Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 4, 2003 P & Z CommMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 59 of 96 Centers: It's in that -- it's in the -- Borup: Here it says conceptual plan, but the definition of conceptual can be -- all right. We had a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I would recommend a break, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess. ) Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 03-017 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.00 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC - 355 West Ustick Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 03-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.00 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC - 355 West Ustick Road: Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. The next project is Item Numbers 10 and 11, Public Hearing AZ 03-017, request for annexation and zoning of six acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development. Then, accompanying that is a request for -- is PP 03-022, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 lots and three other lots on the same property. We'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for the annexation and zoning of six acres. It's currently located in the county and zoned RUT. The applicant is proposing a Rezone to R-4. The Preliminary Plat, again, is for 14 building lots and three other lots. The property is located on the south side of West Ustick Rcad and it's approximately a quarter mile west of Meridian Road. Here is an aerial where you can see -- well, there is a subdivision to the south, it's still mostly agricultural rural uses. Let's see. I wanted to make a couple quick corrections to the report. Let's see. If you to go -- oh, okay. If you go to Page 2, under the location, the property is, actually, located a quarter mile west of Meridian Road. I had mistakenly written down east. If you go down to surrounding properties, I have inverted east and west. Where it reads east, that should be west of the subject property is rural residential property zoned RUT. East of the subject property there is more property zoned RUT and also the Strausser Farm Subdivision, which is zoned R-4. Let's see. I had a couple other minor corrections I wanted to make. If you go to Page 5 of the staff report, under Preliminary Plat findings and requirement B, again, I wanted to correct the direction. Let's see. If you go to the second sentence -- third sentence. The applicant Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 60 of 96 must obtain the easement for sanitary sewer and water to the existing mains and that's southwest of the site, not southeast. On Page 6 if you go to site-specific comments for the Preliminary Plat, on comments one, two, and three there is a subdivision name listed as Lansbury Lane Subdivision. That, actually, is Salisbury Lane Subdivision, so that change needs to be made in comments one -- actually, one and two. Those were my corrections to make in the staff report, but there are no substantive changes, besides those corrections. I wanted to -- let's see -- put up a copy of the Preliminary Plat and you all saw this several months ago as Northridge Subdivision and this was -- just to give you the background. This was denied by City Council, because the -- if you see the large proposed lots at the north of the subdivision, for the original application that was not a part of the annexation and Rezone and that was -- that was an out parcel. For this proposal here this evening, this is going to be included as a lot in the subdivision, will be annexed into the city and will be serviced with urban services. That's the major changes. Also, I think Northridge was asix-lot subdivision this is a 14 lot subdivision. Those are the major changes, the major differences between Northridge, which you saw earlier, and Parkway, which is here this evening. Staff is recommending approval of this project. Here we have the landscaping plan. Oh. Okay. Actually, I wanted to make one other noted difference between Northridge, which you saw earlier, and Parkway. Northridge was proposing a private road. This application here tonight, this is a public road, which will meet all public road standards, obviously, with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Maybe just on -- under additional considerations, which area specifically were you concerned on the fencing? Kirkpatrick: Let's see. Which page of the staff report are you referring to? Borup: I'm sorry. Page 6. Maybe I should look at the landscaping plan. Talking about fence height. Kirkpatrick: Yes. Okay. This is where -- this is up for your consideration this evening. You could request for the applicant for this fencing that's adjacent to the open space, the proposed open space lot, you can request that that be limited to four feet in height. Borup: So, you're saying here -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. Borup: -- and here. Okay. That's what I understood. Kirkpatrick: That's a recommendation that would need to come from the Commission this evening, if you decided to do that. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2o03 Page 61 of 96 Cook: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Richard Cook, I'm here representing the client Six Point Development. I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road in Boise. This, as you just heard from staff, is a re-plat of the former Northridge Subdivision that you looked at once before and -- Borup: I liked it better. Cook: Yes. So do we. I think we have got amuch -- much better layout -- Borup: No. I mean I liked the first one better. Cook: Oh, you liked the first one better. Larger lots? Borup: Yes. Cook: Okay. Well, I guess I'll leave now. Borup: I think you better proceed. Cook: We think we have a good layout. Our lots are good size lots. We have taken care of our drainage issues here and up in here. We have the public road coming all the way through and, then, stubbing out to the east and this is where we will tie in our sewer and water lines that are extending from the south. There is an eight-inch sewer stub to this point and an eight-inch water line as well. There is -- there is a potential problem in this area here. Wanda Palmer, who owns this home, is concerned about the location of her entrance road. Right now we have -- I haven't scaled it off, but I'm guessing by using my pen and thumb and the scale that's on the map, it's about 20 feet between the edge of her home and the edge of the road, which is the standard setback. She is concerned about the traffic that would be coming into the subdivision via this road and she would like to see it over here. I have suggested to her that we could probably shift the road maybe as much as 10 more feet toward the existing home and provide an additional -- take that width and put it into additional landscape buffer along the side of the road to give her more buffering between her home and the road. In our discussion while we were waiting to be heard this evening, she doesn't like that either, she would really rather see the road over here. If we had the road over here, it would knock out this lot and it would impact our drainage somewhat and there is a well on the site -- I thought it was located approximately here. Mrs. Palmer believes it's located right up in here close to this property line. We would -- like I said, we would be willing to compromise somewhat, but I would not really like to move that -- shift that road clear over to the east side of the home. ACHD has looked at this they have approved the existing driveway, as long as we rebuilt it and pave it to its full width of 30 feet into the property, keep gravel off of Ustick Road. Once again, I believe the development that we are proposing here meets or exceeds all the ordinance requirements and is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and we are requesting your approval this evening or a recommendation of approval for the annexation and subdivision to the Council. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing September 4, 2003 Page 62 of 96 Borup: Questions for Mr. Cook? Zaremba: I am -- the shape of Lot 1, Block 2, does that go along between the road and the neighbor or is that just the little triangle where it looks like the drainage is? Cook: Commissioner Zaremba, that does go all the along the adjoining property line clear out to Ustick Road. Zaremba: So, it already is a common lot and you are suggesting that you would be willing to widen that just a little bit, that common lot? Cook: Correct Zaremba: Seems like a nice compromise. Borup: Do you know what the width of that lot is now? Cook: Commissioner Borup, no, I -- Borup: Ten feet? Cook: I really don't know for sure. I believe it is 20 feet from -- the sidewalk is five feet wide. Borup: That's what I was looking at. It looks like that's right. Cook: So, I think we have approximately 20 feet between the street and the home. Borup: What's the distance between the home and the property line? Cook: Between the home and the property line -- here, again, I'm only estimating this -- I think it's possibly 10 feet. Borup: But that property line has always been there. I would assume that property line was there when the home was built. Cook: Correct. Powell: Chairman Borup, just because I have a scale, although Mr. Cook is doing a very good job of approximating distances, I can give you a little better idea. If the building is as -- located as shown, it's eight feet from the property line and there appears to be a 10-foot landscape buffer and, then, as said, it looks, actually, to be a six-foot sidewalk. It looks alittle -- it could just be there is distortion on the print, but -- Borup: I think the idea would to be a five-foot sidewalk. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 63 of 96 Powell: Probably. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Centers: So, they put that house pretty close to the property line years ago, didn't they? Zaremba: I was going to say, the county doesn't require side setbacks and -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, there wasn't a road there before, so it would have, yes, just been a side street --aside setback, not a side street setback. Centers: You know eight feet is still a minimal side setback. Powell: The County is actually five feet per story. Centers: Oh, yes? Powell: Or it was, probably, at the time this building was built. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anything else -- any comments on the fence heights for the common area? Cook: Oh, as far as the common area fencing is concerned, we don't have any objection to putting the fences -- or restricting the fence along the common area here to a maximum height of four feet. I don't see a problem with that. Borup: I said I didn't see a problem with the six-foot, because that common area is already open on two sides. Centers: Well, you don't have pathways. That really isn't in the site-specific -- Borup: That was just an item far discussion. Cook: Right. Right. You know, the property owner -- whoever builds on this lot, you know, they may want to have asix-foot fence along here and, of course, we could not come out with a fence any higher than six-foot to within 20 feet of the front setback. Borup: Right. Cook: And -- well, you know, everyone who has a home with a backyard and everything, they want privacy and the six-foot, you know, solid wood fence would give them more privacy. Then, they could drop it down to the height allowed by the ordinance for the remainder of it. With it being a landscaped wide open lot, I -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 64 of 96 Borup: Well, that was my feeling. I think, usually, the fence height so you can have visual -- because of visual impact and you have visual sighting of that open space. Here it already is. Cook: Right. I also think one of the reasons for restricting your fence height along your pathways to four feet is for security because people can see other folks walk along the pathway and that way you're not creating an alley effect. Centers: Well --and as they say in the notes here, it's not -- does not address the issue of fencing surrounding open spaces so, it's not part of the ordinance. Cook: Correct. Centers: Personally, I wouldn't want to make that a restriction for you. You know, I agree with you, the homeowner may want a solid fence he may not. You know, I would leave it to the homeowner. Cook: I appreciate that. Borup: I would agree with that, too Cook: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify in this application? Palmer: My name is Wanda Palmer, 405 West Ustick Road, Meridian. May I approach and give you some documents I brought? Borup: You need to check that in with the Clerk. Palmer: I'd like to state that I am opposed to the proposed entrance off Ustick Road into the subdivision, because of traffic, noise, fumes, and water table. I did enclose a copy of the letter that was sent to the City Council when it was denied April 1, 2003. The enclosed pictures were taken from the front of my home during the past seven days, showing bumper-to-bumper traffic and if you look at the top one, it shows that the traffic is backed up over half a mile. The others show the same thing. Borup: What time of day was that? Palmer: What time of day? Borup: Yes. Palmer: About 7:30. Borup: In the morning Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 65 of 96 Palmer: In the morning. Yes. A.M. That continues for at least 45 minutes or an hour. One can only imagine the noise and congestion with the opening of the new schools in the area and Settler's Park. Settler's Park is right across the road from my house. The entry being proposed is within 10 feet of my bedroom and that's on the middle pictures. The red brick house is my house. The pole fence on the left represents the boundary line or close to the boundary line. You can see how close my bedroom would be to the road and the street lights if this was to be approved. The picture on the bottom right shows the Barton's fence -- well, that's 355 Ustick Road. It shows their fence to the east of the house and the driveway. In that upper picture, the distance from the right side of the driveway to their house -- there is enough distance that my camera could not get it in one frame. My point is that I would ask them to move the entry to that location, instead of my bedroom area, but it still would not solve the problem of congestion on Ustick Road. It is my understanding that formerly the Barton's -- but they have asked for and been given permission to use the adjoining southwest property for an entrance off Uppa Springs Street. That spur was apparently put there for development in that area and it would certainly be a better choice for those of us who live on Ustick Road. It would also be a safer entry-exit onto Meridian Road, since there is already a turn lane and sidewalks there. Meridian Road is much better designed to handle the extra traffic and pedestrians. The water table, of which is a great concern to me, was at 25 inches below ground level a week ago. With the high water table and not good drainage, we have to consistently be aware of flooding problems. My conversation with Mr. Bill Henson, water superintendent for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District tells me each parcel will differ on water levels. The irrigation water has been discontinued for this year, but the water table is for us an ongoing problem and has been since we have lived there, but there we have learned how to cope with it. We have to always monitor the underground water very carefully. The underground flow in that area runs at an angle from east to west. With people constantly watering their lawns, et cetera, the direction of flow will run toward our drainage area and, consequently, flood our seepage pit. I am merely stating that problem for me, because a lot of areas you may not be aware of that. Do you have any questions that I could answer for you? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have one. How long have you lived there, Mrs. Palmer? Palmer: Thirty years. Centers: Thirty years? Were you at the first hearing for this subdivision when we originally heard it eight, 10 months ago, when it was called Northridge? Palmer: I was there and submitted the IetterApril the 1St. Centers: Were you here at the hearing? Palmer: No. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 66 of 96 ' Centers: You weren't because the subdivision was very similar. If I recall, the entrance was very similar. I don't think it was on the other side, because that house is there. Borup: No, it wasn't. It was the same place. Centers: Right. Okay. Palmer: According to the letter I enclosed, I had just become aware of that just prior to - - well, it was just this spring. Centers: Do you have a basement? Palmer: No, we do not. Centers: Okay. Palmer: The other house does. Centers: Other house? Palmer: The 355. Centers: Oh, the other -- Palmer: Yes. Borup: This one? Palmer: Yes. Yes. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Mrs. Palmer, do you know -- do you have -- this is your property right here just around the house? Palmer: Yes. Borup: Do you own this down here, too? Palmer: No. Borup: So, do you know who owns that property? Palmer: Yes. Borup: Is it the same owner as over here? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 67 of 96 Palmer: Yes. Borup: Well, I have gone back to your statement that they have requested access from Uppa Springs, but -- Palmer: The Barton's did purchase a right of way from the people right adjoining that. Borup: They purchased this right of way? Palmer: Right. Borup: Or a sewer easement? Palmer: No to put a road in. Borup: Okay. That didn't come out in the staff report. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe that they have acquired an easement. I don't think there is, actually, a right of way dedicated. Borup: That's was what I -- Freckleton: There is just an easement for sewer. Borup: That's why I stated that. That was my understanding from before. You understand the difference? Palmer: What I was told by the -- excuse me -- by the neighbor, there was that -- they had sold right of way for them to use -- to put a road in there for Uppa Springs into their subdivision. Borup: If they did, we do not have a -- I guess the city is not aware of that. My reason for bringing that up, for them to have access to there, they would need to go through someone else's property, which -- Palmer: Right. She was at the last hearing or whatever --whenever this was presented and talked about it and that was her comment, then, that they had given them -- I don't want to get -- Borup: It sounds like there may be some confusion between a right of way and an easement. Palmer: I don't know. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 68 of 96 Borup: Right of way conveys ownership of the ground itself, doesn't it? Am I correct on that that? The right of way would convey ownership of the property and actually have sold the property. An easement, the originally owner would still retain ownership, but allow in this case -- Palmer: Allow -- okay. Borup: -- a sewer line to go through their property. Palmer: Okay. They also did the road, too, for a road to be put in there. Borup: Well, for them to put a road through they would have to have ownership of the property. Palmer: I don't know. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the easement was strategically placed to allow for a future alignment for the road to connect up. I think that's always kind of been the plan was that -- Borup: And that makes sense. Freckleton: -- we envisioned hooking up with that stub coming out of -- Borup: Whenever this other piece is developed. Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Borup: I think that was -- Palmer: But maybe you would know about the road part on Uppa Springs. Borup: Okay. He will -- we will get some clarification. Any other questions from the Commission? Palmer: But I am very, very, very opposed to the road going so close to my house. If you do not consider it going -- moving to the east, which there is as much room there as there is to the west. Then, I would at least like it moved over against that property, against the other house, and, to me, that would only be the right thing to do anyway. Borup: So, he said they had discussed that and you didn't want -- Palmer: Well, I would prefer having it flip flopped. I would prefer having the road on -- Borup: Right but his suggestion -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2D03 Page 69 of 96 Palmer: Which could have been done very easily. Borup: His suggestion to move it, you were not in favor of. Palmer: That would be my second choice. Borup: Second choice. Okay. Palmer: Yes. Borup: Thank you. Palmer: Yes. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. Cook? Cook: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As far as this road situation is concerned, we have stubbed it out to the property line. There has been no purchase of any right of way by the current owner or purchaser of the property or the previous owner, the Barton's, that nothing was purchased in that regard to have a road right of way there. The only thing that has been secured is the sewer and water easement. Borup: That was my understanding. Cook: Right. There is stub street right down here on Uppa Springs, so the whole thing is designed to where it will, eventually, connect when this property is developed to the north of Uppa Springs. I had a side bar discussion with staff regarding this situation here with the entrance road and the Council. ACHD, usually, like to see these center islands and it's pretty much of a standard with a lot of these linear subdivisions, that on the entrance we have these islands to break up the entrance and to give some landscape relief and what have you. The primary reason for having these islands is for traffic control, to slow your traffic down and this particular situation it's really obvious that we have a real sharp S curve right in here, just right after you get into the subdivision, which will really serve to slow the traffic down in and of itself. By having this island in here, it can really make maneuvering a little but tricky coming in through here and going out and staff was suggesting that if we take this landscape island, which is approximately 12 feet from curb to curb within the island itself and eliminate it. Shift that land or the use here over along the east edge of the property, we can put another -- add another 12 feet to this area in here, providing a substantial landscape buffer. Borup: I had the same thought. Actually, that's the direction I was headed, so it sounds like you had already been thinking about that. Cook: Right. That's certainly something that is doable and it would provide a -- like I say, a substantial landscape buffer between the street and Mrs. Palmer's home. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 7g of 96 Borup: So, this area right here was not any type of drainage area or anything, that was just going to be a -- just a grass buffer? Cook: Correct. Borup: So, combining that with the 12 feet in here would -- Cook: It would give us about a 22-foot wide plus buffer in there on our side, plus the -- Borup: And so you would be proposing to leave the trees that are in here and just shift them over -- the trees that you're showing in this landscape, to shift that over also? Cook: Correct. Right. With the additional 12 feet in here we would have plenty of room to support trees in there. Borup: Okay. Anything else you want to -- Cook: No. I think that about covers it, unless you have any further questions from me. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Cook: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Cook, so are you suggesting that as a proposal, then, to shift your dividing island over. Cook: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Or are you saying that would be acceptable to you? Cook: Yes, it would. Absolutely. Borup: We will have to see what the Commissioners think. Okay. Commissioners? Any comment from staff? It sounds like you have suggested that, too, as an option. Commissioners? Centers: Well, I think that's a good solution. You know, with only 14 lots and it's really not a through street, I don't think you're going to have speeding traffic, which is the need for that island to begin with, so I think it's a good solution. Borup: Well -- and the S curve takes care of the speed. Centers: I think with adequate landscaping, as both a visual and a sound buffer, Mrs. Palmer said that's her bedroom, but I didn't notice windows on that side of the house. I think additional landscaping space would be very helpful. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 71 of 96 Borup: Okay. Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we need any discussion first or is someone ready for a motion? Zaremba: I don't think there is any big surprise. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, AZ 03- 017, request for annexation and zoning of 6.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC, at 355 West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo dated September 4, 2003, received by the clerk September 2, 2003, with the following changes -- Borup: Have we had -- Zaremba: I don't have any changes for annexation. Borup: Okay. Right. That's what I was going to mention. Zaremba: So, end of motion. Centers: Well, Ms. Kirkpatrick did make her changes and they are of record for that memo right so, we are fine? Borup: Oh, on the directions and et cetera. Centers: Right. Borup: Yes. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Motion carries? Borup: Yes. Motion carried. What did I say? Did I -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 72 of 96 Zaremba: Nothing Borup: Okay. The ayes have it. Did I ask for a no vote? Zaremba: We did vote. Borup: Okay. Centers: You didn't ask for it when we voted Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, PP 03-022, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 building lots and three other lots on 6.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC. 355 West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo of September 4, 2003, received by the Clerk September 2, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 6 under site-specific requirements, Paragraph 1, the last sentence -- this is connecting to Salisbury Lane Subdivision, not Lansbury. Paragraph 2, the same change, connecting to Salisbury Lane Subdivision. With the note that the applicant has agreed to realign the entrance road off of Ustick by eliminating the traffic island and adding that space to a traffic buffer along the west property line. Borup: Revised plat 10 days before City Council hearing? Would you like to add that in there? Zaremba: So, we will add -- there is a paragraph seven asking for revised plat, so that already exists. Borup: Oh. Okay Zaremba: That's only if you're -- I'm sorry. We will make this change. On Page 7 -- Borup: Oh, that says required by ACHD. Zaremba: Page 7, Paragraph 7, we will say a revised Preliminary Plat shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the next Public Hearing for this project. Period. Would eliminate if changes are required by ACHD. Borup: Okay. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 73 of 96 Powell: Chair, maker of the motion, would it be appropriate to include a revised Landscape Plan because that was discussed as part of that item. Zaremba: Yes. I would add that to paragraph seven to say a revised Preliminary Plat and a revised Landscape Plan. Centers: I still second Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 12. Public Hearing CUP 03-038 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tri-plex in an R-15 zone for Troy Palmer Tri-Plex by Troy Palmer - 1236 East 2'/z Street: Borup: Okay. Next item is Item Number 12 Public Hearing CUP 03-038, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tri-plex in an R-15 zoning for Troy Palmer -- tri-plex by Troy Palmer at 1236 East 2 '/z Street. Open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. For the record, Craig Hood, Planning and Zoning staff. Troy Palmer, the applicant, is proposing to convert an existing single family home located at 1236 East 2 '/z Street into a tri-plex within the R- 15zone. I'm just going to briefly touch on some of the issues, based on the submitted Site Plan slash Landscape Plan that staff has on page four outlined and just ask the applicant to kind of clarify some of those issues with the conversion -- proposed conversion. The first one has to do with the intentions regarding the refuge and garbage, where that's going to be picked up and on-site enclosures for the garbage. One of the other issues is the proposed use is of a higher use than the existing single family home that is to the north of the subject site. I just want to let the applicant know - - and this body as well, that the existing garage on the site and -- is fairly close to the side property line and doesn't allow for a large landscape buffer when you put the driveway in, as the applicant's proposing. Meeting the City Codes fora 20-foot wide landscape buffer, which would be required in this case, will be difficult, so I just wanted the applicant to know that he will be required to install a landscape buffer per code. That is not shown on this Site Plan, so if he's proposing to do something that isn't per code, then, we do need a Variance application to be submitted and we did speak about alternative compliance. I -- that is up to Anna, I guess, and she is looking that way. I was reading through that portion earlier in the hearing and it did say prior to submitting an application, but that may be an option as well as something -- because there are some circumstances here that just -- it justly doesn't make sense to require the full landscape buffer. I know that the adjacent property owner is here, he may have some compromise that may be able to be reached, so all the parties have some way to mitigate this higher use, if you will, adjacent to this -- to the proposed use. I guess I will