Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 2, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 3 of 55 Canning: I think that's it. Borup: All right. Thank you. Canning: And, then, Chairman, were you going to make an announcement about Tuscany, just in case there is somebody here? Borup: Yes. Well, we can do that before I go into some of the other items. If anyone is here for the Tuscany Lakes application, that's No.9 on the agenda, the city did make a mistake on the notification on that and so that's being re-noticed. There is some of the names that were left off. So, we are sending that out again with a complete list and that -- to what date? Canning: January 6th. Borup: January 6th? Canning: 2005. Borup: January 6th. Do we need to make a motion for that? Nary: What I would suggest, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, is since it was noticed to tonight and part of the notice -- the mailed notice was in error, but not all of the notice was in error, that you simply -- when you get to it you can open this and continue this forward to January 6th and they are still going to send the notices out as well. But since you have got it noticed on this agenda, it's just to let folks know they don't have to stay if they don't want to. Borup: And that's what I meant to convey. It will still be opened and continued at the time or, actually, in times past if we have had someone that was -- do we have anyone here tonight for that? All right. Rohm: That was a good question. Item 4: Public Hearing: RZ 04-015 Request for a Rezone of 4.9 acres from R- 40 to R-15 zone for the retirement complex at Devon Park Subdivision No.2 by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 04-049 Request for Detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for Fairview Lakes Phase II of the commercial development along East Fairview Avenue, which includes two drive-up windows; also, for the residential portion, a 30-unit Alzheimer facility with a retirement complex by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: I won't expound anymore on that, then. Okay. Just a couple of things I did want to mention before we start that procedure -- and we don't have a real full group tonight, Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 4 of 55 so I'm not anticipating maybe a lot of testimony, but the procedure is that as we open each Public Hearing, the staff will give a report of the project. At times -- at that time we may have some additional -- some questions for the staff and, then, the applicant will have 15 minutes -- up to 15 minutes to add anything or explain. After that point it's open for public testimony and we have up to three minutes apiece for any public testimony. Following that the applicant, then, will have the opportunity to answer any questions, explain anything that may have come up. We do have a timer and green means that the time is fine, it goes to yellow and there is 30 seconds, and the red is when the time is up. After we have heard all the testimony, the hearing is closed. The Commission may have some discussion and an opportunity to talk about or they may just go directly into a motion. Now, from this Commission we do not make final decisions, we make a recommendation that goes to the City Council and the City Council is the one that makes that decision and, hopefully, they take somewhat of a look at our recommendations when they do that. That being said, we would like to proceed with the first hearing. Actually -- well, these are completely separate, aren't they? Even though it's the same location? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, our staff report did -- Borup: Did combine them? Hawkins-Clark: -- combine them. Borup: I will open both public hearings, RZ 04-015, this is a request for a rezone of 4.9 acres from R-40 to R-15 for a retirement complex at Devon Park. And, then, Public Hearing CUP 04-049, request for a Conditional Use Permit approval, Fairview Lakes Phase Two. Again, both hearings are open and we'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. On this first item this is the rezone request and as was just noted, we -- both of these are within the boundaries of the Fairview Lakes project. Just a couple of months ago this Commission made a recommendation on another Conditional Use Permit on the property, so I won't go into much detail on the surrounding uses. It is on the north side of Fairview Avenue there. The rezone is for this area here, 4.9 acres at the very north end. This is the area that you reviewed a few months ago and at that point in time the approval and since that time City Council has also approved the Conditional Use Permit for the retirement center. This rezone, as you may recall, was discussed at that hearing and it was whether or not the retirement center would be an assisted living facility and what's the appropriate zoning for that. The Council did uphold your recommendation for calling it, essentially, a retirement center, which meant that they could keep the R-40, which is what the property is currently zoned. However, in the next item on the agenda there is a Conditional Use Permit for an Alzheimer's facility, which would not be allowed under the R-40, it would need the R-15, so they just chose to rezone this entire north area, which has -- it's not reflected too well on