Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 5 of 53 Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 06-010 Request for a Rezone of 2.20 acres from I-L to a C-G zone for lanark Property by Ron Van Auker - NWC of Eagle Road and Lanark Street (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of Olson & Bush Industrial Park: Rohm: But with that being said, at this time I'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 06-010, request for rezone 2.2 acres from I-L to C-G for Lanark Properties by Ron Van Auker and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant Ron Van Auker has applied for a rezone of 2.2 acres from 1-0, light industrial, to C-G, general retail and service commercial. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of East Lanark Street and Eagle Road. Right here. The applicant intends to construct office and retail uses on the site, which are not currently allowed within the light industrial zone. This site, Lots 1 and 2 right here -- Block 1 of the Olsen Bush Industrial Park, Phase One, is currently vacant. Lot 1, Block 1 of the subject site has direct frontage on Eagle Road and East Lanark Street. Lot 2 also fronts East Lanark Street. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan and elevations for the site. The applicant is proposing to make site improvements, landscaping, pathways, et cetera, at the time of submittal for a certificate of zoning compliance. At that time staff will require site improvements in accordance with the Unified Development Code. As the subject property also lies within an entryway corridor, the applicant will also be required to submit for design review for the proposed structure. The proposed zoning amendment is not consistent with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map, which deemed appropriate land use for the site as industrial. However, staff believes that the policies of the Comprehensive Plan itself and the existing conditions in the area support the proposed zoning amendment. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposal. As far as issues go, staff recently discovered that there is an existing utilities drainage and irrigation easement which spans the property line common to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, of the Olsen Bush Industrial Park, the subject site. Prior to submittal of a certificate of zoning compliance for the proposed structure, the applicant must complete the necessary steps to vacate the easement. Staff requests the Commission include this requirement as part of the development agreement. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman. In regard -- did you -- as far as the letter that we received from Van Auker Properties, you have reviewed that and -- Hess: I have reviewed that. Moe: And are you in agreement with these items as well? Hess: We -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we feel there is a little bit of wiggle room with regard to the sidewalk along Eagle Road. However, we are not really Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 6 of 53 in support of eliminating the pedestrian walkway. That is a requirement per UDC standards. So, we stand by that one absolutely. And we would like to see the increased landscape buffer between the two uses as the UDC does call for a separation of the higher intense use from the lower intense use. So, we felt that that was a good compromise for them. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Miller: Brad Miller representing Van Auker Properties, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you for taking time to hear this. We have decided -- this property is zoned I-L, but it -- as you know that area has changed dramatically over the past number of years and we office in the building right next to that, to the west, so we know that area very well and it wouldn't make any sense for us to put an industrial building on that lot. So, we propose that we would do a commercial type building, with the thought that we would move and occupy a portion of the second floor ourselves and, then, lease out the building next to it, which we currently occupy. The issue in regard to the sidewalk on Eagle Road, we don't have any problem at all with the sidewalk on Eagle Road, but with the fact that Eagle Road will be widened and reconfigured here in the next little while, we think it would make sense to wait on that, because where you would put that sidewalk and whether it would match with their plans, we don't know right now. The other factor is if ITD has plans to put in their own sidewalk, I'd rather have them do it at their cost -- or I guess all of our costs, then, us absorbing that cost. But we would be willing to -- if ITD doesn't do that, we'd be willing to do it ourselves after the fact, but once that's determined exactly where those things will be and once they have started those improvements there. In regard to the landscape easement -- or the landscape buffer between the two properties, we had proposed -- you can see there is five feet there in front of the parking. Since we occupy the other building, since we know that area well, the uses in these two buildings will not really be dissimilar. The building that we occupy is zoned I-L, but it's used as an office use and we have a shop area in the back. But there is no heavy intensive industrial uses on that side of the road. Across the street, yeah, YMC that does heating and airconditioning, they have a sheetmetal shop there. But we would propose that the five foot landscape buffer is adequate. If we have to go to the ten feet, it could possibly alter our parking and make it a little bit tight. The other issue in regard to -- what was our third issue? Oh, on the -- on the pedestrian walkway. The requirements require us to put a cobblestone or paver or some other sort of walkway from the sidewalk to the front entrance of the building. Having officed in that building for -- the building next door for 14 years, I think I can count the number of pedestrians that I have seen there in that 14 years on one hand. If that's a requirement, that's fine, but it seems to me that if there is no pedestrians there and there is no use for it, it won't be used, why expend the funds to do that. There just are not any pedestrians in that area. The other issue in regard to -- what was the last issue you brought up, Amanda, the one that you said -- oh, on the -- on the easements. When the plat was recorded the -- it used to be that on all property lines you would give blanket utility easements. You don't do that anymore. Typically it's along Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 7 of 53 the front property line now where you give easements, because it's such a pain to get them relinquished. We are in the process of getting those easements relinquished. There is no utilities that are in that easement area right now. There is no plans for any utilities there, but I -- in the past it's taken me months and months to get the telephone company and the power company, actually, is quite easy, but to get some of those others to relinquish their rights to those easements -- I would ask that rather than the CZC being a condition of -- it being a condition of the CZC that we have those removed, I would ask that either the pulling of a building permit or preferably the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. We have no problem with taking -- removing that easement there, that's what our plan is, will be before the City Council. I believe the City Council hears those matters and we will appear before them, but you have got to go to the irrigation district, ACHD, all utilities, the cable TV people, and the city to get those waived and it does take a little time and I'd prefer that we have a little more leeway there, so we can get the project moving and not be held up by that. But, obviously, we want to get that done and we want to make sure that we handle that properly. That's alii have, unless there is any questions. Rohm: I have got a couple of questions and kind of bear with me at this time. I'm thinking as I go here. The adjacent property where your office is currently, is it zoned 1- L? Miller: Correct. Rohm: Okay. With that zoning, the sidewalk from the front to the building is not a requirement and if -- if we use the -- the fact that it doesn't have any foot traffic, but, then, we are moving this to a commercial zoning, then, we are using the I-L status wasn't going on there to validate something that is in a different zone and it doesn't seem to me that the two are congruent. It seems to me if we are going to go with the commercial zoning, then, we should stick to the standards established within that zone. That's just kind of the thought process I -- Miller: I understand what you're saying, but if -- I mean my thought is if it's not going to be used, why do it. Moe: Well, I guess I would make one point to that. You already answered that question. You already made the statement that that area out there is growing -- Miller: That's correct. Moe: -- and, therefore, as it keeps growing you will start seeing people there, therefore, you will start getting foot traffic, especially when Lanark is going to go through at some point and, then, you're really going to start seeing lots of traffic through there. Miller: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mae, is the road going to go through? I'd love to see it go through. But I understand there is problems with the school district on that. But anytime you'd like to take a stroll down Eagle Road with me, I'd be more than happy to Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 8 of 53 do that. But we have got the railroad tracks to the north and it's just not conducive to pedestrian traffic in there. It's really not. But, you know, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it if we have to put in a paver walkway. Zaremba: Excuse me. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I can agree at the moment there is no apparent need for pedestrian, but along with Commissioner Moe, I can see a future need for pedestrian. If Eagle Road becomes a public transit corridor with buses, the need for sidewalks for people to -- who are not driving, who are using the bus, they need to be able to access places by walking and I don't foresee people walking along a sidewalk on Eagle Road, except gathering there to get on or off a bus and, then, accessing the nearby buildings. I don't think there will ever be great north and south pedestrian traffic along the sidewalk, but I do feel that the portions of the sidewalk and the entrances to the buildings need to be prepared. It may be 20 or 30 years away before we have a bus system, but the sidewalks are what help it work Miller: I understand. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Mae: Brad, another -- in regards to the sidewalks and whatnot on Eagle Road, I would absolutely agree a hundred percent with you, I don't -- I think we need to wait and see what ITD does before we do anything. But I guess -- you have said that, in fact, if you guys needed to, you would do that. Miller: Sure. Mae: Would you be anticipating bonding for that or are we to just kind of anticipate if it comes to that that you will do it? Miller: Well, of course, your preference is always not to bond, but one of the situations you mayor may not be aware of, the City of Meridian will not accept a bond. A bond would be great, but they only accept letters of credit or cash and -- so, the preference would be, no, that we would prefer not to bond. But we would be more than willing to make that a condition of approval that at such time that the Eagle Road corridor is improved, that if they do not put in a sidewalk, that we would do that at our cost. One other issue that I failed to mention -- along the back of the building there is no entrances along the back there, we would like to reserve the right not to put that sidewalk on the back of the building there as well and just have the landscaping there, because we don't feel that that would serve any function either. So, that's one other issue that was not Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page g of 53 included in the letter and which I failed to address. Give you something else to think about. Mae: You're speaking of the north side? Miller: The west side. Mae: Oh, the west -- the west side. Okay. Miller: Yeah. But we would -- right now the sidewalk goes completely around the building, but in discussion today in our office we felt like the sidewalk on the west would not be necessary. There are no entrances along the back there. But we would want to reserve the right to do it if we felt that it was necessary. Rohm: That makes sense, too. I want to go back to this highway improvement just for a moment. Do you have any feel for the time frame in which those questions are to be answered and they will complete the transition of Eagle Road in front of this property? Miller: You know, I'm not up to date on that. I went to the open houses and talked to people, but I, quite honestly, can't remember. Maybe city staff has an idea of when that will take place. Rohm: The reason why I asked the question is because I hate to leave something open- ended and if you say, well, if ITD or Ada county fails to put a sidewalk in at such time that they complete theirs, well, we will do it. Well, if that's ten years down the road, none of us are going to be here to validate the agreement that was made tonight and it would be hard to come back and say, well, weren't you going to put that sidewalk there and I feel a little uncomfortable leaving it open-ended like that. Miller: But if it's part of a condition of approval I could see that we can go back to the documentation and verify that that was the case. But, granted, I mean ten years down the road, who knows, we maybe sell the building or something and I could see how that could become fuzzy. Rohm: And what I'm going to do is I'm just going to ask staff for their -- for them to weigh in on that and give us a further definition from their perspective. Miller: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to help on that. I, too, went to many of their meetings and my understanding was that the Eagle Road corridor work was, actually, engineered and planned to be accomplished in 2005. It got delayed by other expenses that ITD has and since they spent that money on other projects around the state, it is now totally in limbo. They have the plan and they will do it some day, but who knows when they will do it. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 10 of 53 Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. And just to kind of further that thought process just a little bit, there have been other projects along other proposed corridors that because it's open-ended we have not felt it really in the good -- in the best interest of the community to waive off those just because it is so open-ended, but that's just my opinion. You know, that's why we have got a Commission here, so -- Miller: I'm not asking for a waiver, I'm just asking for deferment. Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Fine. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Two -- well, the one -- I guess your comment on the sidewalk around the building -- and one of the reasons that may be in there as a requirement, because it was on your plan; is that correct? You're the ones that drew it on there. Miller: We drew it. Borup: Okay. Miller: That's correct. Borup: I'm still having a little bit of trouble understanding the walkways and the perimeter walkways when it talks about the perimeter sidewalk, we are talking about a sidewalk along Lanark? Miller: Correct. I found that confusing and Amanda and Caleb were able to help me understand that better. We are talking about the perimeter around the property and, then, we are also -- and, then, there is also mention in there about the perimeter sidewalk right around the building itself. Borup: Well, but we are not talking sidewalks along the other two perimeters. Miller: No. No. No. No. Just on the -- Borup: Just on Lanark. Miller: -- East Lanark and, then, also on Eagle Road. Correct. Borup: Okay. And, then, a walkway from that sidewalk to the building somewhere, a marked walkway. Miller: Just a delineated area. Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 11 of 53 Borup: I may as well mention it now, rather than later. I mean I -- there probably will be some pedestrian traffic. but right across the street we have a shopping center that has thousands of pedestrian traffic all day long with cars driving clear along the front of all those buildings with very few marked sidewalks that I can remember. Miller: Right. Borup: And that's -- and that's an area where -- where that is a conflict and I don't know if there has been a problem there. I mean this is a ~- this is, essentially, a one entrance building, it's got -- it's got access to the adjoining property, but it's not going to be a high traffic area. Miller: But we are going to -- just another thing. We will eliminate that entrance to the other property and we -- right now it's just two entrances on East Lanark. We are going to squeeze that down to one. We just don't feel the function -- the architect drew it that way to accommodate -- Borup: Well, I like the idea of the entrance to the property. I -- it's very irritating on projects without cross-access agreements and needing to go back out on a busy street just to get to the property next door. So, I don't know how others feel about that, but I think that's a good thing. That's all, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. At this time I'd like to go back to staff and get your comments on the -- the sidewalk from a time millennium perspective. Hess: Mr. Chairman, staff believes that the only way to guarantee that that perimeter sidewalk is going to go in is to require the applicant to do it and right now it is based in our code, that requirement. They are required to put in a sidewalk. It's up to you, if you want to give them a little bit of wiggle room talking with ITD, but all of our applications we see require sidewalks to be installed along all streets. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Again, only speaking for myself, I think that we are going to -- it's going to be quite some time before Eagle Road is fully developed and I think that there is some benefit to having that definition and from my perspective I think it's best to put it in now at the time that construction takes place, but the balance of the Commission will certainly have an opportunity to voice their opinion, too, but -- and I agree with everything you have said. I think that at the end of the day if you put in a sidewalk today and it's -- and, then, ITD changes how they are going to configure it, they will probably tear it out put in a different one. I don't know. I don't disagree with your thoughts at all, but we don't have any feel for when that's going to take place or at least I don't. Miller: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. The situation I would address is that most likely it will be torn out and I'd just hate to see the waste take place and I also hate to put it in when there is no function. Across to the -- to the south the building there where Everton Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 12 of 53 Mattress is there is no sidewalk there. To the north there is the railroad tracks, there is no sidewalk there, So, if it's not going to serve a function, I don't see why it would make any sense to put it in. Rohm: Well, I guess I still go back to that Everton Mattress property is technically I-L and it's not a requirement in the I-L, but it is in the C-G and if we are granting you a change of -- in zoning, then, it should be in compliance with the zoning request or -- Miller: .So, my question is is the Eagle Road sidewalk would not be required if it's I-L for the Everton Mattress? Hood: Mr. Chair, would you like me to answer that? Rohm: Absolutely. Please do. Hood: The sidewalk along Eagle Road is required for any construction along Eagle Road. So, if it came in for a certificate of zoning compliance, we would require that sidewalk to be put in, the multi-use pathway. Rohm: Even regardless of the zoning? Hood: Regardless of zoning. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Boy, that's -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would also comment from memory other projects that have gone on and I'm thinking specifically of those north of where the Slue Cross is now, have had the same comment that there is no pedestrian traffic there. It's the intent of Meridian to make a continuous sidewalk for several reasons, one because there may be pedestrian traffic, but mostly for future public transit and while it's an obvious argument now that the sidewalk is not continuous and, therefore, nObody walks up and down there, as each piece comes before us we are adding that requirement, with the hope that sometime in the future it will be a continuous sidewalk. I mean if anything ever happens with the Mattress property, even if it stays I-L, it will require them to do a sidewalk. The project immediately to the north of you on the other side of the railroad track will be required to put in a sidewalk. Slue Cross has volunteered to put a sidewalk in, even though they are not asking for any changes. So, it will at some point be continuous. Miller: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zaremba, I believe that that would be a good argument to say that we should bond for it. We don't have a problem with doing it. We do have a problem with doing it and, then, having it torn out or put in the wrong place or those kind of things. We don't have a problem with doing it at some point in the future. Zaremba: The City of Meridian I don't think accepts bonds for those, but if it were an ACHD street they would. It's not, it's an ITD street. Do they bond for-- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 13 of 53 Miller: I don't know the answer to that, but we would be willing to either bond with the City of Meridian or with ITD, whichever is the case, and with the City of Meridian we do have the ability to acquire a letter of credit. Zaremba: I certainly can see the logic in finding some way to make that happen. Miller: Yeah. I don't have a problem with that requirement at all. Rohm: Well, I think it's a good time we will open it up to public testimony. Miller: Thank you. Rohm: And we do not have anybody that has signed up to this, but at this time we would open it to public testimony. There is nobody signed up or appears as if anybody's coming forward, so at this time I guess we can conclude our open testimony and, Commissioner Zaremba, would like to give us your thoughts on this? Zaremba: Yes. I have in the past been vocal about preserving I-L properties. We have very few of them in the city. I think we are kind of under represented with I-L and certainly along the railroad track. However, this is not just a piece of property along the railroad track, it's also on Eagle Road and I feel completely opposite about the properties along Eagle Road, that they need to have retail and office things that are more appropriate in the zone that's being applied for, the C-G zone, than in the I-L and while I hesitate to give up I-L property along the railroad track, I just feel it's more practical on this piece of property that it be C-G. So, I would be in favor of the zoning change. Of the things that have been discussed tonight, if there is a way to bond for the sidewalk, I'm perfectly happy to see that happen. I would like to see a single access onto Lanark, as opposed to the two driveways depicted, but I would also like to preserve the cross-access to what is currently their own property, but may some day not be under the same ownerships,the cross-access to the property to the west. Basically, I'm in favor of what -- I'm in favor of approving it with some conditions. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I'm in favor of the project, too. I think pretty much I agree with everything Commissioner Zaremba said. I don't know it does much benefit for the pedestrian sidewalk from Lanark into the building, but it's not a -- it can be colored concrete, so it's not that big of a deal either, probably. The sidewalk on Eagle Road I don't -- you know, I wish it could be designed with what they have already have designed and get it taken care of now. It doesn't make sense to build something and tear it out. They don't always tear it out. Other projects have been -- seen others where they leave -- they leave the sidewalk that the developer put in and, then, when they put the curb and gutter in they just have a separate sidewalk, at least I know they did that in a stretch along Ustick Road and maybe in other places. So, I don't know the best -- I don't know the best answer to that. I don't see a lot happening from Ustick -- I mean from the railroad tracks Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 14 of 53 to Franklin until there is a continuous sidewalk, because of the way that road is. So, whatever we need to do I guess is fine with me. Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Mae: I'm pretty much in agreement with the other Commissioners. As far as Eagle Road is concerned, again, I -- my biggest concern is that Mr. Borup brought up a good point, if, in fact, you can get the plans on what ITD had planned for Eagle Road -- my concerns are the elevations of where they want this sidewalk to be, where you want to put it and where they would put it. If you're not -- you know, that's -- you're going to just waste money, because they will tear it out So, I don't know if we go ahead and try to have them bond for it at the present time and, then, maybe they do get with ITD, verify some elevations, and see whether or not we can put it in now, because it sounds like there won't be funds to take care of Eagle Road for awhile and, yes, we do want the sidewalk, but, again, I don't like putting in things just to turn around and watch them get taken right out. It's a waste of money and that's not what we are trying to do here. We are trying to be a little frugal here. So, as far as the other conditions in the report and whatnot, I -- I agree with the staff report, other than the Eagle Road area. Hess: Commission Members, Mr. Chairman, I would like to let the applicant know and all of you that the UDC does allow the applicant to construct the majority of the sidewalk within a landscape buffer, and, therefore, that would likely not be removed at a later date by lTD. Borup: And we do have 35 feet there; is that correct? Hess: Correct. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, maybe I should -- and I'm not familiar with the Eagle Road corridor study for this mile section or two miles or however they have broken that section up. I do generally know that the policy of ITD is they are in the business of moving cars and not people. I do not even know that a pedestrian walkway is in the plan for them. They generally -- that's why it is hit and miss with sidewalk there is usually they would rather not see them. They see it as a liability within their right of way. So, although I don't -- it doesn't specifically say that in the UDC that it's outside of the ultimately right of way of ITO, I think the intent is for these pathways along state highways, particularly to be on -- within landscape buffers with an easement provided to the public to use them. So, it doesn't answer the question, but just kind of some background history of how ITD looks at these. Now, I know that some of the Commissioners have been involved with the Eagle Road study a little bit more and maybe know if there are, you know, design plans that are at 85 percent or whatever and they have incorporated in some pedestrian paths or whatever along Eagle Road, at least a couple few years ago they didn't have any want neither desire to have any kind of pedestrian -- encourage pedestrians on a state highway, so that's where we as the city kind of don't see the same as ITO does and why we have it in our UDC and they mayor may not have it in their design for the roads, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2. 2006 Page 15 of 53 Borup: I could see it having more use, maybe, as a bicycle pathway than a pedestrian. Anybody bicycling on Eagle Road would be a good -- it's a good thing to get off the road. Moe: Well, with the elevation change that is out there in that area, that would be a crazy ride on a bike. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment -- I'm trying to picture a plan that I have seen at some of the various meetings and my recollection is that all of ITD's stopped at the curb. I don't believe they go beyond the curbs and pretty much for the same reasons that Caleb has just said. So, it is up to the City of Meridian. ITD will go along with it if we ask for a sidewalk, but that doesn't appear to be their interest. Rohm: Thank you. I guess last to chime in on this, I personally am in favor of doing the sidewalk now. I think that it should be placed in that 35 foot strip and outside of the ITD influence and at that paint it would not be removed at such time as the full improvements take place and the other thing is I think that the applicant's request to move forward with the project and vacate the easement prior to occupancy is in good order. I think that makes complete sense and he's certainly right that those lot lines all have a five foot utility easement and that's the way they used to subdivide and now it's more just the paper chase to get a sign off on each of the utilities vacating that and moving forward. Cole: Mr. Chair, with all due respect -- and I certainly don't mean to be argumentative with you here -- the building department will not normally issue a building permit if there is a platted easement across there. We have in the past found out that there is an easement after we have issued the permit for occupancy, but if we know there is easements there we are not going to issue the permit. Rohm: Well, then, I guess the applicant will need to get that vacated before they obtain a building permit, won't they. Cole: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. I think at this time we have taken plenty of testimony and it would probably be in order to close the public hearings. Borup: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2,2006 Page 16 of 53 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. would you care to take a stab at a motion? Mae: Well, before we do that I have a comment. I guess after discussion of the sidewalk and whatnot, looking like we are considering putting in the landscaped area, I guess right now it doesn't look like there really are any changes to this project that I'm aware of. Borup: Perhaps the sidewalk around the building, maybe. Moe: The sidewalk on the -- Borup: West side. Moe: -- west. Yeah. Where is that at? Hess: Commission Members, I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the very last bullet on page five of the staff report under the development agreement requirement. Borup: Yes. Mae: Yes. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. RZ 06-010 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 2nd, 2006, with the following modification: On page five of the staff report, last bullet where it talks about the applicant shall install sidewalks around the structure as proposed, I would like to amend that to be the applicant shall install sidewalks around the structure, excluding the west of the building. All other comments stay as they were. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been move and seconded -- Borup: Discussion? Rohm: -- to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ -- excuse me -- RZ 06-010, include all staff comments with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Borup: Aye. Never mind. Rohm: I think everybody was in favor on that. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 17 of 53 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Public Hearing: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Rohm: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048, both items related to Harcourt Subdivision, for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21 st, 2006. Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward -- or to continue Items AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: There were a number of people that came in after we opened our meeting tonight and there is another project that is to be continued tonight and that's the Una Mas Day Care, CUP 06-033, and it's going to be continued to 11/16. And the Spurwing Patio Home Subdivision has already been continued to 11/16. So, if any of you have come in to hear those items, they will not be heard tonight. Oh, and the Lochsa Falls project, RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002, are to be continued to December 21 st, 2006, as well. So, if any of you came in after we opened the meeting, those have all been continued. Item 9: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: AZ 06-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors - 570 S. Linder Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 5,2006: PP 06..036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential lots and 3 common lots on 5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors - 570 S. Linder Road: