Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAug. 19, 2004 P & Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 37 of 82 Hobbs: Yes, Okay, Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for up to 150 children in a C-Z zone for Primary Colors Daycare by Primary Colors, Inc., east of South Eagle Road and south of East Overland Road, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo for the hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received by the city clerk August 13th, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Item 16: Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 residential lots and 39 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 (PO) zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 (PO) zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. The next project is Chesterfield Subdivision. We'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-037, a request for annexation and zoning of 46.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development. And we'd like to open Public Hearing PP 03-046, request for preliminary plat approval of 214 residential lots on 46.4 acres. And Public Hearing CUP 04-070, request for a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 38 of 82 Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 planned development zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision. Again, all three hearings are open and we'd like to start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, you all have seen this project before. Several months ago this went through Planning and Zoning Commission and you all recommended approval to City Council. City Council has remanded this application. They had some revisions they wanted the applicant to make and I'll run through those revisions and highlight the changes that the applicants made, since you saw the application last time. The property is located on Pine Street northwest of the intersection of Franklin and Ten Mile, just between Ten Mile and Black Cat. The site is 46 acres in size and the application is for 214 building lots and there is an application for a planned development to allow reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage, and reduced setbacks. Some of the changes that were requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission -- oh, excuse me, City Council. Sorry. Include they wanted a mix of lot sizes, frontage widths, housing types, and they also wanted the applicant to address the location of the open space area and the amenities in the open space area. So, some of the changes have happened there now. Three types of home lots for the subdivision. There are now alley-loaded lots in the center of the subdivision. These lots average 3,200 square feet in size. There are -- additionally, they have done some changes in the standard lots around the perimeter of the subdivision, they range in size from 5,200 to 11,000 square feet and they have increased the size of the lots at the perimeter of the subdivision to kind of buffer the subdivision and the adjoining properties. And, then, they still have patio home lots. These haven't really changed. In the southern part of the subdivision they average about 5,000 square feet in size and feature common drives. The amenities have changed. There are now two main open space lots. This is the central -- now we have a centrally located open space lot and the amenities have also been centralized and they include playground equipment, a gazebo, volleyball court, and, additionally, the applicant's also providing micro paths along the western edge of the properties that's actually on Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District property. The applicant is volunteering to provide that as an amenity. So, those are some of the changes that you have seen on the project. I also wanted for you to note that we have - - believe there were two letters of concern from neighbors to the west of the subject property. One I think we just received today and he's here to testify. One from the Casey family and, then, one from the Noll family, so I wanted to make sure that -- to draw your attention to those letters. Staff is recommending approval of the project. The project meets code and the Comprehensive Plan and they have made all their revisions that were asked for by Council. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I do have, of course. I may have missed it in the notes, but from having this before us before, my recollection is that there was an agreement to do a locked gate at the end of that road there and, then, I got exactly what the treatment was to protect the existing house from this -- temporarily protected from that stub street. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 39 of 82 Kirkpatrick: I'm going to go ahead and have the applicant address the details -- Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: -- of that arrangement. Zaremba: All right. That's my question for the moment. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Amar: For the record, my name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East, Idaho, Suite 230 in Meridian. Anna says I only have 15 minutes, I'm going to take about, hopefully, just five. You can buzz me at anytime you want. This project has been before you before. Staff did an excellent job at addressing why we are back. We went before City Council and City Council asked us to look at specifically four items. Those were, as Wendy stated, the amenities, locating those in a centralized location, as well as the park versus two separate locations. Lot sizes. Not as much the density, because they did say they were okay with the density, they just didn't want all the lots the same size and a number of lots -- or the majority of the lots the last time were all the same size. So, asked us to vary the lot sizes, but maintain the density or they were okay with the density. So, we have maintained the density, we just changed the lot sizes. The roadway system -- could you put up the old map, please? Maybe. I'm stalling. I'm going to try to take all 15 minutes. In the old system we had a roadway system -- in the old plan, a roadway system that didn't bring people to the center of the project and wasn't -- didn't have a focal point as much as the new one. I'll show that in a second. This is the old layout. This is the revised layout. As you can see in the previous layout, we had two separate park areas with good interconnectivity at the roadway, but it was not -- it didn't bring it into the center at one location. With the new layout we do have a centralized park. We have, in fact, increased the total open space on this layout, bringing all of the focus to the center of the project to the amenities within the subdivision. And that was a big concern of especially Commissioner Nary or Councilmember Nary. So, we have addressed that. The other items where they did want one really focal park area, it will have some drainage. A lot of the drainage will be handled in here, but all the amenities will be placed in this location, with the exception of the pathway. The pathway we will address, because Wendy and I were in a meeting with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and there are some concerns of theirs that - we can work around those, but we need to address those and make specific conditions. I think that's probably a safe statement. So, we are here before you tonight really just looking for, again, a recommendation for approval that you have looked at this. ACHD has looked at the new layout and they have recommended approval of the new layout that does meet their criteria. As far as the specific requirements from the previous hearing that we plan on continuing those forward also. There were on the -- the pathway here we needed to restrict access -- there is a little bridge crossing the Ten Mile. Those residents that live on the east side of Ten Mile did not want people walking up and down there, it's a private lane. They did not want people walking up and down that private lane. So, we do need to, on this pathway, restrict access to go back down the sidewalk, rather than Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 40 of 82 be able to access the -- across the bridge. And we will continue that recommendation forward or we'd like for that condition to be continued, as it was last time. Also on -- previously it was this lot and this lot -- now I guess this lot and this lot, there was a single story requirement for those two homes and, again, we will continue that forward. There was -- at this location we will be building all of -- I think it's called pine today. All Pine or our half of Pine, but, again, in order to restrict access to the private road, we will need to fence that portion of Pine, so people do not drive down that private road. That was also a specific condition. Unless I missed something, those were the three specific conditions from the previous recommendation for approval that we would like to have conditions again. And other than that, I would answer any questions you might have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: You previously described some treatment that you did in this area to make the area more palatable to the homeowner to the west and I have forgotten what those things were. Amar: I have an older map, but I don't have it right now. These lots -- we really did not change this area at all from the previous map. Zaremba: From the final version of the previous map? Amar: From the final version of the previous map that you recommended approval on. These lots initially were all along the boundary and we had the park between the Kennedy Lateral and those lots. We shifted those lots. As you can see here, they are still against the Kennedy Lateral with open space against the western boundary, as we were talking. There was also another requirement to provide access for the irrigation of that -- and maybe the owner is here, but the owner that gains access here for the irrigation, we need to provide a gate so they can continue to gain access for that irrigation and we will do that. Zaremba: Those are my questions. Borup: Anything from the other Commissioners? Amar: That's the old old previous version. Borup: Okay. Amar: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone from the public to testify on this? Please come forward. Schweiger: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I am Judy Schweiger, My husband Gary and I live at 3515 West Pine Avenue, which is the private road Kevin referred to. I'm speaking for seven neighbors on that road. Rick Jensen, John Tucker, Dave Hicks, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 41 of 82 Steve Wilder, Rob Boslow, and ourselves and the renters in our property and we have lived from a minimum of ten years to 25 years on that road, so we are all long time residents of that area. We actively farm between us 53 acres on West Pine Avenue. Most of our homes are -- have a substantial value and, of course, we are quite concerned about our farming being disrupted and the value of our homes being diminished. Not the value of our land, but of the homes that we live in by this type of housing adjacent to us. One of -- I do hear addressed a couple of issues that we were very concerned about. One was the patio homes that were going to have an eight foot front setback, which we just feel is very inadequate and creates problems in any neighborhood where access -- for what people do with their cars and of the access of services and other people to that area. Another thing that I -- Borup: Ma'am, I didn't understand the question on the cars. Schweiger: Well, an eight-foot driveway is just -- Borup: Oh, no, that wouldn't -- that does not apply to the driveway. That would just be the living area. The driveways still need to be 20 feet. Schweiger: Twenty feet wide? Borup: No. Twenty feet deep. Schweiger: I think in the meeting before we were talking about an eight-foot front setback. Borup: That was the setback. The driveways still need to have the full depth of 20 feet. Schweiger: Okay. Borup: Other parts of the house could be reduced, but the driveway where the garage needs to be -- Schweiger: Oh. All right. I don't think that was clear. Zaremba: Unless you're talking about the houses that are alley loaded. Schweiger: I believe so, yes. Zaremba: Yeah. The cars would access from the back alley. Newton-Huckabay: She's discussing the patio homes on the south -- Schweiger: On the south. Newton-Huckabay: -- boundary of the property. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 1 g, 2004 Page 42 of 82 Schweiger: Yes. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: With the common driveways. Schweiger: That's right. Newton-Huckabay: Four on a common driveway. Zaremba: I got it. Schweiger: Another thing that had come up that didn't come up tonight was the creek -- the walking path on the creek, the -- is just going to dead end at both ends, is -- they had talked about a four foot high fence and something we really strongly desired was a six-foot fence on possibly a four foot berm, so that we would have protection with our animals and from that many people living behind us. So, we didn't feel that that provided adequate separation between the subdivision and our properties. I think the walking -- the fencing and the protection of our roads have been pretty adequately addressed. We do have to go up to that area to turn on our irrigation water, so we would need to have access to get in there to turn on our water. And the Hicks family, I believe -- I don't know if it's in this new plan -- they were protesting -- there is a stub street right by their property on the Ten Mile Creek and they were concerned about the stub property and wondered if that small area could be redesigned. And, then, I think that Faith Jensen wants to address an issue they have. Thank you. Jensen: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Faith Jensen, I live at 3720 West Pine, and I think that you should have some pictures that I sent to you. Some copies. A couple weeks ago. I think you should have gotten them. And I live just kitty-corner from the proposed subdivision site and we have two main concerns with the proposal and the first is the density and we feel that this would have a substantial negative effect on our home values. The second is the close proximity of our house to the proposed walking path and the pocket park and I'm not sure if that is still the plan, the little pocket park on the east end. So, there is no -- so, it's just the walking path now? Borup: Yeah. We need to address the Commission. Jensen: Oh. I'm sorry. Zaremba: There is a -- there is a thing - a laser pointer on the podium. Would you point to the area that you're talking about? Highlight it? Jensen: Right around there. There was a pocket park on the last proposed -- but, anyway, we live just right over that bridge, so we live right there. So, the first photo that I have shows our home and the picture is taken just from inside our fence. Just outside Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 43 of 82 that fence are trees and bushes that provide a privacy barrier for us. The second picture is taken from the edge of our pool towards the proposed site and the haystack is approximately where the walking path will be. And the third photo is taken from where the walking path will be to the edge of our property. My husband is standing there. Do you see those pictures? Can you -- and, as you can see, our privacy is being invaded because of this and I'm asking that the developer pay for a berm with mature landscaping that would wrap the corner of our property. And we contacted American Wilderness Landscape and they gave us a bid of 5,600 dollars and this berm would create privacy to our front yard area that is soon to be subject to new construction. It would solve our two main issues concerning this subdivision, maintaining our property value, as well as insuring our privacy. Do you have any questions? I do have a copy of the bid that we got from the landscape -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come forward. Noll: Thanks. My name is Tom Noll. I was up here before. I represent the EI Gato neighborhood, and, as you will remember, the EI Gato neighborhood is off in this -- you know, west of this property. We are about -- I always have trouble with these air photos. I think we are down in here. We represent about 20 neighbors, 20 people, residents that live on that street. And my name is Tom Noll, I live at 5947 West EI Gato Lane. We have talked about this and we want to thank you folks and thank Wendy for helping us get a better understanding of how to approach this and how to work with you. In summary, we sent a letter and we oppose this subdivision the way it's proposed. I'd like to see one of the pictures again of the current layout. What we are mostly concerned about is this high density here. Now, my eyes are pretty good and yours are probably pretty good, but this is pretty darn small. These lots are pretty darn small and we are thinking that that's just inappropriate for this part of the city. We live on five-acre parcels to the west of there and we think it's quite a change to go from five acres to 5,000 square feet in that short of distance. We were at the City Council meeting and our recollection of Keith -- or Kevin Amar's discussion of the density is just a little bit different. We -- our recollection is that the City Council said that because -- just because it's zoned at that density doesn't mean that you have to achieve that density, that that was a limit, but that if a better design could be achieved with a slightly lower density, the City Council would prefer that. Now, of course, that's our recollection. We can look back at the record and see exactly which council member spoke to that issue. We appreciate Mr. Amar's attempts to address those issues. However, we think he can do better and we think this density, as I pointed out, the density here in the center, as well as these patio homes inappropriate, and we think it's going to cause considerable problems, not just as our neighbors to the east have mentioned with the property values, but we think it's going to cause, you know, operations and maintenance problems and access problems. So, what we would recommend is that we think this is a reasonable first step and that Mr. Amar's made the right -- you know, he's moving in the right direction. What we would recommend that this is remanded for further revision. We think it's getting closer, but it's not quite there yet. So, that's the summary of our recommendations from the EI Gato neighborhood and, again, I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to me. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 44 of 82 Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. I got a question for staff. Could you elaborate a little bit on what the City Council did? Do we have a -- we don't have it in writing on a summary of theirs, other than a brief summary. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I, of course, was there and my recollection was we had a discussion about density and whether this was appropriate density for -- given the use and in their remand the items that they did -- that they wanted to see changed specifically did not address density on purpose. So, it was discussed that, you know, it wasn't a density issue, it was just a design issue that it was being remanded back for. Noll: I would agree with that. Canning: Sir, you need to go back up to the podium. Sorry. Noll: I agree with the conclusion about the specific recommendations. I'm -- what I was thinking about was the discussion that we had with the City Council. We'd probably have to go back and read the court records to get at that. Again, this is Tom Noll. Excuse me. Borup: And the staff report says to have a mixture of that lot sizes and frontage widths is how I think you stated it in the staff report. Kirkpatrick: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I went through these minutes when I prepared the staff report to make sure that they were meeting the conditions of the remand. Borup: Okay. So, that's where the wording -- that wording came from City Council to have a mixture of -- Kirkpatrick: And I don't believe it was a quote, but I did -- I did go through and synthesize why they asked for the remand. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any other Commissioners? Zaremba: I have a question of staff. And this may have come up last time, but I either don't remember the answer or the question didn't come up. Let's see. Can you go to the little larger area view? Yeah. That will work just fine. I'm coming to the conclusion that Pine Street, which will be this street, is not going to connect to the east for quite some time. It sounds to me like the property owners on that end are not moving toward changing from farming into development, which leaves Pine Street and the intersection at Pine and Black Cat as the only access. To me that qualifies -- I'm sorry, yes, over -- farther over here. This entire area, with several developments going on in there, is, essentially, one cul-de-sac, and similar to a discussion that we had with -- I think it was Saquaro, until they had more than one way in or out -- now, this -- the application that Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 45 of 82 we are looking at tonight has two accesses onto Pine Street, but Pine Street only has one way out. And I'm wondering -- I don't see comments from the fire department about limiting the number of building permits. That isn't really an issue of whether the application would be approved, but it's whether or not they can start building them yet. Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to have the applicant address that, because they are also the developers of Castle brook to the north, but there are additional connections in there and this has been reviewed by the fire department, but I'll go ahead and have -- I'll have them address it, because they are more familiar with the area. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Unless there is any other -- any other questions for staff? Canning: Chairman Borup, we did want to point out that although these property owners have not expressed any interest, this property is for sale. It was previously owned by a church and the church has decided not to develop there, so it is on the market and they are -- so, currently it is on the market. Borup: Okay. Mr. Amar, do you have some concluding remarks? Amar: Thank you, Mr, Chairman, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Kevin Amar. I'll address some of the comments that were made by the neighbors first, their questions, and, then, we can address the secondary access issue also. First, Mrs. Schweiger, the patio homes, the eight-foot setback, initially that was something that we had requested. We didn't want those becoming parking lots. We backed away from that, because we weren't sure which was better and we have standard setbacks, 20 feet from the edge of the common drive. With respect to the pathway on Ten Mile, that pathway -- I'll use the little map. This pathway is something that we are doing -- we are requesting to be able to do. It's on property that's owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. We can landscape it and we can do a pathway with specific conditions that either we have to agree to or the city has to agree to, but we cannot do any substantial improvements, such as berms or things of that nature. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will not allow it. We will be putting a fence on the back of our property line, which separates the lots from the pathway. The specific conditions to that pathway are either this -- either the developer can develop it and not put a pathway in or the city can maintain it and, then, it becomes a public pathway and on Castlebrook No.2, Preliminary Plat No.2, we will be moving forward also with a recommendation or a request to City Council to change that condition. We still want to improve it. We still want a pathway there. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District wants one of two things, either the developer maintain it as a private area and there not be a pathway there and we will still landscape it and put in trees and all the rest, or it be a pathway there and the developer would still landscape it -- all of this is at our expense -- and the city maintain the pathway. Wendy, is that what you understood from that meeting with Bill Henson? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 46 of 82 So, with respect to that pathway, any additional improvements in that property that Nampa-Meridian owns, I cannot do, Nampa-Meridian will not allow it. Borup: What's the width of that irrigation? Amar: The total width is 50 feet. There is probably 30 feet from top of bank to -- to our property line. Borup: Okay. Amar: Thirty to thirty-five feet. But as far as improvements, that's something I cannot do. Obviously, access to irrigation water will be kept alive. Irrigation water is a valuable right. I'm sure more people have been killed over water than over -- I was going to say something rude, but that -- killed over water is a big deal. And we will maintain access to irrigation water. I believe it was Faith Jensen, her question was on -- I believe her lot is this lot here; is that correct? There is a common lot at this corner. It is not a tot lot. It is not a park. It's a common area for storm drainage. It will be improved as such, but it's not counted to the park space and it's not a -- it's not a park lot, so there will not be access to that or from that -- from the surrounding area. So, that was a concem previously and it will be the same, it will not be a tot lot or a pocket park. Mr. Noll spoke about density and we did ask at City Council, because we weren't sure just exactly what items we needed to address from the previous plat and Commissioner Nary specifically said density was not an issue, he just wanted more variety of lot sizes and widths and that is what we have addressed. The density in this is 4.61 units to the acre. The Comp Plan is actually eight units to the acre -- up to eight units to the acre and we cannot meet that, eight units to the acre, we are still on the low end of the Comp Plan, which is from four to six units to the acre, so -- the access issue, which I have saved until last, we do have Pine that we will be constructing, but we also have through Castlebrook Two, Castlebrook, and, then, these subdivisions we have access -- another point onto Black Cat here, here, and here and, then, also there was a point onto Cherry Lane. So, secondary access there is -- is well thought out. Zaremba: I see that now. Thank you. Amar: You're welcome. I believe those were the questions that I had written down to address and I will answer any other, should there be any. Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I don't have a question, I just have a comment. I have to agree with the public that I don't think that the development -- I don't -- it doesn't really flow with the rest and the density seems too dense. I mean I don't -- sorry to -- I can't think of the terminology I'm looking for here, but I just feel like there are too many homes squished into that area to maintain the type of lifestyle that people in that area are used to, even Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 47 of 82 in the development to the north. I think something more like that would be better suited in that area. That's the comments I have. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: The patio homes along the bottom, I think that I -- those common drive lots that I just -- Borup: Other thoughts, Commissioners? Zaremba: Well, I guess I have always been curious. Usually the developer's response to a question like that is I can't afford to put in bigger lots and I wouldn't mind being educated at some time how a developer figures out if they are going to build more smaller buildings, as opposed to fewer larger buildings on their total acreage -- Borup: I have wondered that, too. Zaremba: -- you know, why one of them is more profitable than the other. It's more building to build smaller stuff. I don't know if we want to get that education tonight or not, but I have always been curious about it. And I'm one who supports density, but I've always wondered how that decision is made about what's affordable and what isn't. Newton-Huckabay: Well, my thought is that's a lot of density out there and what is the -- the services that will eventually support that density, gas stations, things like that, on Black Cat. Borup: Maybe it -- but doesn't a lot of that -- Newton-Huckabay: You know, you're just looking at a sea of homes. I mean I don't know what will be out there for some time, though. Borup: Well, that's my first impression, too. But it probably goes back to the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan says four to eight and this is 4.6, I mean maybe we should have been thinking about that when the Comp Plan was -- Zaremba: Well, I can see why the Comp Plan would -- generally along the railroad right of way and nearer to the freeway and eventually if Pine goes east from this point it will connect to Ten Mile, which some day may have an interchange. There is transportation services coming to this area that would, 20 years down the road, support the density, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, as Nampa and Meridian converge, isn't the density going to, at that point, it's just to spread out, is it not? Zaremba: Probably. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 48 of 82 Newton-Huckabay: And I would think that Black Cat, in my vision is, somewhere in the middle between the growth of those two cities and you would -- I mean you're not going to see another little city pop up in between, you know, with public support of those. I did not vote on the first Chesterfield, I was not a Commission member at that time, but I did attend that meeting as a public, if that's relevant. Zaremba: A moment ago the planning director looked like she was anxious to say something. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I just did want to point out the site in relation to some of those issues you were talking about were right here, if I can keep it steady. There is mixed use in this location, there is large amount of mixed use, it's the vision going to the Ten Mile interchange, high density residential right across the railroad tracks, as well as industrial. So, the services are envisioned as being in this location. There is also an important thing to note, there is a transit station here and one of the ideas is to get higher densities near those transit stations and this is not -- this is not a conversation and specific reference to the project that's before you tonight, just in the general conversation of density and where we want density and along the railroad corridor is one of those areas where we do want density and I was in a demographic advisory committee today for Compass and the new modeling plans for the Compass -- I can't think of the name of it right now. Communities In Motion plan that Compass is currently working on. One of those scenarios is higher density development around transit stations. Now, we are looking at maybe seven units to the acre, around those areas, to support bus or even going as far as to look at 25 units to the acre. This is, obviously, nowhere close. So, those might be some of the things you would want to consider and how that density relates to the projects around it. I mean I think that when you have a project that's insulating that density within itself, then, that is something that typically that the Council has looked favorably upon and the Planning and Zoning Commission in the past, so -- Moe: I guess one thing I'd like to just point out, you know, because it had come before us prior and we did approve it when it went to Council, that they decided that they wanted to see some changes and whatnot and, quite frankly, see a little diversity on this plan and I think, quite frankly, the developers have done exactly what Council was requesting them to do. Here again, the density -- I mean as far as the average overall, they are still well below what you -- what this area could have, so, again, I think that what they bring forth has pretty much met what City Council was looking for when they remanded it back to us for another review. Rohm: I concur. Borup: Are we ready to move on? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Moe: Second. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 49 of 82 Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Is somebody ready for a motion or do we need some more discussion? Rohm: Just to kind of further Commissioner Moe's comments, basically, as I see it, this development complies with the Comp Plan, is ordinance compliant, it has -- I can't think of the word -- the density is in transition from the light industrial and the developers have addressed all the issues that the City Council remanded it back to us for and based upon all of those items and fully addressing those, I see no reason why we cannot forward this back to City Council with our recommendation for approval. That would be my position. With that, if there is no other comments, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing AZ 03-037, request for annexation and zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Roads, including all staff comments, for the hearing date of August 19th and received on August 5th, including all staff comments. Moe: No. I'm noting the hearing date of the 5th. Rohm: Oh, hearing date of the 5th was the original staff comments, received August 2nd, 2004. Moe: I'd second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing PP 03-046, request for preliminary plat approval of 214 residential lots and 39 common lots on 46.4 acres in a proposed R-8 PO zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of South Back Cat Road and north of the West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments, dated August 5th, 2004, received August 2nd, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 50 of 82 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: And, lastly, Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we forward onto City Council approval of Public Hearing CUP 03-070, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 PO zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments, presented on hearing dated August 5th and received by -- received on date August 2nd, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 18: Public Hearing: RZ 04-009 Request for a Rezone of 16.49 acres from R- 4 to R-4, R-8 and L-O zones for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090,2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 04-023 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 18.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 04-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential, assisted living and office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090,2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. Next is the Larkspur Subdivision project. We have Public Hearing RZ 04-009, request for a rezone of 16.49 acres from R-4 to R-4, R-8, and L-O zones for Larkspur Subdivision on South Meridian Road. And also PP 04-023, request for preliminary plat approval of 56 building lots, six common lots, and CUP 04-025, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use planned development, consisting of single family residential, assisted living, and office uses, with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage. These are all for Larkspur Subdivision. We'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm going to go through some of the history of this application. This is, actually, a combination of two applications you have seen previously. They have been combined into one -- into one project. The project is located at the southeast intersection of Overland Road and Meridian Road.