Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 6, 2003 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6. 2003 Page 70 of 87 Borup: I'm just checking to see what we had. We had two subdivisions and a church. Rohm: It's time to go home. Borup: Was all we had. So, I think we are fine on -- okay. Zaremba: Okay. Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 03-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop with auxiliary drive-thru in a C-G zone for Starbucks by Wenco, Inc. - northeast corner of South Meridian Road and East Corporate Drive: Borup: CUP 03-051, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop with auxiliary drive-thru in a CoG zone for Starbucks by Wenco, Incorporated, at Meridian Road and East Corporate Drive. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Craig Hood. The applicant, Wenco, Incorporated, has requested Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a new Starbucks Coffee Shop with a drive-thru located on the northeast Corner of Meridian Street and Corporate Drive. The proposed coffee shop is proposed on Lot 2, Block 1, of Wenco Subdivision, and is located west of the Wendy's restaurant and north of the Taco Bell restaurant. I had a couple of other things that I was going to point out, but in the interest of time, I think the main outstanding issue is the landscaping adjacent to Meridian Road. I'd just like the Commission to know when this was originally looked -- the Wendy's parcel -- this all one parcel when Wendy's was developed, a subdivision called Wenco was -- has subsequently been recorded and the Starbucks subject has been split off from that original pad site, Conceptually, Starbucks has always been there, even when Wendy's was approved and the landscaping adjacent to Meridian and Main Street was previously reviewed and approved by the city. The applicant has shown a 25-foot landscape buffer on Meridian Road. However, the landscape buffer is measured from the back of the sidewalk and not the property line and there has been ten feet of additional right of way that was has been dedicated to the highway district. So, in the future, if all that right of way is utilized by a future road or sidewalk, the landscape buffer could be reduced down to 15 feet and I guess there are some to the south of this site, some landscaping buffers, because this is an entryway corridor, the 35 feet is the standard requirement, has been reduced. However, the parcels just to the north of this are currently undeveloped and I guess we are -- staff, at least, had some concerns with reducing that buffer for this block of a gateway street, understanding that, you know, the developed parcel is further to the south, there is no going back to this -- I believe it would set a bad precedent for the next guys that come in and want to develop theirs, too. So, I'd just like to, as an issue, special consideration -- I also did that get a copy of -- it doesn't look like it's recorded and I don't have Exhibit A, which it refers to, but the applicant has provided me with a draft of the cross-access Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6. 2003 Page 71 of 87 agreement between the lots, so I appreciate that. I believe that's the main thing. I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? So, when Wendy's was approved, the street buffer was designed and approved at that time and that was designated as a pad site. You're saying even the site plan said Starbucks -- or did say that. Hood: It just said pad site. It was always envisioned that something similar to the current proposal would go in on this corner. But it was just conceptual in nature and, to tell you the truth, it didn't change a lot from that conceptual pad that was already envisioned -- Borup: Except for the fact that you're saying they need at least ten feet now. Hood: And there was some -- there were a couple different site plans, even with Wendy's and the Wenco, where the original submitted site plan showed the -- I believe there was -- there is 40 feet now total right of way and I believe there was 30 feet previously and one of the site plans did show a 25 foot landscape buffer measured to the -- at thattime the current right-of-way line and one of them that acknowledged a ten foot right of way dedication to ACHD and, then, the 25 feet. So, there was -- Borup: Wasn't it one of the original or -- Hood: The approved site plan for the CUP for Wendy's showed the ten feet to be dedicated to ACHD and, then, a 25 foot landscape buffer to the near edge of the drive- thru aisle for the -- Borup: Okay. So, they were planning -- I mean they knew that they probably should be planning for that back then. Hood: Yes. Borup: All right. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Mr. Strite, is there anything that you'd like to say? Strite: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante in Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of Wenco, the applicant, in support of the application and contrary to those last comments, I went back and looked at my files and Ada County Highway District had required that ten feet two months prior to our approval of the Wendy's site. If you go back and look at the approved Wendy's site that -- that was approved at the time we requested the pad site and Wendy's, it showed a 25 foot setback, but it clearly delineated a ten foot right of way take that Ada County Highway District had yet to take, however, had suggested they were going to take. Our argument at that time, as I'm sure the Chairman will remember, was the fact that -- Borup: I do remember. That's why I was asking. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6.2003 Page 72 of 87 Strite: This particular site is subject to some fairly strong restrictions. First of all, it's surrounded on the south and the north by two sites that weren't affected by the landscape ordinance, because both of those were approved in 1999, one in 1995. I have before me a landscape bond for the parcel to the north for 15 foot of landscaping for a cost of 19,500 dollars, which is still in effect. So, in an effort to simplify this, the site to the north is only going to be 15 feet by virtue of the ongoing bond. The site to the south is less than ten feet today and, as a matter of fact, if you go south -- Borup: But the site to the north is not -- is not an entrance street, it's another property, isn't it? Strite: Mr. Chair, the site to the north is the Merchant's Plaza and it is along parallel with, if you will, Meridian Road, and that's where the landscape setback was in question. Merchant's Plaza -- Borup: You're talking about the landscape along Meridian. Strite: That's correct. That's the only thing we had in question. I think the staff report is right on, we have absolutely no concerns, with that one exception and it's a big exception, because I think what's happened here is that if you look to the south, that landscaping -- if you look in the lower right-hand corner, particularly, the lower right- hand corner behind Bolo's, that only measures ten feet. They are going to lose ten feet it's going to be zero. If you move south, as you go south towards Walden Lane, at the KFC there is exactly 21 feet. They are going to lose ten feet and it's going to be 11 feet. Now, as you move north, by virtue of the fact that the Merchant's Plaza and Rick Thomas signed this agreement for the landscape requirement on the north parcel, based on the fact that it was an approved subdivision and approved prior to the enactment of the ordinance, they only have 15 feet. So, having known that when we came before this Commission before, we understood that, that's why we suggested that we would have 25 feet, ten of which we new was going to go at some point in time, so we would be consistent with that parcel to the north owned by Rick Thomas. Borup: So, which was the -- which plat was it that was eventually approved by the city? Strite: Well, it's my belief -- and, unfortunately, I didn't look to see if there were two of them and I apologize -- Borup: But both of them would have been approved. It would have been one or the other, wouldn't it? Strite: Well, the one that I found in my file and that is consistent with this plan here, it shows the curb face, if you will, of the present drive-thru that we are proposing today, is in the exact same location as it was on the original proposal. So, therefore, it would be my opinion that it was approved with a 25 foot landscape strip, but clearly delineating a future take of ten feet, and I apologize to Craig, I could not find the site plan that Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6. 2003 Page 73 of 87 suggested that there was ten feet of take and, then, 25 feet. Consequently -- and I think it's pretty self-evident today if you go out there, we designed the entire site from Corporate Drive entry west, with the exception of the outgoing pad, with that in mind. So, all the curbing is in place, all the.landscaping is in place, all the drainage pads are in place -- if we decide now that we have to take ten feet off -- first of all, we can't meet the Wendy's requirements. There is a note in there that we are over parked and certainly we agree to that. By city ordinance we are over parked. But by Wendy's criteria we are not over parked and I think you will find that consistent with the testimony that I gave this Commission at the Wendy's approval. If, in fact, we decide now to take those ten feet, we are going to have to come back, remove planters, remove curbing, and regrade the entire site. So, I think it sets quite a burden on the applicant, which certainly we thought was taken care of in the original approval. But I think probably more importantly, if you look at the real picture, the south side of this site and the north side of this site were both approved prior to the ordinance enactment and prior to the 35 foot requirement. So, I think it would be appropriate to stay consistent, at least in this block north to Gem Street, at the standard 15 foot setback at the time Ada County Highway District, in fact, takes their ten feet and other than that -- and I know that's a mayor issue here. We find the staff report is fine. We have absolutely no problems with it and apologize of there was some confusion on the site plans. I did not find two site plans that differentiated two different setbacks. So, with that -- all the other conditions are fine. We have no problem. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: I think you did a good job of assessing it. It certainly looks accurate to me. Zaremba: I have a question probably for Brad. Can we put a condition on this that the Wendy's sign on the other end of this property not be operated in such an obnoxious manner? Did the new sign ordinance pass the City Council sometime in the last week or two? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it did. Last night. It's not gone into effect I don't think. I mean the publishing takes, what, three or four days right? So, it's technically -- we usually base it off the publishing date, but is the legal description that was submitted with the application describing the entire Wenco site or are we talking about just the Starbucks lot? Strite: Mr. Chairman, Brad, I think that the legal description submitted was the entire parcel, because at the time we submitted I think you and I both spoke that we weren't certain that Wenco had, actually, recorded that survey and I did not find until after that the actual survey and plat was, in fact, recorded and that -- and Craig is absolutely correct, it was at that point that they did, in fact, take that ten feet. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Well, I mean I think I asked that, because, you know, the legal description that was submitted with the application is -- you know, we are talking about that's the property that this Conditional Use Permit is subject to. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6. 2003 Page 74 of 87 Strite: Which is the same property that we are speaking of tonight. Hawkins-Clark: Which I think to answer your question, Commissioner, then, that sign does sit on property which is part of the Conditional Use Permit application. Zaremba: So, we could make a condition that the existing sign on the Wendy's end comply with the new sign ordinance. Hawkins-Clark: I think the Commission does have that privilege. I don't know that -- I really don't think that it's necessary. We have -- we were instructed by the Council to do a -- if you will, education campaign with all of the reader board owners in the City of Meridian, to educate them about the new five second rule, and actually, that five second rule is delayed 30 days from the rest of the sign ordinance. There was a split effective date in the ordinance, so -- but it's certainly the Commission's privilege. Zaremba: Well, I think the education campaign would be helpful. I could see not adding it as a requirement. I'm not sure whether you're aware of what we are talking about. Borup: It sounds like you would really enjoy doing that. Zaremba: Well, I would -- Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't know -- I don't know of what you speak, but -- and, fortunately, for us and I completely -- total agreement, I can complete that normally anyway, but we have nothing to do with signs, so I have no comment beyond that. Zaremba: Except that it does exist on the property we are talking about. I could trust the educational campaign to resolve the issues that many of us have with the Wendy's sign. Borup: The only other question I have, Mr. Strite, you had mentioned something -- I thought you said something about parking, but the staff report says there is excess. Rohm: Yeah. That's what he said. They are over parked Strite: Yes. Mr. Chair -- and that's absolutely correct. We are over parked by virtue of your code. Borup: Okay. I misunderstood that. Strite: But as a matter of fact, we are right on with the Wendy's -- Borup: Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking the other direction. I Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6.2003 Page 75 of 87 understand. Strite: I just wanted to point that out, because we didn't throw the sea of parking out there, because we knew we could get away with less with the City of Meridian. Borup: Okay. Any other comments? I think we'll take time to hear from the public. That's, really, the only issue, isn't it? The landscaping? I understand what the ordinance is, but you know this is, again, being consistent with surrounding properties. So, does the staff have any real problem with what's proposed? Other than realizing it doesn't meet strictly the -- Hood: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I guess the main reason that I brought it up was in preparing this report I just wanted to make you aware that I didn't believe that what the applicant was proposing was consistent with what was previously approved for the site, so I will leave the decision up to you, but just wanted to bring that up, that I believe that it was 25 feet outside of the right of way. The applicant is showing 15, so-- Borup: And even if that were the case, the question here would be whether there is a big problem with the way it's proposed. I mean considering the fact that it would be consistent with the surrounding properties. Hood: It appears to be consistent and I spoke with Brad just a little bit about the property that already has the bond for the 15-foot of right of way and there may be some discussion. Based on this, I think we would probably be supportive of them, even, going with a reduced buffer, because it makes sense for this site to have a reduced buffer and, then, it widens back out, almost similar to what we just talked about at Cherry Lane, but we do want it to be consistent, so -- Borup: Now, I'm confused. Which part would widen out? It would be this project that would be a wider buffer, wouldn't it? The project to the north wouldn't be any wider. Hood: And that's the -- it depends on -- I guess my interpretation would be what -- it depends on what they want to develop on that site. If they come in and they need a CU, they'd need to comply with the ordinance-- Borup: Okay. Hood: So, even though -- Borup: Which would be different than the -- Hood: Make them do -- I guess depending on what they come in with, we may require them to do additional landscaping, in addition to that 15 feet that's already been required. So, that's-- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6. 2003 Page 76 of 87 Borup: Okay. I was assuming that that was what was already agreed upon and that's what they would be required to do, so -- that could change, you're saying? Hood: That would be my interpretation, yes. Strite: If I could, Mr. Chair, we are representing the new buyer of that property to the north, that's why I have the bond in my hand, and we are coming back here with a CZC, it will be submitted to staff probably in the next ten to 15 days and we are staying with the consistency of the 15 foot of landscaping. Borup: Well, that's what you're requesting. Strite: That's what we -- we don't require a conditional use on that parcel to the north, because it was approved as a full lot subdivision with 15 foot landscaping. All we are going to require is CZC and we are going to have those two buildings and that's why I knew that I only had 15 feet to the north and I'm suggesting we knew that when we did the Wendy's site to the south and we were trying to be consistent, because we made an agreement with Rick Thomas to provide cross-access from Wendy's to that parcel to the north and vice-versa, if you will. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Well, cross-access was another question. You have the cross-access. Strite: Commissioner Zaremba, yes, I have the deeded and recorded access from Thomas to Wenco -- or Merchant's Plaza to Wenco and I have an unrecorded Wenco the Starbucks, Starbucks to Wenco in the staff's hands. Unfortunately, I was unable to get that recorded before the day was out, but we will have it before City Council, certainly. Zaremba: Okay. That answers that question. Well, I could be comfortable with a 15- foot landscape buffer, if that's forced to happen to the north and clearly it's going to be 15 or less to the south. Again, as an entry corridor, it would be nice to have the 25. Borup: Now are we talking -- are we talking some increased landscaping, then? Zaremba: Mitigation or alternate compliance? Strite: Once, again, if I might interrupt. If you go back to the minutes of the Winco approval, that was the reasoning for reducing it from the 35 originally, because we did an alternative landscape. As a matter of fact, I believe the numbers were something like 2,500 square feet of landscaping along the north boundary, when we only required something like five feet times whatever that is, 300 feet or 400 feet. You will see that the north boundary in the northwest quadrant has something like ten or 12 feet of landscaping, when it was only required to have five, and according to the minutes that I was able to drag out from our hearing, it would appear to me that it was consistent with Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6. 2003 Page 77 of 87 the alternative requirements, which Mr. McKinnon at that time had agreed to and so also did the Commission. Borup: Right. I think we are talking about the density of the landscaping trees and shrubbery. Well, not necessarily the increase of the -- oh, throughout or along Meridian Road? Or both? You're saying both. Strite: Well, the alternative compliance, as we discussed in the hearing for Wendy's, included the additional landscaping and, if you recall the comments relative to moving those three plumb trees or fruit trees of some sort that ended up inadvertently on our property, we moved those and replanted them on our property and those were considered at that time to be, I think, part of the alternative landscape requirements. At least that's what I garnered out of the minutes of -- Borup: Well, I assume the landscaping plan we have is -- Strite: Yeah. Everything is there that you can see. The landscaping -- Borup: Well, it's not there now, but it will be when Starbucks is developed. Strite: Oh, there would be a minor adjustment. There is not really much to the additional landscaping. If you look at the landscaping that's there now, the total perimeter is already completed. The only thing that's missing is a small planter that will separate the drive-thru lane from the bypass lane and two small planters on either end of the Starbucks parking aisle. Everything else is already in place and been completed. Borup: Well, it's about 14, 15 trees, plus the large shrubs. That's a lot of landscaping, isn't it? Strite: Well, probably not enough, but-- Borup: Well, no, what I'm saying is that the landscape design is the u you couldn't get any more dense than what you have got it designed, really. You're filling up the site as much as you can go and if that's what's going to be going in, then, I think we have got some good landscaping buffer along Meridian Road. Strite: I think you will find little difference between that buffer area and the plan submitted tonight -- landscape plan wise and the landscape plan that was approved under the original Wendy's approval. Borup: Well, other than from what I see here you're still missing -- Strite: Yeah. That's a pad site that was uncompleted. That's correct. Borup: Okay. That's alii have. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6. 2003 Page 78 of 87 Zaremba: Are we ready? Borup: Yes. Let's move on. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that Public Hearing Item 12 CUP 03-051 be closed. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, CUP 03-051, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop with auxiliary drive-thru in a C-G zone for Starbucks by Wenco, Inc., northeast corner of South Meridian Road and East Corporate Drive, to include all staff comments of the staff memo of November 6, received by the Clerk November 3, 2003, with one exception, and that is on page six, paragraph one under the site specific requirements, this is approved with currently a 25 foot landscape buffer, knowing that ten feet of that, eventually, will be taken away for the right of way. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct three buildings for Wendy's I Starbucks I Kinkos with auxiliary drive thrus and a 6,500 square foot retail pad in a -L zone by Wenco, Inc. - northwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Florence Street: Borup: Next Item is CUP 03-052, request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct three buildings for Wendy's, Starbucks, Kinko's, with drive-thrus, 6,500 foot building in an I-L zone at Eagle and Florence. Open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Great. Thank you. Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. Borup: Is this what you waited all night for? Hawkins-Clark: Well, a lot of -- no, I just want to be here.