Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 3, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 13 of 62 Newton-Huckabay: This will be a nice addition to north Meridian. :t Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 07..004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.48 acres from RUT to an L-O zone for Locust Grove Professional Office Building by Ruby/Edwards: Architecture + Design - 1695 South Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Very nice. Thanks for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-004 related to Locust Grove Professional Office Building and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for annexation and zoning approval of approximately 2.5 acres from RUT to the L-O, limited office district. The applicant proposes to construct a two story -- you can see the elevations real quick. A two story, 21,000 square foot multi-tenant office building. The building will be designed to accommodate professional offices and medical offices. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Overland Road and Locust Grove Road. The site is primarily vacant land with one existing residence and several outbuildings, as you can see on the aerial photo here. To the north there is the existing Maverick fueling station right here, zoned C-C. To the east vacant land, zoned C-N. And south and west of the site is the Sportsman Point development down here. The applicant has not submitted a subdivision application at this time. However, staff has received a concept plan for how the property may develop. On the submitted conceptual plan the applicant has depicted one access to Locust Grove Road right here. The driveway is located near the south property line, approximately 440 -- not quite 440 feet south of the Overland-Locust Grove intersection. Because the applicant has not submitted a subdivision application at this time, ACHD has not reviewed or approved access to the property yet. ACHD will do so at the time when the applicant submits for a certificate of zoning compliance for the office building. Due to the proposed use and adjacent residential uses, staff believes that a development agreement is necessary to insure the property is developed so as to not negatively impact the nearby properties. Staff is recommending that the city limit the uses that can operate on the site to only principally permitted uses in the L-O zone. This recommendation is intended to protect the residential neighbors to the south and west from more intense commercial uses, such as restaurants, laundromats, animal hospitals, et cetera. Further, staff recommends that the hours of operation for business on this site be limited from 7:00 to 6:00 p.m. Additionally, the applicant has proposed alternative compliance to construct a landing -- you can see the landscape plan here. A landing at the corner of Overland and Locust Grove. Some retaining walls and two stairways which lead to a public plaza, which is right here, which are all to be located within the required arterial buffers. Per city code impervious surfaces are not allowed within landscape buffers. However, staff reviewed the alternative compliance proposal and is supportive of this -- the concept's landscape plan. Staff also requested elevations for what the future building will look like. Staff believes that the building generally complies with the design standards for office structures of this size. Staff is recommending approval of the Locust Grove office application. The Commission must Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 14 of 62 make a recommendation to Council on the annexation application. Although it is not on the agenda as a Public Hearing item, the Commission may also review and make recommendations regarding the alternative compliance and the design review application, if the Commission believes it's necessary. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: None at this time. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Edwards: My name is Wes Edwards, with Ruby Edwards Architecture and Design. I reside at 3486 West Angelica Drive in Meridian. We are presenting tonight for the annexation of this property per the proposed use in the Comprehensive Plan. We are trying to establish a building and a function that is becoming quite predominate along Overland Road with a lot of professional offices, doctor's offices, as you go throughout the EI Dorados and the Silverstone developments further down the road. This project will serve as an anchor for this intersection, especially once that Locust Grove overpass is complete, which would probably happen prior to this building being complete. We feel that this use for this site is a logical choice in this location and it is -- since it is bordered -- this site is bordered on all sides by the city, it just makes sense to annex it at this time. This use will also serve as a buffer between the residential zone and the commercial zone and serves as a -- less of an impact compared to other uses as stated by the staff, such as restaurants and gas stations. The other thing that we would -- we propose this for is that it puts a place of business close to where people live, so that they don't have to work so far from home and that people can go to the doctor or a professional service without having to travel too far from home. And, therefore, encouraging people to travel shorter distances in their day-to-day lives. Can you turn to the site plan? Or, actually, the landscape plan would probably be better. The current site -- oh, this doesn't point very well. It has a weird thing in it. The site slopes about eight feet at the greatest location. From the corner of Overland and Locust Grove it's about eight feet higher than it is on the west property line and we are proposing that we -- in order to get the amount of building that we are looking for, we propose to excavate down to that level and provide retaining walls in that landscape buffer and it will also be serving to keep the cars and the elements of the site out of direct view from the residents on the other side of the fence. We had a neighborhood meeting with the residents and -- well, everyone within the boundary that was required and there was a concern about the west property line, that we improve that, that we provide a new fence and the owner is willing to provide a new cedar or vinyl fence along that property line, as well as some denser landscaping along that back property line. We have maintained our landscape -- 20 foot landscape buffer where ever we are adjacent to the residential and as well as our 25 foot buffer on both of the arterials. I will answer any questions that you have at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 15 of 62 O'Brien: I have a question. Is there any concern from the homeowners, people that live there, about the visual loss of the mountain areas, et cetera, because that's sloped down behind the building quite a bit. Was there any concern about that loss of view of Bogus Basin, et cetera? Edwards: I'm not sure. The owner was in attendance at that meeting and I was not and I'll let him speak to that if he can when he -- O'Brien: The building's quite tall and it's raises up already and, then, the land does slope down behind there -- Edwards: Well, it is within -- it is lower than the 35 foot maximum height allowed in that -- in that use. We are -- and that is just that high canopy that you saw on that elevation. The other -- the other areas are only about 28 to 30 feet tall, depending on which part of the building you're looking at. So, there is -- if you were to -- if you were to excavate that extra eight feet down and build the same story building with a pitched roof on it, you would be about the same -- the same height. O'Brien: Well, I don't think we need to be concerned about that, I was just curious if you -- thank you. Edwards: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I'm just curious about the hours of operation. It says here that you submitted those. Is that a result of your neighborhood meeting? Edwards: I'll have to consult my client on that. They are the ones that gave me that number. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Edwards: He can address that when he -- when he addresses the Council. The Commission. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Wes, could you address the alternative compliance that you're seeking? Edwards: Yes. It was brought to our attention through our application that on the corner -- this pointer is not that good and my hand's very shaky. The edge of the building on the north and on the east are pretty much at the 25 foot setback. So, if you intersect those, they -- about where that arrow is is where those intersect. So, this stair Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 16 of 62 on either side and the landings of those stairs, are in -- inside that 25 foot buffer and Amanda brought that to my attention that those are not allowed per the ordinance. But we feel that providing the water feature in the plaza, providing pedestrian access for people that either are patrons of the building, employees of the building, are able to come out to this plaza, cross the street to whatever commercial uses serve this community, and be able to beautify that corner with some very attractive features and we felt that that was a superior use application than what was in the ordinance. Siddoway: Thank you. Edwards: That also included the retaining walls. And the retaining walls were required due to the grade. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Wendy, did you need further response to your question? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I do, please. Rohm: Okay. Would someone else from your group like to come forward, please? Eldridge: My name is Charles Eldridge. I reside at 25 -- well, our business is located at 2525 Stokesberry Place here in Meridian and we are the developers on this project. As far as the hours of operation, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, we are not -- you know, we are willing to comply by the hours that are required in this zoning and, typically, the medical office uses that we are meeting with currently at this time are day operations and that's what we would propose. There is nothing that we are aware of as far as the night operation and I don't think that's allowed in the zoning either, so -- Newton-Huckabay: In the L-O? Eldridge: Yeah. In the L-O. Well, I apologize, I don't know exactly what the hours of operation have to be, but a rough estimate would be 7:00 morning to 6:00 at night. Newton-Huckabay: I'm just generally not a fan of applying operating hours to something like that without knowing what's going to be in there. That's why I was asking if it was a result of the neighborhood meeting. Eldridge: No, it wasn't a direct result of the neighborhood meeting. I think the neighbors that were at this meeting were more pleased with the fact that it wasn't going to be a service station or retail outlet or issues such as these restaurants. Those would be later operations. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Eldridge: Any other questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 17 of 62 Newton-Huckabay: I have no more. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Mike Bussert. Did you want to speak? Oh. Okay. From the audience he said that he had nothing to add. Scott Holiday. And also indicates same. And there is nobody else that has signed up to this application, but if there is anyone that would like to speak at this time, please, come forward. Vaughn: Commissioners, my name is Mike Vaughn, Sportsman Point, president of the homeowners association. We have no objection to this rezoning, as long as the architect and landscape does not offend the neighborhood. What we are worried about was the grade, which we further discussed with them and they said there will be an architectural meeting later. As far as the view, we have -- that's not been an issue, it's more been concern of the view into the backyards of the homeowners that are adjacent to this property. The other concern is, of course, the grade from the road coming down into the property, because that will be a very steep grade, because as they are saying, it's eight foot down that they are going to excavate down to get down to the level of the fence on the existing properties and so when they take it down like that it will be no bigger than a two story house in our neighborhood, so we are not concerned about that view. So, we have pretty much accepted this, as long as we still can work out some architectural designs with them to lessen the effect of the back yards of the neighbors and individuals. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Appreciate your input. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Rohm: Sir, one question. Siddoway: Yes. Are there issues that you're saying you're still needing to work out that -- Vaughn: As far as the issues, it's just -- we wanted to see how that grade -- how that driveway is going to come down to that grade, but from what I'm understanding, there is still some ACHD approvals that got to happen on that. Siddoway: Okay. But in terms of the building elevation itself, you don't have a particular concern? Vaughn: That's really not a -- Siddoway: Okay. Vaughn: They come in and beefed up the landscaping to give us the buffer that we are looking for, so they agreed to do it then, and stuck out with us. The other remark about the time, that was mentioned in the homeowners association, that it be a day business only, and that, you know, that was brought up, that it -- the L-O zoning is, you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 18 of 62 daytime only and it's not going to be 24 hours a day. So, that was very acceptable to the homeowners that are adjacent to that property. We just didn't want something like the Maverick being 24 hours a day and the lights being shining in our backyard like it is today. Newton-Huckabay: My comment is driven by the fact that, for example, I generally go to my dentist somewhere around 7:00 p.m., because they are open until 8:30, and so -- and I -- you know, they provide a service that way and more and more service providers are going to be offering services around hours that work for working professionals. So, I think that that's more what drives my -- my lack of desire to put 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and I also -- my family starts their day somewhere around 5:00 a.m. and so -- Vaughn: Yeah. I agree with that, but-- Newton-Huckabay: But I agree with you, 24 hours is not appropriate. Vaughn: Not appropriate in that type of -- Newton-Huckabay: No. And that wouldn't be what I was looking for. Vaughn: We would be fighting that, if that was the case. Newton-Huckabay: Correct. Yeah. No, that would not be what I would be interested in. Vaughn: Any other questions? Oh, there is -- I noticed earlier on the L-O zoning you allowed a veterinary clinic. Would that be the same thing -- would that type of environment be allowed in this -- Rohm: I don't know. I'll have staff -- let's get staffs input on that. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is a -- with a Conditional Use Permit that would be allowed. So, they would have to come in, which is another hearing, where the neighbors would have another chance to speak on the issue. Vaughn: And, then, there still would be an issue of architecture. So, there still would be another hearing for the architectural design on this property or is it -- Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the design review is, actually, at the staff level approval, so I guess that's why we are addressing it here at this hearing, so that the Commission can give input on it as well. Vaughn: Because I was under the impression this is annexation and zoning, not an architectural design, so -- Rohm: That's correct. And the fact of the matter is is if we are going to have an opportunity to put any limitations or have some control at this level, it's at the point of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 19 of 62 annexation, because we can stipulate that they adhere to their conceptual landscape plan and their elevations as presented in this application as part of their design review process when they go in for their building permit and so, basically, even though they are not making an application for structures and the subdivision per se, at this time we are setting in motion those things that they will need to adhere to, like the landscape plan and things such as that. Vaughn: Okay. So, that does bring up a point. What if ACHD does not approve their -- their entry -- driveway entry and they have to come back and change it to a different format? Does that mean he comes back through here for a hearing or -- Rohm: Well, as far as -- Vaughn: Do you see what I'm saying? Moe: Mr. Chairman, if I might, and the staff can correct me if I'm wrong, basically, in regards to either the alternative compliance or the design review, that this body can give comment and any recommendation and whatnot, but it will go to Council before approvals and it will not be approval through this body. We can give a recommendation to Council only. Rohm: And, then, the staff does the design review on the structures themselves. Vaughn Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just to address that ACHD issue, keep in mind that this piece has no other opportunity for access, so there will have to -- ACHD will definitely have to grant them some sort of access, whether it's a right-in, right-out only or if they decide to do a full access, they will require access. There is no other option for them. Rohm: Exactly. And thank you. That's a good point. Okay. From the audience it looks like we have someone else that would like to testify. Dartell: Gene Dartell. My property is where the driveway comes down -- is the back of my property. Nary: Address, sir. Dartell: 1728 Labrador. Nary: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 20 of 62 Dartell: And what I'm concerned about is the grade level of that parking lot, whether it be the grade of what our property is right now, the back of our yard, whether they are going to raise that grade or what, because the driveway coming down is going to be a rather critical grade there, there would be a short distance to drop that on the grade and which is going to happen, as any lights coming down are going to be coming right into my living room at all times, because lights are on cars now. I'm a little concerned about what -- the level of that and I'd like it to be put in minutes that we -- that this has been questioned, the grade of this parking lot, as to the height of it, whether it be raised or which would bring the parking lot up and the cars would be more accessible from our viewpoint and I just thought it would be a good point at this time to talk about it as to how -- what type of buffer -- and we are not against it in any way, but we would just like to know ahead of time what -- what the plan would be. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for your input. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify for this project? Bussert: Yeah. My name is Mike Bussert and I live at 1700 South Labrador and I live right next to Gene and my biggest concern would be to try and put some -- some type of trees that you can't see through in the wintertime, you know, you buffer that up a little bit and I know that they are talking about doing, but that would be my biggest concern is trying to block it out with a berm and some -- Rohm: You're talking along their west line? Bussert: Pardon? Rohm: You're talking along their west line? Bussert: Yeah. Rohm: Okay. Well, the pointer is-- Siddoway: It's on the chain. Bussert: Yeah. Right along here is where our property is. This is Gene's place and, then, this is my place and then -- but putting a lot of trees in there that you can't see through in the wintertime, so that when there is lighting back here -- our bedrooms on the back of the house are right here, so any families that live there with kids, I mean we would want them to try to get some sleep at night, too. I'd like some low lighting -- I mean that would be a concern, you know. Rohm: There are ordinances that address lighting and the contamination to adjacent properties. Bussert: Okay. That's just mainly my concern. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 21 of 62 Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions of this individual? Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and respond to any comments offered by the -- Edwards: Do I need to restate my name? Rohm: Please do. Edwards: Wes Edwards. 3486 West Angelica Drive. We appreciate the concerns of the neighbors. At this time no civil design has been performed to design the grading. At this point it's just a conceptual design. We do understand that there will be significant grade coming into the site and it will have to maintain the minimum standards required by code and for -- for storm drainage that is not excessive coming into the site, but we do want to drop that grade as quickly as possible, so that we are down to the level that is not disturbing the neighbors. And the landscaping along that line will be -- the majority of which will be of evergreen nature, which will be -- will grow in a vertical -- there is a juniper that grows vertically that will provide the screening there that they are requesting. I'd also like to readdress the time frame that you -- that you had concerns about, Mrs. Huckabay. If my memory serves me correct -- Amanda, was that a line item on the application we had to fill out the hours of operation? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, he did offer those hours of operation on the application. Edwards: Yeah. I think it was a required line item. And so when we submitted our application, we anticipated what those might be. Since it was a request on the application we anticipate -- that was just an anticipation of what -- and as our -- my client has stated, that those are not objectionable at this time. But if the Commission feels that those need to be adjusted, we are open to that as well. And if there is any other questions at this time I can address those. Rohm: I think it's pretty well covered, but there may be additional questions. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: One question, Mr. Chairman. The -- just to clarify on the record on the issue -- I believe it was Gene's question about the grade. As you meet Locust Grove, you will have to -- you will be at existing grade there. Edwards: Exactly. Siddoway: And it's probably safe to say you will not be filling or raising the existing grade at all. If anything, you will be at existing grade or lower; is that right? Edwards: As soon as we -- you know, about this -- the faint line right by that tree -- that cuts through those trees, we will probably have a grade break right there and begin our slope down into the site at that point and maintain our maximum -- probably our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 22 of 62 maximum slope that's allowed, probably about a five percent -- you know, four to five percent grade coming down into that site. It will be steep, but it will be navigatible or -- you will be able to drive it. Siddoway: Thank you. O'Brien: I'd like to bring up a point about winter driving, the slope of that grade, of ice and snow. To me it's a hazard to -- Edwards: Well, you -- O'Brien: It's a sharp turn, you go down there and you got to make that turn, you know, I just have a -- Edwards: Our engineer will be very cautious of that as we design through that and make sure that we can perform whatever maneuvers they -- cars need to at that grade in winter driving and in any other conditions. O'Brien: One other point. How close is that -- that south exit or entrance there to the canal? Is that further up a ways? For the irrigation. Edwards: It's my understanding the irrigation is quite a ways away. O'Brien: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Rohm: From the audience it was noted that the canal is two blocks further to the south. To the west. Edwards: Between Sportsman and Labrador. Rohm: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions of this applicant? Thank you, sir. O'Brien: No, but I was referring to the canal cut as it crosses or goes underneath Locust Grove. Rohm: Okay. That's what I thought. O'Brien: Thank you. Edwards: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this -- well, really, we already had the applicant respond so I think we are done with that. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing and we will have some discussion? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 23 of 62 Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-004. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Discussion. Commissioner Moe? Moe: Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I'm -- well, what I see tonight I kind of like the whole project. As far as the zoning, I have no problem whatsoever on that. I'd kind of like to just speak to the alternative compliance and the design review. I think they have done a real good job, quite frankly, of what they would do out front on the corner there, I think that's going to be very attractive and I would definitely recommend to City Council that they approve that. I think that's going to be a real plus out in that area. As far as design review, again, I think they have reviewed other structures that are being built on there and I think that's going to be a definite plus to the neighborhood out there as well. Concerns from the neighbors and whatnot, I think that the applicant is going to take care of that as far as elevations and whatnot. I think your neighborhood as far as line of site and whatnot into your yards -- I think one of the folks already made a statement it will be similar to a two story home and I agree with that. I don't think it's going to be intrusive whatsoever. So, having said all that, I definitely would approve this. The only thing I would probably want to change would be the hours of operation. I would probably take it from the 10:00 to 6:00, I would probably take it to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which is pretty standard to what we have done in the past for office buildings. So, that would be what I'd anticipate wanting to do. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: That's -- my only comment -- historically when we have imposed hours of operation on L-O zone it's been the 6:00 to 10:00. Somebody has to police that at some point and I think it makes it a lot easier to police one set of numbers, rather than multiple and I think given the society we live in today that limiting a business operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. isn't really reasonable and so I would, myself, be more in favor of going with the standard that we historically recommended, which is 6:00 to 10:00. It fits all of the office uses. That's the only comment I would have. Nice project I think. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Without belaboring it, I would just say that I agree with both previous Commissioners. I would -- I like the project. I like that it's not a -- a cookie cutter box, it's got -- it's a building that's got some architectural design to it and addresses the site well. I like the way it addresses Overland Road and I am in favor of the proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 24 of 62 alternative compliance. I would also favor the change to the hours of operation as previously mentioned. That's all. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Yes. I have to agree with all the rest of the Commissioners. I haven't lived down in that area for quite a long time, but it's a really good fit for a business and I'm really glad to see these type of things coming to the south side of the freeway. Have been waiting a long time for businesses to come in there. I also want to reiterate the importance of working with the homeowners that live around that area to make sure that everybody's needs are covered as much as we can within -- within their rights and everything. So, it's really really important. Glad to see that that's happening, so -- Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I guess in conclusion my comments would be just back to staff, do we need to add comments in the form of a development agreement addition to the staff report in order to incorporate some of these things or is -- or just change the hours of operation as stated in the staff report? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I do have a couple of things just for the Commission to note and I will comment on additions that will need to be made to the DA. Currently the -- in the L-O zone we don't have a limited hour of operation, so I don't -- I mean it's at your discretion if you wanted to limit that to 8:00 to -- or 6:00 to 10:00 or 7:00 to 6:00, whatever the applicant had proposed. Second, there is a stipulation in a development agreement that states that land use buffer at the west side should be constructed in accordance with UDC standards and we do have a requirement that states that all trees must touch at maturity, which will proVide a pretty decent buffer, you know, something to screen for the neighbors. But the last thing -- yes, the staff would like to see added to the development agreement was that the applicant offered fencing and currently there was nothing proposed on the landscape plan, but since he proposed it and the neighbors have requested it, then, you would need to add that as a condition in the development agreement. Rohm: Okay. I think that can be done. O'Brien: Chairman Rohm. I'm sorry. So, the question I have of staff would be these -- the shrubberies and trees, et cetera, that you plan on planting there, sometimes they take an awfully long time to grow. What is the thoughts, then, on planting mature trees - - because I wouldn't -- if I lived right behind there and waited ten years for something to grow together, I don't know if I would be that happy about it. So, is there something we can put in the development agreement to insure that that has a reasonable amount of time to grow together? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien that certainly is at your discretion. I mean, again, the applicant offered some type of arborvitae or something -- a juniper that would -- at maturity maybe an eight foot tall, that way you have something above the six foot solid fence, but in combination the six foot solid fence is going to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 25 of 62 screen anything up to six feet today or as soon as they get that put in and it will take some time to grow some mature trees, but if you want to see our minimum for an arborvitae is six feet at planting, so if you wanted to require an eight foot tall, just so you have an extra two feet of screening there, that is certainly something you could require, but we are looking at maturity for the most part. O'Brien: Okay. I don't think we should be in the business of making requirements, but I think it's something that the homeowners would have to agree with the developer to whatever satisfies them -- their needs. So, that's where I'm coming from, just looking out for those folks. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Question of staff in regards to the fencing. Was there a type of fencing that the applicant was agreeing to install? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think he had mentioned either vinyl fencing or a wooden cedar fence. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Okay. All right. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify something regarding hours of operation. I'm aware there is not a requirement and my point being is that historically when we have applied hours of operation, we have kept them at 6:00 to 10:00 and so I more am in favor of consistency if we are gOing to apply hours of operation. Rohm: And I think that we can include that in the motion as part of the development agreement, so -- and that's an expansion from their original hours requested, so it doesn't require that they stay open, but it at least gives them more flexibility. So, I don't think there is any opposition to that. Moe: Well-- Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: -- I guess I would just make the pOint that the simple fact that even though it's not a requirement of the L-O, with the location of this facility and whatnot, I definitely think we do need to have hours of operation in there and 6:00 to 10:00 is what I would want to anticipate seeing in there and just possibly being the maker of the motion that I will be doing, I will be wanting to require a six foot vinyl fencing along there. And I have no problem with the way the report is stating for the landscaping at the present time. So, I'm just looking for -- we take care of the problem for screening with the fence and I'm Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 26 of 62 glad to see that the applicant had offered that all along, so that was in pretty good shape. So, if there is no other questions, then -- O'Brien: I have -- just to respond to that, too. If the grade is going to be dropped down by eight feet -- is that -- Nary: You can't get more information from him. O'Brien: Okay. So, it's going to drop down six or eight feet and the fence is going to be six feet behind it and there is a one or two foot difference from the roadway, as cars go out, the lights shine on the houses, you're going to -- it's -- well, my point is to staff is that it's not going to be an immediate six foot fence, you're going to still have some lights that -- car lights that are going to flash into those homes. So, my concern was trees that are fairly mature to be placed in there. Maybe we should make that a part of our recommendation. Do you see what I'm -- follow what I'm trying to say? Moe: Yes, I do, but at the same point with the type of trees and whatnot that they are planning to put in there and whatnot, those are -- they grow rather rapid to begin with. O'Brien: What type of trees are those? Moe: Well, they are looking for a juniper or an arborvitae and whatnot and those grow awful fast. So, I think, basically, as the application is written I think it's fine. O'Brien: Okay. All right. Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, I believe you're ready to make a motion. Moe: Okay. Well, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 3rd, 2007, with the modification that I do want to put a stipulation of operating hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., as well as require the applicant to provide a six foot vinyl fencing -- I guess that would be at the west property line -- south. Excuse me. The south property line there as well. And I guess part of my motion I would say that I would also like to recommend to City Council of approvals of the alternative compliance and design review as noted in the report. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of Item No. AZ 07-004, to include all staff report with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in. Appreciate your testimony. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.