Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/4 PZ MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 26 of 43 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. Okay. At this time I'd like to open public hearings AZ 07-011 and PP 07-015 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is on annexation and zoning of 6.99 acres from RUT Ada County to R-4 medium low density residential and a preliminary plat approval of 16 single family residential buildings lots and five common lots on 6.84 acres of land on Belhaven Subdivision. The subject property is located at 5230 North Black Cat Road on the east side of Black Cat Road approximately a quarter mile north of West McMillan Road. Black Cat. McMillan. Here is the aerial view of it. The property is bordered on the east and west by agricultural land that has preliminarily been approved with Volterra Subdivision, zoned R-4. On the south and west by rural residential homes zoned RUT in Ada County. And I'd like to mention, too, on the aerial of the area you can see some groupings of trees here on the property. This site -- the portion of this site was a commercial tree farm prior to the sale of the property and the remaining of these -- the remainder of these trees will be relocated off site. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning approval of 6.9 acres from RUT to R-4, which complies with the Comprehensive Plan map designation of medium density residential for this property. Preliminary plat approval is also requested for 16 single family residential building lots and five common area lots on 6.84 acres of land. The proposed lot sizes range from 8,077 square feet to 14,454 square feet. All buildable lots conform to the R-4 requirements of the UDC. Access to and from the subject site will be from North Black Cat Road. Internal public roadways will be built to ACHD standards and one stub street for future connectivity will be provided to the south boundary from North Sun Haven Avenue and one stub street will be provided to the north boundary from North Fur Haven Avenue as proposed. There to the south and there to the north. I'd also like to point out that this is a 40 foot right of way, not the typical 50 feet. So, any of these Ada County zoned properties to the south will have to -- will be responsible for putting in the remainder of that ten foot improvement -- road improvement or sidewalks and all that or whatever they are proposing to do, if they stub into Belhaven Subdivision. Approximately .80 -- excuse me. Approximately .8 acres or 11.7 percent of this site is proposed for common area, which consists of a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along North Black Cat Road. There is a 30 foot wide irrigation easement Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 27 of 43 that runs along the north and east property boundaries of the subject development. These easements -- this easement is for the Settlers Canal. This area will be used as open space with a five foot pathway adjacent to the canal. The applicant is proposing to sod this area. Staff recommends that rows of trees be placed on the south side of the common lots -- on the south side of common Lots 5, Block 1, and 3 outside of the Settlers Canal easement. It's hard to see on this map, but here is where the applicant's proposing the pathway and that easement does kind of encroach into their property a little bit, but there is a small sliver in there where additional trees could be planted along that micro pathway. So, staff has included that requirement in the staff report. Trees shall be planted in accordance with UDC 11-3B-12. Further, a license agreement should be entered into between the developer and the irrigation district allowing the pathway to be placed in a common lot. Said pathway shall be maintained by the homeowners association. Staff has also recommended the applicant shift the proposed cul-de-sac to the west, which would allow for more open space within the development. So, now you can see how they kind of terminate the roadway here into the cul-de-sac. The applicant is able to keep the frontage requirement of the code and be able to shift this to the west a little bit. Staff believes that this would allow for more open space in the development. And speaking with the applicant this morning about the staff report, we also discussed possibly putting some kind of amenity right there in the corner for the residents in the proposed subdivision. Elevations were submitted with this application. The applicant has indicated with this application that the housing within the development will include wood siding, thirty year composite roofing, earth tone colors and stone or rock accents on the front facades. These building materials and elevations will be included and subject to a development agreement. So, this is what staff got from the applicant. As part of the DA requirements we asked for a memo of four different building elevations and the applicant was to present that and this is what -- they did give that to staff and here are the two they propose and these are the other elevations that they submitted with their application. And, again, there is the building material that they are explaining -- proposing to use on the homes in the area. And they also indicated that they want to do some side loaded garages, too. Just for clarification, I wanted to let the Commission know that I was reviewing the staff report and I found that Ihad -- I need a modification on one of the conditions that I had done. I didn't -- I had a mistake in there, so I wanted to clarify that and have you guys clean that up for me tonight. Condition 1.2.2 it should read -- right now in the staff report it's showing just -- it indicates where those trees should be planted within that common area -- in this area and I just left it X -- Lot X, Block X. I didn't put a specific lot or block in. So, I want to clean that up and let you know what -- how that condition should read. So, condition 1.2.2 should read: Additional trees with minimum two inch caliper shall be planted along the southern boundary of common Lots 5, Block 1 and Block 3. So, this is Block 1, Lot 5, Block 3, Lot 5. Staff recommends approval of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 28 of 43 subject annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications with conditions stated in the staff report. This concludes my presentation and I stand for any questions the Commission may have regarding the project. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Did you catch those changes to the staff report? Moe: Would you do that one more time? Parsons: Sure. Moe: That was common Lot 5 of Block 1 -- Parsons: Common Lots 5 of Block 1 and 3. Moe: And three. Parsons: Correct. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Bill, can you put up the aerial again? Do you have a picture that puts it in context with the Volterra -- Volterra -- Parsons: Volterra. Newton-Huckabay: -- Subdivision? Parsons: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, this is where the -- the proposed Volterra Subdivision will be and it's zoned R-4. This portion here. I'm going to go up to the zoning map there. There you go. And that's all of it right there. Newton-Huckabay: So, the rest of the Volterra that's already built is just a little bit to the east. Parsons: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 29 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, how -- do you have it into context of how this fits up with the Volterra phase up there? Do you know what I -- you know what I'm asking. Ah. Perfect. Thank you. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yeah, this is just preliminary platted. There is nothing built yet. It's still vacant. Newton-Huckabay: Right. I just want to see what it would all look like when it's done, because this development, standing on its own, looks funny I think. You can continue. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions? Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the pathway adjacent to Settlers Canal there, I think 1 read where you're going to have chain link fence along the canal? Is that being put in by the developer or is that already existing? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, there currently is a chain -- five foot existing chain link fence along the canal. The applicant should state what fencing they are proposing to put with the development. O'Brien: Okay. I was going to recommend something different than that, so -- thankyou. That's comes later. Parsons: You're welcome. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd Street, Suite 101, Eagle, Idaho. Here tonight representing the developer. I want to thank staff for their staff report. If you have any specific questions on the design or anything, please, ask me those. I'm not going to go into much detail on that. We did provide additional elevations that staff spoke of, showing two additional building types. We would like to request a -- some flexibility on the condition that staff just modified, so it would be part of your Exhibit B, that condition 1.2.2 regarding the additional trees along the -- along the north boundary and along that pathway and the concern we have is when we do work with the irrigation district and the license agreement for that -- for that pathway, because of where that easement -- that easement kind of winds around here, we are probably -- probably okay with those tree plantings, but we cannot plant those trees within the easement. So, we just want the ability to -- if we can't get those trees outside of the easement and inside that common area, that for consistency's sake we have the ability to possibly put them within the lots and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 30 of 43 work that out during the final plat and the final -- the final landscape plan. So, we are fine with placing the trees and working with staff on distances between the trees, but just if that condition could be modified to give us the flexibility of either having them in the common area or if we can't get them all in the common area under one -- one consistent row, then, to work and get those in the -- the very rare ends of those -- those lots. Rohm: That seems reasonable, but let me ask staff. Bill, do you have any problem with placing the subject trees in a lot itself, as opposed to the common area? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, we discussed this this morning and I didn't have a chance to talk with Caleb about it, but I -- the applicant told me at that time that there would be open screen fencing along the rear of the properties and so if -- we would prefer that it be along the pathway per code, but if you guys felt like you were okay with it, then -- Rohm: Well, I guess from a -- just from a presentation perspective, if, in fact, they would have to have voids in those areas where the easement encroaches the common area to a point that there is no -- there is no place to put the tree, then, it -- then we -- it would be spotty and it just seems if they could slide the tree into the lot itself, at least it would be a more consistent presentation. Isn't that kind of what -- your point, Shawn? Nickel: Yes, Mr. Chairman. And first and foremost we will try to accommodate all the trees in a consistent manner within the common area, but in the event that we can't do that -- and, then, to address -- kind of jump ahead a little bit to address the question about the fencing -- Moe: Thank you. That's what I wanted to -- Nickel: -- we are planning on having that open fence. We are going to do a wrought iron with some solid posts to keep that in there. So, if the trees are planted in the back yards up against the property line, they will be visibly seen from the pathway and from the common area. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. O'Brien: Thank you. Nickel: And, then, in addition to that, Mr. Chairman -- and it's the last thing I have and it's just clarification. Staff did a great job in their report explaining how this property was a former tree farm and from the very beginning of this project we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 31 of 43 met with staff and we were trying to determine how we -- how we treat that -- those additional -- those existing trees and so the way staff has it written, he recognizes that -- that the trees are going to be removed by the former owner of the property, the trees that were associated with the tree farm. So, I just need one clarification and that's in Exhibit B, item -- or condition 1-3-5, where it talks about any tree over four inch caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees being of equal number of caliper inches. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for the trees that have been mitigated. I would just like to add the sentence somewhere in there -- this alludes the existing trees from the -- from the tree farm. All the way through the rest of the report staff does a good job at referencing that it doesn't include the tree farm trees and I just wanted to make sure that that condition states that as well and, then, everything is consistent throughout the rest of the staff report. Rohm: That seems reasonable. Nickel: And staff was fine with that when we met this morning. So, that's all I have. So, if you have any questions, if you want to talk about the shape of the property, we could do that, or the layout. Newton-Huckabay: Actually, it fits in nicely with the preliminary plat to the north. Nickel: We tried to -- and that's one reason -- one reason we have that half road on the south boundary was to make sure that our lots were -- we wanted those lots as large as possible. As you can see, they are -- the lots in this stretch right here are quite large and deep and, then, the other reason is when we originally -- and Idon't know if you guys recall when we -- we had this at one point, this property on your agenda, boy, back in -- probably back in early spring with a different layout where we actually had the road down the middle and -- it might not even have got to you, because we stopped it at the staff report level, but staff was trying to figure out we could provide stubs to all these five acre lots to the south. And so by doing this design and having this half street and having the right of way right up against the boundary, this provides multiple options for these four lots -- five lots, I guess, on the south boundary to access -- continue our public road and, then, provide their designs, however they decide to future develop those. So, it does two things, it makes our lots as large as possible and provides better redevelopment in the future for the south. Moe: Mr. Chair? Let's go back to fencing again. Nickel: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 32 of 43 Moe: What are we doing, then, on the southwestern portion of this thing up against the other landowners there to the south? Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Moe, I didn't get a clear answer from the highway district today when I -- actually, I didn't get an answer back from the highway district today when I asked that question. I asked them last week if we would be able to -- because the property line is the right of way, if we would be able to put afence -- a solid fence along the boundary within the right of way -- I'm assuming that's a license agreement. I think we can. I didn't get an answer back from ACHD for tonight's meeting. Our intentions are to have a temporary solid fence along that -- along that boundary. Moe: And, then, what are we doing as you go up -- up against the other property there? Nickel: You know, I -- the property owners right here are present and we actually haven't talked about this area along their property, but we are definitely willing to work with them on what type of fencing needs to be there, whether it's privacy fence or open fencing. Moe: I guess you`ll get an answer -- you'll get a chance to talk about that in a little bit. Nickel: If they could address that, we would -- I can rebut that. Moe: Okay. Nickel: And, then, again, as we -- as we move over here, that wrought iron with the solid post along this area and, then, landscaping along -- along Black Cat. Moe: Can you just address, again, just so I get a little clearer picture in regards to the trees, where you anticipate the problems getting it between the easement and property? Nickel: Well, that's -- it's kind of throughout, but this area right here and, then, over here. Moe: In the center there, you should be able to get the trees in there, should you not? Nickel: We should be, yeah. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 33 of 43 Nickel: It's hard to see on this map, but you can see if you have a large copy, you can kind of see where that easement is. And, then, finally, I guess, to address staffs recommendation to move that cul-de-sac back, that's fine, and what we would do is we would extend the pathway down, square off this lot right here, and, then, possibly have a little seating area right there as that path curves back around to the cul-de-sac, so we have a continuous loop for that pathway. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel, this pathway doesn't -- isn't going to hook -- is it going to hook up with Volterra -- Volterra -- I can't think -- do they have one coming up to meet it? Nickel: Well, not -- not directly. I mean it will hook up to the -- to the sidewalk system as it stubs into Volterra here, but there is no other locations that it could hook into Volterra. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: Oh, just one other quick thing, as far as -- I mean you read the staff report, so you know the conditions in regards to your utilities, sewer, water, as the time frames and whatnot when you get that. Nickel: And the developer has been meeting with Public Works staff and is participating in the extension of the water line, so -- Moe: Okay. Nickel: -- we are well aware of that. Moe: Okay. Nickel: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Paul Poorman. Poorman: I'm Paul Poorman and I'm at 5230 North Black Cat Road and our subject property is here. So, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, first I'd like to correct a couple of misconceptions here. First is that there are no chain link fences along the north boundary of the subject property. There is only one Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 34 of 43 chain link fence -- sort of a chain link fence here. The rest of it is kind of half fallen down barbed wire. The other misconception is about the trees here. The trees are mostly in this part right here and they are pretty much all -- yeah. There we go. So, here is the trees right here. And these are mature 25 year old trees that are, in some cases, about 60 feet tall and there is no way that I'm going to be able to move those trees or get them off the property. So, if the trees don't get worked into this subdivision, then, they are going to have to be chopped down. There are a few blue spruces on the west end that I should be able to -- to move and sell or the nice thing would be to put them in other places in the subdivision, but I guess my hope is that the developers would consider the trees here and work them into the subdivision. A couple of ideas would be perhaps some more open space, a small neighborhood park, a playground, using the trees other -- other places on the property. Or just as a -- just as a screen. Then, the other thing I wanted to point out -- and if you could go back to the -- to the map. Our septic tank is somewhere about in here. I think it's between these two lots, roughly our septic tank and drain field, and Mr. Roberts had agreed to connect our septic tank into the new sewer and, then, that doesn't show any connection for our septic and sewer. And, then, I guess another slight misconception is that the map shows that this here is a chain link fence and our preference is that would be an opaque privacy type fence along the -- the east boundary of our property and the north boundary of our property. So, that's all the comments I had. Thank you. Moe: What type of fencing would you like to see there? Poorman: Something like a cedar fence, something that you can't see through, more of a privacy fence. Right now it just calls for a chain link fence, which is great for keeping dogs out, but it's not very nice for privacy. Moe: Okay. Let's talk about the trees again. I guess I'm a little confused. You're stating that you're going to be moving them, so is that your property up there that you're selling to the developer? Poorman: So, we have already sold the property to the developer, but we retained ownership of the trees and so it was a prudent or simple thing to do at the time that we sold the property and there are roughly a hundred trees that we could sell that are movable, but there is probably three or four hundred additional trees that are too big to -- to be moved. So, if they don't get used where they are or worked into the subdivision, then, they are going to have to be chopped down. Moe: And that's -- that's what we are anticipating calling the tree farm trees? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 35 of 43 Poorman: Yeah. So, I'm the guy who put the trees in there and I'm the tree farm. Rohm: My question is where those trees originally planted as trees farm trees that just didn't get sold and they grew up to be larger than what could be easily transported out of there, is that -- Poorman: So, yeah, kind of both. I planted roughly 2,000 trees and sold probably three-quarters of those, maybe 1,500 trees, and, then, others were more just as a -- a screen to cut down on the road noise and just to give us a little privacy. Rohm: Okay. You know, I can't speak for staff, but I can't anticipate that the staff would think that a tree farm tree would be mitigated by additional trees placed within the subdivision itself, but I guess I can ask staff. Was that your intent, Bill, to -- for the trees that the previous property owner couldn't take out effectively, be mitigated or -- or what's your thoughts on that? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, when I met with the applicants this morning they had told me that they didn't have -- retain -- they didn't have ownership of the trees, as Mr. Poorman has just stated, and so on the plan that they submitted it said the trees would be removed and off site. So, I was under the impression that it would -- they would be dug up and removed. But after I visited the site (realized -- and I told this to the applicant -- that those are pretty good size trees out there and it would be pretty difficult to move any of those, so I mean -- Rohm: So, I guess what my question is, do you have any problem with the applicant cutting trees down and removing them? Parsons: I would probably ask Caleb to step in on this and see what his feeling is on it, but -- I mean I don't even have any open space to put it on site, if that's what you're -- it would have to be off site or something within a city park or something. Code does have -- allow for that provision. Caleb: As long as I don't have to try to move the trees, I don't care if they get cut down. No. Code really doesn't speak to this case. I mean it just says you should mitigate for any trees that are on site that you can't retain during construction. Obviously, the code didn't anticipate a situation like this. Any trees that can be retained, which is something that Mr. Poorman mentioned, and if we can save some of them or relocate some of those -- I mean the whole intent behind this is so we don't cut down all the trees and have two inch caliper trees everywhere, let's try to save some nice mature trees around town. So, I think if Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 36 of 43 we can keep a few of these and have some nice mature trees for this new subdivision, that sure will add a lot to the value of those lots as people start to move into this neighborhood. So, you know, code is what it is. That's just my personal opinion. The city arborist can maybe work out a compromise to mitigate some of the caliper inches, but like Bill said, there is no way they can mitigate all those caliper inches of trees on this site or probably even a couple of city parks that are in this neighborhood, so -- in the future. So, it is a lot of trees and, you know, I think that condition should be clarified and I don't have any heartburn over you guys modifying that accordingly. Rohm: Thank you. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just add one more thing. When I met with the applicant, too, they said that they would try to incorporate some of those trees into the design of those front lots there, so -- Rohm: Okay. And they will have an opportunity to respond anyway. But thanks. Thank you, sir. Rohm: Just a second. Moe: Anybody else? Rohm: Don Roberts with you? Okay. Go ahead and come on back up. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Again, Shawn Nickel. Baird: Mr. Chair? Just -- it might be prudent to see if there is anybody who hasn't signed up who might want to speak that's in the audience before we get the rebuttal. Rohm: Okay. Hang tight for a moment here, Shawn. At this time there is -- there isn't anybody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but if you'd like to come forward now is that time. Okay. Thanks for pointing that out. Shawn, you're on. Nickel: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the privacy fence, we are fine with six foot solid cedar around the Poorman's property and what we will do is we will coordinate that with them as far as placement. It is the developer's intention, as stated, to provide sewer hook up for Poorman's home, so that will be incorporated into the design. I believe our engineer just left it off the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 37 of 43 Rohm: Well, I'm a little bit curious how you incorporate sewer for a property that's outside of the development. Isn't that something that would have to be coordinated with the city? Because it won't be a city lot. I can't anticipate -- Nickel: That's a good point, Mr. Chairman. I guess we can defer to your Public Works staff. Steckline: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, generally it is that when an applicant comes in that they would be annexing into the city when they hook up to city sewer and water. The plans that I have seen don't allow for that sewer and water to go through the Belhaven Subdivision. That's definitely something that we could discuss, as long as the other applicants are aware that they would need to annex into the city at that time also. Rohm: Yeah. I -- that's kind of where I was going with this, is -- is in order for that to happen there is -- annexation would have to take place. I -- as a general rule -- it isn't that we never serve any properties outside of the city limits, but it's under very special conditions and I'm not sure that this qualified, but -- Steckline: Mr. Chair, also the sewer and water will also be brought up in Black Cat. There is other opportunity to hook up the development or the existing home to the south through a sewer stub and water. But also does require annexing into the city and it would require both sewer and water. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Shawn, he pointed that his septic tank now -- is it in your development? Rohm: Probably the drain field. Moe: Just the drain field? Well, I shouldn't just say just, but -- so, I think it's going to be pretty important to verify that he wants to be annexed in in order to be able to hook him up on city sewer, so that you can get the drain field out of there. Nickel: You guys have brought up a good -- I'm glad someone did bring it up now, so we can discuss it. We are going to need to figure out how to -- how to do that, because I don't know -- I don't think the Poormans envisioned being annexed at this -- at this time. Moe: I noticed her shaking her head earlier. That's why I'm bringing this up. So, it's probably something --and I'm -- I'm comfortable that we can get it worked out, unless you guys are uncomfortable moving it forward to the Council, I think we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 38 of 43 can get it worked out and maybe have a sit down with staff and the Poormans to figure out how we can -- Rohm: I'm not the least bit comfortable moving it forward without that being resolved. Nickel: Okay. Mae: I agree a hundred percent. Nickel: I guess we are not in a huge hurry right now, so I guess we can -- we can -- I guess we need to look at that. Rohm: I think that has to be resolved before we can go any further. Nickel: Okay. Moe: I guess I'd like to ask staff one question and that would be one way to take care of that, if, in fact, it is just a drain field, can they relocate the drain field or simply -- I mean keeping their septic tank there, but just changing out the drain field? Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, if there is adequate space on the property in question and if that's something negotiated with the applicant and the current property owner, how they decide that, whether or not their construction company comes in and does that, it is the intent of the city, when city services are available and they are within reason, to have those properties hooked up to city services. One thing I would be kind of concerned about is leaving an island out there where there isn't city sewer and water. That would be -- Newton-Huckabay: That's pretty much why I asked the question. Steckline: -- my main concern. Yeah. Moe: Okay. Nickel: Now, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, one point of clarification is that we are not creating this out parcel with the subdivision, this property. This is a legal stand-alone parcel from the portion that my developer is developing. But, regardless, we do need to at least have that I guess determined. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 39 of 43 Nickel: So, I'm okay with that. Regarding the tree issue, very early on in the process we did meet with -- with Caleb. I don't know if he remembers. It's been quite awhile. It's probably been over a year. But one of the first questions we asked -- and it was before my client purchased this property -- was with regards to mitigation of a tree farm and not to put staff on the spot, but it is not our -- it was never our intention to mitigate those trees within this development. There is a contract in place between the Poormans and my client regarding the ownership of those trees. I think that needs to be resolved by those two -- those two parties. We would be more than happy to work with them if we can save any of those trees. We can try to incorporate them. I agree, I think if we have some mature trees within some of the lots it would make those that much more desirable and we don't necessarily want to cut down trees if we don't have to. But, again, that's something that if you look at our landscape plans submitted, it -- it takes into consideration new trees coming in to meet the code requirement within our open space area. Rohm: Well, I don't know if I can speak to the balance of the Commission, but I don't think the -- the law was ever within the intent of replacing tree farm trees. And so I think as long as you're making an attempt to incorporate the mature trees that make sense into the development, I'm pretty sure we are going to be able to work with you on that. Moe: Well, I guess the other thing is they don't own them anyway. Rohm: Well, exactly. And the guy that owns them doesn't want to cut them down and so there you have it. In any case, I think that's probably -- you understand where we are at on the trees? Nickel: Yes. I think I do. And I think we have clarified it enough in the code -- or in the staff report. So, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman, if you have any other questions. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I don't think we can move forward with this until we get some resolve on that -- on the sewer system to the adjacent property, so I think -- Moe: Well -- Rohm: -- I'm looking for suggestions. Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with you. I'd like to have that issue resolved. I guess the other thing I wouldn't mind -- maybe the applicant could Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 40 of 43 work with staff in regards to the trees around the -- the pathway and whatnot and let's get this kind of decided exactly what we want to do -- Rohm: As long as we are continuing it, get it resolved. Moe: Yes. Yeah. I'd like to see that resolved and at the same time, basically, it will be noted that a six foot cedar fencing would be going in over on the -- that would be, what, the southwest portion of the neighborhood there? Newton-Huckabay: Would you also need to endeavor to put the cedar fencing temporarily along the entire southern -- Moe: That's a very good point. He could check with ACRD in regards to what he has to do as far as in their right of way and whatnot. If he can get done, yes, I think that's a very good point. We'll get this figured out yet. Newton-Huckabay: Maybe he can make the fence out of all those trees they are going to have to cut down. Moe: That's a great idea. You're going to have plenty of wood from the trees all over the place. Okay. Let's see. Bear with me, I want to check my notes. Okay. That was it, so -- Rohm: How long do you think you need to resolve the outstanding issues? We are trying to pick a date for a continuance. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, probably just a couple weeks. I think they can -- Rohm: Our next agenda is full, so if we have four weeks or -- Moe: The 1st of November? Nickel: Is that the date? Yeah. We will probably be back on that date for your southwest comp plan. Hood: Mr. Chair, that date's even more full than the 18th. Rohm: Well, then -- Moe: Thank you. Rohm: You know, really, we don't have a lot of issues. I'd rather take in this two weeks if you can -- if you can get it resolved in two weeks. Caleb, is -- from the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 41 of 43 staffs perspective what all has to take place for this sewer and water issue to be resolved to a point that you can -- Steckline: Mr. Chair, we would be looking for some kind of an agreement between the two parties involved, an agreement to annex into the city or other means. Another thing that brought up a point. Generally, when we have something like this happen, a septic system has failed or a well has gone bad and they will have to contact central district heath and from there we make the determination whether or not they are within 300 feet of city services being available. Thus, the city would require the applicant to connect to city services. in this case their septic system hasn't fail, they just don't currently own the property anymore where that septic system is -- is located. We would, basically, need -- Public Works would need some kind of an agreement stating that the current homeowner is going to annex into the city, is, basically, the only thing that I can see resolving this matter. Rohm: Either that or they will have to relocate the drain field outside of this development and have it fully contained in the adjacent property to the south. One or the other. And I don't think we have an option of just connecting it to the city, if, in fact, it's not going to be part of the city. Hood: Mr. Chair, I do have one other option and maybe those -- I don't how big that field is, but maybe there is a couple lots that are non-build until they do get hooked up to -- so, there are some options that need to be discussed. I guess to do two weeks, though, we need to have something figured out by the Friday before the next Thursday hearing, so we can get something in your packets. So, effectively, that's six business days or so to kind of work something out, so I don't know if that's feasible or not, but -- Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, let's move it out a little bit further. Again, we are not in a huge hurry with this, but -- Rohm: 15th of November? Nickel: Yeah. Moe: The 15th of November? Nickel: That should be fine. Let me just double-check real quick. Rohm: That's the date, the 15th. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 42 of 43 Nickel: Let me make sure I'm available, otherwise, we might have to push it out further. Yes. That will be fine. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. Moe: I'm getting there. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue the public hearings AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning meeting of November 15th, 2007. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items No. AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of November 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 258.39 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Meridian Town Center by CenterCal Properties, LLC - NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 07-012 for the sole purpose of continuing to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 18th, 2007. Moe: So move. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded by all to continue items AZ 07-012 to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 18th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second.