Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2003 P & ZMeridian Planning and Zoning CommisS'76n • June 5, 2003 Pg 72 of 100 Zaremba: I move we continue the Public Hearing on PP 03-007, to our meeting on June 19~'. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14. Public Hearing: AZ 03-011 Request for annexation and zoning of 11.5 +/- acres from RUT to R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by The Cutting Edge, LC - 4379 North Locust Grove Road: Item 15. Public Hearing: PP 03-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 building lots and 8 other lots on 11.3 acres in proposed R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by The Cutting Edge, LC - 4379 North Locust Grove Road: Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for townhouses and single-family homes in proposed R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by The Cutting Edge, LC - 4379 North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Our last item, last project, Item Number 14, 15 and 16, Public Hearing AZ 03-011, request for annexation and zoning of 11.5 acres from RUT to R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by Cutting Edge, LC, 4379 North Locust Grove Road.- Accompanying that is PP 03-012, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 building lots and CUP 03-022, request for Conditional User Permit for a planned development for Townhouses and single family homes in both R-8 and R- 15zones for the proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision. I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision on the west. side of Locust Grove abutting the south boundary of Havasu Creek Subdivision, also abutting up to its east side. It is north of the Heritage Commons Subdivision by about four lots to the north and across the street from Locust Grove to Heritage Subdivision that's in Ada County. The property annexed to the south, which you can just see in the corner, is the school district facility where the charter high school and recently approved elementary school are located. This is an aerial photo. You can see the existing county sub across Locust Grove to the right, the existing pasture farmland, soon to be developed as Havasu Creek surrounding here, and Heritage Commons to .the south. The project, basically, has two separate areas. In the front along Locust Grove they are proposing annexing that as an R-15 zone with a proposed attached townhouse project in it. This Site Plan to the south actually connects onto the matched line right behind the top line and continues to the west with a proposed reduced lot size, single family, and detached housing project. It Meridian Planning and Zoning CommisS'16n • June 5, 2003 Pg 73 of 100 would be proposed to be zoned R-8. I would point out that these densities that are proposed are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The front area is in the corner of the neighborhood center on the Comprehensive Plan and by the Comprehensive Plan requires a density of at least eight dwelling units per acre. The density that they are proposing is right at nine dwelling units per acre and meets that requirement. The density of the single family project to the west of the townhouses is just over six dwelling units per acre and it is in an area of the Comprehensive Plan that is shown as medium density residential, which is defined as three to eight dwelling units per acre and fits right into that category as well. You should have a staff report with the transmittal date of May 29th and a hearing date of today. It does layout some detail the findings associated with the project. I'm going to skip to those items, which I think are those that need discussion and resolution tonight. They start on Page 12 under special considerations for the project. The first is just pointing out that the applicant does request several reductions to the standards through the planned development. This has been submitted as a planned development. They can request alterations to the standard ordinance through the planned development process. Those requested modifications are detailed on the second page of this report and also on the face of their submitted plat. I have asked the applicant to verify that I have captured all their requested modifications and also would just point out to the Commission that they do need to act on those reduced standards as part of this project. Staff is in support of the proposed reduced standards. That said, we do have some concerns about the build ability of some of the lots. I have in Number 2 requested that the applicant come tonight with some sample layouts for a few lots. I picked Lots 5 and 6 of Block 4, which are in the small cul-de-sac of the single-family area, as well as the Lot 12, Block 2, which is the funny triangular-shaped lot here just to make sure that they were buildable with the product types that they were planning to use in the subdivision. Item Number 3 has to do with fences in the townhouse area. Given the small lots and the connected nature of those townhouses, we are recommending that no internal fences be allowed on these lots lines, nor on the lot lines here, that they only allow for perimeter fencing to give the project itself a more open feel and allow for pedestrians to move in and out through those backyard areas without feeling too boxed in. I believe the applicant is in agreement with that. Item Number 4 talks about trees along the south and I'll address that for just a second. There is -- this is the proposed Landscape Plan. Again, this is the proposed townhouse section of the project. This is the single-family area. The letter that the -- the existing lot to the south is currently asingle-family residence on a large lot. That residence does sit back a long ways from Locust Grove, actually, south of the single family portion about in this area. Nonetheless, we consider the lot as a whole and we do require a buffer between land uses, between multi-family and single family projects. The proposed Landscape Plan does provide that buffer. The issue is that in that exact same area there is an easement to the Settler's Irrigation District that would preclude planting of any of those trees. The applicant points out that the area south of the townhouses today is simply pasture and there is no residence currently built there and it is also in the neighborhood center designation on the Comp Plan also and when developed will have a similar density. Their proposal, which was very generous, in my estimation, was to provide the trees and put them in pots, large pots, in that easement. I questioned whether they really intended to pot all 24 of those trees that are shown and I have asked them to address that tonight and that the Commission should consider this Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n • June 5, 2003 Pg 74 of 100 area for some form of alternative compliance. Whether they should pot all the trees shown, some of the trees shown, or whether any trees at all would be required by the Commission through that alternative compliance. The alternative compliance section of the code in the landscape ordinance says that if one governmental agency having jurisdiction over an area would -- conflicts with the requirements of the landscape ordinance. The determination can be made, you know, separate from the letter of the law that meets the intent of the ordinance and -- meets the intent of the ordinance and makes the Commission and staff happy, so -- enough said on that one, unless you have any questions on that one before I move on. Item Number 5 on Page 13 has to do with the open space and removal of a lot. The open space -- first, the proposed open space for the townhouse area does sit on this flag portion between Locust Grove and the townhouse development. It does sit quite hidden behind this row of townhouses and staff is recommending that this end townhouse lot be eliminated and made part of the open space. That would give a direct view into the open space from the driveway and it would bring the open space out into the project more and make it feel more like an amenity for the entire subdivision and not just sitting in the backyard of those couple of lots. Item Number 6 is the Settler's easement, which I just mentioned with the landscaping and trees along the south. That easement does continue through here along the south side of the residential portion. The applicant is proposing to have -- to keep easement in the rear lots and not on a separate common lot. Staff is fine with that, as long as they can obtain the encroachment agreement with the Settler's Irrigation District and we added a condition that they get one. Number 7 is pedestrian access. You will notice that there is no road connection out through to Locust Grove. Their only connection currently would be through Havasu Creek to the north, the road that sits right on this match line between the two portions of the project connects to a stub street in Havasu Creek and would go out to Locust Grove. They did try and try with several meetings through -- with ACHD and others to get a road alignment here on the south side of their property, but the offset distance is too great with the existing road into Heritage Subdivision. They were unsuccessful in working out an agreement with the property owner to the south to share that road along the property line. ACHD has