Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 8, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 65 of 89 that they didn't want to landscape the eastern parcel until they knew what was there. Am I thinking of this property or was there something similar on the next property east? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, I'm thinking that maybe the parcel you're thinking of is where Primary Health went in and they are to the east of this parcel. Zaremba: It's across the street east of this? Okay. Then I have no other questions. Borup: Would the applicant like to make their presentation or add anything? Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Gordon Anderson with Anderson David and Associates, 357 East Watertower Lane, Meridian. I'm here representing the Idaho Central Credit Union. We are in agreement with the staff's recommendations and request your approval. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Commission? I think we asked them. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on Item 12, PP 03-040, be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council. recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, PP 03-040, request for preliminary plat approval of five building lots on 3.49 acres in an L-O zone for Financial Plaza Subdivision by Idaho Central Credit Union, 2225 East Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8, 2004, received by the city clerk January 5, 2004, with no changes. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 03-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.31 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-0 zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman -south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 66 of 8g Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 03-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34 residential building lots, 4 professional office lots and 6 common lots on 11.31 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman -south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 03-062 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development containing a mix of residential and professional office uses in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman -south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Thank you. That's the way to move things along. I'm not sure that this next one is going to move that fast. Okay. Our last project is Items 13, 14 and 15. Like to open the following public hearings at this time. AZ 03-034, PP 03-039, and CUP 03-062 and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application consists of an annexation and zoning application. There is an application for 8.1 acres of the subject property to be rezoned from RUT to R-8 and for the remaining 3.31 acres to be rezoned from RUT to L-O. There is also an application for a preliminary plat for 34 residential building lots, four professional office lots, and six other lots. And altogether this encompasses 11.31 acres. The applicants also applied fora CUP for a planned development to allow for reduced setbacks and dimensional requirements. The property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road south of McMillan Road. It's adjacent to the Havasu Creek Subdivision. It's immediately to the south and to the east of Havasu Creek. And I want to go ahead and acknowledge that this subject property was -- previously you saw an application for Blooming Meadows on this piece of property and I want to point out a couple key ways that this application is different from Blooming Meadows. Blooming Meadows was -- and I will go ahead and put up the plat here. Blooming Meadows had a combination of townhomes and single family homes. There was no commercial components on Locust Grove Road, unlike this subdivision, which has the light office off of Locust Grove Road. And Blooming Meadows also did not have any direct access off of Locust Grove Road. Their access points were to the north and to the south off of local roads. So, that's a significant difference I wanted to -point out to - you all. The applicant is proposing to provide as amenities for their PD -- let's see. 1.42 acres of open space, which consists of 12.5 acres of -- 12.5 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision and a micropath to connect the subdivision to the park in Havasu Creek. Staff would like to see some more amenities added to the subdivision. Potentially they could add some playground equipment to the proposed park or picnic area, I'll let you all discuss that briefly. But I think that they really -- considering the scale of the subdivision, I think they could add more of an amenity than they have proposed. Through the PD they are asking for -- and you will have this outlined in your staff report. They are asking for reduced setbacks, reduced lot sizes -- typically in the R-8 zone the requirement for lot size would be 6,500 square feet. They are asking for a lot size of 5,000 square feet and asking for reduced frontage requirement, the R-8 would require Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 67 of 89 65 foot. Frontage requirement they are asking for 40 feet. And I want to go through and make a couple corrections in the staff report. When I originally proposed this I thought they were in the Five Mile plain. They are not. So, I'm going to go through and tell you the pages where we need to delete a few of the comments. The first comment to delete is on page four, item I. We want to delete the line that states the subject property is located in the Five Mile flood plain. And the second item to delete is -- we have page six at the very top of the page, the sentence which reads: The subject property is located in the Five Mile flood plain and the subject property will be subject to all applicable flood plain ordinances. Delete that. That's not applicable. Let's see. I have another -- in site specific comments for the preliminary plat, comment number eight, we are going to delete -- and that reads: Each storm drainage lot may have only one rock sump. The maximum dimension of the rock sump may be only five feet. That was a carry over from another project. Zaremba: Did you say to delete that one? Kirkpatrick: Go ahead and delete that. I'm requesting that you delete that. It's not applicable to this project. And I think we have one final mention of the flood plain. If you go to page ten, item I, the last sentence in that paragraph, nearly all of the subject property is located within the Five Mile flood plain area, I want to delete that. So, those are all of the modifications to the report. Staff is recommending approval of the project. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Of course I have one. On page two, the setbacks, the first one that we are talking about, city requirement front setback, 20 feet, proposed setback front, if the garage is not the front, it's setback and something else is the front, the proposed setback is 15 feet, but do we still want to say that the setback to the garage is 20? In other words, if you have the front of the building at 15, you don't want the garage one foot behind that. Kirkpatrick: Let's ask Anna how that -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: But that's been the understanding. Zaremba: Yeah. That the garage still needs to be 20 feet back, even if there is a living portion of the building that sticks out in front of the garage by five feet, I don't have a problem with that, but the garage still needs to be 20; right? Powell: Chairman and Commissioners, the existing code language is actually more flexible than what's written here, so this would not really be a request for a reduction. The existing code allows a living space to come forward to 15 feet or a side loaded, side Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 6S of 89 entry garage, as long as there is a window in the portion of the garage facing the street can be 15 feet as well. Zaremba: Okay. Powell: So, actually, we need to just reference the existing code. Zaremba: But they still would have a 20 foot driveway in front of their garage. Powell: Because it's L shaped it ends up being, yes, more than 20 feet, that the face -- the side of the garage could be 15 feet, as long as there is a window in it. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Borup: But it doesn't have to be L shaped. Can't the garage just be five -- Powell: Or, yeah, it could be a corner lot or -- Borup: As long as the -- as you stated, that's already in the ordinance. Powell: Right. I have been trying to get staff to drop this. I'm having a hard time getting them to drop that, because it's already accounted for in the code, so -- Zaremba: Okay. So, I don't need to add the additional requirement that the garage isn't 15 feet. Powell: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Powell: We just need to comply with current standards. Zaremba: Okay. That was my question. Borup: That was it? -- Zaremba: Yeah. Although I do have another observation. On their plat, West Star Lane needs to be East Start Lane. It's also east of Meridian. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Forrey: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Wayne Forrey, I'm the owner of Pathway Planners Consulting and I'm working with Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, the owners of this property, to hopefully develop Razzberry Crossing. And I have got a few overhead -- or hard boards here I'd like to put right here in front and, then, if the staff could get -- I've got a little concise presentation on the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 69 of 89 screen here I will walk you through and keep it moving. I'll get the hard boards. Just waiting for the computer screen here. About 80 percent of what's shown here is -- will be on the screen, but there is a few items that are -- Borup: Are they all on that one sheet? Are those the only ones that are not on the screen? Zaremba: The easel over here that says three minutes, if you put it up there it may be able to be turned so that we can see it at the same time. Turn it a little farther, maybe we can all see it. Forrey: Okay. Thank you. Razzberry Crossing. It's an in-fill community, as you will see. If you could go to the next one. Let me just walk through some history on this site. This Commission may be familiar with this. Next. In March there was a staff pre-application meeting with the Reitermans in deciding how they would want to approach development of this property. Next. And, then, in April of last year they followed up with an application. Next. And, then, unfortunately, they went through several engineering changes, just different staff had moved and job changes and so that kind of hampered their project a little bit. Next. And, then, last June a project that staff referred to came before your Planning a nd Zoning Commission through a Public H Baring and a lot of things were discussed and some negative things were brought out about that project. Next. And your Commission denied all three applications, the annexation, the plat, and the zoning request. And, then, it went on to City Council. Next. And they also denied all three applications. Next. I went back through the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing summary to kind of -- as I got involved -- I was not involved in the initial project, but I wanted to get a sense of where this project had been ahd where possibly it could go into the future and I noted that there were six items of testimony regarding the need for a neighborhood meeting and that came from both your Commission and citizens. There were five items of testimony that wanted Star Lane to be connected and that came from citizens and the Planning and Zoning Commission as well, five items of testimony on the need for a neighborhood center, and a lot of discussion on that among staff, citizens, and the Commission. There was three items of testimony on light office, that that was acceptable in this neighborhood center concept and that came from the staff, the citizens, and the Zoning Commission as well. Three items of testimony on more sidewalks in this vicinity, in the neighborhood. Some testimony on the townhomes were too d ense. And, i n a n utshell, from reading t he minutes, i t I ooked I ike the P &Z wanted R-8 zoning, a mix of lot sizes, office use, and the connectivity with Star Lane. Next. So, we went back to the drawing board, which we needed to do. Next. We followed the advice of the neighbors and the P&Z and we started over. Next. We had some staff meetings with the city staff to sit down and kind of rework and retool and understand the prior project and how to move forward. Next. Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, then, hired an experienced engineering and planning team to help organize the project and put new thinking into this site. Next. We, then, conducted two neighborhood meetings and that was before we ever organized the application. We had a very good set of neighborhood meetings. We learned a lot. We had some good points of discussion and from that we, then, were able to get a sense of how to move this Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 70 of 89 project forward. Next. We met with the highway district, because that was a focus in the first project and also the irrigation district. Next. And we worked with adjoining property owners, which was another item that your commission asked that happen on this site. Next. And, then, we incorporated all of that into some new thinking. Next. One of the things that I always do in taking a new piece of property, I like to look at linkages and transportation and connectivity and if we will just kind of click slowly through here. The one thing that we centered on was Star Lane and making this connection. So, in our new project we have made that connection. Next. And, then, we worked with Mr. Johnson, the owner of the property to the south, to give aconnection -- public street connection here as well to the adjoining property. Next. Also, in the Havasu project here there is a public street that is headed south in this alignment and so in our meetings with ACHD it became important that we make that traffic connection as well, public connection. Next. And, then, one more. There are two existing public streets that come out of Havasu Creek and into the Reiterman property, so those were reflected. Next. Arid, then, this is an existing stub street that comes out of the back end of Havasu and comes in this way as well. So, right now we have one, two, three, four, five, six public street connections. Next. Now, we have created a seventh public street connection, because of working with the adjoining property owner and the city staff. They felt that this would provide -- there is a property line through here, so there are separate ownerships here and so this provides a stub street to a different property owner. And, then, the last thing we did -- one more click. We put a micropath connection, because there is an existing park right here in Havasu Creek and I'll show you that we are designing a park here and so we have a pathway connection as well. So, there is eight points of interconnectivity and that's why I think it's a goad in-fill project. Okay. Next. Out of all of that here is the concept that we came up with. Taking a professional office here on the front of the property and taking a PUD residential approach here and the concept -- a lot of the input that we received from neighbors was that this project needed to look nice, it needed to be a value addition to the neighborhood. So, we chose a streetscape concept with separated sidewalks to allow planting strips to get some really nice landscaping t hrough here a nd h ere i s t he p ark a nd a s eparate d rainage a rea,which could also have recreation facilities here. But plenty of room buffering between the office use and the residential use to have a really nice landscape feel around this development. Okay. Next. In the office area, when we had our first and second neighborhood meeting, some of the neighbors said, well, you know, offices are okay, but what's our guarantee that they are going to look nice and blend in and we said that - we -- if we chose to come back with an office design, which now, obviously, we have made that decision, we would make this area subject to Conditional Use Permit. So, we did apply for a preliminary or concept PUD for the office portion. So, any of these lots here, these four lots, would have to come back in front of your Commission for specific design review. That would give the neighbors, then, a hand in shaping the design of the parking, the design of the building, the setbacks, the landscaping, all of those things. And there