Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 7, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 13 of 21 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I'd like to -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of a preliminary plat associated with file number PFP 07-004 and RZ 07-023., as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 7th, 2008, with no modifications. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve we move onto City Council RZ 07-023 and PFP 07-004 for Blackstone No. 2. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008.: PP 07-027 Request fora Preliminary Plat approval with 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N, Locust Grove Road: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07- 027, and CUP 07-023 for Chalet Marseilles and start with the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Marseilles. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Before you tonight is the Chalet Marseilles project continued from January 17th. The site is located on the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road. During the last hearing the Commission had concerns with the 50 foot distance between the garages of the perimeter units. Commission voted to continue the project to allow the applicant time to revise the site plan and show a minimum of 60 feet between garage spaces. So, again, the site is vacant here. Locust Grove. Ustick Road. Access will be along Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 14 of 21 this northern boundary line here from Locust Grove.. This is the revised preliminary plat that you all got in your packet. I'd like to point out that the applicant has reduced the number of units from 122 down to 120 to make that -- to comply with that requirement. Also in the memo I sent you, staff had referenced some issues with this driveway here. Potentially a car being parked here could block this access onto the private street here. So, staff had recommended that the applicant shift the buildings to the west to try to alleviate that issue -- that concern with the site plan. And so the lower portion of this slide reflects that the applicant has complied with that and has, indeed., shifted the buildings and they aligned the 20 foot driveway here as to not encroach or block the parking pad for that four-plex to the north. At the previous hearing the Commission also discussed fhe perimeter block wall and the removal of the directory slash site map for the site. Staff is requesting the Commission in its motion tonight update the status of the block wall along the perimeter and the LDS property and the removal of the directory slash site map on the site. In addition, staff will be modifying conditions 1.2.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.6 and 1.4.16, as they are no longer applicable with the revisions to the site plan, With the revisions of the site plan staff is recommending approval of the project and with that I stand for questions. Moe: Any questions of staff? Rohm: No, sir. Moe: Okay. Great. Would the applicant like to come forward. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant on the project. I think you're all well familiar with the particulars here. As predicted, we lost a couple of units to make the -- the 60 foot driveways work, but we have done that. I fhink we have complied with everything the Commission was looking for. To make the design work, we lost two units off of this building that was previously afour-plex and it's not a duplex. We also reconfigured that a little, as Bill mentioned, and shoved the whole row over and, then, we took afour-plex here -- what was afour-plex here and moved it to this end and put the duplex down here and we are much happier with the configuration. That worked out really nicely. So, overall we are happy, we wish we wouldn't have lost the two units, but you have got the 60 foot drive aisles now and we think it does everything you want it to do. With regard to the -- the wall, you know, there was -- there was discussion about fhat being a block wall and some members of the Commission were uncomfortable with that. What my clients' preference actually is to add a decorative concrete wall. It's not actually CMU block, and perhaps the Commission would just allow us the flexibility to work with staff on an appropriate fencing for the site. Something more than a vinyl or a cedar fence.. But there was some feeling that that block wall might be too institutional feeling and there is lots of options if they are willing to go with the stamped concrete, so -- or the decorative concrete, so I'll just throw that out there for your consideration. And if you had any questions we'd certainly be happy to take those now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 15 of 21 Moe: Any questions? O'Brien: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: None. .Moe: No? Okay. Fluke: Thank you. Moe: No questions, but I do appreciate you guys making the changes and working with staff to do so. There is no one signed up. If there is anyone in the audience that would like to come forward -- no one is coming forward. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I just want my memory refreshed. Did -- was the Widson property that owned the little strip of land that prevents the connection be made to Wanda's Meadow -- or Wanda's -- Wanda's Meadow. Marshall: Yes. Moe: Right there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And., no, it wasn't -- was there any attempt to make an agreement? I can't remember. To connect. And it just didn't fly. Okay. Moe: That's what I remember them discussing last time. Newton-Huckabay: I was just trying to -- okay. Moe: Any other discussion of the Commission? I think, basically, when we met last the items that we had concerns over they have corrected and so having said that, yes, Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Yeah. As I recall, I think the staff report mentioned something about a -- having to provide a map of the streets and I think the applicant said it wasn't necessary because of the design of the buildings to have their own individual streets.. Is that still a concern for staff, that that be required, a map of the area as you go into the entrance of the subdivision? Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, at the last hearing you guys had discussed striking that and staff is okay with that. That's why I asked you to give me some clarification tonight on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 16 of 21 O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Okay. So, can I get someone to make a motion to close here? O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. O'Brien: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file numbers -- Moe: Mr. O'Brien, we need to close the Public Hearing. O'Brien: Oh. That's right. Sorry about that. Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing numbers AZ 07-020 and PP 07-027 and CUP 07-023. Moe: Thank you. Rohm.: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07- 027 and. CUP 07-023. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I believe that I was the one that voiced the greatest concern with a block concrete wall or CMU wall and I would be okay with a decorative concrete wall. And I -- again, I would also not hesitate to say, no, let's go with the vinyl or cedar, knowing that the neighbors are expecting a concrete wall, so -- and maybe unaware of a change here, so -- but a decorative concrete wall -- now this was only a six foot wall; right? It wasn't eight. Yeah. Okay. Moe: And whoever the maker of the motion is, make sure that there is a point noted that a concrete or block wall would be -- or that they will work with staff to verify the wall -- the perimeter wail. Rohm: You're on. O'Brien: Whoever that maker may be. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 17 of 21 Marshall: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Marshall: My only concern with the fence at this time -- I think the block concrete wall would be a very expensive, very nice wall. My concern with it is that as they work with the church to the north, is that somehow if the church is annexed into the city, we were going to request that access come in to the street there o~n the north side of the southeast section and if the church is un -- if they were going to request the church come up and they were going to do anything the church wanted, because it was going to go on the church's property, if the church would like that. And I would just want the church to be aware that we would be requesting during annexation that they access that road and if the CMU wall blocked their access, they have to have that removed before they could have access. So, if the CMU was just stopped short enough to allow access in the future. That's my only concern. Because the church may say we would like it all the way up to the street and they build it there and., then, they have got to tear part of it out. That's my only thought. Newton-Huckabay: So, do we want to haul out a foot distance or -- from the road or are we just saying -- Marshall: I just want the church to be aware of it, when they go into negotiations with that wall. I don't know. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I have got to confess, I'm having a little trouble with verbiage at this point on that, adding it to the motion. Marshall: Understand. Newton-Huckabay: Now, was that ahalf -- that was a half road section, right? They are only building out half of the road on the southeast corner of the north -- the north section in the southeast corner. Or was it a full -- Marshall: I think that's a full road section, yes. Moe: It's a full road section. Marshall: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: The fence was going -- Moe: On their property. Marshall: Just on side the church property. Moe: That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 18 of 21 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So -- Marshall: Which I think is very generous of them to work with the church and whatever the church would like there. Moe: I think we just need to put it that they will work with the church to get an access point, you know -- Marshall: Future access point. When they work with the church just ask for a future and make sure that at it's future access point it -- yeah. Newton-Huckabay: So, that our intention as a Commission is that we -- the church to the north will take access -- what's the street name? Marshall: I'm sorry, I don't have that -- Moe: Pardon me? Monet. Marshall: Monet. That's right. Newton-Huckabay: To take access from Monet when they annex to the city? Marshall: At a future time? Newton-Huckabay: At the time they annex to the city? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, we anticipate that they will give up their access that's where? Is it just on the other side of the fence? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't know where exactly you're going with this, but that is the intent is that eventually they will give up their access points to Locust Grove. Putting a condition or something to that effect on this property really doesn't have any effect. It's just to put the church on notice, if by chance they read the minutes, that, hey, this is expected of you, this is our intent, but (wouldn't -- I would just caution from phrasing any condition to that effect associated with this property. To take that a step further, while I have the microphone, if you want, ideally, if they are going to take access to Monet, it would line up with the same street, the north-south street that this subject property has. So, if you wanted to specify where a break should go, something there would be preferable. It's certainly not required. It would be just a local street, so they could, as long as they are with current ACHD access policy could just put it 50 feet back. But that would give some symmetry to that wall, too., and just kind of -- and it would have to taper down, too, because you don't want a six foot wall right at an intersection, someone having to creep out into the intersection to see if any cars are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page l9 of 21 coming, but it will have to taper down to three feet, both at Locust Grove and at an intersection like that. So, that -- that -- that is an option for you, I guess, just driving along side a six foot or pulling out adjacent to a six foot wall sometimes can be fiazardous. Moe: Mr. O'Brien, do you have questions? O'Brien: Yeah. Do we -- presuming that the church will own that property for future development, we don't know, it's just -- right now it's speculative. They may own it now, but who knows. I'm just saying -- well, we have got that little quagmire thing. I think putting a notice in the minutes is great, but to whoever owns the property when it happens. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, there is a church there now. O'Brien: Oh, there is? I thought it was future property. Newton-Huckabay: No. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: My comment -- and I'd like to probably clarify a little bit in that I'm not sure a condition needs to be set here or anything, I simply wanted to make sure that the church is aware during negotiations for the fence that we anticipate requesting them -- the church to have access to Monet in the future, so when they are choosing to build the wall and they -- and the church in the negotiations is aware that we are going to request that -- the city is going to request that access and that they may not want the wall to go all the way to Ustick. . Newton-Huckabay: Locust Grove. Marshall: Or Locust Grove. Excuse me. Moe: And that's at the time they take annexation and they lose their access to Locust Grove, they will take access to Monet. Marshall: Correct. Moe: Only. Marshall: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: That's our intention.. Okay. So, in the context of this motion, then, do we need to reference that or just get agreement from the applicant that they are going to inform the church of that? I guess that's where my confusion is. Because I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 20 of 21 can't put acondition -- I can't put acondition -- as Caleb said.., we can't put a condition on the -- Moe: I just think that the applicant will work with the church when the fence is to be installed.. .Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to give it a shot and if I blow it, just interrupt me, then. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file numbers AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023, as presented in the staff report for the hearing -- am I in the right one? Moe: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: The hearing date of February 7, 2008, with the following clarification: That the applicant will work with staff and the church property to the north on the appropriate placement and material to be used for the concrete fencing. End of motion. Moe: Do you want to do anything with the directory? Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And that the property directory is not a required. Hood: Mr. Chair, before that's seconded or further discussion, for clarification, I think this is the intent, but I want to make sure. Because this fence is on -- fully on the church's side of the world, if they say we don't want a fence, one is not required; correct? That is at the discretion or the option of the developer to put up any type of fence on the north side of that road.; correct? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Hood: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: But it's only on the north. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023, with the aforementioned changes.. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 13 of 21 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I'd like to -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of a preliminary plat associated with file number PFP 07-004 and RZ 07-023, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 7th, 2008, with no modifications. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve we move onto City Council RZ 07-023 and PFP 07-004 for Blackstone No. 2. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road.: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008: PP 07-027 Request fora Preliminary Plat approval with 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road.: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07- 027, and CUP 07-023 for Chalet Marseilles and start with the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Marseilles. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Before you tonight is the Chalet Marseilles project continued from January 17th. The site is located on the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road. During the last hearing the Commission had concerns with the 50 foot distance between the garages of the perimeter units. Commission voted to continue the project to allow the applicant time to revise the site plan and show a minimum of 60 feet between garage spaces. So, again, the site is vacant here. Locust Grove. Ustick Road. Access will be along Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 14 of 21 this northern boundary line here from Locust Grove. This is the revised preliminary plat that you all got in your packet. I'd like to point out that the applicant has reduced the number of units from 122 down to 120 to make that -- to comply with that requirement. Also in the memo I sent you, staff had referenced some issues with this driveway here. Potentially a car being parked here could block this access onto the private street here. So, staff had recommended that the applicant shift the buildings to the west to try to alleviate that issue -- that concern with the site plan. And so the lower portion of this slide reflects that the applicant has complied with that and has, indeed, shifted the buildings and they aligned the 20 foot driveway here as to not encroach or block the parking pad for that four-plex to the north. At the previous hearing the Commission also discussed the perimeter block wall and the removal of the directory slash site map for the site. Staff is requesting the Commission in its motion tonight update the status of the block wall along the perimeter and the LDS property and the removal of the directory slash site map on the site. In addition, staff will be modifying conditions 1.2.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.6 and 1.4.16, as they are no longer applicable with the revisions to the site plan. With the revisions of the site plan staff is recommending approval of the project and with that I stand for questions. Moe: Any questions of staff? Rohm: No, sir. Moe: Okay. Great. Would the applicant like to come forward. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant on the project. I think you're all well familiar with the particulars here. As predicted., we lost a couple of units to make the -- the 60 foot driveways work, but we have done that. I think we have complied with everything the Commission was looking for. To make the design work, we lost two units off of this building that was previously afour-plex and it's not a duplex. We also reconfigured that a little, as Bill mentioned, and shoved the whole row over and., then, we took afour-plex here -- what was afour-plex here and moved it to this end and put the duplex down here and we are much happier with the configuration. That worked out really nicely. So, overall we are happy, we wish we wouldn't have lost the two units, but you have got the 60 foot drive aisles now and we think it does everything you want it to do. With regard to the -- the wall, you know, there was -- there was discussion about that being a block wall and some members of the Commission were uncomfortable with that. What my clients' preference actually is to add a decorative concrete wall. It's not actually CMU block, and perhaps the Commission would just allow us the flexibility to work with staff on an appropriate fencing for the site. Something more than a vinyl or a cedar fence. But there was some feeling that that block wall might be too institutional feeling and there is lots of options if they are willing to go with the stamped concrete, so -- or the decorative concrete, so I'll just throw that out there for your consideration. And if you had any questions we'd certainly be happy to take those now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 15 of 21 Moe: Any questions? O'Brien: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: None. Moe: No? Okay. Fluke: Thank you. Moe: No questions, but I do appreciate you guys making the changes and working with staff to do so. There is no one signed up. If there is anyone in the audience that would like to come forward -- no one is coming forward. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I just want my memory refreshed. Did -- was the Widson property that owned fhe little strip of land that prevents the connection be made to Wanda's Meadow -- or Wanda's -- Wanda's Meadow. Marshall: Yes. Moe: Right there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, no, it wasn't -- was there any attempt to make an agreement? I can't remember. To connect. And it just didn't fly. Okay. Moe: That's what I remember them discussing last time. Newton-Huckabay: I was just trying to -- okay. Moe: Any other discussion of the Commission? I think, basically, when we met last the items that we had concerns over they have corrected and so having said that, yes, Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Yeah. As I recall, I think the staff report mentioned something about a -- having to provide a map of the streets and I think the applicant said it wasn't necessary because of the design of the buildings to have their own individual streets. Is that still a concern for staff, that that be required, a map of the area as you go into the entrance of the subdivision? Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, at the last hearing you guys had discussed striking that and staff is okay with that. That's why I asked you to give me some clarification tonight on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 16 of 21 O'Brien; Okay. Thank you. Moe: Okay. So, can I get someone to make a motion to close here? O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. O'Brien: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file numbers -- Moe: Mr. O'Brien, we need to close the Public Hearing. O'Brien: Oh. That's right. Sorry about that. Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing numbers AZ 07-020 and PP 07-027 and CUP 07-023. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Second.. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07- 027 and CUP 07-023. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I believe that I was the one that voiced the greatest concern with a block concrete wall or CMU wall and I would be okay with a decorative concrete wall. And I -- again, I would also not hesitate to say, no, let's go with the vinyl or cedar, knowing that the neighbors are expecting a concrete wall, so -- and maybe unaware of a change here, so -- but a decorative concrete wall -- now this was only a six foot wall; right? It wasn't eight. Yeah. Okay. Moe: And whoever the maker of the motion is, make sure that there is a point noted that a concrete or block wall would be -- or that they will work with staff to verify the wall -- the perimeter wall. Rohm: You're on. O'Brien: Whoever that maker may be. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 17 of 21 Marshall: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Marshall: My only concern with the fence at this time -- I Think the block concrete wall would be a very expensive, very nice wall. My concern with it is that as they work with the church to the north, is that somehow if the church is annexed into the city, we were going to request that access come in to the street there on the north side of the southeast section and if the church is un -- if they were going to request the church come up and they were going to do anything the church wanted, because it was going to go on the church's property, if the church would like that. And I would just want the church to be aware that we would be requesting during annexation that they access that road and if the CMU wall blocked their access, they have to have that removed before they could have access. So, if the CMU was just stopped short enough to allow access in the future. That's my only concern. Because the church may say we would like it all the way up to the street and they build it there and, then, they have got to tear part of it out. That's my only thought. Newton-Huckabay: So, do we want to haul out a foot distance or -- from the road or are we just saying -- Marshall.: I just want the church to be aware of it, when they go into negotiations with that wall. I don't know. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I have got to confess, I'm having a little trouble with verbiage at this point on that, adding it to the motion. Marshall: Understand.. Newton-Huckabay: Now, was that ahalf -- that was a half road section, right? They are only building out half of the road on the southeast corner of the north -- the north section in the southeast corner. Or was it a full -- Marshall: I think that's a full road section, yes. Moe: It's a full road section. Marshall: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: The fence was going -- Moe: On their property. Marshall: Just on side the church property. Moe: That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 18 of 21 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So -- Marshall: Which I think is very generous of them to work with the church and whatever the church would like there. Moe: I think we just need to put it that they will work with the church to get an access point, you know -- Marshall.: Future access point. When they work with the church just ask for a future and make sure that at it's future access point it -- yeah. Newton-Huckabay: So, that our intention as a Commission is that we -- the church to the north will take access -- what's the street name? :Marshall: I'm sorry, I don't have that -- Moe: Pardon me? Monet. Marshall: Monet. That's right. Newton-Huckabay: To take access from Monet when they annex to the city? Marshall: At a future time? Newton-Huckabay: At the time they annex to the city? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And., then, we anticipate that they will give up their access that's where? Is it just on the other side of the fence? Hood.: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't know where exactly you're going with this, but that is the intent is that eventually they will give up their access points to Locust Grove. Putting a condition or something to that effect on this property really doesn't have any effect. It's just to put the church on notice, if by chance they read the minutes, that, hey, this is expected of you, this is our intent, but (wouldn't -- I would just caution from phrasing any condition to that effect associated with this property. To take that a step further, while I have the microphone, if you want, ideally, if they are going to take access to Monet, it would line up with the same street, the north-south street that this subject property has. So, if you wanted to specify where a break should go, something there would be preferable. It's certainly not required. It would be just a local street, so they could, as long as they are with current ACHD access policy could just put it 50 feet back. But that would give some symmetry to that wall, too, and just kind of -- and it would have to taper down, too, because you don't want a six foot wall right at an intersection, someone having to creep out into the intersection to see if any cars are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 19 of 21 coming, but it will have to taper down to three feet, both at Locust Grove and at an intersection like that. So, that -- that -- that is an option for you, I guess, just driving along side a six foot or pulling out adjacent to a six foot wall sometimes can be hazardous. Moe: Mr. O'Brien, do you have questions? O'Brien: Yeah. Do we -- presuming that the church will own that property for future development, we don't know, it's just -- right now it's speculative. They may own it now, but who knows. I'm just saying -- well, we have got that little quagmire thing. I think putting a notice in the minutes is great, but to whoever owns the property when it happens. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, there is a church there now. O'Brien: Oh, there is? I thought it was future property. Newton-Huckabay: No. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: My comment -- and 1'd like to probably clarify a little bit in that I'm not sure a condition needs to be set here or anything., I simply wanted to make sure that the church is aware during negotiations for the fence that we anticipate requesting them -- the church to have access to Monet in the future, so when they are choosing to build the wall and they -- and the church in the negotiations is aware that we are going to request that -- the city is going to request that access and that they may not want the wall to go all the way to Ustick. Newton-Huckabay: Locust Grove. Marshall: Or Locust Grove. Excuse me. Moe: And that's at the time they take annexation and they lose their access to Locust Grove, they will take access to Monet. Marshall: Correct. Moe: Only. Marshall: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: That's our intenfion. Okay. So, in the context of this motion, then, do we need to reference that or just get agreement from the applicant that they are going to inform the church of that? I guess that's where my confusion is. Because Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2008 Page 20 of 21 can't put acondition -- I can't put acondition -- as Caleb said, we can't put a condition on the -- Moe: I just think that the applicant will work with the church when the fence is to be installed. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to give it a shot and if I blow it, just interrupt me, then. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file numbers AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023, as presented in the staff report for the hearing -- am I in the right one? Moe: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: The hearing date of February 7, 2008, with the following clarification: That the applicant will work with staff and the church property to the' north on the appropriate placement and material to be used for the concrete fencing. End of motion. Moe: Do you want to do anything with the directory? Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And that the property directory is not a required. 'Hood: Mr. Chair, before that's seconded or further discussion, for clarification, I think this is the intent, but I want to make sure. Because this fence is on -- fully on the church's side of the world., if they say we don't want a fence, one is not required.; correct? That is at the discretion or the option of the developer to put up any type of fence on the north side of that road; correct? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Hood.: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: But it's only on the north. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023, with the aforementioned changes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.