Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSept 19, 2002 Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 31 of 96 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 02-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to R-2 zones for proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 4365 North Ten Mile Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 02-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 9 building lots and 3 other lots on 5.01 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.- 4365 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Item No.9 is AZ 02-019, request for annexation and zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to R-2 zones for the proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers at 4365 North Ten Mile Road and accompanying that is PP 02-015, request for preliminary plat approval of nine building lots on the same project. I'd like to open both these public hearings and start with the staff comment -- staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Forgot to show some of the elevations, sorry, in the last one. Okay. Here we go. Item No.9, Drawbridge Subdivision. This is an existing five acre parcel that is in Ada county. It's on the west side of North Ten Mile Road, approximately one quarter mile south of McMillan Road. Immediately to the east is the already approved Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. They have proposed office uses on the frontage of Bridgetower there. The property is bounded by existing Ada county rural-urban transition land on the north and the east and -- or, I'm sorry, north and west and south. The request in their application was for an R-2 zone. The staff did make a recommendation for that to be modified to an R-3, so that they could meet some other dimensional standards that we have. In terms of process, I'm not sure how the clerk's office might want to handle it, but we -- you know, the application -- I don't believe we received a modified application per se, but typically we would continue to notice these as what the applicant requested, that would be an R-2, although they have agreed, my understanding is, to the R-3. So that would mean a maximum of three dwelling units per acre, if that is what it is zoned to. The Bridgetower is an R-4. So it would be a little less density. Zaremba: The revised preliminary plat that was given to us recently in the last day or two shows that they are now requesting an R-3, according to the plat. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We would technically need the annexation application to reflect the requested new zone, since they are two different applications, but thank you for pointing that out. Yes. There are nine building lots proposed. I guess I will start with a couple of existing site photos. Looking west along the property boundary there on the left-hand side and then looking east from along Ten Mile, that's looking out towards Bridgetower Crossing, as I pointed out. What I have here on the screen is not reflecting the revised Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 32 of 96 preliminary plat that was received by the clerk's office on September 13th. Did the Commissioners receive -- you said you did receive the revised plat? Okay. Generally, they have complied with staff's recommended changes. A couple of highlights of the plat. One of the changes -- again, here is the entrance, a single point of entrance off of North Ten Mile Road. Fairly large lots. There is an existing private road called Elk Bugle Lane that abuts the south of the proposed subdivision. It is private, it is not under Ada County Highway District's jurisdiction. On the original plat they did show simply an easement here at the southwest corner of this lot. The new plat shows this triangular piece here to be a common lot and a portion of Elk Bugle Lane's easement does cross that. So the revised plat does allow for that -- obviously, for that private lane to continue their full access to get back here to the west. They also modified this portion of the plat. The fire department does need the turnaround and typically they ask for a one lot depth is the placement of where they would have a turnaround, so rather than putting in a temporary turnaround easement on one of these lots, they have expanded the turning radius here on the revised plat. So that's another change. I believe all the other modifications are there. The staff report is dated August 19th for any motion you might have. I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: I have a question. Why is that not a surprise. 0 n p age seven 0 f the staff report there is a section regarding double-loaded lots and it specifically refers to what on the old plat was Lot 6 Block 2, on the new plat is now Lot 7, Block 2, as a through lot, since it fronts on Grand Rapids Drive and rears on Eagle Bugle Lane -- Elk Bugle Lane. Actually, have two questions. My first question is why is that not also true of Lots 5, 4, 3, and 2? Hawkins-Clark: Right. It would be. Correct. Good observation. Yes. There is a restriction for no access to Elk Bugle Lane from the lots of this Drawbridge Subdivision. Zaremba: All lots. Hawkins-Clark: All lots. Zaremba: So do they need to be considered through lots and have front setbacks on both sides? Hawkins-Clark: No. Zaremba: Now my follow-up question is on what used to be Lot 6 and is now Lot 7. Since the back of Lot 7 is n ow the common Lot 6, does it need to be considered a through lot? Borup: Yes. It wouldn't be anymore, but the other ones would be. As long as there is no access, does it really matter? Zaremba: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 33 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: It needs to be a clearly stated purpose for the common lot on the face of the plat and -- Zaremba: Does that eliminate Lot 7 from being a true lot now? Hawkins-Clark: Well -- Borup: Oh, that's true. It has a lot separating it, but the lot that's separating is the road. Zaremba: Is the easement. The common lot is the easement. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Typically -- is the question regarding setbacks or the issue of .- Zaremba: Where we need to require the 25 foot setback from Elk Bugle as through lots or not. If they are not going to have any access -- Borup: I don't think that's probably really a factor with this much lot depth -- when you have lot depth to this extent. Hawkins-Clark: Well, yes. Then the rear -- the rear lot line is there, so the building officials would, I believe, look at that Lot 7 and designate the rear lot line and then the rear setback would be based off of that line. Borup: But I think we could increase that and it wouldn't cause any problems. Why don't we ask that of the developer. I wouldn't think that would be a factor when we are talking these size of lots. Most people are going to want to have a larger area in the backyard anyway. Any other questions from -- Zaremba: No. That was it. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Boyle: Commissioners, my name is Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho. I appreciate this opportunity to be in front of you this evening on this project. I'm here representing Boise River Builders, Mike Lincoln, who is the developer .- proposed developer of this project. I appreciate Brad's comments. We have worked quite extensively with the staff in the design and some of the issues surrounding this particular proposal a nd, first of a II, I just want to point out what the developer has in mind for this development. This particular developer is looking to provide what I think is a type of subdivision that isn't readily found within the City of Meridian at this present time. If you look at the majority of development that's occurring, typically it's in an R-4 zone or higher density, smaller lots, oftentimes smaller homes as well. He is more of a custom home builder and he has been looking around the city for larger home sites, because he believes he has a clientele and people out there that want larger home sites and still want to reside within the City of Meridian. Therefore, he has proposed lots that range between a third acre up to close to half an acre in size. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 34 of 96 This particular development comes in with a gross density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre, substantially lower than some of the other developments in the vicinity, being Bridgetower, which is across the street to the east of this project, which is, I believe, an R-4 zone. The staff has reiterated several comments. We originally received the staff report -- and I don't remember the specific date, but since that time I have worked closely with staff to provide this revised layout. We agree with most of their conditions and their recommendation was that it would be nice to have a revised layout to place in front of the Commission, so they would be able to see exactly how the provisions outlined in their report apply to this site. That's why we have provided the revised layout. Brad did a nice job of expounding on some of the changes that we made. I just wanted to reiterate a couple of points. There is an existing home that has frontage on Ten Mile that sits on the existing parcel of land. That home -- we have designed the subdivision to incorporate the home into the subdivision. Presently its driveway extends out to Ten Mile. With this project that driveway will be realigned to extend out to Elk Bugle, so we believe that will help some of the traffic safety issues as well by eliminating a single family residence backing out onto that street onto Ten Mile, which is an arterial. Borup: You mean Grand Rapids, didn't you? Boyle: Grand Rapids. What did I say? Borup: Elk Bugle. Boyle; My goodness. I've got Elk Bugle on my mind, so I apologize for that, but it is Grand Rapids will be the street through the subdivision. So we have incorporated that into the design. We are removing a couple of the outbuildings as part of the project that are shed areas and going to remove them as part of the project. In addition, we are going to try to preserve as much of the existing landscaping as we can. We will abide by Meridian's ordinances as far as trees. There is quite a few mature trees out along the frontage along Ten Mile Road. We have meandered a sidewalk to extend around those trees to preserve the existing mature tree growth. So we do believe that it's a nice project. Now as far as the changes go that were mentioned previously, the original staff report indicated that staff would like to have a common lot where Elk Bugle Lane or the easement extended across and clipped the corner of the subdivision and the developer didn't have any qualms with that or problems providing that in a common lot. Elk Bugle Lane itself is a private roadway through the county dedicated through an easement. All the private roadways are actually easements, they are not public right of way dedicated to ACHD, so there is an existing easement and -- Borup: And he is on a part of what parcel? Boyle: The parcel south -- adjacent to the south. And I am -- I don't want to make the statement for certainty, but I am not positive that that easement even abuts our southern property line and you will have to look through my documentation, maybe I can find it quickly here, but I believe that the actual easement for this roadway actually sits further south on the adjacent property and the easement doesn't extend and actually Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 35 of 96 touch our boundary through this portion where the roadway is and you can see the existing edge of gravel. Beyond the edge of gravel there is an irrigation lateral that runs along this location here and then there is some additional distance before you hit our boundary. And I have some pictures as well that demonstrate where the existing road is aligned. So, again, I just raise that question. But with regards to that, there was discussion as to whether or not the developer would be willing to grant a front yard setback I believe is how it was stated, a 25 foot setback along the south boundary of the project, and he is agreeable to that. If the Commission feels that that's necessary to preserve and protect Elk Bugle Lane and if you feel it's necessary to do a potential double frontage conflict, he is willing to provide a 25 foot setback there as well and as Commissioner Borup mentioned earlier, that's easily accomplished, because these are large lots, they have plenty of depth to them, so it's not an issue to the developer. The easement for Elk Bugle does clip the corner and you can see how the roadway existing at the edge of the gravel also clips the corner and so we have provided a common lot, which was staff's request, rather than the -- shown it as an easement, even though the easement for Elk Bugle is still in place across that common lot as it was recorded. So the common lot essentially contains a blanket easement for Elk Bugle Lane. Borup: I was wondering if it would have been easier for the developer to sell or give that parcel to whoever owns the land now. I mean it's his choice, but now he's got a part of the subdivision, he's got to maintain it, and everything else. Boyle: Right. And I don't know -- I haven't specifically asked the developer, but I don't -- it really isn't a benefit, per se, to the subdivision, that little corner there with the easement. I don't know -- you know, staff might be able to answer questions as far as the parcelization and just splitting that out and selling it to the adjacent property owner. I don't know, you know, if record or surveys would be required to do essentially an adjustment or how staff would treat that, but I don't know that the developer would be -- would have any objection to working that out with the neighbors, because I don't know th at -- Borup: Well, I don't think the neighbors really care and there is no benefit to them, probably, to buy it if they have already got it and the developer owns it and -- depending on who is required to maintain it, but that was just a question I was wondering Boyle: And that is a good point and the developer may be able to answer that more closely -- Borup: I don't think the Commission really has a -- Boyle: It certainly isn't a benefit -- Borup: -- concern either way. Meridian Planning & Zoning Septernber19,2002 Page 36 of 96 Boyle: It certainly isn't a benefit to the subdivision to have that there. It's an existing private road a nd, as such, t he developer is willing to preserve the right of way as it exists -- or easement as it exists. Zaremba: I agree with staff's request and the applicant's apparent willingness to split that off as a separate lot, so that it is not the responsibility of the owner of what used to be Lot 6 solely. Having it split as a separate lot probably would make it easy to re- conveyor sell or use sometime later if maintaining that little triangle got to be a pain. Boyle: And that is a good idea. I mean once the subdivision plat is recorded, then, obviously, negotiation can take place -- Zaremba: It's a separate parcel. Boyle: Just sell that off. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, staff doesn't have any problem with that whatsoever. The only thing that comes to mind is we probably wouldn't want to call it a common then. You would want to just call it a lot that they would - Borup: Well, also, if they are really planning on selling it off, wouldn't it be better to not even have it as part of your subdivision, not even record it as part of the subdivision and take care of that prior to or -- Boyle: Well, I guess that's a question for staff, because I'm not sure, because then we would be parceling out the -- Freckleton: I don't think you would want to do that or you're going to end up with a little tiny room that's a triangle parcel of county section of land there. I think it kind of makes things ugly as far as the public record goes to do that. Borup: Well, we have probably spent too much time on that already. I don't know if that's -- Boyle: And I certainly don't want it to be a sticking point on the subdivision. He's willing to have it a common lot and either maintain it or, you know, sell it off or potentially give it away-- I would have to talk to the developer, with whoever, you know, the adjacent owners are there. I don't see that as being that major an issue there as far as maintaining that little portion. The other items on there was with regards to the turnaround, which we had shown originally as a temporary turnaround and, again, after talking to staff, they didn't want that included in the area of the lot, so the developer said, well, let's just -- we will just deed it as right of way, then it's clear to the lot owner, the Highway District, and everybody who is maintaining it. So, again, that was a change that we made per staff's recommendation. The other thing I wanted to point out is the landscape buffer. There was a question on that width of the buffer. We also adjusted the -- my b aUeries are going dead - - the parcell ine - - t he parcell ine t hat a re a long the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 37 of 96 common lots that are adjacent to Ten Mile, those lot lines we did adjust further to the west to accommodate the required landscape buffer, 25 foot buffer width, so that was another change from the original plat. With that, as far as the lot sizes and R-3 versus R-2, the -- all of the lots in the subdivision are over 18,000 square feet, except for this lot that is in the southwest corner of the site and the other one where the temporary cul- d-sac is and those drop down to where they are both just over 16,000 square feet and we are in agreement with staff that the developer will abide by the R-3 provisions, if that is the desire of the Commission to approve it with an R-3 zoning designation. Now the differences are a difference in density requirements. The R-3 zone requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. R-2 requires a minimum of 18,000 square feet, so, essentially, probably the biggest reason why we are dropping down to an R-3 in agreement with staff is because of the two lots that drop to 16,000 square feet. All of these lots are still well in excess of even R-3 provisions in the ordinance, as far as size goes. Setbacks -- and Brad can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they is no difference in setbacks between the R-2 and the R-3 zones. The front and rear side is identical among those zones. So, essentially, it's a density issue, which we are not changing the gross density and a size issue are basically two considerations of advising going to an R-3. With that, the only other item -- and we agree with all of the staff comments outlined in the staff report. The only one that the developer wanted this Commission to consider further was the site specific number four, which was with regards to t he fencing a round the property a nd this current site -- and hopefully you have a copy in the packet that has some pictures in it. If you don't, I have some pictures up here that I can submit. This site presently has a -- maybe Brad probably has some pictures. It presently has a - w hat you call a three rail vinyl fence around the entire property. Borup: That's on the north of the property right there? Boyle: That is on the north side. It extends around and on the west side and also coming back up on the south side of the property is that three rail vinyl fence and it's a nice fence, it kind of gives a rural atmosphere out there. If you look at some of the other surrounding properties out there, pole fences on some of the properties, south of the site there is another vinyl fencing that is around the home you can see off in the distance here as well that is more of a -- kind of a rural -- I don't know if it's a three rail or semi-private, kind of a lower fence around it as well. And, again, what he's trying to promote here is that this isn't a dense subdivision, he wants to give it kind of that rural open feel and so just -- at this point in time is submitting to the Commission that if he could have it, he'd like to keep the existing perimeter fence that is around the site, the three rail vinyl fence. Borup: It looks like it's got four rails. Boyle: Is there four rails there? Maybe I can't count. Borup: Is there one on the bottom? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 38 of 96 Boyle: Well, that's why. There may be one on the bottom. The developer may know if there is four. Borup: Just on the corner. Boyle: Okay. Just on the corner. Borup: Okay. Boyle: And with that, I think that sums up the project and I appreciate your consideration of this tonight. Again, this submittal, just for you information, was submitted prior to the Comprehensive Plan that is currently adopted and as a little bit of background on that, we did come in under the '93 Comprehensive Plan when the application was accepted. We met with staff originally in the new Comp Plan that is adopted now, the area was shown as industrial, I believe, at one time. It went to some sort of rural or low density designation and when we went in for a pre-application meeting with them, that was presently what the Commission was thinking of at the time was a low density residential area and then I believe the way the Comp Plan ended up being adopted, they actually changed it to a mixed use designation due to the wastewater treatment plant. If we look at the parcels, though, this parcel is within what the new Comp Plan -- which, again, doesn't necessarily apply to this, but just to give you a perspective, this parcel is one of the farthest parcels away from the wastewater treatment facility as well. So we believe it will fit in really well with the area, with what's happening with Bridgetower, it provides a nice transition for Bridgetower into some large lots within the City of Meridian and then transitioning into some of the larger home sites that are an acre to five acres to ten acre lots around the project. I appreciate your time this evening and stand for any questions, if there is any. Zaremba: I would ask to clarify one thing. The application for the preliminary plat requests approval of nine building lots and three other lots. Is that now nine building lots and fou r other lots? Boyle: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Boyle: And there is a common lot that w as a storm water retention lot that is in the northwest corner. The landscaping buffer is out front and now the newly created common lot for Elk Bugle on the corner. Borup: Any other questions? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can ask a question of the applicant. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19,2002 Page 39 of 96 Freckleton: Clint, is it a detention pond or is it a retention pond? Boyle: That will -- the proposal right now is that -- that we will handle all of the initial flows and still have predevelopment flow out into the existing irrigation lateral -- or existing drainway on the north. Freckleton: So it is a drainage way on the north? Boyle: Correct. Freckleton: Okay. The reason I asked, just breezing through the staff comments again, I notice we failed to add some comments that I'd like to suggest to you folks that we add. Basically, with the design of the retention area, I'd like to add to our staff comments that should be designed to a maximum of three to one side slopes, that water will not be retained in the drainage lot more than 24 hours, and I have got some concerns with depth of groundwater. I did get an updated report from your soils geologist that indicates that groundwater depths in July and August were in the neighborhood of 5.7 feet. Test pit well one indicates -- indicates that. Test pit two said it was dry at seven. I don't have a copy of the map that accompanied that, so I'm not sure where test pit one was, Clint. Boyle: And I don't know right off hand either. I would have to check on that. Freckleton: Okay. The concern I have is that the contours you have shown, you show your pond roughly three to four feet deep and if groundwater is at 5.7, you're not meeting the three foot groundwater separation rule and ACHD more than likely will make you line that, so careful consideration in your design needs to be done -- Boyle: Right. Freckleton: -- to make sure that that water does not stand in there. Okay. Thank you. Boyle: We will comply with the requirements. Appreciate those comments, Bruce. Borup: Does that conclude your presentation? Boyle: Yes. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? We have had a few people sign up. Now is the time. Johnston: Hello. My name is Pat Johnston, I'm on 3417 West Elk Bugle Lane. I am the west parcel directly behind this proposed division. There you go. Good. Let's see. A few of the concerns that we have here are that -- we have owned this for I think about seven years now and when we bought it, it was all zoned for essentially five acre lots and a very low density situation and so that kind of affords us a lifestyle that we were looking for in that we have got a lot of elbow room and this sort of thing and so now in putting Meridian PlannIng & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 40 of 96 this in here like this, it does tend to impact the density rather adversely and we are not sure how the property values will go, but we don't think that ours is going to increase because of this. So that's at least one concern along that line. There is kind of an implied social contract with the people that bought these parcels there that, you know, they are in it for the nice, rural, open sort of lifestyle, so that's one of the concems. On the personal concerns, we would like to see what we can do about maintaining irrigation access. We certainly do pay irrigation taxes and the water is there, we are not too sure how this development would deal with irrigation if it does go through, of course. And so that's a consideration I think that is, at least in my mind, valid. Borup: Could we maybe talk about that just a little bit? Johnston: Sure. Borup: It appears from the plats we have that irrigation ditches on the north and south of the property; is that correct? Johnston: Yes, there are. Definitely. I'm not sure that we -- Borup: Our plat also shows that the ditches are not even on this property, so you maybe can get some clarification from -- Johnston: Right. Borup: But either way, the project would not interfere with your delivery of water. Johnston: Well, we don't deliver water through those -- the north or the south ditches, we have -- there is -- Borup: Does your water go through this property? Johnston: Right. Borup: Okay. Johnston: This property originally was ten acres and we bought it about seven years ago, the back half of it, the five acre back half, and so it was utilizing the flow through from the front -- front five acres to get t he back five acres and so now this may be somewhat compromised, to say the least. Borup: We'll get that answered from the engineer, because they will still provide you with delivery of water. Johnston: That would be wonderful. Okay. Good. Now, of course, the fence was a concern and it sounds like that's pretty well addressed nicely. Water depth wise, we did do a test dipstick, per se. We dug a fairly deep hole, stuck in some PVC -- three inch Meridian PlannIng & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 41 of 96 PVC and then periodically, before we started building, we'd go and run the dipstick down and see how much water was there a nd at times we were getting, you know, within two to three feet of the surface and that was our finding as it was at the time. So now in the winter it will drop a couple more feet, though, too. So that's a terribly informal means of addressing the water table issue, you know. And I think that's about alii have to say, unless there are any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Are you the only one that's -- how many homes are using Elk Bugle Lane? Johnston: Well, there is -- Borup: So there is yours and then the ones to the south? Johnston: Right. Borup: Okay. Johnston: All of us utilize Elk Bugle Lane. Mathes: What's to the north of you? Johnston: It was Jimmy James's property, who was a farmer. Right now it's in corn. They are allowing him to still farm it, but it is going under development in the near future, whenever that occurs. So it's slated for some developmental situation, which, of course, we understood. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Johnston: Thank you. Rasmussen: Brent Rasmussen. I live at 4315 North Ten Mile Road and I own the nine, ten acres below it. So there is a one acre lot and then we own the rest of it. Yes. So I have a couple concerns I want to address. First of all, extending on what Pat just said, his water rights actually do come from the ditch out in front of the property. He has no water rights 0 neither s ide. We have dealt with Settler's Irrigation 0 n that 0 n several different things on our property. His water rights are actually from the ditch that runs on the east side of the property. It is being considered and the ditch was supposed to be filled in and removed, where is the water right coming from? An issue with groundwater. We have had several cases where we have had trenches dug and test holes on our property and I have had within a foot -- surface water at a foot. So even more so than what Pat was saying there. We have seen it very close to the surface. And that forced us, on our septic system, to go with a pumped system, instead of a gravity flow. So along my lines, we have been going through a lot of things with the wastewater treatment plant over the past several months, approaching a year now, on this zoning of this area. We want to keep it in the low density being like one house per five acre type Meridian PlannIng & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 42 of 96 zoning, instead of two acres per house or three or four. Most of the people in the area have that mentality and -- or that desire for living in a farming-type community. With the wastewater treatment plant, with the Comprehensive Plan going into effect, that kind of took that into effect, that there would be no -- it was implied that there would be no new permits issued for this area and then several -- just a couple months passed that being accepted, we are getting applications now for that to be changed and we have made several -- Borup: Would you repeat that again? Rasmussen: The Comprehensive Plan that's been working on -- Borup: Right. You said no new applications in this-- Rasmussen: What we understood when it was approved, in that area there was a lot of discussion on that area going up -- Borup: The Comprehensive Plan has that designated as -- if I'm reading this right, mixed use dash wastewater treatment plant. Rasmussen: Yes. And with that there was comments made that there would be __ intended to have no new permits issued -- or no new buildings going through. I don't know if it was the plan, but there were comments made at the time when we were going through that. Hawkins-Clark: Just residential, just to clarify. Rasmussen: Oh. Yes. Excuse me. No new residential. So a lot of decisions we have made on that -- like I say, I have been there for ten years and have lived there with that lifestyle and with all the changes going on, we'd still like to have a little bit of elbow room for us to have lots of animals and room for the kids to play and we want to maintain that. So make decisions based on what -- the decisions that were made there to stay there, instead of moving to a different place, because we thought with what was going there we'd have -- we thought there was plenty of large parcels around us -- Borup: So you would rather see a commercial project go in there? Rasmussen: I'd like to see it the way it is, is my preference, but that's not fair. The biggest concern that I have is we have animals, we have sheep, pigs, turkeys, chickens, sheep, cows, and we have had experience with friends that have had subdivisions in a larger scale one acre lots where they have had a lot of problems with animals. There would be sheep that kept them up all night, roosters crowing and keeping them up all night, and we have a compost pile that at times spell worse than the sewage treatment plant. So a lot of these things are the ones that we have had for a lot of time and we are concerned about whether that's going to affect us now and we thought we were in a good position, but now with the change that's coming and the experience we have had Meridian PlannIng & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 43 of 96 with other people that have lived in subdivisions, that we are concerned that it will impact the style that we want to live. Mathes: Where is your house on your property? Rasmussen: It's situated about right in the middle of it on the southern side, just across the border. But we did get a comment from a developer that if it does go through, we definitely wanted to have a right-to-farm act note put in the notes, so that we could at least protect that as much as possible. Some of the other concerns are that if we make our decision based on what we have come through, like on the Comprehensive Plan and that keeps bouncing back and forth as to it's going to be this way and it's going to be that way, it's really tough to make a decision for our part on what we want to do with our lives, too. I'm not opposed to progress, but it's nice to be able to count on decisions that are made so you can rely on them and that's alii have, if you have questions. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Rasmussen? Thank you, sir. Kertchner: My name is Richard Kertchner, I own the property on the southwest corner. The one acre. My only question is about the fence at that little triangular piece of property there. The fence line does not follow that property line and I was wondering if the developer will change the fence line to match. Borup: Yes. Could you clarify that? Does the fence line go straight? Kertchner: It goes like this. I think it does. I'm not sure on the survey -- Borup: So the road takes quite a jog right there? Kertchner: Yes. The road goes -- Borup: Does the road go something like that? Just like that same curve there? Kertchner: Yes. It's not quite like that, so my question is will they change the -- when this property was split off, there was an agreement that that angle would be put on there to give us access out of our driveway and it never did go in quite that -- Borup: So you're saying you want -- you want the angle like it is, but it needs to be moved? Kertchner: We would like a little more room in front of the driveway or else we end up backing out into the roadway. Borup: Okay. Kertchner: That's alii have. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 44 of 96 Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Zaremba: Would you be interested in buying that piece of property at a good price? Kertchner: No. Borup: A dollar? K.Kertchner: My name is Kathy Kertchner and I live at 4225 North Ten Mile Road and my concern is the fence. I tried to look around to see if there was any other situations like where -- we are going to be here. I'm not really opposed to it, I think if they make it a beautiful subdivision I'm not that big opposed to it, but when I walk out my front door, what I will see is their back yards and that just kind of off's me. I guess if they are nice yards and stuff that's okay, but their fencing is just very very minimal. Also that ditch that goes right there, irrigation, floods over there, because that road is dirt, lots of dust gets kicked up, I don't know -- Borup: This one across -- K.Kertchner: No. The south side. Elk Bugle right there. Borup: Apparently that's not on this property. K.Kertchner: What's not on this property? Borup: That ditch is not on this property. K.Kertchner: I think the easement we are thinking comes over halfway through the ditch. What I'm wondering is with that fence just so minimal, I don't know that that's going to serve very many purposes. I mean I don't think we are going to be happy with that. It's just -- it's just open. I mean there is no -- it has weeds all over it, I mean it's just kind of a mess of a ditch and I'm wondering if they would allow some kind of a fence that people would probably be happier -- we would probably be happier -- yes. Something like that. I don't know. But I'm not sure that fence -- we just face all their back yards and they face our front door. Zaremba: You would prefer a solid fence? K.Kertchner: I would prefer -- or some kind of fence, yes. Borup: Your property is on the other side of Five Mile -- or Ten Mile? K.Kertchner: No. We are right on Elk Bugle. We are the one acre -- Borup: Oh. Okay. Oh. Right. I'm sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 45 of 96 Kertchner: Given the problem with that situation is that nobody maintains the north side of the ditch next to the fence. You can't get in there to do anything. As long as they are happy with weeds, we are fine with it. It's been that way for a long time. K.Kertchner: We would like to have a fence that - Borup: Do we have anyone else? Would the applicant like to respond? Boyle: Commissioners, again, Clint Boyle, Pinnacle Engineers. I hope I can respond to some of the comments that we have heard tonight. Borup: I have got some notes, too. Boyle: Okay. Do you want to ask me the questions or do you want me to try to respond to some of their comments first? Borup: Whichever you would prefer. Boyle: I'll take a crack at responding to them and I'm sure you will have additional questions. One of the items -- first I'm going to go to -- I believe it was Mr. Rasmussen was talking about farming operations, smells, etc., and this developer is fully aware of that. The final plat will reflect the right-to-farmact on the plat, which this Commission I'm sure is aware of, basically any agriculture operation that existed prior to the subdivision going in can continue to operate and essentially the subdivision won't object to smells, noise, dust, etc., from those agricultural operations. That will be noted on the plat. The developer also intends to include language within the CC&Rs to that effect and also add language into the CC&Rs noticing people that there is a sewer treatment facility -- I don't know the exact distance, but within proximity to the subdivision and that there may be smells, etc., from that. And he does intend to include that in the CC&Rs. The irrigation issue, we will comply with the subdivision requirements. We will provide irrigation waters to adjacent properties that run through this site, as they historically ran through the site, I believe -- now I don't even have my pointer. One of the irrigation lines that was mentioned was out along the frontage. That is not going to be filled in and abandoned. By ordinance we are required to tile that. It will be piped, so the water will still be flowing in an irrigation line out across the frontage. It will still flow through the irrigation that is off our site in the laterals and there is another lateral along the top north beyond our site -- Borup: Now are those two laterals providing water to the property way to the west passed these neighbors, apparently? Is that your understanding? K.Kertchner: Yes. Borup: That's what they have said. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 46 of 96 Boyle: The neighbors are indicating yes. I'm not sure exactly how much further the south one travels. The north one does extend further beyond the property. Borup: So how are you proposing to bring water to - through the project or do you know at this point? Boyle: How are we proposing to take it through the project? As far as our own pressure irrigation system? Borup: No. For the neighbor to the west. Boyle: To the neighbor here? Borup: Yes. I believe he is the only one that's affected. Boyle: Correct. And I guess, you know, we will have to look at how he has historically received h is water, you k now, but we will provide him with whatever water right and whatever water flow -- Borup: Either at his present location or another that you could coordinate with him. Boyle: Correct. Correct. So we will take care of the irrigation water for the surrounding properties. They will still get the same -- same amount of water that they have historically and we will abide by the provisions of the ordinance as far as the conveyance of those waters. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: A point of clarification. The ditch you're referring to, Clint, as being -- you're going to pipe, is that the one that on your plan says existing ditch to be filled and compacted? Boyle: Which one are you looking at there, Bruce? Freckleton: The one that runs north-south along Ten Mile Road. Boyle: North-south on Ten Mile. Correct. Freckleton: Your notations say to be filled and compacted. Boyle: You mean existing will be filled and compacted and if you will look, there is a new irrigation line where it's tiled. I mean if that's the interpretation, the intent is that it will be piped and we have that designated as being tiled. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 47 of 96 Freckleton: Okay. You have set it back out of the right of way, is what you have done. Boyle: Exactly. It's out of the right of way and we are compacting it and filling in the existing open ditch and providing a new irrigation line that is outside of the right of way that conveys those waters, so they won't lose their water, the ditch will still run, it will just be in a pipe. And per the standard requirements of ACHD, we are required to move those out of the right of way and onto the subdivision property, which is a fairly standard requirement of the Highway District. Freckleton: That's correct. Do you folks see the ditch he's talking about? Borup: It's not labeled, but it's labeled 12 inch and you got a box-- Boyle: We will size it appropriately for the water. Borup: Twelve inches is a lot of water. Boyle: The neighbors are stating that's too small. We will size it so that it has the flows that it currently has. Borup: Where does that -- where is the water source for that ditch presently? Boyle: There is several locations where we have irritation water running on - this ditch is out along Ten Mile, there is water that is conveyed along the north property, there is water that's conveyed -- Borup: It's all the same ditch? Boyle: -- along the south. I believe that it is. A Voice: No, it's not. Borup: It's two separate -- okay. That's -- Boyle: And you also have other conveyance of water that's crossing Ten Mile from Bridgetower. Borup: Okay. So apparently there is three ditches all around that area, then? Boyle: Right. Borup: Well, did you still have your list? The comment was on moving the fence at the triangle. Boyle: And they are correct, the existing vinyl fence basically runs in this location here and it bisects that common lot and the developer isn't opposed to realigning that fence Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 48 of 96 where the actual easement is located. You know, the only thing that's going to happen with that is there will be more just an area that's kind of a no-man's land, so to speak, but the neighbors are -- Borup: That also allows the neighbors to widen the road if they wanted to. Boyle: Correct. Correct. Yes. So the developer doesn't have any problem with -- well, we will move that fence so it runs -- Borup: Along the lot line? Boyle: -- along the lot line. Correct. Zaremba: From its present location? Boyle: Outside of that, the only other comment that I had written down here specifically was with regards to property values. And, again, this Commission is -- not that it's appropriate to consider property values, this will -- I believe I can speak for the developer saying this will not be a starter home or a low end subdivision that he's proposed here. He's definitely, from my discussions with him, proposing I guess what most people would consider upper end homes, so I don't know that there would be a negative impact on surrounding property values per se. And with that I just wanted to summarize one thing -- Borup: Maybe one question, if you know. Do you know, what, if anything, is planned for the property to the north? Boyle: Staff may have seen proposals on that. I have heard rumor of -- Borup: Who owns it or who's got an option or anything at this point? Boyle: I don't know off the top of my head. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I do believe it's the same developer as Bridgetower. Borup: Okay. Boyle: This particular project, again, we did submit this under the '93 Comprehensive Plan. That was what was in effect at the time we submitted the plans. The new Comprehensive Plan that was recently adopted was still going through public comment and, obviously, there have been changes in this area, but we do believe that the subdivision fully complies with the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted at the time we submitted this and I believe that some of the residents were concerned about the subdivision land in the new Comprehensive Plan, which just seems a little surprising to me, because under the new Comprehensive Plan it actually allows industrial-office-type users in this area and I would think that they would feel more comfortable with a Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 49 of 96 development that proposed single family residential, but maybe not. This is an area that is growing within the City of Meridian and I understand that they do want to preserve their rural feeling that they have there and I believe that this will actually provide a nice transition from the lots -- they are south of our project into a little higher density and proceeding into what will be, essentially, much higher density than what we are proposing to the north of our site based on what the Comprehensive Plan has indicated for us. So I think it's a nice kind of stepping up and staging of the lot sizes in the area and I think it's something that when the neighbors see the final product in the subdivision, from what I have been told by the developer, I think they will be very happy with it. And with that I would respectfully request your favorable recommendation of the annexation and the subdivision. Thank you. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Zaremba: Should we close the Public Hearing? Borup: That's just what I was going to ask. Do we want to leave it open for anything or are we ready to close it? Zaremba: I think my only questions are procedural. Borup: I thought we were through with public testimony. Come on up. K.Kertchner: I just know that -- Borup: You need to state your name again. K. Kertchner: Kathy Kertchner, 4225 North Ten Mile. I just feel there will be problems with that fence. I mean animals and the overflow -- I mean it's just going to be -- I think there will be -- I'd like to get along with my neighbors, it's really a big deal to me, and I don't think that little fence dividing all that farm with all the animals and irrigation that goes on there is going to be acceptable and it will just end up kind of a sore point and I would just request, again, that they do something different with the fence. Borup: I guess I'm not understanding your concern, other than the looks. K. Kertchner: Well, just that it's such a rural -- I mean we have donkeys, we have chickens -- Borup: Are you afraid they are going to go through the fence? K. Kertchner: No. I'm afraid that the neighbors that build there will be very bothered with this open -- I mean the animals and irrigation and the dust and whatnot and I - and I -- you know, I want to get along with them, I just think we have got to have some kind of fencing that is better than just the little rails -- the rails they have got. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 50 af 96 Borup: So you're concerned about their perception? K. Kertchner: Well -- and ours, too, because I think that they will -- they will complain a lot with what we have going on. Borup: Okay. Thank you. K. Kertchner: I mean I would if I didn't have animals and lived there. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I would point out that the way that the condition is currently drafted is they do have to have a solid fence on the perimeter, the full perimeter. So if you adopt the staff comments you, would basically be requiring a solid fence around the full perimeter. It's in number four on page eight. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: If I recall, the three foot vinyl along the north -- the concern is along the south, though. Correct? Yes. So it would -- it would require -- I might suggest adding a height on that, if you so desire. Borup: Yes. I was going to ask you to come back up anyway, Clint. Zaremba: Well, my question would be to the applicant -- I mean to the speaker who had the property to the west, have an opinion about what fence he would like to have separating him. You need to address it at the microphone, though. Johnston: I'm Pat Johnston, 3417 West Elk Bugle Lane. And I believe that the fence that borders us would be just fine. Zaremba: The one that's already there? Johnston: Yes. The north and south fence. Yes. Right. And one other little thing. I fly control line model airplanes in the very back end of mine and I would just like to make sure that this maintains an airplane favorable climate. We have been thrown out of parks and everything else and so we bought our own land, so I could fly airplanes, and I do use mufflers and they are not obnoxious and I teach the neighbors how to fly and Boy Scouts. But that is just an ongoing situation that, you know, happens. We fly. And -- not obnoxious, but I just wanted to make a note on that one, because it is a little different twist. Borup: I have several neighbors that do the same thing. It's sure a lot of fun. Johnston: And they are probably radio control people, I bet. Borup: Okay. Clint. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 51 of 96 Boyle: Again, Clint Boyle of Pinnacle Engineers. I have some pictures here and maybe this would help the Commission, if I could present them, and these are two different sheets here, if you wouldn't mind. And basically they are just some site pictures on -- along Elk Bugle Lane and also the property that's west of the site, the home. As you look at those pictures, I guess what I wanted to point out there was the fact that as you look at the homes, there is three homes that we were looking at when we were considering this fence issue, the one that is to the west, which, again, has stated that he doesn't have a problem with the three vinyl -- three rail vinyl fence. And if you look at his home -- I'm not sure -- I don't think he has a three rail vinyl fence, but he has some sort of decorative, kind of a lower vinyl fence, if I'm not mistaken, right around some yard area, it appears to be, and then he's got a substantial yard outside of that. So, again, I think we fit in pretty well with what he is doing. The other houses are shown there as well. As far as livestock issues and whatnot, you can see by how they are presently developed, I don't think that we are going to have any sort of livestock issues with those two neighbors to the south, just for the sheer fact that they have got -- they have got their yards out along Elk Bugle and the livestock is beyond. But, again, we can put the right-to-farm act on and I guess it is this Commission's option or recommendation to the City Council. The developer feels that the fence that's in place -- and the reason he wants to keep it there is because it's a nice fence, it's a three rail vinyl fence, it gives a rural, country atmosphere and that's exactly what he's trying to market to here, rather than kind of a closed-in, six foot cedar or vinyl fencing out around the subdivision, he wants this to have more of a -- more of an open feel, because they are large lots and he wants to kind of promote the low density, major subdivision, rather than a standard higher density urban-type subdivision. So he is requesting the three rail vinyl fence that exists around the property and would respectfully request your consideration that that be allowed to be maintained outside of where he will just propose to relocate it for Elk Bugle. Borup: Would the future homeowners, do they have an objection on what they may want to do? Is there going to be anything in the covenants that would restrict additional fencing or -- actually, I think the best screening -- I mean the fencing is landscaping, personally. Boyle: And there is plenty of room on the lot for landscaping on our side and you can tell the neighbors -- at least in my opinion, they have done a pretty nice job of landscaping their front yards well, they are fairly well screened, if you look at those pictures, even coming off of Elk Bugle Lane -- Elk Bugle Lane itself is lined with some big nice trees along the south side, if you look a t the road. So t here is a Iready a lot of landscape material that is out there providing some buffering between this particular subdivision and those parcels that are to the south. And, actually, the more open area is to the west where our neighbor to the west has stated that he would rather see the three rail vinyl fence. That's actually more of what I would consider an open area than the neighbors to the south. And I think that's fairly clear from the pictures. Borup: Okay. Any other questions, Commission? Thank you, Clint. Meridian Planning & Zoning Septernber19,2002 Page 52 of 96 Boyle: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on both of these items, AZ 02-019 and PP 02-015, be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close both public hearings. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I have a procedural question and probably even a legal question. Borup: Go ahead. Zaremba: Since this is applied for and noticed as a hearing about an R-2 zone and nine building lots and three other lots and all of our staff reports refer to that, many of the problems have been solved by making it R-3 and going to nine building lots and four other lots, but I wonder if whether we can approve an R-3? Borup: Don't we have the option of annexation as an R-2? Zaremba: No. Borup: Does the applicant have to request that? Can't we change that ourselves? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, my understanding is with the consent of the applicant -- well, even without the consent -- the Commission can make whatever recommendation you would like on the request. The request is R-2 formally. We have requested an R-3, they have agreed, so I think the R-3, if that's in your motion, I think that essentially sets the record straight. That would be my read on it. I don't think they -- they don't need to formally submit a new application. You have the ability to make whatever recommendation you would like. Borup: And we have that state before, we could annex something in a different zone than what's been applied for. They may not like it, but in this case I don't think that's a problem. The other thing is the subdivision, the lot layout essentially hasn't changed. It's the same kind of -- it did comply with the two streets, the reduced lots -- were you going to say something? Wollen: My only question would be public notice and what the Commission is recommending approval on, if there is a problem with approving -- well, recommending Meridian Planning & Zonln9 September 19, 2002 Page 53 of 96 approval of an R-3 when it's been publicly noticed up as a recommendation on an R-2. But I don't have an answer regarding -- that's just one concern that I would have -- the only concern, because this is a recommending body, rather than an approval body. Borup: See, I've definitely had a concern if we added -- you know, they added two more lots to it or something, changed the number of lots, but -- Zaremba; Well, we may have more flexibility in that as counsel mentions, than the City Council would. This will again be noticed when they have a hearing and if we had recommended it to be an R-3 and other recommendations, that's what will go to the City Council and their meetings would be noticed as an R-3 and four other lots, so there is the opportunity at the final -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: -- arbiter to have that correct. Borup: Okay. Did you get both your questions asked? You said you had -- Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: It was a combined two questions I had. Borup: I have a question for staff. Could you discuss a little bit of the definition of mixed residential? Especially mixed residential-wastewater. Hawkins-Clark: You mean mixed use -- Borup: Yes. I mean that's -- Hawkins-Clark: And I was wondering if Mr. Rasmussen's comment had gotten answered, because the application was submitted -- Borup: I'm sorry. Mixed use. Hawkins-Clark: The application was submitted just prior to the formal adoption of the new plan. Borup: Right. How it fits in with the new -- the present Comp Plan. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The present comp plan does recommend no new residential permits in the mixed use wastewater treatment a rea, M U-WWTP, non ew residential permits. There are some small scale retail allowed. It says there is storage units would Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 54 of 96 be allowed, similar to what is already just adjacent to the north there. Office, warehouse, flex-type space. Borup: Bus barns. Hawkins-Clark: No bus barns. So it was -- there is about six different areas -- land use categories that are kind of spelled out in the new Comprehensive Plan. Borup: Along with commercial type uses. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Not heavy -- heavy industrial is also excluded. So it really is intended to be a fairly light intensive kind of industrial. Borup: The light industrial still. Zaremba: Certainly that's not this whole square mile, though, is it? Hawkins-Clark: No. Zaremba: Is there a distance from the wastewater treatment plant as a center point? Hawkins-Clark: No. It's defined based on existing parcel lines. Zaremba: I'm just color blind enough that I can't read the chart to see which one that is. Okay. Borup: So it just includes this area of the north boundary line is the boundary change. So directly north of that is medium density, which is essentially R-4, medium density? Hawkins-Clark: Could go up to R-8. Borup: Okay. R-4 is what borders that. That probably is a pretty good transition buffer. Zaremba: Well -- and, again, this is a Comprehensive Plan that was not adopted when this application was made. Borup: Right. Right. Zaremba: Although we do plan to comply with it in the future. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That's answers the question for me. Zaremba: I think its sensitivity to the property to the west. On the whole this appears to be a good development. The west property is only faced with two lots. It isn't like there is ten lots backing up to that other piece property, one of which is quite large, and, actually, three lots, one of them is the common area for drainage. So I feel that there is MerIdian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 55 of 96 going to be quite a bit of open space preserved for the neighbor to the west. I would be inclined to, for the moment, stick with the staff's requirement on the fence, that it be a solid fence and, again, let the applicant make their case to the City Council if they wanted to do that -- something different. It's the City Council that would have to put it in writing to change it anyhow from the ordinance. So I would be inclined to leave that provision the way the staff requested it and - Borup: And I'm visualizing some of the property in Eagle -- and I realize this isn't maybe as large, but a good number of those are rail fences, because they have got large lots and open field. Of course, one of the first things I would do if I was living in there is I would plant shrubs all along the back of the property line. Well, a vinyl rail fence is going to hold up and stay looking nice longer than a cedar fence is going to. I mean these pictures already show the cedar fence -- or I think that was probably around the existing house, but at this point that is probably the only real issue. Zaremba: So you're siding with the current fence that's -- Borup: Well, I don't know. I'm not sure what the future property owners -- I mean there may be some that want to fence their yard in and I'm not sure how that's going to look either. Mathes: Could they put the fence in front of the vinyl or behind it? Borup: Probably in front. I mean on their side. Mathes: Right. Borup: I don't know. I live in a subdivision with acre lots and most of them don't have fences, they have a rail fence, or some have got -- so we have got a real mixture in ours. Everyone has got different opinions on what they like. Here there is probably going to be some covenants that may affect that. I'm fine either way, however you want to make the motion. Mathes: I like the solid fence. I'm thinking of pets and stuff. They are going to say in a lot better with a solid fence than a split rail. Zaremba: Are we ready for a motion? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 02-019, request for annexation and zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to an R-3 zone, not an R-2 zone, for proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 4365 North Ten Mile Road, to include all staff comments with the following exceptions: Any staff comment where the change from an R-3 zone -- I'm sorry. The change from Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 56 of 96 an R-2 zone into an R-3 zone solves the problem, those comments are considered satisfied. That's it for the annexation and zoning. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wollen: Commissioner Zaremba, I guess I'd have to ask staff is that something that can be easily done in here, because it's not something that I'm going to be able to do on the -- do in my recommendation, because it's not going to be something I can go through and do a very good seeing what's going to change at all between an R-2 and R-3. Borup: I don't believe that the setback -- were there any comments that would really be affected? Hawkins-Clark: In the annexation and zoning comments, there are only two recommended conditions and neither one of those conditions references the zone. Wollen: Okay. So as far as substantive conditions upon the developer, there wouldn't be any changes? Hawkins-Clark: For the annexation application that's correct. Wollen: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: No. Borup: The staff recommendation just says staff recommends a pproval a nd requests annexation of R-3 zoning. That's being changed to an R-2 zoning. Borup: I think what you're getting at, Commissioner Zaremba, is -- Zaremba: R-3 is the preference. Borup: Oh. I'm sorry. Oh, that's in the staff comments. Zaremba: That was their recommendation, that it be made an R -3 and t he applicant presented a revised plat for the R-3. Borup: Your motion is to adopt the staff's recommendation. Zaremba: Yes. As an R-3 -- to recommend approval of the R-3 zone with all staff comments. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 57 of 96 Borup: Okay. Did we -- we had a second. Did we vote on that yet? Mathes: Uh-huh. Borup: Oh, we already didn't. Yes. We voted and counsel had a question on how to do his -- Wollen: Okay. And I apologize. So it has been seconded and approved. Okay. Zaremba: It was seconded. Do we want to take a vote again just to be sure? Reconfirm our vote? Borup: No. It is. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, PP 02-015, request for preliminary plat approval of nine building lots and four, not three, other lots on 5.01 acres in a proposed R-3, not R-2, zone for proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 4365 North Ten Mile Road, to include all staff comments, with the following exceptions: Page eight, under site specific comments preliminary plat, item seven has a paragraph item 17, I would change that to read Block 2, Lots 2, 3,4,5, and 7 are through lots -- the rest of the sentence is -- and subject to 25 foot building setback on the private Elk Bugle Lane. Paragraph eight is deleted. That has been satisfied. Going to page nine. I would add an item 1 3, which is the retention pond shall have three-to-one maximum slope and not retain water for greater than for 24 hours. I would add a 14, that the plat shall include the necessary language about the right-to-farm act and all other places where an R-2 zone is referred to and those conditions satisfied by making this an R-3 are considered moot. Hawkins-Clark: I believe number nine could be deleted entirely. Borup: Right. Because that's been redesigned to -- Zaremba: Yes. On page nine, item number nine, can be deleted as satisfied. Wollen: Commissioner Zaremba, as part of your motion on the site specific comment number seven, sub 17, that was block -- Block 2, Lots 2,3,5, and 7 and 4? Zaremba: Two, three, four, five and seven. I believe I'm done. Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, still another clarification, if I could. On page eight, number seven, the new note that is recommending front setbacks, Item 16, I believe that's an error. It should be 25 feet from back of sidewalk. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 58 of 96 Zaremba: Okay. An additional exception is on page eight, item seven, the sub parenthesis 16, the front setback for the subdivision shall be 25, not 23 feet from back of the sidewalk. Mathes: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I think I'd just like to comment it's kind of really refreshing to see a project like this come before us. We have not seen lots of this size with full city services. Commissioners, are we -- would you like a short break or do you want to proceed? (Recess.) (Reconvene at Item 14: Tabled Public Hearing from September 5, 2002: PP 02-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 439 building lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R-4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for Bridgetower Crossing East Subdivision by P rimeland Development - northeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road Borup: Okay. I think we are ready to reconvene our meeting. Let's -- it has been requested during the break if we couid rearrange the schedule and move Item 14, which is Bridgetower Crossing East on up in place of Item No. 11, so ~- Zaremba: Do we need a motion to that effect? Borup: I don't know if we do. Wollen: I believe the agenda can be changed however the Commission sees fit. Borup: Okay. Unless there is any objection. Okay. Let's go ahead and do that. I'd like to open -- oh, this was -- this was tabled from our September 5th meeting, PP 02-014, request for preliminary plat approval 439 lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R- 4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for BridgetowerCrossing by Primeland Development. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. I just asked for the staff report on Bridgetower Crossing. We changed the agenda. Hawkins-Clark: Did you get it? .Borup: It was very short. Hawkins-Clark: My apologies. 0 kayo B ridgetower Crossing East. T he application is a portion of an already approved planned development, which I guess, Chairman Borup,