is a substantial 30 foot wide buffer area right here, as well as a traffic calming island here, so that as you come into Razzberry Crossing and you leave the office area, you will know that you have arrived into a different portion of the development. Okay. Next. Here are some of the home styles -- or, excuse me, office styles that -- they look kind of like homes, really. They have a residential look. These are some of the photos Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 77 of 89 we showed at the neighborhood meeting to show that these are the styles of our offices that we would anticipate in this development. Next. This is an existing professional office on Locust Grove Road south of this property. This is Walnut Grove development. And in this office building there is a construction company, I think it's Tahoe Construction, a mortgage company, and a professional medical, Ithink -- a dentist, I believe. And here is the homes right behind it. You can see how that ties in well. Next. This is that office building. Here is the home closest to the office building and yesterday I was out looking at this, because it's a pretty good example of how homes can coexist next to office and I talked to this neighbor here and he said it's a wonderful neighbor and that's always been my experience in the years of planning, that anytime you can put an office next to some homes, the neighbors always seem to be pretty happy with that. Unlike maybe a Circle K or a gas station. So, I have always professionally tried to encourage my clients to use office an office approach, rather than a commercial approach, justfor that reason. Next. On the residential component here, here is the buffer strip, landscape separating the office. Here is our traffic calming island. The nice street scape. Our smallest lots are right in here, right around the park, 5,000 square feet. We have much larger lots. This one here is almost 9,000 square feet. So, we have got a nice mix. But we have made all these nice connections as well and the park here is centrally located and here is the walkway into Havasu Creek. On our landscape plan it does say that there will be some recreational amenities provided and so in the staff report the staff makes the recommendation that we need to provide additional amenities for the park and we agree with that and what Carl and Bonnie Reiterman would like to do in this area is put a gazebo for picnic and in this area they'd like to put a volleyball net, so that you could get in here and play volleyball. Those are the two amenities that they would like to put into the project. Next. We decided we would take a planned unit development approach to get nice open space and, then, use that in offset for these lots. Single family detached, there is no attached residential here, as in the former project. Next. We have a good variety of lot sizes and we feel it's compatible with the neighborhood. Next. These are some of the home styles. These are some of the homes that are on these two boards right here in front. We also showed some of these homes at the neighborhoods meeting and any one of these homes could be built on the lots in Razzberry Crossing. Some are more narrow with detached garage. Some are side entry garages, like these to here, and we will use that in this project to give some nice variety. Next. Let me just kind of click here a little bit on development features. We have made traffic linkages for good in-fill development. We have buffered the residential from Locust Grove. Our park is centrally located. We have got separate drainage and park space. Your ordinance requires ten percent. We are at 12 and a half percent. We have got a nice tree lined streetscape with traffic calming. At the neighborhood meeting and also in the minutes from the last time you heard this project, neighbors said that there needed to be sidewalks along Locust Grove Road and so we are proposing the sidewalk not in front of just the Reiterman property, but to the -- there is an out parcel. I will s how you o n a d ifferent map. B ut i t's, actually, s ome o ff-site s idewalk a nd t hat's because, again, neighbors asked that we do as much as we could to get additional sidewalks in the area. So, there is several hundred feet of extra sidewalk along Locust Grove Road. there will be strong CC&Rs and architectural requirements. The Real Estate Group, they are here tonight and if you want to talk about architectural and home Meridian Planning & Zoning January S, 2004 Page 72 of 89 values, they are prepared to do that, but they envision homes between 140 to 160 thousand t o start. S o, this i s a very Hitch, very nice i n-fill f or t his n eighborhood. T he professional office development would be subject to development agreement, conditional use, and design review and we achieved a nice lot mix. About a third are under 6,000, but two-thirds are over 6,000 square feet in size and a fourth of them are over 7,000. So, it's not just one size lot through this project. Next. We agree with the staff report. We accept the staff report. It's fine. Next. And if you could click one more. We listened and we acted. We resubmitted the application. We have got a mix of lot sizes. We removed the multi-family. We took Star Lane and penetrated to the west. We have got extensive plant and landscaping. I know in the prior project it was proposed to be potted trees, I think, and that's not the case here. We are going to provide some very nice professional office to support your neighborhood center concept. Separated sidewalk, tree lined street, and parks and quality homes sites. And that's Razzberry Crossing. Next. Be happy to answer any questions. Borup Questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: Nice presentation. Forrey: Thank you. Zaremba: Yes. And you very thoroughly went through what the issues were before. I like this well enough that I'm sure glad the other one was denied. I think this is a big improvement. The key to it is working cooperatively with the neighbor to the south. There wasn't any other way for you to get access to Locust Grove without using a portion of their property to make Star Lane happen, because it had to align or ACHD would not have approved it, so -- Forrey: Totally agree. Zaremba: The effort involved in working cooperatively with the neighbor is very much appreciated. I think that the end is a vast improvement over the previous offering and I congratulate you. Forrey: Thank you. By the way, in the city file and the staff file there is a letter from - Bonnie and Carl Reiterman and also from Mr. Johnson, the property owner to the south, both in writing, committing to jointly approve these road alignments and construct these roads. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is the public testimony portion. Anyone like to submit any testimony come forward. Sherer: Honorable Commissioners, planners, madam clerk and city attorney, my name is Steve Sherer, I live at 2090 Star Lane in the Heritage Subdivision, which is across Locust Grove from the proposed subdivision. First, I want to tell you that I'm opposed to this project. I'd pound my hand on this podium, but I'm awfully tired, so -- but I do want Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 73 of 89 to hand you what was provided to us to consider and I'm not going to lodge a formal protest, because I understand this the way this has been done for years and years and years, but I can't read that and when we submit documents to public agencies we are required to make them at least large enough so that they can be read with the naked eye and I fought and fought with that thing and -- with my magnifying glass and it's just -- it's just too hard for me. I guess my eyes are bad enough that the -- I'm lodging a mild protest about that. Borup: This is what was presented at the neighborhood meeting you mean? Sherer: This was what was presented to the neighbors to provide notice of this hearing. Borup: Okay. To provide notice for the neighborhood meeting. Sherer: Right. Borup: All right. Well, that's a whole different thing. Sherer: And, Commissioner Zaremba, you mentioned in an earlier hearing about zone whittling. I see that going on here. We have -- they are seeking an R-8 designation. I'd point out that H avasu Creek, w hich s urrounds u s o n -- c ompletely o n two s ides a nd partly on the south, is an R-4 designation. It was alleged in the materials that it's R-8, but it's always been R-4. The developmentfurther to the south, Heritage Commons, was developed as an R-8, because it had aspecial -- a special development plan. They had d etached garages, they had a Ileys behind the houses a nd t he h ouses were set closely together, with a large common area. I don't see any benefit in designating residential zones as R-8, R-4, et cetera, if, then, we arbitrarily or uniformly agree to reduce the lot sizes. I can see reducing the lot sizes if there is a compelling reason to do so. I don't see any compelling reason to do so here. And, in fact, one of my compatriots who looked at that drawing saw the frontages were 50 feet, but the reduction, as stated by the planners, is to a 40 foot front. So, already we are inconsistent and we don't know what's going to actually happen here. The traffic issues are addressed by ACHD, of course, but I think they are important. I don't think that they have been adequately addressed as yet. As you will notice and have noted from previous hearings, Locust Grove is a two lane road and it already has three schools and a fire department on the -- on the southern reaches between Ustick and McMillan Road. Ithink -- I think wise planning would consider the fact that that fire department is going to -- is going to need free and open use of the road and the more things we put on Locust Grove, the more difficult it's going to be for them to respond in an emergency situation. Part of the objection that we had to Blooming Meadows Subdivision was the increased traffic and traffic is significant on Locust Grove and at the wrong times of the day. The ACHD noted that Blooming Meadows contemplated an additional 496 vehicle trips per day. This development contemplates 570, which is even more. Now, I think you need to be very concerned about the traffic on Locust Grove. Locust Grove is planned to be upon full build out a three lane arterial. Three lane, not five, as most of the rest of the north- south section roads are, but just a three lane. And that three lane expansion is not -- is Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 74 of 89 not contemplated in the five year plan at ACHD. So, it's not going to happen in the next five years. And I think Mr. Forrey tried to make some points about how this -- how this fit into the -- into the neighborhood and was consistent with the surroundings, but Havasu Creek, 327 residential lots on 120 acres. That figures out to less than three per acre and here they are planning 34 on eight acres. They are trying to squeeze in as many as they can and they are trying to maximize profit at the expense of the neighborhood. I really think that that's right. They are not being consistent with the density that's either to the north, to the west, or partially to the south of them with Havasu Creek, and they are certainly not consistent with the density across the street where we have one house an acre and we are very concerned about our one house per acre. That was the density that we determined, as homeowners, that we enjoyed and that we wanted to be a part of and wanted to be around. I understand that development is going to come, we are not going to stop development, but we don't need to cram houses on postage stamp lots, on 5,000 square foot lots, to satisfy somebody's profit motive and I really do believe that that is the basis. These lots -- I mean I don't like the -- I don't like the R-8 designation for this portion anyway, but we have the R-8 designation, we at least have 6,500 square foot lot sizes and 65 foot frontage, so it doesn't look like we are -- like we are just cramming a whole inner city into a suburban and rural atmosphere. It just doesn't work. I don't see that light office is really -- is really going to be compatible with the rest of the area either. The rest of the area is entirely residential and, again, I think if you create more traffic there, you're going to create trouble for the schools, you're going to create trouble for fire department, and you certainly have a bunch of neighbors who do not like this. Mr. Forrey's representation that these homes will be worth 140,000 to 160,000 is a nice representation, but, you know, I have heard about cars that get 40 miles to the gallon, too, it's just believe us, you know, buy one and you will see. I feel like I'm being sold. Will they put that in there, that the houses will have a minimum value, minimum appraised value of 140,000 dollars. I don't think they will. They will make that representation here, but I think it will disappear. If they will make that representation, then, I think they are a little bit further ahead. They said that they are going to have really nice landscaping. Didn't really define what it was. Also stated that they had listened and acted and I do believe that this -- that this proposal is much better than Blooming Meadows, but, actually, they acted because the Commissioners and the City Council denied them. It wasn't that they listened. I did not attend the neighborhood meetings, was not informed of them, I didn't live within 300 feet and they weren't legally required to inform me of them, but -- ~ - Bdrup: Wasn't there a notice sent around to all the neighbors? Sherer: I did not received one. Borup: I mean one of the neighbors had sent around letters. I had heard that from -- Sherer: I did not receive notice of a neighborhood meeting. I did find notice of this one in the Valley News. But it's my understanding that at those neighborhood meetings that the neighbors made several suggestions, none of which were incorporated into this design. If things were as represented, I would have problems with it. I don't think things Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 75 of 89 are going to be as represented. The statement of the frontage, 50 foot on the preliminary plat, but 40 feet in the request, would allow them to change and create even great density. Borup: No, that would not allow them to change the preliminary plat. That's -- what's submitted is what needs to be designed and built. Sherer: Okay. I stand corrected, then. Thank you. I have nothing further. It looks like my time is up. Borup: Thank you. Who's next? Ingram: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Mike Ingram, I live at 4320 North Locust Grove, directly across from this proposed development. I'm not sure exactly where to start on this. Borup: Which way directly across on the -- Ingram: On the corner of Star Lane and Locust Grove. Borup: On the north of Star? Ingram: On the northeast corner. Yes. Borup: Okay. Is your house for sale right now? Ingram: Yep. Still. Originally, Blooming Meadows had a lot of -- had a lot of problems. The developer did not come and talk to us, as it was recommended at the P&Z's request. The day before the City Council meeting where they had an application in to reverse the decision, they had a neighborhood meeting, which did not go very well. Subsequently, the applications were denied. I have a copy here of the City Council meeting minutes from July 1st of 2003. Particularly, Mr. Nary was not kind. I will leave it at that. Basically, it wound up that this whole project was a waste of City Council's time, staff's time, your time, and our time. What I guess I really want to impress upon people here is a sense of honesty, integrity, and a willingness to compromise, -which this developer has not been willing to do. I have a number of issues and I'm not sure I attended the same meetings. I attended both of the neighborhood meetings this time. I'm not sure I attended the same meeting that they attended. We asked for a number of compromises on a number of issues, of which we have received none. One of them being is the neighborhood itself did not want access from Star Lane. That was a P&Z suggestion. The neighborhood has never requested that, because of the traffic problems. The issue of safety for the kids is still there. Zaremba: What neighborhood people said to us is they didn't want people from this project coming through their neighborhood. The only alternative is to access Locust Grove. But what they didn't like about it was that the only way in and out of the old Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 76 of 89 project was through somebody else's neighborhood and they were complaining about that. The solution to that is to access Locust Grove. Ingram: Havasu Creek at the time was still under development. There was no houses built in Havasu at that time. There has since been development or homes started and are under construction. I don't know if any are occupied at this time. So, as far as where neighbors came from crossing through there, through their neighborhood, I don't know where that came from, because there were no neighbors to go through that neighborhood at the time. Zaremba: Well, regardless of where they live, there were people that came and testified that they didn't want traffic from this subdivision to access their subdivision. Ingram: Okay. Be that as it may. The original Blooming Meadows had R-15 designation for apartment buildings, which all of us were adamantly opposed to. Traffic. Crime. Other problems. That has been taken out of here. Rohm: So, then, did the developers not listen to you at all there? I mean your comment a little bit ago was they didn't listen period, but if they have removed the multi-family housing, it sounds like somebody is listening to something. Ingram: Okay. Let me go back just a little bit. The neighborhood voiced our displeasure at the R-15. Okay. The project was pulled. They pulled their applications and were told, basically, by Councilman Nary they should start over, which they did. The whole process -- they were told to start with a neighborhood meeting. At that meeting we were presented with, in essence, what you see here tonight. That plan that was presented to -- at that neighborhood meeting has not changed. We have additional comments regarding Razzberry Crossing now we would like addressed that have never been addressed. Does make sense? I mean they are two separate issues as far as what they applied for and came to the Commission for approval of. My concern now is with the current application before you, that did start with a neighborhood meeting, however, in my mind it was an informative meeting only. They told us what they were going to do, as they did the first time. Borup: Both meetings were that same way? - Ingram: Yes. Borup: The first and the second? Ingram: Yes. Borup: Do you have any idea why they had two meetings, why they had the second meeting? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 77 of 89 Ingram: During the first neighborhood meeting for what is now called Razzberry Crossing, we asked them to take our comments, which they appeared to be taking notes, and incorporate those into their proposal that was before us. Once that was done, we asked for another meeting, so we could see conceptually what it was going to look like. The meeting was held a week later and the same proposal was brought to the meeting with no changes. Borup: Okay. Ingram: One of the other things we asked for during that time was that a berm be build on the Locust Grove side of things, so that we wouldn't have to basically look at the light office and the rest of the development and if you will look at your plans now, the berm is there, it's between their homes and the light office, not on Locust Grove. Borup: No. It's on Locust Grove. Ingram: According to the plans -- this is a small copy. I'm sorry. Maybe I'm misinterpreting that. But according to the small plans I picked up from P&Z, it shows a berm in between the light office and -- Borup: Right. There is one there, too. There is both. Ingram: Okay. There, again, I apologize. Borup: But the part on Locust Grove is only 100 feet. Ingram: Right. Borup: But i t s ays I andscape b uffer w ith e arth b erm. We don't have a ny o ther d etail other than that. It does call it a berm. Ingram: We addressed issues of density in here. We have got a very small, long, rectangular lot. As Mr. Sherer pointed out, you're trying to shoehorn 30 some lots into eight acres and I don't think that's going to fit with the .surrounding R-4. There is a ten acre lot that's owned by Lonnie Johnson and it is divided into two five acres. He still - owns both parcels, to my knowledge. A ten acre lot next to him and, then, five acre lots directly to the south of those ten acres. We, as you know, live in an R-1 subdivision directly to the east of this proposed project. Rohm: Is this property to the -- this side and here, are they both developed currently? Borup: Just to the north. Rohm: Just to the north? This is developed? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 7B of 89 Ingram: Not to be Star Wars competitive here. This is Havasu here. This is an existing one or two acre, Wyoma? Two acre. It's occupied. This was originally subdivided out. This is a one acre lot with a dwelling on it. It's existing. This is owned by Mr. Johnson. There is actually two five acre pieces that are divided. He owns both five acres. There is a five acre piece that basically comes down here and, then, he owns this one, too, and, then, there is a single ten acre piece adjoining it directly to the south. And, then, everything on the east side of Locust Grove is Heritage Subdivision, which is all one acre lots, with the exception of a couple lots in there, which were zoned half acre. Rohm: Is this R-8? Ingram: It's R-4. Rohm: That's R-4? Ingram: I was a little encouraged tonight on their first application of the -- that you saw tonight for the subdivision over off of McMillan that they worked very w ell w ith those neighbors in compromising things. I don't feel that's happened here. Rohm: I t k ind of d epends o n h ow you I ook a t i t. F rom t he o riginal d evelopment t hat came before this Commission last year to this development, there is a significant change. Would you not agree with that? Ingram: No. The only thing that's changed in there is they took the upper part there and made it L-O, light office, and took away the apartments. The remainder of the small lot with them requesting reduced lot sizes and setbacks is still there. That hasn't changed. Borup: Okay. Did that -- Mr. Ingram, earlier you said there was several items that you had expressed that you didn't think they incorporated. Did that -- did you get through your list? Ingram: I think so. Safety concern is still one of our most paramount things. Locust Grove is a two lane -- Borup: No. And I understand that. How would you want them to redesign to address - that -- Ingram: I'd like them to not put this in here at all until such time as we have curb, gutter, and sidewalk put in or some way that the kids can walk to school. That happens on a daily basis. Borup: Kids from this project you mean? Ingram: No. The kids from down at the elementary school. The charter high school. Borup: Right. To walk to this project? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 79 of 89 Ingram: They walk in front of my house now to where ever they live. I'm not sure where -- but you're adding homes. The kids are going to go to school at the elementary and the charter. Zaremba: Have you put a sidewalk in? Ingram: No. Borup: The sidewalk only goes to Paradise Lane right now. Ingram: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Well, I got down they didn't address the density, safety -- Ingram: And I guess the only part that they didn't elaborate on was if they are going to put sidewalk in there, I guess that was a singular issue that I do agree with. There is a need there for that, just for safety of the kids getting to and from school. Borup: So, your two issues were density and safety, then? And your answer to the density is just not to do the project. Is that your -- okay. Ingram: In essence. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Who would like to come up next? Montaney: Commissioners, my name is John Montaney, I live in the Heritage Subdivision across North Locust Grove at 1790 East Paradise Lane. I'd basically agree with what has foregone my appearing here.. The essence of this whole business of objection is the proposed subdivision is completely surrounded by zoning densities of R- 4 or lesser. The key differences from the original Blooming Meadows spoken of here are the townhouses have been abandoned in favor of commercial. We pointed out that we all objected to the townhouses, the apartments, including the Planning and Zoning and, apparently, the City Council. There was an obvious misfit of that plan, so it wasn't totally the neighbors' insistence that they remove. Nevertheless, that was the one good thing that came out of the withdrawal of the original plan. The added access to Locust Grove was not a neighborhood request, that was contrary to what we felt was appropriate. What we are doing now by adding the Star Lane access to Locust Grove is we are pitting incoming traffic, particularly in the mornings, attempting to access a two lane highway directly opposed to each other with no turn lane. It's pretty bad as it is getting out on Locust Grove. We throw this subdivision, along with the Havasu traffic that may be added to it at times, because it's an alternative route for them and we are going to have a real problem at that intersection, with no plans future improvements or particularly traffic control. This business of less setback, as is requested, together with the reduced frontages to a minimum 40 feet, all points up the fears that we as neighbors have had of this project all along, by lending itself to economy or starter homes of Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 80 of 89 substantially lesser value than surrounding areas. Further, the citizens did not want the Star connection, did not want the neighborhood center, and certainly did not want the commercial development. Relatively, none of the neighborhood concerns from the neighborhood meetings the last two meetings, which occurred after the abandonment of the apartments, okay, have been incorporated into this new proposal. Neighbors were to have been included in the design committee, to have been consulted at least within another neighbor meeting before we came to this juncture. Hasn't happened. There is also to be some restrictions on this commercial development of single story structures. That has not been addressed. We have got a long ways to go. Nevertheless, the basic problem we have here is a question of density. The two folks that came up prior to my being here spoke of there being eight acres proposed development into residential lots. As a matter of fact, including the common areas, there is only 6.8 acres being allocated for 34 tots. That doesn't come anywhere close to the R-4 maximum density that surrounds this proposed subdivision. In fact, is closer to five per acre. Even if you include a portion of the facility in this corner, which is proposed as a prospective recreational site. If you take a magnifying glass and read that, it says that's a drainage pond. It's going to be interesting to see how a volleyball court is going to work over the top of the drainage pond. We need your help, folks. These people have taken advantage of every commercial opportunity they can find and they are making no concessions whatsoever to the comfort and future well being of that neighborhood, with no concern of what impact they have on adjacent property values. It's your spot, folks, unfortunately, to maintain some consistency in the zoning that we have in that area and enforcing it. That means a density of no greater than R-4. Thank you for your time. Borup: Thank you. Who would like to come up next? While they are, questions for staff. Back on this zoning thing. Havasu, if I remember, was that a planned unit development? Because there are 60 foot frontage lots in that subdivision, so I'm wondering if that wasn't an R-4 with some reduced lot sizes. Is that how that ended up? That's not -- no one remembers either. Powell: No, but it is R-4. We do have the zoning map back here, so -- Borup: So, there must have been -- it must have been a PUD. Powell: Or some reduced frontages. Borup: Well, the first several phases most of the lots are 60 feet. Powell: Yeah. Because, otherwise, it's an 85 foot -- Borup: Pardon? Powell: Otherwise, it would have been an 85 foot minimum. Borup: Eighty. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page St of B9 Powell: Eighty. Borup: And most of them are in the 60s. That's why I wondered if that wasn't what that was an R-4 with a PUD and it's essentially -- the lot sizes are the same as an R-8 would be. That was just for clarification. Zaremba: Well -- and I would comment on this project, since several people have mentioned the 40 foot frontage, those lots are not 40 feet wide, they are 60 feet wide. The reason that they have a 40 foot frontage is that they are corner lots and the straightaway part of the lot is 40 feet and, then, you add the curve. But every lot has a 40 foot frontage measuring only the straightaway is actually a 60 foot wide lot. Borup: Fifty. Zaremba: No. Look at the corner lots. Lot 41 -- Borup: Oh, you mean those that have a 40? I'm sorry. Yes. Zaremba: There are some that are 50 wide. There are none that are 40 wide. Borup: I think the applicant wished he wouldn't have put that in there. The narrowest lot is, actually, 47 and a half. Zaremba: Yeah. And the frontages that are down to 40 are merely because it's the straightaway of a corner lot. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Those are 60 feet wide. Borup: Go ahead, Ma'am. Sorry. Ham: Chairman and Commissioners, I and my husband own -- Borup: You need to -- Mrs. Ham, if you could go ahead and state your name for the record. Ham: Oh. My name is W yoma Ham and I live at 4415 Locust Grove Road and my husband and I own the property right here, the two acres. And I, too, would like to see the consistency of the R-4, because I do believe it's a safety issue. Number two -- I have three little things I want to talk about. Number two, I can attest to the traffic being. backed up bumper to bumper from in front of our place all the way to McMillan Road in the mornings going to work and, then, it gets really busy in the evening, too. So, we do have a traffic problem and it's high use on our street that's not in too good of shape. Number three, I am wondering -- we have fencing that comes up here and up like this out to the road from the other developer and I'm wondering what the intended fencing is Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 82 of 89 for this area. Will it consistent with what is already around us. And that's all I have to say. Borup: Okay. Thank you. We will get an answer on that fence. Ham: Do you have any questions? Borup: Any other questions? Thank you. T.Ingram: I guess I'll say good evening, because it is still evening. Not quite morning yet. My name is Terry Ingram. I live at 4320 North Locust Grove. And as he would say as usual, I think my husband missed a few things, so I came up to fill in. One of the things that -- they are laughing at me. One of the things that was said earlier by the developer was that they chose to came back with an office design and in the neighborhood meeting the neighbors agreed to that office design. I was at both -- in fact, I have been at all three neighborhood meetings and this is my second Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I give you guys a lot of credit. I don't know how you do this every week. And I went to the City Council meeting. And I will tell you that at the first neighborhood meeting of this project, of Razzleberry Creek -- or Razzberry, excuse me, Creek, they brought forth the office design. I don't know of any neighbor there that immediately agreed with it. Every time we brought up the fact that we didn't want offices across the road from our neighborhood, it was, well, you know, it could be a Circle K or a 7-Eleven. I can't speak for any of the other neighbors, but I almost felt threatened by that statement, like if you don't agree to this we are going to put a Circle K across the street from your house. I don't like the offices. I don't want to look out my beautiful picture window at what used to be a beautiful sunset over empty fields and see offices. I know t here i s g oing t o b e h ouses t here. I'm n of o pposed t o d evelopment. I w ouldn't stand a chance if I was opposed to development. But this is a residential neighborhood. It's our neighborhood. We don't want offices there. We don't want townhouses or apartments or dentists or mortgage companies or construction companies. They have their place. It's not in our neighborhood. I agree with the safety issues. I'm scared to death that one of these days I'm going to see a child in my front yard. I'm hoping -- we have not seen a plan of the proposed sidewalks. I'm hoping that they extend far enough to get kids to school, because that is an issue with me. Traffic is going to be bad no matter what they put over there, but to me it's going to be worse if you put in offices - where people are coming and going all day long. And that's all I have to say. I think everybody covered it. Borup: You'd rather see residential where the offices are? T.Ingram: I would like to see the whole development as residential. I'd also like to honestly see it a true R-4, even a true R-8 where each lot, each residential lot is an eighth of an acre would be great. R-4 would be better. If I could wish it away, I would make i t all R-1. I c an't d o t hat. Y ou g uys p robably w ouldn't a pprove a nd t he c urrent owners would probably not approve it. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 83 of 89 Borup: Thank you. T.Ingram: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to take this opportunity? Okay. Mr. Forrey, do you have some final comments? Forrey: Yes. Thank you, Members of the Commission. In -- let me just -- I made some notes here as folks were speaking. To Mr. Sherer's comments, the Razzberry Crossing is very similar to Havasu and has larger lots than some of them in Heritage Commons. And so from a neighborhood perspective, you have got an urbanizing neighborhood, but you have got a neighborhood across the street that was developed 25, 30 years ago when the standards were different. And this area is in change and so it's very difficult to mix the old with the new sometimes. But that's what we are seeing here tonight. And so when you look at the neighbors around this development on the other side of the street they are large lots, but on the Reiterman's side of the street the lots are very compatible. Some lots in Heritage Commons are 25 feet wide and 35 feet wide and I think ours, as you mentioned, at least is about 49 or 50 feet. And there was a lot of comment both of the neighbors and staff and Planning and Zoning about traffic connections. I read the minutes. Neighbors did say they were confused why we didn't have access -- or not -- I wasn't involved in Blooming Meadows, but at the time they said we are confused why you don't get access to Locust Grove. So, we went and solved that problem. We do have a mix of lot sizes and the landscape plan does, actually, in very detail, show you exactly what the landscape plans are for this project. To Mr. Ingram's comments, again, I w as n of i nvolved i n Blooming M eadows a nd n eighbors d id, i n fact, w ant S tar L ane extended and when we had our first neighborhood meeting several neighbors came to me and said, well, I can see that makes sense and congratulated us for trying to get Star extended. They weren't happy with maybe some other components, but -- and not everyone i s happy w ith S tar L ane, but s ome w ere s aying, w ell, y ou k now, t hat does make sense. At least you got that extended. Borup: So, you're saying the testimony on -- on access to Locust Grove at Star was on the -- it's in minutes? Forrey: Yes. It's in your minutes where a gentleman that's here tonight testified back iri - June of 2003 that it didn't make sense to not have access to Locust Grove. And now that we have it, there is other issues. As a result of those neighborhood meetings and reading the minutes we took out the townhomes, we provided more sidewalk and I'll use this pointer to show you -- and this came right out of the neighborhood meetings. All we are required to have is sidewalk right here on the frontage that Carl and Bonnie own. But w e a re t aking s idewalk f rom t his p oint clear t o t his property. T he other I ady t hat spoke owns this. We are taking it right to her property line. There is sidewalk on this from Havasu Creek to her property and, then, we are taking sidewalk from this point here. So, we are putting sidewalk in on property that Carl and Bonnie don't even own, because that came out of the neighborhood meeting. They were very concerned about the safety and having more sidewalks. We did add berming and it's on the landscape Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page B4 of 89 plan. On the front, Locust Grove, and also to separate the office from the residential. And we did commit to a value and I will state it again, the marketing analysis, homes will start between 140 to 160 thousand in Razzberry Crossing. And when you take a PUD approach, you do get some smaller lots, but the compromise is you get a park and we have got two parks spaces. And so that's a better way, I think, to look at development and neighborhood scale when you can compromise on lot• size, but get something in return. To Mr. Montaney's comments, again, this area is urbanizing. We are trying to comply your Comprehensive Plan for the neighborhood center. The neighbors did ask for better traffic connections. This is not a started home project. There are some starter homes being built in this neighborhood to the north, but this is not, this is a move up Hitch market. All of the offices are single story'and the photos that I have shown at the neighborhood meeting and here tonight. And our density is about four units per acre. It's 8.4 acres residential, divided by 34 lots and it's right at about just a little over four units per acre. Borup: It's how much residential? Forrey: It's about 8.4 acres. Borup: And your total acreage? Forrey: Thirty-four lots. Borup: Okay. Forrey: And that 40 foot is there for side -- the 40 -- the minimum lot size -- or frontage for 40 feet is to allow side entry garages for some of the architectural variety that we have talked about. So, you can have some creative way to get a side entry garage or a shared driveway, that type of situation. To Mrs. Ham's comments, in meeting with the highway district and also, again, out of the neighborhood meetings, the reason we have decided that it's best to take this street and go south and this street and go north is because there is already a stub street here in Havasu Creek and if we make this connection, we will have, eventually, as this area urbanizes, a parallel local street off of the arterial and so it's better to get pedestrians and bicyclists and cars outside of the arterial to be able to go north-south and, of course, east-west and -- Borup: That's assuming the other property develops. Forrey: Yes. That's making that assumption. But the reason we are doing it is because the highway district required it here. And now that Mr. Johnson has that, perhaps when he develops his property you would require him et cetera, et cetera, and it's just leap frogging south and you get into that neighborhood center again and that's part of in the Comprehensive Plan about that connectivity. So, hopefully, it will give you some north- south movement outside of the arterial. And, yes, we would have the same fencing as Havasu Creek, six foot cedar. And Mrs. Ingram raised some issues and there were neighbors at the neighborhood meeting, the first and the second, that said we like the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8. 2004 Page 85 of 89 office. Take away the townhomes and the apartments, we love it, and they said you're on the right track with office. Now, not everyone and when I made my presentation I said some neighbors like the office and that's true, some of them said, okay, you know, I'm not happy with it, but it's better than the townhomes. Or some said, well, okay, I can live with it. Not everyone was that way, but we felt we had reached a good compromise here. Borup: That's been consistent with what we have seen before. Most people would rather have office than apartments. Forrey: And, then, again, she talked about the sidewalk and, again, that sidewalk would be across this parcel here. That's actually awned by Mr. Grasmick and I don't think Mr. Grasmick is here tonight. But we agreed with the highway district to make that connection, so those are the issues that all came out of the neighborhood coordination. Be happy to answer any other questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Just an orientation question, I guess. Since the Comprehensive Plan designates the area that -- of your property contacts Locust Grove and as the neighborhood center -- Forrey: Yes. Zaremba: -- most of those on the Comprehensive Plan are in the middle of the mile section. So, am I right that Star Lane is the halfway point on the mile section? Forrey: It's not. We are kind of on the northern edge of that curve. That neighborhood center arch comes kind of like this to the south and down to Heritage Commons. So, the center is Mr. Johnson's property right in here, of the center of the neighborhood center. So, we are on the northern edge of the neighborhood center and Heritage Commons is on the southern edge of the neighborhood center. So, the center is yet to happen. We are on the edges of it. Zaremba: I guess what I was trying to guess is that if this was at the halfway point, it would be eligible for a signal at some point, maybe ten years from now, but it may be the closest one to the halfway point. Forrey: Could be. Borup: Or Mr. Johnson's property. Zaremba: There may be another one a little farther south. Well, you would have to offset -- there can't be another street until, what, 300 feet from this one. So, I don't see any way that it doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan. It, actually, promotes most of the issues that-have been through long public hearings of many people over a couple of Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 86 of 89 years and was adopted after much public discussion and is the instrument that guides us. I see nothing in this that in any way contradicts the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: Any other questions or comments while Mr. Forrey is here? Thank you. Forrey: Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, how would you like to proceed? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Items 13, 14, and 15 be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the public hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I think I have already expressed my opinion that this is a vast improvement over what was presented before and that it is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan as far as I can see. Most of the objections I heard were being made to the previous plan, which is not in front of us. The discussion about whether it should be offices or some other commercial -- in the Comprehensive Plan process this area was designated as a neighborhood center, which means offices or commercial or -- Mr. Forrey is right, it could be anywhere from a gas station to a professional office, would be legitimately approved in an area like that. I personally like the office selection. Part of what keeps traffic down is having professional offices in the neighborhoods. That's the reason that the neighborhood centers have become a part of the plan. People from the residences can walk to dental appointments or maybe even to work if they work there. This may be a small parcel, so I don't know how much it's going to cut down traffic just to have all that, but that's one of the other issues. This is a very small, difficult parcel to design for and, I agree, part of the PUD is to get some open space in there, to get some variety. They can't be required to put sidewalks on both sides of Locust Grove all the way down to the school. They have gone even farther than the city could legally require them to do by doing the next property to the north of them. I don't know. I find myself being in favor of this project. - Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I concur with Commissioner Zaremba. The issue that seems to be before us is that there is a rural lifestyle that has one residence per acre in that specific location and they would like to maintain that. This -- you're not going to get that. I mean any development is going to have more than one home per acre, more than likely, on this tract of land and from the proposal that was brought before you a year ago, this is vast improvement from that development perspective, because of the multi-family apartment complex moving to 34 lots and four -- is it four commercial lots. I think? Zaremba: Four professional office, six common lots. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 87 of 89 Rohm: Yeah. And I think that this is a good compromise. It may not be what everybody that's lived there for years would have if they have it their way, but it's a vast improvement over the proposal that came before you a year ago. And, secondly, it falls within the Comprehensive Plan. We are --that's what our Bible is is -- Borup: The Comprehensive Plan doesn't address zoning, it's medium density and that falls within that guideline, I believe. Is that accurate? Zaremba: Uh-huh. It qualifies as medium density. Kirkpatrick: Medium density is R-4 to R-8. Zaremba: And the Comprehensive Plan allows you to step up or down from there as well. so -- Kirkpatrick: Actually, they could have come in and asked for high density, R-15, R-40. They could have requested one step up. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Commissioner, you were -- Rohm: Nd. I'm pretty much done. It's just -- I want everyone to know that, seriously, we listen to your concerns and we try to provide a balance as we make o ur judgments going through this process and it's not that we are not listening to anything that you're saying, it's just from the proposals that we see twice every month, this is working towards that end and it's not that we are not listening to your concerns, but I'm with Commissioner Zaremba, that this is a good dompromise from where we were before and it falls within the Comprehensive Plan and I lend my support. Mathes: It's a good in-fill project. Zaremba: I think this is a result of comments already being listened to. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: The whole change in the process, the whole change in this project is a result of the objections that were raised before and I feel that this is an answer to most of the objections that I heard and understood. Rohm: From the first proposal. Right. Zaremba: From the previous proposal. Rohm: And I think that, basically, what the folks were saying is, okay, well, now we have generated a whole new list of objections and each proposal that would come before us Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 88 of 89 would have a different set of objections, but to the same end, that they didn't want further development. So, I think that's kind of where I finish out on this. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Are we ready for a motion? I'm ready. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, AZ 03-034, request for annexation and zoning of 11.31 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of January 8, 2004, received by the city clerk January 5th, 2004, with the following changes: On page four, comment I, the second sentence of the staff comment can be deleted, subject property is not located in the Five Mile flood plain, so that subject can be deleted. Let's see. Are we still on -- that ends the annexation and zoning comments, so end of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, PP 03-039, request for preliminary plat approval of 34 residential building lots, four professional office lots, and six common lots on 11.31 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry C rossing by C arl and Bonnie Reiterman, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8th, 2004, received by the city clerk January 5, 2004, with the following changes. On page six, first sentence at the tap of the page can be deleted. Farther down page six under site specific comments preliminary plat, paragraph eight can be deleted. On page e fight I would add a paragraph eight that a letter of approval from the street naming committee shall be required with a note that West Star Lane should be changed to East Star Lane. End of preliminary plat. End of motion. ~ - Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 15 on our agenda, CUP 03-062, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development containing a mix of residential and professional use -- professional office uses in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 89 of 89 a Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8, 2004, received by the city clerk January 5, 2004, with the following changes: On page ten, comment I, the last sentence of the staff comment, nearly all of the subject property, that sentence can be deleted. End of changes, end of Conditional User Permit, end of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes our meeting. I just wanted the public to know that we do appreciate your input and we do try to take it in consideration. Some of the things w e d o a s a C ommission h ave t o g o b y t he C omprehensive P Ian a nd o ur c ity ordinances. We are restricted to that more so than the City Council is. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED KEITH BORUP -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK