Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 3, 2002Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 24 of 84 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Centers: And continuing, I would like to recommend approval to the City Council on Item 7, PP 02-018, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 39 building lots and 10 other lots on 7.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Tully Cove Subdivision by Ted Mason. It is west of North Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road and -- with a time out here. The acreage doesn't total up. In the annexation and zoning, we have 7.66 acres and in the Preliminary Plat agenda, we have 7.30. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason for that is because the legal description for annexation and zoning includes adjacent right of way. Centers: Okay. Freckleton: The legal description for a plat is exclusive of the right of way Centers: Okay. Thank you. Continuing on and recommend approval of the aforementioned, including all staff comments and, in addition, the Final Plat would have wording across Lots 11 and 12 noting to potential buyers that the Settler's Irrigation District requires access through their property or would require access through their property should they need to go in and maintain the pipe and canal. End of motion. Zaremba: Second Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 02-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communications facility consisting of a 125 foot monopole and supporting equipment in an I-L zone for Verizon Wireless by Mericom Corporation - 3735 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Thank you. Item Number 8, Public Hearing CUP 02-025, a request for Conditional U se Permit fora wireless communication facility consisting of a 1 25 foot monopole and supporting equipment in an I-L zone for Verizon Wireless by Mericom Corporation at 3735 North Ten Mile Road. We would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again to the overhead. The site that we are going to be discussing tonight for a new cell tower is located adjacent to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant, the highlighted portion of the map in front of you. The bolded area is the Ten Mile Mini Storage area and that's where the proposed cell tower would go. The proposed cell tower would be approximately 650 feet to the west of Ten Mile Road. Here is a picture of the site. Currently on the site Ten Mile Mini Storage is constructed to this point. It's about 600 and some odd feet back from Ten Mile. The proposed cell towerwould be located adjacent to -- a few Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 25 of 84 yards away from the existing building right now. The second photo, which you see here, is actually stepping back from the road that leads to the Wastewater Treatment Plan to show you the large cottonwood and poplar trees that are growing up at this location right now that would help to shield the size of the tower. The location -- if we can go back to that picture really q uick. The building that you see right here is this building right here on the site plan. You can see that this building -- the cell tower would be located fairly close to the existing building at this time. When Ten Mile Mini Storage continues to build their storage unit, they will continue to build them at the angle following the property line. Eventually they would surround the material and the prefabricated buildings that would be located there to house the electronics for the cell tower. The cell tower in question is a 125-foot tall steel monopole. The reason for it to be 125 feet is so they can get the height for their antenna arrays and to allow for at least two additional antenna arrays to be placed on the tower. The industry typically likes to have 15 feet of separation between the antenna arrays and the applicant has provided two additional locations for that, one at 90 feet and one at -- 95 -- well, be 110 and then go backwards to 95. They would be allowed to have additional antenna arrays placed on this building. The building that would house the electronic equipment for the tower would be a 12 by 28 building. It would be a prefabricated building. I talked with the applicant tonight and the applicant stated that they may need to increase the size of that prefabricated building to house the electronics to be a 12 by 30 foot structure. Staff has no objections to that at this time. The reason for that is as Ten Mile Mini Storage continues to construct buildings closer to the tower, they will be constructing buildings similar to this around the electronics equipment shed, so basically what you will see is a cell tower sitting directly behind the equipment shed -- I mean the storage unit. It would be a cell tower that would be surrounded entirely by the storage unit, located in an industrial zoned piece of property. There is no residential property immediately adjacent to this. In addition to the information presented in front of you, I know that you have all seen the proposed Cell Tower Ordinance that we have discussed and just to let you know this would comply with the Cell Tower Ordinance that has been discussed. Centers: What is the distance from building that -- Zaremba: The fall zone? McKinnon: The fall zone is tied directly to the residential specifically. Centers: Totally? McKinnon: The way the ordinance is written right now it's tied to that. Centers: Well, there are no occupants in the surrounding building. I guess that makes sense. McKinnon: Yes. Hopefully there is no one living in a mini storage unit. Borup: Good homeless housing. McKinnon: So with that -- and staff does support this project as far as cell towers go. If you have any questions I will entertain them at this time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 26 of 84 Borup: Any questions from the Commission for staff? Zaremba: I'd just say on record I had a discussion with David earlier about an existing radio -- or cell tower that is kind of kitty-corner from this on the block between Ten Mile and Linder and Ustick and Cherry Lane. My question was how high is that tower, just to get a sense of how high this one. The answer was the one that appears to be so obnoxious to everybody is 300 feet tall. It's a major factor in the skyline day and night from almost anywhere in Meridian. That's not quite three times as tall as the one that we are talking about here, so this would not stick up anywhere near that high. I would just make one comment to staff under site -- can't talk -- site specific requirements and I guess this is our discussion. I would add a sixth point that no signs, flags, or banners be on the tower, except perhaps in the lower 10 feet, signs that are required for safety reasons. Is that acceptable? McKinnon: Staff has no objections to that. Zaremba: Okay. I will ask the applicant that also. Those are my only comments. Borup: Thank you. Isn't that -- that is in the proposed ordinance also, isn't it? McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: So that's why you wanted to add that that it was in the proposed ordinance? Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? McFadden: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Cameron McFadden. Our office address is 7819 West P riest Drive in Boise, I daho. 83704. I am a mployed by Mericom Corporation. We are the development services representative for Verizon in this area. As described by staff, we are proposing a 125 foot monopole to be placed at the Ten Mile Storage at 3735 North Ten Mile in the light industrial zone. Great care was given to the selection of this site and as pointed out by staff, it would just lend itself to harmony with the neighborhood, because of the way that Ten Mile Storage is going to develop their property. We are in the luxurious position that we are going to be able to place our monopole and put in our prefab shelter before or while they are constructing their storage units, which will totally, obscure our equipment. It won't obscure the 125-foot monopole, of course. The shelter, as mentioned by Mr. McKinnon, is going to be 12 by 30, unless we have a practical problem. Verizon has changed their requirements in the last month since we have filed this application and so they have increased the size of their shelter by two feet, to include generators, largely as a result of the September 11tb crisis that we had. They have new specifications for their facilities. Our lease area with Ten Mile Storage is 16 feet by 56 feet long. Again, we are trying to roughly stay the same size as their storage units, except for the monopole's positioning. It will be enclosed by a fence until they are completely constructed and then the fence will only be inside the storage unit. These storage units, if I'm correct, are going to be the open bay storage units for the likes of motor homes, et cetera, so on the interior of that, you know, we will have fencing to keep us separated from the other units. The staff has recommended conditions of no Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 27 of 84 climbing fence in 20 feet unless we are under construction and that's, of course, agreeable to us for under maintenance is what I'm trying to say and that we paint it an earth tone. That's also agreeable. However, I guess I would ask that they maybe narrow it a little bit and say brown or green. Earth tone covers a spectrum in our business from sand to charcoal and we have had to paint them all the above. If you want to leave it at earth tone, then we will pick one, just to be in accordance with the wishes of the community. We'd like to have a little bit more direction or what earth tone means. I don't want to create a problem if there isn't any, but that would make it easier for me. And also as requested, no lighting unless required by the FAA and preliminary results are that we will not be required to light it, which is good news. As with all facilities, Verizon Wireless is a good tenant and a good neighbor. They will comply with all g overnmental regulations, i ncluding t he F CC, FAA, a 11 state a nd l ocal ordinances, including the Meridian ordinance on Conditional Use Permits, which is 11-17-3. We are compatible with all the general standards announced in that ordinance A through I. The one that is most talked about, in my experience, are compatible and harmonious and, again, with our siting in this -- with the other neighbors and with our siting in this we got extremely lucky, the City of Meridian is to the south of us and the way that we are going to be able to construct it with Ten Mile Storage, I think we are extremely compatible. With that I would stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I would first like to commend you for preparing to co-locate other users of it, so that we don't have to have cell towers all aver the city. Your -- it's not a storage shed, but your equipment shed, I assume you make that divisible in such a way that if you do have co-located competitors they don't need to have access to the entire place there? McFadden: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioner, that's -- actually, we don't share our shelter with them. What would happen in that event is -- if, for example, AT&T wanted to locate on the pole, they will approach Ten Mile Storage and they will probably rent the bay right next to us and put their shelter down in there. That's pretty standard in the industry these days for the ground space requirements and then of course, we have got the tower space for them. Zaremba: Okay. You don't have any problem with our adding a condition that there be no signs or banners hung from the pole? McFadden: Mr. Commissioner, absolutely not. That's fine. Borup: Do you have any recommendation, based on you experience, on a color? You said you'd like to narrow it down a little bit. Has there been one that's been -- McFadden: Well, Mr. Chairman, honestly, that's -- my recommendation is to leave it the galvanized steel finish, because it's reflective. Painting a tower means a maintenance issue on the tower when the paint peels and deteriorates, it can become far more unsightly than you might imagine. There are jurisdictions, namely, to name a couple of them, Flagstaff, Arizona, there is a couple in Oregon now that have reversed their ordinance and are now asking us to take paint off, because of that very reason. So -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 28 of 64 but other than that, I think for that area an earthen tone, because it has abackdrop -- or a brown, I should say, the language on it, a brown -- on the spectrum of brown would be better than anything, because the foothills are our backdrop from any distance, you know, Bogus Basin, that type of thing. I think personally that would be my choice if they have to be painted. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes and I really hadn't thought of it, but I can't think of any that I have seen that are painted. Are you familiar with the three that are very visible as you go across the connector on Emerald? McFadden: Yes. Centers: How tall are those? McFadden: Well, I believe they are around 90 feet. I'm not exactly sure. I know the one that is on Five Mile and the freeway there, just before you get down to Emerald where the three are, that one is 96 feet and they are about -- they are about the same, in my -- Centers: None of those are painted. McFadden: Right. Centers: Okay. I can see the maintenance issue. Peeling. It would become unsightly in probably a couple years and getting paint to adhere to that is difficult, isn't it? McFadden: And we have all the same practical problems a h omeowner has in t hat three years from now the same paint may not be available and if we do get co-locators, getting AT&T, getting the same matched paint that Verizon has -- you know, these are perfectly acceptable conditions, but you can see the practical problems that we run into at times. Centers: I understand. Thank you. Wollen: I had a question or two. Your tower is going to be 125 feet. Is that outside of FAA jurisdiction or is there a height limitation where underneath they won't get involved? McFadden: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wollen, no, that is -- there is no limit. It has more to do with proximity to airports. Wollen: Okay. McFadden: And the magic number outside of -- if we were within a short distance of an airport, is about 250 feet. Once you get up to 250 feet, the FAA is usually going to require you to light it, mark it, something. Other than that, it has more to do with proximity to other objects. There we are lucky, we don't have anything. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. David, any comment on the painting? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeiing October 3, 2002 Page 29 of 84 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bruce and I did a little bit of talking here at the table while you were going through your questions with Mr. McFadden. The buildings that are out on Ten Mile right now are painted an earthen color and it might be best to match the color -- a similar spectrum of color as the existing buildings on site, so the lower portion of the tower would blend. That same color would blend with the foothills, a kind of brown dusty color that we have got in the foothills for most of the year, except for the spring. The painting can be problemsome, problematic, but we have to weigh that against whether or not the galvanized steel is more in -- the word just escaped me -- intrusive than the painted. A galvanized steel pole sticks out a lot more than a pole that's painted a specific color. There are poles in the valley that are painted. I could think of a couple of them down in the central location of Boise City in the Garden City area. They were required to paint those. Right now we don't have a current o rdinance t hat requires t hat. I t would b e s omething t hat could b e p laced b y either condition and if it were something that was removed, staff wouldn't have an objection to that. It's your decision. Borup: Thank you Centers: My concern, David, I can understand the paint and the appearance and I think it's ashort-term fix. I think the first couple of years it's going to look beautiful -- or better. Not beautiful. Who is going to police it when it starts peeling and required to be repainted and -- you know, et cetera, et cetera. We don't have those kinds of police powers. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Centers, we may want -- if we want to go with the painting condition, site specific requirement Number 1, we could add some additional language to that that would require continual maintenance. That would be something that code enforcements officers could handle. There could be some sort of tickler file also that could be set up saying let's make sure thatwetakealookatthisinthisspecifictimeframe. Language could be added to continually maintain the painting. That would probably be the best suggestion if we do decide tonight to go with a painted structure. Zaremba: Let me throw out an alternative, as opposed to having it galvanized and then painted. I'm not enough of a paint expert to know this, but I do know that it's tough to get paint to stick on galvanized. My question would be could the manufacturer somehow impregnate the galvanization process where the color would be permanent? Centers: Be expensive. McFadden: Mr. Commissioner, I have never seen that, to be honest, so I couldn't adequately answer that question. We always paint them. The only thing close to that -- you know, I have seen some specialty poles constructed -- I'm sure you have seen the pictures that they look like trees -- are supposed to look like trees and things like that, but even those are not -- the tower manufacturers themselves don't do that, that's applied after the fact, so -- if that helps. Borup: D o y ou k now w hether s omething t hat s ize -- w ould t hat n ormally b e painted before it's erected? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3. 2002 Page 30 of 84 McFadden: In my experience, Mr. Commissioner, they paint it while it's lying on the ground. Borup: That's what I meant. McFadden: Out on site. Borup: That's the way I would want to do it. McFadden: Yes. Yes. Centers: Have you ever watched them repainting? Excuse me. Go ahead. McFadden: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, yes, the repaint is, of course, done climbing the pole. I wouldn't want to do that personally, but, yes, that's definitely how they do it. Borup: Do you know whether something that size can be powder coated? McFadden: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea. Borup: Okay. McFadden: I could certainly find that out. Borup: That's just a painting method that would have a lot longer life. Centers: Like stucco. Color-coded -- Borup: No. Called powder coated. Zaremba: Bake the finish on it and make it pretty near permanent. Borup: Does that need to be done inside a building on smaller -- they do it on wrought iron -- external wrought iron. I guess that wouldn't work with this. Thank you. Mathes: Does the city have anything on painting the building? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, I don't believe the city has anything specific for the building. The building itself, the 12-by-28 or the 12-by-30 building, will eventually be completely encompassed from the exterior view by the Ten Mile Mini Storage building being built around it. Mathes: So it won't matter. McKinnon: Eventually it won't matter. In the short period of time it won't matter. Centers: What color are the mini storage buildings? Do they have red roofs or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 31 of 84 Borup: Right up there. It looks like brown. McKinnon: It's more of a tan color that's there right now. McFadden: I don't k now what t he technical color i s, M r. Commissioner, but i t i s -- I would call it a greenish brown. Centers: White roofs. McFadden: Yes. They are white roofs. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Did I ask if we had any other testimony on this application? I don't believe I did. Da we? Seeing none -- Centers: I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I guess what it boils down to, if we are going to require paint, we better require maintenance every two or three years and require them to repaint it every two or three years. How long -- the Public Hearing is closed, but maybe the applicant could respond anyway. You said you painted a lot at your last visit here. How often do you repaint them? That's okay. You don't need to come, just -- McFadden: Mr. Commissioner, Commissioner Centers, to answer your question, I can give you my -- my frame of reference is from Oregon. I'm only in Idaho about a year now, but over there in Portland area they are painting them about every 5 to 10 years, because of the coastal -- the heavy rain in the coastal -- the sea salt and all that type of stuff. There is a little bit more abrasive nature to the elements there, but that's -- as a ballpark, that's what I -- what we have seen -- what I have seen. Centers: Okay. So if we said every five years -- Borup: Well, as needed. Centers: Pardon? Borup: As needed. Wouldn't that be a better wording? Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would suggest possibly -- at least for the first few times a review hearing may be -- or some sort of review to be set up between Code Enforcement and either applicant or applicant's successors where it can be determined by Code Enforcement if there is a repainting that's needed. Let's Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 32 of 84 say two years dawn the road, three years down the road, since we have really no time period to reference with this climate. Borup: There is no sense to require it painted if it's not needed. Centers: Right. Borup: And it's going to depend on how it's applied -- I mean I think if they do an Anson wash or a sandblasting or something, the paint's going to adhere better and last longer. Centers: Well, that's if you agree with staff that you want to have it painted. Borup: True. Do we have any other discussion? What's the feeling of some of the other Commissioners? Commissioner Centers? Centers: I guess that isn't all bad. I mean I can understand where staff is coming from, that if we went with the approval without painting and if the City Council objects, then so be it. You know, let the applicant be ready for the City Council and with his homework and the same way with staff. Then we don't get into muddying up the waters if you don't approve it. I don't know. I'm indifferent but -- Borup: I think it's -- Zaremba: So the direction you're going, you're saying leave it as written and -- Centers: No. Just remove the paint requirement. Borup: Well, my first impression is I think anything we can do to make it less obtrusive is a good thing, but we have got a location here that's different than maybe looking at a lot of others. Centers: That's what I looked at. Borup: I see the see city is worried about the view from all the guys working at the sewer plant. No? But --and things may change in the future, too. Centers: They almost changed in the past, but -- Borup: I mean this is a location that is probably not as maybe critical as others, but 125 feet is up there a ways. David, is there another tower on Ustick Road, kind of west of -- east of -- Zaremba: It's just slightly northeast of Ustick and Linder. Borup: Okay. Yes. Was that the one you were referring to when you asked how tall it was? Zaremba: No. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 33 of 84 Borup: I didn't think so. Zaremba: No. This is a second one. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the one that you're referring to is the one that was actually approved out in the county that one is currently a galvanized steel pole. Borup: Right. I knew it was. That's why -- do you know how tall that is? Freckleton: It would be a guess, but it would be somewhere probably between 85 and 125. Borup: That narrowed it down, didn't it? McKinnon: The reason why I say that is the typical monopole is anywhere between -- the shortest they typically go is around 80 feet and the highest is around 150. Above that you get into lines and guy poles. That's a monopole. I haven't gone out there. My trigonometry is not so good, so -- Centers: Mr. Chairman, what our legal counsel states, you know, sounds good, especially the way he said it, but the Code Enforcement Officer is not going to have that on his calendar -- now it's time to go out and check that monopole. The only time a code enforcement officer generally g ets involved is if someone complains. And how people are going to be watching that pole and say, well, the paint's peeling, I better call the city. I think what legal counsel says sounds good, but I don't think it's the real world for the City of Meridian, who has one code enforcement officer -- I think. With the proposal to hire maybe a couple more. Has it been approved? Okay. But, anyway, you get my point. Actually, I'm indifferent. I mean if you want to require it to be painted, that's fine, but I don't think it's make a lot of sense. It makes sense, but the enforcement and the repaint -- I look dawn the road. Borup: David, are you familiar with any that have maybe been sandblasted or something to dull the finish and have a little less reflection? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the site specific requirement for a match finish so it would be a non-gloss finish, as far as sandblasting of a galvanized pole, I have no clue. Borup: And maybe some other -- is that one of the concerns, other than being metal, is the reflection? McKinnon: That's correct. And the way the site specific requirement is written right now, it's otherwise camouflaged so that if there some other way to do it, other than painting it, staff would be even more than happy to be approve that as well. But as far as my own personal knowledge, I have none, other than painting. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 34 of 84 Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Is there a current specification for utility towers that -- or transmission lines, the painting of them, or any reference to that? Borup: No, I don't believe so. Rohm: I was just curious. In essence, it's the same thing, it's just a taller structure. McFadden: Are they painted? Are the utility poles painted? Rohm: They are a dull finish. I think they are just a dull finish. Borup: Yes. They don't have any glare to them. Rohm: And maybe that's the issue here, not necessarily having them painted, but just the fact that it has a dull finish, so that it doesn't provide the glare off of the structure itself. Centers: Right. I wonder out loud if we were to require a dull, non-glare finish, that the applicant would be able to comply? Borup: So let them choose if they want to -- if there is a way to do the finish or paint it or it be their choice. Centers: Yes. Rohm: That seems to address the issue. Borup: Okay. Centers: Very good. Borup: Are we ready for a motion, then? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve forwarding to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 02-025, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communications facility consisting of a 125 foot monopole and supporting equipment in an I-L zone for Verizon Wireless by Mericom Corporation, 3735 North Ten Mile Road. To include all staff comments, with the following exceptions. On Page 4, site specific comment -- site specific requirement Number 1, is reworded to say, the monopole structure and antenna array shall be treated in any manner that reduces the glare and visual intrusiveness. We will add a Paragraph 6 that says, no signs slash banners anywhere on the tower, except the required safety signage may be attached within 10 feet of the ground level. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commisaion Meeting October 3, 2002 Page 35 of 84 Centers: Well, you mentioned the structure and we are not requiring the structure, we are talking about the monopole and antenna. The structure is going to match the -- Zaremba: The monopole structure is what I meant, not the building. Centers: Yes. Right. Not the building. Zaremba: I'd just leave the word structure out and just call it the monopole and the antenna array. Centers: Right. Zaremba: So amended. Centers: Second. Borup: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 02-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a ' 3817 square foot Carl's Jr. restaurant with adrive-thru in a C-G zone by Clayton Jones - on South Main Street, north of the Meridian Road and Main Street intersection: Borup: Thank you. Item Number 9, Public Hearing CUP 02-026, request for Conditional Use Permit fora 3,817 square foot Carl's J unior Restaurant a nd drive-thru i n a C-G zone by Clayton Jones. It's on South Main Street, north of Meridian Road and the Main Street intersection. I'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairmah, Members of the Commission. This is a project that should be familiar to most of you. This is the building that was originally housing the Kentucky Fried Chicken at the location of the intersection of Main and 1St -- Main and Meridian Road. The building that is currently on the overhead in front of you, it looks like the building has been painted from the last time that it was brought in front of you and it was moved. The project was originally -- when the A&W-Kentucky Fried Chicken was approved for the site just to the south of the existing building. One of the site specific comments that was made and was approved in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law was that the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken building would no longer be allowed to have adrive-thru. That was based on configuration that had a drive-thru on the north side of the building and now we are talking about either rebuilding or building a new building at this location to allow for the Carl's Junior restaurant to be located on the site. The building that's in front of you will be transformed into a Carl's Junior at the site plan -- it will be razed. Thanks, Bruce. This is the new site plan. I will go over it just briefly with you and just point out a few things. One of the original problems with this entire site was the lack of parking. There is not a great deal of parking for the A&W restaurant and a large portion of the parking for the A&W restaurant is this entire area and taking up some of the former Kentucky Fried