Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 17, 2005 P&Z Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 17 of 37 Borup: That's alii had. Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Rohm: I think so. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-048, to include all staff comments, for the hearing date of November 17th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a second? Moe: Yes. I was working on that, but I wanted to make sure that we do note that there is a development agreement required as well. Newton-Huckabay: Is that in the staff report? Zaremba: It is in the staff report. Moe: Okay. Second. Zaremba: But a good point to emphasize that. So, we do have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Continued Pubic Hearing from November 3, 2005: 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 G rove Road: Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Moving on. Item 6. I would open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-049 and, again, a comment that it is continued only because of a notice problem before and there was no earlier discussion and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject annexation and zoning request is, again, to the R-4 zone for 5.15 acres. This property is also currently zoned RUT in Ada county. It is shown as low density residential on the city's comprehensive future land use map. This property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, just north of Victory there, again, within Kachina Estates Subdivision. There is one existing home and some out buildings on the subject site. This is Lot 7, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 18 of 37 Block 1, of Kachina. To the north is a city approved Salmon Rapids Subdivision, which is single family homes. Sherbrooke Hollows and Sageland Subdivision are across Locust Grove Road from the subject site. Also annexed and city approved developments there with single family homes. Again, the conceptual preliminary plat that was submitted with the annexation. I would note that there are 2.3 dwelling units per acre. I failed to mention the conceptual dwelling units per acre on the previous plan, that was just at two -- 2.1, I believe it was. On this 5.15 acres they are showing 12 home sites. So, it puts them just over two dwelling units per acre. A lot of the development agreement requirements that staff is recommending are similar to the McGee property annexation application. I will just touch on a couple of them real quick. Staff is recommending that all of this -- this subject property, the 5.15 acres, also be included with a future development application, again, so we can get that entire landscape buffer that's required along Locust Grove Road and no direct lot access to this site -- the existing home site actually has a circular drive and another driveway on the north side of the property back to their garage or shop back there. So, it's, again, shown as not a part on the conceptual plat, but that was another one of the conditions that we had. I think that's pretty much it. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation request to R-4 for the site and I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? I guess not. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant to present this one. Cronin: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Eric Cronin with Roylance and Associates again representing the client. We are asking for annexation and rezone of the 5.15 acres to R-4, as it meets the Comp Plan. And, however, I ask Council to strike what staff has recommended in the development agreement that indicates all 5.15 acres be included within a proposed future development, because with the addition of right of way and a landscape buffer, the existing dwelling on this acreage would become unusable and have to be demoed. Currently, there are access points along Locust Grove, but as -- if the back end were to develop without the home site as part of the future development with the McGee portion, the only access would be to this single home as it is now today, as it stands. So, as far as no additional trips would be created and allowing that portion not to be within allows it so that the house can remain as is and not have to basically be demolished, because there is no way with the added right of way, street buffer, to access the driveway or the garages from within the subdivision that we talked about previously in the McGee annexation. At this point, with the McGee annexation and rezone potential, preliminary plat, going for in development, it gives his back three plus acres a great opportunity to be included within a subdivision at this point, because it's all going through at the same time. To require it all to be within the -- included within the potential further development of the McGee property, would mean that the house would have to be stricken and if that's the case may not want to proceed that way and, therefore, the tax base that would be received from those back -- the back portion being developed would not be received to the City of Meridian. So, that is my suggestion to that and I will take any questions at this time, if there are any. I'm sure there are. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 19 of 37 Zaremba: You don't have any issue with the other items that are listed for the development agreement that's specifically the one? Cronin: That direct lot access -- Zaremba: Uh-huh. Cronin: -- being terminated and the entire portion being further developed with McGee portion. Those are the two that I would like you guys to look further into. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I'd like maybe some discussion on the right of way. You're saying a future right of way for Locust Grove, anticipating -- have you talked with ACHD and what they have -- what would be consistent with -- to the north, then? Is it 90 -- what's that right of way that you're talking about and what distances are we talking about? Cronin: I might have to ask Craig on this one. Craig, do you recall what the added right of way would be along Locust Grove? Borup: Then you said that it would be unusable with the right of way and the buffer, so what's the distance -- what's the remaining setback? Cronin: With the added right of way and, then, I believe it's a 25-foot buffer on top of the right of way, that's not included in the setback. The corner portion of the Carrington residence is within two feet of the buffer distance. So, when you add your setbacks to that you're going to be infringing upon that and to get -- if you were to come through off of Victory through the -- all the way through the potential development into the back, there is no way to access any of his garages or any of that. Borup: Are you saying it's -- it's only about 27 feet from -- from what would be the new right of way? Cronin: His existing home? Borup: Yes. Cronin: Roughly. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 20 of 37 Hood: I do have that dimension. It was a 48, so I don't know if that 27 -- if that's what you're working off of. But ACHD did note in their staff report that -- Borup: You're looking at 96. Hood: You're looking at 96. Forty-eight from center line, yeah. Borup: That's what I was wondering, if they were looking at a full 96 there. Well, like I say, I agree with -- you know, that it all should be annexed and it doesn't make sense to have -- I mean eventually I don't -- you know, don't know when, but Locust Grove is going to be fully widened. It's going to have to happen at some time. Another option may be is a reduced -- you know, a -- Rohm: Reduced buffer? Borup: Yeah. What's the terminology there? But to workout a reduction in that buffer width. I personally -- I mean in this case, unless there is some more information, it seems to me like a make -- maybe makes sense to have access to Locust Grove on this one house. The other two -- I mean the other one, I don't know that it does on Victory, but -- because it's got enough room. This one -- Cronin: Commissioner, we are asking for the entire area to be annexed and rezoned. I wasn't sure if I mislead you. Borup: Okay. Yeah. But I thought you said you didn't want to plat it. Cronin: Within the future development of the other 15 acres of the McGee, plus this back portion. We asked that that not be included -- have to be included within a further development, but it can be -- Borup: So, it's going to be annexed into the city, but not developed is what you're proposing? Cronin: We are asking that the entire five plus acres be annexed and rezoned into the city. Borup: Okay. Cronin: At that time we would like to do a property line adjustment which would allow for it to become an out parcel and the remainder to be able to be developed so it's a separate parcel. Borup: So, that's the direction you're trying to go? Cronin: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 21 of 37 Borup: You'll probably not going to have a lot of sympathy on an out parcell don't think, but -- I know what the staff feels, I know what we have done in the past. Zaremba: Mr. Rohm appears to have something to add on that subject and, then, I do as well. Rohm: I think your point's well taken, that the existing dwelling does not conform with the setback, plus the right of way adjustment once the roadway is expanded and I think that that's the issue at hand here and as long as at the point of development those issues can be resolved, then, it's almost a moot point whether it's part of the development -- property development or not. As long as we can find a way to bring it in without having to remove the home is your point; is that correct? Cronin: Bring it into the city -- Rohm: Well, right. Bring it -- annex it into the city and be a part of this development if, in fact, the home can remain without having the buffer -- Newton-Huckabay: They can keep their access. Rohm: Yeah. Keep your access and then -- and minimize the buffer to -- so that it doesn't infringe on the dwelling itself. That's kind of what your point is; correct? Cronin: Correct. Yeah. And so the only -- the only lot within the developed subdivision -- further developed subdivision would be the existing parcel -- or the existing dwelling, where all other portions that were developed within this back acreage would take access off of either Mesa or Victory Roads. Rohm: And I guess my only further comment is as you work through the development with the staff I'm sure that those things can be worked out. That's as I would see it anyway. Cronin: Okay. Zaremba: My opinion may be near the opinions that have already been expressed. My feeling is the right of way is going to happen at some point anyhow. It's in the city's best interest to preserve most of the buffer, but I certainly can see having an exception in the neighborhood of the portion that would not be set back far enough. I could see a temporary exception allowing the access to Locust Grove, but I would want to see, perhaps, added to the development agreement that should the use or even the building that is currently on the property every be changed, then, that access would be given up. And what I mean by that is in your mind in thinking the design for the rest of the three and a half acres now, do prepare for sometime in the future if -- it maybe 20, 30 years away before this house would fall down or whatever. But at that point the rest of the subdivision should be designed, so that the new development that happens there could Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 22 of 37 take internal access and that being said, I would leave in the staff conditions that when you present the plat that this be part of it, with request for some variations. Rohm: Right. Zaremba: That would be my opinion. Let me ask staff whether it made sense or is it workable? Hood: It made sense. I guess if I may, just a couple of things to facilitate that a little bit. We do have an alternative compliance section of our ordinance, so it's written specifically for instances like this where you can't just plop a 25-foot wide landscape buffer down and there are sometimes you have existing structures or something that gets in the way. Now, we do look for the intent of that to still be met, so that may mean you have to put more trees. It's not as wide, but you put more trees in a 10 or 15-foot wide buffer or something like that. So, as far as -- as far as a buffer -- and the right of way, I guess, is another one that I could touch on real quick. I didn't draw a picture of it out, but the 96-foot right of way that ACHD is looking for, they actually do a 38 foot right of way with a sidewalk and an easement. So, their ultimate on an arterial is actually ten feet less than that, as long as you provide that sidewalk on your property within an easement and that could also be within the buffer. So, now we have reduced that, you know, what would otherwise be a 40 plus, you know, setback from the existing property line, pretty significantly. So, I think at least including this as a lot and block in the subdivision, if now the remaining thing is access, we could maybe strike that bullet that says no direct access and we can discuss this some more with a plat. I mean that would be, you know, something that I think that we can live with. Again, what we don't want to see is this not be a part and, then, we don't get the sidewalk there and we don't get the right of way and, then, I don't think it's in the best interest of the city to annex it. So, I think we can work around a lot of these things. Just for clarification, I drove by there -- didn't spend a lot of time out there. There is not -- the home itself doesn't have a garage that uses a circular drive; correct? This is the drop off to the front door; right? The garage is actually detached and you use the north driveway. You do have a garage on the front? Okay. Thank you. And so I just -- but that can be addressed in the future and it is an arterial and having people, you know, use that for direct access i think is probably -- but I won't belabor that anymore. I think there are ways around it. Zaremba: On that subject, I think my suggestion would be to at least leave in a statement that at some point that direct access will go away. Whether it needs to go away immediate or not, but I would tie that to a use change or a new building permit or whatever -- whatever would trigger this building being torn down however long from now that is. Hood: Yeah. If you wanted to include that in the -- Mr. Chair, if you wanted to include that in the development agreement, that's up to you. That would also be something we would look at with the plat. I mean if we had this on there, I have seen them written in a couple of times where you can use this until, you know, the house needs a building Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 23 of 37 permit. The use probably isn't going to change. There is not a lot you can do in an R-4, besides single-family homes. I think that -- Zaremba: Well, the second subject was not a use change, but if there ever needed to be a building permit for a new building on that property. Hood: And with the plat, I mean we would look for something -- you know, it could be as simple as providing that driveway -- you know, it wouldn't have to be a full public street. I mean just a driveway access to the end of that cul-de-sac that's further to the west. Yeah. Something just -- no. The other driveway crossing. It wouldn't have to be a full 50-foot right of way, but just something so access could be provided in the future, if that's how you so choose to go with the plat, that we do provide that, and I guess that would be my two cents. Zaremba: I see some topographical contour lines converging in a narrow path there. Is there a ditch or anything there? What is the topography? I'm looking at what would be the upper right cul-de-sac. I'm sorry. I have one of those, too. Thank you. I can see it when you do it. I can't see it when I do it. Is that any kind of a terrain that would prevent connecting from this property to that property at sometime in the future? Cronin: I couldn't answer that. Maybe Mark could. Zaremba: Okay. We do have others, including him, signed up to speak, so maybe -- Borup: The aerial doesn't look like it's that big of a problem. Zaremba: Okay. Cronin: Craig, could we see that aerial photo? I don't believe I see any -- Borup: That's the ditch right there, isn't it? It looks like it's fairly small. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Borup: Relatively. Zaremba: All right. Let's proceed with the other public testimony if we need and, then, we will call you back up again. And, again, if you have been spoken for, you're welcome to say so. Mark Carrington. You have been spoken for? Thank you. Aaron McGee. Spoken for. Thank you. Martin Artis. Spoken for as well. Tony Moss. Spoken for. All right. In that case, that's everybody who signed up to speak. If there is anybody else who would care to add something. Well, in that case do we have anymore questions for Mr. Cronin? Oh, I'm sorry. Come forward, please. State your name and address again. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 24 of 37 Yarrington: I'm Rich Yarrington. I live at 2550 Mesa Way. That -- our irrigation system runs right behind his house, so it runs -- there is the lot right -- okay. The water runs down that line, like you just showed it. But the ditch runs behind his house and there is access -- it runs to two spots, so we have to have access to get into that lot back there to change the headgate. And that ditch is just almost -- it's -- most of it's piped, but it's just right on top of the ground. Zaremba: Okay. That helps. Borup: That's the water access you have for your lots? Yarrington: Yeah. In the back. Borup: Okay. Yarrington: Up on top and below. Borup: And water has to still be delivered. It's not going to be interrupted, but-- Yarrington: It has to be split there. Borup: But the choice may be -- they may want to -- it may be a matter of relocating the headgates or something to -- Yarrington: It could, because they split it to go underneath these lots -- it splits right here -- Zaremba: There is a hand microphone right next to it, if you would grab that. Yarrington: It splits right there and goes underneath those lots up there to feed three houses on the top end and, then, we change it and it runs down the line there and, then, it does the rest of the lots in the back. Borup: So, it's buried somewhere all through the subdivision? Yarrington: Yes. It's buried there and it's buried down the side there. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think the only point that needs to be made is that they will be required to deliver your water one way or another. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 25 of 37 Yarrington: Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and that's actually state law. ~>-__~~~on-HUCkabay: Right. Zaremna>----you must get your traditional water delivery at what you have been accustomed tQ-'Wbe~r they change it as it goes through their property, it all has to get to you the way it alwãys-has. --------' - - Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Are there any questions -- further questions for Mr.Yarrington? Newton-Huckabay: There was one other -- Zaremba: Oh, was there anybody else who would care to speak? I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off. Please come forward to the microphone. Sullivan: My name is Vince Sullivan and I live at 2602 Mesa Way and that's how I get my irrigation water to my property and so I'm concerned about that. And the creek that runs through, that's a natural creek right there. Right there. And I was concerned about that, too, what they are going to do about that. Is there maybe some environmental issues with that, with it being a year around creek. It's not irrigation. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Mr. Cronin, would you care to make any final remarks? Cronin: Eric Cronin, Commissioners, Members of the Board. I believe we spoke to these two questions that water would be delivered and any issues with Ten Mile Canal or Creek, excuse me, would have to be addressed at the time of platting at that point. I guess I do have one more question and I believe I need to speak at this point and that is if we do decide to go through -- or say it's annexed and rezoned, at the time of development, it sounds like from the opinions I have heard from you guys of the board, that that portion that includes the existing dwelling would have to to be a portion of any further development that goes on and with that would the -- or the added right of way and landscaping buffer and all that stuff -- and added sidewalk, would that have to be completed at the time of final platting? That's just a question. Zaremba: We will ask staff. I believe the answer is yes, but -- Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, and Eric, yeah, that's -- prior to occupancy of those homes in the final plat you have to post surety and that will need to be constructed before we allow those homes to be occupied. So, yeah, it's a condition of the final plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 26 of 37 Cronin: Okay. Zaremba: But, again, during the plat discussion we can have alternate compliance and that kind of -- I mean it isn't that you have to do exactly what the -- I mean you have some constrictions there that I think everybody is willing to work around. My sense is that the Commission supports the staff in asking that it be one plat, but that's with some flexibility in that one plat. Cronin: Understand. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Are you alluding to a certain level of compliance or are you speaking generally? Are you -- Zaremba: There is a provision-- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I understand that, but -- Zaremba: -- alternate compliance, but until there is a plat before us, I don't think there is much to discuss. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. It just almost sounded to me that you were -- okay. Zaremba: I'm not being specific, I'm just -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: I'm just repeating that there are options that encourage me to stick with the staff's request that the plat cover all of the property. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I guess that's how -- Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. I do have a question and you may not even know the answer. I'm just curious; do you know the property owner to the west of this property? Cronin: I do not, no. Moe: Okay. I'm just looking at that property and noticing up to the north of it that that subdivision is planned to have a stub street go in there, so I'm just kind of -- I'm a little bit concerned with the preliminary design for your project here. It's going to be a little bit strange for -- if that property was to develop, how a roadway would go through there. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 27 of 37 I'm just -- something when you guys start finishing up your planning, you might take that into consideration a little bit, because that's going to be a little weird. Thank you. Zaremba: So, what you're saying is on the other thing that we were looking at, there appears to be a stub street about here? Moe: Yes. Borup: Even closer. Moe: Closer -- closer to the -- to the subject property. Zaremba: Yeah. You're right. Right off the end of the property line. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Good observation. Zaremba: Okay. Just something to be aware of in your future engineering. Cronin: Understandable. I guess I would close, unless there is any other questions. I would request annexation and rezone and with at all possible excluding -- or as a further development agreement as required, excluding the existing dwelling portion outside of any further development. Borup: Understood. Zaremba: Thank you. Cronin: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Hood. Hood: If I may, just for reference, the development agreement provisions on page seven, the one that the applicant specifically brought up this evening -- and I'm sorry the bullets aren't labeled. Maybe that's something when we get to have ten or 12 bullets, that may not be a bad idea. But it's going to be bullets eight, nine, and ten that they have -- that they have brought up anyways, just so you know where we are at there on page seven of the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: So, Craig, you were just suggesting that we strike the existing driveways to Locust Grove may be utilized until the internal streets within the plat are Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 28 of 37 constructed and approved by the transportation authority. At such time direct access to Locust Grove shall be prohibited. We are taking that out of it or do we need to restate that? Borup: I think that's what we need to discuss. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. But that's the bullet that -- the only one that's going to be modified. Moe: As I understood it when we were discussing earlier, Craig made the point that the no direct access to Locust Grove would be allowed -- would be the point to strike. Hood: Yeah. Just to clarify for the Commission, I guess the way that the condition is worded and the intent behind that, is that this home can continue on as it is today and when this develops and the final plat gets had, that there is no more direct lot access. So, it's not what the applicant wants to see, but that's this -- this says that you can use that -- those driveways until such time as this develops and access at that time has to be provided somewhere else. So, that's -- and, then, it may be -- maybe the one that I would, you know, request it get -- be modified, that bullet eight, although -- and city code does allow for alternative compliance, we may just want to -- the way it reads kinds of make it sound like you have to construct a landscape buffer in compliance with city code. That could be interpreted to be a 25-foot wide landscape buffer. So, you would like some flexibility in there, that unless otherwise alternative compliance is granted, construct, or even strike the thing -- I mean we can cover it with the preliminary plat. So, I'm not so concerned about that one. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission -- Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: -- you could easily modify Item No.8 to read on the first line: In accordance with the city code, comma, including any applicable alternative compliance provisions, and, then, the rest of it. So, adding those words would express -- if you do have the intent to allow that, that would make it clear if you choose to leave that condition in. Zaremba: That works for me. Thank you. Back on what I believe is the 10th bullet that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was talking about. My comment would be to -- somehow we need to keep the future no direct lot access to Locust Grove, but I would be willing to tie that instead of to the plat, tie it to any future building permit for a modification to any existing building or something like that. Rohm: Redevelopment. Zaremba: Can we do that? Rohm: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 29 of 37 Zaremba: So, that it could, actually, develop the rest of it, but if this use -- I don't mean if this use changes, if they ever -- Rohm: Redevelopment of that lot. Zaremba: Yeah. Is there a way to put that? Mr. Baird appears to have an opinion. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you're going to do that, I'd recommend that you attach it to a specific event. The term redevelopment I think could be interpreted in a number of ways, so if it's a building permit, if it's -- oh, I can't think of some of the possible other events. Zaremba: My suggestion would be a building permit for any modification to any building on this piece of property. Baird: And I know staff has seen these before. They might have some opinion on how that could also be worded. Mr. Hood. Hood: I would just concur with legal that redevelopment is a -- not a very well defined term. So, it's up to you if you want to tie it to any -- the only concern -- and maybe that's your intent, is if they build another accessory structure that's larger than a garage and they need a building permit, that's the building permit. A ten-by-ten shed -- or anything over 200 square feet requires a building permit. So, they need that and if you word it that way, then, now the access goes away, so just-- Zaremba: Remodeling the house, tearing it down, rebuilding it, that would require a building permit. Hood: Correct. Borup: Well, that could include re-roofing, too. A building permit. Zaremba: You need a permit-- Hood: Electrical work. Plumbing. I mean there are a lot of building permits that you could pull that it wouldn't necessarily be a redevelopment, quote, unquote, of this property, just general maintenance stuff could still require a building permit. So, I don't know what the intent is and that's why this is the cleanest and best way, but -- Zaremba: What I'm aiming for is to allow the continued use of the property the way it is, until something changes. Now, the maintenance issue, like plumbing and roofing, I would not want to trigger this, but adding a room and adding another out building or tearing the house down to build something else, I would want to have trigger it. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 30 of 37 Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, what I would -- what we -- the problem we run into is tracking these things. None of those things require the planning department to review this. It's a building permit you pull through the building department and we are requiring -- relying on them to catch these types of things, so enforcement gets to be a big issue there and it's just a nightmare, to tell you the truth. I mean there is just no way they can keep little notes of all these little things around the city that they are supposed to be looking for and they have their general duties and codes they are trying uphold at the same time, so -- Borup: That seems problematic to me to try to tie it to a building permit. You know, even an addition. But demolition of the building and building something new or re- platting of this lot -- there is enough -- you know, the lot's large enough that you could get, I don't know, three or four lots in there. Three lots, maybe. So, it sounds like that's what you're saying should trigger it and -- Zaremba: Yeah. I would want it be something -- Borup: A new building or are-plat. Zaremba: -- to trigger this, but still something that's likely to happen within 30 or 40 years. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did have one more thing that -- this just may be a better thing that we not include in the development agreement and talk about this some more at the plat, because there are plat notes that we can add to the phase that say except for driveway accesses that are approved by ACHD or put some sunset time on a driveway or whatever, you can put those types of notes on the plat -- and we got to be kind of careful, because it is a surveying document, but the direct lot access notes are on plats on a regular basis. So, that may be a better time to have this discussion. ACHD can get us more detailed comments. There is a street that's not too far away. Excuse me. So, just to have detailed comments from them on where -- what -- it's their policy, too. We just may want to lose that condition altogether and discuss this some more at a later date. Rohm: I think that's the right answer. The preliminary plat is going to resolve all of the issue associated with the existing dwelling and for annexation purposes we don't have to come up with a solution tonight. Zaremba: Well -- and that's a good point. I think the applicant has heard this discussion and is well notified that these will be issues when there is a plat. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 31 of 37 Rohm: SO, with that being said, a question of staff. If we were to strike both bullet eight and bullet ten from your staff report, then, the balance of it would be in compliance with what the -- Zaremba: Eight was being modified. Newton-Huckabay: We don't need to strike eight. We could restate it. Rohm: Eight, in my opinion, is very similar to ten, in that in the plat that will be -- that buffer issue will be addressed in the plat as well, will it not? Borup: Yeah. It's going to have to be. Rohm: It will be. So, I think to strike it now and to resolve it at -- during plat is the right answer for that as well. Borup: As long as it's all annexed -- it all be annexed together. Rohm: It's annexed. But as it's being platted, all of those issues, including that buffer and -- will be addressed at that time. Zaremba: That's true. We are moving towards proceeding. The Public Hearing is still open. That would need to be closed. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: What -- if there was a compelling need to put comment eight in there in the first place and we have very simple language to make it -- alternate compliance a possibility, I think that leaving it in there isn't going to harm anything at this point. I don't know that -- I don't know at what point it might get redundant, but I certainly wouldn't want it to get lost, because I think it's a critical issue that -- and, Craig, I guess I would defer to your expertise there. I don't -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I -- Borup: Let's just leave it in. Hood: That's up to the motion maker and if it gets a second -- I have no preference. We will review it again when it comes through the preliminary plat, unless the motion says we do not want to see any landscape buffer on Locust Grove and put that in the development agreement. I mean we will address it again with the plat. So, either way. Newton-Huckabay: You have no preference? Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 32 of 37 Hood: I mean -- right. It's probably a little cleaner if you -- you know, if you leave something in and it leaves a record of the discussion that's been had and the alternative compliance was discussed regarding the landscape buffer, but -- Rohm: Personally, I don't think anybody in this room is void of that. I think they all know that that will have to be addressed at such time that the preliminary plat is presented. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-049. Borup: Second. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: And I guess I'll make the motion. I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-049 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 17th, 2005, with the following modifications to be included within a development agreement. On page seven, bullets which would -- if they were numbered would be eight -- eight and ten. To number eight will read that a street buffer constructed in accordance with the city code include applicable alternative compliance provisions be installed along Locust Grove Road prior to occupancy of any new dwelling unit. And end of that comment. And, then, we will strike comment number ten altogether, that starts with that when a preliminary plat is submitted and ends with Locust Grove Road shall be prohibited. Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you all very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: AZ 05..045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for