Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 1, 2003 P & ZMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 46 of 107 Borup: That was the only landscape detail plan change that was needed, per staff testimony. McKinnon: I think we have got it covered. Doug and I can work that out. Borup: Okay. Okay. Motion. Did we have a second? Centers: Yes. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Commissioners, would we like a short break? Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 11. Public Hearing: RZ 03-006 Request for a Rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company -west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: 4~2- C~}tt~~d ~ ~ Ian, ~;0 03,005 tem 2. Public Hearing: PP 93-99 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC -west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting this evening. Start with our next item, which is, on the original agenda, Item Numbers 11 and 12, Public Hearing RZ 03-006, request for a rezone of 3.14 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company. Public Hearing PP 03-004, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and two other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC. Open this -- both these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, I want to speak from in front of you, rather than beside you, because there are a couple of interesting things with this project as well. On the overhead, if I can direct your attention over there really quick, just to give you a brief overview of what we are talking about tonight on how this is very different from everything else we have discussed concerning Kodiak and Bear Creek and even the Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church property, When Bear Creek was originally approved, Bear Creek had taken this area that I have highlighted. It's kind of a triangular shaped area, and placed a cul-de-sac there and they placed some very large lots -- I believe one of the lots in that cul-de-sac was 33,600 some odd square feet, just under three-quarters of an acre -- just over' three- quarters of an acre. The original proposal for Kodiak was this long narrow piece in the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 47 of 107 center and they had proposed doing 28 detached single-family homes on the lots approximately 4,000 square feet in size. There was a lot of discussion when the property was brought fonmard to be annexed by the applicant Mr. Jim Jewett to be able to come back in with a Preliminary Plat to do that. There was some discussion by Council if that was probably a good idea. Upon detailed review, it was decided that that was not a good thing and they rejected his request for the Preliminary Plat. Currently, the land is vacant there. Bear Creek has not developed their portion. The church property that's just to the south included this small narrow piece that's the dashed line between Kodiak and the rest of the church property, and that property was required to be developed with a Development Agreement as a church site and all of the improvements along Meridian Road, State Highway 69, were required to be installed and improved at the time of development of this lot. A few changes have transpired. Bear Creek has acquired the rights to develop this property, the Kodiak property, and rather than end in a cul-de-sac and have to develop this small narrow piece of property, as original denied, they have taken out the cul-de-sac, added a connection to Bear Creek, an internal connection, thereby eliminating all the discussion that took place with the access out onto State Highway 69, so we have that problem eliminated. This piece of property, the long narrow piece, and this piece that's currently shown as vacant, are a land swap that's taken place between Bear Creek developers and the church. The church would now acquire this piece and Bear Creek would acquire this piece. The reason for that is because, as you can see, Kodiak is very narrow, and with the acquisition of additional land from the church, they could make the depths of those lots much deeper and they could meet the minimum R-4 lot dimensions -- not dimensions, but their minimum lot size. The reason that this is somewhat interesting and one of the things that they have requested is they not -- the reason why they have requested an R- 8, rather than an R-4 zone, is because they cannot meet the minimum frontage for the R-4, but they do meet the minimum lot size for an R-4 zone, but they do meet the minimum lot frontage for an R-8 zone. The Kodiak Subdivision annexed property that was to be annexed it has not yet been annexed by the city. As you will note in the staff report on the first page it says that -- it's line three of the second paragraph, it says that -- in parenthesis, it's been annexed into the city, that's not entirely accurate at this time. The Development Agreement was never signed by Mr. Jewett and it will need to be signed prior to the city's action, Council action, on this project. I had an opportunity to talk with the developer and with our legal counsel, Mr. Nichols, we had a meeting, and we have determined it would be appropriate to allow this to continue through your process and onto City Council, as long as it's handled prior to the City Council action on the entire project. You will note that that's one of the requirements on page five of the application for the rezone comments it's Item Number 2, that the annexation shall be completed prior to Council approval. If I could just direct your attention to Item Number 1 in those comments, there was a Development Agreement that was required for Kodiak and a Development Agreement that was required for the church property. Both of those Development Agreements will have to be amended in order accommodate this Preliminary Plat and rezone request, because those Development Agreements included legal descriptions of those properties and that's the only change to the Development Agreement. If I could direct your attention to Page 6 of the staff report. One item of additional consideration concerning the Preliminary Plat is the new configuration of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2D03 Page 48 of 107 roadway from Ice Bear to Cub has created a lot that's over 1,000 feet in length and goes against our current code which requires 1,000 feet as your maximum. I believe it's just over 1,100 feet in length. A Variance will be required and a Variance is noted in the staff report as a condition of approval. That's Item Number 5 on Page 7. The -- Wendy, if I could get you to go back -- right -- that's great. As I noted earlier in the staff report -- not the staff report, but in my presentation tonight, the church property was required to improve the rest of that property upon development of the church property. Typically, with the Preliminary Plat they are required to put all the improvements in or bond for all the improvements prior to getting Building Permits and prior getting occupancies they have to include all the improvements. Staff would suggest that this property here that's adjacent to State Highway 69 that is now a part of the church property, not be required to be bonded for and improvements not be installed at this time, because we have an existing Development Agreement that says the church property shall be developed upon development of the property, rather than with this Preliminary Plat. It's a condition in the staff report. That's Item Number 7 on Page 7. I have had a chance to talk with the applicant. Again, we did have a meeting the applicant is in agreement with the conditions of approval for the staff report. They are here tonight to offer testimony. I believe that there are a number of people from the public that are here tonight to offer testimony. With that, I would state that staff does recommend approval of this, we believe that this is much more of an improvement from the original plans that were submitted for Kodiak. These homes provide a better transition from the large lots in Bear Creek to, again, larger lots than what was originally submitted to you and ask if you have any questions at this time and turn it back over to you for a Public Hearing. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: The only question I had is would it be appropriate to have the church rezoned to L-O? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the Development Agreement is all already signed that would allow them to come back in and they already are required to come back in for a Conditional Use Permit as a requirement of their Development Agreement. There would be no benefit gained by requiring an additional rezone for that church property. Zaremba: I only bring the question up, because we have been encouraging churches to change their zone to L-O. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the Development Agreement allows the church property to develop in a manner that would allow day care, that would allow some recreational facilities and some other uses that typically we have been requiring the rezone to L-O for and the Development Agreement already addresses those. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 49 of 107 Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve Arnold I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'm here representing the Bear Creek, LLC, on this project tonight. I will be brief. I think Dave pretty much covered about all the issues there. Just as a follow up and reminder to the Commission, this plan, as we had Bear Creek 5 platted and recorded, this was addressed at the Final Plat hearing that this was our intention, that we were at that time in negotiations with the developers of Kodiak Subdivision. It has come to fruition, so we have come to a negotiation with both the church and Kodiak for the exchanges and what we have before you tonight, again, is that design that we have an agreement with. Again, the only reason we are going for the R-8 zoning is for the portion of Bear Creek 5 that was left out. It's mainly just dimensional standards. Had that Development Agreement been signed, which we were hoping that that would have been done by now, that would have been the only portion getting rezoned, because Kodiak would have had the R-8 zoning. That being said, the developer's representative from Westpark is -- or Bear Creek, LLC, is here tonight to speak on behalf of the home sites that are going in there. We held a neighborhood meeting at that time and I believe the only issue was the type of homes going in and I think he's here tonight to address the homes. They will be the Mesa type, similar to what is in Bear Creek 5 and I believe Bear Creek 3. With that, I will stand for questions and reserve comment for -- on the house types. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Okay. Thank you. Arnold: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Schultz? Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz, 660 East Franklin here in Meridian. I work for the Westpark Company. I'm the project manager of the Bear Creek Subdivision, more the construction manager and the overall engineering manager, but I have been involved in this project from almost day one and very pleased to be here tonight to -- like Steve said and Mr. McKinnon said so well, that this is the result of several months of negotiations and process and we think we bring before you the best possible solution to the overall traffic issues that were brought up initially and the lot sizes, which these lots are three times the size of the Kodiak lots. The square footage is up around 10,000. A little less. Like 9,000, 8,800, but they are still nice square footage lots. They are a little bit narrower, 74 feet minimum. That's why we had to go for the R-8, so it could be less than 80, but they are still deep lots, 120. We feel like we really went the extra mile to make this the best possible solution for everybody, including the church property. They get better visibility tucked in there, their elevation rises from where they were, it really works well for everybody. And, for the record, the neighborhood meeting that was conducted last week, I'm not the marketer, so I wasn't able to commit to them at that time what style we are going to market those at and that concerned the residents and I understand that. I'm here tonight to say that those will be marketed and have the same CC&Rs as our Mesa style lots, which is our step-up lots. The price range -- I can't give you an exact, but I'm thinking they are going to be, you know, 190, 200, on up to 240, is what we are shooting for. And I know that that's what Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 50 of 107 the homeowners were concerned about and I'm here for the record to put that on there and I agree with staffs recommendation and just ask for your approval, so we can move forward. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commission? Centers: Just one. Could you repeat that, you're committing to market them as Mesa style? Schultz: Yes. They are Mesa lots. We have four different product types out there. We have Meadows, Mesa, Parkside, and Highlands, and those range on the Meadows side from say 160 to 170 to 200 and the Mesas go from the upper 190 to 200, up to 240. The Park sides are in that 240 to 350 and the highlands are from 350 to 600. Centers: So, your marketing agent told you to commit to that? Schultz: My boss. Centers: Okay so, you're going to market them as Mesa style? Schultz: We are going to do that. The partners -- I work for the partners and that's what we are committing to do. Centers: Good. Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Johnson: Troy Johnson, 2476 South Bear Claw Way. I'm a recent homeowner in the Bear Creek Subdivision. My house has just been built now for about three weeks and my home, actually, is adjacent to where the zone is being proposed and I came here tonight -- Borup: Do you know what your lot number is? Johnson: My lot number is Lot 1, Block 7. Borup: Around the corner. Johnson: Right. The yellow -- number 36 on the very end, we are just to the west of that lot. Centers: Right here? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 51 of 107 Johnson: Yes. Right where it starts. I was not privy to the conversation or the meeting that they had with some of the homeowners and so I came here tonight with limited information. What I was basing my information off of is the advertising that Bear Creek is actually putting out and their advertising was different than what was suggested in the fact that these are going to be Mesa lots. They were actually marketing Meadows lots and so I'm basically here as a homeowner wanting to protect the value of my home and I want to be assured that they are going to be Mesa lots and that they will be upheld by the same CC&Rs. Borup: Are they marketing these lots at this time? Johnson: Well, it's the advertising that is available as you enter the entire Bear Creek Subdivision is actually marketed as Meadows lots, which, as he just mentioned, is a completely different price range from Mesa. Centers: Which price range are you in, Mr. Johnson? Johnson: I am in the 250 to 350. Centers: Which is? Johnson: Parkside. Centers: A step above the Mesa? Johnson: Correct. Obviously, my concern was if they were going to put Meadows homes adjacent to mine, it would be quite possible that there would be a home built that was less than half the value of my home. In addition to that, the Meadows have certain CC&Rs that are different than what a Parkside home would have. For instance, the fence requirements in Parkside would be a white vinyl or a blank cast iron fence, whereas the Meadows, the CC&Rs state that they could have a cedar fence. They could have vinyl siding on their house, whereas I could not. Borup: So, you're comfortable with the Mesa? Johnson: I'm absolutely comfortable with the Mesa. The reason why I wanted to speak and put it on the record is, again, going back to the advertising that we received from the subdivision, the Mesa value -- or lots are priced at 200 to 250. I don't mean to be too anal about this, but I do want to make sure that what they are advertising is a price range from 200 to 250, so if it is going to be Mesa lots, that's what I would expect they would follow through with and make consistent with the rest of the subdivision. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, this is probably something you weren't aware of, but the previous project that was designed for here had an RV parking storage designed for right next to your lot, I think. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 52 of 107 Johnson: I was not. Borup: Or close to it. Just down from that entrance. Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. It sounds like your neighborhood meeting did a lot of good to -- oh, do you have something. Come on forward. Pond: My name is Melissa Pond. I'm at 305 West Cave Bear and I moved in, in November and when we moved nothing was proposed of what would be behind us. We knew it would be developed. I was at the meeting last week. Everybody along that street was invited. Borup: You say just last November you moved in? Pond: Yes. Well, that would be correct. There was nothing proposed by this developer, because he didn't own the land. Pond: Right. Yes. And, then, word got going on what was proposed. At this meeting several of us were there and everybody that was invited was there and, unfortunately, they weren't able to come tonight, they have kids ballgames and they are out of town and such, so we are here -- my concern -- something that came up at that meeting that all of us are concerned about, has not been brought up yet tonight, is the fence. Right now there is a wrought iron fence that separates us and I don't know if that will be changed to a white vinyl fence just for more privacy. There are other homes in the subdivision that when they back up to other times they have a white vinyl fence. Borup: You're saying there is an existing fence in the back of your property now? Pond: Yes. Borup: And you're concerned they are going to tear the fence down? Pond: It was proposed that a white vinyl would go up in place of. Borup: Okay. We will get some clarification on that. Pond: Okay. That would be great. I'd also like, on the record, just -- and I brought it up at the meeting and it didn't go very far, but I'd also love to see them take one lot out on each side and make those bigger. I will have two backyard neighbors and my neighbor will have four to five backyard neighbors. I'd also like that to at least be brought up, that we can make those lot sizes a little bit bigger. Centers: Which neighbor would have four to five? They must have a huge lot. Borup: Well, that's not true. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 53 of 107 Centers: That would on two lots. Two and a half. Pond: Lot 8. Lot 8 right here will have 32 partially in his backyard, 31, 30, and 29. I'm sorry I guess that's four. Borup: Well, the plat that we have has 30 and 31 and about 15 feet of 32. But that's a cul-de-sac lot that has the -- Centers: Yes. I think what you have there is not to scale. Pond: Okay. Centers: I don't think that is. Pond: Great. Yes. All of our concerns along that back way -- which is why we talked about a fence. Many of us will split our lots with two backyard neighbors. It's not like we could go in with out next -our backyard neighbor to split a fence, because we are going to have two. Most of us will have two. Borup: Well, I thought you said the subdivision was putting up a fence. Pond: We haven't talked -- we talked about it at the meeting and it didn't get very far. Borup: Okay. Pond: Other than that, of course, we are excited that they will be Mesa lots, it will keep up the value of our homes, but there are a couple of issues that we would like to see addressed. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Ma'am? I got your first name. Melissa. Pond: Melissa. Centers: Are you just wanting identification of what type of fence, so that you can share the cost with the homeowner? Pond: It was proposed when we had the meeting with Matt that he would take it to the developer that they would switch that fence to be a white vinyl privacy fence. Centers: So, my question is do you want them to put the fence in, then? Pond: If they can. Yes. It is in other parts of the subdivision and he said if they didn't put the white vinyl fence, because they didn't think that there would be --they didn't look far enough. In other parts of the subdivision they did look far enough and there is a white vinyl fence, so that you don't have two backyard neighbors trying to figure out how to get privacy. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 54 of 107 Centers: So your preference is white vinyl and -- Pond: For privacy. Yes. Centers: Yes. Right. Who pays for it that has to be decided, I guess. Pond: Right. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. Schultz, do you have any comments on that? Schultz: Once, again, Matt Schultz, 660 East Franklin. She's absolutely correct, at the meeting we never did come to a final conclusion, but the way I presented it from the beginning was that there was a wrought iron fence that was put in over a year ago there within the Mesa lots -- Borup: That was the perimeter fencing. Schultz: Perimeter fencing. Wrought iron. Nice fence. It cost us -- you know, it wasn't cheap. We put it up and wrought iron and vinyl are both allowed within Mesa and what was interesting when I made that statement one of them goes, well, I like wrought iron and, you know, all the rest of them wanted vinyl. Well, okay, I offered to take it down for nothing and they could cost share themselves and put up a new vinyl fence. It's about the same price. It's about 15 dollars, 16 dollars a foot. And one of the guys proposed, well, you guys are, you know, trying to, you know, get some extra lots in here, which we are really not, we think we are providing a really good plan. You know, why don't you split the cost with us. And where it was kind of left, that we may split that cost, you know, in replacement, even though I personally think that it's a good fence, it's up there, and, you know, you can plant vines or shrubs or different things like that and some like the elegance of wrought iron versus -- to me, the plastic look of -- you know, it is plastic if it's vinyl, but, anyway, I'm here to say tonight that we will work with them to share in that cost, if I can get all the homeowners to agree to share in that cost, every single one of the lot owners along there, and I'll put together a cost estimate and a bid and put it in front of all of them. If I can get them all to sign that, if they will share in that cost, I will share in that cost to replace that, half and half, 50-50, and that's above and beyond what I think, really, my requirement is. Centers: Yes. Well, I tend to agree with that. And -- but you do intend to put one style fence? Imean -- Schultz: Yes. We would do the full length at one time. Centers: And so they have to decide if they all want vinyl or all want -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 55 of 107 Schultz: Exactly. And, then, that's -- Centers: Melissa wants vinyl, but maybe her neighbors don't. Schultz: That's kind of an open thing for me. I'm going to put it all in or I'm not going to put it in and -- I'll take it down, though. I have already offered that. You know, which, again, it's a nice fence, it's there, you know, but to appease the neighbors and be a good neighbor out there, we are willing to do that, because with this development coming in, we are going to have to do some more fencing out there and -- Centers: So, what you're saying is this is all wrought iron -- Schultz: It is all -- it actually runs all the way out to Meridian Road right now. Centers: Yes. Schultz: I'm going to have to take out part of it anyway. Centers: And you're willing to take it all out and put in vinyl and share half the cost if you can get every neighbor to sign off. Schultz: It would be 29, 30, and 36 -- Centers: Yes. All the neighbors. Schultz: Right. Centers: I think that's very fair. Schultz: That's where we stand. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any final comments from staff? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we typically get a final fencing plan with the submittal of the final flat and you could have it worked out at that point, if that's what -- that might be the easiest way to handle that. Borup: Well, the city wouldn't be looking at anything other perimeter fence, though, would you? McKinnon: No. Borup: We've never done anything on interior fencing before. McKinnon: No. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 56 of 107 Borup: Okay. Any final comments, Mr. Arnold? Arnold: Again, for the record, Steve Arnold, Briggs Engineering. I guess my only concern with that would be how we word it, so that when we get to the Final Plat stage that it's not something that's going to hold it up as we go through the negotiations with the neighborhood. I think careful consideration should be given to the wording of that language, so that it -- when we get to the point when we have half the neighbors that want vinyl, half of them want wrought iron, that it's just -- Borup: I would be comfortable if you would -you or the developer would take care of the wording. Is there any problem with that from staff? If they want to propose the wording and staff would approve that? Arnold: Commissioner Borup, I would be happy to provide that. Centers: Well, we need that right now, if we are going to make that a condition of approval. We need that wording. Borup: Well, he's made a statement that they are willing to share 50-50 on the cost and it would just be -- Centers: Well, he's -- you're saying what if they don't all agree, then, will that hold up the Final Plat and that kind of thing. That's what his concern is. Arnold: Commissioner Borup -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, Steve, if I can jump in. The fencing on the interior of the properly lines is typically not something that the city gets involved with on a Preliminary Plat. I think that if we leave ourselves out of that, I think we are in better shape, than if we involve ourselves, because that's not a requirement of our code, therefore, we should not be placing it as a requirement on the plat. Borup: I would think our -- I mean whatever the Commission decides, but the applicant has stated they are willing to do that with conditions and they are on the record and, beyond that, I don't know if we should be placing any particular requirements. Centers: Well -- and Ithink we -- I think you're right, we could put it on the record again when we -- if we intend to approve this, but not a condition of the approval, but put it on the record for the homeowners that the developer has agreed -- you know, come up with that wording. Arnold: And that's something that you can say on the application and just not make it a site-specific. Centers: Right. Right. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meefing May 1, 2003 Page 57 of 107 Arnold: Which it -- again, it doesn't have any teeth, but here we are giving testimony that we are saying that we are going to work with them and, then, you can follow up with the recommendation to the City Council. Centers: Yes. If these two homeowners come back and say that no one was contacted regarding, you know, did they want the vinyl fence, because there is only, as I understand, six or eight homeowners, something like that, and if there is no evidence that they were contacted -- if they all want vinyl fence, then, he's got to do it. Arnold: Yes. Definitely. Centers: But if one wants it and one doesn't, then -- Borup: There are six in the existing subdivision. Centers: So, it's up to Melissa to go to the other five homeowners and get them to sign off on it and take it to the developer and say we all want vinyl fence, you agreed to tear down the wrought iron, and put up vinyl. Arnold: That works for us. Centers: Yes. Good. Borup: Okay. I believe we are -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on both items, RZ 03-006 and PP 03-004. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close both Public Hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval of Item 11, RZ 03-006, and a request for a rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company, west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road, including all staff comments. The rezone comments should be stated -- they are on page, site- specific, and there is only two. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 58 of 107 Centers: I would also like to recommend approval of Item 12 it's PP 03-004, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and two other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC. West of south Meridian Road and south of the west Overland Road, including all staff comments, which started on the bottom of page five and continue -- well, actually, they don't. They start on the bottom of page six. Added number eleven: These lots shall be marketed as the Mesa style lots. That would be site-specific number eleven. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think that's something that we shouldn't add to asite-specific condition of approval on a Preliminary Plat. Centers: I see where you're coming from, but -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, if -- Centers: Put it on the record like the -- Borup: That would probably be more appropriate. Powell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you may want to limit it just to a lot size, if there is one associated with the Mesa. You can speak with your counsel, but I don't believe that you're allowed to regulate a house price and by referencing the house prices that were stated today, I fear you're getting into murky water there. Centers: Yes. And I agree with that, for sure, on the house price. I guess I would back off on that. It wouldn't be asite-specific, but it would be for the record that the applicant has agreed that these lots will be marketed as the Mesa style lots. That's the best we can do. In addition, the applicant has agreed, for the record, to contact all the adjacent lot owners, if he has unanimous consent with one type of fence being vinyl, he will tear down the wrought iron and share half the cost for a new vinyl fence. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Maybe just for clarification, there were no -- there were no revisions to any of the staff comments and the others were just items to mention on the record, not part of the recommendation. Centers: Right. Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to add a heliport with office and fueling -future landing pad and hanger on southeast corner of property in an L-O zone for St. Luke's Meridian