, seuw=r and power and how they will extend into the site interior. The Public Works Departmenrt (Brtrc•.e Freddeton or Cheryl Sable) can provide existing toc~tions. Their number is 887-2211. 3. Have you had preliminary discussions with ACRD Development Services Department regarding the future right-~~~uvay width on Fairvieu-(? My understanding is that the District is requiring a minimum of 55-60 feet of right-of way in order'to acquire suffiaent WW for a future 7-lane arterial. Your site plan legend does not make dear if the dashed line shown along Fairview Ave. is the cerrteriine, edge of pavement, etc., so I'm not certain what amount of R/W the plan currently ~ .~ August 4, 1999 shows. But I don't believe it is accxrrate. Please confirm with ACRD on the amount of RNV they will tie requiring and reflect that on the plan with the centerline decry labeled. Please do the same for locust Grove Rd. Given the irif'ill nature of this project, the P&Z ComrY~ssion will need to see the relationship of the site access driveslapproaches and landscape buffers to the adjacent properties. Please show the P Fred Meyer property, Card Street and lots immediately adjacent to the project on the west. Given the amount of requested d~anges to complete the C.U.P. application, the P8Z Commission hearing will be delayed one month (from September 14 to October 12), assuming all required items are submitted by the Sept. 1 deadline. However, if you submit the items for the Annexation application by 5:00 on Friday, this will be hearci at the September 14 meeting. Thanks, Brian. • .Page 2 r