approved the proposed arrangement. The intent -- they have also stubbed the same street to the south and the intent would be that when the property to the south develops they would get another access out onto Locust Grove there. That said, staff would like to see in Item Number 7 a pedestrian access provided through this open space lot and connected to the sidewalk along Locust Grove. That the -- any pedestrians going to the school or other areas that are nearby are not forced to go through the adjacent subdivision, since they do have a more direct access out onto Locust Grove. Item Number 8 is the open space, simply pointing out that the applicant does meet the open space requirements of the ordinance outright. They do provide over 10 percent open space in the townhouse portion and just over five percent open space in the single- family portion. They have over -- just over seven percent for the project as a whole. They are required to have two amenities as a planned development. Those amenities are not shown on the Landscape Plans, but are mentioned in their letter. Staff would like to see those actually shown on the plans, so we can see how they are to be integrated, but their proposal is to provide a sand volleyball court in the bottom of the retention pond in the open space here in the single family area and agazebo/picnic area in the open space adjacent to the townhouses. Item number ten, which is the last Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n • June 5, 2003 Pg 75 of 100 one, is the issue of providing sidewalks within the townhouse development. Staff feels that there should be sidewalks through this. They are proposing it simply as a private drive. It's not a public street. ACHD has not commented directly on the drives in the townhouse area. Staff would like to see sidewalks added, which are not currently proposed along the fronts of the townhouses and around the interior of this internal block. That can be done without a major modification to this layout, because the Site Plan does provide for 25 feet from the face of the buildings out to the drive aisle. Adding afive-foot attached sidewalk still allows fora 20-foot deep driveway in front of those garages. Those are staffs recommendations on those items that need to be resolved. Our recommendation on Page 15 states that we do support the project and the higher density townhouse use, because it is in compliance with the neighborhood center designation on the Comprehensive Plan. We also submit -- support a mix of housing types, which this is attempting to provide in the area. However, we do have these outstanding issues, so we do -- unless they are resolved tonight, we do recommend continuing this hearing such that the Site Plans can be tweaked and revised to show the items that are mentioned in the conditions of approval and come back to this body before moving on to City Council. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes, in your recommendation, Mr. Siddoway, if you could clarify staff supports the higher density townhouse use in compliance with the neighborhood center designation. I know you said that that touched on the corner of the neighborhood center. Of course, I have seen those. A neighborhood center couldn't be built there. Siddoway: Not in commercial, if that's what you're talking about. Centers: Yes. Semi-commercial and that was the full intent of a neighborhood center at the half-mile mark right? Siddoway: Yes and no. Let me back up and explain that a little bit. Centers: Yes. Siddoway: The neighborhood center is shown as a -- kind of a half circle that comes down right around this way. The center of that neighborhood center is intended to be -- have acore commercial area, but not the entire neighborhood center. Centers: Oh, I know. Yes. Siddoway: The remainder of the neighborhood center is required to have a higher density-housing product in it in order support those core commercial areas on the half- mile. The neighborhood center designation does cut through this project at almost the exact location that they are proposing to shift in their uses. Centers: But all the discussion in the Comp Plan hearings and the neighborhood centers and whether they would be there or not, there is no -- absolutely no guarantee you're going to have commercial in a neighborhood center right there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n June 5, 2003 Pg 76 of 100 Siddoway: We are getting commercial already at the half mile right here as part of Heritage Commons. Centers: That's L-O. Is it commercial or L-O? Offices. Dentist office. Siddoway: I don't remember the zoning, but it is -- has several buildings. I think most of them would be -- do you remember the zoning? It is L-O? We think it is L-O. Centers: That's a concept of the neighborhood centers was people could walk to shop. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Drycleaners. You know, small commercial. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: So, we have no -- but I think, you know, you haven't answered whether we have no guarantee that the property owner here is going to build or provide some walk to shop. Siddoway: He's going to have to provide something in compliance with the neighborhood center designation with higher densities and the commercial probably wouldn't extend all the way up to this parcel. The commercial would probably end up in here, the smaller core area, and surrounded by higher density housing and there should be smaller blocks and walkable. Centers: And the present zoning of this? It's just RUT right now? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Yes. Dumb question. The other question I had on the same paragraph, in compliance with the neighborhood center designation along Locust Grove and the transition to larger lots adjacent to Havasu Creek. I don't understand that. Siddoway: Okay. They have -- they are proposing very small type lots in the townhouse area and getting a density just over nine. Centers: Right. Siddoway: At that match line they do transition to larger single-family lots adjacent to Havasu Creek, which wraps around it on the north and west. Centers: Okay. Which are adjacent to Havasu Creek. Okay. I got you. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Meridian Planning and Zoning Common • June 5, 2003 Pg 77 Of 100 Pack: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Lloyd Pack I'm with Project Engineering Consultants at 1307 North 39th Street, Suite 101, Nampa. I have recently adopted this project. You will probably note on the application that it was originally started by David Irish of URS Corporation and due to some problems that he's had, he's been transferred out of the area and so he and I had worked together on this in some of the initial stages and I ended up adopting it after he had to leave. I received staff comments on this project Monday and we started going through and looking at them. The clients and I had a meeting on Tuesday to discuss a lot of these and, in general, we agree with the majority of the staff comments. The townhouse fences, for instance, Item 3, we have no problem with eliminating that. One of the items I would like to address is Item Number 4 on Page 12. With the trees along that south edge, we have a 20-foot easement with Settler's and, then, there is the 20-foot buffer zone requirement due to the dissimilar use of the land to the south. Currently, as Commissioner Centers asked about what it's currently zoned at, it's RUT, but being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it should be developed as an R-15 or something like that. The use will be fairly similar to what we are proposing in that area. As such, and given the fact that Settler's does not allow trees to be planted -- anything over two foot is not allowed to be planted within their easement. Actually, we would like to see the requirement for the trees disappear, because we understand that the owner of the property to the south is interested in developing that property, just recently has contacted my clients to investigate the opportunity to do something in conjunction that way, so we anticipate the development to take place in the relatively near future. Once it is developed, then, there will not be dissimilar use and the buffer would no longer be required. Now, originally, this plan shows no potted trees. That just -- that came about with discussion between David Irish and staff, was my understanding, and did not ever get conveyed to the landscape designer prior to submittal. I don't know the timing of how that worked out, but on this plan there is no designation for those trees to be potted. When I discussed with the landscape designer that issue, he was somewhat incredulous that we were actually considering potted trees, because he said, one, it's going to be very difficult to deal with to move these if ever Settler's needs to come and work on the pipe, if they need to be moved, a fork lift, tractor, and somehow manipulation those around getting them out of the way. The other problem is he has had experience with many trees in pots like this having difficulty surviving and so he's concerned about the issue of making the trees actually last longer than the approval process, basically. When we are considering this area, we'd really like it to be considered as the full build out and the requirement of that buffer not being applied to this condition, since it will be the same use, both sides of that property line at build out. Moving on and looking at Number 5 on Page 13, the open space and lot removal item, we definitely do not want to remove a lot there. In discussion with the landscape architect, the ability to landscape and present it as an attractive entrance and access point to the open space, he felt that that would not be a difficult thing to do. In discussing that with my clients, we also discussed other options. One of the options that we would like the Commission to consider is reduction of all of the lots in that one section, so that the width of those lots would be reduced from 30 to 28 feet and at the top end we have 23 foot distance between the north property line and that line of lots. We could slide those lots up an additional three feet. That would, then, allow for a total Meridian Planning and Zoning Com'rTlSSion June 5, 2003 Pg 78 of 100 of 21 foot extra space in that area to open that up and given the fact that these lots are for joint townhouses, the distance of 28 feet for the lot works out still for the planned two car garage and the entrances that are going to be in there. We can still get the area that we need to get. If this were going to be a regular detached lot that would be more of a problem, just because of the reciprocal nature of detached housing and the assignment. Where we are talking about combining some townhouses, that might be a very reasonable way to generate the open space of staff recommendations would like to see and yet still allow us to maintain the lots that we would like to maintain. In terms of the path that's -- the pedestrian access of Item Number 7, we would like to loop a path through that open space behind the townhouses, between the townhouses and Locust Grove, so that there is a continuous loop. Then, we intend to come in, kind of jumping ahead or combining two items here with the fencing plan, we would like to put a vinyl fence along the front end at Locust Grove with an access point in the middle of that fence to the sidewalk that will be developed on Locust Grove. That way we have a continuous loop of the open space we have access back to the parking -- the common lot around the townhouses. Then, still have the access to Locust Grove that staff recommends basically to provide access for children to get from the schools and for people get to the future built -- to be built commercial core community center. In terms of the path, we also feel we'd like to include a path going into a retention basin in the single family dwellings, just to be -- to have continuity with the general feel of the subdivision on both ends and to eliminate any possible problems with slippery grass slopes for people accessing down into the bottom to get to that volleyball court. I think almost every issue that staff has brought up that we have had any concerns with I have addressed. The issues of amenities will be drawn up on a new Landscape Plans and submitted. The recommendation was that we extend to the next meeting a plan of preparing that item, along with the sample layout, which is item number two. In the short notice I have I did not develop the sample layout as requested. I apologize for that. That will be prepared for the next meeting or will be worked out with staff prior to the next meeting, so that they can -- if they are comfortable with what we are planning on doing, they can just recommend to you that that item has been satisfied. At this point I'll stand for any further questions. Mathes: Are you planning on just two houses hooked together or do you have three? Pack: Where? Mathes: On the townhouse lots. Pack: The townhouses are all connected. Mathes: Nine in a row? Pack: Yes. Mathes: Okay. Pack: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comml55fon • June 5, 2003 Pg 79 of 100 Centers: You mentioned a pathway to the drainage pond. Pack: Yes. Centers: Are you going to do that in back of Lots 4, 5, and 6 or -- Pack: Yes. Access back from the street -- Centers: Okay. Yes. You move it up and you got the --okay. Pack: And we have the access points to Havasu Creek at the match lines on this drawing and, then, right there by the retention basin, which is on our plat, I believe, shows North Heritage and, then, we have North Mooney on the south, both -- all three of which are going into Havasu Creek and, then, we are stubbing -- I believe it's called North Heritage or -- the match line we are stubbing that to the property to the south, so that as that does get developed into future residential use, it will have connectivity between all three subdivisions. Centers: Excuse me. How long ago did you submit your application to ACHD? I see in their notes a tech review for this item was held with the applicant on May 9`h Pack: That may have been. I did not take up the application until after that, so I'm not sure what had happened. Centers: Of course, they noted no direct lot access to Locust Grove Road. Pack: Right. Centers: Of course, you weren't handling it at that time? Pack: No, I was not. Centers: And I take it they were really pushing for the access from Locust Grove? Pack: There was -- they did push for that. My clients had worked for the property owner to the south. It's my understanding that would have been tried to come up with an agreement. They were willing to develop the entire road, if the client to the south would give them half of the easement for doing so. At the time the owner of the property to the south was not interested in pursuing that and so this was developed to deal with an issue, basically, and so our recbmmendation on this was not to access Locust Grove directly, but to do so through Havasu Creek or through future development of the property to the south. Centers: But when you got the findings from the ACHD on May 29th, then, you revised it and you created open space at the fronton Locust Grove; correct? Meridian Planning and Zoning Common • June 5, 2003 Pg BO of 100 Pack: If that's -that may have been what happened, yes. Ididn't -- I was not -- Centers: You had to hurry and make the open space there. Pack: Okay. Centers: And ACRD allows the access through Havasu Creek. Pack: Okay. Yes. Centers: Thank you. Zaremba: Well, I'd like to explore your earlier remark that the neighbor to the south may now be ready to work on this, which would open up the possibility, again, that you could connect to Star Lane. I'm not sure ACHD's issue was wholly within the property that you're presenting. There was no way to align with Star, which is the street on the other side of the property. If the property owner to the south is now approaching you and looking for a way to work together, can that idea be resurrected? The reason I bring that up is one of the things that Meridian has is that they like to see higher densities near to transportation corridors and as the crow flies this higher density is near the transportation corridor. By road, it has to go through Havasu Creek, which is circuitous for the residents here and probably not very tasteful to them, Havasu Creek and -- to have that many people. I guess my question is can it be explored with a newly willing neighbor to the south to resurrect the connection to Star Lane. Pack: And the biggest concern with that is the additional cost to rework the Preliminary Plat, resubmit, the lost time involved in redoing the process. We are basically starting over with the application. That will change the nature of the layout change the nature of the conditional use. Zaremba: If I'm wrong, the only thing you'd really be changing is -- there is already an easement there, the 20 feet wide on your side of the property where those trees aren't going to be and that easement could be your half of the road Pack: It is Settler's Irrigation easement, so the utility would need to be managed, dealt with -- they probably wouldn't like the idea of -- maybe they would let us pave right over it, but -- you know, with access points, but -- you know, with access points. That is potential, okay, and the grounds maintained without being substantial. Again, just the biggest concern is the reworking of the plan to make that fit the time and money that my clients would either have to pay or that the property owner to the south would have to pay in order to rework thaYand make it work. Zaremba: I guess maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing much reworking needing to be done, because -- Pack: Well, the only problem -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Common • June 5, 2003 Pg 81 of 100 Zaremba: Pave the easements and leave everything else the way it is. Pack: Well, you'd have to move the house, townhouses. At least the one that we are talking about removing would have to be moved -- the proposal I'm making would reduce the lot size width. Zaremba: And I read that suggestion. Pack: Just to allow for that roadway to exist and not have the house on the curb or I mean on the curb that close. Access to the open space could be accomplished through the road at that point and, yet, something that we definitely -- I can talk with my clients about, so we could consider pursuing and looking at what the cost would be. There is a potential that just -- I guess it depends, too, on what this Commission is ready to accept that way and how much they want to see in reworking. If you're ready and happy with us revising that for say the next meeting or something and ready to approve that kind of thing, then, it wouldn't take as much time in reworking. I don't know if an agreement can be reached with the property owner to the south that quickly. One of the requirements is that the submittal happen 10 days prior to the meeting. That would pose a potential problem in terms of time crunch with that coordination. I wouldn't mind if you would allow me seven days prior to finish the items that we have got on here to already revise at least -- Centers: Let me ask you did you have a neighborhood meeting, you and the developer? Pack: I have not, no, and discussing it with the developer David Irish, talked about the possibility of doing that and at that time they had decided -- my understanding they decided that it was not going to be beneficial to conduct a neighborhood meeting. Centers: Appreciate your honesty. Borup: Not beneficial to who? Pack: Everybody involved. The general consensus that they had was that there wasn't going to be the vast turn out that we have. From discussing things with some of the property owners and maybe it was Grasmick, I'm not sure. There was just a general feeling that this project would be a good project that complies with the Comprehensive Plan and it would be one that would be desirable as such. Zaremba: I personally can agree with 90 percent of that, except for the access. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? One thing I don't think has been addressed is the out parcel. I don't think staff brought that up in their report. Pack: Are you referring to the large square in the upper right-hand corner? Borup: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Common June 5, 2003 Pg 82 of 700 Pack: That is a residential lot owned Grasmicks Borup: Right. Pack: And it would be retained as such and it is not even any -- not a part of this project. Borup: But didn't he own this whole --this whole parcel? Pack: My understanding was that he subdivided the parcel prior to selling it off, but -- Borup: Subdivided it? Pack: Yes. Borup: Do we have a copy of that subdivision when it was created? Was that done in the county, then? Pack: I have a copy of the deeds. Borup: No. I mean the legal lot split or subdivision -- Pack: Idon't know. Borup: So, if it was done, it was maybe done illegally? Pack: I don't know. Borup: Okay. Was there a staff comment? Powell: Yes. I can give you a short primer on Ada county legal lots versus lot splits. On any two parcels, meaning unplatted property -- and this is not platted. I'm fairly sure this is not platted property. So any unplatted -- Borup: What's the definition of plat? I believe it was -- Powell: In a subdivision. Oh, it was one -- okay. Steve's telling me it's one lot in a platted subdivision right now. To split that they'd have to re-subdivide that or be eligible for aone-time division. The county has had varying requirements as to minimum lot size in -- throughout the whole county. It varies usually from one acre to five acres. Right now they are in one that would suggest it's five acres. Because it's less than five acres, there is a question, as you pointed out, as to whether this was legally split. Just because it has a different parcel number does not mean it's a legal split. You can go and record a survey and ask to have a new number assigned, but that does not make it a legal split necessarily. A lot of times people do that because they are buying five acres, but the bank only wants to lend money on the house, so they want to see that it's on a smaller piece of property. They don't like holding liens on farmland, so they will often ask people to get a new assessor's parcel number on a smaller piece of property, Meridian Planning and Zoning CommlSSon • June 5, 2003 Pg 83 of 100 and, then, they hold their liens on that. That's often why you see a lot of assessor parcel numbers, but that doesn't mean that they are eligible to be sold, necessarily. The county does have a system whereby they can -- it's relatively inexpensive, it's actually dirt cheap to -- or you can go in and say is this a legal lot and I think, again, it's around 50, 60 dollars, something like that and they do all the research and they write you a letter saying whether or not this is a legal parcel for the purposes of development. If, in fact, it is not a legal parcel, the remedy in the county from their attorneys has been that the only remedy for an illegal subdivision is to recombine those properties so you get around the original parent parcel and provide that as, you know, go in and subdivide that. In Ada county they -- well, they would be coming to you, basically, to do that subdivision. Borup: Thank you. A bit of an unanswered question there. Pack: Yes. I gather at that point we might be looking at adopting that parcel as one lot in the block. Obviously, you know, retaining ownership to Grasmick, but that would be a Zaremba: The issue is to have it annexed at the same time. Pack: Yes. Zaremba: And applied as a lot. Pack: Right. Centers: The same owner; right? Pack: Grasmick owns that one and the Reitermans own the rest. Centers: Looks to be right at exactly an acre. Pack: It may be. Borup: Okay. Pack: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Okay. We are anxious to get to hear public testimony. When we have this size of a group, sometimes it makes it a little more difficult with time constraints. I don't know if there is anybody that has been designated as a neighborhood spokesman. It looks like no. The reason I ask, if we do have an organized neighborhood with a spokesman, we can allow additional time for that spokesman. Otherwise, depending on the time available, oftentimes we need to -- we do need to, for the most part, limit the remarks -- we do have athree-minute limit. Sometimes, if there is redundant information over and over, the Commission is probably not quite as interested in that, other times if there is new information, additional comments are Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n • June 5, 2003 Pg 84 of 100 warranted and interested in, so saying that, I'd like to open -- I mean invite anyone to come forward at this time. Failing: Good morning, Commissioners, or good afternoon or evening, whatever we are now. Norm Failing, 1785 Star Lane. I live in the Heritage Subdivision. Could you put this back up, please, this here. I'd just like to draw a little picture here of what we are looking at. One, we have got a lot of R-4, we have got a lot of high acreage, one acre parcels, so this -- and, granted, we didn't get to vote on all this nice stuff that we have been talking about, the high density stuff. I don't mind the light industrial down here at the Heritage Commons. It looks like it's going to be a great subdivision. Havasu Creek looks like that's going to be a great subdivision. Borup: Just for clarification on terms a little bit. I don't believe it's light industrial. Failing: Well, light office, whatever they are going to -- it will change eventually. But I mean that's okay. I don't have an issue with that, because a dentist office and that's a good deal. When we are talking about putting ahigh-density area out here and we are talking about putting a little pathway out to Locust Grove to the sidewalk. Well, unfortunately, there are no sidewalks. We have a little bit up here in Havasu Creek, we have a little bit down here in Heritage, and we have a little bit over here by the school, but between there and McMillan there is really nothing. We have a 50 mile an hour road that when I come out of my street on Locust Grove right now, I can sit there for ten minutes. We have got 50 mile an hour traffic. My kids can't walk there. This is a higher density area -- Borup: What's the speed limit there? Failing: Fifty miles an hour. It goes from 35 right here where this yellow piece is, where the school would be, to 50 miles an hour and I guarantee you they run a lot harder than 50 miles an hour and we are going to start having more accidents with higher density. When you come south on Locust Grove and you're going to turn west on Ustick, because of the concrete barriers when they redid that nice light intersection, when you make that right turn, you tum out and you're facing head-on traffic. That actually turns out into the left tum lane coming -- going eastbound. They are going to put out this huge amount of traffic on streets that won't even handle it you go at 8:00 in the morning on McMillan to go to Eagle, because that's that nice roadway you were talking about. Where we are doing this, well, you stop right -- oh, at Locust Grove and it takes you 20 or 30 minutes to get to Eagle Road. That's the same on Ustick. You know, the roads just are not capable of handling this kind of density. My other problem with it is I bought this nice one-acre where I have a good value, we are putting in all these gorgeous R-4s and now we want to put this in, so all of these property values go down? Why not put in 200,000 houses, 300,000-dollar houses? Let's get our -- let's have our areas where we are going to get a good tax base. We already saw earlier a subdivision that was an in- fill that was a great idea for an in-fill, I mean it worked out perfect. I think we should look at doing more in-fill in these higher densities and keeping these type of areas that are more common. I mean it's like putting this type of a section right in the middle of Banbury. You know, that's the way I look at it. You have high dollar housing and you go Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n • June 5, 2003 Pg 65 of 100 and you say, well, you got to put one of these right in the middle of Banbury. They haven't done it. You know, I have got some real concerns, one, about the traffic, the safety of the children, and, then, the value of my house. I don't want to take all your time, but thank you very much. I appreciate the time. Borup: Thank you. Who's next? Centers: Staff, what's the zone in Havasu Creek? R-8? R-4? R-4. R-8? Siddoway: I believe it's R-8. Sherer: No, it's R-4. Do you have a copy of your vicinity map? It is R-4. It was published by your Planning and Zoning Division. Siddoway: It's R-8. Borup: It's R-8. Sherer: It's R-4. Siddoway: It is R-8. Sherer: Well -- Borup: That may be a typo. Sherer: That's R-4. Siddoway: It is R-8, though. Borup: Wait a minute. Sherer: There is no point in arguing about it. Borup: No, there isn't, because it is what it is, if it is R-8, but any comments need to be addressed up here. It's not a free for all. Sherer: Thank you, Madam and Gentlemen Commissioners and city attorney and city clerk and planners, my name is Steve Sherer I live on Star Lane at 29 East Star Lane. I did receive a fax from the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department that shows a vicinity map. This shows that Havasu Creek is R-4. Now, if it's R-8, then, I'm mistaken, but I will tell you that I have lived there for 17 years. Traffic -- the traffic study that was done by ACRD was done in June of 2001 and I assume that most of you -- or all of you have received my letter dated June 5th that was submitted. I won't belabor the points that I made in that letter, because they are fairly clear. You can read them. lappreciate - Meridian Planning and Zoning Common June 5, 2003 Pg 86 of 100 Borup: Yes. Excuse me, Steve. Just for clarification. Was that letter intended as you personally? Sherer: Personally, yes. Borup: Okay. Not -- Sherer: But since I'm also a principal in the firm, I used law firm letterhead. My partner does not -- does not concur and has, in fact, no interest in this -- in this argument one way or another. Borup: Thank you. Sherer: Him being an Ada County Highway District commissioner. I appreciate Mr. Pack's honesty about the potted trees. I was going to make good hay with that, because that's a ridiculous idea and by removing the trees -- and we can have another Hope Arms out there, because that's what I envision without any trees or without any buffer zone. Planning to put nine townhouses together reminds me of a project that I was familiar with when I went to Northwest University in Chicago called Tabrini Greens. Notorious for the crime that it engendered and for the problems that it had when you tried to pack people in a dense housing project. The easements require a 20 foot buffer and Settler's does have a 20-foot easement. I think those requirements are clear. They are obvious. I have a question for Mr. Pack. I don't have a right to ask him, but I want you Commissioners to consider this. Mr. Pack could not get an agreement with this southern neighbor to run a street across from Star Lane, so that they could have no offset, so they could have a street, but now all of a sudden comes and represents to you that the southern neighbor is willing to deal with him. Something does not add up there. I don't know what it is. I'm not privy to those conversations. That doesn't make sense to me. I hope that you Commissioners will evaluate that and it doesn't make sense to you either. Mr. Pack got up and said he's in general agreement with the recommendations, then, he tries to diminish the lot sizes even more. He tries to make them smaller so that he can maintain the high density that he has in this rural area. Now, you're looking at a subdivision that is going to be very cramped. You can see the size of the lots across the street where we live. They're R-4 lots. You know, I don't particularly care for them, but that's progress and that's future, we are going to have them. Locust Grove is a minor arterial, it's not a five lane arterial, it's not planned to be a five lane arterial, it's not even -- it's not even in the construction plans to be a three lane arterial and my letter addresses the concerns that I have with that. The development cannot occur without some other things happening first. Havasu Creek is going to have to develop first. Heritage Commons is going to have to develop first. You're going to have 600 more residential building lots in this area before those two things are developed. Then, you're going to have the school development to the south, you're going to have two technical high schools, two charter schools, and an elementary school and the Meridian School District office. Ada County Highway District noted that when they looked at these developments one at a time they all made sense, but when added together there could be some serious problems and there will be serious problems. Our other neighbor testified about the traffic issues. They are only going to get worse. They can't even Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n June 5, 2003 Pg 87 of 100 consider this development until Havasu Creek and Heritage Commons put in their roads. They can't -- they can't consider this an implementation of the Comprehensive Plan until there is a commercial center for these people to use. Otherwise, they are going to be pulling out onto Locust Grove at 50 miles an hour or whatever Ada County Highway District decides to make it. They talk about a pathway to cross Locust Grove to get to the schools. Centers: Who are they? Sherer: The developer -- Centers: Okay. Sherer: -- has talked about an access -- that sidewalk access to Locust Grove to cross the street. It's not practical. It's not reasonable. That street is going to be way too busy. The traffic has probably increased 30 to 40 percent in the past two years from the development north of McMillan called Vienna Woods. That's not fully built out yet. Summerfield is not fully built out yet. We don't even -- we haven't even dealt with the traffic issues that we have now. They are only going to get worse. Reducing the lot size is not an answer. This area is all R-4, to my understanding. It's all platted to R-4. This development should be the same. What they are attempting to do is take 11 and a half acres in the middle of the country and maximize their profits at everybody else's cost and expense around there. Until there is a commercial center, this project is premature. Until the roads are build out in Havasu Creek and Heritage Commons, this subdivision is premature. I ask for you to at least table this long enough to see these other roads develop, to see these other things developed, so that we don't have these people trying to drive on platted, but undeveloped roads. I mean it only makes sense. Further, I think it's way too dense for the area and for what they are able to carry, especially considering what's going to be going on in the school district's 39 acres. That's going to be a heavy, intense use. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Rohm: Before we continue with public testimony, I'd like to just make a little comment related to the staffs comments versus the, obvious, consensus of the public here. It appears as if there is a number of issues that are at stake here, the number of townhouses, the communication with the property owner to the south, the density of the development, and things along that line, that could have been resolved in a community meeting. One of the things that we have been trying to promote all along is that you have community meetings prior to submittal to this Commission. If, in fact, we are going to end up right back at that point, maybe it would be best to just say before you're going to move forward, you're going to have to have this community meeting and all these issues can be discussed at that level. They can come back with something that would Meridian Planning and Zoning Common June 5, 2003 Pg 88 of 100 meet the community's concerns, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and it doesn't -- I don't think we are going to resolve any of these issues tonight based upon the diametric opposition to the existing proposal. All we would hear is continued testimony that would mirror the same thing and I think that's pretty accurate. Borup: Anybody disagree with that? Because I think, the first two did a good job. We are -- we do have -- I mean I believe we added the wording in that last ordinance that at our option we can require a neighborhood meeting. This Commission can do that. Rohm: Right. Borup: It is not -- it is a highly recommended suggestion and if we deem it appropriate, we can require it. So, is that what you're leading up to? Rohm: Well --and that's exactly what I'm leading up to and, you know, in defense of the developers, you know, there is a Comprehensive Plan out there that states the things that they need to address as they put their development together, of which they did, but the thing that that doesn't do is it doesn't address the concerns of the neighboring public. Well, the only way that you can address their concems and at the same time address the Comprehensive Plan is to have that community meeting, so it seems before this project could move forward it would be logical to have the community meeting and, then, from that you move forward and it seems like that would address their issues and we can take it from there. Borup: Comments from other Commissioners? Centers: Well, I guess I'd like to know if the neighborhood wants to have a neighborhood meeting. Failing: When we talk about the neighborhood, would that just be the subdivision that most of us are from or is that the whole area? Because, see, we have got -- we have got Heritage Commons -- they seem to send out notices to everybody, they didn't do this 300 foot thing. They didn't try and just -- it seems like they wanted to just, you know, push it through and the same, I think, with Havasu, I think we got some stuff in the mail about that one. These are undeveloped areas -- Borup: You got something from Heritage? Failing: Yes. I got something -- I mean I got something similar and they were kind of telling -- and they showed everything laid out and so, you know, they were pretty -- seemed to be pretty up about it and I kind of like the way they did their -- they did their whole project there. If this is undeveloped and Havasu Creek is still undeveloped, we are talking about, you know, potential community members that aren't going to end with a say and we are literally a small group. Borup: Right. You mean a small group within 300 feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Common • June 5, 2003 Pg 89 of 100 Failing: Well, that's why my son goes to Eagle High School, because -- he don't get to go to Centennial, because we didn't get enough people for the boundary. Borup: Well, I think you have done a good job on what the intent is. You know, the number of people notified has to be cut off somewhere. Failing: Right. Borup: And the expectation is that those receiving notice would notify their neighbors and I think you have done a good job of doing that and you are to be commended for that. But -- so anyone that -- it would be my understanding -- my feeling that anybody in the subdivision is, of course, invited to that meeting, because -- Failing: Or in the vicinity around the school area and so we -- I'm just trying to get some kind of consensus whether it's just, you know, the first people off of Locust Grove -- Borup: Anyone is invited to come, I guess. This Commission and City Council would have to take a look on what they feel -- how that person is affected. Oftentimes we have people coming from Boise to testify and I don't know if that means a lot to me. Failing: No, I'm not going to get all my friends from Boise to come over here and -- okay. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just add one last thing. My comments were not to preclude testimony from anybody. That wasn't the intent. It's just that it seems like that might be the best solution based upon where they're at currently is to go back and discuss amongst yourselves and see if you can come to some resolution, as opposed to taking continued testimony and not coming to any resolution anyway, so that being said Borup: Okay. If someone has -- do you have something new that you wanted to contribute? Rambo: My name is Chris Rambo and I live at 1760 Star Lane in Meridian. I just would like to briefly touch on an issue that has been discussed. It doesn't relate to neighborhood meetings, it relates to this Commission addressing issues with ACHD and Meridian and through the Planning and Zoning and developing a safe environment from these committees together. As has been mentioned, the roadways, the sidewalks, the schools, everything is going in there in a backwards order. We got the cart before the horse here. You know, it's important that you go in, you get the safety taken care of first and, then, you deal with putting in houses and subdivisions. That's all I have. Borup: That is -- I don't think there is anybody that disagrees with that, other than --that that's the ideal way to do it. The trouble is no one wants to pay for it and I don't know how many of you are willing to double your taxes to be able to do that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n • June 5, 2003 Pg 90 of 100 Rambo: I think the developers needs to be taking an active role in that. They are the ones that are selling the property and looking for the profits and somebody -- you're right, somebody needs to take care of that and it has to be dumped on shoulders somewhere, it has to be dumped before we get to the point where we have hazards, not after we get to the point that we have hazards and that's their responsibility, then, those house prices need to go up and those consumers that buy those properties need to be paying for those, not people paying for them ahead of time, not the developers going out there and have the opportunity of making his profit and run down the road and leave the rest of us on the hook to make sure that his stuff turns out to be safe for our children and their children as well that move into those homes. Borup: Okay. Well, Commissioners, are we -- maybe let me get a feel for which direction we are leaning here. Are we leaning to require -- are we leaning to require a neighborhood meeting or that direction? Rohm: I think it would be in order. Zaremba: Well, I mean part of that is that the developer has to deal with the -- Montony: My name is John Montony I live in Heritage Subdivision across the street from this thing, this Blooming development. Our whole quality of life and atmosphere over here, which I have lived there for 30 years, has been under siege with the growth that's developed out towards that area. Like most of you, I suppose, where you live, but it makes us particularly sensitive to the security of our future and our children and pets and the financial security of our property in the future. Centers: You need to talk right into the microphone. The note taker is having a difficult time hearing, which it's late for him. Montony: It's late for me, too. I'm afraid this discussion of a community meeting, some area of the various residences, is rather fruitless, on the basis that my understanding from talking to all of the neighbors, without exception, renders a unanimous disapproval of the density of this proposed development. I don't know of anyone who supports it. I think it's to the detriment of all of us around here to continue with it on the basis of the density that is proposed. We have an excellent opportunity right now to nip this thing and try to get things back on the straight and narrow, because it's an open area, it's always been an open atmosphere, a rural atmosphere that we can all have pride in. If you dump this thing in the middle of it, that will send the whole area into the wrong course, in my opinion, encouraging other developments of high density and less quality than we'd like to see. I hope that we can rely upon the support of this Commission to try to encourage some different insight as to the basis of this development, because, again, with the unanimous disapproval of the density and the apparent needs of the developer to maintain the density, it looks like we have a situation where greed trumps quality of life. I think that's very unfortunate. With that, we need your support to do anything with it. Thank you kindly. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n • June 5, 2003 Pg 91 of 100 Borup: Thank you. I would be interested, Commission, in a little bit of input on what direction -- and maybe a little bit of discussion would probably be appropriate also. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, as I stated at the start of my little speech, the proposed development falls within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and I'm not suggesting that you ignore public testimony or comments, but that has to be the starting point for a developer when they are taking a look at a piece of property and seeing what they can do with it, so there needs to be some discussion back and forth. If you have -- if the developer just has to stop based upon this testimony, they can't develop period and the Comprehensive Plan is without merit and so it seems to me that that Comprehensive Plan was put together with a lot of thought and should at least be given an opportunity to come to some sort of resolution via discussion between developer and surrounding neighborhood -- neighbors, it just seems logical to me. Borup: Well, we, as a Commission, are pretty much bound by the Comprehensive Plan and that's -- City Council has a little more discretion there, but we need to follow that and existing ordinances and I apologize to the neighbors, I -- at least the first two or three phases of Havasu Creek are R-8, so I am not sure they --there is R-4. Siddoway: Let me just clarify. Heritage Commons is R-8. Borup: Right. Siddoway: Havasu Creek is R-4. Borup: With a -- but how did we get the smaller lots in there? Siddoway: Planned development. Borup: That's what I was just going to add. So, it was an R-4 with a planned development that had reduced lot sizes. Sherer: No, it's R-8. Borup: Pardon? Oh, Havasu. Did I say Heritage? I meant Havasu. Havasu was R-4 with a planned development, so that had the reduced lot sizes. Is that correct? Okay. Siddoway: That's correct. Heritage Commons is R-8 with a planned development. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: And if I could just interject one thing, I'd like -- really like to separate the issue of density and quality, because high density is not necessarily bad quality. There certainly is bad quality high density out there and there is plenty of examples of bad high density. Heritage Commons, which everyone seems to like, is actually denser in the area closest to Locust Grove than what's being proposed. Heritage Commons has 25-foot wide lots. Even in the townhouses of this Blooming Meadows, they are Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n • June 5, 2003 Pg 92 of 100 proposing 30 foot. They are, actually, larger lots than are even in Heritage Commons. You have got to separate quality from density, because just because it's more dense doesn't necessarily make it bad quality. You have to look at the quality, too. Borup: Well, I think that the direction I could see is R-8 zoning may be appropriate for this site, but they have gone beyond that and asking for a large reduction in that and I think that's where the Commission would have some discretion, if we so felt. Using Heritage Commons as an example, that is an R-8 and it's got some very narrow lots, but they also have some large lots. They have a nice variation of lot sizes also, which I don't see a lot of that here. Centers: Well, I go back to the neighborhood center, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Siddoway. The higher density was on the premise that a neighborhood center would go in there, so those high density people could walk to their services and we don't have any guarantee that the center is going to go in there. You want to put the high density first and, then, hope that that opens. You have to do that. But it may never -- because you may never find some commercial developer that wants to develop to the south right here. That's the only place he can go, based on the half moon that we have on the map and the applicant just stood up there earlier and said that this is identical to what he's going to do. He didn't use those words, but a similar development. So, that's going to take up another half of that portion. But you can't disagree with me, Mr. Siddoway, that that -- you have no guarantees that you're going to have a commercial light office developer come to you and want to put in a project there. Borup: Mr. Centers, the center of that half moon is right there at that point. Centers: Okay. So, you got some light office here. Borup: So, it just barely catches this property. Centers: Right. Borup: So, I mean -- Centers: Right. Borup: Like what happens is going to have to be down south from there. Centers: Yes. And that's my point. The reason -- you know, correct me if I'm wrong, the Comp Plan allows for the higher density due to the neighborhood centers, the next use around it. Siddoway: It requires it. Yes. Centers: Right. We are putting in the mixed-use high density first and, then, a hope that someone comes and, if not, it's going to remain just like it is. So, you're saying that if someone else comes and they want to put R-8, R-8, R-8, you're going to deny it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n June 5, 2003 Pg 93 of 100 Siddoway: No. We would, actually, require at least R-8 and R-8 and R-8 and there already is proposed the -- at least half of that commercial node in Heritage Commons. The Final Plat has been submitted, it shows four commercial lots and it's going to Council within the next weeks. Centers: Down in this area? Siddoway: Right up on the north -- northeast comer. Centers: And you have dentist offices right? You're going to have some more dentist offices I think is what you're saying; correct? Siddoway: What's that? Centers: You're going to have some more dentist offices. Siddoway: I don't know what they are going to be at this point. Centers: I don't think you're going to have -- what the intent was -- and I heard it many times, so people could walk and shop. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: You don't have any of that coming, though. Siddoway: I don't understand your point, because -- Centers: My point is that you don't have any businesses coming that can keep you in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: There is zoning for businesses. Centers: Yes. Yes. I agree with that. I know there is. Powell: Chairman Borup, may I interject? Commission Centers, the -- I know you know the purpose of that Comprehensive Plan and that purpose is to take a long range vision of what the community wants to be to establish that vision, so that when you're faced with these incremental decisions you have a long range document that you can guide that by. Now, the -- and I know this testimony came up in the general plan hearings, because all the developers were not particularly in favor of the neighborhood commercial concept, because they kept on saying if you don't have the roof tops, you won't get the commercial. You have to have the residences there before it creates the demand for the commercial development. Centers: I would agree with that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n June 5. 2003 Pg 94 of 100 Powell: So, if you abide by this vision that you have adopted for the city, then, you will get commercial there. It may be a little time, but you will have it in time. Centers: Well, I go back to my comment. Are you going to turn down an R-8, an R-8, and an R-8? I don't think so. Powell: Sir, I don't have the authority to turn down, but you do, and I would hope that you would look at the -- how that relates to the Comprehensive Plan and, yes, say that R-8 is not appropriate here, we want to see a mix of commercial and high density residential. Centers: I guess I would say if an applicant came in, then, you would tell them that, hey, this isn't fitting our Comp Plan, we need some light commercial here. Powell: Exactly. Centers: Yes. I'm sorry. Well, I guess to continue on, what I don't like about the project is the access and requiring all the people that access this property to go through other subdivisions. Borup: Why is it any different if it was a bigger subdivision? What if this was part of Havasu Creek to start with? Centers: That's true. But they were there first. I can't think of another subdivision that we have seen where they weren't allowed access off the main arterial. I cannot think of one. Can you help me? Borup: I can't. Centers: I can't either. Siddoway: You're about to see another one. I'm trying to think of one that has come through -- Borup: Well, yes, we just saw one earlier. Zaremba: There is the one on Ten Mile where it does have the access, but they have made it clear that the neighboring properties won't, because they have to access it through -- Berkeley Square? Siddoway: Berkeley Square. Borup: How about Trailway, the one we did earlier. Is it much different? Centers: It didn't access through the neighboring subdivisions, did it? Borup: At five locations it did. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n • June 5, 2003 Pg 95 of 100 Centers: Oh, yes. Right. At five locations. Right. Anyway. Johnson: I'm the guy that owns the property to the south. Borup: Oh, good. We'd like to hear from you. You need to state your name and address. Johnson: I'm Lonnie Johnson, 4205 North Locust Grove. I was contacted earlier on about the road that would have bordered me on the property to the north and from the start I said it was fine. They talked about coming a couple hundred feet and, then, veering into their property and I said that I didn't see a problem with that at all. Later they came back and -- came back and said he'd like to go maybe 800 feet and I said, well, I'm not sure I want to go 800 feet. I don't know what that would do if I wanted to do something, to a certain width for so long a distance and I'd rather talk to a developer first to see if that would make it -- make my property too narrow or something. So, that's the only discussion I have had as far as -- I have never had a problem with entering Locust Grove across from Star Lane and I was always willing to do that. So, that's never been a problem. So, I guess the change of horses here maybe confused some things and -- Centers: You own both these parcels? Johnson: Yes. I own those two. So, the access part, really, I mean I was kind of surprised a week or two when I called someone and they said, no, we are not going to use that now, because they never had come and walked it with me or anything. So, there is a little confusion there. And we will probably do something as far as development at some point. We are just beginning to kick that around right now. Most of mine is in the circle -- the circle goes almost to my house, which is in the very back. I probably have two acres in the back of my house. We had mentioned at -- at planning about some type of commercial there and they felt it should be more towards the center, that we would need to be more houses. But we are open to whatever the Comprehensive Plan would call for and what makes a good neighborhood. So, we are just looking at things right now of we want to do in the future. Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Johnson? Are we making any progress? Centers: Well, I think we have to at least require a neighborhood meeting. I do feel this way that the neighbors would agree to the neighborhood meeting if they feel that by doing so they are going to postpone it, at least. I mean that's just telling it like it is and I think most of them will agree with me on that. But Ithink -- I think we have to at least require a neighborhood meeting and, then, the staff has some issues they want covered. The other option that -- you know, and I don't need to give the Commission the option, the other option is to deny the application and they can have their neighborhood meeting prior to the City Council and do their thing, because the Council seems to -- whatever. Borup: That may not -- Meridian Planning and Zoning CommibSfon • June 5, 2003 Pg 96 of 100 Centers: But I'm not going to make any motion. I think my feelings are clear. Borup: You say you're not going to do a motion? Centers: I might support one. Failing: Could I make a little comment? Borup: Quickly. Failing: Commissioner Centers -- no. And I was listening to you and I understood your point a hundred percent and I want to make a statement. Ten years ago I moved here and fell in love with this love area and I moved here from California and, I'll tell you what, all you need to do is go and look and San Jose, Milpitas, and Cupertino and this is exactly what happened. They all sat there and said we got to get all this high density and, then, the industry comes and it's all good. Well, I'll tell you right now, almost every one of those projects turned into low income housing and go to the east side of San Jose and none of you all would want to live there, guaranteed, because you couldn't live there, you couldn't survive there. You know, so when you were making your comment, I understood exactly where you were coming from, but nobody else seemed to be catching it, you know. So, really, you want to think about that. If the developer wants to do this, make him go get somebody to put in all that stuff that you want there. Have him go out and promote that and get the industry or whatever you're going to put there, have it built, then, do this. Don't --just like Mr. Centers said, don't start there and, then, hope they come, because they isn't going to come. It isn't going to happen on that street. Thank you. Borup: We do have a few options. Mr. Centers, I think, probably mentioned what they are. Any other feelings? Are we going to accomplish -- does the Commission feel if we continue it, have a neighborhood meeting, come back another public meeting, that it's going to be any different? Rohm: My only comment to that, Mr. Chairman, is I'm reluctant to recommend denial of something that falls within the Comprehensive Plan without first requiring a public meeting -- or a community meeting. I don't think that it's fair to either side of the equation to not make that a requirement, if, in fact, the proposal falls within the Comprehensive Plan and that's not saying that I don't understand where your folks are coming from, but if we have got a Comprehensive Plan that we, as a Commission, are supposed to support, then, if we turn around and deny an application based upon public testimony here, then, we haven't -- we have not supported our Comprehensive Plan as we are directed and that's just my position. Centers: Boy, I've got to address that. I totally disagree. That Comprehensive Plan is a road map, something that we look to as a guide, it's not a law, and I think our first obligation -- and this is not a political speech -- our first obligation is to hear the testimony and we have that in our notes from staff almost every time. I looked back I didn't see it this time. I hope it's there. But part of our obligation -- or the main part of Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n June 5, 2003 Pg 97 of 100 our obligation is to hear the public testimony and how they feel about neighboring projects that are submitted to us. It's obvious this audience feels very objectionable to this project. So, we are not in violation of our duties, Commissioner Rohm, if we listen to the public. Rohm: And I don't disagree with that a bit. Then, maybe the option is to make a motion to deny and, then, it's a done deal. Zaremba: Well, clearly, there are elements of this that comply with the Comprehensive Plan, which has been pointed out is a guideline, but it's a guideline for the future. Regardless of that, to me not having access -- for this kind of density not to have access directly to Locust Grove and have to go through Havasu Creek, that's a showstopper for me, when I learned tonight that there is a cooperative neighbor that could help that happen. So, whether I'm for this density or not, whatever goes there, I think the access could be worked out with the neighbor opposite Star and that would be the show stopper forme. Centers: Well -- and to sort of continue on, but my comment about a project being located on a -- having frontage on a main arterial, I can't remember a project where they didn't have access from that main arterial. You refer to Trail -- Borup: But that didn't have frontage. Centers: Exactly. On a main arterial and that's my point. This is the only one I have seen where we sit on a main arterial with no access and the ACHD, boy, they pointedly said no access from Locust Grove to any lots. Zaremba: Well, that's because it had to -- it was disqualified because of their offset requirements. It either has to align or offset farther than this property can do, so I understand why their answer was absolutely no, but we learned tonight that there is a possibility to fix it. Centers: Yes. And we may see it back because of that and if the applicant wants to negotiate and spend a little money with the southerly property owner for a little piece of land there for access, you know. Rohm: Mr. Chairman -- well, first, I suppose we better -- is the Public Hearing closed? Borup: It's not closed. Centers: And if we close it, then, it's closed and we either have to approve or deny. Borup: Yes. If we are talking about -- right. If we are going to close it, it will need to be approved or denied. Sherer: Could I make one more point? Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~n June 5, 2003 Pg 98 of 100 Borup: Hopefully you're not going to hurt your cause. Sherer: No. I appreciate what Mrs. Powell said, that this may be an illegal lot split. I don't think the Commissioners want to be in the position of approving an illegal lot split and having to, then, go back and turn things around. I think that might be the first step in the process. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Zaremba: I assume that means all three items? Borup: All three. Rohm: Yes. All three items. Centers: Second. Borup: Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we deny approval -- recommendation to the City Council to move this project fon~vard Public Hearing AZ 03-011 and Public Hearing PP 03-012, and Public Hearing CUP 03-022. Centers: What's your motion? Rohm:, To deny of all three. Centers: I second that. Borup: Second? Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Powell: Chairman Borup, before you dismiss. Borup: Please. Powell: You might want to ask legal counsel do they need to give reasons for this denial or how they can get approval or is that just at the City Council level? Meridian Planning and Zoning CommisSfbn • June 5, 2003 Pg 99 of 100 Borup: It would be appropriate. Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that is in the ordinance that you can -- that you have to give possible ways to bring the application back, so that it would be approved. Zaremba: I would mention a couple things. There needs to be a neighborhood meeting and there needs to be access to Locust Grove. Borup: How about having a legal parcel. Zaremba: And prove that it's a legal lot split. And, actually, to get the owners cooperation to annex along with it, whether it's split or not. Centers: So included. Borup: I guess I'm -- well, I've got a little concern on the percentages of variance from the -- from the zoning. I mean something like lot frontages are less than 50 percent of the requirement. Centers: I would agree with that. Zaremba: I would assume that subject's going to come up in the neighborhood meeting and there may be a whole different proposal. Centers: And I can see the point of that, you know, we give the reasons, so that the developer or applicant can go to the neighborhood -- or come back to the staff or go back to Council and say I have cured this or -- so here we are. Borup: So, did we give you enough? Holinka: Yes. Borup: Okay. The staff and this is -- this Commission just recommended denial and it will still go forward to City Council. With that, there will be another Public Hearing at City Council where this process will start all over again and do we know approximately - - there will be -- again, there will be notification sent out to the same ones that received it this time. It will be posted on the site and it will be printed in the newspaper. So, we do have three methods of notification. That's always helpful to -- but those living there should be able to see the -- watch for the sign there posted. Do we know approximately -- would that be in July sometime or is that about -- okay? Probably sometime the beginning of July you'd need to watch for that. Thank you, everybody, for coming. Centers: And hope you don't get on the last of the agenda. Borup: Commissioners, we do have -- we have continued one item, we have one other, so -- or two other items for next time, so it shouldn't be a long meeting, but -- the 19th.