Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/5 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning• July 5, 2007 ' Page 10 of 62 Rohm: Okay. As with our previous hearing, there is no additional individuals signed up to testify, but at this time the floor is open and anyone that would like to come forward to testify to this application this is the time. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-010 and PP 07-012. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearings on AZ 07-010 and PP 07-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 07-010 and PP 07-012, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date July 5th, 2007, with no modifications. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: Okay. The staff report had a provision in there far the obtainment of that easement, which has been obtained. I think we could, actually, strike that from the staff report as a requirement, because it's already there. Siddoway: Or just acknowledge that it's received. Rohm: Right. Moe: I would say that's been done. Rohm: Okay. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to poll the Commission. All those in favor of the motion, please, say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thanks very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 07-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 7,750 square foot multi-tenant retail building for J & K Investments Retail by J & K Investments, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision): Meridian Planning ~ zoning July 5, 2007 Page 11 of 62 Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 07-014 for the J&K Investment Retail and begin with the stafF report. Hess: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with adrive-thru window. The subject property is generally located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately a 5th of a mile of the Locust Grove - Fairview intersection. It totals 1.06 acres that is currently zoned C-G. A Conditional Use Permit would not typically be required for this project, as retail uses are principally permitted in the C-G district. However, the UDC requires that all drive-thru establishments obtain CUP appraval where the drive-thru is located within 300 feet of a residential district. And as you can see up here this is a residential district. As is this. At this time the sole access to the subject site will be from an improved shared driveway to Fairview Avenue at the south and that's what this is. Staff has also encouraged the applicant to realize secondary access via the neighboring property, the Idaho Athletic Club, and that's over here to the east. There are a couple issues to mention here. The first is -- as I have already stated, the lack of the secondary access. Currently, the parking for the Idaho Athletic Club, the property to the east -- go back to the aerial here and you can see it a little better. Here is the Idaho Athletic Club. The parking for the Idaho Athletic Club is located up to the property line shared with the subject site. You can even see some cars parked along there. Despite this, staff is requiring a stub connection at the terminus of the front parking lot to encourage future connectivity. Jump back to the site plan. You can see right there. Staff and the Meridian fire department have urged the applicant to work with the Idaho Athletic Club to obtain access now, otherwise, as I'm sure you noted in the staff report, the fire department has stated that they will require an improved turnaround in the front. parking lot for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the Commission should note that the applicant has submitted elevations for the structure, which the Commission can see on the Powerpoint presentation. Staff is supportive of the north and south facing elevations. However, the east and west facing portion of the structure will also be highly visible from Fairview Avenue. As proposed these elevations are generally blank wall and you can see this is the east elevation and this is the west elevation. Staff believes the applicant should provide a minimum either one window or awning along the east facade of the building and has a condition in the staff report as such. Staff encourages the Commission to consider the elevations and determine whether they are acceptable as is or whether additional design materials are warranted. Staff is recommending approval of the subject CUP request as conditioned in the staff report and that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much, Amanda. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Amanda, have you given any thought to a minimum size for that window? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, actually, no, I did not. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 12 of 62 Siddoway: Okay. Hess: That would be entirely at your discretion, too. Siddoway: I can hold the other question for -- Moe: Do we have a slide that shows the Idaho Athletic Club as far as where their building line is? Okay. Here we go. Not going to see too much on the east side with the other building right there. Okay. Hess: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a fairly open parking area here. And as you can see, it's a fairly older site and, obviously, their parking and their landscaping along Fairview Avenue isn't up to the city current standards. Rohm: Thanks, Amanda. If there is na other questions of staff, I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. Slawson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jason Slawson, I'm with Architectural Northwest, the representative for J&K Investments Meridian, LLC. We are in agreement with the staff report as given and we are agreeable to the site specific conditions of approval, along with the addition of that window to the east side. We are in agreement that we can add that window to a larger size in the drive-up window on the west side. So, that is not an issue for the applicant to do that. Rohm: Have you completed any discussions with the Athletic Club on that cross- access? Slawson: We have not started those negotiations yet. Rohm: Okay. That puts us in kind of a tough spot in terms of this application, inasmuch as the fire department has recommended that you have a full turn around with not having that access to your -- the property to the east. Do you have any -- have you any thoughts on that, going -- meeting with Idaho Athletic Club owners to see if you can obtain that kind of across-access? Slawson: The applicant is going to try and talk to them, she just hasn't done that yet. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. I was kind of curious -- are you planning any type of fencing at all on the north side to screen the neighbors to the north? You got your drive-thru, you're going to drive up and go through, so I'd see lights that can go through into the neighbors to the north and I was just kind of curious if you planned anything there? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 13 of 62 Slawson: At this paint we have not. The parcel directly to the north is also a C-G vacant land right now. It's just to the northeast that would be residential. One of the conditions of approval was evergreen trees that would screen that. Moe: That works. Rohm: Before you sit dawn -- was there anybody from the fire department that was available to come tonight? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I did talk to Joe Silva this afternoon, it was about a quarter to 5:00 totlay, and, as you can imagine, he has had a busy week, and just said he couldn't make it tonight, he's had three night meetings and they were an patrol last night until after midnight, sa he just wasn't up to taming this evening, but I did invite him, but there is no representative from the fire department here tonight. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Are you familiar with the logic trail behind the fire department's recommendation that you have the full turn around available, if, in fact, there is not cross-access? Slawson: Yes, I do. Rohm: Okay. We are not generally in a position to tell you how to make adjustments, but, basically, as I understand it, this project has 155 foot of frontage across there and if, in fact, it was less than 150 -- 150 or less, then, the -- the fire department"s recommendation would not any longer be in question. Maybe it would be easier to have staff give you that assessment than myself. Amanda, would you like to speak to that? Hess: Sure, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The fire department's requirement is, basically, that any roadway, driveways, or parking lots that exceed 150 feet in length that are not provided with an access ar an outlet, be required to have an approved turnaround. It's a standard requirement. It's, basically, for their emergency vehicles. That way they don't -- that's the limit for them to back up and out of a dead end and they don't like to back up any further than that, so -- Rohm: Okay. So, are you saying that if they were to put some sort of a barrier or something to reduce that total width across there, is that something that's -- Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, what they would be lacking at is placing a barrier or like wheel stops or something to keep anyone from going any further until access is granted. Yau would be looking at from -- face of curb here you would have to taunt -- or measure from here all the way to 150 feet and at that point is where they would have to site that barrier, so -- Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Do you understand what staff is saying about that -- reducing the total width across there, so that you don't have that in excess situation and, I don't know, from my -perspective I think that the cross-access is the best answer, but short of Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 14 of 62 that, having some interim solution either or you're going to have to be able to meet the fire department's turnaround and your site would have to be redesigned to meet that. Do you have any -- or are you in a position to comment on that or -- as to acceptable -- Slawson: It was my understanding, based on the condition of approval, that we have to have -- with this plan to work we would have to have that cross-access agreement recorded prior to our certificate of zoning compliance. So, we were working toward getting that for the next step. But we are trying -- or going to try to get that cross-access agreement with the Idaho Athletic Club in place. Rohm: With this just being a Conditional Use Permit, the citing body is this body and we would -- we would be making the motion to accept or to deny and I suppose a motion could be made that would -- and I'm not speaking for any of the members of the Commission, but a motion could be made that would state that this Conditional Use Permit is only granted pending the acceptance and access to the adjacent property as it's currently designed or it would have to came back something -- something to that nature. Is that what you're thinking would be -- Slawson: That was my understanding. Rohm: Okay. Before we -- Moe: Mr. Chairman. Amanda, do you know how many parking stalls are required far this building? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it looks like they have proposed 38 parking stalls and only 16 are required by ordinance. Moe: Okay. So, even if they are losing -- they are going to lose -- to me it looks like they'd lose about six to eight parking stalls if they had to put a barrier across, so they are still well within the requirement of the building itself, if they moved it back. If you have got 150 feet from center line in; right? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's actually from front of sidewalk. So, it's measured from here all the way to here. So, that's just -- that's just a little bit more -- roughly 155, 160 feet. So, if they were to put a barrier here of some sort, they'd just be taking out two stalls and they would probably still meet the 150 foot requirement. And this would, of course, be a temporary solution that would be removed at the time that access was granted to Idaho Athletic Club. Rohm: Yeah. I think we could either move forward, either by reducing the total width in the short run or making it pass, you know, with a condition that you obtain across- access agreement and, quite honestly, you know, I think that everybody feels that a cross-access is the preferred solution, but I would be curious what your position is. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 15 of 62 Slawson: I believe the applicant would prefer to keep all the parking spots across the front and work to get the cross-access agreement. Rohm: Okay. All right. Well, that -- yeah, I think everybody would prefer that solution. 50, with that being said, does any of the balance of the Commission have any questions of the applicant? Siddoway: I'll hold mine until after the public testimony. Rohm: Okay. Slawson: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Would Jennifer McRoberts like to testify? Okay. Fram the audience she's indicated that she's not interested in testifying. Dan Woodall. Come forward, state your name and address for the record. Woodall: Dan Woodall. 1950 West Carol Street, Meridian, Idaho. Just at West Carol from this development. This is the first that we have seen of this, so I'm kind of going off the cuff, but forgive me. I just -- the comments I'd like to make is that I'm not too happy about the drive-thru window thing. Just to the other side of the Idaho Athletic Club is Walgreen drug. We testified on that when they wanted to put in their drive-thru window. We told them it's going to be loud. They put up a huge wall, they put up a big green screen and, guess what, you still hear the drive-thru speaker. So, that is going to -- you know, we are going to be hearing their speaker, I'm certain of that. No matter what the engineers tell you about their calculations, sound travels. The other thing I'd like to say is that -- that the neighborhood consensus is that we really don't want any extra traffic on Carol Street. In this particular plan there is no -- that's not really a concern. They aren't proposing any additional accesses to Carol Street, but that's -- that was the other thing I wanted to put out is that we'd like to limit additional vehicle traffic on Carol Street. We don't want any additional cars. We have little kids on bicycles running around and we don't need the extra cars. Rohm: It doesn't appear as if this application will -- yeah. I'm curious, do you think that the drive-thru at Walgreens is closer to Caral Street than what the drive-thru will be far this proposed development? It is. And it's pointed directly at the neighborhood, so -- Yeah. So, there is a significant difference between the two applications. Woodall: Yeah. There is, though, if you look at this one, the Settler Village over here, there are people on that side that the sound will be directed towards. So, that's also something to consider. I don't think -- I don't think they got any notification for this and I don't think they are here, but I'd like to tell you that when they say that the -- when they say that the speakers don't --aren't going to carry to the neighbors, they do. Rohm: I suspect when that lot between this proposal and Settlers develops, that will break same of that travel up. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 16 of 62 Woodall: Actually not. They are already building on it. I don't think they have notified for it, but they are already building on it and it's going to be some kind of a Jiffy Lube type of thing and it's not going to block sound or -- from what I can see. There is nothing in between. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Woodall: Thank you. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could add a comment about that? Rohm: Please. Hess: Staff recently received a certificate of zoning compliance and it's for a retail building on this property just to the west and I would imagine that that will definitely help with -- being asound -- functioning as a sound barrier far this drive-thru establishment. That's -- the residential property is just kitty-corner to this. So, I think that will definitely help a lot. Rohm: Okay. Hess: If that helps with this gentleman's concerns. Rohm: Thank you, Amanda. Okay. There is not anybody else that has signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward now is that time. Okay. Thank you. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I -- can we close the Public Hearing? Rohm: Okay. So, you'd like to make a motion to close it? O'Brien: Yes. Siddoway: I'd actually like to ask a question of the applicant first, if I could. Rohm: Absolutely. Siddoway: My questions are regarding the drive-thru. If I remember right from the elevations, the window for the drive-thru sits somewhere in this location; is that right? Slawson: That's correct. Siddoway: So, basically, you have the one vehicle that's at the window and stacking for one. I'm just trying to think through -- I know the specific tenant is not before us tonight, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 17 of 62 but I can't think of many tenants that would function with such little stacking area. Any comments about that? Slawson: The epRlication, the owner of this building, is actually going to own that first retail lease space and she has -- she was working with us on that stacking lane and she's approved that for -- for the number that she needs and there actually won't be an outside speaker for that, it will be phone in and pickup only. So, there won't be a speaker and menu .board at the outside of that -- that building. Siddoway: So, there is no outdoor speaker, only a phone? Slawson: That's correct. Siddoway: Okay. So, the circulation -- you come in through the shared driveway and, then, wrap around and come through this way and, then, exit out; is that correct? Out of the drive-thru? Slawson: That's correct. Siddoway: One of the things that I'm trying to think through is that, you know, this building will have to function over time with different tenants, assuming that the current tenant doesn't -- you know, may not stay there forever -- or the proposed tenant. So, just trying to make, sure it functions aver time. Now, if the drive-thru speaker is limited to a phone-in only, it will be less attractive to some type of fast food or something that would generate larger stacking distances. So, I think the -- if we tie, you know, the CUP to a phone-in only, you know, speaker system for the drive-thru, that that would help alleviate same of my concerns there. But I just raise that for some discussion. That's really my only question at this point. Thanks. Rohm: Thank you. At this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-014. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some final thoughts on this? O'Brien: My thought is somewhat confusion relative to the -- if the fire department's okay with this. I'm not so sure that maybe we should continue this to the point where we get approval from the fire department. That said, if any changes are required of the layout of the building, that would change a lot of things, including the noise factors that were Meridian Planning ~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 18 of 62 brought up. So, I'm kind of concerned about those things, whether or not we approve or deny it tonight or just continue it on to a later time until they get that -- that approval. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: I guess I want to ask staff another question. Based upon your staff report and whatnot -- we have discussed that the fire department wants a turnaround, but, yet, we are proposing to limit it to the 150 feet, therefore, we just put a barrier in. Is the fire department aware that that thought might happen as well or are they, in fact, going to be looking for a turnaround regardless? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the fire department is not aware of that solution. Staff and -- staff had recently discussed that being an option for the applicant, in lieu of providing that turnaround, because it would substantially change the layout of this project. I can imagine that the -- if there were, in fact, a barrier there, that they would still be requiring a turnaround, but I mean I can't speak for fire department staff, I guess. . Moe: Sure. Okay. Well, where I'm at with this issue -- I mean the easiest thing to do is to go ahead and, hopefully, that they will get their agreement with the Idaho Athlete Club and they get the cross-access, but that's not something that's definite yet. I'm not really keen on the idea of putting up a barrier at the 150 foot mark and, then, we get to see a big old open space or whatever they are going to do in there, just however long. So, I just don't think I'd like to see that. So, I, for one, wouldn't mind probably seeing if we could continue this until we got some ward one way or the other on the cross-access agreement with the Idaho Athletic Club before we acted on this. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I see three issues. The first, where we started with the window and the discussion of the east and west. We heard the applicant testify that he was favorable and that meets any concerns that I would have, but I would want to make sure we clarified that. There would be an additional window added to the east side, as large or larger. I think the applicant said larger than the one that they were providing on the west side. The second item would be -- regarding the turnaround, Icould --Icould support a continuation. I do see that there would be three -- if we wanted to approve -- if we felt comfortable approving it and having the applicant work this out prior to occupancy, I believe there is a scenario that would narrow -- or shorten the length of that parking lot. I wouldn't want to see it asphalted with just a jersey barrier across it, it would need to become part of the landscaping. But I could envision a scenario where they either come in with a -- you know, this as part of the landscape buffer or they get the cross-access. I think the cross-access is preferable. But there is a scenario that does not conflict with their parking requirement. So, I could see --Icould see forwarding it on with the requirements that at certificate of zoning compliance they must either have this scenario with across-access or they must decrease the length of the parking with this area, give the landscaping, or they must provide the turnaround for the fire Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 19 of 62 department. I don't know that that's very realistic, but one of those three. The third item is the speaker and I wanted to make sure -- I think I would want to tie to the Conditional Use Permit that that had drive-thru speakers, a phone-in only, and that's tied to the CUP and runs with the land, regardless of what the tenant is given as short stacking depth there. That's all. Rohm: Qkay. I'll try and encapsulate some of thoughts here. It seems to me the consensus is that we'd really like to know the answer to the cross_access before we act on it and I think that that's definitely within our province and so with that being said, I think maybe the correct motion that I'd like to hear from one of the Commissioners is a continuance to the next meeting and with giving direction to the applicant to either provide an alternate parking layout to the front that would reduce that to 150 or less or bring across-access agreement far presentation and we will vote on it at that time. But the thing that I think that we need to da is limit the discussion at the next hearing to only that associated with the cross-access agreement. We don't need to rehash the balance of what's been discussed tonight, because that seems to be the -- really, the only issue that remains uncertain. Any concurrence on that? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would probably -- you know, just reviewing the elevations at the present time, I'm a little bit concerned that just one window on the east side is not going to do a whole bunch to really make a big difference. I think the applicant needs to be a little bit more imaginative than just one window or one awning, you know, on both the east and west sides. I think probably -- especially because the window on the west side right now is basically an the north side, so you're still going to have a pretty blank wall towards the front, so I probably would like to see, if anything, possibly even where their grid lines are on those elevations possibly at least maybe three per side, as opposed to one per side to break it up enough. Either by window or some type of awning or something. But I think that would be something that the applicant could bring to us if, in fact, we do continue this. So, basically, it would be the elevation changes, as well as the cross-access agreement that we want to speak to at that other hearing. Hood: Mr. Chairman, before you make a motion, I do just want to chime in real quick. There is some potential problem with requiring the applicant go to some third party that probably doesn't have any interest in granting across-access at this time. If they came back or they hold them hostage and say I want a hundred thousand dollars for the cross-access, because you need this to move your project forward, those are my concerns. What the staff report says is stub the drive aisle, work with them on trying to get that extended now or else you have to da a turnaround and provide them with cross- access. We will get them to provide you with cross-access when they redevelop. So, having a two weeks negotiating with Idaho Athletic Club and getting an agreement signed and recorded that all the attorneys agree ta, I just don't see that happening, first of all, even if they were able to sit down tomorrow and say they agree in principle, I just don't see it happening in a couple of weeks. So, to be clear on what you're looking for in the two weeks, I think the elevation changes I think are pretty clear. And the applicant went on record to say, you know, we are going to make this happen and if we don't, yeah, it's a new project, we have got to come back through with a significant redesign Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 20 of 62 and try it again. But I'm a little bit hesitant to condition that or continue it for the sale purpose of discussing across-access easement that you're looking like you're going to want to see. So, those are just my concerns. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just to answer that, I agree a hundred percent with what you have said. I guess what I'm looking for is not so much just across-access agreement happening, if not, then, I want to -- I would like to see what they do want to do in regards to either the turnaround or tp cut it back to 150 and do some landscaping in there that -- I don't -- I would love to see the cross-access, but I understand that it might be a little bit difficult to get at a minimal price. So, therefore, they may have to come before us with something else. That's -- I just want to see what they want to bring forward before we just move it on. Especially with. this being a CUP, I want to see it before I approve it. And that's where I'm at. Rohm: So, to encapsulate that, just a solution, whether it be crass-access or a modification to the parking lot configuration, so -- Hood: So, Mr. Chairman, can lask afollow-up question just for some classification for staff. Sa, I mean it's easiest far the applicant to just go, yeah, we weren't able to get cross-access, we pull our asphalt back shorter than 150. As far as staff, we want to see that connection happen. So, that may be a solution as far as the applicant, but is that something that's going fly -- again, I guess staff I think is the main requirement for the cross-access is sa we can get some interconnectivity. Just pulling it up short, because now you need a fire department turnaround I don't think is the right answer. It may be a solution, but I don't think it's the right one. So, that is an option, though, I guess for the Commission that if they just came back with any site plan that showed not the stub happening there and they maybe lost a parking stall on either side of that drive aisle, that is something you think you could -- I know Commissioner Siddoway mentioned that, that that would be an option, but, you know, we are trying to limit access points on arterials and share those driveways, so people don't have to get out on Fairview. But that's just -- I'm trying to understand what the applicant tames back with to us with this next week, haw we are supposed to evaluate it for you or just so we understand what you're looking far in working with them this next week. Moe: Well, let me follow another question up. In regards to the fact they just go ahead and put a barrier up at the 150 mark now and nothing happens at the Idaho Athletic Club and whatnot that, then, what are you anticipating seeing between that barrier and their property line at that paint? Just a vacant piece of ground? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, what I would personally think works to have them construct it like this and have either a couple of bollards or a chain or something so fire trucks don't drive any further to where they can't turn around and, then, cross-access is Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 21 of 62 reciprocated from Idaho Power, those bollards or chains or whatever goes down, there is no other asphalt that needs to be laid, it's clear that it's, you know, put right up to the property line, maybe even a sign that says this driveway to be extended in the future, like we do with roads. So, it's really improved with asphalt just not being used to drive across until such time as I Idaho Athletic comes back in. Moe: Okay. Rohm: I think that's the right answer, because that way we don't end up with a parcel of ground there that is either developed to the point that they can't provide across-access ar it's just undeveloped period. So, that that seems to be a viable solution and something that is doable. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, just so that I'm clear, the way this staff report's currently written is the applicant able to get a certificate of zoning compliance without the cross- access from Idaho Athletic Club? Moe: If he provides a turnaround. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the staff report is written actually so that they can get a certificate of zoning compliance without getting return access from Idaho Athletic Club. The way it's written is that they have to give cross-access to all adjacent properties themselves, but not necessarily obtain access from these properties. Siddoway: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this will be of any help, Mr. Chairman or Members of the Commission, but it seems like what you have -- all you're asking is -- a problem has been raised tonight and it's a couple of things that are really unsettled and one of them is the fire department may need to comment on additional information that was provided tonight. So, it seems like I guess if -- what I was hearing the Commissioners saying is you want to come back in two weeks and to get more information, since they haven't begun negotiations with the Idaho Athletic Club to at least start that, to see where that is, to have a variety of solutions for you. You have a tremendous amount of latitude in a Conditional Use Permit to weigh those options, including the asphalt, the barricade, the -- whether or not they want to continue to have the drive-thru in that location, whether the building would have to change if there is a drive -- if there was a turnaround necessary. I mean I guess I think all you're asking for the applicant's sake and for the staff is just a little bit more information to all of those options that have been raised tonight that probably can't be answered in the next ten minutes. So, I guess I don't think that's probably too much for two weeks. I agree with Mr. Hood that we are not going to get across-access agreement in two weeks, but I think we have raised a number of issues that probably you would just like more information, so that you can either grant a Conditional Use Permit with whatever restrictions you think are appropriate or not grant Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 22 of 62 it with whatever direction you think is necessary for them to accomplish that. Did I read you correctly? Rohm: I think you encapsulated it very well. Thank you. Moe: That's why he is the attorney. Rohm: Yeah. Thanks. All right. Boy, with that being said, could we get a motion to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning and Commission? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the Public Hearing for CUP 07-014, for the sole purpose of taking additional testimony on the elevations and the site plan as related to the cross-access agreement and continue this application to our next regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th, 2007. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item Na. CUP 07-014 to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: RZ 07-011 Request for a Rezone of 0.77 of an acre from C-C to an 0-T zone far Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Raad: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: PP 07-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 office building lots, 6 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.77 of an acre in a proposed O-T zone for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land .Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: Item 11: Continued Public HQaring from June 7, 2007: CUP 07-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct 6 town homes in a proposed O-T zone that do not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 7th, 2007, of project RZ 07-011, PP 07-010, and CUP 07-010 and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are a rezone, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit request for Shaylee Estates. The property is .77 of an acre in size and is currently zoned C-C