Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 6, 2006 P&Z CommissionMeridian Planning 8 Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 121 of 136 Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-008, associated with Lachsa Falls commercial. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Are you guys sure you want to do this last one? Oh, my gosh. Borup: We could see how much controversy there is and if it's something that's going to drag on, we could continue it at that time. Moe: As I understand, there were three people in opposition that did leave. Borup: I think they are all still here. At least two of them are. Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) for Cabello Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 06-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47 single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.$4 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: Rohm: Okay. Here we go. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06- 014 and PP 06-012, both related to Cabella Creek Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I will make this very brief. It's a pretty clean subdivision. It's -- part of this was previously reviewed last year by you as the McGhee property. They applied for annexation only. McGhee and Carrington, actually, which I think his name is Mark Carrington, owned the property right here. They have now done a plat and acquired an additional five or so acres here and submitted a subdivision plat off of Victory Road and Mesa Way. There really aren't any significant conditions to speak of. They are providing amulti-use pathway along Ten Mile through the project, which will tie into the multi-use pathway through the Messina-Tuscany Village development across Victory Raad. Probably the most significant thing is this -- these are the first four five acre lots within Kachina Estates to actually redevelop in the City of Meridian, as you can see from the zoning map. Everything else is still zoned RUT in Ada County in the subdivision, but the lot sizes are sufficient size -- I believe it's an R-4 zone. All of the lot sizes meet and exceed the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 122 of 136 minimums for the zone. Like I said, it's a pretty clean subdivision, and I will stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Just one. We received a -- wasn't there an conceptual plan at the annexation? Do you remember? This looks familiar enough. There was a conceptual plan. Is this substantially the same as what we saw then. Hood: No. It is significantly different and significantly better. Borup: Okay. Hood: Yeah. The annexation was denied, because they didn't have a plat associated with it, so that's why you're seeing a new annexation application and a preliminary plat this time, because Council denied those applications. Borup: Council denied it. All right. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a question probably directed at Mr. Cole. On page three you make the comment that a portion of this site is within the FEMA hundred year flood plain zone AE. The majority of the site is in flood plain zone X. Is that X better or worse than AE? Cole: Commissioner Zaremba, zone X is better. It's -- it's a flood plain elevation without a base flood. It's a flood plain designation without an elevation set to it. It's generally areas of low lying ponding in a hundred year storm event. There are no -- FEMA doesn't require any elevation certification. Nothing in our code requires any remedies for the flood zone X. So, flood X is -- is not a bad thing. It still has some ponding. The AE requires certain things that during the building process flood -- base flood elevations certification by a surveyor for the floor of the house to be one foot above the AE flood elevation. There is just a small portion of some lots -- I'm not sure which the lot and block are. It's right through here where it just -- on the plat -- the preliminary plat it's hard to tell, but it looks like it just barely touches these lots through here and that's why I made a comment, basically, that they should revise those lots to pull them in a foot or so to get them completely out of the flood plain and, then, they would be fine. Otherwise, they are going to have to comply with those building regulations in the flood plain elevation certification. Borup: Even if it's just in the set -- I mean outside the setback? Cale: If one square inch of the property lies within the AE flood plain, it's determined that the entire lot has to meet flood plain elevations. Borup: Well, that's really logical. Cole: Probably more detail than you wanted. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 123 of 136 Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Cronin: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, thanks for staying so late and seeing our presentation for annexation, rezone, and preliminary plat of the Cabello Creek Subdivision. Do you have that pretty picture, Caleb? Hood: Sorry. I was just checking. Our administrative assistant did not put it in as I asked her twice today. Sorry about that. Cronin: That's okay. We'll do with this. This is fine. The other one, the -- not the one, maybe, that doesn't show the landscape plan. Barup: That is the landscape plan. Cronin: It does not -- it's all relative, I guess. The one before that. There we go. As Caleb previously mentioned, we had come to you with an annexation and rezone tied to a conceptual plat and at that point was approved by the P$~Z Commission and moved forward. Since, then, we have gone somewhat back to the drawing board and remolded this with your guys' comment, as well as City Council's, neighborhood meeting, public testimony, as well as working closely with staff on the planning level and a few of these items that have changed that we hope address some of these concerns that have been brought up or just some comments that were brought up were to, one, limit the amount of direct lot access onto Mesa Way, which is an existing local road and in doing so we just -- we were going to allow the existing home, which takes access off of Mesa Way, to continue using its access. Secondly, to help the transition into the subdivision, which is within the Kachina Estates Subdivision, we were providing a 20 foot wide landscape buffer that's going to be treed and bermed for purposes of transition, as well as the majority of the lots along Mesa Way are meeting the zoning designation within an R-2 zone as far as lot size, configuration, et cetera. And, also, we had provided a stub to the property for this five acre parcel, this Carrington piece, as well as one to the property of the Agnews. Let me see here. We also feel that this meets the density addressed within the Comprehensive Plan as a low density. Currently our gross density is approximately 2.5 units per acre, well within the R-4 zone. And we are also providing approximately 22 percent open space as designated here on this map as the darker shaded areas and though it is within an existing subdivision, to the north it's Salmon Rapids, which is an R-4, Tuscany is south of Victory Road as an R-$. And, then, beyond -- if I could see the aerial. This is also an R-8. And over in this area is an R-$. And another concern that was brought up in one of the neighborhood meetings was where we were going to bring our roadway out onto Mesa Way. That other one would do fine. Thanks. And one of the concerns was that the added traffic from internal streets taming onto the exiting local street of Mesa might cause headlights to be flashing into an existing home that wasn't used to that and I'm speaking an behalf of the developer that he would be more than willing to work with them to provide any sort of Meridian Planning $ Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 124 of 136 landscape or buffer that might help reduce any of that nuisance as they see fit. At this time I'll stand far any questions you or staff may have. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I assume, then, you must agree with all comments from staff, then? Cronin: I just have one. Caleb, could you -- I just kind of noticed this today, after my long sit here. On -- let see here. It's on page two of Exhibit B. I just may want a clarification and -- in item number 1.2.3. Maybe it just can be there without interpreting it a hundred percent. Moe: What number was that again? Cronin: That was on the conditions of approval item 1.2.3, dealing with the amenity ponds that we are proposing. Hood: And the clarification would be that this is -- those are amenity ponds. There is a difference between the amenity ponds and, then, like storm water drainage ponds and those ponding up and not -- and being improved with sand, rather than hydroseed and those types of things. So, that's -- the intent of this is to not allow those drainage basins to be counted towards open space, unless they are grassed. So, this free of wet ponds doesn't mean you can't do ponds, as long as they are amenities. Cronin: Okay. That cleared it up. Thanks. Borup: So, the intention is you're going to divert from Ten Mile and -- during the canal season those are active ponds, is that -- Cronin: These ponds here we are showing would be my -- before reading that comment I would think it would store ACRD storm water in them as wet ponds, but that may need to be rethought and, if anything, have them just grass lined swales, as the code says. Borup: Okay. Cronin: So, we meet that requirement. Kind of spoke of earlier where you have got to have an intention where if it -- Borup: Right. So, they are not a pond, then. They are drainage -- your intention is to be a drainage area? Cronin: Unless we can find another way. It depends. Because it's relatively shallow ground water out there and until we have a full on geotechnical investigation to Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2D06 Page 125 of 136 determine what it is that's out there to kind of further develop how we were going to deal with runoff produced by the roadway. Rohm: Thank you. Cronin: Anything further? Rohm: Not right now. Cronin: Okay. Thanks. Rohm: Don't go anywhere. Cronin: I'll stay right here. Rohm: Okay. Now, let's see. Public testimony. Aneke Binford. Binford: Hello. My name is Aneke Binford and I reside with my husband and children at 3101 South Mesa Way. We bought our property not only because of the five acre lot size, but because all the homes in the subdivision also had large lots, which created an open space feeling. We also purchased, because of the limited number of home sites and traffic on this dead-end street. We understood that growth was inevitable and that the surrounding farm land would eventually become subdivisions with standard size lots and all the houses and traffic to go with them. However, we never expected that such a subdivision would be built within our own fully established neighborhood. We are opposed to the zoning change of the land located on Mesa Way to R-4. R-4 is not consistent with the density of the established subdivision of Kachina Estates located on Mesa Way. Kachina Estates consists of 13 home sites of five to seven acre lots, all on one road, Mesa Way. Splitting this land and building homes that close together will create a conflict of densities and will not be compatible with the existing esthetics and feel of Kachina Estates Subdivision. While we appreciate that the developer has tried to incorporate a few lot sizes slightly larger than most being in the R-4 sub, we feel they still have not accomplished an adequate transition into the existing five acre subdivision. We also appreciate that they have offered a berm and fencing along Mesa Way. However, no amount of berming or fencing will hide the fact that there is an R-4 subdivision located within an existing five acre neighborhood. They keep talking about the fact that R-4 is consistent with everything going an around Mesa Way and that is true. However, it is not consistent with the existing five acre home sites on Mesa Way. The proposed outlet street on Mesa located south of Ten Mile Creek, lines up directly across from the circle driveway of our house. We are very concerned with the issue of headlights flashing in our living room windows every time someone pulls out onto Mesa Way. Another issue with this road's location is the fact that it cannot connect in the future to Loggers Pass Street, which is a road that is stubbed in from Glacier Bay Subdivision to the west of Mesa Way. We understand that interconnectivity is vital and as it stands this outlet is not conducive to that, as you cannot extend this road through our hawse. We would like to see an attempt made to relocate this outlet road to avoid Meridian Planning & zoning April 6, 2006 Page 126 of 136 headlights into our house, as well as to achieve interconnectivity in the future. In conclusion, we request that the land located on and directly facing Mesa Way be half acre lot sizes, rather than R-4. This would still allow for growth and development, but would stay more consistent with the existing neighborhood and offer much more transition. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: May I ask a question? Are you aware does your subdivision have CC&Rs that might restrict subdivision of the properties? Binford: We don't. It was, I think, established in the '70s, so they didn't have anything in there about that. Zaremba: Thank you. Binford: We can put a mobile home back there, but that's about it. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: We'll take them in order. Ben Sullivan is next. Oh, he left. Okay. Come on up. M. Binford: My name is Matt Binford. 3101 Mesa Way. Can I answer your CC&R question? Zaremba: Please. M. Binford: So, within our CC&Rs it does allow and specify for one mobile home dwelling per five acre lot. So, there is some restrictions currently in the CC$~Rs. It only limits it to one mobile home. That's as far as it goes within the CC&Rs. Our main concern is -- I don't think we are sa opposed to this development, it's how it's being developed. Obviously, you have a challenge. You have got a five acre country subdivision here the city is growing around. Understand that creates some problems in transition in areas, so we'd like to add that that impact be minimal. I think the last one we asked for an R-2 development. We'd like to make sure that those lots are not just R- 2, but are half acre lots, which I think exceeds the R-2 requirements. I think they have same of these at 13,000 square feet. We'd like to see them upwards of 20,000 to ease that transition to the five acre parcels. But back to -- could we go back to the another slide? One more. Is there one that shows the subdivision behind us? Right there. So, right now the roads that they have proposed -- how do you do this thing? So, right now they have this -- this is our place right here. They have a road stubbed right to our -- the front of our house. You can't landscape. You can't berm. We have got a circle drive, we can't berm over our driveway, so what we would like to ask is there is a road back here in Glacier Bay that's stubbed in, so, eventually, I'm guessing, this road will connect through here at some point. So, what we'd like to ask them to do is move the road probably a hundred feet to the north and go ahead so that way a future development -- I Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 20D6 Page 127 of 136 know my neighbor right here in this five acres is talking about developing. In that case, this road at least will tie through to Glacier Bay where there is already a road stubbed. As it is now you're stubbing right here right into our house and there is no way to, basically, get around it with that road. And I think there is a requirement from the highway department, those roads cannot be -- I think it's 150 feet -- they have to be within -- coming into each other, basically, so by having the plan the way they do, basically, would farce bridges in the future, they would push that on the other side of the creek. So, the other question I do have, the bridge that is on Mesa Way is probably only 24, 25 feet across to their second access into Mesa Way, which is much in my mind just a single car bridge. I don't know if there has been any studies to determine how traffic can go through that bridge, but where it does cross Ten Mile, that's a pretty narrow bridge today. So, anyway, that's -- those are our concerns. The big concern is, obviously, the headlights in our house. Any questions? Thank you. Rohm: Aaron McGhee. Martin Arliss? Have been spoken for. Oh. Okay. Anybody else that would like to speak to this application? Oh. Absolutely. Yeah. That's why we are here. Cronin: Again, for the record, Eric Cronin. To the comments, I think when you look at the overall density of our project -- I mean we are under three units per acre as the low that the Comprehensive Plan or the future land use map designates for this area and like I told you, around the Mesa Way we tried to create that transition with larger lots that would meet the R-2 designation that was spoke of when we were at the Council meeting. Let's see here. And as far as the location -- could I have the location of -- or the -- yes. Thank you. The location of this street here -- actually, I'm sorry, I'm a little tired. Could I have the original one, Caleb, sorry. Yeah. As far as stubs on -- when I think of stubs, I think of stubs going into a bare piece of ground that could futurely provide -- ar could provide access and interconnectivity in the future to bare ground. And with -- we are providing a connection to Mesa, is where I have indicated about here and if one were to create this, it's hard to say how that would come about, but I don't think lining it up would, basically, do any benefit. I'm not sure how that guy is going to develop his land in the future and so I think we are -- we have tried to work well with the Binfords, as well as along with some -- the comments and we present our application as is and agree with the condition of approval recommended by staff and stand for any other questions you guys might have. Rohm: I guess my only question is this road that stubs out right into their place, is there -- is there any other way you could stub that out? Cronin: Well, in our conceptual plan that we first brought in we had it snugging up to the Ten Mile Creek and for a better community feel as an amenity to be on the back pond, we thought it would be -- or the back of the Ten Mile Creek, we moved that stub street dawn and there might be a little bit of tweaking you could do, but, basically, wrapping around that existing home that sits where it is, we are trying to somewhat tie to where it is and I think it adds value to the subdivision being back up onto Ten Mile. If that answers your question. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 128 of 136 Rohm: Well, it answers mine, but it probably doesn't answer theirs. You know, the point of the fact is as people exit, lights will shine directly towards their -- their residence. Cronin: I mean we are kind of stuck in between two tough things with the creek being where it is and the existing home and ACHD's minimum road standard with turns and your radius. It's kind of tucked in there where it could be possible to allow lots an Ten Mile as an amenity, so -- Moe: I believe you made a statement earlier that you, actually, had the road configuration tighter up to Ten Mile? Cronin: Yeah. We, actually, had it along Ten Mile and at that point we also had the home taking direct lot access off of Mesa and it was made a point that we'd like to restrict the number of -- that took that, so we wanted to keep the community feel and tighten that to the existing home that was there providing a nice lot between the Ten Mile drainage -- or creek, as well as --and the proposed roadway. Mae: What's the intent of your common lot, Lot 1 ? Cronin: Could I have the front page of that preliminary plat, Caleb. Which -- this one here? Moe: Yes. Cronin: Basically to just provide somewhat of an entrance and we have got this nice buffer coming all along Victory and into Mesa. Just an added landscape with some vegetation to kind of spruce things up and rather than just make this guy's lot extremely large, kind of buffers him so he's not -- doesn't have roadways all around that lot itself. So, kind of shifted into the existing driveway to allow for more of a landscape area. And also the intent of just sharply turning it here as it is was to provide larger lots along Mesa Way and in here you're reducing those. The size of those lots were requested to be larger to help that transition. Rohm: It just seems to me that possibly you could make minor adjustments to that road where it wouldn't dump straight in like that, but I'm not an engineer, so I can't -- Cronin: Yeah. I believe you could bring it up a little bit. It's going to reduce the size of this lot, but you might be able to move it up in excess of 20 to 50 feet. And I'm not sure Matt gave you the dimensions of that. Did you measure it out and see how it looks? Rohm: And the point of the fact is that they could move it 20 feet, that would make a significant difference or not? That's insignificant? Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 129 of 136 Borup: Mr. Chairman, the other thing I was noticing, it looks like there is about 18 lots in there and six or eight may go on Mesa, but the others it's going to be faster access, probably, to go on down to Victory. You're talking one road to enter, rather than two. And I mean it's probably going to be the shortest way to go, so most of them are probably going to be going onto Victory anyway, I think. I mean that depends on which direction they are going, but if they are heading into Boise, that's the direction they are going to ga and probably down to Eagle and the freeway. You know, I don't think we can assume that all the traffic is going to go that direction. Rohm: Well -- and it's -- all the traffic is not going to be at night either. You know, it's -- thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out real quickly, too, the other thing that the neighbors brought up, ACHD is requiring the applicant to construct South Mesa Way ar reconstruct Mesa Way, as it turns out, to half of a 36-foot wide street section. Sa, everything that they abut on Mesa they are going to have to widen and improve with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. So, including the bridge crossing. So, that will be widened, again, at least where it crosses their property, that's a condition from ACHD, so I just wanted to paint that out. Rohm: Wow. Any other questions? Anybody else like to speak to this applicant? Moe: I guess I just have maybe another question for one of the folks that has already testified in regard to the front -- your front yard, your circle driveway you're speaking of. You have no -- no space in front of your access to where additional trees or something to screen anything that would work? M. Binford: It's kind of a horseshoe. We have a circle that kind of -- it's kind of a horseshoe. We have this kind of drive. So, if you pictured this right now as our circle drive -- well, actually, it's about right here. Type thing. So, even if they move here, our house sits right here. Sa, this is right into our house. Actually, by moving it this way there is a little room for a berm, but we are still going to get headlights in the front of that house. I don't know how, you know, you berm across a driveway. I mean 20 feet is stil I -- still not going to make a difference. Moe: As far as from the street to your -- to the house, what's the distance there? M. Binford: Probably 30 feet, 35 feet or so. Moe: Do you have trees in the front there now? M. Binford: A few, but it's low stuff. Actually, I went ahead and started building some berm in anticipation of this getting passed, but the fact of the matter is I can't berm across my driveway and that's -- that's a big concern. Moe: And the headlights are going into the house where? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 13D of 136 M. Binford: Into the living room. Moe: Okay. Borup: Is the living room where you usually spend your time in the evening? M. Binford: It is. Moe: And there is no -- I don't want to belabor this thing, but this bothers me. There is no trees, no anything to screen that would work? M. Binford: I don't see that -- how you could screen across -- we are landscapers, by the way, and so I -- we thought of different ways to try to screen that. I don't know haw you screen across a driveway. And, in fact, there is -- there is a borrow pit there that doesn't allow you to build much of a berm to the house, because of the slope that you would incur coming down into the borrow pit and keeping that borrow pit. So, not much we can do. We have tried to berm up some in anticipation, but it's still not going to be high enough to block headlights. Moe: Thank you. M. Binford: Thanks. Binford: Just to kind of get an idea on how -- why landscaping will not keep the headlights out, if you imagine this as being our driveway and our living room sits here, we have bermed up quite a little bit of dirt right here, but the fact is is that when the headlights pull in they are shooting this direction, so this does absolutely nothing, because they are going to come into our living room and back out. Moe: Thank you. Borup: But, Mr. Moe, your comment was -- is to do the berming in between the two driveways; right? Moe: That's true. Rohm: Did you want to speak, sir? McGhee: Aaron McGhee, 2747 South Barhara Way, Eagle, managing member of ATM Development. If it was really, truly, a huge issue as far as the driveway, they are on a five acre lot. It is possible to take out part of their asphalt driveway, extend it out a little bit, and berm up in that area where it might be going into their windows. I don't know how big their windows are. They are probably, you know, a four foot by six foot window, and maybe a couple of them in their living room, so if that's something that we had to do, you know, to please them, to satisfy this, to take out the existing park, maybe one Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 131 of 136 half or quarter of it, and extend it out and add some landscaping and -- that's something we would be willing to do. Rohm: Well, that's a nice gesture. Before we incorporate something like that in, I'd like to at least have a response from the Binfords. Binford: I guess I didn't really understand what your thoughts were or what your plans were on moving our driveway, is that -- Rohm: Yes. That's what he has offered up is to -- if you widen the sweep of your driveway, then, it could -- then added berm could be put in there to block the headlights. Binford: Oh. Okay. I think I understand. That would be fine. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? Seeing none -- come on forward. M. Binford: This road, though -- the only thing -- even if you berm, it still doesn't allow that road to be connected to anything on the other side of the road in the future. It's still tied to the front of the house in that case. So, any road going to the west off of Mesa could not come in parallel to that or perpendicular. Borup: It could -- go through their property and it could. Rohm: I don't know that it's necessary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, you do need to let the applicant have the last word. Borup: You're right. Cronin: Caleb, could I have the one that shows the zoning. Personally, if I were to live in this subdivision and I were to make it out on Mesa Way, I probably wouldn't drop down and continue to get to Victory, I would come dawn here. I'm just saying we are providing an access onto Mesa Way, not a stub street to how something on the other side of the road would develop. But --and now I'm just going to be quiet and sit down. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Moe: While you're there, are you in agreement that you could work with the homeowners across to redesign their front yard in order to get berming and keep the lights out of their front living room? Cronin: I believe the developer could work closely with the neighbors to come up with a compromise that would help alleviate same of the nuisance that you might find with headlights. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 132 of 136 Rohm: I don't believe you're going to eliminate it, but can help in some way. Cronin: Alleviate. Reduce. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. All right. I think that's enough. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close Public Hearing AZ 06-014 and PP 06-012. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 06-014 and PP 06-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: If we wanted to reference the offer that the applicant just made, would that go in the development agreement? Okay. Then a question. The only place I see a reference to the development agreement is in the analysis on page eight. It isn't actual made a condition of approval. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's the only place you will ever see the development agreement stuff is in the analysis section. They are not, technically, conditions of approval. They are just the recommendation that the applicant agreed to enter into this agreement with the city on annexation. So, anytime they make changes to the development agreement, it's going to be in the analysis section. Any conditions of approval are in your exhibits. Zaremba: Pretty much everything else was agreed to, so I'll propose a motion. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Let's see. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-014 and PP 06-012, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2006, with the following modification: On page nine, which is a continuation of the development agreement from page eight, but on page nine I would add one more additional bullet and that bullet says that the applicant has volunteered to assist the neighbor across the street from the first entry road to this development by widening their driveway and providing some berm -- widening the U of their driveway and providing some berming in between the enlarged area. Perhaps some landscaping. Moe: At their expense. Zaremba: At developer's expense. Rohm: End of motion? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 133 of 136 Zaremba: End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-014 and PP 06-012, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned changes to the development agreement. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 22: Public Hearing: CUP 06-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,580 square-foot restaurant with adrive-thru an .73 acres in a C-G zone far Conglomerate Drive Through B by Afton-Pacific, LLC -southwest earner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive: Moe: Oh, let's continue the next one. Rohm: Okay. I cannot believe we are still here. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP OF-007, begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one is a doozey. I don't know -- I think we will just ask the applicant if they have any problems with the staff report. They have submitted a design review application and a Conditional Use Permit, because it is within 300 feet of an existing and proposed drive-thru, which the UDC now requires CUs for those. The -- I guess there is one thing to be brought up. The police department did have some concerns about some of the landscaping on the south side of the driveway and being able to see from Magic View Drive the exchange of monies and food into the drive-thru window. So, I will go on record just saying that they had a concern about not -- about this being so heavily landscaped that they can't see from their cruisers that the drive- thru is getting robbed or whatever. So, I -- that's -- that's it. Everything else meets dimensional standards and staff will stand for any questions you have. Rohm: Any question of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Davis: Andrew Davis, BRS Architects, 1010 South Allante in Boise. I have no issues with the staff report. I have to admit this is the first time I have ever been asked to take landscaping away from a project, but we would be more than happy to work with the police department to come up with a landscape plan that they are mare agreeable to, if that's what you wish, or if you wish to leave it the way it is, we are, obviously, okay with that, since that's haw we submitted the application. I'll leave that up to your discretion. I don't really have any objections to either way.