January 4, 2007 PZ Comm Minutes
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 48 of 61
also includes the proposed design guidelines in conformance with the concept for that
area.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearings AZ 06-061 and
PP 06-062 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
of March 1 st, 2007, and requesting that the applicant work with staff as noted in the
motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries. We will see you back the 1 st of March.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: At this time we are going to take a five minute break real quick and, then, we will
come back and hear the next.
(Recess.)
Item 13:
Item 14:
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: AZ 06-047
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for
Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E.
Magic View Court:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: PP 06-049
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 multi-family residential building
lots consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1 clubhouse building lot and 3
common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Waverly
Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View
Court:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 06-030
Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi-family
development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation
Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Moe: At this time I want to reconvene the hearing and open the Public Hearing -- the
continued Public Hearing on AZ 06-047 and PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 for Waverly
Place Subdivision and hear the staff report, please.
Watters: Members of the Commission, the applications before you are an annexation
and rezone, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit request for Waverly Place
Subdivision. The subject applications were previously heard at the Commission
meeting on November 2nd, 2006, at which time the Commission directed staff to
prepare Findings and conditions of approval. Staff had not prepared conditions of
approval, because staff is recommending denial of the project. The subject property is
5.3 acres in size and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The property is located at
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 49 of 61
2510 West Magic View Drive, approximately a half mile east of Eagle Road and a half
mile north of 1-84. If you look at the vicinity map here that shows the location of the
property. Woodbridge Subdivision is here to the west, residential development, zoned
R-4. We have Greenhill Estates Subdivision, an existing county subdivision, one acre
lots, zoned R-1. On the east and south by existing rural residential properties on five
acre lots, zoned RUT in Ada County. An aerial view of the property. The applicant is
requesting that this property be annexed and rezoned to the L-O, limited office zoning
district, for multi-family residential use. The UDC requires a Conditional Use Permit for
multi-family uses in an existing L-O zone, which the applicant has also applied for. The
Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office. The office designation
provides for low impact business and office uses, but does not support residential uses
on property that is not yet zoned as office. Because of this, staff does not believe that
the requested multi-family use complies with the Comp Plan designation of office. Here
is a view of the plat that's proposed. The applicant is also proposing a preliminary plat
for six multi-family residential building lots, consisting of 24 units and five common area
lots, including a clubhouse lot on 5.3 acres of land. All lots meet the minimum
dimensional standards of the L-O zone. The gross density of the proposed subdivision
is 5.1 dwelling units per acre. The average lot size in the proposed development is
21,585 square feet, with each of the dwelling units between 1,500 and 2,000 square
feet. The applicant is proposing 16.36 percent open space of landscape common areas
and a 2,000 square foot clubhouse. A ten foot wide landscape buffer is required along
East Magic View Drive and along the interior local public streets. A 20 foot wide
landscape buffer is required on the west, north, east property boundaries adjacent to
residential uses. A copy of the revised site plan that the applicant submitted on
December 15th after the last hearing. Access to the site will be provided from the
extension of East Magic View Drive and the proposed internal public streets. The lots in
the northwest and northeast corner of the development will be accessed by common
drives, extending from the public streets within the development. Since the last meeting
the applicant submitted a revised site plan as shown overhead and a letter stating that
all units will have a two car garage. The site plan has been revised to include a 20 foot
wide landscape buffer along the west, north, and east perimeter boundaries. Trash
enclosures have been added to the site plan. A minimum of 80 square feet of private
usable open space will be provided for each unit as required and two common lots have
been added, so that the adjacent lots to the south and west of the common drives here
will not be required to take access to these common drives. The staff recommends
denial of the subject applications based on the comments previously stated and those
stated in the staff report regarding compliance with the Comp plan and the Findings of
Facts as listed in Exhibit D. Further, staff recommends condition of approval number
1.2.5 regarding private street standards be stricken and a condition of approval be
added that requires the common area lots added adjacent to the common drives here to
meet the UDC standards regarding ,dimensional standards and landscaping
requirements. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners at this time?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 50 of 61
Borup: Question on staff's last comment that it needs to meet -- so, you're saying that
those do not meet the design standards now?
Watters: Commissioner Borup, I should have clarified that a little better. The plan that
the applicant submitted on December 15th shows the -- I got an eight and a half by 11
copy, I didn't get a full size copy. It did show the common lots there adjacent to the
common drives, but I thought that the applicant intended to construct private drives
instead. So, that's what my comments were based on. It was brought to my attention at
this meeting tonight that those were not private drives, that they were still going to be
common drives, but that a common lot had been added to the south side here --
Borup: Okay.
Watters: -- of this common drive and the west side of this common drive, just to
separate it so that those lots wouldn't be required to take access to that common drive.
Borup: So, you're saying the design that we are looking at now is in compliance?
Watters: I can't tell what the width of the common area lots are that the applicant is
proposing. They mayor may not meet our Unified Development -- Uniform
Development Code on that.
Borup: Okay. Then, it sounds like you said staff is still recommending denial.
Watters: We are. Yes.
Borup: So, our motion from last time to prepare Findings for approval did not take
place.
Watters: Staff did prepare Findings and conditions of approval for the Commission.
Staff is still recommending denial.
Borup: But staff still -- okay. That makes sense, because you were recommending it
before.
Watters: Yes.
Borup: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Siddoway: Sonya, am I remembering right that this is a property that there was a
previous application on about a year ago or is that a separate property?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 51 of 61
Watters: I believe you're speaking of the property directly south of that.
Siddoway: Okay. Okay. But that project -- I don't remember the name, but the -- was
denied by Council because it included residential uses? Are you familiar with that one?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, that was solely residential uses in there. I
know Conger Management did the project, but I don't remember the name, but, yeah, it
was -- it was denied. I don't remember exactly why the Council denied it, but I know
there was a lot of neighborhood opposition, as well as staff wasn't -- I think the
recommendation maybe was even for denial, but -- or for approval, excuse me. But I
know that the neighborhood came out in force at that meeting.
Siddoway: Okay.
Hood: And if I may, before the applicant gets up, I was just going through Mrs.
McKay's letter before the hearing and it did mention adding the common lots -- I think
Sonya thought that the common lots were the common driveways and, therefore,
private streets. If she could clarify maybe how wide that landscape buffer is on the
south side -- I guess it's on the north side of Lot 2. North side of Lot 2 between the
common driveway and on the west side of Lot 5 -- five I believe it is. Just with -- and
just for reference, I was trying to thumb through the UDC. I don't see where it says -- it
says any lot that abuts a common driveway has to take access to it. I don't see any
standard that says a one foot strip or a ten foot strip to separate those is required.
Generally, a five foot landscape buffer has sufficed as a separation requirement, so I
don't know what they are proposing, but just as a reference, I don't see that in the code
anywhere, but we have in the past done that, if that property is not taking -- we need at
least five feet, a common lot or some other strip through there, so they don't take
access -- or adjacent to abutting the common driveway.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Caleb, could you use the -- Caleb, could you use the pointer
and point out which area you're referring to?
Hood: Yeah. There is -- this is a common driveway here and, originally, during the first
hearing we noted that this lot, as well as these four units -- so, all five of these -- one,
two, three, four, five would have to take access to it. The applicant has revised the plan
and it has a common lot landscape strip running along the north side of this building,
this unit here, so they won't have to take access. Same situation over here. These four
will take access to the common driveway. This is the one that they want to have a
driveway come off of the street, so there is a landscape strip running right there. And
it's just hard to make out how wide that is on the plan.
Moe: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant come forward.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay,
Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Just to refresh the Commission's
memory everything was already completed at the past hearing. We had neighbors in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 52 of 61
support of the project from both Woodbridge and Greenhill Estates. I think the president
of the homeowners association did attend and supported the project. The Commission
indicated that they liked the project. The primary concern was brought up by the staff
that there were some outstanding UDC items that they thought it was important that we
modify our site plan to make sure that we could comply with the UDC. I believe
Commissioner Moe's question to me at the last hearing was could we go -- was that
possible for us to bring this into compliance with the items listed in the staff report as
being deficient under UDC regs. We have modified the staff -- or site plan, resubmitted
it to the staff with a letter, which should be in your packet dated December 15th. Due to
the fact that -- that this request for zoning is L-O, we are required to have that 20 foot
landscape buffer around the north, east, and west boundary. We had 15. We did bring
it into compliance. Secondly, the issue was these two common drives that were going
to support these four units at the end, met all of the criteria with the exception of one of
the things in the UDC stated that all lots that adjoin or abut a common drive shall take
access to it. So, staff brought up the fact that this would be the fifth unit -- this would be
the fifth unit, therefore, we were not in compliance. We did provide a separate lot here.
We have one I think that is like four -- between four and five feet on this one and this
one over here is the larger one, I think it went like seven, up to nine, and I came off the
building with like a ten foot setback and, then, I set that common lot there, which,
therefore, created a separate lot, which means this unit or this structure here does not
abut the common drive, therefore, bringing us into compliance. The other issue was the
question about this stub street that's up here in Greenhill Estates. That it is unopened,
unimproved right of way that was on the 1974 Greenhill Estates No. 2 plat. In talking
with the Greenhill Estates neighbors, they indicated they had two of those unimproved,
unopened right of ways, one goes -- abuts the north boundary of Woodbridge and they
said, you know, we already fought this battle before. We were told those stub streets
would not go through. In the Woodbridge situation I guess they put an emergency
vehicle access only, but no improvements were made to that right of way as far as
making it a vehicular public street connection. They said that it is their intent that they
are going to vacate that old stub street, there are trees, landscaping, driveway buildings
-- you know, it's one of those ones that was done so long ago people forget that it's
even there and it almost becomes a part of their lot. So, we overlaid that on an aerial,
submitted that to the staff, and it does not abut this corner based on the assessor map
and that overlay, it is offset from us. So, we don't believe that it would be reasonable
that that stub street would be extended to the south. We have, you know, that
interconnectivity issue with the Greenhill Estates has been fought before and the
neighbors said that they would object profusely with the district and the city if that were
to take place. The staff asked that we indicate the trash enclosure locations on the site
plan. We did delineate three different locations, obviously, subject to Sanitary Services'
approval. The other question was on the floor plans did we meet the requirement of 80
square feet of open space for each unit. We have covered courtyards and covered
patios. We did submit a highlighted site plan to the staff showing how those -- that 80
foot would be satisfied. Lastly, the staff wanted us to indicate on the property where the
management office, maintenance storage area, and central mailbox location would be
located. That will be located within our clubhouse facility. And, then, staff had the
question of do any of these buildings exceed 10,000 square feet. No, they do not. So,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 53 of 61
we have brought this into compliance. I'll stand for any questions that the Commission
may have.
Moe: Any questions of staff?
McKay: Oh, Mr. Chairman, one other thing. To answer Mr. Siddoway's question. The
Conger Management project, they submitted a Comprehensive Plan map Amendment.
That is what the Council had the problem with. They did not feel that they should
change the Comp Plan map for one parcel and it was I believe Councilman Rountree's
statement that they believed that the -- with the L-O designation on the Comp Plan, it
still allowed for multi-family under a conditional use, therefore, the Comprehensive Plan
map amendment would not be an appropriate procedure, because they believed that
the ordinance allowed for that option. So, that's why we sat back, Mr. Siddoway,
watched that application to see how the Council and the staff approached it and we took
a different direction, therefore, asking for annexation to an L-O with a CU.
Siddoway: Do you remember was the -- the project itself denied or just the --
McKay: Because the Comprehensive Plan amendment was denied, therefore, the
project -- the whole thing went down.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, comment was made by Council that -- regarding medical
offices in that area as well, regarding that Conger project. Most of that they envisioned
for medical.
Siddoway: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: Because it was back where the real estate group is now in that new
Sparrow -- no. Sparrow Hawk.
McKay: I think Commissioner Huckabay is right, with the size of that project it was
larger and I think they said that they would like to see some type of a mix in there. I
believe she is absolutely correct.
Siddoway: Yeah. And I could well be wrong, but I had thought that their comment
regarding office uses as the primary intended use applied to that whole buffer area on
the Comp Plan that shows as office, which would include this lot, but I don't -- that's
what I'm wrestling with. Okay.
Moe: Yes, Mr. Borup.
Borup: You were going to give a clarification of those lot -- individual lot buffers.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Borup: You said four or five and seven or nine. Which is it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 54 of 61
McKay: Oh, the lot -- it's not consistent .- it's not the same all the way.
Borup: Okay. It tapers.
McKay: It tapers. I'm sorry. I didn't clarify that. That's -- I confused you.
Borup: All right. I understand now, then. The taper was --
McKay: It's a taper.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Moe: At this time signed up would be Rich Allison. Okay. From the audience he says
he has nothing further to add. That was it. If there is anyone else that would like to
speak to this hearing, you're more than welcome to come up and speak. Okay. No one
wants to come up. So, what does the Commission feel about this project. I guess --
Borup: I think we made the decision last time.
Moe: I guess my point would be that I, quite frankly, how Mrs. McKay has made the
comment that I made comments that I liked the project and if some of these things were
taken care of that I wouldn't have a real problem with it, I think -- I think most of the
Commission last time was very much in favor of this project in the location and one of
the main reasons was that we were here when the Conger project came up and all the
neighbors were very adamant about the fact that they weren't wanting to see that
project go. But on this project here they were very much in favor of it and they were
excited to see that this would be coming forward. Based upon the fact that they have
gone back and they have made the changes that we felt needed to be made, I am still
very much in favor of this project.
Borup: And I agree. And maybe for Commissioner Siddoway's information, I think that
was the thing that influenced me the most was the comments from the neighborhood.
That was -- there was no -- there was no opposition at all. In fact, we had the
homeowners association president come and testify in favor of -- that's probably the first
time we have ever seen that on something that was --
Moe: Not to quiet anyone up, but does somebody want to make a motion to close the
Public Hearing and, then, we can continue this discussion.
Borup: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 55 of 61
Siddoway: Second.
Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-
047, PP 06-049, and CUP 06-030. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those
opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Siddoway, do you have any comments on this?
Siddoway: I do have a question for staff. Is it -- is it staff's current interpretation of the
Comprehensive Plan that areas shown as L-O are restricted to office uses and not
necessarily other uses that are conditional in an L-O zone? Sorry. Maybe I didn't say
that right. The area shown on the Comprehensive Plan as office -- I think I said L-O.
The area shown on the Comprehensive Plan as office would be limited to office and not
necessarily uses as defined in the schedule of use control for the L-O zone. Is that
correct?
Watters: Correct, Commissioner Siddoway. The Comp Plan actually says that the
office designation will provide opportunities for low impact business areas. These would
include offices, technology and resource centers, ancillary commercial uses may be
considered, particularly within research and development centers or technological
parks.
Siddoway: Okay.
Watters: It does not speak of residential uses in the office designation.
Siddoway: And my next question would be to legal counsel. Is it within the
Commission's purview to add their interpretation of the office designation to say that it
should include other uses?
Baird: Members of the Commission and Commissioner Siddoway, the code is what it is.
It either has it or it doesn't and --
Siddoway: Well, the code has residential -- you know, multi-family uses as a
Conditional Use Permit in the limited office zone.
Baird: There you go.
Siddoway: What's not -- but the Comprehensive Plan for office lists uses and lease out
residential and so --
Baird: So, you have got -- the Comprehensive Plan is your general guide, the code is
what you have to follow and that's why this has been presented to you as a CUP, so if
you believe that in this L-O zone this particular proposal can be appropriately
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 56 of 61
conditioned, you're being asked to approve it with those conditions. If you don't believe
that it can be conditioned, then, your option would be to deny it.
Siddoway: And just one last point just so I'm clear. By approving this application
tonight we would be directing the Planning and Zoning staff to alter their current
interpretation of the office designation for -- in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for
residential uses in areas other than this specific lot.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Siddoway, I suspect that the planning staff has
considered this a little bit more fully and, in fact, the mike was just grabbed by Mr. Hood
and he might have some thoughts to shed on the subject.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Baird, Members of the Commission. Mr. Siddoway, I don't think
this sets any precedent for any future applications. We will not take that into
consideration. I think that's probably something that crosses our minds, but we will look
at it on a case by case and just in this instance, particularly -- or the way that I evaluate
projects like this, if it had existing L-O zoning and they wanted to build an apartment
complex it requires a CU, that's okay, but in my mind you need to get the zoning first,
you look to the Comp Plan and, then, you get the CU. So, the zoning -- the
Comprehensive Plan we look to to get the appropriate zone. If they don't have the
appropriate zoning you have to make that jump to the schedule of use control to get the
use approved in the zone. I don't know if that's making sense or not, but to me with the
annexation is a key component. If this were already zoned L-O, our recommendation
would have been for approval, but because it's an annexation and they are -- you're
jumping from one -- the zoning is correct, but the use that you're putting in there doesn't
tie back to what the text says in the Comprehensive Plan, that's why our
recommendation was for denial and I fully expect that in the future for other properties
that are showing as office on the Comp Plan that that staff will recommend denial of,
unless there is just circumstances that I can't think of now that aren't affected on those
properties.
Borup: So, if we would have approved the annexation and zoning last time without the
project that would have solved that problem if we would have looked at the project
tonight. Is that true?
Siddoway: Well, if it has the same issue, it would have the same issue. Oh. Maybe
not.
Borup: We would have annexed it and zoned it as an L-O and --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, essentially, that's -- I mean that's in effect right. The
Council is no longer really approving any projects without a concept plan, though, so to
just say I want L-O zoning and not disclose what you want to build on there, you're
probably not going to get that through. But in theory, yes.
Borup: So, the end result is the same either way.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 57 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: It's splitting hairs. Mr. Chair, can I ask a question?
Moe: Yes, you may.
Newton-Huckabay: I have been noticing I also was traveling on the night this first came
before us -- this is not a good night for me. So, I wasn't here for the hearing. I have
read back over the public testimony. I just -- I'm not sure where or how I -- if I can go
ahead and vote on this. I'm looking for some guidance.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, the same question would be a fair question of
your new commissioner, Commissioner Siddoway, and I think you have seen tonight --
if you have reviewed the staff report, listened to the staff's presentation, listened to the
applicant's presentation, you have all the facts before you to make the decision if you're
comfortable making that decision. If you need more information, we can reopen the
hearing, you can ask for it, but I think you have had a full exposition of the facts on the
record tonight.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I feel comfortable with that. I just wanted to make sure that I
didn't want -- I didn't want to put anyone or myself in a bad situation. I -- personally, I
liked the project that came through on Wells on the south. I think this is a great place
for some multi-family residential in that area. I think with all of the medical offices, the
hospital, I think some high end multi-family residential area -- or residents in that area --
I could see a lot of different varieties of people and professionals looking to live in this
area within certainly walking distance of their home. Regarding, you know, putting the
cart before the horse, L-O zoning first, et cetera, I think that's -- myself personally, I
think splitting hairs and I just -- I feel comfortable with this and I would like us to move
this on.
Moe: Well, would you like to make that in the form of a motion or what?
Borup: Yes, let's do that.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, do I have any changes to the staff report? I did not
make comments or --
Watters: Oh. Excuse me, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Excuse me. Staff did
have that one condition of approval to be stricken. 1.2.5 regarding private street
standards.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, just strike it?
Watters: Strike it completely. I would like a condition in its place. I would like the
condition to read: The applicant shall construct a common drive on Lot 3, to serve the
units on Lot 4 and a common drive on Lot 6 to serve the units on Lot 7 in compliance
with common drive standards. Also provide a minimum five foot wide common area
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 58 of 61
landscape strip on this south side of Lot 3 and on the west side of Lot 6 in accordance
with the UDC standards for landscaping. Just to add to that a five foot minimum width,
if I didn't say that already.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. A five foot width?
Watters: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, I have got strike comment number 1.2.5 as it's stated
now and restate 1.2.5 or --
Watters: Sure.
Newton-Huckabay: As the applicant will construct a common drive on Lot 3 to serve Lot
4 and a common drive on Lot 6 to serve Lot 7. Excuse me. On Lot 4. Excuse me. No.
You had it right. Excuse me. Lot 3 to serve Lot 4. Lot 6 to serve Lot 7. And construct
a minimum five foot wide landscape buffer on the south of Lot 3 in accordance with the
UDC landscape standards.
Watters: And on the west side of Lot 6. Also the common drives have to be
constructed to common drive standards of the UDC.
Hood: If it's easier you can just reference staff comments and we can --
Newton-Huckabay: All right. I think I'll just do that if nobody is going to be opposed to
that.
Moe: And you'd also just want to make reference to her --
Newton-Huckabay: Is the stub street issue resolved to Greenhill's unimproved stub
street?
Borup: Is that a question for staff?
Newton-Huckabay: It's just a question. I don't know the answer to it.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I can give you my two cents.
Moe: If you would, please.
Hood: It's really not an issue. There is no condition of approval or anything regarding
that stub street, it was just more of an FYI. Staff is assuming that that street does get
extended. That may not be the case, but until ACHD and the City Council act
otherwise, we are assuming that there is another public street on the back side of those
units on the east side of this development. So, it was just more of a, hey, there is a stub
street eight feet off the property line and if that street gets extended you have got,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 59 of 61
essentially, double frontage property. So, resolved or not, no, but to be decided today --
that's issue can't be decided if it gets extended or not.
Newton-Huckabay: So, I don't need to make any comment to it in my motion?
Moe: That's correct.
Hood: As far as I know I don't think there is a condition in the staff report regarding it.
It's off site.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, fine. I just wanted clarification on that. After
considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to
the City Council of file number AZ 06-047, PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, with the following modifications.
Specific reference to staff comments regarding condition of approval 1.2.5 being
stricken and common drive lots and landscaping related to Lots 3, 4, 6, and 7 and the
letter from Engineering Solutions, dated December 19th, 2006. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve and move onto City Council
recommended approval of AZ 06-047, PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 for Waverly Place
Subdivision. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Siddoway: I'd like to follow this up, though, with one additional question and perhaps a
motion. I think we could avoid this situation in the future if we directed staff to bring
back a Comprehensive Plan text amendment that simply included multi-family in
possible uses for the office district. Is there -- it would still remain conditional uses per
the schedule of use control, but if we would like to be able to consider these without that
snag in the future, I would think that that would -- I would like to see if there is interest in
doing that.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Baird: Or you could go the other way and direct to have the schedule of use control
exclude what you just approved tonight. I mean it's -- one way or the other I think it
begs to be cleared up.