Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 2, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 26 of 55 MDe: Oh. Excuse me. You're right. That's what I wanted to do. I knew that all along. So, let me start that over, then. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on PFP 04-008 be continued to the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 6, 2005. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. -- - ccBoTU ):~ 2kay. Is the Commission okay to continue on or do you need a short break? Zaremba: Wecoüld take five minutes. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time and, then, continue on. (Recess.) Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 04-050 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 3-story, 100-room hotel in an I-L zone for Country Inn & Suites Hotel by Boise Hotel Enterprises, LLC & ABC 2, LLC - north of East Pine Avenue and east of North Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to continue our meeting this evening. Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-050, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a three story one hundred room hotel in an I-L zone for Country Inn and Suites Hotel. This is at north of East Pine Avenue and east of North Eagle Road. Open this hearing at this time and we'd like to start with the staff report. Wilson: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this application is for a Country Inn Suites, a three story, 100 room hotel, located in a Light Industrial zone near the intersection of Eagle Road and East Pine -- or Pine Avenue. The subject property was annexed in 1984 by Upland Industries and was -- is subject to a development agreement recorded at that time. There has also been two planned unit developments on the property, one in 1991 and one in 1999 and both allowing a mix of commercial and residential uses in the subdivision. In the I-L zone a hotel would not normally be a allowed use, because of the planned -- the planned development CUP. It does expand on the uses allowed within the subdivision. To the -- to the north of the project -- I'll get a better visual here. To the north of the project is the Crossroads shopping center. To the east is a residential subdivision, Crossroads Subdivision, zoned R-4, and to the -- well, the location of the hotel, the proposed hotel, is in the southeast corner of the property here directly adjacent to the residential subdivision. The site is proposed to have 106 parking spots. Staff does raise a question whether that's adequate. One hundred and six would be adequate for the -- one is required per room, so there are 100 stalls required for the 100 rooms and, then, thereafter, one parking spot for every two Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 27 of 55 employees. So, the provided parking is adequate for the hotel, plus 12 employees. We would like the applicant to address the number of employee that the hotel will have, so we can evaluate the adequacy of that parking. As a CUP, a conceptual landscape plan was -- is required. The applicant has provided the required street buffers and landscape plantings with the -- with the one exception of the northwest corner of the property, they have depicted 13 parking spots in a row, which is in violation of Meridian code landscape ordinance and we have asked that that be reduced to 12. Staff does have concerns about the design of the site, the placement of the building directly adjacent to the residential subdivision to the east. There is an existing fence and 20 foot buffer along that property line, but it appears that the hotel as proposed would be within 75 feet of some of the residences in that neighborhood and we do have some concerns about the impact of the residences and the residents of that neighborhood. As a Conditional Use Permit, there is a provision to require above and beyond what the letter of the ordinance allows for, so you can take into consideration design and impact on the neighborhood and impose requirements as you see fit. There is the question of the comparison of the impacts between either having the hotel adjacent to the property line or having the parking area adjacent to the line. Both do have associated impacts and staff recommends that public testimony regarding those -- the difference between those impacts be taken into account in the decision. The three-story structure close to the residences does certainly have the potential for some impact on them, but you should rely on testimony to make that determination. All accesses to the site were previously approved by ACHD. There are two on the private drive along the west of the property and, then, two accesses to east -- to Pine Avenue were previously approved. The applicant has submitted elevations as required as part of the Conditional Use Permit. This is the longest elevation. I looked -- I believe this would be the elevation adjacent to the residential neighborhood. A visual of the hotel was provided as well with the associated parking and, then, the western elevation and a cross-section elevation of the building with the portico and entry to the hotel. I'd just touch on the Comprehensive Plan and its impact on this. The future land use map does designate this area as commercial, which allows for a full range of commercial and retail uses, which does support the application. However, the Comprehensive Plan does also require screening and buffering of commercial and industrial properties and residential uses and that could have some bearing on the design and location of the building on the property. And with that I will wrap up staff comments. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners at this point? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Borup: Commissioner Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Josh, you made a comment earlier about the zoning and I didn't really follow what you were saying. Wilson: About the -- the allowed uses in the -- is that -- Meridian Pienning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 28 of 55 Newton-Huckabay: So you were -- but they are not requesting a zoning change? Wilson: No, they aren't. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. I just misunderstood what you were saying. Wilson: It was just informational about the request. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Could you go through that again, please? Wilson: Yes. In the Light Industrial zone a hotel in a straight Light Industrial zone would not be an allowed use. This is an allowed use because of the planned unit development, the CUP was approved in 1999, did have -- did allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses within the subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: So, could you give an example of what would have been allowed had the development agreement not been entered into? Wilson: In the Light Industrial zone? Rohm: Yeah. Yes. Wilson: Sorry, I'm not completely familiar with it yet. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the area on the north side of Franklin by the fire station is a light industrial area and there we see a mix of some shops or some -- like office warehouse or they call it flex space now, where they have maybe a small retail showroom and, then, they run a business out of the warehouse part of it or provide some services. We also see a mix of like dance studios and stuff like that. Auto body works. We have got a paint refinisher. We have got that soccer one. So, the light industrial zone does allow for a number of uses that typically don't have a lot of parking demand, but they have large space requirements. That's mostly what we are seeing in the light industrial developments. I think the point Josh was trying to explain is that the whole Crossroads shopping center has a light industrial zoning on it, although it's really one of our most commercial areas, as you know, but that was done through the development agreement. I believe the light industrial zoning was existing at the time the planned development was done, so they just kept that zoning, but, really, it's been approved for commercial uses was the point that he was trying to make. Rohm: I guess the point that I was trying to make was the light industrial could, in fact, have the same structural elevations that this proposal tonight is having and be in Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 29 of 55 compliance with light industrial. I'm not saying that there is any thought of going that route, but a light industrial development could, in fact, have that same elevation as -- Canning: Well, it couldn't have a hotel was the -- Rohm: No. No, I'm not saying that, but the elevation of a proposal in light industrial could have the same kind of elevation that this -- Newton-Huckabay: It could be three stories high? Rohm: Yeah. It could be that tall. I mean theoretically. I don't know that -- I was just trying to see what alternatives there were as we move forward that might be different than this proposal tonight that would be acceptable. So, I was just thinking out loud there. Borup: Any other questions? Moe: Mr. Chairman. Josh, I was just kind of curious -- and lean follow this up with the applicant, but was there any mention of a neighborhood meeting or anything in regards to this project? Wilson: I have not heard mention of a neighborhood meeting. Moe: Well -- okay. Borup: Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Hennings: My name is Richard Hennings, I'm an architect with Sam Companies. We will be the developers, owners, and operators of the proposed Country Inn Suites. We are located in Wakepark, Minnesota. And I have registration that's now in effect in the state of Idaho. First I wanted to pass out that revised site plan, which goes to the issue of the number of parking spaces and it wasn't generated by the staff report that questioned the number of parking spaces, but by the fact that there is a -- and I'm going to call it covenant and I think that's probably the wrong word, on the subdivision that requires a larger number of parking spaces per square foot of building and so the agreement worked out with the developer and other owners on that site -- so we have revised the site by adding some square footage to the site, so that we are now 400 feet north-south and added parking to get 120 parking spaces. But at this point that would accommodate 40 employees and, actually, this is a -- you know, a minimal service hotel and so 12 actually is the maximum number of employees we would have on anyone shift. But I think the question kind of goes away. At the time same, I took the opportunity to correct the situation where I had more than 12 parking spaces in a row and so this site plan has little variation, other than it adds those parking spaces. The other situations are the same. I guess, secondly, I wanted to just bring up that perspective. I see by watching the slide show that the drawings I sent certainly didn't reproduce very well and look terrible on the screen and so I wanted to just address the Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 30 of 55 fact that Country Inn and Suites, by their nature, are very residential looking. That's really what Carlson company, who is the franchisee of these, demands and so they have a very residential nature, they have residential siding and shutters and residential windows, 5-12 pitches and shingles on and so -- and this rendering is, actually, of another hotel, not of this site. You can see this is the one in St. Cloud, Minnesota. But they have that residential look, rather than that terrible dark look of that drawing that was put up, so I apologize for the rendering there. I wanted to address the parking issue and I know this has been a consideration as we have gone along here, the decision to put the parking in front, as opposed to put parking behind, and this is a judgment issue, there is no doubt about that. In our judgment, the neighborhood is better served by the parking in front that moves the building to the rear half of the lot. You probable can't read the dimensions there. The closest the building gets to the property line is 55 feet, the 20-foot landscape berm and, then, 35 feet and that's to the projection of the -- in the center. It steps back furthered away, so that in other areas we will approach 65 feet away from the property line. I should also pass around a photo that was taken just the other day of what that berm looks like and maybe you have driven by and looked at it, but I will pass this out. The berm is pretty well established and you can see that the pine trees have done well. They are sizeable now, hopefully, to get bigger in the future. We think that the issue of having the parking in front is that the back against the residential neighborhood will be quieter, that the lighting that we need to provide in the parking lot will be less obtrusive, less bothersome to them, and that it also creates a safer condition for motel users. It has also the advantage of creating some parking spaces that are double -- in other words, for pull through, and that is handy when somebody pulls up with a trailer or a camper or something like that and so that's one of the things we try to achieve. If we put parking in the rear, I agree that that moves our windows further away from the property line and there is no doubt about that. However, we think, then, it puts more noise generated by the parking, by the cars starting, doors slamming, those annoying little beeps we all get when we lock our car, puts those closer to it and it also creates a cut-through situation that we like to avoid. In other words, we -- you can see if we put the parking behind, we will have an easy cut through from Pine over to the private road and that will create more traffic back there. We will have a little more lighting spill over and so -- then, I'd like to just address the issue again of the residential nature of Country Inn and Suites. I don't want -- I want everybody to understand that, yes, it's a three-story building, it's not a giant three story building, though. The third floor is 20 feet above grade. So, that puts a normal person's eyes at 25 feet above grade on the third floor windows. So, it's not a giant building. And I guess, lastly, I would say that in support of this kind of site plan, as opposed to putting parking on both sides, we think it would be better to intensify planting on the berm than to put parking back there and create more paving and noise back there. I'll also stick on the easel here an aerial view and this is not much different than the view they had. It does show the development of the Crossroads -- Meridian Crossroads center around the thing and you can see other proximities. Are there any questions I could answer directly now or -- Borup: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 31 of 55 Rohm: One thing that I would suggest, though, as we take public testimony, that you keep good records as we go through this, because we are going to ask you to respond to concerns of the public and that -- and the better you do taking notes, the better we can levalize that. Hennings: I'll try. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Hennings, I have one question and for fear of showing my ignorance of this type of thing. Can this -- is the only way this hotel can face is with the front of it facing west? Could it face Pine? I don't -- didn't do the math. Borup: It doesn't -- and I had the same question. I just measured it. The same length does not fit by turning it, but that would have been my question, has there been any consideration to orienting it, so that the end of the building was facing east and maybe even an L-shaped building or something along that line? Hennings: The building configuration can change. I mean there is nothing set in stone that it has to be a rectangle. An L-shaped building is not an impossibility. I guess that still brings forth the question of let's say it's L-shaped and it has one wing along Pine and the other wing running north-south, is it better to put the north-south wing against the property line or the parking against the property line? I mean it's slightly different, but it's still -- we would still have the same question there. Newton-Huckabay: I think what we are trying to get at is see what the alternatives are as we listen to public testimony. Hennings: Yes, there is a possibility of that. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Questions from anyone else? Okay. We would like to open this up to public testimony now. I do have a list of those that signed up and also any of those that have not signed up will have a chance at the end. I'm just going to go right down the list. Erick Johnson? Okay. Ted Bird. Bird: Yeah. I'm Ted Bird. I live at 863 North Filmore Way. That's just right directly behind this area here. I live -- I live right up here. Can you do an overall -- yeah. I live in this area right here. I'm concerned about the traffic that we have going through there, how close it is, and the size of it. I live right -- right there, this corner house. We live right here in this house. I'm concerned about the size, the traffic, the light and, actually, the windows are towards the back and I'm concerned about the privacy issue, the people coming in and out and the noise. And I'm, actually, opposed to it being put in at all. I don't want it in there at all. I'm not just opposed to it being that close, I don't want it being in there at all. And there is one other issue. We have that cinder block fence Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 32 of 55 that comes along here, it's not completely finished, and whether or not it is put in there, I would like that cinder block fence finished up going all the way over to Pine. That's one of my big issues. But the biggest issue was that I don't want this in there at all. But I would like the fence finished no matter what goes in there. Light industrial, you know, anything that goes in there, I'd like that finished, because we have a concrete fence that's still got about 30 or 40 feet to go to where it meets Pine. You got a vinyl fence going along Pine, you got the cinder block fence there, but, then, we have a little small six foot wood fence, I'd like that finished off all the way over to Pine and that's what I got to say. Thanks. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bird from anyone? Okay. Sharon? Did you .- Sharon, did you want to testify? Okay. Clint Boyle. Boyle: Members of the Planning Commission, Clint Boyle, as an individual residing in Meridian tonight, rather than how I typically present myself here. I appreciate this opportunity to be in front of you this evening. I live at 3668 East Judicial Drive. This is one of the few times that I ever point out my house in a public hearing. I live in this location here. And the primary reason that I'm here tonight is I have one of the -- fortunate or some people think an unfortunate obligation and. that is that I'm on the homeowners association board and so I am here representing the thoughts and considerations of the Crossroads homeowners association board. The board has had opportunity to meet and discuss this issue. We have not had the time to discuss this matter in a general neighborhood association meeting. However, we have talked to as many neighbors and residents of the subdivision as we could that were adjacent to and near this site and the consensus that we have received from speaking with the neighbors that are adjacent to the site and others in the area is the majority of those homeowners are in opposition to the project in one form or the other and I will describe a few of those issues tonight, but I would like to just indicate that several of the people here this evening and others that couldn't attend, I will be here speaking on their behalf as well. I would like to present for the record a petition that was signed by many of the homeowners indicating their opposition to this particular project. With that said, just to dive in to some of the issues that I'd like the Planning Commission to think about. This is a major shopping area for Meridian. There are several large tenants and anchor stores as you're all aware. ShopKo. Wal-Mart. Sportsman Warehouse. I mean Old Navy. There is a lot of retailers in the area, a lot of good restaurants. Personally for myself that was one of the draws as to why I moved into the neighborhood that was within this area was because it really is an ideal location. We have shopping amenities in very close proximity, we have good restaurants in close proximity to the neighborhood, we have a hospital very close to us, we have the interstate very close, so it's certainly a nice area to live in, has some very nice common area parks throughout the neighborhood. Now, with this particular proposal that we are talking about this evening -- am lout of time already? Borup: Well, we have normally allowed a neighborhood representative -- and I didn't ask that at the beginning, so -- and I usually ask that, but I didn't know we had an Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 33 of 55 organized -- so, if it's fine with the other Commissioners, would you like to allow him some extra time? Rohm: No. I'd like to have him continue. Boyle: Thank you. This particular proposal, while -- the first thing that I want to mention is we have had several of the neighbors go out and actually take some measurements on the existing shopping centers. The nearest wall in any of the existing shopping areas -- back behind ShopKo and the rest of these centers, the nearest wall is actually 77 plus feet away from the neighborhood. Now, these existing businesses, they are retail users, there are no windows facing the neighborhood, they are single story uses, and they are all located at least 77 feet away from the property line, with the berm, the buffering, et cetera. Now, what I'd like the Commission to do is just visualize for a minute. You're sitting in your backyard, you own a house in a neighborhood and we can play with the numbers, we will call it 55 feet to 65 feet away is a neighbor that has a three story home building, et cetera, that is right out your backyard. The proximity of this hotel, not only is it one of the proximity to the property, because it is closer than any of the other retail commercial users within that overall shopping center, not only is it closer, it's much taller than any of the other businesses and it has windows and I counted up the windows -- I mean just on the elevations we were provided there is 63 windows facing out onto the neighborhood. It's a very long wall and I appreciate the fact that this particular hotel chain does try to make their hotels residential in nature, I think that's great when a hotel does that, it breaks up the scale somewhat. However, if you look at the rear elevation of this building -- if we can have staff just flip back to it, just back to the building elevation in the rear, that is the elevation that the neighborhood will be looking at out of their backyard, 55, 65 feet away from their property. And the other thing that you have to visualize here is not only is it a long wall, it does have a pitched roof line, however, outside of that there are not a lot of features that break up the scale, the sheer mass of that particular wall. The other comments associated with this are that most of the businesses -- I think everybody within this neighborhood, obviously, anticipates that this area is going to develop and most of them have the expectation that it's going to develop as retail type businesses. That's the way this entire shopping center has developed up to this point is with retail users. Now, what are the advantages of retail users in this area? The advantages are, typically speaking, with the exception of Wal-Mart, all of them are closed by 9:00 or 10:00 o'clock in the evening. The next point. No windows. The lighting, if any of you have driven in the back of those buildings at night, they -- the only lighting they have is, actually, right on the buildings over the entry doors coming in the back of the building. No parking light, no other lighting in the back, so they definitely have taken care of the neighborhood concerns in the past with regards to lighting. The hotel, obviously, would have people frequenting it essentially 24 hours a day, so it's definitely a more intensity of use as far as the frequency of people coming and going from this particular facility. The other points that I did want to bring up, because many of the Commissioners -- and, again, I don't know the general consensus of the overall neighborhood, I do the ones that are directly adjacent to this and their thoughts, however. The board also looked at what are some options, can they rotate the building so all of these windows are not looking out at everyone's backyards, Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 34 of 55 that it's oriented towards Pine. Obviously, that is a much better scenario for the neighborhood, because, then, it takes all those -- those windows, it also takes the length of that exterior wall and it rotates it around where it's a much narrower section that the neighbors are looking at with -- without having all of the windows looking right into the neighbors backyards. So, that was one option that we looked at was the rotation of the building. Another big concern, again, is the height and the three stories and that is a major issue. So, I don't know if something could be done to reduce the number of stories potentially on this and bring it more in line and in scale with the existing shopping center and the neighborhood. Or orientation of the building, that's a difficult issue as well. The developer brought this up and there was discussion putting the parking behind the building up against the neighborhood and having the building pushed further away and, obviously, that helps with that building elevation, you do have the issues, then, of parking and parking lot lighting and I don't know that that is a great solution. The discussion that I have had with neighbors is that if the parking were located adjacent to the neighborhood, they certainly would like additional considerations as far as height of that block wall, the landscape, et cetera, because, again, in this overall shopping center behind the ShopKo and everywhere else, there is not general parking facilities for the general public, so they are located further away, there is no parking, very minimal lighting, it's just going to, essentially, change the character of the area and what's developed currently. The consensus that I have received from the neighbors that I have had opportunity to talk to and the board members is that the general preference is that they would much rather see a retailer just as the other properties have developed and have been continuing to develop with Petco and Old Navy and these types of retailers, because, again, you don't have the windows, you don't have the height of building, it's a blank wall, limited activities with hours that close and don't operate through the night. So, that is, you know, in an ideal sense -- and, granted, this is a Conditional Use Permit, so I would like the Commissioners to take this into consideration. In a standard industrial zone you are correct, there is probably uses that would be much more detrimental to the neighborhood if there was some sort of manufacturing or something going on adjacent to it. However, this, obviously, isn't a standard industrial zone, that development agreement was put in place specifically to accommodate a shopping center. A hotel, in my understanding, is not an allowed use within that development agreement, it's a conditional use, if this Commission feels that it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood, will not detrimentally affect the neighborhood, then, it may be appropriate in its location. So, I just appreciate the Commissioners considering that this evening. We certainly, if the Commission does move this forward, would like to have considerations for some of the items that I mentioned with maybe building rotation, breaking up that back wall somehow with architectural features, some increased landscape buffering, et cetera, to hopefully mitigate some of those negative aspects and effects on the neighborhood. Staff's report and your staff, they have also agreed that there could be potential negative and detrimental impacts to the neighborhood as well. And I guess just in conclusion, there was a point brought up by the Planning Commission and the neighborhood board I know feels that we would have appreciated having a neighborhood meeting, so that we would have had some discussion with the developers. The board actually found out about this through the legal notice a couple of weeks before this hearing and, Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 35 of 55 unfortunately, we haven't even had the time, due to the Thanksgiving holidays and whatnot, to even have our own neighborhood meeting to get a general consensus and I guess it's a foregone conclusion now, but we certainly would have appreciated having some discussion with the developer on the front end, rather than everybody making assumptions on what's good and what isn't and parking in the front, parking in the rear, and what's best for the neighborhood. So, if you would just consider those issues. And, again, the general consensus of the board is that this will be detrimental and we'd rather not see it on this location. However, we would certainly like to have the Commission, if they do move forward with this project, provide some additional mitigation measures to help mitigate the impacts of the hotel. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Borup: Questions for Mr. Boyle? I would maybe like a little bit of expounding on the mitigation aspects. Again, I understand what you're saying, those -- at least those you have talked to are not in favor and that's on the orientation, if it's -- if the length of the building was rotated 90 degrees, that would put the -- that probably would not have any of the room windows facing the subdivision and -- but it would put more of the parking area there. Was there any discussion on if that would help feelings a little bit? Boyle: Commissioner Borup, yeah, that is a good point and can we just go back to that area plan just for a second. Yeah. And this is -- the elevation actually shows that -- it's my understanding just from being in hotels, that that's probably just an entry or hallway corridor, rather than rooms and this would be the elevation that would face the neighborhood and you can see just from the sheer scale -- I mean that's a much better neighborhood scale type of elevation to be looking at, than to be looking at a 300 foot long wall, essentially, with windows in it. Now, if we can go back to the site plan just for a minute here. We did discuss, essentially, flipping this building 90 degrees facing Pine and, unfortunately, the dimensions that I have on the building and the site -- I mean it was kind of unclear as to whether or not that building would actually fit if it was flipped 90 degrees. Borup: Mine shows it would not, the little bit that I did. I didn't scale exactly, but it showed that it was short. Boyle: Short by -- and I guess that's -- you know, the representative for the hotel indicated that, you know, certainly the size and the location of the hotel wasn't set in stone and I guess, you know, they are proposing a certain number of rooms, maybe if they -- maybe it would fit, if, you know, three rooms were removed or six rooms were removed from an end, just to get that wall. But I haven't actually been able to work with it to see exactly how it would fit in. This is an existing private road that was just recently put in that travels from Pine up to Presidential -- this laser pointer is -- Borup: It would be roughly 20 feet short how I calculate. Boyle: Twenty feet short. Zaremba: But, then, there would also still be a landscape buffer -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 36 of 55 Borup: Well, I took that into consideration. Yeah. That 20 feet -- to the 20 foot land -- that would put -- right now taking the landscaping at the one and going to the property line it fits, so that's why I say 20 feet -- allowing the 20-foot landscaping buffer. That is probably -- that's just approximate. Boyle: And this is me speaking again, because we haven't had a general neighborhood meeting. In discussing this with the board, we certainly believe that that would be a better alternative for the neighborhood than the existing layout, the 90 degree orientation, again -- and I don't know exactly where the building would sit, maybe it would sit further back here and the parking is closer out towards Pine. Obviously-- Borup: And that was the other question I had, if there has been enough discussion for a preference there if that happened, Boyle: I don't know that we have had enough discussion that I could say -- that I could represent the board in talking about that. I could certainly tell you, I guess, my personal opinions on it, but -- and, then, Ted Bird that was up previously from the neighborhood discussed his house here. I'm not sure what happened originally, but they had the existing block wall and the landscaping that was put in, which is a nice feature, and somehow that wall just ends abruptly and it's about 30 to 40 feet away from this property line down at Pine. You have a vinyl fence, six-foot, opaque fence, running all the way down Pine and, then, there is this gap where they don't meet up. Borup: And I don't know either. My assumption would be that they allowed for -- to the development of Pine. You know, roadwork around Pine. Boyle: And that may be. I mean it may have been to allow the construction, but now if you go out to the side -- and I apologize I don't have a picture of it, you have got a block wall, a gap to his backyard, and, then, the fence down Pine, so it's kind of-- Borup: It needs to be completed. Boyle: -- an unfinished corner that I'm sure the Birds would appreciate and that would certainly help with some of the noise from the traffic coming in at some of these entry drives that are on Pine and I think that was one of the concerns that the Birds had was just this was going to be an entry drive to the subdivision and the fence that was put in place to help mitigate some of those noise factors is short of extending all the way out. The location would be great. I think the particulars of it we haven't had a chance to really run through and, again, I guess I would have liked to have clarified that further. Unfortunately, like I said, there wasn't a neighborhood meeting with the developer and we haven't had the opportunity to put together one ourselves to get kind of a general sense for how the overall neighborhood would feel on that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 37 of 55 Boyle: Thank you. Zaremba: I have kind of a sideways question. Boyle: Okay. Zaremba: Can we show either an aerial view or something that shows the whole subdivision? Thank you. I vaguely recall that as the ShopKo and other buildings were being built there was more done along here than is normally required. Do you know what all that buffering is, either it was a higher berm and a higher wall or a thicker something or other? Borup: I think along there just a block fence - a cinder block fence was put in. Zaremba: At an additional height, though. It's not just a six-foot, is it? Borup: Yes. Other than there was a grade elevation between this site and some of the yards and so I think they went back and raised them. Does that sound correct? Boyle: And Commission Members, unfortunately, I don't have the historical knowledge that many of these neighbors have, because I'm fairly new to the neighborhood in this aspects, so there may be others here that would be better equipped to answer that question, but they do have the block wall. There is the landscape buffering and I'm not sure to the degree or extent of the height there that went in with ShopKo. Somebody else may be here that could address that, though, from the neighborhood for you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Maybe just a clarification from staff. In this zone are we allowed a higher wall height? Eight feet? Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, you are allowed a higher wall height, but, generally -- that's what I'm trying to look up right now. It might take me a second to look. You can do an eight-foot fence, but, generally, you can't do that within 20 foot of a right of way. Pine is a little unusual with the solid vinyl fence, because the fence was there and, then, the street was built. So, normally, there would be more of a separation between the street and that fence than what we are seeing. Typically we require at least ten, but that didn't happen with Pine Street. Borup: Okay. So, that might be part of the gap and, then, it would need to taper down, then? Canning: Normally it's a 20-foot setback on a wall. But I'm trying to figure out -- to give you the options. Just give me a moment. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 38 of 55 Borup: All right. Thank you. Does that conclude -- anything else, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: All right. Boyle: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We'd like to continue on. And Mr. Boyle hopefully did a good job representing the subdivision, but we do have others that are still signed up also. Mr. Patterson, do you still care to comment? Patterson: Mr. Chair, I have never spoken at one of these before, so I apologize if I do anything I'm not supposed to. I live at -- my name is Rance Patterson, I live at 3687 Presidential, just right in about there. And I purchased my home in 2000, so, you know, ShopKo and the stores were already in and I fully envisioned a commercial property and was willing to -- I was, actually, like Clint, excited about that. I do feel, however, that the hotel is incongruent with the other developments around us as far as height and many of the things that Clint has discussed and I just wanted to reiterate that as a homeowner, our expectation was nothing more than one story with windows, you know, facing away and thank you. Borup: I think those commercial buildings -- even though they are one story, they are a height that -- Zaremba: They are a tall one story, but they don't, generally, have windows. Borup: Mr. Harper, did you -- okay. Thank you. And Parry? Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify, especially in opposition? I saw a hand back there earlier. Cuslidge: I'm also not good at this at all. My name is Sharon Cuslidge, I live at 3587 East Judicial. I don't know how this works. But I am right there. And I just wanted to address the vinyl wall on Pine. That was put in at the same time that the road was widened and it was put in in response to neighbors' concerns, because the road -- Pine is at such an elevation that it would have been almost as high as the neighbors' fences. So, ACHD put in that wall at the same time as they built the road, if that makes any difference whatsoever. One of the things that we had discussed, a few of us, with regard to the cinder block wall and the lighting issue, if they were to move the hotel further to the front of the lot or orient it differently, so that the parking is more toward the neighbors, if they could raise the block wall and mount the lighting on the wall pointing down into the parking lot and, then, perhaps any other lighting that's required to be on the building itself, as opposed to having tall lights that would really spillover into the neighborhood. That's just a suggestion. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 39 of 55 Borup: Okay. Thank you. We had a couple others. Anyone else? Is she the last -- okay. A couple others that also signed up in favor. Are they all with you? Okay. Simons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Andy Simons, I'm with ABC 2, LLC. We are the landowner of most of the rest of the land in that 11 acre subdivision. We wholeheartedly support this application. We concur pretty closely with the staff report. I wish they had recommended it outright, but I'd like to address just a couple of the issues that I heard a little bit earlier and I can't speak for the developer of the hotel, I'm just speaking as a landowner, but at least a couple of the things that I think the developer has tried to do to mitigate things for the homeowners behind that. The main ones in my mind have to do with traffic and also any -- oh, intrusion into their privacy and so fourth. As far as traffic is concerned, this hotel is exceptionally likely to generate less traffic than any type of retail use. I think if you check with the Urban Land Institute or anything else, they'll find that traffic that it generates tends to be somewhere between 7:30 and 8:00 o'clock when the peaks are and, then, about 6:00 o'clock to just before 10:00 o'clock. Now, this developer has also tried to push all that traffic away from the homes. Earlier tonight I think from one of the speakers, he mentioned that the hotel is a hotel 24-hour operation. Well, that's true, but, again, most of the impacts will be 7:00, 7:30, to 8:00 o'clock in the morning and before 10:00 o'clock at night. And, again, they have directed that traffic away from where the homeowners are. They have directed the noise away from where the homeowners are. Another item about the privacy, I guess, has to do with just that block wall. My understanding is that block wall is well over seven feet tall as it is. There is plenty of evergreens and other things that block the view. The building itself is 55 to 65 feet away from the property line. If a two- story house was there, a two story house would likely be as close as I think 20 feet from another neighbor's house. So, somebody in a two-story house could be looking down into a neighbor only 20 feet away. This is a three story and it's 55 to 65 feet away. So, that distinction I think from a line of site standpoint is pretty important to keep in mind. I'll let the developer address that even more if he wants to. It was mentioned that the nearest building is 77 feet away. Well, between that 77 foot building -- or 77 foot distance, there is a drive aisle that trucks, cars, and other things are constantly zooming around back there, going around the ShopKo and the Wal-Mart and so forth. Borup: You need to summarize up. That was your -- Simons: In this circumstance there won't be any cars going through there. So, I think the developer has done a good job trying to take into consideration the main concerns that any of these homeowners would have. With that I will try to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Simons? Thank you, sir. Okay. Mr. Hennings? Or were you going to -- Canning: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Okay. I'm sorry. You are Mr. Williams. Was I right? Dave Williams? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 40 of 55 Canning: No. You go ahead. I thought you were summarizing. Borup: No. He had signed up, too. I didn't realize -- go ahead. Come on up, Mr. Williams. Williams: My name is Dave Williams, 777 North Cobblestone Way, Eagle. Although I live in Eagle, I own several properties in Meridian. I love the City of Meridian. I have been in the real estate business. I'm a broker; Diamond Properties is the name of my company. I have been in the real estate business since 1975. Lived in this valley since 1961. And I love what you folks and your previous Commissioners and Council Members have done with the City of Meridian and I, too, want to see it continue to grow and be prosperous and be a beautiful community. I represent the applicant in the acquisition of the property from the present property owner and we thought that the motel would -- the way we were designing it and placing it on the lot with the buffer of the landscaping and everything would be much better than what the I-L zone allows. I represent about 150,000 square foot in the City of Meridian in four different locations that are I-L zoned and one of the large projects is in Meridian Business Park. We have 86,000 square foot. Typically, what we will do is we will build a building that could be 28 foot and we will have store front in the front and in the rear we have 12 to 14 overhead doors and we lease out to cabinet shops, body shops, mechanics, all kinds of people that if they were to build on this site, the neighbors would be having that traffic, those overhead doors that in the summertime go up and can make a lot of noise. We just thought maybe that this would be a great site for a pretty motel that would be designed more along a residential look. It's too bad the one picture that shows a black wall doesn't really depict what we would like to have had you seen. However, the front elevation here gives you a little bit of an idea. It's not just a wall, it has some dimension. It has some style. It has some rooflines. And I understand where the residential people are concerned. Before going into commercial full time I was a residential broker. I had 38 agents working for me. Borup: You have got 30 seconds. Williams: We worked the residential market, so I understand their concerns and I would think that the applicant would be willing to mitigate what concerns we possibly can and that's alii have to say. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hennings, would you like to -- oh, do we have some information from staff? Canning: Well, I thought I had clarification, but I have read further and now I'm confused again. Generally, the sign -- or the fence ordinance has one specific mention to -- for commercial and industrial properties and that says open vision fences. Open vision fences may be built to the property line in commercial and industrial districts and, then, it ends. So, it doesn't say that you can't have closed vision fences, it says that you can have them all the way up to the property line is all it says. And, then, there is a very Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 41 of 55 specific section on residential and limited office districts where you can go six feet to a height and, then, you have to step down to three feet. But it -- again, it's very specific to residential and limited office. The maximum fence height for the I-L district is eight feet. Borup: Okay. That's what I was remembering. That was the part I was referring to, but Canning: And, then, there is an asterisk -- not on that section, but on the previous section for the commercial districts that says provided, however -- and, then, it has a long subsection reference. I love our code. That is with your permission. So, probably one way or the other it would be good to have the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on what they want to do there. In this case where the code is silent as to closed vision fences and where we already have closed vision fencing going all the way up to the right of way, I think that it would be okay for you all to recommend that that wall be continued, to match up with the vinyl fence. It appears that -- there is one section in the landscape section that would apply when that's the sight triangle for road driveways, but because it's a least about 30 feet off from the property line, the driveway is, it shouldn't present a problem for the vision triangle, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hennings. Hennings: I won't try to rebut what the residents said. I don't think I'm likely to change their mind. I guess what I would say is that we are interested and willing to try a different site arrangement, but before I spend more effort on that, I guess I would like to get some opinion on your views of the appropriateness of a hotel on this site. You know, if you feel that that's an appropriate use and could be approved under some circumstance, then, we would like to try some different site arrangements that would address a lot of the concerns that were expressed tonight. But if the concerns expressed by some people of no hotel on this site at all, that doesn't seem -- Borup: And I think that's a reasonable request for this Commission. Zaremba: I think it's an excellent question and I will jump in with an opinion, It seems to be that most of the projects that I have a struggle with are I-L zoned projects and I don't know what is it with me and I-L zones, but I always have an issue with whatever is coming in an I-L zone. First, I appreciate Country Inn and Suites wanting to look at Meridian, wanting to locate in Meridian, I have seen other projects of theirs and I think they'd just be fine in Meridian. I don't feel that this is the right location, though. And I consider even with the drawing that you have given, if we took the whole project and mirror imaged it, so that the building was right on the private road and all the parking was close to the residences, I would still have the issue that there are still tall windows that could -- even from that distance be looking in on the privacy of the residences, that it is a 24 hour operation, even if some of the other things that are permitted in an I-L zone were built on this property, we would put our conditions -- time limit conditions on them or very likely would if we thought that there was going to be a problem with it. I don't have a problem with a hotel being in this area. If this were actually on the piece of Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 42 of 55 property that fronts Eagle, I'd be very enthusiastic about it. I don't see, in my opinion, even flipping it, how it could be satisfactory on this piece of property. So, I guess I would have to say I would rather see something else proposed on this property and find another location to have your hotel here, because we would certainly welcome it somewhere, just probably not this one particular piece of property. That's my opinion. Borup: Okay. Others? Moe: Go right ahead. Newton-Huckabay: That's -- I feel very much the same way as Commissioner Zaremba does. Moe: Well, okay, then, I'll speak, then. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think -- I mean I -- if I lived where these folks live, I'm not sure I would want a hotel. This is a very nice hotel. I don't -- I don't believe that -- but moving into Crossroads Subdivision -- you probably moved into Crossroads Subdivision fully with the expectation of having a continuation of the Crossroads Mall, which is what I fully expect to see as a citizen of Meridian, expected to see, and I believe that it's just not the right place for a hotel. I do believe turning it the other way would improve it, but I do believe another location would be better suited for -- for Meridian and also Eagle Road. And I'm done. Moe: You're done now? Okay. Well, quite frankly, I don't really have a real problem with the location of the property there, but I definitely have a real concern with the way it's laid out at the present time. I guess my opinion is I did hear a couple folks discuss that they really would rather not have a hotel in this area, but at the same time I also heard that if they were able to work with the applicant to come up with some solution as to how this hotel could be put on this property and that would appease the neighbors, that I think that's something that should be looked into and worked on before we just flat deny this application. Borup: Okay. Any comment, Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: That's what I was going to say. Seriously, the way I look at this is this is a Conditional Use Permit and it's just that, upon condition, and if, in fact, the developers and the people that live in the area can come to some agreement as to what's acceptable both from a development perspective and from the existing residents, but it's, in my opinion, not us to decide what is an acceptable condition, if, in fact, you folks can work together and come to some consensus that's acceptable. If, in fact, after having a community meeting you cannot come to a consensus, then, it would be our responsibility to either move forward to the City Council with recommendations one way or the other. In any case, my suggestion would be that we continue this and allow you an opportunity to have your community meeting and, if, in fact, upon that conclusion you Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 43 of 55 come up with something that's acceptable, then, come back and we will finish this up at a later date. That would be my recommendation. Borup: I don't know if that answers your question, Mr. Hennings. It looks like we are saying 50-50, about. I do -- and I'm a little -- I mean I have to look at things how I'd feel if I was living there, too. And to me, the only way it would be acceptable would be with it oriented the other direction and have no -- none of the room windows facing the subdivision. There is a couple other things that could be done, too. We have seen projects where -- where the -- it would only be two stories, perhaps, closer to the subdivision and step up. We have seen others where it will step up from a two story to a three story as it gets further away, something like that can lessen at least the visual impact. I think that is correct, that the traffic on a project like this for the space that's taken is much less than retail would be. Again, I don't know if the noise is even as much, but I'm -- I guess that's as much as I have got an opinion on at this point. Rohm: I guess before we close the -- Borup: Well, yeah, Mr. Hennings still has an opportunity to -- Zaremba: I would be willing -- if there were a neighborhood meeting and they came up with something that seemed to be satisfactory to everybody, there would be no reason not to listen to it and consider it. I just see it as being a difficult location for a hotel. I would be open-minded if there were a neighborhood meeting and it resulted in something, however. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, just to remind you that the zoning ordinance does give you the authority to require a neighborhood meeting. You haven't quite phrased it that way, so I just wanted to make sure that the applicant is clear and that you're clear that you can actually require them to conduct that neighborhood meeting. Zaremba: I guess what we are trying to feel is whether there would be anything gained from having a neighborhood meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I question if we have -- we have, obviously, opened the door that we are considering denial. Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And if -- Rohm: Well, maybe it's appropriate to take a five-minute recess and let them kick it around -- Borup: Well-- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 44 of 55 Newton-Huckabay: I still feel -- I would recommend denial. I just strongly do not feel this is the appropriate place on Eagle Road to place a hotel. Borup: Okay. One other thing that I was going to mention and I forgot, but my other condition I would maybe look at an eight foot wall along there. It would need to be raised and maybe some more intense landscaping, too, but -- Mr. Hennings, you still have an opportunity to -- come on up. Hennings: Just to point out, I think the wall is already close to eight feet high on the homeowners' side. In other words, there is a berm that comes up and the wall is, actually, part-retaining wall. You know, I wouldn't have any objection to it being higher on the hotel side, but I think once the wall starts getting passed eight feet on the homeowners' side, it will start feeling like a prison or something. So, more landscaping I think is probably a viable answer, but raising the height of the wall might not be a good answer from their backyard standpoint. At least I wouldn't think it would be good, so-- Borup: Okay. Any other final comments you have? You have kind of heard the initial consensus. Nothing else you want to say? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, the applicant has expressed a willingness to reconfigure it, I guess even starting from scratch. Is it appropriate to ask Mr. Boyle as a representative of his neighborhood to express opinion whether there is a workable solution or not? Borup: Yeah. Mr. Boyle, would you like to -- oh, the neighborhood would like five minutes? Yeah. I think we could do that. We will take another five minute break. Maybe settle some things tonight, rather than stretching it out. (Recess.) Borup: Okay. Mr. Boyle, have we got some ideas? Boyle: Commissioners, again, Clint Boyle. I apologize for that. I was just meditating for a few moments there, hoping for some inspiration here. No. Actually, I have had a chance to briefly talk about this with the neighbors that are here and the general consensus from the neighborhood is that they are in favor of a Barnes and Noble being located on the site. Actually, that aside, with that comment, after talking to the neighbors -- again, the concerns of the sheer bulk, the windows, the inconsistency with the compatibility of the surrounding -- not only neighborhood, but shopping center, it led us back to a couple of points and that is when this Commission looks at a Conditional Use Permit, you look at, as one of your requirements, that the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. Point B. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity and in the existing PUD on this site it even indicates the uses proposed within the subject application will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. With those comments in mind, looking Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 45 of 55 at the perceived at least at this point, negative impact on property values for those people that are adjacent, the lack of compatibility based on the sheer scale and size and mass of the building, the indication as was mentioned by some of these Commissioners and was mentioned previously in the hearing that all of the homeowners are fully aware that this is a commercial shopping center, However, nobody that was polled this evening anticipated a three-story hotel within this area. The I-L zone right now on this site is a planned development to allow specific uses. Obviously, the intention from day one on this was to develop a commercial retail center on the site and that is what has historically occurred up to this point. The hotel, again, is a Conditional Use Permit, which means not that it's an allowed use, it means that something that is a Conditional Use Permit may be appropriate in certain locations. This Commission evaluates those individual sites to determine the appropriateness and whether or not it's detrimental to the surrounding uses in the neighborhood. With that said -- and I know that was kind of a long summary, the consensus of the neighbors that are here tonight, along with those that were submitted on the pages of the petition previously, the consensus is that they would not support and not be in favor of a hotel at this location. There is substantial concern for many of those items that I have indicated, including on safety of children was mentioned just now. We have a common area that this hotel would look essentially right on, a long common area where many kids recreate, so there is some perceived safety issues there of having -- I don't even remember the window count now -- 63 rooms looking out onto common areas, looking out into people's backyards, et cetera. So, the consensus from the people here tonight, from the petition that was submitted, is that this is not an appropriate location for the hotel and certainly with that said there were many people in the neighborhood that indicated that they did like the elevations of the hotel from the standpoint of a standard hotel. It definitely is an attractive elevation considering some of the hotels out there, they would just rather see it on the other side of Eagle Road, maybe across from Blue Cross or in a location where it's not up against the neighborhood. The final point I wanted to make is to my recollection and to the neighbors here, we cannot think of a single hotel use in the City of Meridian that immediately abuts a residential neighborhood. Borup: Except the Knotty Pine. Rohm: Maybe I should back up and say a recent -- any recent hotel. And so we just don't feel this is appropriate. Would it be appropriate in a location generally in this vicinity? Sure. Just the adjacency of the neighborhood and how the proximity is perceived to be detrimental to the neighbors here tonight. So, with that -- I mean the neighborhood is requesting that thi~ Commission deny this Conditional Use Permit application at this time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2.2004 Page 46 of 55 Borup: I think that was maybe a long way of answering one of the Commissioner's questions, is would it do any good to have a neighborhood meeting and it sounds like the answer is no. Boyle: I would say no based on the neighbors that are here and the petition that we have circulated. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't know if we have given an answer to Mr. Hennings for what he wants. Okay. Something new that we haven't heard. Simons: Andy Simons, ABC 2, LLC, P.O. Box 15407, Boise, Idaho. I ran out of time, I didn't have time to mention one more very important point and that is that the entire 11 acres has a deed restriction on it that limits the amount of retail space to 25,000 square feet. Of that 25,000 square feet, about 6,000 square feet is already taken up by the Ram and another restaurant will be announced pretty shortly that's going to take another 6,000 feet. The bank doesn't count, but, ultimately, there is only about 12 or 13 thousand square feet of retail uses left -- left and allowed on that site because of that deed restriction. The developers Versified Realty Company that developed the entire Crossroads Shopping Center did not want more retail on this 11 acres. That's very important to remember, because if we can't do the hotel as a commercial use, we will come up with maybe another commercial use that mayor may not be, you know, appropriate either, but it might not even need a Conditional Use Permit. What we want to do is do the right thing and I think the hotel is the right thing, but that gives the neighbors some input here and if we came back with an office project or something like that, it might not even give them any input. Borup: Do you know how many -- how many square feet can be developed on that site? I mean I know it's going to -- the parking mix is going to change by the use, but you're saying you could only go up to 25,000, so what's the maximum potential for the 11 acres? Simons: Well, again, the -- maybe I don't quite understand what you mean. Borup: I'm talking both retail and other uses. Total use. Simons: Oh, we have never done a study for that. Borup: Okay. Okay. You're saying there is only 25,000, but to me that doesn't tell me anything, because I'm not sure what the total could be. Maybe you can only do 28,000. Simons: Well, for a -- no. I mean it really depends on how much parking would go with the retail use. Borup: Right. I understand that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 47 of 55 Simons: You can expect that your land coverage would be somewhere on the neighborhood of 20 percent, so on 11 acres you got to figure that 20 percent of that would be, you know, two and a half acres worth of building area. So, you're looking at close to 100,000 square feet of retail if there weren't any restrictions. Borup: Right. Okay. Are you aware -- do you know why that deed restriction was put on there? Simons: Well, I do know the developers, Diversified, did not have any interest in having the retail go all the way down to Pine. They never intended that. Borup: They wanted to diversify it a little bit. Simons: Well, I think they felt that by the time they got to where the present craft warehouse is that was going to be a big enough shopping center. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Well, at one time they were proposing a grocery store. Was that on this piece or on the other side? Simons: They can't do a grocery store. Borup: No. I mean -- Simons: Even with the deed restriction at one time -- and I don't know if it still exists, but the Wal-Mart insisted on a restriction. Borup: Before Wal-Mart they had a grocery store proposal there. Simons: The Wal-Mart insisted on a restriction on grocery stores. Borup: Yeah. No. Actually, that was before Wal-Mart was even looking at the site. That was discussed -- I didn't know if that was on this piece or to the north. You don't know either? Simons: I don't. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Unless there is anything else from any of the Commissioners, Okay. Anything else you'd like to say, Mr. Hennings? So, you're just - - I assume you're looking for some type of input from this Commission on the direction you may want to go. What -- I don't know if we know what direction you'd like to go at this point. Commissioners, anything else we'd like to say to the applicant? Zaremba: I had an instinct that this is inappropriate. I'm not sure I have changed my mind. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 48 of 55 Borup: Okay. All the other Commissioners still feel the same? So, basically, at this point, you're about 50-50. Hennings: Rather than continue it, we'd just like to have you make a decision and let us know where you stand tonight, so -- Rohm: Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman -- oh. Zaremba: I was going to say, I think we have a direction that a neighborhood meeting is not going to generate a workable solution. Rohm: I was just going to make a motion that we close the Public Hearing. Borup: Maybe one quick question and, then -- Mr. Hennings, you say a decision, are you saying a decision based on the application before us or the orientation we have before us? Okay. Zaremba: I will second the motion to close. Borup: Okay. Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Any other discussion? Zaremba: I, again, appreciate the thought and I think somewhere nearby there would be an appropriate location, but I don't feel this is appropriate and, as I say, even if you flipped it 180 degrees mirror image, I'm still not convinced that I would want to live behind it. A little bit farther away, like between the private road and Eagle Road, I would have no problem with it, but I could not recommend approval. Newton-Huckabay: My original opinion still stands. Borup: Okay. I think everyone still feels the same. Which I'm not sure who is going to make the motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'll make the motion. I move that we forward to the City Council -- that we forward to the City Council recommending denial of CUP 04-050. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Moe: Nay. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 49 of 55 Rohm: Nay. Borup: Two ayes, two nays. Well, I was going to vote nay. I still think something can be worked that could be acceptable, but the applicant said, as I understood, as we see it before us tonight with the same orientation, so I would go with aye, Three ayes, two nays, then. Nary: Mr. Chairman? I just wanted to make sure for the staff's sake in preparing the recommendation that there is enough information on what your specific recommendations are on these particular points as required by the ordinance. Borup: Okay. I think most of -- Nary: Do you have enough information, Mrs, Canning? Borup: Probably some of the things that was mentioned in the -- each of the Commissioners' comments earlier. Does that need to be summarized again? Nary: No. I mean we have the minutes, so I mean I just wanted to be sure you felt there was adequate -- I mean I think there is, but I just wanted to be sure that you think there is adequate for the recommendation to be done. Canning: For staff's benefit, if the maker of the motion could just summarize briefly what their reasons for denying the CU are, then, it helps us to weed through the hour long of minutes, if you wouldn't mind. Zaremba: The short answer is that some of us feel this is not the appropriate location for this use and some of the reason that goes into that is having third story windows looking right into nearby residences, 24 hour operation -- am I missing any? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, the ordinance uses the language design, construction, operation, maintenance is compatible with the general character of the neighborhood and I think, if I understood the comments, that's -- those were some of the areas that you would like highlighted in the recommendation for denial is the design, construction, and the like, the impact on the general vicinity of the neighborhood by that and, then, in the provision of the ordinance it talks about if the proposed use complies, will adversely affect the other properties in the vicinity for, again, the same reason, design, construction, location, those types of things. Would that be correct? Was I reading you correctly? Zaremba: That is exactly what I meant to say. Borup: And I think the other -- Zaremba: May I quote him? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 50 of 55 Borup: Okay. Nary: Is that enough, Mrs. Canning? Canning: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. And I think the other opinions were that it probably could be designed that those things could maybe be compatible. Rbhm: With a lot of work. And thank you all for coming in. Borup: Okay. So, in case -- so that is the recommendation that will go to City Council. There is another hearing before City Council and they will make the decision. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS: Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.8 acres from RUT to a CoG zone for Southern Springs No.3 by the Land Group, Inc. - east of South Meridian Road and south of East Overland Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-041 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for three (3) building lots on 1.8 acres in a proposed CoG zone for Southern Springs No.3 by the Land Group, Inc. - east of South Meridian Road and south of East Overland Road: Borup: Okay. Our last Public Hearing -- let's just wait a second. Okay. We'd like to open Public Hearing PP 04-041, request for preliminary plat and start with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Borup: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I only opened one of the hearings. We do have two. Let's also open AZ 04-030. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. Guenther: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission. This is an application for annexation and a rezone from an Ada county zone RUT to a CoG zone. This property contains 1.8 acres and it is right in this location south of what is in red here is Southern Springs No.1 and No.2 is up here for Southem Springs. So, this is, more or less, a continuation of the existing commercial development. This will be a three-lot development for three commercial buildings on the same property. Now, Mr. Steve Siddoway was the staff member who actually drafted the. staff report for you and in his staff report he had a special condition, which showed that there is two issues that came up. The first one was the extremely large number of trees on the property and he recommended that the applicant -- to get a hold of the city arborist Mr. Elroy Huff and