Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 3, 2003 P & Z Comm minutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing July 3, 2003 Page 44 of 91 indicating that the L-O zones and C-G zones are conceptual and are not being platted at this time within those zones. I believe that's the end of my motion. Fluke: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 03-028, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 213, not 216, and possibly 212, residential units, 34,200 square feet for office uses and 35,790 square feet for commercial uses for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction. Northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road, and this, again, refers to the plat that they have provided to the City of Meridian, date stamped July 3, 2003. To include all staff comments of the staff memo of June 30, 2003, with the following exceptions under site-specific conditions -- this is Page 15 of the memo, Paragraph 2, the second sentence shall be modified to read: North Dove Ridge Drive shall be a private street. The third sentence begins: Both streets shall be designed -- and it continuous the way it was. The current paragraph three is deleted and we will add another paragraph -- substitute paragraph three that says Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21 of Block 10 shall be combined to become only Lot 19 of Block 10. Paragraph 6 on Page 16 shall read: Lot 26, Block 12, shall be provided an easement to Summit Way and an easement into the L-O zone. Centers: Very good. Zaremba: I believe that's the motion. Rohm: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 9 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: Break time. (Recess.) Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new dental clinic in an L-O zone for Seegmiller Dental by Dr. Dave Seegmiller -south of East Gala Street and east of South Millennium Way: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 45 of 91 Centers: The next item on our agenda is Item Number 10. It's a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new dental clinic in an L-O zone and it's for Seegmiller Dental. We will open with staff comments from Mr. Bradley Hawkins-Clark. Hawkins-Clark: Good evening, Mr. Centers and other Commissioners. This Item No. 10 is located within Resolution Subdivision Business Park, south side of Overland Road. Mountain View High School, as you well know, is nearing final construction for occupancy to the south. Also a few weeks ago this same body recommended approval for a re-subdivision of the lot that is in bold. I believe it came under the name Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision, a three lot re-sub. I think you're well familiar with area and the parcel. The City Council -- I put in my staff report the City Council had dealt with this on Tuesday. However, Anna mentioned to me tonight that the Council, unfortunately, had to continue that item, so I can't tell you -- I was hoping to tell you what their decision was on that, but there is no decision, so at this point it still stands that the three lot re- subdivision is simply with your recommended conditions. As I mentioned in this report further, the -- really, the main issue here -- whether it was approved or not approved is somewhat moot, because this application really is dealing with an existing legal lot that is in Resolution Subdivision. The Commission, obviously, as a Conditional Use Permit, has the opportunity tonight to deal with whatever conditions you deem fit, but just to remind you that generally the outline of the three -- of the three lots comes -- comes through here. The dental lot is the full eastern portion of this Site Plan and, then, the other two lots are kind of split down the middle with that dashed line. They have a single point of access off South Millennium Way located here and that is also the shared access point for the flag lot to the that south, which you can kind of see through this by this bold line here, which the flag lot does extend clear to the shared east boundary of the Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision. Just really one issue on this -- on this Conditional Use Permit to talk with you about I think that needs resolution and that deals cross- access. I'm assuming you have read my brief treatise in the staff report, so I won't read through that, but suffice it to say that your recommended condition to the Council was that Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision provide cross-access and cross-parking to adjacent lots, is the way that your motion ended up being. I guess the -- we are in some ways taking a little issue with the cross-parking and that could be, as I tried to clarify with Steve Siddoway, that his understanding of your motion -- and since he was the planner on that Seegmiller Subdivision, was that probably the cross-parking was intended to be within these three lots, not necessarily that you were saying this -- these three lots must have cross-parking with this lot three or this lot five. That's how we are interpreting it and, if so, then, I guess we are all good. Zaremba: Actually, that's not how I remember it. Hawkins-Clark: Well, that's certainly up far discussion, then, tonight. Our recommendation only -- we are only dealing, really, with the dental property here on the east and our recommendation at staff is that across-parking easement for them to provide to Lot 3 and Lot 5 would be difficult to administer and track and particularly since the benefit for that would primarily lie with future developments. The first one in, in some ways, may bear the larger burden, because of having to -- the future builders Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 46 of 91 know the configuration of this parcel, they know how many lots are available, and if they choose to reduce their parking because they know that there is cross-parking here, that, in some ways, hinders this dental clinic. That was the reason for us to recommend that -- that that condition removed for this project. You know, there may be some other lots within Resolution where that cross-parking is appropriate. In this case, since we are dealing with a fairly small area, it's pretty walkable as it is, most likely you wouldn't have customers accessing -- you know, getting into their vehicles to drive from this building to the building on Lot 3 or over to Building A or B over here. I think that's on the cross- parking. The cross-access -- as I mentioned, there is one point of access here off of the collector, Millennium Way. As they enter there is a stub to this flag lot, so that the future developer of Lot 3 does have cross-access through this Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision at this point. The question is was the intention of the Commission to also require this eastern portion -- this eastern Lot 1 to also provide vehicular cross-access at this point and staffs opinion is that that's not appropriate, that across-access at this point would really just benefit the southern lot, since they may use it to get up to East Gala Street. We are -- I guess my understanding also from Anna Powell at the City Council meeting is that Chief Worley, Police Chief -- or, I'm sorry, Captain Musser with the Police Department also had some concerns with the high school traffic. You know, possibly coming through here and, you know, circulating in this pretty small development, even though there is a fence here on this shared boundary with the school, they wouldn't get very far. That was a concern expressed by the Police Department, so -- we are recommending that a pedestrian cross-easement -- cross -- pedestrian cross-access easement be recorded and provided to us before certificate of zoning compliance or Building Permit generally next here to the trash enclosure to allow them to -- you know, to have some connection between these lots north and south, so that they would not be forced to walk all the way around through the vehicular access point, which, you know, is several hundred feet. That's -- that is a recommendation of ours. I think the conditions are pretty clear on this one. The Item Number 3 on Page 5 is our recommendation for the five-foot sidewalk stub to the south somewhere in this line. We are not dictating where that would be, that's really left up to the applicant and their designer. We are also -- and this has not been addressed with the applicant, but we do have some concerns about access to this Lot 5, I believe it is, to the east and I will go back to the overall Site Plan. As you can see, this Lot 5 is pretty good size. I don't know the exact -- well, I believe it's probably around four or five acres. It was originally intended to be an ice rink. When Resolution came through, the private party, I believe, funding fell through or whatever the reason was, that ice rink did not materialize, so the lot could potentially still have a pretty good size user and -- or it could be re-subdivided. We don't know at this poirit. Having east-west access between Gaudry Seegmiller and this lot is recommended and we would like the applicant to address that tonight. We would at this point recommend that across-access easement in favor Lot 5, Block 1, will be provided and that would, of course, come through this portion of their parking lot. That's all I have. Centers: Mr. Clark, I don't see that in your conditions, Lot 5, Block 1, or did I miss it? Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Centers, that's correct, it's not in there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 47 of 91 Centers: You want to add it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Centers: Cross-access agreement to Lot 5, Block 1. Very good. Any questions from staff? Zaremba: Yes. My recollection of when we had this was that the applicant for Lot 3 did come to the hearing and spoke and specifically requested that they have vehicle access here and, actually, asked that this be reconfigured to make this a little more convenient for their entry. This appears to be the same as the original drawing that we first saw without those accesses added, but my recollection of the motion to approve that at the time included this becoming -- at least that was the intention -- a vehicle access and this joint entry being reconfigured. Apparently, I'm the only one that remembers it that way. But I know that was a specific request from Becky McKay and I thought that the Commission agreed with that. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Centers, Commissioner Zaremba, yes, the -- I think our recollection is the same, yes, I think Ms. McKay did come to the hearing, she did represent Mr. Voigt, the developer, and testified that that was their -- that was their preference and that was the -- that was the way that your recommendation was drafted by Steve Siddoway and forwarded on to Council. Zaremba: To have that vehicular access. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Centers: Let me jump in. What's done is done there. That's done. We are dealing with the dental clinic and your recommendations on that tonight. Zaremba: Well, it appears that your Recommendation is to eliminate the vehicular access that we asked for. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That was raised -- or I should say will be raised at the City Council meeting on the subdivision and in some ways we are -- it would have been of benefit to have the Council's decision for this hearing tonight. We don't have that, so I -- you know, I think the applicant had some miscommunication, Ibelieve, with their -- with their client on that issue at your last hearing. Ibelieve Anderson and Associates was the applicant and there was -- there was communication to staff after your hearing on Gaudry Seegmiller that all along they were not in agreement with putting that condition on there. Yes, you're right, this is a separate application. The cross-access issue is probably most appropriate as a plat issue. However, you know, a Conditional Use Permit, you can -- you can address cross-access as well. Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 48 of 91 Centers: I have got to be honest with you, I don't recall. However, maybe we can hear from the applicant. Seegmiller: I'm David Seegmiller, 4080 Bodily Lane, Meridian. First of all, in relation to the cross-access agreement, this is a dental clinic and there is parking -- there will be parking here and here. The entrance to the clinic is here. There is going to be pedestrian traffic coming between parked cars of adults and children, many of whom have had dental treatment completed, with this opened up here it creates a straight line thoroughfare of traffic to this lot, potential safety problem for vehicular pedestrian accidents. We already have some cross-connectivity here, these cars can access this lot. without having to go onto Millennium Way. There is that cross-connectivity already in place. In regard to the way the curb cut was positioned, that was done by the developer, by Voigt Development. The original plans had the curb cut here, but in response to a developer, which fell through on the other side of Millennium Way, both of these curb cuts were moved. We had asked that the developer move those back to the end of the flag lot and we were unable to come to an agreement to have him do that. In fact, that's still on the table, but they, you know, at this point, are unwilling to do that. We gave an easement to them through our property, you know, at no charge to them, so they could access that flag lot, otherwise, they would have no access to that street. I have no problem with pedestrian access, but I do have a concern about safety, especially I will be assuming the liability for any accidents on that property from traffic going through. I'm not seeing any benefit from the traffic going through the lot, but I'm assuming all of the liability for any potential accidents with my patients. Centers: And did you read the staff comments, Mr. Seegmiller? Seegmiller: I did. Centers: And you're in agreement with those? Seegmiller: Yes. Centers: I can understand your concern. Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees, but we didn't know a dental clinic was going in there either. Very good. Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Let's see. Do you have any problem with the access going east? Seegmiller: Only in that it may tum into the same -- same type of situation. Centers: Well, you mean pedestrian? Zaremba: No. Vehicle. We are going for interconnectivity and the original sub development had interconnectivity of all these lots. I'm not ready to give that up when it's to keep people from having to go out into the street to get from lot to lot. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 49 of 91 Centers: Yes. Seegmiller: I'll let Larry Knopp, architect, speak for -- Knopp: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Larry Knopp, 355 South 3`~ Street. I'm the architect on the project representing Dr. Seegmiller. To give you a little bit of background on what has happened, I think he filled you in a little bit. Lot 3 down below was supposed to have access off of Millennium Way at their flag right here. Through a design process on this other parcel across the way, that curb cut here and here got shifted from this area location up to this location. At the time nobody knew about it, except Briggs Engineering, who was handling the recommendations and the submittals with ACHD on it, so when I laid this out I was using this and coming in here and accessing off Millennium Way, because I know that ACHD is wanting to limit the amount egress-ingress that's coming on Millennium Way, especially with the high school. We tried to get Voigt Development to move this curb cut back to the flag lot. They said they had paid for it once, didn't want to pay for it again, so they didn't want to move it. That was after the people that were developing or trying to buy this development fell through, so they did have an opportunity to move that and go back to the original design. I am working and I will show you -- I have got a drawing on Lot 1. I don't know if that's good or bad, but I'm the architect on that one also. Voigt Construction also asked me to do some land planning on Lot 3 and I did that. I will show you what I came up with that I think is probably a better solution. They didn't seem to think that it was, but it offers some other advantages to them, because what they are finding out is they developed the subdivision here with fairly large lots and what they are finding is the users that are wanting to be here are not big users and that's the case here. We have two doctors that bought this comer lot that only need this building and this building, they don't know if this one will -- if they will sell it or develop it or whatever, but -- so we -- that's why we are in for a subdivision on this one lot, to break it into three. There are two different owners right now, possibility of selling that other one off. First of all, I'd like to show you -- I'd like to show you a Site Plan that gives you an overall picture of these three lots and from what I can tell on the records, it sounds like to me that through Resolution Sub it was their idea that maybe they wanted to try to get some cross-connectivity between these three lots. Because I'm assuming there are supposed to be more limited office, not an ice rink, not more of a commercial that they have asked for and got some use as far as Resolution Sub goes. I don't have a board for this, so I guess I'll just have to hand it to you. This is a conceptual plan that I drew up for Voigt Construction, but this shows you the development we are working here on the Lot 2. This is the development that you will be see shortly on Lot 4 with another dental clinic and another pad site that's available and this is coming in and connecting on the flag lot. One of the big reasons why I tried to get Voigt to redo this is because this flag lot is really a collector for these three lots and give the connectivity that I think needs to be for it. We have got -- now that they have built it here, instead of here, we have had to give them an easement on this. Pve got a copy of it, it's already in place, they needed to do it, so they could close on this lot and it also gives access across the flag on Lot 3 for this Lot 4. I suggested what they do is to come in here and possibly -- they would make -- may have one use -- I don't know how this is going to be used, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 50 of 91 nobody does, but provide access through this five acres, give them more of an opportunity to break up and sell smaller lots if they've got smaller users. Then, also access and come out here and connect across at Celebration Drive. Centers: Is any of this platted right here? Knopp: This is all theirs. It's lot -- it's Block 1, Lot 1, I guess, is all theirs. I also told them that maybe they'd want to come in here on this property line and provide another access, because this is -- this is theirs, they still own it, the developer, they still can do something without any problem. Centers: Well, there is going to have to be connectivity, so it could be either through Seegmiller or through your proposal. Knopp: Right. Centers: Either/or. Knopp: Right because we are giving them cross-connectivity right here Centers: Right. Knopp: They have got it here, we have got the easement in place, this is cross- connected, this is cross-connected on all three. You don't have to go out on Millennium, you don't have to go out on Gala to interconnect. Centers: This, of course, is proposed and, you know, it's nice of you to bring that. If we were to say we want connectivity to Lot 1, the big one, either through Seegmiller or through a proposal that comes in later, that would be fine? Knopp: Well, I think it's -- we are going to end up -- if we have traffic through the parking lot and through more of a situation here, you know, we open -- we open this up to -- I don't know much traffic could be generated through here. This can be more controlled, than it can be through this three-lot subdivision that we are trying to -- Centers: Yes. Yes. I understand. Knopp: That's the -- you know, that's what I'm looking at. The fact that they have control over this and if they would establish this, then, it would be there. If we say, okay, you know, you can access here, we don't know how this is going to be developed. We don't know if that works for them. Centers: If you don't give access through Seegmiller, is he land locked? Knopp: No. No. This is all -- this whole lot is one five acre parcel. Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 51 of 91 Centers: Where is his access? Knopp: All along Gala. Centers: Yes. Knopp: Lot 3 -- because this is a recorded subdivision -- Centers: Yes. Knopp: Resolution Sub. Centers: Right. Knopp: So, you know, there is no land lock on it. He almost land locked himself here on this one when they moved it and didn't -- they didn't put that easement in place. They are the ones that caused problem and we didn't know about it until we were designing and getting as built on it, that that -- that egress-ingress on -- was changed, the flag lot backup onto Block 2. Centers: Question for Mr. Clark. You are wanting to add item 11, cross-access to Lot 5, you were meaning vehicular access? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Centers: And where is Lot 5? Knopp: Well, this is Lot 5. It's afive-acre lot. Centers: Right. Right. Knopp: And so -- and they have 561 lineal feet of frontage on Gala Street. I'm not sure what we are accomplishing by trying to give them cross-access vehicular traffic through a parking lot here that's a limited professional office building. Centers: Okay. I tend to agree. I don't get to vote tonight. Anything else? Rohm: This is an exiting lot, this flag lot here? Knopp: Yes. Centers: Well, it's proposed. Knopp: No. No. No. No. These are all existing lots. They are not proposed. We are proposing Seegmiller Subdivision Lot 2 is a legal lot in Resolution that's been passed Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 52 of 91 and approved and is there. They bought it, my clients, and they want to subdivide that one lot only into the ability to put three buildings up here. Zaremba: And we agreed with that, except for the condition of the agreement was that there be access here to Lot 3. Knopp: And they have access right here to Lot 3. Zaremba: Here. Knopp: I know, but what's -- why did -- can you tell me why and what the reasoning was behind -- Zaremba: Mostly for traffic flow. Knopp: So, in this traffic flow -- where this traffic flow would not be good for Lot 3? Zaremba: This doesn't exist at the moment. Knopp: Right. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Centers? Knopp: This does. Lot 3 was established in Resolution Sub as a flag lot and had access and curb cuts as shown. They do have connectivity here, where we don't have conflict with people walking back and forth to buildings. It limits the pedestrian-vehicular conflict that we might have and we don't know how this is going to develop, this flag lot, but we do have the cross-connection between all three lots. We don't have to go out in the street, we pretty much accomplish that and, then, however they develop this and what they do with it is, you know, still there. I mean that's what we have. Where we don't have multiple connections and multiple traffic problems and worrying about conflict of the people walking between this development here and these buildings. Centers: This street is in right now? Knopp: This curb cut is in. This is a lot, a legal lot, in Resolution. This flag lot is a legal lot. This lot that we are talking about, Seegmiller Gaudry, is a legal lot. This lot is a five-acre parcel that was supposed to be kind of designed, I guess, or whatever -- set aside for an ice rink, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Centers? Centers: Mr. Clark. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Staff maybe just recommends, in the interest of time, and since we are dealing with access issues that really are subdivision related and there is a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 53 of 91 pending application that deals with access before the City Council, that you really could place a condition on this that they comply with Council approved easements -- cross- access easements on this, I believe, because it does not really materially impact the design that they have submitted on this Conditional Use Permit. Centers: Right. Thank you. Knopp: Yes. We wouldn't be changing the design, but we are in the process of wanting to conduct talks to see about this -- having this cross-access through the middle of this -- of this one lot when the flag has always had and we have cross-connectivity. There is an easement in place - a legal easement that's in place at this flag lot far Lots 3, 4, and 2 in here. They do have all the cross-connections with limiting the amount of traffic that we might have cross-traffic. Centers: Well, I can understand your concerns. We'll take it from there Knopp: Thank you. Centers: Anyone else want to testify on this application? Wishney: Mr. Commissioner -- Commissioners, my name is David Wishney, I'm an attorney and working with Drs. Gaudry and Seegmiller. I really hadn't anticipated testifying today, but on this cross-connectivity easements, I just want to make two points, because I feel like the Commission maybe is being misled to some degree. This issue, when it was raised by the developer's representative, really is less about connectivity than it is about access to the flag lot, because the flag lot is proving to be undesirable. The developer wrote a letter to the -- to Mr. Knopp -- if I can just read one sentence, it is that: The primary concern at this point is improved access to Lot 3. That's why they are really looking for a straight shot from Millennium to Lot 3, is because they can't sell Lot 3 so, this could develop -- the likelihood that other -- that there will be a need for vehicular cross-traffic between these buildings I think is somewhat slim and, in any event, the burden should fall on the developer. The developer sold this lot to the doctors and did not retain any easements, other than the one that Mr. Knopp has described. If cross-access was an issue, it should have been negotiated at the time. I think the developer has sufficient property left over that he can deal with any connectivity issues that you might have when he develops out the rest of that property and it's an unfair burden to place that entirely on these two doctors. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else wish to testify? Thank you. Powell: Chairman Centers, may I make a quick statement? Centers: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 54 of 91 Powell: The reason the item was continued from the City Council is because no one showed up to represent it, so I would encourage all those that have spoken in favor of this development tonight to check with the city clerk on the next hearing date for the subdivision and provide testimony at that hearing as well. Centers: Thank you. Good point. Commissioners? Seegmiller: Real quick. David Seegmiller. I was under the impression that Gordon Anderson, who had made the application, had postponed that meeting for us. It shouldn't have been counted as a -- that we didn't show up. That was my -- I was told that we had a postponement, so --just for the record. Centers: Okay. You need to talk to the City Clerk, not the other person. Commission, how do you want to proceed here? Zaremba: I'm not willing to recommend approval of a CUP that doesn't comply with the Preliminary Plat. I think the Preliminary Plat shows -- or should show an access through there. The choice would be to continue this until we find out what the City Council did or to deny it, one or the other. Centers: Well, maybe staff can correct us if we are wrong. I think this is an approved Preliminary Plat. Correct? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Centers, that's not correct. It is approved by the Commission, but it's not approved by Council. Zaremba: Well, actually, there is a current approval as a single lot. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yes. We are dealing with a legal lot. Zaremba: But that is a Resolution Subdivision lot -- Hawkins-Clark: That is a Resolution Subdivision lot. Zaremba: -- that already has an underlying requirement for cross-access. Hawkins-Clark: That's not correct. The Resolution Subdivision was recorded without cross-access easements. Centers: Well, I guess, you know, I would be -- and we have done that before, we can approve a CUP, even though the plat has not been approved by Council. Of course, knowing that it would have to be. Zaremba: If this CUP looks like I think the plat looks, I could be comfortable with that, but this doesn't look like what I think the plat looks like. I would want to see what City Council does. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 55 of 91 Hawkins-Clark: If staff could just clarify that. When you say that you don't think that this layout represents the Preliminary Plat, are you saying -- Zaremba: I'm saying the conditional of approval was that there was access -- direct access where apparently there is a trash enclosure now, to -- into the flag Lot 3. If now this applicant, I would expect, can go to the City Council meeting and object to that condition and maybe get it removed. If that's the case, then, I could see working with this CUP. Centers: I see what you're saying Powell: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, there was -- you did place a condition of approval on there that they resubmit anew -- a revised Preliminary Plat layout ten days prior to the City Council hearing. They did not do that. The one that went before the Council the other night it's identical to this one. The one that they are looking at does look like that, but, you are correct, it is not consistent with what you approved. Centers: But if we approved it and, then, as Mr. Clark stated, any access -- cross- access agreements to be determined by City Council. Powell: That would seem to work. It would -- as far as administrating your conditions of approval that would work. If the Commission still feels strongly about the cross-access agreement, you can restate that in your recommendation up to City Council, kind of to drive the point home, if that's what you want to do. You have a -- you certainly have two options there. They may -- Centers: Because the way I feel, you know, I think this is a good project to get something built there, a dental office, and let's be realistic, the Council has the final say anyway, and let them work out the cross-access on the whole subdivision, which they will have, and, then, they will have this right after that. Correct? Anyway -- Zaremba: Well, I'm uncomfortable thinking that Council is looking at something that isn't what we approved or what we recommended approval on. Centers: Well, as the planner director stated, you can state that, you know, that -- how strongly you feel about the cross-access. I think the applicant makes a good point regarding that flag lot and a proposed street. We can't act on proposed, but -- and I think the doctor makes a good point regarding the street going through there and people walking back and forth, kind of like adrive-up window where they get turned down, because there is a walkway across it, which happened recently. You know, I can see high school students cutting through there and, you know, especially, if that -- if that street for the flag lot comes in as proposed -- and I think it's going to have to for Lot 3 to have anything of value -- and I think the attorney stated that in that letter from the developer. If that goes in and you have got across-access from that street up to Gala, you have got problems. Correct me if I'm wrong, Millennium Way goes down to the high Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 56 of 91 school and you got those kids taking a right and, then, a left and -- you know, so I just -- that's my opinion and you guys take it from there. We could close the Public Hearing if you so desire or continue it or -- you have choices. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue this Public Hearing until after we have a decision by the City Council on the previous lot split and I would assume that that would mean moving it to July 17th. Centers: Absolutely room on July 17th. We have one -- Zaremba: I'm just wondering if City Council is going to act that fast. Do we know when they continued it to? Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, I think they did it out two weeks, so -- I'm being told that was the 15th, so -- I may need to check with the clerk -- Zaremba: Well, my motion is to continue it until after the City Council has heard the Preliminary Plat change and if that turns out to be the 17th, that's fine, or it would be continued again. Centers: I have a motion to continue Item 1l) on our agenda as mentioned. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Motion and second. All in favor'? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: It would be continued to the 17th if the Council acts prior to that on -- understood the motion. Powell: Commissioner Centers, my recollection is that they continued it to the 22nd which would mean your next meeting is August 7th. Centers: August 7~' is plumb full. Zaremba: Well, I think I would decide the calendar date after we know if the Council has heard it and I would say that August 7th is not available. Centers: So, we are talking August -- Zaremba: If it doesn't make it by July 17th, it's August 21St Centers: You don't want to amend your motion or withdraw it? Zaremba: The motion is for us to continue it until after the City Council has acted. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 57 of 91 Centers: We have a motion and it's approved Zaremba: Whatever the date is. Centers: And it's carried and I still voice my disapproval. I think it's unfair to that applicant when we could lay it on the Council to decide the access agreement at that time. I don't know when they want to break ground there, but I think it's very unfair. Rohm: Well, we already forwarded it to Council, of which they neglected to act on it, so- Zaremba: Yes. They didn't provide the new Preliminary Plat. Rohm: Right. If the Council didn't see fit to act on it at the time that they first heard it, then, they must have some concerns themselves and I think that that's what Commissioner Zaremba is -- his quandary is, is why would we be forwarding something with our approval that they haven't even -- Centers: Well, it was continued because no one showed up, as the planning director stated. At any rate -- Zaremba: With the additional factor that they didn't have a revised plat to show the conditions that we asked for. I'm -- once all of that is in place, I agree with you, I think this is -- the basic concept behind this project is a good idea and I'm in favor of it, but I'm also in favor of having that access there, unless the City Council says no. Centers: Well, we have -- Zaremba: So it's continued. Centers: It's continued and the applicant would be notified if we -- I'm quite certain it would be the meeting of August 21St at the latest. Yes. You have to come to the microphone. Knopp: Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Commission, Larry Knopp, 355 South 3`~. I was informed that the meeting -- and I'm just finding out tonight that Ithought -- they told me, Gordon Anderson, Anderson David surveyors and engineers, that they had postponed the meeting on it, so that we could address the cross-access, because we did'not agree with that and it was going to be heard the 15~'. Centers: Now, if it's heard the 15"', we will hear this the 17th, correct? Because we will know what the Council has decided. Knopp: And this is --Ithought --Ithought that somebody was there. I know better, I have been in business a long time, you have to either re-schedule it or you show up. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 58 of 91 Centers: Right. Knopp: And so somebody evidently did drop the ball, so it's not that we -- that we figured that we are in trouble on it, we just feel pretty adamant about the cross- connection vehicular traffic down to Lot 3, so -- Centers: Well, at any rate, we will hear it the 17th Knopp: Great. Centers: If possible. Knopp: Thank you very much. Centers: Absolutely. Pardon? Yes, 17d' of July, as along as we have the verbal of the Council. We will have their minutes, anyway. Okay. Powell: I believe the clerk -- the Deputy Clerk -- I'm not sure what -- Jessica. I don't know her title. It's the 22nd. She looked. Centers: So, the applicant is wrong. Powell: It will be August 7th Centers: Yes. It will be -- Powell: Or August 22"d Centers: -- it was continued to the 22"d of July and that's after our meeting, so you're looking at August 21St that this is continued to. Knopp: Okay. Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 03-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a bank facility with adrive-thru window in a C-C zone for Idaho Banking Company by Idaho Banking Company- 1875 South Eagle Road: Centers: Next item on the agenda, Item 11, CUP 03-025, it's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Idaho Banking Company on South Eagle Road. Open with staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Centers, Members of the Commission. This request is for a bank facility with three drive-thru windows, three drive-thru lanes, in a C- Czone. It is within Bonita Subdivision, which came through as EI Dorado, Overland on the north, Eagle Road on the east. The applicant is proposing this bank to be constructed on a future lot. As you can see on the Site Plan, the EI Dorado business