Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 19, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeddlan Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 46 of 105 (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP d3-072 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises -northeast comer of South Progress Avenue and Central Drive: Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. I just -- I might -- I would like to mention, in case someone had noticed the agenda, but the last items on the agenda, the Mussell Corner Subdivision, was -- is being renoticed; so there is not a hearing on that tonight. Okay. The next item is CUP 03-027, request for a Cohditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window for a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises. We'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this proposed project is located in the' Center Valley Corporate Park just north of Winco Foods and it's at the northeast intersection of Central Drive and Progress Avenue. And I'm going to show you the aerial. The applicant is here for a Conditional Use Permit for the drive-thru for the proposed retail building. I'll go ahead and put up the site plan, but because they are here for the drive-thru, we are required to look at the entire lot while considering this application. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed application. There was really only one issue that's come up. There is no proposed .connection between the parking lot for the proposed retail building and the parking lot that's shown in the southeast corner of the site plan. The way that the applicant explained this to me was that the parking lot in the southeast corner is proposed employee parking for a proposed restaurant, which will be located on the western side of the site and the property owner for both of those lots is a different property ownerthan the retail building owner and he wanted to make sure that there wasn't -- that the people -- the patrons of the retail building were not using the parking lot that was designated for employee parking for the restaurant. I'm sure the applicant will address that this evening, but the staff felt that it was poor planning to have two parking lots that were adjacent to each other and not adjoining, so we are recommending that they adjoin those parking lots. And also wanted to point out that if -- when they come through with an application for the employee parking lot in the southwest -southeast, they will be required to come through with a Conditional Use Permit for that parking lot if they are not -- if they are not adjoining. So, I just wanted to make sure the applicant was aware of that.. But, otherwise, we recommend approval of the application. The drive-thru takes access off of -- essentially a private drive aisle, so the impact to surrounding public streets should be minimal and, otherwise, we have no additions. Are there any questions for staff? Borup: Questions from staff? I mean for staff? Zaremba: Just to confirm that I'm working on the right date, this is a site plan that is dated 30 December'03? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 47 of 105 Kirkpatrick: As far as I know we only have one rendition of this site plan, but let me look at my dates. Zaremba: There is a landscape plan that is different than the site plan and I believe that was from earlier. Kirkpatrick: The site plan that I have is dated 30th December 2003 and the landscape plan is dated December 12th, 2003. Zaremba: Okay. So, we want to work with this site plan and their landscape will have to comply to this site plan. Kirkpatrick: Corcect. Zaremba: Okay. The landscape plan shows a different entry to this drive-thru. That's the only reason I bring it up. No other questions from me. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to come forward? Strite: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante in Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of the Nahas companies and Ralph and Nellie Nahas. Ahd, in the interest of time, quite frankly, I did not make that very clear to the staff and I apologize, but in the arrangement to sell the parcel to Tony Romas. Tony Romas national franchise has a requirement fora 45 parking space minimum employee parcel and, hence, the southeast parcel is, in fact, the parcel purchased with the developer. The developer and the purchaser Tony Romas have agreed that there is -- as part of their process that there would be no cross access and that that parking lot would be principally and specifically for the employees of Tony Romas and that's why there is no cross-access there. Borup: That's exactly what staff said. Strite: No. That's what I'm saying. But what I didn't explain to staff, I believe, was the intricacies of the parcel sale. I probably should have been a little more clear in my letter of request. Borup: How many parking spaces are in that lot? Strite: There are, I believe, 48 and we have a minimum requirement of 45. Borup: They have 45 employees atone time? Strite: That's their requirement. I don't think that they can get 45 employees in there at one time. Meddlan Planning & Zoning February 79, 2004 Paga 46 of 105 Zaremba: But at a shift change they might have that many cars, though, for coming and going. Strite: Well, it's 8,000 square feet, seats 300 seats, I suspect that there is a potential they could do it in a shift change, yeah. Zaremba: Yeah. So, Tony Romas would be exactly east of where the parking lot is depicted; is that what you're saying? Strite: Tony Romas is at the southwest corner. They bought parcel number one, which is the southwest corner of the site. They also bought the southeast triangular parcel, which was kind of a remnant parcel, if you will, as part of their purchase and it's a separately deeded lot and so you have, actually, separate parcel owners. Zaremba: Even if there isn't vehicle access, cross-access, is there a pathway? Strite: Mr. Chair, Mr. Zaremba, there is pedestrian access. We have provided pedestrian access going south out of the parking lot in question and, then, we pick up the sidewalk, which, incidentally, is not required, because this is a private drive, but there is a sidewalk proposed that goes westerly, if you will, along the north side of the access between Winco and this project that takes you up to Tony Romas. Zaremba: I guess my concern is that the employees would walk through the drive-thru - Strite: They do. That's absolutely correct. Zaremba: Are they separated from the cars in any way? Strite: Well, certainly we are going to have bomanite walks at those two locations as part of a break. Zaremba: So, they aren't right on the roadway, they can be up on an elevated sidewalk? Strite: Well, that's correct. But more importantly, the shift changes are probably not in coriflict with the coffee shop, which is an early morning user. Zaremba: Okay. I guess my only other question is the signage issue. Is the employee parking going to be signed as employee parking only or -- Strite: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, the real issue tonight, which is the drive-thru, the exit from the drive-thru, are you going to have any signage indicating that that's exit only or -- I mean so people don't turn in that drive-way wrong direction? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 49 of 105 Strite: Yes, we will. Zaremba: Okay. That's my greatest concern. Borup: 0 ther q uestions? What h appens i f T ony R omas I eaves a nd t he new o wher does not require 45 parking spaces? Strite: Well, because it is a part of a conditional use, there is a requirement regardless of the change, it's a conditional use as a parking lot. If that use changes, it has to come back before you, so -- Borup: So, you would have an opportunity to redesign and redevelopment of those areas. Strite: Well, I think it would be quite easy to do, because you're looking at the service side of the retail building, so I don't see that as being a major issue in the future. Borup: Oh, I agree with staff on their comment on this. Maybe not a hundred percent in this situation, but it can be very annoying that -- to go 200 feet away and have to drive 800 feet to do it. I think that staffs looking at more the -- probably the long-term aspect of it, not just this one use. Strite: Well, I think that we could make a compromise and certainly we would be prepared to do that. I will have to go back to Tony Romas, I'm sure, to see if I can't get them to a gree, b ut w e w ould b e p repared t o p rovide a c ross-access a greement a nd show an access for future, if that would be a compromise. You know, for the potential of another user taking that site. You know, you start to look at that site, you said put it in context, if you go out there today, that is the truck access to Winco, the back side of Winco on the northeast side is nothing but truck access and so it's not going to be a real popular place to locate a building, that's for certain. So, it appeared to us --appeared to purchaser -- it appeared to Tony Romas that this would be an ideal spot for a parking lot, because it backs the service area of the proposed retail, as well as the service area of Winco. Borup: The other boundary is the canal? Strite: That's correct. Eight Mile is on the east side. Borup: Any other comments from staff? Kirkpatrick: No. Borup: I mean on -- on Mr. Strite's proposal to have the cross-access agreement in place. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 50 of 705 Kirkpatrick: And to clarify that, so that would be if the property ownership were to change, there would be across-access agreement there in place? Borup: Yeah. He's saying have it in place, but not built at this time. Does that work? Zaremba: That may be a legal question. Can it have an if attached to it, it would be if the property changes hands in the future, then, the cross-access agreement comes into effect. Can that be done? Holinka: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm not quite sure, but it seems to me to be --and certainly the Commission now has the ability to place a condition on the approval of this application, so I think in that respect -- Zaremba: But it's a condition that's triggered by a future activity. Holinka: Right. Zaremba: And is that okay? Holinka: I mean think you would -- Zaremba: It may or may not happen. Holinka: Right. To me I think the better route would be to make the condition more concrete and something that would have to be -- you know, just make it a condition, not an if/when kind of thing. Strite: Mr. Chair, I have a suggestion to counsel, perhaps, that might work. We have REA's throughout the three parcels. We have excluded this parcel specifically. The REA's call for cross-parking, cross-access, et cetera. If we were to add this parcel to the REA's, would that satisfy the legal intent? Holinka: I think it probably would. Strite: We are prepared to do that. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes.. Powell: What's an REA? Strite: Just across-access agreement. CC&R's, I think, is another way of putting it. I have -- you mean specifically excluded this site at the request of Tony Romas, however, I think that it would be appropriate that we could ask them to be included in the total CC&R project, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 51 of 1D5 Borup: So what's that -- Strite: That would give you, then, the legal right to have cross-access to that site Borup: So, what's the full meaning of REA? Strite: Well, you got me. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Real estate agreement, maybe. Strite: I think the reason that they wanted these lots was because they were going to have exclusive rights only to that parking and that's why they were excluded. But perhaps we can do that through signage and that would probably be sufficient. Rohm: I, actually, like having the employee parking off site, if you will, because that leaves all the other parking to the retail customers and it, actually, creates a better environment from the retail perspective. Borup: Well --and with the -- realizing the orientation on this, it makes more sense, too. With the buildings around it. We didn't have that on our other site plan. Strite: I have also one other suggestion and I would ask that you add that as a condition. As we have done before you and you have heard this a hundred times, so it probably shouldn't need to be repeated, but we have designed our parking spaces per ULI, not per the City of Meridian. We have a two foot overhang on our cars, the seven foot walks. I think you have all heard the story more than once, but I just got a - I just want to make certain that that's -- that this goes on record as a condition and would be prepared to add that as condition number 12. Borup: The city has approved that in the past Strite: On all our projects. Zaremba: Give me the numbers again. It's a nine foot space with a two foot overhang? Strite: That's correct. ULI suggests that those spaces ought to be 17 feet with a two foot overhang, because it adds up to the total of 19 feet on the -- Zaremba: I thought I left ten feet off of that. So, we are talking about 17 feet with a two foot overhang. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 52 of 705 Strite: Seventeen feet with a two foot overhang, minimum .seven foot walk. In relationship to the compact spaces, they become seven and a half by 13 with a two foot overhang, minimum seven foot walk or landscape strip. Borup: And the sidewalk curb would be the tire bumper. Strite: That's correct. Zaremba: Uh-huh. And that's how you proposed it; right? Strite: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? I don't think we have anything else. Strite: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr: Chairman, I move the hearing on item seven be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Not seeing anybody jumping for discussion, I'll make a motion: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of -- I'm sorry, is this one that we decide finally or do we forward this, when it's just adrive-thru? Kirkpatrick: It is forwarded to -- Zaremba: The whole thing gets forwarded. Kirkpatrick: -- to Council. Zaremba: Okay. Back up and start the motion again, then. Mr. ,Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item seven on our agenda, CUP 03-072, request fora Conditional U se P ermit for a drive-thru w indow f or a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises, northeast corner of South Progress Avenue and Central Drive and this is referring to the site plan dated 30 December '03, to include all staff comments of the staff report for the hearing date of February 19, 2004, received by the City Clerk February 17, 2004, with the following change: On page five add a paragraph 12 that says parking stalls maybe 17 feet, with a two foot overhang of a seven foot walk as proposed. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 79, 2004 Page 53 of 105 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I'm assuming that's approving the project as presented. Zaremba: Well, it's taking the developer's word for it that they will change the CC&Rs and include that piece of property. Borup: Which does not include all staff comments, then. Strite: I was just about to say that. I apologize. I think we will have to reopen this. If you look at item number 11 as written, you might want to take a second look at that. Zaremba: I'm sorry, my motion was adding that and it was not a -- I didn't realize it was in writing. I thought that was a verbal request. Did we vote on the motion? Rohm: I don't think so. Borup: No. Zaremba: In that case, I would make an amendment to the motion. Powell: You did vote on the motion. Borup: We did vote on the motion? Okay. Zaremba: Take some direction. Do I need a new motion, then? Borup: C an w e r escind t hat -- h ow d o we rescind t he m otion? We have d one t his before. Zaremba: Yeah, we have. And, actually, what we did is we made an amendment to the previous motion, so Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Anew motion. It would be a new motion. Zaremba: I make a new motion that we amend the previous motion. All aspects of CUP 03-072 remain as stated in the previous motion, with the exception that on the staff notes page five, paragraph 11, the current sentence can be deleted and we will substitute the sentence that applicant has agreed to revise the CC&Rs to include a cross-access agreement. All other aspects of the previous motion remain. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 54 of 105 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 03-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 57.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W. H. Moore Company - northwest comer of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-025, request for annexation and zoning of 58.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W.H. Moore Company. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. This item was originally set for hearing November 6th, 2003, and at that point it was continued until January 15. At that point the property had not been appropriately noticed and so it was continued to tonight. There has not been a staff presentation, even though we have had this on two previous meetings, so I will just briefly go over the application that W.H. Moore Company has submitted to the city on this. The property is approximately 58 acres northeast -- I'm sorry, northwest corner of Eagle Road, State Highway 55, and Ustick Road. There are three separate parcels, but all under single ownership. Parkstone Subdivision, which came through as Champion Park,. is abutting the entire west boundary. Jasmine is a subdivision that is to the north, which is Ada County. This purple line that you see on here is the area of city impact boundary between the City of Boise and the City of Meridian. This does show that this -- this northerly 12 -- 12 acres was added -- was withdrawn from Boise City, then, added to the City of Meridian's area of impact last year. So, this is at the extreme north -- sort of east -- northeast corner, really, of our area of impact, at least on Eagle Road. This would all be City of Boise, then, as you head north for a couple of miles. The applications on the south side of Ustick Road, other than our new Commissioner Moe, I think everyone else has been -- was on the Commission when these came through. This was part of the Kissler application, similar, in that they requested annexation and zoning only without a development plan, which is the same as this application for you tonight. That application included this approximately 24 acres here on the southwest corner and it also included 18 acres here on the southeast corner. Unfortunately, the city has not acted on those. There is no final action. That is planned for this coming Tuesday. So, staffs hope was that we could come back to this commission and sort of tell you what the counsel's direction to staff was on these annexation requests without development plans. It is fairly rare. However, there has been quite a bit of activity that is -- well, I should say some activity that's different on Mr. Moore's property than the ones on the south. One of them I have already mentioned, that's the fact that this area of impact change was done, but also the will serve letter was issued by the City of Meridian to W.H. Moore Company a couple of years ago, which did address the services of water and sewer, as well as an agreement, essentially, to annex when it could be annexed. Last year Parkstone was annexed, which, of course, made this property eligikile, so at that point a couple of months later they chose to go ahead and submit their application. The South Slough Trunk extension project is complete -- pretty much complete. That