Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 7, 2005 P&ZMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 19 of 110 Moe: Okay. Having said that, then, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-018, PP 05-020 -- or, excuse me, 020, as well as CUP 05-027, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July the 7th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office June 30th, 2005. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and second regarding all three items. Those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from June 16, 2005: RZ 05-008 Request for a Rezone of 2.61 acres from R-4 to C-G zone for Walgreens by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane: Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from June 16, 2005: CUP 05-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 14,490 square foot retail pad with dual drive thru for the pharmacy on 2.61 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Walgreens by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane: Zaremba: Okay. Now, I would like to reopen the continued public hearings for RZ 05- 008 and CUP 05-029. These both relate to Walgreen's on the corner of West Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. And we will begin with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Just to briefly refresh your memory, this was a rezone and Conditional Use Permit for a Walgreen's located on the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Cherry. The Public Hearing was continued on this item primarily because the proposed driveway to Ten Mile Road, a portion of that, about two-thirds of it, lies off site and the city did not have consent yet from the property owner that owned that flag lot to construct that driveway for the Walgreen's -- a shared driveway for the Walgreen's and Mr. Vance. I did speak with the applicant -- actually, I played phone tag. I did not speak with her. I understand .that they do have a verbal agreement with Mr. Vance. They, however, do not have.a written agreement yet and they believe one is forthcoming, but it is not here yet, so with that being said, I think I'll leave the staff report at that and if you have any questions, I will stand for them. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: No. Not of staff. Borup: I guess not -- either of them or -- well, I'll wait until -- Zaremba: Would the applicant come forward, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 20 of 110 Agulara: Good evening. I'm Jessica Agulara with Hawkins Companies. I brought my senior counsel Tracy Vance also with Hawkins Companies. I'm going to just quickly go over where we are at with regards to consent and, then, I'll let Tracy speak in detail about it, because he's involved in the actual real estate process of this project. Again, Craig did say we have heard from Mr. Vance via voice mails and literally camping out in his front yard. He's given his verbal consent for the easement, but he did call me last night and left a message and indicated he had a couple of items that he felt we needed to readdress -- not readdress, necessarily. Location of his garbage cans for trash pick up, indemnification issues and he came back and countered and wanted additional compensation for the access rights there. But, unfortunately, I can't get him to tell me what he wants exactly, so it's hard to continue the negotiation process. So, as of tonight we do not have written consent and most likely will not be able to get written consent soon and at this time I have to turn it over to Tracy Vance, who can give you more specifics as to why we cannot get that. Vance: My name is Tracy Vance. Like she mentioned, I'm the project attorney for this transaction. Just to make sure that you know that we have not been -- just been sitting an our hands since we were here last time, I have left numerous messages with Mr. Vance and I know Jessica has as well and we have actually stood outside his house making sure we have talked to him and we have talked to him several times. He has more or less provided the consent in principle. As of June 23rd I gave him an initial - draft of a permanent access easement. We finally -- yesterday he finally gave us comments to that and that was after actually getting the discussion underway. I would say based on the comments, we are probably 75 to 80 percent of the way there. However, that is not surprising in a transaction of this nature. We are always working and working and working and this document itself, even when -- if I walked in the door today and said we have his consent, the only thing that I would be able to tell you is we have a verbal consent, because the access agreement will be entered into with the Hawkins Companies and him and it's not a document that will be entered and recorded until the time that we actually are ready to start a construction project and Idon't -- you probably know a little bit about what's going on, because there are kind of joint -- we also have -- the next one on the hearing is Black Cat far the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The issue there is because we are buying the properties from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, we are finding another property for them, constructing their building, and once we can turn over the keys to them, they have a certain amount of time to swap and, then, we swap properties. So, we can't record a document of~record until we actually swap properties, even if we have the consent, which is not an unusual situation when you're developing pieces of property. I mean so -- so I don't find- it. unusual that when you get -- when you get approvals that they are conditioned on certain ,guidelines and conditions that are placed upon them and approvals. I mean, for instance, if you approve us today, you're going to approve us to make sure that we have to have certain requirements on a percentage of landscaping and we have to have a certain amount of caliper trees, we have to have -- you will give us access onto to Cherry Lane and it's right only, and we have to put in ACHD's requirements to put in a median right there and what we are trying to do here is have a full access, but to do that we have to work with surrounding owners what we think is the best possible solution for this project, but also Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 21 of 110 long term, because, eventually, the properties to the north are probably going to one day be sold and the highest and best use is not residential, it's probably light office or something of that nature, and that is the most logical access point. So, at this time do we have a hundred percent deal, we don't. But do we think developers are nat in business to take risks. Before we start wanting to break ground on the Black Cat property, we are going to want to make sure that everything is tied up, so when we start -- we start spending serious money, things are going to just fall as clockwork. So, I don't see where this is a loose string or an unresolved issue, I see it as just a condition that has to be met, along with all other conditions. That being said, I believe we will reach a resolution. His comments to Jessica the day he left that voice mail, none of them were extraordinary. He mentioned that he did go to an attorney, to his credit. His attorney came back with same comments that were very applicable and I think that we will eventually reach an agreement and it's in our interest to reach an agreement as quickly as possible. If there is any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners? Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. I guess I'm a little confused. Number one, neither one of you were here at the last meeting. Basically, at the last meeting the discussion was not so much getting an agreement with them to_go forward with your project, as it was the access point into the Walgreen's property, and, basically, it was either you get an .agreement with the owner there, or, if not, you have to basically put our a the south of his, basically side by side. And we just simply requested that you get an agreement with the owner that you guys can work it out and have him sign something stating that it could be worked out and that probably would have sufficed. The other thing that I was anticipating seeing this evening also was not only the owner of the access point agreement with that owner, you also have the owner of the property to the west and I wanted to make sure that we were well informed as to what we are going to do with his property as far as screening from off of Ten Mile Road and such, to make sure that he was taken care of as well. So, my bigger concern is is that -- I mean we have seen no letters of agreement, so, therefore, the way the plan is today I would have to probably deny, because it's not correct. Or do we continue this on until we get a letter from -- of an agreement? Vance: Commissioner, on the letter of agreement, which I was wondering -- I have read the minutes, too, of the previous meeting, so I am aware of what happened. I don't understand -- you know, from a legal perspective, his letter of agreement, I, guess, would be analogous to letter of intent, I guess, would be a nonbinding agreement that he would agree to something that may be -- if, in his terms, he may agree to in the future, which the only thing that would give us would be -- he would -- we would have a good faith obligation to proceed. That would be the only thing that would -- it would be - - it would -- legally it would be nonbinding. It wouldn't really get us more than what we already have by giving a document back into him, getting his document, he finally got it to an attorney, he actually called us back with comments, and that's usually the way a realty transaction goes back and forth. we get documents going back and forth until you actually say this is the agreement that everybody agrees on, this is what's going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 22 of 110 signed. Then when -- in this situation when this agreement is signed, the best we could possibly do is get him to sign it and put it in our files, because we don't own the property at this time, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church owns the property and it's not a document that can be put of record until after we swap property with the new church, with their existing church, and so the logistics of it would be our deed would go to record, then, the easement agreement would go to record, so it's an agreement that we can't -- it would not even be enforceable until the closing, but I have in the past gat their signatures on easements and we have put them into escrow and waiting for the closing. But, like I said, I would legitimately say we are probably about 75 to 8p percent to getting a final document, in our window that's probably not second to the last draft, but, you know, it's definitely past the initial draft stage. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Vance, I -- the reason I wanted to recommend continuing this hearing and the reason being that if you didn't have intent by the property owner, which all you had at the last meeting was assumption that the property owner would allow that easement, then, you have to start over. Vance: That is correct. Newton-Huckabay: Craig, was that your -- Hood: I did read the minutes, but that was a few weeks ago now and I don't remember exactly what your motion -- Newton-Huckabay: If they don't get -- if they don't get this easement, they have to start this process over, because their new access would be a completely re -- a complete redesign of -- of the property and what we are trying to avoid is the exercise of sending a recommendation onto City Council -- it all takes time. I know it takes your time as well, but -- Vance: I understand, Commissioner. And we do understand that the risk involved is if we cannot reach an agreement, which we still -- we definitely hope that we da, because we are spending a lot of time and effort and money as well, that -- that we will have to start over. We, basically, are starting over from the very beginning and. we have to submit everything from the very beginning, work with Craig, get on the calendar agenda, and we do understand those consequences. Newton-Huckabay: But I mean that was my understanding from the first time is that you were assuming that you would have that access without having spoken with -- is that property owner's name Vance as well? Vance: It is. His name is Ed Vance. No relation. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 23 of 11 D Newton-Huckabay: So, anyway, I, myself, I would feel comfortable moving -- you know, recommending approval based on getting that information and you have made the other adjustments to it, but I mean that was the reasoning or my thought on that, but I do think in the future that having that in the first would have made -- you'd probably be at Council now. Vance: Oh, I would agree with you totally. If I could get my ducks in a row exactly when I want them, I would love that, and sometimes some of these are just a little hard to, you know, bring them together. But, you're right, in the best case scenario I wish we had everything agreed upon and sometimes, you know, that we proceeding forward and we understand the consequences that we have to -- basically, it's just like anew -- new owner with -- trying to develop the property coming in here from scratch. Jessica would like to address the Mr. White situation that Commissioner Moe brought up. Agulara: Thank you. We have met with Mr. White, both over the phone and actually met with him on site yesterday and what we are going to do is provide some additional screening for him on his property. We are working with him on that and he's agreeable to that. We are also working with him on making sure he has irrigation water available to his property. As a result of prior developments, his water source was cutoff, even though he's paying for irrigation water, so being a good neighbor and working with the irrigation district, we are trying to assist him in getting that rerouted for him. We have met with him earlier this evening and to the best of my knowledge there isn't any other outstanding issues we have with him and I think he's in support of our solutions that we have presented to him. Moe: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. We actually don't have anybody signed up to testify, but, again, there is an opportunity if you care to make any comment, either Mr. White or anybody else, this is your opportunity. White: I had not come prepared to make comments, but -- Zaremba: Please state your name and address. Thank you. White: Lee White, 1750 North Ten Mile Road. The property north of the Walgreen's proposed site. I guess I should do it right. Chairman and committee -- commission. As Jessica says; we had discussed things and concerns that I had are being worked out. There is -- I have no great concerns. They are putting -- proposing putting a screen fence up. They are widening the area, so that I will have minimal or none problems parking and removing my RV from this parking place and the irrigation problem is going to take some time, but they are willing to work on that forme and at this point there is no problem. Any comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 24 of 110 Zaremba: Thank you. Not to put you on the spot, but have you had any conversation with your neighbor Mr. Vance -- White: I have not -- Zaremba: -- and got a sense of his feeling about this? White: Yes. Mr. Vance and I have spoken extensively. It all is positive in our conversation. I haven't seen him in the last three days. His car hasn't even been in the driveway. He must be camping out at his work, because he's on call and a very important individual at his work. So, I just haven't seen him, but I keep an eye out and I'd like to see where he stands, but the conversation he and I have had is favorable and just ironing out some details and this Mr, Vance has stated some of those concerns. So, it's all a go verbally at this point. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Anybody else care to add testimony? Okay. Applicant, any last minute comments? No? Okay. Commissioners? I'm sorry. Come ahead. Agulara; I'm sorry. I'm not sure that it was clear that we have the store hours resolved. That was another item that. I believe needed to be addressed per my understanding of the minutes, Zaremba: Yes, I do recall that. Agulara: It's our request that -- and if you go through the minutes and recall the conversation that Mr. Hawker had with the Commission, is we are just trying to maintain the flexibility of a 24 hour store, although we will not be open 24 hours, we just wanted the same access, if you will, with regards to the clientele that Albertson's potentially has that's kiddy-corner to us and I know there was some discussion, but I don't know if there is any additional thoughts or comments from the Commission regarding that. Zaremba: Likewise, I remember the discussion and not the resolution Hood: Mr. Chair, I do have the minutes here and I drafted the revised staff report, I think all Commissioners chimed in on what they thought the hours of operation should be. At the end, the maker of the motion did not amend the hours of operation as were originally stated in the staff report, so that's how they stayed. Now, that..--.you know, they do want to change those. They are only 10:00 to 6:00, I believe is .-- or 6:00 to 10:00 are the hours that were put in there, so -- Borup: The only comment I'd have on that -- and I'm not remembering that all the Commissioners felt that way, but at least I felt it would be appropriate -- the same hours that Albertson's was allowed. That seemed logical to me. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, for fear of contradicting myself -- pawing through the minutes here, I believe I was in agreement with Commissioner Borup, that Ididn't -- I felt Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 25 of 110 like limiting Walgreen's and not limiting Albertson's really wasn't a direction I wanted to go. Nary: Mr. Chair, just for the sake -- Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Nary: -- of the record, the operations of this store has to be compatible with the neighborhood that is adjacent to it. It's not adjacent to Albertson's. When Albertson's came through under their conditional use, there were no houses back there. Those houses weren't built until after the Albertson's was built. Or a majority of them. There was a few neighbors, but not quite to the same degree. But if the Commission wants to make a finding regarding hours, then, I'd simply ask that they relate to the compatibility to the adjacent neighborhood, not to an adjoining business across the street. That's not what the statute requires. It has to be compatible to its neighbors, not just to another stare. Zaremba: Thank you. And I think my feeling last time was exactly that, that the idea is to protect the neighbors, but through a future CUP process --and to clarify what I mean is I agreed with the $:00 to 90:00 hours currently. At such time as there is a plan for the second building, -which may also be shielding the neighbors, my opinion was I would be .open to reconsidering the 24-hour availability at that time. I may have been the only one that felt that way, but I believe that's the opinion I expressed and that's how I feel tonight. Nary: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I simply want -- whatever the Commission's decision is, I just want to make sure that what the record reflects is that the compatibility is related to the neighborhood. Albertson's has a masonry wall in the rear of it, they have some delivery to the rear of it, but there is a huge buffer space between the building and the residences and if this is the same type of setup, then, as long as the record would reflect that, then, I think we would be safe in making that recommendation going forward for Findings. Zaremba: Thank you. Agulara: I'd like to add a comment, if I may. Zaremba: Please Agulara: What's not clear in the site plan -- and I'd like to point out to the east there is currently a wood fence that separates the property between us and the adjacent residential there. We are proposing on removing that and putting in a six-foot wall -- CMU wall. To the north we are proposing -- and it's not clear on that either, approximately from the corner of the -- get my bearings here. The southeast corner of the City of Meridian well lot, we are putting -- proposing a four foot CMU wall that would start at that proximate corner and follow the curve there approximately to the corner of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 26 of 110 the Walgreen's building, if that makes any sense. And, again, we are also providing a four foot cedar fence, per Mr. White's request, on his property that will screen his property directly across the proposed access point to the Walgreen's. So, there will be screening, as well as landscape buffers. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Zaremba: Thank you. Any further questions from the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, my opinion still stands on the hours. Zaremba: Questions from the staff? I guess not. All right. Thank you. Commissioners, are we ready to close the Public Hearing? I guess the items for discussion would be whether we want to continue it until we have in writing -- I think for me there is a slight difference. I was serious about -- my expectation for tonight was either to have the agreement in writing for the easement or to have a drawing that showed a separate driveway. At our last hearing there was no evidence that there had been any agreement with the neighbor and I felt much more strongly. Tonight I feel that there is progress towards the agreement that it probably will happen. I'm aided in that by the neighbor Mr. -White's comments. I still would want the condition that the agreement be -- that .there be some evidence in writing of the agreement. I'm not saying recorded, buf some evidence in writing of the agreement before City Council acts on it. But I'm =- it's less up in the air and I would be more willing to forward it onto City Council. -That's my personal opinion on that issue. Borup: Well, I had the same expectation. I think the thing that I have reconsidered is the time frame of the whole project. It's not something that's going to happen right away, with finding new property, building another church -- I mean this is something that's extended way out there and -- Newton-Huckabay: The church is up here in a few minutes. Borup: It's what? Newton-Huckabay: I said the church is coming up in a few minutes Borup: Right. But it's got to get built and they have to move. So, I mean just because that time frame being out there so far, that puts it, in my mind, a little bit different light on having all these agreements in place, too. It wouldn't be needing -- ,.you know, it probably was not much more binding than a verbal agreement, because; you know, the property is not being -- is they don't own the property. So, I guess all I`m saying, I -feel we probably could continue, you know, to move this thing on. Zaremba: I didn't hear that. Continue it or for -- Borup: No. Move it on. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 27 of 110 Borup: Continue the process. Mae: I guess I would concur. I don't have a real problem now. My biggest point was I wanted to verify what was happening with Mr. White in regards to what's going to happen screening wise and whatnot and I do understand it takes time to get same letters that -- the only problem I still have -- and maybe staff can help me on this or whatever, I mean we have -- we saw a plan at our last meeting, we see a plan here, which is not the right one, but I guess we made -- comments have been made about the block walls and whatnot -- I keep screening through this report. I'm not seeing that -- did we note this, the CMU walls and such, are they on these -- Hood: Mr.Chair, Commissioner Moe, the six-foot wall, CMU wall, is on page 15, number three, C, subsection C. The four foot wall that the applicant talked about running from the southeast corner adjacent to the north Walgreen's, that's new to me, so that one is not in there. I would ask that if you do move this forward that you, as part of your motion, include that proposal to include that CMU wall with the six foot CMU wall that was proposed already. Do you find that, Commissioner? Moe: Page 1.5? Hood: Page 15, site specific number three, subsection C. Moe: C. Okay. Hood: In addition to that, some of the screening to the White property has also not been included. That's new information as well since the last hearing. So, the additional screening would probably need to be added to the staff report, just so it -- Moe: Would that also be the access to irrigation? Is that -- we discussed that they have not had their -- we are still in Public Hearing, so -- Agulara: Commissioner Moe, technically and legally speaking, the property owners, the Seventh-Day Adventist or Hawkins Companies, we have no legal responsibility to provide water or renegotiate water lines to Mr. White or Mr. Vance's property, for that matter. We had a neighborhood meeting a few months ago and Mr. White was concerned about that and I made a commitment to him that as part~of o:ur. project we would take a look at that and make sure not to do anything to impede his access to the water and what we found out was that through a prior development his ,access was cut off, so we just -- as part of our project we are working with the irrigation district to see if we can get that connection made again. Borup: So, the water does not access through your property -- the church property? Agulara: No, sir. Meridian planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 28 of 110 Borup: That's what I thought. Moe: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Maybe just some of the things that have been discussed tonight, as well as at the previous meeting, just for your easy reference, I guess, if you wanted to change the hours of operation that's within the annexation -- or the rezone section, it's the fourth bullet under number two on page nine. The consent to change it prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance to provide that written consent from Mr. Vance prior to going to the City Council, so if you want to change it back to the original recommendation, however, I guess that's on page 16, number two, and, then, the landscaping, again, is on page 15, number three, subsection C, so -- Moe: Slow down, Craig. Hood: Okay. Zaremba: Well, before you repeat that, tell me again which is first, the building permit or the certificate of zoning compliance? Hood: The certificate of zoning compliance is required before the building department will process any application for a building permit. Zaremba: Okay. So, if we made it the CZC -- Hood: Basically, the Planning and Zoning Commission -- Zaremba: Maybe it will move on the ground until -- Hood: Correct. Zaremba: --- that agreement is there. Hood: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: I want to go way back ~- let's go back to page nine. Hood: Okay. Number two. Moe: Yes, sir. Hood: Fourth bullet. Moe: Fourth bullet. Hours. Got you. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 29 of 110 Hood: And, then, the -- we will probably need to change, it sounds like, page 16, number two. Moe: Page 16? Borup: I think we have different page numbers. Hood: Oh. Zaremba: Mine is four through nine. Hood: Page 15 -- page 15, number two. I apologize. Borup: Oh. Okay. Moe: And change it to what? Borup: Change it back to the certificate of zoning. Mae: Just .a little bit more discussion in regard -- I want to make sure that -- where are - we at with our hours of operation? I don't know that we have made that determination yet. Zaremba: I still support 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but it would not be a deal breaker for me, with the option to change it later. Borup: Yeah. Yeah. And I like that -- that option, if change is needed. You know, 11:00 wouldn't bother me either. At this point I don't know that it's necessary for anything more than that. I'm assuming Albertson's is midnight, so that would still be less than that. Zaremba: Their pharmacy is not open until midnight. The store is, but the pharmacy has much shorter hours. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: Something like 6:00 or 7:00. I'm sorry. Commissioner .Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: According to the attorney that we can't consider -- Zaremba: We aren't really considering Albertson's, are we, but just the neighbors. Borup: And I'm thinking of others next -- others that I'm familiar with next to residential neighborhoods. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 30 of 110 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I guess my thought on the hours would be -- I mean we know where I stand on that and I think limiting them is not in the best interest, but would -- to forward this on to City Council as is and -- I mean what is the direction that City Council is going? When we limit hours, are they overturning that at the Council level are they endorsing it? You know, what's their -- you know, I would just like to know where City Council stands on that -- on that issue. So, I would say leave it as it and move it forward and ask for that feedback to come back around. Zaremba: That makes sense to me. I think they have been supporting such restrictions in the past. Doesn't mean they would every time. Moe: Well, then, basically, in the comments it does talk about unless otherwise modified through future conditional use permits, which would coincide with the other building being built and such. So, the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 -- I guess I'm not opposed to even going to 11:00 myself. Zaremba: Are we ready to close? Newton-Huckabay: -Okay. Let's go with 11:00 and close the Public Hearing, because I don't think we are going to get -- Zaremba: I'm ready for a motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we close the public hearings on RZ 05-008 and CUP 05-029. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Okay. Okay. I'll try this. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-008, to include all staff comments for the hearing date July 7th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office June 30th, 2005, with the following changes. Yes. On page nine, under the zoning amendment comments, item number two, bullet point number four, I'd like to change the hours of operation to be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., in lieu of the 10:00 p.m. That would be it. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 31 of 110 Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-029, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July 7th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office June 30th, 2005, with the following changes. On page 15, item -- under site specific conditions, item number two in the report, the certificate of zoning compliance, CZC for site has been lined out, I would like to return that and include that in the motion. Borup: And, then, delete City Council. Moe: And, then, delete the City Council action. Then under item 3-C, I would like to add after the six foot.tall CMU wall as proposed, to put afour-foot tall CMU wall at the north property =- or not the property line, the_~orkh landscape planter. .Borup: As stated by the applicant. Moe: As stated by the applicant. Thank you, sir. Then, on page number 16, I would like to add an item H, which should be to provide additional screening at the north property for the White property. And let's see -- Borup: That screening was on the White property, wasn't it? Moe: Yes. Borup: Not on the north of this -- Moe: I'm sorry. That would be correct. That would be additional screening on the White property to the north. I believe that would be the end of the motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.; Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: We are approaching 9:00 o'clock, which is traditionally a time that we take a break and before we do that, I would like to get a consensus of the other Commissioners. The three items that we will take up beginning first after the break, I Meridian Planning & Zoning Gommission July 7, 2005 Page 32 of 110 received a whole lot of new stuff on today, a new drawing and a few comments from staff, but my question is a consensus of whether we anticipate continuing that to give staff time to mull over the new information and provide us with a new report or would we take a longer break to read through what we have and discuss it tonight and probably still continue it? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: I'd rather only discuss it once. Borup: I'd be interested in comments from staff on that, too, since it pertains to them Moe: Based on the new information and gone through with the stafFs recommendation, you know, they are still recommending approvals and whatnot, I think there is some -- some items that they probably need to work out between -- depending upon how the vote goes this evening, on if we do vote on that, if it was to be approved, it could be worked out between now and City Council, I believe. Zaremba: Does staff .have an opinion? Guenther: If you feel comfortable going forward with the memorandum that you have been delivered tonight, the detailed CUP, and with that understanding that the Findings and recommendations all need to be changed through the staff report prior to City Council, staff can do that before City Council, if you feel comfortable making that long of a recommendation based on any memo that's in front of you. We can do it if you think you need -- if you want to make it -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Mae. Moe: I guess I would say since we are going to take the break, I will have some reading material to read first before I come back. Zaremba: Okay. So, if I don't hear disagreement from others, consensus would be we will take a slightly longer break to give ourselves same time to do this and will, in fact, open them and hold the Public Hearing. Borup: Yeah. I think so. Zaremba: The end result of which may be continue it anyhow, but -- okay. In that case, we will take a -- Newton-Huckabay: But I think I'm going to be out, voted. So, how long is our break? Zaremba: Let's do about 25 minutes. Let's get together at ten after 9:00.