Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 2, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 34 of 81 Canning: If you put in a recommendation that they get a variance, then, I guess, then, you would be recommending that they have a variance. If you don't put a recommendation that they get a variance -- or a condition of approval that they get a variance, then, you would be saying that you're comfortable with the 15 feet. So, those are your two options, I suppose. Zaremba: I personally am comfortable with the 15 feet, which means we don't need to make further remark; is that correct? Canning: Correct. Borup: Okay. Moe: I would agree. Zaremba: In that case, I was previously finished with my motion. Rohm: Were you going to say anything about the trees that Shawn had mentioned that they are going to put on the east -- east and west side of the -- Zaremba: I did mention that staff would work out with the applicant the alternate compliance to the landscape ordinance. Rohm: Fair enough. Second. Borup: Motion and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, everyone, for coming. Are we ready for a break? We will take a short break at this time also. (Recess.) Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 04-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10 acres from RUT to R-B zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development - 3665 Jericho Road Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 33 single family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 10 acres in a proposed R-B zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development - 3665 Jericho Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting for this evening. Next item is Arcadia Subdivision. I would like to open Public Hearing AZ 04- 021, request for annexation and zoning of ten acres from RUT to R-B zone for Arcadia Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2.2004 Page 35 of 81 Subdivision. And also request for preliminary plat, Public Hearing PP 04-02B, request for preliminary plat approval for 33 single-family residential lots and three common lots on the same project. Okay. Now, both public hearings will be open at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for Arcadia Subdivision. It's a residential subdivision on ten acres. It's currently located in the county with RUT zoning. The applicant's proposing 33 building lots through a preliminary plat application. So, that the applications we have here tonight are annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat. There is no planned development associated with the application, which is unusual. I haven't done one of these in awhile. The subject property is located approximately a half-mile west of Locust Grove Road and a half-mile south of Chinden. And we have a number of recently approved projects and projects in the works surrounding this. Just to the west of the subject property we have Saguaro, to the south we have Leeshire Subdivision, which is going to go to City Council next Tuesday. And at the northeast corner we have West Burough Subdivision, which is a residential subdivision located in the county with a proposed school site. So, I just wanted to go through some of the surrounding areas. There area a couple of considerations for the preliminary plat I wanted to go through. And here is the site plan. The first of these -- and we definitely wanted to make sure it was changed, is a common drive accessing Lots 5 and 6 of Block 3. They propose sort of an angled common drive and we wanted that to be straightened out and also per the recommendation of the fire chief. We want to make sure that is changed. The second preliminary plat consideration I wanted to bring up -- and this is something that we really want to leave up to the Commission or the Council to decide how ultimately they want to deal with this, but I wanted to kind of address some of our concerns. The subject property -- so, unfortunately, for them they are, you know, a relatively small site, just ten acres in size, and they are providing three stubs and staff is going to request that they do a fourth one. That's -- we want to leave up to you. And realize it is a small site. They already have three stubs. I think there is a -- there is a good potential the subject property -- I am going to put the overhead of the site plan up. That there is a good chance that the properties located to the east of the subject property will develop. Currently, there is two homes on those three parcels, almost 19 acres in size. So, I think there is a good chance that that will be developed and it would improve connectivity if we had a stub street to the east. Initially, when I wrote the staff report, I wanted the support for wanting that stub street to the east was that we wanted to run a sewer line to access the development to the east through there. Since I have wrote the staff report, they have changed the location of the lift station, so that's no longer as pertinent as it was when I originally wrote the staff report. Actually, as I look at this again, yes, it is. And I will let Bruce talk about that. I thought that had changed. This is something I want to leave up to the Commission and the City Council. They have definitely provided a lot of connectivity with the three existing stubs and it is a small site and it is a lot to ask for, for them to provide four stubs. The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for their landscaping. I will put up the landscape plan. Let's see. I think that's it. Through their proposed site plan they are preserving a number of trees at the northeastern part of the subdivision and in exchange for that they are asking for the standard mitigation plan to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2.2004 Page 36 of 81 be waived and to go ahead and come up with an individualized mitigation plan with the parks department. And staff is in support of that. Let's see. There were a couple of changes I wanted to make to the staff report. Let's see. Under special considerations -- let's see. Under -- let's see. Actually, site specific number one, under preliminary plat, the intent there was to make sure that for the micro-path -- what I called the micro-path area is actually -- our code has a restriction on how long a micro-path lot can be and after it reaches a certain length it's no longer a micro-path, it's sort of this undefined open space area. But I wanted to make sure that those areas-- and I will go through the lot numbers here. The first of these would be -- just a second. We are getting the lot numbers, so we can reference it. So, it's at the southern leg of Block 4, Lot 6, so it's technically not -- not a micro-path lot, it's just a leg, kind of an extension of the open space lot. I wanted to make sure that the fencing along there wouldn't be -- would not be six feet in height. I'm suggesting that it be either a four-foot solid fence or a six-foot open vision fence and, actually, the appropriate place for that recommendation would be under annexation and zoning, to do that through the development agreement. So, I wanted to go ahead and suggest that change. And related to that, the fencing along the open space lots, while the applicant is proposing to not do fencing, I wanted to make sure that if they did fence the area, one of the open space areas, that it's either a four foot solid fence or a six foot open visual fence. And this is not regulated by our code, it's a suggestion by staff and I would recommend that it be done through the development agreement for annexation and zoning. Let's see. The last thing I wanted to sort of clarify and make sure this was taken care of before City Council -- this is under site specific condition number two. There are several of these lots that don't meet dimensional standards. They don't have the required frontage for the R-B zone, which requires a 65-foot frontage. She wanted to make sure that the applicant went through and revised these lots and provided a plat, which met dimensional requirements ten days prior to the City Council hearing. So, those are the main issues that -- what I think is the largest issue up for discussion will be whether we are going to require a stub to the east. The staff is recommending approval of this project. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Seeing none. -- okay. Okay. I'd like to turn the time over for any presentation by the applicant. As we are trying to implement some of our new rules, you will have 15 minutes and that would be for total time for the applicant, you and anyone else on staff. Mr. McKinnon, go ahead. McKinnon: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Wendy, if you can move forward to another slide. I think you have got a slide in there that shows the overall site. There you go. That one. As you well know, Commissioners, there is big mega subdivision just off to the west here, Saguaro Subdivision, a very large subdivision. To the south of us you recently saw Leeshire. I'm trying to develop this little 10-acre site. We tried to do something a little bit different than your basic cookie-cutter design, instead of just putting in a couple of cul-de-sacs and calling it good and matching up with the stub streets. I, actually, tried to create something that's more of a small neighborhood in and of itself and we have a problem with that in the fact that we have got a number of streets that have to run into Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 37 of 81 this one mega subdivision to the west and, then, the smaller subdivision Leeshire to the south, trying to keep this as contained as possible. So, when you come in off of Jericho, which is a road with five acre lots and with a one-acre lot that's been recently approved in the county, and you come down and you enter into the subdivision. As Wendy pointed out, the large number of trees in the subdivision, we are trying to keep all the trees that we can. In fact, we have brought the sidewalk in around the trees in order to help keep all the trees that we can. So, you come in and you have a nice park setting coming in through trees and as you come into the subdivision you pull in and see that we have a large open space area. Throughout the subdivision there is over 12 percent open space. That's a lot of open space for a ten-acre subdivision. The minimum is five. So, there is actually a little more than twice as much as would be required. Stub street into Saguaro. As you remember, in the Saguaro Subdivision discussions, there was a lot of discussion as to the need for that to connect all the way through to Chinden. This subdivision provides that connection up through Chinden, as well as providing access through Leeshire Subdivision all the way out to Locust Grove. So, within a quarter of a mile we have access to Chinden and access to Locust Grove and access into Saguaro, which would give you access all the way down south to McMillan. So, there is a lot of stub streets into this site already. Wendy pointed out there were several items that we had discussion that needed to be made for this project tonight, the first of which -- and I guess the most important one that Wendy stated and we agree with, would be a discussion of the stub street in this location. Wendy, if you could go to that handout I gave you and put it on the overhead, we will be able to discuss this a little bit more clear. You can see all the subdivisions and all the stub streets that, actually, are provided. Especially, in light of all the developments that are around it. For those of you who don't know, just recently there was an elementary school that was approved just to the northeast of this site. There is a 50-foot wide easement that goes from Jericho Road right to the northeast corner here, all the way over to the school. A stub street right next to an existing access, you have a 50-foot easement there for access to the school, plus a stub street there to the school, it seems like overkill. We'd have a hundred feet of right of way, essentially, right next to each other and there is no need for an additional stub over to the school to gain access here. The stub street in this location -- Wendy, if you will -- okay. Thanks. Well, a quarter of a mile from here there is a stub street coming out of Leeshire right at this location, one mile in depth coming to the north. So, there is already a number of stub streets here and in the ACHD staff report, if you have a chance to read it, there is some interesting language in there, they called it a quasi-stub street. And a quasi-stub street, that kind of threw us for a loop trying to figure out what a quasi-stub street was and what they said is this isn't a true stub street, it was an area that would have the right of way extend down the property line. Thanks, Wendy. This is the piece of property we are talking about. Leeshire Subdivision, the property line, the stub street I was just mentioning is right here. Elementary school right here. The 50-foot easement off of Jericho going to the school. But for the stub street built right here will be right next to the 50-foot wide easement going into the school, so you would have an awful lot of pavement right there in that location. This is less than a quarter of a mile in length to this stub street and same to right here. If this stub street is placed right here, what you would have to do is immediately take it along this property line and jog it south in order bring the property Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 38 of 81 into here. With the stub street already being connected to the north and Locust Grove being a quarter mile -- less than a quarter mile away from this location, there is no real need for a stub street. Therefore, ACHD said make it a quasi-stub street. If there is a need for it, we can extend it in the future, but there is no need to have a true stub street here. ACHD is not requiring that that be noticed with a sign that says this street to be extended in the future. There was just something put in there to say there is access if there needs to be access and we don't believe that there is a need for access at this time. School children within the subdivision with Saguaro Canyon can access the school site via the 50 foot easement that's already located and there will be a stub to the north and some sort of pedestrian pathway and access to the school site through the nine acre parcel located right here, as this area develops. So, I. don't believe there is a need for a stub street in these locations. If I could get you all to pull out your staff report really quick. Wendy went through a number of items that she wanted to change within the staff report. I'm not sure if those are all noted. Well, if you could all turn to page seven in your staff report, just a couple of items that I would. to like hit on. Wendy touched on each of these, but if you could turn to page seven, item E, within the staff report, it's the second paragraph down, talking other health and safety concerns. And I found that the common angle driveway -- Wendy, if you could go back to the first overhead. The common driveway, how they wanted that straightened out. We agree to straighten that out and we have no problem straightening that out and we agree with that condition. That was one of the things that Wendy wanted answered. We have no problem making that correction, as we agree with that condition. That is condition number one at the bottom of page seven -- I think it's condition two on seven -- page eight. Excuse me. We do agree with that. We will straighten out Lots 5 and 6. That's, again, item number two on the staff report. If you can go with us, the common drives for Lots 5 and 6, preliminary plat special for considerations, we agree to make those changes. We just talked about the stub street, which is item number two. Wendy touched on the alternative compliance. Again, the alternative compliance was the trees that we are trying to save here. Staff is in support of that. And in talking with the parks department they, too, are in support of it and we will receive written documentation from Elroy Huff and Doug Strong saying how we can meet this alternative compliance. There is some large old growth trees. The site is small enough that there is really no place to plant as many trees as would be required within this site, so, therefore, we are looking for alternative compliance and we agree to work with the parks system for that. Bottom of page seven, item number one, has to do with fencing, fencing adjacent to the micro- path. As Wendy pointed out, this really is not a micro-path lot. The section of code that she refers to Meridian City Code 12-13-15-9, it references only pathways. This isn't a micropath system, this is an open space area. We'd ask that there be no requirement for fencing, other than meeting City of Meridian requirements and we agree to meet the City of Meridian requirements for this area. We don't believe that there should be any special considerations placed on this, as this is just open space. We are not dealing with the Conditional Use Permit tonight, we are just dealing with the subdivision, to make sure it meets subdivision standards. Onto page eight, item number two. As Wendy pointed out, there are several lots that don't meet the dimensional standards and we agree to meet those dimensional standards. In the past on the outside of the 90 degree turn in this location, the City of Meridian in the past -- and when I worked at the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 39 of 81 City of Meridian and recently, they have found -- public works believes that the outside curve radius of this 90 degree turn, they have measured that at 40 feet, like they would for a cul-de-sac, and there is some discussion with Anna now as to whether or not we should be measuring it that way. Regardless of how it's measured, we agree to meet what the minimum requirements are for that. So, we agree to that condition as well, regardless of whether it's 40 or 65, and we will work that out with staff. Item number three on page eight. Again, this is per Ordinance 12-13-15-9, a six-foot fence for open vision. Again, we would like this condition dropped. We will go ahead and meet the requirements of the code, but this isn't a micropath lot, this is an open space lot. There is no requirement for fencing around the open space lots. In fact, we would just like to see that condition dropped from this, as that section of ordinance does not apply to the open space within this subdivision. Just a footnote to that. The requirement for it to either be six feet or four feet, those are just minimums. You can have a three-foot solid fence or you could have a five-foot open vision fence or four foot. The way it's written right now it says that it has to be a six-foot or a four foot. In the future that's just something to consider in the changes of the staff reports. Other than that, we agree to all the conditions that staff has recommended. There were several changes that you received in my letter. One of those comments being that on item number six on page eight, that the wording in the second sentence be changed to the homeowners association shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance, rather than the applicant. And on number six that's the second sentence, just scratch out applicant and put homeowners association. The homeowners association will contract with the operator and the maintainer of the lift station, rather than the applicant, so that in the future they will be able to control that, rather than the applicant. And as you well know, once they -- once the lots start to sell, the applicant tends to go out and the homeowners association takes over. Other than that, we think we have tried to accommodate all of the stub streets within the subdivision. We agreed with ACHD to place the quasi-stub street there. We don't believe that that stub street will ever extend in the future. So, the elementary school that will be going up there, we don't think additional traffic in front of the elementary school is a good thing. We think it would be better for those elementary school students to be able to access it with the existing 50- foot access. We ask for your approval tonight and ask if you have any questions? Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have one. Just clarify for me the 50-foot access that you were just talking about. McKinnon: Okay. Wendy, can we go back to the overhead and toggle that real quick? Zaremba: Does any portion of it really abut your property line or is it actually north of your property line? McKinnon: It is -- right here. It is just north right there and it's 50-foot right here. Can you zoom in on that, Wendy? Can you hit the zoom button? It's this piece right here, Dave, that's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 40 of 81 Zaremba: So, it doesn't run into your property? McKinnon: It doesn't run into -- Zaremba: It does run into Jericho north of the property. McKinnon: It runs into Jericho just north of the property. If there was a stub that it would be extended, it would be immediately south of a 50-foot wide easement already. Borup: And they adjoin each other? McKinnon: And they adjoin each other. They are smack up next to each other. The 50-foot -- bring this stub street in 50-foot wide right here as well and it doesn't seem to make sense to have a 50-foot and a 50-foot right next to each other. It seems to be a waste of land. There you go. There is the 50 feet. This has been set aside for access to the elementary school site. So, there is great access, pedestrian-wise, to be able to get into the school site from here without the need for an additional stub street. Borup: Well, I think the other concern was access to this parcel here, though, isn't it? McKinnon: This parcel -- you're doing it in a quarter mile stretch and you guys all remember when we were going through the Comprehensive Plan, that they said if it's less than a quarter mile people are going to walk and this is less than a quarter mile for people to take this down and run into these people. There is no need to drive that distance. This is a really small lot in comparison to what you see, you know, for Saguaro. I think Saguaro has got, you know, a quarter mile between these two. You have got one, two, three all within a quarter mile. This site will have access from the south, probably another stub street in between here, with access out to Locust Grove. There is not going to be a need to go north here, because there is an elementary school. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Any other Commissioners? Back on the quasi micropath lot. McKinnon: Okay. Wendy, can you toggle again? Borup: Is that 15 feet in width? McKinnon: It is 15 feet in width. Borup: Now, I understand -- was your concern about requiring a fence or just not restricting that fence that's there. Or you stated that the fence is not required. McKinnon: There is a fence that's not required. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page410f81 Borup: But right now the homeowners can put anything -- they can put up a six-foot solid fence. McKinnon: They could. If you had a chance -- I did submit a letter that said we don't mind, you know, having that limitation to meet the Meridian requirements, but, rather, at this point we don't want to have the restriction placed on that. We don't have to fence that right now. And if they do do it, it would have to be according to Meridian requirements. Borup: Okay. That was what I was trying to clarify. So, you're fine with the four and two or -- McKinnon: Don't have a problem with that. Borup: Or whatever. McKinnon: But we don't think that it needs to be discussed at this point, because there is no requirement in the ordinance for a fence there. But if one is put there, it would have to meet the requirements. Borup: Okay. I misunderstood that. Rohm: I would like staff's opinion on that, just -- Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the intent is to make sure that we don't have a six-foot fence around the open space areas and around the micro-path type lot. We -- I want to make sure there is visibility, eyes on the park, I think it creates a much better feel for the subdivision. I think it's safer when you have more visibility. So, the intent is just to make sure we don't have the six-foot solid fences. And I know that we don't have a section of code that directly applies to this, so it's a staff suggestion, which I would like to have incorporated into the development agreement. McKinnon: That's not a problem. Kirkpatrick: And Dave -- yeah, Dave agrees with it. Borup: I think he was just concerned that there was not a fence required. Kirkpatrick: We don't want to require a fence. Borup: And no fence at all is even more visibility. Kirkpatrick: That's even better. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 42 of 81 McKinnon: Item number three, the last sentence says the developer shall construct a fence prior to release and there is no need to require him to construct that fence at this point. Borup: So, you're saying strike that whole -- McKinnon: Strike all of item number three, because if it's not required, then, it shouldn't need to be installed by the applicant. Borup: And, then, in place of that saying if fence is put in, you comply with -- McKinnon: Well, that's understood, because every fence in Meridian has to meet the ordinance regardless. They would have to get a fence permit for that. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Kirkpatrick: So, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to kind of reiterate all this stuff again. I do want to make sure this requirement is put in the development agreement and I also want to make sure that the southern leg of the open space lot in Block 4, I want to make sure that there is a four-foot fence installed, rather than a six-foot fence. But I wanted to do this prior to -- to permits being issued for that area. Borup: You're saying if a fence is installed or are you saying -- Kirkpatrick: I think we want to have that four-foot fence. Borup: And why is that? We have not required that in other subdivisions. Kirkpatrick: Yes. We are just talking about that area. Borup: Right. No. I understand. But that has not been a requirement in other subdivisions. Zaremba: I'm comfortable with the idea of saying if anybody puts a fence there; it has to be, you know, non-sight-obscuring or less than four feet or something like that. But it doesn't sound like we are agreeing. You are suggesting that there should be a fence there no matter what? Borup: Baldwin Park would be an example. And Baldwin Park did not have fencing along their micro-path. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the difference between -- you know, when I think we typically -- we would require - that would be for an actual micro- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 43 of 81 path lot. But the length of this lot exceeds the lot -- maximum lot of a micro-path, so it's -- it cannot be defined as a micro-path and we can't apply that section of the code to this. But our suggestion is that a four-foot fence be installed along the edges of the micro-path type lot, which is the southern extension of Block 4, Lot 6. Now, the applicants were proposing that no - that we do a restriction that no fencing be placed there ever, I guess that's an alternative. I'm assuming fencing will go in, I just want to make sure it's a four foot fence. Borup: I think the Commission agrees with that. The applicant has stated that that is regulated by the fence ordinance and I'm not sure if that is the case. Kirkpatrick: Because of the length of this lot, it's not technically a micro-path lot, so that part of the code does not pertain here. But I think the same intent as I would have with a traditional micro-path lot is I want to make sure that we don't have a six-foot fence there. We can do that through the development agreement and I think the applicant's agreeing to the concept. Borup: Okay. The fence would apply to just a micro-path lot. Kirkpatrick: Right. And this is not a micro-path lot. Borup: Which is defined as -- Zaremba: But there are requirements around open spaces, even if you call it an open space, that it not be a six-foot sight obscuring fence; right? You couldn't do that on any open space. Borup: I am not -- Zaremba: If somebody comes in with an application for a fence, they are going to be told it's an open space, it's got to be either four feet or it's got to be six feet non-sight- obscuring, because it's an open space. Kirkpatrick: And, typically, this is addressed through the planned development application as a special consideration. Zaremba: Okay. So, we do need to make the requirement -- Kirkpatrick: And we don't have a planned development application to tie this to, so we wanted to put in the development agreement -- Zaremba: But we are still phrasing that if anybody puts a fence there -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. We don't want to require the fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 44 of 81 Borup: Mr. McKinnon, you're fine with having that wording in the development agreement? McKinnon: As long as it says if a fence is installed it has to meet Meridian's requirement, that's fine. I don't think it should be a requirement that you build a four-foot fence, because if we want to come in and build a five-foot wrought iron fence, then, the development agreement would prohibit that and I don't think that's what the development agreement's intention is. Zaremba: No. I think our distinction would be four feet if it's sight obscuring and it could be six feet if it's non-sight obscuring. McKinnon: If one is constructed there. Zaremba: If one is -- yeah. It would all be if. McKinnon: Okay. That's just for the throated down area in the open space. Zaremba: I would include all the open space, including what we are or are not calling a micro-path. McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, there is a requirement in the staff report that this area as well has a limitation on the fencing heights. There are no micro-paths. It is open space. It's on the perimeter of the lots. We would like that same language there. Zaremba: The same if -- McKinnon: Well, I don't know if we want the- if language there. This is a perimeter fence here and here. Why would we want to require a four-foot fence on the perimeter of a subdivision? There are no walking paths through there. Borup: Yeah. I can get some clarification -- I assume that was not intended on the perimeter fencing, was it? Kirkpatrick: Correct. The perimeter fencing can be six feet in height. The intent there was to restrict the fencing along the open space area next to the residences. That should have been clarified. So, we are looking at the northern and the eastem boundary, a six-foot fence is fine. Borup: That's what I assumed, too. Okay. Any other questions? Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the applicant has been suggesting some specific wording that is not what staff is saying. I think there is a miscommunication going here. He's saying if fencing is proposed, that it should be in accord with the standard fence provisions. And what we are trying to say is that our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 45 of 81 code right now does not require the four foot sight obscuring and/or it doesn't have that micro-path fencing for open space as well, so we are asking for the four foot, two foot, difference for all open space. Is that clear? It's not the standard fencing provisions. Borup: I understood that. Just stating that in compliance with the city ordinances does not really address the concern here. Canning: Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were clear. Borup: Unless it was stated that it would comply with -- to have the standards as an open space. Canning: As a micro-path. Borup: Same standards as a micro-path. Canning: Yes. Borup: But-- Canning: That will work. Zaremba: That all open space, except the perimeter, have the same standards as a micro-path for fencing. Canning: Yes. That would work. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were all clear on that. Borup: Okay. You're still fine with that, aren't you, Dave? McKinnon: To an extent. I think that we have people's side yards here and right here that back up to the open space. I think -- because we are doing it in the people's back yards, there is nobody walking through here, there is no micro-path, there shouldn't be a limitation on the interior here to be able to put up a six foot fence if they so choose. Borup: That has also been the case in other subdivisions. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, there is a path on the south side of the entrance road. There is not a walking path on the north lot. So, probably a six-foot fence along the north wouldn't be -- I mean it would be okay. The idea is to make sure that there is no dark spaces back there where people are lurking. That one is fairly open. But on the south side there is a path there, so the four-foot -- let's see. The micro-path fencing would be appropriate along that one. Zaremba: And trees that might obscure vision from the road. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 46 of 81 Canning: Yes. Zaremba: So, vision from the adjoining house would be appreciated. Canning: Yes. Borup: And I don't know that that's in the ordinance specifically, but we have been approving normally four-foot with a two-foot lattice, so still do a six-foot fencing. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are dealing with a subdivision that's just dealing with just the straight subdivision ordinances. I mean we are adding conditions to a subdivision without a Conditional Use Permit. There is no special requirements that we are requesting on this plat that you can place conditions on. The question is does this meet the requirements of the code. The fencing of this entire area would meet code right now, without putting any fence requirements on this. Striking all of item three meets the requirements of the Meridian City Code. All people that live in subdivisions have to meet by that code. When you approve a subdivision, you're approving whether or not this meets the subdivision requirements and this does meet the subdivision requirements. They are asking you to apply a section of code that deals with micro-paths for the rest of the open space. It does not address that. We would like the requirement for the fencing -- we agree to do the fencing, if it's installed it would be to that requirement, but the perimeter, these people's back yards and side yards, I mean you have got people coming down Jericho, if you have a four foot fence -- there are some trees here, why wouldn't they be able to have a six foot fence in their back yard. You have got a long distance through here, it's a large area, it's open, the fencing requirements are met by this application. Adding additional conditions to this -- this is not a Conditional Use Permit, this is a plat. The question is does this or does this not meet the requirements. And I guess Mr. Gabbert could address that, but we are not adding conditions typically to a plat. It's -- this is what it is. This is what the ordinances are, do we meet it. I believe that this does meet it, if we drop item number three from that. Zaremba: If counsel would care to comment, the way I would rephrase it is that we would make this a development agreement attached to the annexation and zoning, as opposed to the condition attached to the preliminary plat, and I feel that is within code. If you'd care to confirm or object to that -- Gabbert: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that the -- you have stated it correctly. We would just make it as the -- as the staff originally suggested and make it a condition attached to the -- excuse me -- the application. Zaremba: Part of the development agreement. Gabbert: Development agreement. Thank you. I lost my train of thought. I think that would be appropriate. I mean the staff has some legitimate concerns here, at least Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 47 of 81 regarding this micro-pathish section. They don't want a narrow alleyway, essentially, that would be sight-obscuring fences, at least for that provision. I don't believe -- Rohm: You're referring -- Gabbert: Right. The extension of lot -- well, Block 6 that was just highlighted up there. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Gabbert, we don't have a problem down here in this area, we have agreed to that, that if one is built, we will build it to that. I think the question is for these houses right here, we don't have a micro-path in these areas, these are people's back yards, and we have got a detached sidewalk that runs through here, granted, but this is not an enclosed area that's an alleyway, this is right off of the road. We don't think that there needs to be a limitation on these people's fencing in their back yards. I think that's the issue of contention. Canning: Chairman Borup, you may want to continue with the rest of the Public Hearing and address this in your comments or in the rebuttal section, just to get moving. Borup: Okay. Yeah. I think so. And that's really -- it looks like that's really the only concern. Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Now is the time. McClure: My name is Mike McClure, I live at 6055 Jericho Road, and that's the piece of property directly adjacent on the north perimeter of this. One of our primary concerns in here is the traffic and you're talking about connecting all of the stub streets going in there. Due to the size of the subdivision behind us, that Saguaro Subdivision, and the elementary school that's going to be going in across from us over there behind those one acre lots, we are really concerned about the amount of traffic that's going to be funneled onto Jericho, which has typically been a little short dead end rural road, you know, for 30 years and now are -- you know, it wasn't even a paved road until about ten years ago, it was dirt up to that, and right now that street -- all it is is two layers of chip seal, with two inches of asphalt on top of it. It won't stand up to any kind of traffic. So, it's going to have to be required to rebuild that road and, you know, when I moved out there 19 years ago, my intent was live in a rural setting and, you know, the developments are going, the city is growing, everything going along like that, but to take, you know, that amount of traffic that could potentially just be funneled right down that street, if you start tying in all those stub streets, and that being an easy route directly to Chinden out the backside of some of those subdivisions, is just going to develop just a horrendous amount of traffic on there I'm afraid and it really concerns me. The subdivision itself, I don't really have any contention with. I need to have some discussion with the developer about the perimeter fence, the type of fence we are going to put up. It needs to be something that's going to be a low maintenance fence, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 4B of 81 because, typically, people don't maintain the fence across the back of their property and I run livestock in there, I have got horses and cattle that I run back on that five acres, and, you know, whatever fence we decide to put in there, it's got to be a durable fence and a low maintenance fence, because I know people in their back yards just aren't going to maintain it. Rohm: So, am I to understand that you're not in favor of requiring an additional stub street? Is that what you're -- McClure: No, I do not want an additional stub street. Rohm: Okay. That's-- McClure: If any, I would like to eliminate at least one of them. Rohm: Well, that's kind of -- I was -- that's what I was asking. Thank you. McClure: Because you have got Saguaro on the back and Leeshire, which was the -- you know, it was a horse property until recently down there and when you funnel all that, you know, through there and, then, people are going to use that as a shortcut to bypass the traffic light on Chinden and Locust Grove there now, and, you know, need to come up with some place -- some way to restrict or cut down the amount of traffic that is going to be in there. Borup: Thank you, Mr. McClure. L. McClure: Hi. Lynn McClure. I live at the same property as he does, at 6055 Jericho Road, and I just want to make sure that I make the same statement, that your -- if you could put that one up where you're putting all of those nice, wonderful subdivisions -- The overhead. The next one. That's the one. If you take a look, you have got all of these properties here, you have got all of this property here, you're all funneling these kids to school at the same time that we are trying to go to work, over to two schools. Actually, there are two schools back here. When they proposed that, they told us that this would be a road that had bollards in it or -- bollards in it and now I'm being told that they are not going to do that. So, right now what happens is we have teenagers come down here and they stop, they can't go flying through -- and they travel pretty fast even at that. So, you start opening up an opening here, an opening here, then, when this comes in an opening all the way over to here, and, then, you have got this going back over into here, all the way into Meridian Road, you have not only tripled, you have quadrupled -- I mean the amount of traffic that's going to go down that road is going to become outrageous for a small barely 50-foot wide road, that, as my husband says, hasn't been maintained. In fact, we maintained it for many many years, until I called and we started arguing about this, then, they came in and they put in two inches of tar over the top of that to comply with doing something with our road. But in the past we have plowed it, we have cleaned it, we have taken and kept the weeds down. So, you know, all of a sudden, from a nice quite dead end road, we now have all these Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 49 of 81 subdivisions that are going to be dumping people -- and I understand, they have got to get their kids to school, but I got to get to work, too, and I have got to be able to take horse trailers out onto this road and I just feel like there is too many connections here. I don't think that it's necessary to have all three of these openings into this one little road here, especially adding a fourth one. I mean I think we are getting carried away with how much connectivity we have on a little tiny -- well, except quarter -- well, no, it's not even a quarter, I think it's the eighth mile mark. I feel that we need to cut back on it. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Miller: Mark Miller. I live at 1906 East Dunwoody Court. I just had a couple of comments and a couple of questions, I guess, for the Commission, just as a -- kind of looking at the overall general growth of the area. I have kind of had some concerns about designating this as R-B zoning. We already have an R-4 zone with 6,000 square foot lots that are being proposed just to the south and although you can see that in Dunwoody and Larkwood, we are kind of concerned about the transition between what's coming into the area and what things have been like and we would sort of appreciate at least acknowledgment of an appropriate transition zone between these types of subdivisions that we already live in. You realize that there is some type of concern that if we make these lots small and make an R-B zone, then, what's the -- as they develop closer in towards Locust Grove, as they ask for R-B zoning in the same way, are we going to get town homes and just as we step down, you know, more dense type of population and lot size, kind of creates -- it creates a problem for the transition that we have all lived out there for -- you know, for the years that we have been there. So, that's my concern. I was hoping that you would be able to designate it R-4 and just make some exceptions if they need a couple for some lot line or whatever they need, but designating it R-B to me sets up kind of a cascade of potential events in this area that may be detrimental to the way an appropriate transition would be and that's basically it. I'm also a little bit concerned about just these little tiny slivers of development, which I was just thinking in the greater scheme of things it would be better to get everything together and develop it all, so it all made a little more sense. I look over there and I see these little slivers of potential development and even though I can completely understand why the McClures are concerned about traffic in their area, obviously, we are concerned, too, about how they are going to develop streets and develop these little strips of land, if they don't have access from a couple of different ways. So, in some ways it may be reasonable to at least try some stub street or at least some potential access there if there is a problem with the way these other homeowners try to develop down the road. Also, just on those -- on those side streets and fences, it just seems like there will be a lot of kids, probably, walking to school now, instead of riding buses, and sometimes in the winter it's dark and going along those pathways and things that -- make sure there is enough visibility for the kids as they are going through our area, because my kids eventually -- I don't think they will walk that way, but it looks like if that's their school, they will probably be walking to school, too. So, that's all I had. Thanks. Borup: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 50 of 81 Porter: Darwin Porter, 57BO North Locust Grove. I have some of the same concerns that Mr. Miller has and that is the transition. We have got a lot of one-acre lots in that area. We are within a half-mile from Eagle, where we have the one acre lots along Chinden and we are concerned about the long-term development of this particular area. While this particular subdivision has lot sizes that I'm pretty happy with, I am concerned and I would oppose the R-B designation and I would prefer to see it as an R-4, just because of what might attach down the road. And I am in favor of the stub street just for traffic flow purposes and further development. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Porter, just a question. You say you're satisfied with the lot sizes, so you would be proposing an R-4 and, then, ask for a variance from the R-4? Porter: That's correct. Just because I'm concerned about what R-B might designate if -- if this is designated as R-B now, what might come down the road, and this is certainly not within the current flavor of the way it has been developed up until now. And so I would like to see, you know, that R-4 with some variances and approve those, so that it would be more difficult to obtain R-B down the road for other developments and townhouses, that kind of thing. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Lee: Grant Lee, 5603 North Locust Grove Road. If I could learn how to use one of these things. This is my home right here. We butt up right against the subdivision. At the time we built our home we purposely located it where it was to prevent Larkwood from eventually joining with Jericho and they have kind of bypassed us here, which is better than what we had to start with. In fact, we obtained a letter from the highway department stating that it was not their intent to connect those two streets and I know the people in Larkwood are extremely concerned about a stub street that has been required for us to go into their property. In basic terms, I am in favor of this development. I think that the circular street with the green open space in the middle, I think they have done a good job of trying to funnel what traffic is going to go down Jericho Road. I am a lazy person and I know I'm going to use that street just as much as I know people over here are going to funnel through and head out this direction. I think that's one of the purposes of all these stub streets connecting everything, is that I think it's going to balance out and there is going to be as many people going each direction as -- people are going to cut through our subdivision as much as we are going to cut through theirs and I think they have done a really good job. I would like to see a Pizza Hut right there in the middle, so I don't have to go so far at night when I get my need, but I think they have done a pretty good job of dealing with the size property that they have. I feel for the people that have these long sliver strips that may only have one road going all the way and one row of houses, which does not allow a whole lot of creativity, but I am supportive of the efforts that they have put forward for their subdivision. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 51 of81 Borup: Thank you. Any other testimony? Mr. McKinnon, any final comments? We probably could kind of handle a lot of that with our last discussion, but -- McKinnon: It's always nice to go up after Mr. Lee. I think there were just a couple of unanswered questions and there were a couple of nice things that were brought up, just to cover those that Lynn didn't really want to see anymore stub streets. We really don't need to see one either. We would like that to go away as well. You know, we will work with the landowner to the north, Mark, with his property with the fencing. We have no problem working with him on the fencing. As he mentioned, that was one of the things he was concerned with. I know that we have talked out in the hallway with him and there was some discussion on that already. So, we have no problem working with him on that. As far as the comments made by Mr. Miller and Darwin Porter, there were, you know, the concerns about this being R-B. As you know, the lots in the subdivision actually average larger than an R-4 subdivision. The request for the R-B was because there are some lots that are smaller. We wanted to have a mix type of subdivision. Not everything big or everything small, just a mix type of products within the subdivision. And so we asked for the R-B zone to allow for that to happen, as well as for the reduced lot frontages. The Comprehensive Plan, which guides the development of the city, is mixed use already. That has been determined -- is medium density, excuse me, for this area, which would be three to eight dwelling units per acre. We come in at 3.3 dwelling units per acre, 33 units on ten acres, it's pretty simple. So, we are coming in on the low end of that. And we feel that this is the appropriate zoning designation for that, to allow for the mix of different types of housing within this project. Onto the fencing issue. Lot- - Wendy, can you go back to the other overhead? I will make my comments really brief, as I still have a green light; it's not yellow yet. This has to deal with the fencing. We have no problem including in the development agreement wording that would include fencing on Lot 6, Block 4 here, saying that if fencing is provided adjacent to this lot, it shall be subject to the same requirements as noted in MCC 12-13-15-9, that's the four foot, two foot -- the four foot, six foot requirements. We have no problem agreeing to that. We believe that these two lots should stand alone on their own and not be included in the development agreement, as those are people's back yards and large open space lots, plus the perimeter fencing. And so we would like to see it. We agree with staff that this project should be approved and recommended for approval to Council by you tonight and I end my testimony at this time and ask if you have any additional questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: All right. Commissioners, any discussion before we close the hearing? I think as far as the applicant -- and the only concern from my understanding is really the fence up in the northeast corner. Rohm: And that could be addressed in a develop agreement, as opposed to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 52 of 81 Borup: Well, either way. It would be -- I mean I think the fence in this area would be addressed in the development agreement, so the whole thing. So, the question would be is -- this Commission needs to decide how we feel about the fencing up there, as far as what the recommendation is going to be. Moe: I guess my point would be I would somewhat side with the applicant on those two lots as far as putting fencing in, so that the back yards to those properties are enclosed. You're still going to have open space to be able to see anything that's going on in that corner. Rohm: You're saying allow a six-foot fence here, but not -- Moe: That would all be open. Rohm: That's all open. Moe: That's what I'm saying. The same thing on the lot on the other side to the north there, yeah, you would have the fence there, but the rest of it is open as well, other than the perimeter would be fenced as well. Rohm: Makes sense. Borup: Oh, I agree. I'm very -- I feel very strongly about the importance of having the appropriate fencing around the open areas, because of the safety concerns, but this -- these lots, basically, parallel the road and they are open completely to the road, so it's not -- it's not of the same concern. And what Commissioner Moe said, that -- maybe that should be included in there, too, not allow any fencing on those lots, then, other than that perimeters and the -- Rohm: Parallel to the roadway. Borup: Right. I don't think there was ever any intention of doing that anyway. Mr. McKinnon, did you have a comment? McKinnon: My comment would be strike item number three on page eight, just dealing with the fencing issues. Change that, put it in the development agreement saying Lot 6, Block 4 right here, the fencing in this area would be subject to the same -- if any fencing ever is constructed there, it would be subject to the open space or -- the open space or micro-path ordinance, that's the 12-13-15-9-1 that they keep mentioning. Do it for that, but don't put any limitations of these two, they should be able to up a six foot fence here and a six foot fence here and I think that's what everybody is getting to, so if we just strike item number three and move the language to the development agreement, it would be item number five under the annexation conditions. The development agreement for this site includes language-limiting fencing, if provided in this area, to be limited to the same requirements as MCC 12-13-15-9. Does that make sense? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 53 of 81 Freckleton: Mr. Chair, for the record, staff concurs with what Dave said. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and I think it made sense for me as well. Let me ask just one clarification, if I can. The trees that would line the roadway on both sides, most of those are existing trees now; is that true? McKinnon: Yeah. There is a lot of trees there and most of them are existing. Zaremba: Are most of them deciduous trees? McKinnon: I have been out there a couple of times and I'm blanking on that. Zaremba: I'm trying to interpret from the landscape plan. McKinnon: It's about half. It's about half. Half and half. Zaremba: And the reason I'm asking that is you usually have better visibility through deciduous trees, because they don't start their canopy until above the height of children, whereas evergreens often start right at the ground. So, you know, if I'm satisfied that enough of the trees that are in there are deciduous, the visibility from the road back to the back of these open spaces would satisfy me. If they are all down to the ground evergreens, then, I would want visibility from somewhere else. But as I look at the landscape plan, I think I'm interpreting correctly that many of them are deciduous and that there would be visibility. Anybody have a confirming or alternate opinion on that? Rohm: I think you're right on. Zaremba: In which case I would accept in that common area six-foot fence anywhere around that it needed to be put, both perimeter and the two lots. It wouldn't be a problem for me. McKinnon: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on items AZ 04-021 and PP 04-02B. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. There is too many changes for me to go forward. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 54 of 81 Moe: There is still the issue of the stub street. We haven't made a decision and I guess what I would say is I think three is more than enough on this development myself and I can somewhat concur, I'd just as soon see it. stay as it is and not require another one. Zaremba: Well -- and I'm comfortable with the existing easement that's just a hair off of this property. I'm not sure it needs to be a public roadway up there and I'm sensitive to the idea that was behind ACHD's request. They did not actually make it a requirement, but it was just a suggestion. And staff's agreement with their request, I also understand why they went that way. But for myself, I would be satisfied, when you look at the projects that are around it, the potential development of the properties on the east, which I do hope all come in as one plan. I can't speak for them all being close neighbors with each other, but I hope they would get together, that the stub streets that exist out of this and other properties off site, and the easement that's just off of this property would satisfy me without an additional east stub street. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could talk about the sewer a little bit. The -- and Commissioner Zaremba touched on it that is the fact that, hopefully, those parcels will all develop together. We can't guarantee that, of course. These two narrow parcels, hopefully, you know, when they do develop, they will develop together and they will have access to sewer and water through this stub. This parcel, however, is large enough that it could develop without needing to have one of these others tagged on with it. Sewer flows westerly in this area and if we don't get sewer up to this location stubbed to this property, they are going to be high and dry. And so as you are considering this stub in here, if you do decide that you're not going to do the stub, please, do at least require an easement for sewer to get across that common lot and I know Dave has written something in his staff -- or in his rebuttal for that, but I just wanted to reiterate that for your benefit as you're discussing the stub street. Zaremba: My personal opinion is that would be a good solution. It's common area, it would probably be landscaped, unless it, actually, does need to be used for an easement, at which time it would probably have to have a solid surface, but I think as long as that easement exists across the few feet that it would need to exist, that sounds like a good solution to me. Freckleton: Well -- and you're correct. If we are going to run the sewer up there through an easement, we are going to have some restrictions on landscaping over the top of our sewer and that sort of thing. We can't have trees and, you know, just lots of extensive landscaping over the top that we might have to deal with some day in the future. Pathways are a good use over the top of our sewers, if you wanted to consider at least a pedestrian pathway type use up through that corner, it might give children from this subdivision a route to the elementary school if that were to develop out. Borup: So, what is the sewer situation at the school? Freckleton: The school currently gets their service off of Locust Grove Road. The school sits approximately here and they are sewering out to Locust Grove. Gravity. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 55 of 81 Borup: Okay. Freckleton: But they are the end of the line. We have got a main that comes up Locust Grove and it is very shallow by the time it gets clear up here to the school. Westburough Subdivision that Mr. Jewett developed here, pumps back up to Locust Grove -- or they will pump up to Locust Grove. Same type of situation for this development. They are proposing a lift station here and on the plan that you have, they were going to pump up to the same spot where Westburough was going to pump to, but Dave tells us that plans have changed and they are actually going to pump back to Leeshire, where they can, then, gravity -- or they are going to pump back up to a point where it does gravity out to Locust Grove, until the sewer gets built through Saguaro Canyon and that lift station can go offline and everything can gravity out. Borup: So, you're saying the parcels to the east are going to have to sewer to the west? Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Once the new trunk line goes in. Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: Unless the three develop together, in which case they could sewer to the south. Freckleton: If we want to take that risk that they would develop together. Zaremba: Well, our risk is we wouldn't annex them unless they do. Borup: Well, wouldn't the concern be if the large parcel to the north tried to develop first? If the ones to the south developed, they are going to have to bring their sewer through -- Freckleton: Right. Borup: -- anyway. Freckleton: And if the one to the north develops first, that's precisely why I'm concerned about getting sewer service up into this corner. Borup: If he develops first he's -- Freckleton: Exactly. I don't want to leave somebody high and dry. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 56 of 81 Zaremba: Well, now, here is the question. They would not need, for their own purposes, to put sewer anywhere on Jericho Road that would connect to the easement that we are talking about -- Freckleton: Actually, they would. Zaremba: Why? Freckleton: As I stated before, these home sites in Westburough Subdivision, the concept that they have right now is each home will have an individual grinder pump that will pump by pressure back to the line at Locust Grove. The developer of Westburough Subdivision put up monies for the installation of an eight inch diameter main in Jericho Road that would flow back to the south and connect up with an eight inch line we are going to -- we are going to have these guys install in this stub street that basically would connect up with Saguaro and get down to the north slough trunk line. So, the big picture is everything up here is going to gravity once sewer gets up to the point where we can. Borup: So, all we are talking is just a sewer easement in the northwest corner -- northeast corner? That's all you're saying is just a sewer easement in the northeast corner of the property? Freckleton: Correct. And the applicant has stated in their report and Dave just reiterated that they are fine with granting the easement. Borup: Sounds like it's time to move on. Zaremba: Help me understand the way the properties on Jericho are an issue to us. Are they required to annex when we make sewer available to them? They are in the county now; right? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, I believe that the requirement for them to annex is when they are contiguous. Currently they are not contiguous to the city limits. Zaremba: But is that their choice or it's a requirement somewhere? Borup: I don't remember that one, but all that we have done so far -- it's been almost automatic. It's required as soon as they are. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the properties on the east side of Jericho Road were done as a non-farm subdivision and there is a requirement that they put a note on the face of the plat that says that they will hook up to sewer service as soon as they are available. The question of annexation would tie to the agreement they made with the city when they -- they got that service and, generally, there is a requirement that they also annex. So, there is probably -- that requirement is there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2.2004 Page 57 of 81 Borup: And we'll have our first one next month. Zaremba: Well, the reason I was pursuing that is that it makes a difference to how I feel about requiring this applicant to take the sewer up Jericho and I think you satisfied me that -- I mean normally it's to and though and I was wondering why it's going through this direction and you have satisfied me that that's a legitimate requirement for this applicant, because there is a pre-existing condition off site, but that does place that requirement on this applicant to a least provide the sewer to edge. So, you have satisfied me. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to move on? Rohm: I just have one more question. The development agreement, does it go with the preliminary plat or does it go with the annexation? Borup: Annexation. Rohm: Annexation. Okay. Okay. Zaremba: Did you get the note under preliminary plat on page six I mean on page eight, paragraph six, to change applicant to homeowners association? Rohm: I got that. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-021, request for annexation and zoning of ten acres from RUT to R-B zones for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development, 3665 Jericho Road, including staff comments, dated August 30th, 2004, for the September 2, 2004, Planning and Zoning meeting, with the following change: Trying to find -- under annexation and zoning we would like to require a development agreement addressing the fencing along Lot 6, Block 4, matching the micro-path requirements. And I believe for the annexation that's the end of the motion. Zaremba: The easement doesn't need to be addressed in the annexation, that's a plat issue; right? Okay. I'll second the motion as it is. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 58 of 81 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion recommending approval of PP 04-02B, request for a preliminary plat approval for 33 single family residential building lots and three common lots on ten acres in a proposed R-B zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development, 3665 Jericho Road, including all staff comments dated August 30th, 2004, for the meeting date of September 2nd, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, preliminary plat special conditions, omit item number two. On page eight, as opposed to omitting item three, I think we should go ahead and restate that the required development agreement addressing the fencing along Lot 6, Block 4, matching micro-path requirements be inserted in its place. And item six, second line, replace the applicant with homeowners association. On page nine add a 10th item, require a sewer easement in the northwest corner of the development to exit the subdivision -- oh, excuse me, northeast corner so the sewer can exit the subdivision. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.1B acres from RUT to R-B zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 164 single family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 43.1B acres in a proposed R-B zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Borup: Thank you. That concludes that application. Okay. The next Public Hearing is AZ 04-020, request for annexation and zoning 43.1B acres from RUT to R-B zones for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gem Star Development and also PP 04-027, request for preliminary plat approval of 164 single family residential building lots on the same project. We would like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Staff has prepared about a two and a half hour presentation, if that's okay. Just kidding. Borup: Well, we have started before 11 :00, so I guess that means that we can just keep going. Hawkins-Clark: No. I will try to make the staff presentation to the point here. The application before you -- this first one is an annexation and zoning request and the property is on the east side of Locust Grove Road, about a quarter of a mile north of