Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 8, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 8, 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm,. Commissioner Leslie Mathes and Commissioner David Zaremba. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Jessica Johnson, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Craig Hood, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, Wendy Kirkpatrick and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X David Zaremba Vacant X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for January 8th. Start with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2003: AZ 03-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 140.25 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2003: PP 03-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 461 single-family building lots and 43 common lots on 140.25 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2003: CUP 03-058 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontages, lot sizes, and minimum house size and permission to have two cul-de-sac lengths exceed the maximum length in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. Our first item is a continued Public Hearing from December 4th and -- it would, actually, be the first three items on the agenda, four, five, and six. AZ 03-027 Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 2 of 89 and PP 03-032 and CUP 03-058. I'd like to open all three of those hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Powell: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Powell: I think you need to adopt the agenda. Borup: I think we are adopting the agenda as written. Any changes from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: No, sir. Zaremba: No. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. On Item number four, the annexation and zoning request, the property that is the point of discussion here today tonight on all three of these is shown in bold. We are talking about the north side of McMillan Road, approximately a quarter mile east of Meridian Road. Havasu Creek Subdivision. This is zoned R-4 in the city. Paramount Subdivision has been annexed also. These are later phases in Paramount that are shown here in yellow. The majority of the rest of this property is all surrounded existing Ada County land. This would be the first annexation and zoning request the city's received in Section 30. This is Township four north, one east. The request for annexation is to rezone the entire property R-4. The few other surrounding uses, just to point out to the Commission, the large 100 plus acre property shown here at the northeast corner of Meridian and McMillan is currently under ownership by the Aschenbrenner family. The Meridian School District has let the city know that they are interested in acquiring approximately 40 acres of this for a future middle school. Larkwood Subdivision, an existing county subdivision, on the eastern boundary for approximately a half mile north of McMillan and, basically, estate parcels that are within Ada County that surround -- usually about ten acres to 20 acres in size that are around this northern half. As you can see, there is currently two parcels that are zoned RUT in Ada County. The Boyack family has the north, the Rhead family has the southern. They are proposing -- the applicant's proposing to acquire both and annex all of the -- both of them, as well as the plat is on both of those parcels. This might be a little tough for you to see, the aerial photo. Generally, itjust shows that it's a lot of existing AG land up there. This slide shows all of the preliminary plats I believe to date that have been approved in north Meridian area. The final plats are not distinguished on here. This is showing the preliminary plats that have been approved. The 12 acre yellow lot here is what was approved as part of Havasu Creek as a future elementary school site. There is also a future elementary school site in Paramount that was approved here and, then, about a 55 acre high school site that's shown here on Linder Road. Cedar Springs Meritlian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 3 of 89 Subdivision, the park, Cedar Springs North, which is just now coming through with their first final plat phasing is in this area. Paramount is phasing from Linder, by the way, to the west. So, I think that gives you an idea of the -- where this property fits. Again, Chinden is shown here on the north about a quarter mile north. So, the annexation request is 140.25 acres. There is, also, I might point out, on the Comprehensive Plan, a neighborhood center that is on the south side of Chinden that would abut the north property line of the Boyack parcel and that is a -- I believe it's a mixed use community neighborhood, which is -- of our three neighborhood center types, that's kind of the mid scale in terms of the size of retail and shopping that would be allowed there. So, we do envision quite a bit of impact in the future, obviously, on the south side of Chinden Road, Highway 20-26. This parcel that's shown here on the northeast corner of Section 30 has received approval and they are under construction of a new high school, academy high school. It's similar to Meridian Academy, which is currently on the south side of Franklin Road. The staff report I think mistakenly said it was an elementary school, so I just wanted to clarify that. Then, of course, the Catholic Church, which is at the corner just 200 feet north of this parcel and, then, there is also a nursery up there. Staff is recommending at this point approval of only a portion of the annexation request, basically, just the south -- about an eighth of the project. We would recommend that that be annexed as they have requested and platted as they have requested and I will touch on that a little bit later as to why we are only recommending annexation for a portion of the 140 acres, but -- the preliminary plat is for 442 single family detached residential lots. There is 45 common lots. The buildable lots range in size from 5,735 square feet to 17,900 square feet. Lot sizes. The average buildable lot size is 9,298. They have a gross density of 3.15 dwelling units to the acre. Their plat is proposing a single point of permanent access off of McMillan Road. They are proposing a 100 foot wide common lot on the north side of McMillan Road. Most of that is proposed as landscaping. The Lemp Canal is also a part of that. They have a residential collector that serves up to about the mid point of the plat and it ends here at about a two and a half acre private common area slash park and, then, on local street systems they are proposing another park here as well. Then they have, as I mentioned, over 40 common lots. Most of those are micropath lots. They do have a fairly large open space area here in the north end of the project as well. There are no existing stub streets coming out of Larkwood Subdivision for Farwest to utilize and they are not proposing any either. So, this would be a block length in excess of the city's maximum, but both the highway district and city staff have -- feel that the variance as a part of the planned development is acceptable, since there are no stub streets to extend to. They are showing a new stub street on the north. The first one would be at this point where the arrow is. They have three stub streets on the north boundary. They show one on their west boundary to this existing -- I believe, it's a 20 acre county parcel and, then, they have a stub street coming out of this north mid section here that would serve the Aschenbrenner property that I mentioned earlier. Here is a drawing that reflects their proposal for the McMillan Road 100 foot wide buffer. I guess it's actually shown around 130. The canal would be immediately next to edge of pavement and, then, there would be a 12 foot wide asphalt pathway that would at times also jointly serve the irrigation district for maintenance. Then there is a 77 foot wide area behind this pathway slash maintenance road that would have a berm with their landscaping features. So, we had asked for a little bit Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 4 of 89 more detail of this cross-section as a part of our plat, just so you could kind of get a feel for how the easements and pathway and whatnot fit in there. Then, on item number six, the planned development, just -- these slides just show their conceptual landscaping. Here is the entryway. They are proposing a median to have a split entry off of McMillan and, then, the residential collector, ,they are proposing these landscape common lots on both sides as you head north through the project. They have a series of micropath common lots on both the east and west sides of this subdivision that would ultimately create a loop system. Here is some more of the landscaping that they are showing throughout the -- conceptually throughout the project. I'll go back to the plat and refer to the staff report at this point. We have received, as noted, a number of written comments. We have also received a response just today from Pinnacle Engineers, David McKinnon, who is representing the applicant here tonight and I have had a chance to review it. I think Bruce Freckleton, Public Works staff, has as well. So we will refer to David McKinnon's memo as well. Generally, just to summarize, there has been a number of issues that have been worked out from the time they originally submitted this application to tonight, the first hearing, as you -- as I noted in the staff report this is a revised plat that we are looking at tonight. Their first one came through, we made several comments, and they also met with the Larkwood Homeowners Association and the Police Chief and Fire Chief and others and some of those -- the results of those conversations are reflected in both our staff report, as well as the applicant's memo. On the annexation portion --just to refer back to that item number four, I think, really, what the issue comes down to here is two things. One, is the city prepared to annex property that does not have sewer service to all of the property at this time? Secondly, is the city prepared to annex property that only has one permanent access proposed? I think that's really what the question of -- is this annexation the best interest of the-city of Meridian about. The comments that came in the response from David McKinnon basically addressed that they feel that the -- all of the property should be annexed right now, that the lack of any schools in the area and the lack of a secondary access and sewer are issues that can be taken care of and I think, you know, arguments can be made on both sides. The question of the secondary access is the first issue that I'll point out and Meridian Road runs north-south here on the edge of the slide and there is an existing 24 foot wide easement that is in favor of this lot that's shown here, which is proposed to be a five acres lot that is sold to the Boyack family that currently owns this northerly -- the larger piece and it would be -- retained ownership within the family as it was presented to staff. That access is one option to come into the property, but the preferred option that we have been told is as the sewer comes through Paramount Subdivision, through Meridian Road, it would cross about in this section. The North Slough is -- you can see is shown kind of ghosted out on the screen here. The trunk line would come across here and the -- there would be an all-weather surface, 20 foot wide, gravel road that would be required by the city, as usual, over that -- over that easement for the trunk and that is for maintenance purposes. That would, then, connect with this proposed Joshua Tree Street that is running here east and west. That would be a local street that improved to highway district standards. So, now, of course, the timing of when that would get there is estimated right now to be about mid '05 in terms of the construction of the North Slough trunk. That is dependent on obtaining all of the appropriate easements to the west in order to get the truck there, but assuming Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 5 of 89 that the current project's time frame runs through, that would be about spring of -- or I mean summer of '05. Until that point, the first 50 homes of the project are at this local street right here. Well, actually, it would be this mid block point here and those 50 homes -- number 50 was chosen, as you know, number one, because the Fire Department does not want to serve more than 50 homes without another access, as well as those 50 homes can sewer to the south side of McMillan Road. Whereas, all the remainder of the subdivision would have to sewer to the future North Slough trunk. So, we do feel that a -- before the 51St house would be approved, there should be a second permanent -- well, a second access that has -- that is paved. That would, again, refer to this access coming across from Meridian Road, which, at this point, looks like to be the soonest and the most logical place for the secondary access to come in at. The reason why we think it needs to be improved -- the highway district has -- essentially, what this would be is a cul-de-sac until a second permanent access is constructed. The highway district has a maximum of 400 trips per day on a cul-de-sac, which is equivalent to about 40 homes. So, until that designation -- the only way that designation could change is when a permanent public street is provided and at this point the applicant is not proposing to either pave or make their secondary access public or pave it. We think that it could work. I mean staff is generally supportive of -- you know, of getting a secondary access here and, then, Bruce did point out to me earlier there are two examples where the city has approved these kind of developments before. One is the Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center. When the Crossroads housing development was constructed, before the shopping center was constructed, they had what is now Records Drive. There is a signal there now. That was -- they were allowed to build out their subdivision with only doing a paved 20 foot wide street before it became public and was improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk. Then, the other example was Macaile Meadows, which is just a quarter mile this side of Cloverdale Road near Pine and you access it through -- behind Wal-Mart. There is access behind Wal-Mart -- between there and the cemetery, that they were required to construct their secondary access all the way up to Fairview from the north boundary of their subdivision, which I think was several hundred feet. In both of those instances the city did require paving and -- versusjust asecond access being gravel. Borup: Brad, how would the aspect of the sewer line going in there affect this, then? I don't know that Records Drive had a sewer line that came in after the street was paved. In this case, when the sewer line went in, wouldn't that disrupt the access? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the sewer line would be constructed before the secondary access. Borup: Okay. They said one of the options would be to put it in before the sewer line, I thought, if it wasn't in. Hawkins-Clark: I don't think that would be an option for us. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 6 of 89 Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. They need the sewer -- Borup: The applicant had mentioned that. That's what -- Hawkins-Clark: But they do need the sewer to do -- before the 51st lot would be approved. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: So --and that's when the access road would come in. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Brad, since your sort of on this subject, in reading through your notes I sort of interpreted that you were giving equal weight to two options and you may be leaning towards one or the other it sounds like. One of the options was only to annex enough to build 50 houses and the other was to go ahead consider the whole development, annex it all with a development agreement that nothing could be built beyond 50 houses until both sewer and second access was there. I felt those were weighted equally. Are you leaning towards one or the other? Hawkins-Clark: I guess that was good insight, Commissioner. No, I don't think so. I think they are, really, even in our minds. I think we are -- unless Anna, the Planning Director, has other feelings -- I mean I think the main reason why we would prefer to not annex is more of a legal question than anything and if the city approves a preliminary plat with 400 houses and that preliminary plat is lying on annexed ground, is the city obligated, you know, to provide them with a final plat. I don't think so. But I-guess Bruce has a comment on that. Borup: Did you look at the other option of annexing the property, but not platting any more than the first 50 homes? Hawkins-Clark: No. Freckleton: The answer was no. Borup: But is that -- is that another option? Would that be a third option? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in that instance you would want the development agreement as well. Borup: Yeah. Okay. You had another comment? Freckleton: Maybe there is three options. The biggest thing as far as Public Works is concerned is timing of our project, getting sewer to the area. With our experience with the White Trunk that we built last year, the easement acquisition process took us almost a year longer than what we anticipated --just it took a long time Yo negotiate easements. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 7 of 89 So our preliminary estimates right now is June of '05 to have this thing completed, but one glitch in easements could set us out, so -- Borup: Where are you at on the easement acquisition at this point? Freckleton: We have not started yet. Borup: How many of them of the -- how much of the trunk line would be going through properties that are not associated with other developments? Freckleton: There is -- there is, really, only the Paramount project -- Borup: And, then, the Aschenbrenner. Freckleton: -- and, then, the Aschenbrenner parcel. So, two parcels. Mathes: Isn't Paramount and these people the same? Freckleton: No. Mathes: No. Who did Paramount? Freckleton: Paramount was Brighton Corporation Mathes: Brighton. Borup: Well, that was part of the -- I mean here you have got two -- two individuals to deal with, as opposed to whatever there was on the White, but it was more than two. And a couple that didn't have a lot of interest in it, wasn't it? Zaremba: My recollection is that when Paramount came before us, staff highly recommended that Paramount be required to provide the sewer to and through to their eastern border. We agreed with that, made that a condition of it. Mr. Aschenbrenner came and testified that he also agreed with that and would be ready to submit something if that happened. So, I don't think he's necessarily the hold up. City Council overruled us on that when Brighton Corporation objected to that condition, which they sometimes do and is certainly their right. But, you know, if that condition had stayed, I'm not sure we would be having this problem. My difficulty is passing that problem along to this applicant, when we knew ahead of time that that's exactly what would happen. We are holding Mr. Aschenbrenner and this applicant hostage to the phasing of Paramount. Borup: But there is nothing we can do about that, though. Zaremba: Well, my follow-up instinct on that would be to consider this entire project, since it has been thought through, lean towards -- if we end up deciding to recommend Meridian Planning 6 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 8 of 89 approval of it, recommending approval of the entire thing, with a development agreement, and the applicant has already said that they are willing to take the risk of this not happening as fast as we think it would. But rather than having to go through this process several times, when we have what appears to be reasonably acceptable -- you know, with some tweaking -- reasonable acceptable project, rather than just annexing 50 homes. Then, having to go through the process again with the rest of it, the development agreement, and the applicant's understanding that they are taking the risk, would at least let them move forward with their planning. I mean they know what is approved, it's just a matter of timing, then, that they are taking the risk on and my problem is we wouldn't, really, be having this discussion if the City Council had left that condition on Paramount. I don't know if that sheds light or just expresses an opinion, but -- Freckleton: I think you're right on. Right on the target. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Iwould -- if that is the direction that you want to lean -- Zaremba: Well, that's just me personally. I'm not speaking for the rest of the Commissioners. Freckleton: During the development of the White Trunk, developments that were upstream, we did, through our City Attorney's office, come up with a -- some language for indemnity on the timing, that we weren't, you know, bound by any time frame and it was an agreement that the developers basically had to sign onto that they acknowledged that potential. So, I would -- if you do lean that direction, I would just request that you allow us time to get that language together before this goes on to City Council. Borup: And that should be fairly easy, since it's been done previously Freckleton: Yeah. I won't have a problem with it. Borup: Okay. Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Just a couple of other things, if I could just point out on the conditions on the staff report, starting on page 14 -- and before I forget it, if I could just point out that the staff report mentioned that one option is for a -- in terms of fencing, the applicant, as I understand it, has agreed to construct a vinyl fence adjacent to the Larkwood homeowners subdivision, a six foot vinyl fence. I will let them confirm that, but that was presented in the staff report as an option. We typically -- the city does not require a material type in fencing, but in this case, since there has been agreement between both parties, I think part of the Conditional Use Permit you're okay to require that. Three other items. Again, on page 14 of the staff report, see on item number eight. This is the condition that talks about eliminating a cul-de-sac and the basis for our comment on that was the Comprehensive Plan, which, you know, encourages full connectivity in subdivisions and, again, we are talking about this cul-de-sac right here. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 9 of 89 One unique feature that they are proposing for this cul-de-sac and the three others that they have in the project is to provide sort of an on-street parking area to kind of help designate where cars would park in the cul-de-sac. It would be in the middle and it would be stripped, as I understand it, and provide that -- thaf feature. This condition suggests eliminating the cul-de-sac and connecting it in alignment with what they have named Prickly Pear Street and it would not result in the loss of any lots, it would just be a reconfiguration of two or three of the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac. As David pointed out in his response letter, it's really not a pedestrian connection issue, because they do have a pedestrian pathway proposed right here in the middle of the project, but more of just general connectivity. So, again, it's based on the Comprehensive Plan policy that says to encourage the elimination of cul-de-sacs wherever possible. So, the way that it's worded, that would be removed. They have said that they prefer to keep the cul-de-sac there. On item number nine, the condition says prior to City of Meridian approval of any final plat, including the 51st lot, a second permanent vehicular access shall be constructed or approved, and they are proposing to have it, as I mentioned earlier, be temporary, not permanent, and it would be approved by the Meridian Fire Department and not a part of the final plat application. As mentioned, we -- staff thinks it should be not necessarily fully constructed with curb, gutter, sidewalk, but at a minimum have the 20 foot wide asphalt surface that is fully there and available for the public to use. Then, on item number -- condition number ten on the bottom of page 14, this is referring to the five acre lot that is shown up here in the northeast corner, that since it's so large, we asking for a redevelopment, a replatting plan concept to show how any -- how all this will layout and to show how they will connect to the south here. We were asking for this as a part of the final plat for this larger phase and -- Borup: Are they anticipating some -- I mean they have already designed that in the first application, didn't they? Hawkins-Clark: They did, but my understanding is that they removed that entirely and at this point that's off the books. If you approve the preliminary plat, that's not -- Borup: Right. I mean they could submit that as a conceptual layout. Hawkins-Clark: One of the reasons we asked for it is because they showed two cul-de- sacs and we were opposed to that. Borup: Oh. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: So, we want to see a stub street there. Zaremba: Is that where the fourth cul-de-sac was? You have mentioned four cul-de- sacs and I'm only seeing three. Hawkins-Clark: Let's see. They have the one -- Zaremba: And two streets below that. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 10 of 89 Borup: At the top. Zaremba: Oh, I didn't see that that was a -- Hawkins-Clark: This is one here. Zaremba: I didn't see that. Okay. Is that a pedestrian pathway that connects it to the street below? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is. I think I also failed to point out that they are proposing a -- as the Comprehensive Plan asks for, apart -- part of our regional pathway system would come through this property. They have a 60 foot wide common lot here that would connect to the future middle school and there would beaten foot wide public path that would come through this common lot and continue north through this private park, which, of course, the ten foot wide easement would be for the public and, then, stub out to the east at this point. So, they would get the public pathway through their project. They have asked for this portion of that easement to be six foot, instead of ten, and I think staff's comfortable with that. We have had precedence in Lochsa Falls Subdivision approving that to a reduced easement. Zaremba: Can I back up a second to the five acre parcel? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Didn't realize we were moving on. In the applicant's response on -- I think what is their page four, they do mention that the family wants to build a new home there, but also to do a new domestic well and septic system on something we are talking about annexing into the city and within possibly two years having sewer available. That doesn't seem the right direction to me to have a new well and a new septic tank. Hawkins-Clark: Right. That would be against ordinance if you choose to annex this property. I'll let Bruce address that one. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, there was a representative of the family in our office talking to us about this concept. I have discussed it with our City Engineer. Our basic feeling is that we could agree to allow them to do a temporary septic and well until such time that the services could be available to that five acres and, then, at that time they would have to disconnect from their well and septic and connect up to municipal services, so we have had a dialogue with them. Borup: They are talking about building before to 2005. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 11 of 89 Freckleton: Yes. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Well -- Zaremba: June of 2005 is a year and a half away from now. Freckleton: We don't know that June of '05 that Saguaro Canyon will be built clear up into here either. It more than likely will be built down to here, so -- Borup: Right. Before it gets to them they are planning on building. Freckleton: Yeah. Our discussion with them was that prior to the subdivision being built and having services brought up, so that it's available to them, they were looking at constructing, so -- but, again, we -- we don't have a problem with that on a temporary basis. Zaremba: Not that I want to get into their personal finances, but is a temporary septic and well cheap enough that it could be abandoned after a year of use? I guess that's up to them. Borup: It doesn't matter what it costs, it still can be abandoned Mathes: Can they use that well for irrigation? Hawkins-Clark: I think maybe the key question on that, Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, is the number of buildings on a lot and staff was told by one of the neighbors that they believe there could be two houses already there and -- Zaremba: On this five acres? Hawkins-Clark: On that five acres. If we could just have some clarification on that tonight. But whether there is -- yeah, obviously, there would only be one building on one lot, so if we just get clarified. Unless the Commission had any questions for staff, that was it at this point. Borup: Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners? I think we asked them as we went along. Zaremba: I have one other question that's kind of a philosophy .kind of a question, I guess, and it applies somewhat to this application, but to others as well. On page 19, paragraph five, I have expressed my abjection in the past to whittling away at zones. We ask for an R-4 and, then, the reduced lot sizes and houses and stuff like that, when I say, well, why don't you just ask for an R-8 or something like that. This being a Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 12 0l B9 planned development, they would have probably a 20 percent exception anyhow, which could be used for a lot size. I guess what I'm getting at -- and in the past I have ended up voting in favor of most of the applications, even with reductions in them, but I think my question is if we state as a condition that they are approved to have lot sizes of 5,735 feet in an R-4 zone, would that give them the right to come back later and say, oh, I have revised my plat to make this 700 lots, because I am approved for 500 and where I'm going with that is could we quantify this? Instead of saying that they are approved for 5,735 square feet, we say that they are approved for that on a maximum of 100 lots? Is that doable? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, while I think it's doable, I don't think it's necessary. Zaremba: Okay. Well, the same question would apply to the square footage -- minimum square footage of houses and -- Hawkins-Clark: On the lot sizes, you know, since they have both a development agreement and a preliminary plat and both of those have legal binding authority, you know, the only way they could do more lots at 5,735 square feet is by amending -- Zaremba: Revising the plat. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: Square footage of the building? Same thing? Hawkins-Clark: Sorry. Zaremba: Minimum square feet of the house built on it, if we just say that we are approving a 1,201 square foot minimum house, that's on every single lot? Hawkins-Clark:. That's correct. Zaremba: Would we want to quantify that to being only on 20 percent of the lots or only on the smallest -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, that's certainly the Commission's privilege. The zoning ordinance for the R-8 does allow outright breaking up a project in percentages, so that yoia could do ten percent of the lots at 1,000 square feet, another ten percent at 1,100 square feet, another ten percent at 1,200 square feet, and the rest at 1,300 square feet and larger. They are not proposing the R-t3, so they don't have that option outright, so they really are -- everything is going to be regulated by this Conditional Use Permit that they are proposing all these changes on. Zaremba: My question is as much a general question, philosophy, and future projects, not just this application, but I'm just wondering -- it would make me more comfortable about giving that kind of minimum if we weren't saying this is available on every lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 13 of 89 Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, some of the other communities do do that and it's not -- I mean it's kind of a precedent that's already set in the zoning ordinance with the percentages laid out by the R-8. It's certainly something that you can do as part of the development agreement where the lot sizes are targeted, you know, they can't deviate from the preliminary plat, but the minimum. house size is more floating, so that you could tie that down a little bit if you want. It's certainly within your discretion. Zaremba: Okay Borup: Question along that line again. We have seen other projects where the number of lots have varied from the preliminary plat. Not a lot, but a few. I mean -- so I assume it changed somewhere at City Council level. Powell: No. I think the one you're thinking of -- it was -- it was a difference in interpretation about when a new preliminary plat would be needed and I have been saying that just because you're under the total number that's lots -- buildable lots that you were allowed, doesn't mean that you can add lots phase by phase and, then, just have one big lot at the end. So, we are kind of looking at that a little more closely as they come through to make sure that we are kind of keeping in the same -- Borup: Okay. That's what maybe they were looking at is the lot sizes change by phase, but they thought -- they were saying overall they were going to stay the same number? Okay. Powell: Yeah. So, we would have one three acre piece in the final plat had they not come back for a new preliminary plat, so -- one last thing on house sizes. There is -- most of the communities around town do have a minimum house size. There is discussion and rumblings amongst the development community as to whether a minimum house size is appropriate and I'm just throwing that out there, just so it's on the record, because I'm sure one of the developers will bring it up if I don't, but there is some question if you don't allow a certain number of smaller houses, that you're being discriminatory to somebody that might only be able to afford a smaller house, so -- Borup: Well, those rumors started 15 years ago. Powell: Yeah. They have been around for awhile, yeah. Zaremba: Well, I can see -- there was a time where it was very popular to say that all the homes in a subdivision should be the same size, so that everybody had the same property value and everybody had the same stuff. I think that philosophy has gone through a change where it may be more popular not to do the cookie cutter and to allow a mix, so, I don't know, I can see both sets of reasoning. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Fage 14 0( 89 Hawkins-Clark: And I think many times as it's pointed out, it's the design of the house that makes most of the difference as you're driving down a street, in many ways more than the square footage. From the street you could look at one house and thirik that that's 1,400 and the other one is 2,400, when, in fact, maybe it's just the opposite. So, I think the design and the facades and the street presentation has a big impact on that as well. I did want to also point out that the Planning Department did get an e-mail from Chief Musser, Police Chief Musser, today. He did review the subdivision and said that his single point of concern was the one entrance to the subdivision off McMillan Road. He did say that they would be okay with any access that the Fire Department was okay with. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, Meridian, Idaho. Well, I wish I could take credit for the design of this project. I was kind of brought in on the middle of it and it's actually a pretty neat design for what it actually is. If you think about what this project is, you can understand some of the concerns and comments that came up. This is, essentially, a quarter mile wide piece of land that extends more than a half of mile into this section of road and you have to cross over the Lemp Canal. There was a road that was already designed in Havasu Creek that -- just to the south of this project that had an entry road that we had to line up with. ACHD required us to line up with the entry far -- I guess it's now called Cobre Basin, but ACHD required us to line up with that access and so we were limited on our access point that we had there. So, we put the crossing right there and said let's make this the crossing and, originally, we had provided a secondary access point for the Fire Department right here in this corner -- in the southeast corner. Unfortunately, when we met with the Fire Department and city staff, it was determined that the fire access at that location was too close to this location. If McMillan had problems, they weren't going to be able to get in on either one of those accesses, so we had to move the access someplace else. Unfortunately, we only have a quarter mile to deal with frontage on McMillan. So, it left us in a loop where how do we come up with a secondary access point. Well, within the subdivision itself there is a 24 foot wide access road that runs in from Meridian Road across the Boyack piece of property. Twenty-four feet wide into the subdivision. However, where do you take the access road from here all the way down to this point where we would be constructing? So, that was one option that we looked at. The secondary option that we looked at is where is the sewer goirig to be coming in. And this road right here is called Joshua Tree. This is where the sewer line will be coming in across the Aschenbrenner property from the Paramount property and so we have shown it on our preliminary plat. There is a 21 inch sewer line that would come in here on Joshua Tree heading to the east, then, all the way down the center collector road and will provide sewer to the remainder of the subdivision where these 50 lots were already being serviced by the lift station in Havasu Creek. When you build a sewer line, the City of Meridian requires that you put a road over the top of it. In the past they have acquired an all-weathered surface. Gravel, for example, is one of the types of surfaces that have been used in the past. Just to give you an example of that, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 75 of B9 if you remember when we were going through the Lochsa project and we had a lot of discussion as to how the sewer line was going to come across .the park and how we were going to get access across that. One of the means of access was a gravel road across the park, across the sewer line for a secondary means of access and that was one of the ways that was approved to get through and there is still is some gravel roadway that's a secondary means of access that has been approved in Lochsa Falls. I spent a little bit of time yesterday with Chief Musser on the phone, Bill Musser, our Chief of Police. I also spent some time with Kenny Bowers discussing the secondary means of access and what would be acceptable for a secondary means of access, because our original secondary access didn't work, and we talked about the two options, the 24 foot wide option beneath the Boyack property and the Joshua Tree alignment. In explaining that to Chief Musser and to Kenny Bowers, they both agreed that the Joshua Tree location would be the preference, going to build the gravel road across that. Both the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief for Meridian felt the gravel would be an acceptable surface for that, as long as it would support a vehicle that weighed 70,000 pounds, which is what the Public Works Department would require as well. So they both felt comfortable with the access -- for secondary access in this location. With that taken care of, the secondary access taken care of, let me jump back and tell you a little bit more about the design of this project. Like I said, I wish I had been involved a little bit more, so I could claim that this was a design I was involved with a lot more, but Farwest, LLC, spent a great deal of time designing this collector roadway. As Brad mentioned, it's a split entrance coming into the subdivision. On both sides of the split entrance there will be detached sidewalks, on either side of the detached entrance, to provide access from McMillan Road. In the middle of the collector street there are islands that run throughout each block section to add for additional landscaping and there are, as was pointed out, four cul-de-sacs, but the need for those cul-de-sacs is not necessarily uncalled for, because there is a pathway system that runs up both the east and the west side of the subdivision the full way to provide for pedestrian access and for circulation. In addition to that, there is a lot of people that would actually prefer to live on cul-de-sacs and so this isn't relying on cul-de-sacs, but it's providing something that the market demands. Some people want to live in cul-de-sacs and it's an option that we felt should be available to those people, so that's the reason why we oppose removing the Prickly Pear cul-de-sac, because it's not a large cul-de-sac, in fact, it's very short in length, only several hundred feet, and there is a pedestrian access here that lines up with the large 60 foot wide access that also goes into the new junior high school. There is negotiations ongoing right now for a junior high school adjacent to this site and the school district has asked for this pathway to connect to the junior high school site, so the Prickly Pear people, the kids that live in Prickly Pear, could walk directly to this pedestrian path and, then, down into the school, so they are not having to go out and around and pedestrian access is there and it provides for the other people in the market. As you continue north on the collector street you run into a large park area and, as Brad pointed out, there is a regional pathway there, a ten foot wide path, and it's a large park area where people can recreate. In talking with Chief Musser, Chief Musser was very enamored by this design. He felt that it was very good to have all the open space as you drive down. He felt that it would be a very safe thing. In addition to that, the islands in the collector would make it so the people would not travel so fast. There Meritlian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 16 of 89 is a slight meander to the collector street and at this point where it disperses he felt that that was a very smart thing to do for vehicle traffic control. Continuing north, again, there is another basically two and a half acre park within the subdivision, a small parking area in this location, with a pathway that connects to this cul-de-sac. Within the subdivision there is already one planned tot lot on Lot 6, Block -- actually, it's Lot 16, Block 6. In addition to that, we will stand and put on record tonight that we will place an additional tot lot someplace within the subdivision, so a total of two tot lots within the subdivision. The Boyack piece of property -- I just had a little bit of conversation about what's to happen there. There was some question as to whether or not there is, actually, houses on there right now. Unfortunately, you can't see through this photocopy of the plat, but there is, actually, the two houses lay right here and right here outside of the Boyack piece of property. Those are tear down houses and they are going to fall on Farwest to tear down. The Boyack property, as you originally saw it, had two cul-de-sacs that ran through that and that was when there was the intent to include this property as part of the overall development. However, the Boyack family wanted to retain ownership of that five acres and they want to develop that in the future, but they'd really like to build a house on it now, just as Bruce mentioned, they can put one house on there now with one sewer. It's really up to them to determine whether or not they think it would be economically viable to put in a well and septic and go through the -- to put one house on there and, then, in the future if they'd like to resubdivide that. It's a property that's going to be outside of Farwest's control, it would be in ownership by the Boyacks, so to require Farwest to come up with a development plan for the Boyacks seems out of line, because they don't actually own the property, it will be developed by someone else. They will have to come forward to you in the future for a preliminary plat to develop that, rather than us having to come to you now with a sketch. plat that they may or may not have any intentions of doing in the future. So, that was the reason why in my letter I requested that we remove the requirement from the staff report to provide a plat map for that area, because it's somebody else's property, we don't own that property, they are going to develop it, they have already -- they are in conversations with someone else to design that. So we felt that that should actually be somebody else's responsibility to come up with the design for that and they will have to come before you in the future with a preliminary plat. Staff wants a stub street to the south. They can make that a requirement on the Boyack family when that property comes back in the future. It will be developed, but it's not going to be developed by us at this time. It's not a part of the overall development. It's a part of the plat, it's a five acre parcel, and when it comes to resubdivision of that large lot, it would fall under their responsibility. So, I just wanted to make that clear. If I could shift gears just a little bit. The subdivision provides a variety of different types of lot sizes. Commissioner Zaremba, you pointed that out, that there is some really small lots and there is some large lots. The overall average size for the lots within the subdivision is 9,000 plus in size. In an R-4's density the requirement is for a minimum of 8,000 square feet. On the average, if you would average all the lots, it's actually larger than a typical R-4 subdivision, which would allow far the 8,000 square foot. But the reason why it was split up that way is to provide for a variety of different housing types. Within a subdivision you don't want everything to look identical to each other, you want to provide for a variety. You also don't want to, as Anna pointed out, shut some people out from being Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 17 of B9 able to move in there. Some people may want to build homes within this area on the east, which are the smaller lots -- on the west, which are the small lots and on the east side you have the larger lots. You have mentioned how, Commissioner Zaremba, there was some concern that these lots may all be built with 12,000 square feet on them. One of the big reasons that you don't see that is economy. The lots are expensive. The larger the lot you have, the more it costs, and most people don't spend 60,000 to 70,000 dollars for a lot and, then, build a very small house on that. Conversely, they may spend more money on a small lot and build a larger house on that in order to maximize what they have on that site. They typically don't try to minimize the size of house on a large lot. The request for the 12,000 -- for the 1,200 square foot house would be to allow housing in this area within the smaller lots in order to meet setbacks. The lots are big enough to provide for bigger houses, but it provides an option for those people if they don't want to have such a large home and not everybody wants to have a large home, as Brad mentioned, that, you know, design is very important, not all homes have to be large and not everybody demands a large home. So, it's just an option for them, but typically people don't spend a great deal of money on a lot and, then, put a small house on it. If it doesn't make sense financially it's hard to resell in the future if you can't get your money out of it, because all the value is in the lot and not the house. Borup: Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: Uh-huh. Borup: Back to Commissioner Zaremba's thought on that. Would you be comfortable with stipulating that 1,200 feet to certain blocks or -- I mean you have pointed-out an area where you anticipate that those would be. Would that be a problem to limit that to -- was that along the line you were thinking, Commissioner? Rather than the whole subdivision? Zaremba: Well, actually, I liked Director Powell's suggestion, that similar to the R-8 zone, we say certain that a certain percentage of them could be and I wouldn't mind seeing that get into the ordinance for R-4 -- Borup: Well, but in the R-8 zone -- in the R-8 zone they specify specific lots, which sometimes can be hard to work, because you may not want to put that house on that lot and I don't know how they -- I don't know how staff regulates a percentage. Isn't that difficult? Hawkins-Clark: Well, we have -- we have required that they specifically show on the preliminary plat which houses are 1,200 -- I mean 1,201 and 1,301, so both the preliminary and final plat it -- Borup: I know and that's what I'm saying. There is some problems with that. I mean somebody may want to put a 1,600 foot house on an 1,100 foot designated lot and vice- versa. The one person can do it that goes larger, but if the other one wants to go smaller may not, even though it's well under the percentages that were allowed for the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 18 of 89 subdivision. I don't know if that's -- maybe that's a problem that doesn't -- hasn't really existed, though. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, if I just could just interject on that. I can answer your question and for staff how it becomes difficult. The idea is not to have a whole lot of small homes. If someone wants to build larger on those lots that are designated, it still goes towards those lots as being allowed. This is, actually, a map that I haven't shown you yet. The dark brown area -- I don't know if everyone can see this. This would be the western side. This is where the smaller lots are in the brown area. The yellow side are the larger lots within the subdivision. We would be happy to say the 1,200 square foot minimum would apply to this side, the brown area. So, all this area could have the 1,200 square foot minimum and over here go back to the standard 1,400 square foot minimum for the R-4 zone. I'm going to have to shift gears again. I just looked down at my notes and I know that we have talked about the secondary access already and we have talked about the gravel. One other thing to point out is where we are bringing this sewer down from Joshua Tree through the collector, that 20 foot wide strip of pavement that the city staff has asked for would actually create a couple of problems. One is the sewer would be under there, but water and the other types of services may not be under there at the time that the sewer is installed. In addition to that, all that asphalt would have to be cut out as we gb through and put in the landscaping. It would actually be wasted asphalt. It would be something we would have to cut out in the future, rather than having to install it and, then, in two or three years have to rip it back out, we'd prefer to have the all weather surface, the gravel, like the Fire Department and Police Chief were comfortable with, rather than to go to the asphalt. Rohm: And it's your proposal to install that at this time, Dave? McKinnon: What would happen is that this 50 lots would get developed, they would all sewer back to Havasu Creek. The sewer line in the future would come in at Joshua, run down this direction, we would take the sewer from here and build the second phase. This roadway would only be constructed to this phase. It would continue to remain as gravel in this section. As each phase goes forward we would install the landscaping islands and construct the roads and sidewalks and build over the sewer easement. Rohm: Well, it seemed to me that the secondary access and the sewer would be required before you could build out beyond the first 50 lots. McKinnon: That's correct Rohm: Correct? McKinnon: Yeah. Rohm: So, both those would have to go in before you go beyond the first 50 lots, is what you're referring to? Meritlian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 19 of 89 McKinnon: That's correct. What we really don't want to be stuck with is a requirement to install asphalt over the top of the sewer line and, then, within two to three years or one year came back and have to rip out all that asphalt that we have installed. The Fire Department's okay with the gravel road. The Police Department is okay with the gravel road over the sewer. It's just -- it's city staff at this point that's asking for it to be paved, but if we have to pave it, then, we are stuck with having to tear it out in the future in order to put the rest of the improvements in the subdivision. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup -- Zaremba: Kind of sideways on that subject -- let me just do one quick and then -- I'm sorry. Regardless of whether we talk about asphalt or gravel surface, it sounded like you were saying that the sewer line would actually run under the center landscaping aisle, which doesn't sound right to me, because you're not going to be able to plant trees or anything if it's over the sewer line. Wouldn't you still run the sewer under a paved portion of the road on the northbound or the southbound side? McKinnon: That still would be under the paved portion of the road. However, in order to install that we would have to rip that out, that section of asphalt. Zaremba: Yeah. I'm sorry, Brad. Hawkins-Clark: That's okay. Thank you. I think the main point of difference here -- we are talking about -- Dave's talking about an emergency vehicle access. We are talking about a public access that residences would use to get to their homes. We have approved emergency accesses many places throughout the city that have only gravel. I don't think there is any question are we supportive of a secondary temporary emergency access being gravel, but we are talking about a public access to serve these homes and I don't think anybody here believes that this entire subdivision will build out without that Aschenbrenner property coming through. We are not here to dispute. that. I think our point is if you say they can do it, you do potentially have 400 lots with one permanent vehicular access and the other one is gravel, 20 foot gravel strip. Potentially that's what you're approving. Four hundred lots with only one permanent vehicular access. Borup: You're talking about having the pavement back to Meridian Road; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Freckleton: If I might just add something to that, too, Mr. Chairman. The utilities are going to follow the progression of the phases into the development, so the only thing that we are potentially talking about is, as Dave has stated, the gravel -- or, excuse me, the asphalt over the top of the sewer. The water mains are going to follow the progression of the phases. They are going to come in with each phase, so you're not -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 20 of 89 you know, with the installation of water, the water is not going to be underneath that gravel -- or underneath that asphalt road until that phase develops. You're going to have to -- it's all going to progress into the property. Borup: Yeah. I think we understood -- understood that. Rohm: Water and sewer are coming from opposite directions Zaremba: We have had this discussion on other properties. What provides the loop for the water system? Where else does it go? If it's only going up this collector, it's a dead end system; right? Will it connect somewhere else, eventually, and be a loop? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, it will. This, more than likely, will be a residential collector coming in. More than likely will be a residential collector coming in from Meridian Road and we would be looking at a 12 inch water main coming in when that is developed as a permanent residential collector, unless at the time -- this is really hard to predict, because development in the north end, we have to evaluate each phase of these developments as come in. I mean if they come in with phase two and we run water modeling and determine that we can't do it, unless it's looped, then, a condition is going to be placed on the second phase that they provide the loop at that point in time. So, it's kind of crystal ball when that looping will be necessary, but I can tell you it will be at some point in the future. Zaremba: But we don't need to establish that requirement, it would came up during the permit process. Fredkleton: Correct Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, while you're on that first -- could you clarify on the sewer line for that first 50? So, that's going to be going into the -- across and through a lift station. What happens when the permanent trunk line gets to that? Will that be abandoned, then? Bruce? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, it will be. There is a -- in our facility plan there is a sewer main that is shown planned to come up McMillan that will take that lift station off line and, then, this 50 lots in Saguaro will gravity flow to this permanent line in McMillan Road, as will a lot of the Cobre Basin project will sewer out -- Borup: That line goes into the North Trunk? Freckleton: That will go to the White Trunk. Yeah. This is a branch of the White Trunk, this portion. Borup: Well, that's where it's being pumped to now, isn't it? The White Trunk? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 21 of 89 Freckleton: Yes. Borup: Okay. So, the route it's taking now, it requires a lift station. The new route will gravity flow to the White Trunk. Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Borup: Still going to the same trunk link, but different method --different route. All right. Freckleton: Yeah. Borup: I was not clear on that. McKinnon: There is no reverse flow back to the new North Slough Trunk. I guess two more things before I finish up. Just for your information, we have spent quite a bit of time working with the Larkwood Homeowners Association. There was some mention that we -- this has been revised. There were originally 27 lots that were designed adjacent to the Larkwood homeowners association. The new revised plat, actually, only provides 20 adjacent to that, so, essentially, seven lots were moved or eliminated. Some were eliminated, some were shifted elsewhere within the subdivision, but we have got it down to 20. So, essentially; there is two lots that back up to each of those homes. The homes that back up to Larkwood average over I believe 13,000 square feet in size. Some are 10,000, some are 17,000, but overall they are about 13,000 square feet in size. The largest lots within the subdivision back up to Larkwood, which is the estate subdivision. So, we have tried to accommodate the largest lots adjacent to the subdivision that's adjacent to us and tried to work with them on that. Finally, there was a great deal of discussion about whether or not we understand the risks involved with not having sewer to the site right now and we understand that. We are happy to sign an agreement that says that is, yes, we understand that sewer may not get to this point right now and, no, we will not sue the city if sewer is not there when we are ready for it. That's something we are willing to move forward with tonight and give you assurances that that's something that we will do. We are happy to make that part of the development agreement or just an agreement to the plat. We don't feel that it should be -- should be waited upon until you guys have a chance to review that. We are more than happy to give you that assurance tonight, so that it can move on to City Council. I think we have a good project here. There is a lot of design that went into this and, again, I wish I could claim some of it. They did most of it without my help and they have done a really good job and I would ask for your approval and ask if you have any questions of me at this time. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. We tried to ask them as -- Zaremba: We drilled him pretty well. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 22 of H9 Borup: Okay. We'd like to turn this over to public testimony time. We had -- it looks like about five people have signed up. If any of those would still like to come forward, we'd like to do that right now. Greiner: My name is'Rob Greiner. I work with John and Ed Pritty who own the property at 5740 North Meridian Road. Unfortunately, they are not able to be here tonight, so I'm representing them. They own the piece of property that is right adjacent or abut to the west side of the development. There is 20 acres there. Part of our concern is we are not a usual type of tear down house. We have -- Vic Cook used to own it, for those who know Vic, and it's about a 7,000 square foot home, maybe ten years old at the most, and it has a beautiful attached barn to it. Our concern is we have no plans to tear that down. Currently we have horses on the property, which requires an electric fence to go around the entire perimeter of it. During early spring to late fall we usually have 30 to 40 head of cattle, usually one or two bull, and so our concern is, number one, for the safety and right now it looks like there is probably seven homes that abut to our property line. With an electric fence and with the bull, we are a little concerned about that. Number two, when you think of safety, you think of liability exposure. I'm not sure what kind of -- we are looking into it -- what kind of liability we may have as homeowners with an electric fence and bull and cattle. So that leads us to number three -- Borup: Are you anticipating that there will be an electric fence exposed to the neighbors you mean? Greiner: Well, currently it is. We have a pole fence -- pole fencing -- Borup: Right. You understood they are putting a perimeter fence around the property? Greiner: No, I did not. All I knew is that they said on Larkwood they are going to put a six foot vinyl fence. That's all I have heard so far. Borup: They are doing a fence around the whole perimeter. Greiner: So, the whole property will be a six foot fence that's vinyl all the way up? Borup: Well, they have committed to vinyl on Larkwood. The other side maybe other material. Probably -- Greiner: What other kind of -- Borup: Cedar. But either way a solid fence. Greiner: Okay. And that wasn't presented. And I guess one of our -- Borup: Sorry we didn't bring that out. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 23 of 89 Greiner: But one of our concerns is we were never approached and, you know, I don't know how many linear feet we have there, but we were alittle -- not upset, but just wondered why we weren't approached on the property line and discussed it, due to the fact we did have bulls and cattle out there. I guess our final remarks is we would -- when Brad, the planner, first came forward and said he would --what they really wanted to do is annex the first portion of that, I guess we hardly agree with that and we have nothing against development, it just seems like without a complete north Meridian plan we are not sure where our property is going to fall in and what we are going to end up going to be zoned like and so our concerns are there. We are not sure if your plan is not have residential property entirely around us and surround us, where does that lead us. So we have deep concerns, you know, two or three years down the road from now. Because currently we are a ranching operation and we don't intend to change that. Borup: Right. But you're wondering what you probably may be zoned in the future you're saying? Greiner: Yeah. Or where you're headed at. I know we have talked to Mike Atkins, who owns this property right above us and he has the exact same comments we have. We are just not sure where Meridian is headed and what -- you know, we can look at all the future maps that you have a lot of our property, but we are not exactly sure what that means. Does that mean -- Borup: Well, that is -- that is the conceptual plan of where it would be headed is on the Comprehensive Plan map. Greiner: So, is the long range plan, then, for a small ranching operation, just to kind of push us out? I guess I'm just trying to figure out where we stand two or three years from now. Borup: Well, you can stay there as long as you want. Greiner: Right. Borup: No one is going to push you out. Greiner: Right. Borup: As far as forcing you off the property. I mean there is -- Greiner: It just becomes not very feasible when you're surrounded by residential homes entirely around you. Borup: Yeah. Greiner: You know, I don't think we have a new concern, it's just a concern we have right now. And so we were voicing it, as opposed to the entire property being annexed Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 24 of 89 at this time. And one of the things that Iguess -- if it came down to it and if you were going to support the total annexation of it, we would ask if there is any way we could purchase some of the property back from the development and build a berm there and we'd feel a little more safer about having a large berm or a ten foot high berm between our property and the adjacent subdivision. So, that would be one of the things we would ask for or suggest and we would be willing to pay the, you know, fair market value for that. Borup: Wouldn't it be less expensive just to put the berm on your property and not have to purchase? Greiner: Our problem is that -- we can do that, perhaps. Our property goes -- it kind of goes along -- you can't really see it, but it goes along right -- the property is right there and the ditch kind of goes around it inside the property somewhat, so it would take a little bit from our side as well trying to go over the ditch and put the berm on top of the ditch,, so there would probably be some engineering involved with that. That's something we can probably think of. Rohm: I think the thing that's most important here is that the developer will be required to put a fence along that line and so there will be a definite line between their development and your operation and -- Greiner: Yeah. I apologize, that just wasn't in the handout that I was given, so I wasn't aware of that. Rohm: Okay. Greiner: That helps somewhat. Those are my comments. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Come forward Youngberg: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Mike Youngberg. I live at 5075 North Larkwood, which is the subdivision to the east. I guess I get the responsibility of representing the homeowners association, so, hopefully, we will answer some of your questions and ask some of our concerns as well. When we first were notified about the subdivision, we had several concerns. We wrote a memo, submitted that on November 25th that included five -- five items and rather than read through that, I'm just going to briefly summarize them. The first one was there were four lots -- can we go back -- well, this is probably easier, because they are pretty small on there. There are two homes in our subdivision which are right here and here that come fairly close to the perimeter. Our subdivision is two to three acre lots and so we were concerned about those two homes having a home all of a sudden right on their backside, so we approached Farwest about putting height restrictions on the lots behind them, to which they have preliminarily agreed to do so on those four lots. The other -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 25 of 89 Borup: Are those houses that you're concerned about, they are also single level homes, then? Youngberg: The ones that are on our subdivision, those are single level homes. Borup: Okay. Youngberg: We also had as our second, the vinyl fence. We suggested that there be a six foot solid fence, with an additional one foot of lattice on top of that. What came back was a six foot fence, with the top foot of that being a lattice design. We are okay with that. In the report from -- from your staff it indicated our original request of it being white. We have since, then, changed dur opinion and would like that to be a natural color, with a light brown, tan color. Again, I have talked to Farwest about that and they seem to be okay with that. In fact, it's probably easier for them to tie in with their wood than it is a white fence. Zaremba: You're still asking for it to be vinyl, butjust that color? Youngberg: Yes. That's correct. The third item that we addressed in that memo was regarding the transition between Larkwood and Saguaro Canyon being consistent with our sister subdivision, which is Dunwoody. Can you go to one of the -- Borup: It's across -- Youngberg: Just across Locust Grove. Borup: -- Locust Grove. It's quite a ways away. Youngberg: Well, this is Dunwoody right here and, then, this is Vienna Woods and we are right here. Our subdivision and Dunwoody were developed at the same time with the same covenants. When Vienna Woods went in, they spent a lot of time working out a transitidn between. two and they ended up with the larger lots, as you can see, up against them. They have five of their lots that actually touch buildable lots in the Dunwoody Subdivision and those ended up being 20, 22 thousand square foot lots. Farwest has done some significant changing and have increased the size -- the average size of the lots by about 2,000 square feet between us, with the exception of two or three lots, which I'll address a little later. For the most part we are comfortable -- as comfortable, I guess, as we are going to be with having the development go in. None of us are willing to buy the property behind us in order to keep our view, so we will live with the development. The other thing -- the fourth item was the tiling of any of the ditches that carry water. Those ditches being on the perimeter between our subdivision and their subdivision. If there were going to be a ditch and, then, a fence, it would cause some real problems taking care of that. They are not our ditches, it's just the water passing through our subdivision. They have agreed as well to the those, so they have been positive in that. And, then, the final request in that original memo was pressurized irrigation. They are going to put pressurized irrigation in theirs and we suggested that it Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 26 of 89 would be nice if we could have access to that and transfer our water rights over to that pumping station and for any of the residents along the west side of Larkwood could tie into their pressurized irrigation and they have agreed to that as well. So, we have had a positive interchange with them. We have -- we have received -- and I don't know whether it was submitted, but we received from them an agreement which outlines those five items that we have talked about regarding the fence and the tiling and so on. So, we would ask that those items be included in the Conditional Use Permit, to have those part of that permit. Borup: Mr. Youngberg. Youngberg: Yes. Borup: Since you have put that on the record, I don't believe we have a copy. Did staff get a copy of that? Zaremba: I don't recognize that. Borup: Maybe if that could be submitted for the -- Youngberg: Sure. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the letter of November 26 or Youngberg: No. This is January 6th. Hawkins-Clark: Oh. Okay. Yeah. No, we have not. Youngberg: The only -- the only unresolved issues -- when we found out there was a revised plat map, we got a copy of it, they brought it out to us a couple nights ago. We had another meeting last night with the homeowners and there are just a couple of items left that we wanted to address. I have notified Farwest of these, but to point them out to you, one of them pertains to -- right here. There is a walkway path through here. That path comes in and ends at our property. The reason that path was put in there, according to what we have been told, is that's where they are proposing stubbing the sewer that would, then, go on through our property -- or through our subdivision and on over towards Vienna Woods and pick up the property on the other side of our subdivision as well. We understand that there may come a time when that sewer has come to through, but we would prefer not to have a walkway that would give any indication of pedestrian traffic coming on into our subdivision. We'd like that fence to be solid and if the fence is going to be solid along that perimeter, then,. it would make more sense to go ahead and incorporate that into someone's lot, if there is any way to do that. I don't know whether there is or not, but -- Borup: Now my plat does not show a pathway. Maybe we can get -- we will get some clarification on that. It shows a landscaped area, but not a pathway. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 27 of 89 Youngberg: This one shows landscape, but according to what I was told it was going to be a paved path or something similar to that. Borup: We will get some clarification on that. Youngberg: Okay. Then, the only other item that we had was regarding the lots just to the north of that path, 43 through 46. If you look at 45 and 46 -- especially 46, they are very narrow at the front. They are 32 or 40 feet -- Borup: Forty-four. Youngberg: At the front of those and it would be more suitable to allow for the kind of home and the kind of lots consistent with what they have done along the rest of the perimeter, instead of having those four lots right there, if they were to combine those and make those three lots to get rid of those two long, narrow, deep lots. And so we would ask that you consider that as well. The last item was just in general. There has been discussion about the Conditional Use Permit regarding the lots size and the house size and just the subdivision in general. Obviously, you're dealing with this a lot more than we are and we are going to rely on you to make sure that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it be a positive thing for our community. We have equal concern that there might be smaller homes -- real small homes and lower values right next to us. With what they have laid out here it looks more positive and if you can keep those -- the smaller, less expensive homes to the other side, that would be very favorable from our aspect. Borup: And that's what they have committed to. Youngberg: Yes. So, that's all we have. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Youngberg? I have maybe just a clarification on the fence. I think I got a little confused when you started talking about the fence height. Youngberg: Originally we were looking at a seven foot -- Borup: Okay. That's -- but you realize that didn't meet the city ordinance. Youngberg: Yeah. The proposal that came in was six and we are okay with that. Borup: Okay. And that is the city ordinance on the six, so that's probably part of that -- all right. So, we are fine with that. Youngberg: Yes. Borup: But you still wanted the lattice on top of the six? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 28 of B5 Youngberg: The five foot solid and, then, a foot lattice. Again, if you look over at the Vienna Woods, Dunwoody, that's what they have done over there and it's very attractive. Borup: It's very attractive, but it gives you less privacy. Youngberg: We have got a lot of -- we have got land in between us and that works Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come forward, sir. Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. I own the 30 acres that abuts both Larkwood and the Saguaro Canyon -- right in this area. Larkwood butts to me on one side, Dunwoody buts to me on the other side off of Narth Locust Grove Road. At the time both of those subdivisions were built they were the first subdivisions that were approved under a new ordinance and they allowed some significant variances in that they were allowed each to have two lots, a building lot and an agricultural lo[. Immediately after those were approved, the commissioners decided that they had made a big mistake and that they would not allow any additional subdivisions to be approved with that concept, including my 30 acres. What I would ask tonight is that anything that you approve for this subdivision, that you don't get wishy washy and if I come in with my 30 acres and say, well, I'd like to do what they do and specifically if they are requesting smaller lots, smaller frontages, smaller home sizes, that you don't come back and say, geez, we made a mistake, we wish we hadn't of done that and we are not going to allow anybody else to do that. Borup: Okay. I might just clarify that the commissioners you're talking about are county commissioners. Lee: Yes. Borup: Not Meridian City Commissioners. Lee: Yes. You're better than they are. Second concern, they have got a street that butts into my property and my home is -- can we get a different map up there that shows Larkwood? Borup: This is your property here; is that correct? Lee: Yes. I feel like we are playing Star Wars here. My home sits right here, which would be the next house in Larkwood, if Larkwood continued on. It's a 10,000 square foot house. They have done a pretty good job with allowing larger lots sizes on the homes that abut the Larkwood Subdivision, but by the time they get to my property where I have got an actual street abutting through, the houses on the corner where Totem Pole Street butts through, are pretty small lot sizes and I think that's going to impact my house and any potential there: If and when our property is developed, I think there is probably going to be a mix, which there would have to be to give us a buffer Meridian Planning & Zoning January B, 2004 Page 29 of 89 with the size of our home against the smaller houses. I would ask that this property and the concessions that have been made for the Larkwood people, since my property abuts both Larkwood and this, be consistent and extend through my property, as well as through the Larkwood property as far as the size of the lots being bigger and as far as fencing being consistent. I mentioned the name of the street Totem Pole. I have talked to Marty. He seemed to amenable to change that name, inasmuch as if that street ever extehds through, I think we would lose our Locust Grove Street address and be required to take a Totem Pole Street address, which I don't like. I suggested the name Saguaro Canyon, which there is no street in the subdivision named Saguaro Canyon. That would be an acceptable name and Marty was going to give that some consideration, but I'd like to have some input whether or not I'm going to spend the rest of my life on Totem Pole Street or something that will have a little more significant value to me. Okay. Those are the four things that I mentioned. The name of the street, being consistent with fencing on my property, since it abuts both Larkwood and the Saguaro Canyon and that any variances that you allow under the Conditional Use Permit, make sure that's what you want to do, because if and when my property is developed, it will probably be asking for similar things. And my concern with the actual street Totem Pole where it butts into my property, dropping down to very small lot sizes on both corners in what comes into mine and it would be a street that would go passed my house, which is the ten thousand square foot. Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Lee? Rohm: I think just a comment that I believe the developer had already stipulated that all lots along that east line would be a minimum of 1,400 square foot. Borup: Right. And the lot -- and all of the lots on there are larger than the minimum R-4 requirement. Lee: But there is a significant drop in size once it leaves Larkwood. Borup: There is. Then, I'm going back and thinking back to the statement you made, you want us to be consistent and I assume you also want to be consistent with the zoning ordinances and the Comp Plan and everything else, too? Lee: Correct. Borup: But, then, you're asking us to be inconsistent here where it's against your property, but in the future you want it to be consistent. Lee: It sounds like it's two different things, doesn't it? Borup: It does. Yeah. Lee: I have got two different problems. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 30 of 89 Borup: I understand. Lee: The problems is where I butt up against Larkwood and if and when we do any developing, the same Larkwood people are going to come to me and say we would like you to be consistent with what's already been done. That's my reasoning. Borup: Well -- and I can understand that, but I think it's maybe putting more restrictions on your property in the future than less. Lee: Okay. Borup: I mean at this point, other than just saying you want to increase the size there above the -- above the 8,000 foot on all those lots. Lee: Okay. Borup: Any other comments from any Commissioners? Lee: What you're saying is I should have sent my wife. Borup: No. I don't know. I was just pointing that out. If we made them change and they are in compliance and if we are going to be consistent in the future, then, that would be inconsistent with saying we can change -- change that on your property, too, which is what you said you wanted, so I'm not sure if that's what you really want. Lee: Tell me that one more time. Rohm: I think he's just saying that there is going to be transitional lots within any subdivision and if, in fact, you're asking them not to have any transitional within their subdivision, then, there would be no transitional within a proposed subdivision that you would put together at a later date. Isn't that kind of what you're saying, Mr. Chairman? Borup: I think so. Lee: So put the transitional ones on my side of the fence. Rohm: The transition is still larger than the lot sizes as a whole, so even though it's not as large as they are moving south, they are still larger the minimum lot size for the zoning. Lee: Okay. Borup: We will also see if the developer has any thoughts or comment on that. Lee: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 31 of 89 Borup: We had one more person signed up. Okay. Do you have any -- Zaremba: I would comment -- Borup: -- conclusion, Mr. McKinnon? Zaremba: -- both the applicant and staff -- the mention of the street names made me look a little bit closer. All of the east-west streets are designated as west something. West San Pedro. West Giant Saguaro. This property being east of Meridian Road, shouldn't those all be east? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, we don't have any street naming experts here tonight, but the preliminary plat is just that, I mean in terms of street names. I guess I would just say bear that in mind. The actual final street names have to be approved through the Ada County street naming committee, which happens at the time of the final plat for each phase, so -- Zaremba: They remember to look at east and west? Hawkins-Clark: I think they will remember to look at that. But I think you are correct. Yeah. Meridian Road certainly is the dividing line for east and west. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, do you have any final comments? I assume the engineer figured it was east of Boise and that's what counts is Boise. Or west of Boise I mean. McKinnon: I think we can get that worked out. We can just jump right on Totem Pole. We can swap that name with another street name in here. Maybe -- would San Pedro be better? Lee: I'd like the change to meet with them and review a list. McKinnon: Okay. I think we can come up with something on that. It's just a preliminary plat right now and when the final plat comes on hand we can -- we can work with that and we can move Totem Pole around in there. I know somebody liked the name Totem Pole, so if we can keep that, we'd like to be able to do that. I might just make a couple of quick responses. I think it was Mr. Purdy -- is that -- I was really off. There was a little bit of question about fencing and, obviously, there is going to be a fence that we will install there, a specific type of fence that's planned there, but that's something we can work with on that. As far as a berm -- a berm -- having to sell some land woold definitely change all of the lots and lot arrangements there, but we'd, you know, prefer to put the fence and have that be the buffer for that. As far as the north Meridian area plan is concerned, it hasn't yet been adopted and the document that's been provided to the City of Meridian and adopted by you and by the City Council that projects the future growth is, of course, the Comprehensive Plan and any questions concerning how it's going to grow in the future, those questions can be answered within the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Youngberg submitted to you a letter from Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 32 of 89 Farwest, LLC, and it's now of record, it just goes through those five issues that Mr. Youngberg brought up and we have agreed to do those now that it's in the record. There were two other items that were brought up by Mr. Youngberg. I will just address those really quickly. Brad, if you can go forward to the preliminary plat. The small pathway lot that runs out at this location, they said they didn't want a pathway going through there and the City of Meridian sewer line is going to go through Larkwood at some point and that's where they are showing the sewer line going through. That's even better. It doesn't necessarily have to be at this location, but as we discussed earlier, the City of Meridian requires you put a base aver the sewer line and what they typically request is gravel -- 14 foot wide gravel base over the top of that and rather than have a 14 foot wide gravel, we'd like to put asphalt in this location. It's a cleaner look, because this will be permanent and the access road itself is temporary and this would be a permanent thing, so we'd like to be able to put asphalt in that location, where ever it goes through, and that's something that can be moved. It just depends on where the City of Meridian determines that the sewer line has to go through. Addressing the -- Borup: Still on that, Mr. McKinnon, but you're not anticipating a gate there, though, at this point? McKinnon: At this point, no. If the City of Meridian -- Borup: I think that was one of their concerns. McKinnon: But we don't want to place just gravel as a permanent item over the top of a sewer line, we'd rather it be permanent and look nice and so -- Borup: But, then, a solid fence through there? McKinnon: Yeah. That's fine. Addressing his second comment that was not on that list was the request to remove one of the lots -- one of the four lots. Let's see. One, two, three, four -- these four lots. Removing one of those lots in order to have larger lots there. Every one of those exceeds the minimum by quite a few thousand square feet, except fdr this one -- this lot right here. It's just over 9,000 square feet. These lots are in the 11,000 square foot range. We can reduce the width of both of these two lots and, then, add that width to these two lots, so those lots are no longer pie shaped as much and it will add some width to it, so they can bring the house more forward and if the house is brought more forward, it provides that separation that they are looking for. Right now the pie-shaped wedge that they have, that pie shape forces the house to be setback further, which brings the house closer to the back fence, the rear yard. If we can make those wider, they can pull the house more forward. If the house is more forward it's away from those properties and we can keep those four lots. It would just takes some reconfigurement, making these two lots more narrow and widening these two lots. That would create and atmosphere that would be able to bring those houses more forward, rather than having to eliminate one lot to make it wider. The lots are big that are there and they are all going to average over 10,000 square feet in size. Those are big lots and the people that are going to be purchasing homes in that area want the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 33 of B9 big lots and they are going to be building nicer homes on those lots and, like I said, we have agreed to do the single story homes on the four lots that back up to the two homes that are the closest to that. Those other four lots actually -- the other two lots don't back up to that. So, I just thought I'd point out that that's one way we can accommodate those pie shapes without removing -- Borup: Do you think you could add ten feet to each of those lots? McKinnon: These two lots right here, yeah, if we narrowed both of these two lots, one of them is over 100 feet and the other one is 98 feet and we could take ten feet out and still be around 90 feet each in width and the lots you could add the ten feet to it. Borup: Is that what you had in mind, ten feet out of the lot and add ten to the other two? McKinnon: Just reconfigure it so that they are not as pie shaped as they are right now. We do have some pie shaping that will take place just because of the 90 degree turn there, but we can make those lots wider to accommodate that, rather than removing a lot, and that would allow the houses to be brought more forward. I think that's the responses that I had to the questions that were brought up tonight. If you had any additional questions, I would be happy to answer those now. If you don't have any additional questions, I'll let you deliberate and if you come up with any questions, just holler at me to come back up. Mathes: What about consistent fencing for Mr. Lee? Borup: Continue that vinyl fence further north. McKinnon: If that's what you want us to add, the vinyl fence with the one foot lattice there, we can accommodate that. Zaremba: And you might just do that your whole western boundary -- or eastern bouhdary. McKinnon: If we are going to do it on that side, let's do the whole east side, then. Zaremba: I guess my question would be some discussion continuing about Prickly Pear, the cul-de-sacs or connection question. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: I kind of lean towards staffs request to have it connect. It certainly looks like it would -- once Joshua Tree is a main entrance from Meridian, it looks like it would help circulation a little bit to have Prickly Pear not be a cul-de-sac. I could be convinced either way on that, I suppose. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 34 of 89 Borup: I can see from a marketing standpoint there is a lot of desirability to the cul-de- sacs, as far as, you know, customer desirability, such as homeowners. I think that's what Mr. McKinnon said earlier that they were looking at. Cul-de-sac lots are usually the ones that sell out first. You're saying that would give -- that would give people coming in on that entrance an alternate way to get to the -- Zaremba: On the other hand, it might be just as wise to keep them off of Prickly Pear. I mean if Joshua Tree and Red Horse are going to be the major streets and providing them an extra cut through maybe isn't such a good idea. Borup: I like the idea of having the parking in there. That is usually a lot of the problem on cul-de-sacs. So, I think they have solved some of those objections. Zaremba: Well, by having the parking in the middle, it enlarges the turnaround for the fire trucks should they need to come in there. Borup: Okay. Did you have -- did you say you had a couple questions to that? Zaremba: That may have been it. Borup: Anything from any of the other Commissioners? Zaremba: I guess this is still discussing whether the second access -- certainly is a permanent public road, ACHD and staff would like to see that be paved. Borup: You did not address that, Mr. McKinnon, the fact that it's not just emergency access, but it's actually a public access. McKinnon: The request for it to become a public road, again, as the subdivision develops from south to north, whatever asphalt is in here that's put into that public road, it's not going to be built to ACRD standards right now. ACHD standards for a collector wouldn't be constructed. What the city staff is asking for is a 20 foot wide access road, not a typical collector roadway, which is what eventually will be constructed. The 20 foot wide road would allow for access -- typically a two lane road is 24 feet wide, it allows 12 feet of vehicle travel on both sides for each direction. A 20 foot wide road is, actually, not a full width for a two lane road, but it provides for the larger vehicles to travel on. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, do you know about how many lots we are talking about up to that access? McKinnon: That's about half. It's about 200 south of Joshua. Borup: About 200? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 35 of 89 McKinnon: It may be 175 to 200. I would have to count. But there is 441 additional lots -- 442 if you count the existing home. Zaremba: Well, the difficulty that that identifies is once you start building north of Joshua, you have 200 homes with only one exit to the south. Borup: And that was my concern. Zaremba: North of Joshua -- McKinnon: North of Joshua you have -- Borup: -- you have a 200 home cul-de-sac. McKinnon: We have two access points at that location. You have one out to Meridian, you can come around this direction. You also have one that you come down to this location and still have two accesses. Borup: That's assuming there is a permanent road to Meridian at that point. McKinnon: But if we are dealing with emergency vehicle access -- Borup: Brad, I'm remembering -- and there were probably some others, but I'm thinking back to Woodbridge. They were restricted to so many homes out of 150 before a secondary public access was -- is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: I believe it was more -- a little more than that. It was like 180. McKinnon: One eighty. Borup: One eighty. You were around, then, too. Zaremba: My thinking is before anything is built north of what is currently identified as San Pedro, there needs to be an access north. Borup: Or San Pedro as a permanent road to Meridian Zaremba: So, San Pedro isn't -- San Pedro is the one that's between the two parks. It's the east-west street, the next one up. That one is San Pedro. And since there is only -- Borup: Okay. I'm thinking this street right here. Zaremba: Well, that is the major collector. That's Joshua Tree and that's the major collector. And I can agree that up until we get to San Pedro there are two ways for those people to either get to McMillan or to Meridian. Once we get north of San Pedro, Meridian Planning & Zoning January S, 2004 Page 36 of 69 the east-west street San Pedro, which is halfway between the two parks, there is only one way out for all of those people until there is a north access. McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, let me see if I follow you here. You're saying that there is only one way out at this point, you have the road that runs north-south here and you have the road that runs north-south in this location. Borup: I think he's saying if this road -- if this road is blocked there is no way out. McKinnon: If this road is blocked there is no way out. Lee: Totem Pole. Zaremba: My question to staff would be how many conditions can we tie to phasing. They can only go so far until there is two accesses, then, they can only go so much farther until there is an access to the north. Can we do things like that? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. That's an option for the Commission. Zaremba: Because I am concerned about the -- how many people might be stuck -- McKinnon: This isn't the only access north-south on San Pedro. There is this access here as well. Borup: There is one there, but still -- McKinnon: There is two accesses on San Pedro. There is not just one. This isn't a center one that's only there. There is this one as well off of Totem Pale. So, there actually is two accesses. It doesn't bottleneck at this location. Borup: I think we were overlooking that. At least I was. So, at same point there needs to be another secondary access, though. Or another main access. Just another pedestrian -- I mean another vehicle access, not emergency. McKinnon: The Uniform Fire Code requires the two accesses and they require the distance of the second access for a subdivision like this to be half the distance of the width -- of the length of the subdivision in this case, because the length is wider than the width -- it's greater than the width, so you have to measure from this point to this point in the subdivision. The secondary access point has to be half of this distance away. Joshua Tree falls right in that location. That's what the Fire Department requires, according to the International Fire Code. It's half the distance. They don't require a third access point beyond that. It's a secondary access point. Borup: Right. I don't think there is any question on the fire and emergency access. It's just traffic flow. Is that part of what you were getting at, Commissioner Zaremba? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 37 of 89 Zaremba: Well, both traffic flaw and emergency. Not necessarily emergency access, but emergency exit. You know, what if those 200 homes had to evacuate quickly for some reason? Borup: Well, there is two roads, so -- I mean most of the subdivisions in town that are large are going to have situations like that. We are still back to -- I think what started this -- Zaremba: And I could even be comfortable with the idea that by the time the phasing gets that far there will be an access north. Borup: Brad, I mean you have -- or brought up the point that -- the question was not emergency access, but a vehicle access and, then, at what point do we need to be concerned on the number of homes in there before there is a permanent access to the subdivision? We stated, you know, previously 180 was the number in another subdivision. Hawkins-Clark: I guess two quick responses. One is that was before the city adopted the International Fire Code. We were working the Uniform Fire Code at that point and the International Fire Code does have -- I think it's Appendix D talks about access points and it did get more restrictive than the Uniform and so we do have that as far as the emergency. But there really is not any ordinance in the City bf Meridian's code that says X number before a permanent secondary. I think we are relying somewhat on, you know, some common sense here and as well as the -- from the highway district standpoint when they talk about access, they are talking about public access, and they have a standard that says you can't have a cul-de-sac and we do have a planner on staff and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's -- a cul-de-sac cannot have more than 400 trips a day, equivalent to 40 houses. So, beyond that -- which is what this would be without a secondary public access, it would be deemed a cul-de-sac. I believe. Now, I'm -- we don't have an Ada County Highway District represented here, but -- Borup: Okay. Mr. Martin, you had a comment? Martin: Yeah. I am Justin Martin with Farwest. My address is 5606 North Ten Mile Road. I just wanted to put a couple of comments in on the paved secondary access. If it's not related to fire or police, who have seem to have given this project somewhat of a good review, which is better than most of the projects that we bring in. We get it from fire and police, because they are usually really concerned about the items. I think -- I think asking us to pave a road, a secondary access, would be relying on Aschenbrenner, the developer who is going to develop out Aschenbrenner, so if I was that developer or maybe not me -- if somebody -- somebody else was that developer that maybe isn't of the quality of the people that are going to develop that property or whatever the case may be, if I knew I had a restriction -- my neighboring developer, my competition, had a restriction of building so many lots and he couldn't only build to this certain point until he had this other access, which was paved out to Meridian Road, well, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 38 of 89 then, I would simple start my subdivision, build it the other direction, so that was my last phase that got paving out to Meridian Road, because that would hold up my competition. I don't think that's at all the intent of the city of what they are trying to do here, they are trying to do something that makes sense to the city. Two other points. ACHD, obviously, has reviewed a traffic plan for the project. Ttiey are content with that collector going up the middle and the traffic loads on that. The Fire Department is okay or content with the secondary access being gravel, such as we got approved in Lochsa Falls and we got approved in Havasu Creek just in the last year, being our secondary accesses in those projects, and, then, the last comment would be is that -- keep in mind we are the first project in the door in this square mile and Mr. Lee's property is going to go soon in the way of -- it's just wide open it somebody has the money to go buy it, it would be developable, the front half of that sewer is already -- I mean if we had the money we would buy that and develop it. Aschenbrenner's property is -- people talked about the school district's over there, plans on building there, and I understand there is an option on the other part to a developer. I mean they are not going to sit on that land, you're going to see those connections. And maybe our plan is five, six years at build out. Nobody's going to sit on developable land out there without bringing something before you, once they see things being approved in a mile section. That's it. I'd stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? And I just reviewing the ACHD report and they made no mention of any other access, so -- Zaremba: Now they mention Lochsa Falls, I remember some discussion in that that ACHD considers that a divided street to be usable as two streets. If there were an accident on one half of it, they could still use the other side, even going the wrong direction. Martin: That divides -- you mean with the -- like the center islands down the middle? Zaremba: The one with the center islands down it, they -- Martin: That's a good point. It would be pretty tough to block both. You would have to jump a 20 foot curb. Zaremba: They consider that usable as two separate streets, because you could go the wrong direction on the other side if it were an emergency. Martin: That's a good point. Zaremba: I don't know if that satisfies staff or not, but I -- the reason that we had a cul- de-sac with only one exist in Lochsa Falls -- I mean not a cul-de-sac, there was a big loop that had a lot of houses on it and only -- it looked like only one road in, but because it was divided, ACHD didn't have an issue with it. Am I remembering that correctly? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, I'm sorry, I do not recall if that's correct or not Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 39 of 89 Borup: But it sounds logical. Martin: On Lochsa Falls specifically the fire access was the -- was a road that connected on -- on Ten Mile via the sewer line coverage road and we started constructing on Linder Road. Havasu Creek had a similar situation where off-site sewer was brought up to start construction off of Locust Grove and it needed access. Secondary was going to be from Meridian Road all the way to Locust Grove over that -- over that sewer line and I understand that that's -- that's not their concern as far as fire truck access, it's more something else. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just follow up on one thing Mr. Martin mentioned about the fact that they really don't have control over Mr. Aschenbrenner's property and I think that that's part of the reason that we want to determine when that goes. Again, if that develops in the next two or three years, all this discussion is moot, because likely they are going to have it. I think we are just talking about the worst case scenario, that they don't have control over that, so we do need to consider just this 140 from acres. This is what we are -- I think we really need, for long range planning and good circulation and safety concerns and air quality and I think about 2,000 trips a day traveling on a gravel street is going to generate some dust. You know, there is more than just the emergency issue here, so -- Borup: Well, but it's not intended for the gravel street to be subdivision access, is it? Hawkins-Clark: That's exactly what they are proposing, Commissioner. Borup: I thought it was emergency. Martin: Absolutely. Hawkins-Clark: No. If it's emergency, then, you gate it off and, then, you're back to only one way to get out on McMillan Road, 4,610 trips. Martin: What he just said is worst case -- Borup: Go ahead and get on the -- Martin: Is what we are proposing is one access to McMillan Road. Our reasoning behind that, obviously, is the traffic study we have done, ACHD's approval of that traffic study. The only reason we'd have a gravel road would be fire access. The only reason we would want any gravel road would be access for a fire truck in case of emergency, if one of the roads got blocked. Dave did well in explaining the other options we tried to give to the Fire Department and they explained well to us why those didn't work and why this other option did, the gravel road further north in our subdivision connecting out to Meridian Road, and Iguess -- and the only other comment would be -- would be -- I sound maybe a little bit like Mr. Lee, what he was asking for earlier, is that if you can Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 40 of 89 guarantee Aschenbrenner develops his first phase with a paved road to me, then, I would restrict my lots and I know that's not something anybody would want to do. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Had you concluded, Mr. McKinnon? All right. Zaremba: While the Public Hearing is still open, in case they want to comment, maybe revise an idea that I suggested earlier. If we were to say that they could not go beyond 50 houses until there was a secondary emergency access and, then, they could not build north of Joshua Tree until Joshua Tree was a public road all the way to Meridian, would that be comfortable for staff first? Borup: See, I'm thinking that makes a lot of sense, except ACRD did not mention that. ACHD seemed to have no problem with the project as proposed. And that's their job. I mean they are supposed to be the experts on -- Zaremba: I have found myself disagreeing with agree ACHD on other items as well. Powell: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, Idid -- I guess this issue came up recently -- when a developer doesn't have things under control, then, the city does get some of the blame for when things go wrong and I think we saw this with the Harris Ranch development when the bridge wasn't able to go through, and that's what our concern was here. I mean, obviously, if you had control over a second access or had control over sewer, then, there wouldn't -- we wouldn't have been talking about these issues, but the point is that he doesn't have control over those and that even though ACHD is just looking at the traffic counts, there is some other issues to consider and I think that you have been considering them, but I wanted to put them in that light, rather than just purely the traffic count light. These are really growth and development issues. Borup: Are there other concerns besides the sewer and emergency access? Powell: Those are the primary ones. Borup: Okay. I mean -- Powell: And I think the unanswered question is, you know, if the preliminary plat is approved out there for all these lots, but there is a cap on the 50 lots, is there some vested approval of the remainder of that, regardless of what we have said. You know, can they take us to court and say, no, you approved us for 460 lots, we don't care that we don't have a secondary access, we are going to go ahead and plot them anyway. And that was part of our concern as to why we wanted to suggest just an annexation of the front portion that would contain the number of lots that could be serviced immediately where roads and sewer services were available. Borup: Can that be handled in the development agreement? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 41 of 89 Powell: Yeah, that can certainly be handled in the development agreement, but there is just the outlying issues out there and I -- Borup: Well, I understand the concern. I mean that was the same thing with -- I think it was for Sundance that wanted to start developing before the trunk line was in and wasn't that the agreement that you were referring to that said the attorney already had proposed? Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: Anna just brought up the -- you know, it was an unanswered question. I'll just address that again. We stated a couple of times tonight that we are agreeable to sign; you know, an agreement that says we understand the risks if we don't get the secondary access, if we don't get the sewer, then, we can't develop and we are more than happy to put that into the development agreement for that. If I could just jump back to the idea of only annexing the first 50 acres -- the first 50 lots, just crossing it off right here. We are dealing with two parcels of ground right now. There is basically 70 some odd acres here and, you know, it's basically 70 acres to the north. Borup: You mentioned that in your letter of -- McKinnon: Yeah. If we were to slice it of right here, this property that remains in the county no longer has public street access. RUT zoned lots are required to have several hundred feet of street access. We have done an illegal lot split if that's the requirement of city. We have created an illegal lot, because this would not have legal frontage and I talked with the county about that, they said they are working with their prosecuting attorney to get an agreement as to whether or not that is an illegal split. However, I asked how can I get that sooner, they said ask for a determination from the planning and zoning director, who is an interim planning and zoning director right now and I said, well, how can I get that for tomorrow night's meeting. They said you are not going to get it for tomorrow night's meeting if you ask for it in two weeks. I said give me the answer now, then. Is it or is it not an illegal split and said if it does not have frontage, according to the way we define frontage, a stub street is not frontage enough for them, it's an illegal split. Borup: Well, we like dealing with illegal splits. McKinnon: Right. Rohm: Oh, we do? McKinnon: And just to go back into a little bit of discussion, If Paramount decided that they had had enough and they said, you know what, we are done with the subdivision, we are not going to go any further, you still have a plat that's out there, it's a vested plat. Somebody else could come back in and pick that up and work with that. It's the same sort of thing you have here. If we signed a development agreement that says we won't go further until we have an approved secondary access and until we have sewer available to the rest of this lot, then, the rest of this development remains in status quo Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2004 Page 42 of 89 until those things get here and we are okay with signing that and indemnify the city from something in the future. I have some concerns -- some valid concerns, I think, when we start dealing with requiring this to be a public street out across Mr. Aschenbrenner's property. That puts us at the risk of having to rely on Mr. Aschenbrenner to develop that out. You know, sewer easements, some things through that, is something that, you know, we can possibly work out, but requiring us to have a public street across someone else's property is something that -- it's very difficult for us to have to go across someone else's property and construct that and have that through them, especially if they are developing it -- and they are going to develop it from a different direction, because they don't have to compete with the homes back in our subdivision and that seems to be an unfair competitive advance that would be granted by the city to another developer. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I just address -- Borup: Yes. Freckleton: -- one issue that Dave just mentioned and that is that we are not asking for a public street right of way. In the case of Crossroads, that was a public access easement. The asphalt road was built over a public access easement. That easement gave the flexibility and that was the main reason it was an easement, instead of a public dedicated right of way. McKinnon: Well, just to follow up on that. Borup: A little bit different. McKinnon: We still have to apply for the access easement from the other developer Freckleton: Well -- and I guess the sewer easement is going to have to be granted in that same location, so I mean that's going to set that location. Borup: Right. Well, once the sewer easement is there, the other is taken care of. Freckleton: What we are talking about is you either build a gravel road over the sewer or you build an asphalt road over the sewer and we are asking for asphalt. Borup: And I'm leaning towards maybe what Commissioner Zaremba stated is when the project gets north of Joshua Tree or somewhere that may be the time that that would kick in. But, again, ACHD has made no mention of it. McKinnon: We have a collector street and the reason why this street is built the size that it is is because it's intended to carry all of the traffic for this subdivision. The traffic report that was done by WGI stated that the traffic for this would all be coming out this collector. It wasn't assumed that these would all come out in different locations. This is to take all the traffic here out this collector for right now and ACHD has reviewed that Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January $ 2004 Page 43 of 89 and they said this street is adequate to support that right now. Brad mentions it in the staff report. I think it's the second paragraph on the second page where it talks about the WGI study and ACHD's estimated vehicle trips per day. For this location I think it's 466 vehicle trips at a peak hour and that's assuming the construction of the entire site at build out, which ACHD estimated to be at 2013 or approximately ten, eleven -- nine or ten years from now. Borup: You're still planning on constructing the turn lane on McMillan? McKinnon: Absolutely. Borup: At original of the McKinnon: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay Zaremba: Well, I guess my feeling on the -- not building north of Joshua Tree until there is a second permanent public access, actually, has more options than Joshua Tree going out to Meridian. Whatever Totem Pole ends up being named, Mr. Lee might develop his property -- there is three possible north accesses, all of which would satisfy my issue there, and so there is like five different options to satisfy the second public road. McKinnon: Let me ask you about a sixth option. If we are really only dealing-with a secondary access to McMillan or secondary access to the subdivision, not an emergency access, if we replaced this pathway we originally had here and put another bridge over the Lemp Canal, there is your secondary access to McMillan. It would separate these two for distances for ACHD -- it wouldn't meet the fire code requirements, but it provides your secondary access to McMillan from within the subdivision. Zaremba: Well, I guess what I'm going for is an access some other direction, whether it's north or east or west, somewhere else besides south. Once we get -- I'm saying at this point once we get beyond 200 homes in there, which is roughly Joshua Tree -- McKinnon: Let me -- okay. I'm trying to -- Zaremba: -- some other option for those people to go somewhere besides south. McKinnon: Let me see if I can -- thinking on my feet right here. We have got the Boyack property with the 24 foot easement that runs through here. If this is to be paved and brought up to San Pedro or maybe a future Totem Pole there, if we brought that up at that location and asphalted that, would that be acceptable and that could be a temporary until -- Meritlian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 44 of 89 Zaremba: And, then, later abandon it? McKinnon: And sometime later abandon it when one of those others go through. Would that be acceptable? Zaremba: That would satisfy me. Borup: At what point? Zaremba: Before they build north of Joshua Tree. Borup: North of Joshua or maybe even up to the parcel line. Zaremba: Well, yeah. Borup: Maybe up to that point Zaremba: Okay. Borup: David, I don't know if you heard that last part. We are saying maybe -- maybe have that as the point, north of the -- which would be the parcel line. Zaremba: I mean this is still a two part thing. They can't build more than 50 until there is at least the emergency secondary access and that would run over the sewer line. Well, they can't do it until the sewer is there either, but, then, the second phase is they can't go north of the lower property line until there is another access and that could be satisfied by the easement. Borup: Or any other -- Zaremba: Yeah. Unless one of the other roads is there and, then, that satisfies it. McKinnon: That satisfies it. Zaremba: So, that -- yeah. Like Dave says, that's the sixth option. McKinnon: One other thing to maybe bring up that -- the developer is taking some risk on this making sure we have got the secondary access and getting the sewer over to that. Rather than tie this to prior to final platting, put prior to occupancy of any buildings there. Powell: No. Borup: We are just saying prior to anything north of -- Zaremba: I wouldn't even build it. I would build nothing flammable north of -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 9, 2004 Page 45 of 89 McKinnon: What about roads and streets? What about streets? Zaremba: Streets I would be comfortable with. McKinnon: And sewer lines. Zaremba: Yeah. McKinnon: Water lines. Prior to building permit. Is that -- okay. I heard some groans. So, is building permit okay? You guys would be okay with that? Prior to building permit? Borup: You know -- and you're talking probably three years before you can get up to here, aren't you? McKinnon: Right. So, just trying to keep options open. The one option would be, you know, getting that access through here, deed restricting this lot, putting the access all the way out to Meridian Road here or going ahead and just saying no building permits issued passed this line or south of San Pedro, whatever line you determine that to be, so we can continue to move forward with that, so -- you know, if we move forward and this road is built during that same time, we could use that. It's just the options game, so there is five options -- it leaves all the options open. And we can continue to build the infrastructure in here. Zaremba: Any one of those being an option. I'm just uncomfortable with none of them McKinnon: As far as building infrastructure and coming in for final plat, that type of thing, it would be acceptable? Okay. Borup: All right. Are we ready to move along? Zaremba: Early in the discussion Bruce mentioned something -- a report or something that you needed to get before -- something you wanted to study before we moved on. McKinnon: It was the need to get your easements and get that stuff rolling and, then, you wanted -- indemnity agreement. Freckleton: Right. Commissioner Zaremba, what we were talking about was the agreement that if you do elect to approve the entire development, we'd like to get that agreement that we had in place for Sundance and Cedar Springs and some of those other developments that were upstream of the White Trunk as it was being developed, the indemnity agreement. Zaremba: That's a wording that you have available to massage into this situation. I guess my question is do we need to continue this until that is done or can we make that a condition of approval, that they get together with you and do it? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 46 of 69 Borup: Have it before City Council. Freckleton: Yeah. I'm comfortable with that. Prior to Council that we would have that agreement as a condition. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Then, Commissioner Zaremba, I think that's -- from what we have done now, there is eight different locations that could have access north of San Pedro -- well, yeah, north of Joshua Tree, counting Joshua Tree. With that eighth one that Mr. McKinnon mentioned. So, there is a lot of opportunities that could happen in that time. Zaremba: I only see six, but Ijust -- Borup: The one up in the right corner has -- Zaremba: -- think there needs to be one. Borup: Up in the top right-hand corner has two. Zaremba: Oh, two ways. Yeah. Okay. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude? McKinnon: I think that's it. Borup: Commissioners, are we ready to close the hearing? Zaremba: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on all three items, AZ 03-027, PP 03-032, and CUP 03-058. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Were there any items that we need to discuss that are in the staff report? Probably the main one on the staff report is their recommendation on annexation. Zaremba: Well, the development agreement and the statement that Bruce needs to get in there, those are tied to annexation and zoning; is that correct? Well, now, is that a Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 47 of 89 separate thing or is that just included in the development agreement? That's going to be part of the wording of the development agreement? Hawkins-Clark: The boilerplate development agreement I don't believe has it. I mean we would need you to be specific on that. But, yeah, in any motion you make on the annexation application I think you need to just reference it. I wouldn't belabor the wording, but we can come up with that, as long as we get what you want the Council to -- Zaremba: Suggest to have in there. Okay. Borup: So, we just need to say something in there to indemnify the city. Page 14, item number eight and nine, was things that the applicant would like to change in the staff report. Mathes: I'm comfortable with just blanking out number eight. Borup: Just deleting that? Mathes: Uh-huh. Zaremba: I'm sorry. What page are you on? Mathes: Fourteen. Zaremba: Yeah, I can go along with that Borup: And number nine, discussion whether it's a permanent access or a temporary access. Well, they have got vehicle access. It would be emergency vehicle if we go with the request. Maybe also on that page -- I don't know. Would that be the place to add in on the fencing or some point make mention of the letter agreement from Farwest with Larkwood and, then, also they agreed to extend that same vinyl fence along Mr. Lee's property. Would that be in number three? Well, three mentions the fencing. I'm not sure where the other agreement -- because that's mare than just fencing. In the planned development. Okay. Zaremba: Okay. So, are we doing that on page 14, number three, or -- Borup: Well, three mentions the fencing. I don't know if -- unless it would be part of the development agreement. Okay. Page 19, number four, mentions that, so that would be to extend Mr. Lee's property. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? Meritlian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 48 of 89 Zaremba: Well, why don't we change that to say the entire east boundary. Construct a five foot vinyl fence with one foot lattice of a wood tone color. Borup: I think they call it almond is the other choice. Zaremba: Almond. Okay. Borup: Unless -- well, other than white. I guess that's up to them to decide. Maybe they had the specific color picked out with the residents. I don't know. Hawkins-Clark: I was just going to offer, Chairman Borup, if you just direct staff to incorporate the agreement that has the five conditions between the Larkwood homeowners association and the developer, I think we can incorporate each of these into their appropriate places. Borup: That would be a lot easier. Hawkins-Clark: And it might save you some time in your motion. Zaremba: So, we will substitute that for number four on page 19? Hawkins-Clark: The agreement actually has conditions that relate to both the preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit, so -- Borup: Why don't we make just that at the end of -- then which application would we want to include that in? The conditional use? Hawkins-Clark: Are you referring to the fencing? Borup: No. The agreement. Hawkins-Clark: I think you would incorporate it into your motion for both. Borup: Each time? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Is there anything else we need to point out? Zaremba: Well, I may be prepared to make a motion, as long as I will get some support and help from others. Ready for a motion? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, AZ 03-027, request for annexation and zoning of 140.25 acres Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 49 of 89 from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of December 4 and January 8, received by the clerk January 5th, 2004, with the following changes. On page ten, after -- under annexation and zoning conditions of approval, after paragraph one, add another paragraph that could be numbered 1-A: The development agreement will include a requirement that no more than 50 homes can be built until both sewer and a second emergency access to the satisfaction of the Fire Department are built. Period. And no building permits may be issued for north of the current southern property line -- what we are calling property -- current southern lot -- how are we identifying that? Borup: Right now it's Zaremba: Parcel. I'm sorry. That's the word I was looking for. No building permit will be issued north of the current southern parcel until a second public access is available, either connecting to a platted stub street or the temporary use of the easement currently enjoyed by the Boyers. That name isn't right. Borup:Boyack. Zaremba: Boyacks. And if that is the choice, it will be paved and at least 20 feet wide. Still adding to paragraph 1-A. The development agreement will include language supplied by Bruce Freckleton. Borup: Do you mean on the indemnity? Zaremba: On indemnifying the city in case the sewer is delayed by actions of other people not included. Borup: Probably provided from the attorney's office, wouldn't it? Zaremba: I will stipulate it can be worked out among staff, including the attorney. End of annexation and zoning motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Next item. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, PP 03-032 and this is referring to the revised plat dated 12/18/03, request for a preliminary plat approval of 442 building lots, not 461, single family building lots, and 45 common lots, not 43, on 140.25 acres in a proposed R-4 Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 50 of 89 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for December 4th and January 8th, received by the city clerk January 5th, 2004, with the following changes: On page 14, paragraph eight may be deleted. Paragraph nine will be changed to read: Prior to City of Meridian approval of any final plat, including the 51st buildable lot in the subdivision, a second temporary vehicle access approved by the Fire Department shall be constructed. Borup: Were we discussing vehicle access or emergency access? Zaremba: This is for 51 lots. It's the emergency access. Where did I put that other comment? Okay. Well, I will repeat here that -- Borup: Number three? Was the other one you were thinking about? Zaremba: Well, I said it as part of the development agreement, but let me add it to paragraph nine also, another -- another sentence that -- prior to approval of the final -- well, now, wait a minute. Let's discuss this a second. Can they build a roadway infrastructure before the final plat is approved? I'm comfortable with them building the road -- the northern portion of the roadway infrastructure, just not starting to build flammable. Borup: No. The discussion was prior to issuance of a building permit Zaremba: Okay. So, the statement that I want to make here is -- is to repeat that they will not be given building permits for anything north -- anything in the northern parcel until there is a second permanent road access. Borup: Yeah. And that's what you stated earlier. Zaremba: Okay. So, that's included in paragraph nine again. On page 15 we will add a paragraph 19 that says: Working with staff they will incorporate the agreement made between Larkwood Subdivision and Saguaro Canyon received by the city clerk January 8th, 2004. End of preliminary plat motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, CUP 03-058, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduced requirements for frontages, lot sizes, and minimum Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 51 of 89 house size and permission to have two cul-de-sac lengths exceed the minimum length in a proposed R-4 zone far proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision b.y Farwest, LLC, north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo of December 4 and January 8th, received by the clerk January 5th, 2004, with the following changes: On page 19, applicant will work with staff to incorporate the requirements of the agreement between Larkwood Subdivision and Saguaro Canyon. The agreement received by the city clerk January 8th, 2004, and a second park to that same is that applicant shall constructed a five foot vinyl fence with one foot lattice on top of a color acceptable to Larkwood along the entire east boundary, which will include the Lee property and whatever other property is along the east boundary, so that it's a consistent fence along the east. End of conditional use motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. I just noticed that part of the staff recommendation is still talking -- never mind. That's already -- Zaremba: We didn't deal with the west side -- Borup: Well, no, that's already been handled, what I was going to say, because that's part of the annexation, the preliminary plat, which has been taken care of. Zaremba: Okay. I guess my only question on the west side is does the fence want to go across the stub street -- Borup: You mean the -- which stub street? The emergency access one? Zaremba: This one. Borup: Well, they normally do. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Then, Iwon't -- then I was finished with the motion when I said I was. Mathes: And I would second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That does conclude this application. Thank you, everyone, for being here. Commissioners, I know this is when we usually take a break. I'm wondering if we couldn't hit the next two items real quickly. They are both clean-up type items. Zaremba: My guess is they will go quickly. I could wait for a break.