Loading...
November 1, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 60 of 98 d f the Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue item CPA 07-011 to the en o regular agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: CPA 07-014 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of o woodland Springs by Morgan Development, Mixed Use - Communlty f Inc. - 1630 & 1720 E. McMillan Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 07-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C zone for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 07-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 4 commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CPA 07-014, AZ 07-014 and PP 07-019 and begin with the staff report. Hood:: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you just read, there are three applications associated with this project tonight. You have your Comprehensive Plan amendment, your annexation, and your preliminary plat. The subject site is 7.5 acres and is located on the northeast comer of McMillan and Victory. Excuse me. McMillan and Locust Grove. The property is currently zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County and is designated for medium density residential land uses on the future land use map right now. The adjacent land use you can see to the north is a single family residence that has not been annexed in the city. It is currently zoned RUT. To the south is the Idaho Power substation. That is annexed to the R-8 district. To the east are future single family homes in Portico Place Subdivision and I'll talk about that here in just another second.. To the west are single family homes, existing and planned in the future. This has not been annexed, but this in Tustin I think is the name of that subdivision, are planned for right there. We talked about the three applications and that it being -- it's 7.5.5 acres. The requested zoning district for the site is C-C, which is our community business district and the preliminary plat includes four commercial lots. I'll show you that plat real quick, although the plat is kind of hard to make out. There are two lots that kind of are over here. I think that says four right there, so there is a lot that's right here, a lot that's right here and, then, a lot right on the corner and, then, your remainder -- what's Lot 1 on the preliminary plat. The concept plan probably does a little bit better job of telling the story and how those fit -- buildings fit on those lots. There is a convenience store and gas station planned for Lot 2, so there is a C store and there are some pumps. Amedical-dental professional office building is proposed right here. This is amulti-tenant building. I anticipate they will probably resubdivide this Lot 3 into maybe two or three additional lots, depending on what the users need there. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 61 of 98 On the submitted plan they also show amulti-tenant commercial building on the north side. So, this L-shaped multi-tenant commercial building. The applicant has depicted, as you can see here, one full access driveway to Locust Grove. No direct lot access is proposed to McMillan. That is a change. ACRD wasn't too supportive of the original concept that had a driveway here. The applicant has gone back to the drawing board and is now taking their driveway that indirectly accesses McMillan off of a local street that is shared with Portico Place Subdivision. So, that's the one that on the aerial doesn't show up as being much of anything today, but that road is right here and shared between the two properties. And that's Beethoven Avenue. So, the applicant will be finishing their -- their portion of that curb, gutter, sidewalk, and matching in some of that asphalt there. In Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use designation is defined -- the mixed use designation is defined in part as an area that is situated and highly visible or transitioning parts of the city or innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The mixed use community designation allows residential density between three and 15 dwelling units per acre, up to 200,000 square feet of non- residential- building area, and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. I'm going to stop right there for just a second or take a break from the rest of my presentation and just mention that some of those concepts are one of the reasons that staff recommended that the future land use designation of the zoning for this property be stepped back one to the neighborhood designation, both on the future land use map, as well as the zoning district to C-N, rather than the requested C-C. There are, as mentioned in the presentation, residential uses that are right there and we just think the scope of this seven acres and the intent of what they are trying to do here really fits more in with the neighborhood concept than a community commercial, which is geared for a little larger area and a little bit larger service area, too, and I'll talk about that here in just -- just a little bit more in just a second. Let me jump to the landscape plan here. The applicant is proposing to landscape approximately 25 percent of this site. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Locust Grove, which is an arterial. McMillan is also an arterial, but is designated as an entryway corridor, which means a 35 foot wide buffer is required there. I will make note real quick, too, that ACHD has plans to improve this intersection. Part of their intersection improvements -- I'm going to jump back to the aerial here real quick -- is to take the Settler's Canal and relocate it to the north side. So, it currently exists in this location. They are proposing somewhere right in here to jump it across -- across McMillan, have it be an open lateral that flows somewhere in here within the 30 foot wide easement. So, just wanted to make you aware of that. We are -- I did talk with Settler's about that. They would prefer that it stay open. It's a fairly large facility, they do want it to stay open. What the applicant is doing -- and I'm going to jump back to their landscape plan. They are anticipating this and that's why you can kind of see that they haven't allowed this area here -- there aren't any trees proposed, that's because that's where the water is going to be flowing, so they have added -- outside of that 30 foot easement they have added another eight foot easement to make it a 30 foot -- 38 foot wide easement for landscaping where, basically, the back eight feet will be heavily landscaped and the remaining 30 will be, again, your bank -- top of bank and, then, it slopes down to bottom of the lateral. Staff had recommended some low-lying shrubs, if they are able to put those within the easement, also be added to the landscape plan and kind of work with Settler's on Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 62 of 98 dressing that up a little bit, just so it's not just trees and grass in there. I think the applicant's willing to do that, it's just a timing thing. So, as soon as that canal can be relocated by the highway district and water flowing and it's all good to go, then, they can come back in and plant some low-lying shrubs and kind of dress that up and that is the intent of the staff report, that it be, of course, after the canal is relocated. I'll touch real quick, too, on the land use buffers.. The difference in their requested zoning of C-C would require a 25 foot wide landscape buffer to residential uses. Staffs proposed zoning of C-N requires a 20 foot wide land use buffer, so they actually pick up five feet. That landscape buffer still has to be dense materials to create a full touching screen at the time of maturity, but that is a change based on staffs recommendation. I'll also let the applicant here talk about fencing ,which is something in the staff report we asked them to do tonight. A little bit of history. You may recall that in late 2006 an annexation was applied for on about 2.4 acres, so, basically, right here. That application was denied by the City Council. The applicant subsequently acquired the five acre parcel around it and, then, with the current applications tonight. Again, staff has provided detailed analysis in the staff report. We haven't received any negative comments or any letters for that matter from any adjacent neighbors or neighbors in the -- in the area. Staff finds that the subject 7.5 acres has frontage on two arterial streets and is highly visible. Again, however, staff believes that the requested Comp Plan designation to mixed use community and the C-C zoning designations for the entire site are too intense for the property. Staff believes that this site relates better to the neighborhood concepts of the Comprehensive Plan and should be designated accordingly. Staff is recommending the mixed use neighborhood and C-N zoning designation for the site. We believe this provides a better transitional zone and land use designation to the adjacent residential uses. Staff is also recommending a development agreement for this site with the annexation. I'm just going to quickly touch on a few of those DA provisions. I'm not going to mention all of them. One of them is for -- I don't know if it shows up on this side. Yeah, you can see it. There is a trellis structure, a picnic table and landscaping within this kind of central common area and the applicant's done a really good job with their -- their pedestrian connections to and throughout the development. There is a connection there. Sidewalks here, there, tying into the sidewalk here on Beethoven Place and they had one here we just talked about in the staff report with that canal. We think it may be better to move that like something in this alignment, so we can get people off of the -- that adjacent arterial. But we are holding them to the -- the -- some type of a central common plaza open space and, then, they have got some benches shown right here on Lot 4, some amenities there that we liked. Another point to mention -- and this is something that the applicant rebutted or had a question about in their response to staff report. The business hours of operation are restricted currently in the proposed development agreement for the professional office and the multi-tenant retail building to 6.:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. They stated they didn't have a problem with that. It was this lot we weren't -- staff isn't proposing any restrictions right now, because this lot -- this use would be subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and we thought that would be an appropriate time, people could be noticed, we could talk about hours of operation at that point. So, as currently written, there is no restriction on hours here, but that use isn't principally permitted anyways. And -- let's see. And it talks about all buildings being subject to administrative design Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 63 of 98 review and substantially complying with the elevations. So, I think that's where I'll leave it. I'll briefly show you the elevations for the retail building and the professional office building as well and we have tied not only the elevations, but the construction materials, which include cultured stone, faux timber and beams, stucco and stucco accents and metal standings seam roofing. So, those are -- kind of give you an idea of what the elevations will look like in the development and for the two buildings on this site. Again, staff is recommending approval of a Comprehensive Plan map change and annexation with the afore-mentioned changes to that map and the zoning district and I will stand for any questions you may have.. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair. The gas station that's proposed there is -- it seems like the trend is going -- do you know if they are proposing to have within the walls of the gas station a fast food restaurant like a Taco Bell or something like that, that many units have? Hood.: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, I do not know that. I have not seen the floor plan for that. I can tell you I don't think it's privileged information, because they submitted an elevation that showed Maverick, so there probably will be -- like that convenience store typically bakes their breads and has that type of thing, but not a fast food restaurant necessarily. O'Brien: Thank you. Siddoway: A quick follow up. Is a gas station allowed in C-N? Hood: With a Conditional Use Permit. So, any convenience store, the fueling station, would require a Conditional Use Permit. So, those things we can -- can be talked about. If by chance they -- they add on a wing where there is a drive-thru Taco Bell or something, that will be, you know, discussed at that future hearing. Siddoway: Yeah. Rohm: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Meyers: Todd Meyers. 645 Hickory Lane in Idaho Falls, with Morgan Construction. Could we go.to the aerial photo? I just want to point out real quick -- you see the small rectangular lot that is right at the intersection? About a year ago we brought that property before Planning Commission -- it was recommended for approval for a couple of office buildings. Under the O-L zone. That went onto City Council. It was denied at City Council. In the findings and the facts it said because it was not in the best interest of the city. So, from there we had to kind of interpret, okay, what does that mean -- what would the city love to have and we identified two things. First of all, maybe the property is too small to really implement all of the Comp Plan requirements. As you think about your 35 foot landscape requirement along a corridor entryway. Now, that's a Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 64 of 98 little bit small to take out 35 feet. And probably the biggest thing was this little piece of land right here, because as Caleb indicated, there is already an approved preliminary plat here, we had ours here, and, then, you get this 65 feet of what do you do with piece of property. So, we started off with -- we went and we acquired that property, which meant that we had to get all of this property here, because it's the same property owner. So, now if I could -- I hope you can see the Comp Plan down below. Our very next step is we went to city staff to talk to them and we presented a new plan that was for the entire seven acres and it was -- we do office, we do a lot of offices across the state and that's what we had there. And as we talked with the city planners, they pointed out a couple things to us and if you look at the city Comp Plan, you can see down by the interstate -- and rightfully so, there are a lot of commercial uses. As you get up into this area of town there are not a whole lot of commercial services. You do have over on Eagle a lot of your -- more of your destination or regional commercial, but you don't really have any of the -- the smaller neighborhood community -- maybe a mom and pop deli or something along that line. And so they indicated to us that maybe we ought to be thinking a little bit broader from our normal base and look into community services, commercial, retail services. And so with that we made our application for Comprehensive Plan amendment about six months ago, which in hindsight was great, because it gave us a lot of time to do some revisions to our comp -- or our concept plan, which we spent a lot of time with the neighboring developer -- if we can go back to the aerial photo. With Portico right here, we thought that there was a little bit of a waste of property in there, that it might be wise for us to look to them to see if they'd like to expand into a portion of ours. What we thought was waste they thought was a great amenity to their project and so they told us no. The other thing that we heard during this time is that the Ada County Highway District needed a retention pond and they were looking at