Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 1, 2007 P&Z Comm Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 3 of 37 Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 07-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop - east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 4 common lots on 4.0116 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision by SSC, LLC - north of Ustick Road and east Ten Mile Road: Moe: Okay. Well, that is not definite yet. We still have to discuss it, but right now that's where the staff is saying it's at, would be the May 3rd hearing. Thank you very much. Okay. On that note, then, I would like to open -- or continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-064 for Cold Creek Subdivision and hear the staff report, please. Watters: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a preliminary plat request for Cold Creek Subdivision. The property is 4.01 acres in size and is currently zoned R-4. If you look at the map here the property is located on the north side of West Ustick Road, approximately a third of a mile east of Ten Mile Road. The property is bordered on the east by an orthodontist office, zoned R-4, but approved for office uses. On the west by rural residential property, zoned R1 in Ada county. On the north by Sridgetower Subdivision, zoned R- 4. And on the south by Ustick Road and Fieldstone Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-4. The site currently consists of vacant undeveloped land, as you can see here. Here is a copy of the submitted plat. The property is currently zoned R-4, which complies with the Comprehensive Plan map designation of medium density residential. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 16 single-family residential building lots and four common lots on 4.01 acres of land. Four of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum street frontage requirement of 60 feet. The plat will need to be revised to meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-4 zone. A building lot may need to be removed to accomplish this. Proposed lot sizes range from 8,000 to 8,314 square feet, with an average lot of 8,058 square feet. The landscape plan that the applicant submitted. Approximately .22 of an acre or 5.37 percent of the site is proposed for common area, which will consist of a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road, a 20 foot wide landscape strip over the sewer main located at the northwest corner of the site, and a planter island within the turnaround at the west boundary here. Elevations were not submitted with this application, because the property is being developed to be sold as build lots. Staff is recommending approval of the subject preliminary plat application with the conditions stated in the staff report. That's all staff has unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Any questions of staff? Siddoway: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 4 of 37 Moe: Okay. None at this time. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Carney: Yeah. I'm Ryan Carney with Lochsa Engineering, 1311 West Jefferson, Boise, Idaho. 83702. And I will stand to answer any questions of staff. Moe: Okay. Do you agree with the staff report? Carney: Yeah. I agree with the staff report. One thing that was discussed was the minimum frontage is not met on the configuration shown here. There is a potential of revising it and winding up losing one of the 16 for 15 residential lots and I would -- I guess my question or comment might be towards the processing of the preliminary plat. If we can make those revisions to staff's approval is there a reason we need to go back to P&Z or can we move to a Commissioner hearing at that point? Moe: Well, that would be something that we would have to discuss among ourselves. Carney: I guess, yeah, I was just wondering if it's -- Moe: I guess my point-- Carney: -- if compliance is close enough to what we are looking at. Moe: I guess my question I would have for you is you are, in fact, planning, then, to make the change on taking a lot out to take care of this problem? Carney: It's likely to address their concerns with the 60 foot minimum frontage that we are going to lose one of these lots, unless we reconfigure -- you know, the key road configuration is connecting to, I believe, it's Wilder to the west, which were shown in the northwest corner, and the road that goes into the adjacent subdivision on the south, we are a little tied there with the road the way it's laid out. And we needed to accommodate a fire turnaround on the north side. So, there is not a lot we can do with the road configuration to change to get those lot frontages up to the minimum of 60 feet. So, I would guess that there is going to be a lot removed. So, some of the densities listed and the number of lots listed will be different on a resubmitted plat. Moe: Yeah. You have four lots that don't meet that requirement right now. Staff, have any questions? Siddoway: I have one question. Lot 6, Block 1. This one right here is particularly ugly in terms of its geometry. And there is -- we have a plat that was for the February hearing that cuts this corner off here and still meets the dimensional requirements with this lot still being over 8,000 square feet. I'm just wondering if this is the preferred lot configuration or if -- if so why and -- but we do have this other earlier previous version that has that actually a little cleaner. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 5 of 37 Carney: Looking at that it seems like we could lose one of the lot corners. We can certainly address that in revised plat. I think it was an 8,000 square foot minimum. Siddoway: The version that we have that was submitted for the February hearing has a version that does look like that and this lot that this area would be coming from is still over 8,000 square feet -- 8,033 even within that corner. Carney: Just a brief history on some of the comments we got. There is a 20 foot wide track that is where the sanitary sewer is going to connect across the Ten Mile Creek there. To accommodate the minimum 8,000 square feet that Wilder Road connection was moved south a little bit, so those lots got smaller and they got reconfigured. They could work on that to make cleaner lot lines. I think we can get rid of one of those lot corners. I don't think we need more pins out there than that. Siddoway: Okay. That would be my only question. Carney: I think that's a comment that could be addressed I guess is my response. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Just another quick one. As far as making changes and whatnot, what kind of time frame would it take you to do that? Carney: We could address this in a week's time and have it resubmitted to the staff. So, say a week from tomorrow it could be resubmitted. If not sooner, but -- Moe: Okay. Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thanks very much. Carney: Thank you. Moe: Okay. We have one person signed up. John Schafer. Is that right? Just before you get going, I would like to tell you I appreciate you doing exactly what it says, which is print, and I appreciate we can read this. That's good. Very much appreciate it. Siddoway: We do need name and address for the record. Schafer: Yes. John Schafer. I live at 22788 West Ustick Road, which is the R-1 property right next to the west side of the proposed subdivision. I'm not against development, because I know it's imminent that it will happen, but I feel that the preliminary design is probably one of the worst designs I have seen for access to properties. Basically what it is is that narrow access road and odd shaped lots. To try to build a house on some of those lots that are in there would be almost impossible. But in order to accommodate the 8,000 square foot you can see how chopped up it is and trying to squeeze houses into this I feel is a very poor design. Trying to put 16 houses and four common lots on 4.19 acres is -- seems to be a little excessive. And I feel that what they have done is they have tried to squeeze as many lots in there just for as Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 6 of 37 much profit as possible out of this. I have concerns that the size of the homeowners association will not be able to maintain the common areas, frontage roads, landscape areas, fences that will be around the perimeter of the site. And that dues accumulated from the property values of the houses will not bring enough to maintain. You can kind of drive through the City of Meridian, you can see areas with this type of an area, it's just not maintained as properly as like would be next door to Bridgetower's entrance in and things of that nature. Larger lots and homes with greater value similar to Bridgetower and surrounding properties would be more appropriate for a homeowners association as well for maintenance of the property and maintaining the fence lines. But there is almost -- I think almost a half a mile of fence around this, which would become homeowners association or the property owner's responsibilities. And I'll kind of get into the pictures there to accommodate that as well. The property will need to be elevated to accommodate the flood plane and we learned a hard lesson. When they developed to the west of us, which was the Hartford Subdivision -- and, basically, I will get into that and also with the pictures that you see there, I apologize for the quality, the colored pictures are a little better than the black and white. But kind of pursue that a little farther. Also if they do have to build a bench, what happened on the Hartford side, they just pushed the dirt over onto our property to make a berm in order to build a fence, in order to accommodate the flood plane, then, that becomes a maintenance nightmare for us, because we either have to maintain that slope or prevent the weeds from growing or whatever. And I don't have a problem with that, but we are getting a little older in our age and, you know, you could put yourself in our position and understand what a maintenance nightmare it is to do a slope. That surface there. So, I guess that's all the time I got there. But one thing I would like to add that the sewer easement that's on the top of the page there. Right there. Maybe that sewer easement be moved to the property line. I think that might accommodate that lot a little better for building sites. It's such a narrow lot that if it were moved to the property line between our property, which is to the west, and that first lot -- Moe: There is a pointer. You need to get on a microphone, please. Schafer: Oh, I'm sorry. Move that easement -- maybe move that easement to the west of the property line as well. That might make that lot a little bigger, rather than being a long skinny narrow lot to build a house on. Moe: Anything else? Schafer: The pictures that I gave to you -- I hate to take too much time here, but the first picture that you see there, that was Hartford Subdivision. This is along the -- it would be number one, listed number one on your page there. It's hard to see, but what this picture was taken of was when they built the mound out along the street, the contractor just pushed sand and gravel over into our lawn. That's approximately eight feet into our yard, with total disregard of our grass and our sprinklers in order build their sidewalk up there and it's pretty hard to see, but on the very left-hand side there they did come back and they did put a landscape block retention wall there and I would like to see that maybe on the other side as well. The picture number two is where the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 7 of 37 roadway on Wilder Street is into our property. They just kind of built it, pushed it into our lot. You can see where the fence line is now into the road and that's another five or six feet into our property as well. The third picture is, basically, just a different angle of that. And the fourth picture is, basically, the same thing, just taking a picture. That's approximately three and a half feet high at that location. I just don't want these things to happen when they develop on the other side. Once you have been through it you learn. Picture number six is showing the elevation differences between their property and ours. They used a two-by-12 against the fence post to hold the landscape material or the dirt, top soil. And, then, there is still approximately a foot and a half a fall from the bottom of that two-by-six down and that was in order kind of give us a retention there, which did help. But when you go to picture number seven there, it's a picture down the fence line and you can see the fence is starting to start fall over now, just because of the soil movement and just was an unstable portion there for a fence. And, then, pictures eight through the rest there are pictures of over at the fence line -- existing fence line over at the orthodontist, I think, something like that and you can kind of see that first picture you can kind of see looking back towards the LDS stake house, there is fences -- portion of fences that have been missing for over a year, going on two years now. Picture number nine is showing you how the fence is about to fall over and the berm and how the weeds -- you can't maintain the weeds, you can't burn the weeds, whatever, so -- but, basically, that's just showing you what kind of condition the fences are and how they are maintained on each side of us, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Schafer? Schafer: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to summarize what it is -- you would like a landscape block wall between your property and the other one to handle the elevation difference? Schafer: Or something to that, just to stabilize that -- the fence line, so it's not falling over -- Newton-Huckabay: And, then, your -- Schafer: -- and a maintenance issue, I just don't want that, you know, two and a half, three feet of dirt of whatever it is, berm, that becomes our responsibility now to maintain. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Schafer: Because we do take pride in our property. You know, we keep the weeds down on the ditch line, which is the Five Mile drainage ditch, and so we do take pride in what we have on our property. But I just don't want to end up with a maintenance nightmare for us. And I don't object to them building next door, like I said, but it seems to me they are just putting lots -- a lot of lots in there for profit to make this thing pan out. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 8 of 37 Newton-Huckabay: And that was your other request is to -- with the request to lose one lot, does that satisfy your concern there? Schafer: Yes. That would probably work. I just look at the configuration of these lots and how are you going to build houses on some of these lots, they are just -- I mean there isn't really a square lot there to try to build a house on and most houses nowadays are rectangular in shape or square in shape and you try and build in some of those lots, it's going to be either real skinny, narrow, long houses or -- it just doesn't look to me to be a very good a design. Moe: Well, oftentimes with the property itself not being on, you know, a nice rectangle, it's a little tricky for the developer as well. Schafer: Sure. Moe: I do have one other question and not to belabor it, but your picture number two shows that everything -- you're saying that the Hartford Subdivision went ahead and installed everything over onto your property? Schafer: That's correct. Moe: And that was done during them putting the subdivision together? Schafer: That's correct. Moe: And there was no discussions about them coming back and taking care of that at the time? Schafer: As a matter of fact, in picture number two, the gravel from the roadway was almost 14 feet into our property when they developed that and they built that. They came back and -- actually, what they did is they came back and cleaned the gravel up off of our property. But you can see that the asphalt roadway and the sidewalk, curb and gutter, still extends through beyond the property line. And I did have an issue with that at the time. Pushing it 15 feet into my property I was a little irritated about, but, you know, if you came in here and you tried to cut that off, they would have either had to build a retaining wall -- and this is kind of at the back end of our property, so it's not a visual and it's back behind some storage sheds. Moe: Okay. So, you didn't complain at the time? Schafer: Yeah, we did. The city finally made them come out and do it. Actually, the one up at the road we even had to threaten with a lawyer come out and get the gravel off of our property, because they weren't going to do anything about it. They weren't going to put a retention wall or anything, they just said that's your problem. But we also -- it was -- the record -- I hope that they would put a chemical toilet on the site, because the last time they did, the gentlemen that were working next door were coming over and Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 9 of 37 defecating in our hay stack and things like that. I just don't want that to happen again, too. And I think back, then, the public hearings, they were very surprised by that as well. So, those are just admissions that -- Moe: I can understand. Schafer: -- I would like addressed. Moe: Any questions? Borup: Just one. I can see the problem with the topography difference between yours and Hartford. This property to the west is still the same grade difference between -- Schafer: Yes. Borup: -- these properties? Schafer: Our property still has natural grade, because we built our -- Borup: So, this was a natural grade, too, then? Schafer: It is now. Borup: So, you're assuming they are going to raise the grade you mean? Schafer: That's correct. To get out of the flood plane. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Siddoway: I think that just covered mine. Moe: Thank you very much. Again, there was no one else signed up. If there is anyone else who would like to speak, please, come forward. Okay. There is no one that is coming forward. Would the applicant, please, come back up and respond. Carney: Yeah. Some of the remarks made about the lot configuration, I think we covered in the earlier discussion about what we are planning to do. We are not -- I believe the flood plain boundary is on the tract to the north, which is not owned by us. I don't know if that's a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation ownership City of Meridian ownership. So, there is no -- we are not going to be required to fill this to elevate it out of the flood plane and I don't know that I -- I don't have a picture -- a copy of those photos, which you will probably want to get to address the concerns, but I don't see that being a problem. And a comment about the sanitary sewer is something we can certainly address moving it to the western property line in that 20 foot tract to make a cleaner Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 10 of 37 combination of the lots at the northwest corner. That -- you know, because the specific concern was made, I can probably address that. I'm kind of just going off of memory from what he said, so -- what else was there? Moe: And you're developing this to, then, other builders to come in and take -- Carney: Yeah. The project is going to be sold to a builder, probably one. You know, I can't -- we have been -- they have been talking with a couple of people and they have no one specified out. We didn't really submit architectural drawings or elevations and architecturally and lot value wise is kind of what they are basing the anticipated homes to be built there. Moe: Any other questions? Borup: Just to clarify. You're not anticipating needing to raise the grade? Carney: I don't see raising the grade, because we are not in a flood plane. Borup: Okay. And your drawings indicate -- I mean at least what some of it -- that most of that -- the grade will be cut and so that's probably one of the -- Carney: The-- Borup: Well, I'm looking at the sewer layouts -- Carney: Oh, the above? Borup: -- showing existing grades and curb and gutters and they all look like they are going to be below the existing grade. Carney: I mean we are going to -- Borup: Most of it. Carney: It probably should balance, so I would anticipate it being, you know, pretty flush at the western edge as we are matching his project. Borup: That's what I was wondering. Carney: There shouldn't be any significant raising or lowering of the street. Borup: Okay. Moe: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 11 of 37 Moe: Before I let you go, I want to see if staff has comment. Watters: The subject property is -- Commissioners. Excuse me. The subject property is not within the floodway. The floodway lies just north of the property. It is in flood zone X5. Do you have any other -- Moe: The sewer easement moving, is that a problem? Cole: Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, to follow up on the flood plane comment a little bit. Moe: Okay. Cole: It's in a zone X5, which is a low level area -- low level ponding. In the case of a hundred year flood it just means there is some small ponding going on. With an X5 zone there is no additional certification. A lot of the City of Meridian is actually in an X5. Anything within a half a mile of a canal is in an X5. There is no additional regulations to building or constructing in the X5. So, when you say that he's not in a flood plane, technically he's wrong, but practically he's right. He is an X5, but you don't have anything else to do with it. If that makes a lot of sense to get around that. Sorry. As far as moving the sewer easement, that's not a problem for Public Works. They can definitely route the sewer any way they can get an easement through the NMID owned property to the north of them. So, however they can route it to get to their property, as long as they get the proper easements prior to construction is fine with Public Works. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Watters: Commissioner Moe, if I might add. The applicant is not proposing any fencing at this time on the west and east boundaries. Staff is requiring that they put in an open vision fencing along the canal there. But just addressing the gentleman's concerns here about the fencing, as it sits right now, unless they propose fencing in the future, the lots owners will be putting it in individually. Moe: Well, that brings up another question for me, then, and that would be what is the reasoning why staff doesn't want to require fencing on the other sides? Normally we like to subdivision fencing prior to -- Watters: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, the UDC does not require fencing around subdivisions. Typically applicants go ahead and install it, but the UDC doesn't require it. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 12 of 37 Siddoway: SO, the fencing, we could have a -- looking at the street buffer along -- let's see, is this Ustick? You could have a different type of fence here than here and, then, here? Three different types of fences along the frontage, unless we require -- Watters: That's correct, Commissioner Siddoway. Borup: The subdivision covenants usually address the type of fencing, too. So, I'm not sure if that's being looked at. But there is normally standards in the CC&Rs. Watters: Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, we do not require a copy of the CC&Rs. Borup: I know. But I mean to answer the other question that -- as far as uniformity, that usually addresses that. Moe: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Well, Commissioners, we have no one to speak to it, so if I could get a motion to -- come forward and, then, the applicant will have another opportunity. Schafer: This is John Schafer at 2788 West Ustick Road. When they did Hartford to the west, at that time they had to elevate the properties due to a flood plane requirement, unless the flood planes have changed. They elevated that and had to import fills for that area, but I'm not arguing about this, but they did on that side. So, if they don't elevate their road and if we ever continue across our property, we would have an elevated road of three feet on one side and down a grade on the other side. So, that would impact us if we ever decided to develop it where we would have a road three feet higher on the Hartford side versus this subdivision here. Also, it was mentioned that against -- residential against agricultural ground, they were required to put fences in. And that came up in the Hartford Subdivision hearing as well. So, since we are still considered county property and agricultural, that they made them put a fence in the last time, so -- back when they did Hartford. So, that's just a couple of things I had to say there. Moe: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come up and respond to that? Carney: The -- maybe to address the elevation of the subdivision, you know, there is -- there is some reason, engineeringwise, other than simply flood plane mitigation, to want to raise the road a little bit. It's probably going to happen, I think. To address the relationship to the road to the east, you know, we would have to look at a potential alignment making the vertical configurations of the street that functions, as well as keeping the road -- I would prefer to match existing, for obvious reasons, as to not be detrimental to that property. If that road was designed on the other side of the property three feet higher, there is going to be an issue if they ever try to connect those with that vertical alignment. It will address that with the vertical design of this. What you have seen is a preliminary design. So, we are working with Public Works -- well, ACHD in this case. It has to fit and to address the neighbor's concerns, it should match existing Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 13 of 37 grade without substantial -- you know, put the drain onto our property, too, so -- it can be addressed in the design of the subdivision. And with regard to fencing, it sounds like there is maybe a zoning requirement for fencing adjacent to agricultural property; is that the way quoted that statement? Moe: That's what he said. Carney: Okay. I -- you know, we are certainly willing to accommodate whatever with regard to fencing on that lot line. Moe: Okay. Siddoway: Is there existing fencing between you and Bridgetower at this time? In the photos it looks like there is a fence that may have some -- a missing section in it. Carney: I don't know there is a fence for that entire property line. I know the -- what they have dedicated to ACHD doesn't have a fence, the sidewalk just kind of ends, you know, three or four feet above a grade there and I don't recall. Siddoway: Because the photos I'm looking at from Mr. Schafer is -- appears that there is a fence, but it does have at least one missing section, so -- Carney: And that's the one adjacent to that orthodontist office? Siddoway: Yes. Right up here. Carney: Uh-huh. Siddoway: I can -- Moe: Here, you want to take a look at -- what number -- what sheet number is that? Siddoway: That was sheet number ten. You can see the orthodontist building in the background there. I know we are not deliberating yet, but I will throw out my preference. Since there is existing fence here that has some missing -- missing section or two, I'd prefer that they fill those gaps. It sounds like staff is already requiring some open vision fencing along the canal. I'd prefer to see the front have fencing that is consistent, so that we don't -- so that we don't run the risk of different types of fencing along the frontage and, then, this would be the adjacent side to Mr. Schafer's property and I'd prefer to see some fencing along there. Carney: We will again -- I agree with staff recommendation. Council recommendation and we can address that and resubmit it and make it a condition of approval, perhaps. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 14 of 37 Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. I do have a question of staff. In regards to the fencing between the agricultural and the residential with the county property, any point in that? Watters: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, again, the UDC does not require permanent perimeter fencing around developments. However, if permanent fencing is not constructed prior to construction, then, we do require at least temporary construction fencing to be installed prior to release of building permits. The UDC does require -- and like I said before, a six foot open vision fence along drains, canals, creeks, waterways in general. Moe: Thank you very much. Well, Commissioners, what would you like to do? Siddoway: Move to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-064. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Any discussion? Siddoway: I have three items. The one -- the fencing I just described. The second would be a clean up of Lot 6, Block 1. And the third item would be addressing the frontage issues by removing one of the lots. And that would address my concerns. Moe: Okay. Commissioner Borup? Borup: Well, the staff report talks about the frontage issue, so I think that's already -- that's already addressed. It's up to the developer to decide how he wants to address that. You know, the uglier and more difficult the lots are to build on, the harder they are going to be to sell. So, I think they can work -- figure that out whatever is -- I have some concerns on required fencing. It's not in the Uniform Development Code. We -- and this is not an annexation, so, no, normally in an annexation we can put additional requirements on, but this is not the case. So, by doing that we are going beyond our normal bounds of what we -- I think have the authority to do. And, then, the final was -- what was your third? Siddoway: Third one was cleaning up Lot 6. Borup: Oh. Well, I guess I already addressed that. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any questions or comments Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 15 of 37 I should say. Newton-Huckabay: No. I have nothing to add. Moe: Okay. I guess I would, basically, go the same comments have already been addressed. And I, too -- I'm not -- although I would like to see fencing, I don't -- I just don't believe that that's something that we should put on this at this time, so -- Borup: I mean if that's something that needs to be, then, we need to look at changing the UDC. Newton-Huckabay: Didn't the applicant agree to the fencing? Borup: No. He said he would do whatever he needed to do to apply -- I understood he said he'd do what he needed to do to comply with the staff report. Moe: And that is what I understand as well. Siddoway: Or he was willing to do the fencing if that's what the Commission desired, I think. Newton-Huckabay: That's what we heard, because I heard the same thing he did. Baird: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I think I better jump in here. I agree with Commissioner Borup that it does go beyond requirements that you can impose. However, if you think that the developer offered it up, you can certainly take that offer. But because there are two interpretations here, if you are going to go that direction, I would encourage you to open up the hearing and get him to make a statement on the record as to what his offer is to voluntarily do something that you're requesting. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. I guess I would -- is there a motion? Siddoway: I would move to open the Public Hearing. Moe: I need a second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing for PP 06-064 to have the applicant come up and address the perimeter fencing issue only. Carney: What I will say about the fencing to the western property line, should Commission find it a condition of approval for the preliminary plat, the applicant will propose that in a preliminary plat as -- I don't know how I would state that as a condition of it or indicate that it's on there. We could put it on there. I'm not going to say that we Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 16 of 37 will do any fencing required beyond UDC's fencing specifications, but if it's a concern to the neighbor and a concern to Council, it's something we will offer. Siddoway: I'd say it's a concern for me and if you offer it, we can add it, but it sounds like if you don't offer it, then, we won't. Moe: And you're speaking to the west only or the west and south? Carney: The west. The one that the neighbor had the grievance on, I guess. Siddoway: What about the frontage along the road, Ustick Road? Moe: That's the south. Carney: Yeah. The south. I guess I don't want to speak for the south property line at this point, due to there some landscaping frontages, improvements we are doing there. I guess I'm assuming they are going to do it anyway. Okay. Throw in the south as well. Frontage to Ustick for lot lines and the western property boundary are subject to fencing per Council's requirements and staff conditions of approval. Moe: Thank you very much. Siddoway: So, it's an offer to do the fencing on the -- Carney: It's an offer to do the fencing. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Appreciate it. Carney: Is there any other questions? Moe: Are there any other questions? Siddoway: None. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to close? Siddoway: I move to close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-064. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 17 of 37 Moe: Is there someone that would like to make a motion at this time? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 06-064, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1 st, 2007, with the following addition: That fencing, perimeter fencing, be required along the west boundary of the subdivision, as well as the south boundary adjacent to Ustick Road. The second addition would be that they clean up the lot lines on Lot 6, Block 1. And I believe that the changes necessary for the -- to address the frontage issues are already addressed in the staff report. So, that's -- I'll end with that as my motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council approval of PP 06- 064 with all additional items as noted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: At this time I would like to welcome Mr. Chairman to the meeting and I will let you take over now, sir. Rohm: Thank you. And I apologize for my tardiness. As I understand that we -- the next item on the agenda is scheduled to be continued. Moe: We are going to go ahead and do Baraya now and, then, we will go and continue everything afterwards. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 4,2007: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and R- 40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, 'nc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from January 4,2007: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 118 single-family building lots on 26.41 acres in the proposed R-8 zone; 216 single-family building lots on 38.26 acres and 1 school lot on14.98 acres in the proposed R-15 zone; 2 multi- family lots on 13.01 acres in the proposed R-40 zone; and 30 common lots for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Rohm: Okay. All right. Well, good. At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on continued Public Hearing from January 4th, 2007, for AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062, both items related to Baraya Subdivision and begin with the staff report.