Loading...
2008 12-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 4, 2008 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 4, 2008, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and Commissioner Tom O'Brien, and Commissioner Wendy Newton- Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Nancy Radford, Anna Canning, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for December the 4th. I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I don't know that I have said this for awhile, but there are no changes to the agenda, so can I get a motion to accept the agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent -- or the adoption of the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 20, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School ball fields in an R-4 zoning Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 2 of 14 district for Meridian High PA System by Joint School District No. 2 -1900 W. Pine Avenue: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-030 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an indoor recreation facility in an L-O zoning district for Neighborhood Fitness by Kenneth Barr - 2270 W. Everest Lane: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. There is three items. Item number one is the approval of the meeting minutes of November 20th Planning and Zoning meeting. B is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-024 for the Meridian High PA System. And the third item is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-030 for Neighborhood Fitness. Any comments, questions, from the other Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: I'm going to make it real quick. We have a large audience tonight. Basically -- and Ithink, probably, you have all been to these meetings before, but I will go ahead and, basically, explain the format that I will open the hearing and ask the staff to give an overview of the project. After that time the applicant will be asked to come up and they will have 15 minutes to discuss the project. And after that there are sign-up sheets in the back if anybody wants to speak they have three minutes to do so. At the end of that time I will, then, ask the applicant to rebut or answer any questions that may have come up in those public discussions. And, then, after which time, then, the Commission will, then, have some discussion and render a decision. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from November 6, 2008: RZ 08-007 Request for Rezone of 5.91 acres from R-8 to R-15 zone for Windham Place by Eagle Spring Investments, LLC -east side of N. Meridian Road, approximately'/2 mile of E. Ustick Road: Moe: So, having said that, then, I would now like to open the continued public hearing for RZ 08-007 for Windham Place and ask for the staff report, please. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 3 of 14 Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you tonight is the application to rezone approximately five acres of land from R-8, medium density residential, to an R-15, medium high density residential zoning district. Concurrently, the applicant has also submitted for a final plat and modification, which is at your discretion to act on tonight, but, basically, in order to proceed with what the applicant is proposing to do, those -- that final -- that preliminary plat would have to be modified and changed for him to proceed with what he's proposing to do. As you can see on here, the subject property is surrounded by R-8 zoned property, primarily single family attached and single family detached homes. Here is an aerial of the site. Again, at this time the applicant has constructed two duplex homes on the site or single family attached homes on this lot here and, then, also notched out a lot and the adjacent lot to the west of that. There is an existing structure on that site. Here is the final plat that was approved back in 2006. To give you a little history on this site, this project came before Planning and Zoning in 2005 with an approved -- with -- at that time the applicant was proposing to do single family attached product. That's why the plat was recorded with lots -- with an average lot size of 4,000 square feet and you also will see on the plat there are some zero lot lines on there where the homes were to be attached and that has been noted on the plat. Now, the applicant met with staff several months ago and rather than having the applicant go through the various processes, staff had recommended the applicant modify the plat and, basically, up-zone the property to an R-15, getting him out of the requirement of having to meet the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet as it is required in the R-8 zoning district today. With the R-15 zoning designation, he, basically, has a minimum requirement of 2,400 square foot lots and no lot frontages and, again, with the R-8 zoning district, as we have it in the current UDC, or single family duplex product that the applicant is proposing to -- is asking to construct on the site. There is a requirement for a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, with a lot frontage of 50 feet. Here is the approved site plan. I would mention staff did go out to that site and drove it. All the improvements have been done per the requirements of the subdivision. So, what you see on this approved landscape plan is pretty substantially complete or done and in compliance with what was approved back in 2005. I wanted to go up to this map. The reason why we have the continuance -- and what I try to do is let you know what happened is when were getting ready to have a meeting on November 6th, staff did become aware that there was a couple properties that were sold within the subdivision and it was actually where my mouse pointer is, those are the two lots that were sold and, then, when this subdivision same in this gentleman bought the lot back. So, I spoke with the applicant and asked him if either, one, get affidavits of legal interest for most folks to agree to the rezone or you will have to exclude them from the plat. Or, excuse me, from the rezone. And, basically, what has happened is the reason why this one area is notched out is because that is the one property owner that did not want to rezone with this property and just with this being disconnected and with his access to Meridian Road, there can only be something different in the future, so it seemed appropriate to have him removed as well, because of the configuration of that lot and possibly with the extension of maybe a pathway going through that in the future and might be better served -- staff felt it better served to leave them out as well. The applicant has proposed elevations with tonight's rezone. This is what he is proposing for his single family detached product. This is pretty similar to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 4 of 14 what the duplex units look like. You can see there is some glazing in the garage doors, some modulation or different roof planes. Staff has some DA provisions that is requiring a DA be -- required for the site I should say and, basically, I just go with the big ones that we felt were appropriate. We put some language in there that the future homes be subject to certain design standards and that would be designs including gable and hip roof lines facing street, shutters around the windows on the front facade, substantial -- substantial pillars with substantial bases in front facades, accented with brick or stone and also we had a requirement for garage doors to have a glazing element as you see before you tonight. The other provision we had in there, too, was to include the building materials will be constructed -- or the home to be constructed of high quality materials to include hardy plank siding, wood, or stucco in two different building materials and different paint schemes as well. So, we definitely want to keep the quality of homes that are in that area and what are currently being constructed in that area and keep this development consistent with that. The other DA provision that we put in place was that the applicant was subject to a maximum of 23 home sites. So, basically, what was approved back in 2005 and what its final plat as it is today with 23 lots, the applicant has to hold to that and not -- construct no more than 23 homes within that subdivision. As you can see, five lots are currently built on, so that, really, leaves them 18 homes to construct within the subdivision. The other issue that I brought up in the staff report and what I will do is go to that final plat. But there are some things --one thing I wrote when I was writing the staff report, if you look on lot three here where my pointer is, the lot five, lot eight, and lot nine of block two. Lot three and five has an eight foot PUD easement and that current frontage on those lots is 45 feet and some of the house -- the house plans that the applicant submitted show that the house would be roughly 35 feet. So, if you were to have a five foot side setback or five feet, that doesn't leave them that eight foot PUD easement, that he's three feet encroaching within that setback. So, that was one issue I brought up. And, then, of course, with lots eight and nine their lot frontage is 40 feet and 41 feet respectively and his -- if his homes are 35 feet wide, that leaves him two and a half feet on each side, which wouldn't conform to that. So, I wanted to bring that up in the staff report and I did give the applicant some options. One, he could submit for a property boundary adjustment and adjust those lots to accommodate current housing dimensional site or he could propose another elevation to go with that would, basically, fit on those lots as they are platted today. With that staff is recommending approval with the DA and I would be happy to answer any questions Commission would have. Moe: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: I just have one question. That one lot that's been excluded, what's the square footage of that lot, just out of curiosity? Parsons: I'm sorry, Commissioner Rohm, which lot are you referring to? Rohm: The one that's notched. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 5 of 14 Parsons: Okay. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, it shows 45 feet. It's frontage. Rohm: Forty-five of frontage? Parsons: Yes. Rohm: But the overall square footage of the lot itself? Parsons: That I don't know. Roughly I would say 4,500 square feet, looking at the plat here. Rohm: I guess the only reason why I ask the question is what's the minimum square footage in the zone -- in the R-8 and is it less than the minimum? Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, not for a detached product. In the R-8 zoning district the minimum lot size of the product is 4,000 square feet, with a lot frontage of 40 feet. So, that is in conformance with the plat and R-8 zoning district. Rohm: Just curious. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Harris: All these microphones work? My name is Peter Hams. I'm at 6951 Duncan Lane in Boise. And appreciate the opportunity to be able to stand in front of you here and go through this. You know, it's a rather unique situation I think that we are presenting here and the staff has done a good job at claiming the situation, so, hopefully, you know, most of the things are relatively clear. The big thing that -- just to make sure it's clear is that the plat as it's approved, none of the lots are changing size or dimension or anything. Everything that is shown on the plat is already installed. The water meters are in, pressurized imgation is in. Everything is complete. But the lot lines that are there will remain there and we will build within those -- within the designs of the lot. To reference staffs comments about the setbacks, the -- see if I can work my way through this thing. The elevations that are shown here, particularly the two story elevation, the house is shown as 32 feet wide, so it will fit on all the lots, certainly the ones with the eight foot sideyard setbacks, which the lots are -- are 45 feet wide and that lot in particular hasn't -- the lots with the larger setback has a 13 foot total setback with eight foot on the one side and the five and that takes you down to 32. So, this house would fit on all those lots, which is the reason that we put this one together and any of the other lots that are a little bit less in size, such as 40 feet, we would some have sort of configuration similar to what is shown here and take a little bit of footage out of it in order to make it fit on the lot. I think the other, you know, comment about the -- not that it probably matters at this point -- the one neighbor that didn't sign for the rezone, I think this is a difficult thing to try and explain to, you know, existing people. Typically, arezone -- certainly rezones with a higher density scares people and they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 6 of 14 were under -- kind of under the impression -- and she was unavailable to me to discuss in much detail, but, you know, there wasn't any neighborhood opposition from any of the -- at our neighborhood meetings or anyone's else. I think that's about it. I think, you know, with the product that we are proposing to put out there, we will put in a nice neighborhood. We are real excited about it. I think that it's something that is -- will, hopefully, move in this marketplace and it will certainly, you know, look good out there. So, I'll stand for any questions if anyone has any questions. Moe: So, then, basically, what you're saying is you agree to all conditions of the staff report? Hams: Yeah. We have no problems with any of the conditions of the staff report. The only comment I guess I would make is that we are not necessarily prepared to submit a -- you know, different. house plans for the -- for the varied lots at this point in time. What we would do is we would -- the lot -- the houses that we would submit at building permit issuance would be in conformance with everything that you see here and with the varied pictures and the windows and the garage doors and all those things. It will meet all those conditions. It might just be slightly different looking than what we see here. Moe:. Okay. O'Brien: I have one question, Mr. Chair. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Harris, what -- you said you didn't have the final designs yet on some of the lot sizes, so what do you -- Harris: I'm song, could you speak up. O'Brien: Sure. You said that you hadn't configured what the -- some of this square footage will end up being, so do you have any idea what -- what size or how many square footage you might find in one of the smaller lots that -- configuration? Hams: The house size? O'Brien: Yeah. No. The house square footage. Harris: The square footages. Well, the house that -- the single story here is 1,212 square feet. Oops, I got the wrong pen. I have got my pen. This plan here is 1,212 square feet. This two story down here is 1,500 square feet. So, on the smaller lots what I -- my -- the market's going to tell us what people are looking for and when we build these two houses, those two lots -- there is two lots in particular that create a problem, the two that are on the furthest south end -- I guess I can go back to that here. Somehow. Anyways, it's the two lots that are on the furthest southern end of the property off of Largemont and those are the ones that have a 41 foot and 40 front yard Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 7 of 14 -- or front street lot width and one of them is much wider at the back and once you go back 20 feet it probably is 45 feet wide, so it's not going to be a problem. So, there is, really, only one lot and looking at this house plan here, if this -- if this was received on the market, well, we would probably look at this thing and figure out a way to cut a foot out of it and make it work. O'Brien: Thank you. Moe: Just one other thing, just so I understand it. Basically, the point is that in block two, lots three, five, eight and nine to the report, you will bring evidence to City Council showing that those have -- the width has changed, therefore, fitting in those lots? Harris: I guess I'm not quite understanding. The house that I'm showing you here fits on those lots. The two story house is 32 feet wide and it fits on all of the lots, other than lot nine. Moe: Okay. I follow what you're saying. Other than nine. Okay. Harris: And lot nine we would make a modification to that house to make it fit, so when we submitted it for a building permit it would meet all the setback requirements and would be in conformance with the elevations that we are showing here. Moe: I guess my point being is you're going to want to make sure you verify that with City Council. Let them know that. Harris: Verify with City Council that we will be in conformance? Moe: That's correct. Harris: Okay. Moe: Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Harris: Thank you very much. Moe: There is no one signed up. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward to speak, you're more than welcome. I don't see a rush here, so -- questions, Commissioners? Comments? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 8 of 14 Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 08-007. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 08-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I think with the applicant agreeing to everything in the staff report and I think this project's ready to move forward, unless somebody has comments to the contrary. Moe: I think, Mr. Rohm, you have done so well so far, continue on, please. Rohm: Okay. Good. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Rohm: I move to approve -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 08-007 and do we include that MFP 08-007? I don't think we have to include that. That wasn't discussed. As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 4th, 2008, with mo modifications to the staff report. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 08-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2008: CUP 08-029 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two drive thru establishments in a C-G zoning district within 300 feet of other drive thru establishments for Sonic /Taco Time by Boise Food Service -north of E. Overland Road, east side of S. Millennium Way and south side of E. Cinema Drive: Moe: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is a continued public hearing on CUP 08-029 for the Sonic and Taco Time. At this time I would like to go on the record that I, Chairman Moe, has reviewed the meeting minutes from the last meeting and am understanding of this project. So, therefore, we will just get an update from staff on this and move forward. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 9 of 14 Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I guess since you went on record saying that you have read the past minutes and there is no one in the audience to really testify on the project, I think I will just -- if you don't mind, I'll just skip forward to the revised site plan and start from there. Moe: That would be great. Parsons: Thank you. The other thing I'd like to point out to the Commission as well is since this site plan had been revised and the site has increased in size, staff also wanted to make sure that any property surrounding this area -- additional properties that would not be affected with the increase of the size, so we are going around the property list to make sure that no other properties are affected with the change to the site plan without confirming that everyone that was noticed with the previous site plan and for the previous hearing, it's on that exact list, so it appears that we are still within the public noticing requirements of the UDC. And with that I'll go right into the site plan. As you can see, the major changes to the site plan from what you previously saw on November 20th, the biggest change is Taco Time actually shifted to almost an entirely different area on the site. And also the Sonic flipped north and south and the access points that were discussed at that last hearing were on East Cinema and South Millennium Way, have pretty much stayed as proposed, with the addition of the one on the western access will be widened to accommodate traffic a little better and; then, the other access will shift to the west, instead of the east as previously stated in the staff report. The other access point -- what the applicant's proposing to do and what staff has conditioned the applicant to do -- as you can see now the applicant is taking that -- the applicant is proposing to construct this driveway -- eastern driveway as well and provide another connection to South Celebration Avenue. And staff has conditioned them in the staff report to construct that with the building of this site. The other thing that I would point out -- staff has checked the site plan for conformance. All stalls meet the dimensional standards. Driveway aisles meet the dimensional standards. As you can see, because of these drive -- this alignment or redesign of the site, these drive-thrus no longer conflict with each other as they did in the previous site plan. So, these folks using the Taco Time facility will actually be able to exit out this way and Sonic, at least they will have clearer vision on what's happening in this portion of the development to see whether any oncoming traffic's coming into either the access point or leaving the Dutch Brother's site. The other major revision, too, if you will recall, this southeast comer here with aone-way access point and now that's been punched through and, then, they made a change to a two-way driveway access. Staff did receive a revised landscape plan this morning, so I did throw that in the slide show. One other thing I would point out to you is we have -- staff has prepared Findings for tonight -- for this evening, so if the Commission is inclined to move forward with this and recommend -- or approve this revised site plan, then, those Findings are prepared, just to expedite this for the applicant and also the one thing I would point is the landscape plan is not attached to that staff report findings. But there is a condition in the staff report that states that applicant will submit a revised site plan with CZC submittal. So, we will have that covered. So, I haven't really gone in full detail to see if this is in compliance with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 10 of 14 the UDC, but I have met with the applicant over the counter -- or not the applicant, but the gentleman that drew the plans and kind of gave him the UDC requirements and at glance it appears to be pretty substantial to what the UDC would require as far as plantings, as far as trees and as far as the planter width the planter island sizes. So, with that staff would be happy to answer any questions Commission may have regarding the redesign of the site plan. Moe: Okay. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward? Suite: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Boise Food Service. And, once again, as I was here last time, we appreciate the staff support. Once again we appreciate their comments and this time we would appreciate an approval. Have I nothing else, unless there is some questions of me. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Thank you much, sir. Suite: Far too easy. Thank you. Moe: And, again, no one is signed up to speak, other than the applicant here. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 08-029 and CUP 08 -- no. Are there two of them at the same number? Newton-Huckabay: No. It's just the one. 08-029. Rohm: Okay. And -- well, that's it. Just CUP 08-029. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: I thought there was two items. Moe: Was there a second on that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 11 of 14 Rohm: Okay. Yes, there was. Moe: Was there a second? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Moe: Okay. I'm sorry. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to say when I looked at this Iwas -- I didn't expect that you -- it was going to be redesigned to this extent and I think it's a way nicer development than it was before. And I think it will be much easier to get around in and so I appreciate the efforts that the applicant went to. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Marshall: A couple weeks ago I voted to move this ahead at the time, but I did have significant reservations about the traffic flow and some problems. Considering the fact that the same owner owns both and I thought, well, it's kind of their problem. But I am so pleased to see this redesign. This is significantly better traffic flow and I think in the long haul the applicant will be much more pleased with it, as well as any of the customers. I'm -- this is a much better application. Moe: Okay. O'Brien: I agree with all of that. Iwas really surprised being able to expand out to the east like that to make it all really fit and I don't think there is going to be an issue with any constriction relative to the 300 foot rule, if you will. I don't see that being an issue. Even with the Dutch Brother's coffee in the south there. So, I'm really pleased, especially with that access road that goes out from below Taco Time out to the east. I think that really resolved a lot of my concerns being able to get the point through, so, anyway, I'm happy with that. Moe: Okay. Well, then, there is only one more thing to do. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. O'Brien. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 12 of 14 O'Brien: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 08-029, as presented during the hearing date of November 20th, with the following modifications, which are none. As the staff report has stated on December the 4th, 2008. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-029 as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-029 for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two drive thru establishments in a C-G zoning district within 300 feet of other drive thru establishments for Sonic /Taco Time by Boise Food Service -north of E. Overland Road, east side of S. Millennium Way and south side of E. Cinema Drive: Newton-Huckabay: We need to approve the -- Moe: So, we do need to open it and, then, approve. Newton-Huckabay: We don't open -- Moe: Can I get an opinion from -- Baird: Mr. Chair, regarding the Findings, you just need to act on them. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. You just need to act on them. Moe: Okay. And to act on them -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for approval of CUP 08-029. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approval the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for approval of CUP 08-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carves. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 13 of 14 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Request for Revisions to Development Application Forms / Checklists by Meridian Planning Department: Moe: Next item on the agenda is a request for revisions to development, application forms checklist by the planning department. Canning: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, our UDC requires that we put any changes to our application, any substantive changes on an agenda for -- mostly for the public to comment on. Of course, if the Commission has any comments they wish to provide -- we are not expecting them, but if you do, then, please, let us know. But, otherwise, it's just a noted form -- mostly for the development community. Moe: Any comments to that? Newton-Huckabay: I have no comments on this issue. Moe: No comments. Marshall: None. Newton-Huckabay: We don't make -- Canning: We make notes for the record, but there is no one here to testify regarding this item. Item 8: Request for Revisions to Design Review Checklist and Design Manual Compliance Checklits by Meridan Planning Department. Moe: There is no one in the audience to testify to this request. Item No. 8 would be the request for revisions to the design review checklist and design manual. Compliance checklist by the Planning Department. Canning: And as you all saw the other night, there is substantial changes to our design review and these were the forms to accompanying that. That hasn't been acted on yet by City Council, but in anticipation of a favorable action, we are bringing those checklists for you all in the development community to have a gander at. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 Page 14 of 14 Marshall: I do have a comment, since considering the fact that we already approved the design review, I think it would simply be appropriate to approve the design -- forward on an approved -- a recommended approval of the design review checklist. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Moe: Okay. We can do that. So, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: There is pretty much only one more thing to do, Commissioners. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I move that we adjoum. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjoum. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:35 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) OV~ DAVID MOE, CHAT AN ATTEST: vt ,i~ ,off DATE APPROVED