our property, so we laid out a concept plan for a retention pond that would have been in the northeast corner. They had already moved on with other plans for their stormwater retention. And so, then, we started moving into an entire seven acre commercial property and if we could go ahead and put that up. After several different revisions and meeting with the staff -- just up on that ledge.. Yeah. Can everybody -- maybe that works out better. When we talked to staff, they emphasized a couple of things beyond just the services. They needed to have a plan that was well connected together. Our original concept divided everything off into its own little area. This has good vehicle pedestrian traffic with the -- inside the property. We thought we did a pretty good job with that and getting a mixed use. Another thing that staff really emphasized was pedestrian walkways. And so, you know, they -- they told us some things that they wanted to see. For example, you can see coming off of the picnic area they had us put in this little walkway going through there. Well, we wanted to make sure it was a good walkway, a safe walkway, so we moved all of our islands so that our landscape islands line up with that. We think that's important for vehicles, because they will know where those trees are. That's -- we can kind of learn where that pedestrian line is, but also because of your curb and gutter, your pedestrians, when they are on those islands, are going to be six inches up. They are going to be able to see those vehicles and., hopefully, the vehicles are going to be able to see them. And we have done that -- I don't want to take up too much time, but you can see we have done that really all over through the plan, trying to use those landscape islands to be able to Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 65 of 98 elevate it up. As Caleb mentioned, the gateway corridor has a 30 foot requirement -- or, excuse me, a 35 foot landscape requirement. The easement for the canal is 30 feet. We wanted to make sure that we could protect those roots to those trees, so we have added a little additional landscaping. We figured, you know, the trees are going to need to be planted early, we would like to hold off on planting anything else within that canal easement, because, obviously, they will be just wasted landscape within a few years. The amount of trees that you see on the border is probably about three times what's required by the city's ordinances and the reason why is because we have to make up for some of the trees that we are removing. There are some silver maples that have 24 inch calipers on them and so that really adds to the amount of trees. We are definitely more than happy to, you know, maybe move some of those trees that are butting up against the residential on the north and on the east to give them more of a buffer. Land use wise -- you know, Portico is a residential area and so we have put more of an office area here at this entrance office typically, you know, 5:00 quite often people go home and so we feel that that makes a pretty good neighbor. We are going to put our storm water up along the north and the east areas and we have put the back of the building in that area. So, basically, all of your parking would be kind of buffered off from the residential and that would be, you know, your parking headlights, your noise from your vehicles and so forth. And so that's why we went to an L-shaped building on that is trying to confine that noise within this area. We do feel that -- you know, of course, it's our opinion -- but we do feel that we have done a pretty good job of buffering the C store from the residential, especially when you take into consideration down below is that substation and so there is not a whole lot of residential that would be affected if they did want to go to a 24 hour operation. I don't know what their plans are on that. Most likely it's going to be Maverick, but at this point we are still working on details with them. What we have done, as you look at this building elevations -- and realize that will have to go through design review, but we are trying implement -- well, like you -- the picnic areas have a little trellis. Well, as you take a look at this L-shaped building, we kind of show that sidewalk out in here, but we are, actually, going to have each of those stores that you see over here on the side, they will pop in and out. Sometimes you will have solid roof over the top of you. We have got a couple areas where we have just picked up that trellis to kind of tie that flavor in to the big building to kind of overall look like it goes together. And, then, there are some areas where you have canopies on the buildings, too -- I have one here. It looks like I don't have that elevation on there. But that's to pick up the canopy that you would see on the map and so we are trying to make it -- we don't want it to look like our development and theirs over there, but one development. Changes in the area -- I did want to mention that Locust Grove, of course, has that overpass that is being built now, we think that could change the traffic within the area and, you know, people will try to jump off of Eagle and use this more of a commuter route. We also think that it's good for the neighborhood as it develops out residentially that they would be able to get services nearby without having to go over on Eagle and add to the traffic that is over there and, hopefully, you know, being able to use bikes and so forth, because as you can see on your comp plan over there, there is a bike path that ends up going -- my understanding it will be just on the opposite side of the street on both sides of our corner lot there and so people will be able to use those bike paths, you know, come over to Maverick, get an ice cream cone with the family or Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 66 of 98 whatever and there is a traffic light that is being planned for that intersection in about five years, I believe. I'd love to answer any questions. O'Brien: I had one, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure this isn't a final architectural thing, but notice that in your picnic area there there are no disabled parking stalls that I can see. Is fihat something that isn't required by law or code or is it just an oversight or what? Meyer: Your ADA requirements, you have a -- first of all, a total number of requirements off of the total number of parking stalls that is available on site and so many of them have to be car and so many have to be van and how the building code is written is that they have to be the closest accessible route to the building and so when you look at it, here is your entryway to the Maverick over here, this one gets over in here good, and, you know, basically, that's -- kind of would spread them out to get to as many building entrances, because the accessible requirements are part of the building code. O'Brien: I'd just make the suggestion that you may want to consider putting one there -- Meyer: Yeah, we could do that. O'Brien: Put one up in the -- where the green section is. Meyer: Yeah. We could -- that's easy to do. Moe.: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: A couple things. Number one, you didn't speak to the fencing. Meyer: Oh. Yes. And that was just an oversight on our boards. We are definitely going to have fencing. What we were planning on is a vinyl eight foot fence, unless there is a different recommendation. Moe: You want to put block? No. Just kidding. I'm going to ask you a question and I don't even know why I'm asking, but I'm going to anyway. Your standing C metal roof, what color are you looking at putting on this -- on this facility? Would it be an earth tone type color or -- Meyer: You know, we haven't finalized that. We understand we have to go through the design review process. Our agreement is -- with Maverick is that we are going to work together on all of our colors and we haven't finalized our purchase agreement at this point, but, you know, we will definitely be working together on that. Moe: Then, on the L-shaped building, are those dumpsters behind it? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 67 of 98 Meyer: Those are dumpsters, yes. Moe: Deliveries will be taken into the building how? To the back? Meyer: Yeah. Moe: On the landscaping at the back there, is that elevated at all? Is it bermed or is it just straight through the eight foot high vinyl fence? On the back of the building there. Meyer: The back you can kind of see the purplish trees there. That would be just at level where the -- the fence would be. Up in front of that where you don't see many trees, that would actually be storm water and so it would be a swale. Moe: That's right. You did say that. All right. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Siddoway, any questions? Siddoway: Brief comment. I remember -- my memory must be too good tonight. I need some amnesia. But the -- that corner was discussed a lot through the 2002 Comp Plan process and they had requested commercial or like a C-N type designation, then, and it was denied, but to me the addition of the surrounding property into a full proposal makes a difference, so -- so that's all I want to say about that. The -- for the pedestrian areas, did you say they were -- are they actually raised where they crossed through the parking area? Meyer: Well, are you talking about through the drive aisle? Siddoway: Yeah. Through the drive aisle. Meyer: No. Siddoway: You were just talking about the -- Meyer: I'm talking about the land -- Siddoway: The islands. Meyer: Yeah. With use as -- pretty much all the way across with those. Siddoway: Those dumpsters, are those drawn as if they are in enclosures or are they just dumpsters sitting behind the building? Meyer: It would depend on the city's requirement. Siddoway: They are going to be required to be in enclosures; correct, Caleb? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 68 of 98 Hood: Screened on three sides. Correct. Siddoway: I have some concerns about the deliveries and things being adjacent to the subdivision that's backed up there. Could you go up to the landscape plan for just a minute? Well, actually, those do look like they touch on that one. I was noticing on a couple of the plans we were talking about a solid screen, like the board we were looking at. It is a lot of trees and at the same time if those are drawn at mature size on the board that we were looking at, they weren't touching. So, I was just concerned about whether there would., actually, be a solid screen -- I think it will be important -- all the more important given that that's a loading area, to make sure that that is a heavy solid screen. Hood: And Commissioner Siddoway -- Siddoway: Yes. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, if I may just real quick, because typically staff would have closed loading docks and things that back up to residential, too. We typically try to limit those trash compacting activities and things like that or have them move them somewhere else, but there is really nowhere else to move them. So, we thought the best way to do this was -- would be to limit the hours of operation and we can't control when SSC comes and dumps the garbage and typically they come early in commercial stuff, but we can guarantee that they won't be -- the employees there won't be entering the trash or slamming down the lids and things like that. So, with the hours of operation being limited between 6:00 and 11:00, we thought that was a pretty good way to almost -- the handle that without directly talking about, you know, no deliveries, you know, between those hours when most people are sleeping. So, that was kind of our train of thought, just -- if that helps at all or not. Siddoway: Along that line -- I guess this is actually a question for staff, but the -- on the hours of operation, I have heard Wendy Newton-Huckabay talk a lot about the need for consistency on our -- when we limited hours of operation, we have -- and I can't remember if it's 6:00 to 11:00. I had thought it was like 6:00 to 10:.00 -- well, whatever it is, I think we ought to be consistent with other limited hours of operation that we approve across the city. Do you remember what it is? Moe.: I do believe it is 6:00 to 11:00. Siddoway: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, Mr. Siddoway, I did check into that, too, and that seems to be at least about half a dozen anyways that we have done 6:00 to 11:00. Just as a side note as well, this came up at Council last Tuesday -- a couple Tuesdays ago. We are looking to do a -- apply for aComprehensive -- a text amendment to the UDC and we are, actually, going to propose hours of operation limitations for the L-O and C-N district with our next amendment, just because we end up doing it with all L-O and C-N zones as Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 69 of 98 they come in anyway, so we are just going to make it code, set it at -- propose to set it at 6:00 to 11:00 and go from there, but we are going to make it -- we are going to codify that, so we don't have to talk about this every time. Siddoway: And could you go to -- there is another -- I can't remember if it was the aerial photo, but it shows the -- the stub street. Yeah. Was there -- was there any thought given to a connection -- a stub from this commercial property to the north? I'm wondering as these properties redevelop, rather than forcing them out and in, if they couldn't just connect directly. We do already have a stub here and I was just curious about that. Hood: I did play with that a little bit. I didn't spend a lot of time on if. I guess when kind of looked at if you had a stub from this property coming out, obviously, they are going to have to extend this one over -- it kind of seemed like they were building this street along this property line. I don't know how it would come up and be something like that and tie back in. It just kind of made for some funky lots all the way around. So, my thinking was -- and I wish that -- like you can see some of these other subdivisions got their preliminary plats -- I mean I wish Portico did, too, because you could kind of see how that continues on the edge of Portico Place. But, basically, I could see this -- this terminate -- having aterminus, a cul-de-sac, or something like that and not going all the way out to Locust Grove and., then, there is still some connectivity, they don't have to jump on the arterial to get to these neighborhood services, they are just right -- they are right there with this road and., then, Portico Place's road kind of comes up like this. So, there will be interconnectivity. Yeah, that stub street probably isn't the best location for these guys. I don't -- I don't know, it's tough, it's pretty narrow, so I don't think you're going to get lots on either side anyways and another stub street didn't seem to do -- it didn't help, so -- even a driveway didn't really seem to help anything, because, then, once your land use, if you give it a driveway, are we going to look for more commercial there? So, we just kind of left it alone. Meyer: Our very first concept -- we did a -- excuse me. Last spring we had a street going through here that really divided things up and so that's why we have moved to this plan here, so everything's connected. Siddoway: Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Thank you. Bud Brinegar had signed up. And Clyde Brinegar. I guess they have both gone home. Surprise surprise. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Are you part of the development team? Morgan: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Morgan: My name is Matt Morgan.. I'm president of Morgan Development and Construction -- of my vice-president of developing. This project's been somewhat Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 70 of 98 frustrating for us in the sense that the corner piece, after I had obtained that, with the intent to do some -- some medical and dental type of development that we do a lot of in southern Idaho, when I bought that, that 85 foot strip, I never did care for that much and really understood that the -- Anna at the time had voiced, you know, a little concern with that piece. I had spent quite a bit of time trying to work with the gal that owned the property and with just one attempt and contact and she said if I did it again she's put a restraining order on me. So, I didn't go back, needless to say. So, as we went through and tried to work on the corner parcel that we had and make something work with just that in mind, you know, we went through and ultimately at City Council they didn't feel it was in the best interest of the city and we understood those concerns and kind of tried to -- tried to assume, I guess, would be the best word, maybe why it was kicked out. Ironically, in going back and making a few changes in getting -- in preparing for our -- for some new submittals to try something different at the corner, in advertising for the neighborhood meetings the elderly gal that owned the property showed up at that neighborhood meeting and had been in a car wreck and was now wanting to talk and wasn't going to have me arrested anymore at that point. So, we ended up being able to successfully put together something to incorporate it into the project. Since then, like Todd has said, we have tried -- we have dealt with Portico, Mr. Ron Sargent and tried to figure out what was the best approach and tried to work real close with Anna and Caleb in working closely with them and trying to honor what they would like to see, with some different connect -- with the connectivity issues and whatnot. And., ultimately, we had done about -- I think we did ten land plans all together. We do our own land plans in our office and Todd and I and my architect partner, we worked on it pretty heavy. We feel like we have got what would be a great contribution to your community. All of our construction in the buildings that we do is upper scale. We would really like to put something -- this building in -- the small one up front, I have it dedicated to some dental people here in the community that are established dental people that are on McMillan up closer to Eagle. The larger property I would intend to keep for myself for along-term annuity, the property is what the intent is. So, I want to -- I want to make it of an upscale nature and something that I think that I'd hope the City of Meridian could be proud of. So, I guess I'd just --that's -- it's late and I don't want to take any more of your time, but I appreciate your consideration and would love your support, gentlemen. It's been a long haul on this one. Rohm: Yes. And thank you for coming in. Sir. Lillyquist: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good morning -- well, almost there. My name is Don Lillyquist. My address is 880 West Center Street, North Salt Lake, Utah. I am with Maverick stores and I just wanted to say that the Maverick supports this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. We have been in contact with the developer and we are the convenience store that would like to go in on the corner there. We feel that it's a good location for the proposed use, not only for a convenience store, for also for the remainder of the development. We feel like they have done a good deal in master planning the entire parcel and we are excited to be involved with them and to have our store fit in not only with the use, but also with the looks of the development. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 71 of 98 As he said., we are working together to try to make the buildings coincide and look well with one another. That's all I have. I would be happy to answer any questions. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Thanks for coming in. Lillyquist: Thank you very much. Rohm: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this application? Didn't think so. There was nobody else left. Thank you. Could I get a motion to continue this? O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to continue to hearing CPA 07-014, AZ 07-014, PP 07-019 to the end of our regularly scheduled meeting today. Moe: Second.. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CPA 07-014, AZ 07-014 and PP 07-019 to the end of our regularly scheduled meeting for further deliberation. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Now, kind of back to the beginning. I'm -- do you think that we are going to be able to get through each one of these? Have you got your motions prepared or -- Siddoway: We do need to talk to the south Meridian area one first to make sure we are at a place where we can -- we are ready to -- Rohm: And that really seems to be the crux of this whole deal, if we can get through that to a point that we are prepared to make a motion, then, the rest of them seem to kind of fall in line. So, I guess we will start by re -- well, what do you do, reopen it now? Canning: Yes. Moe: Yes. Anna said yes. Rohm: Yeah. Baird: Mr. Chair, yes. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-002 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and %2 mile east of Linder Road south to %2 mile south of Columbia Road, east to '/ mile west of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: