Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 18, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 7 of 64 anyone testifying. We do have a timer with these light systems. The yellow means 30 seconds and the red means the time is over. Okay. Next item is a continued hearing from September 16th. This is PFP 04-007, request for preliminary/final plat approval of four building lots on 1.6 acres for Woodward Estates. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, we have a request from the applicant. The way the applicant stated was to take this off of the agenda. Staff has interpreted that as meaning they wish to withdraw this application. I believe the procedure would be to close the Public Hearing and, then, move to accept their withdrawal, if that's appropriate. Rohm: Sounds good. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PFP 04-007. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the applicant's withdrawal of PFP 04-007. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2004: PP 04-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 62 building lots (8 office, 33 multi-family, 9 single-family attached, 12 -garage lots) and 6 common lots on 12.731 acres in L-O and R-15 zones for Sommers by Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC - NEC of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2004: CUP 04-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, setbacks and increased lot coverage in L-O and R-15 zones for Sommersby Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC - NEC of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Next item is, again, a continued Public Hearing, PP 04-035, request for preliminary plat for 62 building lots, eight office, 33 multi-family, nine single family, 12 Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 8 of 64 garage lots, six common lots. This is on 12.731 acres in an L-O and L-15 zone for Sommersby Subdivision. And accompanying that is CUP 04-040, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project. Again, this is also a continued Public Hearing, but we would like to begin with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. As you noted, Chairman, this property, there are two applications that we have received for it. First is a preliminary plat and, then, the other is a planned development. The property is shown here on the screen. It has already been annexed and zoned in the City of Meridian back in 2000. The zoning, actually, doesn't reflect correctly on this slide. The property, when it came through as Valerie Heights Subdivision did get approved with an L-O zone on the corner, generally an L shape there. This map shows it to be all R-15, which the majority of it is, but I just wanted to clarify that. The applicant is Confluence, Management, LLC. The acreage is a little over 12 and a-half acres. There is currently a residence and, then, some outbuildings on the property. The property has an Ada County un-platted parcel to the east. The project that came through the city as the Courtyards at Ten Mile is to the south of Pine. There is a couple of smaller lot subdivisions on the west side of Ten Mile Road that are either being built or already constructed, Moshers Farm and Berkeley Square. On the north side is Thunder Creek Subdivision. Here is an aerial that generally shows the area. The preliminary plat is shown here. Most of the time I think we will probably spend tonight on the planned development site plan, but I did want to clarify as well that we -- I think the Commission received yesterday some revised copies of the plats and what are shown here in the Powerpoint presentation do reflect the revisions, most of which were made since the meeting two weeks ago. When they received staff's report, they did go and make several modifications based on that report. The basic layout does involve all private -- for the most part private circulation, with the exception of two public streets that are being extended up through Thunder Creek -- or down from Thunder Creek, I should say. There is a cul-de-sac that they are proposing to extend here, which would, actually, not have any connection to the rest of the project. It would seNe almost as an extension of Thunder Creek Subdivision and, then, also here on the eastern side they are extending and proposing to stub for further development to the east here and they have townhouses on the north of that. So, there are a couple of different product types that they have in here. And, actually, this is the planned development that is approved today on the property. This was the Valerie Heights that was approved several years ago, not constructed, but since it is what is currently on record as approved and could potentially be built on the property, I just wanted to point it out to the Commission. Some similarities in that they have their entrance generally at the same location, utilizing some open space area in the center with some multi-family housing and some office around the perimeter in the L-O and some townhouses in the corners in the north end there. Here is the planned development that is before you tonight. They have their entrance, as I mentioned, off of Pine in a similar location. They are showing a roundabout here and a roundabout at the entrance off of Ten Mile. These are, as I mentioned, private common lots that provide the circulation throughout the project. The plat is proposing several office lots here on the corner and, then, there are five attached four-plex buildings, essentially eight-plex buildings that are here immediately across Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page g of 64 from the office lots and, then, one of the attached four-plex buildings is also here on this corner. Then you have four-plex structures all the way throughout the rest of the interior and around here on Pine. The town homes you have attached four single-family units up in the corner off of this public street, Gray Cloud, and, then, there are attached units on both sides of the cul-de-sac on the north end. What they are proposing on the Gray Cloud, for the Commission and the benefit of anybody that's here tonight from Thunder Creek, is actually showing a 20-foot wide landscape buffer with about a three foot berm, propose to put a small fence on the top of that. That would, essentially, seNe as, you know, that boundary between the multi-family portion of the development and this single-family portion. Similarly, over here on the cul-de-sac as you come in off of Ten Mile, there is also a landscape buffer area there. They are proposing a pedestrian connection off the end of the cul-de-sac that would provide a little better integration for that. The staff report did not mention anything about a connection out here to Gray Cloud. I guess I'll just leave that up to the Commission if that's something you want to bring up. That has not been brought up with the applicant, though. A couple other highlights from the staff report, starting on page four. Building setbacks, the applicant is proposing several reduced setbacks and they did submit a written response to our staff report, which, hopefully, you received and they outlined -- I think the second page from the end of that, that their response was a detail of the exceptions to the setbacks and frontages that they are asking for. Several of those are very similar to other multi-family projects that the city has approved. One of the main differences is that they are asking for what is on the lot, only a five-foot rear setback for these three buildings down here off of Pine. There is the required 20-foot landscape buffer, which we have asked to be in a common lot, but, then, if you take five foot off that landscape buffer, then, that's where they are proposing a rear setback and the planned development ordinance does say you cannot reduce the perimeter around a planned development, you can't reduce the perimeter rear setbacks. And that's something that staff -- you know, there really is no other alternative for that. So, we are recommending that the Commission not approve those four-plexes off of Pine, because of that minimum rear setback. The main alternative that we see, while there might be others, is to -- instead of having those be four-plexes, they could be attached town-homes, so that would probably better able to meet that rear setback. So, there are a lot of good changes. that were made, staff thinks, through this revision. They have taken out one of the garages. They have proposed in two locations -- actually, three locations they have proposed garages that would actually sit on their own lots, so that residents of this project would -- instead of -- while they would also have parking on the common drive, there would be the option in this location down in the southeast and, then, at the entrance there is a couple of - garages here and, then, on the north, so those would be available as, you know, covered parking for the residents. There was a setback issue that we asked to be cleaned up down here on the southeast and they did remove one of those garages, which allows for the setbacks to be met there. Item C on page four talks about the temporary emergency turnaround. The initial plan that came through on Gray Cloud showed a temporary emergency turnaround that was just an easement on these lots. What they are showing here is, actually, a hammerhead that is all within the right of way and it, actually, has a curb, gutter, and sidewalk around it. One of the things that I talked with Becky, the application's representative tonight, is that staff would probably Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 ' Page 10 of 64 prefer to see that remain just temporary, you know, so that in the future as you extend -- you know, as this roadway is extended, you don't have this knuckle, you know, right in the middle of the street that is there permanently, it could ultimately go away when the lot to the -- when the parcel to the east is redeveloped. It does, obviously, need to be constructed with the asphalt today to accommodate the emergency vehicles, but to put in the sidewalk and the curb and the gutter around there that would have to be torn out in the future, I guess we just don't think makes much sense. So, we think that should stay a temporary. I think on the preliminary plat those are just the main two issues I wanted to point out. There are several other issues that I think the applicant is largely in agreement with. So, I will go on to the planned development. This is a landscape plan that, actually, reflects the old layout, but -- so I wasn't going to talk much about that, but on the elevations, this is the eh¡!Vation -- and I, actually, was going to put up a colored elevation that might give you a little better feel for the buildings here, if you could bear with me just a second. One of the comments that staff made on the elevation was if the builders -- if the developer would be willing to provide some -- another color on the elevation around the trim to kind of provide some more interest throughout the development and also to maybe vary the base color. Since each of these four-plexes will be on their own lot, they could potentially in the future be sold to different parties, so it is different than what you might think of historically as typical apartment complexes where one property management company owns the whole piece. In this case, you know, each four-plex could be sold off. They would sit on their own titled piece of ground. So, we have asked that the CC&Rs, you know, be pretty explicit, since in the future you could have all these different property owners to help make sure that these are -- there is some similarities in terms of how they are kept up, maintenance, coloring, et cetera. This is something that the zoning ordinance amendrnent group has talked about. And so -- otherwise, you know, we think that the elevations do work. As you can see, they have rear patios on them and there are windows on both sides of the units to provide for some visibility into the open space areas for watching for kids, et cetera. This is an elevation of the town-homes up in the two corners at the north end of this site that are attached. Another option there. They do -- they are proposing to provide two car garages with the town-homes. And, then, the next couple of photographs are of office buildings. They are proposing to receive detailed conditional use permit approval with this application, so that these office buildings would, actually, not come back to you in the future, as long as they comply with some of the elevations. This one has -- is showing some brick, as is this elevation here. These J don't believe are. We don't have -- I could ask Becky to get their -- they are stucco. Yeah, but -- so, you know, as a planned development, obviously, the principle of this is to have some -- you know, some intersection between the materials and some -- you know, some complimenting between what the residential units are and -- not that they have to look exactly the same, but certainly as far as basic elevations. So, the residential units are all stucco. You know, if these should be stucco or some brick, I guess just bear in mind that if you approve this application, if they come back in the future, in a year or whatever, and they show us office buildings that generally look like these single story with these similar type hip roofs, et cetera, then, they would be able to build those outright, without coming in through another conditional use. But you do have the option tonight to make some comments if you want to on the types of materials and the elevations of the offices. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 11 0164 I think in terms of the conditions of approval, if you get to that point tonight that you are going to rnake a rnotion, I would recommend referencing the November 16 response of the applicant, if you'd like to just have staff incorporate some of their changes into our recommendation to the City Council. If you do that, there are two or three of the items that staff has some disagreement with that we wouldn't want to just incorporate it outright and I'll just point out those numbers for you. The first one on their November 16 memo is on page two and that's item number four, which I mentioned, on the turnaround. They are saying to delete that T and we would recommend keeping a temporary easement, but allow, you know, the construction of the buildings. And, then, the -- item number six talks about the fencing and the last line on item number six says the temporary fencing will be provided on the easterly boundary and I guess I'd just ask that the Commission and the applicant address how that eastern boundary, since there is ag land there, how that's going to be treated. I mean a permanent fence may be a good thing. The ordinance doesn't require a permanent fence, but it may be something that the Commission wants to do. It doesn't sound like they are proposing to do that. Otherwise, as far as the preliminary plat conditions, I think those are the two that staff had some issues with. And, then, on page four of their response, this is talking about the planned development and, again, on the rear setback, the R-15 has a City of Meridian standard of 15 feet and the proposed is five and we would say a 12-foot minimum. I'm sorry, a 15-foot minimum on the perirneter. Maybe reduce that to 12 elsewhere in the project, but we think five is too small. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Identify again which line you're looking at. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, that's, I think, the fourth line down from once you start under R-15 there. It says a rear setback. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: And they say five feet. As far as the L-O, I just wanted to clarify on the proposed standard of five feet for the front setback, as it's shown on the site plan, it is, actually, 25 feet off of Ten Mile Road, so just a clarification, I guess, there more than anything, that it's -- you know, while the front of the office buildings would go towards the inside of the project and the rear -- you know, the rear would actually, technically, probably be on Ten Mile, but we would want to see construction four sided -- or at least two sided construction that provides a nice elevation facing Ten Mile Road and even if that's the rear, it should be a -- you know, an elevation that is similar to one of these projected tonight. But I think the way that it is worded is okay, it says five feet for the purposes of this application, front setback for the office building has been determined from the internal driveway, which would be a consistent feel through -- you know, as you're going inside, so -- and, then, items four and five on the bottom of page four talks about the open space, the required open space on these multi-family units. You know, we have a minimum of 100 square feet for each unit that is required and what they are proposing is to be able to use some of the lot area that would count towards that and staff does not think that the ordinance would permit that and you have your minimum lot size, which is just your minimum lot size and, then, you have to provide private area on Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 120164 top of that. And what they are proposing is to use -- well, saying that 283 square feet per unit, but that includes some of the open space that is part of the normal lot size, so - normally we would not allow that to count toward the private open space. So, the bottom line of that is if you agree with staff, that I -- I think it, really, is mainly going to affect the eight-plexes. You know, there is five eight-plexes on this project. The rest of them, I think, are going to be okay, but -- and, then, finally, I wanted to clarify on page five, the Sanitary SeNice Company is requiring them to put in six eight cubic yard containers to seNe the project. Only four are shown on the site plan, so they would need to make space for two rnore and staff will just want to . review that during the certificate of zoning compliance. So, I guess, in summary, there are some outstanding issues there that I just addressed and disagreements. The one that was not addressed in their report -- or their response, I'm sorry, is the square footage of the dwelling units. I addressed it in one of the findings and they are proposing some 500 square foot dwelling units and those would be within the eight-plexes. You know, that would be for singles, essentially, and I'd just ask the applicant to address that more tonight. It's more of a marketability issue. You need to find that these -- that this project and these units are in the best interest of the City of Meridian and are marketable, et cetera, and will be something that seNes the area. So, the ordinance does not say you cannot go to 500 square feet. So, you're mainly dealing with making a finding tonight that -- that that is acceptable for you and for the city. And, then, as I mentioned, we are recommending that the townhouses on Pine -- I mean that there be townhouses on Pine, not the four- plexes, to address that rear setback. And, then, the other iterns that I mentioned in here. So, hopefully, that gets the discussion on the way tonight. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners at this point? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman. The townhouses right here on the southeast corner, is that what we are talking about? Is that what you were suggesting, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Excuse me? Newton-Huckabay: The townhouses on the -- I don't have a pointer. Right there. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: The applicant is suggesting four-plexes and you're suggesting townhouses? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: In order to get the exterior -- the perimeter rear setback. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Oh, of course. I mean there may be other options. I'm just saying in order to keep this site plan and this layout and not have other significant changes, that seems to be the most logical. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 130164 Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this application. Originally, when the client brought this project to me, I was a little bit pessimistic when the word Valerie Heights came about, because I remember one night when I could hardly get in the doors out there, because Valerie Heights was having a Public Hearing. I can't remember if it was before the Planning and Zoning Commission or before the Council. It was a very controversial application back in 2000, as Brad indicated. A lot of heated debate took place. It was a mixed use project with three story apartrnent buildings, large parking lots, and, then, some office units and some town-hornes. The owner of the property, the Fullers, entered into a development agreement with the City of Meridian in 2000. The property was rezoned, as Brad indicated, to R-15 and L-O and it's kind of a funny little L shape, but the L-O comes in like this and it comes down and, then, it comes around and just makes like a little perfect L. The people that originally started the Valerie Heights projects, obviously, after all the dust settles and it was rezoned and annexed, decided that the project was not viable. My client took a look at it and kind took a different perspective and said I think that we could make a good mixed-use project by utilizing some different product and working with the neighbors. We did hold a neighborhood meeting here at the Council chambers. We did have a pretty good little turn out. We got a lot of good comments from everyone. At that time our drawing was just in pencil form, because I, obviously, wanted to demonstrate to them that we were here to work with them and not to try to shove something down their throat and that was the main thing that the neighbors said was they never felt that the developer or his representatives had tried -- made any effort to work with them. They were just trying to force the project that they had already decided on prior to meeting with them. So, one of the problems that they had was, originally, this public street here is stubbed to this property and the original project brought that public street into this and so the entrance, as you can see here, off of Ten Mile, came into the project like that and that fed part of this project here for these multi-family apartrnent buildings. So, one of the things we came up with, since that was a controversial issue, was to just cul-de-sac that, since there is no turnaround there, they need a turnaround, and, then, put some town-homes, single level, they would have a residential character to them, as Brad showed on the overhead, and try to integrate that into their subdivision, instead of just pushing it on through and, then, possibly forcing some of our traffic into their development. That was -- that was a favored approach. This other public street here, sorne of the residents asked that if we could do the same for that public street, that would be great. However, unlike this one, we have a vacant, undeveloped property right here on our eastern boundary. So, therefore, Ada County Highway District stated we must stub that public street to that property owner and the property owner and his wife were present at our neighborhood meeting, they also voiced, yes, we do want a public street connection. So, here is what we did -- we have four town-homes, the same type of product, a single level, stucco, rock type design and, then, we will berm along here and, then, put a fence and so that would be integrated into their neighborhood here, but yet these units are Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 140164 oriented internally. So, we have tried to kind of isolate the more intensive multi-family from the single family residential that we adjoin. Now, one tricky thing was trying to make this office work. We have Mosher Farms over here, we have aligned with their entrance and, then, we have the Courtyards at Ten Mile right here. I think I'm running out of light. Thank you, Bruce. So we have aligned with their entrance right there. When you come into the project this is a nice large rotary, it will have a fountain right in the middle and, then, landscaping around it. The same would hold true here to give it a nice good feel when someone came -- entered into the project. These entrances are 30 feet wide, then, as you come into the rotary, these are 25-foot private aisles and this we made into the parking and the access way is all a separate lot that would be under the association. It also goes this direction. We met with the Meridian fire department and got their input. Their main concern was keeping these aisles a minimum of 25. They like the fact that this is a loop through. I don't have any dead ends. Everything is interconnected and looped through. So, they were pleased with that. We did meet with Sanitary SeNices. They did give us some recommendations on how to orient the trash enclosures. They do have to be handicap accessible, so we will be working closely with them to make sure that the location and the design is acceptable to Sanitary SeNices. These are the office buildings along here. I think we have got approximately eight of them. They are what I call neighborhood compatible office buildings. They are single story in nature. The applicant would like those to be a stucco, rock type design to try to integrate it in there. When I was out ill, my assistant sent over the office buildings that had brick on it, so that's how that got into the public record, but it is our intent for those to be a stucco and rock design and they would be along that perimeter. We have a 25 foot setback there I think for those buildings and a 20-foot landscape easernent and, then, the buildings are offset five feet. One of the things that created a problem is in designing this, when we do office or commercial, we typically do the landscape easements, instead of a separate landscape lot. Historically with the residential, we have a separate lot for our mandatory perimeter landscaping. Pine is a collector, so we have 20 feet that's required there. I used that as a landscape easement. Staff brought it to my attention after we had submitted that that should be a separate lot. So, in the changes to the site plan we did make that a separate lot there and we made it a separate lot there on the perimeter also. Then, that creates an issue of the setback. So, I created a 20-foot separate lot, now my setback for these three buildings is five feet from that 20-foot landscape -- or 20-foot wide landscape lot. There are multiple options. We could go with say a smaller building to maintain the 15-foot perimeter setback that staff has asked for. That's one option that we could do. The other component we have, in -- when we did this drawing, I wanted to make sure that I had a little bit of room to play, so these pads were 50 by 60. The units themselves for the four-plexes are like 47 by 48. I just like to have a little bit of room to play, so I didn't have everything down to the exact inch. When I resubmitted the revisions to Brad, I did shrink those two, their actual pad footprint, so he could see what open space we had and get a better look at that. We have also got these separate -- I think 11 garages. We have a 25-foot drive comes in and, then, we have these separate garages here and, then, we have got four located there and, then, two right here. Those are used -- a lot of people will have -- you know, rnaybe they are building a house, it's going to take a year, they have furniture that they want to store, so they may rent one of those garages, or they may prefer that Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 150164 their car be in a garage. They could be used for a vehicle or for storage, but they are like a standard two car type garage and they are on separate lots. The eight-plexes, they are very similar in size to the four-plexes. They are called like an attached four- plex. What they have is 500 square foot, one bedroom apartments in them and this came about based on another project that the applicant has built. There was a lot of desire -- it's also in Meridian -- for people coming in asking do you have anyone bedroom units. They said, no, with the four-plexes they are typically two bedroom units and they are 856 square feet per unit. So, that's why we incorporated some of these single bedroom units into the project. We feel that -- that it's a good project and we have tried to also provide pedestrian accesses throughout the project. I have got a pedestrian access coming out of that cul-de-sac. Brad talked about the possibility of a pedestrian access coming between two of the buildings and linking up to this public street. Our central open space is right here in the core. We have got an activity court, like a basketball court, we have got a couple of picnic gazebos, playground equipment, and, then, pathways linking up and connecting to the other interior pathways that lead to the building. I'd like to submit for the record -- I think Brad's got a copy of it in his file. I don't know if he wants to put that on the overhead or not. I did want to show the Commission what our intent was for our amenities. It has been staff's desire in other applications that we show them exactly what we are proposing. This is the type of play equipment that we would like to construct. You can pass that around to the Commission members. As far as the gazebos, they would be of wood construction, very similar to this wood unit right here. We can put park benches, picnic benches; they are typically just kind of a passive picnic area. You know, putting some benches in the project, there is differing types of benches and picnic tables that we could utilize. Obviously, some are quite attractive. Also one things that I submitted to Brad this evening -- we just got from one of the designers, is the eight-plexes. Although I submitted an elevation of the four-plex type building, we did not submit an elevation of the eight-plex. The designer is working on it. This is what they have came up with and that would be the front elevation to kind of demonstrate what that type of unit looks like. Now, one concern Brad had was the private open space per unit that's required under the ordinance, that 100 square feet. All of the four-plexes, the ground level meets that 100 square-feet. All of the eight-plexes, the second story and first story will meet that 100 square feet and the town-homes. Where we ran into a problem was the upper story on the four-plexes, based on that elevation that Brad showed -- Brad, could you put that one elevation up that showed the deck on the four-plex, if you could. On that particular design we do not have 100 square feet. We have approximately a 41.5 square foot rear deck on that upper level you see there with the -- right there. And, then, they also provide an additional 15.75 square feet of storage area off of the front here and it's kind of cool, I went out and looked at it to see how -- how it meshed in and you really don't even notice that it's -- that it's there, but it's a separate door off the front when you enter up to that second story. So, if I show you the 15 square feet, there is a separate door here and they have a little storage area right there on that upper level. That allows them for like a bicycle -- I saw people like -- with bicycles up there, kids toys, things like that. So, that was kind of a neat feature as far as this type of product is concerned. We have got quite a bit of open space in the project, a total of 3.27 acres of open space that would, obviously, all be, you know, landscaped, treed. I tried to utilize a lot of parking Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 160164 islands to break up the parking. One of the problems we see is, you know, the sea of parking. As you can see here where these trees are, I tried to minirnize the number of spaces and so since we have kind of got this winding through every time I take a bend, I have got to put some type of a landscape median. So, that does break up that parking quite a bit and gives for a little better curb appeal as you drive through the complex. These aren't easy. They are not traditional. Since we don't have, you know, internal public streets, you don't have standardized type setbacks. We do mandate -- the fire code mandates 20 feet between buildings. I have maintained that, so under Uniform Fire Code I have -- I have not fudged at all on that requirement. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? I don't think you had addressed staff's comment on the cul-de-sac up in the northeast corner. Or did I miss that? Newton-Huckabay: The hammerhead. McKay: The hammerhead? Borup: Right. The existing -- yeah, the new hammerhead. McKay: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, I better address that. Originally, we had a standard type temporary cul-de-sac where the cul-de-sac came out, it would be a hundred foot radius. Staff's concern with that in that original design was it was only about five to seven feet from the edge of the building, so it was staff's interpretation -- and rightfully so - that how can you build a building where the turnaround is so close to it and his recommendation that those buildings that adjoined it not be constructed until such time as the turnaround was removed and that street continued on to the east. So, what I did is instead of using a standard turnaround, I went with the T turnaround, which is acceptable under ACHD standards and, then, by rotating this building I could meet a 20 foot setback here and a 20 foot setback here. So, this could be a permanent turnaround if staff so chose or it would be temporary. So, what staff was saying is in our drawing we show curb, gutter and sidewalk wrapping around it like this. It is staff's wish that we take the curb, gutter and sidewalk across like that and this just be asphalt here and here, just a temporary. It kind of looks like a little eyebrow behind the back of the sidewalk. Borup: But still stays a hammerhead. McKay: It still -- Borup: Okay. McKay: The design is the same, other than where the curb and gutter go and the sidewalk. Borup: Well, I think the applicant would prefer that, too, wouldn't he? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 170164 McKay: It would probably be more cost effective, yes. Borup: Yeah. Did we get a clarification on the setback on Pine? You said a new building is going to accommodate that or are you -- you started talking about that, but I don't think you ever really -- McKay: Yes, sir. Based on the 47 by 48 building and if I make this a 20-foot separate lot, the rear of that building is five feet from that separate cornmon lot. Borup: That was with the -- the actual size -- the actual size of the buildings? McKay: The actual size of the building. Yes, sir. So, in reality, from edge of right of way to the rear of the building is 25 feet. However, we have to look at setbacks from property lines, since historically we have placed our common lots as separate lots for residential purposes, the rear setback becomes five feet, and I believe staff's argument is the ordinance does not allow us to deviate on our perimeter setbacks. Around the exterior of this I have maintained 20 feet, so I do -- that is the only place on my perimeter that I have deviated from the standard 15-foot setback that's mandated by the code. Moe: But I did hear you say correctly that you could make changes to that to address that. McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. What we would have to do is these three buildings would have to be a variance of the units I have shown you to basically shrink them up, so they are not as deep. Maybe they are a little bit wider, but not as deep, in order to accommodate the 15 foot setback. Borup: So that's feasible for you, then? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Other questions? Zaremba: You commented on staff's request to make a pedestrian pass through somewhere in there and your comment was staff has asked for it. You did not go on to say your opinion about that. McKay: Commissioner Zaremba, anytime we are creating mixed-use projects, it is always nice if we can have some pedestrian interconnection. Since I have no vehicular interconnection, if we do have -- say someone has a child that lives in this subdivision and they are friends with someone who lives over here in our cornplex, you know, a pathway would, obviously, be convenient, so -- Zaremba: So, you're thinking you can work that in? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 18 0164 McKay: I think so. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. McKay: It was an oversight on my part. Sorry about that. Zaremba: That's the part I didn't hear is whether you could do it or not. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The east perimeter fence. Borup: I think we had one more question, Becky. Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Staff had asked you to address the perimeter fencing type on the east side of the property. McKay: Oh. Yes. The reason we responded that way was staff's comment was -- I think in the staff report something to the effect of address the fact if fencing along the exterior would be temporary construction fencing or permanent; is that correct, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Right. It reads if no perimeter fencing is provided on the perimeter, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. And, normally, the detailed fencing plan is submitted with the final plat, but, you know, I guess we do like to get that on the record during the hearings, since final plats aren't hearings, what the fencing is going to be, if it's -- you know, if it's adjacent to agricultural uses, so -- or, you know, non-urban type. So, we just wanted to clarify. If you're comfortable with no fence, then, I guess that's what you're here to decide. Borup: Okay. Commissioner Rohm, you look puzzled. Rohm: Well, I just have a question about 100 square foot personal space on the second story units and maybe it's more of a question for staff, but I'd like you to remain up there. Is their proposal acceptable to staff for those second story units or is there still some question that it's not in compliance and we need to work through that just a bit? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, the ordinance is pretty clear about, you know, multi-family units needing 100 square feet of private space per unit. Rohm: That's kind of what it sounded like to me and so I would be interested in the applicant's proposed solution to that 100 square foot on those second story units. McKay: Commissioner Rohm, in my discussions with my client about that, in the project that -- the Cooper Canyon project he constructed in Meridian here just a year or so ago, he indicated that -- that they -- it was determined that their open space that was provided for the buildings -- because buildings are all open, there is no fencing allowed Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 190164 between buildings or behind buildings or anything, even though they do sit on separate lots. And he will build each -- he is the developer and the builder. They don't sell these lots to separate builders and, then, people purchase it. So, they are all consistent in their style and so forth. But in that particular project he said that he was allowed to deviate on that upper level of the four-plex units, so he believed that it was reasonable, I guess, to request that. So, I don't -- I don't know what staff member had that application and it was not my application. So, I guess it would, obviously, be up to the Cornmission and the staff. If no deviation is allowable under the -- the way the ordinance is written, then, no deviation is allowed. Rohm: And I guess what my question is, if there was no deviation allowed, how would you reconfigure the upper level? Because it looks like it's pretty well cast in concrete, based upon the current design. McKay: Yeah. You know, obviously, the design of the unit sets -- you know, its kind of inset into the building itself. I guess he would, obviously, have to redesign that building to somehow -- it would have to extend past the exterior wall. Rohm: And I guess that's kind of where I was going with this is can you have a balcony that extends beyond the perimeter wall to come up with that 100 square feet or if that -- is that acceptable by staff to have an extension out from the -- I'm not a contractor, I don't know if you can even do it. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioners, if you remember the Rock Creek Subdivision, which also had four-plexes -- I'm sorry I didn't bring those tonight, but there were elevations that did meet the 100 on the second floor there and I'm not rernembering exactly, but I think, you know, there was some eave overhang with, you know, a little bit of an extended balcony there and I think there was an allowance granted to let some of that balcony overhang into that easement, so that -- Rohm: All right. And I guess the follow up to that, then, is, okay, they have got the square footage in the front where they can hang their bikes what have you. Is it a combination that has to add up to 100 or-- Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Rohm: Okay. So, how many -- you have how many square feet in the front? McKay: I think it was 57 or something like that. Rohm: Fifty-seven total between the -- McKay: I believe 57 square feet and I believe staff refers to that personal space per unit. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 20 0184 Rohm: Right. Right. Okay. And I'm just trying to come up with an extension out on the balcony that you would have to have to get that minimum hundred. McKay: Yeah. If you look at the unit, you can see that the balcony is inset into the unit. On the lower floor you can see that the patio extends beyond the building, so I would assume this would have to extend out to the same point as that patio on the lower floor, which does rneet the criteria for that 100 square feet. Rohm: I think we are getting somewhere. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Well, the advantage to the people on the lower floor, they would have a fully covered patio. McKay: True. Borup: Thank you. Like to turn the time over for any other public testimony at this time. Do we have anyone else here to testify? Now is the time to come forward. Martin: Commission, my name is Steve Martin. I live at 2885 West Forecast Street in Meridian, which is just north of this development. The Sommersby Subdivision, the Fuller property, this design is still not right. Almost five years ago Planning and Zoning approved the current zoning. Apartments were approved and Planning and Zoning did not listen to the community concerns. When it gets to the City Council, they listened to the public and there were certain attachment conditions to the development and the developer backed out. We commend the Fullers on their new approach, but the zoning requirements in their request is wrong. Again, there is many buildings per the zoning request. In looking at Thunder Creek and Haven Cove, two weeks ago the public had concerns on the Milliron Subdivision, quoting zoning requirements, yet the subdivision was approved. Their concerns were the square footage lots in comparison to their development. They even brought up concerns not addressed at your requested neighborhood meeting and you still approved 83 single farnily units for 25.86 acres. This request is 62 units to 12.7 acres. Look at the correlation. Too many buildings per square fQot. There is no -- there is no sidewalk. I was involved with the Valerie Heights and there were many conditions put on by the City Council that the -- even though you approved the Valerie Heights in the Planning and Zoning as you saw it tonight, the City Council added so many conditions on it, safety requirements -- you do not have a light at Pine, there is no access for these people -- like an island, there is no access for these people. Once they get passed Thunder Creek there is no sidewalks on the west side. They will walk across people's property or on the road to get to either the churches or -- to the Albertson's. There are -- like an island here, they go to the high school at the end of this developrnent there is no sidewalks. Again, these people will -- kids will be walking on the side. Okay. Let's see where lief! off. Ten Mile off rarnp is not coming soon. I was in highway construction for many years up to four years ago in 2002. I was on the committee to get the transportation six-year plan approved by Congress in 1994 and 1998. Then Ten Mile -- Ten Mile existence has been on each of those plans, but, again, on -- and also on 2004. It has not yet been built and it is not in the plan to be Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 21 0164 built. Let's reduce the buildings per acres. My lot is over 8,000 square feet and it's one of the smaller ones on the north side. Most of the requested size on these lots are half the size of mine and you're talking multi units, do not blend in, as you tried to do in the Milliron development with the neighborhood. Let's be concerned citizens from Meridian and Ada County and let's not let this article - I think everybody is reading this and there is going to be more and more people concerned, you all read this in the Sunday paper, okay? And let's not get into this kind of situation in Meridian as concerned citizens, let's listen to those and reduce the buildings per acre that are requested, have the developer meet with the neighborhood again. I live there, I live within the requirements and, again, for the third time I did not get a letter to say that there was a neighborhood meeting. There is still a number of us that have not attended there and we requested that we do that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Martin? Now, did you understand that this was not an annexation or zoning application that this property is already zoned R-15? Martin: Oh, yeah. I understand where it is, sir. Borup: Okay. Martin: We are asking for a change in that. Correct. Is that number seven? Aren't they asking to change to reduce the-- Borup: Well, they are changing the design. Martin: Yes. Borup: They are not asking for additional -- they are not asking for additional density. Martin: I understand that. Borup: Yeah. The R-15 -- you know, 15 units per acre would be 180 units. Martin: I understand that, sir. Also, the City Council did four years ago and, like I said, they put a number of contingencies against the developer and that's why they backed out. Borup: Okay. And-- Martin: And those are on record. Yeah. Borup: Mr. Hawkins-Clark, that's one of the questions I did have from Mr. Martin. Thank you, sir. Is were those conditions that the City Council put, were those part of the development agreement? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 22 01 64 Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. The development agreernent that was entered into between the former developer of Valerie Heights and the City of Meridian remains a part of the title on this property and those conditions were there, not only in the development agreement, but part of the Conditional Use Permit that was there and it did include a half mile of sidewalk from Pine up to Cherry and the installation of a signal, amongst other things. Borup: So, those same conditions still apply, then? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Now, the applicant has proposed to modify the development agreement. That is the application that -- by ordinance, because it's, essentially, a contract, the City Council enters into contracts, not the Commission. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: That's something that the Council will hear at theirs. Now, I did ask our city attorney today and if -- certainly, if you want to make some suggestions or discussions about that development agreement, since it is going to be addressed at City Council, I think that's appropriate, but -- Rohm: I think it's good that that's brought up, that there is, actually, some discussion about that pedestrian traffic going north and south along Ten Mile. So, that's -- at least it's being addressed. Maybe not necessarily as part of this application before P&Z, but it will be as part of the development project. Borup: And that's what I wanted everyone to understand. As it stands right now, that those conditions are still in place. And as staff has mentioned, that that could be amended by City Council, but not by this body. So, at the City Council meeting, if you have some concern on, that would be a place to address that. We need to have you on the microphone if you want that on record. Martin: Excuse me, Commissioners. Sorry. I just want to make sure that that's on record, then, as it goes to City Council, that the pedestrian sidewalk or access north -- Borup: Well-- Martin. And the city -- and the stop light, the signal light at Pine and Ten Mile. Borup: Let me clarify. We were not part of that, so what -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Martin, all of that is -- Martin: No, but I just want to make a record. Borup: Whatever was approved previously-- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 23 of 64 Martin: Is still attached with the property. Borup: Yes. Martin: That's just what I wanted to make clear that's in the notes. Borup: Yes. Martin: Okay. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just so that the record is clear, too, you should have in front of you a letter from Mrs. Atkinson, also a neighbor at 1124 North Lightning Place, and she indicated she couldn't be present, but I wanted to make sure it was noted on the record that her letter was part of the record as well. Borup: Right. Yes. That would be part of the record. We all received that previously. Okay. Any final comments, Becky? McKay: Becky McKay. I'd just like to address a couple of Mr. Martin's concerns. We did submit the miscellaneous application to modify that development agreement. There are some certain requirements that are in that development agreement and circumstances have changed. One of those circumstances is the fact that Ada County Highway District has been working on a design to make Ten Mile five lanes, improve this whole stretch of Pine here, and this intersection will be built out and signalized. According to Ada County Highway District staff, their plans are 95 percent complete, and, like I said, they include the piping of that stub drain across here with a signal and, then, building this to its full build out potential. As far as sidewalks are concerned, I have my sidewalk shown on outside the right of way along Pine and along Ten Mile. Therefore, they would not conflict or have to be tore out and redone when Ada County Highway District cornes in in 2007 -- so, we are basically a little over two years away, they will do this complete rebuild here. So, they have asked us -- in fact, I think they - have mandated us to trust fund for some of the extra lane width that's going to be required on Pine, because that is a collector and any improvements required are at our expense on the collector. I think that's like 27 or 28 thousand dollars. I'd like to remind the Commission that the property is already annexed, it is zoned, so we are just, basically, trying to come in with a design that meets the intent of the ordinance and that, obviously, co-exist with the neighborhood. And I think it's demonstrated this evening where we just have a handful of people that have sorne concerns that I think we have done a good job. We have worked with the homeowners associations, we have had at Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 18, 2004 Page 24 0164 least two meetings and tried to make sure that everyone was cornfortable with what we had. We can't please everybody, but we try. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. pleasure? Commissioners, any discussion first or what would be your Newton-Huckabay: I had a note about 500 square feet. What was your cornment on the 500 square feet? Borup: I think he just wanted us to be aware of it and if there was concerns on that size of unit. Rohm: That's just a marketing issue and as long as it complies with the ordinance, I don't think that this body even needs to speak to that. If they believe they can market a 500 square foot unit and it's within compliance, then, that's certainly their prerogative, I would say. Borup: You just wanted us to be aware of that? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Okay. Were there any of the other items we have any concern on? There were just a few items I know on the applicant's response to the staff report. Rohm: And I guess, you know, back to that second story, 100 square foot, I think if -- before motion is made, if we just say that stick with staff comments on that -- in that area, then, the developer will have to come up with a way of meeting that and we don't necessarily have to provide solutions for them, but just that they have to be in compliance with the 100 square foot and whether it's an extended balcony or whatever other means where they bring the -- the personal space up to the 100 square foot. Is that kind of the way you would see it, too, Chairman? Borup: Yes, I think so. I don't think ifs up to us to dictate how they design the project, but just to comply. Rohm: Okay. Well, with that, then, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on items PP 04-035 and CUP 04-040. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I don't know that there is anything that we necessarily have to change frorn the staff -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 25 0164 Newton-Huckabay: Oh, the walking path, is that- Zaremba: I would suggest making part of your motion a reference to the preliminary plat with the revision date of 11/15, received by the city clerk 11/17. Revision date 11/15, received by the clerk 11/17. Rohm: You know, Dave, normally you're the guy to make these motions on these. Zaremba: I'm happy to support you. Rohm: What a guy. I'm still working here. Zaremba: What might be helpful, possibly, to have Brad go through the applicant's response again and just comrnent -- if your thought is to reference the applicant's response, just have Brad run through that again and some of those issues may have been resolved. Rohm: Yeah. That's not a bad idea. Zaremba: I think that would frame a motion once that's done. Rohm: Yeah. Good. Brad, you got that? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. I'm happy to do that. On the preliminary plat, there was, actually, just -- there was two differences, I believe -- well, I don't know if there is differences. One was item number four regarding the T turnaround and whether or not the right of way is designed as a T or if you have an easement for the turnaround portion and the right of way is just a standard 50. So, I -- you know, I think if you included a modification to number four that, essentially, is a combination of the response that the applicant has provided in the staff report, which would address that. Is that clear on that one? Borup: Well, do we need to change the wording of turnaro.und to a T in the staff report? I mean the staff report already says -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, a T is a turnaround, sir. Borup: So, is there anything that even needs to change frorn the staff report, then? That's on item four on page five. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, yeah, the way it's worded right now is that an applicant shall include a temporary deed restriction and that would be stricken and it would just say temporary turnaround. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 26 of 64 Hawkins-Clark: Instead of deed restricting the construction. Then, on item number six, I think the way that it's worded now is just that they are going to have to submit a detailed fencing plan for that east boundary -- well, the whole site, but a detailed fencing plan with the final plat. And just to clarify again, that is not something that the public has a chance to comment on, so I think it's just helpful to make sure that the public knows what fencing is going to be at this point in time. And, you know, I guess our recommendation, just to clarify, if the Commission would, that you're in agreement with temporary fencing during construction to contain debris. If you adopt the staff condition as it's written, no permanent fence is required on the east boundary. Rohm: But a temporary fence is - Hawkins-Clark: But a temporary fence during construction would be and you wouldn't need to change it, if that's the way you want to go. Rohm: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: I think the applicant stated that they will comply with -- with the remainder of those preliminary plat conditions. They did clarify that that Ten Mile stub drain will remain open until the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile is improved, which, then, it would be piped. They are requesting a waiver for tiling of the Eight Mile Lateral up in the northeast corner. That Eight Mile Lateral is not piped today on either side, so I think that's consistent. If you approve number eight per her response, then, staff is comfortable with that. Borup: So that just has to be tiled just across their property? Hawkins-Clark: Well, if tiling -- if you do not grant the waiver, correct, they would just be tiling that little corner. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: But, ultimately, the waiver is granted by the City Council, so -- on the planned development Conditional Use Permit, then, the staff report conditions begin on page 12 of the staff report and I think the main issue there -- we have intentionally left blank the reduced setbacks, because of -- we hadn't received their response yet when we wrote the staff report. And, again, I think the main thing there if we could get the Commission to clarify on the minimum rear setbacks. At this point in tirne the plan does meet them, except for Pine. So, if you wanted to just provide some clarification on Pine. Rohm: And I think that we concluded that they can adjust the building to accommodate the 15 foot, which is a part of ordinance? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2004 Page 27 01 64 Rohrn: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: So, you would - you would not incorporate their -- the full number two in the applicant's response, because they have shown five foot there. Rohrn: I think we just leave it by city standards. Hawkins-Clark: I think, then, on item number five on page 12 addresses the private usable area and the second sentence states: Present at the P&Z Commission Public Hearing calculations and/or drawings that explain how the required usable private open space will be met. If I hear the Commission's discussion right, you're going to, essentially, leave that -- I mean state that you want the 100 feet, but they will be able to work out how that's accomplished. And so that second sentence, I think, could be stricken, since they presented the -- and, then, item number six talks about the trim bands on the corner accents and the applicant's response states that they will use complimentary colors for the trim bands and window trims, but not the corner accents, and if you're comfortable with that, then, I'd recornmend incorporating the applicant's number 6-A. Zarernba: Page five of the applicant's letter. Moe: Right here. Hawkins-Clark: And other than that, I think the staff report was in agreement. Borup: Comrnissioner Rohm, just maybe one on the setbacks. The applicant did request a reduced front setback on the interior lots. You had talked about staying with the city standard. I don't know if they are -- we need discussion on that or -- that's on -- on their chart on page four and, then, the staff report has it blank on page 12 of the staff report. Rohm: Right. So-- Borup: Are we saying we are keeping the first one, the rear at 15? Rohm: Right. The rear at 15. Borup: Okay. So, then, number two would be the question. I mean -- number three I mean. Rohm: Well, the city standards are 20 and, let's see, they requested five on that one as well. Would staff like to provide comment on that, too? On that minimum front setback. Hawkins-Clark: For the R-15 or the L-O? Rohm: For the R-15. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 28 01 64 Hawkins-Clark: R-15. If I could just clarify. The five feet is not, actually, the facade of the structure; correct? I mean that's the stair well. So, we are not -- you know, if you remember on the elevation the stair well extends, you know,out in front of the facade itself and -- but it is a part of the permanent structure, which is how the building code measures -- if it's a part of the permanent structure, then, that's, you know, what cannot encroach, so -- and this design, I believe, has been approved on Rock Creek and a couple of others, where the face itself is, you know, I think approximately eight to ten. So, you know, you do still have -- I mean it's a little different than what the code anticipated for a standard R-15 front setback, where you would have, you know, maybe a townhouse with a garage or something. So, just to clarify, I think with -- given that it's -- maybe you could clarify that the front setback of the five feet is to allow for the stair well and the landing. Borup: Which will also only apply to the two story units, not the single story townhouse. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That would be a good clarification. Rohm: On the two story -- Borup: Just the two story -- Hawkins-Clark: You could just say multi-family, not single family. Borup: Just the four-plexes and the eight-plexes, but that would not apply to the townhouse units that are separated. Rohm: Okay. But two story units, whether it be four-plex or otherwise, would be inclusive? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Okay. I think we are done. All right. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-035, request for preliminary plat for Sommersby Subdivision, including staff comments dated November 4th, 2004, received November 2nd, 2004, and the addition of Engineering Solutions' responses received November 16th for hearing date of November 18th. And the preliminary plat received on 11/17, with the date stamp of 11/15, with the following changes: On page five of the staff report, item four under site specific conditions, delete the words deed restriction and replace that with turnaround. On page six, item six, the detailed fencing will require a temporary fence during construction on the east line of the property to make sure that it keeps debris and construction product from blowing off site. Item eight we will go with the applicant's response, which would be on page two of their response dated November 16th, the bottom item number eight as written. And I believe that's all the changes to the prelirninary plat motion. End of motion. Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 18, 2004 Page 29 0164 Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohrn: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-040, request for a Conditional Use Permit for Sommersby Subdivision and including all staff comments and applicant's response as well, as stated in the previous motion, with the following changes: On staff report page 12, item two, sub itern three, minimum front setback will be five feet for those two story units. Item five, the applicant will provide a solution to City Council prior to -- or a solution to the patio deck size prior to City Council hearing this -- when is that, in a couple weeks? Before City Council hears it. Item six. I have to find the applicant's response. It says the applicant's response is acceptable, so that's -- Newton-Huckabay: Page five, 6-A. Rohm: There we go. Okay. On page five of the applicant's response, number 6-A is acceptable in replacement of staff comments. And I believe that's the end of those adjustments as well. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 04-012 Request for a Rezone of 3.74 acres from I-L & CoG zones to all CoG zone for Raymond Estates by Ronald Van Auker - NEC of East Franklin Road and North Gaudians Avenue: Borup: Okay. Thank you. I was wondering if we couldn't maybe try to do these next two short ones before we take a break. Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing RZ 04- 012, request for a rezone of 3.74 acres in I-L and CoG zones for Raymond Estates by Ron Van Auker. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this application that -- the zoning map as shown before you is inaccurate, actually, and this -- thank you. The property is located at the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin and as you're well aware, RC. Willey is in this area and then Gaudains Street -- this is Gaudains Street. The applicant has requested a zoning change to modify the existing zoning, which isn't shown on here. There is a strip of CoG that cuts cross the front portion of this property, so this property has both a split zoning and a split Comprehensive Plan designation of commercial on the front and, then, industrial in the rear. About -- let's see. At about September we started re-Iooking at a portion of the code that allows for a reduction in