Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 20, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning 6 Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 2 of 70 Zaremba: Mr. Chair, I move we adopt the Consent Agenda with no amendments. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4: Public Hearing: PP 04-012 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for six commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a C-G zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction -'/~ mile east of North Meridian Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. First hearing is PP 04-012, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a C-G zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This item is on a piece of property that is already annexed into the city limits and has a C-G zoning on it. It's located on the south side of East Fairview Avenue. It is approximately 2.8 acres. Ultra Touch Car Wash is -- there are two a little over an acre parcels that are on the north side of this subject land. The one on the east is Ultra Touch Car Wash, the other one is JJ Auto. There is another auto facility to the east. There are two residential subdivisions to the south. One of those is Sterling Creek Subdivision, which has, I believe, three homes and, then, there is one home that's within Danbury Fair Subdivision. Creekside Arbor Apartments are located on this larger yellow parcel here on the southwest corner and, then, this commercially zoned parcel here on the northwest corner is a vacant -- about a three acre vacant piece of land. So, that's the area that we are talking about. There is just one application with this tonight, they are proposing to subdivide that into seven lots or six building lots, one common lot. Here is an aerial photo that gives you some sense of the area. You can see the two vacant pieces here. This does still -- well, it almost qualifies as an in-fill. In-fill for Meridian is that 80 percent of the land within 300 feet is developed. So, if you actually take that 300-foot radius, kind of depending on where you take it, but it, essentially, is an in-fill piece of property. It doesn't meet our strict definition, but that's kind of what it is. The plat that they submitted is shown here and, as you can see, the property boundaries actually don't have any frontage on East Fairview. The access for this is taken off of a 40-foot wide easement that runs from Fairview and, as most of the Commission probably knows by now, there is a new signal there at that intersection. It was installed just a couple months ago. Directly north of that signal is the Fairview Lakes multi mixed-use project. So, that 40 foot wide easement, then, is the ingress-egress for this property. It is granted to the auto sales lot to the east and to Ultra Touch and to this 2.8 acre piece. So, what they have proposed is, essentially, a common drive that comes off the end of that -- that easement, actually, goes here clear to the end of the property where the residential subdivisions are and, then, comes across and there is sewer and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 3 of 70 water within that. Five Mile Creek is also a part of the parcel and that's located here in the very southwest corner that cuts across it and, then, heads up to the west. So, they, actually, have shown the building footprints on their plat. As my staff report indicated, the first building that they are intending to construct is this one here in the northeast corner. They do have an application into the city right now and there is a development agreement that's pending that needs to be cleaned up on this property and that's outlined in the report. It really doesn't have much bearing on the plat itself, it's related to development in terms of the use of the property more than anything. It was tied to the annexation. So, I wasn't necessarily planning to give verbal testimony much about the development agreement, since it's kind of a separate track that's going on, but I did want you to know about that. Essentially, what they are just trying to do here is get the property split into these pieces of -- these six buildable lots. So, I think the only two issues from the staff report that I wanted to point out are the three or four special considerations that start on page four. The first one I just mentioned, that was the development agreement, and, then, number two special consideration is the cross- access to the west and the police and fire reviewed the plat and they do have concerns, especially at build out, about getting a secondary access into this piece and we have recommended that it happen here at this commercial drive, would come across and it stubs -- I'll go back here to the -- this vacant parcel here. It would stub in about this location. So, we are recommending that that be across-access easement that is provided by this party, obviously, until the other piece develops there won't be a constructed secondary access here, but the easement would insure that we could get that in the future. And, then, item number three under special considerations on page four is the landscape planned land use buffer and I'd just basically ask the applicant to address the timing and the phasing with the Commission tonight. Our initial understanding was that they wanted to have -- to just phase the improvements and get the improvements in here to get the second -- or get this first building done. There really is -- it's unlike a lot of other plats, since there is no public streets and there is no street buffer to put in, there is very little in terms of sewer water, since they are adjacent to the property. But the subdivision improvements would involve, essentially, some landscaping and streetlights and a few things like that. And, then, the fifth -- item number five on page five is the common area maintenance and their application did state that there were no CC&Rs, but the note five says there are, so we just wanted that to be clarified and, essentially, how they are going to maintain that common drive area, which all of the parking and the drive area that you see through here are proposed to be on one common lot. So, I think with that, if there are any questions from the Commission, I think those are the highlights. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad. The only question I have would be on parking count. Subtracting the eleven parking spaces that have to be dedicated to the car wash, they still have adequate parking not counting those? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the application didn't actually include the -- you know, all of the exact uses that they would have and, of course, the parking ratios depend on if it's retail it's more than if it's office. It did appear from an office standpoint, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 4 of 70 if you just take an office use, one parking space per 400 square feet, it does appear that they meet -- even if you take out that 11, that they are reserving for Ultra Touch. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman. Brad, I'm curious why there was not a dedicated roadway headed south off of Fairview. Can you give me a little history on that? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, Bruce Freckleton and I are kind of shaking our heads. I think that easement's been there a long time. I think it was probably done -- Well, actually, no, we do know. It was submitted with the application in 1997,. but that was, essentially, to accommodate the sewer and water, which maybe Bruce can speak to that, but -- okay. He doesn't want to speak to that. Rohm: I mean it's all right. It just seems like this development would have been easier served had there been a dedicated roadway from Fairview headed south, which would parallel the car wash and this property and, then, there would be that true ingress- egress and cross-access to the property to the west once that whole area is fully developed. It just -- Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess the main problem with that is the Ada County Highway District has a minimum right of way that they will accept when they accept a public street and 40 feet is below what they normally accept, especially for commercial development. They really don't have the width to dedicate. And, of course, the other issue is they don't have any ownership outright of the land, they are just enjoying the easement that is there for them, so -- Rohm: That's fine. It just -- in my mind, it would have been better to have seen a developed road headed south from that intersection. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Agreed. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Well, this is a piece of property that has come before this Commission before. I forget, it was like a year and a half, two years ago, something like that, and what was proposed on this property at the time was an existing business in Meridian, a transmission shop, wanted to move into bigger quarters and build on that. We discussed that exact issue of why isn't that a public roadway and I think the applicant at the time explained that there wasn't any way to widen the easement, because on one side of it is a gas pumping area that can't be moved and the tanks are in a certain location and that the owner of the property to the east of it, which is running a used car lot, had curbing and stuff and wasn't willing to move that and I guess we accepted that, one, he didn't have any control over it and, two, he had asked the questions and gotten a no. So, we kind of shallowed that one and accepted it at the time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 5 of 70 Rohm: Well, it's not the only piece of property that's developed that way, so we are all right. Thank you. Borup: Any other comments? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Kinkela: Good evening, my name is Chad Kinkela, I'm with Bailey Engineering, I'm representing Robnett Construction. I would also like to go over the special considerations with you and in talking with my client, he said that he has no problem with providing an easement to that property going to the west there, we will just move the trash enclosure. However, we would like to be able to hold that construction back a little bit, because of the base flood elevation in the area there, we are going to be filling that approximately two feet and if we had to bring that pavement all the way to the property line, we'd have to install a retaining wall and if somebody did connect to it, it would be just torn down and moved away. So, if anybody's got any comments or questions about that, 1 will be happy to address that. The landscaping buffer, we understand what's being requested here. However, we'd like to possibly entertain the thought of bonding for these improvements. It's anticipated that this first building will be erected and the subsequent buildings below it will be soon thereafter, so if that landscaping was in place, the likelihood that that landscaping would survive through the construction of three other buildings would be minimal. So, we are not trying to move around the landscape buffer, but we'd like some consideration of timing as far as the installation of it. Zaremba: On that subject, if you were to install minimum landscaping and an irrigation system to keep the current landscaping alive, would you be able to expand that irrigation system? I mean it means going back and starting over on your irrigation system, essentially, not to do all the landscaping at once. Kinkela: We could have -- there could be a lot of main lines that could be pulled. We were talking about that before the meeting, that we could possibly install some trees further away, closer to the paved alley down towards the bottom. Zaremba: Take the portable microphone with you. Kinkela: Is that working? There we go. We could install some trees down here in this lower end and just kind of keep the rest of this somewhat open. We could provide a shield right here until these actually came in and we could fill in with the landscaping. Rohm: As long as you're up there, why don't you just go ahead and give us a development plan as you see it currently laid out. Which parcels do you intend to develop first? Kinkela: My client intends to build this building here first and, to my understanding, that they -- they have a possible buyer at this time and if that ends up working out, then, they will want to build these three buildings right here immediately after and, then, these last Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 6 of 70 two buildings. So, it would be, essentially, a three phase development, but all of the improvements would have to be in for this actual subdivision to be recorded or else they would have to bond for those improvements and they want to go with the -- creating the improvements. Rohm: And so your intent is to do your landscaping by each parcel as it develops? Is that, in essence, what you're suggesting? Kinkela: Yes, sir Rohm: Okay Moe: While you're there, could you also go back over the cross-access one more time, as far as when you were discussing a retaining wall? Kinkela: Sure, because of -- because of the base flood elevation that's created by the backwater that occurs, this site has to be raised approximately two feet, so that puts this area right here that you're requesting cross-access to this property, it puts it substantially off the ground. My client would be willing to show that easement on here if somebody in the future wanted to connect to it, but we are proposing to move the trash enclosure that's there down and allow for the attachment in the future, if somebody so chose to do so. Moe: Brad, I'm kind of curious. In the notes it says to provide secondary emergency access. Is it your intent to try and have emergency access available at that point for that stub street or the sub out there? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Moe, the intent is, really, once the -- the fire marshal didn't say, but I think once you hit that third building at the square footages that they have given, you know, that there is another way, is probably what they would like to see. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: That being said, there is still going to be that elevation difference between your property and the property to the west, so I'm not exactly sure -- will you have to, then, go back and cut it, so that it will be to the level of the property to the west or how is that -- Kinkela: Well, if this piece of property is developed, they will have to fill as well to be above the base flood elevation. Rohm: Okay. But if they are not developing at this point in time and the cross-access is necessary, it looks like you're going to have a drop off there. That cross-access isn't really feasible until -- I'm not sure exactly how that's going to work. Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission May20, 2004 Page 7 of 70 Zaremba: Yeah. I agree. I hadn't thought of that as a current emergency exit, I was thinking of it as future to connect when the other was developed, but the current situation is there is a two-foot difference in elevation if one side is filled and one isn't. Rohm: Exactly. And -- Zaremba: It would only go off into a dirt field. Borup: Right. So, that's not the emergency access, because there is no access at that point. Rohm: What I was thinking after the third parcel is developed, the -- Borup: Well, even, then, that wouldn't be the access point. I'm not sure where that emergency access would be. Was that discussed with the fire department? Kinkela: I saw nothing in our packet that talked about that, sir. Borup: Okay. Rohm: I guess we need to figure that one out Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The -- it did not come up. I guess we are kind of talking about two different issues, Chairman Borup. One is, yeah, the future connectivity between the two retail or commercial projects, as well as the need for a secondary access and, obviously, if -- I guess if the fire marshal -- fire department deems that they really need to get a second way in there, before that other parcel is developed, that would be a city responsibility to work with that property owner, if necessary, to get a gravel road or some other way to get across there and make that happen. If it doesn't need to happen, then, it doesn't. But the easement is in place, nonetheless, from this property owner in order to allow the cross-access to happen. Rohm: Well, I thought you were saying that they could only develop three parcels within this development until that cross-access is available and available as in the easement in place and a two foot elevation are -- it's -- it is and it isn't. You know, it is by easement, but not by -from the construction perspective, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. And I -- it was not a written condition from the fire department that it be by the third building. I was going mainly off of other square footages that the fire department has used. So, I guess I would not use my comment earlier as the basis for a new condition at this point. I mean if -- we can get more information from the fire department on this matter if you would like. Borup: But at this point there would be nothing preventing them from developing their whole site? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 8 of 70 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Okay. Does that clear -- does that straighten out -- Rohm: Yeah. I guess so. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So, even though the easement is in place, we don't need to count on it as an emergency access yet. It just would be a second way out when the other property develops. Borup: That was your understanding -- Kinkela: The other piece of property, the secondary access, that we don't have -- Zaremba: That as well. A two way -- Kinkela: It would be a fin+o-win situation. Exactly. So, then, moving onto -- Borup: While we are on that, is there -- is there any access to the property to the north? Kinkela: No. Borup: None at all? That parking lot on the west side does not access that -- Kinkela: Well, I'm sorry, I don't mean no, but this also provides -- this 40-foot ingress provides for the car wash. Borup: Yeah. Other than that, is there -- right there, is there any -- Kinkela: No, sir. Borup: It looks like there is a building there. Kinkela: Yeah. There is an existing building there that repairs small engines. Borup: Okay. Kinkela: Item number four says phasing, no phase lines are shown on the preliminary plat. There really isn't any intended phasing as far as the preliminary plat or the final plat are concerned. Pretty much the improvements that are going to be needed are going to have to either be bonded for or be constructed before final plat can occur. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 9 of 70 Zaremba: I think the question on phasing is do you have a target date on when you would build the fourth building and the fifth building and the sixth building or is that just going to happen when somebody offers to buy that -- Kinkela: That's market dependent, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Kinkela: And, then, there was -- there was a bit of confusion about the application stating no CC&Rs and the preliminary plat stating that there was going to be CC&Rs. There is going to be CC&Rs. The ownership is going to be determined on square footage of building and ownership and there is going to be a percentage and everybody is going to own a percentage of common Lot 1 and be responsible thereof that percentage for the maintenance. Zaremba: So, you're comfortable with putting on the plat that the common area will be maintained by the building owners association? Kinkela: Absolutely. Zaremba: Okay. 1 would go back to item one, if I may. Kinkela: Okay. Zaremba: This is, again, on page four and this is the development agreement. I know Brad kind of glossed over that, but my recollection from the presentation that was made -- and I forget now exactly -- a year and a half to two years ago on the other suggested -- previous suggested -- a lot of the discussion happened about why the development agreement had not been accomplished since August of 1996 until then. I was left with the impression that-there hadn't really been a good reason for it being long, but that the applicant was going to rush right out the next day and fix that problem, get the development agreement that was required by the annexation done. I'm a little disappointed to see in the packet that that still hasn't been done. Is there any reason why it -- Kinkela: I have to be honest with you, sir, this is the first that I have heard of it was when I received this packet today. I spoke with my client. To my understanding, he has a pre-application meeting set up for June 4th, something to that effect, and they have been working with staff on that to get it taken care of. I have never met -- well, I can't say that. Before this came in front of me about two months I had never met Mr. LaMont, so this is the first time I have heard it and -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Kinkela: You bet. Thank you for your time and consideration. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 10 of 70 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, could I just shed one more piece - Borup: Yes. Please. Hawkins-Clark: -- that this applicant was not the owner at the time of annexation, nor were they the applicant of the previous CUP application. So, in terms of the responsibility for getting the development agreement executed, it would have been on the previous applicants, not on this one. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: But in the case of this application, it is -- it is moving forward to go back and fix that -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes, sir. Zaremba: -- now eight year old problem? Hawkins-Clark: It is. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: There is one. Borup: Oh. Come forward, ma'am. Leavell: My name is Lucy Leavell. My address is 2720 -- Zaremba: Can you pull the microphone a little closer? Leavell: -- South Aerial Lane, Meridian, Idaho, doing business as Creekside Arbor, next door to this property. I'm a little concerned just on one point and I came mostly tonight to get questions answered, but I'm a little concerned having the drainage pond not a part of the common area. It seems to me that that drawing gives the drainage pond responsibility and all to the owner -- or the some day owner of the sixth -- I believe that would be the sixth parcel and it would seem to me that that would be better put in the common area and sustained by the whole park. You know, there is some responsibility for it with a drainage pond for mosquito abatement and all those things that might seem an undue cost to one builder and prevent that from being fully developed and that's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 11 of 70 Zaremba: We will get a clarification on that, but the drawing that I'm looking at, it appears to be in common lot that everybody is going to have to maintain. Leavell: Okay. Zaremba: There may have been a series of drawings, but -- Leavell: Okay. The draw Ihad -- Zaremba: -- we'll get a clarification, if I'm interpreting it correctly, which I believe I am. Leavell: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Yeah. That's what this shows. All part of Block 1 -- or Lot 1. Zaremba: And Lot 1, I believe, is the common lot. It's the driveways and everything. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. That's what the application proposed -- or the application does proposed it to be in the common area. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And I agree with the comment that it should be that way Borup: Okay. Did we have anyone else? Come forward. Jones: I'm Rich Jones, I have JJ Auto to the north, and on the elevation deal that was brought up on the north side, what was -- what's the difference in elevation there? Is that going to be two foot also or -- Zaremba: No. I think the issue is that a portion of this property is within a flood zone that requires some elevation change by the -- and I think that's only -- I can be corrected if I don't have the figures right, but it's only like the first 30 or 40 feet of this property. By the time he gets to his north property line, which would be your south, it's out of that flood zone, so they won't be changing the elevation next to your property. Jones: Okay. And the other thing on that easement, you know, at the general meeting, I guess, we had here a few months ago discussed like coming out of the back side of my property and coming across, that that would work out, you know, and the gentleman that was here was going to get back to me and we haven't discussed it yet and I don't know if that's feasible or not. Zaremba: Is that something you would want to have happen? Jones: Excuse me? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 12 of 70 Zaremba: I mean are you in favor of that happening? Jones: That I could get out the back way and come out -- yeah. And I was willing to buy some of that property there, you know, the last time we discussed that at the general meeting here -- it wasn't a Planning and Zoning one, but just everybody came in and discussed it. I don't see the guy here. Borup: That was a meeting with the owner of the property, developer, or -- Jones: Or like the designer or the architect. Borup: Okay. Jones: And we discussed it -- Borup: So, that would also serve as their emergency access. Jones: Right. The other thing that -- you know, since the new stop light went in there at -- what is it, North Lake, it is difficult to get out of my place and in and out and if I could, you know, get out that way. Plus other people could go out during the day. At night I'd have to put a gate across there, you know, but during the day they could get in and out of there. Zaremba: You would have a building there, is that not true? We were thinking that you actually had a building there that would make that not possible, but -- Jones: No. Zaremba: Grab the walking mike, if you would Jones: Is it working? Borup: Yes. Jones: Like right here, there is a building here and one over here, but if you came right through here and, then, I don't think -- I don't know what their design plan is, because that way they could leave this parking here, come out here -- this is the property I was discussing to buy, you know, but that -- I don't know what's going to happen there. Zaremba: I suspect the applicant would be willing to hear that -- or happy to hear that you're willing to discuss that with them. We'll let you two get together afterwards. Jones: You know, I'd like to see it develop instead of the weeds, so -- but if we could get -- that way could go in and go out that way or that way with the easement road. I don't know. Because on the elevation thing, made me nervous, because if on the west side they have to raise it up, I will become a lake. Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 13 of 70 Zaremba: We will get that confirmed by the application, but I think you're out of the area where they have to fill and the cost of fill I'm sure they won't go any further than they have to. Jones: Well, that's why I thought I'd put the road there and wouldn't have to fill. It would save them a bunch, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Did we have anyone else? Okay. Would the applicant like to maybe address a couple of those questions and, then, any other final comment you may have. Kinkela: Do I have to say my name and address again? Zaremba: Please. Kinkela: Chad Kinkela with Bailey Engineering. I'm representing Robnett Construction on this project. The question about the storm drain pond being in a common lot, that is part of the Lot 1, and so it will be maintained by all of the lots. I'm not quite sure how to address the access to the north. This -- about three quarters of this site is in the flood way, flood plain, excuse me, of the drain and we have raised it above the base flood elevation. We have -- because the applicant is seeking a building permit, they have authorized us to commence on the entire site design and I have got a set of -- I have a full set of plans, half scale here, and he is going to be two feet below us and that's the only thing I can do. There is -- Zaremba: I must have misunderstood, then. You are filling all the way to your property line? Kinkela: Yes, sir, we are. And I show a retaining wall back in that hammerhead area. Behind the building I'm showing four-to-one slopes. So, I'm not going to be filling on his property. I'm not sure that there is another way to develop this piece of property and not have to have flood insurance on all these buildings. Zaremba: Well -- okay. My previous comments I clearly understand where the end of the flood zone was. I was assuming that the flood zone only went about here and you only had to fill, you know, part of your property, but if you're having to fill it all, then, my comments were not correct. Kinkela: Well, you're fairly close, sir. I mean -- but when you fill up one portion of the piece of properly, you have to take the whole property in consideration to make the drainage work and all the building elevations work. So, the area in which building number two on lot number two is going to be -- I don't know if I will be able to read this, but that area needs to be filled about a foot and a half to make all the drainage work and the build pad to work. As far as shifting the buildings around and allowing for a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 14 of 70 secondary access to the north, I'm really not quite sure I see how that would really fit into this development and I'm not sure that -- Zaremba: Idon't think we were thinking of making that a requirement. Kinkela: Okay. Zaremba: I think we were suggesting that if the two of you talk and you come tc some mutually acceptable agreement, I would be happy for both of you, but it wasn't my anticipation of actually making that a requirement. Kinkela: Okay. Zaremba: He may have something to offer you that would make it worth changing in order for him to gain a second way out of his property that would -- Kinkela: Okay. Zaremba: -- give you one as well, but I don't think that was my intent to make that a requirement. Kinkela: Okay. Zaremba: Just suggesting that you become friends and talk with each other. Kinkela: Very well. Zaremba: But on the question of how far you fill, if you have done your own drainage plan, if you're going to -- if I'm now understanding, essentially, stop your fill far enough back from his property that you can slope it back down to his property -- you're not planning a retaining wall on your property line? Kinkela: The only location that we are planning to have a retaining wall is on -- Borup: There should be a laser at the podium. Kinkela: -- is in this area right here where the parking is, so that we can get the hammerhead. Yes. Rohm: Just North-South, not East-West. Kinkela: No. The only location is going to be this small -- it would be like a 22 foot long retaining wall for the parking area and, then, all the rest of it from the building will slope to the north to his property line at a four-to-one slope. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May.20, 2004 Page 15 of 70 Zaremba: So, the second part of my question on that is your whole plan for the majority of your property is that your drainage would be away from his property, with a possible exception of that last little piece of slope. Kinkela: That is correct, sir. Zaremba: Okay. I just don't want to suddenly be flooding his property, because you have raised it. Kinkela: No. And, as a matter of fact, we will be able to hold that retaining wall back far enough that we will be able to create a small swale and direct all that water in the landscape area, so that it stays on our property. Thank you for your time and your consideration on this and I hope I answered all your questions. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on Item 4 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Having seen the previous proposal, which was okay, I think this one is much better than the previous proposal. The lady who spoke and owns the apartments that are right next to it had quit a bit to say about the other proposal as well and I was pleased that she only had a few comments about this, which turned out to be satisfied. That being said, my inclination is to move this along. Moe: What are we going to do in regard to bonding of landscaping and whatnot? Zaremba: Yeah. Shall we solve that? Which things do we need to solve? The applicant was in agreement with almost everything. Moe: Yeah. Number three and, then, number five needs to have the land will be maintained by a building owner's association. Newton-Huckabay: They already agreed to number five. Zaremba: Are you ready to make a motion? You seem to have it well in hand. Moe: No, I'm not. I wasn't sure what we were going to do on bonding and whatnot, so -- Zaremba: Let me ask staff. Is bonding for the -- I can tend to agree that the act of construction may destroy landscaping that would be put in and cause a double Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 16 of 70 expense. My concern is that the underground work be done, probably, and get the sprinkler in where ever it's going to be. Is bonding to have the rest of the work done satisfactory? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can just throw one quick item in. I was pretty tardy getting my portion of the staff report done, so in your motion if you would, please, just refer to the supplement staff report as well. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 04-012, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a C-G zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction, one half mile east of North Meridian Road and south of East Fairview Avenue as presented in the staff reports dated -- to the Public Hearing date of May 20th, 2004, received by the city clerk May 16th, 2004, and supplement of the transmittal date -- excuse me -- received by the clerk May 18th as well, the supplemental staff report. End of motion. Excuse me. I'm sorry. No, I'm not. Along with the following changes to the special conditions on item number three, the landscape plan land use buffer, put that we will bond the landscaping to complete as buildings are constructed and, then, item number five in regards to the clarification that their will be -- the land will be maintained by the building owners association in regards to maintenance. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor'? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 04-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.93 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton - northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-009, request for annexation and zoning of 36.93 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton, northwest corner of Eagle Road and Ustick. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this application is just an annexation and zoning. There are no -- there are no other variances, plats, conditional