Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 21, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 59 of 90 Moe: Wait a minute. Okay. As to be -- in such a manner as to be consistent with the public road section. Moe: Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-031, to include all staff comments of the hearing date July 21 st, 2005, received by the city clerk's office July 15th, 2005. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-031, to include all staff comments of the hearing date July 21 st, 2005, received by the city clerk's office July 15th, 2005, with one change. Under site specific conditions of approval on page 12 of the report, item number two, in the last sentence I'd like to change that to be the common drive shall have a minimum of 24 foot of improvement surface and shall be designed with curb, gutter and sidewalk to be consistent with the road system. Period. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 05-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .56 acres from R6 to L-O zone for West Carol Street Professional Center by James and Carrie Jewett - 1560 Carol Street: Zaremba: Thank very much. And now I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-032, request for annexation and zoning for the West Carol Street Professional Center by James and Kerry Jewett at 1560 Carol Street. And we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of East Carol Street and North Locust Grove Road, just north of Fairview Avenue. The property is designated for low density residential uses on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. However, the applicant is not proposing residential zoning for this site. As you know, the city recently approved Resolution 04- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 60 of 90 454, which allows residentially zoned property and depicted properties on the future land use map to apply for office zoning if they meet two criteria, one being they have frontage on an arterial road, the second being they are less than three acres in size, which both of those criteria are met with this property. Currently, the site is zoned R-6 in Ada County and contains a single family home and a large shop, which on the west side, so the shop's on the west side, very near the property line here and the existing home. To the north and west are single family homes, also within the same subdivision, platted within the same subdivision as the subject lot. To the south is a commercial pharmacy. They have a drive-thru window on this side of the building. On the east is the Fred Meyer and some other commercial businesses, a restaurant and some other commercially zones C-G properties. The applicant has submitted a site plan and landscape plan showing how he anticipates this site to redevelop with the office building, parking, and landscaping. The applicant has depicted one new access to Carol Street. No access to Locust Grove is being proposed. This applicant is going to remodel the existing home. The foot plan of the existing home is generally this number with a back patio and this is the scope of the addition for that expansion and the shop as well. I just would point out that they are proposing -- currently the shop is accessed from the south, there is a large door here, they are proposing to flip the access to the east and provide two parking stalls within the shop today and use the rest of the shop for storage. The approximate square footage of the remodeled building is about 4,000 square feet. I did want to touch on a couple of things regarding this application. The applicant did request alternative compliance for the required landscape buffers along the western and northern property lines. City code does require a 20 foot wide landscape buffer between office and single family homes. The existing shop is only about five feet to the property line and is proposing, again, proposing to retain that shop. Excuse me. The setback from the rear of that building is about 14 feet to the property line. The scope of work for some of the new improvements, the new parking area, the new building, encroached ten feet into that 20 foot, so there is a ten foot wide buffer now. The landscape materials are very thick through here and you can't really plant them anymore dense in that ten foot buffer. In addition to that, the applicant is proposing to construct a six foot tall vinyl privacy fence along both of those property lines to limit the amount of noise and any other intrusions that may go across the property line. Staff is recommending that the existing shop be allowed to stay, including the encroachments into the -- what would otherwise require 20 foot wide buffer, including the two parking stalls that are proposed there go down to ten feet. The proposed new additions to the north should comply with the 20 foot wide buffer as stated. Just a further note on that property to the north. That property is also in the same situation that the subject property is in. It also has frontage on an arterial street and is also less than three acres in size. Maybe not tomorrow, but I could see that property applying for a similar zone and developing as a similar use. So, I don't know if that property owner is here today, but if this does zone -- get zoned L-O, of course, this landscape buffer could be reduced down to nothing or five feet or -- and when it converts it could also be reduced. So, as it is today, though, a 20 foot buffer would be required. The same for discussion, too. It was not in the staff report and I apologize for not discussing it earlier in the staff report, something I would just have to point out. If you look at these other four parcels, these Office Jet Subdivision that was recently Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 61 of 90 approved with office zoning, under construction. I think some of the buildings were even occupied maybe even. But access to these parcels here, again, because they only have access to the arterial street, staff is recommending they at least discuss providing cross-access to that property to the north and they could extend that in the future if and when it develops with an L-O and it gets extended on down the line and, then, eventually maybe one access comes out to Locust Grove Road providing an alterior way to get into and out of, rather than using East Carol Street. The final thing I just would like to make mention of is we did receive quite a few letters on this project. A lot of them had to do with traffic and I did just want to note -- to further note it is quite difficult, there are a lot of obstacles and things to kind of look out for when you are exiting the subdivision. I entered the subdivision coming from the north, so it was easy to enter the subdivision, so I haven't tried to -- but turning out of this subdivision is quite difficult. There is five lanes here and four lanes on Locust Grove Road north of Carol Street and you have to really creep out into the road to see if there is any oncoming traffic before you make your turning movement. At the same time you have to look across, because Fred -- this is a Fred Meyer access that gets some good traffic as well and Walgreen's has one here. I didn't see much conflict with this Walgreen's access, but there were several cars entering and exiting Walgreen's and I also heard -- not the time of day I was there, but I have seen traffic stack up waiting to turn onto Fairview Avenue, traffic stack up just waiting for the light to turn back into this intersection. So, understanding that there are some traffic concerns, staff does not believe that this will be such a use that will just make it unbearable -- it will, obviously, add to the traffic situation out there. An office will generate more traffic than a single family home does, but the intensity of the use proposed should not have a significant impact on the existing traffic. The hours of operation, uses permitted, and access are standard for the other developments that we have looked at this way and similar to these other ones, staff is recommending approval of the annexation and zoning request, with the conditions for the development agreement as stated in the report. And I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: Yeah. Craig, I guess I would -- you spoke about the cross-access agreement and at the same point we are speaking that we already have a traffic problem here. All we are going to do is create more traffic if we are giving cross-access into the other one as well, but you don't -- you don't anticipate we will be able to take any access to those other lots off Locust Grove? Hood: The idea requiring this applicant to stub their driveway to the property and, then, to extend it so that the access on Locust Grove that this home currently has can some day go away and eventually three or four of those tie together and you have one confined -- or combined access to Locust Grove Road somewhere in the middle of those and some of the traffic maybe could even use that as another way to get out to Locust Grove Road if need be. I envision that everyone from the north will filter down to get to Carol Street to get out. You may get that as a movement for some of the cars. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 62 of 90 Moe: The project to the north, the other complex that's there, is there a cross-access going to the south from there? Hood: I looked that up this afternoon and they did not provide one to the south, so you will not get the connection all the way to Office Jet with that frontage type road here, because they just did their -- I'm shaking right now -- they just did their driveway and it stops short. Kind of what the applicant is proposing here, it stops just short of that south property line. So, we did not require that there. So, that is something to give consideration. You're not going to get the full road all the way extended. So, again, just for discussion purposes I thought I better bring that up, so -- Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: I can see some logic to -- if they could all interconnect, to having it align with -- it's called Avest, but I'm not sure what it's called there, but the street that goes around behind Fred Meyer. I did have a couple of questions. One is -- well -- and just gleaning through some of the letters here, somebody mentions Doris Subdivision, which I see indicated. Is this property currently part of Doris Subdivision? Hood: It is. I'm not sure what the lot and block number is, but is it part of the subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: It was recorded as a lot and block in that subdivision. Zaremba: That's what I wanted to know. Then, the second question is just kind of an off-the-wall one, I guess. Normally, Meridian Road is the divider between streets that are named east and west. I would have expected Carol to be East Carol, as opposed to West Carol. Is there an explanation? Hood: The way it's -- and I don't know why it was done this way. This is East Carol Street to here and, then, this is West Carol Street -- this is West Carol Street? That's how it's platted anyways. Zaremba: We will save that and ask somebody -- when we get to public testimony I'll ask somebody that lives there. So, anyhow, it really is West Carol Street, even though it's east of Meridian. All right. Never mind. We will get to that later. Commissioners, any other questions? Moe: Nothing for location, that's for sure. Zaremba: All right. Then, I guess we are ready for the applicant. Jewett: My name is Jim Jewett. My address is 516 South Capital in Boise, Idaho. Get my history out how I have gotten to this point on this property. About a year ago we Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 63 of 90 tried looking for an office to relocate our business from -- at that time we were in Eagle, into Meridian, because that's where I live, and where we do a lot of our business. I do real estate development and real estate marketing. Sales. So, we started looking at Office Jet when it got platted and the developer there was moving kind of slow and we wanted to be in by Christmas of last year and he wasn't moving fast enough, so we looked at this property during the winter and didn't know if it would work out and tried to do some other things and finally came back to it once the city adopted that Comp Plan amendment that would allow these L-O zonings in the residential areas. So, then, we negotiated with the seller and decided to go forward. This was an ideal location for us, because of all the retail, the restaurants and everything that was around it. Our office downtown in Boise right now is very close and we walk to most of the restaurants to have lunch and so we like that here. We can walk to the stores and walk to restaurants for lunch, instead of having to drive all the time. With gas prices the way they are, I don't want to drive as much as I do. So, we looked at this, this was adequate with the ordinance -- or the Comp Plan amendment, so we went forward, not really realizing how much some of the neighbors were going to dislike what we were doing and we will hear some of that and I'll try to address that after they comment. I'll just touch on some of the issues of staff. I'm in agreement with the staff report, with the caveat that we did ask for the alternative compliance along the north and that was really -- if we don't get it down to ten feet, the amount that we are allowed to expand becomes very limited, because we can't expand this way, it doesn't make sense for us to expand this way, and we can't expand that way. So, if we lose ten feet, our expansion goes about like this. So, it really is minimized how much we can do and, then, we either have to look at going up or just going smaller. Or one of the options I talked to staff about is just waiting for something to change at the north and doing our expansion then, which might be one of the options we look at. But with staff commenting that cross-access easement might be appropriate, we certainly would agree that that would be appropriate. We have acknowledged that that is future, then, the alternative compliance becomes more of a real reason to look at it more seriously now, because we are saying a cross-access is good enough to go north, why can't we get an alternative compliance to move our building a little closer north, acknowledging that it's going to move that way. Traffic. We could start now and not finish for a long time on traffic all over town. We have only a few employees that come in first in the morning and leave right at 5:00 o'clock. Most of our traffic that we would come -- all throughout the course of the day with delivery people and runners and stuff like that, this isn't -- you know, that's a full-time staff that's there that comes first thing in the morning and leaves the last thing at night. It's limited. So, I do agree this would have more traffic than a residential home, but I don't think the traffic impact that we are necessarily going to bring would be that significant to what the entire development in north Meridian brings down with this, so our little impact would be minimal for that. And I would acknowledge that a left-hand turn at 8:00 o'clock might be a little bit difficult. Me, personally, would probably make a right-hand turn, go up to Fairview, and go down to Meridian Road and head north of town, if that's the direction I chose to go. This is -- and if you could go to the map which shows the -- all the properties. Thank you. Doris sub. Doris sub was this down to right here. Everything that was inside of that is part of the original Doris sub. Walgreen's, Idaho Athletic Club, these other little two businesses here, and Office Jet were all part of the original Doris Meridian Plannin9 & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 64 of 90 sub. So, in the course of time -- Doris sub was originally platted in 1959, through the course they have had changes to the CC&Rs that have allowed these commercial uses to go on and if you go to the aerial map, I think if you look at this -- I guess this is the biggest that I can show is -- you see Fred Meyer, you see Walgreen's, you see a little commercial, Idaho Athletic Center is right here. You see the Key Bank here. McDonald's here. They have the TCBY. I think there is a Take and Bake store here. Across the street a video store. A Winger's over here. And it goes on and on and on. You see all the retail there. Obviously, anything along this corridor is naturally going to flow towards some sort of professional office and it would, actually, offer a greater buffer for that residential that wants to remain. Unfortunately, the Doris sub only has one access. It was designed that way. It was limited that way. I don't know with any of the development over here if there is a potential that there will be another access to Fairview for the Doris sub. Possible, but right now it is what's limited there. So, I believe that this is -- I know this is a good use and a good place for us. I think we would be a good friendly neighbor. You know, we would operate a real estate and development business there. We would use the shop for storages of some signs, you know, marketing signs, real estate signs, some of our small equipment. If we were to renovate the house -- and I don't know if you have a picture of the renovation that we were planning. I do have one that you can put on your overhead, if you can do that. Hood: I can get one. Jewett: Okay. We were planning a pretty extensive remodel to the existing home and when we are done it will have vertical walls, with some awnings, all stucco, not to look anything like the house. So, we were going to keep the existing home and just take the existing composition shingles off and put these -- a metal -- colored metal roof in place of it and, then, use some vertical flat walls and this will all be stucco. And, then, these will be a metal awning that would probably be painted the color to match the roof. So, we are using the same footprint. That's the front of the house facing Carol. So, we are going to use the exact perimeter, we were just going to go in there and make some drastic changes on the ends and the colors to create something that would look professional and would fit in with the other retail businesses along Locust Grove. I don't know who made the mistake of putting west in there for us. I saw that in the letter. It was a mistake on our part and we certainly will correct that, if it's not west. I know that a lot of neighbors have some questions, so I will try to take as good of notes as I can to answer them, but I would answer any questions that the Commission may have right now. Zaremba: Commissioners? I would discuss one and that's probably the visibility coming out. Can we go back to either a site plan or -- Jewett: I did -- and I had that written down and I did forget the visibility coming out. Zaremba: I just -- I'm not sure. I have made the turn out of Fred Meyer several times and I, actually, don't like it. I now prefer to go up here if I need to leave Fred Meyers, but -- so, I understand the difficulty of this intersection just the way it sits. But what I Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21. 2005 Page 65 of 90 don't remember is -- there may be some bushes that you could -- I know we are asking for landscaping, but now I'm suggesting that you remove some. Jewett: Actually, our original landscape plan -- there is a row of -- a row of Arborvitae that was actually requested by ACHD or required by the previous owner -- or at least current owner when ACHD widened the road to shelter them from the road. And, yes, it is an obstacle. I pulled out and made a left-hand turn the other day and I noticed that I had to creep out into traffic. So, that very afternoon I called the architect to have him remove those and send a new plan down to the staff showing that those Arborvitae to be removed and that there would be low hedges in there or low growing plants. We left the one taller tree, just trimmed it up so you have the site distance. So, there is a problem with creeping out there. I can see on this map, too, you can look at it, because there is five lanes here the sidewalk doesn't exactly line up with this sidewalk. This sidewalk is pushed out a little bit. So, there is a little bit of a -- the road itself makes you want to creep out a little bit to see traffic, but the Arborvitaes do definitely make an issue there and we do on our landscape plan show those being removed. And, actually, not-- yeah. This row here -- those are R's that says remove. We are actually relocating those along here and along here, because they are very healthy, nice Arborvitae and if we can transplant them over, then, we won't have to start with one down here, we can start one that's already seven feet tall. So, these are -- these are planned to be removed and you can see them very clearly there, the Arborvitae, back in here, leaving this existing tree here, leaving it here -- actually, there is a very nice one right here, we were going to relocate it over to here. Again, it wouldn't provide any sight distance, but it would offer a little bit more landscaping. So, yes, that was the plan I had written down that I had forgot about that. I apologize. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We will move on to public testimony and the first name I have is Dennis Ray. Okay. Actually, if you're going to be a spokesman, let me have you start first if you would, please. And we will give you ten minutes. McRoberts: I didn't know I was coming up this soon. Okay. Here we go. Keith McRoberts, 1490 South Carol, which is, actually, what everybody has been calling West Carol tonight, and I live right to the west of the property that we are talking about. Right here is our property. And this is South Carol, West Carol, East Carol, and North Carol. That's what the signs say, anyway. I could be wrong. The first thing we had 24 people sign a petition. Now, that's more than the majority of what it takes for -- in our covenants it says that we have to have more -- the majority to change the covenants. So, really, I can't understand or -- what we are doing here, because it's not up to the city or the zoning, it's up to the homeowners to change that. Maybe you can tell me different. I don't know. Am I right on that? Zaremba: Well, the CC&Rs are -- the enforcement of CC&Rs is not an issue for the city, it's an issue for the property owners, a legal issue. There is an encumbrance on each of your properties that everybody agreed to in your CC&Rs. That's totally separate from what the city uses, which is the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances and we don't get involved in enforcing CC&Rs. Something may be very legal in the city Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 66 of 90 that isn't agreed to by your CC&Rs, but that's an issue for you to deal with lawyers and stuff among yourselves. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to help you or hurt you. McRoberts: Okay. We will look into that, then. Another problem I'd like to get into, too, is with commercial so close to our residential properties, it seems to hurt the value of our properties when that commercial becomes involved with residential areas and, you know -- but we have already got -- on our street where our property is we have already got commercial in right across the street from us and this just adds onto the side of us, we will have commercial there, and, then, it really hurts the resale of a home to try to sell it as a residence -- to try to sell it to even replace it at the same kind of building, we would have to sell commercial to get to it, so it's just like a domino effect, one building go after another and, then, it all goes to commercial. And I heard him say that they would be good neighbors. We heard that here a few years ago in this very room for from when Walgreen's went in, promises made that were broken. The lights -- we don't -- my wife -- in our house we need to even -- haven't turned on the lights in our bedroom, because we got light from the parking lot across the street. The only time we turn the lights on in the bedroom is when we read -- have to read, our reading lamps. The garbage bin, the dumpster is right pretty close to us, and they are throwing stuff in the dumpster all the time. The drive-up window -- they don't need a drive-up window, because they tell them it will take 15, 20 minutes to fill their order and they are just telling them to come inside and do their shopping and they will have it. So, they don't need the drive-up window, which we hear on our patio anyway. The traffic is another thing. That's our only way in and our only way out of our subdivision. We like it that way, it cuts down on the traffic, but we got also in our CC&Rs to not have commercial, should not impede in our residential roadways. Well, we all went through that just this week when a truck came through and knocked down power lines, telephone lines, and we were out telephone -- some people were without telephone for three days and that was a real -- what can bring existing problems in when you get extra traffic coming in and out. Another point I'd like to make, we all bought our homes in a residential area as a residence in a residential subdivision and we'd all like to keep it that way. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. You mentioned in the letter that you and -- I'm guessing it's your wife -- wrote, which, of course, is in the record, that there were promised changes on Locust Grove that have not been kept. What-- McRoberts: Yeah. Zaremba: What was promised for Locust Grove? McRoberts: When they put in Walgreen's, they promised a right-in, right-out only, and the sign was up for awhile until they widened North Locust Grove and the sign's gone altogether. There now is a stop sign. And that didn't really stop it, right-in, right-out, the sign didn't stop the traffic. Zaremba: That's the Walgreen's Driveway you're talking about? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 67 of 90 McRoberts: Right. Zaremba: Yeah. McRoberts: So, we get -- you know, they make all kinds of promises and once they are in there is no way to enforce it. I mean the city didn't -- they promised us stuff, like shades for the lights in the parking lot in Walgreen's. We didn't get them. Who really checks up on these people to make sure that they do all these promises that they make? We haven't had that. Zaremba: There, actually, is now a code enforcement officer. This is a new thing as of, actually, a couple of years ago now, but by calling the police department and asking for the code enforcement officer, they can come out and make sure that the lights are -- McRoberts: But we went into that, too. One neighbor has the cover, but we are so close, the lights are so high, it doesn't make any difference. Zaremba: They are not supposed to bleed off the property. They shouldn't -- and that's the way to handle it is call the code enforcement officer. McRoberts: Okay. Zaremba: That may not have been possible several years ago, but it is becoming possible now. Okay. I will go through the list and if Mr. McRoberts was speaking for you, if you will just indicate that, please. Dennis Ray already said that. Okay. Wanda-- - is it Waters or Walters? Okay. She has been spoken for. Betty J. Ray. Okay. Has been spoken for. Dale O. Ray. Okay. Spoken for. There is two Betty J. Rays. Okay. This is a different Betty J. Ray? Okay. And spoken for. Thank you. Charles Stewart. Come forward, please. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Charles R. Stewart. 1870 West Carol. We moved to Carol Street about two years ago after living for 37 years on West Pine, which, you know, is quite a thoroughfare nowadays. We have lived in Meridian all of our lives. We looked for two years to find a place that met our criteria and something we could afford, because I wasn't lucky enough to make lots of money through the years. The traffic in there is -- it's very nice, because most people that come in come in for a reason. If I could see the overhead map for a second, please. That -- where it goes from four lanes to five lanes, these people come down the street at a very high rate of speed and it's 35 miles an hour right there now, which is nearly too fast and most -- very few people drive the speed limit, as we all know. If you stick your nose out here, out there, you do nearly get it clipped everytime by these people coming down to get to this corner to get somewhere in a hurry. That's -- and nearly half the people in this subdivision are retired people. So, we usually aren't in a hurry to get somewhere, but we get run over quite easily. This is marked here as a no parking zone for the people coming south, but the left turn lane, which is phasing clear out now, they started using that clear up here and it -- if it's marked clearly, it starts clear down here. So, it gives us Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 68 of 90 room to pull into a protected area. This back -- this backs up waiting to turn left this way clear passed the intersection. They did not leave us an opening here, so we sit in traffic right here with people coming across this way just flying or around the corner and here we are sitting there. And this traffic here -- I have been sitting here making a left-hand turn in to my own subdivision and had this person over here think, well, I was here first and as soon as it gets open, pull right in front of me to go in. So, all this other traffic is just going to make this situation worse as we go. I can't pull into this protected area, which -- I thought -- it's yellow line on both sides. Should be a protected area, because these people coming down here, they take -- they take an angle about like this for that left turn lane, so that's my concern about traffic. It's not going to get any better and if we make this a cross-access through here, it just adds to the problem. Now, I'd like to see this closed and we will cross-access to them and come out up there away from the traffic problem. I stepped it off. It's approximately 400 feet up here to the -- on the back side here and there is one, two, three, four, five accesses in the little short 400 feet of area there and back through the years somebody else has gave all of us this problem and so I guess that's my main concerns is the traffic and the commercial just keeps encroaching on us. Pretty soon I guess I'll have to go commercial and, then, what willi do to my neighbors and that's not being a very good neighbor. And I don't know how to turn this off. Zaremba: All right. McRoberts: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: If I could make a comment on the traffic issue. Meridian recently passed a law that prohibits cars from traveling more than a hundred feet in the center turn lane. I know it's an enforcement issue, so I encourage you to work with the police department to keep that intersection from being blocked and to, you know, have them start to enforcing that law to give you the access that you need. McRoberts: Thank you. And that has been discussed and I have been told how many officers there are per capita for our city and that is not one of their priorities. Baird: More are on the way. Zaremba: Thank you: N.K. Steward. Spoken for. Thank you. Gilbert Tuning. Tuning: My name is Gilbert Tuning. I live at 1830 West Carol. And I have lived there for 13 years and I have some of the same sentiments that the people that spoke before me have. I would just ask that the Commission and the staff consider the danger that there is at that intersection. It is there presently and I feel that with any type of increase that we can have control over and we can stop, we need to do that. It is a very dangerous place for myself, my wife, my children that come in and out of there. You know, I have seen people drive down that road at a highway speed -- and I realize it's Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 69 of gO an enforcement issue, but they can't enforce, they just cannot be every place. We have the ability to stop some of the traffic by not allowing this to happen. People come down that -- I leave early in the morning and I pull out onto that intersection and people want to make that light so badly, if they were just going 35 miles an hour, I could probably pull out in front of them and get to the light, but some of them are doing 55 and 60 miles an hour to try and make the light. It is a very dangerous situation with all the other guideways that access Locust Grove and I think that the staff probably needs to look at it a little harder, instead of just driving in and out of there, look at it a few different times during the day, see the traffic backed up, you know, a hundred feet passed our intersection and I would just like you to all very seriously consider the danger that there is at that intersection. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Lynn Tuning. L.Tuning: Lynn Tuning. 1830 West Carol. The only comment I'd like to add is I, too, am concerned about the devaluation to our property by just commercial business going in and I'm not sure from the picture what it looks like -- they propose it to look like. But we did buy that as a residence and that's where we live and our grandchildren come and play and ride their bikes and it's a quiet neighborhood, it's contained within itself. We feel pretty safe there that there is not a lot of traffic coming in and out and I, too, am concerned with additional traffic and the difficulties that we already face with the traffic problems getting onto Locust Grove in all directions. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Jennifer McRoberts. J.McRoberts: Jennifer McRoberts, 1490 Carol. I'd like to add that we have all assumed the homes in Doris Subdivision facing North Locust Grove would probably eventually all go to commercial. This home does not face North Locust Grove. As the business they were pointing to as a comparable down the road, that had an exit onto a side street, it's facing north Locust Grove, it's not facing into a residential subdivision and that's -- and we don't need the parking lot next to our property and if they are allowed to keep the shop, we don't get the 20 foot -- Zaremba: Buffer. J.McRoberts: -- buffer zone. And it's just not -- not a good fit for our neighborhood. We realize there are commercial all around us, that is one positive. We have an acre of ground. We still feel like we are in the county, but we have businesses close to us. Just because we have businesses close to us doesn't mean we want one right next door. Zaremba: Thank you. Debbie Woodall. Woodall: Hello, Commission members. My name is Debbie Woodall, and I live at 1950 West Carol. And there is several things -- this is the fourth time that I have been before the Commissioners since we have moved into our home almost 15 years ago. At that Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 70 of gO time we were told that Fred Meyer would be a compatible neighbor for us and that we were assured that the city would help protect our values that we have in our neighborhood. We, then, also were in front of this board -- the planning and zoning for Idaho Athletics. At that time they told us we will make sure that that business is compatible with your neighborhood and our neighbors are now -- that business opened with windows on the second floor that looked out over our other neighbor's yards. They couldn't even sunbathe in their own yard anymore, because they had people working out in front of the windows. Again, the planning and zoning did not look after our neighborhood. We came before you again for Walgreen's. Again, we asked you to, please, keep our neighborhood in mind when you make these decisions. We were promised that there would be a concrete divider, so that there would be no one coming out of Walgreen's making a left-hand turn. I sat here. I listened to the developer even tell the City Council that, that there was going to be a divider there, so you could not make a left-hand turn out of Walgreen's, because that was going to be a problem. I have seen accident after accident. I have seen cars go into the very chain link fence that's on that property, almost going into houses because there have been such bad accidents there. And I would like to know how much footage is there between that stop light and our street? There is not very much. And in the midst of all that is our school bus stop for our children that's on the very corner that this gentleman is wanting this commercial development. I have a daughter in a wheelchair. That's where she will catch the bus. We have little kids in the neighborhood. That's where they catch the bus. How are we going to handle that? There is such little space. We have choices here tonight. We can say, yeah, we are going to have development on Locust Grove, you bet. We all accept that. However, let's make it a reasonable decision to protect our neighborhood. Let Doris Subdivision have the subdivision that's been there for years. We have accepted all of the commercial around us. We have tried to work with the city in making sure everything worked, but, please, don't abandon us now. Help us protect our property values. We were here long before the commercial development ever started, so no one can tell us we should have been buyer beware, because when that subdivision was opened, it was a two lane road on Fairview Avenue. So, they should be buyer beware. Zaremba: Thank you. Dan Woodall. D.Woodall: My name is Dan Woodall. I live at 1950 West Carol. I agree with everything that has been said by my neighbors. I would like to add that is a very dangerous intersection. We -- when Fred Meyer came in they said -- staff engineers came up and said we don't foresee any problems. We came up and we said there will be problems. There were problems. When Walgreen's went in we said we don't want them there, there is going to be problems. Staff and engineers and developers got up and said we don't see that there will be any problems. We will make sure there is not. There were problems. We now see -- I'm estimating probably an accident every two months in that small stretch of road, because of the problems that we warned you about. We don't need encroachment on our residential areas of commercial. When that house was bought, the CC&Rs, the agreement that they came to, that they abided by, was that it had to be residential. These people have come to you and said, well, we Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 71 of gO want to change it and we want to have all these -- all these variances so that we can. Don't give it to them. Make them follow the rules. They need to have their offsets from the residential. The shop needs to be gone. They need to have -- they need to follow the rules. There is no guarantee that those -- that those residences along North Locust Grove are going to go commercial anytime soon. They need to be protected. They need to have their offsets. If these folks can't have a very big office, they can't have a very big office. That's the wrong thing to go in there. It needs to stay a residence. We have been led down the primrose path along -- several times by land developers. I'm sorry, land developers aren't very popular in our neighborhood. You may have trouble being accepted there. And that's what I would like to close with. They need to follow the rules. Make them follow the rules. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Jay Jones is it? Jones: Good evening or good night, whichever it is. Jay Jones at 1384 North Carol. You guys have heard a lot of the testimony tonight and maybe I could just start off by asking a question. On what grounds can you accept a deny this application? You have to abide by the ordinances and rules; correct? Zaremba: The rules are whether it meets or doesn't meet the ordinances. Jones: And as far as I have seen, the only thing it doesn't meet is the setback requirements. Is that correct? You can't jurisdiction traffic; is that correct? Zaremba: We actually don't have jurisdiction over traffic, but we do try and consider it. Jones: But can it weigh in your decision? Zaremba: I will have to ask legal counsel for an opinion on whether it can officially be part of our decision. Baird: No. Zaremba: Thank you. Baird: It's ACHD's jurisdiction. Zaremba: Okay. Jones: When all these came in, there was a lot of opposition in the neighborhood. We had several meetings on it and -- but we decided our pockets weren't quite deep enough and so we went up against Walgreen's with the idea that if we give a little, you got to give a little. And if you will pull up the aerial photograph, I can show you where they have allowed a 20 foot buffer and more, actually. There is about a 25 foot buffer. Those two cars that are parked there, right next to that is a six to eight foot -- that's six foot on our side, eight foot on their side, split face block wall that separates a buffer Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 72 of gO zone between our properties and their property. I think any commercial that would abrupt our subdivision should have a similar or like buffer zone. I think the decisions that you can make tonight are basically on those, the buffer zones between commercial and residential. I mean the subdivision, of course, would like it to stay as a residential, because of the access and the problems that they have in accessing Fairview -- or Locust Grove and Fairview. But it doesn't appear that your decisions can be based on that. And so my recommendation to you would be to look at the overall project and strictly enforce the ordinances that are set forth in the use of that particular piece of property, how it abuts the residential neighborhoods and how it affects them. And if you can base it on that design of the project, I think that's what the neighborhood wants. But, otherwise, strictly enforce those things that matter. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. That is everyone that was signed up. Anybody else care to add anything? Okay. We will ask Mr. Jewett to come back and comment on what he can comment on. Jewett: Try to follow traffic. First of all -- and I do appreciate all the neighbors' comments. I do understand what's happening to their neighborhood and I think it's -- you look at the aerial or just the assessor's map that's up there, you will see what's happening and they are an island -- an island here. They have all this red, which is commercial, to their south, to their east and there is some R-8 density in here. I think some R-8 here, moving up, some R-4 up in here. I mean they are surrounded by the city. They are an island and slowly it moved all the way around them. I wasn't here in 1959. I'm sure that in 1959 that was just a county little road out there with a little subdivision on it. And so I do understand where they are and I hope they understand where I'm at as well. There is commercial development there that is quite attractive to us for a business, because there is a visibility issue that comes with the traffic and so when you run something that has to have somewhat visibility, like selling real estate, the traffic count is a factor that we use. Accidents we don't like, though. But every person that could talk about traffic was not traffic coming out of the subdivision, but traffic coming down Locust Grove or coming out of Walgreen's or coming out of Fred Meyer, where my project isn't going to change that. What I do here and the impact that I -- the testimony heard that a lot of people that live in the subdivision are retired, meaning they don't go to work at 7:30, 8:00 o'clock in the morning. So, my people coming in or my people leaving at 5:00 o'clock, is not directly going to impact a large percentage of people. You know, the other people -- the other growth around Meridian is going to affect me more than I'm going to affect them. And there is really no -- you know, a whole lot of answers. I have heard some issues and I will go to ACHD and look into the center turn lane and some issues like that and see if I can help with making sure that it's properly striped and make sure that that's done. Another sentiment that I heard -- it was the last one I heard, which I thought was a very good comment, and that's follow the rules. And I'll advocate that. Follow the rules. And if I'm not following the rules, I want somebody to point out that I'm not. You know, I'm asking for you to recommend approval tonight and I'm asking you to give me a set of rules to follow and I will follow them. I have asked for some deviation and I have also acknowledged that if I don't get them, I don't get them, and I will accept that. Another sentiment that I heard a lot of was Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 73 of gO what all the other folks around me have done that somehow are going to come tumbling down on me, because I'm the last one in line here and I wasn't involved in any of those other projects, so I don't know -- I don't know if any of this Commission was even involved in any of those other approvals. So, I don't have recollection of what was done or not done, so I really can't have a lot of answers for the previous projects that went on. A lot of the projects -- it is hard to -- the word commercial -- and they kept using the word commercial. We are talking about professional office, which in a lot of realms is a better neighbor than commercial and that's why they use it as a buffer between the commercial and the residential, because our use is not 24/7, it doesn't have cars coming in and out all day, like a Walgreen's does. There was a comment that they had to put this split face cinder wall up, but they had a drive-thru over there and there was lights that would be constantly turning in there, so the cinder wall was an appropriate -- we don't have that, so I don't know what inappropriate to have a cinder wall in there would be. Secondly, there was the issue of removing the shop. Well, the shop acts as a pretty good buffer for those residents to our west. I mean it's probably about a 14 foot wall -- side wall on those. It goes along about two-thirds of that west boundary, so it acts as a darn good buffer from the parking lot and where the two stalls we are proposing right here, we will put some heavy landscaping here to additional buffer that. So, we look at it as an asset to that, not as a detriment. Our intention with the shop is remove the metal siding and to stucco it the same color as the office building. So, we would beautify and it would look just as the -- our renovation would be on the building. I heard several comments that -- can you go back to the Locust Grove map? The other map that -- yeah. I heard several comments that they acknowledge that they accepted that these would eventually go to some level of commercial. So, I want to play the devil's advocate. Let's say that I'm the last one with the application, so now I have all this commercial here, now I'm stuck here. Now, let's say I'm a 65 year old retired individual and I own that house, should I be told I can't go commercial. Is the highest and best use of my property to keep it a house? And that's exactly what these people that own that want to do, they want to move. They are a retired couple, they spend half the year here, half the year down in Arizona, and they want to move. And the highest and best use for their property is not residential. And I guess I would argue that if they did not sell this to my type of use, that it would most likely be sold as a rental and, then, you would have renters and, then, the property could degrade. A lot of scenarios could happen, if the highest and best use is not residential. Now, internal in the sub the highest and best use for those are residential. And a lot of people talked about their property values and it's hard for me, being in the real estate business in the last six months, to hear anybody complain about property values, because all they are doing is going up. Up increasingly. Dangerously increasingly, if you ask my opinion. So, I don't know how this project or any project of this nature along Locust Grove would devaluate their property. I just don't see that happening. I have no proof of that happening anywhere in Meridian. Again, a lot of comments about the traffic. I read -- I looked over all the paperwork that was turned in by the neighbors, the traffic reports, and accident studies and, you know, I didn't compare that to other accidents throughout the whole of Meridian. I live in Woodbridge Subdivision. I exit onto Eagle Road and at that intersection there we have a right-in, right-out, and how frustrating it is in the morning when there is a bunch of cars trying to make a left-hand turn onto Eagle Road and it's --. " Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 74 of gO frustrating there and so -- and I point it out, because throughout the -- you know, the town we try to make ways to fix traffic and people just don't follow the rules and that appears to be what's happening in this location, is a lot of people aren't following the rules. For the more global picture, you know, the Ten Mile off ramp is going to be a reality. Ten Mile is going to alleviate a lot of traffic that's now fighting to get through Meridian to get to Eagle Road to try to get on the freeway and so I just hope it comes sooner than later, because that is going to help traffic globally for Meridian. Whether it helps this particular intersection that much in the foreseeable future, I can't answer that. But from a total Meridian point of view, we are working towards getting better traffic patterns, better traffic two and from the interstate, because that's truly what people are trying to do, they are trying to get down here and get over Eagle Road to get to the interstate and move out. So, I guess I -- I think I've tried to answer everybody's questions. If there is one I missed, I hope that somebody would point that out. There was the one issue about the CC&Rs and I am an advocate for following rules and I have followed the rules and I will continue to follow the rules, whether it's the city rules or rules that were created for the subdivision and I go on the record as stating that. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman? I'd follow up on that right there. You did see the CC&Rs? Jewett: I did. Moe: And in regards to what some of the testimony came in this evening was that in the CC&Rs it did state that no other use but residential was planned in that CC&Rs; is that a correct statement? Jewett: That is a correct statement. And it also states in there that with a majority of the vote of the property owners, you can amend those. And I have a majority vote of the property owners and I have recorded that document. Moe: Okay. Jewett: I understand that the property owners are also -- all these properties are commercial, all these property owners -- they are all property owners in Doris sub. Moe: Understand that. Jewett: Okay. Moe: Another question that I have -- as far as the shop itself, I'm just curious, what is your intended use for that? Jewett: As I stated earlier, it's our intent to use it for storage for signs and some of our smaller equipment, pumps, generators, hand tools. ----- ..-- . Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 75 of gO Moe: Okay. Thank you. Jewett: And I believe we are planning a couple of parking stalls in there. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you. Jewett: Thank you. Zaremba: Any further comments from staff? Hood: Just one, I guess, which -- we didn't really discuss it in detail too much, but some condition should be made that -- because the property directly to the west doesn't have the same opportunity that the other properties on Locust Grove has to potentially go office in the future. If the shop is removed in the future, that full 20 foot wide buffer should be provided along that west boundary line, if the shop is removed. So, that just wasn't followed through in the staff report and depending on the direction of -- that the Commission decides to go, I think that should probably be added in there as a condition. Zaremba: The existing shop could remain and be considered a buffer, but if it's removed, then -- Hood: Yeah. It needs to conform with the 20 foot setback. Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Well, I certainly am sensitive to the discussion about the traffic, because I don't like that intersection either. But as we have discussed, that's not our jurisdiction. Baird: Mr. Chair, after reflecting on your question, I think I want to expound on my one word answer. You do have a report from ACHD that gives specific conditions that they feel would -- what they are is assure the proposed development would not place an undue burden on the existing transportation system. So, they have looked at it and made recommendations. I do want to say, though, since this is a zoning issue and what you're looking at in the staff report is talking about reviewing the facts and circumstances to see if this would -- what's the word I'm looking for? When it gets towards midnight, my brain starts shutting down. Evidence that this is -- what's the word here? Canning: Chairman, if I could maybe help out. Baird: Please. Canning: If you're tongue tied. This is -- the amendment language that was put into the Comprehensive Plan regarding these -- these properties that are noted as residential, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 76 of gO gets quite a bit more discretion as to whether it's appropriate or not for them to be zoned office, instead of residential. So, you know, I'm trying to find the language. Okay. We have got it. And the expression of City Council, areas with the residential Comprehensive Plan designation may request office use if the property has frontage on an arterial street or section line road and is three acres in size -- in size or less in size -- some extra in sizes. But it -- when those were discussed, particularly with -- it was much more discretionary than you usually have on these things, because you have to make a determination that commercial is appropriate or office is appropriate at this area. Otherwise, the residential designation would stay. Zaremba: And it specifically says frontage on arterial, not necessarily access to it. Canning: Yes, it does. And we, actually, rejected this application the first time, because we had that it was access, but it does just say frontage. Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: I want to jump on what Mrs. Canning just said and ask her if in the analysis, even though that's not a reason that staff would want to deny the application, it would be my opinion that that's certainly something that you can consider, that it does have frontage on an arterial, but it doesn't take access from the arterial. I guess what I'm getting at is when you throw that into the mix, is this compatible with the residential or is it appropriate to make the change. I think that's something that you can consider and I don't see anybody shaking their head over there. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm just saying when you're looking at that, it's certainly a factor that you could take into your discretion. Canning: The Comprehensive Plan is not codified law, like the zoning ordinance, so it is a discretionary matter. Zaremba: I guess the thing that I need to consider, since there is the provision that properties that meet this description, even though they are surrounded by residential, can at least apply for an L-O zone, what I think about is what else could happen here? I do see the logic in that this section of Locust Grove, in particular, and some time probably the four or is it five properties that are north of this, will make that kind of conversion. If we were to deny this application, what else can happen on this property? I personally agree that it's not attractive as a residence. It's facing too much traffic for me to want to be in a house that's there. And I realize that transitions are sometimes difficult, but I -- I can be convinced that a different use is appropriate here. This sounds to me like one of the lowest impacts that could be chosen for this property, even as an L-Q I can -- I can think of a lot of things that could come in and be a much heavier impact, both -- you know, both as being disturbing to the neighborhood and creating more traffic than I feel this would. My guess -- my initial question is how viable is this as a residence. It would not be attractive to me as a residence. That's a personal opinion. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 77 of gO And there is some logic that that whole row will be some kind of office or similar at the same time. I do agree that the interior properties are attractive residential and should stay that way. I guess my personal opinion is this is one of the lowest impact transitions that I can imagine. Canning: Chairman, since you're hypothesizing on possible uses, I did want to point out that, you know, one of the options we discussed with the applicant was, actually, he could have requested -- how do I say it? Okay. It is getting late. It's getting very hard to articulate clear thoughts. But in other circumstances the -- the Comprehensive Plan, even though the lines are drawn on a parcel-by-parcel basis as a specific statement that it's not intended to be parcel by parcel and that those standards can kind of -- we call it bump a little bit or float. So, there is a commercial designation immediately across the street. So, it is conceivable that somebody could ask for a commercial designation on this property as well. He did meet the qualifications for the light office and only wanted it for an office. So, that's the route he took. But in the whole realm of things, there is -- there is a lot of things that could conceivably occur on this property. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess what I would -- based on her comments as well, I would anticipate that the office use would be probably the lessor of all evils and -- for this development. I really -- I really don't have too much of a problem with this project going forward, other than the fact that I do have a problem with the cross-access agreement, realizing we have other properties and whatnot, but I am trying to be somewhat sensitive to the traffic and I would hate to see that all traffic coming from the north of this property is all going to dump out into -- down into that street. I don't know what else we can do about that at the present time, but I'm not so sure I really would like to see a cross-access or agreement going to the north, because I just hate to see that much more traffic coming into there. Well, with no application on the property to the north, I'm not sure a cross-access agreement can even be accomplished. I would support, though, that in that one portion of the parking lot the landscape buffer be eliminated, so that a future cross-access could be done. And I guess my feeling is the opposite. It would be more attractive for them to move away from this street and exit at a street that connected with a -- keep wondering what the name is, but the street that runs behind north of Fred Meyers. Rohm: Is this where your cross-access -- Zaremba: Yeah. And I'm -- I'm just saying make that a future possibility. Not necessarily a requirement today, but leave that available by not having big trees and other stuff. Am I interpreting staff as -- or are you wanting to get a cross-access agreement with the neighbor? Hood: I was going to say, if you don't require the subject applicant to provide that cross- access to the north and, then, when they do come into the north to develop, we will require a cross-access from him to be provided to this side, that's how you get it. It ....~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 78 of 90 would just be an easement that he provides for and they don't have to use it until they develop, but it's an easement that -- Zaremba: It makes it available, but is there a legal document between the two neighbors that has to happen? Hood: It's between the two. I mean he can record it and -- he can give an easement to anyone he wants. He can just give an easement to the property owner to the north. They don't have to approve it, they don't have to sign for it or anything like that, it's just something that he's given to the north and, then, as a condition of them zoning to L-O like he's done -- Zaremba: It's a reciprocal. Hood: -- then we will require him to reciprocate that back. Correct. And to answer Commissioner Moe's question -- it wasn't much of a question, it was more of a statement, but just how I can envision it planned out is that you attach two or three of the lots and, then, you do have an access out to Locust Grove Road, so you aren't necessarily dumping all the traffic back on South Carol Street, you will have a tie out to Locust Grove, but you're consolidating those four other access points and there may be one or possibly two more. So, you're giving those people a location to access it -- Loop Lane, I think, is the name of the street across that side of Fred Meyer and TCBY that comes in there. They would possibly align with that and, then, you have some separation between all those access points and they are consolidated. That's how I envision it planned out, when they do go all L-O, if they all do go L-O, so -- Rohm: I guess at this point in time I think we have taken all the public testimony and have discussed it to the point that we could probably close the Public Hearing. Do you have -- Zaremba: I would accept such a motion. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-032. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Do we need any discussion? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 79 of gO Rohm: Well, I -- Mr. Chairman, I -- after listening to testimony and this -- the discussion that followed testimony, albeit that the neighbors aren't necessarily in favor of this rezone to L-O, in reality, this is probably the least obtrusive of anything that could be proposed and the next application may be more offensive and even though there is opposition, this might be in their best interest to tie that just based upon the application that's before us. That's the way that it looks like it shakes out to me. Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff again. In regards to the -- if the shop is removed, that's a 20 foot -- Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of -- let see, where am I at here? Of AZ 05-032, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July 21 st, 2005, the transmittal date of July 15th, 2005, with the following changes: I guess on page ten, which would be towards the end of the special considerations, the annexation and zoning, item number four, I would add to provide a cross-access agreement to the property to the north and, then, an item number, if existing shop is removed, the 20 foot buffer zone would be required. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Hood: Mr. Chair, can I ask the maker a question for clarification? Are you talking about items four and five on page 11 or ten? It's-- Moe: On ten. Hood: And that would just be special considerations, so to actually make it in the development agreement, they need to be put on the next -- the following page. And we have the facts and comments -- because number three is everything that's going to be put into the development agreement. I can add that above as well as a special consideration. Moe: I just didn't ask you where you probably wanted it placed. So, I guess I would -- Zaremba: We can do that in an amendment to the motion. Moe: I would make that amendment to the motion. Zaremba: That it should be included in the development agreement. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 80 of gO Moe: That is correct. Zaremba: Does the second accept the amendment? Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: Okay. Then, we have a motion and a second on amending the previous motion. And all in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Thank you all. It is after midnight and we usually don~ start a new subject, but you all have hung in here a long time and looking at the sheet at the moment there aren't very many people signed up to speak on this, so I am suspecting we can probably continue with this tonight. Commissioners, are you wj ing to -- Rohm: Sure. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ. 05-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.502 acres to R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Item 22: Public Hearing: PP 05-927 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential building lots on 4.7 acres in a proposed R-8 Zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Item 23: Public Hearing: CUP 05-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval for one single-family home and five retirement homes on two lots in a R-8 Zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Zaremba: Okay. In that case, I Will open the Public Hearing AZ 05-027, PP 05-9277 Is that correct? Maybe that should be -- that should be -- let me correct that. It should be PP 05-027. And the Public Hearing CUP 05-034. All three of these relate to Maxfield Subdivision by the land Group at 3295 East Falcon Drive and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site ;s located on the east side of Eagle Road and on the south side of Falcon Drive, approximately 675 feet south of Victory Road. It is within Our urban service planning area and Our current city area of impact. The property is designated low density residential on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map and it's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The site currently has a single family home that the applicant is proposing to remove. You can see it here in the aerial. It's on the northeast side of the property. To the north of the subject site are several single homes on large parcels similar to the subject parcel. To the south are single family homes, also zoned RUT in Ada County,