Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 17, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 5 of 37 Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm pretty sure that -- my associate Sonya Watters was the -- did work on the final plat for the subdivision, so she's pretty aware of what happened out there. Rohm: Okay. Good. All right. Well, with that being said, then, could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item PFP 07-001? Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PFP 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Is there any other discussion? After considering all staff -- no applicant and no public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PFP 07- 001 as presented during the hearing of May 17th, 2007, with no other modifications. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PFP 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from May 3, 2007: PP 07-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots, 2 office/commercial lots and 10 common lots on 19.80 acres in an L-O zone for Meadowlake Village North by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC - SEC of Franklin Road and Touchmark Way: .f Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from May 3,2007: CUP 07-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to create 52 residential lots, 2 office/commercial lots and 10 common lots in an L-O zone for Meadowlake Village North by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC - SEC of Franklin Road and Touchmark Way: Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 6 of 37 Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Public Hearing from May 3rd, 2007, of PP 07- 009 and CUP 07-008, both items related to the Meadowlake Village North and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Meadowlake Village North Subdivision. The applicant Touchmark of the Treasure Valley had applied for conditional use approval to modify the conceptual PO for the Meadowlake Village development. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 52 single family residential lots, ten common lots, and two office commercial lots on 19.8 acres. The applicant has also applied for a variance and a modification to the existing development agreement for the site. First, I'll give a little background on the development. In 2001 Meadowlake Village was annexed and granted conceptual approval for a planned development to house a mix of office, retail, single family residential and multi-family residential uses in an L-O zone. The subject site, which totals approximately 160 acres, was proposed to develop in multiple phases. A development agreement was recorded which outlined requirements of construction for each of the phases. Each of the phases required detailed Conditional Use Permit approval. Okay. The proposed Meadowlake Village North Subdivision is generally located on the south side of Franklin Road off of Touchmark Way. As you can see, this is Eagle and this is Fairview. To the north, south and west of the proposed subdivision, which is what's highlighted here, is undeveloped property within the Meadowlake Village development. To the east is the Ridenbaugh Canal here, which separates the subdivision from the Edgeview Estates Subdivision. The sole access to this phase of the development will be from an existing public street, South Touchmark Way, which is right here. All internal roads will be public streets. No stub connections are proposed from this phase to adjacent future phases of Meadowlake Village. City staff is generally supportive of the proposed street layout, except for the cul-de-sac length as you can see. The applicant has provided approximately 5.12 acres of open space on the site, exceeding five percent minimum required by the UDC. The majority of open space will be in the form of parkways throughout the entire development. There are a couple of issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission. The first is that the streets within the subdivision, as previously stated, are proposed to terminate -- terminate dead-end in cul-de-sacs. The applicant is requesting a variance from the UDC standard to allow the streets within the space to exceed the maximum 450 foot cul-de-sac length. From South Touchmark Way, which is right here, via Nissler Court, which is this one, that totals approximately 1,250 feet. From Touchmark Way to Beal Court, that totals approximately 950 feet. Not only is staff supportive of connectivity within this development to future phases via stub connections, but staff believes that the Meadowlake Village property -- I'll move back to the slide here. Staff believes that the Meadowlake Village property is large enough to accommodate this type of development, while fully complying with the UDC standards. Staff believes there are no topographical features or other physical characteristics of the lot which would prevent full compliance with the UDC. Additionally, the Commission should note that all previously approved concept plans, as you see right here, depict a north-south roadway through the east portion of the site to promote better traffic flow and connectivity within the development. It is for these reasons that staff recommends denial of the applicant's Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 7 of 37 variance request. The other issue addressed in the staff report is that the applicant provides staff the office commercial elevation -- office and commercial elevations for these two lots here. Staff also requested the applicant provide a concept plan establishing the layout of the lots. Staff has not received either the elevations or the concept plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission decide this evening if approving the application is in the best interest of the city without first reviewing these elevations and plans for these office lots. Staff approves of the preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and development agreement modification applications. However, staff does recommend denial of the subject variance application. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Not at this time. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Johnson: Good evening, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. My name is Megan Johnson with WIG Design, 1173 East Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. I am the applicant's representative, Touchmark, and at this time I'd like to introduce Executive Vice-President of Touchmark for development Mr. Bruce Dalrymple. He would like to just give an overall view and the vision of Meadowlake Village and, then, I will come back and address the staff report. Dalrymple: Good evening, Commissioners. Bruce Dalrymple, 5150 Southwest Griffith Drive, Beaverton, Oregon. 97005. Executive vice-president for Touchmark. If I could have you maybe go back to the slide that was the first one that you showed, whoever has the control -- there we go. That one will work just great. Thanks. What is currently developed right now in this development is we have two phases of residential property developed there with single family homes and also a few duplexes in there as well. We are under construction in here. We have just finished our grand lodge and we have a Sun Valley independent apartment building and also we have an assisted living property there of 62 units. So, we have a number of phases as we continue to go through this to develop it out. But one of the things I wanted to explain to you is that when this was initially approved as a PO, all of these streets were private streets in the areas where we did our residential development, whereas we did have some public streets associated with this development as well for some of the circulation. We are looking right now at public streets, only because we are looking at platting this new subdivision or these new lots. These lots down here were not platted and to be able to insure that we have a finite matrix of how we build our homes, we wanted to plat this. But what happened is that your ordinances changed since the time that we had received approval on the PO and so that's the only reason why we have sought public streets as a part of this preliminary plat. Our preference is to have the private streets. In regard to the issue of connectivity, I think that it's important to take a look at the macro portion of this, as much as looking at it from the micro side, and if you -- and what I mean by that is if you were to look at just simply this subdivision or this preliminary plat and not take into Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 8 of 37 consideration the rest of the development that we have here, we have an integrated transportation or area circulation plan that we feel is pretty well thought out in terms of how we have designed it and implemented it and so we do have connectivity here through our street system, through St. Luke's, an adjacent property. Also up here in the Montvue area. And, then, also two areas onto Franklin. This one here is constructed and shown, but this map doesn't show that connectivity. And so I'm hoping that you will look at this as our development trying to create a sense of place, trying to create neighborhoods, and in those neighborhoods not to have the cut-through traffic, but, really, to be able to have the safe environment for the people to be comfortable and walk on the streets. This is an active adult, 55 and greater, community. So, those are some reasons why I'd like you to take that into consideration in terms of looking at this more from a macro than only looking at it from a micro position. And I think that's all I have to say for this moment. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Megan Johnson again. I'm going to address the commercial conceptual site layout. I guess the commercial parcels were incorporated into the project simply due to their proximity to the residential units and, Amanda, could you, please -- maybe the first -- yeah. That will be fine. So, you can see, especially this one, if we went ahead and platted it, we would almost be parcelizing it anyway, so it just made sense -- well, we needed to include it in the plat. And the same with this one as well. It's always been designated as town center commercial on the master concept plan. That hasn't changed. But at this time it's not ready to develop. So, when I spoke with Amanda about the conceptual layout, our solution was that we would agree to come in for another Conditional Use Permit at the time that the commercial parcels were ready to develop and she also iterated to me that one of the concerns that she wanted to see a site layout was they really wanted to control access from Touchmark Way, actually have no access on Touchmark Way and we are fully supportive of that. That wasn't our intent. And so we would like to place a condition on the preliminary plat approval that we will come in for a Conditional Use Permit at the time the commercial develops and that no access will be taken off Touchmark Way to the commercial parcels. We feel that's a good solution and it's a win-win for both parties, it allows the city to review the design and layout at such time that it's ready to be developed. Let's see. The other -- I guess, again, coming back to the variance, the cul-de-sac length, I've had three conversations with Joe Silva, the Meridian fire department deputy chief, and he was generally acceptable of this emergency access. I also think it's important to realize that this is -- Louise Drive, it looks like a very long emergency access, but it will be built out in the future as a -- a collector road and we will really feel that a stub street in this location will divert the traffic from the collector road through the residential area as a cut through and as an active adult community we really wanted to kind of keep that safe, secure feeling for the residents. That is one of the major concerns in active adult communities. In the second -- we also talked with Joe about the turning radius and turning radius does meet fire department standards and the right of ways are public. I think there was some confusion in the staff report about the exact width. They are 50 foot right of ways, with 34 feet of pavement and eight foot parkways on either side, with detached sidewalks. So, we are really trying to -- with the detached sidewalks and parkway system all along here, pedestrian paths along here, we are trying to focus more on pedestrian Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page g of 37 connectivity with this subdivision, because, as Mr. Dalrymple said, the connectivity to adjacent parcels outside of Meadowlake Village is addressed with the extension of Louise to the Montvue and the extension to St. Luke's and Franklin Road and we do have some pedestrian paths here, with a nice open area. A pedestrian path from Cutter Lane connecting to this collector road future Louise Drive. And as well as they would be able to use the emergency access as a pedestrian way. And that's, really, the intent and focus of the community. That was our reasoning behind this design. And, again, as I stated, we did show this to Joe Silva and he was -- he was happy with it. At that point I was surprised to see the staff report, frankly. So, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer at this time. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Megan, I'm kind of curious in regards to the emergency access. What kind of a time frame are you guys looking to develop that into a roadway section through there? Johnson: For Louise Drive? Moe: Basically, to the north side of this development. Johnson: The collector road? I think I would actually have to defer that question to Mr. Dalrymple. I'm not sure what their development schedule is for the land north of the subdivision. Moe: But the collector road is planned for sure? Johnson: Yes. Yes, it is. It is in one of the development agreements that was adopted with this plan. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions? O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Okay. When I first looked at this picture, I -- I looked at meandering streets and how it may affect -- as Mr. Dalrymple had mentioned, people will be walking on the streets, rambling around, and with all the trees and bushes, et cetera, around the curves, this might hinder visibility both by pedestrians and vehicles, daytime or nighttime, and I was curious about that. So, I went to the local police department and talked to a Dwight Hosford, he's a sergeant with the traffic department, and he really didn't have any concerns on the thing, but the other parts of the developments do not Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 10 of 37 have these type of meandering streets, as radical as these are, compared to the other ones. So, those are concerns that I had. Again, he didn't have that concern so much in that he felt that because they are curved so much that they would have a tendency to slow people down, where they do have concerns with is the construction phase where landscaping, people, and other things come through there and go from site to site and these cause problems, because I think you can only park on one side of the street in what I read and so these are concerns during that particular phase, not so much after this thing is developed. So, my concerns were alleviated, I guess, by talking with him, to get a clarification on that, but there is still, at 25 miles an hour going around there, I hesitate to totally agree with him. I was a policeman myself one time and I know some of the issues that we are talking about. So, those are just something I just wanted to put on record if maybe someone -- I don't know -- in Meridian or staff or someone could look at that to make sure that when this is fully developed and all the trees are grown, are we going to have a problem. Those are my concerns. Johnson: And those are very valid concerns, Commissioner O'Brien. I do know, according to the staff report, the police did have a condition as far as the type of landscaping regarding height of bushes and so forth and I believe that's part of their crime prevention through design. I can't remember the acronym completely. O'Brien: Okay. So that you notice that the dwellings are so close together and the setbacks are relatively short and minimal, that was one of the things people backing out of a driveway on a curve, how are they going to see -- or vice-versa, how they can see each other to me is an accident waiting to happen. Those are my concerns. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Do you have some additional testimony you'd like to offer? Dalrymple: If I may -- Rohm: Absolutely. Dalrymple: -- respond to a couple questions that were asked -- Rohm: Absolutely. Dalrymple: -- if that's possible. In regard to the time frame, in relationship to Louise and whatever might happen up here, and, then, connection going forward, what I can tell you right now is we are looking -- we are planning that right now. I mean we are looking at how to plan it. Louise will go through. It's not whether it will or it won't or whether or not we want to change that and do something different like Avenue H that was there. Louise will g'o through. It's a part of our plan, it's not something that we want to omit. So, you know, it's going to take us a couple years, probably, to sell all these units that are here, as far as the single family and I would imagine that we would be in the period of something like a two to three year period, something like that, in order to be able to build that. Secondly, if you could give me the slide -- maybe the first slide that was there Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17. 2007 Page 11 of 37 that showed the overall project. Good. That would be fine. You can't see it as well, Commissioner O'Brien, in here, but these streets down here are somewhat similar to these streets up here in terms of they're a cul-de-sac, they do bend, they do maneuver pretty much the same, and so it's not inconsistent with what we have done in the past and what's existing already there as a part of our development and it's critical for us wanting to create these pockets of these neighborhoods, you know, to eliminate that cut-through traffic and your statement about 25 miles an hour and maybe your worry about that in terms of the radius in curves and such, if we had a stub street on the other side -- and if you could now go to the subdivision plat, please. If we had a -- if we had a stub street out this side, you would have people coming through here and cutting through and wanting to go out that way and I think it would just exacerbate the problem and be more of a problem for us and that was one of the things that us -- all of us as designers, owner, rep, and planners were trying to do is to mitigate that So, I did want to respond to that question. O'Brien: Well taken and I -- I also -- the input I got back from Sergeant Hosford was that they have more problems when streets are straight than they do with curbed streets and also they have had absolutely minimal amount of calls to areas -- to this particular area since they have been in there. So, it's been a positive experience so far, 50 -- but I just had to express my concerns about -- about those things to make sure that you understand that there is a concern there and that, you know, make sure that what we do here in the future is conducive to this kind of community of the elderly, whose hearing is a little gone and sometimes, you know, you can't see as well and so people walking up the street, they just have my concern. Dalrymple: Well, it's 55 and greater and I'm 55, so I can still hear. But I know exactly what you mean. It starts to go way. Now, if there was a concern in relationship to landscape design on any of these curves -- I mean we were opened to mitigating those issues in terms of landscape design, if that's something that is important to the Commissioners. So, you know, with that, if there are any other questions, I would be happy to answer them. O'Brien: I have none. Thank you. Dalrymple: Great. Thank you Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. At this time we are ready to take public testimony and -- but there has not been anyone that has signed up to testify to this application, but the floor is open, so if there is someone that would like to come forward and testify, now is that time. Adamson: My name is Welcome Adamson. I'm a resident of Meadowlake Village. I have been for about two and a half years. Rohm: Could give us a specific address, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 12 of 37 Adamson: 578 South Warner Lane. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Adamson: Thank you. I would just like to ask the young lady here, Ms. Johnson, if Louise will have an exit to Franklin from -- from the east end of that property. Rohm: What you do is you ask the question of the Commission and then -- Adamson: I'm sorry. Excuse me, please. Rohm: -- once all public testimony has been received, then, the applicant will come back and respond to the questions from there. Adamson: I apologize. Rohm: No. That's fine. Just -- Adamson: I would just like to know if there will be an exit to Franklin from the east end of Louise Street. Rohm: Okay. We will get you an answer. Adamson: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and offer a response? Johnson: Amanda, could you, please, go to the first slide that I provided to you? Unfortunately, it doesn't show up very well, but this is -- here is Louise. There is a proposed roundabout right here that does -- will, in fact, connect up to Franklin Road. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Does the Commission have any questions of either the applicant or staff? Siddoway: I do, Mr. Chairman. Looking for a pointer. In the proposed layout with -- thank you -- with the cul-de-sacs, I'm wondering if someone lives in this area, but you got the services and commercial uses just north of them along Fairview, is there any way for those folks to access the services that are up here that they may want to get to without being forced out and around? Johnson: Commissioner Siddoway, by car, no, they would have to travel down Nissler Court and around. As I stated earlier, we are really trying to push pedestrian connectivity, so if they wanted to walk, they could come up this way or this way and also remember that at some point these will also be commercial, too, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 13 of 37 Siddoway: Both this area will have a micropath and this will be a continuous micro path as well? Johnson: Correct. Siddoway: Okay. You mentioned proposing a future CUP for the two platted commercial lots. Johnson: Uh-huh. Siddoway: And as part of that did I understand correctly that they would not take access directly off of Touchmark Way through here, they would be off of this road? Johnson: Nissler. Correct Yes, you are correct, Chairman -- or, excuse me, Commissioner Siddoway. We would actually like to put that as a condition on this plat, as well as, you know, the CUP as it came forward. Siddoway; And, then, one follow-up question for staff. The -- is it -- through the current UDC is it not -- not possible to do these streets as private streets, as the ones south of here have been done? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, I'll move back to the zoning slide here. As you can see and as the gentleman before stated, this area here -- all of the homes are not on individual lots. It was never platted. So, it's considered a multi-family development and in multi-family developments private streets are allowed. However, you know, this is a platted formal subdivision and they aren't allowed to access single family homes. Siddoway: Thank you. Okay. I think that's all for my questions. Thanks. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. I think at this time it would probably be appropriate to close the Public Hearing, unless there is other questions of other Commissioners. Could I get a motion? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, did the applicant address the rear setbacks? I don't remember if that was an issue. I know that the staff has proposed that they just meet the R-8 standard of 12 feet from the rear property line. It looks like they were proposing what would be ten feet from the property line, but I just want to make sure -- I'm inclined to go with the 12 feet per the ordinance, but I just hadn't heard that addressed. Johnson: Chairman Rohm and Commissioner Siddoway, I apologize I guess I didn't bring that up, because we are in agreement with that. We are fine with that condition. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 14 of 37 Siddoway: One more for staff. The outstanding issue for the Commission as listed is the need to construct the pathway. Has that condition -- oh, wait. Sorry. I'm on the wrong one. Never mind. I withdraw my question. Rohm: Okay. All right. At this time could I get a motion to -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I make a motion to close the Public Hearing on PP 07-009 and CUP 07-008. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on PP 07-009 and CUP 07-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Before we move forward with this, I'd like to open for discussion and start with Commissioner Moe. Do you have any final comments on this application? Moe: Yes and no. In regards to the preliminary plat and the CUP, I don't -- I don't really have any problems with it. I think it's a great great development out there and they are just tweaking a few things that they are doing, so -- in regards to that, but I do have some questions on the variance in regards to the cul-de-sacs and whatnot -- I guess would kind of like to know from staff if they had any other conversations with the fire department in regards to the emergency access and whatnot to get to these homes and whatnot, because there is quite a distance there. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did speak specifically with Joe Silva regarding this and while he stated that, in general, the applicant's proposal does comply with their standards for emergency access, that he would like to see a through -- or would prefer seeing a through street there for access. He does have concerns right now of the turning radius. This is very tight here at the emergency access. So, yes, he would prefer to see a through street. Rohm: Thank you. Again, because we aren't acting on that variance, it goes to the City Council, the recommendations and whatnot, so I will think that through here. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I much prefer the connectivity of the first -- the first concept that came through. I always find -- we went on the public park tour and they took us on the school bus and kept having to turn around in cul-de-sacs throughout the city in a school Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 15 of 37 bus and it was not so easy and a school bus is a little smaller than a fire truck and so I generally am not a real fan of cul-de-sacs and I would rather see a stub street through, as well as the entire design of the Meadowlake Village does not encourage you to go driving through there to go cruising around. It's a very central place when you drive up to that development with the entrance and whatnot, so I don't think other than those predominately who live there and all would be driving around in there and at the end of the day they are roads, not pathways, and so I would think as a resident you would want as many ways to get out as you could. I'll give my recommendation to the Council to not have cul-de-sacs. And the setbacks I have no real issue with. At 55 I don't think I would want a large yard. That's the end of my comments. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Well, I know we don't act formally on the variance, I would -- I would have a tough time finding a reason for hardship for a variance. I have to ask myself if I were acting on the variance is there a hardship that exists that would not allow me to make a connection and I can't find a true hardship case. I do understand perhaps marketing reasons that would be there to -- you know, to want the cul-de-sacs and things like that, but I don't believe in this case there is a -- we have the -- that there will be the ability to make findings for a hardship, from what I see. So, I, too, would agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay in that I would support the connectivity and I would like to see a north-south roadway that connects through on the -- near the east portion of the site. I would support for the office commercial areas that it's fine to support the plat and this CUP with going through with the condition for a future CUP on that lot and a condition of this one that it not -- they not take access from Touchmark Way. I do support the rear setbacks proposed by the staff and that is all. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway, do you believe that we need the connections both on the east trunk, as well as the west, or just -- Siddoway: I just think there needs to be connectivity. Rohm: One or the other, but one of the cul-de-sacs would be okay without access to one of the arterials? Siddoway: I'm thinking in this area here. Rohm: Okay. So, on the west end -- the west end use you don't feel that we need to have a connection there as well? Siddoway: That's difficult. I guess that one was 900 -- 950 feet. I just think that I would have a tough time finding support for a variance in general. If there was a different way to lay it out so that the cul-de-sac was not longer than 450 feet -- I don't have particular issue with the cul-de-sac, but if the variance for the cul-de-sac length, I think that there is a way to make it work within that current ordinance. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 16 of 37 Rohm: And I think the point is is both of them -- or either of them require a variance and you would have to put a stub out of each of these to eliminate the need for the various, as I understand it. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can address that for you? Rohm: Would you, please. Hess: The way this works is because both are considered cul-de-sac length __ measurement length starts from Touchmark Way here. So, we count here at the beginning point, we follow along the Beal Court and it ends here. The second cul-de-sac also starts from the same place and is measured all the way to the end. However, if Nissler Court was to actually become a through street, our starting point for the cul-de- sac length would actually start here. Rohm: Right. Hess: So, I'm pretty sure that they can meet 450 length with this one. They would not need a variance for this cul-de-sac. Rohm: Good. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate that. That helps quite a bit. All right. Good. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some final thoughts? O'Brien: I'm not in favor of a through put on the cul-de-sac, either one of them. If I were to buy a home there, the whole purpose of me going in there would be for privacy and keep out unwanted, unneeded traffic. Okay. That's important me and I would see that would be important to a lot of people that might move in there and being a destination for their future home. Again, my only concerns only would be in the safety aspects of that. You add a through put -- open up the cul-de-sac and you're going to get -- you're going to increase those safety concerns I mentioned earlier and I just don't think I could approve of that type of a change outside of having it mainly just for fire and police. Rohm: So, basically, you like it the way it is? O'Brien: I do. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. O'Brien: Outside of having staff review the safety aspects of lighting and shrubberies and things like this is on some of the radical curves to make sure that people can see -- people coming out of driveways and an entrance street or walking on the street, et cetera. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I guess my final comment on this application is I tend to agree with Commissioner O'Brien. The fact of the matter is there is connectivity through this subdivision via the currently existing Touchmark Road and the proposed road along Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 17 of 37 the north line of these lots and even though there will be two cul-de-sacs internal to this, the general flow of traffic throughout this subdivision has -- is being maintained and I certainly understand where staff is coming from, because that's what we have, we have ordinances to prevent the lack of good traffic flow and I think that this particular development maintains that traffic flow, even though it doesn't comply with the UDC and so that would be my comments on this. And with that being said, I'm ready to hear a motion, so -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, one follow-up with Amanda real quick. Just like to check the conditions. The conditions of approval are already written for the setback issue; correct? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, that's correct. Siddoway: And the -- there is a condition also that requires connectivity? Hess: Correct. That is correct as well. Siddoway: And this -- there is -- there is not one, is there, that addresses a future CUP and the issues for the two existing -- the two commercial lots? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no. No. Right now -- Siddoway: That would need to be added? Hess: The Commission states that the applicant was to provide concept plans for how the commercial office lots were to develop. So, you can add the CUP requirements for those lots under the Conditional Use Permit comment. Siddoway: Do you have those lot numbers? Hess: Let me check. Hood: And while Amanda is looking for that, if I may, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, always helps staff out if we can have a plat note to that effect. Five years from now, maybe two or three years from now when someone goes to pull a building permit on one of the office commercial lots, staff may have turned over and no one remembered that there is a CU requirement. So, if we can get a plat note stating that those lots require a CU and the accessory restrictions that were mentioned earlier, I think that would sure help keep the record clean that it's -- that they do CUPs and where access should be taken, as well as if you wanted to put it in the CUP as well, I think both places are appropriate in this case. Hess: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, those two lot numbers are 1 and 62 of Block 1. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 18 of 37 Siddoway: Okay. And the ten foot buffer adjacent to Edgeview Estates is addressed? Yes? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, they have agreed to that. Siddoway: Okay. And there is a condition that confirms that requirement? Hess: Yes. That is correct. Siddoway: Okay. Ready to try a motion. Back here. We have closed the hearing. Yes. Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 07-009 and CUP 07-008, as presented during the hearing on May 17th, 2007, with the following condition of approval: That a plat note be required that says that Lots 1 and 62 of Block 1, require a Conditional Use Permit and that no access for these lots will be taken off of Touchmark Way. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Okay. Okay. So, basically, you're saying that the staff report recommending denial of the variance is -- Siddoway: Is part of my motion. Rohm: -- is part of your motion. Siddoway: It's already in the staff report that way. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 07-009 and CUP 07-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the sign. The motion passed three to two. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 07-009 Request for a Rezone of 24.69 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Jabil Southeast by Joint School District No. 2 - 1303 East Central Drive (Portion of Lot 1, Block 1, of the Jabil Subdivision): Rohm: Okay. Thank you folks for coming in. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for RZ 07-009 for the sole purpose of continuing this project to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 7th, 2007. Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second.