2003 05-01Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 1,
2003
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, May 1, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Leslie Mathes, David Zaremba, and
Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, David McKinnon, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith,
Wendy Kirkpatrick, Anna Powell, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll call Attendance:
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___ Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission for May 1st
and start with roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Borup: The first item is the adoption of the agenda. Does anyone have any changes or
additions to the agenda they'd like to suggest?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: It has been suggested that because of a flight schedule -- or it's been
requested that Item 16 be moved forward and heard after Item 4. Is that correct?
Borup: That's my understanding, yes. I think that would be appropriate.
Zaremba: If that needs a motion, I so move.
Borup: Okay. No motion. That's just -- that change is noted. Item 16 will be held --
addressed right after Item 4.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Meeting:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 2 of 107
B. Approve minutes of April 3, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: Next item is that of the minutes.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I have no comments on February 20th
, unless somebody else does but I do
on April 3rd
.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: On the summary sheet, the first two pages, on the second page of the
summary, Item 11, we, actually, were approving 172, not 174 building lots, and 16, not
15, other lots. Item 12, the same change, 146 lots, not 148, 16 open space, not 15, and
deleting the six shared driveway lots. Item 13, the word rental is incorrect, it should be
retail, and those are what we approved. I, then, have one more on Page 73 of those
minutes, starting down from the top, we have Borup, Zaremba, McKinnon, Zaremba,
McKinnon, and, then, Borup says I haven't noticed that and that was me that said that,
not you.
Borup: I'm sorry. What page was that?
Zaremba: I'm on Page 73 and this is about middle of the page. I haven't noticed that
was actually said by me, not by you. That's my only comments on either one of the
minutes.
Borup: Motion for approval?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of February 20th
and the
minutes of April 3rd
as amended.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Tabled from April 17, 2003: MCU 03-001 Request for a Modification of
Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of the building and change
orientation of the building on the site for Bodily RV by Insight Architects,
PA – northeast corner of Overland and Linder Roads:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 3 of 107
Borup: Okay. Our next -- first regular item is that of a tabled hearing from our last
meeting, MCU 03-001. This is a request for Modification of Conditional Use Permit. I
believe at the time we tabled that for some clarification and I believe we got the
clarification from a memo from Brad Hawkins-Clark. Did staff have any other comments
or anything they needed to add on that? Questions from any of the Commissioners I'm
assuming the applicant is okay with -- is the applicant here? Applicant is fine with the
memo I would hope so.
Zaremba: Should we paraphrase the memo for anybody that --
Borup: I think that -- yes. Essentially, what the memo says is that -- we had some
questions on the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit and they were kind of caught
in the little no man's land there. Their application was submitted prior to an 18-month
policy, but it was approved after that. We go by the date of the application, not by the
date of the approval of the project, so they were not bound to that period. I think that
clarified the question we had last week. We didn't have enough research available at
the meeting to clarify that. At this point, then -- right.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, that Public Hearing was still open. We need to close it.
Borup: Right. We did not. I guess maybe is there anybody else here that wishes to
testify on this application? Seeing none --
Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Centers: Mr. Chairman --
Borup: All in favor?
Centers: Excuse me.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: First, I'd like to apologize to the applicant for the delay and the confusion by
the city. I don't think there was much by the applicant. I would like to recommend
approval for Item Number 4 on our agenda, MCU 03-001. It's a request for modification
of Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of the building and change orientation of
the building on the site for Bodily RV by Insight Architects, northeast corner of Overland
and Linder Roads, including all staff comments from the memo dated April 17th
.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 4 of 107
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-018 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a bank with drive-thru in an I-L zone for Washington Trust Bank by Russ
Wolfe – south of East Presidential Drive and east of North Eagle Road:
Borup: Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-018, request for Conditional Use
Permit for a bank with a drive-thru in an I-L zone for Washington Trust Bank by Russ
Wolfe. We'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On the overhead
we have got the subject property in bold. It's at the southeast corner of Presidential and
Eagle Road. The applicant is requesting an 11,000 square foot drive-thru bank facility.
I have had a chance to talk with the applicant. He's in agreement with the staff report
as written. I assume you have all had an opportunity to review that, but just to point out
one item that needs to be brought up is the landscaping. There were just the two small
landscaping issues that needed to be resolved. Down on the south side of the property
you can see some angular parking. That far corner -- the farthest southern -- thanks,
Bruce. There is not a five-foot buffer in that location just right there at the corner. They
had to add five feet. The applicant is in agreement with modifying the Site Plan to do
that. In addition to that, on the eastern side of the parking they have more than 12
parking spaces linearly arranged without a landscape island and the applicant has
agreed to include the landscape island there. Those comments are noted on Page 4
Item Number 6, of the staff report staff recommends approval of this project. I will turn
the time back over to the Commission for any questions you might have of us and for a
Public Hearing.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman? All your concerns are in the staff report and your requirements
are there?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Is the applicant here? Would they like to make any comments or a
presentation?
Wolfe: Yes. My name is Russ Wolfe of Wolfe Architectural Group and I'm here --
Borup: You might pull the mike up just a little bit closer.
Wolfe: I'm here with members of Washington Trust Bank and we do agree with Dave's
staff report. There are only a couple items -- and there was one suggestion that
signage goes through a design review. It's -- I don't really know what that process is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 5 of 107
We are -- and I was just hoping to get some clarification on that process. As far as the
additional landscaping, we would agree with that, and we have no problem
implementing that into our final drawing. We have got -- you know, this parcel is a great
parcel and we look forward to moving forward in a cooperative manner and if you'd like
any comments from the owner, they are here and could fill insight in on the intent of the
project.
Borup: Well, I think we had understood that this would be the type of business going in
there and, really, the only reason you're here is because of the drive-thru.
Wolfe: Right. That's correct. I think the banking industry really pivots around those
drive-thru lanes and it's critical. It's the heart of -- the branch banking facility is just a
small portion of this project. There is -- additionally, there is nine -- you know, there will
be 11,000 square feet. The branch facility is about 3,000 square feet of the building.
There are additional functions that are going to happen out here and -- from
conferencing centers to loan centers. This will be -- you know, it serves more than just
a branch bank. This is kind of a hub out in Meridian and should be a great addition for
the community.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Yes. It looks like you have plenty of stacking for the cars. I
bet you hope you need it.
Wolfe: We are trying to get a few of them to come off of Eagle Road for sure.
Centers: So, I don't think that's a problem with the drive-thru. Maybe the staff can
answer your question on the sign.
Borup: I think it said that you need to comply with the Sign Ordinance and, then,
depending on what's submitted, would be whether it needs to be subject to design
review. Is that correct?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Borup: So, if it's something that may not fall right in with the -- with the Sign Ordinance,
then, it may need review. That would be determined when you submit that in.
Wolfe: Okay. You know, we fully -- you know, we will submit a full set of documents
with our signage contractor and cross that bridge when we get there.
Centers: Well, I think for my information, design review is the staff, isn't it?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 6 of 107
Centers: So, you may be thinking, based on where you're from, that you have to go to
another board. No, you don't.
Wolfe: Okay. That was my question. I was kind hoping you were going to say that.
That was the bulk of our questions. I think we -- you know, we agree with it and we are
ready to move forward.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I would just ask out of interest, the conference room areas that you're going
to have are those for internal meetings or are they going to be available for public
meetings?
Wolfe: You know I might turn that over to a member of the bank. Dean is here and he
can probably answer that better than I can.
Oberst: Predominately it's going to be --
Borup: Name?
Oberst: Oh, I'm sorry.
Borup: Your name.
Oberst: Dean Oberst.
Borup: Name and address for the record.
Oberst: 2412 North Lark, Meridian. Predominately, it's going to be for internal
communications. We are going to have video conferencing for training in Spokane and
throughout the rest of the banking deal, but, obviously, if there is a need, it’s not a
security issue, and it's during normal times, we can certainly look at allowing
opportunities for other uses of the facilities. Predominately, it's going to be video
conferencing, bringing people into one main location for training.
Zaremba: Thanks.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioners?
Centers: I'd move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 7 of 107
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: This has come before us because of the drive-thrus, but I think this drive-thru
is far enough away from any residential and by that configuration any speakers they
would be using would be not pointed towards the residential to the east. I don't see any
reason not to approve it.
Borup: I agree.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval of Item 16 -- previously 16,
moved up to Item Number 5 on our agenda, which is CUP 03-018, request for
Conditional Use Permit for a bank with drive-thru in an I-L for Washington Trust Bank by
Russ Wolfe. South of East Presidential Drive and east of North Eagle Road, including
all staff comments from the memo dated May -- excuse me -- dated -- it says hearing
date May 1st
, received April 25th
, including all staff comments from that memo.
Zaremba: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wolfe. Was that fast enough for you, for your schedule?
We'd like to mention that if you have the revised plan into staff at least 10 days before
the City Council Hearing -- well, maybe you don't need ten days to review those
changes, but those shouldn't take too long to change either. All right. Thank you.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, since we have got a little break
here, I'd like to recognize the fact that the new Planning Director is here tonight, Anna
Powell. Those of you who haven't had a chance to --
Borup: I did notice that and I was to going to mention that. I didn't know if she was
going to participate in something coming up or not.
Powell: No. Just listening tonight.
Borup: Okay glad to have you, ma'am.
Item 5. Public Hearing: PFP 03-001 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat
approval of 2 building lots on 2.46 acres in an L-O zone for Gala Park
Subdivision by Paul Aigner – 1620 Celebration Avenue:
Borup: Okay. The next item is Public Hearing PFP 03-001, request for
Preliminary/Final Plat of two building lots on 2.46 acres in an L-O zone for Gala Park
Subdivision by Paul Aigner at 1620 Celebration Avenue. We'd like to open this Public
Hearing and start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 8 of 107
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for a two-lot
subdivision on 2.46 acres in an L-O zone. This application is for a Preliminary and Final
Plat approval. This site is located on an existing lot in Resolution Business Park, which
is currently vacant. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 2.46-acre lot
into two lots. They meet all of the minimum dimensional requirements for the L-O zone
and improvements, including irrigation, sewer, water, and landscaping have already
been installed. Staff recommends approval of this two-lot subdivision. Are there any
questions of staff?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman. Page 3 of your staff report, is that the end, Item 9, or is
there another page that I'm missing?
Kirkpatrick: I'm assuming that's the end --
Centers: Pardon?
Kirkpatrick: I'm assuming that's the end. I didn't write the staff report.
Borup: It did not make a recommendation. Is that what you're referring to?
Centers: So I wondered if I was missing a page.
Zaremba: I can live without the recommendation, because you have expressed it. My
question would be whether there are some other site-specific comments beyond nine
that are missing, because I don't have a Page 4, either.
Kirkpatrick: Typically, this is our last condition in site-specific comments.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Is the applicant here and would like to make their presentation?
Aigner: Good evening. My name is Paul Aigner, 10900 Northeast Fort Street in
Bellevue, Washington. I'm the owners representative for Treasure Valley Pediatrics.
Millennium Pediatrics is the current property owner of that site. I have been working
with them on the development, which we are before you for Conditional Use for the
clinic that's currently under construction and now they are looking at just subdividing it
into two properties. I had the same question regarding Number 9, if that was the end of
it. It looks to me like the staff recommendation is in the first bold paragraph on the first
page, though, we have reviewed the above-referenced submittals and offer the
following comments as conditions of approval, I don't know if that's a staff
recommendation or not, but we concur with all the staff recommendations. We have no
problems with the conditions and I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
Mathes: Where is Treasure Valley Pediatrics on that lot?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 9 of 107
Aigner: Lot 1.
Mathes: Okay.
Aigner: Yes. Lot 1. It's under construction right now.
Borup: So, essentially, you're splitting off Lot 2?
Aigner: That's correct.
Borup: To have that available for whatever.
Aigner: Yes. Exactly.
Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commissioners?
Aigner: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval for Item Number 5 on our
agenda, PFP 03-001. Request for preliminary/Final Plat approval of two building lots on
2.46 acres in an L-O zone for Gala Park Sub by Paul Aigner at 1620 Celebration
Avenue, including all staff comments from a memo dated hearing date May 1, 2003,
and received April 25th
.
Zaremba: I would only add that if there is a Page 4 to the staff comments that has more
site-specific -- I'm saying if there is one, then it should be presented at the City Council
hearing.
Centers: I would include that in my motion.
Zaremba: That being said, I'll second it.
Centers: However, backing up. If the applicant hasn't seen Page 4, how can we
include it? I don't think -- I'm not the legal mind here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 10 of 107
Wollen: Well, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that in your
recommendation I think that how you're couching it is that you have not seen Page 4, if
there is a Page 4, and that the City Council should be alerted to that fact.
Borup: Well, staff has already stated that there is not a Page 4. We could also include
in the motion if there is a Page 5 and 6? We haven't seen those either.
Centers: Well, I'll stand on my motion, then, including all staff comments with no
reference to a Page 4.
Zaremba: I will second.
Borup: All right. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 03-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements in
an L-O zone for Resolution Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development –
1611 South Millennium Way and 2045 West Overland Road:
Borup: Item Number 6 is CUP 03-011, request for a Conditional Use Permit for two
9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements in an L-O zone for
Resolution Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development. This is at 1611 South Millennium
Way. Really, in the same project, just to the west a little bit. Like to open this Public
Hearing and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you stated just
now, this is a similar location to the project we just approved. On the overhead, the
bolded area, just south on Overland, just to the other side of -- just to the west side of
Millennium Way is the subject property. Again, there is an aerial photo showing the
overlay of how Resolution Subdivision -- the entire subdivision was developed. Just to
the south, this large area is now Mountain View High School, just for orientation sake.
When Resolution Subdivision was approved, it was approved as a Planned
Development back in the year 2000. This is a Planned Development within a Planned
Development. As you know, two buildings on a single lot require the applicant to submit
a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development. As part of a Planned
Development, the applicant is required to provide two amenities. The two amenities
that the applicant has provided for this application happen to be in the central area, a
small courtyard area, with four benches and a central lobby area. This is not one of the
amenities. It's a listed amenity in the Meridian City Code. However, in the Meridian
City Code says that you may approve other amenities that are not listed if you believe
that they are appropriate is size for the project that's being proposed. The staff believes
that the applicant's proposed amenities are appropriate for this size, in consideration of
the fact that the original Resolution Subdivision proper was approved as a Planned
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 11 of 107
Development. I have had a chance to talk with the architect for the project. He has
read the staff report, he is in agreement with the conditions of approval and staff has
nothing to add to the conditions of approval, other than to point out the recommendation
is for approval of this project. I would ask if you have any questions of us at this time.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I do have one, Dave.
McKinnon: Okay.
Zaremba: On Page 5, Item 9, the very last sentence a bid must accompany a request
for a temporary occupancy. What is a bid?
McKinnon: The reason we request a bid for the surety is so that we have an idea of
why -- they have given us a surety amount for that number, we want to be able to --
justification for the bonding amount. If someone says it's going to cost them 20,000
dollars to complete the landscaping, we want to see a bid that says it's going to cost
20,000 dollars to complete the landscaping.
Zaremba: Oh, from somebody who would be a supplier of that service?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Zaremba: Outside evidence that that's what it will cost them.
McKinnon: That's correct. I believe Page 5 is the last page.
Borup: Mr. McKinnon, just maybe a question for my own information and that's on the
Planned Development in a commercial development. Was that -- I mean I know it's
written that way. Is that really the intention for commercial type or is it more for
residential? Sometimes -- I'm thinking on -- in this situation -- and maybe others are
different -- how -- if that's completely appropriate and necessary. I guess related to that,
if these two buildings were connected by a breezeway, would they be considered one
building?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll answer your last question
first. If there were a breezeway it would be one building, it would have no amenity
requirement. Speaking to the intention of the ordinance as to whether or not industrial
and commercial properties should be required to go through the Planned Development
portion of the ordinance and whether that was the intent, I believe that projects such as
Silverstone and El Dorado make sense to have amenities placed within those. They
are of a scale and a size that they should provide amenities. Not necessarily for the
public, but for those people that work within that environment and so there is a place for
that. When we deal with a smaller project like this, it seems like we are micromanaging,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 12 of 107
but speaking to the intent, I believe that the intent was to require these types of
amenities for commercial and residential properties alike.
Borup: Okay. Then, in this case, this subdivision, as a whole, needs to have the
amenities?
McKinnon: That's correct. When this project was approved back in 2000, the Planned
Development Ordinance that's currently in place was not in place and the two amenities
were not provided.
Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Steele: Mr. Commissioner -- or Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name
is Wes Steele, Habitec Architects, 1250 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle, representing
G.L. Voigt Development. We have received and read the staff report, have no
objections to it, and would answer any questions that you may have of us.
Borup: Okay any questions for Mr. Steele?
Zaremba: Have you also looked at the ACHD report where they -- this would be Page 8
of ACHD -- when they were talking about you participating in alternate transportation
programs and transportation management associations. Are you on board with that?
Steele: Yes. I believe the developer is. That would be part of the association that
would, then, be passed on down to the individual tenants, so that would be fine.
Zaremba: Part of the CC&Rs or something?
Steele: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Anything else?
Zaremba: That was my only question.
Steele: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Steele. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application?
Seeing none, Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: I will second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 13 of 107
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend approval of Item 6 on our agenda,
CUP 03-011, request for a Conditional Use Permit for two 9,500 square foot retail
buildings with associated site improvements in an L-O zone for Resolution Sub by G.L.
Voigt Development, 1611 South Millennium Way, and 2045 West Overland Road.
Including all staff comments from memo dated May 1, 2003, and received April 25th
.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Public Hearing: RZ 03-005 Request for a Rezone of 4.738 acres from
R-4 to L-O zones for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church
– 1406 West Cherry Lane:
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 03-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a church / preschool in a proposed L-O zone for Christ Lutheran Church
by Christ Lutheran Church – 1406 West Cherry Lane
Borup: The next Item is CUP 03-012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
church/preschool in a proposed L-O zone for Christ Lutheran Church at 1406 West
Cherry Lane. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for
a Rezone and a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is here for a Conditional Use
Permit, because they have an existing Sunday school at the church, they are proposing
to turn it into a preschool. In order to apply for this Conditional Use, they have to
rezone the property from R-4 to L-O. That's why you're seeing a rezone and a CUP
application. The applicant is not actually proposing any construction on the site. The
property is located at the northeast intersection of Locust -- excuse me -- Linder and
Cherry Lane. Because the applicant is applying for a Conditional Use, staff is asking
the applicant to come into compliance with current landscaping regulations along
Cherry Lane. We are not requiring at this time that they come into compliance along
the western edge of the property. Currently -- you can see the photos. You can see
currently along Cherry Lane there is very little landscaping there is mostly gravel there.
We are going to require that they put trees every 35 feet and put in the required
landscaping buffer. Along the western edge of the property we are allowing them to
remain -- so that part of the site to remain in gravel. If they do any future additions,
expansions, to the church, we are going to require that they come in and bring those
sections of the property up to compliance with the Landscaping Code. Staff
recommends approval of this application. Are there any questions of staff?
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 14 of 107
Zaremba: Only one. On the transmittal that was sent to Sanitary Services, their
response was they need a more extensive review of the detail. Has that happened? I
assume for trash enclosures and stuff.
Kirkpatrick: No. Actually, that has not happened. We should condition that before the
applicant goes to City Council, that that be resolved.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Well -- but nothing is being changed on the site. Whatever they are doing now
for trash removal is what will continue isn't it?
Zaremba: I'm just referencing the --
Kirkpatrick: And the things that they may or may not know that there was not any actual
construction or change of use.
Borup: That's what I was wondering. Okay. Is the applicant here and would like to add
anything to the presentation?
Spackman: My name is Dirk Spackman, I'm representing Christ Lutheran Church, and
really don't have anything to add to what's in the application or anything like that. We
will be happy to conform with any of the requirements or anything like that. Thank you.
Borup: You know I made a mistake I'd like to rectify right now. I think I only opened one
of these Public Hearings, I believe, and -- I think I opened the CUP. I did not open the
Public Hearing on the Rezone, but I'd also like to open RZ 03-005, and for us to take
into consideration the staff comments that were made on both projects. Then, sir -- and
I didn't mean to interrupt you, if you had -- okay. Probably the only question -- do any of
the Commissioners have any questions?
Centers: I had one question, Mr. Chairman. Has the church seen all of the staff
comments and requirements?
Spackman: I haven't seen the staff comments.
Centers: You haven't seen the requirements for this --
Spackman: They may have been sent to the Church, but I haven't received them. I
haven't seen them. I had a --
Centers: The reason I ask that, I saw you had a one page --
Spackman: Oh, this is just the -- I had an extensive meeting with the staff while the
process was going on for the application and everything was pretty well gone over.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 15 of 107
Centers: So, you think you're aware -- and the church is aware of the requirements?
Spackman: I think so.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: And the landscaping was probably the only thing that --
Spackman: Correct.
Borup: -- was a major --
Spackman: Do you have the Landscape Plans?
Kirkpatrick: Actually, yes, I have a revised Landscape Plan. It's small scale, so I can't
tell if this meets our code from this 8 ½ by 11 --
Borup: Oh, yes. We have a very extensive Landscape Plan.
Spackman: And it's -- the additional trees that they agreed to -- we agreed to are
shown on the large scale plan you have got and it conforms to the requirements of the
ordinance for distances and placement and whatnot.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Spackman: I think probably -- unless there is anything -- something else added that I
should be aware, I'm pretty well aware of anything we talked about.
Borup: I think the Commissioners wanted to make sure you're aware of that, because
the motion we are going to be passing will incorporate all the staff comments, so that --
that will be what our motion will include. All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone from
the public to testify on this application? Seeing none --
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move we close the Public Hearing.
Borup: We have two Public Hearings open.
Centers: Excuse me. We both made that mistake. I would like to close the Public
Hearing on Item Number 7 on our agenda, RZ 03-005, and the Public Hearing for CUP
03-012.
Zaremba: I will second and I will second.
Borup: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearings. All in favor? Any opposed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 16 of 107
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval for Item Number 7, RZ 03-
005, it's a request for a rezone of 4.738 acres from R-4 to L-O zone for Christ Lutheran
Church by Christ Lutheran Church, at 1406 West Cherry Lane, including all staff
comments from their memo dated May 1, 2003, received April 25th
, including all staff
comments.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: I would also like to recommend approval of Item 8 on our agenda it's CUP 03-
012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a church/preschool in a proposed L-O for
Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church at 1406 West Cherry Lane, including
all staff comments from the memo dated May 1st
, which was received April 25th
.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
modify operational hours and change building placement from original
approved CUP in a C-N zone for Cherry Crossing by Hawkins
Companies – northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder
Road:
Borup: Okay. Item -- next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-013, request for a Conditional
Use Permit to modify operational hours and change building placement from the original
approved CUP in a C-N zone for Cherry Crossing by Hawkins Company. This is at the
northwest corner of Cherry Lane and North Linder. I'd like to open this Public Hearing
and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I put up a map showing
the location of the subject property. It's at the northwest intersection of Cherry Lane
and Linder. The applicant is here to modify a CUP, which has already been approved
by Council. The basic modifications are to the location of the uses and the operating
hours. The original CUP was for pharmacy retail with dual drive-thru, fast food
restaurant with drive-thru, office retail building, and a 24-hour fuel facility. The proposed
CUP is, again, for a pharmacy retail with dual drive-thru, fast food restaurant with drive-
thru, office retail building -- the change will be rather than the 24 hour fuel facility, there
will be a 5,500 square foot retail building. Staff is requiring that permanent landscaping
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 17 of 107
be installed before Occupancy Permits are obtained by the applicant. The existing
home on the property must be removed prior to the development. Potentially -- I know
that the applicant is working with the Fire Department -- the Fire Department is going to
use a training exercise. They are going to burn down this house, so they will need to be
careful to make sure that that is resolved before they start construction and able to
receive C of O's on the site, that the home would have to be demolished on the site
previous to that. This application consists of three lots. The applicant meets all parking
requirements. They also will need to obtain a cross-parking access agreement between
the three lots to supply parking to the proposed development. Staff is recommending --
we don't really have a great detail here. Staff is recommending that the applicant
modify the drive-thru. The current drive-thru configuration -- I believe that there is a
proposed Pizza Hut that will go in and that's the southwest corner. The drive-thru -- the
exit of the drive-thru puts vehicles into the oncoming -- the oncoming traffic coming into
the development and, again, that's the southwest corner. We recommend that they
move the building and perhaps reconfigure the drive-thru, so that we don't have the
traffic directed into oncoming traffic coming into the development, because that seems
dangerous. Overall, staff recommends approval, with the note that we'd like a
reconfiguration of the drive-thru. Are there any questions of staff?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On Page 5, Item Number 4, second sentence, where you
say -- you're talking about the removal of the older home.
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Centers: You say which should be removed. Do we want to line that and put must be?
Kirkpatrick: It must be removed. Let's change that.
Centers: That was the inference I got from you and that's all I have.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I have a question on the parking.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Zaremba: If there is a cross-access, Cross-Parking Agreement in place, is there
actually a surplus of parking?
Kirkpatrick: I believe there is a surplus. I think eleven spots.
Zaremba: Okay. Because if -- in some configuration they have a drive-thru, they are
going to lose two or three spaces that are currently being counted, probably, so --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 18 of 107
Kirkpatrick: Correct. I think that they are not expecting to immediately put in that drive-
thru, but they want to go ahead and get approval for that drive-thru with this application,
so we need to consider those spots being taken out.
Borup: Yes. When would the new drive-thru -- are you anticipating the staff would
review that new design?
Kirkpatrick: I guess between now and Council meeting they need to submit a new
design. They are asking for approval with this application for the drive-thru. That needs
to be configured either this evening or before Council.
Borup: Okay. Well, maybe the applicant will have some comment on that anything else
from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Huffaker: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. Brian Huffaker with Hawkins
Companies, 8645 Franklin Road. We are glad to be before you, because this project --
or this land has been kind of in the mix for years and, hopefully, through approval
tonight we will kind of instigate some of that development and get some things rolling
here and see some progress. I appreciate staff's work, the clarity that's in their staff
report. It's really been a smooth ride in trying to get some of this to work. I do need to
ask for one report clarification on my error. I need to ask for your formal approval or
acknowledgment that would allow the pharmacy building to be up to 14,600 square feet,
as opposed to the 13,500 that I listed on the application. That was my error in
overlooking the size of that -- the potential size of that building. We -- you know, we do
concur with most of the staff report. In fact, I think the only item of condition of approval
that we need to discuss in detail tonight is the potential drive-thru for the Pizza Hut.
When we get to that point, I will turn that time over to Mr. Bill Strite, who is representing
Pizza Hut to address that. I do have a couple of questions or I guess comments in
working through the special conditions portions of the staff report. Just out of clarity, as
I was talking with Mr. Siddoway, there was some uncertainty regarding the non-
Development Agreement and what we are allowed to do -- or what the steps are that
we are allowed to do. It's my understanding that all of the infrastructure and public
facilities have been installed as part of our plat approval process, so I believe
everything has been installed that would allow us to submit for a building permit for a
commercial building and to begin that construction. The way that he states that no
development on the property is allowed until the required improvements are in place, I
believe all that's done and, certainly, it is intention to comply with the non-Development
Agreement, but we want to move it ahead.
Borup: So, you're stating that all improvements are in place?
Huffaker: All of the -- all of the required infrastructure and public facilities, sewer line,
water line, have all been extended to all the appropriate parcels in the commercial.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 19 of 107
Borup: Okay so, maybe just a clarification. Is that what the staff comment is, is the
required infrastructure improvement? You're not talking about any other improvements,
are you?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Steve's comment is -- and it's
pretty general.
Borup: That's what I --
Freckleton: We do require that those utilities be in place prior to, so Mr. Huffaker is
correct, they are installed, services are available to each lot, and Public Works doesn't
have any issue.
Borup: So, I don't see that as a conflict, they are just saying they need to be in place,
you're saying they are in place, so you're saying they are in compliance.
Huffaker: Right. The last time Steve and I talked, he wasn't sure what the code
definitions were and we didn't get back together.
Borup: Okay.
Huffaker: I'll skip Number 3, then. We concur with special condition Number 3 also.
Special condition number infers that the existing house needs to be removed prior to
any occupancy of a commercial building. I just had a voice mail from Deputy Chief
Johnson today stating that their scheduled activity is to do a burn on that house the last
week of October or first week of November, right after the academy finishes their
training for the new recruits. I think they plan to do some other types of training in the
house prior to that, knocking doors down or whatever it is that they may do. You know,
there really is no insensitive to Hawkins Companies whether we keep the house there
to wait for them or whether we have them burn it now, so I'm going to leave that
decision up to you as to when that schedule has to occur. It certainly would be nice to
be able to provide that for the new recruits as an opportunity, but I'll leave that decision
up to you.
Centers: Mr. Huffaker?
Huffaker: Yes.
Centers: You quoted that wrong. It said it must be removed prior to development on
the site. You mentioned occupancy. It's prior to development.
Huffaker: Okay. Let me check that again.
Centers: Page 5 Number 4.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 20 of 107
Huffaker: Okay so, I guess let's go back to my comment on special condition Number
2. I guess what is the development of -- or what is the definition of development? Is it
any construction activity at all?
Centers: That would be mine. When you start to dig a hole.
Zaremba: Break ground for a foundation, I think.
Huffaker: Okay.
Borup: Is that going to affect your time schedule?
Huffaker: Well, no, because we will just require the Fire Department to burn it earlier.
Borup: I mean right now you're anticipating starting before October, I assume?
Huffaker: Oh, yes. I mean we expected that Pizza Hut may be open by September,
unless it's delayed, so they are -- you know, there is three or four months that you could
overlap of actually having a business open and having that house there. The four
months is important for us to have our tenant open, but I'll let you decide if that's an
important event for the Fire Department.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I believe our planner would like to --
Kirkpatrick: Okay. Another alternative would be to require the house be demolished
prior to issuance of the C of O for that building. We would allow you to start
construction, but you cannot occupy the building until the home is gone.
Huffaker: You know, I'm sure that would help the Fire Department and that's fine if we
want to go that route. Maybe having them burn it in July, as opposed to now, might help
them to schedule some training. Our expected schedule is, you know, as soon as we
get our approvals through this process, the Building Permit, we want to start
construction and, then, open the building as soon as building is done, so --
Borup: Well, the Pizza Hut is going to be the first building --
Huffaker: That's right.
Borup: And the rest of the site is staying undeveloped?
Huffaker: At this time yes.
Borup: Because you can't progress very far with that house there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 21 of 107
Huffaker: Correct. Right now Pizza Hut is the -- the applicant that is proceeding the
fastest and none of the other three buildings have any approved use, if you will, that
would have any construction prior to this fall anyway, so --
Borup: So, if that -- if they -- okay. I assume the two south entrances would be in use
for the Pizza Hut?
Huffaker: You know, as part of -- to my understanding of getting an Occupancy Permit
for the first commercial use, all of the landscaping around the entire perimeter needs to
be completed, all the landscaping around whichever use that may be, but we will focus
on Pizza Hut, will need to be completed. It's our intention to complete these access
improvements -- we have got three left. That one and these two, we would complete
that during the construction of the Pizza Hut.
Mathes: And you will have ample parking?
Huffaker: Yes, we will. Yes. I'm not sure if Pizza Hut is one of those that might be short
on their physical part, but we will look at that and make sure that we meet code in that
phasing of that portion. I don't have a problem with that condition and I'll let you write it
as you need, I just wanted to let the Fire Department know that we are rooting for them
and we will help them out in any way that we can.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, another potential solution would
be to have a condition where, since Pizza Hut is on its own separate lot, to condition the
removal of the building -- the Pizza Hut development would not be contingent on -- the
other lots in the subdivision would be contingent on that home being removed from the
lot. We can separate out the Pizza Hut lot.
Zaremba: The existing home is contained entirely on a lot that doesn't overlap the
Pizza Hut?
Kirkpatrick: Correct. It's on a separate lot.
Huffaker: Actually, it's not.
Kirkpatrick: Oh, sorry. I thought it was going to work for you.
Huffaker: The current lot line runs right -- about right through here and this bottom
piece is one parcel. What that resulted from is the initial Save-On application that had
their pharmacy and their joint fuel facility here was all in one parcel. These two north
buildings are on separate parcels, and that's the reason why we are asking for the
Planned Development as far as application is, so that we can get the approval to have
two buildings on this parcel -- our intent is, as soon as we get through these approvals,
that we will submit for a re-plat or a plat to create four separate parcels. We are
requesting a Planned Development, so that a -- two buildings can be approved at this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 22 of 107
point on this parcel, although the timing wise it's still going to work out, we will just have
one building at one time.
Centers: Staff, the way I had changed it here was the building must be removed prior
to a certificate of occupancy on any building.
Kirkpatrick: Actually, we could limit that to proposed retail building B, rather than --
Centers: Well, then, that dictates him to build that first. I guess if he knows that he's
going to.
Huffaker: To build the Pizza Hut first?
Centers: Right.
Huffaker: Yes and that's our plan. We don't have a plan here for this pharmacy that
would get them designed and even started construction before.
Centers: That way, let's hope that the chief's trainees know what they are doing.
Huffaker: Yes. I guess I ought to let Mr. Strite address whether his client has any
objections. Okay. Well, again, we will accept whichever -- however you want to write
that condition.
Kirkpatrick: And, actually, one more comment that I wanted to make. Due to the
increase in square footage of proposed retail space -- and I think it looks like we will be
subtracting at least three spaces because of the drive-thru, staff wants to make sure
that they meet parking requirements before it goes to Council. The condition that they
meet all parking requirements.
Huffaker: Sure. Okay. My last item of concern is Item Number 8. The original
Conditional Use Permit required the installation of volume limiting devices or alternative
speaker systems for the drive-thru facilities. That original CUP, again, had the
pharmacy with the dual drive-thru’s right here at the Pizza Hut location it had a drive-
thru up here at the northeast corner and the fuel facility down here where we are now
proposing the pharmacy speaker system. In short, at least as far as our portion of the
application -- and, again, I will let Mr. Strite address the Pizza Hut, but, in short, our
application moving that pharmacy away from the residential uses, which is now almost
350 feet from the nearest residential, I don't think would have any impact or nuisance to
those residential uses. Most jurisdictions -- anything beyond 300 feet from a residential
use typically doesn't even require any type of special approval for a speaker system. I
certainly have some data and a page of notes that I can go through in detail if there are
questions, but I will just keep it simple and request that we eliminate that condition for
volume limiting devices for the pharmacy drive-thru on this particular project. Other
than that, we concur with the staff report. Maybe after Mr. Strite addresses the drive-
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 23 of 107
thru, I'd like to just take a minute to sum up and see what develops through that and
wrap up my time with that. Any questions before we --
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes. Just on the subject of the speaker.
Huffaker: Okay.
Zaremba: This is a part of a larger project, all by the same applicant; right?
Huffaker: We came in -- yes. There are six residential homes that were part of the land
and the subdivision that was done on the north side of Emerald Falls. There is a cul-
de-sac right here with new residential lots being built -- it would be right here. Those
two portions of the residential development are being annexed into the Valerie Place
Homeowners Association at this point. Those are completed. The infrastructure is in,
the lots are there, we are now only asking for a change on the -- these changes on the
commercial portion for what was previously a larger scope Conditional Use Permit.
Zaremba: Can you go back to the picture that was there for like half a second, between
-- this one. This is residential?
Huffaker: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: In this area over here? What is the distance from here to your speaker?
Huffaker: Well, again, I'm just addressing this speaker here for the pharmacy use and
that's about 350 feet that way and close to 350 feet this way. I will let Mr. Strite address
this one. It may not even be an issue, but I'll let him address that. And the other thing
to remember, there is a six-foot CMU wall placed on this portion of the residential
property that's in place now that previous to the decline in the decibels that would that
travel through to those residential homes. That's a lot of detail I can go into if you want
to, but --
Borup: But your request is -- on Item 8 is to remove that requirement for the pharmacy?
Huffaker: Yes. Yes.
Centers: And, Mr. Huffaker, this is the first building to be built?
Huffaker: No. The Pizza Hut will be the first building to be built.
Centers: So, the staff comment would be incorrect that prior to occupancy of the
pharmacy building.
Borup: That's building B.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 24 of 107
Huffaker: Here is the pharmacy building.
Centers: Okay.
Huffaker: Yes.
Borup: They were saying prior to occupancy of that building.
Centers: And that's the first one going in?
Huffaker: Yes. The Pizza Hut is the first one going in. The original CUP had the
pharmacy situated right here. We relocated that, pushed it away, which is one of the
reasons why we think that a limiting device really isn't necessary for -- of the new
location. I will conclude with that and, then, just wrap up after Mr. Strite, unless there
are any more questions.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Strite.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante,
Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of Pizza Hut, obviously, in favor of this application, and
I'm here primarily to -- if I can, maybe discuss the pick-up window. This is, in effect, not
the traditional drive-thru that we are all used to seeing in the fast food industry, this
particular pick-up window is used primarily by either the delivery people and/or pre-call-
in orders. In other words, people do not pull up to the speaker system, which I will
address in a second, and order a pizza and sit there for 25 minutes, which is the
average time it takes to develop a food item that's being ordered. I think the point I'm
trying to make here is that in the traditional style of drive-thru you're going to see four or
five, six cars, which, hopefully, for all the drive-thru users, would be adequate. In this
case, we don't see more than one or two at a time and, generally, that one is the
delivery person himself. He knows how to get in and out of there, so he's not in a
situation where oncoming traffic, Number 1 would be a major concern, because it's not
a peak hour, if you will, destinational use. I think with that, I will discuss just briefly the
speaker system. We do have a limited speaker and I think as Brian mentioned, not only
do we have a six-foot high block wall on the west elevation we also have 30-foot of
buffer there. Our speaker is approximately a hundred feet -- I think it's 96 feet from the
concrete block wall to the speaker on the east. That speaker, incidentally, faces
northeasterly or into the center. Any noise that's generated by that speaker, which is
minimum at best, would be directed towards the center. And in going through our
studies, as Brian has already mentioned, he has been here a number of times as well,
the ambient road noise out there right now is greater than 55 decibels and that speaker
system is far less than 65 decibels at a distance of ten feet away. I think that -- I guess I
-- if, in fact, we can arrive at a compromise on the pickup window configuration, we
would certainly ask that the speaker system be approved as this application and that
the limiting device be that that is approved by Pizza Hut. With that I will open it up for
any questions.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 25 of 107
Borup: Mr. Strite, you're saying you already are -- have -- including a limiting device on
the speaker, so that's -- so that would be in compliance with the staff comment from the
previous --
Strite: That's correct.
Borup: -- application?
Strite: That's correct.
Borup: Okay.
Strite: And that may become -- Mr. Chairman, may become a moot point if we cannot
come to agreement on item number four, but that is, in fact, the case, yes. I'd like to
also suggest to you that Pizza Hut, in their numerous studies -- at this particular point in
time nationally, less than ten percent of their business -- outside business, call-in
business, if you will, is done through what they refer to as the pick-up windows. I think
that's an important number. Because I think we all traditionally think of drive-thru as,
you know, rather circuitous, number one, number two, generally, they are more heavily
used than to be in this case and so we feel that the configuration, in fact, does work
and, actually, works better for our delivery people. With that I will answer any questions
that you might have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes. Is there signage at the entrance of that driveway warding off people
who would think they could drive in and place an order that way?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, there is signage there. However, I'm not certain that
we would be able to ward anybody off. If they wanted to order a pizza and, then, they
are told that you're going to pick this pizza up in 20 minutes, my guess is, first of all,
they are going to be a little frustrated, but my guess is they may go out and go
someplace, do their business, and come back. You know, when we have pre-ordered
pizza, we don't even have a lot of people come into the store and sit and wait if, in fact,
that is the case. They have a convenient place to wait. But I don't think you will find too
many people that hang around for 20 minutes waiting for their pizza to be delivered --
prepared. Excuse me.
Borup: Is that intended for the drive-thru to be one way or is that two-way?
Strite: That pick-up window is a single drive one-way.
Borup: Eighteen foot wide?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 26 of 107
Strite: That's correct. We did that, because we felt that if the ordinance in effect
required a bypass lane, we were able to allow that person that perhaps does not want
to sit there to get around that person who is there with --
Zaremba: I was going to ask how they would escape.
Strite: Well, that's how they would do that, because it's wide enough for two cars. The
primary thought there is some of the other delivery people, if they choose to use the
delivery door on the east, they can come back out, drive around that way and out and
so that was the -- that would be the thought beyond that.
Zaremba: Have you had people come in and order one slice of an already prepared
pizza or order whole pizzas?
Strite: I will tell you what, that's a very good comment, Mr. Chair, if might briefly. They
are experimenting with that now to see how single piece pizzas are going to work. I
have not tried that myself, I'm not even sure it's available in this market yet, but it's
being experienced throughout the country, but you can, in fact, go ahead and order one
piece. In that case I guess -- it's well thought, is that somebody could come in there,
order a slice of pizza, and drive through. At this point time we don't do that in this Boise
or Idaho market, so I'm not sure if that, in fact, would -- I'm not even sure if that's going
to work in this particular market.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to give you an
additional consideration. Potentially, if this Pizza Hut were to ever go out of business
and another restaurant were to move in, they would not be required to come in for
another Conditional Use for that drive-thru, unless they were to expand that restaurant.
Think about the potential if another restaurant were to move in and use this existing
drive-thru configuration for a traditional fast food restaurant. I mean it's just a
consideration to make -- that potentially could happen.
Strite: Mr. Chair, if I might, we certainly would entertain having that as a commitment as
a condition to this approval.
Centers: For your occupancy only. We have done that in the past, Mr. Chairman.
Strite: That has been done.
Centers: I guess I have got to concur. I have never heard of a drive-up for a pizza
place. I think of one out on Overland passed Five Mile or right near Five Mile where
they have it identified for pick-up drivers only or something like that. You know, why
would you be against identifying it that way?
Strite: Mr. Chair --
Centers: And not a drive-up for customers?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 27 of 107
Strite: Well, I'm not sure we would object to that. I think the thing is that while this test
program is going on, I think we would be reticent to agree to that until such time as we
know how this is going to operate and if, in fact, the condition is written such that you
want us come back, we would be happy to do that.
Centers: Come back for what?
Strite: To entertain that very comment, that the signage would have to change, if,
number one, the occupancy changes or at the time that we, in fact, install the drive-thru
lane. See, the situation here is that if we go in there today and do not accommodate
the drive-thru by underground utilities and the like inside, it's going to be difficult to
retrofit. We'd like to get that in here today and if it's your choice to have us come back at
the time we actually install it, that's certainly fine with us as well.
Borup: But at this point you do not have a date for the drive-thru?
Strite: Mr. Chair, we do not have a date for the drive-thru. However, the construction of
the building would include a separate room with separate electrical mechanical for --
Borup: I understand that. No. That's just good thinking ahead. I think the main
concern was, still, the entrance out of the drive-thru was, you know, about 60 feet from
Cherry Lane. That was the -- my understanding the reason for the staff comment is the
traffic confliction.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, another way you can condition
this is the potential is you very narrowly define this as a pick-up window only, where it
would not be a drive-thru pick-up and to go ahead and provide a definition for the pick-
up window.
Borup: No orders.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: Well, the difficulty is once the building is in place -- and, as you say, all the
utilities and the fore thinking that has to be in place to even make that happen, coming
back isn't the point, because you can't move it at that point.
Strite: That's absolutely correct.
Zaremba: I think I would like to see that drive-thru exit problem solved now as a
condition of where that building is going to be located and I think the thoughts are either
the building needs to move a little bit more so the drive-thru can pass south of the
building back into the parking lot, instead of into the driveway, or -- what other solution
could there be?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 28 of 107
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, I think that the only other solution would be to try to do
something internally with the drive-thru and pick-up window, but that would get into
revising the entire prep storage delivery systems and we are trying to move the drive-
thru window to the north, if you will. I think another thing you might consider is that we
all think of traffic in terms of peak hour and you have to understand that these people
are not open for breakfast, they are open in a 6:00 through 8:00 period, so that the only
opportunity for peek hour configuration or confliction would be in the evening hours and
I trust that having the stack lane that Ada County Highway District has required there,
we still have three automobiles stacked prior to exiting that device. Somebody moves
out of there before somebody can move in. Now, they can, in fact, make a u-turn and
go back, but I don't think that that's going to be what most of them will do, especially the
delivery drivers, since they are on timing.
Zaremba: Let me make sure we are talking about the same thing. My assumption is
that the problem staff has is that the people exiting the drive-thru or the pick-up window,
whatever you want to call it, are going opposite direction of travel -- cars that are
coming in this driveway are opposite direction. These people are going the wrong way
on the wrong side of that. They would be southbound exiting that?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, that -- you're absolutely correct. I think if you got up
into the center generally in any of the traffic patterns, that's the reason that that
particular pick-up window configuration is turned back to the west. It does not -- or due
south. We turn it into the west, so that we have approximately a 60-degree angle to the
incoming traffic, which gives you the ability to visually see somebody pulling in before
you pull out. You know, from our standpoint, the ideal situation would be to run that
thing straight forward and try to exit right at the island that delineates the in and out, but
we, obviously, felt the same as staff in the sense that at least this configuration -- and I
think that configuration, quite frankly, could be moved another five or six feet to the back
-- to the north. As you probably know, some of delivery kids drive a little larger cars
than some of us. We chose to make the worst-case scenarios, so that they could make
that turn back out to the southwest, if you will.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, this might be a solution -- and backing up on your comments --
is just to flat deny a drive-thru, not approve the drive-thru, and -- whatsoever and if you
want to come back for a drive-thru, that's up to you if you want to take the chance later
on without moving that building back or changing the drive-thru.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Centers, that's certainly your prerogative.
Centers: Yes.
Strite: I mean it would be an investment on our part to say, okay, let's go ahead and put
the infrastructure in with hopes that we prevail. They may or may not want to do that. I
guess I'm not in a position to suggest that that's an alternative that certainly Pizza Hut --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 29 of 107
Centers: So, what you're saying is if they do sell single piece pizza in the future, you
want that opportunity. I think you alluded to that, because now you really don't need a
drive-thru, the pick-up guys could park in the back, go in, and get their load and leave.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, you're absolutely correct.
Centers: So -- okay. Well, I can see the traffic problem, but --
Borup: Any other thoughts from any of the Commissioners? Have you had -- Mr. Strite,
have you had much time to consider another design on this?
Strite: Mr. Chair, I did discuss this with the Pizza Hut folks. They are out of town. I
think their thought of having to push that building back 18 to 20 feet would probably be
unacceptable. In my own thinking I suspect that Commissioner Centers probably hit it
right, as much as I hate to say it, but we would probably request that it be denied and
we take it on to City Council. It's more important to have that building pushed to the
front for exposure, than shove the building back 20 feet behind the future buildings to
the west -- to the east. Excuse me.
Borup: Have you considered orienting the building differently?
Strite: Mr. Chair, we have.
Centers: Flipping it?
Zaremba: That was going to be my question. If you just take the area from driveway to
driveway and flip it mirror image, so that the building is over here instead and, therefore,
the drive-thru actually exits the same direction as the traffic is going -- is that a
possibility?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, we have looked at that and that was not acceptable by
Pizza Hut. Yes, we have.
Centers: I'm sure you have looked at all of them.
Strite: Well, I think Brian could tell you yes we have had it all over that site. They were
very nice in allowing us to take up almost as much ground as we needed and we had it
moved all over the place. One of the other concerns that -- two of those alternatives
that you just mentioned, it did affect the parking. Right now the way I calculate it, if the
drive-thru window is approved, we need five spaces for that, we need 17 spaces for -- if
one for 200 square feet, puts us in the neighborhood of -- I believe it was 22 spaces.
Today we have 34, I believe. We will lose four at the time and I believe Commissioner
Zaremba said -- and made a good statement that at the time we do that drive-thru we
are going to lose the northerly four spaces, so we are back down to 30 or three over
what we are allowed. I think all of this has to come to grips tonight, basically. I think --
as Brian has already alluded to, we want to move forward and we are going to move
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 30 of 107
forward one way or the other and so we are just asking your reconsideration of item
number four. That's all I have. I will turn it back over to Brian, unless there are more
questions of me. Thank you.
Borup: That's all right. But before -- thank you. Before Mr. Huffaker comes back up, do
we have anyone else to testify on this application? You're all alone.
Huffaker: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Brian Huffaker, Hawkins Companies.
I guess just to state our, obviously -- our obvious support of Pizza Hut's design, we will
support them on what they need to do. I think it's important to understand some of the
site conditions that we have out here. You have got a six-foot or taller block wall that
runs clear down Cherry Lane here and up here, you know, at the same face as the
Pizza Hut building. Pushing that back any further really eliminates any of that visibility,
view corridor, from Cherry Lane itself. We have such a large setback here with the city
ordinance of 30 feet, plus, there is a lot of land between the property line and the
existing curb, another 15 feet. You have got a building that's almost sitting 50, 60 feet
off the road now, which is typically further away than most retailers like to sit in this size
and in this type of use. I think we can certainly look at that as -- with appropriate
signage. I don't know if there is anything physically to restrict people from -- you know,
from getting confused and driving in, but, obviously, a stop sign so that the pick-up and
delivery people know that they need to stop for traffic before they exit out can occur. As
far as how that is incorporated into the rest of the site, we are comfortable with how that
is and feel that we can support that. Just so you know.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the thought about the signage, but Mr. Strite was
very honest with us when he said that in the future they would want to possibly use that
for a drive-thru. It’s either approving as is or deny and let you take your case to the
Council.
Huffaker: And my view -- I mean I live by Five Mile and Overland and we go to that
Pizza Hut there and use the drive-thru pick-up window all the time. We never go in.
There is a sign somewhere that says deliveries here.
Centers: You call your order in?
Huffaker: We, do, yes. I think under that scenario I think this -- well, under any
scenario, if we properly signed it, whether there is speed bumps or something to slow
that car down or make them physically stop as much as you can -- I mean this is not a
steady stream of cars. If people will stop, look, and it's clear for them to go, but I -- I
digress. I'm sorry. Just in summation, I think we just wanted to address the conditions,
obviously, of the drive-thru window. The drive-thru speaker system for the pharmacy
use, that it -- that we eliminate the volume limiting devices on that condition and if we
wanted to add on the condition of approval, the statement regarding the timing of when
that house must be removed or burned by the Fire Department. If we could do that, I
think we have got a good application and we are excited to move ahead and would
appreciate your approval tonight.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 31 of 107
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Centers: We have a plus. Didn't see any neighbors show up, so --
Huffaker: You know, the neighborhood has been extremely well to work with. We have
worked with them in some of the designs here to bring a basketball court in and give
them that annex into their neighborhood and they have been very supportive of us. We
appreciate that.
Centers: Thank you.
Huffaker: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. I would be interested in any staff comments on the -- as I see it, we really
only have one issue.
Centers: Right. I wanted to get Mr. McKinnon's opinion. I see where Mr. Siddoway
drew this up.
Zaremba: If I can make a comment.
Borup: Or anybody's opinion, I guess.
Zaremba: For you to -- Dave, if I can make a comment for you to throw into the mix.
McKinnon: Yes.
Zaremba: If you have driven into Hewlett-Packard from the -- or, actually, driven out of
Hewlett-Packard at the Chinden entrance and exit, there is signage there that says yield
to incoming traffic and it seems to work. It's a little different configuration. It's a 90-
degree intersection, but I have seen it work other places.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just two comments. I'd have to
agree with Steve. I think the location of the exit on the drive-thru is too close to the
Cherry Lane access. That's the westernmost access. If there is a redesign, you well
know Council's decision making on items that go to them that have been resigned
where you have not approved it. If you do want to have a redesign, our
recommendation would be to continue it to the second meeting and have them work
with us, if that's the case, or to outright deny it and let them go onto Council with that. If
you want to see a redesign, I suggest that for your -- just so it doesn't get remanded
back to you in the future and take up more of the applicant's time, that would be the
most appropriate way to handle that. The second item that I would just address was
the expansion of the pharmacy, that they requested going from 13,000 some odd feet to
14,000 some odd feet. The City Code allows us, as a staff level, to approve
modifications to Site Plans to allow up to a 20 percent expansion so, you don't need to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 32 of 107
make any motion on that tonight. We can approve that at a staff level. One of the
caveats to that are they have to continue to meet parking and landscaping
requirements. We can review that when that comes in for their certificate of zoning
compliance, so that as long as it's less than 20 percent we are okay, so don't worry
about that. Back to the final statement you made about Hewlett-Packard. Having
worked in that area and having numerous friends work in that area, there is a lot of
dynamics working there. It's a much higher speed traffic area than what we are dealing
with here. Signage may be a part of the solution. I don't think it's the full solution,
though.
Centers: I think the applicant would agree that just a flat denial by us and, then, them
go to the Council with possible signage or whatever they think they can sell to the
Council, then, we don't delay anything. I received a nod from Mr. Strite that -- so --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, just
one other item Bruce whispered in my ear to address was the building B, which is the
pharmacy building, and that's where the house sits right now. If you are to make -- just
for the record, that's a special consideration, it's not a condition of approval right now.
After reading through Steve's staff report, he did not include that as a condition of
approval. If you were to be silent on that, I think we will be okay, because they can't
build that building on top of that house it's going to have to go away. If we just leave the
report silent on the conditions of approval and make no changes to that, I think we are
sitting in a good situation.
Centers: And one other question for staff. I had made note of it and it didn't make
sense at the time. You wanted to add something where that they meet all parking
requirements of the city and you already have parking covered in item six.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, that's
the item that we were addressing with the square footage and Wendy brought up the
fact that they would still have to meet the parking requirements. Again, I just --
Centers: So you want that included?
McKinnon: It does not need to be included. Meridian City Code allows staff to handle
that.
Borup: Any other staff comments?
Zaremba: Any problem with eliminating the requirement on the pharmacy building for a
muted speaker?
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, you addressed it earlier and it's
been addressed a little bit tonight about the 300 foot separation and there is more than
the 300 foot separation there. It's not part of our code, but that's the standard Boise
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 33 of 107
City uses. They dropped their 55-decibel at 300 foot, because it was hard to enforce
the decibel reading. I think we would be okay dropping it there.
Borup: I think Mr. Centers had talked about -- and I don't know if we want to discuss
that any, the -- eliminating the drive-thru and just -- unless I misunderstood you,
eliminating the drive-thru and allowing the pick-up window. Is that what you were
referring to earlier?
Centers: Just eliminate the drive-thru request period.
Borup: The whole thing.
Centers: I don't think they --
Borup: Well, I thought earlier you were talking about maybe allowing the pick-up, but
not the --
Centers: Because Mr. Strite was honest with us that they want that for future sale of
single piece orders or something of that kind, so --
Zaremba: Well, the potential is there and even though Pizza Huts tend to be stable, the
potential is also there, as staff mentioned, for this to be a different drive-thru at some
time -- a drive-thru -- a different business.
Borup: Well, that limitation could be put on there. It would be applied just to this
business, but --
Centers: Well, you know how they are going to exit.
Borup: Well, that's still a concern, yes.
Centers: Yes. Especially Pizza Hut, I mean they are really busy. They get a lot of
those drivers coming in and out.
Borup: Was there any other -- are we looking for any other testimony?
Centers: Well -- and that was -- what I saw, no neighbors here regarding the speakers,
so, you know, I don't have a problem with that, eliminating the volume limiting devices.
Anyway, I would move we close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 34 of 107
Centers: I don't know if there is any discussion -- you know, I'd like to give him a drive-
thru. I see where staff is coming from and it appears to be a little dangerous, even
though I haven't been out there to really look at it, but -- and maybe the Council --
maybe they can do something prior getting to the Council to convince them to allow it.
We have a clean application, other than that.
Zaremba: But you're thinking to eliminate the drive-thru -- any possibility of the drive-
thru or pick-up from our recommendation? I would agree to that.
Borup: That would be modifying staff comment Number 4 -- or staff condition Number
4.
Centers: Yes. It would be a future drive-thru is not allowed end of story.
Borup: Not approved.
Centers: Not approved. Right.
Zaremba: It's eliminated.
Centers: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to recommend approval
for CUP 03-013. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify operational hours and
change building placement from the original approved CUP in a C-N zone for Cherry
Crossing by Hawkins Companies, at the northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and
North Linder Road. Including all staff comments dated May 1st
, which also states
received April 25th
. On Page 5, under special consideration -- well --
Borup: That's not part of the condition.
Centers: Well, we are talking -- I was wondering about the house removal. We just
won't worry about the house. That was the plan. I guess -- it was mentioned on Page 6
regarding limiting the volume devices that would be stricken, in that Paragraph 8.
Borup: Now, you intended that to be just for the pharmacy or any building?
Centers: I guess I don't have a problem with --
Borup: Mr. Strite had testified earlier their intention -- that their design had that device
on the Pizza Hut already.
Centers: If they are not going to have a drive-thru, they are not going to have --
Borup: Oh. That's true. Okay.
Centers: And on Page 6 under conditions of approval Item 4, future drive-thru is not
approved by this Commission so, all staff comments included end of motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 35 of 107
Zaremba: Second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Okay.
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a reduction of approved 192 unit apartment to 96 units and allow 5,500
square foot office park for Fairview Lakes by Fairview Lakes, LLC – 824
East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: I think we took longer on that one than the previous six. Next item is Public
Hearing CUP 03-014, a request for Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of approved
192-unit apartment to 96 units and allow a 5,500 square foot office park for Fairview
Lakes by Fairview Lakes, LLC, at 824 East Fairview Avenue. We would like to open
this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to come
to the front, so I can make sure I can see all of you. I have got a few things I need to
explain to you about this application that may be somewhat confusing, so I wanted to
be able to see your eyes, to make sure that you're all on the same page. This is, again,
another application concerning Fairview Lakes. We have heard a lot of applications
about Fairview Lakes. Commissioners Centers says three before -- I think it's been
more, but -- if we can go to the next slide, Wendy. Again, this is just more background
concerning the area. It's all well known. At this point, this is where we start seeing
some changes with this Site Plan. The central area -- if I could get you to highlight that,
Bruce. Right there. Originally, we had 196 apartments included in this area and the
applicant wants to revise that at this time to include up to 25 apartment buildings and
get rid of the apartments and just leave 96 apartments on the north. Here is where it
gets confusing. When the application came in, the applicant submitted the application
for a detailed Conditional Use Permit and was charged for a detailed Conditional Use
Permit, not a Conceptual Permit. The difference between a conceptual Conditional Use
Permit and a detailed Conditional Use Permit is that they would have to come back for
a Conditional Use Permit for every use other than residential in the future. Every one of
those 25 offices, as they developed, would have been required to come back in for a
Conditional Use Permit. There were a few items that were not submitted with the
application that would typically be submitted with a detailed Conditional Use Permit and
I can see that it's being handed across to you right now. I had an opportunity to talk
with the architect prior to this meeting and we found out what the misunderstanding
was. The application and the information that was provided led us to believe that this
was a conceptual approval, rather than a detailed approval, and one of the items that
was missing was a detailed Landscape Plan. We now have a copy of the detailed
Landscape Plan. I have reviewed it and it does meet a majority of the landscaping
requirements. In fact, there is just one item that needs to be revised on that to make
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 36 of 107
this a detailed Conditional Use Permit. I need to revise the report. If I could have you
all open up your report to the first page. In the application summary, everywhere it says
conceptual, if you could, please, strike that. In addition, in making your motion tonight,
please, change the words conceptual to a detailed Planned Development for Fairview
Lakes. That's in reference only to the apartments and the office. Everything else is still
conceptual.
Zaremba: Let me just clarify for my own sense.
McKinnon: Okay.
Zaremba: The plan which I remember seeing, all of this was apartments.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Zaremba: And that was the detailed plan right?
McKinnon: It was a detailed plan.
Zaremba: Supposedly firm and final.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Zaremba: It was only this part that was conceptual at that time.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: So, we are still dealing with the same property, including this office area, as
part of the detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for this project. Again, the rest of it
is still in conceptual phases. They will have to come back for detailed Conditional Uses
for these areas. If I could have you turn to page four of the staff report, conditions of
approval, item number one. Again, could you, please, strike the word conceptual that's
parenthesized? Item Number 1, please, strike the words: The revised conceptual from
the Number 1, the final line, so that it will now read as a condition of the approval for
this Planned Development. Item Number 5 in the staff report. Please strike that
condition of approval in its entirety. That was the condition that required everything to
come back as a detailed Conditional Use Permit. Finally, onto Item Number 6 of the
conditions of approval please strike the last sentence that currently reads the revised
landscaping permit -- the landscaping plan will be required at the time of submittal for
Preliminary Plat or upon submittal of the detailed Conditional Use Permit for a future
phase. Please, replace that with wording similar to the following that 10 copies of the
revised Landscaping Plan, in accordance with the Meridian City Code Landscaping
Ordinance, shall submitted to city staff at least ten days prior to the next City Council
Meeting. The revision that needs to be required is a very similar revision. There is only
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 37 of 107
one that's addressed in the body of the report. The southwest corner parking got
highlighted on the overhead. Currently shows 15 parking spaces linearly arranged,
without a landscape buffer placed in between them. As you well know, we do not allow
more than 12 parking spaces to be linearly arranged without an island, a landscape
island, one tree in that, measuring no less than 50 square feet and no narrower than
five feet. That would be the only revision that we would have them make to their
detailed Landscape Plan in order make it come into compliance with the Meridian City
Code Landscape Ordinance.
Centers: But you're fine when you say submit it within 10 days?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Then, you will look at it?
McKinnon: That's correct. Just so the application knows, that's exactly the only -- that's
the one change that we do need to see. Item Number 7 again, the revised concept
Development Plan. Please strike the word concept just the revised Development Plan
would be sufficient. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff is in support of
the applicant's request, because this is a Planned Development, to provide mixed-uses.
Again, they have actually made the mix more of a mix than it previously was. As you
know, this was all apartments. The only office uses were these three small buildings
that are now highlighted and the rest was apartments. Now, we have 92 apartment
units, up to 25 office and we have some larger box retail stores, bank drive-thrus, and
restaurant drive-thrus. The amenities are still being kept in their entirety. As you
remember, there is a number of small ponds, the Fairview Lakes, and the pathway that
runs up Fairview through the new drive -- the new road that runs up to the north. There
is a pathway that runs along the side. Again, catches up with the relocated -- the
relocated creek and the pathway are still incomplete in its entirety adjacent to the
apartment complex and exits out to the northwest. Staff is in agreement with the
applicant's request for this to be a detailed, rather than a conceptual approval at this
time, and I would ask if you have any comments.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Freckleton: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. There was just one thing I want to point out,
Dave. On the application summary, front page, I think you want to strike the -- on the
very last sentence, you have additional detailed Conditional Use Permit shall be
required in the future prior to construction. I think you want to scratch that.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Zaremba: Yes. Let me anticipate what may or may not be some testimony from the
audience. When this was going to be apartment buildings, there was a lot of discussion
about the setback from the property lines that would be the rear property lines of the
people who live on Teare and they seem to be reasonably satisfied that there was like a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 38 of 107
double parking area, a driveway -- any building was going to be a pretty good distance
from their property line. We now have the buildings only separated by the walkway,
really, and whatever the standard setback is. Can we specify that offices four, five, six,
seven and eight, which are these right in here, be limited to single story. To specify their
hours of operation, so that it would be -- actually, that might even be a benefit to the
neighbors if we say the businesses have to be closed by 10:00 opposed to having
apartments there, which could have somebody playing the music 24 hours a day. Can
we add those things?
McKinnon: Absolutely.
Borup: Again, these are office buildings, not retail buildings.
Zaremba: I know.
Borup: And anything that would be taking place would be inside the building, wouldn't
it?
Zaremba: And that, actually, is the back of them with no service entrance or anything,
but I'm just trying to help the neighbors.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, I
think you have a great point there with limiting the hours of operation. I don't remember
if that was a condition of approval for the Planned Development initially, but that's a --
Zaremba: Well, when it was apartments you really couldn't do that.
McKinnon: Right. Just I'm referring to the rest of the commercial. One point just to
address the comments you made. Office uses adjacent to single-family, there is a
requirement for a buffer and it's typically a 20-foot buffer between the separate uses,
which is the same buffer that's required for an office use as well. The applicant has
continued to maintain the same distance of that buffer, in addition to placing the
pathway with the trees that we discussed numerous times, plus the fencing that was
discussed. The apartment buildings that were originally proposed were, I believe, three
stories in height, which would provide the people in the apartments more of a look down
into those people's backyard. I believe it would actually be benefit for a single-story
office building to be in someone's backyard, rather than the three-story building. With
that, as you know, we have received testimony numerous times in front of this body
regarding people not wanting apartments looking down into their backyards. I believe it
was actually testified at hearings concerning this project.
Borup: Okay. Anything else? Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura, 499
Main Street, and I'm one of the co-developers on this project. I appreciate the
consideration of the staff at such a late hour about changing it from a conceptual to a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 39 of 107
detailed, but our goal is to start construction on the office buildings this summer. One of
the things that is going to be coming before City Council as part of this application is we
have also applied for a miscellaneous application for a private road section through that
portion that we are going to deed to the Highway District, so we can go ahead and treat
that as a PUD, start construction of the office buildings, kind of do what we did with the
apartments. Our goal is that we want to be under construction on both the stop light
and the road by June or July of this summer. We have relocated the ditches at this time
and the thing that kind of the light switched on with us was we think there is a real big
need for potential owner-occupied office buildings, and in particular a small professional
park. One thing that we looked at was the complimentary benefits of having a mixed-
use project by cutting down a number of residential and creating office buildings that
could provide customers for the restaurants, for the bank, so we have got more of a full
service type of development. In regards to the setbacks, we proposed a 30-foot
setback on the apartments and in the original application we proposed a 25-foot
setback from the offices. One is we can go ahead and -- we will go ahead and put in
our CC&Rs that we are only going to allow single level. The only question about hours
of operation is that our goal is that we are thinking that this would be a professional
office complex, you know, doctors, dentists, accountants. Just knowing that
accountants or some other professionals have those time periods that, you know,
beyond 10:00 o'clock may be something that's necessary, so I'd really hate to limited
our tenants in these office buildings, you know, that type thing. One, is we don't have a
problem with two story, because we don't have any intention of doing that. We have
designed our project -- this potentially could be -- the majority is going to be a design --
we will control all of the designs, we will set up an architectural control committee that
reviews everything. We also will have lots for sale that other people can come in and
develop office buildings in our project. We have got a design that -- you know, I guess
there is one typographical error that I wanted to point out. It's on your cover sheet. It
said 5,500 square feet. In our application we paid for 55,000 square feet, so --
Zaremba: Missing a zero?
Tamura: Yes. We need to add one zero. What you will see this next month is we are
submitting a Preliminary Plat on Devon Park Sub No. 2. What our intent is, is we are
only going to subdivide the east half of this from the road on over and depending on
how well phase one goes, we could come back in and expand the concept on the west
side. The comment that Dave made on that landscaping, we will go ahead and correct
that but our intent is that we will, actually, resubmit to you, depending on how well the
first phase is received.
Borup: Just to -- maybe a clarification on the 55,000. You had them both ways on the
application.
Tamura: Yes.
Borup: One line said 5,500 and the other said 55,000.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 40 of 107
Tamura: Oh. Yes.
Borup: So, that's how this -- I think that's how that mistake got in there.
Tamura: On our overall Site Plan we had it --
Borup: Right.
Tamura: -- we had it at 52,000, so I kind of rounded it up to 55.
Borup: No. I mean -- I mean on this.
Tamura: Oh, yes. That --
Borup: The first line only had two zeros, the second -- the second time it had three.
Tamura: Yes. The intention was 55,000. Which included the second phase of the
office portion. All right. It's been our experience that with office buildings, especially,
when we have reviewed them with neighborhoods, that typically neighborhoods would
much rather see an office building next to their homes, versus an apartment complex,
and when we give them the choice between parking lots and buildings, we, typically --
we, typically, pitch a building, just because of what you stated, hours of operation is
complimentary to residential. We are providing a 25-foot buffer there now. The other
thing is we are going to still continue the pedestrian pathway that David mentioned.
One of the things that worked out well is the cul-de-sac turn around that we had in our
first phase. We are going create that as kind of a signage amenity there in the center,
so we have made the cul-de-sac large enough that we could do something similar to
what Meadow Lakes Village is doing, where you can have kind of a signage water
amenity that we tied the monument sign to this office complex. Hopkins Financial is --
his building just recently sold, and so as part of this development, we are hoping to start
his building in July and it's kind of the first building to get started in this project. That
was one of the reasons that was kind of important to us that we could get this detailed
approval tonight. Thanks. If there are any questions?
Zaremba: If the offices are all for individual sale, is there going to be an office owner
association that would be responsible for the common areas and --
Tamura: Commissioner, the way we are setting up the CC&Rs would be more or less
like a subdivision association where we will have CC&R's. The way we are going to
plat this when you see that is that each -- each lot will just be for the office building with
a footprint of the maximum square footage of what they can build on that footprint, then,
all the common area, the parks and the sidewalks and the -- will be all under common
area association and management wise will be all handled by the association.
Borup: So, all the landscaping will be maintained by the one --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 41 of 107
Tamura: The only thing that they will actually own will be the building. I mean they will
own the lot, but the control of the maintenance and landscaping will be the association.
Centers: Well, if you keep making changes, the city is going to keep taking your money
for those.
Tamura: You know, we think we are developing a better mousetrap as we go along and
part of it has been driven by the economy, but, at the same time, we think there is
definitely a need that we can see that -- you know, that started in Boise and we can see
it heading this direction. I think that we have got such a prime location for that type of
service, that I think that, one is that we can afford something that will be nice, the city
will be proud of it. At the same, I think something that will be relatively affordable for
those, you know, small business people that would want to own their own buildings and
particularly with -- you know, the other reason that we are pressing real hard is with the
interest rates being where they are at. I think there is a lot of people that could take
advantage of that financial situation we are in right now, so I appreciate --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- while you're still up there,
Doug, just one comment on limiting hours of operation. If you wanted to limit that, you
may want to limit that just to customer hours, rather than office hours, so that they could
work passed a certain time in the office, but not have any additional customers coming
to the office.
Zaremba: Well, since I was the one that brought that up, I -- being reminded by you,
that this is office, not retail. I can see the situation where one of these people might be
a tax consultant that through the early part of April needs to have customers coming in
at 2:00 in the morning, but they would be very quiet. As I say, there is no back entrance
to these, apparently, and so I'm not sure the homeowners would be disturbed by
somebody coming to a tax consultant for a couple of weeks out of the year and I would
drop my original discussion about the time restraints.
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? We have
got the buffering and a lot of the other stuff that was discussed last time are staying in
place and --
Centers: Well, it's --
Borup: -- it's a less intensive use than -- if we are going from a three story to one story.
Centers: I can see why they are not here. They love it. I would if I was the neighbor.
Borup: Did you still want to come up, ma'am?
Ewing: I just need to ask --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 42 of 107
Borup: Come on up.
Ewing: I didn't make the last meeting. I'm sorry, but I --
Borup: We need to go ahead and get your -- you want to wait and get it on the --
Ewing: My name is Glenrose Ewing and my home is 983 Tammy Street. I was just
curious up here, you know, we are coming in on Teare now and what is this dark there
behind those -- you know, there is my house on the corner, then, the other one on Teare
and, then, the -- what kind of a buffer is that there? No down by the park right along
here. Because this office -- or the buildings and stuff comes -- you know, there is the
two lots -- this is -- my home is there. There is another lot there. This is all park here.
Okay. What is that right there? What kind of a buffer are you putting in?
Borup: You mean the distance, how many feet it is?
Ewing: Well, I just want to know what it is. Is it a wall? Is it --
Borup: Okay. We will have to maybe look at that, because that was part of the project
that was approved last year or --
Ewing: Last -- well, I missed the last meeting.
Borup: Or however long ago right.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can address that just briefly.
As you know, this was a conceptual approval for the remainder of the property. This
portion right here was approved conceptually and we were basically looking at
distances and the trees, but as far as types of trees, nothing specifically has been
worked out. As far as getting you a scale and showing you how much landscaping
there will be there, I can provide that, but as far as the plan, there has not been a plan
approved there at this time, because it was only approved conceptually by the Council.
Borup: And that will be coming back?
McKinnon: That's correct. It will come back as a Conditional Use Permit.
Zaremba: So, it would be a noticed Public Hearing?
Ewing: So, we will get another notice?
McKinnon: You will receive another notice.
Ewing: Do we have any idea what's going in behind -- right down there, those lots that
are right below us?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 43 of 107
Borup: Not at this point.
Ewing: So, again, we wait? Okay just curious.
Borup: So, yes, at this point it would the office buildings and the apartments are
already approved, half the apartment buildings have been eliminated and the office is
going in.
Ewing: No. I can see why my neighbors are very happy.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: This is the detail. That's set. This is future.
Ewing: And it even makes me happier, too. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: That's what we like to hear.
Borup: Okay. Was there anyone else come forward?
Aseguinolaza: Marie Aseguinolaza, 885 East Willowbrook in Meridian, and I just had a
question. Are the apartment buildings still three story? My understanding is that they
are, but -- the apartment buildings in the front.
Borup: No, there aren't any in the front.
Aseguinolaza: I'm sorry in the back.
Borup: Yes. That was -- this application didn't affect those at all.
Aseguinolaza: Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify. Thank you.
Centers: Well, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. They reduced the number of apartments --
Borup: Right.
Centers: -- to 96. They are still three story.
Aseguinolaza: Okay. That was my question.
Centers: Correct?
Aseguinolaza: And a total of how many buildings?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 44 of 107
Centers: Ninety-six units.
Borup: Instead of --
Centers: And it was previously 192 units.
Aseguinolaza: So -- but the buildings --
Borup: No. Units.
Centers: Number of apartments.
Aseguinolaza: Do you know how many buildings?
Centers: I guess staff -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight six, seven?
McKinnon: It looks like there are seven buildings and one clubhouse.
Aseguinolaza: All right. Thank you.
Borup: Was there anyone else? Thank you. Commissioners, do we -- any discussion?
I think in my mind the only thing that came up was the hours of operation. As far as
single story office building, I don't see a need.
Zaremba: Yes. I'd give up the hours of operation. I would still like to specify single
story on the -- four, five, six, seven and eight.
Borup: Mr. Tamura said that was their intention anyway.
Zaremba: Yes. Other than that, I think it's a fine project.
Centers: Yes. I would agree. Maybe we will see it again.
Borup: Well, yes, I think that's kind of an exiting concept that Meridian hasn't really
seen yet.
Zaremba: I think there is a need for individually sold small office buildings. I can see
that.
Centers: I think more of a need for those than apartment dwellers nowadays.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 45 of 107
Centers: I second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, CUP 03-014. Request for a
Conditional Use Permit for reduction of approved 192-unit apartment to 96 units and to
allow 55,000 -- not 5,500, 55,000 square foot office park for Fairview Lakes by Fairview
Lakes, LLC, 824 East Fairview Avenue. To include all staff comments of the staff memo
of -- dated May 1st
and received by the clerk on April 22nd
, with the following changes:
Where ever the word conceptual appears, it's changed to the word detailed. One
incident of that is on the description at the top of the first page of the memorandum. On
Page 4, under conditions of approval, Item 1, the very last line, delete the words revised
conceptual, so that it reads as a condition of the approval for this Planned
Development. Item 5, delete the first five words this approval is only conceptual. That
paragraph starts with pursuant.
Centers: Strike the whole thing.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. We are striking the whole paragraph? I'm sorry. Strike Paragraph
5 Paragraph 6. The first sentence stands. The second sentence is deleted and add a
new sentence that says 10 copies of the Landscape Plan, in accordance with Meridian
City Code, will be submitted 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Item 7 delete the
third word concept. We will add an Item 8 that says the height of office buildings
identified as four, five, six, seven, and eight shall be limited to one story. I believe I --
and we did make note of the fact that the application is for a 55,000 square feet office
park, not 5,500. I'm done.
Centers: Dave, would we want to add the detailed plan applies to the apartment and
office complex as submitted?
McKinnon: It won't hurt to add that.
Zaremba: Yes.
Centers: All else is conceptual.
Zaremba: Yes. This is only modifying what were originally apartments and not
addressing the southerly portion, which remains conceptual.
Centers: Second.
Mathes: Do we need to mention the landscaped island above Buildings 23, 24, and 25
in that parking -- and 15 without a landscape --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 46 of 107
Borup: That was the only landscape detail plan change that was needed, per staff
testimony.
McKinnon: I think we have got it covered. Doug and I can work that out.
Borup: Okay. Okay. Motion. Did we have a second?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Commissioners, would we like a short break? Okay. We will take a short break
at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 11. Public Hearing: RZ 03-006 Request for a Rezone of 3.41 acres from
R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company – west of
South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31
building lots and 2 other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC – west of South Meridian Road
and south of West Overland Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting this evening.
Start with our next item, which is, on the original agenda, Item Numbers 11 and 12,
Public Hearing RZ 03-006, request for a rezone of 3.14 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for
Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company. Public Hearing PP 03-004, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and two other lots on 10.49 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC. Open this -- both these
Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, I want to
speak from in front of you, rather than beside you, because there are a couple of
interesting things with this project as well. On the overhead, if I can direct your
attention over there really quick, just to give you a brief overview of what we are talking
about tonight on how this is very different from everything else we have discussed
concerning Kodiak and Bear Creek and even the Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church
property. When Bear Creek was originally approved, Bear Creek had taken this area
that I have highlighted. It's kind of a triangular shaped area, and placed a cul-de-sac
there and they placed some very large lots -- I believe one of the lots in that cul-de-sac
was 33,600 some odd square feet, just under three-quarters of an acre -- just over
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 47 of 107
three-quarters of an acre. The original proposal for Kodiak was this long narrow piece
in the center and they had proposed doing 28 detached single-family homes on the lots
approximately 4,000 square feet in size. There was a lot of discussion when the
property was brought forward to be annexed by the applicant Mr. Jim Jewett to be able
to come back in with a Preliminary Plat to do that. There was some discussion by
Council if that was probably a good idea. Upon detailed review, it was decided that that
was not a good thing and they rejected his request for the Preliminary Plat. Currently,
the land is vacant there. Bear Creek has not developed their portion. The church
property that's just to the south included this small narrow piece that's the dashed line
between Kodiak and the rest of the church property, and that property was required to
be developed with a Development Agreement as a church site and all of the
improvements along Meridian Road, State Highway 69, were required to be installed
and improved at the time of development of this lot. A few changes have transpired.
Bear Creek has acquired the rights to develop this property, the Kodiak property, and
rather than end in a cul-de-sac and have to develop this small narrow piece of property,
as original denied, they have taken out the cul-de-sac, added a connection to Bear
Creek, an internal connection, thereby eliminating all the discussion that took place with
the access out onto State Highway 69, so we have that problem eliminated. This piece
of property, the long narrow piece, and this piece that's currently shown as vacant, are a
land swap that's taken place between Bear Creek developers and the church. The
church would now acquire this piece and Bear Creek would acquire this piece. The
reason for that is because, as you can see, Kodiak is very narrow, and with the
acquisition of additional land from the church, they could make the depths of those lots
much deeper and they could meet the minimum R-4 lot dimensions -- not dimensions,
but their minimum lot size. The reason that this is somewhat interesting and one of the
things that they have requested is they not -- the reason why they have requested an R-
8, rather than an R-4 zone, is because they cannot meet the minimum frontage for the
R-4, but they do meet the minimum lot size for an R-4 zone, but they do meet the
minimum lot frontage for an R-8 zone. The Kodiak Subdivision annexed property that
was to be annexed it has not yet been annexed by the city. As you will note in the staff
report on the first page it says that -- it's line three of the second paragraph, it says that
-- in parenthesis, it's been annexed into the city, that's not entirely accurate at this time.
The Development Agreement was never signed by Mr. Jewett and it will need to be
signed prior to the city's action, Council action, on this project. I had an opportunity to
talk with the developer and with our legal counsel, Mr. Nichols, we had a meeting, and
we have determined it would be appropriate to allow this to continue through your
process and onto City Council, as long as it's handled prior to the City Council action on
the entire project. You will note that that's one of the requirements on page five of the
application for the rezone comments it's Item Number 2, that the annexation shall be
completed prior to Council approval. If I could just direct your attention to Item Number
1 in those comments, there was a Development Agreement that was required for
Kodiak and a Development Agreement that was required for the church property. Both
of those Development Agreements will have to be amended in order accommodate this
Preliminary Plat and rezone request, because those Development Agreements included
legal descriptions of those properties and that's the only change to the Development
Agreement. If I could direct your attention to Page 6 of the staff report. One item of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 48 of 107
additional consideration concerning the Preliminary Plat is the new configuration of the
roadway from Ice Bear to Cub has created a lot that's over 1,000 feet in length and
goes against our current code which requires 1,000 feet as your maximum. I believe it's
just over 1,100 feet in length. A Variance will be required and a Variance is noted in the
staff report as a condition of approval. That's Item Number 5 on Page 7. The -- Wendy,
if I could get you to go back -- right -- that's great. As I noted earlier in the staff report --
not the staff report, but in my presentation tonight, the church property was required to
improve the rest of that property upon development of the church property. Typically,
with the Preliminary Plat they are required to put all the improvements in or bond for all
the improvements prior to getting Building Permits and prior getting occupancies they
have to include all the improvements. Staff would suggest that this property here that's
adjacent to State Highway 69 that is now a part of the church property, not be required
to be bonded for and improvements not be installed at this time, because we have an
existing Development Agreement that says the church property shall be developed
upon development of the property, rather than with this Preliminary Plat. It's a condition
in the staff report. That's Item Number 7 on Page 7. I have had a chance to talk with
the applicant. Again, we did have a meeting the applicant is in agreement with the
conditions of approval for the staff report. They are here tonight to offer testimony. I
believe that there are a number of people from the public that are here tonight to offer
testimony. With that, I would state that staff does recommend approval of this, we
believe that this is much more of an improvement from the original plans that were
submitted for Kodiak. These homes provide a better transition from the large lots in
Bear Creek to, again, larger lots than what was originally submitted to you and ask if
you have any questions at this time and turn it back over to you for a Public Hearing.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: The only question I had is would it be appropriate to have the church
rezoned to L-O?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the Development Agreement is all
already signed that would allow them to come back in and they already are required to
come back in for a Conditional Use Permit as a requirement of their Development
Agreement. There would be no benefit gained by requiring an additional rezone for that
church property.
Zaremba: I only bring the question up, because we have been encouraging churches
to change their zone to L-O.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the Development Agreement allows
the church property to develop in a manner that would allow day care, that would allow
some recreational facilities and some other uses that typically we have been requiring
the rezone to L-O for and the Development Agreement already addresses those.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 49 of 107
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve
Arnold I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'm here representing
the Bear Creek, LLC, on this project tonight. I will be brief. I think Dave pretty much
covered about all the issues there. Just as a follow up and reminder to the
Commission, this plan, as we had Bear Creek 5 platted and recorded, this was
addressed at the Final Plat hearing that this was our intention, that we were at that time
in negotiations with the developers of Kodiak Subdivision. It has come to fruition, so we
have come to a negotiation with both the church and Kodiak for the exchanges and
what we have before you tonight, again, is that design that we have an agreement with.
Again, the only reason we are going for the R-8 zoning is for the portion of Bear Creek
5 that was left out. It's mainly just dimensional standards. Had that Development
Agreement been signed, which we were hoping that that would have been done by
now, that would have been the only portion getting rezoned, because Kodiak would
have had the R-8 zoning. That being said, the developer's representative from
Westpark is -- or Bear Creek, LLC, is here tonight to speak on behalf of the home sites
that are going in there. We held a neighborhood meeting at that time and I believe the
only issue was the type of homes going in and I think he's here tonight to address the
homes. They will be the Mesa type, similar to what is in Bear Creek 5 and I believe
Bear Creek 3. With that, I will stand for questions and reserve comment for -- on the
house types.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Okay. Thank you.
Arnold: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Schultz?
Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz, 660 East Franklin here in
Meridian. I work for the Westpark Company. I'm the project manager of the Bear Creek
Subdivision, more the construction manager and the overall engineering manager, but I
have been involved in this project from almost day one and very pleased to be here
tonight to -- like Steve said and Mr. McKinnon said so well, that this is the result of
several months of negotiations and process and we think we bring before you the best
possible solution to the overall traffic issues that were brought up initially and the lot
sizes, which these lots are three times the size of the Kodiak lots. The square footage
is up around 10,000. A little less. Like 9,000, 8,800, but they are still nice square
footage lots. They are a little bit narrower, 74 feet minimum. That's why we had to go
for the R-8, so it could be less than 80, but they are still deep lots, 120. We feel like we
really went the extra mile to make this the best possible solution for everybody,
including the church property. They get better visibility tucked in there, their elevation
rises from where they were, it really works well for everybody. And, for the record, the
neighborhood meeting that was conducted last week, I'm not the marketer, so I wasn't
able to commit to them at that time what style we are going to market those at and that
concerned the residents and I understand that. I'm here tonight to say that those will be
marketed and have the same CC&Rs as our Mesa style lots, which is our step-up lots.
The price range -- I can't give you an exact, but I'm thinking they are going to be, you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 50 of 107
know, 190, 200, on up to 240, is what we are shooting for. And I know that that's what
the homeowners were concerned about and I'm here for the record to put that on there
and I agree with staff's recommendation and just ask for your approval, so we can move
forward. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commission?
Centers: Just one. Could you repeat that, you're committing to market them as Mesa
style?
Schultz: Yes. They are Mesa lots. We have four different product types out there. We
have Meadows, Mesa, Parkside, and Highlands, and those range on the Meadows side
from say 160 to 170 to 200 and the Mesas go from the upper 190 to 200, up to 240.
The Park sides are in that 240 to 350 and the highlands are from 350 to 600.
Centers: So, your marketing agent told you to commit to that?
Schultz: My boss.
Centers: Okay so, you're going to market them as Mesa style?
Schultz: We are going to do that. The partners -- I work for the partners and that's
what we are committing to do.
Centers: Good. Thank you.
Schultz: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify?
Johnson: Troy Johnson, 2476 South Bear Claw Way. I'm a recent homeowner in the
Bear Creek Subdivision. My house has just been built now for about three weeks and
my home, actually, is adjacent to where the zone is being proposed and I came here
tonight --
Borup: Do you know what your lot number is?
Johnson: My lot number is Lot 1, Block 7.
Borup: Around the corner.
Johnson: Right. The yellow -- number 36 on the very end, we are just to the west of
that lot.
Centers: Right here?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 51 of 107
Johnson: Yes. Right where it starts. I was not privy to the conversation or the meeting
that they had with some of the homeowners and so I came here tonight with limited
information. What I was basing my information off of is the advertising that Bear Creek
is actually putting out and their advertising was different than what was suggested in the
fact that these are going to be Mesa lots. They were actually marketing Meadows lots
and so I'm basically here as a homeowner wanting to protect the value of my home and
I want to be assured that they are going to be Mesa lots and that they will be upheld by
the same CC&Rs.
Borup: Are they marketing these lots at this time?
Johnson: Well, it's the advertising that is available as you enter the entire Bear Creek
Subdivision is actually marketed as Meadows lots, which, as he just mentioned, is a
completely different price range from Mesa.
Centers: Which price range are you in, Mr. Johnson?
Johnson: I am in the 250 to 350.
Centers: Which is?
Johnson: Parkside.
Centers: A step above the Mesa?
Johnson: Correct. Obviously, my concern was if they were going to put Meadows
homes adjacent to mine, it would be quite possible that there would be a home built that
was less than half the value of my home. In addition to that, the Meadows have certain
CC&Rs that are different than what a Parkside home would have. For instance, the
fence requirements in Parkside would be a white vinyl or a blank cast iron fence,
whereas the Meadows, the CC&Rs state that they could have a cedar fence. They
could have vinyl siding on their house, whereas I could not.
Borup: So, you're comfortable with the Mesa?
Johnson: I'm absolutely comfortable with the Mesa. The reason why I wanted to speak
and put it on the record is, again, going back to the advertising that we received from
the subdivision, the Mesa value -- or lots are priced at 200 to 250. I don't mean to be
too anal about this, but I do want to make sure that what they are advertising is a price
range from 200 to 250, so if it is going to be Mesa lots, that's what I would expect they
would follow through with and make consistent with the rest of the subdivision. Thank
you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, this is probably something you weren't aware
of, but the previous project that was designed for here had an RV parking storage
designed for right next to your lot, I think.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 52 of 107
Johnson: I was not.
Borup: Or close to it. Just down from that entrance. Okay. Do we have anyone else
that would like to testify? Okay. It sounds like your neighborhood meeting did a lot of
good to -- oh, do you have something. Come on forward.
Pond: My name is Melissa Pond. I'm at 305 West Cave Bear and I moved in, in
November and when we moved nothing was proposed of what would be behind us. We
knew it would be developed. I was at the meeting last week. Everybody along that
street was invited.
Borup: You say just last November you moved in?
Pond: Yes. Well, that would be correct. There was nothing proposed by this
developer, because he didn't own the land.
Pond: Right. Yes. And, then, word got going on what was proposed. At this meeting
several of us were there and everybody that was invited was there and, unfortunately,
they weren't able to come tonight, they have kids ballgames and they are out of town
and such, so we are here -- my concern -- something that came up at that meeting that
all of us are concerned about, has not been brought up yet tonight, is the fence. Right
now there is a wrought iron fence that separates us and I don't know if that will be
changed to a white vinyl fence just for more privacy. There are other homes in the
subdivision that when they back up to other times they have a white vinyl fence.
Borup: You're saying there is an existing fence in the back of your property now?
Pond: Yes.
Borup: And you're concerned they are going to tear the fence down?
Pond: It was proposed that a white vinyl would go up in place of.
Borup: Okay. We will get some clarification on that.
Pond: Okay. That would be great. I'd also like, on the record, just -- and I brought it up
at the meeting and it didn't go very far, but I'd also love to see them take one lot out on
each side and make those bigger. I will have two backyard neighbors and my neighbor
will have four to five backyard neighbors. I'd also like that to at least be brought up, that
we can make those lot sizes a little bit bigger.
Centers: Which neighbor would have four to five? They must have a huge lot.
Borup: Well, that's not true.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 53 of 107
Centers: That would on two lots. Two and a half.
Pond: Lot 8. Lot 8 right here will have 32 partially in his backyard, 31, 30, and 29. I'm
sorry I guess that's four.
Borup: Well, the plat that we have has 30 and 31 and about 15 feet of 32. But that's a
cul-de-sac lot that has the --
Centers: Yes. I think what you have there is not to scale.
Pond: Okay.
Centers: I don't think that is.
Pond: Great. Yes. All of our concerns along that back way -- which is why we talked
about a fence. Many of us will split our lots with two backyard neighbors. It's not like
we could go in with out next -- our backyard neighbor to split a fence, because we are
going to have two. Most of us will have two.
Borup: Well, I thought you said the subdivision was putting up a fence.
Pond: We haven't talked -- we talked about it at the meeting and it didn't get very far.
Borup: Okay.
Pond: Other than that, of course, we are excited that they will be Mesa lots, it will keep
up the value of our homes, but there are a couple of issues that we would like to see
addressed.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Ma'am? I got your first name. Melissa.
Pond: Melissa.
Centers: Are you just wanting identification of what type of fence, so that you can share
the cost with the homeowner?
Pond: It was proposed when we had the meeting with Matt that he would take it to the
developer that they would switch that fence to be a white vinyl privacy fence.
Centers: So, my question is do you want them to put the fence in, then?
Pond: If they can. Yes. It is in other parts of the subdivision and he said if they didn't
put the white vinyl fence, because they didn't think that there would be -- they didn't look
far enough. In other parts of the subdivision they did look far enough and there is a
white vinyl fence, so that you don't have two backyard neighbors trying to figure out how
to get privacy.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 54 of 107
Centers: So your preference is white vinyl and --
Pond: For privacy. Yes.
Centers: Yes. Right. Who pays for it that has to be decided, I guess.
Pond: Right.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. Schultz, do you have any comments on that?
Schultz: Once, again, Matt Schultz, 660 East Franklin. She's absolutely correct, at the
meeting we never did come to a final conclusion, but the way I presented it from the
beginning was that there was a wrought iron fence that was put in over a year ago there
within the Mesa lots --
Borup: That was the perimeter fencing.
Schultz: Perimeter fencing. Wrought iron. Nice fence. It cost us -- you know, it wasn't
cheap. We put it up and wrought iron and vinyl are both allowed within Mesa and what
was interesting when I made that statement one of them goes, well, I like wrought iron
and, you know, all the rest of them wanted vinyl. Well, okay, I offered to take it down for
nothing and they could cost share themselves and put up a new vinyl fence. It's about
the same price. It's about 15 dollars, 16 dollars a foot. And one of the guys proposed,
well, you guys are, you know, trying to, you know, get some extra lots in here, which we
are really not, we think we are providing a really good plan. You know, why don't you
split the cost with us. And where it was kind of left, that we may split that cost, you
know, in replacement, even though I personally think that it's a good fence, it's up there,
and, you know, you can plant vines or shrubs or different things like that and some like
the elegance of wrought iron versus -- to me, the plastic look of -- you know, it is plastic
if it's vinyl, but, anyway, I'm here to say tonight that we will work with them to share in
that cost, if I can get all the homeowners to agree to share in that cost, every single one
of the lot owners along there, and I'll put together a cost estimate and a bid and put it in
front of all of them. If I can get them all to sign that, if they will share in that cost, I will
share in that cost to replace that, half and half, 50-50, and that's above and beyond
what I think, really, my requirement is.
Centers: Yes. Well, I tend to agree with that. And -- but you do intend to put one style
fence? I mean --
Schultz: Yes. We would do the full length at one time.
Centers: And so they have to decide if they all want vinyl or all want --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 55 of 107
Schultz: Exactly. And, then, that's --
Centers: Melissa wants vinyl, but maybe her neighbors don't.
Schultz: That's kind of an open thing for me. I'm going to put it all in or I'm not going to
put it in and -- I'll take it down, though. I have already offered that. You know, which,
again, it's a nice fence, it's there, you know, but to appease the neighbors and be a
good neighbor out there, we are willing to do that, because with this development
coming in, we are going to have to do some more fencing out there and --
Centers: So, what you're saying is this is all wrought iron --
Schultz: It is all -- it actually runs all the way out to Meridian Road right now.
Centers: Yes.
Schultz: I'm going to have to take out part of it anyway.
Centers: And you're willing to take it all out and put in vinyl and share half the cost if
you can get every neighbor to sign off.
Schultz: It would be 29, 30, and 36 --
Centers: Yes. All the neighbors.
Schultz: Right.
Centers: I think that's very fair.
Schultz: That's where we stand. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any final comments from staff?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we typically get a final fencing
plan with the submittal of the final flat and you could have it worked out at that point, if
that's what -- that might be the easiest way to handle that.
Borup: Well, the city wouldn't be looking at anything other perimeter fence, though,
would you?
McKinnon: No.
Borup: We've never done anything on interior fencing before.
McKinnon: No.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 56 of 107
Borup: Okay. Any final comments, Mr. Arnold?
Arnold: Again, for the record, Steve Arnold, Briggs Engineering. I guess my only
concern with that would be how we word it, so that when we get to the Final Plat stage
that it's not something that's going to hold it up as we go through the negotiations with
the neighborhood. I think careful consideration should be given to the wording of that
language, so that it -- when we get to the point when we have half the neighbors that
want vinyl, half of them want wrought iron, that it's just --
Borup: I would be comfortable if you would -- you or the developer would take care of
the wording. Is there any problem with that from staff? If they want to propose the
wording and staff would approve that?
Arnold: Commissioner Borup, I would be happy to provide that.
Centers: Well, we need that right now, if we are going to make that a condition of
approval. We need that wording.
Borup: Well, he's made a statement that they are willing to share 50-50 on the cost and
it would just be --
Centers: Well, he's -- you're saying what if they don't all agree, then, will that hold up
the Final Plat and that kind of thing. That's what his concern is.
Arnold: Commissioner Borup --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, Steve, if I can jump in. The fencing
on the interior of the property lines is typically not something that the city gets involved
with on a Preliminary Plat. I think that if we leave ourselves out of that, I think we are in
better shape, than if we involve ourselves, because that's not a requirement of our
code, therefore, we should not be placing it as a requirement on the plat.
Borup: I would think our -- I mean whatever the Commission decides, but the applicant
has stated they are willing to do that with conditions and they are on the record and,
beyond that, I don't know if we should be placing any particular requirements.
Centers: Well -- and I think we -- I think you're right, we could put it on the record again
when we -- if we intend to approve this, but not a condition of the approval, but put it on
the record for the homeowners that the developer has agreed -- you know, come up
with that wording.
Arnold: And that's something that you can say on the application and just not make it a
site-specific.
Centers: Right. Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 57 of 107
Arnold: Which it -- again, it doesn't have any teeth, but here we are giving testimony
that we are saying that we are going to work with them and, then, you can follow up
with the recommendation to the City Council.
Centers: Yes. If these two homeowners come back and say that no one was contacted
regarding, you know, did they want the vinyl fence, because there is only, as I
understand, six or eight homeowners, something like that, and if there is no evidence
that they were contacted -- if they all want vinyl fence, then, he's got to do it.
Arnold: Yes. Definitely.
Centers: But if one wants it and one doesn't, then --
Borup: There are six in the existing subdivision.
Centers: So, it's up to Melissa to go to the other five homeowners and get them to sign
off on it and take it to the developer and say we all want vinyl fence, you agreed to tear
down the wrought iron, and put up vinyl.
Arnold: That works for us.
Centers: Yes. Good.
Borup: Okay. I believe we are --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on both items, RZ 03-006
and PP 03-004.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close both Public Hearings. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval of Item 11, RZ 03-006, and
a request for a rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark
Company, west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road, including all
staff comments. The rezone comments should be stated -- they are on page, site-
specific, and there is only two. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 58 of 107
Centers: I would also like to recommend approval of Item 12 it's PP 03-004, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and two other lots on 10.49 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC. West of south Meridian
Road and south of the west Overland Road, including all staff comments, which started
on the bottom of page five and continue -- well, actually, they don't. They start on the
bottom of page six. Added number eleven: These lots shall be marketed as the Mesa
style lots. That would be site-specific number eleven.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think that's something that we
shouldn't add to a site-specific condition of approval on a Preliminary Plat.
Centers: I see where you're coming from, but --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, if --
Centers: Put it on the record like the --
Borup: That would probably be more appropriate.
Powell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you may want to limit it just to a lot
size, if there is one associated with the Mesa. You can speak with your counsel, but I
don't believe that you're allowed to regulate a house price and by referencing the house
prices that were stated today, I fear you're getting into murky water there.
Centers: Yes. And I agree with that, for sure, on the house price. I guess I would back
off on that. It wouldn't be a site-specific, but it would be for the record that the applicant
has agreed that these lots will be marketed as the Mesa style lots. That's the best we
can do. In addition, the applicant has agreed, for the record, to contact all the adjacent
lot owners, if he has unanimous consent with one type of fence being vinyl, he will tear
down the wrought iron and share half the cost for a new vinyl fence. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Maybe just for clarification, there were no
-- there were no revisions to any of the staff comments and the others were just items to
mention on the record, not part of the recommendation.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
add a heliport with office and fueling – future landing pad and hanger on
southeast corner of property in an L-O zone for St. Luke’s Meridian
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 59 of 107
Medical Center by St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center – east of South
Eagle Road and north of I-84:
Borup: Item No. 13 -- original 13, CUP 03-015, a request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a heliport, office, and fueling at the St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center by St. Luke's
Regional Medical Center. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff
report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. In -- like I start all
my staff reports -- all my presentations, if I could direct your attention to the overhead.
The area that we will be talking about tonight is down in the southeast corner of St.
Luke's property. It's currently undeveloped at this time. The applicant is requesting a
location to land a helicopter. St. Luke's currently owns a helicopter it's located
downtown on top of their landing pad. They only have one place to land down at St.
Luke's, so anytime another helicopter is dispatched to that site they have to remove the
existing helicopter to allow the incoming helicopter to land. That in, addition to having
to go elsewhere for fueling has become very expensive to St. Luke's. They have land
out here, they have the ability to land and take off over a flight path that does not cross
over residential properties, in accordance with FAA requirements. If I can go forward to
the next couple of slides? Go to the next one. The Site Plan -- we will get to there, but
I'll just take the slides in order. The piece of property would have a building placed on
that. This would be manufactured home type building and it will have a wainscot -- a
brick wainscot on the bottom three feet of the building that would be in the same design
as the St. Luke's building itself. This would be a 24 hour operation, so there will be
people at this location 24 hours a day to man the helicopter, so it would be almost a
pseudo residence, similar to like you see at fire stations. Go to the next -- this is the
Site Plan. Once, again, down the southeast corner, if you can still envision this, the
berm for Meadow Lake Village is right adjacent to this piece of property. Right where it
ends you can see it right off of Interstate I-84. The small map helps out right there in
the right-hand corner, St. Luke's Hospital highlighted and the new location for the
helipad. The current plans include just one landing site, the underground storage
facility, and the office building. In the future, St. Luke's would like to have the
opportunity to build a hangar and have an additional helicopter-landing site. The staff
would request that that be approved, that in the future it does not have to come back to
you as a Conditional Use Permit, but, rather, as a staff level approval. The Site Plan is
detailed enough for us to see the flight plan, the landing and take-off areas. Again, this
does not come in over any residential properties it comes in over I-84 and leaves over
St. Luke's property. That's something that FAA does require. And as far as the staff
report goes, there are a few things I'd like to point out to you. On page two of the staff
report, item D, the last sentence in the finding, says that staff finds for a proposed retail
development, site conditions of approval. Obviously, this is not a retail development.
That was a carry over. I apologize for that. I have just two other small clerical errors
like that I'd just point out to you that they need some clarification. On page three, again,
the final sentence, staff finds that no excessive traffic -- this is not a large traffic
generator, other than the helicopter use. And item H on page four, again, with the
findings, this would not create significant interference with any traffic on the surrounding
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 60 of 107
public streets and, obviously, this is not a project that will heavily impact anything, that's
the reason significant is underlined, in case there was any question. As far as the Site
Plan goes, there is one major modification that they have to make to that and that was
just dealing with the planting of some trees on the I-84 buffer. The I-84 buffer is a
landscape buffer it does require that there is 50 feet of landscaping. The applicant has
provided the required minimum distance for the buffer, but not the minimum one tree for
every 35 lineal feet. The three trees that are proposed are great. We need seven more.
And that's in the staff report. And with that, I would end my presentation to you at this
time and ask if you have any questions of staff.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, a couple questions. Page one of your staff report, the last
sentence, to match the existing -- and there, again, it gives me the impression that there
is a page missing or --
McKinnon: Oh.
Centers: I assumed you meant existing --
McKinnon: Existing St. Luke's building. Period.
Centers: St. Luke's what?
McKinnon: Building.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: That's it? That's the end of that?
McKinnon: That is it. That's the end of that.
Borup: I was wondering the same thing.
Centers: You mentioned that the helicopter was going to come in over I-84?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: And take off over the St. Luke's property?
McKinnon: They have two landing -- they have two landing and take off zones and they
are these dashed lines right -- as noted.
Centers: Yes.
McKinnon: This building over here in Touchmark is a maintenance building.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 61 of 107
Centers: What's to prevent them from go over Montvue, then? Because that's the
direction they will be heading, correct?
McKinnon: Actually, the FAA requires that they take off in these directions. They
cannot take off and turn and go over Montvue, they would have to take off within these
stated areas.
Centers: So, condition number five on page four, you think that's adequate just the way
it's written?
Borup: I do. The reason why -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the
reason why I included those state and federal aviation guidelines and requirements,
that they meet all those, I'm not an expert in those and I can't tell you each one of the
exact requirements, so I used the -- just everything. The default.
Centers: So, you're saying that if they did have happen to go over Montvue or Meadow
Lake, that those people could complain and they are in violation of the law?
Zaremba: Well, yes and no. The actual requirement is that you must be above 2,000
feet above ground level. They could use the freeway to gain elevation and, then, they
could turn over there, but they have to be at least 2,000 feet up.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if there was such a violation
taking place, I believe that the federal or state regulatory agency would actually be the
correct body to handle that type of complaint.
Centers: Yes. All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: I do have a question. On the fire chief's comments, his point number four is
provide an approved turn around at the south end of the property. Is he meaning this
and does that satisfy a turn around? It's not much different than a hammerhead. You
could use it. Or you think he was meaning a circle like a cul-de-sac?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, what's on the Site Plan in front
of you appears to me to be a hammerhead that would meet the requirements of the turn
around. If Joe is in reference to something other than the hammerhead, I'm unaware of
it at this time. The applicant may be able to provide some additional insight into that.
They have had conversations with the fire marshal.
Borup: Anything else? All right. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Hall: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, my name is Jeff Hall, I'm the director of
architecture and construction services for St. Luke's, 520 South Eagle Road, Meridian.
As you now know, we are in the helicopter business and, as staff pointed out, we don't
have an appropriate place to land a helicopter for its home. We do have roof top
access at Boise in at our river hospital and other ground access opportunities at other
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 62 of 107
hospitals that we provide transportation to and from. That's the intent of this application
is to get this helicopter and its crew a home. We have reviewed the staff report and the
agency comments attached and have no issue with that. The trees were just an
oversight on our Landscape Plan and we will accommodate that ten days prior to City
Council hearing. As staff pointed out, we do have FAA requirements and we are
working them on our application. They do require us not to fly over rooftops. We have
committed to our neighbors in Montvue and Touchmark, in neighborhood meetings with
both of those groups, that we will not fly over their residential rooftops. Very much the
approach is limited to within those dashed lines, angling off at the angles on the
illustration, as staff pointed out. Because we have those FAA requirements, but also
because we have committed to our neighbors that we will not fly over their roofs, it adds
confidence to this process. We would consider or accept an additional condition from
the city to not fly over rooftops as well. The question on the Fire Department access,
we have not met with Joe or any of the staff, but our design there does represent what
we believe is an appropriate hammerhead turn around for the Fire Department. And
with that, I would stand for any questions you might have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Is this, as you say, a home for the helicopter, but might they be bringing
patients to this location and -- I mean how would a Life Flight type thing actually get
somebody to the ER in the hospital building?
Hall: Right now we don't fly patients to our Meridian hospital ER and if we had a patient
who arrived at the hospital ER that needed to be transported downtown or elsewhere,
ground transportation is faster, with the exception of a few rush hour opportunities.
Long term planning, what we call Phase 3 of the hospital we opened about a year and a
half ago. In the long-term master plan, it's designed to potentially double or mirror to
the east. At that point in time when we come before you to ask for that expansion, we
would anticipate putting a heli stop on top of that building, so that we could, then,
transport patients to and from the hospital.
Zaremba: What about using vehicles to get them in between?
Hall: Yes.
Zaremba: That's answers my question.
Hall: Thank you.
Borup: Any other Commissioners have any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Hall: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else offering testimony on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 63 of 107
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: I think it's good to see them here. No one is objecting.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of CUP 03-016 -- I'm sorry. I'm reading the wrong one. Let me
back up. I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 03-
015, request for a Conditional Use Permit to add a heliport with office and fueling, future
landing pads, and hangar on the southeast corner of property in L-O zone for St. Luke's
Meridian Medical Center by St. Luke's Regional Medical Center. East of South Eagle
Road and north of I-84, to include all staff comments of the staff memo dated May 1st,
received by the city clerk April 25th, 2003. That's it.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 03-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a craft store and coffeehouse in an O-T zone for The Library by Craig
Rittenhouse – 141 East Carlton:
Borup: Next Item is CUP 03-016, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a craft store
and coffee house in an O-T zone for The Library by Craig Rittenhouse at 141 East
Carlton. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Be just a moment here. All right. This is an application for a Conditional
Use Permit for the expansion of an existing Conditional Use Permit. Originally -- this is
1996, the previous property owner was -- received a Conditional Use Permit for a craft
store and espresso shop. This applicant plans to continue that same use. However,
they are expanding the building, they will be required to go through the Conditional Use
process. This is located across the street from the old Meridian High School. I'll put up
the Site Plan. Let's see. We had a couple of issues staff was concerned about with this
application that we wanted to note. The first is the parking requirement for the site.
The submitted Site Plan shows four on-site parking spaces. The dimensional
requirements of the building require 14 spaces. The applicant is proposing a parking
agreement with the Chapel of the Chimes and we'll go ahead and show a photo of the
Chapel of the Chimes parking area. We have received a letter from Chapel of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 64 of 107
Chimes saying they agree to have a parking agreement with The Library coffee shop.
However, staff is concerned, because it appears that this parking lot used by the Chapel
of the Chimes is, actually, configured to allow funeral processions, we were concerned
with how the cross-access agreement with that parking lot would actually operate if that
would -- how that would impact Chapel of the Chimes and the system that they have
going with that parking lot. We wanted them to resolve that before it goes to City
Council. And I believe you all have a copy of a letter from Chapel of the Chimes that
was copied off to you this evening, just saying that they agree to the parking
agreement. However, staff doesn't have any further details about how many spaces
Chapel of the Chimes would be giving to The Library through this cross-access
agreement. We would want to insure that Chapel of the Chimes is left with adequate
parking after this agreement is completed. Additionally, the applicant does not meet the
current landscaping standards of Meridian city code. However, staff feels that it's -- that
it's adequate for the applicant to request alternative compliance. Okay. We'll go ahead
and put a picture of the shop up. Due to the configuration of the site, it would be
impossible without moving the house to actually come to compliance with our required
landscape buffers. Staff believes that the landscaping plan that has been submitted by
the applicant is adequate. Going back to the landscaping plan. Staff recommends
approval with the condition that the parking agreement be resolved before the applicant
goes to City Council. Are there any questions of staff?
Zaremba: I do have a couple. Have we received any comment from Meridian
Development Corp? I didn't see in our packet that they responded.
Kirkpatrick: I don't believe that we have.
Zaremba: I assume they were sent a copy.
Kirkpatrick: Actually, let me check to see if they were sent a transmittal. And, actually,
I'm going to ask Sharon if they did receive a copy. Did they receive a transmittal?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we don't actually keep a record in
each file of who these transmittals were sent to. Had I done this transmittal I would
have sent it to them. I can confirm that tomorrow. I'm sorry. I can't answer the
question.
Kirkpatrick: I suppose that we could condition this that they be notified before the
application goes to Council, so that we are sure that they were informed of the
application.
Zaremba: Right. Then, the other question is -- well, it was more of an antique shop. I
have actually been in this building and it's a charming building, but I would question
whether the electrical system could handle an espresso shop. Is there some electrical
inspection that's required for this kind of use?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 65 of 107
Kirkpatrick: Actually, that's outside of jurisdiction as a planner, but I imagine to get a
Building Permit all that would have to be certified. Bruce may be able to speak to that.
Borup: I think that's true, because of the addition.
Zaremba: So, it would get inspected at some point? Okay. That's it from me.
Borup: Anyone else?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman. If there is -- of course, that could be done at the Council
level, I believe. If there is some kind of a parking agreement and they come to terms, it
satisfies all the parties. I would think it would have to be just for the life of this use, this
specific user.
Kirkpatrick: I believe the parking agreement would be between the owners of The
Library and Chapel of the Chimes.
Centers: Yes. But if it became another business, then, you'd have to be back to the
drawing board, wouldn't you? Because another business you may need more parking or
-- that was only note or question.
Kirkpatrick: I would have to ask counsel how that would work. I'm not -- I'm not sure. I
believe it would be a private agreement between the owners of The Library coffee
house and Chapel of the Chimes.
Centers: And when that business ceased to exist, it would be null and void. Because if
you had another business moves in there -- you know what you --
Wollen: I believe so. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that, you
know, if the Commission does move to recommend approval on this, it will be with the
Development Agreement as part of the approval. That puts this agreement up front for
this applicant, but as far as Chapel of the Chimes is concerned, they are in a
contractual agreement with this applicant and this applicant only. They are not
obligated to keep that agreement should another business move in.
Centers: Well, I'm aware of that, Chapel of the Chimes. Would it be transferable if
Chapel of the Chimes agreed?
Wollen: If Chapel of the Chimes agreed, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't.
Centers: Okay.
Powell: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Centers, if your concern were the volume of traffic and the
parking that is required, this would probably be about the most intense use you could
have on the property. Any other retail use would probably have less traffic than a coffee
shop would so, I'm not sure if that's what your concern was initially.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 66 of 107
Centers: Yes. I'm not really concerned, I just wondered about that and should we
worry about it.
Powell: Well, if there is a parking agreement in place, another use -- it might be a waste
of your time to have to review another use going in if those agreements are already in
place.
Centers: It wouldn't waste my time. I would expect the staff to do it.
Powell: A staff level approval of Conditional Use is not currently a part of our code, but
we could work on it.
Borup: Well, I'd also think if there was something that wasn't satisfactory, Chapel of the
Chimes would have the right to probably express that.
Zaremba: Absolutely.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to add anything?
Rittenhouse: Good evening, I'm the short guy here tonight. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Commission. My name is Craig Rittenhouse, 597 North Liberty Street.
I'm also the owner of the property at 141 East Carlton. It was purchased in January of
this year and the business at that time had closed. They had a Conditional Use Permit
for a craft store, espresso shop, and a parking agreement with Chapel of the Chimes. I
have reviewed the -- I received and read the packet and had no objections to it.
Certainly would be open to any questions there are. But to specifically answer or start
discussion and answer on the few items that were brought up. First on the parking,
there was a parking agreement in place prior to the sale of the property with the old
owner and Bill Bruner, Chapel of the Chimes. Bill has since retired. There is a
gentleman by the name of Mark Meade, who is the general manager now of that site
and he and I have met and talked and both parties wish to continue the agreement
between the properties. There is a benefit to them. They can't -- my understanding is
they can't have things like gasoline on their property because of the type of insurance
they have, so even a lawnmower is not allowed physically on their property. Part of
what they have is a shed, which we will maintain on the property, and they are able to
keep their lawn care items in there and so that's the benefit to them of this agreement.
So, they don't have to make their parking less or use up their property for it. We had a
discussion on what happens with funerals that happen -- because when it does come
in, they are going to have 30 to 40 cars all filling up their parking spaces and we have
agreed that he will put a sign out that it's a funeral procession today, funeral parking
only, during those times, but, of course, those are planned in advance and so they will
know at least when those days are and can put a sign out and we certainly will have
signage on our property that says, you know, parking is available next door, unless
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 67 of 107
there is a funeral procession going on. I'm sure you will follow up on the transmittal
whether it went to the Meridian -- the new development group. I did receive a phone
call saying they needed two more sets of plans, so they could send them over to them.
So, I'm pretty sure that was done, but I'm sure you'll confirm that. Number three in the
electrical plans, we should be done with our final engineering plans within a week or so
and we were planning to finish them prior to submitting for a building permit. I have had
lots of discussions with the electrical engineers. Currently there is X amount of
electricity going in the house and it's not going to cover it. There is a three-quarter inch
water pipe and that's not going to cover it. And so in all the engineering plans all of
those things are called out. And from an environmental health standpoint, we have
already got approval on our plans, so from that standpoint it's -- we are covered on that
as well. So, we are planned to get all of those approved through the building permit
process. And I will be open to any other questions that you have.
Borup: Do you have any questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. This is from my previous questions. I think I noted somewhere
in here that you anticipate, actually, that the majority of your customers will be walking
from surrounding businesses where they will have parked on their own business
property and walked to your site. I think that's helpful, too.
Rittenhouse: There is a lot of foot traffic and the hours that we are holding, there is the
high school across the street and the DMV, there are a number of churches in the area,
and so we will be open on Sunday for limited hours to allow a place for that. And I was
here from the beginning of the meeting and there was a question earlier -- I think it was
with the bank about public meeting places and as a part of our plan we actually have a
public meeting room that will hold up to ten people comfortably and that will be available
as well. It's a real community type of place to come in, read a book, read a newspaper,
relax in some nice Victorian furniture and have some of the best coffee available
anywhere in the world. We will have that.
Centers: I hope you do well.
Rittenhouse: Thank you.
Borup: Anything else? Thank you.
Rittenhouse: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: I will second that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 68 of 107
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: I would be in favor of just going through it just exactly as written by the staff.
They have got the parking agreement covered on the site-specific. I don't think we
need to add anything, do we?
Zaremba: The only thing I would add would be to confirm that Meridian Development
Corporation has had the opportunity to comment. I guess we can just handle that as --
we don't need to make that part of the --
Centers: Okay. Well, I would recommend approval of CUP 03-016, request for
Conditional Use Permit for a craft store and coffee house in an O-T zone for The Library
by Craig Rittenhouse at 141 East Carlton, including all staff comments from their memo,
again, dated May 1st, 2003, and it was received April 25th.
Zaremba: Second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 03-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a new Carl’s Jr. restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones –
north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and
South Main Street:
Borup: Okay. The next item is CUP 03-017, request for Conditional Use Permit for a
new Carl's Junior restaurant with a drive-thru service by Clayton Jones, north of the
intersection of South Meridian Road and I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start
with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for
a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development for the construction of 2,124
square foot drive-thru fast food restaurant. And you can see where it's located off of
Meridian Road. And I think on the other side it has a KFC-A&W. The applicant is here
for a Planned Development. Currently, there are two buildings on site, the Planned
Development requirement comes in, because they are demolishing -- planning to
demolish the existing -- it was the old KFC restaurant and establish a new Carl's Junior
restaurant. Because they are demolishing the existing building and proposing a new
building, they are required to do a Planned Development, because it will be two
buildings on site. And also I wanted to follow it up with when the original -- or the
current A&W-KFC building went in, it was prior to the requirement of the Planned
Development code that required two amenities and we provided -- that will come up
later this evening, but when that building came in, that was not a part of an ordinance.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 69 of 107
It is currently. That will apply to this new Carl's Junior. Let's see. Before we get into
the staff report, I wanted to -- kind of as part of the record go through some of the
history. This application went to Planning and Zoning and City Council in 2002 and I
wanted to go through some of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that City
Council found. Again, this meeting was November 26th, 2002. I wanted to go through
some of the reasons why this application was -- tonight, originally, as you can judge,
whether the same modification is going back or -- I just wanted to -- I wanted you to
have this background when you make your decision this evening. Let's see. I'll kind of
briefly go through this. Let's see. I want to go ahead and address some of the issues
with the drive-thru. I will just go ahead and read this verbatim: That the proposed use
would be a Carl's Junior with a drive-thru. The proposed restaurant would replace the
existing building that formally housed a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, located
between the existing Taco Bell, the new A&W-KFC restaurants. When the new A&W-
KFC restaurant received approval of their required Conditional Use Permit, one of the
conditions of approval was to abandon the drive-thru use of the, then, existing KFC
building and a proposed use, now requests construction of a 3,901 square foot Carl's
Junior restaurant with drive-thru and said drive-thru was for the new A&W restaurant.
Let's see. I'm going to go through some of the problems they had found. The proposed
use would significantly impact the traffic and add to congestion in the area. More likely
than not, the additional proposed use with a drive-thru in the same lot area would
increase the problem sited earlier in regards to traffic. The proposed use would not
allow adequate on street parking for employees and providing that the off-site parking
for employees, which I do not believe is a part of this application. It was not discussed
with the businesses located on the site. Actually, that's not pertinent to this evening.
Let's see. I'm going to go through their Conclusions of Law. The proposed use would
be detrimental to other businesses in the same block, because of the traffic congestion
it would create. The proposed use would be detrimental to other persons, because the
traffic congestion created by the use would create safety problems. The site is not large
enough to accommodate the proposed use. That the design and operation will not be
compatible with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and such use
would adversely change the essential character of the same area due to traffic
congestion, that the proposed use would be served adequately by essential public
facilities and services, and that the proposed use would not create excessive additional
costs for public facilities. And this is their last Conclusion of Law. That the proposed
use would involve activities or processes and conditions of operation that would be
detrimental to persons, property, and the general welfare by reason of excessive
production of traffic and noise. I just wanted to give you that background on the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law from when this was denied by Council in
2002. This is a different application here that's before you.
Wollen: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to clarify that
this was a different application. It was CUP 02-026 was what the City Council had
voted to deny and according to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that were
prepared and apparently signed on or about November 26th of last year, Councilman
Bird, de Weerd, and McCandless all voted to deny it, Councilman Nary was absent
during the hearing, apparently.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 70 of 107
Kirkpatrick: I would point out that that original application was for a much larger fast
food restaurant and also included a children's play area. It was a different application. I
just wanted you to have that background.
Borup: Do you know what the previous size was?
Centers: Four thousand was the --
Kirkpatrick: And the application we are looking at tonight is 2,124 square feet. Let's
see. There are a couple issues I wanted to kind of note for you. Let's see. Again, I
wanted to just kind of make you aware, when the new A&W-KFC restaurant received
approval of their Conditional Use Permit, one of the conditions of approval was to
abandon the drive-thru of the exiting KFC building. While the proposed application is
for the construction of a new building and a new drive-thru, which will be constructed in
a different location than the previous drive-thru. The Planning and Zoning Commission
and, then, when this application goes to Council, should determine whether the intent of
the condition of approval was to prohibit a second drive-thru on the property or whether
that was just addressing the previous drive-thru, which has been abandoned. Staff's
primary concern with this application was -- is the configuration of the proposed drive-
thru of the restaurant. The configuration requires customers of the restaurant to cross
through the drive-thru of the restaurant to access the entrance of the restaurant. The
applicant -- we met with the applicant earlier this week and they have since submitted a
revised Site Plan, which you can see up there. They are proposing to put some fencing
to separate the parking area from the drive-thru. There will be one raised -- I believe
paved area where pedestrians will access the restaurant and these are improvements
that have been made. And I believe the applicant is also now proposing two amenities
and I will discuss that this evening. Those two amenities will be required for a Planned
Development. Staff finds that this application is generally compatible with the other
commercial and restaurant uses in the general vicinity of the subject property. We don't
have any comments from ACHD addressing traffic. I talked with staff from ACHD and
they felt that this wouldn't be creating any new trips. Staff is concerned that while
maybe perhaps new trips will not be generating new traffic or new -- the left turns in and
out of Carl's Junior restaurant would be potentially be created, however, we don't have
comments from ACHD. That's just a staff concern. Some of our site-specific
requirements would be that the drive-thru of the restaurant be reconfigured so that
pedestrians do not pass through the drive-thru of the restaurant, although the applicant
has revised the drive-thru configuration, they have improved that. We are requiring two
amenities be provided. The applicant must apply for a planned sign program for the
proposed sign. They must comply with current landscaping regulations. Additionally,
we want for -- this is not -- for the pavement to be improved in this area. There is a
poor quality of the pavement there at the current building. I believe that is -- staff
recommends approval of the proposed application with the conditions that the
configuration of the drive-thru be modified so that pedestrians do not cross the drive-
thru to access the restaurant and that two amenities are provided for the proposed
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 71 of 107
Planned Development. If these modifications are not made, staff recommends denying
the proposed application. Any questions of staff?
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Mathes: I have a question. What is that -- is that a sidewalk or what is that that goes
clear to the -- yes, that thing.
Kirkpatrick: That is a sidewalk.
Mathes: So, that's just because the customers have to go back out and around or can
they cross the sidewalk? They can? Okay.
Borup: Anything else, Commissioners? Does the applicant have a presentation? Mr.
Strite.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record, Billy Ray Strite, 1010
Allante, Boise, Idaho. I guess, if I could, I'd like to start by suggesting that at the time
that this Commission approved the previous application there was two major issues that
were not only discussed at length, according to the minutes -- incidentally, I wasn't here,
but I have read all the minutes -- both by the Commission and also by the adjacent
users, those two specific items included the access to Meridian Road and also the
parking situation as it presently existed. Since that point in time, the applicant has met
with the users, he has also met with the staff, as Wendy has already suggested, and a
number of concessions have been made. I think the very first one I will start with would
be the Meridian Road access. We have provided a raised median, which channelizes
the access in and out off of Meridian Road and this was, in fact, approved by Ada
County Highway District. There was considerable conversation, as you might recall. I
believe it was Commissioner Zaremba who aptly brought up the fact that he uses this
facility quite frequently and getting in and out of there was quite difficult. Sitting down
with Ada County Highway District we were able to hammer out an additional width of
access, again, channelizing the in and out with a raised median. I think that issue I
would trust is -- has been addressed, but, certainly, if you have any questions, I would
be happy to answer them. As it relates to parking, the first thing that came up was the
amount of parking. In the concession process, the applicant and the owner both have
suggested that some off-site parking be acquired and the way I understand it, the
adjacent users were not too excited about that, however, this application certainly feels
that off-site parking for employees would be a good idea and supports it, if, in fact, the
owner is able to supply same. But I think the big concessions, if you will, come into the
picture when you look at the size of the building. The size of the building now proposed
is 2,100 square foot, as opposed to 3,900 square feet. That's a 46 percent size
reduction. More importantly, the seats went down from 94 to 44. That's a 56 percent
reduction. At the same time, we have added parking to the north, parking has been re-
striped -- or we are proposing re-striping the parking on the west -- east. Excuse me.
That has an increase in parking of 22 percent. All in all, I think the concessions made
by not only the applicant, but also the owner, in relationship to the two major concerns
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 72 of 107
that were discussed the night of your approval, have been addressed. I think the
interesting thing relative to parking that should be brought up -- because I talked to the
staff today and the existing 2,900 square foot building that's there today, if, in fact, we
removed the drive-thru, which was the edict as noted in the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, we'd still have 2,900 square feet. Those 2,900 square feet can still
house 85 to 95 seats. In other words, this particular application before you tonight, the
seating capacity is half of what would be used in that building today and, more
importantly, if they wanted to use that building today, put that 85 seats in there, there
would be no reason to come back to see you. It's allowed. It's an allowed use. It's a
principal fitted use. All it has to do is go through CZC, which is your certificate of zoning
compliance, and, in fact, requires no Conditional Use. Obviously, if they put in the 80
seats plus, they are exacerbating the parking situation. I think it should be made clear
that the reason we are here tonight is two fold. One is to bring to your attention the fact
that they were here earlier, 2002, and these issues were brought forth. These issues
have been addressed. As it relates to the amenities, the first thing we thought of -- and
I think was very appropriate at this particular point in our country's history is we are
suggesting that we provide a memorial bench with a three flag arrangement just west of
the entry there -- entry doors to the facility, wherein we are proposing to have those
three flags, United States flag, the Idaho flag, and, if, in fact, the City of Meridian has a
flag, we would be prepared to have that flag there as well. The second amenity we are
proposing on the plan before you is a raised bominate or paved walk that goes from the
facility out to East 1st Street. That was what was just mentioned by Commissioner
Mathes. The third amenity, if, in fact, the city has any request for us to do so, is that we
are prepared to provide at the entry to the City of Meridian a sign that welcomes you to
the City of Meridian. We believe that those three amenities should, in fact, suffice. I
would like to make one comment, however, in my opinion and in my opinion only,
incidentally. This is an individual in-fill and in the in-fill amenities are not required,
because a planned unit development is not required. However, we are prepared to
provide those, nonetheless. Having gone through that, I'd like to discuss this drive-thru.
And in an attempt to try to maximize the parking, minimize the congestion, we made the
concerted effort to extend the length of our drive-thru -- it also avoids any conflict of
them coming out and going -- drive-thrus on the top of the other sites and having done
so, we felt that it was imperative that we put it in the location that does, in fact, require
the pedestrians cross over it. However, we have provided safety -- what we believe to
be adequate safety remedies by providing a decorative guardrail on both sides of the
drive-thru. We have a raised bominate or stamped concrete or brick walkway and we
are providing signage, which should alert anybody that's coming into that driveway of
the actual pedestrian walk, if you will, as they enter and proceed southerly towards the
speaker system. And I trust there is going to be a lot of testimony and I'm here with the
applicant. Certainly, they would be prepared to discuss this. And I think it's maybe
more appropriate at this particular point in time, since I have thrown out all the
percentages, that questions might be in order and, if not, I would be happy to come
back and would insist that I be allowed to come back in rebuttal, because I understand,
as I read the minutes, that there is going to be some adjacent users, who I'm not certain
whether it's the competition or the actual concern with the congestion, I think we have
certainly handled the congestion part. And, again, I want to preface in my summary
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 73 of 107
that we wouldn't have to be here tonight and still build 85 seats in that facility, which
would require greater parking that would have been -- than is out there today and this
particular plan addresses that and I will open it up for questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Not a question, but a comment. I think the Meridian Road entrance is a
great improvement certainly over what's there. I can see by the change in the design
that it would flow much better and get traffic in and out off of Meridian. I think that was a
good solution. I like that.
Strite: Thank you.
Zaremba: That said and knowing that I like Carl's Junior and would patronize it my
sense of the City Council's denial was no drive-thru there period, no matter how you
configured it.
Strite: Mr. Chair, if I might, Commissioner Zaremba, I read that very thing. I have all
the minutes, I'm sure you have all the minutes. The Findings of Facts, actually, makes
a comment by the city attorney and, then, also on the accepted staff report it makes
note -- it refers to existing building. It did not suggest that a new building -- at least in
my interpretation -- that a new building would be discouraged or could not, in fact, have
a drive-thru. And if I could rapidly find that, I believe that you will find in there that it
does suggest existing -- and I think that was the key word.
Borup: And my memory is one of the main reasons for that was the location of the
existing drive-thru window.
Strite: The Chairman is absolutely correct. I think there was considerable conversation
and I have those minutes here before me, but those are --
Zaremba: Your previous submittal moved the drive-thru --
Borup: Right. You're talking about -- I think Mr. Strite is referring back to the drive-thru
that was at the Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Zaremba: The drive-thru in the existing old Kentucky Fried Chicken building, that isn't
where you proposed it last time. You had moved it from there.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, that's correct.
Zaremba: And still the City Council denied it.
Centers: Correct me if I'm wrong. The last one it was kind of adjacent to the Taco Bell?
Strite: That's absolutely correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 74 of 107
Centers: And we saw some conflict there and I think that's what City Council had --
Strite: If I can, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I think there was some verbiage in there
which I had a little struggle with myself, but as I went back through their minutes and,
then, I went back through some of the staff comments, it seems clear to me that they
didn't mean that there could not be a drive-thru, it just could not be in that location and
certainly not, if, in fact, we were going to be re-using the KFC building. Perhaps
counsel may have that. I -- for some reason --
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, actually, I have a copy of that and
I can read that or, if need be, we could run and make copies if you want --
Borup: You want to just summarize?
Strite: It does say on there existing, isn't it? The key word, I think, is existing.
Kirkpatrick: Let's see. It reads that drive-thru on the existing building shall be
abandoned as soon as the new drive-thru is operational. And that's the wording from
that.
Strite: And I -- oh, excuse me. I'm sorry.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. You're saying that was -- that was the operative condition in the
CUP that allowed the new building to be built?
Kirkpatrick: Correct. When it was approved at Council.
Zaremba: Yes. Okay.
Centers: Excuse me, Mr. Strite. I have a question for staff. You know, your bottom line
here is that the staff recommends approving it if the configuration of the drive-thru is
modified. This was the revised plat -- or revision of that. You didn't -- or I didn't hear
any comment that you're satisfied with the revision.
Strite: She's not.
Centers: This was just received today.
Kirkpatrick: Correct. We met with the applicant earlier this week and I -- I mean while
this is an improvement -- I mean I, as a planner, this is your decision to make, I mean I
feel this site is too small and that's why we have this comment on this configuration.
Centers: Is this the revised one that we have here?
Strite: Yes, it is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 75 of 107
Centers: And Mr. Strite's comment is correct, you're still not satisfied with this?
Kirkpatrick: I'm not.
Strite: As it relates to the drive-thru and the pedestrian access. But I think, if I might,
Mr. Chair, make a comment to Commissioner Centers. I think what we have -- we have
an extremely difficult site, obviously. I mean that's a no brainer. But, however, I think
considering the testimony that you have before you, both by the adjacent neighbors and
that that came out of the City Council, the two concerns were primarily based upon the
amount of parking and the access and I think that that's fairly well documented.
Centers: Well -- and previously it was the drive-in -- the drive-thru.
Strite: That's correct. And I think, specifically, because of its location on the site. We
felt that the concessions made by the applicant, which I have to deem considerable,
and the improvements made on the site, including the addressing of additional parking,
and the owner, as I understand it, is still prepared to look for off-site parking if
demanded by -- or requested by the Commission. Excuse me, for their employees. So I
--
Centers: That's what was said the last time, too.
Strite: That's correct.
Centers: Could you take this or do you have your own?
Strite: I don't have one, no.
Centers: Could you take this and direct traffic in through the drive-thru and out and
from both entrances from 1st Street and Meridian? Because I can't --
Strite: This ought to be a trip.
Centers: Okay.
Strite: Well, let me see here. If I'm coming off Meridian Road and I want to come in
here --
Centers: Uh-huh.
Strite: -- I want to come in here like this, I'm going to go over here, I'm going to go
down to the Taco Bell. How is that? Is that okay so far?
Centers: You are.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 76 of 107
Strite: Thank you. I want to come in, I want to go this way, and I am going to go around
through here. Boy, I feel like I'm shaking. I'm going to the KFC. Okay. I come this way,
I come down here, I turn into here, I wrap around this direction, and I exit out this way in
the new facility. The one that came before you before had the drive-thru on this side,
which was basically almost not quite parallel, but I believe was mostly parallel to Taco
Bell. The concern by staff is this little element right here, is that people coming this
direction would be conflicting with pedestrians coming here. Now, I would also like to
point out to you that the applicant has suggested to me that this 2,100 square foot
store, with only 44 seats, does approximately 70 percent of its business in the drive-
thru. So, that would lead me to believe that there would be less conflict, because there
is going to be less people parking and the parking is available to other people.
However, getting back to this, as we come back through here, you can either go this
direction, which probably would not be wise and I doubt that very many people would
do that, and the reason we did not curb this raised wall in this location was to avoid
people from having to do that. We want this thing to continue all the way down here
and come back all the way out to the sidewalk and that would be the raised bominate or
stamped concrete that would delineate a pedestrian accessibility from East 1st -- East
1st over to the facility. Now, I trust, Commissioner, that I have got you through the
process here or have I missed something? Is there something I'm still missing? I mean
there is still the ability for the Taco Bell people to come this way and down here all right
they can proceed on north up here to Bolo's.
Centers: How about people coming off 1st Street and going up and wanting to get
through the drive-thru?
Strite: People coming up East 1st would come this direction, they would turn and go
westerly, if you will, there is a turn right here, come this direction, and we are back into
the same drive-thru right here. I think it's actually less confusing, quite frankly, than the
original design, but, obviously, when you take 4,000 square foot and put in 2,100
square feet, you give yourself an opportunity to do a little better job of increasing the
site parking and I think the configuration is, obviously, far superior in terms of any motor
vehicle conflict and I'm convinced that safety issues are addressed by virtue of the
raised concrete and the safety rails, which are a decorative piece as well, I think limits
the problem that the staff has suggested in conflict right here, if you will. This is pretty
neat.
Centers: You ought to get one.
Strite: No, thank you.
Zaremba: Clarify for me -- I guess I jumped to the conclusion that the pick-up window
was here.
Strite: You're absolutely correct.
Zaremba: It is here?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 77 of 107
Strite: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: So this traffic --
Strite: That's correct.
Zaremba: This is just an escape if they are in there somewhere for the wrong reason --
Strite: That's correct.
Zaremba: -- and they would be already turned this way if they are making a pick-up.
Strite: That's correct.
Zaremba: What you just said gave me the impression that it was over here, but it is
actually here.
Strite: I'm sorry. The additional benefit I think in this particular Site Plan, as opposed to
the one you had in your original packet before we added the amenities, is that we are
able to provide a landscape island between the drive-thru and other north-south --
southwesterly driveway that you just mentioned. It allows those cars to be confined
within the drive-thru lane with a landscaped bearing between those and any opposing
traffic. For instance, somebody coming out of KFC heading north, if you will, is not
going to be in conflict with the drive-thru people, that's correct, because they can go
directly out and take -- I believe it would be a right turn -- I'm left-handed, so I have to
think about that -- onto East 1st.
Zaremba: Well, I can see you also addressed the issue -- if I remember the testimony
last time, the manager of the KFC was objecting to a plan that had your drive-thru
parking stacking -- your drive-thru people were stacking here, which blocked their
access to their drive-thru and you have solved that problem --
Strite: That's correct. And have provided them additional parking. There is six or
seven spaces on our -- I guess I'll call it our south boundary or his north boundary.
Actually, that parking will be used by them, not by us, but the whole idea of this thing, as
I looked at it after reading the minutes, is that I think our task was to try to provide, first
of all, a workable solution. Secondly, provide additional parking. And maybe first and
foremost your problem with the access and I think it's a very valid point. I mean that's
dangerous and I think that Ada County Highway District feels strongly that this is very
workable.
Zaremba: Well, I certainly appreciate the work on the driveway.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Mr. Strite, you had
mentioned 22 percent more parking? How many spaces is that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 78 of 107
Strite: I believe that this particular proposal alone will net 37 spaces.
Borup: More?
Strite: No. The original one was like 32 that you approved last November. What we
did is we re-striped --
Borup: So, it would be five more?
Strite: Seven more, I think it is.
Borup: You said 32 to 37?
Strite: Thirty-nine.
Borup: Thirty-nine.
Strite: I'm sorry. Thirty-nine. Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Strite: We re-striped the -- those on East 1st and, obviously, as I mentioned, we added
those to the north, to allow KFC parking spaces --
Borup: Do you know what the 56 percent fewer seats would -- how would that convert
to required parking?
Strite: Well -- and, unfortunately, in your ordinance it doesn't equate to --
Borup: No, on the square feet.
Strite: Staff has tried to do that. In square footage your ordinance requires one space
for every 200 square feet. I think if you recall reading the minutes, everyone was well
aware that that was not sufficient for a restaurant use. However --
Borup: That's why we talked about the off-site parking, I believe.
Strite: That's correct. That's correct. And it was my understanding that the owner was
attempting to do that. I don't know where that stands and I do find in the minutes that
the two adjacent users were not happy with that approach at all.
Borup: It looks like the square footage, as far as the ordinance, would reduce it about
nine, is my rough estimate.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 79 of 107
Strite: Yes, plus or minus. I think, in reality, yes, per your ordinance. But I mean this
thing is -- you know, if you want to look at it, you go out there today, it's over parked,
according to your ordinance, but certainly under parked in reality. And I don't think I'd
get any argument from anybody in that respect.
Borup: Well, you added seven and reduced it by nine. That's what I'm trying to -- there
are 16 parking places there. I don't remember how many off-site were even discussed.
Strite: Twenty-four.
Borup: We were discussing 24?
Strite: Yes. There are a couple of references in here as to the number of employees
and that's how the 24 was arrived at.
Borup: Well, I assume that if the size is reduced the number of employees is reduced
also?
Strite: Oh, you bet, although this particular applicant did not have a problem with that.
This particular applicant was willing to participate and would like to see the off-site
parking. I think that you all know that in the more urban areas off-site parking is very
common, they do that all the time.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other testimony on this application? Now is
the time to come forward.
Gibbs: Jonathan Gibbs, partner in G&H Enterprises, which is the owner of the property.
I just wanted to address the drive-thru on the old building. I was definitely involved in
that. We only had -- from the drive-thru, we were backing out in the street with five cars
and so that was not adequate. We knew it wasn't adequate, you guys knew it wasn't,
and so that's why when we built the new building it was said that that building could not
be -- a drive-thru could not be used with that existing building, because it -- it wasn't set
up for it and it was -- it was added on, you know, after the KFC was originally built and it
was -- you know, it was a poor job from day one and that was the reasoning on that.
And it was strictly on that old building at that time. You know, I think someone in the
City Council, when we had the next meeting, kind of construed that that meant no drive-
thru for that site ever again. That wasn't the intention when we built the KFC and it
wasn't -- from Planning and Zoning or the City Council or anyone at that time never
addressed never having a drive-thru again.
Borup: Thank you.
Gibbs: And as far as off-street parking, we will probably do some off-street parking.
The total parking for those two sites -- for those two buildings on that lot is 55, which is -
- really meets the code even for Boise, I think, at this time. It's certainly double what
Meridian code is required, which you guys don't feel it's adequate and we don't feel it's
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 80 of 107
adequate either. I have talked to Bolo's, they would like some off-street parking, and I
probably will provide that for them. But KFC and Taco Bell I don't think wanted their
employees to have to park off street and we certainly don't want anyone to park off
street and the parking for those stores is certainly adequate for the codes. It's maybe
not adequate when Bolo's has a lot of customers that are long term in there in the
evening and it does cause some problems with them. If they -- Brad Bolicek would like
to have some parking and we have talked to maybe going over to the Wendy's site,
which they have a lot of extra parking across the street, which is not very far from Bolo's
anyway, just directly across. We will probably do something with parking regardless of
what we do, at least for Bolo's.
Borup: So, I assume you own the property next to Wendy's, then?
Gibbs: We own the Bolo's and the Taco Bell and the -- no, we don't own that, but they -
- I haven't talked to them about it, because I haven't resolved anything with you what we
are going to do with the site. But they do have a lot of extra parking that is not being
used at this time. They have a site at the other end that they may develop some day
and -- but there is a lot of parking there and a couple other options that are a little
further away also available.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. Do we have anyone else to come forward?
Atteberry: Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Bill Atteberry, I represent Kentucky Fried
Chicken and this new site proposal they have here, the size of the building we think is
great. The parking is extra parking, that's a good thing. The divider they put on the
entrance and exit along Meridian Road there, that's a really good thing. The drive --
having an additional drive-thru in there, though, in this small site where it's already very
congested is just not a workable thing, in our opinion, and the last City Council they had
a -- the configuration was a lot the same, the one they denied. They weren't referring to
the old Kentucky Fried Chicken they had a new design from Carl's Junior. When it
passed through here, the design was a lot the same.
Borup: Are you concerned there is not enough stacking?
Atteberry: Well, there is not -- the stacking, if the cars were to get out -- if I could show
you. If the stacking should ever come out to here, this would really make congestion
here. You have cars driving in here, Taco Bell -- that's Taco Bell's edge of their building.
Their window, I believe, is about right here. Their pick-up window. Their menu board is
right back here. You have cars coming down here, you have cars coming in here,
exiting out here, and you have cars coming in here. It is just -- an additional drive-thru
in there is just going to make it completely congested in here. To determine where you
want to go as you come in here, whether you want to go to Taco Bell, come in here, or
go here, is going to be -- to me would be very confusing. It's very congested now going
in there.
Centers: Were does the Taco Bell sit right now? I mean --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 81 of 107
Atteberry: That's the edge -- that's their building right there.
Centers: Okay.
Atteberry: It's right here. It's part of this driveway. It's right on the edge of this
driveway.
Centers: And I have been in their drive-thru, but I guess --
Atteberry: Even Taco Bell's -- I don't think you're going to be able to see it. Here is
Taco Bell right here. Their pick-up window is about right here.
Centers: Well, I thought Taco Bell, when you went through the driveway you had to exit
onto Meridian Road, pretty much.
Atteberry: No. Their drive-thru comes around this way. Comes up this way. They exit
this way. But you can go around the building and exit this way if you like. And having a
crosswalk across the drive-thru also, I -- is just something when you put in drive-thrus,
had gone away a long time ago, crossing -- having a crosswalk going across a drive-
thru, just for safety issues. And I don't know that an additional fence here is going to
add any safety if you have a young child behind that fence, that car is not going to be
able to see them. If they come across here, that could create a problem.
Borup: You mean they are not going to be able to see them through the wrought iron
fence?
Atteberry: Well, it could obstruct their view to the person in a car.
Borup: Okay. Anything else?
Atteberry: No. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify?
Skinner: Chairman, Council Members, my name is Dan Skinner. I'm with Taco Bell.
And I kind of want to echo what Phil was saying. I guess my only concern is -- and just
so you will know, I am a fan of Carl's Junior, personally, even though they are a
competitor to us, as a consumer I enjoy visiting their facilities and eating their food. I
think they have a great product. As far as that is concerned, that's not an issue when it
comes to competition. What we are concerned about, the same things we expressed at
the last meeting and that is the congestion. Already we are dealing with that everyday
and it is becoming an issue. On top of that, we are also concerned about the safety
when we go to look at adding an additional drive-thru or a facility with an additional
drive-thru. Really, those are the two areas of my concern in regards to this proposal.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 82 of 107
Borup: Any questions of Mr. Skinner? Thank you, sir.
Skinner: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Jones: Yes. Clayton Jones, 14071 West Rochester Drive in Boise. I am the applicant,
but I'm thankful that Billy took the helm on this one. But I did want to point out -- and
Phil almost made our argument for us. The last time we came through, the serious
problem was congestion. It was congestion of the Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru
backing up and our stack pretty much backed up into the same place. We addressed
that by completely separating the two, thus, eliminating that congestion. We do have
the issue with crossing the drive-thru, that some of the patrons will have to cross the
drive-thru in order to access the building, though we do have the necessary safety
precautions in place, I think that will take care of that, and with the addition of -- or I
guess the reduction of the seating, 46 seats in the building, really, really, will limit the
space inside. People will use the drive-thru, they will come in and out -- I think it's
going to flow quite well.
Mathes: How many cars can you stack in that driveway?
Jones: From the window back to the entrance is 11 to 12 cars. It's a huge stack.
Centers: What kind of -- was this wrought iron, did the chairman say, or --
Jones: Yes. The proposed fencing was wrought iron I believe it was 36 or 30 inches
high. To eliminate multiple cross points just to get it to one point.
Borup: Do you know if there were very many other drive-thrus that have crosswalks
across them?
Jones: You know there is a couple. I hate -- I don't like to mention them, but most
restaurants have at least some people crossing the drive-thru to get into -- to get into
the front doors. For example, our other Meridian location, there are only seven parking
spots that are around the building, similar to the way KFC is. You will notice that KFC --
everyone has to cross their drive-thru in order to get into their building as well. KFC
would be an example, Carl's at Meridian Crossroads a large number of people have to
cross the drive aisle to get in. If you have ever been out there, there is our building and,
then, directly north is the new Baja Fresh with a huge parking area in between. Well,
most of our customers park in that parking area and do cross the drive-thru in order to
get into our building. There is no problem there.
Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Jones: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 83 of 107
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. Strite.
Strite: For the record again. Billy Ray Strite. I think I'm allowed a little rebuttal time,
although I don't have much rebuttal relative to Mr. Atteberry or Mr. Skinner. I would,
however, suggest to you, again -- I just did a quick calculation and using two plus
people per auto, if Mr. Gibbs decided he wanted to build the restaurant in his existing
facility, not requiring Conditional Use, not requiring approval from this Commission, City
Council, he could do so. That particular facility built out would require 42 parking
spaces additional to what you see up there now. I think to talk about congestion, I think
the situation could be exacerbated if Mr. Gibb solely wanted to take his existing facility,
build it out to the max, which he's, I guess, prepared to do and, then, you could really
see some congestion. I think what you have here is you have a compromise situation
where you have added the additional parking spaces as requested by the Commission,
by the neighbors, by the City Council. I think, all in all, it made the on-site circulation
considerably better and the compromise, of course, is the crosswalk and I believe it's --
as has been mentioned, the safety precautions are there with the railing, the raised
walk, the signage, I think it's very doable and I believe that it should be acceptable and
ask for your approval.
Centers: Mr. Strite, you're probably right, I don't know, he could open that restaurant,
you know, and require a lot more parking, but I don't think you would have a drive-thru
with it.
Strite: Mr. Chairman --
Centers: Based on what I --
Strite: -- Commissioner Centers, you're absolutely correct. I suggested, as I mentioned
earlier, that they could open this restaurant without the drive-thru, because I think that's
the edict from the Council, but the point is you're seating 42 in this particular -- 44,
excuse me. If he wants to sit -- maximize his building existing, he can sit 84 to 92 I
think the way we have it laid out. He can better than double the amount of seats and if
you just equate that to two plus people per car, three people per car, if you wish, you're
not going to reach the same compromise here as you have before you tonight, based
on maximizing the parking, minimizing the congestion and I think that's the applicant's
argument and I think a sound one.
Zaremba: I think the tradeoff is, as you're saying, to have the drive-thru means that you
may have cars that are on this property for five minutes, ten minutes, while they place
their order and get it picked up. If this were any other use and people actually had to
park and go in, then, each of those cars are probably there for a half hour, 45 minutes,
and you end up -- I think as long as it circulates, having the drive-thru is probably the
better choice than having all those people park.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner that was our consensus as well. If you read the
minutes, Mr. Atteberry mentioned that, quite frankly, that when Bolo's is flying and they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 84 of 107
have music apparently a certain amount of time, there isn't any parking. The reason
being is because sit there for an hour, maybe two hours, maybe three hours, and the
whole idea here is a quick turnover and I just ask the question what the transaction time
is for a typical Carl's and the transaction time for the drive-thru is four minutes. I think
that frees up a lot of parking. I think enough said. I will answer any other questions
otherwise, I will get out of here.
Borup: Okay. Questions? Okay.
Strite: Thanks.
Borup: Final comment from -- any final comment from staff?
Kirkpatrick: No.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, I would comment on the -- on the walkway having to cross the drive-
thru.
Borup: In my mind that's really the main issue that they are looking at.
Zaremba: I have seen places where somebody exited the entrance of a building and
had to cross a drive-thru driveway and there -- to a person in a car, the pedestrian is
appearing out of nowhere, because they are almost always configured where you're
walking along an edge of a building and, then, stepping into the driveway. The
advantage to -- that I see to this one is anybody coming or going from the entrance is
well away from the walls of the building and, you know, as long they are taller than the
rail, they ought to be pretty visible.
Borup: The other thing that I can see different here is they are funneled to one
designated spot.
Zaremba: The pedestrians are.
Borup: Yes. Yes. I'm thinking of Arby's. I have walked across that one and you've got
a wide area where you can go and you're not sure --
Centers: Mr. Chairman, do you know what this is?
Borup: That's a measurement line.
Centers: Okay. Thank you. I would like to see the walkway, if you don't like it, move it
right here. Then -- because my scare is someone coming around here and whipping in
there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 85 of 107
Borup: That's the thought I --
Centers: But I wouldn't have much problem if it were moved to right here. I think it
would be safer.
Borup: I was debating the exact same thing and I'm not sure about coming through
there, but are they going faster after they have had a little bit of a straight distance or
are they going faster after they have turned the corner. I don't know.
Centers: You know I don't know the visibility right here either. You know, there might be
some obstruction.
Borup: There is no landscaping shown there.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: Well, another advantage to moving it the way Commissioner Centers is
suggesting is that they would walk into the parking more central to the available spaces
right and left. In the current configuration they may have to walk some to get to their
car.
Centers: Uh-huh. I even looked at, you know, putting it back here, but I see where their
entrance is. You know if you could put it here, but -- I agree with the applicant --
Zaremba: Do we want a comment from -- the hearing is still open. Do we want a
comment from the applicant on that?
Borup: So, you're saying maybe move it 40 feet? Well, no, I was saying maybe three or
four parking spaces -- three or four parking spaces, four and a half.
Zaremba: It still isn't along the wall of the building, which was my objection to other
places.
Strite: The reason I -- Mr. Chair, Billy Ray Strite once again. The reason I asked to
show this is because that one amenity we have would be compromised. However, I
see a solution -- and I think this is a very astute point that you bring up. I think if we can
move that thing say three spaces to the south, I think, number one, it does a number of
things. First, it centers it on the parking that's adjacent to Meridian Road where the
landscape entry corridor is set and I think by doing so we can take our amenity, flip that,
if you will, mirror image it, and center it around so that it's adjacent to the handicapped
stall, which, actually, would be quite nice, because we can ramp up and onto that
memorial setting with the flag pole. I don't think we would have any problem with that. I
think that's a good suggestion.
Centers: So, you're saying three parking spaces?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 86 of 107
Strite: I would say two, but if you'd prefer three, we could do three. Two parking
spaces --
Centers: To the south.
Strite: -- is eighteen feet. That's another full automobile. That's why I chose two, as
opposed to three. That would give you one full length of automobile. And I think the
comment made is you're coming around a corner and I think it's a good one, as you get
around that corner you have another full automobile before you reach that crosswalk,
so that would certainly be acceptable by us if staff was so inclined.
Borup: It looks like the 20 -- you know, approximately 20 feet or whatever would still
have a very good access to the entrance. And that was the only thought I had. If you
move it too far, then, you're -- then you don't have the entrance to the site and may not
follow that designated walkway.
Strite: Well, Mr. Chairman, keep in mind we have -- we are suggesting that you would
have the same railing on the --
Borup: Right, on both sides.
Strite: On both sides. As you mentioned, you're channeling it into one location,
regardless of what you do. The one point of contention might be that corner of the
building limits that space to probably less than eight feet. We were hoping to get a little
more landscaping there. However, I think if we move it over two, we would still have
landscaping either side of that walkway and, then, our amenity to the north of that and I
think that would work well.
Borup: The thing I see different from this one than the other crossing is that none of the
others have any fencing.
Strite: Not here locally, no. But we have done it in numerous locations -- other
locations.
Borup: Does it work well?
Strite: It works very well.
Centers: Thank you.
Strite: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question of staff. Is it factual that that existing
building can be reoccupied without a Conditional Use Permit?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 87 of 107
Kirkpatrick: It would, I believe, require a certificate of zoning compliance and possibly
would have to come into compliance with current parking regulations. It also may be
debatable, depending on how long this building has been abandoned, whether they
could continue with a nonconforming use or whether they would actually have to come
back with another Conditional Use.
Rohm: So, is that a yes or a no?
Borup: Now your statement it could continue as a nonconforming use, what do you
mean by that? You mean the old KFC?
Kirkpatrick: Excuse me. It's not a nonconforming use, because the building has been
abandoned or has not been used for over a year, potentially. I --
Borup: Was the original KFC a CUP?
Kirkpatrick: I believe it was a Planned Development, so that would take in -- it was a
CUP, because it was a drive-thru.
Borup: In the prior --
Kirkpatrick: I'm repeating what Dave is telling me here. Without the drive-thru it would
be a principal permitted use, would still require a certificate of zoning compliance and
would have to meet today's parking standards.
Borup: Even though it's an existing building?
Powell: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I do want to say Mr. Strite called earlier
and we did inform him that, indeed, he could occupy that structure, so I don't want you
to think that he's trying to misinform you, because he's just telling you what we told you
earlier. Now, the question since then had or -- I'm sorry. He's telling you what we told
him earlier. The question came up later about the certificate of zoning compliance, but I
have a question in my mind whether the approved PD would have approved that
building with a use in it, so there is some question in my mind as to what the originally
PD approved and, obviously, I don't know the particulars of that right now. So, it was a
qualified yes is what the answer was, Mr. Rohm.
Borup: I guess we need to see what -- how it passed City Council, but my
remembrance was -- I'm not sure how many were here when the KFC went in, but the
drive-thru needed to be abandoned and they were anticipating another restaurant going
in that building. That has been awhile, though.
Wollen: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it was my understanding,
even though I was not here during that -- during the previous approval, but it was my
understanding that the building itself was to be abandoned at that time, when the new
KFC --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 88 of 107
Borup: Abandoned by KFC.
Wollen: Yes. But I -- and at that time I believe that -- well, it was the understanding of
Mr. Nichols, too, that at that time the building, essentially, became a nonentity for
occupation, but -- and that's just my understanding.
Borup: That wasn't mine. And Mr. Gibbs is here if we'd like clarification. Any
Commissioners have any question on that? That's not pertinent right now. Let's
continue on, then.
Centers: I guess I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Any other discussion? We've discussed moving the walkway.
Rohm: You know, I think it's -- Mr. Chairman, I think it's safe to say that this
configuration is a vast improvement over the last one and I think it addresses many of
the issues that were brought up and discussed very thoroughly and so to that end, you
know, I would applaud the folks that have put this together and it is, it's much better.
That entire development, though, is very congested and I can't get passed that. It's just
-- it's a congested development even with that being a vacated building currently and I
don't know exactly where I'm going with this, other than the fact that I think that we have
all seen that that area has more traffic than what is capable of handling without any
congestion and that being said, I will quit.
Centers: Yes. And I guess I will give my comments. You know, when I read the
application prior to coming to the meeting, you know, I have to be very honest with you.
I was negative. Of course, saw it before. But I guess I am impressed with the redesign
and if they would be willing to move the crosswalk. The way I look at the congestion --
and I agree with you, the last time we acted on this and we approved it, the next night I
went to that location and I thought, my gosh, you know, how could we have done that.
However, if I don't want to fight that congestion, I won't go. You know, I won't go back.
So, the congestion within there really doesn't bother me. They have solved the getting
in and getting out. I think they have a lot of stacking room for the drive-up if the people
want to come in there and get in the drive-up. That's my feeling and, you know, the
staff may not recommend it and they may have a tough time with Council, but I'm
swayed, especially, if they move the crosswalk.
Zaremba: Well, I had a similar instinct when I was reading the materials and my
thought was it has a drive-thru, it's not going to fly. Further considering it, I tend to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 89 of 107
agree with the applicant that the drive-thru is the best solution. The alternative is to say
if we were to choose to deny this as it is, with the improvements that have been made,
it's almost the alternative saying there is nothing that could be approved in that location.
It has to be leveled and turned into a parking lot and I don't think we need to go that far.
I think -- I agree there is going to be some congestion in there, but I think the traffic flow
is probably about the best design that it's going to be and I'm inclined to pass it on to
City Council.
Centers: Well, let a business operation if the business wants to do that, to give us
some tax dollars, let them do it.
Borup: And that makes sense. If it's too congested, you don't go there. But I have
been there. I guess I -- different hours. I have never been there when it's been
congested.
Zaremba: I choose when I go there. I like to go there, but I choose when I go.
Centers: How do you feel about the -- I mean I don't know if we can make a condition
that all employees for this facility park off site. Do we need to worry about the parking?
They have plenty of parking now.
Borup: Well, I mean I think it would be nice if there could be some, but what I was
looking at is we had approved it before and we gained 16 spaces from what we had
before.
Centers: Sixteen.
Borup: I was talking about 24 off site. I mean if we use -- I don't know where we came
up with the 24. We haven't -- oh we didn't ask them how many employees they have in
the new store. You know, previously, there was only eight different and they will
probably have a reduction of that many employees. Well, maybe not. Some off site
would probably help. Again, I think, like you said, that may be up to the businesses to
decide that themselves. If the owner of the property has tenants that are not able to
operate successfully, they are not going to be staying there.
Zaremba: I would be inclined to leave that as their own self-interest, rather than trying
to mandate it. I'd leave it pretty general anyhow. We wouldn't -- if we mandated that
there had to be offsite parking, we wouldn't specify where, because where could be
convenient today but may change if something gets built on it, so --
Centers: And that may be hazardous, too, if they parked across the street and, then,
they are jaywalking to get to their place of business. I would like the applicant to write
the three amenities on a note and pass them up, because we didn't have them -- or did
someone note them?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 90 of 107
Borup: I remember two of them. I think staff could probably clarify that for us, couldn't
you? One was the --
Kirkpatrick: I believe they have the memorial bench, the three flags, and the --
Centers: That's with the memorial bench, the three flags.
Kirkpatrick: I think the memorial bench was a separate -- the three flags and, then, we
had a pathway.
Borup: And also offering a Welcome to Meridian sign for the city, so --
Centers: Right.
Kirkpatrick: Okay. If you do all approve those amenities, those are alternative
compliance amenities you will want to make a note of that. They are not listed as
approved amenities in our code. These are alternatives.
Centers: Right, definitely alternative.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I guess it sounds like we are in agreement and I saw
Commissioner Mathes nodding her head. Of course, we don't have to be in agreement.
We are overriding staff.
Kirkpatrick: Commissioners, Chairman, I want to make one more note. If you do
recommend approval, they will be required to put a landscaping island and Dave is
pointing out where that is. They will be required to do that in the landscaping plan. It's
not shown in the revised Site Plan or in the staff report. We will have to add that as a
condition of approval.
Centers: The landscape island at what location, Mr. McKinnon? Let the record indicate
where the dot is? Let's pin it down.
Borup: Basically, the east end of the --
Zaremba: East end of the parking between the two buildings. Southeast end of the
south parking lot.
Centers: What?
Borup: Doesn't Meridian Road go north to south? Meridian does. 1st doesn't.
Centers: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 91 of 107
Borup: Separate the parking from the drive-in.
Centers: I will make a stab at it here. I would like to recommend approval of CUP 03-
017, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior Restaurant with drive-
thru service by Clayton Jones, north of the intersection of South Meridian Road, East
Central Drive and South Main Street, including all staff comments from the memo dated
May 1st, received April 25th -- getting late. Additionally, applicant to provide a
landscape island at the east end of the south parking lot. Applicant to move the
crosswalk let's call it, from the parking area to the restaurant three parking spaces to
the south. Correct. South. Applicant to also provide amenities --
Borup: You want the three? Earlier we talked about maybe two.
Centers: At least two amenities --
Zaremba: No. Moving the walkway at least two --
Centers: I'm sorry. I said three.
Borup: Right. That's why I want to clarify.
Centers: Yes. He preferred two, but you know we can't give him everything.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: I'd like to move it clear around here if I could, but that's not reasonable. Okay.
Applicant to provide the amenities as stated earlier, which would be the bench and
three flags, a Welcome to the City of Meridian sign, and the raised sidewalk. That's a
given, the raised sidewalk out to 1st Street. Thank you. That's it, as far I know.
Anything else?
Borup: That's the motion.
Zaremba: I will second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 03-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
the demolition of one of the two existing buildings and replacing with one
new building for the same use – child care in a C-C zone for New Horizon
Child Care by New Horizon Child Care – 1830 North Meridian Road:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-019, a request for a Conditional Use Permit
for demolition of one of two existing buildings and placing one new building of the same
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 92 of 107
use -- childcare in a C-C zone for New Horizon Child Care at 1830 North Meridian
Road. Open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There is -- almost
there. There we are. Currently, on this highlighted site, which is just to the north of the
existing Albertson's on Meridian and Fairview Road, there are a number of buildings,
one of those buildings, the southern most building happens to be a New Horizons day
care facility. The other two buildings on this site are a single-family detached home and
a detached garage. The applicant is proposing to -- get to the Site Plan. Next one.
There we go. Currently, the single-family home sits in this location. The detached
garage sits back just a little bit to the east of the existing building. For orientation, north
is to your left and south is to your right. East is on top. The applicant is proposing,
again, to raze the existing building and to build a new site for the expansion of the day
care use. Again, this is a second -- this is the second building on a single site requiring
it to be a Planned Development and they are required to provide two amenities as part
of their Planned Development. As you can see, the applicant currently has a large
open space for the existing day care building, which comprises more than ten percent
of the entire site, equally one of the required amenities. In addition to that, there is
playground equipment in that -- in that location that counts as another amenity and staff
would support the fact that although those amenities are counted jointly by our
ordinance, that those are appropriate to the size and the use that's being requested at
this location. There are a large number of trees on the existing site and the applicant is
saving a majority of those trees and they are trying to plant a large number of trees in
addition to the existing trees to meet the mitigation requirements per our code. They
are tearing down more caliper inches of trees than they are able to replace on this site,
but staff has no objection to the request for the mitigation of those trees, although it
does not equal the caliper inch of those trees that are being removed. The reason I
bring up the fact that there is a large number of trees that are being saved is because
our landscape ordinance allows a site to have a ten percent reduction in their parking if
it's to accommodate the existing trees that are on site. The applicant has requested this
ten percent reduction. With the ten percent reduction the applicant does meet the
required -- the required number of parking spaces for this use. In the past, your body,
as the Commission, has received a lot of testimony concerning the parking
requirements in a day care facility and this is a Planned Development, so you can allow
the reduction further if it is necessary. A couple items to point out to you, in addition to
those that I have already stated, being that the five foot wide sidewalk on the west side
of the building is into the 25 foot required landscape buffer and needs to be removed
and replaced with landscaping per the landscape ordinance. Again, this is a Planned
Development and they can request for the minimums to be reduced. However, in a
Planned Development they cannot request that the landscaping buffers on the
periphery of a Planned Development to be reduced. This is on the periphery, so it
cannot be reduced. That's just about it for our staff report. The items that I have
discussed are included in the staff report as conditions of approval. It was nice working
with the architect and we stayed in contact quite a bit. He's not here tonight, he's an
out-of-state architect, but the applicant is here, I have had a chance to talk with them
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 93 of 107
just for a moment and it seems that they are in approval -- they are in agreement with
the conditions of approval. I would ask if you have any questions of staff at this time.
Borup: Questions from staff -- or from the Commissioners?
Centers: No, Mr. Chairman, but I did read the report in detail and that's -- so --
McKinnon: Thank you.
Borup: Are you stating that the sidewalk needs to be removed on the west of the
building in that --
McKinnon: It's on that west side of the building where I have highlighted and there is a
requirement of for a 25-foot landscape buffer and the five-foot sidewalk encroaches five
feet into it.
Borup: And that sidewalk does that -- we don't -- I don't have an elevation, so I'm not
sure what that sidewalk has access to. Is there a door there that it goes into? Okay.
Well, maybe we will ask the applicant. Do you want to come forward?
Zaremba: Let me ask a question about the roadway, though. Has this already been --
at this point at I know at Albertson's it's a five lane, I think.
Borup: No. That is three.
Zaremba: It's three?
Borup: I'm sorry. From the intersection it --
Zaremba: At that point, and has it narrowed to --
Borup: But narrows after the Albertson's entrance at --
Zaremba: By the time we are here, so is this indicating a future right of way, which will
eventually be five lanes? And will there be sidewalks required along that right of way?
Borup: I believe --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the ultimate right of way is
reflected on the Site Plan.
Zaremba: It is?
McKinnon: It is.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 94 of 107
Borup: And we have had some previous testimony, I think, that at this point ACHD has
no intention of anything passed the three lanes.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Borup: That was widened just not too many years back and the sidewalk was put down
that whole mile stretch. Did it at the time when they -- okay. Go ahead, sir. State your
name.
Irish: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Brett Irish, 4955 West South Slope. I will
make it quick. What we are proposing to do is on this site right now there was an
existing home that was converted into a day care center that New Horizon used for
many years. Before that it was another facility. At this point that facility needs cleaned
up to an extent where it's better off just cutting your losses, tearing it down, and starting
over. That's what we propose to do. With the new Site Plan, it's improving our parking
lot, as well as the appearance on the property and as well, it will improve the profitability
for New Horizons. And that sidewalk does come to the entrance of the building. And I
think where we are at right there is to -- the irrigation issues, everything is crammed in
there to every corner, so if we need to eliminate that or make the building smaller or
whatever --
Borup: Have you discussed that comment with staff? Have you had a chance to --
Irish: Well, as far as New Horizon is concerned, that's the number that makes that
facility --
Borup: As far as the sidewalk encroachment, has that been discussed? Have you
discussed that?
Irish: The architect has been handling that and I'm not aware of it.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: How is the -- this building is existing now?
Irish: Correct.
Zaremba: And it's going to continue unchanged? How is that used?
Irish: That's a day care facility there. Both buildings are that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Irish: You know, the smaller house building took care of the littler kids and the school
age kids were in the bigger building.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 95 of 107
Borup: Anything else? Thank you. Any other questions from any of the
Commissioners?
Zaremba: Probably for staff. Again, the fire chief is asking to provide an approved turn
around at the rear of the property. Does that mean they want to be able to turn a fire
truck around back there?
McKinnon: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I -- we get the
comments from Joe and we incorporate them into our staff report. Joe and I stay in
contact quite a bit and he didn't have any special concerns that he contacted me on
with this application.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: A lot of times, Dave, aren't they kind of form letter?
Zaremba: Boilerplate?
Centers: Like the school district. I think this is one of the first childcare issues that we
have had where there isn't anyone here objecting. You're not objecting; right?
Borup: I guess I didn't ask that, if there is anybody else that has any --
Centers: I just assumed that. They are all sitting together. And, plus, it's close to our
Chairman's location. He can take his children there.
Borup: My children?
Centers: And we know there is a need for childcare.
Borup: I guess I'm still -- I guess I'm still a confused on what staff is saying on this
sidewalk. You're saying that the building is going to have to be reduced, move it back,
redesign?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, let me address the sidewalk. I
want to go back real quick. On the sidewalk issue -- if we can go to the west elevation.
I have got a copy of it here. I'm just looking at it. It appears that it's just -- it's an egress
door. People aren't -- I don't assume that people are going to park in this location and
walk down through the parking lot down passed the south facing elevation, around the
building, into an entrance door over here, which is what the west elevation shows. It
looks like this is an exit door for the facility. This sidewalk encroaches into the 25-foot
buffer. It's a minor issue, but the code states that it should be 25 feet of landscaping
there prior to hitting the building. If the sidewalk went away, it doesn't mean that the
doorway would necessarily have to go away.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 96 of 107
Borup: No. But if we have got other landscaping buffers that have pathways in the
middle of them -- don't we, Mr. McKinnon? Other landscaping buffers have pathways,
sidewalks in them.
McKinnon: They do and --
Borup: So, the difference here is this is attached to the building and --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the sidewalk is attached to the
right of way or is meandering in and out of the right of way and our code does address
that sidewalk and that sidewalk is to be eliminated from that buffer, unless they can
show that ACHD will not widen it in the future and, then, they can include that. Again,
it's a minor issue.
Centers: You're saying they could remove it later if they had to?
Borup: Well, that's -- you say it's minor. Right now it's part of a condition of approval to
remove the sidewalk.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's per our ordinance that way.
Borup: Right. I guess you did have the ordinance stating that you're saying?
McKinnon: Visually, the difference between 25 feet and 20 feet with the trees and the
depth there, it doesn't affect it visually a great deal and the sidewalk's going to be at
grade or very close to grade with the building, so we won't see a major chance in that. I
just took it verbatim from what our code requires.
Zaremba: The hearing is still open. I would ask the applicant a question.
Borup: Why don't you come forward? Could you explain the proposed use of that?
Zaremba: Is that going to be an actual entrance?
Irish: No. I was wrong. The entrance comes in off the interior of the parking lot and as
far as the exit there, we could just put a stoop there and eliminate --
Zaremba: Is that like an emergency exit?
Irish: Yes.
Zaremba: -- but it's not intended to be used?
Irish: On our other facilities the -- there is doorways all the way around the whole
building that connect with the playgrounds and stuff. This is a different application here,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 97 of 107
so I was kind of thrown off. But as far as -- I mean we could eliminate it and just put a
stoop there right outside the door.
Borup: I notice your Site Plan has a fence clear around.
Irish: Yes. That's just kid control.
Borup: So, would the fence still stay?
Irish: It would have to stay.
Borup: Because that's not a locked -- I mean that's a door they can go out in an
emergency.
Irish: Right.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we were just talking it over
here right now and we could possibly just allow the sidewalk there as an alternative
compliance, which requires the approval of the P&Z director, who we happen to have
sitting next to us and she's okay with the five foot sidewalk there, so --
Borup: That's my thought. It's going to have a fence, if it's a site obscuring fence it
doesn't make any difference whether it's grass there or sidewalk from -- the view from
the road is going to look the same either way.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, where is the sight obscuring
fence?
Borup: Well, maybe it's not sight obscuring. It says it's a vinyl fence, the Site Plan. Oh,
I'm sorry, it's right here right along the edge of the sidewalk.
McKinnon: Give me one more second on that one. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, if we could -- if we lose the fence we could keep the sidewalk.
Borup: But if the fence is to keep the kids from running out in the road -- we need to get
you on the tape.
Irish: We can take the fence from the corner of the building there and put a gate at the
driveway and the sidewalk there and --
Borup: Put a gate here?
Irish: But our door has to have panic hardware on it, so that sidewalk has to be
contained.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 98 of 107
Borup: So, if this is -- if this is ever used, children would be funneled down here and,
then, out here through this gate?
Irish: Yes.
Borup: And then --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if we just moved the building
back five feet, burned one more parking space, we would have this all solved.
Borup: To do that they would have to -- right now this corner is against the easement
line, so the building would have to be redesigned slightly.
McKinnon: Mr. Irish? I have a question, Mr. Chairman, if that's all right.
Borup: Yes.
McKinnon: Is there a possibility of putting the egress door adjacent to the driveway?
Irish: Yes.
McKinnon: And, then, we just don't worry about having an egress door on the west
elevation?
Irish: Yes. That's a done deal.
McKinnon: Okay. That would eliminate the need for a sidewalk and a fence on the
west side of the building.
Irish: Okay.
McKinnon: Okay. That's works.
Borup: Then you don't have to move the building.
Zaremba: My only question on that is from the interior, then, let's say you were in this
area of the building when there was an emergency that required an exit, do you -- there
is no exit along this side, there is exit along this side, so you must from here to get
yourself out here?
Borup: Or here, are there two exits, then? Is that what it will be now?
Zaremba: Is that acceptable?
Irish: I thought there were three exits. I need to --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 99 of 107
Borup: Do we have full elevations? We don't. I thought -- there was something on the
view screen earlier. There.
McKinnon: Go back one.
Borup: Okay. This is -- oh, that was north.
McKinnon: We have one on the north, we have one on the east, and we currently have
one on the west.
Borup: Okay. East is the main entrance. This is the one we are talking about
eliminating it. And, then, the north had two on it. Here and here, and nothing on the
south. This is along the driveway, anyway. You would still have -- you have got four
now, you'd still have three, and to answer Commissioner Zaremba's question, there are
two along the north side. It looks like this -- this corner would -- well, they are talking
about moving the other one over to here. You're saying that works for you? That works
for staff?
Mathes: But where are the kids going at the north? They go out into -- is that fenced in
also?
Irish: Yes.
Borup: Jump the fence and get in the ditch.
Zaremba: Those doors would be in kind of an indent, probably; is that correct? Right
here?
Borup: Are we covered? We are okay? Oh. Do we have some additional information?
McKinnon: No.
Borup: Oh, you do? Okay. Are we ready or do you need some more discussion?
McKinnon: I think we are okay if we get rid of the fencing and the sidewalk on the west
side and we keep the egress on the north, on the south, and on the east.
Borup: Well, we are adding one on the south. We are moving the one from east -- or
the west to the south.
McKinnon: Okay. You got it.
Borup: Okay. Really, the staff comments all stand, other than we would need to add
the egress door on the west would be moved to the south and the fence and sidewalk --
well, they already say the fence and sidewalk need to be removed. That's all -- that's
the only change, adding an egress door on the south. All right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 100 of 107
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing be closed.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close this Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do we have any other discussion? Does that cover it all?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 17 on our agenda CUP 03-019. Request for a Conditional Use Permit
for the demolition of one of the two existing buildings and replacement with one new
building for the same use, child care in a C-C zone for New Horizon Child Care, by New
Horizon Child Care, 1830 North Meridian Road. What was unclear about that
explanation is there will end up being two buildings still, to include all staff comments of
the staff memo of May 1st, received by the City Clerk April 25, 2003, with the following
changes, that --
Borup: Actually, the memos don't -- this memo, at least -- I don't think the others did --
doesn't have really dates that -- they listed the hearing date.
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: That's a change in how our staff reports --
Zaremba: So, the change to the memo is that whereas the west sidewalk and any
west-facing door on the west elevation will be eliminated, the fence that's related to that
sidewalk will be eliminated, and a new door will be put on the south elevation near the
west end. I believe that's the motion.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you for staying so late with us. We enjoyed your company.
Zaremba: Before we do the next one, I have a question for staff that this one reminded
me of, but I didn't want to put on this applicant. In mitigating trees that are removed, if
we have a situation like this one where we know they are going to have to take a few
old trees out, could the mitigation be satisfied by planting the trees in a park, instead of
on the property we are talking about, so they donate a couple trees to the city?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 101 of 107
Borup: Wasn't that discussed?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba
specifically, we did address this issue with the LDS stake center off of Locust Grove and
Franklin, where there was some discussion with them not being able to replace the
1,400 caliper inches of trees that -- 1,440 caliper inches of trees, could not
accommodate replacing that many trees on their site. I don't remember -- I do
remember that we required the trees to be spaced at 25 feet on center for that
application and I don't believe that we required any additional trees to be donated to the
city and we addressed that with another -- boy, it's blank on which project that was.
Actually, we approved a certificate of zoning compliance for a project and we required
the developer who was working on that project to plant trees on another one of his
projects where he had open space. I believe that that's something that we could look at
through the terms of alternative compliance.
Powell: You have counsel sitting here, but I have -- I doubt there is a reasonable nexus
between requiring it a mile away. I'm not sure that you can make that connection to say
that the impact from removing those trees can be mitigated by supplying it in a park. If
the impact is the visual impact, then, certainly you can't make that nexus. I know on
other things you can -- like wetlands and whatnot, you can require mitigation in another
place, but that's very different kind of biotic community question. I don't think you can
say that you're satisfying a visual impact. You might want to check with counsel
regarding that but it doesn't seem to be a reasonable nexus.
Wollen: Counsel has nothing further on that.
Zaremba: All right. Well, thank you all for your input.
Borup: Well, that makes sense. It's really a visual impact. Yes. If you have got a solid
wall of trees, you have got a solid wall of trees. Another row of trees behind that is not
going to change the visual impact.
Zaremba: Except for the other purpose of trees is to exchange pollutants for oxygen
and --
Powell: You could make that. And the one thing that having worked on that Locust
Grove one on the other side, the one thing that the total calipers does not include is the
quality of those trees and, man, they were some of the ugliest, biggest trees you have
ever seen and, you know, they were not all that attractive. Most of them were diseased
and dying and, you know, to make that kind of assessment you might have to get an
arborist in there to really assess the validity of those trees and their value to the
community. But they do do things like that in California on those big oaks, you know,
the 100 and 200 year old oaks -- I mean they go to extraordinary lengths to save those.
But those are -- even, then, you can get around that by having an arborist come and
say, you know, it's going to die in five years, anyway, so --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 102 of 107
Borup: The landscaping plan does address diseased trees.
Powell: That's what I was just informed of. Sorry, but I -- yes. I will shut up now.
Item 18: Public Hearing: Update on Amending the Fence Variance Ordinance:
Borup: Oh, we have still got another item. Well, this is a Public Hearing and we are
glad to have the public here with us with interest in the fence ordinance. Well, let's
open this hearing and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason for this fence
Variance ordinance revision is because the city has approved hundreds of Variances for
the fence, but the process for going through the Variance procedure for fencing is rather
onerous. There is a requirement in our ordinance that there will be a fence committee.
On the committee there should be a member of City Council, the Chief of Police, the
Public Works Director, and the Planning and Zoning director or one of their appointees.
To gather that many people together to hear Variance requests happens very seldom.
It's usually -- it's always appointees and they are not well attended. We decided that
based on the fact that we issue a large number of Variances for the fencing and there
are some pretty set-in-stone standards that they use for those Variances. We felt that it
would be appropriate to allow a staff level approval of those Variances, rather than
having a Variance Committee. It would go to Anna's desk for approval.
Centers: And we are requested to vote on this? Because I think it's been good the way
it's been. I think it --
Borup: I can say that the whole fence committee has been trying to get this for a
number of years. Well, did you notice it says and/or designee.
Centers: And you have been the designee there.
Borup: No. I'm the one that -- I assume I can designate somebody.
Wollen: I would assume that also, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Okay. Keep that in mind.
Centers: No. I'd like to move this right through, so that the Council can get it as soon
as possible.
Borup: I would, too. The only thing that --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm a little lost as far as the
update amending the fence Variance ordinance. Nick, do we have a copy of the
wording for that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 103 of 107
Borup: Yes, we do in our packet.
McKinnon: Do you guys have it in your packet?
Borup: Yes.
McKinnon: If you guys are comfortable with it and move it onto Council --
Borup: Yes. I --
Zaremba: You know me, I have a comment.
McKinnon: Okay.
Borup: And the other comment I have got is this original letter was written back in July
of last year. Why does it take so long to get to us?
McKinnon: That's a great question for Nick.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I agree with the idea of making this a staff level operation and, therefore,
obviously, the ordinance has to be changed. On page two, it's identified as the contents
of the application and this is all pretty much process stuff. Nowhere in the ordinance
does it ask somebody to actually state why they can't comply with the regular ordinance
and I would only suggest that we add a line on the application -- and it would be item L,
a statement explaining the reason why they can't comply with the existing ordinance.
Nowhere in here does it --
Borup: No. But I think virtually every case they can comply.
Zaremba: Well, then, why would they get a Variance?
Borup: They are asking for a -- 98 percent or more of the Variance has been on --
Zaremba: Just don't like --
Borup: No. On corner lots, and the automatic reduction has been from 20 feet from the
property line to ten feet from sidewalk. There is still -- the fence is ten feet from the
sidewalk, but allow somewhat of a yard space --
Zaremba: Don't you think there still ought to be at least some question asked about
why you're asking for the Variance?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are moving the language
from Variance to waiver.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 104 of 107
Zaremba: Right. I'm sorry. Waiver. Yes.
McKinnon: And a waiver is a different procedure than you would typically see with a
Variance.
Zaremba: But you still want to know why they're asking?
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, I believe
it would be a good idea, especially, since it's going to be a matter of that a lot of it -- I
mean the application is going to be coming before the Planning and Zoning director's
desk. I think it is something that a statement of purpose on the application itself would
make it a lot easier just to get the ball rolling on some of these things. I do agree with --
maybe not a reason for noncompliance with the fence ordinance, but just a purpose
behind --
Zaremba: Why are you asking?
Wollen: Yes.
Borup: Because they want to have more yard space.
Zaremba: However it's phrased, I still think something like that needs to be asked.
Borup: Well, if it's going to be added, then, we need to propose that -- I don't want to
continue this on, so we --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we can put that onto our
application, rather than having that in the code itself. We will make sure that that's on
the application.
Borup: Good.
Centers: Yes, right below their name. Why are you making this request?
Borup: Okay. And they still have an appeal process. They can go to the City Council.
At one time the discussion was still keep -- still keep the fence committee to hear any
appeals, but I think --
Zaremba: Something that asks why do you need a waiver. That's my only comment.
Borup: As far as policy -- I mean this -- the ordinance doesn't get into that at all. Will
there be separate written policies for the Planning and Zoning staff to make their
judgments on, I assume?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 105 of 107
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there are some criteria that are
listed, J, A through C, that the administrator is going to have to review the application
under, the granting the fence waiver will not result in the clear vision triangle or
obstruction, that it will not compromise the public safety standards and that it will not
result in conditions that will, more probably than not, place the public and emergency
response personnel in a potentially injurious situation. Those are the three criteria
points that the P&Z administrator will have to review these applications under in order to
issue this waiver.
Borup: Okay. That's it? All right. Any other questions from the -- really, all this did is
change -- pretty much change where it said committee it was changed to request
hearing and, then, a Variance was changed to waiver.
Zaremba: Uh-huh. And I agree with all that. I just wanted to know why.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to recommend approval of Item 18 on our agenda.
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: If I could preempt, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: And would also like to recommend approval of Item 18 on our agenda, the
update on amending the fence Variance ordinance.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Okay. The agenda says an update. We are, actually, recommending --
Centers: As submitted by the staff.
Borup: -- a new ordinance right?
Centers: Yes, as submitted by the staff.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 106 of 107
Borup: To be -- okay. That was your motion to recommend approval of this ordinance
and send it to Council?
Centers: Yes. However you want to --
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Next week is continued hearings and we don't have any -- or next two
weeks -- sorry. Next meeting is what I mean to say.
Zaremba: The 15th, Meridian Area Plan.
Borup: And we don't have anything new on here, but I was remembering both of these
we were supposed to be -- were we supposed to have been studying some stuff so we
were prepared for this next meeting?
Centers: The North Meridian Plan.
Borup: Mr. McKinnon, were you at that meeting when we continued these?
Kirkpatrick: Actually, I was at that --
Borup: You were at -- okay.
Kirkpatrick: -- the North Meridian Plan and you said you wanted to make sure staff was
satisfied with the North Meridian Plan and you wanted some further time to research it, I
believe.
Borup: That's what I was remembering. I can't remember what it was we -- were we
supposed to be going -- did everybody do their research?
Kirkpatrick: You all should read it, I mean at least, okay, but --
Borup: Pardon?
Kirkpatrick: You all should read it. I mean I'm sure you have, but --
Borup: Okay. I was -- really brought that up as kind of a reminder.
Centers: Yes. We had asked the staff to give us their recommendations. Actually, we
were nailing them down a lot more. Are we going to have that in our box prior to the
15th?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2003
Page 107 of 107
Zaremba: And what we want specifically is if this plan needs some change.
Borup: And we wanted more time, too, as far as I recall. As far as the Callister one,
was there anything that we were supposed to do on that? It's been so long I can't
remember why we continued it. Oh, that's right. That's right. That's why. We already
had the conclusion on the one, didn't we? Yes. That's why I couldn't remember why,
because there was no reason why, other than -- all right. Thank you, one more motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Oh, we didn't make it. Meeting adjourned at 12:04.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:04 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK