Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 2, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 60 of 117 Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 05-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.3 acres to L-O zone for Ashtyn Park by David Price - SWC of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Zaremb~~:IbaÐk you. We will talk to you all again in a bit and I will open now the Public HearingJ9L AZ 05-20, request for annexation and zoning of 2.3 acres to an L-O zone for Ashtyn Pà:rk-b~cDavid Price, southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road and Ðegifl,w-lthJbe staff report. -----"---'-. - Hood: Mr. Chair, I'm ready. Sorry for the delay. The subject application is 2.9 acres -- . 1-ÃGre$_,--_eXf.Lysive of the right of way for Ustick and Meridian Roads. It's currently zoned R-4 in Ada County. The requested zone is to L-O limited office. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Ustick and Meridian Road. You may recall this site was before this board early this year. They were requesting a C-G zone and a C-C zone for a Maverick convenience store. After the recommendation from this board, the applicant withdrew that application, did not go to the City Council. Again, the subject application is for an L-O zone. There are currently two homes and an out building on the site. The applicant does intend to remove the structures. The one home on Ustick Road is currently within the right of way there. Once it's removed the applicant will construct an office development. This is only an annexation application. However, the applicant did submit two conceptual site plans. Both of them are somewhat similar and I will touch on the similarities. The access point into both of these site plans is located approximately 150 feet south of Ustick Road in alignment with the access to Eastbrook Subdivision on the east side of Meridian Road. ACHD did approve this access location, with the understanding that if it does become problematic and accidents do occur here, they may restrict to right-in, right-out. However, being that Eastbrook Court is a public street, they don't like to restrict public streets to a right-in, right-out and would like to leave that full access. Just a couple of things that staff has included with the development agreement in the recommendation for approval, is if the future uses that do occur on this site are of the office nature or clinic nature or professional health care services, so it doesn't turn into a commercial through a Conditional Use Permit or those other means, that it really does meet the intent of this resolution to have these three acres or less parcels develop with office-type uses. The other thing just quickly to touch on is hours of operation. We are recommending that those hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. If you will notice the -- most of the items to be included in the D.A. are standard comments for a development agreement. We are trying to standardize those a little bit more with these as we are seeing more and more of these three acres or less office developments come in. We are trying to be consistent in those requirements of those applications and so what you see on -- on page 11 and 12, condition three, is going to be pretty standard from here in out. So, if you have any comments on those conditions, we will make note of those and try to incorporate those into future upcoming applications of a similar nature. Again, staff is recommending approval of the rezone -- or annexation and zoning to L-O with the development agreement and I will stand for any questions. -- --...- - ----'~- ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 61 of 117 Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Since you opened the door with your last remark, I would make one comment. And this is on page 12 and the last bullet of the development agreement. I would, with your comment, ask to maybe suggest to add a sentence to that. The one that's there, the vehicular access to the site shall be restricted to those approved by ACHD and the city. I would add a sentence something . ------ to the effect: Further, the applicant agrees that such restrictions may be revised to be moreJE~Lstliç1iye in the future. I think that's perfectly applicable in this case and it may be applicable as8---gener.Çl~ßtatement in the future. I mean in the discussion you pointed out that ACHD is not going- to make this a right-in, right-out now, but they might when they widen Ustick and I think we may need to make it clear that the applicant is _~greeing to today's condition. The applicant's agreeing that it could change. Hood: Mr. Chair, I do believe that's appropriate in this instance and just to further clarify, a couple of these are site specific to this development. Sometimes, you know, like the cross-access, the bullet before that, those ones are obviously specific to this one, but most of the ones that you see before that will be the more standard conditions. But I think you're right, since most of these are going to be on arterials, that's a condition of the resolution to apply for this L-O that they are on arterials, so I can see that, any access that can specify what road -- you know, it's limited to this now and we reserve the right to even further restrict that in the future -- may be appropriate in future applications as well. Zaremba: And the applicant is warned that that could happen and doesn't say no, no, back in June of '05 you said this is the way it was going to be. All right. And I would add that to this one, if the Commissioners agree. That's my only question. Thank you. Let's see. Newton-Huckabay: May I ask a question? Zaremba: Yes. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Is the cross-access -- the cross-access that's there to the west -- on the west side of the property, is that what we are -- Hood: Yeah. Let me give you a little bit of background on this property. The church -- Presbyterian church currently -- or I'm not sure if it's actually changed hands yet or not, but they own this property and they have a sewer line as well that bisects this property approximately where the dashed line is in the middle of the site plan there. So, what we envisioned is an access being constructed somewhere -- the other site plan may work a little bit better somewhere in here and, then, when the church develops any additional, that they tie in with that and that gives a better access out of this development to the church and, then, the church -- if someone is turning right heading south on Meridian, they could also make that movement without going through this intersection. So, it wouldn't be an immediate connection, but at least cross-access could be provided, so the church can, then, extend that and reciprocate that back and in the future, to the west Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 62 of 117 only, though. I did look at the south. That's planned for residential. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense to have a cross-access to the south, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, see, I would disagree. If -- potentially, if they take away -- if they make right-in, right-out only on their access -- on Meridian Road, that I would think -- potentially having access to the south, would -- especially from office into residential would be similar to like Heritage Commons or one of those developments, that you -- but that's a private road right below there and -- do you know what I'm saying? I don't think it's -- to leave that door open would be inappropriate. Hood: It could work. You're right. I mean we do see some of those. What we don't want to see, you know, residences or office having to drive through residences to get to offices, but, you're right, I mean it could work. If the applicant wants to do that, I guess that would be something they could propose to do. Again, this is a conceptual site plan, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: -- they could come back in again with a driveway shown there and, then, we could just evaluate it at that time, too. Newton-Huckabay: I would just suggest that we leave that door open, if it -- the access I would imagine for anybody living in Eastbrook has to be horrible with those -- on Meridian Road trying to get out there. End of comment. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant, then, if you'd care to come forward. Price: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm David Price and I reside at 2291 North Greenfield, Eagle, Idaho. I'm a little bit nervous. I have never done this before, so bear with me. I wrote things down, so at least I could refer to it. I just want to let you know, first of all, that we did place a notice that Craig had told us we needed to place and also we held a neighborhood meeting, we sent letters out to all the residents that lived within the prescribed area and did that a couple of weeks ago. Actually, no one came to the meeting from the neighborhood, but I have personally met with the people to the south, both families to the south, and I have also met with the two closest neighbors at Eastbrook Subdivision personally to discuss with them what was going on and perhaps that's why they didn't feel like going to a neighborhood meeting -- or to a neighborhood meeting or something, because I had met with them before that. So, I was going to give you this so you could see what I was going to read, but present some things to you, if that's all right. I appreciate the opportunity to meet before you this evening and present my proposal for annexation and rezoning the property I'm in the process of purchasing, located at the southwest corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads. Before proceeding, I'd like to first express my appreciation to Mrs. Anna Canning -- I know she's gone now, but the planning director was kind enough to take time from a busy schedule to meet with me and share her experience in behalf of this project. And, secondly, I'd like to thank Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 63 of 117 Mr. Craig Hood, an associate planner for the city, who -- he's had several meetings and phone conversations that take a lot of time with me and I appreciate that. I feel that L-O rezoning will enhance the development of the local community, while providing a location for services that are both desirable and potentially essential to the vitality of the surrounding neighborhood. Professional offices that include health services, such as dentists, medical doctors, chiropractic physicians, physical therapy, urgent care facilities, would add convenience and stability and service quality to the local area. Other professional uses could include accounting, insurance consulting firms, small business offices, attorneys or real estate offices, to name just a few. I believe the location of a city park immediately north of the property, the heavily traveled arterials lining the east and the north boundaries of the property, as well as the neighboring church to the immediate west of the site make the location much more suitable for professional office development, than for just residential housing. Although I'm grateful that the staff recommends approval of this request for annexation and for zoning, I wish to express my concerns regarding some of the comments and respectfully request you deviate from those found in the annexation and zoning facts and comments section and that would be on the following specific points and I took quotes from the report. First of all, comment three recommends that -- in that section recommends that no alterations, expansions, reconstructions or other enlargements to the existing family structures will be permitted, except through a certificate of zoning compliance and except where the use of the structure changes to a use consistent with this development agreement and the structure meets all applicable development standards, such as setbacks, frontage height, et cetera. That no building or other structures shall be erected, moved, or added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building structure or land be established or changed and used without a certificate of zoning compliance. And here is what my request was. My current request is not an application -- for this whole thing is not an application for subdivision development and it will take some time for me to get to the point of proceeding with that application. I have met a couple of times with the family that's currently renting the house there and they are occupying the large rental home on the development site and have resided there for about five years. The wife or mother is disabled and special living accommodations were constructed by the husband and the father to help her there. With the development -- when the development time comes I want to do my very best to preserve their current living status. I have told them I would do my best, so I don't uproot them and I would delay as long as possible any type of displacement for them. It is my intent to focus on possible development scenarios that could start at the south end of the property and, then, delay displacement of the family. This restriction on zoning compliance would place an undue hardship on this family by mandating relocation to achieve that zoning compliance as soon as any type of development begins. So, I respectfully request the above listed requirement be exempted due to the unique situation of this property and the development that is present. I would like to try to keep them there as along as I can and not displace them. At least I promised them that I would try to do that and that was his concern when he first met with me, because he, personally, had so many accommodations in the home to try and help his wife. Comment number two -- or the number two. Comment number three recommends that the following shall only be the -- shall be the only allowed uses on this property. Professional and sales offices, professional -- or personal and Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 64 of 117 professional services, clinics, medical, dental and optical and health care or social services. And my request is this: The church that is the seller of the property to us has been operating a day care for years without being obtrusive or creating any inconvenience or disturbance to the surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, the current operator of the day care facility at the church recently approached me concerning the possibility of utilizing a portion of this property for the operation of the day care facility. In fact -- or excuse me. Under these recommendations, an already established use such as this would fall outside the stated allowances. I believe that the neighbors of the property site are protected in the case of any future development of the property by the hearing process associated with subdivision application and future required approval for platting of specific development sites on the property. Any use, even to include those recommended by the staff, would still have to receive board approval for the future platting request. With this future protection already in place for the neighborhood, I submit it as redundant and unnecessary to place further restrictions upon future development considerations of this property beyond that already incorporated and approved by the City of Meridian, a definition of L-O zoning. We have all witnessed unsurpassed growth, major development changes in the Meridian area and it is unclear what direction future development of the neighboring properties and surrounding area will be. Protections are already in place for my future neighbors on future development of this property and I'm unclear on my time line for the actual development of this site. I respectfully request that additional development or zoning restrictions not be placed upon this property beyond those already contained in the L-O zoning designation, recognizing that any development I do will have to go through the hearing process anyway. So, I would have to get approval of that in the first place. Number three. Comment number three also recommends that the hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise modified through a Conditional Use Permit. And my request is while it might be assumed that a limitation on the hours of operation will serve as a noise or disturbance protection to the adjacent neighborhoods, such a restriction has not been needed for current uses in the neighborhood. Located on the adjacent northwest corner of this property is Settler's Park, which provides a potential for substantially greater traffic and noise for hours well outside of this limitation. Additionally, the church immediately adjacent to this property has activities well outside of these parameters. For example, in May, a few weeks ago, a carnival was held on the church grounds that completely filled all available parking, including the paved and the dirt parking, including the use of my property, potential property, and was not even scheduled to conclude until well after the limit that this proposal would place on that property. I recently visited the property site and observed the activities of the adjacent neighbors and the neighborhoods and noted car repair, lawn mowing, and other such activities extending well past these hours. During the school year some bus pick-ups in the area are occurring and many worker commutes begin at or before these hours. Within the L-O zoning definition normal uses would be included that frequently extend hours outside of the 12-hour parameter recommended. For example, urgent care medical facilities in this valley are commonly open until 8:00 p.m. or later. My own chiropractic office schedules patients at 6:30 or 6:45 in the morning and it is not unusual to see patients after 7:00 p.m. Accounting firms will see clients well into the evening beyond these hours, especially during tax season. Attorneys firms may do depositions Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 65 of 117 well into the evening and insurance agencies or real estate offices may hold meetings or classes well beyond these limitations. This is not even taking into consideration professional office times with only staff present. The designated use of this property is by its very nature going to be focused for a quiet neighborhood compatible services, with relatively low traffic volume when compared to the adjacent church and park facility uses. I respectfully request that arbitrary hours of operation limitations not be placed upon the property as a condition of development, as other adjacent facilities currently in use do not have such types of limitations and have been compatible. Number four. The report contained a general statement indicating that all trees must be mitigated. I have walked the property with the arborist. I hope I spelled that right. And he told me that I should report to the planning and zoning board that four trees, for a total of 60 inches, need to be mitigated. I respectfully request that appropriate notation be made that the tree mitigation is for 60 inches, rather than for all of the trees, like the report indicates. And, finally, the report indicates there is an existing eight inch private sewer service that bisects this property. It is not a city-own facility and would not be eligible to serve additional units. New sewer mains would have to be designed and installed to service the parcel. Sewer is available in Meridian road. That's the quote from the report. I'm unaware that code -- I am aware -- excuse me -- I am aware that code allows only one connection per service. However, this situation is unique. In my discussions with the Public Works Department, I have learned that the eight inch private sewer service is adequate for additional connections and it would, actually, be better for a pipe of that large size to have more usage, rather than less, so it can actually have adequate clean out, according to what they told me. The large size was used due to the higher elevation of the sewer main in the area, necessitating the larger connection pipe. I understand that to access this private service the church would need to grant permission. Such use would be better for their pipe, save the development cost, and eliminate need for tearing up Ustick Road. I respectfully request that the board not specifically disallow the connection, while recognizing that the church must approve such and the Public Works Department must determine that such a connection meets code requirements. An exception would need to be made to the limitation of one connection per service in this unique circumstance. Thank you for your kind consideration in my proposal and request. That's alii have, if there is any questions. Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Borup: I have one, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: It was back on your -- on your first one. The staff comment just said that there would be no -- basically, no alterations of the structures or adding to and, you know, the first one objected to -- are planning on adding onto the existing buildings or -- Price: Well, in my discussion with them -- and I could possibly have misunderstood this -- my discussion was that if we -- or my understanding was that if we make any type of changes in the development -- there was another section in that report also I didn't Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 66 of 117 quote and my understanding from that was that if we start any of the development process to change anything on the property, that it would, then, have to come into L-O zoning compliance and what I was trying to get the exception to -- if I understand -- Borup: So, it's your understanding that they wouldn't grandfather the existing use? Price: It would need to come up to L-O zoning -- yes, it would have to come up to L-O zoning standards if we started to do any change on the property and I was trying to say I wanted to preserve that and start at the south end to help preserve that. If I misunderstand that and I can start that without having to do that and it's only limited to change in the structures, I'm fine. I just didn't want to impact them as long as I could help it. Borup: So, I guess I'm confused on how you could do any development when you only have one access point. Brown: Well, the access point doesn't run through the house. So, what we would -- what we -- if we did the access point, we would, then, start the parking lot to the south end of that, then, we would start the development to the south of that and try to leave that church -- that church -- the house structure as long as we could and wait until we have completed that, gone farther along, and, then, make that change. Borup: Okay. We might get some clarification from staff, but -- or do you want to answer that now? As long as they don't change the use, is that grandfathered, normally? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that is the -- the intent. I'm sorry for not explaining that better to Mr. Price on the phone the other day, but, yeah, it is no alterations, expansions of the existing house and if you do so it has to convert to office. They can begin constructing offices south of that, as long as they don't touch the house and the house continues as it grandfathered in as a nonconforming use in the L-O, so -- and any lot lines that are platted, it also needs to meet the setbacks of the L-Q zone. So, when you come into do a subdivision you will need to put that on its own lot and it will have to meet setbacks and things, but it was not intended that the house has to come as soon as you start to construct that first office building in this development. it can continue to be used as a single family home until you decide to take it down. So, sorry for that confusion. Price: No. That's all right. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I appreciate that, Craig. Thank you. So, I would assume, then, from that that if we did plot that separately, then we could just come back later when that house is taken away and change that plot. Hood: Well, it would be platted as an L-O lot with an existing single family home. It's a nonconforming single family home. Price: And, then, I assume we would just change that later? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 67 of 117 Borup: Well, you just tear the house down and complete your development. Newton-Huckabay: Well, the way the house sits on the property, though, you wouldn't have -- Price: It wouldn't be the normal place that we would put a -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Price: -- an office. It's going to be right in the middle of part of the parking lot. Borup: Right. That's what I say, you would have to tear the house down and finish your project. Price: And, then, replot that, I assume, or something or plot-- Borup: Well, you're not -- Hood: Or what you could do is I mean -- Borup: Just do it in phases. Hood: Or what you could do is you could have -- you know, you're going to have to put the house on it's own lot and, then, when you knock the house down, you could do lot line adjustments and you can move those lot lines to where you need them to get your -- you know, to get lots that will fit something similar to what you're proposing conceptually. Price: All right. Hood: So, you do have to plat it, if you're going to keep it on a lot, and, then, when you take it down you can move it and things after that. Price: All right. Borup: So, it sounds like that's workable. The other question -- or the other comment I had was on your second one that -- about the -- about the restricted uses, you made the statement that you'd have to come through a hearing process anyway. I don't believe that's the case if we are zoned L-O without conditional use, unless you come in with a non-allowed use you would need to ask for a conditional use and there would be a public hearing. Otherwise, it's already zoned and if you're doing office buildings, there would be no public hearing. Price: If -- well -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 68 of 117 Borup: Your statement was it would need a public -- go through a hearing process anyway. Price: Well, my understanding from Craig again, Mr. Commissioner, but, again, I could misunderstand this, was that because we are doing a subdivision that we will still have to plat out this subdivision and present it before the Planning and Zoning again. Borup: Oh, that's what you meant by another hearing process. Price: Yes. Whatever we do on the property, we are going to have to get your approval anyway; is that correct? Hood: That is correct. obviously. A preliminary plat does come back to the Commission, Borup: Right. But that doesn't have anything to -- that doesn't have anything to do with the uses or -- Hood: It does not. No. This is zoning -- this is, really, where the uses are. You know, that's just lot lines, they are property lines that are discussed. Price: Well, that's true if it's -- if it's an office part, that's true, but if I -- if I was going to try to do any conditional use permit -- any conditional use -- Hood: Right. Borup: Then it would need to be. Price: Yes. And so -- Borup: But I don't think that's what the staff comment was talking about. They were restricting -- as you correctly stated, some of -- maybe some uses that would be normally allowed in an L-O zone. Price: I believe that if you review that, the ones with p's on that would normally be allowed, weren't restricted in there, but what they were doing was restricting -- my belief they were recommending that a restriction be made to only be able to do what was currently a P on the L-O zoning and that if I wanted to do any of the C there, it would be a blanket statement now that I could never do any type of a C and what I was saying is that's what I consider to be redundant and I would like to not have that as a restriction. Borup: Okay. I understand. And I don't think that was their intention. Maybe let Mr. Hood comment on that. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that was my intention, actually, because the intent of the resolution to amend the Comprehensive Plan does specifically say office- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 69 of 117 type uses and even though commercial uses are allowed conditionally in the L-O zone, the intent of this was smaller pieces, more professional offices and clinics. So, we are kind of cutting this off before he gets started down that public hearing process, saying, hey, you aren't eligible -- even though you have that L-O zone, you aren't eligible for some of these conditionally allowed uses. So, the applicant is correct in that if we are further limiting this to just professional offices, health care clinics, those types of things. So, it's up -- he does make some valid points, especially about day cares and things like that that are, you know, that by nature maybe being allowed in there. They may be appropriate, but, again, the intent was to be office uses and that's why this condition is put in here and you're going to see this again with pretty much every one of these that comes in now, because there have been some in the past that we said all uses were conditional or, you know, you could apply for more retail uses with a Conditional Use Permit and we made a decision that this seems more appropriate after reviewing all these things, that this is what we are going to pretty standard put on all of these requests. so I hope that answers the question. That is the intent. Borup: Well, yeah, in your -- where it pertains to the section line road ordinance -- Hood: Correct. Not all L-O properties, but just the ones that are applying for L-O zoning -- Borup: In a residential -- Hood: Correct. Borup: All right. Thank you. That was alii had. Price: Mr. Commissioner, if I may just make a comment on that. That was my concern was that already a mechanism is in place that places the responsibility, the faith of the Planning and Zoning Commission, that if I were to ever come forward with some type of Conditional Use Permit request, that you would be taking into consideration should that be there or should it not be there or what future changes occur in the developments in the area and my point was that I -- although I understand where I think where Craig's coming from, it's a redundant requirement. It takes away any type of freedom for any type of allowance from the Planning and Zoning Commission -- Borup: Well, the other option would be to come in and do a Comp Plan change. Price: I'm not sure what you mean. Newton-Huckabay: No. I think he's asking for a conditional use. Borup: That would be ignoring -- ignoring the ordinance that was passed pertaining to these things. This is already designated as a residential use. You're already getting a bump up because of -- because of the -- the ordinance change. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 70 of 117 Zaremba: And I think that that's the issue. This parcel would not qualify for an L-O if it were not for the resolution -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: -- that is separate from the ordinance and that resolution is actually restrictive. Borup: That's what I meant. Zaremba: And your point is since this only qualifies because of the resolution that does not mean that it's full-fledged L-O. Am I interpreting that -- Hood: That's correct. I was just looking in the staff report. I think there is some language in there, the three acres and such, that says no ancillary commercial uses shall be permitted. So, in keeping with the intent of this resolution that allow them to get the L-O zoning or do offices, we thought that this is how you limit it to no commercial uses and just stick with the -- the office uses. I was going to see how it exactly says office uses. Borup: So, the very resolution that allows office to go in there, you would have to not even comply with that, but that's what allows you to do it. The other option would be to do a Comp Plan change. Price: Well, what my point is is that you already have that information ahead of you and I'm simply saying that if I applied for the L-O and I already have to come to you anytime -- for any type of a Conditional Use Permit, then, I don't know why there should be a blanket statement in there saying it could never happen and that's where I gave the example. They are already -- already the neighbor is running a day care center and it hasn't been a hindrance to the community and I'm not even saying I plan on putting a day care center in, but I'm saying by its very nature it limits what's already protected by you as Planning and Zoning, that if you felt at some future years, if development stayed the same and -- or whatever, you would still have the right to turn that down, or if the nature of the community changed or the nature of the neighborhood changed, then, you could say something could be done. But you still have the ultimate last protection and I just -- my request was that there not be a repeat limitation even further limiting it, when I would already have to come before you to do that in the first place. Hood: Mr. Chair? And this may be for the benefit of the applicant a little bit, too. Is if you did apply for -- say something was conditionally -- required a Conditional Use Permit, I would have a tough time recommending approval of that project, because it says no commercial uses within this L-O. So, that's -- again, we are trying not to mislead you and say, hey, submit for commercial, that you can get a CU with these, because I would have a tough time as staff recommending approval, because of this resolution that gets you the L-O zone. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 71 of 117 Price: I understand that. I don't have a problem with whatever you would recommend and I don't have a problem with whatever the Planning and Zoning is going to eventually approve or not approve or whatever the uses are. All I'm saying is that if that is only being put in there to not mislead me, you don't need to put it in. I just would like to not have superimposed redundant restrictions placed upon it to take away freedom for the future for whatever changes may occur in the area, because the protection is already there. That's my point. And you have to decide, I guess, what to do with that. Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could add into the mix here. Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: Thank you. If it's your intent or desire to approve this with a recommendation the staff has, I would like to add that if things do change in the future and there is a desire to apply for a conditional use that wouldn't otherwise be allowed, you can also apply to amend the development agreement to remove that restriction. But this would allow you to put your current thinking on paper and make it that much more of a burden to establish down the road why things have changed and why you might want to reconsider. So, it would come before you with a motion to amend the development agreement and a motion for a conditional use. It's just some food for thought that -- when it's being described as not ever being able to be changed, all you have to do is change that development agreement. Does that make senses? Zaremba: No. That does. Thank you for adding that. What I was thinking about is asking you the same question that I asked Mr. Hood a little while ago and that's an interpretation of the resolution. If this only qualifies to be an L-O because of the resolution, shouldn't it be limited to the uses that the resolution envisioned? It seems to me the whole package. Baird: Yes. Zaremba: And that's what I believe staff is trying to do is to say because this is a resolution exception to what, otherwise, would be a residential zone, the other restrictions of the resolution should apply. Baird: That's correct. Price: May I ask a question? So, would that mean -- Zaremba: Please. Price: -- that, for example, the use that's currently being used on the church property of the day care, that that would not be allowed to continue -- or to be used on this portion of the property? Zaremba: I'll have to admit, I haven't read the resolution, so I -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 72 of 117 Borup: The resolution doesn't apply to the church. Price: No. But I'm saying that already the inquiry that they had of that, which I don't even -- I haven't even discussed anything about doing it, just their inquiry for that, by its very nature that -- and I'm just saying I guess I would have to ask Craig that there are some -- there are some uses that might require a Conditional Use Permit that would in no way -- or would not be considered what I would envision were the staff's concerns about commercial development. Is that accurate? Hood: That is. And that's why I said, you know, day care may be -- with a CU may be appropriate here and that's why I'm hoping -- you know, if there are two or three, maybe, that are not quite commercial and not office and they are not as described here, if you request those now and the Commission thinks that's appropriate with a CUP in the future as well, that may be appropriate. I just didn't want to open up all of the CUs and so we did that by limiting it to these professional office, medical clinics, et cetera, so -- Price: I -- Mr. Commissioner, if I may just say, I have to admit that I wasn't prepared to come with a list of the things that I would envision, as I haven't really thought about that. I guess, then, I would just appreciate if there was some type of wording that were to say -- were to say if there were -- if there were some type of reasonable conditional use permits that may be amiable to the community there, then, that would be something to consider. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking to have a maverick. Rohm: And I think that that's what everybody is trying to tell you, is that if, in fact, you do have an application down the road that you see as appropriate, you can come in and make an application for a conditional use -- Conditional Use Permit and an amendment to the development agreement and if it is deemed appropriate, then, that would be granted, but at this point in time you know what the thought is of the 7:00 to 7:00. That's kind of where this is -- that's kind of where this is going. Price: I'm not sure of the connection of the 7:00 to 7:00. I lost you on that. Rohm: Well, isn't that what you're fighting is the hours of operation that -- Newton-Huckabay: No. Rohm: Oh, I -- didn't you -- hadn't you mentioned -- Price: Well, that was one of the things, but I wasn't even on that page. I apologize. Rohm: Okay. But the conditional uses that you want to be considered, if you make an application for a -- what's the -- Zaremba: A day care, for instance? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 73 of 117 Rohm: Well, for -- no, the -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a comment after Commissioner Rohm -- Rohm: Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: I would like to suggest that we leave in Craig's statement as it stands. The applicant has options where if he has what he considers as a viable business, you have options, you can come back in and change it. This is the first time that we have had one come back through with -- this is a result of that Comprehensive Plan change. It's the first one we have had come back through, I think we need to stick with everyone's interpretation of what the resolution means and I think we are splitting hairs and it's 11 :00 o'clock at night and let's not start splitting hairs on his -- you know, his other requests and, you know, I would stand by Craig's statement. I think it's appropriate. Borup: So, that was my point to start with. And if we want to discuss anything, it may be the hours of operation. Newton-Huckabay: I agree with the applicant, that restricting hours of operation is inappropriate, especially restricting -- you know, with the -- section two. And I -- Zaremba: Well, the L-O and limited, I could agree. Newton-Huckabay: I think that the applicant is perfectly reasonable in asking that to be removed. I think his tree statement is a reasonable request. And I would ask Bruce to make comment on number five. Borup: And the comment on the tree statement, I'd like to see that in writing from the parks department, rather than a verbal statement. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And that's fair. Is that fair with you? Borup: Well, it already does. It says it complies with the landscaping ordinance and that's part of the landscaping ordinance is that the arborist look at deciding what trees need to be mitigated and which ones don't, so -- I mean I think it's being complied with. I don't think the staff's statement needs to change any. Price: Well, the reason I brought that up was because the staff's statement said that -- or the wording in there said that all trees needed to be mitigated. Borup: According to the landscape ordinance. Price: I don't know. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 74 of 117 Borup: Well, the landscape ordinance explains that there is some that do and some that don't. Some are considered junk trees that could be removed. Price: Commissioners -- or Chairman, I'm not sure why, I just met with him and he walked through and he told me what to say and I would have assumed he would give you a report. I'm not sure why he didn't give a report. It just wasn't in there for some reason. Maybe someone else -- Freckleton: Mr. Chair, staff feels that the clarification in our -- the way that the comment is worded is appropriate, that it should be those that are deemed -- appropriate for mitigation by the arborist. The way that the -- Zaremba: We have seen it at other times -- Freckleton: It's worded any existing tree four inch caliper and larger that is moved. So, I think we can -- Zaremba: Just change it. Freckleton: -- modify the comments -- Zaremba: Those identified by the arborist. Freckleton: The arborist's report. Borup: How about like sewer? Freckleton: For the sewer comment I'll let Mike Cole talk to that. He's the one that wrote this report. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's a private sewer line that goes through there. It's an eight-inch sewer line that -- while eight inch is a main and he mentioned that more sewer going through would clean it, that's a true statement, but it's not classified as a main. It wasn't inspected by City of Meridian inspectors, it wasn't tested, it's not a facility that we feel comfortable taking ownership of. As such, it's deemed a service and building code only allows one building per service. If he's asking us to take over maintenance of that, he would have to proof that it's up to our standards. He'd have to get the church to agree to that. He'd have to get easements through where it runs into the church's property, so we could maintain it. I'm not saying it's -- it's impossible, but he would have to prove out that it's a facility worth owning or work with the building department and get a variance on their one building per -- per service. Borup: Any idea why an eight-inch line was put in to start with? Cole: I did some research on that. It was put in quite some time ago and, basically, I think common sense says that they didn't have enough depth to run -- a four inch line Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 75 of 117 has to run at a minimum grade of two percent and the depth in Meridian Road, by the time they got to the church, it would have been out of the ground. You can run an eight inch line at 4/1Oths of a percent grade, so you're saying depth. You can run bigger lines further, because you're running it at a -- at a lower grade and so -- Borup: Doesn't that assume there is more capacity in that same line? Cole: Yes. That's-- Borup: I mean more usage in the same line? Cole: Yes. It can hold more sewer. That's not -- Borup: But the same volume of water is not going to do -- the same volume is not going to do as well in an eight-inch line as a four-inch line. Cole: That's correct. Borup: And so it's a matter of complying with the regulation that maybe in this case didn't make sense. Cole: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Cole: I don't know how it got to an eight service. Borup: If the church expands their building, they could have more usage, too, couldn't they? Don't they still have room to expand? Cole: If they -- if the church was still a single building, expanded as a single building, they could -- they could go into that line. If they -- if the church went to two buildings, you would -- it's two buildings into a single service and that's not up to building code. The plumbing code. I might ask the applicant, was he asking us to take over maintenance of the line or just allow him to hook into a private system, a private line? Price: Well, all I was simply asking was that the board not specifically disallow a connection. It specifically in the report disallowed it and I just wanted to have the option that if the church approved that and if, in fact, your Public Works Department people found that it was an acceptable line and so forth, that we could have a chance to hook to it. I'm not trying to make you decide now if we need to hook up, I just didn't want it to be disallowed. Cole: I understand that and I -- I don't think this Commission would make a decision on whether or not you could or couldn't hook into that -- that sewer line. That would probably be made with Public Works at a later date. I just wanted to make you aware Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 76 of 117 that -- to you that that -- that line is private and it's not ours. At this time it's not eligible to be hooked into. Price: Yes. I understand. So, perhaps I could -- Chairman and Commissioners, I would just ask that if you said at this time it's not eligible or something, that's fine. It's just that it specifically disallowed it and that's what my concern was is all, because when I have talked with some of them before and with the church, they didn't seem to have an objection and we may not even be able to do it. Maybe they will never be able to come up to standards and maybe I won't be able to get a variance, but I'd at least like to have that option. Cole: Staff has no problem with that. Newton-Huckabay: Not eligible at this time. Zaremba: Well, it's not eligible, because the code says you can't have more than one building on a -- on a private service line. Cole: That's correct, sir. Zaremba: And that's not going to change whether the church agrees or not. Cole: It's definitely a special circumstance and he'd have to -- he'd have to get the plumbing department to -- to okay it, if -- if he can't bring it up to prove to us that it's to our standards. Zaremba: Okay. So any -- Cole: We are not -- Zaremba: -- alternate agreement is subject to Public Works approval. Cole: That's -- yes. Zaremba: Okay. That should be part of our currently disallowed statement and is subject to Public Works approval. Moe: Could we go back to the -- just a quick question in regards to the time -- time frame that we want to just disallow the whole thing. I realize 7:00 to 7:00 is a little bit much, but -- I mean we did have residential neighborhoods around this, I think that was the main reason why we were doing some restriction -- that staff was looking at restricting the operations. I realize you don't want arbitrary hours noted and whatnot, but are you anticipating being open until midnight, then? Price: Well, I don't think I have any particular participation -- or anticipation, but I gave examples there and I'm not sure the exact nature of the people that I would be building Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 77 of 117 things for, but I believe that the development, in and of itself and the L-O zoning of itself, the size of the property in and of itself, is such that we are not talking about an intrusive -- it's certainly not going to have anymore traffic than the adjacent subdivision that's right next to it or the church. Hood: Mr. Chairman, again, this is one of the standard conditions, so if we are going to modify that, I would just -- you now, I'm going to read into that that you want us to modify all these, because it's going to be similar situations where they are three acres or less and they are adjacent to residential, so you're going to have similar situations down the line, so if you go with a 6:00 to midnight or no hours of operation or whatever, we are going to read in to put that with all of them, so we can, again, try to be consistent on those and they can be modified, but just so you know, that's how I'm going to kind of interpret the motion being made, is that all future ones are going to follow this mold, so -- Rohm: I think that you, actually, hit the nail right on the head with your original write up and that if, in fact, at some later date you want to come back in and request an amendment to the development agreement for a specific use, do so. That seems appropriate. And you see what the -- the direction that the planning department wants to go and if you have a specific use that you want to bring forward, then, so be it. It doesn't -- I don't understand why there is an exception to that. I mean there is a specific reason why they want to limit the uses within that L-O designation and that's why it's written the way it is. Borup: I think some hours are appropriate. You know, in realty, if some accountant was working until midnight and one car was sitting there, no one's going to complain. I think one of the purposes is if there is -- if there turned out to be a lot of traffic and a lot of noise, you know, there is a mechanism for residents to say something about it and -- Rohm: Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Borup: -- the city doesn't go around checking parking lots and seeing what car is there after 7:00 o'clock at night, as long as it's non-obtrusive. I don't think that's really -- to my mind that's not a concern, whether it's on the books or not. Price: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I guess by its very nature, though, I would -- I'm not sure that it's -- that the planning and zoning board would want to inherently place restrictions on that you also expect to have not adhered to and say, well, it's a minor thing or maybe it -- you know, it ought to be reasonable enough that we could do it. The problem that you run into is that if I, as an owner, am going to lease a space out to a person and they happen to have hours outside of those, before I can even lease it to them, I've got to come back through another hearing and try to apply for a special permit to get them to be at certain hours and if they decided they needed to change those hours -- what if it was during tax season and they were going to see clients later, I would Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 78 of 117 have to come back and get another special permit. So, what I'm asking for is if you don't feel comfortable having hours -- not having a limitation, then, at least placed in a broad enough way that it incorporates the type of uses that the very zoning itself allows. Further, I would say that although this may be something that Craig mentioned is going to come into play in future cases, this is a little bit of a unique situation, because adjoined on the north and adjoining on the east -- or, excuse me, west by two properties that currently are well outside of those limitations. The church and the park. And that's not going to always be the case when you have three acre parcels or less that are going to be changed to L-O zoning. I depends on the neighborhood, obviously. There currently is only small subdivisions to the side of it and that's probably not going to always be the case. Newton-Huckabay: I -- Mr. Chair, I have to agree with Mr. Price on this point. I think 7:00 to 7:00 -- your point, you put a chiropractic office in there, many people would want to go -- I mean 6:00 o'clock in the morning is a completely appropriate time to open up for business. I think 7:00 o'clock is -- you know, like H&R Block and those type of things are open into the evening to 9:00 o'clock, so I do think 7:00 to 7:00 is too restrictive and I think you do have a point that you have a unique area, because you have a park north, you have another L-O office phase there to the northeast there at Sundance. Borup: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Is that called Sundance? Borup: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's the -- Borup: Yeah. That's designated for office space, too. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right there. And you do have a church immediately to the west I think. I do think he has a valid point on that one, that the time -- the time line is too restrictive. Borup: You have convinced me. Mr. Chairman, I would be in favor of moving on and so we can make a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Zaremba: Well, are we interpreting that something like 6:00 to midnight of -- Borup: I say 6:00 to 9:00 is my vote. Price: I would be grateful and acceptable of 6:00 to midnight. The problem we face again is that if -- as Commissioner Borup mentioned, if I have somebody there who is working late like that, I can't have them do it and to have a time that's inherently the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 79 of 117 possibility they are going to be going passed that and, then, say, well, it's okay, because it's only one, I'm not sure that that's -- we ought to make it to where it's a livable thing and if it's going to be only a few, then it shouldn't be a big concern. We are talking about an office, as opposed to commercial. Borup: Because if it's not a few, there is no -- there is no recourse for the individuals. That would be my point. If you had 60 people there and in and out all hours of the night, there is no recourse. I would still like to move on. Rohm: I would, too. 9:00 o'clock. Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could have your -- this might be helpful. I think I would interpret hours of operation to mean from the hours of the public -- the doors are open to the public. If you have got an accountant staying late or a cleaning group coming in, that's not restricted by the 7:00 to 7:00, unless somebody on staff tells me I'm wrong with that. They are nodding their heads that's correct. So, I think that might give you some comfort that if you set it -- an upper limit, you're not going to worry about the person working late at night. That type of thing. So, without further delaying it. I will -- Newton-Huckabay: I say 10:00 o'clock. Zaremba: Consumer operations. Newton-Huckabay: I say 10:00 o'clock. Zaremba: Okay. Works for me. 6:00 to 10:007 And the interpretation is -- Borup: We have limited it tighter on that in commercial zones. Zaremba: Let's see. We don't have anybody else signed up for that one, but is there anybody else that wishes to comment? We do have someone. Thueson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, my name is Greg Thueson. I had not intended to stand up and talk tonight, but I'm Dr. Price's leasing agent, commercial realtor. I live at 4263 Nystrom Way in Boise. I'll just take a moment and, then, I will sit down. But I have been a leasing agent and commercial broker for probably 24 years here in Boise. I have leased thousands and thousands and thousands of square feet of office and retail and sold quite a bit of product as well. In the office market when you are leasing those to an office tenant, you do see people that work late. Not very many. Probably less than ten percent of any tenancy will have people work beyond 7:00 or 8:00, but in this day and age hours need to be open, sometimes as late as 9:30 or 10:00, just to be able to produce the volume that any business needs to to get things done and that's unique to maybe chiropractic, possibly accounting, possibly real estate and so forth. You're aware, I'm sure, of the fact that an office complex is probably the best neighbor anybody can have short of a city park, because people tend to leave at 5:30 or 6:00 and it is a quiet use and weekends are Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 80 of 117 usually not very busy. Many tenants close during weekends. So, I think that 6:00 to 10:00 is perfect. I think that's fine. And I think that's very believable and realistic. So, I think that's great that you're willing to give a little on that. The one thing that I wanted to ask very quickly, though, was related to this zoning use of L-O and, again, the appropriate process for permitted uses is C or condition use uses and the nature of the process should allow, if it's zoned L-O, for us to come back and utilize the legal dialogue in the agenda that's been in place for so many years, being able to come back and say I know this is a little stretch, but can we have this or that. I'm not ever imagining that he's going to put a convenience store or anything that's going to be heavy retail there, but what I do know is that I have already had one inquiry -- very serious inquiry for a child care facility and if I understood the way the staff's report read -- and I may be wrong -- I hope I'm wrong -- that indicated that there would never be an opportunity to come back and say we'd like a Conditional Use Permit for a child care facility and I'm just looking maybe for some clarification on that. If that is the case, the thing that concerns me is -- I only circled a couple of things here quickly, but technical school, a computer school that would want to operate in a facility like this, an office complex. Veterinary clinic. Who knows. I don't think that would be compatible with the rest. But child care center, family child care home, I don't think a home would be appropriate for him, a group home, but, definitely, who knows, a private club or a lodge within the hours that were defined, you never know. So, there is that gray area that if you shut those out, a greenhouse or a nursery, I doubt that as well, but mostly I'm looking at the shop carers. If I understood correctly, that just shuts the door from just every being able to come back in or not. Okay. I thought I read in December where it might be -- Borup: Well, it's -- Thueson: So, they do have the right to come back to -- he does have the right if a specific use is not listed as a permitted use. Borup: No. He would have to request a change in the development agreement. Thueson: He couldn't go through just the regular Conditional Use Permit process? Borup: No, because this isn't something that's been -- you made a statement it's been in place for several years. That's not the case. It's been, what, a year? Newton-Huckabay: Not even that long. Borup: Hasn't even been a year. So, this is a very new resolution that has allowed this special circumstance to allow an L-O zone in an area that's designated residential on the Comprehensive Plan. The choices in the past have been asking for a change in the Comp Plan. Thueson: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page81of117 Borup: This is -- this is skipping that step and allowing a special case like this an office use. So, that's the difference. Thueson: Okay. I think we are talking about two different things. Borup: I don't think so. Thueson: All I'm saying is if we are just going for L-O zoning, there are permitted uses and, then, there are -- Borup: But you're getting that L-O zoning because of that resolution. Thueson: Right. But that's the -- I'm just saying once we have L-O, if we have one of these other uses, we still would be able to come back and say, hey, what about a child care and the way I understand it -- Borup: So, it sounds like of all the stuff you have listed, child-care is probably the only one you're interested in? Thueson: Conditional use. Well, child care or other things similar to that that -- all I'm saying is there were probably 25 things on this paperwork that we received just within the last three or four months from the city that lists quite a few permitted, quite a few conditional -- not, granted, I think on there was a convenience store and that's -- we know that's never going to happen, but shouldn't an owner of property or a buyer be able to come and follow the plan that was given and say -- Borup: That is not the -- you're not understanding what's going on here. Zaremba: You're not requesting this under that ordinance; you're requesting it under the resolution which states what can be done on this kind of L-O. Thueson: Okay. Then, my mistake. I thought you were shutting the door on any of these other -- Borup: We are. Thueson: So, child care, then, is shut out? Newton-Huckabay: This piece of property is allowed to be L-O zoned under a completely different resolution than the one you're looking at. Thueson: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: It's like a different -- almost a different L-O zoning; would that be a fair statement, Craig? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 82 of 117 Thueson: Well, then, what we need to have is-- Zaremba: L-O resolution. Thueson: -- a different set of paperwork that identifies what is allowed, instead of informing us that L-O will allow -- Hood: We do. It's in the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: He said it's in the staff report. Hood: That's the -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. But if you choose to want to request a day care center, then, you can change your -- or create or change the development agreement with the city and, then, you -- Borup: Couldn't that request be made right now? Right this minute? Hood: To amend the conditions? Borup: Just add child-care to it. Hood: Yeah. I mean this is all up for discussion. Borup: Until we make a motion. Thueson: That is one of the intended users that has expressed strong interest in having a small child-care, a small 16-child child-care center. Hood: I guess what I would ask with that is that you state with a Conditional Use Permit. These other ones are principally permitted and they could apply for a building permit and construct these offices, but a child care I think is appropriate to have that mechanism that the city has established for all these other uses, comes back before you for another hearing specifically for a child care center. Day care. Thueson: Okay. Hood: So, specify that, because right now these ones are principally permitted. Thueson: I was misunderstanding, then. I thought that we would be shut out from ever being able to come back and do anything with child care, so I apologize for taking your time on that and I don't have any other questions, unless you have questions for me. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 83 of 117 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-020, AZ 05-01 -- on, no. That's it. Just that one. Okay. Zaremba: AZ 05-020. Newton-Huckabay: Zero. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Are you doing the motion or do you want me to? Newton-Huckabay: You go right ahead. Zaremba: My only comment was going to be as the staff report clearly references Resolution No. 04-454, my feeling is we need to stay in compliance with that. Borup: I have got that the applicant may apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a child- care at a future time. Is that -- Zaremba: But otherwise comply. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: Works for me. Rohm: Are you going to adjust the hours? Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: Discussion on the other issues? Newton-Huckabay: On the landscape to change the -- Borup: Oh. Zaremba: To work with the arborist, the standard conditions. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 84 of 117 Borup: Well, I think, yeah, they recommend -- the staff recommended stating -- oh, how did they say that? Appropriate trees or -- Hood: It's on page nine and I have -- those trees identified by the city arborist. Borup: No. Zaremba: Which has already been done, so that's a limited quantity. And, then, on the development agreement on page 12, the last bullet, add a possibility that there may be further restrictions on the access in the future. Any other comments from staff? Hood: No. Zaremba: Okay. Let's see. We have got that an alternate connection to the sewer line must be approved by Public Works. Did we get that in? Borup: No, we didn't. Oh, yes. I mean I did in my notes. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-020, request for annexation and zoning of 2.3 acres to L-O zone for Ashtyn Park by David Price, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated May 27th for a hearing a date of June 2nd, except for the following. On page nine, under paragraph K, to add that any existing tree larger than four-inch caliper, as designated on -- let's see. All right. Any tree as designated by the city arborist that needs to be removed be mitigated. Is that close enough? On page 11, number three, to add that after the first sentence stating that it's not a city-owned facility and would not be eligible to serve additional units at this time. Any other agreement for its use would be subject to Public Works approval. Page 12, hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 to 10:00. And the last bullet point that -- add: Further restrictions may be placed in the future by ACHD. And, then, Item No.4, that the applicant may apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a child care facility at a future date and this is the only -- only non-permitted L-O use that this Commission would approve at this time. Is that the proper way to say that? Zaremba: The only exception to the resolution 04 -- Borup: Yes. Okay. That would be the only -- okay. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you all. Okay. In anticipation that we are going to complete the agenda tonight, we will take another five-minute break.