The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 09-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 6, 2001 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday September 6, 2001 by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Bill Nary, Sally Norton, and Jerry Centers. Members Absent: Keven Shreeve. Others Present: David McKinnon, Bruce Freckleton, Dave Swartley, Dean Willis, and Tara Green. Borup: We'd like to open the regular scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for the City of Meridian, Thursday, September 6. Those in attendance for the Commissioners this evening is Sally Norton, Jerry Centers, Bill Nary. Keven Shreeve is absent this evening. And Keith Borup. We do not have the Minutes from our last meeting. I'm assuming those will be coming at subsequent meetings. Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 01-013 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.24 acres from M-1 to I-L zones for Coors Distributing by Coors Distributing Co. – 3225 Commercial Court: Borup: The first item on the agenda is Public Hearing AZ 01-013, request for annexation and zoning of 4.24 acres from M-1, which is a county zoning designation, to I-L for Coors Distributing at 3225 Commercial Court. We'd like to open that hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if I could just make one comment at the beginning of this meeting. There is going to be some changes to the agenda tonight. I assume you all have the note I left on your desk. Borup: Yes. That would be good to mention that. Item 5. Public Hearing: AZ 01-014 Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham – 125 Blue Herron Lane: Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC. – 2435 South Meridian Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for private RV Storage and reduced lot sizes in Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 2 a R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian Road: McKinnon: Why don't we just go ahead and mention that right now and get it into the minutes. It's come to the attention of the Planning and Zoning staff that items No. 5, 8, and 9 on your agenda tonight, that's Ted Cunningham's annexation and Jim Jewett's Kodiak Development, and the preliminary plat and the planned development, neither of those -- well, actually, all three of those hearings have not been posted for on the property themselves. According to Idaho Code they are required to post those properties seven days prior to the public hearing. There is no requirement for the posting of the property for a subdivision. However, because Jim Jewett's preliminary plat is tied to the planned development, we cannot open that hearing as well. These public hearings need to be entirely re-noticed, which means we will not be able to move those -- that meeting until the second meeting in September due to time constraints, as dictated by the Idaho Code for publishing in the newspaper at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. I talked with both of the applicants, they are both aware of the situation. I met with Ted Cunningham yesterday, he is aware of it, he's now posted his property and he's agreed to have his hearing re-noticed for the October 18th meeting. Mr. Jim Jewett has requested that his application be heard on the October 4th meeting. I have made no arrangements with him to have it on the October 4th meeting, as we do not typically have new hearings or continued hearings on that second -- on the first meeting of each month. I told him that I would bring the topic up for you and decide whether or not you would like to hear it on the 4th or if you would like to hear it on the 18th. Borup: Any discussion from the Commission? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Well, it has been our practice for quite awhile now to -- as Dave said, to move continued hearings to the second meeting of the month and, secondarily, it would appear, at least from this memo, that that was the applicant's responsibility to get it posted timely. If it's not posted timely I don't see any reason to deviate from our practice. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: In addition, our October 4th meeting already has 12 public hearings on it. Borup: And that's what I may have mentioned. You know, if we have got a schedule that would accommodate, I wouldn't have a real problem with doing it on the 4th, but, as you say, we have got 12 public hearings, two of those other subdivisions and, you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 3 depending on testimony we may have a hard time getting through that schedule anyway. So any other comments? If not, do we have a recommendation? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move that we move Item 5, AZ 01-014, request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from Ted Cunningham at 125 Blue Heron Lane, that we move that to the October 18th meeting. Borup: Okay. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: And Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would move that we move Items 8 and 9, PP 01-016 and CUP 01-029, the request for preliminary plat approval of 28 building lots and five other lots for Kodiak Subdivision, as well as a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development for private RV storage, also Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development to -- both items to the October 18th meeting. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion made and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Thank you. Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 01-013 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.24 acres from M-1 to I-L zones for Coors Distributing by Coors Distributing Co. – 3225 Commercial Court: McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I guess we can get onto the Coors Distributing file now, that's annexation file 01-010. Very simply put, this is a piece of property that is already within the limits of the city and it's surrounded on three sides by the City of Meridian at this time. The piece of property is already hooked up to city water and sewer and so that's not going to be an issue to the annexation tonight. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 4 property was posted correctly for this one and I think this is a fairly straight forward annexation. At this time it would like to be annexed into the city out of the county. Borup: Is the applicant here or their representative? Weissbeck: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, excuse me, my name is George Weissbeck and I'm the manager of the Coors distributorship and I will stand for any questions or comments that may be applicable. Borup: Have you had a chance to review the staff report? Weissbeck: Yes, I have, sir. Borup: Any concerns or questions with that report? Are you in agreement with everything in there? Weissbeck: Mr. Chairman, the only question I had was one from the Ada County Highway District and I spoke to the young lady who sent it. I think there was a misunderstanding -- Borup: Was that on the fee? Weissbeck: Pardon me, sir? Borup: Was it on the fee? Weissbeck: No. It was not on the fee, it was a question about sidewalks. She thought – Borup: Oh. Weissbeck: The only difference of the property from today versus two months ago is not visible. It's the hook-up -- it was something about a sidewalk. Once I explained to her that because we hooked up to public water and public sewer her comment was if we ever decide to make any additions or remodeling, then those particular stipulations would be applicable. Other than that I understand. Borup: Yeah. Okay. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Seeing none, thank you. Weissbeck: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners open for -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 5 Norton: Mr. Chairman, I had a question regarding that sidewalk. In staff's report on page two, number four, annexation site specific, five-foot sidewalks shall be required on Eagle Road upon redevelopment. Is this not the same sidewalk? McKinnon: This is that same sidewalk, except the Ada County Highway District thought that this was actually a development application, rather than an annexation application. I guess the misunderstanding with ACHD was that typically with their annexations they don't force anything at that time, they give a list of conditions that when the property is either redeveloped or subdivided that they become effective at that time. Similarly with our application process when they redevelop this piece of property they will be required to put in that five foot sidewalk. Norton: Okay. And the applicant is okay with that? McKinnon: I think that's a question for the applicant. Borup: I don't know if they have any choice. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Centers. Centers: Yes. The term redevelopment, are you saying if they add onto the property or if they remodel the property? I mean is that a good term to use there, upon redevelopment? I don't personally think so at this time, no. I think it should be more than finding -- McKinnon: Okay. Additional development on the property is typically the standard that we adhere to is additional development, if they -- Centers: So what are you saying, a remodel? McKinnon: A remodel would not. Typically anything that would require a certificate of zoning compliance, an additional building, an addition to the building itself that's going to require a building permit, any additional subdividing of that property creating an additional lot on that property would require that. I would be welcome if we had some more specific language to that if you have some -- Centers: Well, I just put it on the record, so that's good. You know, if they have to obtain a building permit. I think this is for the applicant's benefit here, so it's defined more clearly and you know what your situation is in the future and that's why I wanted to get it cleared up for your benefit. Okay. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Did your question get answered, Commissioner Norton? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 6 Norton: I suppose it is. All that language is in the minutes, which is public information, so -- Borup: So you were just looking at the same thing, have a clarification of what would trigger the necessity for the sidewalk? Norton: Actually, I just -- for my own clarification is this particular sidewalk the same as Ada County was concerned with and, apparently, according to Dave, he said, yes, it is. Borup: Yes. Same. Norton: But the redevelopment language is more specific now that Commission Centers has gone over it. Borup: Okay. I think we are all right then. Any other questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: I move we close the public hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: Mr. Chairman, maybe if I could help with this in this motion. I would move the approval of -- recommend the approval to the City Council of AZ 01-013, request for annexation and zoning of 4.24 acres from M-1 to I-L zones for Coors Distributing by Coors Distributing Company at 3225 Commercial Court to adopt all staff comments from the August 1st, 2001, staff report with the following amendment: On page two, annexation site specific requirement number four, that the sentence would have an addition so it would now read: A five foot sidewalk shall be required along Eagle Road upon redevelopment beyond remodeling of the existing building at the time of annexation. Does that seem adequate so that it's clear? What's there now is fine. If they need to do more beyond just remodeling, then they have to do that. Borup: Yes. I think that was the intent of everything to start with. There is a motion. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 7 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE Borup: Thank you. Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 01-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a Drive-Up window and Drive-Thru lane in a C-G zone for Moxie Java Drive-Thru by Avest Limited Partnership c/o Dakota Company, Inc. – North Locust Grove Road and East Loop Lane: Borup: Item No. 6 is Public Hearing CUP 01-026, request for Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a drive-up window and drive-thru lane in a C-G zone for Moxie Java Drive-Thru by Avest Partnership. I'd like to open this public hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. If you look on the overhead you can see right now that that's the Avest property, the highlighted area. It is the area where the Moxie Java is now located. It's a little more detailed in color right there going to the arrow. The small strip-type development there with Moxie Java being on the most westerly -- actually, the most easterly side of the building. The site plan showing the details of how they would like to add the new drive-thru window, the elevations of the existing building with the remodels -- with the remodeling adding the drive-thru window. Finally, some actual site pictures showing the property as it exists right now. This is the backside of Moxie Java and we will get to that. There is a reason for those rear pictures as well, because there is another drive-thru lane that will be crossed by this proposed drive-thru lane. I will get to the application. This is not the first time that Avest Partnership or Dakota Development has actually brought this application before you. Originally when the building was constructed there was a request for this to be a drive-thru window in addition to the drive-thru window for the TCBY that's on the west end side of the building. At that time it was refused due to the fact that they believed that this drive-thru window would be a hindrance to those people that lived in the area. The second time that this drive-thru is requested was in 1999. The City Council denied the drive-thru lane based on the following findings. This is a quote from their findings: "The drive-thru lane presents a juxtaposition of existing drive-thru, the proposed drive- thru lane, and the neighboring traffic pattern of the existing -- excuse me -- of the neighboring traffic pattern for a drive-thru in the parking lot of the Dakota Development, which creates two traffic cross-over patterns which are found to be designed, constructed, operated and maintained not to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance of the existing intended character and general vicinity and would involve uses, activities, and conditions of operation that would be detrimental to persons, property, and general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic flowing in incompatible and unsafe directions." The finding was made on July 20th, 1999. Following that denial the applicant requested the City to reconsider it's denial on -- and this was actually heard and the request was denied again on August 17th, 1999. And they amended their Findings of Fact at that time to include the following statement: The additional modified site plan presented by Dan Thompson of Earth Tech, which is -- which the proposed use does not alleviate the problem and it is found that there is not Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 8 enough room on the site with the existing neighboring TCBY drive-up window for two drive-up windows and the accompanying traffic patterns associated therewith to provide adequately for safe vehicle traffic and pedestrian use of the subject property and site. This is the second site plan that they brought before them on the second rehearing of this project is the mirror image of the project that you now see before you. I'll bring up a couple comments from the staff report. If you could turn to page three, Item D. The property will not be hazardous and disturbing to existing future neighboring uses. Staff feels that beyond the stacking depth problems that have already been discussed, that in the future if Moxie Java or TCBY moves out of this location and we do allow a drive-thru at this location, that a use that is different from TCBY could move in, which would allow longer time for people to get their -- to get their items at the drive-thru window. In the past in the minutes at the last meetings when this was brought before you was that due to the fact that this is a coffee shop, the time that people will be waiting in line would actually be shorter than people that are waiting in line for a McDonald's or for a Burger King or for a similar type use, because that type of merchandise that's being picked up is actually something that's less than would be required for preparation time. However, the problem exists that if we allow it at this point and Moxie Java moves out and something else moves in, this could create a problem with stacking depth to the south of this piece of property. There is currently only 60 feet of stacking depth, according to their site plan -- I will put that back up. There is 60 feet of stacking depth. The typical stacking depth for a drive-thru restaurant for a drive-thru in the City of Meridian is one hundred feet and that's basically allowing the cars that are between 15 and 20 feet in length with four feet of space between the vehicles to stack five vehicles deep. Currently it only shows 60 feet. Without the one hundred feet, if we had any more than three vehicles parked at this drive-thru window at any one time it will block traffic trying to enter into that area of the shopping center. Additionally, too, if you will notice on the top part of the site plan as shown on the overhead, is that the drive-thru window for TCBY actually accesses the drive-thru portion through the rear of the building, which would require that the people in Moxie Java actually exit across the drive-thru facility for TCBY. As I mentioned before, if something other than TCBY or Moxie Java were to utilize this location, the stacking depth problem could become exacerbated. There is already heavy traffic in this area and staff believes that this will actually increase the traffic in this area within this parking lot. It was already a heavily used traffic area. The recommendation of the staff, in conclusion, with all the comments, is that the stacking depth is not deep enough for what is being proposed at this location and that actually exiting across another drive-thru and existing only 45 feet from another exit from the parking lot is that these areas are too short. Staff concurs with the findings that the Council had at the previous two meetings for this and I would turn it back over to you at this time. Borup: Okay. I have a quick question on the TCBY view. Was that -- that was part of the original -- McKinnon: That was part of the original -- Borup: Was included on the conditional use? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 9 McKinnon: It was. Drive-thrus and -- Borup: Are always conditional use. McKinnon: Are always conditional use. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Dave, I was curious. Part of your staff report raises a concern about a future user. Couldn't we fashion this conditional use for this user, so that it wasn't going to be -- if it did change ownership, then the conditional use would expire and a different owner have to come and apply for that? McKinnon: The problem that planning staff sees with that is that we would not see another -- Moxie Java could move out and somebody else could move in, in the time that we find out that Moxie Java has moved out. We have no noticing that they are required to do once Moxie Java exits and the tenant that comes in, in its place is not required to come to the City. Borup: But isn't that tenant bound by the Conditional Use Permit? McKinnon: The tenant is bound by that Conditional Use Permit. Part of the problem is that staff is not -- we are not static, we are not going to be here forever, and neither will all the Commissioners and so ten years from now I can guarantee you that we will have a different group of people sitting at all these tables and we won't be able to follow that, but the improvements will be in place, the improvements that we allow right now to put in the drive-thru window and to put in the drive-thru lane will exist longer than I'm sure I will exist right here. Nary: But I guess the only concern I would have, though, Dave, is that we are basically using as a basis for denial the fact that at some point some day in the future someone else might rent that space that doesn't just serve coffee and that doesn't seem very reasonable and I don't know in the code where it says that's a good basis to deny something, because somebody else might come and rent it some day. I mean it seems like we could fashion -- we could fashion the Conditional Use Permit to be very narrow, if you wanted to do that, so that it wouldn't be usable by someone else. I understand your concern is how would we know it from the staff if someone violated. It's no different than any other violation of a Conditional Use Permit. I mean that's what we have code enforcement for. You know, I mean if TCBY closed and they didn't have a drive-thru there anymore, we may not have the same problem. So to me I guess you can't say -- you can't use that as a basis. I think the other things are reasonable, but I just -- I'm a little concerned about that. McKinnon: And I understand that. Part of our concern is that from the planning aspect is if you allow somebody to go ahead and put in something, there is a reasonable Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 10 expectation that someone else should be able to use that as well and from the planning aspect as a planner we have to look forward to see what else could happen at that location. That's one of the requirements for us to do. So we are looking at this not just on a short-term basis, but what is going to happen in the future. That's the whole concept of us to plan for this. If we do allow this to happen, the improvements will be made at a cost to the applicant and then to reverse that -- I think that it's harder to reverse something after you have allowed it to happen. It makes it much harder at that point. However, staff is -- if you have a way -- a way to come up with tonight that we can severely limit that to that, staff would agree. Nary: Is that type of restriction on TCBY's Conditional Use Permit? I mean if they changed ownership and they were going to serve full meals like Westside Drive-In. McKinnon: Well, it wasn't, but at that time the second drive-thru that crosses over that was not approved and so if we allow McDonald's to go in at a certain location and we have a reasonable expectation that a similar use will be at that location for the entire length of that building's life -- typically they are not torn down right away, that there is an expected life expectancy for buildings of this nature. Nary: Isn't the entrance -- and maybe this is better for the applicant, but the entrance for this drive-thru goes south to north; correct? McKinnon: There is two entrances I believe right there that you can see on the -- Nary: You mean for the one we are talking about tonight, it goes south to north -- McKinnon: Yes. South to north. Nary: -- and exits out on this little drive -- that road goes behind it. McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: So was there any discussion from the applicant about going from north to south, so that you have people entering in the same location and there is no exiting crossing one another? McKinnon: Well, yes, it would put the passenger on the window side. Nary: Well, they have that at the Moxie Java over here on Main Street and 21st -- McKinnon: Okay. Nary: -- and they have one on both sides. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 11 McKinnon: Continuing right there. With any stacking depth that you would see in this way, the stacking depth would actually be reversed and it would actually go back out into the street. Nary: Okay. So if you moved it further up in the building, if that was what -- if they really want this, is what I'm thinking. If they really want this is that -- that's not something they ever discussed, but moving it further forward in the building or anything else. McKinnon: It hasn't been discussed that I know of. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions for any Commissioners? Would the applicant like to come forward? Paulson: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, my name is John Paulson of the Dakota Company, 380 East Park Center Blvd., Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. I am here on behalf of the applicant Avest Limited Partnership regarding the Conditional Use Permit application to add a drive-up window and drive-thru lane to the tenant space located at the east end of the existing tenant building located at North Locust Grove Road and East Loop Lane. East Loop Lane, of course, is a private road. Avest and Dakota Company have worked together on many projects and take pride in what we do, including the Avest shopping center that we are discussing tonight in which this Conditional Use Permit application is being made for the second time, not the third time as stated in the staff's memorandum to the Mayor, City Council, and yourselves, dated August 6th and included in your packet this evening. To set the record straight, there was never a Conditional Use Permit application submitted for a drive-up window for this tenant space prior to the application to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved unanimously on June 8th of 1999. This application was then denied by City Council in July of 1999 based upon their misinterpretation that East Loop Lane was a public street. We need to go before the City Council to correct this misinformation and the only way we can do this is by going through you again for the second time and ask your approval again so that we can go before the City Council. If I may, I'd like to put up the overall site plan of the site. Can you see this or is there a glare? The building that we are discussing is one that's located in this quadrant, the southeast quadrant of North Locust Grove. The project that -- or the location that we are talking about is in this corner, the southeast corner of North Locust Grove and private Loop Road. This is actually one of the least traveled areas in the entire center. There is very, very little travel that goes on the private road. On the north side of East Loop Road is a series of storage buildings. The only access to that is at this location. Travel to the Fred Meyer store and the tenants across Fairview Avenue are principally coming in off of Fairview Avenue or the entrance at North Locust Grove. There is traffic considerations here, traffic considerations at the bank, at McDonald's, and at the two drive-thrus for Subway and the drycleaners, all of which operate sufficiently without problems and without disruption to the overall traffic. It might be noted that other Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 12 locations -- in fact, the Burger King just down the road -- I'm sorry -- the traffic that patterns around the Subway and the drycleaners, which also have drive-thru traffic, are not entering major traffic areas in the shopping center. As I mentioned, this location is the least difficult as far as traffic patterns throughout the center. It's an isolated area. Ease of getting in and out of the center, there is a TCBY drive-thru, that as I understand when it was first put in, there were concerns by the owner across the street, a Mary Calhoun, who raised concerns of headlights from the traffic coming into her home. At that time a wall and berming was put in that hid the lights from that location. The location that we are talking about now -- and I can give you a smaller handout if that would be helpful. This is a large scale drawing of that same thing. What we are proposing to do is have the drive-thru traffic enter from south to north. It would be a situation where traffic would cross at a right angle to the traffic that's going through the drive-thru for TCBY. This, of course, is not unlike an intersection. It is also not unlike the conditions encountered in the parking lot as you're driving up the parking angles. It's a right angle. People can observe what's happening. Centers: Where is the TCBY window? Paulson: As I mentioned, the location of this building and the proposed drive-up is the least impacted by traffic concerns of any location on this overall site. It's isolated from cross-traffic, it's protected from the main driveway entrances. The entrance and exit is primarily on the private road. No driveway entrances for the property are on the north side of East Loop Lane. As I mentioned, everything across the north side of East Loop Lane is isolated. The only entrance is further to the east. We have worked with staff on drive-thru approvals for Syringa Bank, Arby's, Carl's Junior, to name a few. All of which protect the safety of the customer and the public. It is our job to keep the center safe and sane and we will do that. We have been in this business a long time and understand the needs of the retailer and their customers. We also understand that the Council has political considerations. The concerns of the prior City Council about impact on the residential neighborhood across Locust Grove Road were a concern when the tenant building was first constructed and the TCBY drive-thru was being built. As I stated earlier, I understand that the person across the street did have problems, concerns with headlights of cars that might be a potential problem. That was corrected and solved by putting a wall with a large berm across that area. We try to find solutions for the problems. One thing, as a matter of fact, that I would suggest that we might do at this time for this proposed location -- what I also would suggest that we might do is add some signage here to help direct that the TCBY traffic goes this direction for the right turn across here and the Moxie Java drive-thru traffic goes through here. As I'm sure that most of you know, the drive-thru is a critical concept to this tenant space and to its competitors in the industry. This location has an advantage, however, over many others in that it also provides a sit-down service and would not be a kiosk operation that could only serve its drive-thru traffic. The location on the site and the traffic circulation on the site, along with a very minimal traffic on the private road, East Loop Lane, minimize any traffic conflicts on the site. TCBY does not open for business until 11:00 a.m. and 75 percent of their business is done after 3:00 p.m. The tenant at the east of the tenant building opens at 6:00 a.m. and does approximately 80 percent of their Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 13 business before noon. The potential conflict of cross-traffic between the two drive-thru lanes is insignificant with all traffic that -- with all the traffic at right angles to each other, as I mentioned early, typical to any intersection and similar to the main drive-in aisles throughout the parking of a shopping center. Staff also recognizes under Item D of its August 6th memorandum that this is a coffee only drive-thru facility and that service is typically quicker than most fast food drive-thru windows. Typically a fast food retailer time is in the three to five minute range and they need a stacking capacity of five to six cars. Traffic circulation through this operation is right at a minute to a minute and a half and it's, as I said, a coffee service only. Under Item H of the staff memorandum staff finds that the proposed use will not create significant interference with any traffic on the surrounding public streets and ACHD has addressed this issue and has determined that it would not significantly impact the surrounding public streets. Item D, traffic is existing drive-by traffic, not new traffic. I just wanted to point that out. Another comment on the ACHD. The exit lane for the proposed drive-thru is approximately 180 feet from North Locust Grove Road, which is well beyond the minimum requirement of ACHD on a public road. We ask for your approval for the second time on this application and the opportunity to go before City Council. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions. Borup: Mr. Paulson, maybe just a clarification on a statement you made. You said 80 percent of Moxie Java's business is before noon? Paulson: Correct. Borup: Do you know what type of -- what type of numbers that would be? What would it be afternoon? And they are open until how late? Paulson: I'm not sure how late in the evening they are open. We believe it's around 9:00 o'clock. Borup: Okay. So about a little -- Paulson: It could be 8:00 o'clock, but -- Borup: A little bit earlier than -- TCBY is open at 11:00 in the summer. Paulson: That's my understanding. Borup: But then you said they don't open until 11:00 and 75 percent of their business is after 3:00? Paulson: After 3:00 o'clock. It's also a big difference between the coffee service and the ice cream service. Borup: As far as time of year? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 14 Paulson: The time of year. Correct. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Paulson, one of the projects I heard you mention -- I had forgotten -- was the Arby's over on -- you might correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the Arby's drive-thru require the patrons to walk through the driving lane of traffic to get into the facility? Paulson: Yes. Nary: This seems like that's another risk that's not been raised, but you're going to have patrons having to cross cars stacked waiting in that line through that parking lot. Paulson: Actually not. Traffic circulation -- the traffic circulation actually allows customers ease of getting to the front of the tenant building for drive-up, walk-in, and sit-down traffic. The least used parking in this entire center is basically from a point this direction. You can travel through this area most anytime of the week. Nary: I understand right now there isn't a whole lot of parking that occurs on that side of the facility. I guess what my concern would be is if you stacked the cars very far from north going south along there now -- and I think there is many times that I have been there that the traffic from McDonald's runs up that drive lane, as well the other side, that all of a sudden you do have a real traffic problem. But I'm more concerned about people walking through that parking lot with cars waiting in the drive-thru line that's not - - that's not shielded, there is no barricade, there is no nothing. So people are going to walk through to their cars from the store right in the middle of the drive-thru lane. Paulson: Commissioner Nary, you're concerned about traffic from the store walking over to here? Nary: There is people -- there is people that would walk across -- I guess one of my concerns is that you got a stacking depth here this direction. Okay. You have people that walk from the store to this parking in this area and you have got a drive-thru lane that -- it's unsecured, it's an open lane, that people are going to be stacking that way, you have got the McDonald's here that people sometimes stack up this lane just as well and it becomes a much more of a congested area. I agree with what you're saying that it's probably not a huge significant cross-over problem with TCBY, but having this wide open lane in the middle of a parking lot -- and, like I said, it's like the one at Arby's, because I think that's a terrible drive-thru lane, it's very dangerous, and this to me is the same thing. Sometimes when we sit here one of the things I think we have to think about is when people come back here and say what were you thinking in putting something right here where I'm supposed to walk to my car and that's what I think is a Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 15 problem here. I mean you have a private lane. This one is constructed better, because it's behind the building, there is no -- there is no people walking in this area where this drive-thru lane is, yet there is people here. You're not the only business in this building, there is other businesses here that people would want to walk through. They may not all park in this little tiny lot. They may also be unable to get into that lot by the cars stacked along this side. Borup: The tenant space in this building is also service related. Paulson: The tenant space in the tenant building is primarily service related, quick in, quick out. It's not a long sit down traffic pattern. The comment on the parking and customers leaving the Fred Meyer store, the situation of the customer coming down and finding their car or pushing their cart to their car with traffic going through is a worse condition than any traffic going through here. I mean people need to be -- people need to be thinking as they are walking through the parking lot where they are going and what their objective is. Nary: And, Mr. Paulson, I would agree with you, but this is already there. This is not. So our concern is do we add to the problem by allowing this, which will cause more problems in this area for the parking? You have the TCBY that does have a sit-down business, as well as a drive-thru, just like Moxie. There is a pizza place here. There is a mail place there currently. I agree they don't take a long time, but this parking is not very accessible -- isn't this an entrance? Paulson: This is an entrance. Nary: And this is an entrance. Paulson: Right. Nary: And your drive-thru will block one of them; correct? Paulson: Not significantly. I mean there is -- Nary: If there is five cars there it's going to block that. Paulson: If there is five or more, yes. Nary: Okay. So the potential to me of a traffic problem is on this side of it, not the side that staff is talking about, but on this side. That's why I asked the question is there a better way to put the traffic behind the facility, come up this direction north to south to again keep this area, which is where the public is walking, walking to their car, in the snow, with a cart, those type of things, it's already existing in that way, they are not in anymore risk of getting hit by a car. Is there any thought? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 16 Paulson: Probably the same thought that David suggested earlier. Typically for a drive- thru installation it's usually on the driver's side, whether it's a one passenger person picking up or in some cases where it is two it could be on the other side, but it's principally on the driver's side. Nary: So that is the obstacle of there. Paulson: The other consideration for Moxie Java, of course, is utilizing their existing layout in the store and being able to service where their counters are and getting it over to the drive-thru window. Nary: But I did notice, as I told Dave, that the Moxie Java on East 1st Street does have a passenger side drive-thru. So it obviously can work. I see people using it. So I mean I guess my thought is that, hey, I guess if you don't want to do that, that's fine, I'm not here to rewrite it for you, but my concern was that I think there is a significant traffic problem the other direction, more so with the TCBY. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Paulson, since you represent Dakota, could you tell me at Fred Meyer where the cars are to go pick up their large merchandise when they say go to the back loading dock? Where is that at Fred Meyer? Paulson: Typically at Fred Meyer for picking up large items, principally from -- are you talking about grocery items? Norton: A big television set. They say here is your ticket, go pick it up at the loading dock. Paulson: Typically at Fred Meyer the pickup area for those types of items would be back in this corner of the building. Norton: So you have traffic coming from that, not only the car traffic, but truck traffic where the loads -- where the trucks load at Fred Meyer. Paulson: The truck circulation for Fred Meyer would be coming in through here and then backing and then coming out. Norton: Coming out the way you're saying -- you're showing us? Paulson: Coming out through here. Norton: And does that go straight to Locust Grove? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 17 Paulson: I believe so. Borup: The Loop Road does. Paulson: The East Loop Road is the private road. Norton: Okay. So they come on the private road, back in, and then go out the private road? Paulson: That's what I'm suggesting they would do. Norton: Okay. My husband's a truck driver, so he knows how to do those angles and stuff. All right. So we have truck traffic that back there, we have -- and I'm a pedestrian that hits those parking lot areas, because that's the easiest way to get into Fred Meyer and out as fast as you can. Christmas and Thanksgiving that entire parking lot is jammed full starting at 5:00 a.m. in the morning. You're talking about having signs -- Paulson: Fred Meyer opens at 5:00 A.M.? Norton: The lines start at 5:00 a.m., they open at 6:00 the day after Thanksgiving. Paulson: I'm familiar with their operating hours. I was a long time employee of Fred Meyer. Norton: They start at 6:00. Paulson: Their typical hours are 7:00 to 11:00 and then in the Christmas season they do have extended hours where they will open as early as 6:00, but typically not any earlier. Norton: And the lines start at 5:30. Okay. So you're talking about Moxie Java down this side and on this side TCBY; right? Paulson: I don't think TCBY will be too busy in the drive-thru at Christmastime, but -- Norton: Okay. But you want a sign there saying Moxie Java drive-thru here, TCBY drive-thru here; is that right? Paulson: I am suggesting that that might be beneficial for the two. Norton: All right. Thank you. Borup: Any comments, commissioner Centers? Centers: My comment -- and I'm very familiar with this area, because I drive by there all the time, all times of the day and night, I live not -- I go by this stretch of road coming Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 18 back from Boise on my way home. I personally have never seen more than three cars stacked at the TCBY. That's been on a warm summer night. I guess to me the argument that has the most weight is that the hours of operation are opposite of each other -- the vast majority of the hours are opposite each other and I'm sure Commissioner Norton's probably accurate on the traffic at Christmastime, but on a normal -- normal evening -- and that's usually the time I'm there -- the parking area over here that Commissioner Nary was talking about hardly has any cars at all. That's just an area that's not used. People are -- you know, they are going to hit the ones right here and I have always been able to find parking, you know, in this area to go into this entrance, which is the one I usually come down, because I'm coming down Locust Grove. But this -- I have seen very little -- very little traffic, very little cars, and very minimal traffic. My concern would be if it was a different type of use -- and I don't know why that can't be handled in a conditional use. I understand what staff is saying that, you know, that there is no guarantee what future use would be, but that's why we have the clause in the conditional uses that it can be revoked and I mean I assume that's why, for situations like that. And, you know, I guess I'm thinking sometimes things on paper don't always match what's happening in real life and that's what I'm basing a lot of my opinion on is watching that for the past five years, seeing what -- what I have noticed as traffic patterns and usage. Paulson: I might add that Avest Properties has given me authorization to state that they are willing to enter into an agreement for the use for Moxie Java or a similar use. Borup: Strictly a coffee shop you're saying? Paulson: Correct. Nary: Well, I guess the only other additional comment I would have -- and I guess this is fairly common to whenever there is a drive-thru request, is that to get a drive-thru approved part of what seems to get presented is that hardly anybody is going to use it, so it won't be that big a deal. Well, I guess I would say then what do we need it for? I mean I think that the idea has some merit. If you weren't going to be crossing right into lanes of traffic, right across parking spaces that already exist, blocking entrances to a parking facility that may not be used heavily, but it can't be used at all at certain times now, because of the -- Borup: From what I remember from previous they did feel they would get real heavy use, the early morning traffic going to work, and they felt that it was going to be quite heavy at that time, at least that's what they were hoping for, but that's from -- Nary: What time do the others -- Borup: -- 6:00 to 8:00, I assume. Or 6:00 to 9:00. Nary: Then maybe one of the things we could do is fashion this to only allow the use from 6:00 in the morning until noon, see how that works and they could come back and Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 19 ask for it to expand in the future if they show there is not a significant problem with the traffic flow. That's an option. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Centers. Centers: I'd like to know while we are up here discussing this, are there other people in the audience that want to talk for or against the -- Borup: We haven't got to that point yet, but -- Centers: I know. And I think we are going into too deep a discussion until we get there. Borup: Do we have anyone else on this item? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I did have one other question for the staff. I looked through the application and the application is to have a drive-up window, but it doesn't talk about is there a speaker system, where is that located, is it an order at the window and go to another window, or is there a speaker out in the middle of the island? I didn't see an application that indicated that. McKinnon: I wanted to tell you, quite honestly, that the reason why the topic wasn't broached is because, in all reality, there is no residential uses within the general vicinity. It's almost in a -- it's own little enclave there with all commercial uses completely surrounding it. We currently have one drive-thru window right now with TCBY and so the additional drive-thru in that area wasn't something that I broached in the topic of discussion. However, if there was the drive -- well, if there was residential uses located nearby, the topic would have been broached and a different type of system would have been required, rather than having the buzzer and speaker system. Nary: Well, Chairman Borup pointed out to me, because I just didn't notice it, because when you were talking about depth of stacking, here is the building; right? And you were talking about a depth that could go one to five cars, which would put it somewhere over here in the back; correct? McKinnon: Correct. Nary: But the five cars can actually go from where the order window is, not from where the pickup window is. McKinnon: That would be correct. Nary: And the order window is over here in the front. It's right here. McKinnon: If I could ask Jon to come to my table and explain to us. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 20 Nary: So really we are talking five -- we are talking five up here, which puts you right -- a little bit in this parking lot and you move the order window back another 50 feet it puts cars right out here. To me even more of a concern when the order window is at the front. If it's in front of the sidewalk on the existing -- I mean the existing canopy. It's right here. So that means that the cars are going to be stacked here ordering, then moving up here. Put them more in harm's way of where people are as has already been talked about. Paulson: Actually, their method of operation is to have the order placed at the window and pickup at the window. Nary: Then why is it marked on here? Borup: That's just the order board and that's not a speaker then? Paulson: That's correct. Nary: So that's where people are going to be sitting in their cars deciding what they want -- well, it's still no different. They are still going to be stacked behind them waiting for them to decide what they want. I mean it doesn't change the fact that it pushes the cars further into the parking lot and you have other ways to go to do this safely without people having to walk across it. Borup: Does it take a lot of time to decide with coffee? Nary: Sometimes it does. Centers: Sometimes they have like a hundred different options. Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: What do you have -- is there a canopy or anything right there? Paulson: No. Right now in its existing operation there is a patio area. Centers: Because I understand where Commissioner Nary is coming from and I totally agree with him. They are going to be stacked up from here, because they are going to be reading the menu, and you and I both know it's a long one. Most people, though, know what they want when they get there. I mean is there anyplace else that you could put that so that they don't stack back or maybe right at the window where they receive their order? Paulson: I think certainly the placement of the menu reader board could be placed where it's more convenient. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 21 Borup: I don't see that as a difficulty. Centers: Since I have the floor and I agree with Commissioner Nary on certain -- certain points, but yet, on the other hand, I don't like to make it difficult for a business to operate. They have been there five, six years, so they have been a good business operator in the city of Meridian and they want to make a little more money with a drive- thru. Any parking lot, any shopping center, it's pedestrian beware. When you go outside with your shopping cart you better be looking where you're going. I think it's just that simple, whether there is a drive-thru and a few cars stacked up or not. So it's -- I'm torn. I see where Commissioner Nary is coming from, but I also like to make it easier for a business to make more profit if possible and they are there now, so -- Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I have another question. I know at certain institutions Moxie Java has little rolling carts that they just roll out on the sidewalk and you probably have steady customers and probably know ahead of time who is ordering what and what time they will be there. Is that a possibility or a problem for the City of Meridian to have a little cart out in front, people just walk up and you hand them their coffee? Paulson: I think typically what's happening in the coffee service industry is that they are trying to serve their customer who wants to get their cup of coffee on the way to work early in the morning and allow them the convenience of drive up, get it quickly, and keep on going without having to pull up, stop, go in, etc. And that is part of what is the problem that Moxie Java has now is all of their competition is actively involved in that process and they are getting on board with the same process. But it's focused on serving the customer and getting in and out quickly and back on the road. Norton: They could do a kiosk or one of those little houses in the parking lot like you see that the coffee shops are doing now. Paulson: That is what a number of operators are doing. Norton: Does Moxie Java want to do that? Paulson: My understanding is that they have approval for a similar situation across the street. Norton: At B & D? McKinnon: It's actually in the Econo-Lube. Norton: Okay. All right. Oh. Operated by the same owner -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 22 Paulson: Yes. Norton: -- as Moxie Java? That would be even better. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that wanted to testify in this? Haggett: Bob Haggett, representing Avest Limited Partnership, 590 N. Maple Grove, Boise. I think I can clarify Commissioner Nary's question or concern about the access to the Moxie Java building itself. The main entrance to the building is on the south side of the building, double door entrance. There is a second door -- a second door on the east side, which people can choose to go in and out, but it's not the main entrance to the building. I think if I happen to be inside the Moxie Java store and had the option of leaving -- you can see the door there in the picture on the east side and if there are cars there, I would probably choose to go out the front door. Borup: That's the main entrance? Haggett: That's the main entrance. Correct. And then on the side where the drive-thru will go along the building, there is a second door, which is where the -- that's where the drive-up window will go. So it will not be there once the drive-up window goes in. So people will not have that opportunity to leave the building on the east side and cross traffic, which I think was one of your concerns earlier. Nary: Well, that -- no. Actually, that's my concern with Arby's, but my concern is that anybody, whether they are walking from Moxie Java or any of the tenants in this building, unless they parked in here they have to cross this traffic lane that's got moving cars in it for your drive-thru and to that to me isn't safe. Having gone to Arby's and have to cross the drive-thru lane just to get into the building, it's even more dangerous and I understand what you're saying. Unless you park here you have to cross -- if you park over here on this side of this lot, you have to cross into this traffic lane of moving cars just to go to your car and I agree what was said earlier that it's a parking lot and that's something you need to be aware of and all that, I understand all those things, but those things already exist. This doesn't. Do we add to it or not? Haggett: I understand your concern with that and Commissioner Borup brought up about the hours of operation. I think that needs to be stressed as well, that this coffee shop operates highest intensity before the hour of 9:00 o'clock in the morning. The majority of the traffic in the shopping center, parking, et cetera, is after 4:00 p.m. I mean really I think -- I manage the shopping center and I'm out there a lot and traffic in the early morning hours is very minimal. Nary: So if we were to limit the time of when that drive-thru window could be operated, that would be okay? Haggett: I think it's difficult to do that knowing that noon, 1:00, 2:00 o'clock, every once in awhile we are going to get a single car that comes in and wants coffee on the desk Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 23 and that case I don't think it would be a concern with the coffee shop. What I think we would be willing to do is limit the use of the drive-thru. I don't see a problem with that, because our tenant with his desperation to get this put in with all this competition that's in the area, we have been trying this for a couple years now and he is literally desperate. I know that he would be willing to sign a commitment that if he moved on -- actually, Avest would be signing the commitment to the city, but he will be committing to the lease when this is approved and put in. So I guess what I'm getting at, as a developer and owner of the shopping center, five years from now if his least expires we have to evaluate at that time, but I'm willing to commit to that use of a coffee shop with a drive-thru. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: What if you had a reader sign that came out from the building and it would -- it would have to be a lit drive-thru open, drive-thru closed, and, of course, when it's closed you would have it closed and if we limited the hours, as Commissioner Nary is stating, people would get used to that, don't you agree? Haggett: I agree. Centers: And you have the open and closed hours posted someplace and -- but it would have to be a lit sign, probably, and I think it would be even more beneficial to the owner at 6:00 a.m. when it's dark in the wintertime, drive-thru open, and it's lit up. And you would come out with that sign, if the city would allow it, 18 inches, two feet. Haggett: I think it may be assumed by a customer that at 6:00 o'clock in the morning the drive-thru is open and the shop is open. And as I stated earlier, the traffic after that 9:00 or 10:00 o'clock in the morning hour is of such little concern that I wouldn't see a reason to close it after noon or 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon. But, like I said, I think that the -- the idea here is to get a drive-thru for a coffee shop and we definitely would be willing to commit to that. Centers: Do you have plenty of parking now? Haggett: Yes. Centers: For people that want to walk? There is plenty of parking? Haggett: Yes. Centers: So if the drive-thru was closed after 12:00 p.m., there is no problem driving up there and running in and getting a cup of coffee. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 24 Haggett: Actually, there is no problem at anytime running in and getting it, but the business operator's concern is that now a customer comes up, they are driving by, they are in a hurry, and they say, well, this drive-thru is closed at 1:00 P.M., I'm going to shoot across the street to Bongiorno little coffee shop and it's more convenient and I think that's what his main goal is for convenience and expeditious coffee service. Centers: I don't think they'll jump across street when they were there. I wouldn't. I don't think most people would. Nary: Right now they don't anyway. Don't they go in the store anyway? So I mean they either go in the store or go somewhere else anyway, so -- Haggett: Well, I know now nobody would go up there, because of Locust Grove being torn up with dirt. I think that one thing that we have talked about and stressed are the hours of operation. I think that's a major factor and I hope you consider that in your decision. Norton: What are Moxie Java's hours of operation? Haggett: Their hours are similar to the TCBY. Norton: And what hours are those? Haggett: I believe they are open until 9:00 p.m. at night. TCBY is open until sometime around 11:00 in the wintertime. But I guess the type of business hours is what -- is what I'm talking about. The numbers that were discussed in Mr. Paulson's presentation, those numbers were generated from both TCBY and Moxie Java, their average hours in traffic and customer business during those peek hours. Norton: I think Moxie -- I'm not sure, but on Fairview where it has that double window that Commissioner Nary was talking about, I drive passed there -- you all go back there after commission meetings, don't you? I think they are open until 11:00 or something. There is lights on there. Haggett: Yes. I think they are. I know that that's his number -- the same owner operates that store. It's their number one cash generator. It's got maybe a 200 square foot area for seating inside, but it's mainly a drive-thru. Norton: We know exactly where it is. So the hours of operation at Moxie Java in your shopping center could possibly be 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m, since no one knows what the hours of operation are. Haggett: I don't know exactly, but I assume that they are -- I'm fairly certain that he closes at 9:00. Norton: You think he closes at 9:00? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 25 Haggett: I think he does. Norton: 6:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night seven days a week? Haggett: Couldn't answer that. Norton: Okay. Haggett: Anymore questions? Borup: Anymore questions? Thank you, Mr. Haggett. Haggett: Thank you very much. Borup: The other thought I had when Commissioner Norton was talking, maybe whether we want to encourage drive-thru in an existing established building or if we want to encourage more of these parking lot kiosks. I don't know. Nary: Well, Chairman Borup, I mean I don't -- I really don't have a problem with the concept of putting a drive-thru in an existing building. My only concern, like I said, it was probably good of Mr. Paulson to have raised it, maybe not, but having gone through drive-thrus in stores -- establishments that require you to walk through the drive-thru to get to the store, it is very dangerous, because the people in the line aren't looking for pedestrians. They may be a parking lot to the people that are parked -- excuse me -- that are parked there, but it's not a parking lot to the people in the drive- thru. So they are not looking for that. They are looking to get what they want and get on their way. That's why they are there. You notice where that kiosk is across the street, there is no sign before you get there. You order from the window. There is no reader board or anything that's all attached to that unit. Again, the traffic goes both directions at that kiosk, but it's on the far end of that parking lot away from the foot traffic, away from the parking spaces. You're not required to cross over it to get to your car. That's what this one I think does, is that it requires you to cross into that traffic lane. Where I -- I just see that we are going to have a situation that people will be sitting there saying what in the world were they doing making the traffic lane right here where I have to park. If you park next to this -- if you look on this map, there is parking spaces adjacent to this lane and parking spaces to the side of the facility like where that red car is. This drive-thru lane is going to block that little parking lot at times, as well as -- it's outside of the picture, but at the right edge of that picture there is parking spaces right there, so there will be people backing in and out of spaces loading their cars with things right in the area where that lane is and there is no -- the lane is not structured, it's not -- it's only narrowed and confined, controlled right next to the building. So these cars are not all going to be lined up perfectly straight, they are going to be extended in that parking lane and that drive lane -- that that lane right here -- this part here that is going to have this traffic in it is a driveway to get out of the parking lot. That's a driveway right here. And these cars are going to be right here in it. Again, I agree at Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 26 6:00 o'clock in the morning probably not a big deal, but at 9:00 o'clock in the morning in December it will be a big deal. At 8:00 o'clock in July it may be a big deal, too. That's what we have to look at. It's not just how it's going work at 6:00, but how it's going to work all the time, unless we put some limitations. But look at those spaces. And as you see there is two arrows going north and south right here. That's a driveway and this -- they only drew it so the cars didn't come out there. It's so obvious that this is not a good idea. It will be right where everyone travels and I think it's very dangerous. Norton: Just to go on that. I am embarrassed, because I was one of the people who voted for that drive-thru for Arby's and I have been to Arby's and you have to walk right across from their parking right through the drive-thru to get in the door. It's horrible. We should have looked at that more carefully. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: What does TCBY think of this or do they have a say in it? I just need a short answer. Haggett: Bob Haggett again. They have no concern whatsoever about this. Centers: Do they have the ability to be concerned? They were notified. Fred Meyer is the only -- Haggett: I have spoken with the owner of TCBY. Centers: Okay. What if -- I guess Commissioner Nary has sold me on it, after -- especially looking at the picture, the photo. What if we put traffic north to south only, instead of south to north? Haggett: Well, I think Commissioner -- Centers: I know. You know don't want it to -- Haggett: No. I guess – Centers: -- the driver's side. Haggett: The discussion about the other Moxie Java on 1st Street having north to south, that's a -- the driver's side on both sides of the building. Car are going from north -- from south to north on the east side of the building, so it's on the driver's side pickup. They don't have a passenger side pickup on that. Centers: But they are coming into the drive-thru from this direction and they receive their coffee on the passenger side, they are not blocking any traffic if they stack up. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 27 The only people they are hurting is the TCBY drive-ups. And I wouldn't object to that at all. But I see where Commissioner Nary is coming from, especially with this photo. There is one car length right there and they take that out and it -- if you have three cars you're going to be where this car is. If you have four you're going to be right here. Haggett: I think we have gotten off track on one thing. Can we put up the other site plan? McKinnon: Sure. Haggett: Right there. Can I use that pointer? The stacking depth being 60 feet from the window will allow three cars to stack back to the beginning of the curb cut. Centers: Yes. Haggett: The depth, for example, early in the morning -- let's say any time of the day. Centers: Let me interrupt. What if you have four? Where is -- Haggett: Well, if you have four then that one car -- yes, you're correct, would be angled out and cut off a portion of that access to the parking on that side. In the studies that Moxie Java has done with the coffee shop -- and this is -- once again, it's very important that knowing this is a coffee shop drive-thru, very seldom, maybe five percent of the time, would they ever have more than three cars stacked up. And we have done traffic studies with Earth Tech two years ago when we made this application, they studied coffee shops all over Boise city, they took the most -- the busiest coffee shop at that time, which was the Moxie Java on Vista, which does the highest volume of sales of any Moxie Java in the country and at most they had five cars stacked up and that was with one car sticking out into the middle of -- almost to the middle of the side street off of Vista. Centers: One person is one car, correct? Haggett: Yes . Centers: So you have the same situation if you're wanting coffee at Starbucks. Haggett: Correct. Centers: And you're walking up to the counter. Haggett: Yes. Centers: I have stood in line when it was eight and ten deep to get a cup of coffee. That's eight or ten cars if that were a drive-up. You know, so your studies, you know -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 28 Haggett: Well, I can understand that philosophy, but -- Centers: I'm not calling you -- Haggett: -- based on drive-thru studies only, not taking total customers, but drive-thru studies on what they have shown and especially on a store like this that is not a high volume Moxie Java, it's a medium to low volume Moxie Java and I think that's the reason why this merchant is so desperate. Centers: As I said earlier, I don't like to limit any business from making anymore profit if possible. Would he live with a drive-thru going the opposite direction? Haggett: I haven't talked to him about that. We have not researched that. I don't know if he would or he wouldn't. That's a hard question for me to answer. At one point you were kind of -- Commissioner Nary was talking about traffic being backed up as far as down here. I think that's near impossible with -- that would be about 20 cars -- or let's say 15 cars -- Nary: No. Where that 11 is, is where the reader board is listed. Haggett: Right here. Nary: But where that reader board is, if you take five cars it is down there. It is down at -- Haggett: That would be three cars, four cars, five cars, would be right to about there. Nary: No. Because the reader board where the 11 is would be where car number one would be. You take five cars back -- Haggett: This is a 20 foot lane right here. So let's say it's a -- Centers: That's two cars or -- Haggett: So two more cars and five cars would be right down in this area right here. Nary: Well, I guess -- I'm sorry. We just disagree. I just look at that -- I mean I'm no engineer, but I could look at those three cars and look at the length of those three cars that are stacked in the lane as you have drawn that and if I took three and started them where that eleven is, it goes down a whole lot further -- Haggett: Sure. Right down to about here. It goes down about there. Nary: So five puts it down into that driveway. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 29 Haggett: And I would say let's -- we can move the reader board up to the window. That's not a problem. Nary: And that was what we had talked about was -- Centers: I think that was a given. Nary: You can't have that there. Haggett: I see no problem at all with that. Nary: But that was the reason, not because I felt that where this window was that these cars would be down here. It's where this reader board was. Haggett: I think the idea of that reader board there, there is another reader board at the window here, so if you happen to have three cars, then the third car has something to look at and choose what they want before they ever get up to the window. Nary: And I would assume -- the assumption is that it would make it faster and I'm going to guess that part of the study that talks about the speed of the drive-thrus so that cars don't get stacked deep is because this is just coffee and if people think there is ten cars here, I'm not going to wait, I'm going to just keep going, so they do not want to stay there. But I have driven by that kiosk across the street and there is four cars each direction in the morning. Well, that's eight. You only have one window here, so that's eight cars. So there is the potential that cars will be out in this lane of traffic. But I agree that early in the morning it may not be a problem. So limiting the hours to the early morning hours to try to assist that owner might be a reasonable compromise to allow the opportunity to sell at the highest peek time before these businesses even open, before Fred Meyer is even stacked up with people, that might seem reasonable to me. But, otherwise, it just seems like we just got another situation that's a very high traffic with people that is going to put people at risk and that's just not a good thing. Haggett: And I would just have to go back to -- with it being early morning that -- like you said a couple times, the traffic is minimal and if he remains open during the noon hour, that one or two cars does not create a stacking problem, does not create a traffic problem within the shopping center and that's actually numbers studied by -- Nary: But to be fair to you, Mr. Haggett -- and I don't want to cut you off, but his might become the most successful Moxie Java of the entire chain for all I know and it might -- if it is limited, the concerns I have is that that's where those cars are. Now if other evidence later comes about or to reconfigure the parking or you move spaces or you do something -- I don't know, you do something to make it a little safer for people, then you always have the option to come back and ask us to change it. Haggett: We have as much concern about this as you do, being operators of the shopping center and developers that try to create a service and a project that is well Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 30 known in the city and we do maintain and watch over those things and I can commit that if it is a problem in the future, then we would be the ones that would want to be first to act and make sure that it's solved. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I think we are repeating ourselves and if we don't have an objection, I would like to close the public hearing. I would move to close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Any other discussion? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would consider supporting this application with limited hours and removal of the reader board and if the applicant wanted to put a sign up denoting their hours it would be up to them, I guess, and subject to the city sign code. Thank you. Norton: For discussion sake I would think that the suggestion by Commissioner Centers is a good one. It didn't look like there is movement whatsoever on the applicant's part. He's firm in getting what he wants, but there is no difference -- we saw last public hearing some real good adjustments on both sides of the applicant and the neighbors. There is no adjustments here that I can see and so I will be voting against it. Nary: I guess to sum up, I guess I'd have to agree with Commissioner Norton, that since it wasn't, obviously, in the mind of the applicant today to want to consider a limitation of hours and the rationale being that it's not going to be a significant problem later and really no recognition of where this problem is, I can't support this. So, Mr. Chairman, I guess I'll make a motion. I'm going to move that we recommend denial to the City Council on CUP 01-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a drive-up window and drive-thru lane in a C-G zone for Moxie Java Drive-Thru by Avest Limited Partnership c/o the Dakota Company, North Locust Grove Road and East Loop Lane, to include all staff comments of August 6, but also to include all the discussion and record of tonight, including the concerns regarding the traffic and the safety of the public in that particular location. But the stacking depth is, I guess, a potential for this particular restaurant and so that all the comments would be reflected to the City Council as what our concerns are. Norton: I second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 31 Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? Centers: The only thing I would add is just to reiterate that I would have supported the applicant with limitation on hours and removal of the reader sign and if they decide to go forward to Council and appeal our denial, I would recommend highly that they go with something like that. Borup: Well, it would go to the Council with this recommendation, so the Council would still be able to act as they choose. Okay. So we do have a motion on the floor. All in favor? Nary: Aye. Norton: Aye. Borup: Opposed? Centers: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Public Hearing: PFP 01-003 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 4.04 acres in an I-L zone for proposed Heartwood Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – northwest corner of West Franklin Road and North 10th Street: Borup: Thank you. Item No. 7. Public Hearing PFP 01-003. A request for preliminary/final approval of two building lots on 4.04 acres in an I-L zone for proposed Heartwood Subdivision. Nary: Mr. Chairman, could we take a very short break? Borup: I don't think I opened the public hearing quite yet anyway, so we will come back with a short break on Item No. 7. RECESS AT 8:28 P.M. RECONVENE AT 8:34 P.M. Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead and reconvene. We left off with Item No. 7 and I believe I read all the information on that. I don't remember if I opened the public hearing. If not, I'd like to do so at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: All right. This staff report is for file number -- preliminary file plat 01-003, an application for essentially what amounts to a lot split. We have already heard some applications for this project -- this piece of property in the past. We have already Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 32 approved, through the conditional Use Permit process, for a planned developed two buildings on this lot already and the landscaping and all of the parking, all the assorted items that we have gone through in the planning and zoning hearings have already been discussed and approved. At this point they are just trying to split the property into two separate pieces of property. Show you on the map exactly where that's at. You can see Linder on the left-hand side of the overhead and the hashed marked area off of 10th Street and Franklin is the actual location of this property. This split would occur essentially down the middle with one building on each site. It has already been approved and there is a picture of the property. As I mentioned, it's already been approved for the two buildings. The only addition that this is going to -- the only thing that we are actually adding in the comments from the staff is that both of the landscaping areas that have been approved need to be installed prior to occupancy of the either of the buildings, whichever building is built first, and all of the landscaping shall be installed for the entire project, rather than just per lot. With that I will turn it back over to the Commission. Yes, the entire street buffer for both lots shall be installed. Borup: Okay. That's what I was going to ask, David, if they are -- so not necessarily to landscape the entire project, just the street buffer? McKinnon: Just the street buffer. Yes. For the entire street buffer for those lots is going to be required before occupancy of either building. Borup: Okay. Any question from the Commission? If the applicant is here and would like to come forward. Boyle: Chairman Borup, fellow Commissioners, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive, Boise, Idaho. And Dave did a great job explaining the project. As he stated, this has had a previous Conditional Use Permit a year ago that was approved for two buildings on this site. The applicant now is looking forward to splitting that into two lots with one building on each lot. The plat -- if we go back to the plat just briefly. Dave can scroll -- scroll me back to the plat. Right there. We are proposing cross access easement across the plat and that basically just facilitates cross access between these two parcels. There are two existing curb cuts that have been approved by ACHD and approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit and this will facilitate either one of these lots utilizing each of those access points. As Dave mentioned -- and my heart dropped for a minute there when he said all of the landscaping must go in on the site, they are willing to install the street buffer landscaping, the required street buffer, as soon as either building is constructed and prior to the certificate of occupancy on either of those. With that -- the sidewalk is already in on Franklin Road, so any additional sidewalk would just be a small stretch along 10th Street and that's pretty much it in a nutshell and stand for any questions. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 33 Nary: It seems, I guess, Mr. Boyle, almost like a housekeeping sort of thing. Why didn't they do this to begin with? Boyle: I'm not sure why, if they just didn't at that time want to split it, if they wanted to keep it under one ownership and now they have a tenant that's looking at just one single building. Unfortunately, you used to allow lot splits up until, what, nine months ago? McKinnon: Eighteen. Borup: Yes. McKinnon: Eighteen months ago. Boyle: Okay. And there was an interpretation by the attorney's office, I believe, that those weren't allowed. If these were still allowed we wouldn't be in front of you with this. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: So page two of the staff report, item two at the bottom, you don't have a problem with that last sentence? Boyle: I don't have a problem with that sentence, just as long as it's clear that they are referring to the street buffer along Franklin. Otherwise -- in other words, there is an approved landscape plan for both buildings that was approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit. We, obviously, don't want to do the entire landscaping when only one building comes in, but we are willing to do the street buffer, the 35 foot wide street buffer whenever one building site is constructed. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the intent was street buffer only. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Boyle, do you have any -- do you agree with all the other staff comments? Boyle: Yes. I agree with everything. The only clarification I had was item six, the five foot sidewalks. Again, Franklin Road already has the sidewalks in place, so the only place where we have the sidewalks to install is 10th Street, but – Norton: So you need clarification on number six? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 34 Boyle: If you want to clarify it. That doesn't really matter. Borup: Six just says sidewalk shall be installed as previously approved. Boyle: Right. I'm just saying that the majority of the sidewalk is already in place. It's just a small stretch along 10th Street that isn't in. All of the sidewalk is installed on Franklin. Norton: Okay. And then do you have Meridian Fire Department's report that we got? Boyle: I believe so. Norton: They have a comment. If you'd like my copy you're welcome to have it. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Anyone else? Okay. Thank you. Any other comment, Mr. Boyle? Boyle: Yes, I do have -- I was just looking at this on the Meridian fire. Yes. I have got those comments and will comply with those. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Borup: Okay. Do I have anyone else that would like to come forward and -- come on up, ma'am. Schlekeway: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Elaine Williamson Schlekeway. I own the property on the west side of this proposed subdivision and in looking at the map there was nothing that excited me too bad, except that nothing was mentioned about a fence between their property and mine and since I have been fencing my property for 49 years, I think it's time somebody else paid for a fence between us. Borup: What type of fence is there now? Schlekeway: A wooden -- three strips of wood. Borup: A wooden rail fence -- type of rail fence? Schlekeway: Yes. Centers: Do you have livestock in there? Schlekeway: Not now. I did have. Centers: With that type of fence? Schlekeway: Yes. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 35 Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: How much property do you own there? You have lived there almost 50 years? Schlekeway: Yes. Centers: How much property? Schlekeway: Be 50 years next year. How much? Thirty-three acres. Centers: Thirty-three acres? So you -- are you along their property line totally? Schlekeway: I border all their property on the west side. Centers: Is this whole piece, the whole parcel yours? Schlekeway: Pardon? Yes. Centers: Do you know what that's currently zoned? Schlekeway: Agricultural. Borup: You're in the county? Schlekeway: Yes. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you, ma'am. Centers: One more question. I guess we don't know what type of business would be operating there at this point, do we? It's future -- Schlekeway: On the proposed piece? Centers: Yeah. No. The proposed subdivision and if you had two buildings that are going to go in there. Schlekeway: Yes. Centers: We don't have tenants and you would like to develop -- or you feel that the Owner of that property should put a fence up for you? Schlekeway: I would think so. Centers: Why? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 36 Schlekeway: Well, like I say, I have fenced it for 49 years, nobody else paid for any but Me. And it's needing to be replaced, so -- Centers: Thank you. Mr. Schlekeway: Is this two story buildings or one? We don't know. Schlekeway: From the map I couldn't tell if it was a two story building or one story. The only fence that was mentioned was one up by the canal, which doesn't concern me, but I didn't see any other fence. Nary: What I think what I'm hearing you say, ma'am, is you want a buffer between your property and this property, regardless of what type building they are going to have there or business. Schlekeway: Yes. Nary: You want a buffer. If that buffer isn't a fence, but it's landscaping, trees, a berm, something like that, is that adequate to shield you from noise and traffic and all those other type of things? Would that be adequate do you think? Mr. Schlekeway: There is a lot of trees in there now. Nary: You have to talk up here, sir. Mr. Schlekeway: There is a lot of trees there now. Nary: There is a lot of trees there now? Schlekeway: There is a lot of trees there now towards the back. Towards the back. Nary: I understand and we really can't make -- we can't make these folks build a fence on your property. We certainly have to expect need to create some buffer between your property and this property, certainly could require a fence on their side of the property line to shield you from noise or those type of things. And I don't know -- I didn't see that in this staff report and I don't know if it was in the previous approval, so maybe we could find out. Schlekeway: Well, it would probably make a difference what kind of buffer, as you say, depending on what kind of building and what they are going to do, because I live there - - Nary: Sure. Schlekeway: -- right now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 37 Nary: Sure. Schlekeway: And I have big windows facing that direction and I just thought it would be -- Borup: Any other questions? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. McKinnon, could you elaborate on the city's requirement on fencing on subdivision --I know we require it on residential. McKinnon: I took a moment a few minutes ago while the discussion was taking place to look that up, actually, in our -- in the zoning ordinance, so that I could make sure that I got this down pat. According to Title 12 of the Meridian City Code, which is where the subdivision ordinances lie, there is no requirement for the fencing. There are certain types of fencing that are allowed in certain areas, height restrictions and restrictions on the type of materials that are used, but as far as the required fencing for that there is no requirement for that. Borup: For any type of subdivision? McKinnon: Well, I will get to that. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: As far as the construction time for the buildings when they are being built, there is a requirement to have fencing in place to keep the materials on one piece of property from going over to another piece of property. As far as the subdivision for a commercial project separating commercial businesses, there is no requirement for fencing between commercial businesses. In residential we typically make a requirement to put the fencing in place, because, otherwise, it may not be done on the perimeter. It's not something that is required per se in the Meridian City Code, that is a recommendation of staff that is typically adopted by the City Council after recommendation from the Commission. Borup: So the only thing that would affect this would be a buffer in between commercial and residential. McKinnon: That's correct. I don't know if in your packet you got a copy of the landscape plan that they submitted. Borup: Yes. McKinnon: It shows a copy of the buffer that they did use. It does show the existing fence on the west side of the property. And then it also shows the existing plus or minus 18 inch caliper trees. According to our landscape ordinance it does meet the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 38 buffer requirements for that. As far as the requirements of the fencing within the buffer, there is no requirement from the staff for a buffering fence between the two land uses. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Dave, is your -- the plat we have shows a fence right on the property line. McKinnon: Showing the existing fence? Borup: Yes. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Are we assuming that's accurate? McKinnon: I don't know why you would assume otherwise. Borup: Okay. From past experience. McKinnon: Well -- Borup: But as far as the engineer understands that is an accurate location? McKinnon: I guess if I could ask if you could clarify that. Boyle: Unfortunately, I would have to make the same assumption that Dave did looking at the landscape plan. Do you have the preliminary plat on a -- is what we have got up there? Borup: I have just seen a lot of existing fences that don't run parallel to property lines, especially on older properties. Boyle: Right. Borup: But it's not uncommon at all and what I'm wondering if -- if additional fence -- if this fence would need to be removed, if it is -- I mean the line even shows that, if anything, the fencing going over the property line a little bit onto the applicant's side, but that's why I asked David so we would know whether that's accurate or not. Boyle: The landscape plan that you have in front of you was done by another firm and so I don't know on the fence there. On the preliminary plat you -- have you got the preliminary plat drawing in front of you or do you just have the landscape plan? You have the preliminary plat? Borup: Yes. It does not show the fence. Boyle: It doesn't show the fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 39 Centers: Mr. Chairman, it shows -- the existing fence on the landscape plan goes from here to the landscape buffer. That's approximately -- one inch is 30 feet. Borup: Well, it shows it for the whole way, Jerry. This shows it going the whole length. Centers: Does it? Borup: Yeah. And that may be why they separated it with two lines, just so you could tell there were two separate lines there, one's the property line and one's the fence line. Those little X's are the fence. Boyle: And I guess -- I don't know if I have permission to rebut now or -- Borup: Go ahead. Yes. Yes. Boyle: Chairperson, fellow Commissioners, you know, not to rehash old material, I guess, but I can't recall from the minutes of the Conditional Use Permit the discussions that we had there, but I know the neighboring owners stated that they had been there for many years and, obviously, this Conditional Use Permit came through hearings and had a plan with landscaping and bufferings that the Commission and Council felt was adequate at that time, so I guess what I'm saying is, is right now we do have an approved Conditional Use Permit that has some existing trees preserved, some new trees going in to further buffer them down where the parking area is. You have the warehouse building, which is a single structure, a single story structure, however, I don't know how high it is, because it is a warehouse, but you do have these 18 inch caliper trees that are going to provide a substantial screen of that warehouse from their property -- and I guess I would just submit to you that, obviously, this has been in front of you in hearings and the neighbors had opportunity at that time to discuss their concerns. Right now we are just looking to split the two lots if they -- or, excuse me, split it into two lots. If they did not proceed with this application they could come in with this same site plan, if they kept it under one ownership, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion on the fence. I understand the neighbor's desire to have a new fence. I would like a new fence along my back property as well if somebody would help me pay for it. Not knowing how their property is going to develop, they are on the edge of city limits, they could very well come in with an industrial park there themselves, you know, next month or the next two months. So I mean I realize it's a hard issue, but I think the issue has been presented before and, obviously, the approval was as per the landscape plan that you have in front of you. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Boyle, I think I remember this, but what was the use? What was the business that was going on here? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 40 Boyle: They are both proposed as warehouse-type uses with a showroom -- well, Dave will have the Conditional Use Permit. It's -- the majority of it is warehouse, with like a showroom/office in a small -- McKinnon: If you can refer to the landscape plan that was in your packets. It shows that there is a warehouse in the -- Norton: But what type of warehouse? Warehousing what? And showing what? I can't remember from the -- this was many months ago. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Clint, do you have somebody moving into this building already? Do you have a tenant? Boyle: I'm not aware of any tenants. They are marketing the property right now. I do not know if they have a tenant in mind for either of these buildings. Norton: Is it a two story warehouse? Borup: No. You said it was a one story warehouse. Norton: Thirty feet high. Boyle: Exactly. It's a warehouse. I don't know the height. What I know is it's a single level warehouse. Warehouses, obviously, have a higher roof line than the single family home or other uses might, so it's not a two story in the sense there would be a second level that people would be up in the warehouse. Norton: And do you know what the hours of operation are? Boyle: I don't. I don't believe they were restricted on hours of operation under the approved Conditional Use Permit. Norton: I'm not saying restricted, I just want to know what the hours of operation are. Borup: I don't know if that's a normal question we need to ask on a plat. Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, that's the point I want to make. I think the applicant makes a very good point. All we are considering here is the dividing of a piece of land into two lots. They do have to call it a subdivision because of that. The CUP was previously approved and all the conditions were approved at that time, so I totally agree with the applicant. Borup: But I don't know that that precludes adding a fence. I mean this is a new application, we have new information, new testimony we did not have previously. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 41 Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: As far as some of the other things, I don't think that -- yes, Commissioner Nary. Nary: He's voicing his feelings. Thank you for pointing that out, because I was going to say the same thing, that is approving a plat it certainly is within the discretion of this Commission to require separation in the approval of a plat from the other property and creating a buffer or fence or something else to make sure there is some break between uses. But right now that is residential. It might be industrial at some point. It isn't today. So I agree with you that maybe that should have been brought up at the CUP, but it also can be brought up now. Centers: And I would agree with that, but, you know, as our planner has pointed out, fencing is not a requirement in that zone, you know, so I think it's an unnecessary requirement. Nary: I guess the only other thing I want to add, though, is that's true, if these were two industrial uses between them, yes, I think it would be silly. If we are talking about the area off of Franklin that is further down by the fire station, which is all industrial buildings, yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a fence. This is somebody's house and in my -- and, Mrs. Schlekeway, you can correct me, but my recollection is that the house is oriented towards Franklin, it's an older white house, there are some trees by it, but it's not very far from this property line. I mean it seems like fairly close to the property line of this development. Do you know, Mr. Boyle? Boyle: I don't know the dimensions of how far, but it is reasonably close in the overall scheme of their property frontage on Franklin, I believe. Nary: Now I'm looking at the landscape plan. I see trees that front Franklin and the 18 inch caliper trees which cover the side of the building, but between the trees that front Franklin you got -- are those trees -- Borup: Mountain ash. Nary: Those are just smaller trees? Boyle: Those are smaller trees and you also have the trash enclosure, which will be a screened enclosure as well as part of the Conditional Use Permit. And then two trees on either side of that. Nary: That's the smaller trees? Boyle: Right. Right. Nary: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 42 Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Boyle? Do you have any final comments? Boyle: Just, again, you know, as far as the fencing issue goes, I don't want it to be a major hang up on this item, certainly, but, you know, obviously, property owners are -- were noticed with the Conditional Use Permit. That Conditional Use Permit was approved in June of 2000, which was fairly recent and at that time this proposal went out to the adjoining property owners and was properly noticed and the fencing requirement wasn't there. So, again, I guess I'm just submitting to you that if they proceeded today with the Conditional Use Permit, there would be no requirement for the fencing, they could construct both of these buildings as per the Conditional Use Permit and be done with it and not even bother. So, again, they are just looking to split these two lots and I don't know that it is in the applicant's interest to promote additional requirements as far as fencing, just because they are splitting the lot. Again, that will ultimately be up to this Commission to decide, it sounds like. So I appreciate your time on this. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, your pleasure. Centers: Well, I would move to close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion made and second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Discussion? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would want to make the same point. I don't want to rehash that, but as far as the neighboring property, I think that, as the applicant stated briefly, that neighboring property will probably be industrial like this and I think a fence would be -- could be talked about at that time. I think the applicant had a sufficient landscape buffer along the east side and I -- you know, I just don't see the need to require a fence. I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel. Borup: It seems like it's pretty common even between industrial uses for a chain link fence, not necessarily a -- not necessarily a screening type fence, but any other thoughts? Are we to a point where we can make a motion? Centers: I have a question for staff. Are we clear on number two, page two? I mean I think that really -- if you read it, it's clear that the applicant doesn't have to do all the landscaping that -- I think as written is fine, don't you? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 43 McKinnon: I agree with that, but just to reiterate one more time, staff's intention for that was the street buffers only. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would move that we recommend to City Council the approval of Item 6, the PFP 01-003, request for preliminary/final plat approval of two building lots on 4.04 acres in an I-L zone for proposed Heartwood Sub by Pinnacle Engineers and at the northwest corner of West Franklin Road and North 10th Street, including all staff comments as written. Borup: Do we have a motion? At this point I guess it dies for lack of a second? Continued discussion on an alternate motion? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I guess that -- and I guess I do want to say I didn't second it, not because I don't agree with it, I guess I just don't know if I agree with it yet. Because I do agree with what -- part of what we talked about was that this probably should have been brought up earlier, this probably is something that should have been done at the conditional use application. But to be fair to the Schlekeways, they certainly can ask, you know, us to consider -- I guess they can always ask us to consider the conditional use, but I'm looking at the subdivision ordinance just very quickly. Centers: Well -- and to continue the discussion while you're looking, the request was just a fence, I mean with no reason for a buffer or a shield or -- has a three rail fence now and just wants it replaced and I suspect a new three rail fence would be sufficient, because the one that's there is getting old and I don't think that's a sufficient request to ask a developer to put up a fence, because the existing one is old and they want to replace an existing three rail fence. I guess I just have to say what's on my mind. Schlekeway: May I ask something? Centers: Public hearing is closed. McKinnon: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Nary, I might be able to add a little bit of additional comment that would help with the discussion. Borup: And maybe tie in what we have normally done on commercial projects on fence requirements. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 44 McKinnon: Okay. We can do that. I don't know how many of you brought a copy of the new landscape ordinance with you tonight, but if you don't have a copy of it I can go ahead and read something to you from this concerning buffering between land uses. That sounds a little bit what we are talking about and the fences, whether or not they are required between the two land uses. It's on page 20, 9.3, buffer material, item number C, buffer walls. Where an existing or proposed adjacent land use cannot be adequately buffered with plant material, the city may require the inclusion of a wall, fence, or other type of screen that mitigates noise or unsightly uses. If a wall or fence is at least six feet -- above six feet tall is provided, the planting requirement may be reduced to at least one tree per 35 lineal feet. This is permissive. It allows the city to make that requirement, but is not -- it's not mandating that we do that. And it's only for those screening purposes, it's not for the fact that the fence as existing is old, it is for a screening purpose between two land uses. In addition to that, Mr. Nary, I know you were looking through the subdivision ordinance. You will find that in 12.4.10 and additional language that might help you with that is on page -- is 12.4.10, item number three under F, the construction on subdivision boundary. Any developer intending to construct a boundary fence on the boundaries of a proposed subdivision shall show that that's in the preliminary plat. If they are intending to do that. There is no requirement from the code itself and staff does not make this -- as staff we are not recommending that they install a fence. This is at their option to do that and so far the applicant has not come forward to say that he would like to install a fence at this time. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: The other thing that I did find here and what it says in the Meridian City Code 12- 3-3, sub J, which talks about this Commission's action in these types of proceedings, which is subdivision, is that what we would have to find -- in sub two it says: In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, which is what this is, the Commission shall consider the objectives of the title, which is a lot of writing, but this specifically -- at least the following -- that the conformance of the subdivision with the comprehension development plan, which it is; the availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development, which it has; the continuity of a proposed development with the capital improvement program, which is certainly consistent with that; the public financial capabilities to support the services for the proposed development, which it does. And the other safety, health, and environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. And I think the evidence, at least that we have had tonight, is that it would be nice to have a new fence, but not that there was a health risk or a safety risk or an environmental risk, but what is presented as a buffer between this property and the Schlekeway's property. If there was something like that, then I think this would give us the ability to say that that's required and for a plat, but there isn't any evidence of that. There is nothing to say that what is being proposed is not adequate, because, first of all, all we have is a building, we don't know what the use is going to be at this juncture. It is a warehouse. There is no indication that this planting material and the trees and everything else that's there is not adequate. If -- I Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 45 think no different than any other project or any other type of property use. If you want to replace that fence, it's on the property line, you would discuss that with the adjoining property owner, like any other situation. I admire you for sticking it out there and the work that you have put in to keep that maintained, but I don't think our ordinance gives us that much leeway on this based on what the evidence that we have had tonight on whether or not we could deny it or require a fence. It isn't required in the ordinance and we are in here without information requiring health and safety or an environmental issue that more buffering or more shielding between this property and yours is necessary. I don't think there is anything else that we could get from that. Schlekeway: I think there is only 20 feet, though, between my house and the other property. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I'm trying to -- I'm looking at the landscape plan and it looks like the landscape starts -- okay. This is 30 feet to an inch? Is that right? Or thirty -- Centers: Thirty feet to an inch. Norton: Thirty feet to an inch. And the -- these are all trees. Okay. An existing fence is on the property -- the neighboring property; is that correct? Borup: Yes. Norton: Okay. So we are looking at -- how far is it from the road to the first big tree on the edge of the office? One hundred and twenty feet from the road to the office. Borup: No. That landscaping buffer in front is 35 feet. Where it says lawn and shows trees in it. Norton: Okay. So that's 35 feet. And then from 35 feet to the first big tree at that corner of the office building, how far is that? Borup: That's another -- well, from that buffer to the building is 73 feet. Norton: Seventy-three feet. And the neighbor's house is 20 feet from the road? Okay. The neighbor's house is 20 feet from the road, so the neighbor's house would be in the 35 feet buffer; is that correct? Borup: Probably more like where the parking lot is. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 46 Norton: Okay. So what I'm getting at is the parking lot is from 35 feet back to 73 feet back and the windows on the back of the house probably are looking to the parking lot; is that right? Schlekeway: Not the back, just to the side of the house. Norton: The windows from the side of the house will be looking into the parking lot. I kind of like that landscape plan requiring a buffer -- David, could you read that landscape -- that landscape thing that you just came up with? McKinnon: Give me just one second. Okay. It's 9.3.C. Buffer walls. Where existing or proposed adjacent land uses cannot be adequately buffered with plant material, the city may require inclusion of wall, fence, or other type of screen that mitigates noise or unsightly uses. If a wall or fence at least six tall, provided the planting requirements may be reduced to at least one tree for 35 lineal feet, plus shrubs, lawn, and other vegetative ground cover must be provided within the buffer area in lieu of the requirement of Subsection B. Norton: Thank you. McKinnon: I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The request for the new fence, is it a request for a new post and rail fence or is it a request for a screening fence; do you know? Norton: Didn't say. McKinnon: Because the staff interpretation of this is if Subsection B, which is above the barrier effectiveness, which it makes reference to at the end of that statement, if the landscaping that has been provided cannot provide 60 percent of the coverage for that vertical wall space in front of that, then we can require that. But just requiring it for a new fence of a post and rail, which offers -- which provides no screening, effectively, this should not apply. If it's not screening fence, if we are just talking about a new fence, talking about a new fence for a proposed project, and that's not the intent of the ordinance to provide new fences, the intent of the ordinance is to provide a screen. Norton: Correct. McKinnon: Between two land uses if the landscape ordinance itself cannot provide enough vegetation for that. Norton: Well, I'm just assuming the neighbors would like a screening -- a screen. I'm assuming the neighbors would like a screen. And I think I would agree with that. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 47 Nary: Another thing to consider or we could consider is in that provision number two what we could have recommended to the City Council is that the landscape -- that second sentence -- last sentence to say -- to clarify that all the landscaping for the street buffer shall be installed, as well as all the landscaping on the west side of this property. So their landscaping is -- because I don't know that we have ever been told there was -- or even if they know themselves which building they are planning on building first. I have no idea whether it's building one or building two -- my assumption would be building one. So if that's the case, if that's the one that gets built, and the landscaping is put in on the west side of the property, there should be more than adequate screening for the Schlekeway's home and that's not requiring anything more than what they have agreed to do, it's just requiring them to do it now. Centers: I agree. Nary: And there is some trees -- there is some very big trees on one end, there are smaller trees -- there is a landscape buffer of trees and there are trees on the west side of this parking lot. Borup: There is trees on the picture on the -- Nary: Yeah. Okay. So if they put the landscaping along that edge, then there is certainly adequate buffer between those uses to the next property. (inaudible discussion from audience) Borup: We can't consider it, sir. Norton: Perhaps they can talk to the staff and staff could let us know what they are saying. Nary: Okay. That isn't necessarily what the applicant wanted, but it's not really imposing anymore-significant requirement upon the applicant to provide some -- Borup: I think what they were saying is that these trees are the ones that were shown on the plat. Nary: Oh. I see. Borup: These are along this area here, the trees that are on the planter break. These other trees they are indicating are on the other side of their house. So right along here where their house -- and I don't see the house in this picture, but theoretically it should be right here. That's it right there. Okay. There is no trees along that area. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 48 Nary: And this landscape plan shows some trees in the -- after the 35-foot buffer from Franklin, trees that would basically screen that house from the rest of this project. And it's not a fence -- Norton: They are mountain ash. Nary: But at least it's something. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to move on? Centers: As far as our legal counsel, the first motion died? Borup: Yes. Centers: I would like to make another motion, then, that we approve and recommend approval to the City Council Item 7, PFP 01-003, request for preliminary/final plat approval of two building lots on 4.04 acres in an I-L zone for proposed Heartwood Sub by Pinnacle Engineers and at the northwest corner of West Franklin Road and North 10th Street, including all staff comments and on page two, item two, under preliminary plat, the site-specific comments, at the end of the sentence on item two would add: And landscaping to be performed on the -- east side of the property line? West side? West side of the property line at this same time. I guess that would be sufficient. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAYE, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Two ayes, one nay. And that will be the recommendation to City Council. Mrs. Williamson, there will be another hearing at the City Council on the same project. I might just mention -- I think that you could tell that this commission is quite restrained by what the existing city ordinances are and say. The City Council does have a little more leeway. So your next opportunity will be at the City Council. Schlekeway: Approximately when would that be? Borup: You might talk with staff on that a little bit. It would be the next available. It could be a month or so, but you will be notified again. Isn't that true, David, that another notice -- another mailing will be done -- Nary: A little over a month, ma'am. Borup: Yes. It would be over a month, but there will be another mailing. And telling the date and everything. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 49 Norton: Mr. Boyle, do you want these back? Save you some money. Item 10. Public Hearing: PFP 01-004 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on 2.85 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Treasure View Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 3500 East Magic View Drive (southeast of East Magic View Drive and South Allen Street): Borup: Okay. As we mentioned at the beginning of the meeting Items No. 8 and 9 were postponed to the October 18th public hearing. Item 10, Public Hearing, PFP 01- 004, requests preliminary/final plat, again, on three building lots, 2.85 acres L-O zone for proposed Treasure View Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, 3500 Magic View Drive. We'd like to open this public hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. You will notice on the overhead there is an arrow pointing just to the one highlighted purple area. We are just dealing with that location tonight. The applicant has proposed to change that from a single lot that is currently existing, to three separate building lots. Give you a little bit of history on this project before we get too far into it. When this property was annexed there was a valid Conditional Use Permit that was issued for this piece of property. Under that Conditional Use Permit the requested use is office and the office uses were allowed under the Conditional Use Permit without having to come back and go through a Conditional Use Permit a second time when the buildings were proposed. All other uses would have required a Conditional Use Permit within that zone. The property is currently zoned L-O. The only approved uses under the valid Conditional Use Permit are office. The approved preliminary/final plat, which is the three lots on 2.85 acres, there are no variances that have been requested for this piece of property. They do meet the minimum lot frontage requirements for property zoned in the L-O zone. Allen Street, the street that runs around this project, is already improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The property currently has a single family home located on the southern portion of the property. That home will be removed and relocated prior to the development. The existing well that services the home right now will be relocated and used for the pressurized irrigation system. As the property is developed and the trees that are surrounding the single family home are removed, they shall mitigate for, according to our landscape plan all trees over four inches in size would be replaced with equal caliper inches of trees per ordinance. The items I'd like to bring before you that are included in the staff report tonight that might be items for discussion would be starting with site specific comment number two on page two, the submitted landscape plans that they submitted to you are not approved at this time. The submitted landscape plan includes evergreen trees in the required street buffer. They need to provide some trees other than evergreen trees or conifers in that area, as they are prohibited by the landscape ordinance in 4.2. Part of the reason for that is because the police department requested that we not have conifers in the street buffer so that people could hide behind them. Item number three in the site-specific comments, that's on page three, located towards the top of the page. All the required street buffers and landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance and certificate of occupancy for any lot within the subdivision and shall be bonded for prior to signature on the final plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 50 This is a similar sort of situation that we just dealt with where we were requiring all of the landscaping on the street buffer for all three of the lots to be installed prior to the occupancy of any one of the three of those buildings. A similar precedent, besides the obligation you saw earlier tonight, would be the mini storage areas on Overland Road that has previously been approved. It was before you a few months ago for the day care where they were required to install all the landscaping in that entire piece of property, rather than just the front of the day care along Overland Road. The ordinance -- in the landscape ordinance, if you will look to the final page of -- well, actually, Section 16 of the new landscape ordinance, it requires that all required landscaping and site features must be installed prior to the approved landscape plan prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy. This is backed up by the new landscape ordinance. Item No. 6 I'd like to bring to your attention, if you could turn to that for a moment. I mentioned already currently that there is a valid Conditional Use Permit for the buildings on this property. Those uses that are approved under the valid Conditional Use Permit are office only. Hence, the reason for the inclusion of the sentence there that no development will be allowed in the subdivision without a valid Conditional Use Permit. There is a valid Conditional Use Permit covering the property right now for multiple buildings allowing office use only. Any other use is conditional. Did you have a question? Borup: Wasn't there a restaurant? McKinnon: The restaurant was the ancillary use and that was also included in the development agreement. But the major one that they went through in the development was the office use and the ancillary restaurant use. Nice catch. I think we have a picture right here. You can see where the existing house is right now, which would be removed. It's on the far southwest corner -- southeast corner of the property as it now currently sits and there is a current picture of what it looks like as of about 4:30 today. And that's it for the presentation and turn it back over to the Commissioners. Mr. Chairman. Borup: Okay. Any questions from the staff? What view was that picture taken from? McKinnon: That was looking at the north -- the northwest corner right there where the road curves, that's right where I was standing when I took this picture. So it's looking south -- almost south. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: Southeast, though. The direction. But almost true south. Nary: Mr. Chairman. I was just curious, Dave, because your staff report says the property that we are talking about is directly west of the Jackson Texaco. Isn't it behind the Chevron? McKinnon: Is it the Chevron? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 51 Nary: It's the Chevron. McKinnon: Okay. Nary: The Texaco is on the other side of Magic View Drive. McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: Okay. Borup: And was this the area -- is the Magic View here? Nary: No. Magic View runs -- there we go. Borup: Okay. That's what I thought. Nary: But was this the area we talked about where the hotel was or that other business purpose or -- McKinnon: We were looking at the piece with the arrow for the hotel. Nary: So this is where the hotel was -- McKinnon: This is where the hotel was proposed and denied. Nary: Okay. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? If the applicant would like to come forward. Seel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Jon Seel with W.H. Moore Company, 600 N. Steelhead, Boise, Idaho. I guess I need some -- maybe some clarification -- and I talked to Dave about this. I think particularly with maybe Item No. 3. We talked about the requirement of doing a landscape buffer zone for the entire project at the time of the first -- the first lot is developed and at least as I read the landscape ordinance, I don't completely agree with Dave. I read -- and I have it here, too, and Dave and I have talked about it, that it seems to indicate as each lot is developed landscaping will be developed for that lot for the condition of the certificate of occupancy. And I guess my concern or question here is that having to go in and put a buffer around the entire project the first time the first lot is put in, we don't disagree with the need for landscaping, I mean, obviously, we support that, but let's say, for example, the most northerly lot was developed, the landscaping for what we will call the buffer zone would be put in for that lot and then as each lot is developed the landscaping for that buffer zone would be put in, along with the landscaping for that building. It seems - - it seems to me that in the landscape ordinance -- I mean there may be a precedence, but I'm not saying necessarily a precedence should go with the ordinance and I have Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 52 always been told in the past, you know, well, this is ordinance, this is what we have to go with. I don't interpret it within the landscape ordinance that we have to do the entire landscape buffer zone at the time we do the first one. Again, I would prefer to do just each individual lot. I think, you know, you have the certificate of occupancy as far as control in giving that and the need for the appropriate landscaping at that time. So I guess I'm looking somewhat for guidance and, again, Dave and I talked about that today on whether or not that is the interpretation or whether that's somewhat vague. That's one of my concerns. I have got some other issues, but that I think that's probably my primary one at this point. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Let me address that right now then. Seel: Okay. Centers: Of course they are saying prior to the issuance of the C-O. Seel: Yes. Centers: And, correct me if I'm wrong, you're going to get it platted, you're going to have three lots, you're going to find a buyer or a tenant for one or maybe two and do them as you get the buyer; correct? Seel: Yes. Centers: Wouldn't it be more advantageous to market those, the remaining two, if they were landscaped, just as you would residential? I realize there is a lot of difference, but it's going to look a lot nicer to potential buyers or tenants, et cetera. I mean that would be a marketing thing. I wouldn't think you would object to that, other than maintaining it. Seel: Yes. I think when you apply that to residential I would say that's true. Centers: All right. Yes. I know it's true. Seel: In commercial I don't think that that's a particularly important thing, particularly with something like this. Again, if you were looking at an -- Centers: Well, you know, let's back up. Let me interrupt. The first guy that you sell to or the first tenant, he's not going to want to look at, you know, an un-landscaped adjoining two lots. I think you'd get the first guy in there a lot faster and quicker if you had it all landscaped. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 53 Seel: Yes. And I appreciate your opinion and I guess I would respectfully reflect disagree with that. We have done a lot of -- Centers: Does Winston Moore disagree with that? Seel: Yes. Centers: He does. He doesn't want to spend the money up front. Seel: Well, again, I'm not saying that we wouldn't do it. What I'm saying is that we would like to have the flexibility at this point. I don't think it's really the issue, necessarily, that we don't want to do it, I'm not necessarily saying that. What I'm saying is we would like to have the flexibility of doing that. You may very well develop something over there and when you do all the construction stuff you end up tearing up half of your landscaped area in the process and then having to replace it. We have done a lot of business parks in, for example, the City of Boise. We did a major one with HP and we have not found where there has been a deterrent because a lot next to you happens to be -- not have some landscaping. So, you know, obviously, it looks nicer, but I don't think it's a deterrent on commercial. So I guess I'm looking for some guidance on whether that is a requirement, whether we have to do it, because I guess you take it to the next, what if you have got eight or ten or 20 lots, are you saying at the first building, then, that you have to come in and landscape the entire thing? That becomes quite a burden on the developer and I think the purpose in this landscape ordinance up in the beginning talks about, yes, there is a need for landscaping and it does cost and we want to get some type of balance and I'm not sure by requiring that landscaping all up front that that may be necessarily balanced. So I'm looking for some guidance on this, I guess. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: And I guess I want to address this to Dave, as well as you, Mr. Seel, but my assumption is that the reason that they want this landscaping, just the street buffer site now, is so that it's consistent, that it looks, you know, similar all the way down, no different I think -- I'm assuming the same rationale like in a residential sub where we require them to put the whole fence up around the whole thing when they start, so the same thing, that it looks a little more consistent and a little more -- a little nicer all the way across that, so you don't have a developed subdivision and a big old patch of weeds over here for two years or five years or something else. So I mean I guess -- I assume that's the reason for that, or maybe Dave has some other insight. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary, just to offer a couple things from the landscape ordinance where this comes from and you touched on them both already. In Section Number 7 is the purpose for the street buffers and it's just that the landscape buffers along streets are required in order to improve the visual quality of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 54 streetscape, to soften the impact of a parking lot, to unify the diverse architecture and carry out comprehensive plan policies related to promoting attractive roadway and street beautification. So we are trying to get it to be uniform, we are trying to make it look nicer, and I think you touched on both of those issues. It goes on a little bit further down in 7.3 in that same page -- it's on page 15. It talks about applicability and it states that street buffers are required at all subdivision boundaries, i.e., commercial, industrial, office, and residential and all commercial, industrial, and office developments. It goes on to explain that single family residential, duplex, town home and lots are exempt from the required street buffers and that subdivision street buffers must be on a common lot maintained by a homeowners or business owners association as applicable. However, if you look -- now if you would turn all the way to Section 16 where it talks about the certificate of occupancy. We have already established the fact that they are required in all subdivisions, including commercial, industrial, and office. It states that all required landscaping and site features must be installed according to the approved landscape plan prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Nary: And I think what Mr. Seel is saying is that he felt that's one building at a time. But if this wasn't being asked to be divided and it was a single lot with three buildings, it would require that the landscape buffer be done around the whole lot. McKinnon: Absolutely. We would. Nary: So to me, Mr. Seel, cutting it into three pieces doesn't buy you out of it to get the landscaping done. If it was one owner and one lot and three buildings on it, we would require it all the way around the whole thing. So I'm not sure why you would think that simply by dividing it into three it would change that requirement. Seel: Well, I just -- as I read it in here it didn't strike me as being a hundred percent clear and so I'm asking for clarification. If, in fact, that's it or if it was an interpretation that, yeah, this is the direction we'd like to go, I understand the intent of it, okay, and I don't disagree with that. I mean I think we all understand that. I just -- I guess I have a little bit of concern -- and I'm not saying we would not do it anyway. For example, we have a project in Boise, we have three sites out front and we have sodded all three of them. That was a very expensive process, but we recognized the need for it. So we were not -- we are not developing with blinders on, but we'd also like to have the flexibility if when we can develop, when we can put landscaping and when we can't and sometimes we face -- some of these requirements are put in and then they end up being destroyed in the development process on that particular lot and come back and you have to redo it again, on top of the ongoing maintenance and what have you on it, so -- Nary: Okay. You know, I think it's something that I wanted to at least explore, so -- the other things in there that I just wanted to -- I think probably some clarification on. Number five, it says the certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any building within the subdivision prior to the installation of the required interior landscaping. I take it that's for that lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 55 McKinnon: That's determined by site. That's correct. Seel: Yes. But -- okay. I just put for that lot, however. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. I think other than -- Clint, you had a question on storm drains? Boyle: Commissioner, Chairman, Clint Boyle, Pinnacle Engineers again. 12552 West Executive Drive. Just a real quick point of clarification on Item Nine on the drainage. We talked about the application proposing a common receiving pond for drainage water for the entire site and, again, just with the flexibility that Jonathan wanted to see, I propose that that sentence be amended that if this applicant proposes a common receiving pond for the drainage water for the entire site, a drainage maintenance agreement must be executed, the agreement must be reviewed, approved, and everything else from then on. So, again, just to allow -- well, maybe Bruce has some comments on that. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I don't have a problem with that at all. The intent of that is just to make sure that there is a cooperative agreement if it is a common facility. So insert that language. That's fine. Centers: That was my -- Borup: So just adding "if this application"? Just at the beginning of that sentence? Boyle: In other words, if individual sites come on and have their own drainage, we wouldn't have to have -- necessarily have the maintenance and operation anuals and all that in place prior to signing the plat. So just to give them a little flexibility in what they can do with the drainage. Norton: Could you restate what you just said? Boyle: What I just said or how you want it – Norton: What sentence you want it to read. Boyle: Section nine. Second to the last sentence where it says: This application proposes a common receiving pond for drainage water. Change that to if the applicant proposes a common receiving pond for drainage water. Centers: If the application proposes a -- just take out this application? Boyle: Yes. Centers: Okay. Freckleton: I don't have a problem with that at all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 56 Borup: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Boyle? Boyle: That was all my comments. Borup: Okay. Jonathan's -- Jon, were all your questions were answered fine? I think -- except number two. Seel: Well, yes, I would say they were answered. Not fine. Borup: But -- except for Item Number Two. Seel: You can try again if you want. Borup: But the others -- the others -- Seel: Yes. Yes. Just to be clear -- Borup: You're in agreement with staff comments on them, other than the single lot on the -- Seel: Yes. Borup: Okay. And the existing Conditional Use Permit -- Seel: Yes. You're right. The L-O and office -- or anything other than an office we come back and we don't have a problem with that. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: I'm sorry. I did think of one thing that I do need to bring up and that is the utilities as they are installed at this point in time do not provide a water service to the northern most lot and a brand new road with a no cut moratorium on it is going to cause some problems with them getting new service in there, so that's an issue that their design engineer needs to work through, otherwise, we are going to have to -- sanitary restrictions are going to have to remain in force on that until services can be provided. Borup: Were you aware of that? Seel: Yes. Bruce and I had talked about that we recognize -- see, originally we had anticipated just the two lots when we did the road for ACHD, so approximately in the center is where the water services are, so there is water services for the two most northerly lots, it's just, as he says, one of them is not in that lot, but we are aware of that and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 57 Borup: The two most northerly or southerly? Seel: The two northerly. The southerly one would be designed to come off of Magic View with water and sewer. Borup: Okay. Seel: Was that your understanding, Bruce? Seel: Just real quickly -- and I know it's getting late, but you have got your sewer and your water to the two properties and the intention was this might have been just simply two lots. It was our best guess at the time when we -- when ACHD came in. So we anticipate we would get services off of Magic View for the most southerly lot and I guess the two northern lots we would have to work out. We have water services, they are just not where we ideally have them located. Borup: So there would need to be some easements or access agreements or something? Seel: Yes. Right. And we don't have a problem with that. I think as Bruce said we have the no cut policy and we really don't want to have to go back to ACHD on that, so if we can work something out we can certainly do that. Borup: Okay. Seel: I don't see it as a problem. Freckleton: I don't see it as a huge thing, either. I just wanted to raise that point that this does need to be worked out. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Seel: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners. Is there a motion to close public hearing? Nary: I would move to close the public hearing. Borup: There is a motion to close the public hearing. Do we have a second? Norton: Second. Borup: I have a second. All in favor? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 58 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Further discussion? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Just briefly. I mean I think this is a good project. I think this is what we anticipated would be built in this location, so I think it's a good project and I think that dividing it into a plot -- or into plots like this is certainly reasonable, but as my question earlier, if this is one versus three, it still requires a street buffer to get built. So I don't know any reason to make it any different, just because it might be divided by three. It seems like we are in agreement on item nine, so I think we can -- at least I would vote to approve this with the comments as written, except for the minor change in nine. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I agree with Item No. 2 that they need to submit other landscaping plans, because these are not approved and the police don't want conifers in the landscaping, so I agree with staff there. I kind of hesitate on number three, because I can understand the problem of you putting in landscaping and then you drive over it with a backhoe. You know, that just sounds expensive to me and you see it with the streets all the time. Locust Grove right in front of Fred Meyer. They just put that in. I mean it's not doing landscaping, but they just put it in and now they are taking it all up again. And they had put landscaping and now it's all mixed. So I have a problem with number three, just thinking about it. And number nine was the small change. Centers: Well, I see where you're coming from and I heard that from the applicant that, you know, when they develop the one lot and they get a user there. I think control of those people can be maintained with their backhoes and we are not talking about large trees here, are we? We are talking about -- McKinnon: Two inch caliper only. Centers: Yes. And, you know, I still maintain -- you know, I'm not marketing property, but I still maintain that it would help market it and, you know, I think you have a back entrance -- you know, we are not requiring trees and shrubbery all the way around the subdivision. So that's my view. I agree with staff. I think it's per the landscape ordinance and that's why we have it. Norton: Do we have a copy of their landscape plan? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 59 Borup: I was going to mention that and I think for some reason they all ended up in my packet. Norton: Are you going to share? Borup: Yes. I should have done that earlier. I'm sorry. I noticed that last week. Sorry about that. Norton: But it's not approved. But this isn't approved, right, by staff? McKinnon: No, it's not. We will require a new landscape plan prior to the public hearing in front of the Council. It is a final plat that we are looking at again tonight, too. So we do need to have a copy of the detailed landscape plan that is in compliance with the landscape ordinance prior to approval of the Council. Borup: David, the reason for not approval was the evergreen trees -- McKinnon: Conifers only. Borup: -- which are existing trees? McKinnon: Existing trees not on the street buffer. Borup: Well, my earlier plat -- one of these shows is there are existing trees there now. The ones on the street buffer were existing also, is that -- McKinnon: Let me catch up with -- Borup: We have already closed the public hearing. McKinnon: Chairman Borup, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In addition to what Chairman Borup has already stated is that there are some additional conifer trees that are within the landscape plan that you have in front of you. I don't have them all pointed out at this time. I just spoke with the applicant, he's agreed to remove those trees, if they are existing trees, and submit a new landscape plan, they have no problem with submitting a new landscape plan. They would agree with that comment on the staff report and agreed to go ahead and do that. Just to make one final comment while we are making some discussions on the landscape plan, in all fairness to the applicant there was discussion amongst all the staff members, actually, concerning the landscape buffering of commercial subdivisions. There is some concern with staff as to how we can enforce this in the future and what will happen it will have properties behind the landscaping where they are just buffering weeds by installing the landscaping. As to whether or not that will be more attractive by having a ten foot strip of landscaping with weeds behind it that is needing to be continuously mowed and maintained. It has been discussed with staff and in the future you will see coming back to you changes to the landscape plan and we've spent quite a bit of time, Steve and I, Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 60 discussing this issue and at this time our landscape plan is pretty explicit, saying that if it's on the -- it's a required landscaping, you are required to install it prior to occupancy. There is no doubt in my mind that that's exactly how the landscape ordinance is written right now and intended to be followed. However, in the future we have been thinking that some changes might be needed if the landscaping buffer is on an arterial street where the heavier traffic is, rather than on a local collector street -- not a local collector, but a local road where there is not as much heavy traffic, to not require it on every single piece of property tied to the subdivision, but just the pieces of property that are being developed at that time, but at this time right now you do have the ordinance in front of you and it's very explicit saying that the required landscaping should be there and just to give you a primer that we are discussing ways of making corrections to this ordinance. Borup: Is Magic View improved at this time? McKinnon: You know, I was just out there today and I don't believe that it is. Borup: That's what I was thinking, that Allen Street is. McKinnon: Allen Street has the sidewalks and the curb and gutter installed. Borup: And Magic View is not, so there is -- so that's part of this application he's putting in curb, gutter, and sidewalks? McKinnon: Curb, gutter, and sidewalks are already installed. Borup: They are already installed on Magic View? McKinnon: Or not on Magic View, on Allen Street they are. Borup: Right. McKinnon: But on Magic View – Borup: They will be installed on Magic View with this application? McKinnon: That's correct. As part of the approved Conditional Use Permit. At the time when this came through they were required to do that upon development. Norton: I'm ready to make a motion. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. I guess you have to have an open mind and I really see that and I didn't see it before. You require all the landscaping all around it and you have these weeds behind the new trees and new shrubbery. I mean, you know, I agree with the applicant now and, you know, really looking at it I guess I agree Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 61 with Commissioner Norton that why require it on all of them at one time. So that's where I'm coming from, Commissioner Norton. Norton: Okay. Centers: Go right ahead. Borup: I think what would have helped if we would have known an order of development. You know, if they said that the northerly lot was going to be developed first, I would know that landscaping would be in first, the one on the southerly has landscaping all the way existing right around it anyway that covers, you know, almost half of what they are going to be putting in, but we did not have that information and that doesn't help us. Nary: Mr. Chairman, about the only other comment I would make was that what we are being asked to do in recommending to the City Council is what does that ordinance mean. Does it mean all of it or does it just mean the part you're developing now and I agree -- I agree with everybody. I think it does make some sense to wait and it also does make some sense to say you can't just split it up into pieces to avoid that. If you had -- you know, there is a risk that you will have a nice green patch of grass with weeds behind it. You also have a lot of incentive as a developer if you're paying to maintain some landscaping to want to get the rest of that property developed. Centers: But sometimes that's easier said than done, Commissioner Nary. Nary: Maybe if people weren't used to seeing Smith's Food King on Fairview and there was nice trees around it and nice grass around it, but they are probably -- it's ugly, it's ugly, it's ugly, I guess. But what -- you know, what we decide to do or what we recommend to the Council for them to interpret that ordinance to mean is really what's important. Does it mean all of it or does it mean just mean the part you're doing now? We could talk about what seems to make sense to us all, but just whatever we choose to do recognize that that's the interpretation. If Council chooses to go with that that they are going to have to apply to all the subdivisions until they change the ordinance. They are going to have to apply that to everybody, not just to this one. Or find an exception every single time as to why it's different. Centers: I think staff just mentioned that they are taking a hard look at it and they have had some heavy conversation and so they are, Commissioner Nary, and maybe it will make them take a harder look, because maybe it is an unreasonable requirement. Norton: It sounds like it's ambiguous at best and, heck, we have an attorney, we have a legal department that can interpret that one way or the other. That's why we have a legal assistant. Borup: Sometimes ambiguous cannot necessarily be bad, because we can interpret it how we want. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 62 Norton: With that I'd like to make a motion. Borup: Maybe one -- I'd like to just make one comment that I just -- but along the line of what Commissioner Centers said and Mr. McKinnon mentioned and that's the intent of the landscape ordinance. I would think it's to make the city look presentable, look nice, and so probably the location has an awful lot to do with it, is it a collector arterial going somewhere that we are going to have a lot of traffic going by, you know, or is it -- and this is an area that does not have that, it's off to itself, the only traffic, really, is those using nothing at this point and the neighbors to the west. To me I think that has some factor that it's not a collector street, it's not an entrance to the city, it's just not an area where the visual beautification really matters much either way. Centers: I agree. Borup: I hadn't really thought about that earlier either. Okay. Commissioner Norton. Norton: I'm sorry. Are you finished? Borup: Yes. Norton: Good comment. I'd like to move that we recommend approval to the City Council for PFP 01-004, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of three building lots on 2.85 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Treasure View Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, 3500 East Magic View Drive to include all staff comments on the letter dated -- Borup: August 6th? Norton: No. The front of the page says -- the front page says September 4th, but page three says August 6th. So page three, dated August 6th -- strike number three completely. Number nine make a small adjustment in the second to the last sentence saying strike this application and insert if the applicant proposes -- and continue with that language. Centers: And, Commissioner Norton, would you mind adding on number five at the end of the sentence for that specific lot? I think that needs to be clear, if you don't mind. Norton: I would be glad and happy to do that. After number five at the end of the sentence: For that specific lot. Centers: I would second that motion. Nary: Just -- I had a question. Borup: Motion and second. Discussion? Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 63 Nary: Just on -- without number three is number five adequate to make sure the street buffer for the lots that are being developed is installed? Because that says interior landscaping. I mean my thought was to amend three if -- Centers: Amend five. Nary: Yes. Either one. I mean just to be sure that we know elements about what the development is, so we can say requiring interior landscaping and buffer in number five. McKinnon: Mr. Commissioner and Mr. Chairman, on Item Number 5 if we would just remove the language interior and say that all required landscaping -- installation of the required landscaping, strike the interior language and that would address all of the landscaping and we won't have to worry about modifying Item Number 3. Just strike it. Norton: Okay. Just for clarification, number five would read a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any building within a subdivision prior to the installation of the required landscaping determined by site for that specific lot. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Did we -- didn't we still have an existing motion on the table? Centers: She amended it. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Any discussion on the amended motion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Ayes have it. That concludes the agenda. I would like to congratulate the Commissioners. We took an hour and a half meeting and extended it to three hours tonight. Norton: I move we adjourn. Borup: Do we have a motion for that? Centers: Second the motion. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Okay. We did adjourn at 9:58. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting September 6, 2001 Page 64 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:58 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, PRESIDENT DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK