Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 5, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 27 of 64 here for Chesterfield? Okay. We do have a letter from the applicant requesting to have this continued and they are working on some layout redesigns, looks like required by -- to accommodate fire department requirements. So, if we are going to continue this, we need to go ahead and open it and, then, we can continue it to -- their suggestion is the 19th. It looks like we would be okay on that meeting. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would support that activity. I, actually, did not find in my notes the staff report for this project. Borup: Right. And I assume that was why, because of the requested -- Zaremba: That's because there were changes being made by the applicant, so I think continuation is the logical outcome. Borup: Let me ask first does the 19th give staff enough time for their report that's anticipated? Zaremba: They would have to have everything in their hands by next Monday for that to work. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, we received revised plans today or a revised layout today, so we feel okay with that. Borup: All right. Very good. Thank you. So, that would being said, like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-037 and Public Hearing PP 03-046 and Public Hearing CUP 03-070. At this time all three of these public hearings are open. I'm open fora motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we continue all three of these items, AZ 03-037, PP 03-046, and CUP 03-070, to our meeting of February 19th. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 03-013 Request for a Rezone of 5.51 acres from R- 4 to C-N zones for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell -north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 28 of 64 Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 03-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C- N zone for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell -north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-067 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps and a drive through coffee stand in a Neighborhood Center designation for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell -north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: Next item is Cedar Springs Professional Center. Like to -- that's Public Hearing RZ 03-013, request for rezone of 5.51 acres from R-4 to C-N zones for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell, and Public Hearing PP 03-044, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots and one common lot and CUP 03-067, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for four office buildings, car wash, two fuel pumps, and adrive-thru coffee stand, neighborhood center designation for proposed Cedar Springs. Again, we'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. These three applications all deal with the five and a half acres that's located here at the northeast corner of Venable Lane and Ustick Road. Generally located, here is Meridian Road, just about a half mile to the east. This large purple parcel is Meridian's Settler's Park, 58 acres in size. Cedar Springs Subdivision is to the north and this, as you can tell, was originally part of Cedar Springs preliminary plat that was submitted a couple of years ago. They had always kind of designated this area as, really, not to be developed with the northern half. They originally came through and showed some single family detached lots on that. So, at this point they are coming through, obviously, with a modification to what their olginal preliminary plat had for the entire Cedar Springs Subdivision. Borup: Wasn't the original staff recommendation for that area to be just this, essentially? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I think the original -- yeah, it was certainly to be something other than the single family detached. We had talked about multi-family housing atone point. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: You know, I think in 2000 it was when this came through. This Commission has also, just in the last month or so, reviewed an application for Salisbury Subdivision No. 2, which is immediately south on Venable Lane, which is private on the south side of Ustick. Of course, they are proposing to dedicate it as a public street on the north side of Ustick. As you can see from the aerial taken a couple years ago, largely to the west remains large Ada county undeveloped parcels, as well as to the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page29 of 64 south. This is a copy of the preliminary plat that was submitted and I won't spend too much time on this, other than it does show the large commercial lot that they are proposing here in the corner with four office lots around the north and east. They are proposing to have each of these lots -- this dashed line, as you can see coming up, would be the private commercial drive and each of these lots would basically own to the center of that commercial drive and it would be common ingress-egress for all of the association. A couple of highlights to hit on the Comprehensive Plan. Our staff report that was dated January 30 submitted to the Commission does afull-blown analysis of the Comprehensive Plan. This is the first application that the city has received since the 2002 Comprehensive Plan was adopted for a neighborhood center area. We have seen portions of a neighborhood center approved on Locust Grove as a part of the Heritage Commons Subdivision, but that was submitted before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, so I just wanted to read one sentence that's from the Comp Plan just to kind of give you a sense of what these neighborhood centers are intended to be, since this is the first application and you will probably be seeing more of these as the months and years go by. But on page two of the staff report, in the middle of the document, it says the purpose of the policy is to -- oh, I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong page. The -- page three. The purpose of the neighborhood centers is to provide a blend of high density residential, small scale commercial, entertainment, office, and open space uses that are geared to serve all residents within a one to two square mile area. The center should offer an internal circulation system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathways. They may also serve as public transit locations for future park and ride lots, bus stops, et cetera. So, this certainly is not the full -- what would be envisioned as the full neighborhood center, but is a critical piece of it, since Venable Lane is at the half mile and that would be anticipated to be the main entrance into one of these centers. Here is the Conditional Use Permit site plan that was submitted for -- this is on Item No. 13 now. The project proposes the -- again, this looped commercial drive. They are proposing a car wash in the center, their coffee kiosk stand here in the southeast comer and the fuel pumps here at the northeast comer of the commercial lot. So, three different, really, uses there. They do have some vacuums here on the other side -- on the west side. And, then, on the other lots, again, are just the office building lots that they are proposing. They do have elevations. I guess before I show those, I just wanted to point out as one of the conditions refers to, we have adjacent to this site the Meridian Settler's Park, which you can see doesn't, actually, touch the property, there is -- the proposed school is in between the park site and Cedar Springs Professional Center. But to give you a sense on this west boundary of the park, the parks and recreation department is anticipating beginning construction this summer on this plan here, which shows the ball diamonds, two different sizes of ball diamonds. Again, Ustick Road is on the south. So, there is a small 1.4 acre out parcel here on the corner of the park and, then, the larger -- the application we have tonight is beyond that. The parks department is supportive of having pedestrians be able to access in between one of these ball fields to get into this central area, so they have the choice of either going out to Ustick Road and entering from Ustick or accessing up through into the middle of the park. So, I just want to give the Commission a sense for what they are -- what the parks department is planning. And, then, this is somewhat of a skewed drawing of what the school district is proposing. Again, the office lots are adjacent here on the south and the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 30 of 64 school district is having some parking here immediately north and, then, this would right now just be open space that is really not for playground area, it's not designated. Their playground area for the school is on the north side. So, this would be basically just kind of a undeveloped open piece that they may grass. They are not entirely sure what they would do with it is my understanding from Wendell Bigham. One of the conditions that we referenced was a path that would connect into this corner and we would anticipate that it would cross, you know, somewhere in here to connect to the ball diamonds, which are located on the east side of the boundary here. Zaremba: Sorry to interrupt, but two questions. Tell me again the level of the school. This is an elementary? Hawkins-Clark: Elementary. Zaremba: Okay. And the parcel in question of the application tonight has, actually, no adjacency to the park, there is something between them whatever direction they go. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: So, any pathway that would connect to the park would be at this moment a stub pathway as far as this application is concerned? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: And you have a preference for where that would be? Hawkins-Clark: We have -- staff has had conversations with both the parks department and the school district -- Zaremba: I think you're saying it would go -- actually go north out of this property. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Into the school property and, then, across from there Hawkins-Clark: Right. Mathes: Is Venable Lane going clear up to Cedar Springs? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yeah. I can just go back and show you the vicinity map. Comes from Ustick, runs north to this second east-west street and, then, they are, actually, vacating a portion of Venable Lane up to the north at this point, so it would go passed the school and, then, basically a block or block and a half north and, then, dead end there. Here are the elevations that they submitted with their applications for the car wash. They did also submit a materials list that outlines the materials for the car wash and the office buildings that they are proposing. I guess I'm not going to be able to put Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 31 of 64 my hands on it right now, but they have gabled roofs-and sort of a rock finish on the pillars that come down. They have some bays in their car wash, obviously, and, then, here are the office buildings, which have somewhat of a similar roof line, complimenting the gabled roofs and so that is part of our planned development, so we'd like to see some coordination happen between the materials and the architecture. So, we do think they have done a good job at coordinating those. We did not receive -- Daren Fluke is representing them tonight, reminded me that we didn't review the canopy for the fuel pumps and they are working on those. They said that they will be very similar in terms of colors and materials to the rest of the project. Let's see. Just a couple of unresolved issues. Starting on page 12 of the staff report, we did receive a written response -- did the Commission receive that from the applicant as well? Okay. That's right. Daren's got that. So, he has outlined a couple of the issues. I think most of them have -- they are in agreement with in terms of the staff report. Probably the main two or three to point out, we had asked for - on item number three on page 12 that the -- they consider providing cross-access, generally, at this location in the project, so that when this little out parcel that we had discussed, assuming that redevelops, there is the ability to cross. They have agreed to provide the easement. They are asking that they don't actually construct it right now, which staff is okay with that. As you can see, they are not proposing any curb or landscaping around the perimeter of Lot 17, which is the commercial lot .They are proposing just to leave these broad wide openings mainly for traffic and truck -- truck movement. We -- staff is recommending that they construct a minimum five foot wide planter that would have landscaping and curbing to help to define traffic movement in this area a little better. One of the main reasons we feel -- as you come into the project, if you're traveling north and you have cars exiting out, there is really no defined area in here to help guide the traffic, if you're coming to the coffee kiosk, which direction that traffic moves. The other main reason we think is as part of the neighborhood center this is very pavement intensive and not really meeting the intent of what these neighborhood centers were supposed to be, for a little bit more landscaping, some places for pedestrians to feel safe, et cetera. So, we think it's important to sort of define some of those curbs and those driveway entrances a little better. Similar to that condition is on the Conditional Use Permit they have shown on their site plan striped areas at the comer of these buildings. I think there is one here. They don't show up too well on this plan, but this is just striping here, striping here, striping here, and some striping here without having planters. The ordinance does require that at the ends of parking rows that you actually construct planters with one tree. So, rather than the striping, we have asked them to comply with the ordinance and actually place planters with the curbing and a tree in those locations. I think those are the main issues of disagreement at this point. They have agreed to the seven foot sidewalk, which we had recommended in our report here on the west side of the project, provide a little bit wider area for kids to walk up to the elementary school. There was also mention of a bike lane on Venable, which I did talk with the highway district staff Andrea Tunning about that as an option in the design of Venable Lane. She said at this point, since Venable has already been submitted and is under construction as a part of Cedar Springs Subdivision Phase 3, it's not designed to the width that could accommodate a six foot bike lane. Typically, if there is already a project that has in its entitlements and it's underway, it's under construction, to go back and require them to change that clearly Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 - Page 32 of 64 would not be something -- a habit that we want to get into, but I'll just ask the applicant to address if they think there is anyway to work that out. If not, then, that's -- if the Commission could give that some thought. Borup: Would the seven foot sidewalk address that partially? Hawkins-Clark: Partially. Borup: I would think grade school children makes more sense probably be riding their bikes on a walk, rather than out in a paved normal bike lane along the road. Hawkins-Clark: Right. The main reason we had put that into the report was this does -- is designated in the Comprehensive Plan at these half miles is having bike lanes and, you know, if you have two kids walking side by side and another coming on a bicycle, you know, probably ten feet is more appropriate to help accommodate that. Seven feet would still be pretty tight. So, that may be another -- you know, another option and maybe instead of concrete we have done asphalt if you go to that ten foot width, could be more like a pathway, instead of a sidewalk. I did not raise that with the applicant. Borup: See if they can address that. Hawkins-Clark: And, then, finally, on the last page of the staff report we did talk about hours of operation and ask them to address that. The written response from Daren Fluke does state that they, at this point, are intending to have a card type fuel pump that would be 24 hours and open that full time, so that would need to be discussed during the rest of this Public Hearing as well. I think with that I'll end staff comments. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Mr. Fluke, have you got anything you'd like to add? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 25l) South Beechwood in Boise, representing the applicant on this. I'd like to thank staff for their cooperation and help in putting this application together. As you can tell by the staff report and our response, which should be making its way down to you now, we are in agreement on far more of the items in here than we are disagreement. So, I think what I'd like to do is maybe just go down through my letter quickly and touch on what we saw as the issues in the staff report and, then, maybe I'll quickly go through the conditions of approval and just show you the ones where we'd like a little consideration. Starting with my letter, as far as providing a vehicular connection to the parcel to the east, we are amenable to that and, in fact, that's why it's designed the way that it is. We left this open here with only a ten foot landscape buffer, so that we could provide a connection there in the future and what we would like to do is go ahead and landscape, but we don't know when that connection may be necessary, so we'd like to make it look nice for now and, then, we will go ahead and record an easement, reserving that access for across-access between the two parcels for when this parcel does develop in the future. So, basically, you get what you want, it's just we are doing it Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 33 of 64 in a little bit different form. As far as the pedestrian pathway to the school and the park, the staff has asked for it in this location. We are fine with that and we would be happy to do that, we just think it might work a little bit better over here and so rather than locking us into this location between the two lots, we'd just like the condition to be a little bit more general, so that we could put it where ever it fits in that area and makes sense. One item that we do not agree on and that I'd like to talk a little bit about is this issue of closing off this lot with landscaping and leaving only two 30 foot driveways. Essentially, the way -- the design of this lot kind of drove this whole layout and the reason that we left that open the way that we did was so that had better access for trucks and RV's or larger vehicles that might come in here to use the car wash. The truck -- the main truck that we are concerned about would be the fuel trucks that are 30 or 40 feet in length and they need to get access to the tanks, of course, to fill them with gas and so that's why we wanted to leave it open, so, essentially, they could come in here and park and fill up the tank in this area and, then, exit this way. The same is true for the -- for RV's, the RV bay is down on this end of the building and we just wanted to leave plenty of room for them to maneuver in here. This is the front elevation of the building. We anticipate most of the traffic will be coming in and going through the building in that direction and that way we leave this -- the fuel islands open as well and sort of separated from the rest of the site. What we would like to do, instead of just two 30 foot drives, which we think will constrain the site too much, is just take these planter -- or these little striped areas here and turn those into planters and that will sort of accomplish the same thing, yet still leave us some wider drives for better maneuverability on the site. And I'll point out to you where in the conditions that is, if you're amenable to that. As far as this issue with the bike lane on Venable, we are not really opposed to it, it's new to us with the staff report, but in speaking with the highway district, they are not amenable to that and they have wanted this section of road developed at a 40 foot street section within 54 feet of right of way, which doesn't leave them room for a bike path. We are fine putting a seven foot sidewalk on there and you will see later on we have agreed to do that and so we'd just ask that that condition be modified so that we don't get caught in this vice between the agencies with the city saying do it and the ACHD saying, no, you can't do it. Buffer width. On the north and east of the site we do show a 20 foot buffer all the way around to about that point right there and so this all complies with the ordinance. The school is on the other side of that and they will fence their property with a chain link fence, that's their preference, and so, therefore, we did not show any fencing along this property line. At this point here it drops down to 15 feet behind this building and, then, we go to this ten foot, again, in anticipation that there will be a connection here at some point in the future. Then, we are back down to 20 feet here. So, we pretty much comply with the ordinance, with the exception of this, and so what you're getting out of that is future connectivity. We'd just ask that you use the authority granted you under the PUD ordinance to let us drop that down by ten feet. And we also did not propose any fencing along this line for the same reason, that we want to be able to provide that connectivity and make it seem as a single unit. Fencing, I talked about that. Detached sidewalk on Ustick Road, there was some mention of that in the staff report. It is unclear from our landscape plan, but the sidewalk is located where highway district wants it, 41 feet from the center line of Ustick Road. That will end up being detached. We will submit a modified landscape plan that Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 34 of 64 gives you more detail down here and shows that the sidewalk is detached. There will be some sod in between the edge of pavement and, then, the gravel shoulder that's required by the ordinance. As far as this issue of striping on the end these bays, we anticipated that we would have handicapped parking here on these edges and we wanted to provide a little bit more room for them and that's why we did not do those as planters. If it's a make or break issue, you know, we will certainly put planters in there, but we think it's a better design to stripe those and leave a little bit more room for the handicapped parking places. On this one this is not a problem, we can put a planter in there just fine. And, then, the last issue in the staff report is on the hours of operation. They were not included in our narrative and that was my oversight. It is anticipated that the facility would open 24 hours, although you don't get a lot of use for the car wash in the off hours. These are just credit card only facilities and it would be people, you know, pulling in there occasionally to fill up and on their way. So, that's what's planned and it seems to workout pretty well for these kind of facilities, so that -- those were all the issues that we culled out of the staff report. If you'd like me to, I would go ahead and just touch on the specific conditions of approval that we think ought to be modified and, then, you know, we will -- we can discuss that if you so choose. I'll start on page eleven of the staff report, which is where the preliminary plat conditions start. We are fine with all three of those first conditions, except for condition number three. We just simply ask that A and B be deleted out. That deals with the buffering along this -- that little section there and providing the connectivity. We are okay with everything down to condition number six. We would just ask that condition six be deleted. That is the condition working with ACHD on the bike path. If ACRD is in favor of a bike path and the city staff can do that and we can fit it in the right of way section that's there now, we'd certainly be happy to do that, but as Brad noted, that road is under construction right now as part of Cedar Springs No. 3. It's, actually, being platted all the way down to Ustick. We are okay with seven, eight, nine, ten. Borup: Maybe while you're on that page, has there been any contact with the neighbor to the east? Fluke: Yes. My client is working with that landowner currently. I can't tell you what the status of that is, but they are talking about selling that property to my client. Borup: Okay. So -- I mean any concern about the buffer width is what I was referring to? Fluke: Are we concerned with it? Borup: No. The neighbors. Fluke: Oh, from that landowner. No, I don't believe that he is. I suppose we are not -- we are not necessarily too concerned about getting a letter out of him on that, because it benefits his parcel to have that connectivity as well. So, we are more concerned with not having to put 20 feet and a bunch of planting in there when we are just going to take it out anyway to provide that connectivity. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 5, 2004 - Page 35 of 64 Borup: So, that's assuming he's going to develop it. Fluke: We assume that it will develop at some point, yeah. One way or another. Borup: Neighbors don't always have that intention, though. Fluke: No. That's true. It may not happen soon. Borup: Okay. Fluke: We are fine with the conditions up through number 14, asking for a detailed fencing plan. We have discussed why we did not have a fencing plan for this. We don't think it's necessary and our -- and the school district is going to want their own fence regardless of what we put up, so we just ask that that one be deleted. Sixteen and seventeen are fine. On page 14, one through seven are fine. Eight and nine are fine. And starting on -- back on page 18, site specific conditional use conditions, in lieu of the way condition number four is written, we'd just ask that we put in some verbiage there requiring that we provide across-access easement there and a note for future connectivity. On number five we'd just ask that that condition be eliminated in favor of a condition requiring that these be platted with -- well, first with vertical curb and, then, with landscaping on the two islands as shown on the plan. Borup: Could you go back to the statement you had said earlier? What did you recommend? Fluke: Number five? Is that where -- Borup: No. Prior to that. Fluke: Oh. On number four. We didn't want to modify the site plan necessarily, other than we will note that that is to be future access. I mean this is what we want to build and so we didn't want to show a driveway between there, for one, because we don't own the property, but we will note that future access has been reserved and we will record an easement as well. Borup: Okay. Brad, staffs statement was that it be modified to accommodate a future. Isn't the way it's drawn now -- wouldn't that qualify? It does accommodate a future. As long as the easement is there. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, yeah, I think that would work. We would certainly want to see -- Borup: The location of the easement? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The easement itself be submitted to the city to confirm that that's in place as a part of the final plat, probably. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 36 of 64 Borup: But it seems to me it doesn't really require a modification of the plan, then, other than showing the easement; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. When I wrote that I -- it was with the thought that in order to insure that it actually gets built, that the curbing, you know, is left cut there, but if -- you know, I think we can work on that wording, that as long as that easement is there, then, it would need to be used. I think probably more substantitve to that point is just getting back to the buffer and if, indeed, the ordinance today does require, since it's a single family residential use, you know, to have trees all the way up and down there to provide buffer between that single family residence, which isn't that far off the property line, so I think as long as we clarify tonight that that doesn't need to be accomplished, going with what Mr. Fluke has proposed, I think would be adequate. We could just make sure that that easement insures that it's actually used, not just written up. Borup: Right. Well, that's why a statement from the neighbor would have clarified that and maybe made that easier to address some of this, but, apparently, he's not here tonight, so he must be okay with the project. Fluke: I don't believe that he is here tonight Borup: Okay. Fluke: So, condition number five, again, we would just ask that you do that in favor of us planting these landscape islands as shown on the plan, treat them the way we have these others. Borup: Maybe while we are on that, have you looked at that on how you feel that would help on the traffic flow? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I really didn't. I mean that's how they submitted their application. Borup: I mean just tonight while he was mentioning that, of making those striped areas planters. Hawkins-Clark: I think staff is still strongly recommending that they provide a standard sort of curb cut with a landscaped area and, you know, there are examples all over town where trucks can get in to dispense their fuel through standard commercial curb cuts. They need 150 foot wide opening in order to get in there. Those truck drivers are quite accomplished. So, I guess just -- I haven't -- I don't think staff has heard a good argument not to comply with the ordinance, which does require curb cuts that are no greater than 36 feet in width. I don't think that the planned development -- they are not asking for any exceptions, so that in terms of providing waivers to the ordinance, usually, there is some give and take on these planned with amenities, et cetera. I don't think that that's really the case here on this project. It's just -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 37 of 64 Rohm: The standard curves provide better definition than what they have in the proposal? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Rohm: I would agree with that. Zaremba: Well -- and I tend to agree with staff also. There isn't much definition to what should be the roadway and it invites not just the trucks, but a lot of cut-through traffic just zipping across through the gas pumps to get from corner to corner. Making this into the typical landscape thing almost solves that street, but I'm not as satisfied with this. I still would rather see it run -- I wouldn't have a problem with the 30, 36 foot driveway there and a 30, 36 foot driveway there, but I think for definition of the roadway, if staff is saying that this should be a planter and that this one should be a little bit larger, I, actually, would support that. And because the trucks don't have to actually do a u-turn, they have got pretty flow in and out of there, since they have -- whichever way they go, they don't have to turn around, they don't have to u-tum, I think they can make it through the driveways, so I would support staff on that one. Borup: Daren, do you know what the width would be if those became islands? I mean, you know, the distance from here to here and from here to here? Fluke: I don't. I guess in just listening to the discussion, if your intent that there was not enough there, I think a better solution would be to perhaps extend this out a little bit and extend this out a little bit, leaving us a wider drive here than at 36 foot, again, just for more maneuverability and, then, on this one what we would like is maybe a -- we could go with a 36 foot on this one and as long as we kept a second way in here, I think that would work better than just allowing one driveway per side that was only 30 feet. We just need a little bit more flexibility than that 36 feet, I think, to do that, but that's something I think we need to play with a little bit. Zaremba: I would visualize two driveways -- Rohm: Split it right here. Zaremba: Put something in the middle, have a driveway north and south of what would be a planter here. So, in other words, there is a driveway here and a driveway here, each of which could be 30 to 36 feet and, then, across here. Even if that extended a little bit, I'd kind of like to see a middle planter and, again, two driveways, although it would make sense to align this one. Fluke: Yeah. That's, essentially, what we were offering was to make these planters Zaremba: But I appreciate plans to make them conform more to the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5', 2004 Page 38 of 64 Fluke: Right. And we will need to do that. I guess I'd just ask that maybe give us a little consideration and allow us to go up to 42 foot driveways, just so we can, you know, have a little more flexibility. I'm saying we are going to need all of that, but once it's written as a condition that's what we have to live with, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, could I just make one comment on that? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: If -- maybe one thought of staff. One 42 or two 30, but not both 42 Rohm: That's what I was going to suggest is if you want one 42, then, the rest of it be curbed on this -- on this line here, that seems to be acceptable, because you still end up with the definition of your roadway, but if you had two 42, we would be right back to what your original proposal is and you lose the definition. Fluke: So, one 42 and one 30 on this side and one 42 and one 30 on that side? Rohm: I think it's two 30's or one 42. Fluke: Do I hear -- Borup: You know, I think that 30's work here and here. These fuel islands are at this angle. Well, you know, that can accomplish that just be extending -- will that work, Mr. Fluke? I mean that's, essentially, what you have already said, extending both of these planters on down, closing those off. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I think that if we can -- if we can have two driveways on those -- on both of those, I think we can make it work. Rohm: Well, what might be a better solution is a 42 on this side here, because this is shorter and, then, two 30's on this side, one for your fuel island here and, then, here to ingress into your car wash, which that seems to provide the definition to the roadway on your north-south line and your truck traffic coming in on your north line. Fluke: I guess I messed the issue up with the 42. I think our preference would be to -- that we at least be allowed the two driveways on both sides and, then, it will give us some flexibility in design on that. Rohm: So, you're not interested in a 42 period now? Two 30's on each side? Fluke: Well, I think that's preferable to us, rather than saying that -- arbitrarily deciding right now that we can only have one. I think we could make it work better if we had that flexibility to do two 30's on both sides and -- Rohm: Okay. That seems to work. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5. 2004 Page 39 of 64 Fluke: And, then, the last --just the last comment we had was on condition number six there on the same page, 18. Our preference is to keep these islands as stripped islands to provide a little bit more room for handicapped parking. Borup: Did you catch the comment that is in the ordinance, though? Fluke: I did. I was vesting you with the power under the PUD ordinance to modify those. Rohm: And, again, I think that you put a curb with a planter and a tree doesn't prevent your -- Borup: How much extra do you need for the handicapped? Rohm: Yeah. The handicapped. It doesn't prevent your handicapped from getting in and out by putting a tree in the middle of the island. Fluke: No. It's just those islands as drawn don't have curbs around them and so it provides a continuous flat surface there that is just basically in that horizontal dimension and give them more room to maneuver. So, I think the standard width for a handicapped space is 12 feet, 14. Zaremba: Well, that's what I was going to suggest, that you make those spaces 12 feet wide and, then, the remainder of what is currently a stripped area would be a planter with curb. Borup: That's what I was leading to. Fluke: Okay. Zaremba: And the planter is smaller than what you show as striped now, but it makes the parking stall bigger. Fluke: Okay. That's doable for us. Borup: Does that work? Powell: It won't connect to the rest of the sidewalk. If he goes four feet from the existing parking stall on either side, then, you're going to have a square flowing out in the middle of the parking lot. It won't connect to the existing sidewalk. Rohm: The planter. Powell: Correct. Borup: Does the planter need to connect to the sidewalk? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 40 of 64 Zaremba: That wouldn't bother me. Powell: Okay. But just so you know, we are approving like a gap of three feet between -- orfour feet between -- Borup: The sidewalk and the planter. Powell: -- the sidewalk and the planter and there is also a minimum dimensional standard for the planters that -- the tree won't be able to survive unless it has a certain amount of room, which is typically 50 square feet. Borup: Fifty? Zaremba: Well, right now we would have the planter -- Borup: And much -- Zaremba: -- 15 by 15. Borup: How much do we need -- 12 feet on the handicapped parking; is that correct? And we have got nine now? Powell: He's shown standard parking spaces all the way along. Actually, there is -- for a handicapped spot you have a slightly narrower space for the vehicle and, then, you have an unloading area that's free and clear. So, I think together they are 12 -- 16 for a van and, then, it depends on if you double them, then, they can share the van space. It really depends on how it's laid out quite a bit. Borup: So, we need at least another three feet if it's nine now. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I mean just to point out, they do have -- I put the number in the staff report. I can't recall off the top of my head, but they are well overpacked on the total project. I think there is just numerous parking stalls that they could -- options that they could use that would -- ADA does require those handicapped spaces to be located as close as possible to a main entrance and I think it would be hard to argument that the corner is the closest possible place to place your handicapped stalls. We would recommend that those areas be planted and -- Rohm: And so we are right back to -- just a regular planter, then, in those locations? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. That's staffs recommendation. Borup: It appears to me you could still do -- reduce that area down, have well over the 50 square feet, and even tie it into the sidewalk. Or maybe just do it on the one side and maybe only lose one parking space along that south side. But that would be up for the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 41 of 64 designer to work out, I assume. It sounds like the direction we are going is probably that the planters be in there, unless -- Rohm: Just stick with staff recommendation on that issue. Next. Fluke: That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. If there was any questions that the Commission had, I would be happy to take those. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Are we clear on which items that there may be modifications? I think we have covered the access, which was the big one. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Maybe a question from the staff. I'm going clear back to Item number one and that's on the reduced buffer. Do we have any concern with the neighboring property on that reduced setback? I know we don't have anything in writing, but it appears that that neighbor is also not written in or here tonight to testify. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Bonap, I think as a part of the planned development certainly the Commission has the authority to approve the reduction. If you leave it as it's currently proposed, I don't know that any modifications would really be necessary. It doesn't state when that written statement needs to be submitted. I think, you know, even at the time of, you know, the prior signature on the final plat, that would give them the option to work with the Brennigar -- Borup: That would delete A and B in the staff comments -- the staff report on page 11. Hawkins-Clark: Well, no, I don't think it would. It would just mean changing A -- Borup: Okay. Right. And there is time for that. Hawkins-Clark: To give them time. Right. Borup: How about B? That's the same thing. I'm sorry. Okay. I think we are clear on that. Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Semanich: Mr. Chair, Board, I'm Joe Semanich and I live at 955 West Ustick Road. I have got a few comments on this project. Just now I heard people discussing how many driveways you need for this project. You only have one roadway coming out to Venable Lane and if you need four driveways on the interior just for the car wash and the gas station and the rest of those businesses, it looks like we are going to have a jam up there getting out onto Venable Lane. I would think one or two accesses would be Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 42 of 64 adequate to operate a car wash and a two pump gas station. So, we could have more landscaping. Now, in general, in the south half of this square mile there are 320 acres. A middle school is using 40 acres of that property. The park is taking 60. The school site is taking about ten. That leaves -- we are taking out 110 acres out of 320, which is only 200 acres if the rest of it develops as residential. Elementary school sites should be surrounded by homes, by children, rather than gas stations, car washes. So, I feel that these -- that a car wash and gas station is not compatible with an elementary school. Children need to walk to school and not be bused. There is so many of these children now in America and the reason is we are doing so much busing for them we are making it so easy for them and it will be nice if more of them had to walk. But in this area very very many are going to have to be bused out from Ustick Road into that school, because there is not going to be enough residential in that square mile to fill that school up. Now, also the developer must have anticipated that is going to be commercial and car wash. Six months ago there was a nice sign that says coming soon car wash. I think we should wait until we get commercial zoning before we put up signs in anticipation of what we are going to build there. And as far as having a fuel station there for 24 hours, they want big wide driveways, are we going to have cattle trucks coming in there to fuel? Are we going to have semis? What's going to take place there? You go to some of these other 24 hour deals and we have got semis pulling in all times of night getting fuel. Most everybody that lives in these subdivisions commutes to Boise or Meridian, other places. There are plenty of gas stations in route. There is car washes in route. I came down Fairview tonight, three car washes and there is only one or two cars in them. I don't know that we need more car washes in that area. And also I see you need an access from the park to this area pathway. I wonder what would be the reason for that pathway from the park to this commercial development. Is there going to be anything there for park people come - to walk over there? And those are just my concerns, but I would like to see this area remain as residential. We have apartments and here near Albertson's on the north end of town many many apartments. Very few people walk to Albertson's. You might see two or three a day packing a little sack of groceries. Everybody else drives. So, the people that live in that subdivision are not going to -- are not going to walk to these neighborhood little businesses. If it brings any people, it will bring them from outside of the area to those places. And I have one more question. I was wondering if Venable Lane, the part that's being built, is wide enough and what is going to be developed on that west side of Venable Lane. And is Venable Lane going to totally curbed and guttered on both sides or is it just going to be a partial street. Borup: We can get some clarification on that. I believe it was 54 feet. Isn't that what was stated on the lane width? They will be doing curb and gutter on this side, but I don't believe they own the other side, so -- Semanich: So, are we going to have a half a street serving that entire complex, a school and the commercial development? Borup: Maybe we can get some clarification. A half plus 12? Is that what we will have? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 43 of 64 Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Yeah. They, typically, in these situations where there is a public street adjacent to -- where the property owner adjacent only has one side, they would require half of the right of way and, then, paved 12 more feet. So, you would actually have 24 feet of asphalt. But, then, the sidewalk, curb, gutter would be completed at the time that the west side develops. Semanich: But you would only have 24 feet of asphalt on Venable Lane? Hawkins-Clark: Until the west side develops. That correct. Semanich: And how wide is that street going into this commercial. development? Can a big rig make that turn? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the turning radiuses would need to, obviously, comply with code and .they would to make those, but, usually, a lane is eleven and a half feet wide. Most travel lanes are eleven and a half feet. So, 24 provides just a little more than that. Semanich: Is there any plan for what's going to happen on the west side of Venable Lane, then? Borup: Not that's been submitted to the city. Semanich: Is this property owned by this developer or someone else? Borup: My understanding is it's owned by someone else. Semanich: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. Fluke. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Daren Fluke again, JUB Engineers. Borup: Could you clarify -- was my last statement correct, that the property on the west side of the lane is not under the same ownership? Fluke: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Fluke: And that is, actually, what I want to address. We agree that schools should be in residential neighborhoods and that's exactly why that school site was made available to the Meridian School District, so it could be close to a large number of dwellings. In Cedar Springs we have over 300 dwellings. In Baldwin Park just north and west of there you have got another couple hundred dwellings, and you will see that -- you will see development coming south of Baldwin Park as well. You have also got Sundance there on the northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian and, then, all that residential Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 44 of 64 development on the southeast as well. So, this is awell-located -- awell-located school. As far as putting residential on this five acre site, it's really not going to make a bit of difference for the number of dwellings that could fit in there. I think, you know, you would see maybe -- maybe we could fit 15 houses on that five acre site, maybe, if we were lucky. You know, this is the neighborhood commercial concept that your Comprehensive Plan calls for and this isn't the full thing, but this is the site that we own and this is our component of that. You have got that little parcel next to us, which will likely -- to the east of us there that will likely develop with some type of commercial and, then, you have got the land to the west and the land on the south, all that could be neighborhood commercial uses. So, you will start to see a mix of uses through time and we have got a pretty good start on it now, you have a got a lot of single family dwellings, you have got a park, you're going to have some offices, a small retail component there, and this is exactly what the plan had in mind was this type of development. So, I would say, you know, whether or not we need a car wash there is probably a question for my client and the market to answer, rather than this body, with all due respect, and I think we have put together an attractive site here that works well with this site and we would just ask for your approval. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission for Mr. Fluke? All right. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, do we need to discuss any of the issue at this time? At this point are we -- I don't see that we are even modifying any of the staff report, are we? Zaremba: Well, on page 12, paragraph six -- let me ask first. Are we prepared to close the public Hearing? Borup: I think so. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on these three items, 11, 12, and 13, be close. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Page 12, item six. Borup: Okay. Talks about the bike lane. Zaremba: It isn't really under the control of the applicant at this point, I guess, if ACHD is already in construction, although some of this is on the applicant's property; is that correct? Borup: Well, on the east side it is, yes. Meddian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 45 of 64 Zaremba: Well, I agree with not -- while I agree it would 6e nice to have the bike lane, but I also agree with not putting the applicant between two agencies that disagree. That doesn't seem fair. Rohm: Yeah. I agree with that a hundred percent. Zaremba: I'm not sure that's an opinion. I could go either way. Borup: Well, ACRD did not even address this in their staff report, did they? Zaremba: I don't remember seeing it. Hawkins-Clark: The bike lane? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: No. Borup: I didn't see it here either. Zaremba: Well, I do think the seven foot wide sidewalk helps with that. I tend to agree with the chairman that the elementary school children probably shouldn't be out in the street anyhow, even if it is a bike lane. Borup: Yeah. I think seven does. A little wider would help even more. Zaremba: In theory they would all be moving in the same direction, you shouldn't have kids leaving school at the same time kids are coming to school, so even pedestrians and bicycles, though moving at different speeds, would be moving the same direction. I could be comfortable with dropping item six, I guess, is what I'm saying. As long as we are asking for the seven foot sidewalk -- detached sidewalk. Borup: Were there any other items? Zaremba: Let's see. Let's go to page 18, item four under site specific. Do we change that to -- Rohm: Cross-access easement? Zaremba: Yeah. Just a written cross-access agreement with the neighbor. Then I -- Borup: You say you want to change that to a written cross-access agreement or -- see, the staff report is just asking for a future cross-access. Driveway. The applicant is proposing to have an easement and not construct the actual driveway to the property. There would be a little landscaping until it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5', 2004 Page 46 of 64 Rohm: Well, I think the deal was -- is to have the easement and only have it so that if that property next door doesn't develop, you don't have a roadway that goes nowhere. Borup: Right. Rohm: So, if you have the easement, then, it's there for future development. Borup: And it would be assumed that it will be in use when that property develops. Rohm: Right. Borup: That there would not be an option. Rohm: And that's why to change it to across-easement and probably should be noted on the plat as such. Borup: So, that's changing driveway to easement. Okay. Zaremba: Yeah. That's -- but, then, Commissioner Rohm brings up a good question. This is under conditional use. Do we need to go back to the plat and have that as part of the plat also? I'm seeing heads nodding yes. Borup: Yeah. I believe the easement would need to be noted on the plat. Hawkins-Clark: I think staff would recommend -- you could just delete that from the conditional use and add a new item under the plat. It would just be a one liner that would say across-access easement shall be provided. Borup: Can we just take that whole paragraph -- Hawkins-Clark: Strike it. Borup: Orjust move it to the plat. Hawkins-Clark: Well, I guess there is so many rewrites -- I just don't think you really need to spend your time, frankly, on trying to rewrite that when you could just add a new condition under the plat and -- because we are not -- the way that we drafted this it talks about modifying the site plan and it talks about the parking stalls and it seems like there is agreement that -- the only thing that's being looked for here is the easement, so that's really a plat issue, not a conditional use issue. Borup: So, do we want to designate the location of the easement between buildings A and B. Zaremba: Yeah. Between buildings A and B to the east. I could accept that Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 47 of 64 Rohm: We might want to designate the width of the easement, as opposed to the specific location, because I believe the applicant still wants a little bit of leeway as to where that easement will be until he gets the potential tenant, I guess, or occupant. Borup: So, what does that need to be, at 25 feet, or does it need to be a little more than that? Hawkins-Clark: Twenty-five would be appropriate. Zaremba: Okay. Then, back to page 18, paragraph five, the way it reads now there would only be two 30 foot curb cuts around the entire perimeter of Lot 17. I think we were discussing allowing two along the north perimeter and .two along the east perimeter. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: So, I would make that change. Okay. So, under -- on page 20, the list of recommendations, land use buffer on the east boundary, we have discussed and settled. B, new micropath to the northeast we have discussed and settled. And it's the way staff wanted it, so there is no change there. Wider sidewalk on Venable. Yes. Cross-access to out parcel. Yes. Perimeter fencing, we are satisfied with no plan. Their is no fencing. Do they need to submit a plan that says that? Okay. So, back on page 14, item 14, can be deleted. That a detailed fencing plan. Borup: Should that fencing be included in the letter from the property owner to the east? Shouldn't that be included in the cross-access letter if we are deleting fence there, since that is an ordinance? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, actually, the ordinance doesn't require a fence. Borup: Just a buffer. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Okay. Because it's commercial. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Commercial adjacent to residential requires the 20 -- or office requires a 20 foot buffer, but it doesn't require a fence. Zaremba: Well, usually, the point of having a fencing plan is so that there isn't 20 feet of one kind of fence and, then, 30 feet of something different and -- but if their intent is to let the school district put the chain link fence on that property line, then, maybe never have a fence to the east, depending on how that develops, I agree with the logic that it's likely to be additional commercial. Borup: Makes sense. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 48 of 64 Zaremba: Then we just delete paragraph 14 on page 14. Okay. So, hours of operation. I can be satisfied that it's likely that residential is going to be sufficient distance from this and the middle of the night impact is likely to be slow. Fuel delivery may be early in the morning or late at night, but the guys driving the fuel trucks don't want to be out at 2:00 o'clock -- 2:00 a.m. either. So, do we need to make any specified hours as a condition or can we just leave this all open? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, staff included that in there, because we did feel it was a very important point of discussion for the Commission to decide whether you think it's appropriate, compatible, et cetera. And that's -- we are asking for your direction. Zaremba: I can see having the pumps be 24 hours. And I can also see maybe not having fuel delivery be 24 hours. Borup: Yeah. I agree with that. Zaremba: But I'm wondering how -- well, I'm wondering whether it's not automatically going to happen. The fuel delivery trucks are usually out in the middle of the day. They are very rarely -- I mean unless the fuel delivery truck is working this one location only, he's probably going to make it part of his work day, which is likely to be daylight hours and adding the requirement is -- well, adding a requirement isn't going to hurt anybody, but it's going to turn out that way anyhow. I could go either way. Was the staff's idea to limit the hours the fuel pumps were available and that the car wash is available? Hawkins-Clark: Well, we -- since the application was silent, we mainly wanted to get it onto the record what they were anticipating. So, the applicant did just come to the staff table and say that they are willing to have truck deliveries be restricted to day hours of operation only. Rohm: And I think if it's a keyless dispenser, people are going to use those 24 hours a day. I mean it's pretty hard to limit something that's accessible. So, it would be pretty hard for us to define it that way. Zaremba: I'm sensitive to whether or not cattle trucks would be using this in the middle of the night, but this is not necessarily a roadway or an area through which cattle trucks and sugar beet trucks are driving now and I think even though they may visit other similar places in the middle of the night, they are not likely to be on this road anyhow, so I'm not so sure I would be concerned about -- Rohm: Well --and, then, by reducing the roadways to the 30 foot, as opposed to the 42, you're going to discourage that type of access anyway, so I think we are getting closer to covering the intent. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page.49 of 64 Zaremba: So, not limit the hours of operation, but do limit the hours of fuel delivery to daylight hours. Is that a plat note or -- Borup: Well, I'm assuming this whole -- the idea of this is to be sensitive for residential and. there are residences around this area, but not a major subdivision. Rohm: Well, there is buffering just in the commercial development itself, so -- to any residential --either existing or to be proposed. Borup: So, does it make any difference when delivery trucks come? Zaremba: And the logic and -- both logic and Comprehensive Plan would say that we are going to have a circle of businesses, whether they are commercial or office or otherwise, but this circle is not going to be residential, unless it's high density residential, but even that's not all that likely. Borup: That's why I question whether to even have any restrictions. Ithink -- I think it will take care of itself and -- Zaremba: I think you're probably right. It would be natural anyhow. Borup: Maybe it would be better to have the fuel delivery at night when there aren't vehicles around in their way. Rohm: I think your point of not limiting is probably the best. It will take care of itself. Zaremba: Okay. Then, that leaves item G on page 20 is -- is a car wash and a fuel pump appropriate in this location at all? My first instinct was that this was going to be offices and stuff around in there, but you have to have these facilities around somewhere. I would assume the applicant has done some business planning to determine whether this is a good location for that or not. Rohm: And I don't think it's particularly -- it's not offensive, it's just another commercial application and if the developer wants to put his money into a car wash, then -- and it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, then, I don't have any objection to it. Zaremba: And, particularly, the elevations that they were showing of the potential design for it being compatible both in design and material to the other buildings around the perimeter. Borup: That's the nicest car wash I have ever seen. Zaremba: We should have more of them like that. Borup: Yeah. And, still, maybe everyone's use is different, but it seems more often you do a car wash on a -- not on your way to and from work, but after you have come home. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 50 of 64 Zaremba: Run out after dinner and -- Borup: And that's going to decrease traffic on other roads closer to city center and Fairview. They would be able to -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: -- be closer to the neighborhoods. Rohm: The thing that I'd like to point out to the one gentleman that spoke to this application is the Comprehensive Plan actually speaks to trying to develop this entire area as a commercial development in each of the half miles within the area of impact and so this application actually addresses that very well and it may not be something that you personally think will be useful, but, basically, the intent is to minimize traffic to and from other areas and keep everything local and that's something that falls within the Comprehensive Plan itself, so this development directly addresses that issue, just to speak to your concerns. You may not agree, but that's specifically what the Comprehensive Plan is addressing. Borup: Okay. Are we ready? Zaremba: I believe so. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, RZ 03-013, request for a rezone of 5.51 acres from R-4 to C-N zone for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell, north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the clerk February 2, 2004, with no changes under rezone. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda PP 03-044, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots and one common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C-N zone for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell, north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the clerk February 2, 2004, with the following changes: On page 12 delete paragraph six. On page 14 delete paragraph 14. At the end of this section add an additional paragraph, which would be numbered 18, except for the missing paragraphs, that a 25 foot cross-access easement agreement shall be made with the property owner to the east located somewhere between buildings A and B. End of preliminary plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 51 of 64 Borup: Okay. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, CUP 03-067, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps, and a drive-thru coffee stand in a neighborhood center designation for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell, north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with the following changes: On page 18 paragraph four could be deleted. Paragraph five, which begins on page 18 and continues on page 19, the change, actually, will occur on what is currently 19, the second sentence of paragraph five is changed to read: A maximum of two curb cuts no more than 30 feet wide each, shall be permitted to access the internal commercial driveway from Lot 17 along its north border and along its east border. And the sentence after that remains. Borup: Do we need to clarify that? You said a maximum no more than two. Zaremba: Two on each one. Borup: Two on each. Right. No. I understand that. Zaremba: For a total of four. Borup: Right. Is that the way you stated it? Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Actually, let's -- the end of that sentence I said along its north border and along its east border, comma, meaning a total of four driveways, for that clarification. Then, the sentence after that remains. Borup: Number six? Oh, no. Six stays the same. Zaremba: Yeah. No further changes. Rohm: Second that. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 52 of 64 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 03-068 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for professional office and retail use in a C-G zone as required by the Final Plat for Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams -south of North Hickory Way and north of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. The last item is Public Hearing CUP 03-068. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: I need to excuse myself from this one, so I just wanted the record to reflect that I'm leaving. Borup: Okay. Powell: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Public Hearing CUP 03-068, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for professional, office, and retail use in a C-G zone, as required by the final plat for the Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams. We'd like to open this hearing at this time and begin with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Mallane Professional Offices project and you should have a staff report that has got a transmittal date of January 29th, today's hearing date, and stamp received February 2nd. The project is located, as you can see, in the Mallane Commercial Center here at the -- located on Fairview and Hickory. You can see the aerial photo. Currently on this lot Louie's Restaurant already exists and there has been a project approved in this location for a D.L. Evans Bank. The proposed project for the Mallane Professional Offices is intended for Trinity Home Mortgage and would be located north of the D.L. Evans Bank project. The main reason why the project is a conditional use is because it's required as a note on the plat. The reason why it was required as a note on the plat was because of the proximity to existing Dave Meadows Subdivision. The Commission and Council felt at the time the plat was being done and the rezone was done that they wanted to review any use that goes on these lots to consider the potential impacts. Other than that requirement, it would be a permitted use in the existing C-G zone. This is the original site plan that was submitted with the packets. There has also been a revised site plan received, which I will get to in just a moment. I believe the only issues to deal with tonight are the seven special considerations on pages four and five of the staff report. The first one deals with the parking lot and needing to get the drive aisles to be 25 feet