Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 26 2003 P & ZMeridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting March 26 2003 The Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Leslie Mathes, and Michael Rohm. Commissioners absent: David Zaremba. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Nick Wollen, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Dean Willis, and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: O David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Thank you for your patience, ladies and gentlemen. We had a little bit of technical difficulties there. We would like to begin our Special Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting for Wednesday, March 26~h with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda. Item 3. Consent Agenda: Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 03-002 Request for annexation and zoning of 19.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Callister Development by Dave Callister -southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road: Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 03-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a contractor's yard for an excavation company and mini-storage facilities on 5.91 acres for Callister Development by Dave Callister -southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road: Item 6. Public Hearing: CPA 03-001 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change approximately 12.25 acres of the site from mixed- use-neighborhood to commercial for Callister Development by Dave Callister -southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road: Borup: The first item for Public Hearing is -- actually, it's Item Numbers 4, 5 and 6, all on the same project. We'd like to open these three hearings at this time, AZ 03-002, a request for annexation and zoning of 19.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Callister Development. Accompanying that is CUP 03-001, request for Conditional Use Permit Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 2 of 63 for a contractor's yard and mini storage on 5.91 acres, and, finally, CPA 03-001, a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change approximately 1.25 acres of the site from amixed-use development to commercial by -- also by Callister Development. With opening these Public Hearings, we'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Good evening, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Before we hit the details on the first couple of Public Hearings, staff just wanted to call your attention to one main item tonight. The State Statute, Title 65, deals with Comprehensive Plan Amendments. One of the clauses in that statute does state, as you probably read in the staff report, that a Commission cannot make a recommendation to the governing board, the City Council, more than once every six months. Our interpretation of that is that since you do have two Comprehensive Plan Amendments on tonight's agenda, should you make a decision to recommend one of them, it could potentially jeopardize the other one. That, of course, is up to the Commission, your decision, and legal counsel would certainly have to give some input on that, but we just wanted to point that out, that we do have both applications on tonight that are subject to that statute. With that, I think we will start with the Callister project. Kirkpatrick: All right. Good evening, Members of the Commission. I will go ahead and do the applications in the order they are on the agenda. First, we have the CUP. This is a Conditional Use Permit. They are requesting a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Meridian for construction of a contractor's yard for an excavation company and a mini storage facility. I will go ahead and put up the site map. You can see the subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Overland Road and Stoddard Road. The newly constructed Bear Creek Subdivision is just there to the south and the east of the subject property. This application, actually, is proposing several phases. Phase 1 of the applicant's project will be an office, shop, and contractor's yard. They intend to construct this within 18 months. Phase 2 is a proposed mini storage unit on 2.91 acres and that will be constructed approximately one year after Phase 1. Phase 3, which is -- actually, will be located in the northern part of the parcel -- okay. For Phase 3, we do not have a specified date for construction, because sewer is not available at the site yet and they are proposing a commercial facility. They will have to wait until sewer is brought out to the area before they can develop Phase 3, which is the northern 8.34 acres of the parcel. I will kind of go through some of the highlights here in our staff report. We have found the proposed commercial designation is compatible with the approved C-G zone and the 21 acres area to the east and the existing industrial zone to the north. We do find that there are potentially some incompatibilities that exist between the proposed commercial designation and the existing Bear Creek Subdivision to the southeast. You all will want to think about that this evening. Okay. I will go through and outline some of the sewer issues. Bruce will probably touch on this also. Sewer service is not currently available to the site the area will be serviced in the future by the Black Cat Trunk. We do not have a date for when this will be served and Bruce will go through that. Staff supports the approval of the proposed septic system for the office and shop use only and recommends that the applicant enter aNon-Development Agreement on the balance of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 3 of 63 the property, which will be the northernmost part of the subject property. They will not be able to develop that as a commercial use until they are hooked up to sewer. I will go ahead and read into the record some of our annexation and zoning conditions. We are asking that the applicant construct a landscape buffer along Stoddard Road. The applicant is proposing a monument sign, which they, actually, say that the -- excuse me -- will be 10 feet in height. A planned sign program will be required for Phase 3. The arrangement for the septic system and the connection for the proposed office use and shop is temporary and shall be abandoned and connected to city sewer once sewer is located 300 feet of the property. Okay. I will get into some of our site-specific requirements for the Conditional Use Permit. Again, we are requiring a 20-foot wide landscaping buffer installed along Stoddard Road from the northernmost point of Phase 1 to the southern most point of the substation site. This is required by our Landscape Ordinance. The proposed fences around the entire perimeter of the contractor's yard and mini storage facility shall be six feet tall and site obscuring. We are -- this is, actually, Point Number 3 and this is Page 13. We will probably have some discussion on this later, so you probably want to put a star next to that. A 10-foot wide gravel shoulder must be constructed along Stoddard Road adjacent to the landscape buffer. The balance of the future right of way must be landscaped with at least grass per Ordinance 12-13-10-9. This will require a License Agreement with ACHD. This is, actually, based on our code. I want to go ahead and add another sentence there, that this will be required or as required by ACHD. We are concerned that if there was a conflict between what we were requiring with the code and what ACHD required later on, we wanted to resolve by saying they can meet our standard or meet a standard established by ACHD. If you want to make that addition to Number 3 let's see 4. We have a portion of the landscape buffers along Stoddard are proposed to be used for storm drainage. All such integrated storm water retention areas shall be designed and constructed in compliance with Ordinance 12-13-14. Number 5 addresses the monument sign and the applicant is going to limit the height of that sign to 10 feet. Six addresses sewer issues, which I have already gone through. Number 7, I have a word that I want to delete from that and I will go ahead and read that. Water service to the site will be the extensions from existing mains in Stoddard Road. The applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development and you want to go ahead and delete the word looped from Number 7. Let's see. Number 8 I will go ahead and go through that. We have this issue resolved, we think, currently. The Idaho Power substation will be brought into compliance with the approved landscape plan into Ada County prior to occupancy of the proposed contractor's yard. From what I understand, they had an issue there to resolve with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to get irrigation to that site. They have resolved those issues and plan to have landscaping in within a month, but we are going to go ahead and keep that note in requiring that that landscaping be installed. Let's see. Number 9 and Number 10. I think these are going to be issues that are going to come up this evening. All vehicular use areas utilized through the proposed contractor's yard and mini storage uses shall be paved in accordance with Meridian City Code. This will require the access road off of Overland and all areas within the contractor's yard that are drive aisles, including access to the proposed covered parking and shop, must be paved. Storage areas may remain gravel, but all vehicular use areas and driveways must be paved. This is -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 4 of 63 historically in the past this is how we have dealt with scenarios like this. We have required paving on the drive accesses and I believe also in contractor's yards in that not only in the parking area, but in the vehicular access areas, and I think we are going to go through that again this evening. Number 10. Ordinance 12-13-11-2.B and C, require that the proposed driveway access along the west property line from Overland Road to the entrance into the contractor's yard be landscaped with one tree for 35 linear feet and shrubs and other vegetative ground cover. The Landscape Plan will be modified to reflect this change. We are requiring that partially because we expect that there will be residential developments that will be developed adjacent to this property and we want to make sure that that buffer is in place. I will briefly go through 11, 12, and 13. All mini storage units shall have a 20-foot clear minimum separation between buildings and between fences and buildings for circulation and access. Twelve addresses irrigation ditches, laterals, and canals and 13, the Site Plan and Landscaping Plan reflecting all modifications needs to be submitted 10 days prior to the next Public Hearing. That will be before it goes to Council. Okay. Are there any questions of staff? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Would you go back to Number 3 on Page 13? Kirkpatrick: Okay. Centers: The third line. Did you want a line this will require a License Agreement with ACHD, you want to line that out and insert: Or as required by ACHD? Was that your intent? Kirkpatrick: Actually, let me go ahead and -- Brad, do you want to delete the License Agreement? Okay. We, actually, want to leave the phrase, this will require a License Agreement with ACHD and add or as required by ACHD. We want to leave or otherwise required by ACHD. Excuse me. Centers: Going back to Page 6, Item 2, and Bullet Point 2. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Centers: Why wouldn't we want them to provide the buffer and landscape buffer all the way through phase three? I'm thinking of Bear Creek Sub -- at the time they are granted the CUP, rather than wait until they develop it. Kirkpatrick: Well, because they haven't submitted for even a conceptual improvement for Phase 3, we are not requiring the landscape be extended through Phase 3 at this point. Centers: Okay. Is the fence going to be on the inside or outside of the landscaping? Kirkpatrick: Let me get out my Site Plan. Borup: Inside. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 5 of 63 Kirkpatrick: It is on the inside. Centers: Inside of the landscaping? Kirkpatrick: Yes. Centers: Well --okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? I had one on the -- your landscape comment on Item 10, Page 14. Kirkpatrick: Okay Borup: You said it must -- when you say the Landscape Plan was to be modified, was that referring to the driveways or the access -- or the area along Stoddard -- are there some that weren't in compliance, I guess, is the question. I didn't see anything that was further than 35 feet, unless I'm reading this wrong. Was that the reason for that comment? Was there something that didn't look like it was -- Kirkpatrick: If you look at the northeast corner of the property, along Stoddard Road, they didn't propose landscaping. Borup: Right. Kirkpatrick: That's the revision we are asking for there and also -- Borup: Okay. You're saying -- oh, I'm sorry. You're saying, right, it needs to be added into the area that didn't -- Kirkpatrick: And, then, the southwest corner of the property -okay. Okay. If you look - - okay. If you look at your map, north is to the left. That is confusing. If you look at the access road, which is currently being used by Idaho Power as an access road, we are asking for landscaping along that access point. That's where I think the one for 35 feet - Borup: Well, Jerry, what was the question you had about the landscaping? Centers: Well, primarily, why didn't you do it all at one time, which is the normal requirement? Borup: Okay. Yes. That's why I realized I think we -- they are requiring it to be all along Stoddard and I thought you were thinking that it wouldn't be. Centers: But they are not requiring it along Overland. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 6 of 63 Borup: Right. Right. Okay any other questions? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, could I just clarify on that one? Commissioner Centers, we have in the past on -- with Conditional Use Permits, since that does grant a little bit more flexibility to the project. They are not proposing any development at this point in time on the whole northern 6.3 acres. Typically, we look for the landscaping for a consistency of maturity and at this point, if they are not going to develop the northern six acres until a much later time, it -- we have allowed projects such as that to install the landscaping when they come in with a development application. Otherwise, they would -- they would be looking at extending pressurized irrigation and whatnot up into an area that no -- development may not take place for several years. That's what we have looked at on those. Centers: I guess I'm confused. It would be the -- this area right here is going to be developed later'? Is that all part of Phase 3? Hawkins-Clark: Correct Centers: Including that that, too? Kirkpatrick: That is correct. Yes. That's -- Centers: So, those little buildings are all conceptual? Hawkins-Clark: Those are actually existing, I think they are just foundations. Yes. There are no existing structures on that end of the project at all. Borup: They have been torn down. Centers: So, there is not going to be any landscaping from here clear through here. Chairman Borup was either correct or incorrect on Stoddard. Borup: Well, I think that's what they are saying in Item 10, is they want to add it on Stoddard. Centers: Oh. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: But not adjacent to Phase 3 so, you are correct, Commissioner Centers. Borup: Oh, but not on phase -- well, that's the way it's already drawn, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: No. The way it's drawn is just there in front of Phase 2 to the south. From that point, correct, to the south. Borup: I thought you just said not do it in Phase 3. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 7 of 63 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Isn't that the way the plan is already drawn? I'm getting confused. Hawkins-Clark: Here is -- at this point on Stoddard Road, as Commissioner Centers pointed out, the recommendation is to allow them to not landscape until this northern six acres is developed. Borup: Okay. That's the way the Site Plan is drawn presently. is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Other than the access for Overland -- off of Overland Road here on the west side of the property. Borup: So, in the staff recommendation, the only change from their Site Plan that you're recommending is do landscaping on that access road? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Okay. I think I understand now. Anything else from staff? That was just on -- that addressed the annexation and the Conditional Use Permit. Is that correct, Wendy? Kirkpatrick: Correct. It did not address the Comprehensive Plan amendment yet. Borup: Right. Are you prepared to do that now? Is that what you want to go ahead and do? Kirkpatrick: Oh, yes. Bdrup: Okay. Centers: Could I ask a question first? How were these put on the agenda as they came in or just by chance that this item is first? Kirkpatrick: I don't know, but would Will know that, how they were put on the agenda? Borup: A lot of times the staff will put it on -- sometimes it's by how it comes in, other times it's perhaps by how long of a discussion there may be. Centers: Because if I -- well, I know understand it correctly. If we approve Item 6 on the agenda, Item 7 can go home. Correct? Borup: Yes. Well, no. It depends on what we do on seven. They both would need to be sent to City Council at the same time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page B of 63 Kirkpatrick: Well, actually, I neglected to point out we -- you won't be able to take action on this, this evening. They have not finalized their one time division for this property. Currently, if we were to take action on the property this evening, they would have to come in with a Planned Development application, which they have not. Once the one- time division is finalized, they can -- you can take action on this application. We are just opening testimony and giving the staff report this evening. Centers: I thought I read that so, the staff had -- I think I read that, where you were recommending that we continue it -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Kirkpatrick: Anymore questions before I start with the Comp Plan amendment? Borup: Go ahead. Kirkpatrick: The applicant is proposing a Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend the Comp Plan 12.25 acres from Mix Used Neighborhood to a commercial designation. This is the same subject property we were talking about earlier. Basically, without this Comp Plan change they would not qualify for the zone change from RUT, which is county zoning, to C-G, General Commercial. Staff supports this Comp Plan change or amendment. Are there any questions of staff? Borup: No questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Boyle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho. I will try to make this brief, because I understand most of the people here are here for the North Meridian Plan -- Comprehensive Plan amendment. I just want to touch on a few items. First of all, the Comprehensive Plan amendment that's proposed this evening, again, this submittal is somewhat tied with the Meridian -- North Meridian Plan in the sense that a Comp Plan Amendment can only occur once every six months. Therefore, by moving either of these applications forward, they, essentially, need to proceed forward at the same time, is my understanding from staff. Otherwise, it could have an adverse impact on either one. We realize that, so we certainly are requesting approval of the Comp Plan Amendment on this project and realize that we are somewhat tied with the North Meridian Plan and, hopefully, that planning process moves forward quickly as well and they both can proceed to City Council and for the final approvals. With that said, as far as the Comprehensive Plan Amendment itself, this particular piece of property -- can we scroll back a couple to the zoning map, Wendy, if you wouldn't mind? This particular piece of property is -- right now, as you can see on the Comp Plan, has existing industrial zoning immediately north of it. It has G-C, general commercial zoning. Within the vicinity of this area here has also been approved for annexation with C-G zoning, the Queenland Acres Development. The portion of this site that is designated as -- currently as mixed- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 9 of 63 use on the Comp Plan. Is that area that is north of the Hardin Drain and the Hardin Drain somewhat bisects the site and we can see that from the aerial photograph? The southerly portion of the site is public --quasi-public on the Comp Plan. That will remain. Idaho Power has an existing substation that was constructed recently on that portion of the site. We believe that this fits in very well with what's happening out there. There are already large commercial designations adjacent to this site to the east in the Comp Plan. There are also industrial uses to the north. We feel that this makes a nice transition, being that you will have a transition from industrial on the north to commerclal designation to the public -- quasi-public on the south end of the site. 'vVith regard l.> some of the requirements in the Conditional Use Permil, on the request - i wan; Ie lu_,i touch on those briefly. Then, I will answer some questions, but I wanted to skip over to the site-specific conditions and I will just hit on those that there is potentially some disagreement on. First of all, as a clarification, Site-Specific Requirement Number 1 indicates that minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffering along Stoddard Road. There was some confusion, it sounds like, with regards to the staff report and what they were intending for landscaping and can we skip back to the site plan there, Wendy? The proposal right now proposes a 20-foot wide landscape buffer that would run adjacent to Stoddard Road next door to the proposed storage units. This is a 20-foot buffer. There is, actually, a 34 foot wide buffer proposed in front of the office for the contractor's yard facility. That is the extent of the landscaping request right now. Phase 3, the reason that the landscaping around the frontage, in addition to those that staff had mentioned. The reason that that is not being installed at this point in time. is that the developer, due to the lack of existing sewer main lines in this area, there can be no further development in Phase 3 until such time as the Black Cat Trunk Line gets down into this area, That could be quite a few years; is my understanding, and Bruce could clarify that, but we certainly intend to install the appropriate landscape buffers when the sewer is available and phase three of this development comes back in front of you for a Conditional Use Permit. The developer will certainly install those buffers, it's just at this point in time this is, essentially, going to remain -- my pointer is dying on me here -- Phase 3 will remain in just a vacant agricultural type use until that point in time. That's part of the reason on those buffers. In addition to that, ACHD does have a project within their five-year plan to widen Overland Road within this location. It will also include the improvements and widening of Stoddard Road near the intersection. I believe that Stoddard will be improved roughly 500 feet back from the Overland Road, Stoddard Road intersection, as part of that project that ACHD has scheduled for 2007. Again, based on some ACHD projects, based on the sewer constraints, those are the -- some of the reasoning behind why that buffer isn't presented in front of you with this Conditional Use Permit. Point Number 3 in the staff report -- Borup: Clint, while you're still on that same -- do you want to comment on the landscaping on the access road, the access driveway? Boyle: Sure and Iwould -- Borup: You skipped over that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 10 of 63 Boyle: I was actually going to get to that specific point on Site-Specific Number ~ Ci. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Boyle: But I can address it now. Borup: No. You can cover it then. Boyle: Moving on to Item Number 3, again, I believe we have it resolved with the staff. Again, we just wanted to make sure the requirement indicates some improvements out in the right of way consisting of the gravel shoulder and some grass landscaping. Again, the only clarification we wanted there is we just wanted to make sure that ACHD would agree to that, assuming that there isn't any adverse requirements or conditions from ACHD. We don't have a problem with that, but, again., since it is in the right of way, and ACHD has authority on that, we just wanted to make sure that there was some flexibility that we would comply with ACHD's requirements. Item Number 4 is fine. Item Number 5 on the monument signage, again, we are agreeing to not exceed 10 feet in height. The sign may come in lower than that as well, but that is a limitation that we are putting on the development. Typically, in a C-G zone you're allowed to go to a 2G-toot height, so this is half of the height that is typically allowed within that zone. I will tusl skip down to Item Number 8 with regard to the landscaping and that's been brought up this evening. Idaho Power, I have had discussions with them ahd they have committed to have the landscaping installed on -- on and around the substation by May 15th of this year. That would be all of the landscape areas that are shown on the site plan around the substation. The substation site is indicated here, afenced-in enclosure. They have landscaping on three sides of that that will be installed. They have committed to have that installed by-May 15th. Again, I believe that we can comply with that requirement fairly easily. Item Number 8. Item Number 9 -- 9 and 10, because they somewhat go hand in hand, relate to the access way off of Overland Road. That would be an existing gravel access way that extends back to the Idaho Power substation site. Idaho Power installed that access way. It was facilitated to allow large equipment back into the substation site for whatever maintenance or other operations they may need back there. We felt that it would be a nice idea to have an entrance into the contractor's storage area from off of the existing gravel roadway. It would facilitate the equipment that may be associated with the contractor's yard, trucks, et cetera, it would give them an access that would reduce the amount of traffic traveling say on Stoddard Road. We felt that that was a good designation there. However, after indicating that there on the plans, we understand that the planning staff is recommending that this access drive, which, again, is not a public access, it's not open for employee access, it's not open for customer access, as far as their vehicles, this would strictly be for the equipment associated with the contractor's yard to utilize this. It would be a gated access. Centers: Where would the gate be? Boyle: In this location here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 11 of 63 Centers: And how would they get to the mini storage? Boyle: This would not be an access for the mini storage area, so the mini storage would access off of Stoddard Road and there is a gate in this location here that allows access into the mini storage and that's all paved. The front area with the front parking lot is paved and landscaped. All of the mini storage area will be paved. The contractor's yard area with the equipment storage, storage of materials, et cetera, we have proposed to be a gravel facility. The only access off of this roadway would be Idaho Power, which currently has that access road in place as part of their substation, and the equipment associated with the back contractor's yard area. Centers: Well, if you read Item 9, it doesn't really clarify the fact that the contractor's yard will be gravel. Boyle: Right. Centers: And are you wanting it to be gravel? Boyle: Right. Correct. That was a point of discussion that we have had with the staff and I guess a point of divergence there with the staff and two things there. First of all, with regards to the access roadway, if I can just wrap up with that, then, I will try to answer the question on the contractor's yard. Again, the staff is recommending that this entire length from Overland back to the contractor's yard be a paved route and not only a paved route, but that we also install landscaping with trees one every 35 feet along this distance, which distance, if I remember right from my plan, is roughly five to six hundred feet long. 541. Thank you. With that said, my understanding from the staff was that one of the main concerns with an access way such as this is dust, potential dust coming up from a gravel road. The developer of the project indicated that he would be willing to do some dust abatement on the road with potentially other items, maybe it would be that the gravel roadway be oiled or that we do a recycled asphalt mix on that road. However, at this point in time the roadway -- this access way already exists as a gravel access for Idaho Power. Eventually, when sewer is there, this area will be developed and if he places a paved roadway in here, it's very likely that when this develops that that roadway is -- it's going to be either modified or removed at that point in time. The landscaping, again, with the buffer on the landscaping, this somewhat addresses Item Number 10. The same thing there that use that he's buffering right now is agricultural land. Again, as far as the landscaping and the paving of this access road back to the contractor's facility, the developer would much rather just commit to and say that he will not take access off this roadway if he is going to be burdened with the requirements of paving and installing landscaping improvements adjacent to this existing access. That is the other option, I guess, the developer is presenting as far as those items go. As far as the contractor's yard itself and the paving within the contractor's yard, there is a covered facility indicated in this location that would be for equipment storage and, again, this is just to keep equipment out of the weather, so as he is -- as he's transporting backhoes or trackhoes to various sites, this allows him an area where he can store those vehicles. It isn't a covered parking in the sense that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 12 of 63 employees are going to be traveling in and out of it day in, day out. The same with the shop area, which is in this location here, which is attached to the backside of the office again, it's strictly for the maintenance and repair of his contracting equipment. The discussion we had with staff as far as paving within that contractor's yard facility is that with the heavy equipment and other storage that's going to be going on there, it didn't seem very sensible, nor practical to install paving that has a high likelihood of being torn up, essentially, by all of the equipment that's moving around within the contractor's yard area. He has committed to the sight obscuring fencing along the north, sight obscuring along the east side. He did want to just pose a question to the Commission the staff was recommending that the entire site have sight obscuring. The south boundary of this site adjacent to the Hardin Drain, essentially, is adjacent to the Idaho Power site, so he wanted some consideration as to whether he could leave that in fencing that wasn't sight obscuring along the south portion only. With that said, I believe that's -- most of the requirements in here, other than Item Number 13 is the requirement for the tiling of the Hardin Drain. The Hardin Drain is a significant drainage way that runs through the site presently and the consideration that he would like there is -- his understanding is that typically with the drains and the tiling requirements, that that was an outcome of safety issues with people potentially getting into those drains. He wanted the Commission to note that there are no residential developments through this area on either side. The substation is one side and if this development moves forward, you will have storage units and the contractor's yard on the other. There will be fencing all the way along the storage units and contractor's yard that will, essentially, keep people out of the drain. On one side of the drain he's .also willing to install fencing adjacent to Stoddard Road in this location, which, essentially, would enclose this entire area in fencing, based on the existing fencing that's out around the site. Given that, and the fencing that he's proposing on here, the fact that there is no residential adjacent to it, that it is a fairly substantial drain, he is requesting that he not be required to the that drain at this time. With that, we do agree with the rest of the staff comments that were indicated within the report, outside of those points that I clarified. I, again, would respectfully request your approval on this item. Actually, on all three items I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions for Mr. Boyle? Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman so we should -- we should add in our site-specific that you intend to do 35 feet of landscape buffering right here? Boyle: Presently on the site plan we have 34 feet. Centers: Thirty-four. Boyle: And that's fine. The front of the contractor's facility, we don't have a problem with that. Centers: Is this totally fenced, the Idaho Power facility? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 13 of 63 Boyle: The actual substation is fenced in this location. Centers: Okay so there is no fence -- Boyle: There is no fencing in this area. Centers: -- back here? Boyle: There is fencing here from the adjacent uses. You know, your standard farming- type fences, if I remember right. We might have a picture of it. Centers: Okay but the Hardin Drain is accessible? Boyle: Presently it's accessible to anyone. Centers: Right and it would be later. Boyle: If we installed the fencing -- and this shows somewhat of what the fencing is like around this site, outside of where the -- the substation is. If we ran the fencing along Stoddard, the whole --the entire site would be fenced -- Centers: But I wouldn't call this a -- I'd call it a fence to keep cattle out or horses. Boyle: Right. Centers: You agree with that? Boyle: I would agree that it is an agricultural type of fence there. Centers: Going back to the plat or the schematic. The access from Overland, you mentioned that if we required this to be paved now, that he would just as soon not access there, because it might be torn up when they finish Phase 3 and -- correct. Boyle: Correct. Centers: And not usable. Isn't this the only access that Idaho Power has into their property? Boyle: No. They have access off of -- Centers: They have access back here? Boyle: -- Stoddard Road. These are two driveways into their facility. Centers: Is this an easement or is this deeded land? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 14 of 63 Boyle: This is an easement that Idaho Power has. Centers: Okay so, how are you going to block access that Idaho Power has, unless you get them to -- Boyle: Right and I guess what I'm indicating here is that we would not have an entry here. Our site would be fenced -- Centers: Well, I'm referring to your comment that, you know, you just wouldn't use it and it may become blocked in the future anyway. You couldn't do that. Boyle: Right. Centers: You would have to -- Boyle: Well, Idaho Power -- we would have to maintain access for Idaho Power. Centers: Okay. I guess you would agree with me there. Boyle: Right. Centers: Okay. Boyle: That is correct. The only point that I was trying to make there, Mr. Centers, if I could just clarify, is that the -- down the road when this develops, there is a high likelihood that there will be paved entrances in -- I don't -- and the easement for Idaho Power is fairly wide, so the location of that may change from where that existing road is, as far as the location of where that pavement ultimately ends up at, to better accommodate the future uses of Phase 3. Centers: Yes. I understand that. The inference was that it might not even be usable. Well, it has to be usable, because Idaho Power has the easement. Boyle: Right. Centers: Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Borup: Anyone else? Mathes: I have question. On the Hardin Drain, if you don't the it, that maintenance road has to stay usable, correct? Boyle: Right. Right. Correct. Borup: Along the same subject, do you know the diameter of the pipe that that would require? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Mee[ing March 26, 2003 Page 16 of 63 Boyle: I don't offhand. We had an Alta survey that was actually prepared by a different company that indicated a -- and this was -- I believe it was down -- I don't remember the exact location where they had it called out, but I believe it was on the west side of the property. It showed a 36-inch CMP -- Borup: You understand that a Variance needs to be applied to -- well I guess City Council does a waiver now, rather than a variance. Yes. That saves a little bit of -- but it still must be granted by City Council. Centers: Yes. We can't grant it correct? Borup: Right. Okay. Then, your application calls for an eight-foot high fence. Is that your intention? Boyle: That is the intention. Borup: Okay. Boyle: I believe the staff report indicated a minimum of six-foot. Borup: Right Boyle: Yes. Borup: Maybe back a little bit on what Commissioner Centers had said -- or discussed. The short -- your short answer on the access road and the landscaping is you'd rather not do the landscaping and you don't want to pave the access road. If it would be require, then, the gate into the property would be eliminated. Is that a summary of -- Boyle: That is a rough summary and I guess, really, the clarification item there -- and I think the staff would vouch for this, is it is somewhat unclear within your ordinance as far as the paving of different areas. I think what it states in there -- and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but it talks about vehicle use areas being paved and once you determine that it's a vehicular use area, then, the landscaping requirements also apply. I guess, you know, again, we are contesting that it -- while vehicles may travel the road, our understanding of the ordinance is those vehicles use areas particularly apply to areas that are accessible to the public, to employees as far as like parking lots, drive aisles within parking lots and whatnot, so -- Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman, a follow up to that. I would just comment that the vehicles using this road would be heavy equipment and susceptible to making a lot more dust and maybe that's what staff was looking at and the ordinance, I think, is kind of broad, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 16 of 63 because it depends on a -- the individual CUP involved and the uses, et cetera. That's my opinion. Would you agree? Boyle: That sounds reasonable to me. Centers: Okay. The other thing, at your -- at the outset you indicated -- and I want to clarify this -- that this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is going hand in hand with the latter one on our agenda tonight. If they go hand in hand, that both can be passed at the same time, so it's just one -- that would be technically one Comprehensive Plan amendment, then, even though there is two different issues. Correct? You inferred that and I -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Commissioner Centers. Yes. The -- you know, other jurisdictions in the area often will set up two dates a year at which all Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications are due. The City of Meridian has not done that formally, but, essentially, that's what we have tried to do here. Centers: So you could do a half a dozen -- Hawkins-Clark: So you could do a half a dozen on one night and forward them on. Centers: So I was way off base earlier in my comments that -- Hawkins-Clark: You were way off. Centers: -- Number 6, first up, and Number 7 could go home, that's not true. Okay. I'm glad we got that clear. Thank you. Borup: Because both recommendations would be -- we would just need to recommend both on the same date. Centers: Right. Right. Boyle: Chairman, if I may. Commissioner Centers -- and to that point, this particular application that's in front of you was submitted several months ago and it has been waiting in the wings, so to speak, to tag along with the North Meridian Plan. Centers: Okay. Okay. Borup: That's what I understood also. Centers: That saves us time and energy and that's it. I appreciate it. Borup: Okay. Maybe while Mr. Boyle is up, I -- are there any other thoughts from staff on this access road, the paving, and landscaping? I guess you stated the ordinance, so Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 17 of 63 Kirkpatrick: Right. I stated our position. I do want to clarify while the use bordering the subject property is agricultural, it is zoned residential, and it is possible to put in a subdivision at this point. Borup: Five-acre subdivision. Kirkpatrick: Correct. It is zoned RUT and R-1. That area. Borup: Then they are both the county. I mean in the county -- Kirkpatrick: In our future Comp Plan, it's designated as residential and staff recommends that this access road be paved. We have not changed our view on that. Borup: How about if they did not have any access to the contractor's yard? Kirkpatrick: I don't believe we have a representative from Idaho Power here this evening to clarify whether they are going to continue to use that access road. We still would have the same concerns over, you know, the dust problems. I don't know what the usage is on the road. I would want clarification from Idaho Power and what their continued usage is going to be. Borup: How was that approved -- or was it? Idaho Power's project was in the county? Or it still is in the county. Centers: Yes. Borup: So that was approved by the county. Kirkpatrick: I think that Clint had something that -- it originally was approved as a temporary access by Idaho Power. Rohm: So, does that mean that access would, then, be closed off at Overland Road and no longer available to Idaho Power once the substation is completed? Kirkpatrick: I would have to research that. Actually, Idon't -- I don't know what would happen. Rohm: But it seems reasonable to require the landscaping and pavement, if, in fact, the easement's not vacated, because they will have free access coming and going indefinitely in support of stafFs position. It seems logical to me. Boyle: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, I just might clarify that point. We have had extensive meetings with Idaho Power, since they are the property owners presently, and, in fact I had discussions with their utilization of access way today. They indicated that this access way would be utilized by Idaho Power from their representative that I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 18 of 63 spoke with, they indicated that it would be utilized possibly once or twice a year on this access road. To further clarify that, I can indicate that if this is a concern of the Commission regarding this access way that Idaho Power, again, desires to sell off this portion of land. Their representative indicated that it wouldn't necessarily cause them any adverse problem if that access road were vacated or removed. Rohm: Well, that seems like the logical answer to vacate the easement and, then, you don't have an issue. Centers: But if I could interrupt, that brings me back to what I read earlier this afternoon. Idaho Power actually owns the whole parcel they bought it from Grey Wolfe back -- way back. Boyle: Right. Centers: So, they really don't have an easement now, they have own the land. Boyle: Right. Centers: Right so, why would they --did they indicate they wanted that easement? Boyle: We -- I believe we have an easement proposed is what we have on our site plan. Centers: Okay. Boyle: And if I could just clarify further, with the original approval with ACHD, they were granted a temporary access road, so when the substation went through its approvals, ACHD granted a temporary roadway that was conditioned that when further development occurred on the site, that roadway would be abandoned. When we went to ACHD we requested that that access roadway be allowed to remain to facilitate the site plan as we have presented and ACHD -- and I believe they have a representative here that could clarify that further if you wanted -- committed to allow that access way to remain with the restriction that it's for Idaho Power and the contractor's equipment access only. Again, if the issues with paving and this roadway are coming up, we will commit to abandoned the roadway, that existing roadway, and that will take care of the access road and the landscape issue. Rohm: I don't know if Idaho Power would concur with that. Borup: Well, but that was the question I had. Idaho Power's property is part of the annexation and it's part of the rezone. Boyle: No. Borup: Well, then, what is it being zoned? If it's being annexed, it's got to be zoned. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 19 of 63 Boyle: It is part of the rezone. Right. Borup: Well, not -- I didn't mean rezone part of the zoning is what I meant to say and it's also being zoned C-G? Boyle: Right. Borup: Okay. Then, there is the substation, but is it part of the Conditional Use? Boyle: We didn't propose that as part of the Conditional Use Permit, because they are in the process of the split. With regard to the lot split, again, that's a process that Idaho Power indicated would be completed within in the next two weeks. They have filed a record of survey with Ada County and Ada County Development Services indicated that they did not need to do that, that they were considered apublic -- quasi-public agency. They met with the Assessor's Office today on the issue. Essentially, they have filled out an application requesting that split and it's a matter of the Assessor's Office assigning new parcel numbers. Again, the lot split is going to take place here very soon. Borup: And what I was leading up to is I would think the city would be able to put whatever requirement would be necessary on that access road. If it were a lot split, there would need to be an easement. If there is not an easement, then, you would have control of the access. Unless there is a good reason to circumvent the -- I mean to -- you know, for a variance from the ordinance, I think I agree with what the other Commissioners have said. Centers: The bottom line is Idaho Power -- you're buying the land from Idaho Power and they said we would sell it to you, but I want an easement right here. Correct? Boyle: They did not indicate that. We simply facilitated that easement, because they have an existing -- they had an existing roadway there, they had an existing gravel road. When we actually indicated these plans, we put an easement across there, just with the understanding that they had already installed a gravel roadway through there and they want continued access. Originally, when we put that in, we were under the impression they would have continued access. Then, as we got into the ACHD history on the site, it was determined that it was a temporary access. I guess, you know, they are obviously -- Idaho Power isn't here to speak to it. We certainly don't have any problem with a condition that -- that we have to receive Idaho Power's -- that as a condition of approval that that access road has to go away, if it's this Commission's desire that we have to receive Idaho Power's approval of that, because I'm very confident that we can obtain that approval from Idaho Power. Borup: Well, unless they have an easement, there is nothing -- no necessity of obtaining anything from them, is there? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 20 of 63 Boyle: Well, again, if there was concern that they may need that roadway from the Commission in the future -- Borup: Well, then, if they felt that they better have an easement or deeded land. Boyle: Right. Centers: I'm not clear how we get one -- get one answered one way and another one the other way. When you develop this phase, is it possible that you will be utilizing this or can you speak for the developer? Boyle: Is it possible that we utilize the roadway or the access? Centers: Both. Both. Boyle: It's possible. Sure. Centers: So, I don't know why you would want to stand there and speak for this developer that you want to abandon that and not have any use of that period. Borup: Well, I think you meant not any -- Boyle: Well, I'm talking about the access drive. Centers: To the other phases. Boyle: Right. Borup: To the contractor's yard. Centers: All right. Okay Boyle: I mean down the road in the future when Phrase 3 develops there may be an approach here that comes into some parking and whatnot for that area, but, again, yes, specifically talking about that access way back in the contractor's yard. Rohm: Well, it seems to me that if it was a temporary roadway that was granted Idaho Power to build a substation, then, at such time that the substation is completed, the temporary access goes away and you don't have a road period and -- and you only, through application, put a road in at a later date. That road should be abandoned and no access at this time. Does that make sense to staff? Kirkpatrick: If you want to go ahead and point out that even if the road is not constructed, they will be required to put in the landscaping to buffer the commercial use from the adjoining residential uses. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 21 of 63 Rohm: Okay. At this time. Kirkpatrick: Correct. Mathes: For all phrases? I mean why Phase 3 if they don't have the other two sides? Kirkpatrick: I believe it would just be for Phases 1 and 2, because they are not trying to obtain conceptual approval for Phase 3 this evening. I also want to point out, again, tonight that you can't make a make recommendation for this application this evening. Mathes: Okay. Borup: So, if they are required to do the landscaping, we are talking right along this stretch right here, from the drain, -- from the drain north to phrase --just along Phase 1. Is that your understanding, Clint, that if -- Boyle: That's my understanding of what staff -- Borup: What she said. Boyle: Yes. Centers: You know, Mr. Boyle, while we are waiting here, that entrance there, according to the scale -- I don't have my ruler, but I think it's 30 feet, is what it appears to me. It's a lot of heavy equipment that is being -- a heavy contractor would own for storage correct? Boyle: It would be such as flat bed trucks, trailers Centers: Hauling backhoes and maybe big stuff? Boyle: Yes. Centers: I can see their need for that entrance Boyle: Yes. I think -- the point, if I understand it correctly, Mr. Centers, there can be accommodated based on the turning radius that we installed, the apron going into the driveway. While the -- you know, as far as the width being 30 feet on the throat, again, as far as trucks entering, the bigger issue there is going to be on the radius, which is something that we can certainly design to accommodate those trucks entering the site on Stoddard Road. Centers: Well, I guess having to contend with the people that are coming into the storage units and -- you know, I don't know -- if you eliminate this, you have one access, period, and I think the Fire Department will want to address that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 22 of 63 Boyle: And, again, with the access points, I just might clarify, again, with the contractor's yard, the amount of trips coming out of the actual equipment area is going to be very minimal on a daily basis. It's not -- and, again, the office is an Accessory Use. This is where the employees will be dispatching the equipment that's out in the field are going to be operating, so this isn't going to be an intensive vehicular use area, by any sense of the imagination. While there will be heavy equipment entering the site, that is not going to be something that's going to be occurring regularly throughout the day. It's going to have a fairly limited use as far as the heavier equipment coming and going. Borup: Well, maybe, to sum up the staff comments -- or, yes, the site-specific comments, with the modifications we made on the earlier ones, on three and five, and you clarified Number 8 on the landscaping, so it's really just 9 and 10? Is that what we are down to as far as -- Boyle: Nine and 10. Again, just for the record, which, again, isn't this Commission's decision on the request to leave the Hardin Drain open. Borup: Right. Boyle: But yes, that is --that is, essentially, what we are down to. Borup: I'm wondering if we could word something along the line that it needs to be paved or -- or the access deleted. Does staff have any problem with something along that line? Did you hear that that the road either be paved or the access to the west side of the contractor's yard be removed? Kirkpatrick: We would agree with that. Borup: Leave that to the applicant's choice. Does that sound reasonable, Commissioners? Any comment. Clint? Boyle: That sounds reasonable. Borup: That's kind of where you're at anyway, so now you have got a choice. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission I do want to point out, however, that we would still require the vehicular access points within the contractor's yard be paved. That would be the access points to the proposed shop and to the covered parking structure within the contractor's yard. Borup: How wide? Kirkpatrick: Well, I don't know if we go -- do we want to go ahead and define tonight how wide the driveway access points would be? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Spacial Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 23 of 63 Borup: Well, I mean what I'm looking at -- Kirkpatrick: I mean let's go ahead and get this for the record Borup: Well, I think that makes sense, maybe get some paving in this area, but when you start -- when you pave from here to here, realize the vehicles are going to be coming in, maybe backing in, pulling in, turning -- Kirkpatrick: Well, that's up to your discretion. Borup: Well, just have a little bit of paving here and give a chance for the tires to clean off a little bit before you tracking it out. I'm just thinking I don't know how practical it is to do it to the covered parking. You know, to have a driveway that would -- that they would use. Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, we would be amenable to seeing recycled asphalt, if they have to lower the expense for the applicant in the contractor's yard as a paving material. Borup: Mr. Boyle, you had mentioned that earlier, that that's an option you might be looking at. Does that still make sense? Boyle: Mr. Chairman, if I could just maybe get some clarification on that. As far as the recycled asphalt, we are talking on the vehicular use areas, as the staff indicated, within the contractor's yard? Kirkpatrick: Within contractors yard. Boyle: So, in other words, the equipment storage, et cetera, can remain gravel, but the actual vehicular uses would be the recycled asphalt? Kirkpatrick: Correct. We are allowing that to be an option. Borup: So, that would be most of the area clear down -- you know, clear from here down to the garage, but the two can blend in real easy. I mean they can blend together. Boyle: Our preference would be what Commissioner Borup indicated earlier with extending the paving further back into the contractor's yard, as he indicated in this area, and allowing the rest to remain gravel. If the Commission feels so inclined, I don't know that it would be terribly adverse to the developer to install recycled asphalt back tc the vehicle use area back to the covered storage area. Borup: Is the gravel -- is it going to be rolled and compacted, is that the intention? Boyle: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 24 of 63 Centers: I didn't think I have any more questions, but, then, staff, if you're agreeable to that, why wouldn't recycled asphalt be okay here? Kirkpatrick: There would be heavier vehicle usage on that road. Borup: Maybe vehicle speeds would be little a different there than parking vehicles inside of the yard. Okay. Is there any other discussion with Mr. Boyle here or are we -- I guess you're done. Boyle: Thank you. Centers: Thanks. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? It looks like everyone is here for the other one. Okay. Discussion from Commissioners? Centers: Well, Imade -- Mr. Chairman, I made a lot of notes and I think the other Commissioners have and we are going to have time to ponder everything, because we are going to have to come back to it anyway. I think the project has a lot of merit and it's kind of a good fit for the area, they just get some things hammered out and we will talk about them at the next hearing. We will continue this one. Borup: Yes. It is going to need to be continued. I have a hard time remembering things a month from now. Centers: I made a lot of notes. Borup: Okay. I was going to say, would it worthwhile to maybe discuss, generally, what we are feeling or what things we are maybe thinking about or are we in agreement that everything has been cleared up, except for eight and nine? Centers: Yes. I don't have a problem with a chain link fence along the drain, not sight obscuring. I think we -- you know, that Council would allow the exception to the tiling. That's up to them, you know. That's not us. Just how we feel on the access off Overland. Give them an option. That's fine with me. Borup: Okay. Rohm: I'm a little bit curious about the landscaping. If, in fact, the road will be left in place, would you want the landscaping all along the west side? Staff the entire length of Kirkpatrick: If the road is active or if the road is inactive? Rohm: If the road will be active, you would want the landscaping along the entire west line of the property? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 25 of 63 Kirkpatrick: That is, actually, up until -- up until the Hardin Drain. We would want landscaping from Overland Road to the Hardin Drain. Rohm: Thank you. Centers: And if it's inactive, you wanted it to buffer the residential -- Borup: Just in Phase 1. Rohm: Just in phase -- yes. Centers: Okay. Rohm: Phase 1 or 2? Kirkpatrick: Phases 1 and 2. Rohm: Right. Yes. Borup: See, I'd rather see landscaping along Stoddard, than along a field full of weeds. Well, Commissioners, we have acouple -- we can either just continue the whole hearing or we can close it and table it without a decision. I guess that's the two choices. Is there any other information we are looking for that would -- that we want to continue it? Centers: No. I guess if we continue it to our second meeting in April, does that -- does that coincide with everything we are trying to do here? Borup: I would maybe recommend we not make a decision on this until the end of the meeting, until after our next hearing. Centers: As far as when we continue it? Borup: Yes so, I think we -- can't we just postpone this decision until the end of the meeting? Centers: As far I'm concerned. Fine with me. Borup: Any problem with that, Nick? Wollen: As long as the continued -- the period it's going to be continued to is mentioned in the -- Borup: Before the meeting is over. Wollen: Yes. I believe that that's what -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 26, 2003 Page 26 of 63 Borup: Okay. Centers: Let's move on to Number 7, then. Borup: Okay. Mr. Boyle, you understand that? We don't know when we are going to continue this to, but -- but I don't think -- you don't need to stay, you can probably -- I'm sure you could get that information calling in tomorrow. Right. It would be postponed -- adecision will be postponed until the end of the meeting. Item 7. Public Hearing: CPA 03-002 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include the North Meridian Area Land Use Map and a Text Amendment to include Mixed Use Village standards as proposed by the North Meridian Area planning effort and adoption of a new Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning designation, development of a Capital Improvement Program and adoption of a Park Plan - by Wardle & Associates: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CPA 03-002. This is a request for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to the North Meridian Area Land Use Map and text amendment to include amix-used village standard as proposed in the North Meridian Area. We did -- have a draft from a -- how long ago was that? Several weeks back. February 4ih Has it been that long? Some preliminary information so, we'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Is the staff going to do an introduction or just introduce Mr. Wardle? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I guess we could use some input on this, I guess. We -- the Commission has received a full workshop -- had the opportunity during the February 20th workshop to see a summary of this plan, but, you know, it does appear, given the audience, that there are a number of folks that probably did not participate in that February 20th workshop. To be honest, I'm a little bit ambivalent, I guess, as to how we should proceed. I mean certainly staff is prepared to give you a perspective based on our staff report on this effort. It may be a little bit lengthy, a little bit overwhelming to those that aren't familiar with the plan and if we -- if the Commission would prefer to see another summation, I guess I would prefer that the applicant do that prior to staff kind of jumping into our items. I guess we'd like some -- appreciate some feedback. I mean would you like to have another sort of cursory overview of what this plan entitles, some of the background and some of the changes between the proposed North Meridian Plan and the current City Comp Plan or, you know, we can dive into some of the more specific issues right away, I guess. Borup: I think I would like to see maybe a brief overview. I don't believe we had -- I don't believe we had any Public Hearings at our last meeting. Hawkins-Clark: I think that's correct.