Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/5 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 48 of 62 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: The motion is completed, but go ahead, we can discuss it. Marcheschi: Sorry. Thank you, Commissioners. The one issue that we -- one or two issues was the water line that was in the staff report from Public Works saying that the developer was responsible for the extension, was, in fact, a misstatement in the staff report and so that portion would also need to be amended or substituted for Jay Walker's testimony and I believe comments from Public Works, so -- Steckline: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, those statements were put in place ~- we -- I have talked with Kyle Radek about this and, basically, they were put in in case that if your project went ahead before the Eagle -- or, excuse me, before the McMillan and Linder project. So, it's a precautionary measure and I would support those statements. Marcheschi: So, maybe we could just word it so that it's just to that effect, so that if we did go before the widening, then, we would be responsible for the extension, but if we come after, then, that's not our responsibility. Steckline: I would support that. Moe: I think that's the intent already, so I don't know that there is any rewording necessary, is there? Steckline: That's pretty much the intent. Marcheschi: Okay. Thank you. Moe: For the record, now that we know that. Marcheschi: Thank you. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 07-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re-Noticed for July 19, 2007) Item 14: Public Hearing: MCU 07-002 Request to Modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05-023) to allow for flex space, warehouse /storage and show room space on specific lots in the proposed Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 (currently Lot 3, Block 1, Devon Park Subdivision No. 2) for Devon Park Flex Space by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 1$75 North Lakes Place: Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 49 of 62 Rohm: Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on MCU 07-002 and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit modification to allow for flex space, warehouse storage, and showroom space on certain lots in Devon Park. The property is currently zoned R-40 and was previously approved through the Devon Park planned development for office uses. The property is located right here in the R-40 zone at 1875 North Lakes Place on the north side of Fairview Avenue, midway between Meridian and Locust Grove Roads. Directly north of this site is assisted living and an Alzheimer's facility, zoned R-15. To the east and south is vacant property, approved for office uses, zoned R-40. To the west are residential homes in Fairview Terrace Mobile Home Park, zoned R-8. Access to this site will be provided from Fairview Avenue via North Lakes Place. No new access points are proposed or approved with this application. The flex space use is proposed on Lots 26 through 29 of the proposed Devon Park Subdivision Na. 3 and is proposed to contain an overhead door on the front elevation for loading purposes. The affected lots are outlined here. There is two here along the north boundary, like I said before, the assisted living, residential, Alzheimer's facility is here. These units abut the west property line where the mobile home park is. And these lots are zoned R-40 and were previously approved through the Devon Park planned development for office uses. Staff believes that if these lots were zoned to reflect the approved land use, they would have an L-O zoning designation. This belief is based on a close proximity of residences to the property and office uses that were allowed through the PD. Professional services, which include offices, are permitted uses in all the four commercial zoning districts. Flex space is prohibited in the L-O and C-N zones and is a permitted use only in the C-C and C-G districts, with specific use standards as follows: Retail uses shall not exceed 25 percent of leasable area in any tenant space. As you can see from the floor plan here, this whole area here is designated for warehouse showroom use. The showroom area is considered retail space, because items displayed are available for retail sales. This area exceeds the 25 percent space requirement for retail. The Camp Plan future land use map designates this property for mixed use community. The uses in this category provide for day-to-day service oriented businesses that serve the community. Staff does not believe that the proposed use is compatible with desired uses far the MUC land use category or the adjacent residential land uses. Building elevations were submitted that show an overhead door on the front facade, which is not consistent the approved office use of the property or the proposed flex space use. Per the UDC, flex space is defined as the use of a site for warehousing, offices, and/or retail showroom. Flexibility and use of interior spaces and low scale attractive exterior appearance characterize flex buildings. Staff believes that the proposed overhead doors will not result in a low scale attractive exterior appearance of the buildings and will not be compatible in appearance with adjacent future office buildings. In conclusion staff does believe that the proposed flex space use is compatible with office uses approved for this site or the adjacent residential uses and is recommending denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit modification, as stated in the staff report. That's all staff has. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2p07 Page 50 of 62 Rohm: Thank you very much, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Okay. Tamura: My name is Doug Tamura. My office is at 1124 Santa Maria in Boise, Idaho, and I'm the developer of Fairview Lakes. What we did was we submitted a CZC approval to construct a 3,500 square foot office building in Fairview Lakes, which is for this building right here. We combined Lots 28 and 29 with an overhead door. We have just completed constructing all except for this one building in phase one of Devon Park No. 2 and in that Flaherty Construction purchased this lot and built one building on two lots, but it contained an overhead door with this little star with that, so assuming that that went through, it received CZC approval, received a building permit, received an occupancy permit, the building has been there for a year and so the size and scale of this building, you will see through those pictures, is real similar to what Flaherty did. So, just assuming that we had a buyer that wanted to go ahead and have a similar type building, we went ahead and did the building permit, then, submitted it and, then, was notified by staff that the overhead door wasn't approved in the original conditional use. We had apre-con with staff and discussed the options. One of the options would be to rezone -- rezone the R-40 into commercial. The reason this is R-40 is that if you guys recall on the original submittal of Fairview Lakes, this whole area up here was originally designed as a large 200 unit apartment complex. Then, we decided that, you know, the market was very difficult on apartments. We scaled back the apartments down to a hundred units, but instead of rezoning it as R-40, they suggested that we just do a conditional use, leave the R-40 zone in place and, then, just ask for the office complex. We down zoned the retirement center, because, again, in the City of Meridian zoning ordinance they don't allow Alzheimer's in an R-40 zone, so we down zoned that to R-15. The other thing that I want to show in the zoning is currently our C-G zone incorporates the south half of that office complex. So, if we moved this building and put it right here, we are an allowed use. So, these five buildings right now are allowed to have flex space, overhead doors, the things that Sonya talked about. The reason that we are here tonight is that two of our tenants are owners in our first phase, Flaherty Construction here and, then, Acu-Graph, which occupies this building here, would like to -- you know, one is -- Flaherty would like to take his building and build the same building, a mirror image of it over on this side of the project, so he's got an option on these two lots. Acu- Graph, which, you know, does business -- what he's planning on doing here, but he's planning on expanding -- is he wants to relocate from here to here. The reason that we are asking for this exception is that in our project, again, the overhead door, the reason that Flaherty put it here is we thought well, gee, one is you don't see it. You know, the other reason that we thought Acu-Graph would work well here is that, again, it's in the very back portion of our property. So, again, esthetically, when I review those pictures with you, it's not something that you see for the North Lakes, because it's stuck in the far back corner of our project. Staff is recommending denial. The reason that she recommended denial, in the Comprehensive Plan policies one is it says plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the impact area. Staff doesn't believe that the proposed use property contributes to the mix of commercial use in this area. Number two is encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize land use. Staff does not believe that the proposed use is compatible with future office uses approved on adjacent lots for noise related reasons and appearances of the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 51 of 62 building facade. Three is require screening and buffering of commercial and industrial properties and residential use with transitional zoning. Staff does not believe that an adequate buffer is provided between existing residential uses on the north and west property boundaries and the proposed flex space buildings. The Comp Plan for our piece of property calls this out for an MU -- or mixed use community. Under mixed use community it allows for 25 acres of nonresidental use, 200,000 square feet of nonresidential use. Under the goals and objectives of the Comp Plan it calls out for Objective C, plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the impact area. In number one it says consider development applications that apply to neighborhood center concept. Item action five is locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors. Number seven is identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses to allow uses as office and low intensity uses. Then listed in the neighborhood center mixed use it also states the purpose of these centers is to create a centralized pedestrian oriented identifiable and day-to-day service- oriented focal point for neighborhood districts. The center should offer an internal circulation that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathways. What I'd like to do is kind of describe, you know, our project. We think that our project is -- matches identical the use of the Camp Plan. We have got a mixed use project. It's 26 acres. We have got -- we have got a ten acre commercial use that's got 90,000 square feet of retail approved for it. This zone in here is kind of an office commercial area that's one and a half acres, 11,000 feet, it's got neighborhood commercial over here on this side that's gat another 9,000 square feet. We have got 40,000 square feet of office space right here and, then, five acres of residential that we built a retirement center on. So, I think -- you know, the other thing that we did was we were very instrumental in creating a pedestrian path that crosses at Fairview at the light, runs up, you know, through the center of our project, runs behind these office buildings, runs over here. We worked out a deal with the -- with Fairview Lakes Terrace and, then, connected that into the pedestrian pathway that goes in the residential north of us. So, all this, the things listed as goals of what the city would like to see in the Comp Plan, we have completed in our project. On those pictures what I have got is -- oh, yeah. Do you have alittle -- oh, here. Put that -- put the zoning map back up. One of the things that we have is looking at our neighbor and Sonya was talking about the concern of buffering a transition zone. The way we look at mobile home parks -- we feel like a mobile home park is potentially one of those transitional uses. It's not single detached housing, you know, and so -- and, potentially, the other thing with mobile home parks is we are starting to see a lot of that in our valley now is that because of the transitional situation of the use is that they are getting bought out and the use is turning into something higher in -- higher and better use than a mobile home park. But if you look at this in that first row of pictures that I have given you, that is all the uses along Fairview. So, the neighboring transitional pieces that abut the whole south side of Fairview Lakes Terrace is Burger King -- there is actually a Minute Lube right here. That little diner right there. This is all the convenience store and, then, this is the Guadalajara restaurant. So, right here this line right here matches up to our project. So, again, you know, the Hastings stare is right here and, then, this is the first -- or the south half of our neighborhood commercial that we potentially could put that little flex space in. As far as the buffering is concerned, that second row of pictures -- well, the other thing is the second row of pictures area the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 52 of 62 office buildings of what we have developed. So, one is it shows the entry coming into the office buildings, it shows the office buildings that we have built in the neighborhood commercial and, then, it's got a view that looks back at Flaherty's office building. So, you can see that the design of his office building and, then, the overhead door, which is the last picture, is all compatible within what we have developed as far as our first phase. Our intent is that our building that we are proposing far Acu-Graph and for Flaherty are almost the same design, heightwise and scalewise, they are all single level -- you know, it's got a mechanical storage up in the attic, but it's all designed into the building. The buffering that Sonya talked about in the report is -- the way we look at our buffering is that -- she made a comment about the setbacks between our retirement center and our -- and these proposed buildings. The way we look at it is since it's an internal setback that's a transition that we are providing is, actually, the retirement center, so that the transition to the single family neighborhood here is this retirement that's in between. You know, again, we did a single level, you know, no traffic, you know, dead end street and so -- you know, but even, then, we have got a 25 foot setback at the -- you know, the end of our Alzheimer's building and we have got a ten foot setback to the back of the building. These little stars right here show the location of the overhead doors. Again, the other thing that we have is -- to the mobile home park is we have got a large drainage swale. So, we have got asubstantial -- I believe that's about a 50 foot setback from the end of our building to the mobile home park. The other thing is we worked very close with the Fairview Lakes Terrace people, because, one, is we wanted your cooperation on the extension of the pedestrian path and so we met with them about our proposal and they support the use of our two overhead doors on our buildings. I have got Adrian Larsen here and he is the president of Acu-Graph and the other thing that I thought would be to have him discuss the type of use and delivery of how these overhead doors are used and, Adrian, why don't you come up and tell the Commission a little about your company. Larsen: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Adrian Larsen. My company is Meridia Technology, located at 940 East Carol Street in Meridian. Currently using one of the buildings in the project. We are proposing building this building with the warehouse space. My company produces software and hardware used by medical doctors and healthcare providers. It's a low volume type of a business and it is -- we have no retail, no showroom, and no customers coming to our building at all. Typically our products are purchased by health care providers at trade shows or through our catalogs or through the Internet and so we are not proposing a retail showroom or retail traffic. We are proposing the use of the warehouse space because it helps us consolidate our operations, keeping our inventory all at the same place where our headquarters are, and we are not proposing having a lot of heavy duty deliveries, things like that. We are not going to be pulling semi trucks in and out, but more our deliveries are typically handled by UPS on a daily route and we are simply looking to be able to consolidate all our space in one building. And I will be glade to stand for questions. Moe: Do you use forklifts and whatnot in the warehouse, then? Meridian Planning & Zpning July 5, 2007 Page 53 of 62 Larsen: Nat currently. No plan to. Our -- the things that we are moving around in the warehouse are small enough to carry. Moe: So, then, why the need for a garage door? Larsen: Simply it's easier to load things in and out when -- particularly with UPS. And if we are moving, you know, 10, 12, 15 boxes at a time, we don't want to be going in and out a glass door. It gets to be cumbersome. And occasionally if we do have a large delivery, it's much easier to load that way. Any others? O'Brien: Not from me. Siddoway: Not for you, no. Larsen: Thank you very much. Tamura: You know, I guess in closing, the reason that we asked for this modification is only for the overhead door. Yau know, I think our overall intent is to keep this an office complex. Even though we have this zoned as commercial, that's not our intent, and we just felt esthetically, you know, one at Flaherty's building, we haven't had any complaints in the single family detached residential an this side and he's planning on moving his office from here to here on Acu-Graph. You know, again, he's operating that same type of business here without an overhead door here in the front of Fairview Lakes and haven't had any complaints and so because of the esthetics of the overhead door we thought, well, we could locate them back here in the back portion where it wouldn't be seen, that we would have a nice complimentary. So, we have got, like said, two potential users of those two lots, if we can have this modification approved. I'm just here for questions. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Doug, what does Flaherty Construction use their overhead door for? What are they moving in and out that they need that overhead for? Tamura: Commissioner Siddoway, I've never really actually seen them use that overhead door and I'm assuming that there may be -- you know, they are a high end residential contractor. I think he may have an extra pickup or, you know, maybe a service van or something that's in that overhead door. But as far as their boneyard for their construction company, that's someplace else. And, like I said, it's been, again, a low intensive use as far as that door. I've actually never -- you know, I have never peeked inside it. What his intent -- and even with what Adrian's intent is with this, with these warehouse spaces, we have got both of them designed so that in the future, if they sell that building and there is a tenant that comes along that would like to convert that to office -- in Adrian's space we have got it designed that we could replace the overhead door with a stare front and, then, that could become additional office space. The other option would be as Adrian's company grows and if it had a need that they will need more delivery and mare warehouse space, he'd move his warehousing off site and, then, that would be expansion space. So, as we are doing our plans we have got it Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 54 of 62 designed so that it's got both forced air heating and right now it's got the electrical in place. But, again, like what Adrian was saying, it's very low intensive use, but it's just for the convenience of what they do, when they have deliveries picked up. Siddoway: And you're saying Flaherty wants to build a new one to move their offices and what will became of the one they are in now? Tamura: He's assuming that he will sell that to an office user. Siddoway: I'm trying to think through the ramifications of other potential users and what they might use those overhead doors for. You have got two low impact tenants wanting to use them now and the question in my mind is just what's the, you know, potential for higher impact uses in the future as tenants change. Tamura: The one thing about the location of why we thought this was desirable -- again, Flaherty's was because of the access and the non-visibility of the door. The other thing that's nice about it is because, you know -- one is we are real conservative about the number of parking spaces that we have and so at least where this is kind of a dead end cul-de-sac, it leaves an area that there is not a lot of cars parked there. The other thing is all we provide is just a -- you know, just a sidewalk that goes to that door and, then, there is -- we will have an access and all that we will stripe out one parking stall. So, it's not designed that you could ever have very intensive deliveries in and out of those buildings. You know, the other thing about it is it's -- in Acu-Graph it's 1,500 square feet, so it's a relatively small space. I think in Flaherty's space it's only the size of one car. It's just a single car garage that's in the back of his space. So, the rest of his building is all office space, which is the place that he could a pickup in there. Rohm: Do you believe it would be possible to meet your objectives by putting in a -- like a standard residential garage door, as opposed to the larger roll up as depicted here? Tamura: That's designed as a residential garage door opener. Rohm: Oh. I -- Tamura: It's aten-by-ten door is what we have got shown. Rohm: Oh. I guess I -- my assumption was -- with the description being aroll-up door that it was -- Tamura: Oh. No. We have got a standard just garage -- insulated garage door. So, real similar to what Flaherty had. But, like I said, I think the only thing he puts in there is his pickup. Rohm: Okay. Tamura: Anymore questions? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 55 of 62 Rohm: Not at this time. Tamura: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: Question for staff. Sonya, the -- I remember reading and you may have said it -- that the buffers between land uses were reduced in this area as part of a previous action when it was platted and coming through. Did that reduction also occur in the C-C area to the south? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, I believe it went clear along the west boundary. Doug could confirm that. I'm not positive. Adjacent to the residential uses, I believe. Siddoway: Yeah. And what is that width today? Wafters: I believe it's 15 feet on the west boundary and ten feet on the north boundary as I recall. Siddoway: You can come up. And, then, is that -- on the north boundary do you have ten feet plus the additional separation from the Alzheimers -- there is -- are there two -- back to back buffers there or haw is that working? Tamura: Commissioner Siddoway -- my name is Doug Tamura. What we did was we maintained alarge -- I think a 20 foot landscape buffer on the commercial next to the Hastings, but from our experience at doing the first phase of the -- well, one of the things that we did on the first phase of the office was originally the pedestrian path was going to go up here, was going to cut across here and it was designed at 20 feet, because it was going to go through here and, then, loop back over. Well, we got such an outcry from the neighbors to think that the pedestrian path was going to be in their backyard that we agreed that we would move it. But part of that 25 foot setback accommodated a ten foot pedestrian path. So, we -- landscapingwise we only had five foot setbacks -- or I think we were going to do ten foot setback one side and, then, this ten foot pedestrian path. Well, one is we know that from the experience of doing phase one that we had plenty of landscape buffer. You know, the other one is the types of uses that we have in our complex, if we didn't have any conflicts with the single family detached residential, so when we submitted for the conditional use of Devon Park Three, which was this office complex, we went ahead and reduced those setbacks. The other thing is that when we bought the pedestrian path through here, again, that's a ten foot pedestrian path with a 25 foot setback to the south end of that building. So, overall we got a 35 foot buffer between the back of that building and our residential. But, again, what we are doing is -- it's just an internal setback from one of our own buildings to another one of our own buildings. So, I think the concerns should be more the setbacks up here, but, again, we have got a type of use that's an ideal neighborhood transitional thing for neighborhoods. It's real quiet. The only situation potentially might have been here, but, again, I included those pictures to kind of show you the quality of what we did. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 56 of 62 One is we put up a nice six foot high vinyl fence for the mobile home park. We have never had any comments back from the mobile home tenants as far as there -- and particularly one of the things I asked the manager is, you know, has he had problems leasing his spaces when it backed up next to all that, you know, heavy commercial. You know, you're looking at C Stores that are open 24 hours a day, you know, you have got Minute Lubes, you have got fast food restaurants and he says that no. So, I thought, well, gee, you know, we have got such a benign type of use in relationship to what the rest of this was like and that's what I was saying that I look at a mobile home park as more of a transitional use than I do a -- you know, strictly residential thing where, you know -- because one of the things that we are always very conscious about is buffering, you know, and like our application for the apartment complex, you know, we had 60 and 70 foot buffers against those neighborhoods, so -- Siddoway: The existing buffer along the east -- or the west side there is 15? Tamura: Fifteen feet. So, we only reduced it five feet. But, again, you know, this was going to accommodate a ten foot path. Rohm: There is nobody else in the audience, but, still, if there were, we would open it up for further testimony, but seeing nobody else, that's the end of public testimony on this application. Does anybody have any questions of staff or the applicant before we move to close this Public Hearing? O'Brien: Nothing. Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing, then? O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I move to close Public Hearing CUP 05-023. Rohm: I believe this is MCU -- O'Brien: Oh. MCU. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. MCU 07-002. Moe: I would second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on MCU 07- 002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway, do you have any final comments on this application before we get a motion? Siddoway: I'm still feeling a little conflict internally on this one. As I read through the staff report my initial thought was denial. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that there are intended uses that could produce noise right adjacent to those homes with a reduced Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 57 of 62 landscape buffer. I saw as a negative -- potentially negative situation. As I see the built structure in the photo provided tonight for the existing Flaherty Construction building, very nice, it's residential in nature. I don't find the overhead door obtrusive. If anything, it makes it look more residential. The -- so, the look of it -- the look of it does not concern me. I think they are nice buildings. What's still concerning me is just trying to think through -- someone could move in there and have larger deliveries and a forklift and that's the thing I just can't quite get aver. It sounds like the existing users are not doing that and there is not a problem. I'm just concerned about other potential users in the future. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would pretty much mirror exactly what Commissioner Siddoway said. I'm really kind of torn bath ways. Quite frankly, I think they have built a very nice product in this area. I guess I would probably say I wish the garage door was on -- was not right at the front of the building on this one, but it is. Plus there is enough building in front of it that you're not going to really note that all that well. But I, too, am very concerned about what happens, you know, down the road and larger vehicle traffic and forklifts getting in there and whatever else, so I'm actually very torn on this one. I -- right now I'm going either way, how does that sound? Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: I'm struggling with it. Nary: Mr. Chairman, if it will be of any assistance to the Commission, the City Council recently had a similar proposal in front of them and they did require that the door --and believe they limited the height of the door to eight feet and they did require that the door match the surrounding neighborhood, so that it would be -- it would look similar and not like a traditional roll-up door like you have in a more heavy industrial user type of location. Because they weighed the same concerns that you have. You know, certainly because it's a modification of a CU you have the ability to limit hours of operation, when deliveries can be made, what type of machinery can be used on the premise and those types of things that may alleviate some of your concerns as to how it's -- a future user might use the site. But they did require that the doorway had to blend into the neighborhood and they'd have to work that out with the staff and that might, again, alleviate some of the types of uses that you're concerned with. Siddoway: Mr. Nary. So, did they place specific use restrictions on that or did they just feel like the restriction on the height addressed that issue? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, I don't recall in the discussion a limitation on the uses of the vehicle and the like, because Ithink -- it was not a C-U, it was -- it had been a director's determination on the use of the property for a storage facility in an office zone and it was an appeal of that decision. So, they did approve the -- they did approve the appeal, but only limited, essentially, the door and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 58 of 62 how it would blend into the neighborhood. I don't think they had a use application of any sort in front of them at the time, Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just to add onto that. (believe -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Nary -- but they added a row of glass on that garage door to make it have -- most residential garage doors do have alittle -- some type of glazing or something, either at the top of the second tier or something like that and I think that's how they got to that blend in thing was to have it be required that they put that in. Nary: And the only thing, Members of the Commission, I -- we had two garage door discussions. One was on Meridian Road, a tire shop, and the other was this one in Heritage Commons area. The one on -- the tire shop required the glass panels in it. can't recall -- I'm not disagreeing with Mr. Hood -- what sticks in my mind is they require that it would look similar to a house, so they limited it. And mast of the ones in that area have some type of treatment, some design, panels, glass, some other look to it, so they didn't look like the traditional roll-up door. Moe: Well, based upon the photo that we are -- that's in front of us, that's exactly what I would want to see. Siddoway: And when we started talking together, that's -- it was my -- the same point I was going to make. When I look at the elevation there, it has no glazing and it's a little bit starker on there and, yet, when I -- and I look at the photo of the existing building of Flaherty's, that row of glass really does make an esthetic difference and I think that would be okay with the door, especially if we limit the height to a standard eight foot residential height and require the glazing similar to the -- what we see in the existing Flaherty Construction site. That's where I'm at right now. Rohm: Works forme. Could we get a motion? Oh. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: So, I don't mirror everybody's concerns, but -- but most of it right down to the door part, my suggestion is -- and you guys have a hand on a lot things, is that -- he said -- I forget his name. Rohm: Tamura. Doug Tamura. O'Brien: Doug I think mentioned that it was built so that they could modify the roll-up door into an office type environment. Well, office type environments have double doors usually and my suggestion would be do away with aroll-up door and just make a standard double door, which one side locks and if they have to bring in bigger boxes, stuff like that, they could open the double doors and achieve the same thing and eliminate the possibility long term of somebody turning it into a maintenance garage or something like that. You wouldn't be able to park a truck in it, but this other guy does, which I don't have a problem with that, but at least he would eliminate the possibility of using it for anything else. So, that would be my proposal. Everything else I think is -- I have the same concerns. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 58 of 62 Rohm: I think the double doors in some ways would be a good solution, but the glazing that's available through a standard eight-by-eight garage type door has other benefits, so -- O'Brien: Well, I'm not talking about a standard steel double door for a commercial, I'm talking about something that looks more like a residential door with glass -- smoked glass or whatever you want to put in front of it to make the design look esthetic. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for your comments. Moe: Well, if you remember that was one thing that the owner had made comment as far as for deliveries and that's a little bit cumbersome and whatnot for the doors and that's why they wanted to go with the overhead door and so I think -- I think with the glass, you know -- at that point if, in fact, that business was to go away, they would still have the opportunity to take the door out and put in, you know, basically a store front section or whatever and take care of it for an office environment at that point, so -- O'Brien: I think we are just looking at the same thing. As long as we meet what Sonya's concerns were for the denial to begin with, I think if that meets their approval, I think that would also achieve what they are trying to achieve as far as the zone goes, then, I think we are okay. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: One second. Do we have -- are there findings that we can modify to reach a motion for approval at this point or would we have to direct staff to come back with conditions of approval? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, there are not findings for approval at this time. You would have to continue it to the next available Commission hearing date in order for staff to prepare conditions of approval and findings. Siddoway: Okay. In that case I would move to direct staff to prepare findings and -- conditions far approval and corresponding findings for MCU 07-002, with the restrictions that the roll-up doors be limited to eight feet in height and to include windows, glazing, similar to what we see on the overhead door for the existing Flaherty Construction site. Is there anything else? Mae: That's it. Siddoway: And to bring it back to our next regularly scheduled meeting on July the 19th. End of motion. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 60 of 62 Rohm: Before we vote on this, does this, then, go to City Council after us or is this the final stop off? Well, would there, then, also be Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that would have to be drawn up as a follow-up to a vote? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, this will just come back to Commission, it will not go to Council. At the next meeting staff would have findings for approval and conditions of approval at that time for you to approve if you so wish. Rohm: Well, I guess kind of like with Jonathan Seal's deal at the last meeting, we had bath the -- the hearing and, then, afollow-up -- Hood: Mr. Chair, we may, if you give direction -- I think I understand the direction that the Commission is going. If you give us some conditions that you'd like to see, maybe we could prepare that findings document and, then, the applicant wouldn't have to come back two weeks later for the findings document. Staff will have some general conditions that we will impose right in the staff report. The couple that Commissioner 5iddoway mentioned in his motion -- if there are any others that you want to make sure get put in there, probably need to make that part of the motion and, like I said, staff will probably have, I don't know, a half a dozen more or so that will just say, you know, comply with previous Devon Park approvals and yadda yadda yadda and I don't know what all those will be, landscaping requirements or whatever. And the applicant may have an issue with one of those, I don't know. But we will -- if we can get a better idea, we can have a findings document on the same agenda. If there aren't any issues you can approve it and if there are issues, then, we are going to have to continue it out and do it two weeks later. But if that's the only concerns you guys have, I think you have given enough to Sonya to work on a revised staff report. Rohm: Okay. I guess the only additional discussion that I -- I'm not sure I feel real comfortable with is that related to the operation of a hyster and as far as the operation of a hyster specifically, I don't care about it internal to the structure, but I don't want the hyster coming -- Siddoway: It's so small that -- Rohm: Well -- but coming in and out and having a big semi and unloading pallets after pallets of -- O'Brien: We could limit that to electric forklifts. Rohm: Well, in any case that was my comment. How we address it is up to whomever is making the motion for the continuance. But just -- that was my only other thing that didn't -- I wasn't real comfortable with for long term. I wouldn't want this to turn into a transfer yard for the next business that may occupy the space and I just would feel uncomfortable with making that available to them, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 61 of 62 Siddoway: I would consider a friendly amendment on the motion that we would add a condition that hysters, forklifts, and similar equipment could not be used on -- on these sites. Rohm: Again, I don't care what they do internal to the structure, I just don't want them running around outside. If they need to move stuff around inside, I don't have a problem with that. It's just I don't want forklifts running around outside. Siddoway: I would include that in my motion. Moe: I will second that. Rohm: All right. It's been moved and seconded to direct staff to write conditions far approval of MC 07-002 with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Oh. And continue it to the next regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, before the applicant leaves, too, if I may, hours of operation are probably something else that we would have -- if we were going to condition this for approval we probably would have limited the hours of operation. We will get with the applicant and propose something. I think it will probably be something reasonable, but just so maybe we can all be on the same page, do you have any hours that you're concerned about or is it 24-7? It looks like Sonya is showing me that it's 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 is what their application says, so we'd probably just condition it that way. Rohm: If they are agreeable to 8:00 to 6:00, but, quite honestly, I'm a lot more lenient than that, from -- until 10:00 o'clock at night type deal. And we have almost -- every application that's come before us we have given them -- Hood: So, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 would be something that -- Rohm: Yeah. Uh-huh. Hood: -- would be -- okay. Maybe just so we can get the findings on that and get it approved, so we don't have anything to discuss and we will coordinate that with the applicant and make sure that if he does have an issue, we won't have a findings document for it. If you review the staff report and are agreeable, then, we will do the findings document. Siddoway: If Commissioner Newton-Huckabay were here I think she would say, as she said at our last meeting, that we have -- we have a fairly standard time restriction that when we use a time restriction we have one that we use and I -- the actual hours are escaping me at the moment, but in the interest of enforcement, it may be good to just look at what those typical hours of operation are. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 62 of 62 Rohm: I think it's actually 6:00 to 10:00. O'Brien: Yeah. I think you're right. Hood: And that would be fior a more typical office use and this is really flex space, so it is a different use, I guess. I mean we are -- I don't want to say we are splitting hairs, because there is a big different, but that is generally when it's L-O -- office use next to residential. Siddoway: Okay. Bring us back a proposal. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: We need one more motion. Moe: I move to adjourn. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED MICHAEL ROHM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK