Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 3, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 22 of 53 Borup: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Pubic Hearing: AZ 05-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrington Property by Mark & Karen Carrington - 2955 South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: I'll open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-048 relating to the Carrington property and entertain a motion to continue it to November 17th, 2005. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Item No. AZ 05-049 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 17th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 05-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.7 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 05-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 single-family residential building lots and 3 common area lots on 11.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Zaremba: Moving right along. Open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-043 and PP 05-045, both relating to Sunstone Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is for Sunstone Subdivision. It is located on the west side of Black Cat Road, south of Cherry Lane, on approximately 12 acres, 11.7 to be exact. I will just first thing touch on a -- one little error in the staff report. At the heading of the first page it does say that it's a preliminary plat for 23 building lots and three other lots on 11.7 acres Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 23 of 53 in an R-8 zone. That is supposed to an R-4 zone. It was noticed correctly and included on the agenda correctly. That's just a typo and I believe that's the only place that that does occur. So, sorry if that caused any confusion. As I mentioned, they are located on the west side of Black Cat Road, south of Cherry Lane in an area that is currently, at least on the west side of Black Cat, largely rural. The subject 12 acres do consist of two parcels, one at 1155 Black Cat Road and one at 1123 Black Cat Road in a separate ownership. They have come together for the application. As I mentioned, the applicant has proposed 23 building lots and three common lots and an R-4 zone for the property. The property is designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan, meaning three units to the acre or less. This proposal before you does come in at 1.97 units to the acre, well within the Comp Plan definition of low density residential and staff feels appropriate for the area. I will mention a couple of changes that are not in the staff report. One does have to do with the zoning of the property. The other has to do with the width of the streets. In relation to the zoning of the property, the applicant has proposed an R-4 zone for the entire project. We do have very large lots in the rear of the property, over half an acre, I think .55 is maybe the largest lot. And, then, at the front of the property on Black Cat -- when I say rear, I say west and, then, the front being out on Black Cat to the east. The applicant has proposed some slightly smaller lots. I believe they range up to a third of an acre -- go from a quarter to a third of an acre. Staff, since the report was prepared, in taking some comments from the public and having a few more discussions internally, we do feel it's a little more appropriate to split zone the property. Those lots on the eastern portion that are the quarter to a third of an acre are more appropriate for an R-4 zone, but the -- which is proposed, which is the entire property is proposed to be R-4, but we do feel that the large lots on the east end of the -- west end of the property, I'm sorry, are more appropriate for the R-2 zone. What that does is that provides a little more protection for the other residents in the area that these lots will not redevelop. Oftentimes subdivisions like this that will be in the CC&Rs anyways, but that's just an extra assurance for the residents of the area and it is a little more appropriate for those lots to be zoned R-2. Those would be exceptionally large lots in the R-4 zone. They do not need the R-4 zone for any of the dimensional standards. They do meet all the dimensional standards of the R-2. So, that's one fairly substantial change to the staff report. If you choose to adopt that recommendation, you will need to require that the applicant submit a new legal description that describes those two zones prior to this being approved by City Council. The other change to the staff report is regarding street width. The Meridian fire department -- and I think we may have had this discussion before -- has been requiring streets that are actually a foot wider than the standard ACHD street section. The standard ACHD street section measures from back of curb to back of curb and it's 33 feet. The Meridian fire department has been requesting a 33 foot face of curb to face of curb dimension, which you end up with a street that's one foot wider than the standard ACHD section. That requirement has been requested to -- the Mayor has specifically requested we do go with the ACHD standard and the standard comment that the fire department puts in here is in the process of being -- having that worked out, so we get back to that standard ACHD street section. So, staff would recommend that condition 1.1.3, relating to that requirement to increase the street width, we would request that that be removed. And that the applicant builds these streets to a standard ACHD section of 33 feet of Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 24 of 53 back of curb to back of curb. A couple other items to touch on are the stub streets on the property. In the preliminary meetings with the applicant we did ask that they stub to the north, south, and west. They have done that in the location that's shown on the screen and this is what they propose and has been approved by ACHD. I believe there will be some testimony tonight about the location of those stubs. Our comments to the applicant was that they needed to stub to the three sides of the property and this was their chosen location and it does comply with the Meridian code and was approved by Ada County Highway District. If the Commission hears compelling evidence that one of those stubs should be moved, then, it's certainly within your power to do so. The other comment I have would be on their open space for the subdivision. Looking first glance at the landscape plan, there is the required landscape buffer along Black Cat Road, then, there is some landscaping. There is a -- kind of dense hatching on the landscape plan that, unfortunately, makes this landscaping not show up well at all in this slide. I apologize for that. But the landscaping does continue into the project here on a common lot. And, then, the rest of the landscaping is found at an island at the turnaround at the east -- the west end of the property and also in the parkways that do front -- the parkways, the detached sidewalks that do front West Gray Towers Street. One small modification that was included in the staff report was that while Meridian city code does allow detached sidewalks to be reduced to four feet in width, attached sidewalks do need to be five feet in width. It didn't appear they were shown that way on the submitted plan, so that was a requirement that those be increased in width to meet that five foot requirement. And with that I will end staff's comments and take any questions from the Commission. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Josh, the R-2 designation, is that for both Block 2 and Block 4? Is that what , you re -- Wilson: Let me just verify that real quickly. Yes, that is correct. Moe: All lots in both those -- Borup: No. Wilson: Not all of them in Block 4, actually. It's on a fold here, so it's -- just a second. Moe: Okay. Wilson: That would -- the R-2 zone would exclude the eastern two most lots on both of those blocks. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 25 of 53 Moe: Yeah. I see that there. Okay. Wilson: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I did have questions also. Zaremba: You passed -- hang on just a second. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: On the last question you passed through -- yeah, that drawing there. Just kind of indicate with a pointer, if you would, where you're suggesting the -- Wilson: The break between the R-4 and the R-2 would be this lot line here and, then, this lot line here. Zaremba: All right. Makes sense to me. Thank you. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Just a comment on -- okay. The attached sidewalks were on the two stub streets, the way you're referring to; isn't that correct? Wilson: Correct. Borup: Okay. I see that now. Thank you. Zaremba: I believe we are ready for the applicant. Sonderegger: Clayn Sonderegger, 1155 North Black Cat Road. Thanks for the opportunity to be here. When we started designing this approximately a year ago, we wanted to do something a little more unique on this side of Meridian, as both me and -- the Sondereggers and the Birds live there, we wanted to make it a nice transition from the R-4 designation across the street, Castlebrook, which Corey Barton is doing a number of phases and working back and, then, we also have the high transmission lines that go through there from Idaho Power, so we wanted to have that buffer where we started with -- and the only reason we did the R-4 designation is so that we could get those -- basically was the criteria for the 80 foot length on the roads -- or adjacent to the roads that have that property line of 80 feet. And so with that transition, that's why we put the stub streets up front, so that we could get the quarter acre lots basically up closer to that way to start the buffer away from Black Cat, as we eventually know that that will be five lanes. That may be many years away, but we know that's what ACHD has in the future -- to transition backwards into a more -- the bigger lots and it was also because the Birds and ourselves wanted to live in this subdivision. We were advised by many people that we ought to be going immediately for the -- basically the three per acre where we would have another 11 additional lots in there. But because we wanted to be there, we like Meridian, we like living there, the schools and everything, we are basically doing this for our own convenience of not putting in as many homes as we Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 26 of 53 theoretically could with what the general plan shows. So, that's how -- what our answer was to this and working with the civil engineers and planners in making that a nice transition. Early on -- well, not early on, approximately -- I think it was about a month ago a neighborhood meeting was requested. We obliged that neighborhood meeting, sent out a letter to each of the people that was on that list. They get a specific list. And, then, we had that neighborhood meeting and two people -- two resîdents on a dîfferent street showed up for that. So, we did comply with that request that came from Planning. It's our intent -- we have -- after interviewing five high quality builders, we have selected Dimension Builders to be the controlling entity of the architecture and the quality of homes that are built. They have a longstanding reputation of building high quality homes. We feel that every home that is put in this will add value to this area. It will only increase the appreciation of the neighbors in this area and help them with the value of their property also as these high quality homes are built. I think that's all I have. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Moe: No. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Any concern with any of the staff requirements or comments? Sonderegger: No. As long as we -- we wouldn't have a problem with that R-2, R-4, as long as it doesn't hold up the process. If that can be done in a -- without losing any time. Borup: I think we were talking about having it done before it goes to City Council. Sonderegger: As long as it, you know, doesn't hold up City Council approval we have no problem making that recommendation. Zaremba: I think the only thing they need is a new legal description that separates it into two pieces. Is there anything else that would delay -- Sonderegger: We can call the civil engineer, then. Okay. We wouldn't have any problem leaving that requirement. Zaremba: Okay. Great. Thank you. We do have some people signed up to speak. We will begin with Kathy Farrera. Farrera: Good evening, Commissioners. Kathy Farrera, 4960 EI Gato Lane in Meridian. My husband and I have lived on EI Gato Lane for -- now it's almost 20 years. It was 19 last time I came into see you. And we live -- could I have the -- thank you. We live here in this second lot. So, there is basically a portion of a horse pasture between us and this new development. And I'm not as organized as I'd like to be when I come in here, but we have appeared before you several times this year concerned Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 27 of 53 about preserving the integrity of our largely agricultural neighborhood and anxious about whether or not the way of life that we have out there is being threatened and I'd like to kind of flash you back to the development that was proposed at the corner of Black Cat and Pine Lane, which you have approved in -- and that would be -- oops. Sorry. Right here. You approved that in August and the City of Meridian approved it in September and we had a -- it took awhile, but we had a very good relationship with the developer through neighborhood meetings on that project. The neighborhood meeting on the Sunstone project was set for 5:30 on an evening when many of the people that are in the neighborhood -- they can't get in from Boise at that time, which is why two people showed up. Sorry. Anyway, you will also recall that in the end the EI Gato Subdivision plan, which was first proposed as an R-3 with 17 build-able lots, was finally submitted as R-2 with 11 build-able lots. Those developers figured out that they could have a much nicer development and still make money and they reduced their build-able lots by 35 percent. Took them to R-2. We'd like you to consider that there is still available a significant amount of vacant land that's not being utilized in agricultural pursuits east of Black Cat and all the way to Locust Grove, which have already been pegged for higher density developments than half acre lots. And if -- I'm sure you will recall this, but it was just heart breaking for those of us who live on EI Gato Lane and who live off of Pine Lane -- and I don't have many Pine Lane people here tonight -- that are traditionally three and a half to seven acre parcels. We are going to start being surrounded by something as small as half acre lots. That was a big deal for us. I'm sorry, I'm speaking for a couple people here tonight, I'll try and hurry. Zaremba: I didn't ask you if you were being a spokesman, but are you being a spokesman? Farrera: I think for several that would -- Zaremba: I see some hands raised, so you -- Farrera: Not for everybody, but for several. But I will try and move it along. Zaremba: We will change the timing. You have used three minutes of the ten minutes that you should have. Farrera: Okay. Very good. Anyway, we -- it's not the intent of the Comprehensive Plan that all the developments be developed to their maximum density potential and neither P&Z, nor the City Council, is required to approve a maximum density proposal. R-4 is allowed by the plan at Sunstone's site, but we maintain that its best use -- or best interest are not in an R-4 zoning. So, we are not here about what can be done, we are here about what should be done. All that said, I'd like to remind you guys -- and I know I have said this to you before, but the City of Meridian's leaders, who have made policies affecting areas outside the city limits, also have an obligation to make development transitions into long-established rural neighborhoods in a fashion that is the least intrusive to the residents of those neighborhoods. We believe that the best reasonable way to transition from the new subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat Road into the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 28 of 53 multi-acre properties to the west is by limiting new subdivisions bordering Black Cat on the west to the largest possible lot sizes allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, which would be half acre lots in R-2 zoning. A corridor of the homes situated on half acre lots along Black Cat and cutting into the adjoining residential acreage properties is the most reasonable and responsible manner in which to accomplish this transition, creating the least intrusion to the long time rural residents, while still accomplishing the city's goal's for future development and continuing that standard that was started at Pine Lane and Black Cat for development in the future. And I believe one of you have made a comment at one of the prior hearings that we had that what happened at the corner of Black Cat and Pine Lane would probably set the precedent for what was going to happen between the railroad tracks and Cherry Lane, which goes all around these acreage properties. And so we hope that that did set the precedent. Thank you. Questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions? Borup: Not a question. Maybe just a comment. Two lots per acre on 11.7 acres would be 23 lots. Farrera: Some of those lots are small as -- it's either .20 or .21. Borup: Right. But the others are bigger. I'm saying that's the amount of lots you would do if that was -- Farrera: Well, you're talking -- yeah, you're talking an average. Borup: Uh-huh. Farrera: You're talking an average. But there is nothing -- some are significantly smaller than 12,000 square feet. Borup: Well -- and, then, others are significantly larger. Farrera: Well-- and I don't mean to argue with you. Borup: And, yet, within R-2 -- I mean the other choice would have been they could have made the other lot smaller. Farrera: That's true. One of the discussions that we had on the EI Gato Subdivision -- there was a point in time when what we were considering -- everybody was considering compromising for was 12,000 square foot lots. And, then, that went out the window and they actually made them -- their smallest lot is now 12,000 square feet and their largest one goes up to -- I think it's 17,000. Borup: Okay. That's what these average is a 17, is what they average. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 29 of 53 Farrera: Well, as an all-encompassing average. Right? Borup: Yes. Farrera: Yes. Borup: Which sounds larger than your example you just gave. Farrera: Some of the -- granted, some of the lots in the back are -- they are great size lots. I love those. I wish they were all like that. And when we first heard about this project six months ago or so, when we heard they were thinking about it, we talked to Mr. Bird and he said that we are thinking about putting in half-acre lots. I said, great, no problem. There is nobody that's going to complain, nobody's going to make noise. And I understood they originally submitted it as R-2, then, withdrew it and resubmitted it as R-4, then, we had a problem. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: CommissÎoner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. Farrera, I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you are saying and the folks that you are speaking for. Farrera: Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: You're fine with the back half of the development and it's the front half and the R-4 lots -- Farrera: Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: -- you're requesting that they be half-acre lots. Is that what you're asking for? Okay. Farrera: What we would like to see is from Black Cat to Cherry Lane on the west side of the Black Cat, stay minimum half-acre lots. I mean not an average with a .2-acre lot here and a full half-acre lot next door to it. Newton-Huckabay: If I'm looking at the Comprehensive Plan correctly, north of this property, then, is designated medium density residential from that to Cherry Lane. Farrera: I don't think so. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just want to make sure I understood, because I wasn't sure what you were requesting, which was -- excuse me-- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 30 of 53 Farrera: And that comment was -- we discussed the same thing -- it's discussed the same boundaries several months ago and, actually, nobody mentioned that, but that comment was never made. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba? Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to get verification. Farrera: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. Zaremba: While you're there let me ask staff for a comment. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, the property directly to the north of this is designated medium density residential and that designation does continue to Cherry Lane. Zaremba: And medium density would include R-8; is that correct? Wilson: That's correct. It would be three to eight by the definition of the Comprehensive Plan. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: And there is a neighborhood center there as well. Wilson: That's true. On the half mile on Cherry Lane between Black Cat and McDermott there is a neighborhood center. Zaremba: Well -- and the theory of those is that densities would increase as you approach it. Wilson: Yeah. That's correct. Newton-Huckabay: I believe it's closer to McDermott. Half mile. Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Christy Campbell. Campbell: Hi, there. Christy Campbell. 5055 Sunfish Lane. First of aI/, we had planned on coming quite a while ago and, then, it got withdrawn and resubmitted. So, I had submitted comments in writing to the city clerk's office on July 12th. Do you guys Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 31 of 53 have that? Is that something that you would have been given? Because I could make my presentation or my comments a lot shorter, I guess. Zaremba: I do not remember seeing that in this packet. Campbell: Okay. Zaremba: It probably was -- Campbell: Would it have been in the original packet and, then, possibly not -- Zaremba: -- withdrawn with it. Campbell: Okay. I wasn't aware that that would happen. Zaremba: It's relating to that Campbell: Okay. Can we go back to the aerial? Okay. My husband and I are on this property right here. And, basically, our big concern -- we kind of feel like the development is inevitable and that's just a part of us living so close to what is now City of Meridian. We do like the rural feel. But I guess we are willing to take the changes that are coming, but we were wanting a little bit of help from the developers of Sunstone. Our situation was that a few years back we needed to try to annex and actually rezone for purposes of -- my in-laws have owned this property for over 30 years. It's getting to be a bit too much for them to handle by themselves and my mother-in-law doesn't want to sell it. So, we tried to just work something out where we could divide it once, basically give them their acre, we would take the other four acres, and be there to take care of things for them. Well, there were two issues. City services were still on the other side of Black Cat and, then, Sunfish Lane, which is our access, is a private dirt road. So, those were the two big issues of planning and zoning and they said that the City of Meridian would never entertain our request because of those things. Well, the services issue has been taken care of, but Sunfish Lane will always be a problem, because unless we improve it and make it a designated road, they won't let us use it as access, even if we could develop. So, we were seeing this development as an opportunity for us to get a stub road onto our property. So, our fîrst concern was that there wasn't going to be a stub road to our direction. Well, now when they resubmitted it, they made a stub road onto the Barry's property. We really would like the stub road going onto our property, because, if not, we will be landlocked. I mean we will not have an opportunity -- we went through Ada County, got a second residence put on there, but it's temporary for -- we got ten years. So, we basically have nine of those ten years left. So, once those nine years more expire, then, we are back where we started and are having to move one of our residences off and we were just really looking at this as an opportunity to have an access. Where they currently have the access going to the Barry's property, the Barrys, if they ever did want to develop, have access off of Black Cat Road. So, we feel that it would make more sense going onto our property and we -- we just hope that you would take that into consideration. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 32 of 53 Zaremba: Thank you. We will have the applicant comment on -- but many of the accesses up and down on Black Cat, ACHD is already signaling that if those develop they will not have that same access, so that's part of the reason for the stub road is they will lose that access to Black Cat. Campbell: Okay. Any other questions? Moe: Yeah. Where is your access now? Campbell: Okay. Our access is off of Sunfish Lane and that is a private road -- it's a dirt road that runs right along here around Ten Mile Creek. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: How many properties have -- how many properties access to that road? Campbell: Well, let's see. I would say six. But, then, I would tell you that most of those properties have been owned and out there so long that they have more than one residence on them and so a lot of them have two or three residences on them. Borup: They go clear back this far? Campbell: Correct. Correct. Borup: And the property to the north? Campbell: No. Those all come off of Cherry Lane, because there is Ten Mile Creek. Borup: Okay. So just this section in here? Campbell: Correct. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Campbell: Okay. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Tom Campbell is signed up, if you have anything to add, sir. T. Campbell: Tom Campbell. It's 4997 Sunfish Lane. Actually, my wife misspoke. Basically I just want to reiterate the fact that -- when she said as far as us potentially wanting to annex and subdivide our property, it was strictly for family. We have no intention in the foreseeable future of every doing anything other than for a family Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 33 of 53 purpose, to help us maintain a place of residence that my parents have had and I, myself, personally, have lived on it for over 20, 25 years. Keep this in the family and with the restriction of the temporary use permit, they have a ten-year maximum at this current time, although that I, guess, is under review, because the first ten year period since that was enacted has not expired, thank you, yet. So, there might be some leniency to us at that point. But this point basically comes down to the fact that if we lose that ten-year period and they force us, basically, we have to, you know, move my parents off the property or move ourselves off the property, basically, and do something different. The other thing I'd just like to point out is the fact that there is approximately five or six properties that use Sunfish Lane as the -- basically only access to their properties. Again, I think that even in future developments for the City of Meridian, I think it would be in the best interest to move the current proposed access road to the north of the Sunstone Subdivision farther west, therefore, being able to service more of these adjacent properties to ours. That's what I have. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, a couple questions. One, can you renew that application after the ten years? Is that renewable? I assume you can apply again to ask for an extension. T. Campbell: My understanding is that we have to apply for that, actually, every two years. So, we are, actually -- Borup: Okay. T. Campbell: -- getting close to the time that we have to actually reestablish that permit and it's good from a maximum of ten years at this point, according to how it's been written. Borup: Okay. And, then, you mentioned access to all those properties along there. Why not just make -- why not just make that a public road? Wouldn't that solve the problem? T. Campbell: Yes, it would. As I say, a couple potential problems with that. First of all, what we were told, anyway, when we went to the City of Meridian is that they felt that-- or we were told we needed a 50-foot wide curb and gutter road. Borup: Right. T. Campbell: I'm not sure how that would be handled next to an actual creek -- Ten Mile Creek itself, whether or not they would actually ever let us put something like that right next to the creek, as far as, you know, maintaining that, you know, habitat and waterway as it is. So, I guess I have a fear that even if we did have the money to put in a 50 foot wide curb and, you know, gutter road, that we, potentially, could be shoved down, just because of being next to the creek. It does border the creek and run along -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 34 of 53 Borup: You haven't looked into that, though, you're saying? You have not looked into that at all? T. Campbell: I have not, no. That's speculation on my part. Borup: Thank you. Moe: I do have a question for you. You made the statement that if we were able to put a stub street into -- basically to the northwest area near your property, that it would also benefit the other property owners. I guess I'm curious how would that benefit them? T. Campbell: I'm just saying simply that where it stands now, basically only one property along the -- that's adjacent to the Sunstone Subdivision could potentially benefit from that. I'm not saying they will. I don't know if they would ever want to do something. I'm just saying that for future planning is that if it was moved further to the west to where it would border, you know, potentially our property and other properties to make it at that point less of a burden to develop in that direction. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Let me ask for clarification. If I'm interpreting correctly, your Conditional Use Permit to have two dwellings on one property, is that a county -- that's not city, is it? That's County? T. Campbell: That -- sorry. Ada County. Yes. We had to apply for that through Ada County. Zaremba: That would have been a necessity, because at the time you could not annex, you -- you need to be contiguous -- contiguous to a part of the city to annex. T. Campbell: Which we are currently. Zaremba: If this project went ahead, you would have a border that borders the city. T.Campbell: Yeah, we -- there is -- the property north right there, that is, actually, City of Meridian and it borders our property line already and it's been that way for a few years. Zaremba: Okay. Well, that would allow you to annex, which I'm -- let me ask staff now that -- Baird: This is not relevant. Zaremba: The city would allow them to subdivide if they annexed, wouldn't they? And that would eliminate their current conditional use problem with the county? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 35 of 53 Wilson: As they testified, they do have the access problem still. We do need a public roadway to that subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. So, Sunfish Lane would not be satisfactory. Wilson: -- is private. Right. And I believe it's -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Although I sympathize with the Campbell situation, I don't know that this discussion is relevant to the application before us, other than whether or not we want to recommend moving the stub street down. Campbell: That's all we are suggesting is that -- Zaremba: I think is the subject. Yeah. Campbell: Yeah. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: But I don't think -- I don't know that we need to go into anymore detail than that. Zaremba: Mr. Baird has a comment. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I would just caution against giving any legal advice on how to deal with the county at this point. Zaremba: Yes. That's a good point. Baird: Because we were almost getting into that, so -- Zaremba: Yeah. I was just seeing whether they could annex, but if the access is an issue, then, it doesn't work. Any further questions from Mr. Campbell? Newton-Huckabay: No. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: That's everybody who signed up, but if there is anybody else who feels they should add something -- come ahead, sir. We will go in order. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 36 of 53 Rohm: Mr. Tom Knoll. Knoll: Yes. I have been introduced by Mike Rohm. My name is Tom Knoll. I live at 5947 EI Gato Lane. I have been here a few times before. I was here earlier. I'm, actually, the neighbor in some respects with Kathy Farrera. I live further -- a little further west, but we have testified quite a few times on this property here. Kathy emphasized the importance of the R-2 zoning to us and I remember the discussion -- we had an arithmetic discussion this evening about means and so on. I just want to emphasize that the R-2 zoning is very important to the people on EI Gato Lane to preserve the heritage and the buffer zone. These developers down here, when we worked with them and they switched to R-2, they were -- I think they were quite happy and they found their project to be very feasible at R-2 zoning. We would encourage this property to take the same long view and to be flexible and we would like to see the whole property as an R- 2 zoning, not split into an R-4 parcel up near Black Cat Road and R-2 in the back. That's -- we worked with you folks and we worked with the developers at length to make that situation earlier this year and we'd like to continue that working relationship and make sure that we have got high quality developments on the west side of Black Cat Road. So, that's the extent of my testimony and I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much. Knoll: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Okay. Sir. Hansen: Good evening. My name is John Hansen. I live at 6220 EI Gato Lane, which is the other end of EI Gato from the EI Gato Subdivision. I testified at that -- that subdivision. I want to provide my support for the comments that Kathy has -- Kathy Farrera has made and Tom Knoll, so I won't repeat any of their comments, because they covered almost everything that I had to say. I will add in one small detail, in that the -- with the neighborhood meeting, which we very much appreciate the people -- the developer going through, along with it being early, so many of us couldn't make it. I was one of the few that could, only because I retired a couple of days before that meeting. In that also the paperwork -- and I don't know if this happened for anybody else, but all the paperwork that was supposed to have come to me for that meeting to tell me that that meeting existed, didn't show up at my -- didn't show up in my paperwork packet. I don't know if I was the only one or that occurred for other people, but it appears that there was a -- I don't want to use -- to interpret the low turnout as being lack of involvement from the neighborhood due to those two issues that did come up. Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. Hansen: Any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 37 of 53 Sharratt: Paul Sharratt, 5556 EI Gato Lane. I live at the half-mile mark. I'm right there on this map. Also, nice to see you all again, I guess. Being a water user on tap 27911, which is the tap that we are on, both of these properties are included in the normal watering cycle during the irrigation season. I have personally irrigated the Sonderegger property, the one on the north side, and used that property several years ago. That being said, in reading the staff report I didn't see anywhere that it said that either of the properties were irrigated and that the irrigation -- the property does cross the irrigation ditch, so -- I mean my concern there is there is irrigation ditches and canals that do cross this property and are adjacent to this property and nowhere in there did I see any reference to Nampa-Meridian or any of that issue, so that was one concern on my part. And being that this property is currently fed off our tap, are they going to -- excuse me. I know Meridian says it's going to be pressurized irrigation. Are they going to be pressurized off of our water supply or are they going to be pressurized off the canal or are they going -- you know, it doesn't specify where that water is coming from. So, that's a concern from our neighborhood association. Along with several of the other neighbors that reside along the west side of Black Cat, we are concerned with the development. A lot of the main concerns are the same concerns that we brought up with the EI Gato Subdivision, preserving the integrity of the large lots -- large acreage lots on the west side of Black Cat. Skyview Ranchettes is a platted-established subdivision that was created in 1974. That's where most of us live. There are a lot of attractive nuisances that these larger lots create. As we increase the number of smaller lots, even half-acre lots, these -- our lots become an attractive nuisance. There are several properties with animals, horses, and cows. There is a nursery in the area. Some of the ground is farmed for hay, some with row crops, that means there is equipment in the area, equipment moving around. There have been two lots set aside for game bird habitat. There are a number of irrigation and canals in the area and EI Gato Lane is already becoming a favorite walking and/or bike riding area for residents in surrounding subdivisions. We on EI Gato already have seen an increase in the number of nonresident people up and down EI Gato Lane and the surrounding area. We know that we cannot close down our road or stop this property from being developed, but we believe that the best way to preserve the integrity of the established properties is to have all lots in the subdivision be in the half acreage range, with the entire subdivision having an R-2 zoning. The one last thing I'd do -- and since Kathy didn't do it, can I have everybody that kind of supports what Kathy said raise their hand? Just so you guys can have an idea of -- I was another one of those that couldn't make that neighborhood meeting. But as you can see by the people that are here tonight, we -- there are several of us here that are concerned with this that are in -- not necessarily total opposition of this development, but concerned with the R-4 zoning portion of it Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 38 of 53 Zaremba: Thank you very much. Anybody else have something to add? Sir. And, again, I will ask you to only add new things and not repeat, since Kathy was speaking for you and got extra time. Frederickson: Scott Frederickson. 4200 West Plumb Rose, Meridian, Idaho. And Kathy wasn't speaking for me. I am the individual who sent out the neighborhood meeting notice. I am part of Dimension Building Company, who will be doing the actual building and development in the subdivision. Just wanted to address the issue of the neighborhood meeting just briefly and that is that we did set the time between 5:30 and 6:30 when Kathy did come and gave her opinions and feelings and stated that they did represent the neighborhood association on EI Gato, but that they were going to have a difficult time getting there. We did say that we would stay later. I know that she made some phone calls, which brought John there, We did remain there until 7:00 o'clock that evening to allow anybody else that may come. At the bottom of the letter that we sent out to everyone -- and I personally stuffed those envelopes. I don't know what happened with John's, but I stuffed them with both the letter, along with the plat, along with the notice of this meeting. He said that he did receive a notice of this meeting, whether it was from us or some other source, I don't know. But in the letter that we sent we did provide phone numbers asking the -- if they were maybe unable to attend that meeting that they could contact us directly. Provided them e-mail addresses as well. And we did not hear any response back from them. So, I just wanted to make sure that we clarified that we have made a good faith attempt to try and get the opinions to address the concerns. As far as the actual development goes, we feel that we have taken an approach that covers everyone's interest, as well as those that are going to reside there, the current owners that are going to remain there, and talking a -- the challenge of having a subdivision right across the street, that we are going to transition into even higher quality homes and instead of coming out just with first -- right off the bat half acre lots, half million dollar homes, it allows us to do a transition of the little small, nicer homes, which we have had a very good demand and request for, into the nicer -- nicer estate lots in the back. And we feel that the -- as stated in the staff report that it does provide a very nice continuity from the existing neighborhood in the area and, as you will see, that any lots that back up basically from right there is where the R-4 zoning is going to end and so it leaves quite an area there that it's still just half acre lots backing up to those EI Gato lots. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have a question for you. Zaremba: Yes. While the other gentleman is coming forward. Newton-Huckabay: Well, was that public testimony or was that applicant response? Borup: That was public testimony. Zaremba: Consider that public testimony. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 39 of 53 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Bowman: Hi. I'm David Bowman. I live at 5808 North Cape Arago in Garden City. Although this is my first visit to Meridian City Planning and Zoning, I do attend quite a few planning and zoning commission meetings and take an active role in that and just watching the proceedings from that standpoint, as well as -- this is public testimony, I don't want to be considered as part of the applicant, although I am representing Dimension Building Company's interest in this affair. Two clarifications that I wanted to just make, just from a personal and a public standpoint as a member of the society here. The stub road was a concern to me. When it was brought up early on when we looked at this development, they wanted it farther to the west and I believe provided there in that turnaround is a future stub as well. So, we, actually, have three per the requirement of the staff report, which would allow them to also make a stub road out that way. Now, how that future development might, you know, turn out for the people to the north of that, I don't know, but I do know that the continuity of the subdivision as it sits now, if you were to move that -- that northern stub to the west, it's going to create a little bit of a hardship in the community itself as far as creating a stub road in between the larger estate size homes, rather allowing a nice street scape and frontage road for the smaller home sites, which are -- remain to be just -- I think the smallest one is just a quarter of an acre, all the way up to a little bit over a third of an acre to the south and that was another consideration that I wanted to bring up, in the fact that when we looked at this overall plat design and it was agreed upon that we -- that we would make the transition from Castlebury over to the estate lots by putting in some quarter acre lots. We originally wanted to stick with the R-2 zoning to maintain the integrity of the subdivisions that were going to be further to the west and also to the south and north, which would affect the EI Gato folks and in thinking -- in that thinking we tried to keep as many of the third acre lots on the southern most tip, so that anything that is even close to bordering within a few hundred feet of the EI Gato Subdivision, that they would remain the larger lots and, therefore, much more open space between the dwellings and keep that amiability -- and integrity to the R-2 zoning that's going throughout. Basically, we want to -- per the staff request we changed the R-2 zoning to the R-4, although we meet the requirements of the R-2 zoning through the whole subdivision, even as the lots sit now. We did that per staff, just to maintain some of the street widths and frontages that were there. So, with that said I will remain here for any questions you might have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much. Okay. I believe we are ready for Mr. Sonderegger to -- oh, I'm sorry. One more. Densmer: My name is Jason Densmer. I'm with Roylance and Associates. I don't want to step on Mr. Sonderegger's time, but I would want to provide a little bit more clarity from the designer's perspective on where we put the stub streets and what the intent was there, as we worked together with city staff and the highway district. Like was mentioned, we did provide stub streets to all three directions around us. The property to the south, that property, if you look on the aerial, it's very triangular in shape and so we actually intentionally pulled the stub street on that one towards the east to try and Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 40 of 53 access the meat of triangular shaped property. We also stubbed into the Barry's property to the north, because we knew that sometime in the past -- I believe it was about ten or 12 years ago, they had actually conceptualized a development plan for their own property that was of a higher density and we -- looking at that and what we knew at the time, we figured that of the properties there on Sunfish, the most likely to redevelop in any kind of short time fame would be the Barry's, because they had already envisioned that in the past. In addition to that, there was a lot of justification for the location of this sub street where we put it. I certainly understand the Campbell's predicament where they would like to divide their property, but don't have access to a public street. I'm afraid that even if we were to shift the stub street within the Sunstone property down to access them, it may actually worsen their predicament, instead of -- as a way of contrasting it, I think that maybe their best way of developing, if they want access to a public street, would be to work with their neighbors and improve Sunfish, because the distance from their property to back to Black Cat via Sunfish is shorter than it would be for them to extend a stub from our northerly property line through their entire property. In either case they are going to have to build a 50-foot right of way and improve it. If I were in their place I would want to do the shorter distance, rather than the longer one. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much. Now we are ready for the applicant, I believe. Sonderegger: Commissioners, I'd like to remind you -- Zaremba: I know you're the same person, but start with your name and address. Sonderegger: Clayn Sonderegger. 1155 North Black Cat Road. We'd like to remind the Commissioners we have gone above and beyond to meet the general plan that currently allows for three per acre, as we are only at 1.97. The reason -- at least one of the reasons that we switched -- when we pulled our plan, we originally were -- basically all half acre lots, but after the requirements of ACHD, who happened to have those stub streets, it cost us approximately about 10,000 dollars per foot to put a street in, by the time you put water, sewer, all the other utilities, plus paving and sidewalks, and so one way to be able to pay for that is -- being that we are not maxing out like a lot of developers would, we are basically breaking even on the lot sales and being able to just get the streets that are required right now with the way costs are escalating, the concrete shortages that are now in the area. And so there were a lot of people who, once they heard we were doing half acre lots through word of mouth, said, well, gee, how much are they going to be and there were approximations thrown and they said, gee, that's too much, could you do something else, could you get some smaller lots up there at the front and so we also complied with a lot of them, realizing there was a demand for that and in that transition area. Another item, the nine -- the nine years for development, I think he mentioned that they were landlocked. They have full access through Sunfish. And when we actually went to ACHD the first time -- maybe go to that next -- yeah. Right here. We, actually, tried to run the stub street right there and they told us we could not do that, because there were too many property owners and they Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 41 of 53 had no idea how that would be controlled. That was our very first choice is to run that street right down that back edge between that and the existing property and because it intersected with four properties at that corner, they said we could not do it. And so that's why we backed up and decided to buffer those stub streets with the quarter acre lots with it. It just kind of continues that transition going through. Again, we wanted to transition from the Corey Barton Subdivision of being a much higher density as we traveled through and to eventually get back to the more estate size lots and, irrigationwise, the main Kennedy Lateral -- and maybe Jason can help me more with this -- we don't cross the Kennedy. The property doesn't cross that. It comes up to that -- the ditch rider road and that's where we end and there is a ditch that goes across for my personal irrigation. And, then, there is one that's right at the northerly edge and I'm not sure if that's only on our property or the adjacent property. And it runs all the time, as it feeds everything more to the north as it goes down through that area. But I don't think in our thing we have to tile anything, because we will be eliminating my ditch. Whether that water is coming from the actual Kennedy Lateral or if it's coming from the well, I don't think it's been decided yet. But in either case it would be run through Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and meet all their requirements with it. I think that was it. If there is any questions for me. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? clarifications you may need? Apparently not. Staff, any further Wilson: No. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you, sir. Commissioners, discussion? Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the testimony that we have heard tonight and I certainly understand the neighborhood as a whole wanting to maintain the rural lifestyle that they have grown accustom to and from my own personal perspective, it appears to me that this development takes that lifestyle into consideration, while at the same time addressing development concerns of the city, as in stubbing to the north, stubbing to the south, and in the process of meeting the expectations of the city and placing those stub streets in to serve adjacent properties, it leaves you with an inability to maintain the same lot configuration and still serve them and be able to fulfill their development, from my perspective. And so I -- even though I understand were the folks to -- in EI Gato are coming from, I believe that this, from my perspective, addresses your concerns by maintaining larger lots to the west, while at the same time adhering to the city's requirements of stub streets both north and south. So, that's kind of my spot on this. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup? Borup: No. Just well said. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 42 of 53 Borup: My thought was -- I mean I think when you have a Comprehensive Plan, owners of property should have some expectation that they should be able to develop their property in line with that Comprehensive Plan. It talks about, you know, the low density, up to three per acre, I think they have done a good job of complying with that. It does have -- I mean it does average it at two lots per acre. The overall density is the same. You know, the choice could be to make some of the lots smaller and the other ones larger, but the end result is going to be the same number of lots, same number of dwelling units. The difference is going to be you're going to have some higher -- probably some higher priced homes, which, usually, is what people want. Zaremba: I think for me the key word is transition. This provides a comfortable transition in several directions. There is greater density on the east side of Black Cat Road. There will eventually be greater density north of this project. I agree with the split zoning, so that the back portion of this is guaranteed to stay R-2, but to me the transitions are well thought out. Rohm: I'd like to speak to that split zoning as well. I think that our city staff has heard the public loud and clear that you want to maintain that rural lifestyle and in an effort to address your concerns by requiring that this development replat to split it between the R-2 and the R-4, provides that assurance, as opposed to through restrictive covenants or something to that effect. And so I guess with that being said, I want you to know that your concerns are not going unheard. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I did have some questions. Brad, can you put up the -- an aerial map? I just wanted to get some -- ask some questions on the Comprehensive Plan, so that I can kind of put this whole thing in -- oh, I'm over here. Rohm: We've got to send her to pointer school. Newton-Huckabay: I need to go to pointer school. The neighborhood center designation is, basically, kind in the half-mile area here. Okay. It's no mystery to this Commission I'm not a huge fan of the neighborhood center concept. Is that something that we are still aggressively pursuing on the Comprehensive Plan are these neighborhood centers? That's my first question. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, there has been no modification. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I assumed that. Hawkins-Clark: North Meridian area, as you know, we took off three of them, and shifted those to the intersections of the arterials. I think staff still believes that after only three years that there are some good arguments to allow the marketplace to work in Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 43 of 53 these, you know, particularly where you already have at the intersection, you know, some of the residential built out. So, like at the intersection of Black Cat and Cherry, the Milliron Subdivision that backs up to Golf View Estates, you know, that's -- so that's all residential at that intersection. So, I -- you know, if you look at the whole western area and think about where are services, you know, likely to happen, we would -- staff would still want to see the -- you know, the neighborhood center concept and we have had this map for three years and there have been decisions made by purchasers and speculators of land that this is the plan that City of Meridian has adopted, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Okay. My other question -- starting this -- and this may end up just being a comment. This line right there, basically, below it's designated low density. This is medium. And the neighborhood center and, then, medium. And, then, there is the school -- potential school site right in -- on that property. Borup: That just means somewhere in the mile. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. So, I'm just -- I want to make sure I have my head around the suggestion I'm going to make here. I think that -- knowing that this -- that this medium -- that this is going to transition to medium density, I don't mind the idea of having a little bit of R-4 in here, but I might suggest -- because this is low density here, that we keep those low density here and possibly just do the R-4 on the north side of the street -- there you go -- would be my -- keep the low density -- the half acre lots down here. I think that would be my preference. And I have to -- I don't know whether I would say that I think the stub street should go clear down to the Campbell's property, but I believe they could potentially better serve these properties back here, that could potentially be access to a neighborhood center and a school further west in the property. We put stub streets along half acre lots in the development down -- was that called EI Gato? The development? Okay. In the EI Gato one had stub streets along half acre lots. So, I don't know that that, for me, is a relevant argument. And I know that I'm not on the popular end of opinion in this Commission, so I'll end my comments with that. I would rather see the denser lots on the north side of the development and the half acre lots all around the south. Zaremba: Thank you. Other Commissioners? Moe: Well, I'm the only one that hasn't spoke and so I guess I would just say that, quite frankly, I would concur with Commissioner Borup and Rohm and yourself, Mr. Chairman, on the project. I like the transition the way it's -- it is designed at the present time. Zaremba: It doesn't solve all problems for all people, but no project does, and I, for one, appreciate the two different property owners that have gotten together to bring in a bigger project than they would have had individually. We are talking about a tough project to design if we are talking about two halves of this. I appreciate that it came in as a single project. But I think a lot of problems have been solved. Not every problem, but a lot of problems have been solved just the way it sits. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 44 of 53 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: With your recommendation to split this into two zones within the applications forwarded onto City Council, where do you make that -- do you add an item -- line item in the staff report? Moe: Mr. Rohm, I guess I would be -- would that not be just a 1.1.9 under your site- specific requirements? That you just do are-plat? Wilson: Commissioner Rohm, as you know, we can't condition the annexation, I'm getting from Brad. Maybe Mr. Baird can help us here with the legal aspect. But Brad's suggesting that you would include in your motion on the annexation and with that I'll ask Mr. Baird's opinion. Okay. He's nodding his head. Baird: And I will verbally agree that's the right thing to do. Zaremba: I'm not sure I understood. The format is just to make it a totally separate statement? Baird: To limit it to the annexation condition, but not under the preliminary plat. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready to close the Public Hearing? Rohm: I'm going to do that -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one -- I was just looking down on the comments from the public. Mr. Sharratt had the water issue concern. Did we appropriately address that? Zaremba: Yeah. I think the applicant felt that he wasn't doing anything that would affect their delivery. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Actually, in the report under the -- under the planning department, under the general requirements, of the preliminary plat, 1.2.6, it speaks to the irrigation ditches, laterals, and canals. Basically, that's to be taken care of there. And I think he also made a comment in regards to pressurized irrigation and here, again, that is also noted Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 45 of 53 in 1.2.3 that it is a requirement of the city that that has to be done as well. So, yeah, I think both of those issues were resolved. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: That being said, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-043 and PP 05-045. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Uh? Zaremba: Do we need any discussion of the motion or are we ready to make one? And let me clarify. These both would be recommendation to the City Council? Wilson: That is correct. Zaremba: I see nodding. Yes. I may ask that many times over the next month or so. Borup: Are we waiting for somebody to say something? Rohm: Oh, I thought Dave was going to do it, but I'll do it. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council for file number AZ 05- 043 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated March 21 st, 2005, with the following modifications to the zoning application, to change the lot zoning of lots -- Borup: Do you want me to step in there? Rohm: Well, I can name the lots. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Block 4 and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Block 2, to be rezoned to R-2. End of motion. Borup: Plus-- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 46 of 53 Rohm: The balance of the lots will remain -- Borup: No. There was another section that talked about deleting. Moe: Right here. Zaremba: The fire department road. Rohm: Where is that, Keith? Zaremba: And that change was to design it to ACHD -- Borup: I wrote out -- yes. To delete -- to delete that and comply with ACHD regulations. Rohm: Please add that to the motion. Delete 1.1.3 and adhere to Ada County Highway District regulations. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. I have one discussion to make before we take a vote and that's a question of staff. With the zoning split do we need a new drawing ten days before the City Council hearing or -- Wilson: The legal description. Zaremba: Just for the legal description. Wilson: Yeah. For the two zones. Zaremba: Okay. And the applicant has already promised that. So, do we want to say ten days before the -- Wilson: Yeah. Zaremba: Does it need to be part of the motion or -- Wilson: It could be. That's kind of our general requirement, but it would be good to spell it out. Zaremba: Would you care to add -- Rohm: Add that to the motion as well. Zaremba: And the second? '"j Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 47 of 53 Borup: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Zaremba: And thank you all very much. Traditionally we take a break -- I'm sorry, I thought you did them both. Borup: Yes, you did. Rohm: I didn't do the preliminary plat. Borup: Yes, you did, actually. You mentioned both in your thing. And then -- but, then, you went back and added the change to the zoning. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, it is okay that you bundle them if they are just recommendations and we were listening when the changes were made, that a couple of changes affected only the zoning and a couple of -- I mean one of them, the deletion, only affected the preliminary plat. So, I think your record is clear on that. We are fine. Zaremba: But we are agreeing that both were combined in that one motion? Baird: Correct. Zaremba: That's the way I heard it. Baird: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you all very much, then. The motion carries four to one. And as I started to say, we traditionally take a break around 9:00 o'clock. We will do so now for ten, 15 minutes, then, we will reconvene. (Recess. ) Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 05-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 05-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -