Loading...
2008 01-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 17, 2008 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 17, 2008, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: David Moe, Michael Rohm, Joe Marshall, Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood., Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, Scott Steckling and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Michael Rohm X Tom O'Brien X Wendy Newton Huckabay X Joe Marshall X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for January the 17th. I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there is one change this evening and that would be item No. -- No. 4. There is still some items that are being worked out within this, so that hearing is going -- which is CUP 07-022 for the Meridian Eye Care that will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 7th, 2008. We will continue that when it comes up in the agenda. Other than that the agenda will hold., so can I get a motion to accept the revised adoption of the agenda? O'Brien: So moved.. Newton-Huckabay: So moved.. Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the adoption of the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 2 of 39 A. Approve Minutes of January 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall -Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the storage unit facility located at 355 North Ten Mile Road for Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. There are three items on that Consent Agenda. Item number one would be the approval of the meeting minutes for the January the 3rd., 2008, Planning and Zoning meeting. B is the Findings -- the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval CUP 07-020 for Starbucks drive- thru. And C is also Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07- 021, which was the Stor-It Addition. Are there any comments to the Consent Agenda items? Rohm: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any. Moe: Okay. Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second.. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye.. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from January 3, 2008: CUP 07-022 Request for a Conditional use Permit for a medical office in the O-T zoning district that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Meridian Eye Care by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry Lane: Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 3 of 39 Moe: Next item on the agenda is Item No. 4, which is the CUP 07-022 for the Meridian Eye Care Center and we will continue the hearing for the sole purpose to, again., continue it to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 7th, 2008. Could I get a motion to do so? ' Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I move we continue CUP 07-022 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. Rohm: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing for CUP 07-022 for the Meridian Eye Care Center to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 7th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: We are getting close to starting now, how is that? But before we do so, just a couple things. I don't know if there is anyone out here in the audience that this might be their -- their first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and whatnot. Just to kind of give you an overview of what will happen, I will open the Public Hearing and the staff will give an overview of the project. After that is done, then, the applicant will come up and they will have five -- or, excuse me, ten minutes to review the project with the Commission, basically, to discuss anything that was in the staff report, whether they approve or have other changes to that. At which time, then, we will allow the folks that had signed up -- in the back of the room there are sign-up sheets and you would get three minutes to come explain your point of view. If, in fact, you do have comment and you have not signed up, once all the names have been read off the list, I will ask if there is anyone else that would like to speak and you also will get your time to speak. At which time after that is done and everyone has spoken here, we will ask the applicant to come back and rebut anything that's been said by the other folks that spoke, at which time, then, we will close the Public Hearing and vote on an action for that. Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 07-021 Request for a Rezone of 27.89 acres from R- 4 to C-N (2.75 acres) and L-O (25.14 acres) for the property located on the southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 4 of 39 Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 07-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 commercial building lots on 25.87 acres in proposed L-O and C-N zones for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: Moe: So, having said that, I would now like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 07-021 for the Educational Campus Commercial and have the staff report, please. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- excuse me. Could you also open up -- Moe: I will open also PP 07-025. Wafters: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Wafters: The applications before you are a rezone and preliminary plat request for Education Campus Commercial. The subject property consists of 25.87 acres and is currently zoned R-4, medium density -- excuse me -- medium low density residential. The property is located on the southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive, approximately a half mile north of East Ustick Road. The property is bordered on the north by single family residences, zoned R-1 in Ada County. On the east by single family residences and Joint School District property zoned R-4. On the south by single family residential zoned R-4. And on the west by commercial property consisting of office commercial uses, zoned C-N and L-O. And a rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. And there are two existing charter high schools and an alternative school on the southern portion of the site. You can see here on the aerial view. And an area leased by the fire department for use as a fire safety teaching facility on the eastern portion of the site. The rest of the property consists vacant land. This property was previously annexed by the Joint School District in 1999 with a development agreement. A provision of the development agreement restricts uses on the site to school education uses only. If commercial uses are proposed in the future, the applicant will need to apply for a modification to the development agreement to allow commercial uses on the site, along with education uses. The applicant is requesting a rezone of 25.14 acres from R-4 to L-O, limited office, and 2.75 acres from R-4 to C-N, neighborhood commercial. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is public/quasi-public. Staff believes that the proposed L-O and C-N zoning is appropriate and complies with the public/quasi-public use designation for the following reasons: One, a large portion of the site, 20 or so acres, is utilized by the school district and only a small portion, six or so acres, may be sold off and redeveloped commercially. The primary use of the properties is an education campus, complies with the public/quasi-public land use designation. Two, education institutions are a principal permitted use in the proposed L-O and C-N zoning districts. Three. The Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008. Page 5 of 39 property is located on Locust Grove Road, an arterial street, at the half mile, which is, generally, a good location for commercial businesses. And, four, light office commercial uses would be compatible with the existing education campus and commercial office uses across the street on the west side of Locust Grove. A preliminary plat is also requested for approval of one neighborhood commercial zoned building lot on the corner of Locust Grove and Leigh Field here. And six office zoned building lots for the remainder of the property. The proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, of Education Campus Subdivision approved in 2002. The proposed plat complies with the dimensional standards of both the L-O and C-N zones. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan with this application. The landscaping shown on the plan was installed on the site with the previous plat. A 25 foot wide buffer is provided along Locust Grove and a ten foot wide buffer is provided along Leigh Field as acquired. Actually, it exceeds ten feet, but the ten feet is the minimum requirement. However, a small portion of the buffer is missing along Leigh Field south of the fire department teaching facility in this area here, that the applicant has agreed to install. A 20 foot wide buffer between land uses is required and has been installed along the south and east property boundaries. You can't see it on this plan here, but there is also an existing fence along the south and east property boundaries adjacent to the residences. No new fencing is proposed or required with this application. Access to the site is currently provided from a driveway connection to North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive public street. To enhance the safety of the development for addressing purposes, staff is requesting that the current driveway to Locust Grove be converted to a private street, connecting to Leigh Field Drive in either its current or future location. The applicant should submit a private street application to the planning department for staff level approval. prior to or concurrent with the final plat application. The applicant submitted a letter in response to the staff report requesting that Public Works condition of approval 2.3 and 2.6 in Exhibit B be stricken. Public Works staff is in agreement to this request if the Commission could, please, include that in their motion. Again, that's condition of approval 2.3 and 2.6 in Exhibit B. Staff recommends approval of the rezone and preliminary plat application with the conditions stated in Exhibit B, based on findings in Exhibit D of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions? O'Brien: What page is that 2.3, 2.6 on? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, it is on -- there is not a page number on it.. It's in Exhibit B. Rohm: I think it's 18. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 6 of 39 Wafters: It's under item number two, Public Works Department. Moe: Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none.. Moe: Okay. Thank you.. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address, please. Stiles: Sheri Stiles, Engineering Solutions, 1029 East Rosario in -- or North Rosario in Meridian. Sonya did an excellent job outlining the project for you. I really don't have anything to add. .Since this is surplus property for the school district, given these entitlements will allow them to sell it and get some more tax revenues for the city. So, will stand for any questions that you have. Moe: Okay. Any questions? O`Brien: Excuse me. Do I understand, then, that the building lots that we are going to rezone are only limited to educational uses, so no light office or anything beyond there, is that -- Stiles: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, there will be a request for a development agreement modification, which will simply request a change of that wording that they be limited only to educational facilities to allow some other uses. We have not submitted that application yet, but that is forthcoming. O'Brien: Thank you. That's all I have. Moe: Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you very much. Stiles: Thank you. Moe: We have one person signed up, John Courtwright. Would you like to come forward? You have to come up to the mike. State your name and address. Courtwright: John Courtwright. 1888 East Summer Ridge Drive, Meridian. Which is right on fihe south boundary. My back fence goes up against that. If I may -- Moe: You need to stay with the microphone, please. Courtwright: I need to stay with the microphone. Okay. Moe: There should be a pointer right there. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 7 of 39 Courtwright: Great. Okay. This photo does not show the alternative school that has been put in here with the temporaries -- the temporary buildings. It looks as though this does -- and I'm assuming that that new development there -- and I am asking mainly questions. Is the -- those are the temporary buildings that were put in for the alternative school; is that correct? Right in there. I can't see the pointer. Moe: I'm not sure exactly what -- Nary: Yeah. They will come back and answer it. You can go ahead and ask your questions and, then, they will -- Courtwright: Okay. You probably know what I mean. Okay. Although it hasn't been specifically stated nor pointed out, I am assuming that the property in question is this that is east and north of the alternative school that was put in two years ago or whatever. Meaning here and here, because -- Nary: You have to be on the mike, sir. Courtwright: -- this is the alternative school. Nary: We have to have it on record. Courtwright: Okay. So, there is the alternative school and I'm assuming it looks like that, it doesn't look like that from where I live, which right there. But I'm assuming that this is the area in question. And that's one thing that I want to clarify is where, in fact, is this and will there be an extension or -- will Leigh Field continue like that. This is now a walkway, pathway, bikeway, whatever you want to call it. Will that be extended. And address the problem -- and I don't know if this is the forum for it or if the school district is, but since this was developed, landscaped, the school's sprinkling system has ruined our wood fence along there, because it continually saturates it and it's warped. I am probably going to have to replace that and I don't know if this is a city matter, a school matter, or a matter for the new development. I'm done. Moe: Thank you very much. Again, there is no one else signed up. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this, come up now. Okay. There is no one, so would the applicant like to come back up. Bigham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wendell Bigham, 911 -- 911 -- 1303 East Central Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Representing Joint School District No. 2. To try to briefly answer the questions that the patron brought up, the parcel of land here in question will remain under school district ownership. This is probably the location -- okay. Up here in the corner -- where a new building would be constructed.. The portable campus here, which we believe will remain successful, will be replaced at a future date with a permanent structure. The best point of reference I could give you would be Crossroads Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 8 of 39 Middle School that's on Nola Street, just south of Pine. Okay. That type of facility. Our intent would be that a new facility would be -- probably be constructed in this area. This street section, the private drive, would continue on up to this juncture here to provide a through street and that when these portables go away, that this will probably remain as open grass area to support the athletic needs, PE needs, of the three different schools. Assuming we can come up with the money, we will put a new building in that area. So, the lots in question sale is this lot here, this one, and this one. And I believe that one. So, this will remain under the district's ownership. In terms of the fencing, when I'm through here I will give the gentleman my card. I will have our grounds department contact you. First I've heard of it. But something is definitely wrong if we are totally soaking your fence. So, we will deal with that. Did I answer the questions the gentleman had? Moe: That's what I have, yeah. Bigham: Stand for any questions, should you have them. Moe: Do you have any questions? Bigham: Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: There was a comment by Mr. Courtwright regarding whether the path would be extended or switched into a road. I don't see anything where the path will be anything but a path along the perimeter. Moe: Yeah. Over on the one side. Right. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe.: All right. Well, there has been testimony and the applicant's responded back, so can I get a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 9 of 39 Rohm: I'll second that motion. Moe: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I'll go ahead and -- Moe: In discussion, whoever does make the motion, don't forget the other items within Public Works that were discussed. Newton-Huckabay: May we strike those in the motion just by number, without reading them? Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 17, 2008, with the following modifications: That the following -- the Public Works comments in Exhibit B, 2.3 and 2.6, be removed from the staff report. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve onto City Council RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025, with the modifications as noted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Locust Grove is a popular street on this evening's agenda. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 07-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.49 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Stake House by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - 5555 N. Locust Grove Road: Moe: Okay. At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-019 and start with staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is an annexation and zoning of 15.49 acres from RUT, Ada County, to limited office. The site is located on the west side of Locust Grove, approximately half a mile south of Chinden Boulevard. The property is bordered on the north by Madelynn Estates Subdivision. On the south by Tustin Subdivision. On the west is the Cardigan Bay Subdivision. And the east is Vienna Woods Subdivision, zoned R-4. All Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 10 of 39 of the subdivisions are zoned R-4. There is an existing church on the site that is to remain as part of this application. The applicant is requesting annexation to comply with an agreement which allowed the church to connect to city services without being annexed into the city unfiil it was contiguous. The city limits now border this property on all four sides. Staff suggested the applicant zone the site L-O, so the existing LDS church would comply with the underlining zoning district as a permitted use, rather than having the applicant submit for a Conditional Use Permit. Furthermore, staff believes the L-O zone is appropriate for the church site and any future development and/or subdivision on the site will require full compliance with the UDC standards. Therefore, staff is proposing a development agreement be required for this property. Provisions of the DA are listed in Section 10 of the staff report. So, here is where the existing church is located. There is some existing landscaping on the site. Some of it complies with code, some of it doesn't, but right now the church is just coming in -- again, they are not proposing any development on the site. So, staff hasn't put any requirements on them to bring that landscaping into compliance until they either expand the site or propose new development on the site. So, with that, that concludes my presentation and I stand for any questions the Commission may have. Moe: Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Cluff: Ladd Cluff with Elk Mountain Engineering. Address is 4286 East Amity, Suite 101, Nampa, Idaho. The applicant -- the only concern that the applicant has is Section 10, as was presented by staff, regarding the development agreement. The LDS church is not in the business of development and doesn't want to be and because of the concerns with the nonprofit status, the development agreement, they request that that be waived. That's the only request we have at this time. Moe: Okay. Any questions? Rohm: I don't have any. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, there is no one signed up, other than the applicant that was already here, so is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Boy, quiet crowd tonight. And I don't know that we need the applicant to come back up again, so we pretty much have everything we need there. Mr. Rohm, you look like you have a question of staff. Rohm: I do. Could you respond to the applicant's request to have the development agreement waived? I'm -- I don't know if we have ever had a situation where we just waive a development agreement based upon the applicant's request. So, could you speak to that for us, please? Parsons.: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, staff feels that there should be a development agreement on the site just for the fact that -- to give you a little bit of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 11 of 39 history or background on it, we have been working with the applicant for several months on the parcel, on the site, and they had originally proposed to do a preliminary/final plat on the site to subdivide that and have that lower five -- get the pointer out here. This lower five acres to be sold off in future development -- as a development. And at that time staff was putting some provisions that additional landscaping be put in here and possibly sharing of this access and the applicant didn't feel comfortable with those requirements, so they just wanted to go forward with the annexation. So, we felt, okay, we could live with that, provided that any future development -- we hold open to a DA on the site that any new development or expansion of the site, that they would be required to comply with our standards. And so, basically, we aren't really requiring the applicant to do any other additional requirements on the site, we are just -- we just want to put something in place that says when this -- if they sell this portion off, that any future development on that site will -- they will have to come back to the city and have those things comply with our standards. So, that's the intention of the development agreement. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm, did that give you the answer you were looking for? Rohm: Yes. But I believe Mr. Nary has some comments. Moe: Yes, sir. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission., the applicant also stated in their testimony they were concerned about the status of the church or the fact that they are in the development business. That has nothing to do with the development agreement. The state statute only allows us to do it at this particular juncture or in a rezone situation. So, it doesn't really make any difference whether a future development may or may not occur. Secondarily, I know of no case law in the state of Idaho that says a development agreement would impact their non-profit status. The school district, the property that was prior to -- the applicant prior to you, they have a development agreement on their property. It's a fairly common practice. It is a statutory -- statutorily allowed. So, it doesn't have an impact on their status as a church, so -- Moe: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 12 of 39 Rohm: I would just ask the -- like to have the applicant come back up and respond to the staffs comments and see if they have any alternative to offer up, because at this time it appears that the development agreement is necessary and if he has an alternative that I would listen to it, but -- Moe: Would the applicant like to come back up. Cluff: The reason for the request -- the church policy -- their legal has informed us that they do not wish to enter into development agreements and that's the reason for that. The other option is that the city will have the opportunity that in the event that they want to sell this property to the south, those areas staff had mentioned, that if that has to be developed, it's going to have -- or goes in to be sold, it will have to be -- go through a subdivision and at that time the city will have every opportunity to place development agreements on a preliminary plat for that. Newton-Huckabay: No. Cluff: Or requirements for the development -- Nary: No. Cluff: -- as conditions of approval. Nary: But the development agreement can only be done at this time. And it is a condition when the services were provided by the city that they would have -- they come in for annexation at that time and that is when the development agreement is appropriate. Gluff: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-019. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 13 of 39 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: At this time I'd like to make a motion to move onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-019, to include the staff report as written. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve moving on to City Council approving AZ 07-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Item 10: Public Hearing.: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023 and go with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are an annexation and zoning of 21.8 acres from RUT, Ada County, to R-15, medium high density residential. A preliminary plat approval of three residential lots and one common lot, Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi-level development consisting of 122 condo units and a clubhouse. A private street application for eight private streets within the proposed development and alternative Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 14 of 39 compliance to allow the construction of a 36 foot street section to accommodate eight foot parking aisles along one side. The site is located on the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road.. The property is bordered on the north by Quenzer Commons Subdivision and an LDS church -- Quenzer Commons and the LDS church site -- a different church site. To the south is Howell Track Subdivision and Wanda's Meadow, zoned R-8 and R-4. To the west is a single family residence in Wanda Meadows, zoned RUT, Ada County, and R-4. And to the east is the Summerfield Subdivision, zoned R-4 and RUT, Ada County. The site currently contains an existing single family home with associated outbuildings. The submitted plans indicate all existing buildings are to be removed to make way for the proposed multi-family development. It's kind of hard to see, but there is an existing residential home on the site right here in the corner. The applicant is requesting approval of four lots consisting of three residential lots and one common lot. Primary access to the site will be via North Locust Grove Road to and from East Monet Street. It is important to note that the proposed alignment of said roadway is not adjacent to the roadway east of the site. Staff has received written comments from ACRD supporting the alignment of the proposed streets. Furthermore, there is an existing LDS church site directly to the north. This site has a full access driveway approximately 30 feet north of the proposed public street. If the church were to request annexation into the city, staff would probably condition that the church -- church's full access driveway be vacated. Therefore, staff is supportive of the applicant's proposal to construct East Monet Street along the north property line, this way the church can take access from Monet Street and not Locust Grove Road in the future. So, here is where they are proposing access onto Locust Grove. That existing public street is just a little bit northeast of it and, then, again, the existing church driveway stub is right about in there. So, sometime in the future we are expecting if this church site is to come in, that they would be able to stub somewhere within this public street. In addition, North Heritage View Avenue will be extended from the north to provide access and connectivity to the residential subdivision. North Heritage Avenue and North Jardin Avenue, both public roadways, will be stubbed to the southwest for future connectivity to adjacent properties. There is an existing eight foot wide strip between Wanda's Meadows and the subject site. The applicant has stubbed North Heritage View Avenue to the south in alignment with Yellow Peak Avenue, so the properties will be interconnected when the Widson property develops in the future. The applicant is proposing to construct anorth-south public street along the east side of the Widson property, so it can effectively develop in the future. So, again, here is where they are proposing to extend the public street into the Quenzer Commons Subdivision. However, this south end of the street will be stubbed. This is the Widson parcel and currently it goes -- it's a single family residence here. And, then, he also owns about an eight foot strip of land in between the two roadway sections, which doesn't allow that connection between that public street and North Yellow Peak Street here. Again, here is -- the applicant is proposing this public -- north-south public street here. That's Jardin. And that's going to be built as a forty 40 foot section and, then, that would allow this -- whenever this parcel comes in for development, to build out the remainder ten feet and, then, the applicant could possibly come in and develop that site and have Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 15 of 39 access onto Locust Grove, rather than Ustick. In conjunction with the public streets, the applicant is proposing to construct eight private streets to the -- to provide access and circulation within this development. The proposed private streets are all internal to the development and are not to -- are to be constructed as a 36 foot street section that includes a five foot wide sidewalk on one side, two foot rolled curbing, two ten foot wide travel lanes, and an eight foot parking area and one foot ribbon curb. So, the private streets are located here, here, here, east to west here. Located north, south, east, west along here, here, and there. Again, each of them will have the five foot sidewalk on one side and also eight foot of parking on the other and fire department has approved that street section. What staff is also recommending is -- it's hard to see on the site plan or the preliminary plat here, but there is a five foot sidewalk here. Staff would prefer that sidewalk be located on the other side of the roadway south of that and that way whenever this connectivity happens, this parcel comes in and this roadway is able to connect, there will be pedestrian connectivity along into that subdivision to the south. Which is Wanda's Meadows. Before I go any further, it's important to note that staff has not approved of this site plan. Or has not approved the site plan. Excuse me. The applicant is proposing several different structures on the site.. The site is expected to develop with 40 buildings, including the clubhouse. The mix of buildings includes two single detached buildings, 14 bi-unit buildings, and 23 quad unit buildings, totaling 122 units. The two building footprints for the subject site include a large floor plan totaling 66 units and the other, the small floor plan, which totals 56 units. The site is expected to develop with the eight smaller bi-unit buildings and ten smaller quad unit buildings located primarily internal to the development. The larger unit buildings are located along the perimeter of the development and consist of two single unit buildings, six bi- unit buildings, and 13 quad unit buildings. All of the units have attached two car garages with a parking pad in front of each unit. So, the reddish units -- the reddish color units are the larger floor plans and, then, these yellow colored are the smaller floor plans, again, internal to the development, primarily, except for these three and, again, this is along the perimeter. Staff is not supportive of the shared drive aisles and parking pads for the units located along the perimeter of the project and the one quad unit building located on Lot 1, Block 2. Staff believes that the parking pads in front of each -- in front of the garages should be 20 by 20 and provide a 20 foot drive aisle, 65 feet length total, to accommodate vehicular maneuverability or shorten the parking pad to five feet in length or less to discourage parking in front of the garages, 35 length total. If the pads are constructed as proposed, being they are 50 foot between garage fronts, then, cars will be tempted to park in front of the garages, thus, blocking the drive aisles. All of the internal units comply with this parking and drive aisle back-up requirement. Staff realizes that all of the units may not be able to comply with and suggests that the applicant reconfigure the site plan to have at least 75 percent or 92 units comply with the single family parking requirements. The other additional parking for the 30 units, without parking pads, with the five feet in front of the garages, would be on the private streets as proposed. So, to kind of explain this a little more -- a little further, I have kind of created a diagram for you tonight. Here is a typical layout that we have. The applicant -- here is your 20 foot shared driveway. From garage face to garage face it is Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 16 of 39 50 feet. So, what I have done is kind of just scaled out -- there are -- I'd like to point out there are 20-by-20 pads in here. However, the total length here is 50 feet. So, if an applicant -- if someone were to say park eight cars within that and they were -- that leaves -- and they are -- most of the average cars are 16 feet in length, that doesn't leave you much in between here -- or much radius to turn these vehicles -- get these vehicles out of here. So, that's why staff has kind of put that condition on the application to revise the site plan, because we feel that is a significant change to where it would probably change the layout of their -- their site plan quite a bit and that's why we had requested them to bring a site plan --anew site plan before you this evening. So, again, if you will, with the 20-by-20 pad, that leaves you a ten foot drive aisle, essentially, between the four units there abutting each other. The landscaping buffer proposed with the development complies with the UDC. However, the submitted landscape plan does not show the foundation plantings, the five perimeter landscaping along shared driveways and the landscaping for the proposed pathway as required by the UDC. Staff has conditioned the above-mentioned items comply with the UDC landscaping requirements. The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multi- family development. The applicant provided amenities -- has provided amenities as follows: A 5,240 square foot community clubhouse with fitness facilities, stadium seating theater, a gathering area with commercial grade kitchen and swimming pool. The entrance of the clubhouse will be accented with a courtyard and water feature. Other amenities include a walking trail around the perimeter of the property, covered pavilion with barbecues, tennis courts, putting green, a community rose garden, a plaza area, and open grassy areas and an oval track. Staff believes the applicant has done a great job providing amenities within the proposed development. So, if you look at the submitted landscaping plan, this is where they have a walking path that goes with -- along the perimeter of the property as part of their amenities. Here is where the clubhouse is going to be centrally located. Again, that's 5,240 square feet. The swimming pool is located in that area. The plaza, the courtyard, and the water feature to the entrance of the clubhouse is located here. This is another common area, a plaza area. I believe the community rose garden is located here. And, then, within here is the tennis court and some other amenities. The oval track is located on -- outside of that as well. And,, again, there is some parking stalls here, a guest parking and guest parking there. And those two are -- meet code requirements also. The applicant has submitted building elevations for all of the proposed buildings, including the clubhouse. There are four types of elevations proposed, two for each of the larger footprints and two for the smaller footprint buildings. Both product types are shown to be constructed of stucco with substantial stone accidents, architectural -- architectural roofing shingles, covered entrances, and tall entry doors. Some of the other accenting features include copper metal roofing on the eaves of the proposed smaller units and the chimneys of both the larger and smaller units, arched windows, board and batten and shake single siding, accenting the front facades of the larger units. The clubhouse is proposed to be constructed of board and batten and shake siding with the accented stone front facade highlighted -- highlighted by an entryway rotunda. The majority of the windows are arched and accented with shutters. Staff likes the appearance of the proposed Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 17 of 39 buildings and any future buildings shall. substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. Furthermore, staff believes that no more than two buildings in a row should be -- should have the same elevation. So, here is the smaller units that they are proposing, the small footprints. It's hard to deviate, but these are two different -- this is the one elevation, the front and rear, and, again, here is the type that they are proposing for the smaller unit. You can see the little difference in the dormers located on each one of those. Again, these chimneys are to have the copper accents. You can see the stone located on there. The arch or the covered entryway, the tall eight foot doors, and, again, that famous character in the larger units, this is the larger footprint. There is the board and batten. The shingle-type shake siding accents on there. And, then, the clubhouse -- again, there is the rotunda, entry rotunda. Again, this is -- has the arched glass ways located here and here, the copper siding, metal roofing on the ends. And., then, again, accents here with the shingles and, then, the rock that's carried along the front facade of that building. Staff has also received a letter from John Widson requesting denial of the project and that should be included in your packet as well. And staff also received comments from the applicant's representative regarding several conditions of approval for the proposed development and should be included in your packet as well. Staff -- again, staff is recommending a revised site plan and continuance to review the new site plan prior to recommendation onto City Council. This concludes my presentation. I'll stand for any questions Commission may have. Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Thank you very much. My name is Darin Fluke, with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise. We are representing the applicant in this matter. Bill did a fine job explaining the application by the numbers and I'm not going to go -- going to go back through those numbers. I think we are in large part in agreement with the staff and where we are not, I'd like to just touch on those things. First, though, Iwill -- I would like to just speak to sort of how we got to where we are today and I have just got a few slides to go through for you. We started this project back in June, meeting with staff. We met with staff no less than four times on this project formally and informally many times over the phone and, again, at the counter. We held two neighborhood meetings and we have gone through several iterations of the site plan and we think we have come up with a plan that really works well for the site and works well for my clients as well. What you see here on the first slide is a color rendering of the clubhouse. That is in excess of 5,000 square feet and does include those amenities as described by Bill. This is sort of a gathering point for the community and it has been located internally and I'll talk about that a little bit more in just a second. Do you have the next slide, Bill? You know where it's -- where we are located there, at the northwest corner of Ustick and Locust Grove. The previous application you saw was right here. It will be some nice amenities for this project, in addition to the commercial properties that are already in the neighborhood.. This is the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 18 of 39 plat. You have seen this before. I'll just talk about a couple of things on this, as far as the site design goes. Our initial layout had a connection to Ustick Road here and ran a road up much like you have seen here. In talking with staff there was some preference -- I should say at the neighborhood meeting there was a strong preference to not have our connection to Ustick Road be our primary connection in this location and so we changed it for that reason and that affected some other things in the layout and we ended up with a layout that didn't include a road fronting this -- this large -- well, it's a one acre parcel, more or less, here, with a single house and some out buildings right up here near the front. The initial reason that we laid it out that way was to provide access to this parcel for future development. We assume it will develop in the future and that was the best way to do it, given the really skinny nature of that lot. When the neighbors indicated a preference to not have us make the connection right there and rather make it over here, we ended up with a layout that didn't include the road there and staff didn't like that and so we went back and redesigned again for a third major redesign and this is what we came up with. So, we do accommodate this lot. This will make it really easy and convenient for this lot to develop in the future. All the utilities will be in that road. Basically, they will add curb, gutter, and sidewalk on their side and they will be good to go. The public road does connect here to Locust Grove. We worked extensively with ACHD on that. We could have brought it further to the south to increase the offset from this road to our east, but ACHD's preference was to get the connection as far away from the intersection as we could and so that's why we shoved it all the way up here, with the added benefit of providing access to the church site there at some future point, should they desire. I'll stress again that is a public road and so they will have easy access to the road if they want to redesign that site. The public road comes in and, then, extends up this way. There is an existing stub here in Heritage Commons or Quenzer Commons, I guess, is the name of that project. And, then, it will align with this stub street here. And as was pointed out by staff, there is an eight foot strip of land that is all the way along there and connected to that that we have no control over. So, at the point that this develops in the future, our assumption is that that will be made to connect, but we simply can't do a thing, that we don't own the land at this time. We like this layout for a number of reasons, but we -- in particular, we like the clubhouse centrally located here and, then, our open space amenity centrally located here. Those are located away from the property lines. Those are activity centers within the project and so located internally they will be buffered from adjoining land uses and from our neighbors that are internal to the project. One thing That staff didn't mention and that I want to mention for you is this is intended as what's called an active adult community. It's designed and will be marketed to empty nesters. Those people typically 55 years of age and older, and that's enforced not through codes, covenants, or laws, but just through the design of the project and the amenities within the project. The project is such that it will be an upscale place to live. It won't be cheap to buy into this project and, basically, it's not designed in a way that's conducive to having families or people who are young and don't intend to spend time in the dwellings and so it will be marketed that way, it will be built that way, and' we intend to see this thing built in in a single .phase. We will go through and do it -- we will plat it all at one time and, then, go Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 19 of 39 through and build it bit by bit all in one phase. Bill talked a lot about the amenities, so I'm not going to go back into those. I just want to talk a little bit about some of the issues that were raised in the staff report. I'll call them issues, although they really just need a little clarification. With regard to fencing, there will be -- here is the landscape plan. Let's go ahead and go through all the slides, Bill. This is, again, a color rendering of the large floor plan here, with the -- the garage unit and, then, the side unit there. And, then, these are floor plans. This is for the smaller unit, which you can see has a bedroom and a bit large master bath closet and., then, a study or den type area and the kitchen here. This is the garage. And, then, this is the larger unit, which has two bedrooms, plus the den, in addition to a little work area in the garage there and you can -- there would be the option to add a bonus in the -- sort of a loft unit in the second story of that building. They are single story buildings, but there is room to add a loft within there, if a client were so inclined. With regard to fencing if we could just see the site plan, Bill, or the plat. While we are finding that, let me talk about one other thing, because I think my clock's ticking here. I did notice in the staff report that there was a requirement for centralized mailbox locations, as well as a directory map. Those do come from standards relating to the multi-family developments. We do intend to have centralized mail box locations within the project, probably in two locations somewhere in the front part here and probably over near the court -- clubhouse there. We would ask to not -- not have the map, though. That is intended typically for projects where -- that are more like apartments where you have unit numbers and you don't have street locations. All of these units will be addressed off of streets with distinct names and they will be just as easy to find your way around in there as any residential project. With regard to fencing, we do intend to have a masonry block wall around the project in that location there and, then, along the church here. Again, that -- this will be public right of way and so to fence this here, we will have a license agreement or an easement with our neighbor to the north to do that and if they are inclined, that's the intent of my clients on that. With regard to -- there is only, really, two things that we don't agree with staff on. We are fine with the comments regarding landscaping. We do intend to landscape around all the buildings and we will do a better job of showing on the landscape plan, but that is all included. The two things we don't agree with -- I'll just take the minor one first and this is a very minor issue, is the issue of moving the sidewalk on Monet from right here down to here. We like the way we designed it, because the sidewalk benefits the project a little more that way. When this road does connect, there is sidewalk on both sides of the street and., then, the sidewalk here will connect with the sidewalk here and provide connectivity out his way or you can just simply cross the street and have connectivity this way. And so we don't -- I mean it's not a huge issue for us, but we would ask that you allow us to just build that the way we had designed it. The bigger issue for us is -- is the issue regarding parking. And, Bill, maybe we could see your diagram on that. I want to point out to the Commission that -- that this is amulti-family project and is subject to the requirements for multi-family projects within the City of Meridian. We do comply with the parking standards for multi-family projects and I would just respectfully disagree with the staff that by condominiumizing this project that we would all of a sudden be a single family project. We would not, by definition, because Meridian Planning 8~ zoning January 17, 2008 Page 20 of 39 these buildings contain three or more units and are on a common piece of land, they are a multi-family project, not a single family project. So, that's the first thing. We comply with the code as written. We comply with all the rules. The second thing is I just platted a project very similar to this called Cedar Springs Townhomes just a mile or two to the west where we did exactly the same thing, shared driveways -- those are single family lots. Each one of those buildings sits on -- they share a common wall, but they all sit on their own property and within that project we did exactly the same thing that we are doing here, a 50 foot drive court, with a 20 foot shared drive throat, just like you see here. What staff has shown you is, basically, you know, the worst case scenario that you could ever expect, which would be 16 cars within that space, two in every garage and., then, two out in front. In Cedar Springs the fire department had asked us to sign this as no parking out in the driveway and that's, really, the way it's intended to function. That's how it will be written in the declaration is that this area is not intended to be for parking. It doesn't mean that you can't pull your car in there and wash it, but it does mean that you can't just store cars here, because this area is meant for the maneuvering of vehicles and in any scenario but the one that's been drawn here, these work perfectly well. And there are numerous locations in the City of Meridian where they have been approved and we would just respectfully ask the Commission to approve what we have designed here, simply because we don't have the right room to go and add an additional 15 feet to even 75 percent of the buildings that are drawn. If we do that, by our calculation, we would lose at least four units and possibly more. We didn't redesign the site, because we feel like we have been through enough iterations and we have come up with a plan and a concept that works really well for this site and really well for the target community that's going to be living here. I think that's all that have for you. Again, we are in -- mostly in agreement with the staff report. I will just quickly point out the conditions where I would like consideration from the Commission if you're so inclined.. The first is 1.4.1, which is the condition that would require us to redesign and resubmit a site plan. I'd just simply ask that you strike that condition and approve the site plan as we have drawn it. O'Brien: What page is that on, sir? Fluke: That page is on -- it's on Exhibit B and the page is not numbered. But it's in the conditions of approval Exhibit B. The last page that's numbered in front of that -- well, it's the elevations that are right in front of that. O'Brien: Okay. Fluke: The exhibits aren't numbered, so I apologize. O'Brien: Thank you. Fluke: The next condition is 1.4.6, just one page later. That is the -- moving the five foot sidewalk along Monet. Again, we think that the layout that we have works just fine Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 21 of 39 and we'd respectfully ask you to approve that the way that it's drawn. 1.4.16 would say that if we -- when we bring a condominium in that we have to comply with the parking standards that we just talked about. I would again ask you to just strike that condition. 1.4.17, asks for centralized mails box locations and a directory site map. I'd simply request that you strike the directory site map. We are fine with the mail boxes. That's all I had. I appreciate very much staff working with us on this. Again, we have been at this for half a year or more. They have been great to work with. We are in agreement with the conditions, with the exception of those that I pointed out and I think this is a project that Meridian will be very proud of once it gets built. With that I'd stand for any questions. Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions? Yes, Tom. O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Is there any separators between the garage or the areas - - the parking areas for excess parking? I see lines there, but is that a wall? Is there a sidewalk or a curb or -- Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that was simply for graphical purposes. There would not be any sort of divider in there. That's all intended and will function as common area and be indicated as such within the condominium declarations. So, that area will be -- in fact, you know, what you see here outlined will be owned by the condominium association and maintained by the association, not by the individual homeowners. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Fluke, can you go back over your fencing one more time? Were you just anticipating you're doing block walls on just two locations? Fluke: You can anticipate it around here and we will submit to a condition to that effect. And., then, we intend to have it along here as well, but, of course, we need -- because this is public right of way here, don't want to end up with the same situation that we have here where there is a small strip of land preventing access to the public right of way. And so we will work with our neighbors to make it happen there. We intend to have it there, but we are really sort of at their mercy as far as that goes. Moe: Okay. What are you doing now, then, on the Locust Grove and -- Fluke: Those are -- would be landscape buffers along this area. There is a berm and dense plantings. Moe: Okay. And let's go back to the parking issue one more time. You discussed -- am assuming you'd have no problem, then, putting up no parking signs and whatnot through there. In fact, that was what you needed done. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 22 of 39 Fluke: It's an esthetic concern for us, but if that made the Commission more comfortable -- and, honestly, we anticipate that from the fire department anyway, so, no, we don't -- we wouldn't object to that. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Fluke, I'm curious about the -- is the block wall a result of your neighborhood meetings? It seems odd to put a block wall between residential backing up to residential. Fluke: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, it's not. That's always been the intent of my clients. I think it's more of a buffering scenario where they are trying to sort of establish a feel of exclusivity within the project. Newton-Huckabay: How tall of a block wall are we talking? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, six feet. Newton-Huckabay: Six foot. And what kind of a block wall? Is it like the cottage stones or -- Fluke: It would be the CMU block with probably the corrugated face to it. You know, split faced CMU. And I apologize that we don't -- don't have a drawing of that for you. Newton-Huckabay: Now, that wall is not sitting on top of a berm also, was it? Fluke: No, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I have no other questions right now. Rohm: I want to go back to that parking again. Could you put your slide back up, Bill? Do you have any additional pavement or pier so when this car backs out does it have something to back into there? Fluke: We can certainly add the pop outs and that was a discussion that we had with staff when we saw the condition of approval. I would point out that in all the meetings that we went through with staff we were informed that we had a 45 foot minimum garage to garage in there and so when we designed it 50 feet, we thought we were exceeding it and everybody would be happy. When we saw the condition we did offer to do pop outs here and staff wasn't receptive to that, but, again, I would make the offer to the Commission if you would feel more comfortable with the pop out there, we have designed one and, Mr. Chairman, if I -- maybe the Commission could just pass this out and, then, I'll leave it with staff, but this shows how it might work. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 23 of 39 Rohm: Yeah. My concern is if this person is backing out, only if this spot right here is not -- there is nothing there at the moment, because they are going to have to back up far enough that they can turn to head -- head out and Ijust -- I think that if you don't have that availability here, there could be some issues for that end unit being able to actually back out and head back out to the main roadway. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, if I might just respond to that. I would agree with you if all we had -- if the scenario was what you see right here, but we can show you that there is room to come out and avoid that and come into anywhere within here, or even to back out if need be. Having said that, we are fine adding the pop outs to those driveways. I mean our preference would be to limit, you know, pavement the best that we can within the project and., again, our -- the target market is such that -- and it's reflected in our traffic study as well, that this population just doesn't drive as much as a typical subdivision and so I think the activity levels that we will see in this project are -- are not what you would see in a typical project, even next door to us. But, again, Mr. Chairman, we would be just fine with that pop out. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Moe: Another question I have. I noted the staff, basically, that the two options were to either make it wider or bring them in and why did you guys not consider bringing them a little closer, basically, then, at that point discourage them even trying to do that, so -- Fluke.: Mr. Chairman., we -- because we don't -- we don't anticipate a parking problem within here and we would like to provide a little more maneuverability within the parking areas. Again, it provides a little more margin for cars that are maneuvering in those driveways to move around and we would just prefer to have it the way we have it designed. Moe: I guess that's where we can agree to disagree, then, simply because I would anticipate if you move a little closer you're still going to have the availability of that free movement, you're just -- you're just going to be, basically, one car less parking itself out there, you know. But that's okay. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. Fluke: Thank you. Moe: Well, I'm not sure that you guys understood that there was asign-up sheet back there, but no one has signed up on the -- for this, so at this time if there is anyone that would like to speak to this, just raise your hand and I'll call you up at that point. Yes, sir. Come forward. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 24 of 39 Larsen: Thank you. I'm Jeff Larsen. 7427 Miriam Way in Salt Lake City, Utah. Partner in this development. And just to -- if I may comment about that parking. Just -- you mentioned that there was -- the staff suggested that we move them closer. Moe: Yes. Larsen: What their requirement was, the way I understood it, was that they said 70 percent -- I believe it was 70 percent they wanted to widen and, then, 30 percent they would allow to be narrower. So, it really isn't a situation where they want all of the parking narrower, they wanted 60 -- or 75 percent of the units at 65 feet and 30 -- or 25 percent at 35 feet. Does that make sense? Moe: I understand.. And we are going to talk to staff here in a minute about that. Larsen: Okay. Great. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Bill, can you respond to that at the present time? Parsons: Sure, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We had talked -- when we met with the applicant we had spoke to them going either/or scenario. Darin kind of spoke to it. We are in a conundrum here. We have amulti-family development, but once they condo it we are going to look at it -- we are applying single family standards, like we did with the Gramercy project. So, we tried to -- I tried to come up with -- staff tried to come up with a compromise as to what could we do to try to get the best of both worlds and they thought that the 75-25 was the fair way to go. Now, if you guys feel there is something else, wanted 50-50 or all of them meet that 35 feet in between garage to garage, staff would be -- I mean it's your ball. But that's kind of where I -- staff came up with that 75-25. Moe: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Okay. Mr. Rohm, you look like you have another question. Rohm: No. I just -- I keep looking at staffs drawing on the parking and., quite honestly, appreciate the applicant's response to that. I think he's probably right that the -- all four of those locations are not going to have a car in them at all times. They are going to park in a garage and the -- that space is going to be open and even though it looks from the staffs drawing that it's going to be congested., the congestion would only occur if, in fact, all those 20 foot pads were occupied with a vehicle and I concur with the applicant that that's probably not going to happen often and -- other than I would say that I think that the applicant should extend that tip out for those units, so that they can back around and head out without having to cross over to the adjacent unit to get that turning radius. Rohm: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 25 of 39 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: May I ask a question? Are these the one -- these are the one bedroom or the larger -- or the two bedroom units? Moe: These are the large units. Newton-Huckabay: Those are the two bedroom units? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, yeah, those -- that is the larger unit there along that perimeter. So, those would be up to 2,000 square foot units. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And it's just the ones -- oh, it's on the north. Parsons: I'd like to point out, too, that -- one thing I failed to mention, too, that they kind of redesigned this southeast corner as well and that's -- that's what it's supposed to look like. If -- if this goes forward, they are going to revise the site plan regardless for City Council, obviously, hopefully, to show that at least. But it was not depicted on this site plan either. But this is what it's going to look like in that corner with the units. Newton-Huckabay: You're -- Mr. Chairman, Bill, you're whipping that thing around there pretty fast. What are you circling there? Parsons: Okay. This -- fire didn't like this shared driveway here, how they came in and wrapped around to the rear of the building here. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Parsons: So, the applicant revised that southeast corner and now they are proposing this layout in the corner. So, that way you don't have that driveway coming up here and accesses those. Moe: Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some thoughts? O'Brien: Yeah. I don't know where we are going with this thing, but I don't know what the storage capacity inside the -- the buildings are and is there -- so, I guess the question would be is there any space in the garage to have some kind of storage? I know a lot of people they have storage units somewhere else, but the point is if they have adequate storage where it would not cause a vehicle to be parked outside the garage area and if there is -- has that been a problem in some of the other places -- projects in the past is that people were forced, so to speak, to park their vehicles Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 26 of 39 outside the garage, because they didn't have adequate storage and didn't have another storage unit somewhere else for things. I know this is probably because my son and daughter-in-law -- or my daughter and son-in-law park one of their vehicles outside, because they don't have enough room. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, I would argue that's not a problem with storage, maybe., it's a problem of pack rats. O'Brien: Yeah. I understand. Yeah. Well, you know, not everybody's clean and sheen and -- and I was just wondering I was just wondering if that's the question or if that's been an issue with -- in projects where people would have to park. I know a certain percentage I'm sure do, but don't know what that might be. Anybody -- Marshall: If they -- if they had made that a no parking area -- O'Brien: Yeah. That would be good. Marshall: Yeah. I think that's -- O'Brien: No permanent parking or whatever. Marshall: Yeah. If they displayed signs and made that apart -- a condition that -- that there would be no parking in that area. Hood.: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Excuse me. You know, the ultimate situation for us would be the redesign, because I agree with the applicant that esthetically having signs on the garage doors or on the fascia or something saying no parking there is a little tacky. So, that's why we went with the redesign option. Certainly, I believe that's the next best option, however, though, because -- if you can go back, Bill. It certainly doesn't take all eight cars to be there. In fact if two cars are parked there you certainly create asituation -- if this car is here and this car is here and I'm backing out of my garage, it's nearly impossible for me to back up. I have to do about a 15 point turn to turn around and get out of there. So, it's certainly not all eight cars have to be there to have a problem, it can just be one across from you and trying to back up and get out of there. So, that's why staff brought this up and thought it was important enough to bring it up as an issue. I understand from the applicant that in their covenants they will prohibit them from storing things in their garages and that they have to have car parks. I also understanding it's a 55 and older community, but, you know, those people are still active, have friends, people come over, play cards, whatnot, and you are going to have guests and they -- particularly on the end units aren't going to want to park on the street over here in the middle of January to go over here. They are going to be tempted to park in the driveways and I do see that -- that situation occurring. And not to be stereotypical, but sometimes if it's dark at nighttime, you're getting in your car backing up, I'm guilty of it, I don't look behind me, I see -- now, they are not major Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 27 of 39 accidents, but I see, you know, minor fender benders there., if you just don't look and that's really why they have brought that situation up as an outstanding issue. So, I hope answered your question. I know I went a little bit of an editorial spin there, too, but -- O'Brien: You did real well. Marshall: I have got another question. Has condition 1.4.3, with the different building elevations, have we come to some type of agreement there? It appears staff and the applicant are at loggerheads there. Newton-Huckabay: We haven't discussed it. Moe: There has been no discussion., but, staff, if I remember Bill going through that, just wanted to make sure that the -- there was no more than two of the same next to each other, other than that, that they were -- they were okay with -- with the elevations. Marshall: To clarify that, the purpose for having more than two buildings together with the same elevation is -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, when -- again, when we got the letter from the applicant they were going to propose something different tonight, but, however, speaking with the applicant they are okay with no more than two units in a row. If I can go back to the site plan here. The reason being is these are going to be pretty large buildings. Typically, you don't want to have a monotonous theme going on within the development. We want variation in there and that was the purpose of that condition. Marshall: So, the applicant has agreed to do no more than two in a row? Parsons: That is correct. Moe: Okay. Yeah. Sir, please come forward. Krupa: I have never done this before, so -- Moe: Name and address and, then, you can go for it. Krupa: Okay. Tim Krupa. I'm at 1662 East Summer Cove Court in Summerfield Subdivision., and I guess . I have a couple questions. The gentleman here had discussion about neighborhood meetings and not being familiar with this, I don't know if it included the surrounding area or -- because I don't think anybody in Summerfield that know received any notification of any meetings. That was my first point, I guess, because, in fact, at Summerfield and the exit there where the LDS church is going to be the main exit, I thought that would be a little bit pertinent to the subdivision there where Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 28 of 39 all the traffic is going to be coming out on Locust Grove there and might affect the subdivision a little bit. Moe: Well, the answer to your first question is, basically, public notice does go out to all. neighbors within a 300 foot radius. Krupa: My neighbor across the street got one, so I must be 301 feet and beyond. Moe: Yes. That was my guess. Krupa: I thought that was correct. But I didn't know how that worked. Moe: But at least you know your neighbor had one. There you go. Krupa; That's exactly right, so -- Moe: Okay. Krupa: And I didn't know if -- by the plat at the corner of Locust Grove and Ustick on the -- where that old farm house is, is that going to be realigned to be five lanes or four lanes, to make the street align that way? Moe: I'd probably have to ask staff that, but I'm not sure that they'd even know that. That's more on ACHD. Krupa: Okay. Moe: Bill, do you have any idea on that? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, give me a moment, please, so I can -- Moe: I will. Parsons: -- get the draft staff report here. Krupa: And was there any concern with probably three-quarters of the residents there coming out on Locust Grove with their main entrance there, just having one entrance out there, rather than going through the subdivision where most of the traffic will come out on Locust Grove, was that a traffic concern? Newton-Huckabay: They opted for that, rather than Ustick. Krupa; Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17,.2008 Page 29 of 39 Newton-Huckabay: Because Ustick is the more heavily traveled arterial. Krupa: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, that was the -- Krupa: Have you noticed the traffic since the overpass has been on, where everybody's getting off Eagle and going up Locust Grove now. That was -- I guess I have seen a lot of that since the overpass, people aren't using Eagle Road -- I mean they are pushing back to Locust Grove now and using that quite a bit. That's why with 122 units you got 240 cars multiple times coming in and out of there and I didn't know how much of a traffic issue that's going to be dumping out on Locust Grove just from that one intersection there by the church, Newton-Huckabay: Well, it certainly will increase your traffic. I think an adult community is going to be less traffic than a 122 multi-family would, you know, but -- Krupa: All right. Newton-Huckabay: -- it will increase traffic. ACHD didn't indicate that it would overload the intersection. Krupa: Okay. And I didn't know why they -- I mean they said they were trying to go down on Ustick, but that was nixed, I guess. I'm not sure why they didn't put another exit down there, just to have another entrance there, but -- okay. Moe: Okay. Parsons: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Speaking with the applicant, he's -- and looking at the ACRD report, it looks like some of those projects are out six to ten years on Ustick and 11 to 20 years on Locust Grove. But there are some provisions to do some -- the right of way will be dedicated to ACRD for those future improvements. Hood.: And just to follow that up, I understand there is -- due to the existing configuration I think they were going to patch in a little bit of that -- that corner there, so it's -- the barricades will come down and you would have the -- a free right, essentially, if you're heading west onto Ustick from Locust Grove. So, that will be cleaned up -- that side of the road will be cleaned up, but it won't be widened to its ultimate street section for -- as Bill mentioned, a longer time frame., six to ten years or 11 to 20 years on Locust Grove. Krupa: So, there is no plan for the developer to widen the whole section there, so that it's smooth like that? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 30 of 39 Moe: No. Krupa: Okay. Is that -- I guess that's standard that they don't have to do that as part of the he development process, to make the road easier that way for the traffic? Moe: They didn't design it that way and they weren't requested to do it, so -- Krupa: Okay. Thanks. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07- 027, and CUP 07-023. Rohm: Second. Hood: Mr. Chair? Before you do that you should probably let the applicant have the last word.. Moe: I'm sorry. You're absolutely right. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, my mistake. Moe: Would the applicant like to come back up. Newton-Huckabay: Fire me. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Darin Fluke, again, representing the applicant. don't have much to add, unless the Commission had questions. Just with regard to the road issue here on Locust Grove and Ustick there, I think probably everybody who lives out there recognizes the trouble with the intersection, just because the right of way -- ACHD was not able to obtain the right of way on -- on this corner right here, primarily because of where the house is right now. I mean they were going to have a road right in their bedroom if they did that and so that's why the road wasn't -- right of way wasn't dedicated. However, with this application we will be dedicating the additional 23 feet, which is going to give ACHD 96 feet of right of way on all legs and it's our understanding that, then, the highway district will improve the intersection, just as Caleb described, so -- so, that you don't have that choke point there right now, other than Locust Grove won't be widened out at this time, but you will get the turn lane here added to -- I mean Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 31 of 39 Usfick won't be added, Locust Grove will have the turn lane added to it. So, unless the Commission had questions, I didn't really have anything else to add. Marshall: One last question. Fluke: Yes. Marshall: About your CMU fence along the -- on the southeast section on the north side of that, against the church, you say it's a six foot CMU. How far are you proposing to run that out? If the intention is for -- when the church comes into the city, will that exclude access to the road there? Fluke: Mr. Chairman -- and that's why we will have to work with them, because the fence would have to go on their property. The right of way will be platted right up to the property line and so we don't have any land left to put the fence on and if the fence gets built it will be on the church's property. And so it will be on their terms, if the fence is built along that section there. It's my client's intent to build it here, but, again, we have to have a license agreement or an easement from the church to do that and, then, we would still, obviously, have to comply with the fence regulations of the city. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Want to do that again? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07- 027, and CUP 07-023. Rohm: Second.. Moe: It's been moved and seconded twice to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Any other comments from the Commission? Mr. Marshall, do you have any? Marshall: My first thought is that this is an appropriate place -- looking at the future land use map, is an appropriate place for amulti-family development. I worry that CMU walls and even elevations tend to start to give an institutional look. I like the -- the elevations on the clubhouse and the like, but all other elevations appear to be somewhat even and across. I think it's an appropriate use of the land and the future tie in to Wanda's Place Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 32 of 39 providing an outlet to Ustick further down away from the intersection seems appropriate. do worry about the parking. I am concerned that -- that people will park in those locations, even -- even marked, because in January it does get cold and you don't want to walk across the street to get there and if the availability is there, it will be used and even if it's just one car for half an hour, your neighbor's going to get pretty darn mad when they can't get out of their garage, my first few Thoughts. I guess that's all I have. Moe: All right. Any other comments? Rohm: Well, I think that before a motion is made we need to have some sort of consensus on whether or not we are going to go with the staff recommendation that they redesign it with the widen space between the units or if we are going to go with the applicant's scenario and accept it as it's currently designed and it's of little value to start a motion without having some feel for what the balance of the Commission feels on that specific issue and my personal opinion is I think the applicant did a good job responding to the staff report and I would be in support of leaving it as it's currently designed.. That's -- and I do think that they should put the tip out, so that they can turn back out and have something to turn into if there is a parking -- if there is cars across the way, preventing them from just backing straight into the -- across the way. So, with that tip out I think that issue would be addressed for those end units. But that's my position on this and I'd like to get a feel for what the balance of the Commission's opinion is. Moe: I would agree there, Mr. Rohm. You guys have talked., so I'll talk a little bit and we. will see what you guys think. I -- as far as the overall project and whatnot, you know, I do like the fact that there are some restrictions as far as how many units go side by side and whatnot. I like the look of the buildings and whatnot and I think it will be a nice facility. The block wall, I'm just not sure that that's really esthetically for the area out there. I think those will be about the only areas that you go block walls surrounding a facility out there, so that's going to be a little bit different look, but with split face block and depending upon how it's done, it will look good.. As far as the sidewalk and whether or not we put it on one side or the other, I have no problem putting it -- changing that -- that comment from staff and leaving it in and putting it on the other side of the street. don't know that they are gaining much either way on that. The directory and whatnot, can understand that we get rid of that as well. I don't have a real problem with that. But do have a problem with the parking area. I just got a -- I'm very concerned that that is - - that's a tight area and just logically speaking I think you're going to end up with cars in there all the time and I do believe it's going to be a problem. I think there was -- you know, some real effort with staff to -- you know, they kind of agreed on a few things on this project with the developer and whatnot and they have asked that that be revisited and they'd rather not do that and that is a problem to me, because I do see that it's going to be a problem and I am not sure I could move this thing forward based upon the parking layout. Mr. O'Brien. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 33 of 39 O'Brien: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, so I -- I'll start off with the sidewalk. I don't have a problem with leaving it as designed from the applicant, since it is coordinated with the one across the road and keeps it in line with that. I think that would be okay. do have a problem with the -- with the parking myself. I really think it should be increased for some of the reasons I mentioned earlier, but that's not the do all to end all, just think there is going to be a time, like the Chairman -- Mr. Chairman said, there is going to be a conflict somehow and I just hate to see people have these fender benders and it causes dissension between neighbors if those things happen. The mailbox I don't have a problem with leaving that as designed by the applicant and it doesn't have to include maps as they point out. I thought he did a good job of that. That's, basically, all the issues that I have. The main one is the distance between the garages of 65 feet. think needs to be -- needs to be there. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any other comments? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I was doing okay until I read the ACRD -- I'm almost -- the ACHD report. I cannot believe that they didn't put a requirement in there to finish the remainder of that intersection on Ustick. That seems absolutely ridiculous to me. And -- I have just -- I mean I reamed through the report and they specifically say not to -- that they will purchase the right of way, but they are not going to require it to -- I would have hoped -- thought .maybe the developer might have -- I don't know what the program is called, but try to get it moved into the five year work plan and move that up. That's just a really awkward corner right there and, you know, thanks to Mr. Krupa for bringing that up, I didn't catch that earlier, and Ijust -- I have a real issue how that's going to -- I mean is it going to be gravel, just -- is it going to be -- once they tear it down are we going to have a temporary roadway? Hood.: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, my understanding -- and I haven't talked to ACHD, just from what the applicant told me here a few minutes ago -- is they will purchase the right of way from the applicant, but they already have some funds set aside to go ahead and patch that asphalt back in to make that lane -- finish out that improvement. What they don't have the money for is for the full widening to seven by seven intersection. It will still be, essentially, the same intersection, with this leg of it being cleaned up, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, they will put in a right turn lane onto Ustick from Locust Grove and., then, take the road up to Mr. Widson's property? Hood: Yeah. Again, I'm not sure now that taper is going to work there, because you do have an outparcel there that they don't have the right of way for -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 34 of 39 Hood: -- but, yeah, essentially where the barricades are I understand they are going to -- because they have already got the money set aside, they are just waiting for the property to be given to them, so I don't know why they didn't require the applicant to do that. Maybe it's because they already had this money earmarked and so -- Newton-Huckabay: Because I'm not getting it -- from reading their staff report I didn't get that, that it was going to be improved to that extent even. Hood.: Mr. Fluke, am I correct in that -- okay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. Well, that's -- okay. That's -- I would be okay with that, then, because that makes a usable corner. Moe: All right. Newton-Huckabay: I have another question. The residential -- or not the residential -- the commercial office there behind the church and just north of the church in Quenzer Commons, does that have block wall running all along there as well already? I can't remember. Bill, do you -- Parsons: Yeah. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that is vinyl fencing. That's the Brockton Subdivision and I have done some site visits out there, so it is -- they are vinyl fencing abutting that residential and along that -- the perimeter of that commercial development -- office development. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. I don't see the need for a block wall. I think that that's going to make it look rather more institutional than the larger buildings were. But it's not a deal killer for me and -- Moe: Any comments in regard to parking? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I'm getting to that. Moe: Oh. Didn't mean to rush you. It just didn't look like you were getting there. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I have never been a big fan of the shared driveway in any development, so I -- I'll stand with the rest of the Commission on that. I'd like to see a redesign. I don't mind the 75/25 split on that. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: And I guess I'd also comment that if the block wall -- I mean not having been. a -- neighbors may not have requested it, because it was offered and Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 35 of 39 would hate to remove it if they wanted it, but -- you know what I'm saying? So, I'm not exactly sure how to address that, but -- Moe: Well, I guess you address it the fact that there was no public testimony from any of the neighbors not wanting it, so, therefore, you know, they are spending a lot more money putting in a block wall than they are putting in a vinyl or any other type of fencing and so, you know, I commend them for that and so, therefore, I don't have a problem with a block wall. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then, just the letter from Mr. Widson, I just want to make comment on that, that he was opposed., it appears, to the wall surrounding his property. But he also wanted it to be single family as well. I have no further comment. Moe.: Let's see. Commissioner Marshall., I believe you're the -- do you have any other comments? Marshall: Just clarify myself, I guess, a little. Again, the block wall, I'm not overly fond of it, but I guess as has been said., it's not a deal breaker for me in any means. I'm not fond of the parking. I don't like the layout here. You know, I don't mind the sidewalk going across the street the way they have that. I guess my one remaining issue is the parking. Moe: Well, all Commissioners have spoke on that. In those discussions I'll just kind of summarize out what I heard, basically, is is that there is probably four Commissioners that would like to see something done with the parking and one Commissioner has no problem with the parking. So, having said that, I don't know who is planning to make motions, but that's kind of where we at. Rohm: Can I make one last comment? Moe: Yes. Rohm: I think that if it's the consensus of the Commission as a whole that the parking be addressed., I would like to, as opposed to forwarding this, I'd like to continue this, because I want to see the layout with that parking being addressed, as opposed to just given a direction to it. If we are going to make that a requirement, I think it should come back to this body, rather than forwarding it on -- Moe: I agree and we, basically, need to find out from the developer whether or not they have an interest to do that before we worry about continuing anything. We have closed the Public Hearing, but if we can just get a nod or something. The intent -- do you have any -- if they'd be in favor of a continuance to review the site plan again? I am going to need a motion to reopen the Public Hearing. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 36 of 39 Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: Mr. Chairman. Second. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I don't want to be accused of being indecisive and slow. Moe: Because I think I know what you wanted to do. It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023.. Mr. Fluke. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Darin Fluke, JUB, again. If that's the way the Commission's going, our preference would be to have simply a condition placed on us to that effect and to send it on. I would say two things in defense of that. One is you're not going to see a large difference in the site plan. Basically it's going to eliminate units, is what it's going to do. We are not going to totally redesign the site to accommodate that condition. You know, if you look at this tier here, there is really nowhere else to go. There is nothing else to do but eliminate units if we have to do that. And I haven't sat down and played with the numbers yet to see -- you know, in the dimensions, but I can tell you that we are going to try to lay it out without losing units and squeeze it where we can, but there is really not many other options. And the second point on that would be I would ask the Commission to consider looking at 60 feet, instead of 65. I mean a typical drive aisle in a parking lot is 24 feet, so I'm not sure where the 25 came from, but certainly 20 feet ought to be adequate, so we would have two parks at 20 and a drive aisle at 20, which is the width of the driveway, 20 feet. And that would make it more palatable for us and easier to -- to do the redesign. Moe: Well, to answer your first -- your first point, in the past this Commission doesn't like to go ahead and move things forward without seeing the changes done, so that we can approve them prior to going to City Council. So, I will not speak for the Commission, other than the fact that in -- like I said., in past we do not like sending anything on until we have seen the changes. The second point I guess I would ask staff what is their comment in regards to the -- the point of going to the 60 in lieu of the 65? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason why we came up with the -- first of all, let me go back and answer where we came up with the 25 foot drive aisle. Typically, when we are looking at subdivisions or parking lot layout, we typically -- code requires a 25 foot drive aisle between adjacent -- you know, adjacent to two way parking stalls and so that's why we felt that 24 was appropriate, but I had spoke with Caleb on it and I think 20 could be sufficient there and we could go 60 feet, rather than the 65 feet. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I think that's a fair compromise. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 37 of 39 Moe: I happen to agree one hundred percent. Fluke: And, Mr. Chairman, if I might, just to address your comment, I appreciate why you don't send things on with conditions, because oftentimes they -- they will have a large impact. But, again, I would just reiterate in this case you're not going to see a different layout. The lots are going to be tiered -- they are not lots, but the units are going to be tiered just the way you see them now. We are either going to find the land in there, you know, the dimensions. to squeeze them out or we are not and if we don't, all we do is lop off two units and end up with a duplex on the end, rather than afour- plex, so that -- Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Fluke: Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close all three of the public hearings, AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023. Moe: Before there is -- well, before you have the motion, I guess the applicant -- Mr. Fluke, can I ask you one more question just real quick on the -- I'm just curious. I just want to get a time frame, number one. Understanding what you're speaking about, you want us to move this one, what kind of a time frame are you looking at to be able to make these changes? I mean -- Fluke: We will make the changes next week and have them to the staff by the end of the week, so that we can be on your next hearing, if that -- Moe: That's what I wanted to make sure I understood. Thank you. Rohm: Again, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07- 027, and CUP 02-023. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Basically, what I have heard., if we can go down to the 60 wide and we can get a little bit more room in the parking, I think that's a great compromise and I could live with that. However, again, I just bring up that I don't like moving things forward until they are Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 38 of 39 done before they go to City Council and, basically, it's making sure that they are done, so -- Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Rohm: I move that we continue the public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023., to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. O'Brien: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second.. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 07 -- Nary: I'll wait until you're done. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Moe: To continue AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023, to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 7th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries to continue Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make it clear, both for the public and the applicant and the Commission that your continuance -- my assumption was was only to discuss those specific items you have moved for redesign at your next meeting. So, you won't be taking other testimony on the remainder of the project, just on those. Did I understand that correctly? Moe: Thank you very much. There would be one more motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Moe: I need a second now. Marshall.: I'll second. Moe: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 39 of 39 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We are done. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDI'NGS.) APP-ROOF DAVID MOE -~C~HAIRMAN ATTESTED: C~ ~r~\ `~ ~ ~~~ ~~ Fo ~~; DATE APPROVE[Q .~ - ~~~L $~ft:, ~~ Eft ~`~,• ~~ii~ri~iii ri~~~~~~~