Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 6, 2008 PZ MinutesMeridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 36 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall also had suggested moving the tot lot away from the water feature. Moe: Yes. That is correct. I believe that would be a great idea. Rohm: Forty-two foot easement along Carlyle Way. Move the tot lot. What was the third one? Marshall: Fencing against Mr. Carlyle's -- Mr. Cantrell's -- Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I'd like to make a motion to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001, to include the staff report with the following modifications: That the developer provide a 42 foot easement along the Carlyle Way as was in discussion. Work with staff to relocate the tot lot within the subdivision. And, three, place a fence along the Don Carlyle -- Don Cantrell property. End of motion. Moe: Do I have a second? Marshall: I'll second. Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to send onto City Council approving of AZ 07-016, PP 07-020., and PUD 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That would be a three to two approval. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Moe: It's about ten after 9:00. We usually take a break at 9:00 o'clock. We will adjourn and come back at 25 after the hour. (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 08-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres from RUT to R-40 (10.56 acres) and C-C (1.15 acres) zones for Regency at River Valley (REVISED) by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 N. Eagle Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 08-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development in a proposed R-40 zoning district for Regency at River Valley by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 North Eagle Road: Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to reopen the P&Z hearing for this evening and open the Public Hearing for AZ 08-003, request for annexation and zoning of Regency at Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 37 of 80 River Valley, as well as the Public Hearing for CUP 08-004, also Regency at River Valley. And begin with the staff report, please. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I did just want to start with your agenda real quick. There is a revised behind your annexation for this project. The reason the revised was added is in 2006 there was also another project -- in fact, on this property that came through with the same name. So, the revised was kind of thrown in as an afterthought, but really meant to differentiate between the 2006 application and the 2007, 2008 application. So, that's what the revised is on your agenda and I'll talk a little bit more about past applications here in just a second. So, the subject property is located on the east side of Eagle Road, midway between Ustick and Fairview Avenue. The address is 2500 North Eagle Road. The property consists of 12.06 acres and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. To the north of the site is some vacant property, zoned C-G. Both this parcel and this large vacant parcel was annexed with Red Feather, are both still currently vacant. There is a home, I believe, and some -- maybe an outbuilding out on that property as well. There are -- to the east you can see the lots in Red Feather. In fact, there are some homes, although this phase was not fully built out the last time I was out there., but there are some homes in Red Feather there to the east. To the south is vacant property. It's currently going through the process of being zoned in the city for -- to C-G for the Meridian Town Center project. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west are some single family residences and vacant property, zoned RUT. Also across the way from Eagle Road is an office park and, then, River Valley Elementary School further to the west. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is mixed use regional. There are actually four applications associated with this project. You have two of them on your agenda this evening. Those are the only two you're required to act on this evening. However, I'm going to talk about all four of them as they are all interrelated to the same project. The annexation is for 12.06 acres from RUT to R-40. And that includes 10.56 acres to R-40. And, then, C-C zoned area of 1.5 acres. This map here only shows the R-40 -- maybe jump back real quick and -- the 1.5 acres, then, would be -- there would be a break right here between the C-C and the R-40 zoned property. And a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family residential development on the site. I'll get into the details of that here in a second. And as promised there are two other applications. Both of them are variances. The first one is city code that prohibits new access points to state highways at points other than the half mile on state highways and the applicant is requesting to construct a temporary access out to the state highway in this location here on an interim basis. And, then, the other variance has to do with the number of covered parking stalls required based on the number of units and the number bedrooms in those units. So, in summary, the -- there are 204 multi-family living units within nine apartment buildings. And, then, there is a clubhouse that's kind of sandwiched right in the middle. There is a swimming pool area, a putting green, several gazebos, an entryway water feature, pathways, extensive landscaping and a playground area. About 1.9 acres or 18 percent of usable open space on the site. I touched on the access of -- proposed temporary access to Eagle Road. The main access into the site is the extension or construction of River Valley Road. River Valley -- excuse me -- currently exists on the west side of Eagle Road and, again, goes into the office park and the school that you can -- you can see on the other Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 38 of 80 side. Staff is not supportive of the proposed temporary access to Eagle Road at this time. In fact, staff is recommending denial of both the variance to Eagle Road and the request to annex the 1.5 acre parcel. We will have to talk about that a little bit more as we proceed.. That's how the staff report is currently written. We may need to look at that a little bit more. I'm going to jump back, just take a side trip real quick. This property today is actually on two parcels. However, the parcels are not split right there where the zoning is proposed to be split. You can see the existing property line do something like that. So, if, in fact, we annex this, but not that, it would, then, create this no man's land parcel over there that's in the county still, but created by the city, because we are annexing this greater portion. So, we can talk about that some more, I just wanted to kind of explain some new information that was brought to my attention. The applicant is proposing to construct a 25 and 26 foot drive aisles right now, although I think they are going to have all them be 26 foot wide when all is said and done. We are requiring them to submit a private street application and name those roads, that way emergency service providers have access and can find the units within the development. The applicant is also proposing to construct a small segment of Allys Way, which is on the east property line. It's approximately I think around 140 or so feet right at the intersection of River Valley Road extended and Allys Way, which would eventually feed down and connect in with Records at Fairview and going the other way would connect up with Ustick Road.. ACRD is requiring a road trust deposit for half the construction of Allys Ways. There will be a bridge that will need to be constructed in this location to have that Allys Way continue to the north. There is currently, as you can see on this -- this plan may be the best one, maybe not the best one. As you can see on this one, there is currently not an access to Allys Way proposed. I do have comments from the deputy fire marshal that was provided this afternoon, stating that these two points of access do not meet his -- or fire code requirements for separation of a project of this diameter. So, he does want to see at least an emergency access be provided over to Allys Way, preferably further away from that intersection. Off street parking, as I mentioned, they have a variance request. We require two parking spaces per unit for a one bedroom unit. One of those must in a covered carport or garage. There are 48 one bedroom units shown on the site plan. If there is more than one bedroom, they need two parking spaces, with both of them being covered. There are a total 360 spaces and 48 uncovered spaces are required on this site, for a total of 408 spaces per the UDC. There are seven garage spaces. Each of those contains six parking spaces. Let me see if I can make those out from here. There is one there. One there. One There. One there. Those are kind of what the garages are on the site plan. Most of the other parking areas are covered with carports. They have left some area near the clubhouse area as surface parking. Staff did request that. So, it got good visibility into the common amenities and things there. This is where the variance comes in. There is an easement along the South Slough. It's known by three or four names. The South Slough -- there is an easement that Nampa-Meridian won't allow any vertical construction or any permanent construction that you can put down parking area, surface parkings and things like that, but it's my understanding that they will not allow carport structures in -- within their easement. So, the applicant has requested a variance. They are 65 parking -- covered parking spaces short of being in compliance with the UDC standards for covered parking. Staff is not supportive of the requested parking Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 39 of 80 variance. There is a 35 foot wide street buffer on Eagle Road and 20 foot wide buffers along Allys and River Valley. Both collectors. There is another canal that's mentioned in the staff report, along with the South Slough, the Downey Lateral, an associated easement there. There was some concern on staffs part. Some of these buildings were encroaching into that easement. We have asked the applicant and we will ask again tonight that they explain what -- where they are at with Nampa-Meridian on either relocating that or obtaining an encroachment agreement to have some of those buildings encroach and if, in fact, they do relocate, what that does to a landscape plan as typically Nampa-Meridian does not allow any trees within their easements. So, again, I will ask the applicant to provide an update to the Commission on that. Staff is requesting a development agreement for this site. Those provisions are on pages nine, ten and eleven of the staff report. And as previously promised, just quickly there was an application submitted in 2006. The City Council did vote to deny the application. That application was for annexation and zoning, Conditional Use Permit for 204 multi-family residential units, private street and three variances. The third variance that they aren't applying for this time had to do with the private usable open space, such as a patio deck and they are providing those on these units. And that leads me to fihe elevations. So, this is the look at the entryway, if you were coming in from standing or in your car right there, you would be looking north into the site. Here is a rendering of one of the one buildings. There are four different buildings, plus the clubhouse elevation in the nine buildings that are proposed. The structures are all proposed to have brick, veneer, masonry, stucco, stone veneer, and fiberglass reinforced asphalt shingles. All of the structures are two to three stories in height, have the same architectural design and appearance, but are different in size based on how many units they contain. So, your floor plan basically has to deal with your massing on most of the buildings. And on the next sheet -- I know that is kind of hard to read when you have four different building types on -- on one sheet. This one really does probably a better job of telling the story. And, then., here is the clubhouse, labeled as such and, then, your garage elevations as well. Staff has not received any letters of testimony from adjacent property owners. However, I understand there was an a-mail sent late this afternoon from an adjacent property owner to the south. You all should have that in your electronic packet from a Mr. Kleiner. I have not received, like I said., any -- from any other adjacent property owners. We have received revised comments from the fire department and the applicant regarding the access point to Allys Way to the east. I think I touched on that enough. We will probably have to talk about it some more, about getting in a driveway over to that -- that direction. That is one of the reasons staff continued this for a redesign site plan showing an access over to that Allys Way. And, in fact, staff is recommending several significant changes to the site plan, parking plan, access plan and building locations. Staff is also recommending that the C-C zoned area adjacent to Eagle Road not be annexed at this time. For these reasons and because comments have not yet been received from ACHD and ITD, staff is requesting that the Commission defer final action until a later date to give the applicant time to make revisions to the site plan and landscape plan as outlined in staffs report. And I will stand for any questions you may have Moe: Any questions of staff? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 40 of 80 Marshall: Just wanted to confirm that the Downey Sublateral easement is running right along here, along this edge. Is that correct? Hood: Correct. It's on the north side of the future River Valley Street. Marshall: Where it is currently. Got you. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, we already -- the last time this came through it looked a lot like this, didn't it, but it was a different owner? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it's the same development team pretty much.. I think they have -- they have changed some, but Bach Homes was the owner back in 2006 and they still are. There have been some changes. Like I said, the elevations are probably the biggest change, that they really beefed up their elevations and amenities. I went through it pretty quick, but it's certainly not the same building that we saw before. They have multiple colors they are proposing, multiple board and bat siding and stucco and brick and stone and multiple colors and windows. Side elevations were discussed before by the Commission. They really dressed up all those sites. And., like I said, the private usable open space, now they have the patios on the units and comply with that requirement. So, as far as layout goes, very similar. But the units themselves have changed significantly. Newton-Huckabay: Yet it come back -- is coming back before us with -- with the exception of the personal open space, all the same issues it had before. Hood: Yeah. And -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. A lot of the same issues. However, there is a pretty big project that went in just -- or has got approval just recently from the City Council and the applicant believes that now the timing is correct for them to get into this square mile and work along the same time lines as some of the stuff that's going on to their south. So, that is a big -- Newton-Huckabay: You're talking about the center -- Hood: Meridian Town Center. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Meridian Town Center. Hood: So, that is just directly to the south of them, so they are expecting, you know, this access point to be -- it's something now that -- that is on the horizon. Before there wasn't any access to the site and this is in the foreseeable future going to be a reality. So, we have conditioned it that it -- that you need to have that road in before you do Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 41 of 80 this, but that does look like it's a very likely possibility here in the near future. So, I don't think it was but maybe a couple days after the City Council gave the thumbs up to Mr. Welk and his group to -- that they submitted their application. So, some similar issues with the variances and things, but -- but the timing certainly is different. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Marshall: I did have one more question about the stub -- the stub street that the fire department's requesting. Are they expecting that to be right in this corner off their property right here at the intersection? Hood.: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- the fire code -- and I'm going to do my best without trying to interpret fire code. I met with Joe Silva a little bit today and he had his scale out and he scaled out the vertical -- or, excuse me, the horizontal distance of the site and by fire code your accesses into the site have to be one half the diagonal distance of your project apart. So, I think he said in his revised a-mail that they needed -- that the access points -- he needs to have two access points into the site that are at least 600 feet apart. So, if you leave this one, 600 feet puts you over here. Not only do they need to be separated by 600 feet, but he's concerned about the congestion on Eagle Road and even if this road gets constructed, he wants to either be able to get into the site from Ustick Road or the Fairview Road., not both necessarily. But he needs to be able to attack this from Fairview up Records and in or down and in, because he can't -- there may be gridlock on Eagle and they can't go anywhere to get into this site. So, he -- at the -- at the very end of that a-mail -- and I -- it was given to the clerk and I don't know if they got it scanned into your packets or not, but the very last comment he has in there has something to do with a recommendation or a potential condition that could be put on this project would be let them construct approximately half or a hundred units, until some other access into this site from either Fairview or Ustick is provided and., then, adequate secondary access is had, so -- but, yes, back to your original question, they are looking for it to be -- to be at the part of the northeast corner. Marshall: Okay. So, even if you move this one clear over here, you would be right next to that within your 600 foot. Hood: Yeah. I could scale the width of that property. The applicant probably knows what it is. I don't know the exact width of it, but, yeah, it's probably around 800 feet I would say. Not that it's impossible, but, yeah, you're still close to this intersection and -- regardless of where you put it and I think they have about 132 feet or something like that of -- 143 feet of frontage on here. So, it's going to put any access really close and that's why I think probably emergency access, if anything, is the best way to go. Having that be open to full traffic is probably not a good idea with this being a pretty major intersection in the future. Moe: Any other questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 42 of 80 Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Commission, my name is Lars Anderson. I work for Bach Homes, the project manager, at 11650 South State Street, Suite 300, in Draper, Utah. 84020. I am here representing our interest in Bach Homes. We are the same applicant that was here in August of 2006. It may look the same, because you have seen so many projects, however, this project to us has drastically changed. We took the comments from your -- from previous Commission notes and from the Council and we have gone back and changed the architecture and the site layout. I would like to point out those differences now. Randy's going to show you our -- the architecture of our building changed quite a bit based on your comments. We removed all the siding. We have gone with the usable space of 80 square feet. Added that. We even changed the side elevations, which I believe Commissioner Huckabay mentioned being too -- what was the word she used before -- too vertical and not enough roof gables and didn't break it up enough, so we have gone back and changed that since that time. And we believe that was a -- a positive change.. So, we are really happy with the architecture now and we have included in your packets -- we submitted a supplemental booklet to you and I hope all of you had a chance to look through that and that shows all of our floor plans and details about our company, so that we don't have to go through those now. So, if you have time to go through that -- Newton-Huckabay: Well done. Anderson: Well, thank you. I hope that helps. Next we'd like to show the clubhouse. We really beefed up our amenities as Caleb mentioned. We -- and these are models -- these are renderings of the actual plans. So, it shows the pool area, we put in a kids play area in the pool area and we plan on building those gazebos and create a very livable resort type feel to these apartments, they are not the typical apartments, and a water feature out front with the signage. So, we feel it's a great asset to the community to have these apartments. We are the owners. We build them. We develop them, build them, and maintain ownership of these and for the foreseeable future we don't sell them off, so with that we'd like to turn time over to our engineer and he's going to address the technical issues and after he's done we'd like to ask that we receive approval to -- recommendation to move to City Council for the annexation zoning, as well as for the Conditional Use Permit. At this time at this meeting we would like to pull the variance that we were requesting for the Eagle Road access in that we have relative assurance that River Valley Road will be built and, therefore, we won't need the temporary access off of Eagle Road. We only requested that as a backup if River Valley Road weren't built. So, if we are able to proceed that way, we will pull that variance. We still need the variance for the covered parking stalls, because of the issue with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. So, with that I'll turn the time over to Scott. Thank you. Stanfield.: Good evening. Scott Stanfield of Mason Stanfield Engineering. 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. We are back again. I'll just go over these items quickly. Caleb did a good job of pointing those out. As Lars indicated, we are going to drop the temporary access to Eagle Road. We are comfortable with Council's actions and what Center Cal is doing and we can work with them and get that accomplished., so there is no reason to Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 43 of 80 keep that variance on the table. With that said, that might ease staffs mind on allowing us to annex the commercial area now, because one of their concerns was with the -- the temporary approach going through there, so it's recognized that that parcel -- that commercial parcel just over one acre will have no access, so it's really unbuildable until the parcels to the south develop and an access to River Valley is provided. The reason why we are uncomfortable with not annexing that -- that commercial now is it does create an illegal parcel in the county. Dimensionally it's illegal. We tried to do a property boundary adjustment in the county, because we do have two legal parcels now. We tried to do a property boundary adjustment that would match the legal description that you have before you tonight, but the county quickly said, no, you will create an illegal parcel and the commercial one would be too small.. So, our fear is if that one gets left behind tonight, is the county going to squabble and say, well, you have created an illegal parcel, therefore, the whole thing is illegal. We are just concerned and maybe Mr. Nary can shed some light on it, but we would like to annex the whole thing now, just to avoid that future problem. Bach is not a commercial developer, they don't have any plans on development, they would just sell it and market it at the appropriate time. Emergency access, Caleb did an excellent job describing what Joe wanted and, believe it or not, we do have room up in the east portion -- the northerly end of our easterly portion to put a 26 foot wide ingress-egress only. I agree with Caleb it's highly inappropriate to put a public access there, but we do have room to put an ingress-egress for emergency vehicles and about the only thing we would have to change is that sidewalk, the first couple of stalls, and the trash dumpsters. So, we feel it's very minimal changes, nothing in our opinion to justify holding back approval of the site plan tonight. So, we would agree to that. There was some discussions from the Parks Department, Mr. Steve Siddoway, about a ten foot path that's not shown on this plan right now, but we do have multiple locations we can put that path. We have been talking with Mr. Siddoway, we have got a meeting with him tomorrow morning at 9:00 and I'm telling you tonight that we will agree to a ten foot north-south path where ever Steve thinks we need to put it. There is plenty of places to put it on site. So, again, it's not on the plan tonight, but we feel it's pretty minimal; we have got plenty of room to put that. The fire department wanted private streets with 26 foot drive aisles. The only drive aisle that's not dimensioned 26 feet is the far westerly north-south drive aisle, it's dimensioned 25 feet, but you can see we have plenty of room to gain a foot quite easily. So, again, it's something you wouldn't even notice on a site plan if you were to see a dimension change from 25 to 26. So, we don't feel that's a big issue, because we can comply. There was a discussion in the staff report about the sanitation company and the dumpster locations. My client, the owners, Bach, did meet with the Sanitation group, Doug, I can't remember his last name, met with him today and they have apparently ironed out all the issues and the dumpster locations, particularly on the north, will change and will shift, but, again, we know we have to comply with his desires and wishes and we don't see that as a big issue regarding site impacts. Wheel stops, the staff report indicated they'd like to see wheel stops, because of the pull-in parking, particularly probably around the units. We definitely can agree to either widening the sidewalk or the wheel stops. Probably the wheel stops. We don't want to add anymore hard surfaces than we need to; we prefer to .have more landscaping than hard surface. So, we can work that out in the final designs. Probably the two issues that staff is Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 44 of 80 correct that has the potential to impact this site is regarding Nampa-Meridian's facilities and we have two facilities. I'm going to start with the -- my opinion is the easiest one on the south and I'm going to call it the Stokesberry Lateral. Nampa-Meridian recognizes it only as the Stokesberry Lateral, so I need to always call it the Stokesberry Lateral. And that is on the south boundary. And there is an existing easement that we do show encroaching upon. with our buildings. Staff indicated in a letter -- in the staff report that they wanted a letter from Nampa-Meridian approving that. Nampa-Meridian will not write letters without final plans and construction drawings, but I did meet with John Anderson and my clients met with him this afternoon and he didn't say it would be okay, but he didn't say it wouldn't be okay. He suggested things that we could do that could increase our chances highly of getting approval from Nampa-Meridian's board and those are ideas that we definitely will entertain. Some of the concepts were go with an inverted siphon, so that we don't have this big pipe poking out of the ground and have to put this big massive amount of dirt on top of it. He did say that he doesn't want any large tree bearing -- root bearing structures within 20 feet of the centerline of that pipe and that would cause the tree scapes to be pushed out to the north. Another option that he was quite intrigued with was Lars Anderson, who does a lot of this in Utah with UDOT on his landscaping plans, is he puts an HTP liner in the trench wall of the gravity irrigation pipe and, apparently, stops the trees from going into the root structure and John Anderson seemed real intrigued by that. He thought with the proper license agreement between NMID and Bach as the owner of this project, that that could be a good test case. So, there is plenty of options that we can do. So, we are comfortable that we can move ahead with the Stokesberry Lateral on the south regarding Finch Lateral aka South Slough. Again, Nampa-Meridian only recognizes that as the Finch Lateral, but it's the same thing. They will not allow -- we tried to convince them to craft any type of one-sided license agreement to allow us to put parking structures in there, covered parking structures, but they said absolutely not. Basically don't even apply for it. So, that has the potential of causing a major site revision. If our variance is denied and we have to put in covered parking, then, we are going to have to shift that whole line on that northerly boundary about 25 feet into the site. That's going to squeeze this internal area, put our buildings much closer together and really impact our landscaping. That's why we requested a variance and -- Moe: Question for you on that. Stanfield: Yes, sir. Moe: What about getting rid of this building right here, would that not take care of the problem with the additional parking spaces needed? Stanfield.: It's going to -- I think we still have quite a bit more we are going to have to provide and it's going to wipe out that whole northerly tier of parking. I don't think we can get enough parking just in that one little building area. And this is why we requested a variance. You could tell us to revise the site plan, but at this point we are not willing to withdraw that variance, so you would, basically, get the same site plan, to be honest with you. So, we would be looking for either a recommended approval for Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 45 of 80 that variance or a recommended denial. We realize it's a gamble on our part, but it's something that we are -- we are willing to move ahead to with Council. But it does have the potential to impact the site, but that's why we are requesting a variance. And I think that's it. I tried to go as quick as I can. It's pretty late. Moe: Any questions? Marshall: So, usually when people move into the apartments they have places assigned to them; right? Parking stalls assigned? Stanfield: It's been a long time since I had to move into an apartment. Marshall: Yeah. So, my question is are. any of these assigned? Are those just for the clubhouse? Stanfield: Some of them are signed assigned, but by and large they are open for visitors, the mailman to come in, other services that may need to come in and provide support to the clubhouse. The idea is to keep that as open as possible and encourage people to park in their assigned parking stalls. Moe: Any other questions of this applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none right now. Moe: All right. Rohm: Before we -- before you sit down -- Caleb, if they drop their variance request for the access road, would you be in support of including the commercial property and drop your desire to have that excluded? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, absolutely. We have some -- some provisions or Sonya has some provisions already written in the staff report should you choose to annex that commercial portion. It talks about things such as requiring aback-age road on that lot, so properties to the -- maybe I'll go back real quick. There are some parcels that aren't a part, so approximately this is -- the 1.5 they have -- there is one more parcel to the north of them that is also landlocked but for Eagle Road and, then, two more south of them. Some of those provisions in the DA talk about aback-age road for all four of those lots to use and. eventually come out to River Valley Road.. They would not be able to develop that lot until such time as access is provided through River Valley or probably a less likely scenario, up to Ustick. But those provisions are already written into the analysis section of the staff report. So, absolutely, if they -- if they withdraw their variance request I think staff could be supportive of annexing them into the city as well. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 46 of 80 Stanfield: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, the site plan that has my title on it on the right-hand side that I prepared, we actually even show anorth-south ingress-egress easement for the benefit of our neighbors along our east side. Rohm: That generally has support by this Commission for adjacent properties, because I think we have found that a lot in developments where the adjacent property is just as landlocked as yours -- Stanfield: Correct. Rohm: -- and, then, if it doesn't get addressed now, it just moves the problem out to a later date. Stanfield: Yes. And somebody's got to go first with the annexation and set the tone and we are willing to set that tone with that north-south. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. As far as sign-ups, Lars and Scott did their job of signing on there, so Andrew? Welk: Thank you, Members of the Commission. My name is Andrew Welk, I'm with Center Cal Properties, 7455 Southwest Bridgeport Road, in Tigart, Oregon. 97224. Glad I got that right. And I think in about two hours somebody turns into a pumpkin, so - - we are -- I'm here representing our interest as a developer to the south of this property. We are neither in support or against this application, we simply wanted to state into the record that there is potentially an adjoining road between us, being East River Valley, and we would encourage, as a condition of this approval, that the applicant be encouraged to work with us as a neighboring property owner on those access points on East River Valley, just so that the properties are coordinated for access. It just makes sense. So, I just wanted to state that and I appreciate your support in that. Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. But, I guess I am curious, you already note that where the -- the entrances are and whatnot. Are you anticipating yours is going to change? Yours won't line up and whatnot? Welk: We haven't designed our approached off of East River Valley yet, so, unfortunately, we don't know that precisely today. There may be some flexibility in their access, I don't know. Moe: To me it doesn't look like we have a whole bunch of flexibility, other than probably the one that would be right now that's shown on the east, because the one on the west has to stay -- or should be fairly close to staying where that's at. The one, basically, in the center I guess could move. Welk: Yeah. I don't -- I don't know. It's their site plan, I would just simply ask that, you know, we both, as neighbors, need to make an effort to coordinate what we do. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 47 of 80 Moe: Well, I guess on the record you said that and they have heard you. Welk: All right. Thank you. Moe: All right. Thank you. There is no one else signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come forward. Okay. No one else would like to speak. Mr. Rohm, you look like you want to say something. Rohm: Just that we probably need to close the Public Hearing. So, with that -- Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: At this time I'd like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-003 and CUP 08-004. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 08-003 and CUP 08-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Discussion? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any comments? Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple questions, if I may. It may be a late hour, but I assure you I do not turn into a pumpkin at midnight, it's much worse, so -- this whole thing -- Moe: Is there a witness to that or -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. You might want to move back. I totally lost my train of thought now. Okay. So, this whole thing hinges on the variance 08-002 being approved by City Council and, if not, the whole thing has to be redesigned., is that what I'm -- that's -- okay. In addition to that, isn't this site plan -- it's uncovered parking and it's 56 spaces short -- or 53 spaces short? Moe: Sixty-five. Newton-Huckabay: Sixty-five spaces short? Moe: As far as covered, 65. Newton-Huckabay: It's not -- no, but isn't it short spaces also? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 48 of 80 Moe: No. Newton-Huckabay: No. It's just short covered spaces. Hood.: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that's -- that's correct. They actually have, I think, four more than what would be required by total parking spaces. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hood: But they are 65 covered parking spaces short from being in compliance. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's all my questions. That's my question. I'm done. Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm.. Rohm: You know, I like the project as a whole, but we can't act on the variance request, only City Council, and from my perspective the project as a whole has a lot of good merits to it and the variance in and of itself is only to be acted by Council, so I think we should give them an opportunity to take it before the Council and if the Council doesn't like the lack of covered parking, then, they can kick it back and, then, we will see the whole thing over again once they have gone through a redesign, but I'm in agreement with the applicant that why redesign if, in fact, there is a solution with the variance. Makes sense to me. Moe: I would agree, Mr. Rohm. I guess the other question I would have -- what would your opinion be of the 65 spaces that don't have cover at the present time? Rohm: I think that anybody that moves in there would be aware of that at the time they moved in and it's -- that doesn't create a significant issue for me. But I'm not living there either. Moe: I understand.. I guess my point being is -- is that we do have the opportunity to give opinion to Council, along with any other motions that we bring forward to them and so -- Rohm; I don't think the lack of 65 covered parking spaces should preclude this project from being developed. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: So, am I understanding correctly it's the reason that they have suggested that we have 65 parking spaces that are uncovered., is that being driven by the irrigation district? Moe: Yes. They can't -- the Nampa-Meridian right through there -- Meridian Planning & zoning March 6, 2008 Page 49 of 80 O'Brien: Okay. Moe: -- they can't build over their property -- over their easement. O'Brien: So, the next question would be is a parking cover considered a permanent building? Moe: Yes. O'Brien: Okay. Thanks. Moe: Mr. Marshall, anything? Marshall: Yes. To be honest, I don't think that allowing them to build without the 65 covered spaces constitutes any special privilege or anything like that. I really don't, because of the hardship created by the irrigation district here. I do -- I am concerned and would like to .see a solution to the irrigation here on the south side.. I understand things are in works, but who's to say all that falls through and we can't get any type of trees down in there, the buildings have to move, things like that, based on where that irrigation -- the Stokesberry Lateral easement is and based on that I have a hard time -- Iwant that information before I make a decision. Moe: Well, Mr. Marshall, I guess one thing that could be done -- just my point would be that the maker of the motion could make it such that no construction could start until written authorization from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation was given in order to go ahead and let that go forward.. I don't know that there is a reason to hold this thing up, just waiting on that approval. Nothing's going to get done until that's done anyway. You know, Nampa-Meridian's going to have to approve it -- Marshall: But in what kind of condition? Are they going to allow trees in that area or are they going to allow the buildings in that area? I mean to what end will Nampa-Meridian go? I understand that's in negotiation, but -- and they seem amenable to finding the solution -- Rohm: I think what the deal ultimately boils down to, Commissioner Marshall, is we are not recommending that the landscape ordinances be abandoned along that property line and if, in fact, they can come to an agreement with Nampa-Meridian that meets Nampa-Meridian's needs, while at the same time does not abandon our -- our landscape ordinance, then, we got a -- we got a deal. If they can't, then, at that time they will have to come back and revisit that situation. But our process of approval doesn't vacate ordinance and so they are still required, even if Nampa-Meridian puts limitations on them, to be in compliance with our landscape ordinances. Marshall: Which means they wouldn't be able to move forward as it sits. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 50 of 80 Rohm.: Right. Marshall: Got you. I appreciate that clarification. Moe: Mr. Rohm, you did a great job. Rohm: I think that's correct. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other comments? O'Brien.: None from me. Moe: Okay. Would there be -- yes. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to wrap up the -- the changes that would go on a motion., would be to add the ten foot pathway as per an agreement with the parks commission. Condition approval on -- what's the adjective I'm looking for here -- agreement with NMID at the emergency or -- no, it was right-in, right-out, ingress- egress, it wasn't just ER was it? It was an actual ingress-egress. No, it was an ER ingress-egress. Okay. So, an emergency access on the east -- southeast -- southeast? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Just the east. On the east side of the property along Allys Way. Those were the three -- oh. And.., then, we would put -- that we accept withdrawal of the variance? Moe: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: The first variance. Variance 08 -- Moe: The access to Eagle Road. Newton-Huckabay: And we need to -- I don't think we need to put anything related to Mr. Welk's comments from Center Cal. You're happy work with them. Rohm: I think you're ready to make a motion. Newton-Huckabay: So -- okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on -- Rohm: It's already closed.. Moe: We have already done that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 51 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: Oh, did we do that? Okay. Hood.: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, before just -- I didn't print off a copy of the staff report. I'm not quite sure what Exhibit B has in it at this point. Are there conditions of approval provided in the staff report? I vaguely remember seeing something about, you know, since staff is recommending continuance -- I didn't know how many conditions made it in there. Rohm: Read that whole thing. Newton-Huckabay: Do you want me to read through the whole thing? Hood: No. That's fine. I just want to make sure there are conditions of approval -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. There is -- Hood.: Particularly from the planning department is my concern. All the other agencies should be in there already. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. It says draft, though.. Hood: Okay. And you may want to read through -- you may want to read through those real quick, Commissioners, because some of them do reflect some of the changes that staff was looking for. So, if those are the only changes you're making., those are really added changes. Some of those you may not want to move forward onto the City Council, I guess, is all I'm trying to say. Moe: Well, actually, probably the first, he's already making comment that the development agreement does not talk about the C-C zoned property. See that first one? Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. You know, we may have to -- we may have to continue this just so it can be cleared up. Moe: Don't like to sit here and try to make conditions for projects, so I don't think -- but don't -- and, again, Sonya's got that analysis back in Section 10 for what -- I couldn't give you the page. I apologize, I didn't print it out this evening and bring it with me, but it looks like page eight, maybe, of the staff report has some analysis regarding the C-C zoned property. If you're not comfortable doing that now, we can certainly take that initiative as staff and., you know, revise the comments based on the hearing tonight and bring it back to you. Hood: Mr. Chair and Commissioners? Moe: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning 8 zoning March 6, 2008 Page 52 of 80 Hood: If I may, I think we could probably solve the C-C portion of it pretty easily if in -- again, beginning on page nine of the development agreement provisions, you added two additional provisions. One that requires the C-C zoned property to have aback-age road to the property to the north and south, to provide them with across-access ingress-egress easement to the properties to the north and south. Newton-Huckabay: Across-access agreement or an ingress-egress agreement? Hood: Ingress-egress, slash cross-access. So, it's really both. Marshall: As shown on his preliminary plat; right? As shown on the back of the preliminary plat as an access easement. Hood: Yeah. I didn't see that exhibit, but I did see it out in the hallway earlier, but haven't seen it on the plan. Rohm: And what's the second one? Hood: The second one would be that development of the C-C zoned lot shall not occur until such time as access is provided to East River Valley -- street, road, alley, whatever it is. And just a note to the developer. I don't think we necessarily need it in the development agreement, but this is an entryway corridor, anything constructed on that site will be subject to design review. So, typically would put in something about architectural character of those buildings, but we do have at least those minimums covered with the city's design review standards. So, that lot will be subject to design review anyways. If you want to put something else on there that you want the building to be gold plated., you certainly could insert that if you want to, but there will be a minimum design standard, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nary, would that be okay? Nary: They probably don't want that. That's probably not in your testimony. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Are those the only changes I need to add to the motion? Hood: As far as staff is concerned those would be the only ones to the development agreement. I have not had a chance to go through the ones for the Conditional Use Permit and I think based on the discussion you all have had., there may be a couple of those that -- that you may want to modify. I haven't had a chance to look at those, but if you're -- like 1.1.2 on the Exhibit B says the applicant's request for annexation and zoning of 1.5 acres to C-C is not approved.. So, it sounds like you guys are going to want to change that one. Newton-Huckabay: Can we just strike that? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 53 of 80 Hood: Yeah. You could simply just strike the not. And, then, again, in the Conditional Use Permit it talks about the site plan being not approved. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. You're leaning to want to wait on this and seeing the site plan? Newton-Huckabay: Weil, I'm just concerned that I'm going to make a motion and we are going to leave in items in this staff report that shouldn't be and leave out items that should be included., just based on what conversation we have had here. It might be cleaner for everyone if we continued it just to get aclean-up staff report to the next meeting. Moe: Two weeks we would have it cleaned up and -- Hood.: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I think we probably could. Now, that also -- I would preface that by saying I don't know if there are changes you want to see to the site plan. Like the emergency access over to the side or not. Now, then, I'm going to put the ball back in the applicant's court and say, well, when can you get us a revised site plan that we can have, you know, a new date on that we can just reference in the staff report. mean we need a little bit of time there. So, if they can get us something by, you know, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, we can have something for the following Commission meeting the following Thursday. So, that's why I would preface that yes with a depends on when we get a revised site plan and what changes need to be made. Newton-Huckabay: Chair, I recommend we reopen the Public Hearing on AZ 08-003, CUP 08-004, VAR 08-001 and VAR 08-002 to discuss continuing this with the applicant. Marshall: Second.. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing on AZ 08-003, PP 08-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? We are back open on the Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to applicant to come forward? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Moe: Would the applicant come forward, please. Anderson: The applicant Lars Anderson with Bach Homes. Do I need to restate my address? Moe: No. I think we got it. We are in good shape. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 54 of 80 Anderson; Great. Moe: After listening, do you guys have any problem with making revisions to the site plan in regard to showing where the emergency access is and -- Anderson: No. We have no problem with that. We still ask that we proceed with recommendation to City Council tonight and we would be happy to make that change. We feel, again, that it's such a minor change to show that in there -- we have the room for it -- for the emergency access. It's such a minor change we feel like we could proceed with that as a condition. Moe: Well, our biggest concern right now is the staff report is not complete in regards to, you know, what we are going to approve and trying to go through here now and just lining out here and there and whatnot, we, quite frankly, like to give the staff enough time to review it and put it back in the way it is and along with that we may as well clean it up and get the new site plan in there as well, so it's all set to go. And I think that's pretty much where we are leaning to right now. Newton-Huckabay: We don't have clear conditions of approval in the staff report and -- Anderson: It looks like we are okay with that. We've waited a year and a half now, waiting for Center Cai's approval, so I guess another couple of weeks won't hurt us, but -- Rohm: And our question is can you provide an updated site plan by next Tuesday or Wednesday? Hood: Mid week, anyways. Yeah. Wednesday. Rohm: Mid week. So, that they can include it in the revised staff report? Anderson: Yes. Again, it's such a minor issue, we would be able to turn that out. Rohm: And I think that we really would like to have that reference to that frontage road along that commercial property included in the site plan adjustment, too, just so that there is that ingress-egress and cross-access addressed on the plat itself. Anderson: Would we be able to do that with a note? We, obviously, don't own the other two parcels, so -- Rohm: Absolutely. Anderson: -- we could just say -- and we have said that on the existing site plan, that cross-access would be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 55 of 80 Rohm.: Would be provided. Anderson: -- provided.. Yeah. Moe: I guess one more question I do have, since you're up there. This is in regards to your discussions with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. I understand until you have your final plans and you're ready to go, you're not going to -- they are not really going to make a decision, but what kind of a time frame are we looking at to get that squared away with Nampa-Meridian? Are we waiting until Council approves something and, then, you're going to finish it out at that point or have you had more than one discussion with John Anderson? Stanfield: We had adiscussion -- Commissioner, Members of the Commission, Scott Stanfield.. We've had a couple conversations with Nampa-Meridian and various staff on our first go around and none of this came up. We had a new conversation just today with him regarding Nampa-Meridian's time frame. We -- I'm almost a hundred percent sure we wouldn't get anything in writing from Nampa-Meridian by Council either, because they are -- I have never known Nampa-Meridian to give any kind of written approval without any kind of final design. In fact -- Moe: Nor I have. Stanfield: In fact, Mr. Anderson reiterated that today. And what Commissioner Rohm said earlier is correct, we are not asking for any special consideration on the landscaping. If we can't comply, we got to come back. Moe: Thank you. Anderson: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, if I can add to that real quick, Commissioner Marshall asked about the structures being in the easement and we have shown the easement being relocated to the south outside of the right of way and none of the structures are actually in the easement, only the landscape is in the easement -- in the relocated -- the Stokesberry Lateral. Marshall: My reference was the preliminary plat that you provided here, so -- Anderson: Yes. So, we may have mistakenly shown it there, but none of the garages or the buildings are in the relocated easement. But there are landscape trees in the easement. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just one more quick thing. And for the applicant as a request that I would hope you would make as part of your motion where you can incorporate Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 56 of 80 this. I agree that the access -- the emergency access is fairly minor. However, revised calculations explaining what you did with parking, if you lost any parking., new calculations as far as that goes, we are going to need that, so even a quick narrative or revised calculations stating how you kind of approached that angle would definitely help, as well as revised plans. And, then, while I have got the mike, Commissioners, there are some, too, that -- a couple of conditions that I would ask you -- that we need direction even tonight on. 1.2.3 talks about submitting a private street application prior to the next meeting. Just clarification. If they need to put that together -- it's not very difficult of an application to put together, it will take some man hours or at least an hour or two to put together, but that is something now that we are requiring as staff. We think it's the cleanest way to go. That way we are sending on a complete package to the City Council, but need you to kind of either confirm or modify that, whatever you choose to do. 1.2.6 you just talked about, so you may want to modify that even now or give us direction how you would like that to read regarding the letter from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation or not letter or whatever. And, then, 1.2.8 talks about parking standards. think staff is going to come away with the same, even though that's your direction, unless you tell us right now to remove 1.2.8, that I'm taking away that if you're forwarding this on, then, you're in support of the variance. You can read between the lines on that one, so -- but I need to hear that from you if that's the case on 1.2.8. And, then, there is no 1.2.9, I just realized., but 1.2.10 -- I guess we have talked about, so that doesn't necessarily need to be addressed. But those other three Ithink -- again, those are all bolded.., except for 1.2.8, if you can modify those and we will get the rest. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, 1.2.3, a complete private street application for streets within this development shall be submitted at least ten days prior to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.. Twenty-six foot wide private street shall be constructed within this development in accordance with the standards listed in the UDC, I believe that the position of the Commission would be to leave that condition in, but I don't want to speak for -- Rohm: Yeah. Ithink so. Newton-Huckabay: -- the four of you. Okay. 1.2.6. So, leave it in on 1.2.3? On 1.2.6 the applicant should submit a letter from Nampa Irrigation -- Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District prior to the next Commission hearing documenting that they are amenable to relocating the Downey Sub-lateral and easement that currently exists along the southern boundary of the site. If NMID is not amenable to relocating the easement, the site plan shall be revised so that structures are located outside of the easement. Additionally, if NMID will not allow landscaping, for example, trees, within their easement and there is not sufficient room outside of the easement for the required street buffer along River Valley Road, an additional five foot wide stripe shall be provided for street buffer landscaping. Would we just preface that on an agreement with NMID? Moe: Yeah. That pretty -- they are not going to deal with anything unless they -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 57 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: So, leave that one -- that bullet in there. Moe: I'd just leave the whole thing in. Hood: Except for -- excuse me. Except for prior to the next Commission meeting. The intent of this was not to get that approval letter from NMID, but just something from Them saying we are going to talk with the applicant. They could -- they need to meet all of our requirements, but we are not saying no. Moe: Right. Hood: We are at least going to work with them on trying to make it a reality. Newton-Huckabay: So, if I strike prior to the next Commission hearing., that -- that -- Hood: Yeah. That works for me. Newton-Huckabay: That should do it? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. 1.28, the applicant shall comply the covered and uncovered parking standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-3-C-6. The requested variance is not approved. I believe that we could leave that in there, as that will remain staffs position on this and our forwarding onto City Council would be our recommendation for approval. I agree with that, Caleb. Moe: Okay. Rohm: You agree with the -- requiring the -- Moe: That's a requirement. Rohm: -- the approval of City Council on the variance request. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think if we just -- let me make myself more clear. I believe 1.2.8 should just remain in the staff report as stated and our recommendation of approval to the City Council is our support of granting the variance. Moe: Got you. Rohm: Okay. Hood: And just let me hopefully clear things up. This right now, until you guys make a formal action on it, is staffs recommendation. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 58 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: When you forward this onto City Council these conditions should be your conditions, not staffs original conditions. I don't mind leaving it in and you guys striking it through at the next hearing, if that's what you so choose to do, but (wouldn't -- I don't think this condition should be in there, if, in fact, you guys are supporting the variance. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted it left in there for that record the other way. Hood: We came up with it, so I do prefer that it be left in. I'm trying to now craft conditions that reflect what I'm hearing from you guys. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, we'll just strike 1.2.8. Rohm: Strike it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to make a motion for continuance and I'm going to repeat myself on all of these. Rohm: Go for it. Don't we need to close the Public Hearing again? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: No, we are going to continue the Public Hearing. Moe: I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. Rohm: I think that is right. Yeah. Good job. Newton-Huckabay: I move to continue file numbers AZ 08-003, CUP 08-004, VAR 08- 001, and VAR 08-002, to the hearing date of March 6, 2008, for the following -- Moe: We already struck one variance. Hood: March 6th is today. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it is. March 20th. Hood: We need to do at least the 20th. Moe: Right. Newton-Huckabay: Start twitching here in a minute. Okay. Rohm: I think she is turning into a pumpkin. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 59 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: To the hearing date of March 20th, 2008, for the following reasons: The applicant will be removing the request for -- removing the variance request VAR 08- 001, which variance for access on State Highway 55, Eagle Road. We will be adding the condition or adding a pathway with the cooperation of Meridian Parks Department. Be adding an ingress-egress on the east property line to Allys Way. On the staff report, on condition 1.1.2 we will be striking the word not from the sentence the applicants request for annexation and zoning of 1.5 acres to C-C is not approved -- will read that it is approved.. Condition 1.2.3, there will be no changes to that condition. 1.2.6, we will strike the words prior to the next Commission hearing., so the applicant should submit a letter from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District documenting that they are unable to relocate the Downey Sub-lateral, et cetera. That's how that will read. Condition 1.2.8 will be removed from the staff report. Rohm: Emergency access, did you -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I did. There will be an easterly emergency ingress-egress access. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: And., then, I'm not sure if I stated, but our recommendation for approval will also be prefaced on an agreement -- an agreement to be reached between NMPD -- I think we -- NMID and the applicants. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-003 and CUP 08-004, along with the variances, to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of March 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Those have been continued to the 20th. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive through establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive through facility for Sonic Southern Springs by Boise Food Service - 1870 South Meridian Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing CUP 08-002 for Sonic Southern Springs for the sole purpose of continuing it to be regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of March 20th. Can I get a motion? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second.