Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 6, 2003 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 86 of 106 Centers: Yes. Borup: But I think we need to still address it. Zaremba: Okay I'll second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY Item 15. Public Hearing: RZ 02-009 Request for a Rezone of 0.17 acres from R- 8 to O-T zones for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and Associates - 518 East Broadway Avenue: Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 02-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family dwelling unit in a proposed O-T zone for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and Associates - 518 East Broadway Avenue: Borup: Okay that does conclude those two items. Okay. We'd like to continue our meeting this evening with Item Numbers 15 and 16, Public Hearing RZ 02-009, request for a rezone of .17 acres from R-8 to 0- T zones for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and Associates, at 518 East Broadway. Accompanying that, CUP 02-048, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family dwelling unit for a proposed O-T zone. I'll open both of these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a proposed Rezone, as well as a Conditional Use Permit. The Rezone would take the property from its existing R-8 zone to the Old Town zone. The Comprehensive Plan does designate this area as Old Town, so it would be eligible for the Old Town zone per the Comprehensive Plan. It is located at 518 East Broadway, about halfway between East 5th and East 6th Street. The proposal is to construct a 4-plex on the property. That 4- plex would be 3,884 square feet and two stories tall. They are proposing four covered stalls and two uncovered compact stalls, within the additional, two uncovered stalls in a tandem a rrangement. You should have a staff report dated January 16th. I have a couple of photos. This is an aerial photo of the property. This is where Broadway comes up and dead ends to the east currently. You can see the existing residential character of the area. There are some existing multi-family dwellings. Borup: That's what I was going to ask. The building to the left, is that what that is? Siddoway: I believe it's another 4-plex. Oh and the other side, too so, there is -- I think they are actually on both sides, surrounded by -- Centers: Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning CommissIon Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 87 of 106 Siddoway: The issues I would like to point out -- the first one is on Page 3, Item E. We do find that the proposed development is harmonious with the existing neighborhood, but we also find that additional architectural features could and perhaps should be added to the southern elevation to give the proposed building a more attractive street appearance, rather than just looking at it as a -- the side of a building. We are trying to dress up the street appeal, if you will, of these structures in the Old Town District and that has been done by this Council at the last 4-plex that came through in this area. These are some existing site photos. I believe that this is the existing house on the subject property, which you can see in both photos. Here you see the exiting 4-plex to the west, as well as the existing ones to the east. Centers: Excuse me, Steve. How is the design appeal compared to those two? Is it comparable to what's submitted? Zaremba: Probably better. Siddoway: I also believe that the applicant is prepared to -- Centers: Give us pictures. Siddoway: -- pose some specifics to address that. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: Here is the proposed elevation. This would be the front and rear elevation, so this would be the side facing the street. On Page 4, Item A, on the finding whether the site is large enough, we find it is large enough only if the Commission approves the proposed tandem parking. The reduced street buffers -- or not street buffers, reduced buffers between land uses -- or not even between land uses, it's just the side -- it's just the perimeter landscape requirement that's adjacent to vehicle use areas is how that should be written, I will go over that in more detail in just a second. If you will turn to Page 6, the special considerations detail t he four items that probably need the most discussion. The first is the Tandem Parking Arrangement. If you look at the Site Plan, you can see that they are proposing one, two, three, four covered parking spaces and, then, an additional two tandem uncovered here and two tandems uncovered here. We have approved tandem parking for 4-plexes in Old Town in the past. The main difference with this one is that typically each unit is given one covered and one uncovered space. In this case, if that were to happen, then, someone is going to be blocked in by a neighbor in the tandem situation so, that needs some addressing as to how the parking will work. Number 2 is the landscape buffer. The ordinance would require five-foot landscape buffers adjacent to the vehicular use areas on the east and the west. They are proposing three feet. Staff does support the proposed reduction, given the limited space and the higher density nature of the area. Item 3 is the sidewalk. The sidewalk as shown -- before I go to the sidewalk, let me point out one other thing. I believe that Broadway is out here and just so you understand, the parking is not off of Broadway, the parking is off the alley at the rear of the project. The sidewalk that's proposed is three and a half feet wide and it dead-ends at this proposed compact stall. We would recommend widening the sidewalk and extending the sidewalk Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 88 of 106 around, so that there is access to these parking stalls via the sidewalk without having to walk through landscape area. Item 4 is the mitigation of existing trees. There is a large existing tree that apparently will have to be taken down. I requested that the applicant get in contact with the arborist at the Parks Department, Elroy Huff, to make a determination if the tree truly is diseased and dying and could be removed without mitigation. If that finding is not made, then, we will need to determine in what manner the site could be maximized out for mitigation. I don't think there is any way they will get a full caliper inch for caliper inch mitigation out of it, but if it is truly old, diseased, and dying, the mitigation will not be required. I think those are the main issues that need to be resolved. Upon resolution of those, we would recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Rohm: Just on the parking. You said that it's a problem, but you didn't offer up what your potential resolution to that is. Are you waiting for the applicant to come forward with a response to that? Siddoway: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Zaremba: A question of staff. As a general rule, now that there is a Meridian Development Corporation should things in Old Town be passed by them? Siddoway: Yes, they should. I don't know if this one was. We are -- we did talk about that at a recent staff meeting a nd are trying to flag projects that a re in Old Town to solicit comments from MDC. I don't believe in this case that that was done, Zaremba: This, probably, I guess would be a comment for the Clerk 0 n the routing sheet that all of us have seen, they probably need to be added to this - Johnson: On our new transmittal sheet that I just gave -- I don't know if that's on that one or not. We just added them on. Zaremba: Okay so they would get Old Town type projects? Johnson: Yes. Borup: Okay so the new ones do have that. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: And, Steve, what is the -- Borup: This was a transmittal originally back in December. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 89 of 106 Centers: -- minimum parking required for the 4-plexes? Eight? Siddoway: Typically, it would be eight, two per dwelling unit. Centers: Did you say typically? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Isn't that also in the ordinance? Centers: Is it code or ordinance or typically? Siddoway: Let me look it up while we find out. Centers: Because I guess it's an issue if six is the requirement, they have met it. Borup: I thought it was two. Centers: I did. I was thinking it was six and one and a half. Did you, Keith? Borup: No. I thought it was two. Two other projects the staff have desired 2.3, but they haven't always required that. Zaremba: That's true, with an exception for one bedrooms or something like that. Borup: That may be. Siddoway: In a conversation with the applicant, during the break, I know they would like to propose that as a potential solution, would be to reduce the requirement to one and a half per -- one and a half parking spaces per unit. Zaremba: Well, I could suggest an alternate, and that would be if there is enough space to make that a real parking space, as opposed to a compact -- I'm sure they chose that, because it makes this area very narrow, but -- in which case these two spaces could be assigned to one apartment where they would park side by side. The same with these two, and, then, these two stacking would belong to an apartment and these two stacking would belong to an apartment. Well, I would say you cover these middle two and, then, you cover the first two there, so you have -- this is uncovered, this is uncovered, this is uncovered, this is uncovered. Everybody gets one covered space and one open space but some of them are side by side, instead of tandem. Only the difficulty there in the engineering is if you make this a full size and you want this to be a five-foot walkway that's going to be able to go all the way around there and get to here, this doesn't look like that would accommodate both of those solutions. Borup: Well, I don't think they -- staff didn't say it had to be a five-foot they just wanted it to connect. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page gO of 106 Siddoway: The report does say -- Borup: Oh, they do want five-foot. Yes, you're right. Five-foot I'm sorry. That was on the next page. Well, I don't know if an intemal sidewalk needs to be that. Siddoway: Our standard requirement -- certainly out on all streets we would require five feet. We approve four-foot detached sidewalks, you know, fairly regularly in subdivisions. You know, that may be a point of give and take, so that we are not paving the entire site, but -- Mathes: Are they not allowed to have parking on Broadway out front? Siddoway: It can't be counted as part of the off-street parking requirement. There will be parking on Broadway. On-street parking is allowed. Siddoway: Okay any other questions? Centers: Well, you were looking for the minimum required parking. Siddoway: I haven't found it yet. Let's hear from the applicant and I will keep -- Borup: Okay Mr. Reese, have you got a presentation? Holinka: Actually, Commissioner -- Chairman and Commissioner Centers, it's two -- with multi-family dwelling units of three units or more it's two per unit. Borup: Okay that's what I thought. Thank you. Reese: My name is Matthew Reese with Tamura and Associates, Architects. I'd like to just go through some of these and answer some questions or offer some solutions. I do believe it is two per unit for Meridian. I'll just kind of go in order here through this report and Item Number E talks about staff finds additional architectural features could be added to the southern elevation and I would agree with that. I think we would look at minimizing some of the windows on the east side and trying to enlarge the windows and putting more detail on the ends of the building and on the west side. Borup: Would the landscaping be pretty close to what is represented here on that front and rear elevation? At least on the front elevation? Reese: Yes. I think we -- I think we would probably put more of our landscaping focused more on the front of the building and not quite so much -- Borup: I'm not sure if the Commission had a big concern -- I mean real concern on the architectural features. It does have a lot more Variance than your neighbors, it appears, Reese: Yes and keep in mind this is our schematic design. We still will go through our design development and working drawings and we will work with planning staff on that. Moving along. The issue with the tandem parking -- and I'm not sure if this is really the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 91 of 106 appropriate place or the time to request this. We would also -- we would be open to just having a requirement of 1.5 stalls required per unit, since this is in Old Town District, it's a little higher density, a little closer to the city center. I suspect, you know, that would not be the recommendation, just based on what that would do as far as setting precedent, but I'm just going to throw that out there as a consideration. As far as the arrangement 0 f t he tandem s tails and the use 0 f t he compact stall, 0 ne 0 four main issues is we are trying to minimize the amount of paving, because the move paving you start to add, the more you have to account for water retention and seepage beds. We felt that the inner two stalls on the tandem parking can be compact stalls, because you don't have a stall adjacent to it. You still have the full width to open a door the regular -- the way a regular parking stall is designed, you usually open your door and it encroaches on a little bit to the next stall. Borup: So what is that stall width? Is that eight feet? There is no dimension on it. Oh, there it is. 7.6. Okay. That answered my question. I see it there. Reese: Usually, like a nine-foot stall, you take -- you're borrowing a foot and a half of the stall right next to you. Borup: Right. Reese: You know. Since these just isolated stalls, we thought the compact stall would work fine there. We do have a little room to move the building around a little bit. I agree with the staff that we do need to bring the sidewalk on around to the front of the parking to provide better pedestrian access to the units. I would request, though, that we would prefer to go to a smaller sidewalk on the interior sidewalks, as long as it meets accessibility requirements. Normally, when we do larger apartment projects as a standard we do a five-foot sidewalk, but given the scale of this project, just being a one- unit facility, we think -- it's our opinion that a three-foot six wide sidewalk is adequate and, you know, again, you know, we have the burden of meeting all the accessibility requirements. Borup: Does that meet the requirements? Reese: Yes. Borup: Three six is what the accessibility requires. Reese: Yes and -- but, again, nothing is -- you know, we are open to working with the planning staff and it's just our opinion that five feet seemed a little excessive on what's needed. It comes back to that issue of the more you pave, the less landscaping you have, and the more water retention issues we have. Centers: Does the three and a half fall under the ADA? Reese: You know ADA clearance, yes, and -- Centers: The disabilities act for wheelchairs. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 92 of 106 Reese: Yes. Centers: Is adequate? Reese: Yes and, then, we also have fair housing, which, actually, becomes a bigger monster in a lot of these. Centers: Yes and three and a half is fine, then? Reese: Yes. Rohm: Can you slide that whole dwelling east, so that you could enlarge the parking spaces .- Reese: Enlarge the parking -- Rohm: Well, so that you don't have the stack effects that you could actually back out and get around the adjacent vehicle. Reese: I'm not sure what -- Borup: The east is to the top of the map. Rohm: Oh, that's east? Excuse me I -- this is east in my mind. Borup: No that's south and they are right at the setback, I believe. Rohm: Okay can you slide the whole -- Reese: We can't go -- Borup: They are right at the setback. Reese: We are right at our 20-foot setback. We can move the building up and down. Borup: East. Reese: Right. Centers: And your neighbors have smaller buildings and what's their parking? Did you take a look? Reese: Their buildings appear to be large, just because t hey are more just like big boxes and they have fewer parking stalls. Centers: Yes I saw them. They don't have -- okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Paga 93 of 106 Reese: And, then, the reality is, is what -- you have Broadway, which the pavement stops about 10 feet away from the sidewalk and so what you have is a lot of people. Actually kind of doing perpendicular type parking along in front of there. That will probably change as that gets developed on the east. That road will probably get fully improved and be restricted to parallel parking. I think it's also an issue that, you know, reality is that certain tenants will prefer just to park up front and -- Centers: I agree with that. Reese: You know. Even if we provided 10 full, easy access parking spots in the back, you know, I imagine that's just the reality of it. I know we can't count those as parking. Centers: How about if you put a sign right at the right front of that first stall, the tandem stall, park here at your own risk, you may get blocked in? Reese: Well -- and that's certainly something -- Centers: I mean I'm serious. Reese: That is a program set with the management. Centers: Yes. Reese: We are also open to, you know, shifting the location of what is covered parking and it also doesn't necessarily mean that each unit gets one covered stall. That's usually typical, but the owner certainly has the right to charge extra if you want a covered stall or maybe even the lower units are not as desirable, so in order to get them rented they get the covered stalls, so -- Borup: And that's what I was going to ask. Is there a proposal for the parking at this point or not necessarily, it sounds like. Reese: Nothing really. Rohm: First come first serve? Borup: I'm sure they are going to have to work something out. Reese: Yes. I mean we got this report on Monday and just haven't had -- Borup: Well, that's more of an issue, probably, for the owner to decide. Centers: Yes marketing. Reese: But we would be providing the eight -- there are physically eight stalls on the site, so -- Zaremba: Maybe I'm not seeing it, but I'm not finding a trash enclosure. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 94 of 106 Reese: And that was brought up. What - and I talked to Steve about, you know, what would be required. Keep in mind, this is a residential alley and there isn't another property owner on there that has a trash enclosure, so we would be the first one on the block. We have a fence along the back and he says all you have to do is provide a side on either side and to have the front open, so -- and that's certainly doable for us. No, as shown right here we don't have a trash enclosure. Zaremba: Within the landscaped area. Borup: Well, it shows a trash can location area. Reese: Yes but we don't have an enclosure. Siddoway: Yes. I can point it out for you if you'd like. The trash cans are shown to accommodate four cans right here. There is a fence behind them. We would just simply ask that some wing walls be extended along the sides, so that it's screened on three sides and that would meet the ordinance. Zaremba: I thought those were trees. I stand corrected. Reese: Okay. The issues with the landscape buffers in the back, again, you know, following the letter of the ordinance would be required to have five feet. Again, we are in an alley area, we are providing three feet on each side, and I hope that is, you know, acceptable. Again, I think it will be the nicest improved lot on the whole block, because, you know, it's just your typical residential alley right now. Just a couple other minor things. On our plan, we call out for a new six-foot vinyl fence. The reality is that the fences on either side are in very good condition and really do not need to be replaced. They do meet the current requirements of the ordinance and so I'd like to just correct that and make that on the record that there is an existing six foot high fence on the east and west side. Rohm: Did you say that the alleyway was to be paved? Reese: That is an ACHD requirement on us. That was -- the issue we have is ACHD -- now, we didn't get very far with it, but we will be required to pay to have that alley paved, whereas the 4-plexes on either side, obviously, didn't have to pay for it. Now if anybody comes after us, you know, they are going to get a brand new paved alley, but that's just -- you know. Zaremba: They want you to pay for the whole block length of the alley? Reese: We -- they had an initial requirement that we pave from our property to the nearest street. Then, we made a proposal to them that, you know, would it fair if we just -- you know, we pay for our portion of the alley or our percentage. Then, we wanted to propose a couple things, you know, maybe they could reduce our impact fees and, then, that money goes towards the paving of the alley, but they would not go for that. The compromise was if we buy the asphalt, they would pave it, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 95 of 106 Borup: Do you know how long the other two apartments have been there? Reese: Eight years and 15 years. Borup: You're going to have to repeat everything she says, unless she comes up. Reese: We are also the only one on this block that had to go through the Rezone, That's how we -- Borup: Well, yes, that has been some recent changes there. Reese: Right. Borup: I'm not sure how recent. I know the last several years ACHD has been wanting alleys paved, but I'm not sure when they -- I don't know whether that went into effect. Siddoway: About three years ago, I believe. Borup: Okay. Has it been that recent? Centers: Well, that saves you quite a bit, though, if you're not going to do the labor. Reese: Yes. I mean it's probably -- it's definitely a better deal than what they initially required. Borup: But not as good as the neighbors got. Reese: Well, we still have to issue that, you know -- I have had several projects that run into this. It's ACHD policy that it usually gets stuck to one property owner that ends up having to pave the whole alley, you know, because they take a house and turn it into an office or something and they -- you know, they get stuck with it. You know, everybody else gets a nice new paved alley, so -- Zaremba: Can you put an attendant at the end of it and charge a toll? Reese: I want to make sure I covered everything here. As far as the issues of removing the tree, the tree is not something that's in the way of the development, it was just a feeling that -- with the property owner that the tree was at the end of its life cycle and it shows signs of -- branches have been, you know, decaying and falling off. I think the owner is going to work with the Parks Department and do what needs to be done there. Probably would -- you know, if it were a nice healthy three, we would certainly say that -- to save it, but I think that's why we are showing it to be removed, is I think our opinion is that it's at the end of its life. It's probably near 100 years old, 80 years old, Again, I would just make the request -- I don't know if it's doable or not, but if we could get a parking reduction to one and a half units per -- one and a half stalls per unit and have the six required stalls. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mealing February 6, 2003 Page 96 of 106 Borup: Are you saying you would be doing away with where it's labeled compact stall? Is that what you're proposing? Reese: Well, if there was heartache that the tandem parking is not satisfactory, is that - Borup: I'd rather see the compact -- or there be stacked parking and -- Centers: And put a sign up. Rohm: Keep eight stalls and have two of them -- Borup: In looking at that, at least the -- even though it's labeled a compact stall, there is more room to open the doors there than in the full size ones. Centers: Probably more room than in -- Borup: Right than in the other. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, there is also enough depth, depending on how it was striped. Right now the depth shown for that compact stall is 16 feet, but there is still an additional six feet between the full size stall and the alley, so they probably could borrow three feet from that and make it a full 19 feet deep and -- Borup: You have to have 40 feet there total. Reese: Yes. Again, what we are -- the intention there was just to try to minimize the amount of pavement. Borup: Well, it's going to have to be paved clear to the alley anyway, isn't it? Reese: Yes. Again, if we can make the compact -- if we can utilize these in compact stalls and also utilize using the -- having the front of the car overhang the curb -- Borup: Right. I think what Steve is saying just the way it's drawn would enable two full size cars to be parked there. Reese: Yes. Borup: As it's designed now. Isn't that what you're saying? Siddoway: Yes. It could be striped with two 19-foot deep stalls and not have to require anymore paving. The width is a reduction from our standard requirement of nine-foot wide minimum. Like you say, if it's not up against an adjacent car, there is room for the doors to open and things. I don't have any particular heartburn with it, I just was pointing out that it could be striped as two 19-foot stalls, as opposed to a 16 and a 19. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 97 of 106 Borup: Well -- and they are probably not going to pay any attention to the striping on the tandem part anyway. Zaremba: Do we know how wide the alley is anybody? Reese: It is 16 feet by wide. Zaremba: Sixteen? Reese: Yes. Zaremba: Well, I think your extra three feet behind the standard car length is going to help people turn in and out of a pretty narrow alley. I'd hate to back them up all the way to the alley. Borup: No and I don't think you would want to reduce what the design is. Isn't that what you're saying? As it's currently designed should be adequate. I don't know that -- and maybe -- I mean I think if you have finished what you -- Reese: Yes. Borup: -- the concerns to me and the Commissioners -- the questions the applicant probably wants us to address mayor may not be different from staff, would be the size of the sidewalks and the parking and perhaps the landscape buffer, but, you know, the reduction in the buffer. I think probably those three things. Any Commissioners have any concern with the project as designed? Zaremba: No. Centers: No. Reese: You thank. Borup: Yes. Thank you. Mathes: I make a motion to close Public Hearing RZ 02-009 and Public Hearing CUP 02-048. Centers: Second. Borup: If you like. We are about ready to approve your project, but -- would you rather we didn't? We got a motion. Centers: And a second. Borup: Yes. Did we vote on it? Zaremba: We didn't vote. Meridian PlannIng and Zonlng Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 96 of 106 Borup: Oh. I'm sorry. It's late. Zaremba: So she still could speak if she wants to. Borup: You could still speak if you'd like. Zaremba: We haven't official closed it yet. Borup: You can still come up if you like but at this point, none of the Commissioners have any problem with your design as you submitted it. Centers: I think .- yes. Okay. Zaremba: With resolving the sidewalk going to -- Borup: Right. That would be the only thing different in the design. It's connected to the site -- Centers: Well, he had proposed to connect it. Borup: Okay do you want us to proceed ahead? Centers: He wants three and a half feet and I don't have a problem with that. You can get a wheelchair down it. Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Yes. I would say I don't have any problem with the tandem parking and the landscape buffer to three feet. The staff didn't either, really and sidewalks, I don't think the staff has a heartburn on three and a half feet and he agreed to extend them and -- Borup: I think part of the concern here is it doesn't meet 100 percent, but it's a good project for an in-fill and an improvement over the neighbors. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I would point out in the motion, however, that the sidewalk needs to be extended around, as well as the note about the new vinyl fence not being required, because of the existing fence -- Centers: That was the other thing. Yes. He wants to use the existing fences on both sides. Borup: You say the parking just needs to be extended -- I mean the sidewalk extended to the parking right? Siddoway: Yes access to all the parking stalls. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 99 of 106 Centers: To all parking areas, then. Borup: Oh, it was your intention to have it brought along the sidewalk front along the parking stalls? Siddoway: Yes. Our intent would be to have the sidewalk wrap around, front along here, and connect over to the end. That way, there would be access to all the parking stalls without traipsing through the bushes, if you will. Borup: Was that your understanding? Is that the way you had planned to do it anyway? Okay. Mathes: I make a motion to forward this to City Council for approval of Public Hearing RZ 02-009, request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-8 to 0- T zones for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and Associates, including all staff comments of January 16th. Is that all on that? Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Mathes: Okay and I am making a motion to send the approval of Public Hearing CUP 02-048 to the City Council, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family dwelling unit in a proposed O-T zone for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and Associates. Including all staff comments, dated January 16th, including on Page 6, Number 3, the sidewalks, we want to extend them to go in front of the parking and on Page 7, the fencing, they want to use the existing fencing, instead of putting up new vinyl fencing. Centers: And, Commissioner Mathes, do we want to mention we are okay with the three-foot landscape buffer? Mathes: We are okay with the landscape buffer. Centers: Three-foot. Mathes: Three-foot landscape buffer and with the three and a half foot sidewalk. Centers: Right and I was just reading on the tandem, I don't think the staff is -- yes. We are okay with the tandem. Mathes: Yes I think tandem is fine. Melidlan Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 100 of 106 Borup: They just made it as a comment, I think. Centers: Yes. Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 17. Clean-up Items. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have three clean-up items -- or just items for the Commission that aren't on the agenda. It will only take a second. We could do them pretty quickly, if that's okay. Borup: Okay we didn't know about this. Siddoway: The first is I have your shirts. I'll pass them out to you in just a second before we leave. Centers: All right. Zaremba: I vote yes. Borup: Yes. We could have changed those during the break. Wouldn't that look sharp, come back in with -- that would have been really neat. Zaremba: Walk back in, in a chorus line. Siddoway: The second item is there was some discussion with staff -. we'd like to find out if the Commission is interested in holding a half hour Pre-Commission Meeting at 6:30, much like Pre-Council. We actually think we might save time during these hearings for you by doing that, if we have the opportunity to go over questions on staff reports. If we receive new plans in the interim and we would like to go over those before the hearing starts. If there are any items that staff knows that there are no objections from the applicant and we may be able to start using a Consent Agenda for items for which there is no opposition, those would be things that we could discuss in a Pre-Council -- or a Pre-Commission Meeting. I don't know that you have to decide tonight, but -- Centers: No, I would vote for it, if it's going to shorten the meetings. I think it would. Borup: And I like that, too. The only concern I have is if we start -. if we handle too much stuff at that meeting and don't bring it out at the Public Hearing, if we are short- changing the public by skipping over things that maybe should have been mentioned. Siddoway: Well, I think you still -- you can still -- for Consent Agenda items you can still ask if there is anyone to -- here to speak in opposition to those items and they won't go on the consent agenda.