Loading...
2007 05-17 Meridian Planning & Zonina Commission Meeting Mav 17, 2007 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Thursday, May 17, 2007, by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe, Steve Siddoway, Tom O'Brien, and Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters, Scott Steckline, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Tom O'Brien X David Moe X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm - Chairman X Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there are a number of changes to this agenda tonight and I will just list the changes that we will be going through and we will adopt an amended agenda from that. The -- Item No.7, which is RZ 07-009, related to the Jabil Southeast, will be continued until the regularly scheduled meeting of June 7th. Items 10, 11 and 12, related to Pinebridge, will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 21st. And Item No. 14, which is CUP 07-001 related to Strate Apartments, will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 7th, 2007. Those three changes to the agenda will be taken in their order, but those adjustments will be noted now. So, with that being said, could I get a motion to accept the amended agenda? Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the amended agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 2 of 38 A. Approve Minutes of February 8, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of April 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of an animal care facility in an L-O zone for Liddell Veterinary Clinic by Falash & Ross Construction - 2300 W. Everest Lane: Rohm: Okay. The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and that is the approval of the February 8, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission special meeting minutes. Item B is to approve the minutes of April 19th, 2007. And Item C is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07-006. Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Well, first of all, is there any correction to any of the minutes? Moe: I have none. Siddoway: I have none. Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the Consent Agenda as proposed. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Now, before we open up any of the hearings tonight, I'd like to just go through a few of the procedural items associated with our hearings and, basically, the way this process works is we will open up a particular project and we will begin with the staff report. The staff will present the project as it pertains to the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. They will make their recommendations and note all the things that they would like to see changed from the original application. Once the staff report has been completed, then, the applicant has an opportunity to get up and present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations have been completed, then, the publiC is welcome to make their feelings known. If there is an individual that represents a homeowners association or a large body of individuals, that person generally would be somebody that would speak first and they would be speaking on behalf of a larger group of people and will be afforded, I believe, ten minutes to Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 3 of 38 speak. If, in fact, there is not somebody that's speaking for a homeowners association, then, each individual has three minutes to make their case. Once all public testimony has been taken, the applicant has an opportunity to come back up and respond to each and every comment from the public. Once that's completed, the hearing is generally closed, unless someone on the Commission specifically has a question of an individual, but this is -- doesn't turn into a debate, it doesn't -- the applicant, once he responds to any questions from the public, generally speaking a hearing will be closed. At that time we will deliberate and either continue or make a recommendation to City Council at that point. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from May 3, 2007: PFP 07-001 Request for a Preliminary / Final Plat approval to subdivide Lot 13, Block 3 of Vallin Courts Subdivision to create two (2) new lots for Benewah by Walker Homes, Inc. - 2673 North Ridgebury Avenue: Rohm: So, with that being said, I would like to at this time open the continued Public Hearing from May 3rd, 2007, of PFP 07-001, related to Benewah and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for preliminary/final plat approval. The subject property totals approximately half of an acre and is located within the Vallen Court Subdivision. This is the Vallen Court Subdivision right here. The subdivision is generally located south of Ustick Road and West of Meridian Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide Lot 13, Block 3, into two new lots. The new lot sizes total approximately 8,900 square feet and 10,600 square feet. Fast forward to the plat there. The subject subdivision is currently zoned R-8. Access to the development will be from Meridian Road by either Salisbury Lane or Clearbrook Estates Subdivision. That's these two subdivisions right here. Each of the proposed lots will have individual driveway access to North Ridgebury Avenue. The only issue to mention here is that perimeter fencing was not depicted on the preliminary plat and staff requests the applicant provide testimony this evening as to whether fencing will be constructed around the proposed subdivision. Staff has no concerns with the proposal, therefore, staff is supportive of the subdivision as submitted. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Just one. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Amanda, can you just clarify what -- why the larger lot was there in the first place? Was it originally a stormwater lot or anything like that or was it a building lot? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commissioner, there was actually an existing home on the one lot at the time. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 4 of 38 Siddoway: Okay. Hess: And I'm assuming they wanted a larger lot, but now I think the home has been demolished. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Do we have an applicant for the Benewah project? That's -- we may be moving so fast that they are just not here yet. How about that? That's a first. Well, I don't think I want to -- let's -- we are going to see if anybody has signed up to testify to this application. Okay. Mr. Baird. Baird: Mr. Chair, if you're looking for some direction on how to proceed, it's a pretty straight forward application. There is no requirement that he would receive any testimony from the applicant. You have the application before, the staff comments. If it's the pleasure of this body, you can proceed with your decision. Rohm: Yeah. I think that the only thing that I wanted to hear is from the staff report she actually wanted the applicant to speak to the perimeter fencing and without having that testimony I guess we could make a motion to just making that a requirement and make it specific to the application and move forward. And maybe that's the right thing to do. We do not have anybody that has signed up to testify to this application, so I guess we will -- is there anyone from the audience that would like to testify to this application? Okay. Discussion? Any discussion before we move to close the Public Hearing? Moe: Mr. Chair, of staff, as far as perimeter fencing, you're just looking at three sides of fencing? Is that what you're looking for? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, the north side of the lot -- there is a micro pathway, so there would be a required -- which I'm assuming is already in Vallen Court Subdivision, but just in case -- I'm getting direction from my associate here that it is in already. So, what we would be looking at would be just the perimeter -- I also gather from my associate that the west is also in. So, it looks like there already is existing perimeter fencing around the entire lot, so -- Moe: Therefore, there wouldn't be a need -- Hess: Correct, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Moe: Oh. Okay. Rohm: Okay. Mae: And we are sure of that, so we don't need to deal with that, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 5 of 38 Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm pretty sure that -- my associate Sonya Watters was the -- did work on the final plat for the subdivision, so she's pretty aware of what happened out there. Rohm: Okay. Good. All right. Well, with that being said, then, could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item PFP 07-001? Mae: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PFP 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Mae: Is there any other discussion? After considering all staff -- no applicant and no public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PFP 07- 001 as presented during the hearing of May 17th, 2007, with no other modifications. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PFP 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from May 3, 2007: PP 07-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots, 2 office/commercial lots and 10 common lots on 19.80 acres in an L-O zone for Meadowlake Village North by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC - SEC of Franklin Road and Touchmark Way: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from May 3,2007: CUP 07-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to create 52 residential lots, 2 office/commercial lots and 10 common lots in an L-O zone for Meadowlake Village North by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC - SEC of Franklin Road and Touchmark Way: Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 6 of 38 Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Public Hearing from May 3rd, 2007, of PP 07- 009 and CUP 07-008, both items related to the Meadowlake Village North and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Meadowlake Village North Subdivision. The applicant Touchmark of the Treasure Valley had applied for conditional use approval to modify the conceptual PD for the Meadowlake Village development. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 52 single family residential lots, ten common lots, and two office commercial lots on 19.8 acres. The applicant has also applied for a variance and a modification to the existing development agreement for the site. First, I'll give a little background on the development. In 2001 Meadowlake Village was annexed and granted conceptual approval for a planned development to house a mix of office, retail, single-family residential and multi-family residential uses in an L-O zone. The subject site, which totals approximately 160 acres, was proposed to develop in multiple phases. A development agreement was recorded which outlined requirements of construction for each of the phases. Each of the phases required detailed Conditional Use Permit approval. Okay. The proposed Meadowlake Village North Subdivision is generally located on the south side of Franklin Road off of Touchmark Way. As you can see, this is Eagle and this is Fairview. To the north, south and west of the proposed subdivision, which is what's highlighted here, is undeveloped property within the Meadowlake Village development. To the east is the Ridenbaugh Canal here, which separates the subdivision from the Edgeview Estates Subdivision. The sole access to this phase of the development will be from an existing public street, South Touchmark Way, which is right here. All internal roads will be public streets. No stub connections are proposed from this phase to adjacent future phases of Meadowlake Village. City staff is generally supportive of the proposed street layout, except for the cul-de-sac length as you can see. The applicant has provided approximately 5.12 acres of open space on the site, exceeding five percent minimum required by the UDC. The majority of open space will be in the form of parkways throughout the entire development. There are a couple of issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission. The first is that the streets within the subdivision, as previously stated, are proposed to terminate -- terminate dead-end in cul-de-sacs. The applicant is requesting a variance from the UDC standard to allow the streets within the space to exceed the maximum 450 foot cul-de-sac length. From South Touchmark Way, which is right here, via Nissler Court, which is this one, that totals approximately 1,250 feet. From Touchmark Way to Beal Court, that totals approximately 950 feet. Not only is staff supportive of connectivity within this development to future phases via stub connections, but staff believes that the Meadowlake Village property -- I'll move back to the slide here. Staff believes that the Meadowlake Village property is large enough to accommodate this type of development, while fully complying with the UDC standards. Staff believes there are no topographical features or other physical characteristics of the lot which would prevent full compliance with the UDC. Additionally, the Commission should note that all previously approved concept plans, as you see right here, depict a north-south roadway through the east portion of the site to promote better traffic flow and connectivity within the development. It is for these reasons that staff recommends denial of the applicant's Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17. 2007 Page 7 of 38 variance request. The other issue addressed in the staff report is that the applicant provides staff the office commercial elevation -- office and commercial elevations for these two lots here. Staff also requested the applicant provide a concept plan establishing the layout of the lots. Staff has not received either the elevations or the concept plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission decide this evening if approving the application is in the best interest of the city without first reviewing these elevations and plans for these office lots. Staff approves of the preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and development agreement modification applications. However, staff does recommend denial of the subject variance application. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Not at this time. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Johnson: Good evening, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. My name is Megan Johnson with WIG Design, 1173 East Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. I am the applicant's representative, Touchmark, and at this time I'd like to introduce Executive Vice-President of Touchmark for development Mr. Bruce Dalrymple. He would like to just give an overall view and the vision of Meadowlake Village and, then, I will come back and address the staff report. Dalrymple: Good evening, Commissioners. Bruce Dalrymple, 5150 Southwest Griffith Drive, Beaverton, Oregon. 97005. Executive vice-president for Touchmark. If I could have you maybe go back to the slide that was the first one that you showed, whoever has the control -- there we go. That one will work just great. Thanks. What is currently developed right now in this development is we have two phases of residential property developed there with single family homes and also a few duplexes in there as well. We are under construction in here. We have just finished our grand lodge and we have a Sun Valley independent apartment building and also we have an assisted living property there of 62 units. So, we have a number of phases as we continue to go through this to develop it out. But one of the things I wanted to explain to you is that when this was initially approved as a PD, all of these streets were private streets in the areas where we did our residential development, whereas we did have some public streets associated with this development as well for some of the circulation. We are looking right now at public streets, only because we are looking at platting this new subdivision or these new lots. These lots down here were not platted and to be able to insure that we have a finite matrix of how we build our homes, we wanted to plat this. But what happened is that your ordinances changed since the time that we had received approval on the PD and so that's the only reason why we have sought public streets as a part of this preliminary plat. Our preference is to have the private streets. In regard to the issue of connectivity, I think that it's important to take a look at the macro portion of this, as much as looking at it from the micro side, and if you -- and what I mean by that is if you were to look at just simply this subdivision or this preliminary plat and not take into Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 8 of 38 consideration the rest of the development that we have here, we have an integrated transportation or area circulation plan that we feel is pretty well thought out in terms of how we have designed it and implemented it and so we do have connectivity here through our street system, through St. Luke's, an adjacent property. Also up here in the Montvue area. And, then, also two areas onto Franklin. This one here is constructed and shown, but this map doesn't show that connectivity. And so I'm hoping that you will look at this as our development trying to create a sense of place, trying to create neighborhoods, and in those neighborhoods not to have the cut-through traffic, but, really, to be able to have the safe environment for the people to be comfortable and walk on the streets. This is an active adult, 55 and greater, community. So, those are some reasons why I'd like you to take that into consideration in terms of looking at this more from a macro than only looking at it from a micro position. And I think that's alii have to say for this moment. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Megan Johnson again. I'm going to address the commercial conceptual site layout. I guess the commercial parcels were incorporated into the project simply due to their proximity to the residential units and, Amanda, could you, please -- maybe the first -- yeah. That will be fine. So, you can see, especially this one, if we went ahead and platted it, we would almost be parcelizing it anyway, so it just made sense -- well, we needed to include it in the plat. And the same with this one as well. It's always been designated as town center commercial on the master concept plan. That hasn't changed. But at this time it's not ready to develop. So, when I spoke with Amanda about the conceptual layout, our solution was that we would agree to come in for another Conditional Use Permit at the time that the commercial parcels were ready to develop and she also iterated to me that one of the concerns that she wanted to see a site layout was they really wanted to control access from Touchmark Way, actually have no access on Touchmark Way and we are fully supportive of that. That wasn't our intent. And so we would like to place a condition on the preliminary plat approval that we will come in for a Conditional Use Permit at the time the commercial develops and that no access will be taken off Touchmark Way to the commercial parcels. We feel that's a good solution and it's a win-win for both parties, it allows the city to review the design and layout at such time that it's ready to be developed. Let's see. The other -- I guess, again, coming back to the variance, the cul-de-sac length, I've had three conversations with Joe Silva, the Meridian fire department deputy chief, and he was generally acceptable of this emergency access. I also think it's important to realize that this is -- Louise Drive, it looks like a very long emergency access, but it will be built out in the future as a -- a collector road and we will really feel that a stub street in this location will divert the traffic from the collector road through the residential area as a cut through and as an active adult community we really wanted to kind of keep that safe, secure feeling for the residents. That is one of the major concerns in active adult communities. In the second -- we also talked with Joe about the turning radius and turning radius does meet fire department standards and the right of ways are public. I think there was some confusion in the staff report about the exact width. They are 50 foot right of ways, with 34 feet of pavement and eight foot parkways on either side, with detached sidewalks. So, we are really trying to -- with the detached sidewalks and parkway system all along here, pedestrian paths along here, we are trying to focus Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 9 of 38 more on pedestrian connectivity with this subdivision, because, as Mr. Dalrymple said, the connectivity to adjacent parcels outside of Meadowlake Village is addressed with the extension of Louise to the Montvue and the extension to St. Luke's and Franklin Road and we do have some pedestrian paths here, with a nice open area. A pedestrian path from Cutter Lane connecting to this collector road future Louise Drive. And as well as they would be able to use the emergency access as a pedestrian way. And that's, really, the intent and focus of the community. That was our reasoning behind this design. And, again, as I stated, we did show this to Joe Silva and he was -- he was happy with it. At that point I was surprised to see the staff report, frankly. So, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer at this time. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Megan, I'm kind of curious in regards to the emergency access. What kind of a time frame are you guys looking to develop that into a roadway section through there? Johnson: For Louise Drive? Moe: Basically, to the north side of this development. Johnson: The collector road? I think I would actually have to defer that question to Mr. Dalrymple. I'm not sure what their development schedule is for the land north of the subdivision. Moe: But the collector road is planned for sure? Johnson: Yes. Yes, it is. It is in one of the development agreements that was adopted with this plan. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions? O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Okay. When I first looked at this picture, I -- I looked at meandering streets and how it may affect -- as Mr. Dalrymple had mentioned, people will be walking on the streets, rambling around, and with all the trees and bushes, et cetera, around the curves, this might hinder visibility both by pedestrians and vehicles, daytime or nighttime, and I was curious about that. So, I went to the local police department and talked to a Dwight Hosford, he's a sergeant with the traffic department, and he really didn't have any concerns on the thing, but the other parts of the developments do not Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 10 of 38 have these type of meandering streets, as radical as these are, compared to the other ones. So, those are concerns that I had. Again, he didn't have that concern so much in that he felt that because they are curved so much that they would have a tendency to slow people down, where they do have concerns with is the construction phase where landscaping, people, and other things come through there and go from site to site and these cause problems, because I think you can only park on one side of the street in what I read and so these are concerns during that particular phase, not so much after this thing is developed. So, my concerns were alleviated, I guess, by talking with him, to get a clarification on that, but there is still, at 25 miles an hour going around there, I hesitate to totally agree with him. I was a policeman myself one time and I know some of the issues that we are talking about. So, those are just something I just wanted to put on record if maybe someone -- I don't know -- in Meridian or staff or someone could look at that to make sure that when this is fully developed and all the trees are grown, are we going to have a problem. Those are my concerns. Johnson: And those are very valid concerns, Commissioner O'Brien. I do know, according to the staff report, the police did have a condition as far as the type of landscaping regarding height of bushes and so forth and I believe that's part of their crime prevention through design. I can't remember the acronym completely. O'Brien: Okay. So that you notice that the dwellings are so close together and the setbacks are relatively short and minimal, that was one of the things people backing out of a driveway on a curve, how are they going to see -- or vice-versa, how they can see each other to me is an accident waiting to happen. Those are my concerns. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Do you have some additional testimony you'd like to offer? Dalrymple: If I may-- Rohm: Absolutely. Dalrymple: -- respond to a couple questions that were asked -- Rohm: Absolutely. Dalrymple: -- if that's possible. In regard to the time frame, in relationship to Louise and whatever might happen up here, and, then, connection going forward, what I can tell you right now is we are looking -- we are planning that right now. I mean we are looking at how to plan it. Louise will go through. It's not whether it will or it won't or whether or not we want to change that and do something different like Avenue H that was there. Louise will go through. It's a part of our plan, it's not something that we want to omit. So, you know, it's going to take us a couple years, probably, to sell all these units that are here, as far as the single family and I would imagine that we would be in the period of something like a two to three year period, something like that, in order to be able to Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 11 of 38 build that. Secondly, if you could give me the slide ~- maybe the first slide that was there that showed the overall project. Good. That would be fine. You can't see it as well, Commissioner O'Brien, in here, but these streets down here are somewhat similar to these streets up here in terms of they're a cul-de-sac, they do bend, they do maneuver pretty much the same, and so it's not inconsistent with what we have done in the past and what's existing already there as a part of our development and it's critical for us wanting to create these pockets of these neighborhoods, you know, to eliminate that cut-through traffic and your statement about 25 miles an hour and maybe your worry about that in terms of the radius in curves and such, if we had a stub street on the other side -- and if you could now go to the subdivision plat, please. If we had a -- if we had a stub street out this side, you would have people coming through here and cutting through and wanting to go out that way and I think it would just exacerbate the problem and be more of a problem for us and that was one of the things that us -- all of us as designers, owner, rep, and planners were trying to do is to mitigate that. So, I did want to respond to that question. O'Brien: Well taken and I ~- I also -- the input I got back from Sergeant Hosford was that they have more problems when streets are straight than they do with curbed streets and also they have had absolutely minimal amount of calls to areas -- to this particular area since they have been in there. So, it's been a positive experience so far, so -- but I just had to express my concerns about -- about those things to make sure that you understand that there is a concern there and that, you know, make sure that what we do here in the future is conducive to this kind of community of the elderly, whose hearing is a little gone and sometimes, you know, you can't see as well and so people walking up the street, they just have my concern. Dalrymple: Well, it's 55 and greater and I'm 55, so I can still hear. But I know exactly what you mean. It starts to go way. Now, if there was a concern in relationship to landscape design on any of these curves -- I mean we were opened to mitigating those issues in terms of landscape design, if that's something that is important to the Commissioners. So, you know, with that, if there are any other questions, I would be happy to answer them. O'Brien: I have none. Thank you. Dalrymple: Great. Thank you Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. At this time we are ready to take public testimony and -- but there has not been anyone that has signed up to testify to this application, but the floor is open, so if there is someone that would like to come forward and testify, now is that time. Malcolm Radisson: My name is Malcolm Radisson. I'm a resident of Meadowlake Village. I have been for about two and a half years. Rohm: Could give us a specific address, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 12 of 38 Radisson: 578 South Warner Lane. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Radisson: Thank you. I would just like to ask the young lady here, Ms. Johnson, if Louise will have an exit to Franklin from -- from the east end of that property. Rohm: What you do is you ask the question of the Commission and then -- Radisson: I'm sorry. Excuse me, please. Rohm: -- once all public testimony has been received, then, the applicant will come back and respond to the questions from there. Radisson: I apologize. Rohm: No. That's fine. Just-- Radisson: I would just like to know if there will be an exit to Franklin from the east end of Louise Street. Rohm: Okay. We will get you an answer. Radisson: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and offer a response? Johnson: Amanda, could you, please, go to the first slide that I provided to you? Unfortunately, it doesn't show up very well, but this is -- here is Louise. There is a proposed roundabout right here that does -- will, in fact, connect up to Franklin Road. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Does the Commission have any questions of either the applicant or staff? Siddoway: I do, Mr. Chairman. Looking for a pointer. In the proposed layout with -- thank you -- with the cul-de-sacs, I'm wondering if someone lives in this area, but you got the services and commercial uses just north of them along Fairview, is there any way for those folks to access the services that are up here that they may want to get to without being forced out and around? Johnson: Commissioner Siddoway, by car, no, they would have to travel down Nissler Court and around. As I stated earlier, we are really trying to push pedestrian connectivity, so if they wanted to walk, they could come up this way or this way and also remember that at some point these will also be commercial, too, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 13 of 38 Siddoway: Both this area will have a micro-path and this will be a continuous micro- path as well? Johnson: Correct. Siddoway: Okay. You mentioned proposing a future CUP for the two platted commercial lots. Johnson: Uh-huh. Siddoway: And as part of that did I understand correctly that they would not take access directly off of Touchmark Way through here, they would be off of this road? Johnson: Nissler. Correct. Yes, you are correct, Chairman -- or, excuse me, Commissioner Siddoway. We would actually like to put that as a condition on this plat, as well as, you know, the CUP as it came forward. Siddoway: And, then, one follow-up question for staff. The -- is it -- through the current UDC is it not -- not possible to do these streets as private streets, as the ones south of here have been done? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, I'll move back to the zoning slide here. As you can see and as the gentleman before stated, this area here -- all of the homes are not on individual lots. It was never platted. So, it's considered a multi-family development and in multi-family developments private streets are allowed. However, you know, this is a platted formal subdivision and they aren't allowed to access single family homes. Siddoway: Thank you. Okay. I think that's all for my questions. Thanks. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. I think at this time it would probably be appropriate to close the Public Hearing, unless there is other questions of other Commissioners. Could I get a motion? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, did the applicant address the rear setbacks? I don't remember if that was an issue. I know that the staff has proposed that they just meet the R-8 standard of 12 feet from the rear property line. It looks like they were proposing what would be ten feet from the property line, but I just want to make sure -- I'm inclined to go with the 12 feet per the ordinance, but I just hadn't heard that addressed. Johnson: Chairman Rohm and Commissioner Siddoway, I apologize I guess I didn't bring that up, because we are in agreement with that. We are fine with that condition. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 14 of 38 Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? Siddoway: One more for staff. The outstanding issue for the Commission as listed is the need to construct the pathway. Has that condition -- oh, wait. Sorry. I'm on the wrong one. Never mind. I withdraw my question. Rohm: Okay. All right. At this time could I get a motion to -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I make a motion to close the Public Hearing on PP 07-009 and CUP 07-008. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on PP 07-009 and CUP 07-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Before we move forward with this, I'd like to open for discussion and start with Commissioner Moe. Do you have any final comments on this application? Moe: Yes and no. In regards to the preliminary plat and the CUP, I don't -- I don't really have any problems with it. I think it's a great great development out there and they are just tweaking a few things that they are doing, so -- in regards to that, but I do have some questions on the variance in regards to the cul-de-sacs and whatnot -- I guess would kind of like to know from staff if they had any other conversations with the fire department in regards to the emergency access and whatnot to get to these homes and whatnot, because there is quite a distance there. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did speak specifically with Joe Silva regarding this and while he stated that, in general, the applicant's proposal does comply with their standards for emergency access, that he would like to see a through -- or would prefer seeing a through street there for access. He does have concerns right now of the turning radius. This is very tight here at the emergency access. So, yes, he would prefer to see a through street. Rohm: Thank you. Again, because we aren't acting on that variance, it goes to the City Council, the recommendations and whatnot, so I will think that through here. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I much prefer the connectivity of the first -- the first concept that came through. I always find -- we went on the public park tour and they took us on the Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 15 of 38 school bus and kept having to turn around in cul-de-sacs throughout the city in a school bus and it was not so easy and a school bus is a little smaller than a fire truck and so I generally am not a real fan of cul-de-sacs and I would rather see a stub street through, as well as the entire design of the Meadowlake Village does not encourage you to go driving through there to go cruising around. It's a very central place when you drive up to that development with the entrance and whatnot, so I don't think other than those predominately who live there and all would be driving around in there and at the end of the day they are roads, not pathways, and so I would think as a resident you would want as many ways to get out as you could. I'll give my recommendation to the Council to not have cul-de-sacs. And the setbacks I have no real issue with. At 55 I don't think I would want a large yard. That's the end of my comments. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Well, I know we don't act formally on the variance, I would -- I would have a tough time finding a reason for hardship for a variance. I have to ask myself if I were acting on the variance is there a hardship that exists that would not allow me to make a connection and I can't find a true hardship case. I do understand perhaps marketing reasons that would be there to -- you know, to want the cul-de-sacs and things like that, but I don't believe in this case there is a -- we have the -- that there will be the ability to make findings for a hardship, from what I see. So, I, too, would agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay in that I would support the connectivity and I would like to see a north-south roadway that connects through on the -- near the east portion of the site. I would support for the office commercial areas that it's fine to support the plat and this CUP with going through with the condition for a future CUP on that lot and a condition of this one that it not -- they not take access from Touchmark Way. I do support the rear setbacks proposed by the staff and that is all. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway, do you believe that we need the connections both on the east trunk, as well as the west, or just -- Siddoway: I just think there needs to be connectivity. Rohm: One or the other, but one of the cul-de-sacs would be okay without access to one of the arterials? Siddoway: I'm thinking in this area here. Rohm: Okay. So, on the west end -- the west end use you don't feel that we need to have a connection there as well? Siddoway: That's difficult. I guess that one was 900 -- 950 feet. I just think that I would have a tough time finding support for a variance in general. If there was a different way to lay it out so that the cul-de-sac was not longer than 450 feet -- I don't have particular issue with the cul-de-sac, but if the variance for the cul-de-sac length, I think that there is a way to make it work within that current ordinance. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 16 of 38 Rohm: And I think the point is is both of them -- or either of them require a variance and you would have to put a stub out of each of these to eliminate the need for the various, as I understand it. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can address that for you? Rohm: Would you, please. Hess: The way this works is because both are considered cul-de-sac length -- measurement length starts from Touchmark Way here. So, we count here at the beginning point, we follow along the Beal Court and it ends here. The second cul-de- sac also starts from the same place and is measured all the way to the end. However, if Nissler Court was to actually become a through street, our starting point for the cul-de- sac length would actually start here. Rohm: Right. Hess: So, I'm pretty sure that they can meet 450 length with this one. They would not need a variance for this cul-de-sac. Rohm: Good. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate that. That helps quite a bit. All right. Good. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some final thoughts? O'Brien: I'm not in favor of a through put on the cul-de-sac, either one of them. If I were to buy a home there, the whole purpose of me going in there would be for privacy and keep out unwanted, unneeded traffic. Okay. That's important me and I would see that would be important to a lot of people that might move in there and being a destination for their future home. Again, my only concerns only would be in the safety aspects of that. You add a through put -- open up the cul-de-sac and you're going to get -- you're going to increase those safety concerns I mentioned earlier and I just don't think I could approve of that type of a change outside of having it mainly just for fire and police. Rohm: So, basically, you like it the way it is? O'Brien: I do. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. O'Brien: Outside of having staff review the safety aspects of lighting and shrubberies and things like this is on some of the radical curves to make sure that people can see -- people coming out of driveways and an entrance street or walking on the street, et cetera. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I guess my final comment on this application is I tend to agree with Commissioner O'Brien. The fact of the matter is there is connectivity through Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 17 of 38 this subdivision via the currently existing Touchmark Road and the proposed road along the north line of these lots and even though there will be two cul-de-sacs internal to this, the general flow of traffic throughout this subdivision has -- is being maintained and I certainly understand where staff is coming from, because that's what we have, we have ordinances to prevent the lack of good traffic flow and I think that this particular development maintains that traffic flow, even though it doesn't comply with the UDC and so that would be my comments on this. And with that being said, I'm ready to hear a motion, so-- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, one follow-up with Amanda real quick. Just like to check the conditions. The conditions of approval are already written for the setback issue; correct? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, that's correct. Siddoway: And the -- there is a condition also that requires connectivity? Hess: Correct. That is correct as well. Siddoway: And this -- there is -- there is not one, is there, that addresses a future CUP and the issues for the two existing -- the two commercial lots? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no. No. Right now -- Siddoway: That would need to be added? Hess: The Commission states that the applicant was to provide concept plans for how the commercial office lots were to develop. So, you can add the CUP requirements for those lots under the Conditional Use Permit comment. Siddoway: Do you have those lot numbers? Hess: Let me check. Hood: And while Amanda is looking for that, if I may, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, always helps staff out if we can have a plat note to that effect. Five years from now, maybe two or three years from now when someone goes to pull a building permit on one of the office commercial lots, staff may have turned over and no one remembered that there is a CU requirement. So, if we can get a plat note stating that those lots require a CU and the accessory restrictions that were mentioned earlier, I think that-would sure help keep the record clean that it's -- that they do CUPs and where access should be taken, as well as if you wanted to put it in the CUP as well, I think both places are appropriate in this case. Hess: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, those two lot numbers are 1 and 62 of Block 1. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 18 of 38 Siddoway: Okay. And the ten foot buffer adjacent to Edgeview Estates is addressed? Yes? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, they have agreed to that. Siddoway: Okay. And there is a condition that confirms that requirement? Hess: Yes. That is correct. Siddoway: Okay. Ready to try a motion. Back here. We have closed the hearing. Yes. Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 07-009 and CUP 07-008, as presented during the hearing on May 17th, 2007, with the following condition of approval: That a plat note be required that says that Lots 1 and 62 of Block 1, require a Conditional Use Permit and that no access for these lots will be taken off of Touchmark Way. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Okay. Okay. So, basically, you're saying that the staff report recommending denial of the variance is -- Siddoway: Is part of my motion. Rohm: -- is part of your motion. Siddoway: It's already in the staff report that way. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 07-009 and CUP 07-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the sign. The motion passed three to two. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 07..009 Request for a Rezone of 24.69 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Jabil Southeast by Joint School District No. 2 - 1303 East Central Drive (Portion of Lot 1, Block 1, of the Jabil Subdivision): Rohm: Okay. Thank you folks for coming in. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for RZ 07-009 for the sole purpose of continuing this project to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 7th, 2007. Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 19 of 38 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item RZ 07-009 to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 7 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: PFP 07-002 Request for a Combined Preliminary/Final Plat to subdivide Lot 4, Block 1, Devon Park Subdivision No.2, to create two (2) new lots for Devon Park North by Doug Tamura - 1960 North Lakes Place: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PFP 07-002 related to Devon Park North and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is another request for a preliminary/final plat approval. The subject property totals approximately four and a half acres and is located within the Fairview Lakes Devon Park development. Fairview Lakes Devon Park is generally located at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and North Lakes. And that's right here. The applicant is proposing to subdivide Lot 4, Block 1, of Devon Park Subdivision No. 2 into two new lots. And we will jump to the plat there. The new lot sizes total approximately three and a quarter acres and 1.4 acres. The new subdivision is currently zoned -- or the subject subdivision is currently zoned R-15. Primary access to the site, as stated before, is from Fairview Avenue via North Lakes. Secondary access currently provided from East Clarene Street, which is to the east of the subdivision. All accesses are existing and have received prior approval through ACHD. The only issue to mention here is further requirement of the planned development for the subject site, a multi-use pathway was required on this development. On the submitted landscape plan it halfway dead ends approximately 40 feet south of the north property line and the Meridian Parks Department requests that the applicant construct the remaining pathway, which is this portion up here, to terminate at the northwest corner of the site. Otherwise, staff has no concerns with this proposal. Therefore, staff is supportive of Devon Park North Subdivision. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Moe: I have none. Siddoway: Is there anything built on this site right now? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, actually, I think CZCs have been issued and all the building permits for this site have already been issued to -- this Alzheimer's care unit has already been constructed. This is the living phase -- I think has already been constructed and the only thing that I think is not constructed at this point -- this is just a concrete slab or a pad right now and that is the future congregate Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 20 of 38 care. But that has received a certificate of zoning compliance and is underway as far as construction goes. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Hines: My name is Linda Hines. I live at 4356 North Ninth Ridge, Boise, Idaho. Rohm: Okay. Have you read through the staff report? Hines: Kind of generally. I'm an owner of the property, along with Doug Tamura. We are both partners and owners and he could not make it, so he asked me to step in. Rohm: Basically, then, if -- unless you had some testimony to offer, then, it really would be just a request that you would respond to the staff report as presented and if you're in agreement -- Hines: We are in agreement, yes. Rohm: Okay. There you go. That's what we needed. Thank you. All right. And, again, we do not have anybody that has signed up to testify to this application, but if there is anyone in the audience that would like to step forward and testify now is that time. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on PFP 07-002. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PFP 07-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and the public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PFP 07-002 as presented during the hearing of May 17, 2007. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 21 of 38 Siddoway: Second. But I need some discussion real quick, just for -- I just want to make sure that the -- that pathway requirement is in the condition of approval. Moe: She said it was in there. Siddoway: I'm just making sure. It was listed as an outstanding issue. I just wanted to make sure that it was in there and didn't need to be added. Moe: My motion was that that was in the report. Siddoway: Okay. My second stands. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval PFP 07-002, to include all staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 07-007 Request for a Rezone of 0.19 of an acre from an I-L to an O-T zone for the property located at 305 W. Broadway Avenue for Vanbragt Property by Maria Vanbragt - 305 W. Broadway Avenue: Rohm: Thanks for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 07- 007 related to the Vanbragt project and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a rezone for the property located at 305 West Broadway Avenue. The applicant has requested this property be rezoned from I-L, light industrial, to the OT, Old Town zoning district The subject property is generally located on the southwest corner of West Broadway Avenue and Northwest 3rd Street there. The site contains an existing single family home. To the east, west, and south of the property are single family homes zoned I-L. To the north and northeast are single family homes and an apartment complex zoned R-15. This is the photos of the site. This property and other neighboring properties to the east and west were originally developed as residential properties, but were rezoned at some point supposedly for industrial development that never occurred. Currently the use of the property as a residence is considered a nonconforming use and may not be enlarged except through conditional use approval. The applicant would like to rezone the property, so that the existing residence is a conforming use in the zone, so that they can enlarge the existing house and improve the property. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezone from I-L to OT as stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 22 of 38 Rohm: Okay. Good. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Vanbragt: Good evening. My name is Maria Vanbragt and I'm the owner-occupant of 305 West Broadway and like I agree with the staff report. We just want to improve our property. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Again, there is nobody that has signed up to testify to this application, but if there is anyone that would like to come forward, now is that time. Okay. Seeing none -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-007. Moe: Second. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07- 007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: And Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 07-007 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 17th, 2007, with no changes. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 07 ~007 to include the staff report with no changes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 07-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.69 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants _ south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 23 of 38 Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 07-010 Request for a Rezone of 75.67 acres from I-L and L-O zones to a C-G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants _ south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 07-008 Request for Preliminary Plat -approval of 61 building lots and 21 common lots on 170 +/- acres in a proposed C-G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants - south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings of AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010 and PP 07-008 for the sole purpose of continuing all three of these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 21 st, 2007. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, PP 07- 008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 21st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 07-008 Request for Annexation and zoning of 3.32 acres from R1 to C-G zone for Zamzow's Overland by JR LLC - 3620 and 3650 East Overland Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-008 related to the Zamzow's Overland project and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is an annexation and zoning request for the property located on the northwest corner of East Overland Road and South Jade Avenue. The site consists of three platted lots in Jewel Subdivision and there are currently some existing homes and outbuildings on the property. To the north and east are existing residential properties in Jewel Subdivision zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the west is vacant property, zoned C- G. And to the south are commercial properties in Silverstone Business Campus, zoned C-G. The property is currently zoned R-1 in Ada County and the applicant is requesting to annex and zone the 3.32 acre parcel, that includes the right of way to the center line of Overland and Jade. And they are requesting a C-G zoning district. The Comp Plan future land use map designation for this property is low density residential, not commercial. However, the land areas as shown on the map are only conceptual. Staff believes that a map amendment is not necessary and that the requested C-G zone and commercial use of this property would be more appropriate than a residential designation for the following reasons: The properties directly adjacent to the site on the Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 24 of 38 west and south are zoned C-G and designated as commercial on the future land use map. The site is located on the corner of Overland Road and Jade Avenue which , provides a good location for commercial property and an access point that is not on an arterial street. A large portion of the homeowners within Jewel Subdivision have been pursuing the sale and commercial redevelopment of their properties. And the proximity of this property to a major intersection, Eagle and Overland, with heavy traffic flows and a large portion of this property and surrounding properties to the north, northwest, and northeast lie within the one hundred year and five hundred year flood plane and the flood way of the Five Mile Creek, making residences an unappealing use. As you see here the blue areas here are the flood plane. However, because there are existing residences to the north and east of this site and because the future land use map does designate this property as low density residential use, staff recommends that the Commission rely on any comments received from neighbors regarding the appropriateness of zoning this property commercially for retail stores. Here is an aerial view of the property. This is the site photos, just looking right at the intersection there. This is Jade. This is Overland. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for this site. The site is required to comply with design standards because of the property's location adjacent to an entryway corridor. The applicant has submitted a design review application as required with the subject annexation application. Staff is requesting that the applicant provide an eight foot wide internal pedestrian pathway to the main building entrances from Overland Road, right along here, and to the west property boundary. Other than this change, the site complies with the required design standards. The concept plan shows one building consisting of 13,334 square feet for the Zamzow's retail store and 5,152 square feet for tenant retail shops and they are located here on the west end, for a total of 18,486 square feet. The proposed retail use of the property is permitted in the C-G zone. Certificate of zoning compliance approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit for this site. The detailed site plan and elevations submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance application must substantially comply with those approved with the subject application and with the provisions of the development agreement. The concept plan shows access here to west -- or, excuse me, South Jade. There is no direct access to Overland Road. And a driveway is shown to the west property for future connection to the planned extension of Silverstone Way. Off street parking is shown on the plan here on the site. The proposed elevations for the building. The building will primarily be constructed of three different colors of basolite CMU and concrete block, with corrugated metal accents. Staff was concerned about the appearance of a loading area on the east end of the building here where it's visible from Overland Road, with only a six foot tall wall for screening. The applicant did submit a conceptual view of the east end of the building showing how it will look when it's landscaped. Staff is satisfied with the proposed landscaping and screening on that end of the building. No landscaping improvements are required at this time, but a 35 foot buffer will be required along Overland Road, and entryway corridor, and a ten foot wide buffer will be required along Jade on development of the property. Staff is requesting that a development agreement be required for this property to insure that the property develops in a fashion that is consistent with design standards and Comprehensive Plan and is not negatively impacting here by the property. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation and zoning request, with the development Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 25 of 38 agreement provisions noted in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. That was a good report. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Sonya, the development agreement requirements that you just described are already written into a condition of the staff report? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, yes, they are. Siddoway: Okay. And there is no public access on the south elevations facing Overland? Watters: That is correct. There is no direct access to Overland. Siddoway: Okay. That's alii have at this time. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? O'Brien: I have a question for -- I forget your first name. Watters: Sonya. O'Brien: Anyway, comparing to the Zamzow's off of Main Street, I guess, and the opened area that -- Watertower Lane, I guess it is -- so, you can see all the access points there to the backyard -- the yard area of Zamzow's where they load rock and gravel and bark and all that kind of thing, so is this the concern we have on Overland Road here where that would be exposed to Overland or be able to be seen from Overland? Is that -- Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, I think the police department's primary concern was being able to see the entrances of the businesses from Overland. O'Brien: So, it's not a concern of having that visible, as much as the entrances are? Is that what I'm hearing? The entrances from the east and west side. Is that what needs to be visible? Watters: The entrances are on the north side. O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Okay. I was confused on that. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Eisenbarth: My name is Darin Eisenbarth and I reside at 307 Winter Boulevard, Nampa, Idaho. 83651. I am the president of Zamzows. This development is very Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 26 of 38 similar to our development of a store that we just opened in November in Nampa and it was well received there. We originally met with all of the neighbors and it was kind of surprising to us that they were actually very thrilled to have us in there, shaking our hands and, you know, welcoming us in and we think it will fit very well. The development of Silverstone that we are hoping will happen very soon, I think will alleviate a lot of the concerns from the police department about visibility, because that will be a fairly busy street and that will be a large entrance point to our store. The reason that we have located it this way is, one, is we feel that when you pull off of Overland with the building located the way it is it kind of -- it shields you a little bit from the traffic, because that's a very very busy street on the other side. It gives you a little sense of peace when you're on the backside like that. It also is the best use of the property, because of the flood plane that is in the back and, you know, we didn't feel that it was going to be the best use of the property to construct a building in the back and have to go through and alter the creek or do anything there. So, the building itself has a silo on the front of it and, you know, we have been a member of the Meridian Community since the early '40s when we bought the feed mill over here and this will be our 10th store, probably employ about 17 to 24 people. So, if there any other questions? Rohm: Good. Thank you. I'll tell you, it looks great. Eisenbarth: Thank you. Yeah. We are proud of it. Siddoway: One question. The site plan as you proposed it does not require any modification of the flood way it's just not -- Eisenbarth: It does not. Siddoway: Part of your parking is in the flood plane; is that correct? Eisenbarth: It is. And it's also in the flood way. We are in the process of doing a hydrology study for that and we don't think there is any issues, but we went ahead to do that anyway, just to make sure and we are meeting with Paul Kunz, who is the engineer that does that. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. It looks like everybody that's signed up to testify to this are all kind of part of the same group, but, technically, I have to name off each one individually and give you an opportunity to speak and -- Doug Zamzow. Zamzow: Commissioners, my name is Doug Zamzow. I reside at 415 Schmeizer Lane in Boise, Idaho. 83706. I work with Zamzows to manage the construction and we __ as Darren said, we had a real excellent experience with our very similar project in Nampa last year and we are looking forward to this one and we are looking forward to adding Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 27 of 38 more Zamzows presence in the community of Meridian, hopefully through this rezone and annexation process. We have done a lot of groundwork. We spent time on the phone with Sonya and the first planner that was on the job Justin Lucas. We have also spent a little bit of time with Caleb as we go through the design review process in trying to make it an acceptable, pleasant-looking building for the entry corridor of Overland Road. I have also met with Lieutenant John Overton of the Meridian Police Department. There was some concern noted in the staff report about visibility of the entrances to the building from the north side, very limited visibility, and we have agreed -- I have tried to get a hold Lieutenant Overton since, but we have agreed to add security cameras to the front entrances that will be tied into our fully monitored alarm and burglar system that will be in the store. So, I'm hoping that Lieutenant Overton will find that acceptable. I have also met briefly with Anna of the planning department. I met today with two different people at the Nampa and Meridian irrigation district. I have also done a preliminary meeting with ACHD to make sure that we will comply with all of their requirements on Overland Road and South Jade Avenue and I briefly with met with Kyle Radek of the City of Meridian regarding the flood way application. I can't remember the name of the form. Flood way application form. And we have engaged Paul Kunz, who is a professional engineer, recognized in flood way and flood plane studies. He will help us through that process, hopefully, when we get the zoning -- certificate of zoning compliance, as well as start on our building permit process. We have engaged CSHQA out of Boise to do the complete design package, civil, architectural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing. Hopefully I -- and landscaping. Hopefully I didn't miss anything there. They were also our architect engineer of record on the Nampa store, so we are trying to keep that conductivity so we end up with another excellent result like the Nampa store. Zamzows has made some changes for the design review process, as I noted earlier, and we have revised some elevations to make the east elevation and the south elevation on the entry corridor more pleasing to the eye as you drive by. We have reviewed the staff report in detail and I can't think of any other real concerns that were in the staff report, other than the police comments about the visibility of the entranceways on the north side of the building. Those are the only comments I have at this point. I'm certainly willing to answer any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Doug. And, again, this is a very nice project. Any questions of Mr. Zamzow? Okay. Thank you. Zamzow: Thank you. Rohm: John Irvine. From the audience he says he has no direct requirement to speak, but is in support of the project. Paul Lawrence. No comment at this time as well. Those are all that have signed up to speak to this application, but if there is anyone else that would like to speak to it, now is that time. Okay. Seeing none __ Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-008. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 28 of 38 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay would you like to add any comments before we -- a motion is made? Newton-Huckabay: No. I have no comments. It's a great project. I'm always glad to see businesses -- home grown businesses, so __ Rohm: Good comment. Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Just a clarification from staff. The staff does support the commercial zoning without a Comp Plan amendment, because it's adjacent to areas that are currently shown as their future land use being commercial and you see it as bump of that approved future land use; is that correct? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, yes that is correct. Siddoway: Okay. That's all I had. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, any final comments? O'Brien: I have to ditto a couple comments I heard from the Commissioners is I think it's nice to have something finally south of the freeway. We have been waiting a long time to see some growth out there from -- especially from the local boys. Congratulations. Really glad to see you coming down. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe. Moe: The same, like any other Zamzow's I have seen, and I haven't been to Nampa, but very nice -- very nice looking facility. It's going to be -- it will be a good plus out there and I appreciate that. Rohm: Thank you. And I think at this time it would be appropriate to request a motion. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 17, 2007, with one modification, that the development agreement include a requirement to add security cameras near the entrance as offered by the applicant tonight. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 29 of 38 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-008 to include the staff report as modified in the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 07-011 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 12 multi-family residential units on one acre in an R-15 zone for Strate Apartments by Gene Strate - 911 East Pine: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of CUP 07-011 related to Strate Apartments for the sole purpose of continuing these items -- this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 7th, 2007. Rohm: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CUP 07-011, to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 7th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to take a short break. (Recess.) Item 15: Public Hearing: ZOA 07-001 Request for a Zoning Ordinance / Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to modify, clean up and add specific sections to the UDC (see application for details of all sections proposed for amendments) for Unified Development Code Text Amendment # 2 by the City of Meridian Planning Department: Rohm: All right. I'd like to open Public Hearing ZOA 07-001 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. ZOA 07-001 is the second amendment to the Unified Development Code that we are taking for some additions, subtractions, modifications. As you may recall, September of 2005 that this was adopted, so about a year and a half now -- a little over a year and a half we have had the UDC in effect and for the most part I think it's working pretty well, but we have before you some clean-up items. I'm going to just touch on a couple of them that I think are noteworthy. Some of them are just -- we missed a comma or a letter or forgot to add a -- for instance, in some of the subsections -- I'm not going to touch on those. Again, just some of the major -- I wouldn't even say major. Most of these are pretty Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 30 of 38 minor changes at best. If you look at section line roads, we are adding some of the section line roads down south and to the northwest that weren't listed as section line roads as we have continued south to take in the four square miles or just making sure that we are getting our landscape buffers and things like that on those roads as we approach them. There is a bunch of sign code stuff that we are cleaning up, some of that stuff. Detached accessory buildings, clarifying that they are not allowed in any required street yard, so they will always be behind a structure and screened. Talk measuring sidewalk -- or setbacks from the back of sidewalk or property line where there isn't a sidewalk. Currently it just says from the sidewalk and we are having problems with if there is no sidewalk where do you measure it from. Let's see. We are deleting the standards for fireworks stands. Some of you may be aware we -- the city adopted a new fireworks ordinance this -- probably a month and a half ago, something like that, so there is -- it's in city code somewhere else, so we are striking everything that talks about what our standards for fireworks stands are. Probably the biggest change to mention is in 11-3-G3.A-1. We are upping the minimum amount of common open space required for subdivisions of five acres or more in size. The current requirement is five percent. We are proposing to bump that up to ten percent. So, at a minimum all subdivisions greater than five acres will now require ten percent open space. So, that's probably the biggest change mentioned. Hopefully you all had a chance read through this, but, again, there is truly not a lot to it. Some noticing requirements that we are kind of cleaning up there. Maybe one of the other things that we were cleaning up -- or adding that's never been codified is a development agreement and how you modified a development agreement, so we are putting some language in there about modifications to DAs and actually giving them a home and a process, so that's also in there. Common lots -- or, excuse me, common driveways. There was nothing in the UDC about how much separation had to be between lots not sharing a common driveway, so we put a standard in there that there has to be at least a five foot landscape strip separating one driveway from the next. It could be just a one foot wide common drive -- or landscape strip. O'Brien: Mr. Hood? Hood: Yeah. O'Brien: Is it appropriate for me to -- Hood: Sure. O'Brien: -- ask a question? Because I will forget when you go through all the rest of them. So, this five foot separation between driveways, is that for a single dwelling, duplexes, what? Because like in this Meadowlake thing, they are so close together, five foot would put the driveway in the front door, I'm afraid. Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, this particular standard applies to a shared driveway. So, if you have two, three or four units sharing a driveway that goes back and they flag off -- you have those like side loaded garages, typically, those types Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 31 of 38 of things, it just says you can't have a fifth unit that's right next to that and not taking access. Having its own driveway, but not using the common driveway that they abut. It at least provides some separation between the two. O'Brien: I'm glad you clarified that. Thank you. Hood: Uh-huh. And, then, the final two things I just want to touch on real quick -_ we are adding a requirement that -- I think the postmaster contacted me this past year and wanted to have a requirement that prior to final plat that they get a letter from the postmaster that they are approving the mailbox locations for commercial projects. We are running into some problems with commercial projects. We require it now with residential and they wanted to get that in with commercial as well. And, then, finally, in the planned development ordinance we have added a standard talking about how we are supportive of side entry garages or alley loaded design with planned developments, something we are trying to support. It doesn't say you have to do that, but trying to express our want for innovative design. So, that is, in a nutshell, some of the changes. Now, there are many different sections, but, again, a lot of them are just clean-up things, problems we have noticed over the past year or so and we are taking them to you to see if you have any questions. Just to go back to -- we did send out an e-mail to the City Council sometime ago and I believe most all of you were probably copied on that, too. Let me give you a brief presentation on this. I think at our last joint meeting this is that same application, so we finally got them all compiled, yeah, and so having that, since then, it's essentially that same document from that time. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Rohm: Absolutely. O'Brien: Okay. So, when I was reading through here, you mentioned several times on the notification process of people living within a hundred, 300 to a thousand feet, depending upon what the notification was about, whether it be housing or light industrial or heavy industrial, what determines that? How was that determined to -- in footage for notification of people within that circle? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, our noticing is done from all points of exterior boundary of a property. So, you, essentially, take whatever the subject site is and you would go -- in most instances it's 300 feet. O'Brien: But what determined that? I mean how did you come up with that number? Hood: Boy, that's been something that's been around for a long time. I'm not sure if there is something in state code that actually says 300 feet __ O'Brien: I don't know that. I'm just -- Rohm: I think it is state code. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 32 of 38 O'Brien: There may be. The concerns I have with that are this: Recently -- and this is in the county out where I live -- is that someone bought the property on Lake Hazel that overlooks the valley where those 644 homes were turned down by Hubble -- from Hubble. The person who originally bought that property up there basically wanted it for the gravel. They turned it into a gravel pit -- not a pit, but they scarffed off the top of that plane on the fourth bench and it was in direct site from my property, but the noise was tremendous. And they are further than 1,000 feet away. And the other case in point __ there is another sand and gravel property that they did the same thing for that was also more than 1,000 feet away. So, there is some concerns there that it very much affects people outside of that circle and so I was just curious as to how that process really worked, because it didn't work out there. Hood: Yeah. And Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, that is one form of notice that we do with projects is to try to hit the people that are in the immediate vicinity that we think are going to be most likely affected by any development there. If you drive by the project, though, they are also required to put up the four-by-four sign. Now, most people are going 50 miles an hour and they don't read that sign, but that's what that sign is for and if you're driving home and you see one of those signs, you should get in the habit of getting out and reading the sign, because that is what -- that's to get the word out that, hey, someone's proposing to do something here, there is a Public Hearing, find out what's going on in your neighborhood. The third form of notice is the newspaper. Now, again, most people don't read the Valley Times, but it is there and it is made available to the public. So, we do the best we can. We can't send out notice to everyone. I mean our fees would go through the roof trying to send letters to everyone for every project. That's why the 300 foot has been adopted by the Council and, yeah, we can get people outside of that that are affected. I mean look at traffic, you're going to have -- you know, traffic's going to be generated and affect people that are downstream. We just can't notify everyone that well. But the other -- the fourth unwritten form of notification is neighborhoods and homeowners associations. They get the word out and most of them now are pretty good about, hey, I got a notice, talking to their neighbors, did you get a notice, do you have any concerns, and knocking on doors and kind of rallying people that way. Now, on the county it's a little bit different. Your neighbors may be five acres away, but through those methods we do the best we can to get the word out if there is a project proposed, so -- and it's just the way things have been done. And I'm not saying that's correct, but that's just the way that we have done them in the past. And just for clarification, we are proposing to change that radius notice in here. One of the sections, I believe, that was changed is the AUPs, which is, essentially, day cares. We are expanding that notice a little bit wider, because we were just noticing them to people directly adjacent to and I think we are going a hundred feet from there. So, at least we have some new standards there. But our general standards for noticing are not changing. Are not proposed to change anyway. O'Brien: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 33 of 38 Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I think it's also worth noting, in answer to your question, that I think -- as I read sub item C, that the director has the ability to require notice beyond the 300 or thousand foot, if they see that, you know, the way the radius is working out really isn't hitting some key property owners that are affected. So, there is the ability to -- to do that, but 300 to a thousand is the typical hard line. Hood: And just an example to follow up on that, we actually did use that this last week. There was -- someone appealed Anna's determination and the implications of that appeal could have far reaching implications citywide, so we asked the clerk to do a public service announcement and do all the alternative notice as well, because we felt there would be more than 200 people that would be affected by that decision. So, it's not very common, but it's not wholly disregarded. It is code and we do use it sometimes, so -- O'Brien: Okay. Just a case in point, is the south Comprehensive Plan is a good thing to look at, because there is a lot of people going to be affected by whatever happens out there that are a lot more than a quarter mile away or more. Hood: And -- Mr. Chair, Mr. O'Brien, in that case there are more than 200 affected property owners, so we don't send out one mailed notice, the state code allows you, if the mailing just gets too many, that you do these alternative forms. Public service announcements, you post it in the paper in bigger font, I think is what it reads, but, essentially, you get the word out via other means. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate you clarifying that. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have one question, which -- and it's related to the open space. I support the increase from five to ten percent. Caleb, is staff happy with the way the open space is currently defined in terms of usability or, you know, those types of standards? Hood: It is -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, it is pretty clearly defined in code, you know, it needs to be an area substantially open to the sky, it can't be a parking lot, it can't be some of these other common areas. So, I think the definition is fine. Where I find -- personally where I find some gray area in reviewing those is multi-family developments where there are common lots and where you draw a line of what's common and what's someone's backyard, but maybe there is not a property line there. And so kind of those areas where -- where there is not a subdivision is where it gets a little gray to me and usually most of those have -- far exceed the requirements, because they include a lot of the setbacks and things like that in their open space calculations. So, for the most part I think, yes, we may revisit it here a little bit and just since we are talking about open space, I am going to send this out to the BCA. I have not received comments and just -- we would like to get the word out, particularly probably on that one Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 34 of 38 -- that one change. The other ones I don't think they will be probably too much -- too many comments back, but we will get the development community involved at least before City Council, so -- Rohm: Thank you. At this time could I get a motion to -- we have to close the Public Hearing? I guess we would. Siddoway: We should note for the record that there is no one in the audience to testify. Newton-Huckabay: And nobody's signed up. Rohm: Yeah. There is not anyone in the audience to testify and there was nobody signed up, too, so at this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing for lOA 07-001. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on lOA 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number lOA 07- 001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 17, 2007, with no mod ifications. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of lOA 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Before we adjourn I believe Caleb had something he wanted to present to us and get some feedback. So, Caleb, at this time I'll turn it over to you. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Commission, I just had a couple of things. It's been brought to my attention by more than one of you that you would like some additional training -- I mentioned I think to most everyone -- maybe I didn't catch Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 35 of 38 Wendy, but there is some additional pamphlets and ready material and things that you can thumb through and if you're interested in any subscription to one of those let me know. The other training exercise of this -- I talked to Diane Kushlan, she is the foremost expert on training exercises for Planning and Zoning Commissions in the valley and she has a slot open on the 21 st of June for some training if you guys would like for Robert's Rules of Order and just how to run a hearing and state law and questions you can ask and questions you can't and when you can have a quorum and when you can't and just kind of running through those things. So, I wanted to see what your calendars looked like for the 21 st of June and I'll try to get a scope of what you would like to get out of that. If we should start out with back to square one and make it a refresher for most everyone and just, you know, do what we can within that hour, I think she can pretty much cover the whole range of topics within an hour, starting from just, you know, beginning to the first day commissioner to someone that may have been on the Commission for several years and just needs a refresher, but there is that and she's -- like I said, she has -- if you only have a half hour, she could do an abbreviated version and really get to the nuts and bolts of it, but she said to go back the first half hour would be a good base to build on for that second half hour, so -- Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I would like to be part of that. Hood: Okay. You bet. So, the 21 st -- and I guess my question, then, for whoever __ and this would be totally optional, you don't have to make it. I understand you all work and are busy as well. We have a couple of options. We can do something like at 5:30, we can get dinner, maybe start out at 5:30 and do a half hour and take, 15, 20 minutes to get some dinner, do the second half hour session, and, then, go into your 7:00 o'clock. Or if you're just -- you know, time is of the most importance not being here, we could start closer to 6:00 and just work right through. So, kind of -- the ball's kind of in your court there about what you want to do as far as time, but, again, the 21st is the next available slot that she has. And if that doesn't work, we can -- I can look at her calendar some more and we can get something else scheduled. O'Brien: I'd rather do it a night that we don't have a hearing, personally. Newton-Huckabay: I would be for not doing that, actually, myself. Rohm: I'm with -- which might be a first. I'm with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Somebody mark it down. Moe: If she's available the 21 st, that would be my-- Rohm: And as far as splitting it up, I actually like a little bit of a break there, starting at 5:30, go a half an hour, take 20 minutes for a meal and, then, have another half hour before we start our public hearing, that's great, because it gives me a chance to kind of Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 36 of 38 think about what I have already heard and possibly have question and answer after the fact. Newton-Huckabay: How many agenda items are on the 21 st? Hood: I didn't have a draft or Machelle and I -- I'm trying to remember. We continued a fairly large one to the 21 st tonight, Pinebridge that will take some time. There were I think four, maybe five other items on there, so -- Hill: Three right now. Hood: Three items? Hill: Unless you have applications over there, Caleb. Hood: No. So, it doesn't look too terribly bad, but Pinebridge is a pretty big project, so _ Newton-Huckabay: Is it -- from a staff perspective is it coming together pretty well or is it going to be one of those really big projects with about a 40 minute staff report, because -- do you know what I'm saying? How some -- Hood: Yeah. I don't know what Sonya has got cooked up. I mean there is a lot of details and I hope she gives those to you. I can let you know what we are waiting on now is basically ACHD's comments. So, Sonya is pretty much done with her review, just waiting to see if there is anything from ACHD that's going to throw any wrenches into her analysis and her recommendation, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Sometimes there will be those big projects where they will be __ staff will have a list of outstanding issues that take forever to work through. Hood: No, I really don't see that with this -- this project. It was pretty clean when we accepted it in. In the past there wasn't a lot of public opposition either. I don't know that that will be the case this time, but it will take some time, but I don't see it being an all nighter or something where it just drags on and on, so -- and if it starts to, I mean we can sure continue it on. I mean that's at the discretion of -_ Newton-Huckabay: South Ridge is what comes to mind. Hood: Yeah. I don't anticipate that. Rohm: Anyway-- Siddoway: I like June 21 st with the 5:30 and the dinner. Rohm: Works for me. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 37 of 38 Hood: Okay. Dinner -- preferences? We haven't had Goodwood in awhile. It seems to be a staple. Do you guys want to try something different or __ Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I do. Hood: Okay. What? Rohm: Trying something different or -- Hood: Sandwiches or -- Rohm: You will figure it out. Hood: Sandwiches or pizza? What -- no pizza. We could probably pick something up from -- like an Applebee's or something. I don't know. Siddoway: Corona Village. Hood: Mexican platter. Newton-Huckabay: That wouldn't be so bad, like taco salad type stuff. Hood: Or do a Mexican platter from Corona Village? Rohm: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: That would be nice. Rohm: Okay. Can we get a motion to adjourn? Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:54 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 17, 2007 Page 38 of 38 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVEU~ CHAIRliAN MICHAEL E. ROHM ATTESTED. WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CIIY ~/ .;L( / Or