this, it's small, but you have this break here at the end of North Lakes Avenue and so that's the area. The Comprehensive Plan has the property designated as mixed-use community and that would certainly support the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 5 of 55 R-15. SO, we are recommending approval of the rezone. On the Item No.6, the Conditional Use Permit, the Conditional Use Permit is split kind of into two general areas. One portion of the conditional use is at the northwest corner of the site and this is the Alzheimer's facility with 30 units and, then, the other portion is the commercial area on the east side of North Lakes Avenue. The Conditional Use Permit that conceptually approved this did not show this building pad right here in the center, nor the one above it. The square footage of the retail in this area is, actually, reduced slightly from what they were conceptually approved for, but they have chosen to come in with their detailed just kind of shifting around some of the building pad locations and so this -- what you see here in this area is what they are proposing there. Two of the proposed buildings do include drive-thru windows, the small pad here on the north and, then, there is a proposed bank on the south just off of Fairview. Both of those are proposed to have drive-thrus and so that was another reason for the Conditional Use Permit. The staff report does refer to a couple of outstanding issues and I will just draw the Commission's attention to those. They start on -- let's see. Start on page nine. And I will, actually, move to the next slide and just touch on a couple of these with the Alzheimer's care unit. I should point out that I did meet with Mr. Tamura, who is representing this project, today after he reviewed staff's report. He came into the office and we did talk about most of these modifications, which they have agreed to and, actually, this plan reflects the vast majority of these. So, what is being projected is slightly tweaked from what was submitted with the application. A couple of those points are the regional pathway, you as may recall, was approved to kind of relocate along this area here. There is a ten-foot wide path and, then, it goes north and the original plan proposed solid fencing on both sides. We recommended that they put open vision fencing. They have agreed to that on this site on the east side of the path, so on the back side of the building you have this open area and, then, a fence and, then, you have the pathway with landscaping and, then, a solid fence along the mobile home park. The buffer between land uses was another concern of ours. On the north here is the 20-foot required. This fire truck turnaround does encroach slightly into that and that's really the -- I think the main issue that I think that the Commission will need to address. Are you comfortable with some encroachment into that 20 feet with that fire truck turnaround or not. At this point they have left it at approximately 15 feet between the residential subdivision to the north and the end of this buffer. It does widen out when you get to the assisted living facility, but for this portion it's five feet below what the code requires, so as part of the planned development they could, technically, reduce that if you allow it. The other concern that we had with that was that there is a 40-foot wide easement for the Jackson Drain that runs -- they are relocating it and it's going to be basically placed underneath the parking lot, the Jackson Drain, and, then, curve over to the left behind the fire turnaround and, then, head up to Trailway Subdivision and that -- these trees that you see up here are within that 40 feet. Normally, the Nampa- Meridian and Settlers do not allow the trees. We are recommending that if they can't put trees in that easement, that they are going to have to shift the building, you know, to get the correct buffer in there and at this point I don't think that's been firmed up. So, it's just one outstanding question there. Let's see. Then, we also talked about maybe shifting the opening here, instead of having parallel parking in front of the facility, provide head-in and they did adjust that. I will go back to the commercial area, then, Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 6 of 55 and just touch on a couple of the issues we had there. This island that separates the drive-thru for the proposed Banner Bank from the main kind of thoroughfare in here, did not have landscaping before and they have shown landscaping now. They are also showing a trash enclosure in this area, which is fairly unique, but in this case I think it probably is a good compromise, since there is really no area in here that Sanitary Service Company could pickup efficiently. They have also reduced the number of compact stalls in this row of parking here. There used to be eight, now there are four, and staff is comfortable with that, since the compact is only one foot below the minimum. Let's see. We also include a couple of the elevations of the new buildings. In the slide show here, this is the largest of the new retail buildings. This is located on retail three, that pad there. Has many similar designs as the Hastings and DMV facility that's already built. This is an elevation of the Alzheimer's -- proposed Alzheimer's facility, which does have some matching materials as the one you approved a few months ago and, then, these are the two pads that do not have tenants proposed right now. And, then, the proposed Banner Bank and their elevations. The bank does propose brick on the facade. These other shell and core buildings do not. But they do compliment in terms of the stucco, so I just wanted to point that out. So, I guess just to summarize, I think the main two questions that sort of remain hanging out there are the buffer between land uses on the north and whether or not the Commission is comfortable with that encroaching there and, then, insuring that we get the right amount of trees in the buffer on the north side. So, I think with that I will end staff's comments. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. That encroachment for the fire lane, is that fire lane to be used for anything besides just turnaround for fire trucks? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, no, it's not. No, it's -- Rohm: In my mind it almost sounds like that's really a wider buffer area in a way, then, if it's not to be used other than in the case of an emergency, just kind of a point there. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess that's one way to look at it. I mean the -- normally we don't allow parking areas in the buffers between land uses and that's the way the code reads, so .. but in terms actually physical separation, I think you're correct. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba, you had -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Brad. I did have a couple questions, actually. Ones that you asked and I wondered if maybe there had been an answer to them. A fence totally around the Alzheimer's unit, you had indicated that their plans showed that it was not continuous. I agree with you that it probably should be continuous. Has that been resolved? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 7 of 55 Hawkins-Clark: Right. Commissioner, the way that they have shown it -- this is the south end of their building there and, then, you can kind of see this line here that would be a fencing line that, then, would go up. So, what was unclear to me in the application was whether, you know, this area in the back would be the only area designated for sort of outdoor area for the patients. If they were to come into the front, obviously, that -- this is open and so I was raising that question. They have not proposed any fencing along the pathway on the south side. Zaremba: But it does look -- the fence encloses an area that -- Hawkins-Clark: It does fully enclose an area. Zaremba: Okay. I wasn't clear about that. Thank you. The other is your comment about the requirement for multiple commercial and/or office buildings to be kind of centered on a usable common area, such as a plaza or a green space. Hawkins-Clark: Uh-huh. Zaremba: And that didn't appear to happen. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I will just go back to that area. This slide depicts better than what was submitted in the application of what they are looking to construct. Everything that's cross-hatched is proposed as another phase. Everything else would be proposed as, you know, the improvements with this application and so this entrance would be improved, they are providing a second access into their project. The way that the Conditional Use Permit that was the conceptual approval read is that when they hit 50 percent of this -- all of this area, 50 percent of the building square footage for detailed approval, then, after that point they need to come back to the city and show you how they have proposed to create an area for the public or for the employees. They, actually, are still a little under the 50 percent. What I was told today by Mr. Tamura is that they are looking at maybe this area in front of this new retail -- I think this is shown as retail four. So, as you're coming in this could actually be sort of a plaza sitting area that would be a good location, I think. Good visibility and pretty centrally located for however these redevelop. They haven't shown it right now. They weren't required to. I was just raising it, because they are kind of pushing the envelope a little bit. Are they going to have room to do a plaza if they get three-quarters of it built out here. So, if that's the area that they do it, when you see this in the future as a Conditional Use Permit, obviously, we will require them to show it on the plan at that time. Zaremba: One more question. The tiling of the Jackson Drain, I know in the original version it was going to be left open as an amenity with the pathway going along behind it and I do recall that we agreed that it would be tiled. But your note reminds me that we were calling that an amenity and my question is was it a required amenity that needs to be replaced with another amenity or does tiling it just make it go away? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 8 of 55 Hawkins-Clark: Right. Commissioner Zaremba, I think -- I mean the amenity is -- I think was, technically, the pathway itself. Yes, it would have enhanced the amenity !think as a walking area, if it would have remained open -- Zaremba: But the pathway is still -- Hawkins-Clark: But, technically, the pathway is -- sort of functions as that. As would this plaza that we just finished talking about. So, that would be the two. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Mr. Tamura. Tamura: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura. My office is at 499 Main Street, Boise, Idaho, and we are the architects and developers on this project. What I gave you was kind of the updated site plan that I discussed with Brad today and maybe what I can do is kind of touch kind of the highlights under the construction -- special considerations in the conditional use it kind of outlined eight conditions that we needed to kind of, you know, revise or change. One is -- that last sheet shows that construction phasing, which is this sheet right here, and so one of the things that I discussed with Brad is that it seems like our opportunity for a large box potentially falls in this back corner. The other thing that potentially is going to happen is our lease with the DMV is only for three years and Hastings has the ability to go ahead and take over the DMV space after three years. Since I told Brad the ideal location that we think would be good for the DMV would be in this retail section right here and so assuming that we move DMV over to a nice central location, you know, a lot of parking, that it seemed like this would be an ideal place to put a public, you know, plaza that the -- you know, since there is such a high volume of traffic, that we could potentially put a large box in the corner, put DMV in between, you know, these two smaller boxes and, then, create a nice plaza in this area. So, that's where we are kind of earmarking that location to happen. In our office section of our project, we have got two smaller -- or two combined buildings in the middle of that and we are planning on putting a common plaza in between those two office buildings, but that's more for just the office use. This pretty much delineates what we are planning on doing with the next phase of the commercial. In regards to the buffering on the land uses, which -- can you flip to the -- yeah. Rohm: I have got another -- you want to use this? Tamura: Oh, this is all right. The thing that I was pointing out to Brad that we could do it either way and it's pretty much the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission. What we have is a 15-foot landscape buffer between the property line and the fire truck turnaround. We have got a 20-foot driving aisle and we have got another five to eight feet of landscaping between that and the fire truck turnaround. I told them that we could provide the 20 feet of setback, but it would put the fire truck turnaround right against the building and we thought esthetically it would look the nicest by having landscape on Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 9 of 55 both sides. Again, like what Commissioner Zaremba said, it's something that you're not going to see and it's not going to be used, because one is we have got a six foot vinyl fence that we will put along the whole north property line and so as -- you know, as you look at the buffering, we have got probably a 40-foot plus buffer from the north fence line to the northern edge of the retirement center .- or the Alzheimer's center. As far as the fencing, what we have got is a secure wrought iron fence that will go around the perimeter here and, then, we have got four access points for our tenants inside, so we have got access points into a courtyard here and here and, then, we have got two separate dining rooms in these two areas and we will have large outdoor patios. But this will be all under one large secured wrought iron fenced area. The other thing that we'd like to remain, we'd like to have the transition or the openness of the pedestrian path as it goes -- you know, my little pointer might have just died. We would like to leave this open, so our fence -- we are going to go ahead and extend our existing vinyl - - six foot vinyl fence, it will go up around the perimeter all the way around here and down through here. This will be a six-foot high wrought iron fence as a security for the Alzheimer's. But this area right through here where the pedestrian path runs, we'd like to leave that as just open landscaping. We think just the overall appearance of the project would look nicer. The second one was the multi-use pathway and, again, we are going to do a wrought iron fence. On the Jackson Drain easement I spoke with John Anderson with Nampa-Meridian, I told him that our intent is that we will go ahead and locate the Jackson Drain in the center line of this fire truck access and he was saying that he didn't think that we would have a problem of requesting a license agreement with the Nampa-Meridian to go ahead and put trees on the northern -- he said the biggest concern that they had was that there was a construction zone that if they had to get in and repair the ditch, that they had it, so he -- and I told him that our intent was to put it inside the fire truck access, that they'd have easy access to that. On the parallel parking, we went ahead and reconfigured this, so we would have four handicapped spaces and a loading area, which I think was a good suggestion by Brad. And, then, we made those changes on compact parking stalls for the bank and landscaped the drive-thru median. And we pretty much concur with staff's findings of fact and conditions of approval. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Just your last statement you said you pretty much concur. Is there something -- Tamura: No. No. We concur. Borup: Okay. Tamura: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that hearings RZ 04-015 and CUP 04-049 be closed. Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 10of55 Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: We don't seem to have as many public come when it's downsizing the zoning, do we? Zaremba: No. Well, I think this is a group that has contacted the neighborhood several times and done a good job of that. We appreciate it. Staff's recommendation was that we continue this to get all the problems resolved. It sounds to me like most of the problems are resolved. Borup: Are there any other -- Zaremba: Are there any specific conditions that we need to remove or just by the fact that they have been satisfied leaving them in doesn't hurt anything? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, yes, when I issued the report it was quite at a late date and so I didn't anticipate that we would be able to get all these taken care of, so we do appreciate that. So, no, I think given what was put onto the record tonight, we are comfortable with it moving ahead if you'd like, but I do think that it would help for the Council's recommendation if you could go ahead and strike some of these conditions that they have already complied with. That way Council won't need to see it and think that would be number-- Zaremba: Do you want to start at the top and specify? Page 11? Hawkins-Clark: Starting on page 11. Right. Site specific number three, number four, number six, number eight. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question on the trash enclosure. I'm having a hard time visualizing it to look nice, a trash enclosure sticking out at the end of a drive-thru. Is it going to be behind a fence? Has that been done anywhere else in town? Are you putting it there, because there is no place else to put it? Hawkins-Clark: Maybe you'd like to have the applicant -- of course you closed the Public Hearing, didn't you. I mean you're right, it is very unique. Newton-Huckabay: That's not the word I was thinking. Hawkins-Clark: The city does require them to be enclosed on three sides. It will be, you know, on a driveway that carries, you know, a reasonable amount of traffic for sure. You know, these trash enclosures are always a little bit interesting for us, since we -- you know, we don't drive and pick them up, I mean the city's contractor does, and so we Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 11 of 55 really do rely heavily on SSC to give us input on whether it's in a location that they can effectively pick it up. I don't think Mr. Tamura has had a chance to verify that with them. If you -- one way -- as far as appearance, you know, I think it could work as far as having the three sided enclosure match the Banner Bank materials, building materials, brick and/or maybe split face block or something like that, so that, you know, it looks like it belongs with Banner Bank and it's not just sitting out there in the middle of nowhere. Some landscaping around those can also really help. I think the main thing will be, you know, having -- normally I think they are about six feet, you know, a six foot high block wall around this and, you know, it could be that maybe another location can be figured out and they wouldn't have to do it there, if that's a concern of yours, you know, they -- you could condition this that says it's not approved I guess is one option for you and say that they have to find another location that will work. Zaremba: I like the suggestion of having it made out of materials that match the nearest building, theoretically the Banner Bank. Okay. Enclosed on three sides, does that include any kind of roofing? Hawkins-Clark: No. Zaremba: Or could they be open to the top? Hawkins-Clark: They could be open. They almost all are. Borup: The nearest building is building number -- or pad site five, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is, Chairman, but the lot -- I think that it could serve both -- both buildings, I think potentially. There is one trash enclosure shown here in this area and, then, the other one is here at the end of the island. So, you know, those kind of details would be worked out at the time of building permits in terms of -- with the Sanitary Service Company as they address these and, then, they work out the contract with each building owner and sometimes they do have combined, you know, trash enclosures that serve more than one building, as long as they -- they are not a real high trash generator. Borup: We are assuming the sight-obstructing gate, I assume. Hawkins-Clark: That's a good idea. The code does not actually say it has to have a gate. It just says three sides. Borup: Well, that may be something that we might consider at that location. Newton-Huckabay: My suggestion would be to find an alternate place for the trash enclosure. I would think there would be someplace else on that development that you could put it that it wasn't so obvious. Borup: To be used it needs to be near the buildings, doesn't it? Meridian Pianning & ZOning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 120f55 Newton-Huckabay: Well, I understand it needs to be near the building, but there is a lot of banks in this town and none of them have the trash enclosure in the drive-thru. There has got to be another alternate place it could go. Borup: Maybe I'm missing something, I thought this was the trash enclosure here we were talking about. Newton-Huckabay: No. We are talking about right there. Borup: Oh. Newton-Huckabay: Right? Borup: Okay. It's not on the -- Newton-Huckabay: It's right there. Borup: Okay. Well-- Zaremba: Most of the other logical places to put it in regards to the building are going to be difficult for SSC to access, unfortunately. It means more turning and backing. Borup: I wouldn't think the bank would be too excited about it there, but -- Zaremba: It might be less -- if it were going to be shared with this other pad, it might actually be less noticeable in that position. Newton-Huckabay: I think there is one right -- Zaremba: But not a whole lot less. Newton-Huckabay: -- north where it -- there is one right there. Could that one be enlarged to accommodate both? Zaremba: Well, let me ask Brad. Would you be comfortable if we said we suggest moving it and work it out before City Council? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Staff is comfortable with that. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: At this point SSC I don't think has reviewed it. Zaremba: We interrupted you. Were there anymore paragraphs we should totally delete? I will add a new paragraph about the trash enclosure. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 13of55 Borup: I think we stopped at eight. Zaremba: Eight was the last one you deleted. Hawkins-Clark: Right. And I believe that would -- that would be the last one. Zaremba: Okay. Anybody else have any issues to raise? I'm ready to make a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Did we decide on whether or not we were going to cut down the buffer to 15 feet? Zaremba: We didn't and we do need to make a statement about that. Newton-Huckabay: I think it should remain 20 feet. Zaremba: Let's see. If there is eight feet of landscaping achieved south of the driveway -- there is 15 north of the driveway and eight south and the driveway is 20 feet wide as well. That doesn't help? Borup: I think they run about five south, but -- Rohm: Well, the applicant said that they could move this -- move it south five feet to get that, but, then, what you have done is compromised the landscaping between the drive and the building and both work towards a buffer, if you will, between this development and the adjacent property. So, it's almost like sixes. I mean you're either going to put five additional feet on the north of the turnaround or five feet on the south, but you're still going to have the total footage between the developed property and the adjacent property, so you won't really be gaining any additional buffer, it's just which side of the turnaround it's on. Moe: And, then, you're bringing that turnaround closer to the building as well without landscaping between the building and the turnaround. Newton-Huckabay: Nobody can see the landscaping on the building, your line of sight there. That's my input. Rohm: Yeah. And that's good. I kind of like it the way it's been drawn up, myself. Moe: I would agree. Zaremba: Well, I would be satisfied to -- even if we had to call it alternate compliance, there is still the same amount of landscaping and the same amount of pavement. I could easily be satisfied within the configuration that the applicant has. Is that a deal breaker for you? Newton-Huckabay: Huh-uh. No. It's fine. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 14 of 55 Zaremba: All right. Okay. In that case -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm happy about the trash enclosure. Zaremba: I would be satisfied to leave the fire turnaround and the buffer the way the applicant has showed it and if we need to call that alternate compliance, do we need to say that? Hawkins-Clark: I don't believe so, no. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-015, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 2, 2004, received by the city clerk November 30, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-049, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 2, 2004, received by the city clerk November 30, 2004, with the following changes: Beginning on page 11, under site specific conditions, paragraph three can be deleted as complied with. Paragraph four can be deleted as complied with. Paragraph six can be deleted as complied with. Paragraph eight can be deleted as complied with. And I would add on page 12 a paragraph 14 that says that we would prefer that the trash enclosure currently nearest to the proposed Banner Bank be relocated to a less conspicuous position and the applicant can work with staff and SSC to accomplish that before the City Council hearings. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 04-019 REVISED Request for Annexation and Zoning of 64.48 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan Road and North Meridian Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 04-026 REVISED Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 220 single-family residential building lots and 17 common lots on 64.48 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Ventana Subdivision by G.L.