Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1, 2004 P&Z MinuesMeridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 54 of 89 Borup: Okay. Wright: That was stated about if we get a group of people together, but the whole thing about it is is, you know, contacted -- spent a lot of time contacting people, but they couldn't afford to hire a surveyor and so I have had to hire a surveyor, so that is something that, you know, it was addressed, but I was the only one that could afford to have a surveyor. So, you know, that may be another issue that -- with this. I mean because it's cost me 800 bucks for this --just to get this done through. Borup: But if that surveyor did four properties, you know, the price wouldn't be four times more, so there is an economy of scale there. Wright: Yeah. But there is a fee that would be by us. Borup: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. We already had a motion and that's the -- I guess all that testimony was in reference to your question. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Not the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Yes. And I thank the staff for their always excellent answers. Item 12: Public Hearing: REVISED AZ 03-028 Request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8(PD) zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc. -north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: REVISED PP 03-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.34 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell - north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: REVISED CUP 03-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot frontages, house sizes, and increased block length for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell -north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to move on, then. Items 12, 13, and 14, Public Hearing AZ 03- 029, request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8, with a PD, for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated. Also PP 03-035, request for preliminary plat approval of 50 building lots and 15 other lots and CUP 03-060, request fora Conditional Use Permit fora planned development, single family Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 55 of 89 residential use. Again, I'd like to open all three of these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request for annexation and zoning, a preliminary plat, and a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development and I'll go over each of those. You may remember that Sheridan Place was on your December 18th hearing, but there was no formal presentation or discussion at that time, it was pulled from the agenda at the applicant's request, so they could make some modifications and return. That is what has happened, it's been resubmitted, the staff report you have for today's hearing date is based on that revised plan. I'm going to jump ahead in my presentation a little bit, just to show you the main difference of -- the main difference between what was submitted for the December hearing and this hearing is the addition of these four lots adjacent to Edinburgh. They take access not from the remainder of Sheridan place, but from within Edinburgh. There is currently an existing stub street, there are two non-buildable lots at the end of that stub street to allow for turn around and that street would now cul-de-sac at the four lots -- four new lots that are being proposed and making the two lots in Edinburgh buildable lots. The proposal, moving back, is to annex the property, including the Idaho Power substation and, then, moving north in this area is the area proposed to be platted and for the Conditional User Permit. This application was made before the Settlement Bridge project, which wraps around the substation down here, but before it was submitted and approved, it has its final hearing next week, and would also make this project contiguous, but the substation was used as the annexation path, contiguous with Havasu Creek in this location and, then, getting to the Sheridan Place project. This is a couple of site photos. This is one of the Idaho Power substations. Their entrance into the substation is here. You can see their deep setbacks. Locust Grove Road is running right along here and Sheridan Place project would be in the distance across McMillan Rqad. So, this photo is looking north and slightly east from along Locust Grove Road. The photo down here is the actual site of the proposed subdivision. A little difficult to see, but there is a lot of existing trees and shrubs and existing house behind them in this location and Vienna Woods is to the north and Edinburgh is to the right or the east. The proposed plat includes 50 single-family residential lots and 15 common lots. There is also a proposed CUP for a planned development on this lot that requested reduced setbacks, reduced lot frontages, reduced lot sizes, and minimum house square footages and a request to exceed the 1,000 foot block length. In return for their amenities they were proposing a tot lot and a gazebo, barbecue area centrally located in the project on this lot and the overall open space for the project is just over the five percent minimum, at 5.28 percent. Briefly going over the requested modifications to the -- to the ordinance as part of the planned development, these are delineated beginning on the bottom of page two of the staff report and continuing on page three. The requested lot size of 7,000 square feet is actually larger than the minimum allowed outright for the zone, so there is no -- there is no reduction really necessary there. The proposed frontage, 65 foot is the minimum. They are requesting 60 and staff has no concerns with that. Regarding the setbacks, the items they were asking for have been -- are now currently ordinance, so there is actually no modifications necessary there either. And on house size, they are requesting a reduction from the 1,301 minimum to 1,200 square foot Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 56 of 89 minimum, but they are requesting that specifically on the front lots off of McMillan Road and, in return, they are proposing to increase the minimum lot -- minimum house size on the northern lots to be 1,500 square foot minimum. So, staff is in support of that as well. There is a handful of things that need to be worked out today, but I think we are close to agreement on all of them. If you go to the annexation and zoning comments on page seven, number two, regarding the substation, the substation itself is currently developed with no sidewalks, et cetera, and Settlement Bridge, which has been approved and is awaiting findings at City Council, will be providing amulti-use pathway for a sidewalk on the north and, then, stubbing sidewalks to the south. Staff would just like to see the city get some sidewalks at some point to continue this to the corner. As currently written, we were recommending, that it be made a condition of this application. We, in conversations, would be willing to modify that request to make it -- if we could at least get a development agreement that says that these sidewalks would be required upon any significant upgrade of the substation in the future, I think we could live with that and address the issues of the sidewalk location and things at that time. I do believe -- and the applicant can testify that the Idaho Power does intend to do some upgrades here in the near future and so by annexing the property tonight we would have -- they would be working with the city for those improvements and we could potentially get the sidewalks at that time. Specific questions on that? Rohm: Are you saying that if Idaho Power upgrades their substation, that they have to make an application for a conditional use or some sort of application that would insure that sidewalks could be made a requirement of that application? Siddoway: Going the route of conditional use is one way to get them, but Idaho Power would be reluctant to require a conditional use on an upgrade. By a current ordinance a substation in that zone would be a permitted use and reviewed at staff level. So, if we had some way of assuring that the sidewalks would be built with that, then -- we could do it without requiring the conditional use if we could make it part of the development agreement for the annexation, and, then, just handle it at staff level, rather than a CUP. Rohm: So, then, it would be the developer that would be putting a sidewalk in; is that what you're saying? Siddoway: No. It would be Idaho Power. When the substation is improved. Borup: But you're saying by making that part of the development agreement, that insures that it will be done at that point. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: I'm assuming that Idaho -- now, does Idaho Power need to be a parry to that development agreement? Siddoway: They would be in that case. We can let the applicant address that. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 57 of 89 Borup: Okay. Siddoway: Item number five on page eight deals with the out parcel. Find which one is the easiest to see that on. Get my steady hand here. Okay. This -- these two parcels were at one time one parcel. There is what's been deemed an illegal lot split in the county that created the back parcel. That designation as an illegal lot split is currently in litigation in the county, but, nonetheless, the same owner owns all three of these and has the city's blessing -- or the city staffs blessing in adding it to their proposal, but we would -- we are asking that the applicant provide us a legal description for the out parcel, so that if the city deems it appropriate in the future that we can use that legal description to annex the property ourselves. They have attempted to get the owner of that out parcel to join in this application, but have been unsuccessful in doing so, but they have attempted. There is no timing for that mentioned in here. Our intent is not to hold up this application to receive that, we could make that a condition to be submitted with the final plat and that would be fine with staff. Moving on to the special considerations for the preliminary plat on page nine. The first one deals with the street buffer. As currently proposed, the street buffer on the west side of the entrance is 25 feet. We are requesting that that be increased to 35 feet in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In the landscape ordinance I don't believe that's in any contention. Number two deals with an access easement that runs along the west side of the property in this location. It's 25 feet wide. It's in favor of Mr. Buckley, who owns the property to the west. We do have a copy of that recorded easement. They have been in negotiations to try and get it relinquished. If they are unable to secure that, we will need to have that easement shown on the plat and I'll let the applicant address any modifications to the plat that would also come as a result of that. On the issues of existing trees, this is quite simply -- it's too hard to see on here, but there is the sidewalk running along McMillan Road shows a couple of trees to be removed where the sidewalk is running through them. It appears that if the sidewalk were meandered around, then, they could be retained. I believe the applicant is willing to try to save those trees by moving that sidewalk. Item number four deals with the domestic water supply and as with Settlement Bridge, there is a water supply issue out here and the need for a new well. This issue will need to be resolved prior to final plat and the applicant has stated that they are aware of that and if you have specific questions about that, I would refer you to Bruce. The last couple are on the special considerations for the CUP on page 15. I have already gone over the reduced standards, so I won't repeat those. The amenities as mentioned were the tot lot and the barbecue gazebo. I did question the amount of 4,000 dollars for the tot lot being enough. I believe the applicant is willing to increase that and we have some samples and based on what I have seen, I think we can be in agreement that what they are showing tonight would work for the project and could be made a condition as an amenity. The final item number three deals with -- this is on page 16, the police department's concerns. They are anticipating that homeowners from the cul-de-sac would come through this micro path and wanting to get up to this playground, would have to cross the street somewhere near this intersection. The main path of vehicular travel seems to be around this way and they are asking for a stamped concrete crosswalk at that location. I skipped over it somewhere, but I also remember there is an issue with us requesting -- oh, it's probably Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 58 of 89 in the fire -- in the police or fire. Oh, yeah, the no parking and the parking plan. We have requested that a parking plan be submitted. The street coming in with the islands and such will have to be posted no parking, because there is only a 20 foot travel lane between the median and the curb, which is adequate for emergency service access, but not -- but not if there is on-street parking. We can do away with the requirement for an actual parking plan if we can get an agreement from applicant that each of these lots in the front area will have a driveway pad at least 20 by 22 or so that would handle at least two or three cars to park off street and, then, I think we can handle it that way. All of these are reiterated on the last page. Just to give you a quick look at the items needing resolution tonight, one through nine, this is page 18 of the report, and with that I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from Commissioners? Is parking -- it looks like it appears to me maybe the parking problem is created by the islands in the middle of the entrance street; is that really why there is a parking problem? I mean the road is -- the road is wide enough otherwise. Siddoway: Otherwise, it would be more than wide enough, yeah. But we like the islands. We are not hoping they will remove the islands, we just need to make sure that there is adequate off-street parking, I think is the only point. Borup: Okay. Is the applicant ready for their presentation? McKay: Good evening. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions,150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant on this application. As Steve indicated -- Steve, if you could put the map back up, the vicinity map. As Steve indicated, this property right here that is approximately 11.14 acres is owned by Idaho Power. We convinced Idaho Power to participate in this application for annexation, therefore, making us contiguous to the city limits, which existed at the time here at Havasu Creek. As Steve stated, since, then, the Settlement Bridge application has came through, so the city limits shortly, as soon as that ordinance amendment is passed, will be right here along our south boundary. So, the need for Idaho Power to participate is gone. Yet, the cities like to have these substations within their jurisdiction, one, in order to, obviously, be able to control what's done there and also just because they don't like these enclaves all over. And I have a project out off of Surprise Way in Boise and they were doing a mass annexation of all this Idaho Power land where the large transmission lines currently exist. So, I mean it's a plus to get that annexed. So, I guess one of the concerns that I had with staffs conditions was it is not customary to place conditions on an annexation, conditions such as improvements. Since the substation is existing, I am concerned if staff is too stringent on what they want done with that property, that Idaho Power will say, forget it, we don't want to participate. And, then, we are going to have an enclave there with the city limits wrapping all the way around it and at some point in time that situation would have to be solved. So, I do believe it's in the best interest of the city that this Idaho Power property be annexed and go into the city. I have talked to them and they stated we have plans in the future to do a major upgrade of that facility. At that time we would, obviously, consider putting in sidewalks and making those connections Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 59 of 88 to the sidewalks that Settlement Bridge is putting in, but at this time any improvements to the site as far as sidewalks are concerned are not in our budget and we would be against that. Borup: At this point would they be willing to be a party to the development agreement, as was discussed earlier? McKay: We have been dealing with Layne Dodson and he said it would have to go to his supervisors. So, I guess it would all depend upon the language in which the Commission places within that development agreement or recommends within that development agreement if that would be palatable to Idaho Power. They are always a little, you know, reluctant to make commitments when, like they told me, you know, they are still working on their upgrade plans and they are still trying to budget for that upgrade. Borup: But the only thing we are talking about is sidewalks -- McKay: Right. Borup: And you had made a statement that maybe have some concern, maybe. You said they would consider -- McKay: They would consider it, yes. Yes. Borup: It would be nice to have something a little stronger than that. McKay: And I guess it depends on -- like the new ordinance, if it's a conditional use or a principal permitted use. Most jurisdictions, the substations are coming in as a conditional use and in Meridian it is a principal permitted use. So, they just go through the staff. That's the current ordinance. Moving on. As you can well see, the property that the development is proposed on is next to Vienna Woods and Edinburgh Place. If we look at a larger vicinity map you can see this property is kind of what we call an in-fill parcel. It's not a large parcel, it's only approximately 15.34 acres in size, with major developments all the way around it. In working on our design, one of the things that I, obviously, took into consideration was the lot sizes that adjoin us up here and Vienna Woods. These lots here are 100 feet deep by 80 feet wide. The corner lot I think is about 96, so they are ranging from about eight to nine thousand square feet. We have got an existing stub street here that we were required to connect to. Another existing stub street on our eastern boundary, which connects us to Edinburgh Place and, then, we were required to do a stub street to the west for future development of the properties westerly and to make that intersection. Along -- from this point on where we are adjoining the larger residential lots, we have got eight, nine, ten thousand square foot lots. I made them deeper. They may be a little bit narrower, they are in the 70s, but I went 120 versus like 100 or 110, which is what the lots that adjoin us are. It gives a little more distance between the dwellings. Down here in the neck portion of this subdivision we have got smaller lots. They are 60 feet wide, but they are very deep, they are about Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 80 of 89 -- some of them are 130, 136 feet deep, just based on the configuration of the parcel. There is only relatively one way to develop this property is bring in, obviously, the center roadway and, then, do this loop when you have to make these connections to the stub streets. Powell: Chairman Borup, since Mrs. McKay is talking about changes that the public may be interested in, it would really help if you used that one. McKay: So, even though these lots down here in this portion are 60 feet wide, they are deep, and they are ranging from like 7,250 on up to 7,500 square feet. We have got one existing single-family dwelling located here, that's where you see this larger lot, and one of the things that we looked at was dressing this up. It's always difficult on these smaller parcels to create something that has kind of a warm feeling, because you're so limited on what you can do financially and just logistically based on the shape and characteristics of the property. So, we came in with detached sidewalks, so we'd have five foot landscaping at the back of curb, a four foot sidewalk and, then, all of the sidewalks within the development would be detached with trees and turf planted between that -- in that five feet, giving that nice canopy, that warmer feel. We came in with this island -- the islands here at this entrance, that was also to give it a more warmer, more up scale feel, and the islands have kind of got us into a little bit of a pickle as far as the parking is concerned and, for the record, we do islands quite often in projects and we have got 21 from back to back -- from back of curb to back of curb, 17 feet from face to face. If you parked a car there and say you allocated nine feet, which is the width of a parking stall, you would still have a 12 foot travel way getting through there and that's with a 12 foot island. Now, we can come in and reduce that island width to eight feet, if the Commission thinks that they need those travel widths a little wider. The no parking -- we have tried that on projects in Boise and two things happen: One, they come in and when the people buy this they ignore the signs or, two, they take them down. I had one subdivision, it was a cul-de-sac with a narrower street section and they just -- the signs disappeared as soon as the residents moved in. So, we don't have a solid island running down there, these are intermittent islands and they are short in nature with large spaces in between. So, I guess my -- I don't feel that we have a situation where emergency vehicles could not pass through there if you had a parked car. For our amenity, up here we have got our tot lot with a playground facility, a barbecue area, a gazebo. It's about a third of an acre, a little over a third of an acre, centrally located, and, then, we have got this pedestrian access coming here, hooking into this Redwick and the change in this application, as Steve indicated, was the inclusion of these four lots. There is a temporary turn around here in Edinburgh Place that would be able to be eliminated once a permanent turn around was established. And these four lots are very large in size; they are around 11 and 14 thousand square feet. One of the other things we looked at was square footage of the structures. We have asked for and we specifically stated that these lots here would be approximately 1,200 feet minimum and all the remaining lots would be a 1,500 square foot minimum. Obviously, making sure that we are, you know, compatible, we can co-exist with the adjoining residences. As far as exterior fencing, I think in the staff report they asked me to address that. The applicant has indicated that they will match whatever existing Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 61 of 89 fencing is along that perimeter, because we do have some existing fence. The 25 foot easement -- there was 25 feet to the west, 25 feet on the east side of this line. I was told at one time when it was established years ago, it was to access this back portion. We did meet Mr. Buckley out at the site, we talked about the irrigation, we talked about that easement, we -- my client did make an offer -- a financial offer to Mr. Buckley for him to relinquish the 25 feet on this side. We thought we had an agreement and Mr. Buckley changed his mind and wanted additional funds. So, we had only opportunity -- or the only option we had was, therefore, to leave the 25 feet. My recommendation would be to include that 25 feet in the lots, show it on the plat, the fence would be placed at the 25 foot easement line, I'll probably slide this over a little bit to give us additional depth and, then, in my conversations with Steve the rear setback would be from the fence, 15 feet from the fence, not from -- because Steve was concerned that someone may place a home say five feet from that fence, because its setback would be from the west property line. So, I think we can work with that. My hope is that Mr. Buckley would change his mind and come to the table and we could relinquish it, because when his property develops in the future, that 25 feet is going to become an issue for him or the future owner of that property. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: Just a comment. I like the idea of the reduced size of your islands to the eight foot. I thought that was a good input. Zaremba: I think it is nice to have the islands there, it's a good touch, but I agree, if it would solve the parking and safety access issue, reducing the width of the islands a little bit would be preferable. Moe: The one comment you made, though, to the lots on the west side is that you would want to go ahead and move that forward towards the east, those lots, to get a little bit more depth in that property where the easement is going to be, those properties? McKay: Yes. Right here? Moe: Yes. McKay: Yes, the street would shift over probably about ten, 15 feet, I think we estimated and just give them additional depth. And these are already very deep there. Moe: Okay. But our street would stay the same and we are going -- McKay: The width of the street would remain identical, yes, sir. Yes, sir. It would not change that and the approach would stay the same. Everything would stay the same, just that mid section would kind of edge over. Moe: Got you. Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 62 of 89 Zaremba: Then, Ihave a -- kind of a compound question, I guess, for you and staff. Did I hear you say that your detached sidewalks would be four feet wide? McKay: Yes. Detached sidewalks you may go four feet wide, with a five foot landscaped area. If they are attached we have to do five feet. Zaremba: Okay. I thought they had to be five feet either way, but I'm sure you're right. McKay: That's in the landscape ordinance. Steve can address that. Siddoway: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the -- one of the -- we are trying to encourage detached sidewalks when we wrote that part of the landscape ordinance and as -- since it requires some additional forming, which is an added expense than they would have if they were butting it up against a curb. We agreed to allow the sidewalk to be reduced to four feet. Plus, in an attached sidewalk usually the mailboxes are right in the sidewalk, effectively reducing the walk-able area in most places to be about three feet. By detaching the sidewalk, the mailboxes generally go in the landscaped area, giving a full four feet of walking space. So, that would be correct. If I could interject one question; the current width of the parking islands, what is it? Borup: Twelve. Twelve feet. Siddoway: It's 12? So, by reducing it to eight, we gain an additional two feet on each side, which isn't enough to allow on-street parking. McKay: It would give us -- from back of curb to back of curb we would have, what, 25 feet? Siddoway: Yeah. What would it be from the face of the curb? You would have to have at least 20 feet. McKay: Twenty-one. It would be 21 from face to face. Siddoway: Yeah. The emergency services are going to want 20 feet free and clear for their path of travel between the island and any parked cars and so they want to have at least seven or eight feet for the parked car and, then, 20 feet separate from that. So, I'm not sure it gains us anything to reduce the width of those -- gaining an additional two feet doesn't allows us to park a car, so - Borup: Now, presently we have -- I mean 37 feet on a standard street? McKay: Thirty-six. Borup: Thirty-six? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 63 of 89 McKay: Thirty-six back to back. Borup: That's back to back. McKay: And you can park on both sides. Siddoway: So, if you had eight feet for the parked car on each side. Borup: You say we have what back to back? McKay: With the reduced island it would be 20 -- what did I say, 20 -- 25. Borup: Okay. That's what I thought you said. Zaremba: Well, the next suggestion probably would be to shift the islands off center and have no parking on one side. McKay: Or either have no parking where -- just where the island is. Because, see, you're going to have a wider street section in between the islands. Zaremba: True. McKay: Those islands are just -- they are real short. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, another possible solution is to bulb out the right of way around the islands -- McKay: Yes. Freckleton: -- to gain the area. McKay: Yes. Freckleton: It also gives you a little bit of street -- a little character to your streets, too. Zaremba: Is that doable? Borup: There is enough lot depth there, but if you were giving up because of that right of way, you don't have as much as you originally did. But that is a good idea. McKay: And that's been done before, Ithink -- I think I have seen a project that had that. I guess that would be an option. Or eliminate the islands altogether and go back to a standard section, but you don't get as nice a feel. Zaremba: It would be nice to preserve them. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 64 of 89 McKay: It would. You know, they are kind of spendy, but they are a very nice esthetic feature. They make a sub look nice. Zaremba: Well -- and they are traffic calming features, so people aren't racing through this entry. McKay: You're absolutely correct. People go slower. Rohm: So, you're agreeable to the bulb as well? McKay: Yeah. I guess -- I guess if we had the option of either losing the islands or trying to bulb out around them, then, that would be preferable. Borup: So, what are we talking about, three feet? Is that about -- that would be the difference between this road width and standard? That's what I came up with, if you take 20 -- 25, nine for parking, that leaves you 15. The other way 36 and 18 for parking, that leaves 18, so -- McKay: Right. Borup: -- that's three feet difference. Siddoway: I think if we are gaining two feet on each side, that we would need an additional six. Let me back up one step, though. We are -- I just want to go on record as saying staff is fine with the current design, as long as we are -- have the ability to provide enough off-street parking. We are not trying to suggest that they have to widen it out, but if they wanted to bulb out to provide on-street parking, we can work with that, too. Borup: Well, I would have to agree with the applicant, that -- I mean just the way it is, I agree, it looks nice, but people are going to ignore those signs. That's just human nature. Maybe not everybody, but -- Zaremba: Well -- and the residents wouldn't, but if they throw a party and have guests, there is going to be parking in the street, whether there is no parking signs or not. Siddoway: Currently, the space between the -- she said back of curb to back of curb -- is 21 feet. Borup: No, she said 25. Siddoway: Currently. Currently 21. Borup: Oh, currently. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 65 of 89 Siddoway: Currently 21. Back of curb to back of curb, if you figure the paved area was 17? McKay: From face to face is 17. Siddoway: Yeah, but those are rolled curbs. McKay: Those are -- yeah. They would be roll curb. Siddoway: From the vertical portions -- there is basically 20 feet of free and clear travel space there. Yes? McKay: Yes. Existing. Twenty-one. Siddoway: Existing -- well, 20 to the face, 21 to the back. We would need to get in the neighborhood of 27 or 28, so if we gained two, we would need to add at least an additional five or six in the bulb out area to accommodate on-street parking and appease emergency services. Rohm: Just for the length of the island. Siddoway: Just for the length of the island itself. Borup: So, you're saying on those paints you need about 27 back of curb to back of curb? Okay. Well, it looks like there is a couple different options there. Maybe rather than discussing that now, we can talk about that at the conclusion a little more. McKay: That's right. Yeah. Doug's right. With a 36-foot section and you take parking on both sides; they don't have the 20 foot travel way. You have got 18. Siddoway: With 36 you have eight and eight, that's 16, and, then, you have 20. Borup: Oh, you're figuring eight. Okay. McKay: We figured nine. I just figured nine. Siddoway: Oh, yeah. McKay: Just to give -- like a parking slot, you know, is nine. Siddoway: I think eight -- eight's all that emergency services would require. Borup: Okay. So, that's 20. So, that does the same thing on the other that bumps it up to 17, so it's still only three feet difference. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 66 of 89 McKay: I think we can make this work and I could get with emergency services and make sure that they were satisfied with what we were going to design, if that would make the Commission feel more comfortable. Borup: Okay. McKay: Thank you. Borup: Did that --did you conclude? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Is there -- now, staff had a list of conditions right at the end of their recommendation. McKay: Did you receive my written response to the questions? Borup: Yeah. So, I think everything really got answered, didn't it? Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, there was one clarification that we didn't go over in the response, just for the record. It's on item -- on Becky's response, page three, number eight. They talk about offering to eliminate Lot 9, Block 4, and merging into Lot 10, Block 4, but, in actuality, we are requesting that they eliminate a portion of Lot 9, Block 4, and merging into Lot 8, Block 4, and I think we are in agreement that can work, but just to clarify. McKay: Yes. Yes. We are in agreement that that will work. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Now is the time to come forward. Wenske: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Jack Wenske and I reside at -- Borup: You might need to pull your mike up a little higher there. Wenske: A little taller. Borup: Yes. Wenske: And my name is Jake Wenske and I reside at 2019 East Redwick, which is right -- right when you come in from that side where they are going to do the four lots Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 67 of 89 site and the lots -- the lots she's making reference to at the turn around is right across from me. I'm also the president of Edinburgh Homeowners Association and most of our concerns have been addressed since the last meeting and -- but there are -- the concerns that I see still are the small lot size up front and in talking about the small lot size and the size of the houses proposed with 1,200 square feet, most of them on our side and Vienna Woods are quite a bit bigger than that and mine, for instance, is almost 2,000 square feet. The other thing is that for some reason -- and I don't quite understand why, this is proposed as an R-8 and our subdivision and Vienna Woods are both R-4s and as I understand it, R-Ss is a little -- quite a bit less restrictive than what you can put in it than the R-4s. I think I'm correct on that. Borup: No, not necessarily. Wenske: Well, they can have day cares and so on and so forth. Borup: Oh, by that. Okay. I thought you were talking about lot sizes. Wenske: No, not lot sizes. The other thing that in talking -- in listening to her comments and the planners, if the -- for some reason they have to -- and they aren't able to get the easement question resolved and they have to move those lots over and also take out the sections that go around those center sections, that's going to even reduce those lot sizes even farther, so I'm just concerned in whether it's going to all work out for us. Other than that, I think we are okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Brinegar: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Bud Brinegar and I live at 5190 North Locust Grove and my property adjoins this on the west side. I have -- I have the property at -- there and the one right below it. Those two right there. And I heard some discussion, something about fencing, and my concern is that I have an open ditch on the east side of this and I burn that ditch regularly and I -- she said -- or they said something about they are going to put back the same type of fence. Well, it's just a barbed wire fence and I would request that you give some consideration to some sort of a -- same way of I can keep that ditch burned and the weeds burned in that ditch. My other question is -- Borup: Did -- excuse me, sir. Does your ditch go right up to the property line? Brinegar: Right. Borup: Okay. Brinegar: Yeah. We discussed that at the last meeting, where the property line was, and Ithink -- I guess I'm willing to accept what the -- apparently the engineer has made an error in one of their surveys out there and they were over 17 feet, but that apparently Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 68 of 89 Borup: That's got clarified now. Brinegar: Yeah. Apparently that's been satisfied now and I have no problem with that. My concern is where the ditch joins up to the present ditch, our -- who has got the light that's shown there, so -- Borup: There should be one right there on your podium Brinegar: Right -- let me see now. Our live water comes out of -- right at a point right there and goes down along side of there like that. And there is a divide right there and I hope the developers understand that we need to have that so that it divides to go to this property and to -- on down to serve this property, as well as go north here. Borup: Yes. They are very aware of that. That's by law. Brinegar: Well, they said something about crossing the road here to get into this when they put these other -- these other two lots here. I heard something said about what kind of a bridge or what are you going to put in here that -- Borup: That will all be piped. It will all be underground. And that's by city ordinance that it has to be. Brinegar: I think my questions have been answered. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. What type of fence would you like to see there, sir? Other than noncombustible, lassume. Brinegar: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Beaumont: Hello, my name is Rex Beaumont and I live at 1839 East Comisky and where my house is, is there. Zaremba: Can you speak a little closer to the microphone, please. Beaumont: Sure. Zaremba: And you can pull it up. Beaumont: Do you need my name again or -- Zaremba: He got it. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 69 of 89 Beaumont: Okay. So, one of the questions that I had is the same as the gentleman from Edinburgh is I was wondering why this is being zoned for R-8 versus R-4 that Edinburgh, Vienna Woods, Austin Creek, all the other subdivisions around there is R-4 and there are restrictions from an R-4, what I understand differences as day cares, nursing homes, whatever they want to do in an R-8, and so that was a concern that I have is why an R-8 and why not an R-4 like everybody else. Across the street this Settlement Bridge Subdivision is also R-4. So, that was a concern that I have and -- Borup: I might answer some of that right now. The applicant said some of those entrance lots they had a little small, even through they are large lots, most of those on this are 7,800 up to over 8,000 and in an R-4 zone the lots do need to be 8,000, but they also need tc be 80 feet. So, they are real close on the total square footage, but because of the configuration of the land, they felt that they weren't able to get as much frontage as -- to comply with the R-4. So, that's their reasoning for doing the R-8 is not to allow other zoning uses, but to -- because of the extra depth of those lots, they felt they needed to narrow them up a little bit. That's my understanding from -- Beaumont: And I guess that would be the other reason is why not stay to the minimum square footage that Vienna Woods has of 1,600 square feet, instead of the 1,200. I just think that that's just going to change the whole neighborhood atmosphere that the people are going to be in there and the subdivision that I live in. Borup: Well, but they don't, it does not access -- well, it does in the back. You're right. Beaumont: And, then, also they mentioned that the beginning was only 1,200 square feet, but just for my -- is it on concrete that it's just, in a manner of speaking, that it's 1,200 like in this particular case here? There is another slide that you had that showed the -- Borup: We were just looking at one that shows the adjoining subdivision, I think. Is that good enough? The shows -- Siddoway: Are you looking for this one? Beaumont: That's the one. Right. And so -- now what my question was is it in concrete that it's only the homes down here that are 1,200? Could a builder go and put in a 1,200 square foot home right there -- Borup: No. No. Beaumont: -- and, then, that would create a huge area right behind my house here and the concerns I also have is other things that they could do in an R-8, could they put cars back there, could they work on cars, could they do other things like that. Borup: Yeah. That doesn't make any difference what zone you're in, if someone wants to work on a car. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 70 of 89 Beaumont: Or put a whole bunch of cars back there Borup: Well, that's not a factor either way. The R -- my understanding the smaller homes would be just in this front section, All this in the back was the higher square footages. Beaumont: Right, but I'm just -- Borup: So, no, a builder could not put a 1,200 foot back to the back where you pointed out. Beaumont: Okay. Borup: That would not be allowed in their proposed covenants Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the condition as written in the report does specify those specific lots out front as the only ones that would have the 1,200 square foot minimum and, then, it also states that all other lots would have a 1,500 square foot minimum. So, that lot that you're talking about would actually have a 1,500 square foot minimum, which is actually larger than the R-4 minimum, which is 1,400. So, you're gaining something there next to you. Beaumont: Okay. So, I guess that was my main concern is why -- you know, why R-8, instead of R-4, especially with the day care situation and nursing homes can go in there. I'm just concerned that that area could change so much that if I were to sell my house and I had a big day care behind me, then, it would make it very difficult, so -- Borup: And those uses that are different from the R-8 all would need to go in with a conditional use. It's not a permitted use anymore than in the R-4. Like a childcare does require a conditional use in the R-8, so it's not outright permitted. Beaumont: Thank you very much. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And that would include neighborhood notice. If somebody applied, people within 300 feet of it would be noticed. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Who's next? Cundick: Good evening. My name is Lynn Cundick. I live at 1930 East Mozart Street. In December we sent a letter expressing some concerns on behalf of the Vienna Woods Homeowners Association. I'd like to just refer back to that letter. First of all, we talked about -- we had a concern with harmony of appearance, that there didn't appear to be anything in any of the CC&Rs or any of the information that we had seen, that would Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2D04 Page 71 of 69 assure that the homes in this area were compatible with the Edinburgh, Vienna Woods area. In subsequent discussions with the developer we have been assured that the CC&Rs and the requirements will be compatible. I just want to go on record before this Commission we have had this discussion and that, in essence, that's our agreement and our view that the homes are going to be compatible with Vienna Woods and I tend at this point to completely trust and believe that that is going to happen, but that was a concern that we had. In looking at some of the information that's shared with us, such as the requirements for the type of building materials, the roof pitch, et cetera, we feel comfortable that they are. We also understand that the homes in this area where they are going to smaller homes will be a higher quality and will be desirable and will be very attractive. So, again, we are counting on that. Some of the other issues that we have that we address in our letter, such as the lot sizes and et cetera have been covered. So, at this point I guess it's just a matter of reiterating that based on assurances we have it appears that this will be an area that's commensurate with Vienna Woods and Edinburgh. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Any final comments? McKay: I'd just like to address a couple of the comments that were made. The one thing to keep in mind, your Comprehensive Plan designates this property as medium density residential, that's three to eight dwelling units per acre and our gross density is 3.26 and our net is 4.34, so, obviously, we are at that lower spectrum. A lot of times on a project where we are only dealing with about 15 acres, you find that a developer is squeezing in every lot they can and a lot of developers would go in and just try to get 60 footers all through the whole thing. We didn't do that, we were sensitive to adjoining properties, their sizes, their values, their depths, their widths, and by having the larger square footage, the larger lots up there that abuts those properties, where we have the smaller lots, they don't abut Edinburgh, they don't abut Vienna Woods, but yet the lots are still going to have to be compatible with what is constructed to the north and so that's why I think when the gentleman commented that those are going to be higher end homes, but on smaller lots, that's going to have to be the case in order for the lots to be marketed to the north. On Mr. Brinegar, the fencing, I guess there is two options. Noncombustible fencing doesn't give a lot of privacy to a homeowner, so a lot people of dislike them. The other option would be to work with Mr. Brinegar to possibly pipe that ditch at our expense, so that he didn't have to burn it. I'm not sure how his property irrigates and how that would impact him, but that I guess was an option that we'd like to explore. As you can see, these homes here, they are very attractive. They are two-car garage. The larger lots in the rear, obviously, would be able to accommodate three car garages, but those are the types of homes that would -- that they want to put in this development. We have a good project here. We can only do so much with what we have to work with. I don't feel that we are pushing the envelope. We are trying to make this, obviously, a profitable project, but yet provide a community that will be beneficial to the City of Meridian and I believe that's what we have here. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 72 of 89 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any final comments from staff? Are there any issues that you don't feel have been addressed? Siddoway: No. I think the only thing we need to clarify in any motion is how we are going to handle the development agreement, because I think that does need some modification from what is written here and the parking plan and how we are going to deal with either the bulb outs or whatever that ends up being. Finally, given the need to show the easement and the potential shift in the street to make the lots deeper and such, we will -- we should get a revised plat depicting such at least a week prior to City Council. I think that's it. Borup: It would be on file at the city, so it would be available to -- Zaremba: The question from the audience was whether or not that would be available to the public. Siddoway: The answer would it's definitely available to the public. It would not be mailed out to all the home-owners, we would state that it would. be available at the city clerk's office here in this building prior to the hearing. Borup: And the revision he's talking about is just moving that entrance street slightly to the east to allow the lot depth, because of the existing -- because of that easement. Siddoway: The only reason I'm talking about it is right now this road shifts slightly west and, then, down and if were trying to make these lots a little deeper to accommodate that Easement, it would likely go more straight down. A slight shift in the road. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Let me review with staff what would specifically need to be modified. Let's try page seven under annexation and zoning comments, paragraph two. The first paragraph of paragraph two is the one that we would modify to say the application and Idaho Power would participate in the development agreement, that if at sometime Idaho Power upgrades, they will include in that upgrade the sidewalks. Is that where it would go and how you want it? Siddoway: Yes. It can probably -- I mean that would probably replace pretty much all of number two, unless you have specific thoughts about the landscaping, which is what it goes into next. But in that whole discussion staff states that we would forego the additional landscape improvements to get the sidewalks, so I think we just need to clarify what improvements we are expecting at the substation and at what time. Just to point out, number three would also really be part of that same issues with multi-use pathway. We would -- we would allow the multi-use pathway to be built in place of the sidewalk along McMillan, but -- and Settlement Bridge did that as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 73 of 89 Zaremba: Well, okay, so if we deleted the current paragraph two entirely -- and I mean all paragraphs of paragraph two -- Siddoway: Okay. Zaremba: -- and, then, looked at page eight, paragraph four, where it specifically references a development agreement, the last sentence, it should also require sidewalks and multi-use pathway adjacent to the existing Idaho Power substation, at such time as Idaho Power upgrades their facility. Siddoway: That would work. Zaremba: Can we do that? Siddoway: I think that would work. Borup: Well -- and, then, in the first sentence would Idaho Power want to be added in there? Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Between the City of Meridian and the applicant and Idaho Power. Yeah. Siddoway: In that case, you could really delete numbers two and three. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And would want to leave the description of the out parcel? Siddoway: Yes, but just clarify the timing to be with the final plat. Zaremba: That's paragraph five? Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Before signing on the final plat; is that what you said? Siddoway: I'd have them submit it with the final plat application. Borup: There is not that much more to survey for that. Siddoway: No. Borup: They have already got two sides done. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 74 of 68 Zaremba: Okay. Then, turning to page 18, it's actually the police department's comment. I'm sorry. It begins on page 17. I would leave the police department's paragraph three in place as it is, but add an additional sentence that, alternately, the applicant could narrow the islands and provide bulb outs and not have no parking requirement. Is that acceptable to attach it to the police department statement? Siddoway: Oh, yeah. That's where the condition shows up. Zaremba: Okay. I would leave the current condition in there and express the choice. Siddoway: And, then, we can work with that in the -- under the guise of the parking plan that it asks for -- to either be the pads or these bulb outs. Zaremba: One or the other Siddoway: Sure. Or both Zaremba: Okay. Run down items one through nine under the recommendations that need to be resolved, we are pretty much done, aren't we? Just glance at your list there. I think we have got them all. Rohm: I missed the proposed amenities. Siddoway: Oh, yes. We didn't really detail that. If I may -- in discussions right prior to the hearing Becky had said that the applicant would agree to increasing their proposed minimum of 4,000 dollars to a minimum of 10,000 dollars for the tot lot. They did provide an example of what one could look like within that price range and this is one that would -- this is one that would fit that price range as a price for that structure. In fact, that one is less than 10,000, so we are comfortable with that and -- Zaremba: So, specifically on page 16, under site specific conditions, paragraph three, do we want to add that monetary amount? Siddoway: Yes. I'm in agreement for the applicant, so I think, yes. We can add the -- they were proposing a monetary amount for the gazebo and barbecue of 5,000 and, then, if we just added 10,000 for the playground equipment, I think that would be fine. And, then, we can just verify that when the final plat comes through with its amenities. Zaremba: Amenities will include a tot lot to cost no more than 10,000 dollars. No less than 10,000 dollars? Siddoway: No less than. Borup: I thought you said this one was a little bit less Siddoway: This one is. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 75 of 89 Borup: That looks pretty nice. Siddoway: They are committing to be at least ten. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That's very generous. Very good. Borup: Yeah. I feel so, too. I mean the amenities in this case -- I mean the subdivision is not -- you know, of the 50 lots we only have 12 that are under 8,000 feet, so it's -- as was mentioned, they are not pushing the envelope here as far as lot sizes and all. Okay. Rohm: Good. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on these three items, AZ 03-029, PP 03-035, and CUP 03-060. Powell: Mr. Chair? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Zaremba: We haven't voted on it yet. Borup: Well, we can still get staff comments. Go ahead. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Yes. Powell: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I have expressed concern about putting monetary values on these things. I would prefer -- and the applicant has indicated that she's okay with it, that it would be -- you could just reference what she has provided tonight. It's the same that's on the wall there, that it's similar or better than what they have shown to you tonight. Borup: And I think that's what we were trying to bring out earlier, because I think the Commission felt the same way. Powell: Then, that way we don't have to check all their numbers and I just feel very uncomfortable having a monetary value stated in a condition of approval. If the price Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 76 of 69 went drastically up or down on these things due to some unforeseen act of God, there would be no reason for you not to approve it as it is. Zaremba: Review page 16 with me, then, for a minute. Paragraph three under site- specific conditions, how about if we make the change this way: That the first sentence is the same, the following amenities are required for the project, colon: Playground equipment and gazebo with barbecue, comma, and tot lot. Period. And the second sentence already says they will be installed as described during the Public Hearing. The playground equipment is the tot lot? Oh. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, based on that I'd say no modification is needed. We can just base it on what was presented tonight. Borup: And that diagram is part of the staff file now, too Zaremba: It's already covered. So, it's part of the record. All right. One less change. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Moe: Go right ahead. Borup: Yeah. You got the most notes, I think. And if anybody's got anything that needs to be added as he's formulating. Zaremba: Everybody chime in. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda AZ 03-029, request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8 PD zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc., north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 1, 2004, received by the City Clerk March 25, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, under annexation and zoning comments, the entirety of paragraph two, title substation, may be deleted. The entirety of -- this is now on page eight. The entirety of paragraph three, entitled multi-use pathway, may be deleted. Paragraph four will be slightly modified as follows: A development agreement, parenthesis, D.A., closed parenthesis, shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the applicants and -- add the words and Idaho Power as part of the annexation application. The next sentence remains the same. The third and final sentence in that paragraph is changed to read: It should also require sidewalks and a multi-use pathway adjacent to the existing Idaho Power substation at the time that Idaho Power upgrades its facility and reference -- the rest of the sentence continues as is. Paragraph five, still on page eight, add a sentence that says: This will be required with the final plat application. Is that the right wording? Okay. That's the change there. End of -- now, do we --just to clarify, when I reference the police comments, do I want to put that on the plat or the annexation? As a plat issue, then? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 77 of 89 Borup: Because it's a street design. Siddoway: I have them right at the end of the CUP comments, but each reference one another, so plat or CUP. Zaremba: Then, I am finished with the annexation motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, CUP 03-035, request for preliminary plat approval of 50 building lots and 15 other lots and 15.34 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell, north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 1, 2004, received by the City Clerk March 25th, 2004, with the following changes: The only change I would make is that I would reference on page 18, we will add to a paragraph that begins on page 17, but the addition is page 18, that alternate compliance may be made by narrowing the islands and providing bulb outs, so that the roadway width around the islands is wide enough for emergency traffic. End of preliminary plat motion. Newton-Huckabay: I think we need to add a comment on the fence with the neighbor to the west and the ditch -- piping the ditch. Zaremba: That's a good point. Okay. So, let's do that. We will add this on page 12, we will add a paragraph 14 -- I'm sorry, a paragraph 15 that says applicant will work with the neighbor to the west for a satisfactory conclusion to fencing and ditch issues. Borup: And his preference -- I think that the applicant talked about either a noncombustible fence or work with the neighbor on piping the ditch. I think that was Mr. Brinegar, the neighbor. Zaremba: Do we want to add that? Borup: Yeah. I think so. Maybe shorter than what I just said. Zaremba: Okay. I will add to the sentence -- this is paragraph 15. Let's do it again. Applicant will work with the neighbor to the west for a satisfactory conclusion to the fence and the ditch, which may include a noncombustible fence and/or piping the ditch. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 78 of 89 Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-060, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot frontages, house sizes, and increased block length for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell, north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 1, 2004, received by your city clerk March 25, 2004, with no changes, other than to reference, again, the change that we previously made on the police department conditions that on paragraph 18 we have added an additional sentence, alternate compliance, may be made with narrower islands and street bulb outs. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. That does conclude that item. I would like to take another short break, if anyone else is of the same mind. Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 15: Public Hearing: CPA 04-001 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add a Land Use Consistency Matrix to Meridian's Comprehensive Plan by The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department: Borup: Okay. We are ready to reconvene, if we can get the audience to quiet down. Next item is CPA 04-001, Public Hearing request for a .Comprehensive Plan amendment to add Land Use Consistency Matrix to Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. I think we have all got a copy of that. We'd like to go ahead and turn that over for staff report. Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I know you all have seen this already twice before and you have the most up-to-date copy of the matrix that are in your packets. Basically, this would be modification of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a land use matrix. I wanted to point out and, actually, add a note to the matrix if we end up approving this, that this doesn't allow any changes -- any zone changes outright, rather the applicant would be required to submit a rezone application to come in and for these -- for these zone changes. So, it would function kind of the way when you ask for a step up in density on the Comprehensive Plan, with the designation of low