Loading...
MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 Page 41 of 48 Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 15-008. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Next on the list is the public hearing of CUP 15-007 -- Bull: I appreciate you guys spending your time listening to us. We appreciate it. Thank you. Public Hearing: CUP 15-007 Carl's Jr. at Chinden and Linder Crossing by John Nelson Located Northwest Corner of Chinden Boulevard and N. Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment in a C -C Zoning District Within 300 Feet of a Residential District and Existing Residence Yearsley: Thank you. We'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 15-007, Carl's Junior, and let's begin with the staff report. Parson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Carl's Junior at Chinden and Linder Crossing, conditional use permit. It's located near the south -- or northwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard. It's currently zoned C -C within the city. In 2014 this property was before you as -- for subdivision approval called the Chinden and Linder Crossing Subdivision. It was platted with nine commercial lots and a concept plan and development agreement was also approved subsequent with this preliminary plat, that it approved this site for a mix of commercial uses on the site in conjunction with the surrounding residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan for this property is mixed use community and at the time that this came before you the Commission and staff both found that the site was consistent with that designation. So, this drive-thru use that is before you this evening is consistent with the concept plan and that mixed use community designation. You can see here that the property is surrounded by residential development to the west and a county subdivision to the north and, then, across the street we have some commercial development in the process, some C -N and C -C. Because this project is before you this evening it is because the drive-thru is within 300 feet of the adjacent residence, which is just north of this -- of this proposed development. So, the applicant wants to develop this site with a 2,800 square foot restaurant and associated drive-thru facility. In that zoning district the applicant -- or with the drive-thru use the applicant has to comply with specific use standards in the UDC. In my staff report I did call out some modifications to the site plan that I will not go over this evening in depth, but quickly run through those for you. As you can see here the applicant will come off a right -in, right -out access from Chinden Boulevard and, then, enter the site from a commercial driveway. So, really, there are no -- there aren't any site circulation as far as stacking in the main drive aisles, but as you turn into the site and as you enter the parking area staff has some concerns with some Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 Page 42 of 48 congestion here with the way the traffic would function through the parking area. So, we have required that the applicant stripe the drive-thru lane and stripe the adjacent drive aisle one way, so that all traffic that comes in and enters this way to the first entrance into the parking area will be a one way circulation through the site. That will allow vehicles to stack up and keep congestion away from the parking area. If folks want to go into the restaurant and sit, they can certainly just drive through and come back and park this way. So, that was the primary concern. As you know with any drive-thru lane or stacking area that's over a hundred linear feet they have to provide an exit lane, which they have done here, and so if anyone comes in has to order here and doesn't have their wallet or their money, they can actually enter out here and exit out of the development. So, that does comply with the UDC standards. Staff had some concerns with how the cross -access would look with the adjacent property to the east and the application -- there is a condition of approval that they either provide an additional landscape island in this general area or get something from the adjacent property owners stating they will construct that when the property to the east is developed. Here is the proposed landscape plan. What you see here is consistent with the UDC. The applicant is actually providing a greater landscape buffer along the roadway to the north to provide a greater buffer to the adjacent single family residential, although this development is approximately 290 feet from the nearest residence. So, it's not like it's really on top of the adjacent residence, but the applicant has gone above and beyond what code requires as far as buffer along the street. Again, this site -- this landscape plan before you does comply with the UDC. I'd also mention to you that a portion of the landscape buffer along the roadway -- so with Island Drive -- with Island Green Drive here to the north and Chinden Boulevard, a portion of that was approved with the subdivision that the city acted on and that would have to be completed and the plat has to be recorded before the applicant can get a building permit for the drive-thru restaurant. The elevations before you this evening are consistent with the UDC standards and the development agreement. There are no modifications to the elevations before you this evening. Primary building materials will consist of stucco and brick veneer. Staff did not receive any written testimony on the applicant. However, I did receive a phone call from the adjacent neighbor to the north and he wanted me to go on record on his behalf stating that he has concerns with the odors from the drive-thru -- from the restaurant portion of the -- in the vicinity of his home and I told him I would pass that message along to you. Other than that verbal confirmation from the adjacent neighbors staff has not received any other testimony on this application. I haven't heard anything from the applicant on the revised changes in the staff report. I will complete my presentation with the fact that staff is recommending approval of the application before you with modifications in the staff report and I would stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you. Just for clarification, the Carl's Junior is an approved use, the only thing that we are really acting upon is the drive-thru; is that not correct? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council -- or Commission, that is correct. The drive-thru, because it's typically accessory to the drive -- the restaurant use, however, since they are within that 300 foot of that existing -- existing residence it triggers the conditional use permit. But, yes, the restaurant is principally a permitted use in that zoning district. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 Page 43 of 48 Yearsley: Okay. And, then, the next one -- on that exit lane will there be a sign from the private drive saying exit only or do you know? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff has placed a condition that this be signed -- striped one way, do not enter signs and striped one way for exit only. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: Do not enter. So, it will be signed and taken care of appropriately to make sure no one is entering there. Yearsley: That's perfect. I wanted to make sure that that happened. Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Bill, is it -- what Green -- or Island Green Drive, is it connecting into Spurwing? Is that -- is that part of this condition? Is that part of the -- into the new -- that goes over kind of at the end of it, kind of stubbed over right now. Is that part of the condition? Is that road going to be completed? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Fitzgerald, it is a condition of the final plat that that road be constructed. Fitzgerald: Okay. Parsons: And that's why they can't move forward on a building permit until that improvement is done. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward? Erstad: Commissioners, my name is Andy Erstad. 420 Main Street, Suite 202, in Boise. I'm here representing our client John Nelson and we have had a chance -- and Jason Smith, who is my project architect, much better looking and smarter than I, usually is up here and has been dealing with Bill a lot. Jason and I went over the conditions of approval and I was questioning a couple of -- a couple of the conditions and what we typically do, because we think with our hands and paper. We lay trace out and we -- we sort of clarified I think the intent of the conditions and, then, I had Jason send over a quick sketch to see if we were close. At the end of the day we have no -- no issues with any of the conditions of approval and we appreciate your time and we always like being last. I will stand for questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 Page 44 of 48 Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you. Erstad: Thank you. Yearsley: I do have a few people signed up, Victor -- and I won't do the last name. My apologies. Please state your name and address for the record. Zadorozhny: Okay. I'm Victor Zadorozhny and I live at 6551 Barney Lane. Unfortunately for me, they build in there Carl's Junior just in my backyard, my property, and just behind me. And, like I said, it's unfortunately for me we have very beautiful property and now their window 200, what, 35 feet from my property and if -- as you know that the drive-thru open until midnight and if you see this plot you will have this when they driving in they just use their headlights they flash in my windows. When they driving out again they flash in my windows and consider this: it's a smell. It's a greasy smell. And, like I said, the headlights when they shining out it's hard to see from my property and back in my windows and what I'm trying to say, we are going to lose our quality of life there. They are not allowed to build in the residential area the drive-thru. I'm completely opposed and I plead my case before you. Please, don't allow them build this. Thank you very much. Yearsley: Thank you. I think it's your wife. She signed up as well. Okay. She's against it as well. Andrew Lawrence. All right. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Would the applicant like to come forward and -- Erstad: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, again, Andy Erstad, 420 Main Street, Suite 202. Is it getting late or what? I appreciate the neighbor's concerns and the challenges in an adjacency exist and the development was approved in the master plan and we are developing one of the parcels on the property. I think the thing that -- that bodes well for -- I think a clear decision and a straight forward decision is the fact that the property -- the restaurant is up towards Chinden and as I told the neighbor, it's -- I used a really simple, very sophisticated scale where I take tick marks and I counted them up. Our engineer was here and confirmed that I was pretty darn close. We are about 235 feet to the property line on the north side of the street and in between that 235 feet that's from the -- the ordering window or the ordering speaker, then, you go around the restaurant and the pick up window. They are about the same distance away from the property line. But between those two events is 235 feet to the property line of the neighbor and in between there is another 25 feet buffer -- landscape buffer. You were shown that on the -- Bill put that up for review. The buffer is enhanced. It's a larger buffer than we are required. That's the imagery. And think that's -- that's done for two reasons. One, we recognize that we are adjacent to a residential neighborhood and we also recognize that the way we have oriented the drive-thru -- even if the drive-thru was oriented differently you would still have that circulation of traffic on there. So, we felt this buffer gave that a greater protection for the neighbors. The neighbor did also ask about that the -- about the trash enclosure and I'm not sure -- and I don't think I can -- that's the trash enclosure right there and, again, screened to the north was the -- was the landscape buffer and any buffer that the developer is required to put on the north side of the road. So, I think taking Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 Page 45 of 48 the distance, taking the enhanced buffer, taking the site plan and we worked closely with staff to be the best site plan possible, I think, is all sort of trying to be good neighbors and if we were -- if the trash enclosure was ten feet from the property line and the residence was right on the other side of the fence, which, believe me, I think we have all seen that scenario, I -- I couldn't stand up here and tell you that I think this is a very workable and a fair solution. If we don't have odors coming out of this building -- it may periodically, depending on the winds and whatnot, traverse the property, it would be another restaurant. But I think -- again, I don't want to make light of it -- that distance is really -- is really great for the -- for the residences across the way, so -- I don't -- I don't have any other questions or comments, unless you do. Yearsley: Are there any other questions? I'm sorry, you have already had a chance to speak. I'm sorry, we have already had that opportunity. Thank you. Erstad: Thank you Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on CUP 15-007? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would move we close the public hearing on CUP 15-007. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments? Anybody want to go first? Oliver: I think it works. I think it's nicely landscaped. I think the plan looks fine. I think the drive up will work, especially with the exit that they -- the emergency exit they put in. Yearsley: And I agree. It's unfortunate that we ended up putting the C -C next to -- or allowing this use next to residential, but it has -- it is an allowed use. The only thing that we are really acting upon is do we allow the drive-thru. So, I think they have done a good job orienting the building and orienting the drive-thru as far away from the residents as possible to make this as palatable I guess as possible for the residents and so -- so with that I think it's -- I think it's fairly well done, so -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. I tend to agree, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Erstad and his staff should be commended for moving the speaker box away from the -- towards Chinden where it's going to be noisy, pushing it as close as we can to Chinden to not impact the -- the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 Page 46 of 48 neighbors and bring in additional landscaping where need be and so I agree with you it's a little bit of a challenge, it's a hard corner and it's -- but it is a commercial zone and so I think we -- based on that we kind of have to move forward from there. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? So, with that I would entertain a motion. Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 15-007 as presented in the staff report on May 21st, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number CUP 15-007 as presented. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Other Items A. Request for Approval to Change Certain Planning Application Checklists by the Planning Department Yearsley: Oh. One last item. The checklist. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I won't belabor this evening too much longer, but I will summarize it very briefly and very quickly. Our UDC requires us to bring forward -- if we have substantial changes to our checklist our UDC requires that they come before you for action and so I did prepare a memo for you and highlighted which changes are -- that we are proposing to the checklist and quickly going through this, the first one would be our annexation and rezone checklist. Where ever we require someone to submit an annexation application we require basically a legal description and exhibit map and this change on this checklist basically just tells -- better informs the applicant on how to prepare that document and submit it to staff, so we don't get bogged down with the application submittal process waiting for the correct documents and that's really what the process of all of these checklist changes are this evening. And the next one pertains to our final plat checklist and our short plat checklist and this request came from our land development division in which they want to receive those plans in a certain -- a certain number of copies in a certain way so they can review plans accurately for the applicant. So, we have worked closely with them to make those changes happen. With that I would stand -- we are asking for your approval of these changes that I presented to you as far as strikeouts, underlined format, and I'd stand for any questions you might have. Yearsley: Are there any questions?