Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 7, 2002Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 29 of 84 Centers: Well, I would close the Public Hearing, then. Move. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: I want to do this one. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recommend approval to City Council for Item 6, RZ 02-004, request for a rezone of 8.2 acres from R- 8 to C-G zone for Murdoch Sub No. 2 by Howell Murdoch Development Corp., west of South Locust Grove Road on East Watertower Street, including all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES ONE ABSENT Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 02-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 02-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 328 building lots and 27 other lots on 119.83 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -- south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 02-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with 327 single-family dwellings, one elementary school, and 27 common lots for proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -- south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: The next three items are all pertaining to the same project. We'd like to open all three of these Public Hearings at the same time. AZ 02-022, request for annexation and zoning of 119 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, and Public Hearing PP 02-019, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 329 building lots and 27 other lots on the same 119 acres. Then Public Hearing CUP 02-028, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with 327 single-family dwellings and one elementary school and 27 common lots for proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest LLC. This project is located south of McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove. I'd like to open, as I stated, all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 30 of 84 Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision is located south of McMillan Road, west of Locust Grove. It actually b orders on i is s outhern boundary, t he recently a pproved Heritage C ommons Subdivision. It does have frontage on Locust Grove, as well as McMillan. This is -- the property today is a series of five-acre lots along the north edge of this property, some larger lots along Locust Grove, and then the currently approved Heritage Commons Subdivision to the south. This is the plat for that area. They have requested annexation as an R-4 zone. The Preliminary Plat for 327 building lots, 326 of which are single- family, and then the one large one right in the center for an elementary school. It's on 196 acres and the elementary school site is about 13 acres of that. The applicant has provided multiple pedestrian connections into the school. They noted that all sidewalks within the subdivision are planned to be detached sidewalks from the back of the curb. The, quote, other lots in this subdivision, include eight large open space lots, in addition to the landscape buffer and those open space lots are just over five percent of the -- of the total land area, which is required by ordinance. They are in compliance with that. They -- as the additional amenities as the Planned Development, which they are required to have two of, they are actually proposing more than that, they are proposing two playground equipment facilities, the micro path system, a water feature, and a gazebo and picnic facility. As a Planned Development, they are requesting some modifications to existing City Ordinances. Those are detailed on Page 2 of the staff report, dated October 31St. You will note the setbacks, the lot size, and the lot frontage all has requested modifications. Okay. If you turn to Page 6 of the staff report, you will see the additional considerations that staff feels should be considered tonight in particular. The first one deals with stub streets. There are numerous stub streets in this project, which staff wholeheartedly supports, to provide the interconnectivity in this area that we are trying to get. The Item Number 1 under those stub streets suggests that we add a stub street -- and I need to amend that wording per Dave McKinnon's letter on November 6"', that instead of a stub street, it should be across-Access Agreement or Cross-Access Easement. Centers: Is that Item 1, Steve? Siddoway: Yes. It's here under additional considerations in Item 1. It shows up again as site-spec'rfic comment Number 5 on Page 9. If you'd turn to Page 9 and look at the very top of the Page -- Centers: Got it. Siddoway: - it says a new stub -- this is where the condition actually shows up. It says a new stub street shall be added to the plat. That stub street should be modified to read, across-Access Easement shall be added to the plat. Bruce is saying that it should also be a public utility easement. It should be for access and public utilities. On Page 7, the second stub street issue for discussion is -- staff is recommending either eliminating or relocating the stub street. It's this stub street right here. It's between Lot 1, Block 12, and Lots 25 and 26 of Block 10. If I go to the aerial photo, you can see that Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 31 of 84 where that was stubbing stubs directly into the back of a house, which is not likely to redevelop very easily. Our recommendation would be to either eliminate that or just simply turn it north and stub it into this property here. I have spoken with the developer working on this property and they are fine with it either way, actually. It will work for a redevelopment scenario if the stub street is there. They can cul-d-sac a street in their project if it's not stubbed. The site specific comment that shows up related to this actually proposes the elimination of it, but if the Commission feels that it should be realigned to the north and stub in, then Dave has provided the wording for that on the second paragraph of Page 7. Borup: Steve, does developer of that other property, do they have a preliminary layout at this point or -- Siddoway: They are working on one, but it's not finalized, no. Borup: Are they -- right now it looks like that parcel has two stub streets coming in from their north and then -- and I assume also they have access to Locust Grove, so they have three access points into that subdivision? Siddoway: Their access to Locust Grove is under discussion with the ACHD. We don't need to get into that one right now. Borup: Okay. Well, do they have enough access points to adequately service that area or -- Siddoway: Yes. I think --let me go to the plat. Centers: I think the comments stated that. Borup: That they have do have enough. Centers: Yes. Siddoway: It can be developed without it. It also works to develop with it. If you do eliminate it, you then end up with a boundary from this point all the way around to here with no connection to the east. If this were to stub north at this point, it could provide for some more interconnectivity, but the lot can be developed without it. Clear as mud for you? Borup: Okay. Thank you. Centers: Steve, maybe -- Dave's last note there on his memo, do we need to renumber some pages? Do you want to -- Siddoway: I'm still going to go over that. You bet. The -- you will see that the comments go one, two, three, four, five, six and then five, six, seven, eight. Meridian Planning and Zoning Navem6er 7, 2002 Page 32 of 84 Centers: Where is that? You mean pages or-- Siddoway: No. Those are comment numbers starting on Page 7 of the site-specific comments. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: Page 7 has one, two, Page 8, three, four, five, six, Page 9 it goes back to five, six, seven, eight. There was some automatic numbering when some comments were inserted. Centers: So we want to make those seven, eight, nine and ten? Siddoway: Exactly. Just make it seven, eight, nine, 10. The other issue that should be dealt with tonight is related to the phasing. The applicant is proposing to have the -- a phase one on both Locust Grove and McMillan Road. Staff does not object to this. It was done -- it was approved that way on the Tuscany Lakes project, but we do feel that we need to point out that multiple non-contiguous phases will stretch resources of police and fire, in particular, to cover areas that are not contiguous with other development. Centers: See, that's what happens when we start it someplace. Siddoway: I believe that's all I need to go over in the staff report. Our recommendation is t o a pprove t he p roject. l t d oes h ave a l of o f n ice features, w e f eel, B o w e would recommend approval of the project with the comments and conditions noted in the staff report and I'd stand for any questions. Mathes: I have a question. Siddoway: Okay. Mathes: On the report from the Fire Department -- Siddoway: Okay. Mathes: -- he talks about amulti-family unit. Do we need to strike that paragraph? Or does it matter? Siddoway: Now which paragraph is it? Mathes: Nine, 11 office lots and ohe commercial lot. It kind of sounds like Lochsa. Siddoway: It does. I do believe that you could strike that. I don't see how that applies to Havasu Creek. Mathes: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Paga 33 of 84 Centers: Which? Mathes: Number 9. Borup: I think he went into his word processor and had stuff from the previous -- Mathes: I was looking for them, but I didn't find them. Siddoway: Yes. I don't --there is no multi-family - Centers: Good catch. Borup: So that's everything after that first sentence. Centers: Could be ACHD gets paid for how many lines they write. Borup: That was the Fire Department. Centers: No. I mean I'm talking about the ACHD. Borup: Well, yes, I think so, too. Centers: They get paid by the page, 9 and 10 orjust 9? Borup: Steve, do we have clarification on the number of lots? The report says 328. Our agenda said 327. No, it didn't either. Oh, wait a minute. It says both. The agenda says both. Siddoway: The difference is there are 328 building lots, but the Conditional Use Permit points out that there is 327 building lots for single-family and one for the elementary school. Borup: Oh. Siddoway: So that's the difference. Borup: Okay. There we go. Centers: Well, since we are doing typos here, the first page, the application summary, down at the bottom, first paragraph shows 1,196 acres. Siddoway: Yes. I got that, too. Centers: We need to change that to 119.83? Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2D02 Page 34 of 84 Siddoway: Well, just strike the first one, which is -- Centers: No. No. Strike that nine -- or strike the six. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: That's a big development. Siddoway: It should be 119 right here. Borup: And i t s ays t hat a verywhere a Ise. A ny o ther c omments, q uestions f rom t he Commission? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, one other minor thing I just remembered. It's similar to what we just did in Murdoch. We do need to add a note on the plat for this one as well, that the front setbacks will be measured from the back of sidewalk, because there are instances where the sidewalk extends beyond the right of way in this project as well, where they are detached. Six inches I think is all, but they still should be measured from sidewalk -- Borup: Thank you. Becky. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. As Steve indicated, the request before you this evening is an annexation and rezone to an R-4 designation. We also have a Conditional Use Permit that accompanies that fora Planned Unit Development and then a Preliminary Plat application for 327 buildable lots. The project before you, I just want to explain some of the features. It adjoins McMillan Road. This location here is at the half mile. We are creating a water feature here on the island and bringing a collector roadway in all the way to this intersection here. That collector roadway has three islands as you come down to break up the monotony of the asphalt and we have also provided an elementary school site that's just a little over 12 acres in size. We did coordinate with the Meridian School District. In fact, the site plan that you see on the school site came from their architect, so that would be somewhat, you know, what they would come before the city with as far as the elementary site is concerned. They are aligning with these public streets at the three locations, so the configuration was acceptable to them. We provided three pedestrian pathways, one at this location, one here on their eastern boundary, and then another one to the south. The way we designed this is we have a lot of pocket parks for interconnectivity, because, obviously, the central focal feature of this development is the elementary site. We envision thatthe children over here at North Locust Grove, we have got a little short collector, it comes down to this intersection, it would come through here, come through pedestrian pathways, catch the detached sidewalk, come through another ped path through this pocket park and then enter on the micro path. Up here they would be coming along through the sidewalk and then enter the site through that ped path here. We have a shortcut coming up from the southern portion. This is the boundary of Heritage Commons along here, so the Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 35 of 84 Heritage Commons kids could come upon our detached sidewalk, come up through this pathway, and enter into the elementary site or if they chose to come through this way, we've created a shortcut there. Most of the blocks, with the exception of this one, we have pedestrian pathways and pocket parks that traverse them. This particular one has a real nice interconnection. The size of that facility is about 1.4 acres in size, to kind of give you an idea of the size of that facility. Most of these range from about 1.4 down to about a half acre in size. Most of them are about three quarters of an acre. We have more, you know, of what you call our traditional type, more gridded pattern. We have two different product lines. The lot sizes over here are smaller they typically range around 6,500 and 7,000 square feet. As we go to the southern portion over to the west portion, those lot sizes increase. We technically have lot sizes that go up to as high as 19,000 square feet. If I were to give, say what the average lot sizes are in the project, they would range around 9 to 11,000 square feet. The project, when we look at our net density, therefore, excluding the school site, excluding the streets, we are at about 3.92 dwelling units per acre. I think in staffs report they look at what they call the gross acreage and that gross is about 3.05 dwelling units per acre. The amenities that we will be providing will, obviously, be the pocket parks. We will also utilize those for drainage. However, we will have to come up with a design, so that they are usable and esthetically pleasing. The other amenities would include a gazebo feature in this location here and then some play equipment, like commercial play type equipment ranging from anywhere from about 12,000 to 20,000 dollars in cost and we'd have two of those facilities, one probably is a central region over here on the eastern portion and then put one probably in that location. We'd also coordinate those with your Planning Department and Public Works to make sure that they are -- they are located appropriately as far as concerning the drainage areas. This particular project we have met the requirement of the five percent. In fact, we exceed that. It's just a little over five percent. We h ave got about 9.4 acres of o pen space, approximately, excluding the park. Of that 9.4, about six of that is eligible for the open space calculation for the five percent. This particular area on your new Comprehensive Plan I believe is designated for medium density. This isn't an extremely dense project, but nor is it a very low- density project. We d id have a neighbor meeting and met with the residents. This particular site in unusual. We have, I think, like 13 stub streets, which, for a project of this size of only 119 acres, is a lot. We did that, obviously, to facilitate interconnection between the existing properties. Along our northern boundary here along McMillan Road, we have existing five-acre lots called Crestwood Estates. Then located here in our eastern portion next to Locust Grove we have, I believe, some additional five-acre lots. We have tried to position those the best we can. We, obviously, logistically, cannot stub to every single lot, but we can do our best to try to space them appropriately so we get some interconnection. Staff agreed to the easement here and I think that's an excellent idea, so that at some point in time if five acres that adjoins that collector were to redevelop, they could interconnect with our collector. I provided a stub street here, because we have afive-acre parcel right at the intersection and those parcels that are at the intersection are the ones in the future that are probably most likely to be restricted for access if they are to redevelop. That was one reason we put that stub street here. Staff has asked to either remove -- remove or relocate that stub street located there along that eastern boundary. We are in agreement with staff on Meridian Planning and zoning _ November 7, 2002 Page 36 of 84 that. This particular project would be serviced off of the White Drain Trunk. That trunk line comes through Heritage Commons on our southern boundary. The trunk line will be extended up north. For the record, that trunk line will service all of this area here, up to this point. Everything west of the western boundary of the elementary school site would have to be serviced off of a temporary lift station. The reason being is that trunk line at some point in time on your facilities plan is intended to go up Meridian Road -- I had to think about it -- up Meridian Road north and then when it comes through the adjoining 60 acres to the west, it would come into this project and then this western portion would gravity. The bulk of this would gravity down to the White Drain Trunk, the remainder on that western side would have to go to a temporary lift station until such time as t he S tarkey p roperty w ere t o d evelop, w hich i s the 6 0 a cres o n o ur w estern boundary. Water service will be available in North Locust Grove. We will have to extend a 12-inch line up Locust Grove from Heritage Commons. Bruce has indicated in his comments that there are two water pressure zones. It happens -it's convenient that the water pressure zones basically match the sewer -- the way the sewer breaks also. That is also that western boundary of that elementary school site. If we were to develop that western portion, we would need to extend water from McMillan Road, a 16 inch either up McMillan Road -- or I mean, excuse me, up toward Meridian Road and then a 12-inch in McMillan Road or come through an adjoining property that is basically already laid out. They are expected to bring in a Development Plan here shortly, and then we could extend a main I ine through them. We have shown that we have two particular phases, one starting on one end, and one starting on the other. We do that anytime we have differing product lines. Obviously, the marketing of a project is increased if you're offering different types of lot sizes and homes sizes and, obviously, home values and that's what we intend. As far as the school site, their timetable on that -- they talked about like 2005. Obviously, that always depends on their budgeting and their bonds. We are reserving that site for the school district. We have gone through staffs comments. I think we are pretty much in agreement concerning the Preliminary Plat comments. I bolded those -- Item 1 and 2, just to let you know that we have met with staff, we have discussed the water issues, the sewer issues. We are aware of what will be required of us and I believe everything else we are in agreement, with the exception of we did have a problem with the Fire Department's comments concerning the 30 lots. Centers: Becky, let me interrupt. On Page 2, your number system seems to correspond with the -- Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: -- confusion here tonight. Do you see it? Bowcutt: Yes. I always -- I just match whatever they have, so that - Centers: Because your bolded Number 5 -- they are talking about a fence and you're talking about an easement so you're going to clarify? Meddian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 37 of &4 Bowcutt: Yes. Yes. I'm talking about a roadway and I think we are in agreement, so I don't think that's an issue. Centers: Which is their item that you're in disagreement with? Help me find it. Mathes: Number 7. Centers: Number 7? Bowcutt: Right. You just renumbered them. I follow them as it was given to me. Centers: Okay. Got you. Bowcutt: You see what I'm saying? You guys renumbered them. W hen I number mine, I try to -- even if it is not in numerical order, I try to match it. Centers: Thank you. We are fine. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, staff does thatjust to see if you guys read them. Centers: See if we are on our toes. Freckleton: Right. Bowcutt: I think that concludes my presentation. I would be glad to answer any questions you guys may have. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. You know, the staff thought that moving that stub street to the north would be more applicable, but I think they went on to say that that property owner could care less. Have you talked to that property owner? Bowcutt: I have not spoken to this property owner here, but we have provided two stub streets there. Centers: I see that. Bowcutt: Staff did kind of a pseudo layout, you know, just kind of sketching it to see how it could interconnect and so I believe they determined that that was adequate. If we put too many stub streets, sometimes that causes real problems and constraints to their site design. Centers: And didn't you say, Bruce, that that property owner was irrelevant -- I mean not irrelevant, but didn't really care one way or the other? Siddoway: That's correct. Centers: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 38 of 84 Siddoway: I had some indications at first that they were going to request that it did stub, but then he basically told me that they could work with it either way. If you want to just eliminate it, I think that's fine. Borup: I guess to me whether the stub would be beneficial would depend on the layout of the other property. Centers: Yes. Borup: And I'd still like to see that, but if -- the staff's comment on if it isn't, you know, anyone of this section, you could come clear up and around and out over here or -- you know, they have a long ways to go to get over to here. There are two stub streets, Becky, to Heritage Commons is that correct? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. We matched their design and the property just east of the cul-d-sac there on the southeast corner. I met -- there is two five-acre lots owned by two sisters and they have existing homes on there. I did meet with them months ago and it was their preference that we not provide a stub street and in our conversations I recommended a cul-d-sac to minimize the number of lots that backed up to them and they were in agreement and so we did follow -- Borup: That's down below - Bowcutt: Yes, sir. We did follow what we promised those residents. Borup: Okay. Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Bruce has worked out a potential layout. I mean it's not the -- it's not the developer's necessarily, but it will work and it does provide good interconnectivity, so I think our preference is to stub it. I think our preference is to stub it, but -- to the north, but I don't think it's a do or die issue. Borup: About what phase -- Becky, this would be way along in the phasing, I am assuming. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. That would probably be about in the middle of the phasing, as you would start at Locust Grove. Borup: So if the developer -- and by that time I assume we would have a plan on that other -- on the other parcel that it could be coordinated with or we don't know. Okay. Well, Steve, how does staff usually handle phasing -- of changes in phasing as it progresses? Is there option to adjust? I mean the developers adjust. Do they come and ask you? Can it work both ways? Siddoway: In the past we have held pretty strictly to the proposed phasing plan, but -- Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 39 of 84 Borup: As far as exact layout? Siddoway: Yes. Exact. I mean like to the point of making sure they match exactly, but there was recently -- I can't remember the project -- where they recommended some flexibility and -- Bowcutt: Bridgetower Crossing East and Lochsa Falls. Siddoway: They asked to have the ability to basically follow the basic phasing plan, but have the ability to do maybe, you know, half of a phase or iwo phases as one or -you know. As long as they are following the general sequence that's shown and that was approved far Bridgetower. Borup: But the street design and layout needs to stay the same, too, you're saying? Siddoway: Yes oh, definitely. Definitely. Borup: Okay. Centers: Let me ask -- these are probably five acre parcels or what do we have here, Becky? Bowcutt: Those are fives. Centers: Okay and this is all one property owner? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: And this is to scale? Bowcutt: Yes. Those should be the same scale as the subdivision. Centers: I have a feeling that this property owner could care less about that stub, because he's going to come in just like that and cut it right down the middle, like another sub that we saw about four or five months ago and have lots on each side and one way in and one way out. I don't think a stub would do him any good is why he didn't care. Correct me if I'm wrong. Siddoway: Would you like to see the layout Bruce has come up with? Centers: Yes. Bowcutt: He's proud of it. Siddoway: Basically, if you look at that layout, you can see that it would work with the stubs as proposed. If that stub were not there, it could be cul-d-sac'd. I think, in Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 40 of 84 summary, it just shows that it can work and if that stub were not there, the end of that street would simply be cul-d-sac'd. Centers: Yes. Siddoway: It just works to break up the blocks. Centers: How do you feel about that? Bowcutt: As far as what Bruce designed I think that's probably the most reasonable way that that property could be developed. I think you're correct. Bring that straight in. Centers: Well -- and the reason I like it, Becky, is - I don't know -- I can't remember the subdivision. It went through -all the way through. I didn't like it, but there was one way in and one way out and so I have to agree with Bruce, this gives another access. I never did like that other particular sub, because, you know -- and it was deep like that. It went in and that was it. Anyway - Borup: Okay any other comments or questions? All right. Thank you. Okay. We have an opportunity for anyone else to come forward and testify on the application, if you'd like to come forward at this time. Graham: Members of the Commission, my name is Laird Graham and I live with my family at 4191 North Locust Grove Road. It's Lot 12, Crestwood Subdivision. Borup: Are you right on the corner then? Right here? Graham: No. I'm the second tot from the south in Crestwood. You divide a lot on the south on Locust Grove and then I'm -- Borup: Oh. Okay. Graham: Now I'm one lot south. Right there. Borup: Okay. Graham: As for the impact of Havasu Creek on our property and our way of live, we'd like to make the following requests. Our 10-acre lot, which fronts on Locust Grove Road to the east, is approximately 350 by 1,250 feet. The building site, as we can see by the aerial, is at the west end -- the back west end of the property. Our nearest out building is 33 feet and our back yard is within 80 feet of the west property line. Our neighbor on the south, Lot 13 Crestwood Sub, and the north, Lot 11, has similar situations. Therefore, since it's our desire to maintain some privacy of our own sites and provide a more gradual site line transition to the west, we ask that the above-ground portion of the homes built on lots joining our lots, including the cul-d-sac in the southeast corner of the development, be limited to one level construction. The second point. We are asking for Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 41 of 64 a six-foot vinyl privacy fence to be installed on our west property line. We'd like it to be similar in quality and color to a vinyl four rail fence to be built on Lot 13's south property line, buffering it from Heritage Commons Subdivision, which is currently under development. Along vinyl fence has also been built around a home site in the northeast -- excuse me -- northwest corner of the section, apparently in preparation for a future project, that would be the heretofore-mentioned Starkey property. Number 3 a provision be made for us to, at a later date, hook up services, sewer, water, gas, telephone, cable, et cetera, through one of the lots that our property adjoins. We would prefer it to be in the area of the southwest corner of our property. Number 4 the irrigation water for the proposed subdivision, we would like it to continue to come out of the local ditch, that's known as the Parkins-Norse Lateral. At the informational meeting, it was suggested it might be routed to the pressurized irrigation system via a different canal, but Crestwood Subdivision needs it to stay in the ditch to maintain pressure. Number 5. Borup: I'm a little confused on that. Did you say they were talking about rerouting the water in your ditch or - Graham: At the informational meeting, very informal, of course, the representative of Farwest suggested they might take that water out of our lateral, down I believe it's called the Starkey Canal, and then pick it up -- and I gathered over by their McMillan entrance. Borup: And your concern is that you will not have water available to your property? Siddoway: We will lose head if they take their water out of the ditch. We don't have any qualms -- or any dispute with the fact that they are deserving of the water, their water has always been in our ditch, but we need it to deliver through our ditch. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. You could repeat anything she said, if that would help clarify. Graham: Well, Vanessa was asking if we are clear on that. I will go on. Item Number 5 a wastewater facility sufficient to handle the irrigation runoff. We feel it needs to be larger than the minimum as would be calculated based on the water allotment, because available volume can vary and we want to be able to take advantage of it without causing flooding in the development. Maximizing use of the available water may also have implications for replenishment of our shallow water aquifer, which most of us in the Crestwood Subdivision -- from which most of get our domestic water. Finally, it was my understanding from the informational meeting and now again tonight that the southeast corner of the proposed project is the final phase and where we sit east of that piece of ground, we would ask that some sort of cover crop be planted there to keep the dirt down in the summertime. That's all I have. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Graham -- well, your Item 6, the cover crop, Iwould -- they wouldn't be going to do -- you know, they wouldn't be doing anything there until -- Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 42 of 84 they wouldn't be cutting streets for about three or four months prior to developing that phase, so it would be left in its natural state, you know. You're asking a cover crop in addition to what it is now. Graham: Well, let me explain. Centers: I don't know what it is now. Graham: It's a turf farm. It's a turf farm that's been harvested and so it's bare dirt at this time and has been a good part of the summer and when we get those west winds, I mean we li#erally get blanketed and it's always been something we have contended with, but, for the most part, there has always been grass there. It would just be the occasion before the grass -- after the grass came off and before they tilled it and put it back into grass that we would have the condition. This summer particularly -- and now if it takes years to get to this phase, it was a much longer period of time that we have to contend with that. It's -you know, we are in the country and we are used to a little dust all right, but we are talking about layers on your cars. My neighbor to the north said that he was out by his barn one day when it happened and he couldn't see his house. Centers: So you're going through that now and have been? Graham: Yes. When the wind -- Centers: You're not in the city right now? Graham: No. Centers: But your Item 3 was -- obviously, I made notes. You want to hook up to city services and not be annexed? Or would you like to be annexed? Graham: Well, as I was putting this together, thought perhaps I would like to, but -- Centers: You thought maybe that as little -- stretching it a little bit, did you? Graham: Okay. I suppose we could assume eventually we will be annexed there. I think the city has wandered all around us and so while I'm not an expert on this, I'm confident that will come to pass. Borup: Traditionally, the city would not annex you unless you requested annexation. Centers: But the city is not in the habit of providing services unless you're in the city either, so it's -- Graham: I guess it raises the issue. We are a long ways off Locust Grove and to get a gas line down there togetanykindofservicetothat--toour homeisprohibitively expensive. At the same time, I'm on a 20 year old well, I'm on a 20 year old septic system, and so I guess suffice it to say I threw it in for discussion to see what might Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 43 of 84 come of it. Also would it be possible to make the provision without actually doing a hook up, in which case it wouldn't have to be annexed until we did make the hookup. Centers: That's about all I have. Graham: Thank you Borup: Thank you. Klaus: My name is Vanessa Klaus. I live at 4055 North Locust Grove Road so that's my place right there. As Laird said, it would be good, since we are being encroached upon our own little private Idaho -- I'm trying to make you guys feel bad. Okay? I think it would be reasonable to ask for the six foot vinyl privacy fence, in addition to I would like to see six foot Hollywood juniper planted six feet apart as a privacy barrier as well, somewhere along that -- that property line. Crestwood Subdivision -there are two 10- acre lots -- actually, the one that is split into five-acre parcels -- right there. Thank you -- is actually a 10-acre parcel as well. The man owns both of them so there are actually three 10 acre home sites right there bordering, along with the two five acre sites of my sister and I. We would like to have some privacy there. We would also like to ask to continue to take the live water via the Parkins-Norse Lateral, rather than the Starkey ditch. It allows us to maintain the head and there is no way we will get our crops watered, our pastured watered, if they take their portion of their water and reroute it to another ditch. I would also like to reiterate, as did Mr. Graham, that we would like to maintain our access to wastewater drainage, south to north, as we currently do. It's a very nice subdivision, although it's -- nice to look at. As you can see -- what I would like to clarify is I think that Becky said something about adding an access. What was the -- where is -- there was some amendment to the submitted paperwork that said where the stub street added you were going to change it to cross-access easement. What's that? Siddoway: I can clarify that. Klaus: Okay. Siddoway: Up here near McMillan Road and this five-acre parcel, in alignment with this street, it originally said that they would need to stub over to this property. Rather than just having it stub with curb returns going into the property, we are just saying provide an access and a utility easement in this location to get to this property and we would like that to be 50 feet wide. Klaus: Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Centers: I have a question. Is it Mrs. -- Klaus: Ms. Klaus. Centers: Klaus. Okay. This is 119 acres, I believe. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 44 of 84 Klaus: Yes 325 homes. Centers: Yes 119 acres, though and the irrigation water -correct me if I'm wrong -- there is so much per acre isn't that correct? Klaus: Yes. Centers: So they are entitled to 119 let's say shares? Klaus: We agree with their entitlement. We would love them to take it. Centers: What happens now to the head, as you refer to it, when this property owner irrigates any crops that they do have? Klaus: It doesn't do anything to our head if they take it down our ditch the way they currently do, the property owners take that down our ditch, and their portion of the water coming down the ditch, plus our portion of the water, gives us the driving force to irrigate, so - Centers: I guess I wanted your agreement that they are entitled to 119 shares. Klaus: Oh, we would never dispute their entitlement to life water. Centers: Very good. Klaus: We would beg that they would, please, take their life water down the current path, so that we would be able to continue to irrigate. Centers: Well, I think the Irrigation District would be involved in that, too. Klaus: Yes. Centers: So -- very good. Klaus: Yes. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Okay. Becky, did you have any concluding comments? Klaus: Can I just add one more thing? Borup: Come on up. Klaus: I thinkthat atsome point it would lovelyforthisCommitteeto also consider connectivity of all the subdivisions going in. As we have it now, we have several subdivisions in our area that are disconnected by incontiguous sidewalks. The Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Paga 45 of 84 subdivision does their job of putting the sidewalks in and then they are broken up, so you have a lot of people and -- Borup: You're talking about on the -- Klaus: On the main roads. Borup: On the main roads. Klaus: Locust Grove and McMillan. If you drive around that area, you will notice lots of kids on the shoulder of the road. Borup: We are concerned about that. It's not a lot that this Commission can control. That's under ACHD's jurisdiction. The city does require sidewalks put in everywhere, so that there will be sidewalks along here and sidewalks along here, so that we can control. Beyond that, that's someone else's property. That would be in front of your property, part of it. Klaus: Not mine. Borup: Your sister's. Klaus: Yes. Borup: Becky, did you have a final comment? Bowcutt: I will be brief. I'll just address some of the questions that arose from some of the residents. Concerning Mr. Graham's comment about the single-story, typically we find that when we have a development that is along a person's eastern boundary or northern b oundary w here t he v iew i s o f t he B oise f ront. Then w e f ind t hat t hey a re concerned about single-story. Or if we have property that is elevated above their property, kind of on a little bit of a bench and overlooking their property, as we had at Thousand Springs, we have concerns about single-story. Normally, you know, when we have such adistance -- when i scale Mr. Graham's house, it scales at about 200 feet, approximately, between his home and our eastern boundary and then I have a lot that adjoins that that has a depth of 181 feet on one side and 154 feet on the other lot line. I was really cognizant of the fact that we did have these larger 10-acre lots and I tried to utilize cul-d-sacs, utilize a knuckle, and make these tots as deep and a large as possible. If you have got a 200 foot distance and then you have got like a 20 foot front yard setback, I mean you could have, you know, 350 feet between homes. I think that's something to keep in mind. Secondly, you brought up the vinyl fencing. We typically try to work with the adjoining property owners to come up with, you know, some fencing that m eets t he n eeds o f both t he urban a nd t he r ural. M y c lient h as a Iways u tilized either cedar board fencing or wrought iron fencing and he's never been a fan or proponent of vinyl fencing. I guess we would like to talk to them and see if we have any Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 46 of 84 other options, such as picture frame or some upgraded feature, maybe we go with metal posts, but with wood, the six foot --the height is fine. Concerning -- Borup: Becky? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: Any reason why he's got a problem with vinyl fencing? Bowcutt: I guess it's just a personal preference. It's a personal preference. Borup: Well, it is a lot more expensive than cedar fencing, but not wrought iron. Bowcutt: Yes wrought iron if you upgrade to the -- the third item was the hook up of water and sewer service. I don't know -- I guess Bruce would have to comment on that as far as what their plan shows for service for these properties. All the stub streets that we provide -obviously, if it's feasible due to sewer depth and then, obviously, water, are stubbed at those locations. We typically keep those sewer and water mains in the right of ways and we don't run down side lot lines, because of maintenance problems and access and so forth. Borup: Not only don't, I don't think the city would allow it. Bowcutt: Yes. They don't I don't believe they do allow it. I know the City of Boise will not allow it so I don't know. I guess Bruce would have to comment on what his estimate of future service of these properties from Locust Grove would be irrigation water. This property -- there are two parcels, that Han property and then the Medco property to the west. The property on the eastern portion that you see was serviced off of the Parkins- Norse Lateral. What we have had happen is that property, is my understanding, and has been taken out of agricultural production a few years ago. However, that property's water rights are still being turned down the ditch, which, therefore, has allowed plenty of water for the adjoining five-acre lots. The western portion was irrigated off of the Starkey Lateral so when we deal with Settlers Irrigation District, we have to determine which source. We have three sources out there Parkins-Norse, Starkey Lateral, and the Settlers main canal along McMillan Road. They look at those from the perspective of which facility has the capacity to handle an urban pump station for a project of this size. It's up to the district and they, obviously, work with civil engineers to determine what is the best point of the delivery. In our conversations with Nathan Draper, he stated that he would gladly meet and speak with these neighbors if they had questions concerning irrigation. I, obviously, can't promise water to them that this property is entitled to so I don't know how to work through that issue. Drainage. Obviously, State Law takes care of drainage. If they are any drainage ditches, which would take wastewater from these properties across our parcel, it is our responsibility to do continue that on. Dust and a cover crop. If irrigation facilities are available, we typically try to keep something on those properties, such as hay, which is a good cover crop. If it's under construction, then, obviously, you typically don't have a crop and I guess the main thing is dust Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 47 of 84 control, watering, and so forth. Vanessa's concerns were pretty much in line with Mr. Graham's, other than the juniper trees along that boundary and that would, obviously, go on private lots, so, you know, it would kind of be up to the property owners on how they wanted to landscape those. We do have a real good project. We have really tried hard -- it's always difficult to try to have a good transition when we are up against estate size lots, whether that be acre, five acres, or 10. We have tried here to minimize the impact and provide some stub streets, which would, obviously, have sewer and water for redevelopment and do what we can. This is kind of a tough piece of ground that we have to work with. Lastly, the only other comment was the Fire Department and the issue of the 30-lot threshold for secondary access. All the projects that I have had going onto the Council lately, we have been disagreeing with the Fire Department on that issue, because they are quoting the International Fire Code, which Mr. Silva indicated to me that the City of Meridian has not officially adopted and will not until around the first of the year. At least that's what he told me. I always have a problem with them imposing requirements that are not part of their adopted policies. He --the 30 lots is not the project in its entirety, but he's looking at it from aphase-to-phase perspective. Obviously, we are trying to make as many interconnections as we can. We will have a sewer access road coming from the south at Heritage Commons. We do our best, but that is a pretty low threshold of 30 lots. When we build those 20-foot wide gravel, temporary, secondary access roads that can handle 75,000 GVW, they are not cheap, and that gravel is contaminated, it's wasted, we can't utilize it for our roadways. I just want to go on the record that we do object to that. I think it was, what, Item 8? Thank you. Borup: Becky? Anyone else have some questions? What has been -- I'm back to the 30 lots. He was proposing 30 lots total, so 15 in each phase? Is that what you just said? Bowcutt: No. No. No. His comment is any portion of the project that has 30 lots or greater, must have some secondary means of access, whether it be permanent or temporary. Centers: A minimum of two. Bowcutt: Minimum of two. Yes. Borup: Access to -- Centers: Two points of access. Borup: To the arterial? Bowcutt: To the arterial. Borup: But you only have two, unless you count Heritage Commons. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 48 of 84 Bowcutt: We have the two stub streets to Heritage Commons, obviously, depending on their phasing when those would be activated, but we have g of the sewer coming up through there, so we will have to have a gravel road over that sewer, I believe. Bruce, is that not correct? I don't think that was a condition. When we extend sewer from Heritage Commons north to say first phase off of Locust Grove will we not have to have a 14-foot gravel service road over that sewer main extension? Freckleton: You will have to have, yes. Bowcutt: Yes. Borup: What has been the past -- Bowcutt: Threshold? Borup: Yes. Bowcutt: One hundred lots because that was -- Borup: That's what I was remembering. Bowcutt: That was direct from ACHD, because ACHD's policy manual says that you can have one point of ingress and egress for anything less than 100 lots. When you hit that 100, you must have two points of ingress and egress. Borup: A couple years ago, we approved one that was 150. I remember that it had gone down. That's what I remember, that it was 100. Bowcutt: And that's what we have always utilized for a secondary emergency access was 100. Borup: It was 150. Bowcutt: Was it? I h ad o ne t hat was like 110 o r something like that and I believe Kenny Bowers said that -- you know, he would allowed 110, but then after that you have got to have your secondary access. Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commission? All right. Thank you. Bowcutt: Thank you. Borup: Commissioners? Discussion? Rohm: I believe we had another comment here. Borup: Need to make it in a hurry. We have closed -- I mean we thought we were finished with the public testimony. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 49 of 84 Graham: Laird Graham 4191 North Locust Grove Road once again. In reference to the single lot -- single level home issue, there is precedence with -- on this Commission for requiring that. On May 16w, there was quite a discussion of the Sutherland Farms Subdivision as it related to the Sasser property and to the Los Altos Subdivision. I have been out and driven around that area. I just -- Centers: Let me interrupt, Mr. Graham. That was a subdivision that was adjacent to Sutherland. It was not one home. It was a subdivision. Los Altos has about 15 lots within it. Okay. Graham: Okay. I guess I only bring up the Sasser property, because it seemed to be kind of a driving force in that conversation and now the way -- I see the way it lays relative to the Los Altos Subdivision, they are kind of the same issue. There are some - Borup: And I think that was part of the -- part of the roncem on that project was the grading, the height difference, as Becky had mentioned. Graham: Right which does apply to the west end of that situation, which would be the Sasser property, and the west end of Los Altos. By the time you get to the -- midway through the third or fourth home in Los Altos moving east, the grade becomes almost level and yet it was required by - if I understand it correctly, by this Commission, that those lots all along the Sasser property and the Los Altos Subdivision would be single level homes. Now, I might digress a little bit. We have been here for 12 years and we have really enjoyed the country-like atmosphere. We understanding this is going to go on and we are ready for it, but we don't feel that we should have to agree to something that is seriously going to infringe on our lifestyle. As I stand at my home and look out into that field, granted, it's 200, 300 feet, or thereabouts. It's not very far out there -- 300 feet is not very far out there and if a large home comes in with upstairs windows looking to the east, guarantee, they are going to be looking right down on top of Vanessa or I and my neighbor to the north, Lonnie Johnson. Then, again, in the June 20~' zoning meeting there was a considerable amount of discussion about this same issue. They talked quite a bit about, well, are we going to limit it to single-story or are we going to limit it to ridge height and I think you agreed that it would be limited to ridge height and I think you came up with 25 feet. Most notable about the minutes from meeting are just a couple remarks that came out of there where Mr. Borup said, well, we are protecting, in this case, Los Altos and the Sasser property's privacy. What about those people who live within these subdivisions and have the small lots and maybe in a cul-d-sac and they are encircled by two story houses. Mr. Shreeve, who I gather is no longer part of this Commission, responded he understood that, but Los Altos, in this case, or Crestwood in our case, are there. We are people who are there, who are living there and have to live with this situation. Mrs. Bowcutt is not going to live there, she's only going to sell the lots, and so I think that it should defer to the people who live there and whose lifestyle is going to be infringed upon by how this is constructed. As far as the fencing goes, I'm not a fan of vinyl fence, either. Just -- as we all know, this county and all over, the Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 50 of 84 country is riddled with shabby-looking cedar fences and particularly these perimeter fences, people don't claim responsibility for their upkeep and the reason we are asking for that is two things. First of all, it is consistent with what's going to happen on Lot 13, south boundary, for material and it's also going to -- while it may not be your favorite material for fence; it's going to look as good five years from now as it looks today and probably be a better animal fence than the cedar would be. Centers: What kind offence do you have now, Mr. Graham? Graham: Around my pasture I have pole and wire. I recently put in 250 feet of post and pole around my yard and that is my preference, natural wood fence, but in this case, back on that property line, I think low or no maintenance material is what I would like to have. Centers: So it's going to be a fence on their property adjacent to your fence? It's not going to be on the property line, it's going to be on their property, I would assume. Graham: Okay. I'm not sure how that works, but if you say so. Centers: Well, if I were putting the fence up, I would want to make darn sure it was on my property. Graham: Back there Ihave a -- again, a post and wire. Centers: So it's going to back up to the -- you're going to have two fences, then. Graham: It's probably going to help our situation back there, because it's in pretty poor shape but there will be two fences I guess. Is that what they do, they erect them that far apart and -- Borup: Unless your fence is over the property line. Graham: No comment. Centers: Well, in reference to your recollection of minutes from previous meetings, okay? I don't know if it was recollection or if you were here or -- they are public record, of course. Each application -each project is different. There is none that are alike and there are different requirements for each. The distance from your home to their property, you admit, is 300 feet. That's a football field. I think when you look at it like that a football field is quite a distance. Graham: I don't dispute -- Centers: If you're standing -- Graham: -- from my home to the other home, from my back yard, it would be 100 or so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 51 of 84 Centers: If you're standing at the goal line and you're looking to the other goal line, you can look way over atwo-story house, if you can visualize a football field. You know, I don't think you're going to see a difference between a single level and a two level. I really don't. I'm just trying to visualize it myself. Graham: I'm trying to visualize it myself. Go out there and put a -- Centers: Well, I mean you're going to have a house and atwo-story is -- Mr. Chairman, is 12 feet higher 15? Borup: No two-story would be about nine feet higher. Centers: Nine feet higher. In 100 yards away, are you going to notice nine feet? Graham: Well, not that it's a problem on this Commission or anybody else, but we are used to looking at the sun disappear into the ground out there. Centers: I understand that. Graham: And we know that's going away and it would with any kind of structure. I guess I maintain, without going out there and somehow elevating myself to the level of a second story window, I maintain that they are going to be looking down into my property and I'm sure not going to be looking at theirs. In my case, I'm a single-story. Vanessa is also. I don't dispute what you're saying. I probably would like to reiterate the fact that we are the homeowners and we are there and to allow a two story home to be built there is basically going with the wishes of somebody who is only going to be there for as long as it takes to get that home developed. Then they are gone and we are going to be left with the residue and so -- Borup: Anything else? Graham: I might make mention. It didn't come back up, but the cover crop -- kind of a general term --just something to hold the dirt down is what I have in my - Centers: She mentioned -- yes. In fact, I made note. Klaus: Vanessa Klaus 4055 North Locust Grove. I'm still going to reiterate my request for the vinyl fencing. Mr. Turnbull doesn't like vinyl fencing either, he's never done it anywhere else, he did it for us, and we'd love it if you'd do it. I still think it's reasonable to expect single level dwellings bordering on five to 10 acre parcels. I continue to hear over and over how the Council is sympathetic to current homeowners, growth, and overgrowth. I continue -- you know, I'm just now reaping the realities of Heritage Subdivision. I had to fight a black tarp engulfing my truck as I came to the meeting tonight. So -- you know, the things they put over the cement so it dries. Okay. Have had to --anyway, I'll make it brief. I think that it's reasonable to ask for the single level Meridian Planning and Zoning - November 7, 2002 Page 52 of 84 dwellings in order to preserve some privacy and I think it would be reflective of the sympathies of the committee if you could take that ihto consideration. Thank you. Centers: Mrs. Klaus? Klaus: Yes. Ms. Klaus. Centers: Ms. I'm sorry. I was here. Klaus: Yes, you were. Centers: Yes and what type of fence did Heritage put in? Klaus: They put in vinyl fencing. Centers: Right here? Klaus: They put in four rail vinyl fencing consistent with the horse ranch that we have going there along the south of our property, graduating to just west of my drive, they graduate to a five rail vinyl fence, 50 feet from the west most point of my property, they graduate to a six foot off-white vinyl fence. That will be for 50 feet from east to west, the back part of my property. It's going to look pretty strange if we do some different fencing. I'm in alignment with Laird Graham. I have roundy pole, which is very expensive, as well as I have chain link across the back of my fence. I anticipate I will have to tear out m y fencing, because I'm one o f t hose n eat f reaks and I like a II my fencing to look the same. It's going to cost me some money to go to white - or off-white vinyl along the perimeters of my property and - Centers: I get the point. Klaus: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Becky, did you have any comments you'd like to make? Okay. Centers: I think we get the drift. Mr. Graham wants to speak again, Mr. Chairman. Borup: We need to have you finish your comments while you're up here. Graham: Laird Graham once again. My neighbor to the north was unable to be here tonight. He's had some illness in his family, which has taken a lot of his time. His home is probably 50 to 100 feet further west than mine and then he has a pool facility, which is probably another 50 feet or thereabouts, further west. The arrow is on it and I just wanted to point out that -- how he would be impacted in this question also. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 53 of 84 Rohm: Is his asingle-story home? Graham: His is a two-story home. Centers: Good question. I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Discussion? Revision to any staff comments? Did we have -- Centers: I have got them all noted. Borup: Okay any discussion you want there? Centers: Well, I think that Mr. Freckleton should take up a side job as a draftsman and I would agree with that stub to the north. I think everyone would, wouldn't they? They are going to have to realign the plat there a little bit. I think it means the loss of maybe one lot. Borup: And they'd probably redesign it so it wouldn't. If they eliminate the stub street and do just a circle there, they are going to lose a lot anyway, but I mean just a right angle on the street -- if they did a bowl in there, they might still gain one back, but I don't think they can and have the frontage -- required frontage without a frontage reduction. I may be wrong. Centers: And I guess the way -- you know, we listen to the two adjoining homeowners and I -- and, you know, we listen with open ears and we absorb it and as I told Mr. Graham, each application -- each case is different and has to be considered differently. I guess regarding the six foot vinyl fence, I think the way I would like to word that is that developer to meet with the adjoining property owners on the -- that would be the east side of the subdivision and try and comply with their wishes for a six foot vinyl fence. If he -- if he has budgeted five -three dollars per lineal foot and the six foot vinyl is six dollars per lineal foot, and those people want to pay the difference, you know, I would say that's up to them to work it out -- try and work it out. To simply make it a requirement for that part of the subdivision, they have fencing going in, but I can't see requiring vinyl for just that part of the subdivision. I think we've covered everything else. I think we should require that until they complete the phases, that a cover crop of their choosing be in until they start the infrastructure of the various phasing. Borup: I believe in one of the last projects we did have a requirement of a steel post on one, rather than allowing wood posts. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 54 of 84 Centers: Yes Ithink -- Borup: Because of the -- the concern there was the longevity and the fence holding up and -- Centers: Yes Iwould --that would be fine. Ithink the applicant mentioned that. Borup: Okay anything else that -- and Becky mentioned the water runoff needs to be -- itwould need to continue. Centers: Yes. Ithink as the applicant stated, they are regulated in that regard by certain agencies. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval of Item 7, AZ 02- 022, request for annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Havasu Creek Sub by Farwest, LLC, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road, including all staff comments. That would be it on the zoning. Other than Page 1 of the staff notes that, it is 119.83 acres, not 1,196. Borup: Okay. We have a motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: And a second. Any discussion? All in favor'? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to recommend approval to the City Council for Item 8, PP 02-019, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 328 and 27 other lots on 119.83 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Havasu Creek Sub by Farwest, LLC, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road. Including all staff comments, with the following changes, Page 6, Number 1 at the bottom eliminate. Page 7, Item 2, relocate the intended stub street to the property north of Lots 25 and 26 of Block 10 in alignment with North Mooney Falls Way. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Centers, if I could just direct you -- those items show up in the site-specific comments, which is where we actually need to make those changes. On Page 9, the new Number 7 and 8 they were -used to be 5 and 6. Centers: I have got you. Siddoway: Okay. Centers: You could strike that and then we would refer to Page 9, Item 8 we would be adding the stub street to the north with the verbiage: Property north of Lots 25 and 26 of Block 10 in alignment with North Mooney Falls Way. Continuing on Page 9, Item 7, which was Number 5, line out new stub street and insert Cross-Access Easement and public utility easement. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 55 of 84 Siddoway: And could we make that 50-foot, 50-foot wide? Centers: Fifty foot. Siddoway: For a standard Public Road access. Centers: You got it and then the -- so Item 8, which I covered earlier, obviously. Then you have 9 and 10, which were previously 7 and 8. I requiring the cover crop and the fence we do on the CUP, wouldn't we. would be the end of motion, including all other staff comments. Rohm: I will second that. is below that, think anything ? Yes, so that Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Continuing on. I would recommend approval for CUP 02-028, request for a Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Unit Development with 327 single-family dwellings, one elementary school, and 27 common lots for proposed Havasu Creek Sub by Farwest, LLC, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove, including all staff comments. In addition, developer to be required to maintain a cover crop on land not being developed or until the infrastructure for that phase started. Developer to work with adjoining landowners on the east, specifically Ms. Klaus and Mr. Graham, regarding a vinyl fence. If they can't work out their differences on a vinyl fence, at least will be required to install asix-foot wood with steel posts. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. That concludes that application. Would the Commission tike a short break at this time? Centers: Yes, please. (Recess at 9:50 P.M.) (Reconvene at 10:05 P.M.) Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 02-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 895 North Ten Mile Road: