Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 19, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 59 of 82 building lots and six 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, including all staff comments for the hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received on August 16th, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and Second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of 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 and including all staff comments for the hearing date August 19th, received on August 16th, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. That concludes that application. Thank you. We are going to take a real short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 21: Item 22: Item 23: Public Hearing: AZ 04-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 64.48 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan on North Meridian Road: Pubic Hearing: PP 04-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 234 single-family residential building lots and 16 common lots on 64.48 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan Road on North Meridian Road: Pubic Hearing: CUP 04-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage (including cul-de-sacs) and request to exceed the maximum block length Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 60 of 82 allowed for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan Road on North Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our hearing and start with Public Hearing AZ 04- 019, request for annexation and zoning of 64.48 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for the proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Vogt, and also PP 04-026, request for preliminary plat approval of 234 single family residential building lots and CUP 04-028, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use planned development, consisting of single family residential lots, with reduction in minimum requirements for lot size, reduced frontage, and block length. Again, we are opening all three public hearings and starting with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. There are three applications here and the first one -- I was pronouncing it Ventana. Whether it's Ventana I don't -- maybe that's right, but I'll say Ventana. Or Ventana. I think we are already to Vent-a-naa little bit there. Moe: Moving on. Hawkins-Clark: Sorry. The property is originally part of the Ashenbrenner hundred plus acre parcel, which was divided recently in the county for mainly the purposes of the middle school -- future middle school that is on the bottom 40 acres, and the property is designated as medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Saguaro Canyon Estates was approved a few months ago and that is 140 acres here to the east and to the north and other adjacent properties, as you can see, have been annexed. On the west side of Meridian Road, Paramount Subdivision, with a few out parcels here and, then, Havasu Creek, Cobre Basin Subdivision on the south side of McMillan Road. All the other adjacent -- well, the adjacent property to the north, there is a 24-foot wide gravel road, as you may recall from Saguaro Canyon Estates, immediately north and, then, there is approximately a 20 acre estate-type property and, then, another 20 acre estate-type property to the north of that. So, this is the third application for annexation that we have received in this section. So, they have requested all of the 64.48 acres to be zoned to an R-8. Aerial photos. Here is the layout that was submitted with the preliminary plat. The application, as the chairman noted, there are 234 building lots and, then, 16 common lots. The build-able lots range in size from about 6,000 square feet, which is their minimum, to 14,575. The gross density of the project is 3.63 dwelling units per acre. The Conditional Use Permit is requesting exceptions to four different standards. The first one is lot size. Instead of the 6,500 square foot in an R-8, they are proposing 6,000. And the second one is frontage. Instead of 65-foot frontage on the lots, they are asking for 40. That 40 applies to about four lots. The rest of them are right around the 65-foot frontage. The cord length that they are asking for is five-foot reduction from a 40-foot cord to a 35-foot cord and, then, a block length. The maximum block length for the city is 1,000 and they are asking for 1 ,200 plus. And that primarily is related to this central block in the subdivision here. The block actually begins here at this north boundary where that 20-foot gravel roads is and, then, comes down to this point. It does not have a public street that breaks it up. However, it does -- they are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 61 of 82 proposing a clubhouse with a swimming pool about in the middle of that block and that would allow for pedestrian connection through the block. One attempt that they are trying to do here, which the applicant, Becky, will probably go maybe a little bit more in detail on is the connection that Saguaro Canyon Estates provided is right here about in the -- the northeast corner here and as you may recall, they will not be able to use the -- the only lot that can use the gravel road on the north is a five acre lot for one house that is located here owned by the Boyacks. Once that house in Saguaro Canyon has another public road access, they have to abandon the gravel road entirely; they won't be able to use that. So, all of Saguaro at this point is moving traffic either down to McMillan Road or out through this sub and, then, of course, in the future it's anticipated they can go other directions in the north and south, but these are the only applications that the city has received right now, so in terms of looking at the circulation in this area, there was some concern by this developer that the cut-through through their project from Saguaro may be a problem and so they have tried to make it fairly circuitous to get out to Meridian Road. So, that is some of the reason there. The South Slough -- or is that the North Slough, I'm sorry, does cut through this northeast corner of the project. They are proposing to extend the ten foot wide regional public path, which was a part of Saguaro as well, up this road, go along the drain and, then, come out to Meridian Road and, then, that would hook up with Paramount and head across over towards the high school. The future high school. Let's see. On the planned development, the amenities that they are proposing are the playground equipment, a clubhouse with restrooms and a swimming pool and a multi-use pathway. They do have about eight -- a little over eight percent of their total gross acreage is in open space. Here is just a couple of slides of the landscape plan that were included in here, so you can see the amenities. This is their main entrance of Meridian Road, it's located here about in the middle of the project. As you come in it is designed, as a residential collector with no front-on housing that would terminate here at the clubhouse. The playground equipment is currently shown here and one of staff's comments was that at least one of the two required amenities should be shifted down to the south, since these two are only about 1,000 feet apart from each other. Let's see. I'll just go back to the overall preliminary plat and just point out two -- I think two issues. We did receive to the public record two responses -- well, one was a letter submitted by Mr. John Priddy who, I believe, is here tonight and the other one was a response from Engineering Solutions, which is a written response to our comments. On the written response, I have talked with Becky, there was nine proposed modifications, some of them slight, the only really main one that requested significant change, I think, was Item number eight under the preliminary plat. One of my comments was that, as you can see, Paramount is proposing a center median island here at the half mile on the west side of Meridian Road. We had thought it might look good, since it's the half mile point, to have a median on the east side of the road as well. The surveyors, the engineers, did look at that, they do have to use the center-line, obviously, that cannot shift. Ada Highway District requires those to be perfectly aligned and in order to stay with that center line, putting the median in there would make the turning radius to the north virtually impossible. So, that is the reason why there is not a median in this project. With that 24-foot wide road being on the north and this property owner, Voigt Development Company, not having any control over that, obviously, they can't encroach or penetrate to that north, so they have to use the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 62 of 82 boundary that they have and staff understands that it's, essentially, a survey and an Ada County Highway District issue that the applicant doesn't have any control over. So, they are requesting that number eight be removed. If the Commission agrees, staff is fine with that. The other item I wanted to point out was item number 18 on -- also on the preliminary plat, which deals with the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. Their standard condition that we include says that whenever someone builds a pathway that's going to become public, that that pathway should be built to the specs that are currently in their master plan and I think this itern came up on a project over on Ustick and Ten Mile, where the standards are actually, from an engineering standpoint, almost stricter than what a public roadway is and it's just used for a public pathway, so I think there needs to be some coordination, obviously, there between our department and the conditions that we are putting on and as well as the parks department and what exactly is going to be a -- you know, a good quality pathway that's not going to require much maintenance, but is also reasonable in terms of the cost to construct it, so -- Borup: So, the parks department hasn't come up with a new recommendation? I thought that was -- Hawkins-Clark: I don't believe so. Borup: That's what I kind of understood was going to happen, they were going to come up with some new standards. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Chairman, I don't believe they have done that yet. Borup: Haven't done that yet? Well, was that a correct assumption, they were working on it, or does someone need to say something to them? Hawkins-Clark: It will certainly be brought up to the parks department at this point. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Brad, in the previous discussion on the other project that you're talking about, didn't we substitute reference to some standard, international something or other that come out of some manual and say that they could build to that alternate -- or am I -- Hawkins-Clark: I'm not sure. I was not the planner on that and, unfortunately, those of us that are left here tonight can't remember, but I think what they have proposed is that the pathway be coordinated -- the construction of the pathway be coordinated with both Planning and Zoning and the Parks and Recreation Department, which, probably for the sake of a preliminary plat, is adequate. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: The other disagreement that was put into the letter -- response letter had to do with the Conditional Use Permit and I had made a comment about the frontages. They were requesting a reduction down to 40 feet on the frontages and we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 63 of 82 have in other projects differentiated between a lot frontage on a perpendicular street and a lot frontage on a curvilinear or cul-de-sac and in my first review I didn't see that there were any lots on perpendicular streets that needed to go below 55 feet on the frontage. I did miss a couple lots that do go down to about 42 feet. The lot sizes of those -- and just for example, here is one down in the southeast corner where the lot frontage I think is about 42, 43 feet. This lot size itself is, actually, over 9,000. And, obviously, that's -- you got to look at both, frontages and lot size and as long as those are build-able lots, they can maintain the minimum lot size and not go below their requested 6,000, then, I think it's probably safe to allow that reduction to go down to 40, which is what they have proposed. And I guess the last suggestion I had was on -- if the Commission wants to just simply incorporate, rather than going item by item, if you agree with the applicant's responses or, if not, you could just simply ask staff to incorporate those responses into the recommendation to the City Council. Just an option for you. And, then, finally, on the last page of my staff report onto the recommendation I did make a note about transportation corridors in the north Meridian area and the fact that -- let me just go back here -- that if you take the whole -- this whole area into consideration, there is -- this zoning doesn't show it correctly, this is actually CoG in Paramount, there is CoG on the corner and, then, there is R-40 and, then, there is L-O, so you have three different zones that are either high density or commercial that are actually across the street from this Ventana Subdivision. And, then, of course, you have Meridian -- a future Meridian middle school. One of the concerns from a transportation congestion management standpoint is where are the appropriate places to help get some density, as you talked about already tonight, so that those corridors are viable and whether -- is 64 acres large enough to do a little bit more diversity, rather than just one hundred percent single family detached product types and we -- none of the required findings for annexation and zoning really, I felt, in writing the report, I felt they could all be met. I mean I thought that the findings, for the most part -- there is -- there is change in the area, there is transportation available. The level of service on Meridian Road was found by the traffic engineer to be a level of service C or better and that's with a 2009 build out, adding a little over 5,000 vehicle trips, and what they found was that Meridian Road could handle it, so I guess I just wanted to clarify that from a technical standpoint could the findings be met, yes. From a larger perspective is this a potential area where we might want to see more diversity and a little more density, in the south portion next to the school, maybe. And the final comment I had was in Mr. Priddy's letter he references the north Meridian area plan and, of course, there is not an adopted north Meridian area plan that has the force of law behind it. There was an effort that, obviously, was made and has a lot of good ideas, which, hopefully, are not going to be forgotten, they are still alive and will come forth, but we -- in terms of making land use decisions, this body and the City Council have to use the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances, so I just want to make that clarification. Thanks. Newton-Huckabay: None of us have the letter from Mr. Priddy. Zaremba: I don't remember seeing it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 64 of 82 Newton-Huckabay: I have the letter from Becky. Hawkins-Clark: Would the Commission like that to be read into the record or -- Borup: Maybe we will let -- Mr. Priddy is here, maybe we will wait and see how his testimony goes. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Canning: I just wanted Mr. Gabbert's opinion. I think if he's provided the testimony for tonight's hearing, he'd either have to read it or table until you could hear it -- or table until we got a copy of it. Borup: Do you have a copy in your file? Canning: Yeah. Borup: Okay. So, we just - can we fire up the photocopier and take care of that, rather than table it? Any other questions for staff? Does that handle -- I mean that could potentially handle that. Okay. Rohm: Works for me. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'd like to have it read or to read it myself. Borup: Right. Yeah. We will get a copy. Okay. Becky, would you like to do your presentation? McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. I'm representing the applicant on this application, G.L. Voigt Development. Oh, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'd like to start out by just kind of letting you know how this project came about. I was approached by Wendell Bigham of the Meridian School district a few months ago and he said that he was having problems acquiring a middle school site and he said he had concerns that the property was being bought up so quickly out in the north Meridian area, that they were going to be left out in the cold, and he said I have approached multiple property owners and multiple developers and he said the problem with approaching. these property owners is a lot of them have say 104 or five acres and I only need 40 and no one's willing to sell just 40 acres. And I said so what are you talking about, Wendell, I said are you wanting to kind of team up with a developer and he said, well, if that's possible and we could -- you know, they'd buy a portion and we'd buy a portion and meet both needs, he said let's try it. So, he and I brainstormed about different properties and this Ashenbrenner property, which was about 105 acres, they had approached Mr. Ashenbrenner and he had told developers and the school district he had no interest in selling this property. I was fortunate a few years ago to develop Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 65 of 82 some property that his father owned for the Bosegar family and so I knew Ken and I dealt with him, he was on Settler's irrigation board. So, I approached him by myself to see if he would be interested in this and he liked that idea of a middle school and a subdivision combination, so we got both parties -- all three parties together and this is what happened. So, I just want to let the Commission know that, you know, that the private sector and like the school district can work together in some instances, so that we can benefit the community and not just, you know, only one subdivision. This particular area going to be served by the North Slough. This is a map that was provided by Keller and Associates. They have been retained by the City of Meridian to design the North Slough trunk. This is Paramount Subdivision right here and the trunk line is within Paramount at this time. Keller is designing that trunk line out to Meridian Road and, then, it will go along -- it was planned to go along our north boundary and, then, drop down into the future Saguaro Subdivision and go all the way out to Locust Grove to take the Vienna Woods lift station off line and service that eastern portion of your impact area. We have been working with Keller and Associates closely. We accelerated our land planning in order to give them a concept, so that they could get the sewer alignment. Their schedule, based on the most current information we have, is that the design phase will be wrapped up around the first of the year and, then, they will bid that out and, hopefully, start construction in February, ending in I think June or July. So, this trunk line is not here at this time, but it is going to be coming our direction. In designing this project, I wanted to take one -- this is the half-mile, so I did have to align here with Paramount's entrance. We brought in a short collector roadway here and, then, we included a pedestrian path here, so that the city sewer could take more of a direct route to go onto the east. The less bends and manholes that are installed, the deeper that sewer is and the cheaper it is for installation. So, we didn't want the city to have to drop down and zigzag as far as to get that trunk over to the east. We had looked at providing a collector to come back in here when Saguaro was processing. We had talked with the staff, they had liked that idea, we approached Saguaro's developer, they said they did not want a half mile collector coming into their project and that the information they gave us was that Mr. Priddy did not want a collector roadway lying against his boundary, because one of the ideas would be that that 24 feet that was a driveway would be absorbed into that collector. So, we brought in a non-continuous collector here, matched up at the half mile. Our primary entrance with an island is located here. This is a collector coming in here with the focus being a clubhouse and -- which will have lockers, restrooms, changing rooms and, then, a swimming pool and, then, there will be a small parking facility for handicapped, guests, and so forth. One of the things that we worked with also was the fact that you do have a multi-use pathway that's designated on your Comp Plan and your parks plan going in a northwesterly direction. We are matching up to Saguaro with our ten foot pathway, then, it will transition to a six foot sidewalk coming up here, we will put pedestrian crossings here, bring a ten foot pathway up here, six foot, then, ten and, then, ten going out and what that will do is facilitate kids going to the elementary, as you recall, right in the center of Paramount is going to be an elementary school. So, you're going to have a . lot of pedestrian traffic going that way. The school district did not want any stub streets to the middle school, they just wanted to pedestrian pathways. I did consult with Wendell on these. We have placed these in -- obviously, two where we felt were convenient locations to drop these Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 66 of 82 kids down these blocks and, then, as you can see, we have pathways that come to the clubhouse and, then, they can drop down this way and come in and drop back into the middle school. So, we have got a real good pedestrian circulation. The staff was quite pleased when we did the pre-app. We have got some linear open space with pathways going through it here, we have playground equipment proposed there, but if staff believes it's appropriate that it be down here, that's fine. We had a discussion about safety as far as visibility of these more linear parks, that always becomes an issue. My recommendation in my comments is that we have non-sight obscuring fencing along the rear of any lots that back up to that open space, so that we have got maximum visibility of the kids playing on the equipment or playing ball or whatever. This particular project is in a medium density residential zone. We are 3.63 dwelling units per acre. Like Brad said, we have got about approximately eight percent open space, which is about 7.47 acres total of open space in this project. This is very similar to the Sundance project that I did at Meridian Road and Ustick. Same developer. We got a lot of variation in housing types and styles. That also had a little clubhouse and pool, playground equipment. We got a lot of compliments from the residents that live there about the livability of the community. Steve Siddoway has purchased a house there, so, obviously, even planners like it and we are trying to duplicate the same type of community here. We went through three or four different versions. We felt that this was, obviously, the most conducive one minimize cut-through traffic, since we do have a major stub street here and we would take those -- that traffic out to this collector, but yet slow it down as it comes through the community. We are stubbing -- the staff is asking us to stub to Mr. Priddy here and, then, we did have a neighborhood meeting on June 17th. The only attendance at the meeting -- and it was held at the Ashenbrenner's home, was the Boyacks and they asked us to please move this stub street further east. We have done that, we moved it east, we have sent it to Keller and Associates and I have indicated in our comments that we believe that will provide them the access that they need and close enough alignment to their stub street to the north. We feel we have got a real good quality project and we believe that the amenities that we are providing, the multi-use pathway, pool, a little clubhouse, restrooms, play equipment, meet the criteria under the planned develop and the focal point of this neighborhood is, obviously, on that clubhouse and pool center. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? A question on your neighborhood meeting. Was there a letter sent to Mr. Priddy? McKay: Yes. I saw it on the list. We sent -- because the list was very short. There weren't that many properties owners that adjoin us. Borup: That's what I would have assumed. McKay: Yes. I got a copy of the letter and the records that went out. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Maybe not. I guess not. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 67 of 82 Borup: On one of the stub streets that staff recommended to north, you mentioned the Boyacks' property, but I'm not sure where their proper is and how that ties in with this. McKay: Commissioner Borup, Members of the Commission -- Borup: I mean I assumed it was -- McKay: -- the Boyacks property line is right -- the Boyacks property line is right there and they own this 24-foot strip. It comes back to this point, then, there is kind of jog in the boundary. This would be their western boundary and, then, I believe the eastern boundary of that five acres was right -- kind of right in here. So, we have taken this stub street and we have moved it over to be more centrally located. Borup: Oh, you have moved it. Okay. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: That's where I was -- McKay: This drawing does not reflect it, but we have moved it in our computer drawing and we have e-mailed that version to Keller and Associates for their sewer alignment. Borup: Okay. That explains my confusion. McKay: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Borup: I didn't have a plat that jived with the comments. Okay. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: If at sometime the 24 or 25 foot wide easement is abandoned, which, apparently, is going to happen, is it -- would that become your property or what happens to it? McKay: We don't own that. The Boyacks own it. They were part of Saguaro. I don't know, you know, what the -- probably the best use would be to utilize that as a buffer. We are putting a landscape buffer along this collector here, it's, oh, going up to about 40 feet maximum here to create a buffer, then, between us and Mr. Priddy is the 24 feet and that driveway is existing now and I think that was the big debate when Saguaro came through was that they wanted to retain that driveway to build a new home, but the property was never part of this property. Zaremba: Well -- and part of the reason for that was that I think we required them -- they could put roadways in, but they couldn't do any flammable building north of a certain line until they had other accesses in and out of there, which left them and their Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 68 of 82 existing house high and dry, unless they kept this access. So, I understand the reasoning behind why it currently exists, although when they have a roadway that they can get out, that's when they have to give this up, so I guess I'm supporting staff's question of are we going to end up with a 25 foot strip of gravel once they abandon it as an access that's between your property and the next property? McKay: Commissioner Zaremba, I brought that very issue up at the City Council when Saguaro was heard at Public Hearing, that I didn't want to be the one that would have to fix someone else's mistake. I think the condition the Council placed upon them is when they have alternative public street access, that they would abandon the 24 feet as a driveway, but, nonetheless, they will still own the 24 feet. So, to answer your question as far as what happens to the 24 feet, in reality, when they do abandon it, I don't know if the Council specified - it makes the most sense that it probably be sold to Mr. Priddy, so that he could have even more of a landscape buffer separation from the residential developments. Moe: What kind of fencing are you putting on that north side, if any? McKay: Along - along this north side here? Moe: Yeah. Basically to be separating from Mr. Priddy's property and this subdivision. McKay: Well, right here Mr. Priddy has pole fence, ag -- pole ag fence all along the north side of the driveway, then you have the driveway, which is owned by the Boyacks, and, then, right along here would probably be some type of a solid fence, like a wood six foot solid fence, residential type fence, because we don't abut his agricultural use. Moe: Don't want to put in a concrete -- stamped concrete wall? McKay: We did discuss that, because it was brought up at the Saguaro hearing, and it was brought up because they had lots backing up to agricultural use. But we don't -- we don't abut his property, sir. So, in my discussions with my client, he was opposed to that. Moe: Okay. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Becky. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? How about the whole audience come up? Priddy: I am the audience. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, anybody else who is still left here this evening. This is American government working hard at this hour, isn't it? My name is John Priddy, my address is 5740 North Meridian Road and if somebody could just pop the first picture -- there you go. I am the property -- there you go -- with the square dot in the middle of it and -- Borup: What is that dot in the middle? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 69 of 82 Priddy: That's the house. That's the residential portion of - Borup: Separate parcel number? Priddy: Yeah. Residential portion of the property and the remaining property is agricultural. We run cattle out there. One to two herds, one to two bulls, in two separate pastures. Our property is very unique and that's why the north Meridian plan was so intriguing to us when we purchased it three years ago, because we thought that there was going to be a transitional development in that area and what I'm confused about is that the north Meridian plan is still a good idea and we hope those ideas still happen, but it's impossible for them to happen with each one of these subdivisions as they get approved, because there is really nothing else to do once they are approved. So, the Saguaro Canyon discussions with the folks that lived -- that developed behind us, basically, came down to this with the City Council. Our property -- we have a 7,000 square foot home on the property, a 5,000 square foot barn, 2,500 square foot outbuilding, we have added three to four hundred thousand dollars in improvements in the last year. It's a unique property and when this subdivision goes in next to us, there is no doubt in my mind as a business man that we are going to take a very serious financial hit on that property, because it can't be developed per normal, you can't scrape the buildings. It's just impossible. So, the basic value of the property will be for the dirt and, of course, the dwellings on it are worth far more than that, so it's a serious issue relative to a financial impact towards us. The big question I have is where is the transition. I know that the property doesn't directly abut our property, but the -. the ranching nature of our property -- I mean it's ranched out there. The bulls are serious. They -- you know, a wooden fence, even though it doesn't abut the property, is a great concern to me. It was a concern to City Council at the last meeting relative to Saguaro Canyon and that's where the stone fencing came in and so it's a -- even though we oppose the subdivision completely, I just feel, to save your time, you're down a road here that I don't think we are going to be able to change your minds on and I'm not quite sure what to do about it and I wish we could be included in development discussions, just as a creative thought, but I'm not sure what to do with my property over the next five to ten years, I really don't know what to do. But, in the short term, I don't want school children, neighborhood children -- I don't want a bull getting through there and that's why we came up with the six foot concrete fence behind us with Saguaro Canyon and that's what I'm proposing to the developer. Incidentally, I'm - Borup: And where do you propose the developer put this? On your property? You want him to put it on your property? Priddy: It could be their fence. It could be just the -- instead of a wooden fence, it would be their fence that would be the end of their subdivision and it would be -- you know, it would look the same as the concrete fence behind us or the stone fence behind us. It should be consistent. Borup: So, do your bulls get out of your property quite often? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 70 of 82 Priddy: They haven't, but, you know, keep in mind, they look at corn, they are not very interested in going there when there is people moving and construction, you know, there are four or five cows across the street from us on Meridian Road and no bull, so our bull has decided that those cows belong to him and he's trying to figure out -- we have electric fencing on that property as well, so it's -- you know, you got a gravel road in there and you got electric fencing, you got agricultural post fencing, and I think there is a large liability of, you know -- is it going to happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Yes. And I don't think we want to be there, you know, when it does. So, that's how we came to that. Incidentally, I did not receive the letter inviting me to the neighborhood meeting and I would have attended, so it's -- I don't know that -- I mean it went out. All you have to do is drive by Meridian Road and pop it into the mailbox and I would be glad to go to the meetings. The lot sizes go from -- I think 6,000 square feet to 14,500. Another recommendation is where is the transition. We have such small lots adjacent to our property, if there are going to be 14,500 square foot lots, can we at least design this to where there is some transition into our property? If you look -- I have always wanted to use this pointer. There we go, and, I don't know what that is right there next to the gravel road, lot one. Borup: That's that landscaped area. Priddy: Oh, that's a landscaped area. Okay. I couldn't see the -- and, then, you have these tiny little lots right here. I would just like to see a redesign of where if there is 14,500 square foot lots in here, I don't -- it's hard to pick them out. I'd like to see a redesign to where there was at least a transition into our type of a property, as opposed to these kinds of lots here. I'd like to see a height restriction of 25 feet and, you know, again, these are what we asked of the developer behind us in Saguaro Canyon and they were - you know, and they are doing those things and it's helpful. It's not great. It's. problematic. I still don't know what to do with our property in the future, but the stone fencing, the height restriction and a redesign to put the larger lots so there is some sort of a transition to our property at least helps. And you gave me more than three minutes. Thank you. I appreciate it. Borup: Anyone have any questions for Mr. Priddy? Rohm: Just a comment. Priddy: Yeah. Do you need me at the podium? Rohm: You may. Priddy: Okay. Rohm: I would say that your piece of property is pretty unique, whether this subdivision was adjacent to it or otherwise and in my mind, meaning no disrespect, anything that goes in adjacent to your property is not going to be -- it's going to be different. There is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 71 of 82 going to be significant change from your bull-cow operation with a 7,000 square foot home in the middle of it. There is not going to be another one like that, more than likely. And so this development would not change that condition -- any other development of this property wouldn't change that condition and that's the only point that I'd like to make to you is any development won't coexist with yours. Priddy: May I comment? Rohm: You bet. Priddy: Thank you for the comment. I couldn't disagree more. That was the concept of the north Meridian development plan. I mean if you put horse acreage next to that property, it would -- there is a transition element to, then, my property and Mrs. Atkins' property north of mine. It also creates -- if there were transitional properties there, then, at least in the future some sort of development could happen on my property, which would, then, build more luxury homes or larger lot sizes, something that at least could be blended into the community. As it stands now where I see the problem is you have the Ventana Subdivision to our south, you can't financially scrape the buildings that are on the property, so what will the future of that property look like? If there was a more transitional usage of larger lots, more luxury homes, things along those lines, then, at some point at least there would be an option for us to develop or, you know, sell the property, do something. Rohm: Well, by the same token, you have the option of doing that transitional home site between your 7,000 square foot home and the property that's being developed as your neighbor to the south; correct? Priddy: That's -- that's not good business. I mean if you put 250 to 350 thousand dollar homes adjacent to -- the average selling price of these homes to the south is going to be, what, 129 to 149 thousand? Borup: I would say no. Priddy: What's the average -- do we know what the average -- Borup: First of all, there aren't any homes in there, but I guess the information that was provided is similar to another subdivision and the sales prices are higher than that. Priddy: And can you give me an estimate of what those are? Thank you for the discussion, by the way. I appreciate it. I know this is not -- Newton-Huckabay: Are you talking about Sundance? Priddy: Sundance. Newton-Huckabay: They start about 140. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 72 of 82 Priddy: Yeah. Borup: On up to two hundred. Priddy: Well, 140, okay, I mean, you know, 140,000 next to a 300,000 dollar home is not going to -- that's just not good business. So, what I'm saying is you're delimiting, I think, my ability to even do my own transition with this type of zoning. Well, here is a better way to look at it. Think of it this way. What would you do were you in my shoes? I mean that's the question I would put before you. See, I'm a good Meridian citizen, I own Richardson Labs, we employ 240 people, that company, after it was acquired by a public company, left Meridian for a lot of reasons, we are active business people in the community, we love Meridian. I'm in a pickle in my property and the truth of the matter is I don't think there is a lot of answers about what I can do with my property and when I pose them to people, I'm a business man and a good one. It's a conundrum. so, I appreciate your comments, but I don't think it's a real world, I really don't. Rohm: Well, I guess what my point was is I don't think that that world can coexist -- you're not going to be able see a development of like homes like yours transition to any other development. That's a unique type of development that you chose to put on that piece of property -- and this is just my opinion. Priddy: Yes. Rohm: And I can't see anything transitional that would be fair to the adjacent property owners that would be dependent upon matching your existing construction. Priddy: I could show you 20 -- I could show you 20 developments. I could show you 20: And Eagle has many of them. Now, are they going to -- when you max, the house is -- Borup: Well, we are talking about -- we are not in Eagle, we are in Meridian. Priddy: Right. But he was saying that they don't exist. So, what I'm saying is that they do exist, but you know -- and I know we are in Meridian. I live here, so I understand that. I was responding to the comment that they don't exist. Rohm: And what I meant is as the City of Meridian expands to have a 7,000 square foot home within a -- how many acres do you have? Priddy: Twenty. Rohm: Twenty? There is not an easy transition from a 7,000 square foot home on 20 acres to anything else and that's my only comment to you, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 73 of 82 Priddy: I appreciate the comment. I don't agree. My opinion is different. And I also don't -- the transition is nonexistent. There is no transition. Rohm: It's a pretty tough -- Priddy: It's a zero transition. Rohm: I can see what you're saying. Priddy: I mean here is the transition. That's not -- you know, from my opinion. Rohm: And the only point that I was trying to make is the transition that can take place down the road is the transition from your property out and have your 6,000, 5,000, 4,000 square foot homes move out away from your existing 7,000 to match up by the time you get to the south line of your existing property to here and, then, that transition is maintained. And I guess, really, at the end of the day that's a decision that you will need to make, but it doesn't seem like to me that there is an easy way to transition from one home on 20-acres to a subdivision environment at this point. Priddy: Well, at this point. I thought the north Meridian plan was fairly -- you know, I was a big fan of that. I thought that had some -- some concepts in it that could have worked in terms of, you know, rural transition. Rohm: I didn't read the north area plan in its entirety, but I don't think that that plan even addressed from a 20-acre parcel to a subdivision and what the specific transition would be. Priddy: Well, you have given me a lot of time tonight and I appreciate it. Thank you. And I -- the comments -- the questions you're asking, here is the -- at the end of the day, I'm a resident of Meridian, I'm in trouble, okay? I mean these decisions weren't made, you know, ten years ago where we knew things were coming. If I would have knows things were coming like this, I would have not -- it's not that I wouldn't have bought the property, I wouldn't have added and built, you know, onto the property. We didn't know 6,000 square foot lots were going to be here. I mean that's -- I mean how would I have known that as a matter of public record? Borup: Because the Comp Plan was done a few years ago. Priddy: Which said that there would be 6,000 square foot lots in this area? Borup: Yes. Priddy: Well, they are asking for -- that's lower than anything that -- they are asking for a reduction in lot size. Borup: This says medium density. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 74 of 82 Priddy: But aren't they asking for a reduction in lot size as part of this development? Borup: Yeah. On a couple. And maybe to answer your question -- maybe more than a couple. But to answer your question, on the six lots adjoining your property -- there are only six lots in the whole length of your property, but the ones those size are ten to -- ten to over 12,000 square feet. Priddy: But my question is in the Comp Plan -- the Comp Plan does not call for 6,000 square foot lots, does it? Borup: No. They could be smaller. No. It calls on how many homes per acre, but in this zone it would be 6,500 feet. Priddy: And they are asking for 6,000 in this zoning; right? Borup: Yes. On some lots. Priddy: So, it is an addition -- I mean how could I plan that, this discussion taking place this evening. You see my point? You're make discussions on lot size that -- how we got into this is -- Borup: Well, but the Comp Plan calls for density, but, yeah, I don't know if we are going to accomplish anymore -- Priddy: Well, you have given me a lot of time. Thank you. You understand that I have a dilemma. So, I'm back to, look, I'll live with it as best I can. If there could be a redesign here to put larger lots here, that's a plus. The stone fence makes me feel more secure and height restrictions would be helpful as well. So, those are what I'm asking for. You have given me a lot of time. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Mrs. McKay, have you got final comment? McKay: Yeah. Just to try to help clarify for Mr. Priddy, in the Comprehensive Plan this is designated medium density residential, not very low density, but medium density residential, which is three to eight dwelling units per acre. We are at what, 3.63, so we are still on that lower spectrum. If you notice staff's -- you know, one of staff's comments is, you know, maybe the density could be boosted. If we are ever going to get mass transit, we have got to try to boost our densities. Concerning the redevelopment of this property. There is another 20 acres north of his property. I don't know if he's aware of it, but that particular owner has been exploring the idea selling his property. I happen to have a client -- two clients, in fact, take a look at the potential redevelopment. It has, they tell me, a 600,000 dollar house centrally located in the 20 acres. It's got a tennis court, detached garage, tile roof, stucco, very nice, very similar to what he's describing. What we did on there, just as a -- kind of a rough concept to look to see if it would pencil, was developing that property with 18,000 square foot lots, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 75 of 82 like that R-2 density. Then we would have the same type of homes that would be compatible with it, you know, more like Meridian Greens, something like that, and you could interface that existing 600,000 dollar home and utilize the tennis court as an amenity for the whole neighborhood. So, there are some things that can be done. You know, obviously, it's dependent on the location of his accessory buildings and so forth. But that -- from a planning perspective for that particular piece of property, I don't think they have proceeded with the project, but I think he would have to look at redevelopment in that same fashion, because the home's too expensive to pick up and to move or to doze or anything like that. But just, you know, for the Commission's understanding that there are options out there -- you know, you can come in and do half-acre lots. It's been done, it just depends on, you know, the developer or -- some of these people develop themselves. That would be an option to Mr. Priddy, too, to assure that the quality and value of his home was protected. This is a good project. This area is in transition. When he bought his property I doubt if there were discussions that this North Slough Trunk was going to take place this quickly, but this area, obviously, has been planned for development, development at urban densities. We have got a middle school going in, elementary school, a high school to the west of us, so all of the structures, the infrastructure, sewer, water, all of those things are starting to come together and this is an appropriate density. And I worked on the north Meridian plan, I went to I don't know how many meetings on that, and nowhere in the plan did we ever specify that if there was a 20 acre parcel that we were going to maintain extremely low densities around the twenties. I mean we were trying to plan, you know, for an urban future and provide I think a mix of housing, but nothing that low of density. Everything was discussed at urban densities. Thank you. Borup: Any final comments from staff? Hawkins-Clark: I did verify on the mailings, there is J.C. Lando, LLC, 12438 West Bridger Street -- I'm sorry, we can't dialogue like this. Sorry. But, yeah, we are dependent on the city, obviously, from the Ada County assessor's records for our -- you know, good or bad, that's the way the system is set up and if the Ada County assessor records don't change, unfortunately, the City of Meridian records don't change in terms of addresses. Borup: That was the property owner that -- Hawkins-Clark: But that's the -- that's the address that was on the 300 foot radius list, so I just -- that was brought up earlier, so I wanted to mention that. And I guess I did want to clarify as well that on these stub streets, what the staff report recommends is a shifting from this stub street that is right now, basically, on the property line between Mr. Priddy's property and the Boyack piece. The applicant has agreed to shift that over to about this point about 200 feet to the east and this five acres that is here would, obviously, then, utilize that, so -- and, then, we also did recommend an extension of this street to the north that, obviously, right now would stop at that gravel road, but in the future should that 24-foot wide gravel road be incorporated otherwise, we felt that it would be important to have more -- to have at least one opportunity to connect to that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 78 of 82 20 acres. So, that is -- that was something that the applicant agreed to. And, then, the third thing I wanted to clarify, on this lot down here our staff report -- the police chief had some concerns about this dead space right here, there are no opportunities to really look into that. If I understand right, Becky has agreed that all the fencing around this area would be open vision. So, from this street patrol officers, you know, supposedly would be able to see in through these lots. Now, we have -- we would still like the police chief to comment on that, to see if he considers that sufficient or if they would like to see an actual footpath, for example, right here, that would provide better visibility into that dead space. I guess that's a little bit unresolved, but whether or not just open vision fencing is adequate, they did not have time to talk with Chief Musser before this meeting, if the Commission wants to address that. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff here. Brad, earlier in discussion you referenced the letter provided by Engineer Solutions as being in response to some of the differences between your staff report and their perception and I thought you had said that, basically, if you take the staff report and supplement their responses to those queries, that you're in substantial agreement and we could reference that Engineering Solutions' letter and make it a part of any motion and would not have to amend your staff report; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Rohm: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Zaremba: Well, the one amendment I would make is on page 12 and that's dropping paragraph eight. Rohm: I, actually, got that. Got that. Strike paragraph eight on page 12. Zaremba: Yeah. And, otherwise, staff's memo as modified by Engineering Solutions memo is what you're talking about. Rohm: Exactly. Borup: I did have a question on that eastern stub street. Is that -- the 24 foot gravel road, is that deeded property or an easement? It is deeded property, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, sir. It is. The-- Borup: So, to get to Mr. Priddy's property to the north, he would have to buy the roadway through that property. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: So, how practical is a stub street? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 77 of 82 Hawkins-Clark: Well, are you referring to -- you said the one on the east or the one on the west? Borup: The one on the west. Hawkins-Clark: West. Okay. Well, the -- the one on the west -- okay, yes. And that -. yeah, I guess staff's feeling is that the intent of City Council's motion with Saguaro Canyon was to, as much as they could, try to avoid that -- that 24 feet becoming, you know, dead space. Borup: And I like the idea of stub streets, it saves a lot of -- but I have also seen some that are pretty much abandoned and just become a -- kind of a garbage area with -- is it possible to have -- to have the right of way there, but leave it landscaped or is that not practical? Hawkins-Clark: I believe the highway district's policy is they won't allow that. Right. If it -- yeah, if it's put into the final plat as right of way, then -- and Ada County Highway District accepts it as dedicated right of way, it needs to be improved to their standards. Borup: Okay. Did anybody ask Mr. Priddy if he wanted a stub street? Okay. Go ahead with the -- Zaremba: I did have one more question for Mrs. McKay and that is a discussion of putting a solid fence, whether it's block or cement or whatever is being suggested along your north property line, I realize it would be along this easement that we are talking about and your property line, but is that doable? I can see the safety consideration for both sides of that property line of having some way of preventing the bulls from getting out. McKay: Like I said, I - when it came up at the Saguaro hearing, I mentioned it to my client that that was one issue that was kicked around and that particular developer, since they did have lots that adjoined his agricultural use, agreed to that. And in questioning my developer, you know, would you be willing to do the same, he said, no, I'm opposed because we don't abut them. We are not physically adjoined to their property. Therefore, he felt that would be inappropriate. We have also got, you know, substantial street and landscaping along there, we have got those six lots are the only things that are abutting that 24 feet. The rest of it's landscaping and street. So, he felt that a standard residential type fence would be more appropriate. Borup: Plus the two street stubs would not be fenced. McKay: That's correct. I can't put -- the highway district will not allow me -- if I put the stub over there and it's public, they will not allow me to put a concrete barrier across that. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 78 of 82 Borup: Okay. Any anything else need to be discussed? Newton-Huckabay: Well, there was the request for the larger lots on the top and, then, the one story building. Borup: Well, he didn't say necessarily -- he said 25-foot height. Newton-Huckabay: Twenty-five foot. Beat me up over details at 11 :30. Zaremba: Is that a question for Mrs. McKay? Newton-Huckabay: I guess we just need to -- I think we should at least address it. I don't think it's an unreasonable request. Rohm: I think just like the fence, you ask the question and solicit response. McKay: 11 :30 is wearing on me, too. I thought it was going to be faster than this. As far as the single story, it would affect just those six lots and, according to staff, 25 feet will not accommodate a two story. The Commission has imposed in the past certain circumstances, typically to provide if we had a home that was close to our boundary to kind of help with providing their view. But I guess I'm trying to figure how that's going to help him, when his home is in the middle of 20 acres, is ten additional feet of home a big deal when the view is - of the foothills is to the northeast and, then, the Owyhees is our other view and that's to the southwest, so I guess I'm trying to figure out how that works. With Saguaro they abut the boundary, they are in a northeasterly direction from his house, so his view of the Boise front, but I'm trying to -- you know, under certain circumstances it makes sense. In this circumstance does it make sense from a planning perspective? No, I don't think it makes a lot of sense. If his house was right just within 50 feet of us, yeah, but it's hundreds of feet from us right in the center of 20 acres. So, how am I intruding on his view? And I'm the wrong direction. What was the other question? Rohm: The lot size of the adjacent -- your north property. McKay: The lot sizes. We have six lots along there. There are three -- there is 10,000, 12,000, and, then, there are the three more rectangular lots are-- Borup: They are 6,380. McKay: 6,380? Hawkins-Clark: 6,380. 6,380. 7,800. 7,700. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 79 of 82 McKay: So, I guess, you know, maybe you could take those -- the three rectangular lots, make them two to make them all more consistently larger and wider, you know, in that nine, ten thousand square foot range. Seems reasonable. Rohm: And, then, you'd lose a lot, then? McKay: Take one of those lots out. Rohm: But lose a lot to the subdivision or put that in -- split it up somewhere else? McKay: Well, you allowed it both ways. I had one development and you allowed me to find another location for it and some of them we just drop it. I guess I'd leave that up to the purview of the Commission. But that would make the most sense if he had, you know, concern about making sure those lot sizes are at nine or ten thousand. Drop a lot there along that north. Rohm: So, if we were to recommend approval of this development less one lot with the assumption you're going to drop one of those three rectangular lots, you would be in agreement with that? McKay: Yes, sir. Rohm: Thank you. McKay: At 11 :30 I'll agree to anything. Rohm: Well, get back up here, then. Zaremba: I don't know, it's still the day we started, you know. This is nothing unusual. Rohm: Okay. Let's see, where do we put that? That would be in the preliminary plat? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Could add a new paragraph at the end. While he's making notes, I would make a comment that as just a general observation for staff, in this report -- it's on page two, but we often have reports that point out that the applicant is asking for reduced lot size and quite often on a PUD or planned development that's a typical request. We often find out that the reduced lot size only applies to two lots or five lots out of 300. It might help me and it might help the general public who is reading this before, if you've counted the plat and you know that it only applies to three or four lots, would it be too much to ask to actually state that in the commentary? Borup: Even better, have the applicant put it in their presentation or in their application I mean. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 80 of 82 Zaremba: Okay. Because, to me, when I first started seeing those I was very resistant to them until in the discussion I found out it was only two or three lots or five lots or whatever, but less than ten percent of the lots. Borup: I haven't found them yet, but I assume they are on here. Zaremba: And I just -- I just think to -- since you guys have to go through the effort of counting them and looking for them anyhow, when you identify how many -- or the applicant can supply that information to you, it just would be helpful to have it in the public record and have it in our minds even before we come to the meeting. Just a comment. Hawkins-Clark: That's a point well taken. I can see where the general public -- I mean the clerk's office would have the exact same assumption, so -- Borup: Well, the first thing I had -- and I still haven't found the 6,000-foot lot, but, yes, I - - and I think the applicant is the one that should supply that. They have got the -- Zaremba: That was my only comment and at this point have we closed the Public Hearing? Borup: No, we have not. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: I think we should close it. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on Items -- what is it - 20, 21, and 22. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council Public Hearing AZ 04-019, request for annexation of 64.48 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company, north of West McMillan and North Meridian Road, including all staff comments received on August 16th for the hearing date August 19th. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 81 of 82 Canning: Mr. Chairman, before the motion maker makes another motion, I was wondering if you could indicate for the record that you have received the letter from Mr. Priddy and have had a chance to read it. Borup: Yes. Rohm: Oh. Borup: Well, we have received the letter. Every Commissioner got a copy. I had a chance to read it. I don't know if any other Commissioners did. I did read it. Newton-Huckabay: I read it. Rohm: I read through it in its entirety. Zaremba: I had a chance to read it and I want to appreciate his input and his -- Priddy: Exceptionally well written. Zaremba: It is exceptionally well written. And his input to the process and -- Rohm: Well -- and I think we tried to address each of the issues brought up in the letter in the open public forum as well. With that being said, moving on. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing PP 04-026, request for preliminary plat approval of 233 single family residential lots and 16 common lots on 64.48 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company, north of West McMillan Road and North Meridian Road, including all staff comments, dated August 16th, for the hearing date August 19th, supplemented by a letter submitted by Engineering Solutions, received on August 19th, with the following changes: On page 12 we are to strike bullet number eight, which is the revised -- revisal of the preliminary plat, that center line landscaping, that sentence or paragraph will be omitted. And on page 15 we will add item 14 and it will read: Drop one of the three lots 35, 36, or 37 of Block 3 along the north line and make two lots of those three, thus, reducing the build-able lots to 233. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing CUP 04-028, request for Conditional Use Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 82 of 82 Permit for a mixed use planned development consisting of single family residential lots with reductions in the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, including cul- de-sacs, request to exceed the maximum block length allowed by -- for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company, north of West McMillan Road on North Meridian Road, including all staff comments dated August 16th, 2004, for the hearing date August 19th, 2004, including the supplemental letter from Engineering Solutions received August 19th, 2004. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. That concludes the public testimony. Do we have a final motion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:41 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN _1_1- DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK