Michael Arnold 11-131
Charlene Way
From:C.Jay Coles
Sent:Monday, November 13, 2017 10:48 AM
To:Charlene Way
Subject:FW: Application H-2017-0088 Linder Village
Please put this in the record if it is not there already.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Arnold [ mailto:stv1668@hotmail.com ]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:10 PM
To: C.Jay Coles < cjcoles@meridiancity.org >
Subject: Application H-2017-0088 Linder Village
We are writing to ask that the City Council reaffirm the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission and deny the
application for Linder Village.
My wife and I are Paramount residents and we live on Bacall Street, our home backs up to the property in question. We
attended the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting and plan on being in attendance at the City Council Meeting this
November. The denial by Planning & Zoning was based in large part on the large number of areas where the Developers
plans were at odds with the guidelines written in the City Comprehensive Plan. Having seen two newer proposals from
the developer after the P&Z denial, it appears that they continue to fail to address many of the P&Z recommendations.
Of particular concern to us, 1) the size of the building footprints, Mixed Use Community calls for 30,000 sq ft footprints
and states that the size could go up to 60,000 sq ft for a local grocery. The Developer is asking for a WinCo of 85,000 sq
ft and a Pet Store and local stores of 25,000 for a total building footprint in excess of 100,000 sq Ft ! And this is only one
of the large buildings recommend ed by the Developer. Second concern is the 24 hour operation of the WinCo right next
to existing residences. A number of years ago the city restricted the hours of operation of the Walgreens now located at
the northeast corner of McMillan and Linder, because of it’s proximity to existing and proposed residences. Walgreens
is SUBSTANTIALLY smaller than the proposed WinCo and much less busy. We do not feel a 24/7 WinCo operation should
be approved after having denied Walgreens the same hours. 3) Final co ncern is the apparent lack of appropriate buffers
between the residences at Paramount and the commercial development as specified in the Comprehensive Plan.
If the developer continues to modify his proposed plan and submits it to the Council for approval, we would hope that
the Council would remand the plan back to Planning & Development for a new review to determine its compliance with
the City Comprehensive Plan.