Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 3, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 58 of 89 me. I am not done. With the following change: Under -- on page four, under the preliminary and final plat site specific comments, item number six, can be deleted in its entirety. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Item 15: Item 16: Recommendation: VAC 05-001 Request to Vacate East Manderly Lane and a 30-foot wide agricultural easement, both being one and the same as shown on the plat of Larkwood Subdivision, at the north boundary line of Lot 13, Block 2 for Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC - northwest comer of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: AZ 05-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 45.88 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC - northwest corner of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 26 common lots on 44.39 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC - northwest corner of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: All right. Again, we have multiple items that relate to each other. Items 14, 15, 16. I'll open Public Hearing for V AC -- well, I'm sorry. Let me ask staff here. Since this is just a recommendation, do we want to deal with 14 individually? It's not a Public Hearing, according to the -- Canning: The discussion of the item won't make much sense without all the others. Zaremba: Okay. Then, I will proceed as I was. We will open the recommendation for V AC 05-001, Public Hearing for AZ 05-002, and the Public Hearing for PP 05-003. These all relate to Tustin Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, this is a preliminary plat and an annexation and zoning and a vacation, as mentioned, for Tustin Subdivision. It's 45.8 acres, currently zoned RUT, and they are requesting R-4. Saguaro Subdivision is to the west. The name of this one just escaped me. It's not Dartmoor. Larkwood. Thank You. It's far too late. There is a church just north of the property. And, then, this was the site of Leeshire Subdivision proposal that was before you earlier this year, but subsequently denied. The proposed layout brings a road -- two access roads into the project. There is a lateral across -- or a slough across the project dividing it. There is Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 59 of 89 just one road crossing that. There are a number of stubs -- actually, there is just one stub street into one of the five-acre Larkwood properties. Then, otherwise, that's the only stub street to the surrounding properties. They did not stub to the church, which is already developed. These are out parcels. I did want to point out there is a shop here that the applicant is proposing to stay and I'll get to that in a bit. There are 115 single family residential building lots and 26 other common lots and the gross density of the project is 2.6 dwelling units per acre. They have requested -- this is a straight subdivision. They have not requested a planned development for reduction in any standards, so they do meet the R-4 minimum lot standards of 8,000 square feet and 80 feet of frontage. And they have not asked for reduced setbacks either. The property is currently designated as low density residential on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and the proposed density is 2.6 dwelling units per acre, does fit within that Comprehensive Plan designation. As part of the plat -- and the applicant may have to help me on this, because I didn't notice the vacation application, but as part of the plat, the applicant is requesting to vacate East Manderly Lane, which is a private road and a 30 foot agricultural easement and they are one and the same. And then -- so the -- so that the owners and the proposed subdivision may not be encumbered by easements that aren't going to be used. And the easement is on the north boundary line of Lot 13, Block 2, of Larkwood Subdivision. And I apologize; I did not look this up, so I'm not sure where it is. I believe it's right here on the north property line, because .I think they called me about that before. So, the only way to -- as you know, the only way to get rid of an easement that's been shown on a plat is to vacate it through the plat process. Going through some of the special considerations that were pointed out by -- which of my staff members having babies -- or second, I guess, babies. Josh. Sorry. If you look on page ten -- I'm just going to highlight some of them. I think some of them make sense. Like Locust Grove right of way, you have seen those kind of conditions before and those kinds of issues, as well as you have the street buffers. The micropaths -- the applicant has proposed two common lots which connect to the North Slough pathway, yet they haven't shown sidewalk in those common lots, those connections, so Josh has asked that they provide those sidewalks to micropath. Block length variance. The proposed preliminary plat has three blocks which exceed the allowable block length of 1,000 feet. Those are Blocks 1, 8 and 9, and they have submitted a separate variance application, which will go up with the preliminary plat to the City Council. I mentioned the existing shop. The applicant wants to keep the shop. Now, accessory buildings need to be accessory to a main building, so we just kind of added some conditions in there, making sure that they understand that there needs to be a house on that property to have the shop on that property and, then, that accessory structure needs to meet the standards for accessory structure in our zoning ordinance. We can't tell if it does yet, because there is no principal permitted structure. So, it's all -- quite literally it's all relative. So, we just wanted them to be aware of that. I think that was the last item I wanted to point out. I'm making the applicant's work more tonight to describe their projects, so I will let the applicant describe some of the other features of the project. With that I'll answer any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? I have one. And that is a letter from Idaho Power asking that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 60 of 89 Canning: Oh, that's right. Zaremba: -- that it be clearly stated someplace that their plan is to run power lines up the west side of Locust Grove and I guess my question is is that something that we would add to the face of the plat and should that become a note 19 on page 14. Rohm: Idaho Power is in road right of way, so - Zaremba: They do, but they want people that are purchasing lots along here to be forewarned that some day they are going to have these 125-foot poles next to their property. It may be in the right of way, but that this is in their plan and they don't want future residents coming back to them and saying, wait, you can't put your poles up here. Canning: Chairman Zaremba? Zaremba: But their point was to forewam people that this is in their plan. Canning: Generally when we are passing around that kind of warning information, it's more appropriate in their CC&Rs than on the plat. You should really try and reserve the plat for things that are related to the surveying and implementation of that plat, rather than -- in particular if the developer wants to put information on there, then, they have a little more discretion, but things that we require as the city should be fairly limited. But you can ask them to put that in their CC&Rs. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: That would be a better place. Zaremba: Good advice. Thank you. That was my only question. If there aren't others, then, we are ready for the applicant. Christensen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Kenny Christensen, 1951 South Southern Way, Boise, Idaho. And I am the developer representing the property owners. I'm not the property owner, but I do all the development for the owners. And we are just trying to develop this property and trying to make a nice development. You know, we are backing up to Larkwood and so you can see on the westerly side I have tried to make those lots a little larger, plus I also feel that there is a demand for that, as addressed earlier, there is a little bit of a -- you know, eight, nine thousand is kind of the standard going throughout most of north Meridian and I'm hoping there is a little bit more demand for that kind of lot. From a development standpoint it squeezes the economics, but, hopefully, it will payoff. We are -- you know, just -- it is a standard sub. We do not have any park per se, but we do have walkways and pathways that could be conformed to tot lots, et cetera, and part of the reason of expediting this -- there is no sewer to this site -- as you had discussed earlier, but part of that reason is we need this plat in place to get sewer through this stretch of land and eliminate the Vienna Woods Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 61 of 89 Edinburgh lift station. So, get rid of smelly problems and have gravity system all throughout there. But, you know, I don't have a whole lot more to say. We are trying to do a nice development there. I did go to the Larkwood homeowners association meeting. They do have some representatives here that they would like to, I'm sure, stand up and address some of their concerns and questions. But are there any questions that the Commission has for me at this time? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: On this recommendation for vacating the easement, do you have letters from the easement holders that say they have no objection to the vacation? Christensen: I do not. I believe the homeowner that that -- yeah, he can address that. I think he would be in support of vacating that. But it does go into a homeowners lot who is present and he is, I think, representing the homeowners association today and he could address that. Rohm: Okay. Well, I just have always felt it's important to give them that opportunity. Christensen: Correct. And, then, the other property owner that would potentially be a beneficiary would be where the stub road is going into, that property to the north, and so they do have access to their back pasture as it is currently, the six acre -- or five, six acre home right now and if they needed access they do have that road going into their back property. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: On that subject, to clarify, the kind of easement it is, there are no utilities in that easement or -- Christensen: There are not. It was an agricultural easement. I mean it's technically a county road, but it's -- you know, it's a dirt road that was used for tractors and farm equipment at one time. Zaremba: Would you address the -- Idaho Power's concern about eventually building big poles up-- Christensen: Yes. Actually, big poles would be welcome currently there. They are real scraggly old wooden with several layers and very low. The larger poles tend to actually disappear a little better, unless you're right behind one of the big ones, but there is fewer of them and they are typically a lot higher and so they, actually, are more desirable from a marketing standpoint and -- but we can place that in our CC&Rs as a forewarning that that right of way -- you know, the homeowners association cannot Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 62 of 89 impose right -- additional right of way or just larger poles being placed in the existing Idaho Power right of way, because there is an existing right of way. Zaremba: Great. That would be helpful. Christensen: Great. I will make a note of that. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: If it's approved and this goes forward, when are you anticipating completion of some of the home sites? Christensen: As soon as sewer is available. I believe we are scheduled in a second phase of the current construction project of that North Slough line, anticipated to be November beginning. So, I would expect construction -- you know, the site work, roads, a year from now. Or less if that could be moved up. And Bruce can address that. Moe: Well, then, that was my next question. I note here it says the phase two extension currently scheduled to commence in the fall of 2005. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, that is correct. Phase one will begin -- it's -- very shortly, like within a month or so. Phase two -- phase two was held up a little bit because of easement acquisition, so we needed to get moving forward on the project and so we have been getting very close to this project with phase one and, then, phase two will take off as soon as we can get the easements and the developer was uncomfortable providing the easements to us without having a preliminary plat approved for the alignment of the sewer through the project. And so we are here tonight to try and get that process going. Christensen: Yeah. The proposed alignment is cutting through this pathway, then, this road up here and, then, through that pathway and access the Vienna Woods and Edinburgh, which is stinky. Get rid of that. I do live in Vienna Woods and I would volunteer to flush my toilet three times in the interim. Rohm: Get that down. Zaremba: Increase the flow. Christensen: That's right. Zaremba: Let's see. I had -- I had already -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 63 of 89 Moe: I had more than one question. Zaremba: Go ahead. Moe: Then, do you have any problem if, in fact, another condition was put on the -- in regard to the sanitary sewer that no lots -- and no buildings would be built until the sewer is connected? Christensen: Oh, yeah. Certainly. Yeah. They usually require me to do some kind of non-build agreement or something until that occurs. Zaremba: Yes, Bruce. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, without having public utilities there, they would not be able to -- they could record their plat, but sanitary restrictions would remain in force and until services are available, they wouldn't be able to build anyway, so -- Moe: I asked the question because of our earlier hearing, that there was a stipulation put on it. No different. I have no problem with it. I was just trying to make sure I understood what the difference between the two projects were. Freckleton: The difference in -- from my perspective is we have got plans that are drawn and the ones were -- they are out there. It's a timing issue and if you want to add the comment that it would be subject to sewer availability, that would be appropriate. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. My other question -- apparently, the ACHD Commission acted on this last night. Do you have news of what happened? Christensen: It was on their consent agenda, along with Bainbridge, and they did approve it as presented. Zaremba: Thank you. Christensen: And I may make a note, too. I know one of the concerns -- and this might be more ACHD -- that the Larkwood homeowners have is connectivity and I'm opposed to any connectivity to Larkwood as they are and I know it's more ACHD realm, but we are -- that stub up to the north is not going to a Larkwood lot. It's a six-acre un- subdivided lot. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, which stub -- that's the only stub street. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 64 of 89 Christensen: That was the only stub street. Right. Newton-Huckabay: Are Larkwood the ones to the north? Christensen: No. That's a cul-de-sac and I, along with them, would really like to see that remain a cul-de-sac and I know that's maybe more ACHD's jurisdiction, but for public record I'm just stating that. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Christensen: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: We do have a couple people signed up. Dan I believe it is. Battazzo. And you are representing Larkwood homeowners association; is that correct? Battazzo: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission. I'm Dan Battazzo at 5306 North Larkwood Place and at the conclusion of my comments I'd like to deliver to you a letter from the Larkwood homeowners association signed by 13 of 19 homeowners in the subdivision, as well as a letter from the Settler's Irrigation District speaking to one of the issues that we would like to speak to. If I could open by just commenting on the issue of vacation of that road, that Manderly Lane, which is on the north side of the proposed development. My home is this one right here and that roadway used to go from Locust Grove into this farm area and when I built my home I asked them and did have that vacated across my property, so this dirt road terminates in a turnaround right here at this comer and serves no particular purpose, other than to access the former farmland and the six acre lot, which, technically, isn't a part of Larkwood homeowners -- excuse me -- Larkwood Subdivision, but it is considered an existing lot as a part of that property. So, I am, in fact, in support of vacating that easement. Borup: So, does that lot have its access through the Larkwood Street, then? Battazzo: Yes. Its driveway -- the driveway of the home on this lot is onto Larkwood Place. Borup. Okay. Battazzo: Let's see. The second issue, which is not addressed specifically in the letter that I'm going to give you, but has come up during the course tonight and I would like to address it. We did have an amicable meeting with Mr. Christensen about this subdivision and let me open by just saying that the Larkwood homeowners are generally in favor of the proposal as it's been laid out. We do have four concerns that we have outlined in this letter and one additional one that has not been outlined here that I would like to speak to. When we did talk with Mr. Christensen about the lots that border the subdivision, we mentioned the fact that we would appreciate a transition, which included keeping the height of the homes on those adjacent lots down, proposing, Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 65 of 89 in fact, that they be one story. Mr. Christensen let us you know that those would be his most expense lots in the subdivision and indicated there is no way that it was likely that they were going to hold to those restrictions. I would like to point out that the current owner of this property is Mr. Steve Smith, who also was the co-developer of the Larkwood Subdivision. All of these lots on the east side of the street facing the foothills were sold at a ten percent premium to the homeowners with the intent of them being, quote, view lots, end quote, and given that this subdivision is being developed by the same owner, we'd like them to hold to the commitments that they made to the homeowners in the -- when they sold those lots to us that, in fact, they would remain view lots. We are not opposing the development as a whole, but we would like to make sure that consideration is given to the height of those homes and the previous arrangements that were made with those homeowners. The second issue on that subject is the density of those lots and we have generally agreed to what's been proposed as well, with the exception that if you look here you will see that the second lot in the subdivision has three of these smaller lots abutting it and we have requested in our message to you that the developer remove one of the lots along this line in order to decrease the density in such a way that these two flatter lots, which, again, were sold with the same commitments from the original developer of Larkwood, Steve Smith, that these folks would have some ability to keep their rural setting and since lots are much shallower front to back, it's a bigger deal to the folks down here that the density remain lower than what has been proposed up here on the north side of the subdivision. So, generally, what we are saying is that we are okay with this and we'd like them to take another look at removing one lot here. We are requesting -- and I think this is in concert with the developer -- that a six-foot solid vinyl fence be placed between the two subdivisions. And finally -- and getting probably to the heart of the biggest issue on our plate and which requires you to keep your planning part of your planning and zoning hat on, if we could go back to that previous -- I think this works. I think this works. So, this is Larkwood Place. This is the proposed development. These two lots I'd like to go on record as making sure that everybody here understands that although they are technically not part of the platted Larkwood Subdivision and, in fact, are listed on the platting maps as un-platted, those lots have attached to them the Larkwood homeowners CC&Rs and in those CC&Rs -- and I have checked this down at the county records and we have gotten a legal opinion that, in fact, there are requirements in those CC&Rs that any further development that takes place on those lots needs to be approved by the Larkwood homeowners association and, in fact, anything that does happen in there is, actually, a part of the Larkwood homeowners association's Interest. That makes it important to us that when Leeshire develops up here -- and we know that it will be -- and that when Tustin is developed down here -- currently the Leeshire proposals include going into this -- not Larkwood Subdivision lot, existing lot that is covered by the Larkwood Subdivision's CC&Rs, it shows a southbound stub. Here is a northbound stub. It's really important to us that there be no connection to Larkwood Place. An additional commitment when we purchased our lots on the part of the developers was that this was a dead end cul-de-sac, you can see that all these lots in Larkwood Subdivision are one and a half to three acres in general, with the exception of these two, which are six acre lots. And as you -- you asked about earlier, they have their homes and their driveways going into Larkwood Place and they use that as their Meridian Pianning & Zonin9 March 3. 2005 Page 66 of 89 sole entrance. It seems that both Meridian -- or at least the Ada County Highway District and we think Meridian, based on my discussions with your planners, are somewhat insistent on having these stubs and this connectivity in here. We didn't like that one bit. That is out of character with the subdivision that we bought into, but it seems inevitable that the stubbing is going to take place. If it is going to take place, we strongly urge you to keep that stubbing in a north-south fashion, the people that move into this subdivision and move into this subdivision will know it advance that, in fact, there is connectivity in between and we assume that they will formulate the traffic under their plans for purchase of their properties. We, too, formulated traffic into our concept of what our properties would be and as you know, this is a curved street, it's not a very good thoroughfare, and, in fact, leaves nothing but room for acceleration for a half a mile before you get to a point where you would enter future -- any development that might show up back here on these lots or in this area in the future. That's just completely out of character with what we live on right now. And while this is an Ada County district -- Ada County Highway District issue, I don't think that you guys can absolve yourselves of the fact that you have been dealing with how this subdivision goes in and how this subdivision goes in and what kind of thinking you might have about what might go on on these six acres. While we are not particularly appreciative of the idea that higher density housing might, in fact, go on these six acres -- because when this was sold to us, these were sold to us with the idea that there were pieces of ground that had two big large pieces of ground, not two subdivisions, back in the back of this cul-de-sac, we want to make sure that the connectivity takes place in an area where people expect to have a certain level of density and not where we are expecting to have a certain lack of density. We can assure you, both from legal counsel that we have received so far, and from meetings of the members of this homeowners association, that if it looks like connectivity is going to take place here, the meaning of CC&R will chance to court court and return to court, because the only way our value of our property to us, in the end, has to do with living on this low density, low traffic type of roadway. Those are my comments. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Battazzo: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Borup: A couple, Mr. Chairman. You made reference to a commitment when you bought your lot. Do you have a copy of that that would be available for -- of the view? You said there was a commitment that there would be a -- Battazzo: You know, it's not with me, but, in fact, I do have the brochure that was provided by Mr. Smith and Mr. Porter that explained the difference in price on those lots. And that was it. Borup: That there was a view? Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 67 of 89 Battazzo: Yeah. Borup: Okay. That is consistent with other subdivisions, the east -- or the west facing lots always seem to be priced higher. Battazzo: You mean the east facing lots are priced higher? Borup: No. The west facing lots are always -- Battazzo: I see your point. Okay. Borup: That's -- every subdivision I have looked at, they have always been priced higher, just because of that orientation, not necessarily because of the view. And I realize it's a different subdivision and your comment on lot reductions and such, how does that compare to Saguaro Canyon as far as lot sizes bordering Larkwood? Battazzo: I can't speak to that with any degree of certainty. Borup: And you now have the concern with Saguaro Canyon's lot sizes abutting your property it sounds like. Battazzo: My understanding is that those were worked out with Saguaro Canyon and Saguaro Canyon worked out with -- in particular the folks on west side of our subdivision a concession from their original proposal on Saguaro Canyon. They reduced their lot density. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I have one question. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I need to bring my own supplies. I'm using everyone else's. On these two lots right here, has -- it seems to me you coùld avoid all problems if -- these are not Larkwood, just -- I mean is there talk of just developing these into -- splitting them or something and avoid the problem altogether? Battazzo: Avoid the problem altogether? Newton-Huckabay: Any connect -- I would think by trying to develop those yourself, then, connectivity becomes -- between here and here become a moot point, does it not? Redeveloping -- to match the size of these lots. Canning: Commissioner Huckabay, there is no -- the minimum lot size in the county is five acres, so those properties are ineligible for a split. They would have to be ten acres. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 68 of 89 Newton-Huckabay: Well, where there is a will there is a way. Okay. Just wondering. I have not been down that far in Larkwood, to the end of the cul-de-sac. Zaremba: All right. Battazzo: Thank you. Who would you like to receive this? Zaremba: The clerk will start with them. Thank you. Okay. Bart Naylor, who is the Vienna Woods homeowners association president. Bart Naylor escaped before speaking, apparently. Okay. He is marked as being for and I assume he was representing the entire Vienna Woods homeowners association as being for. In favor. Okay. In that case, Mr. Christensen, it's your turn again. Oh, I meant to say, there is nobody else signed up, but if anybody would care to speak, this is your time. The one time I forgot to say that and you caught me. Lee: I can answer some of your questions, but I don't want to take into my few minutes. Would you like me to answer some of your questions on how that subdivision is? Zaremba: Start with your name and address, please. Lee: My name is Grant Lee, I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road, the 30 acres immediately to the north of Mormon church. The Mormon church is what separates us from the Tustin Subdivision. We own the former Leeshire property, which somebody said is still going to be developed. Anyway, would you like me to answer some of questions on this? Newton-Huckabay: That's okay. I don't think my question was valid. Lee: Okay. Learn how to operate this thing. There you go. Okay. I have got the 30 acres right here. Some of my concerns. Number one, our subdivision, which you good people passed and was turned down at the next level, we had a park -- a good size park right here separating us from the Larkwood and that was shot down. I notice this subdivision doesn't really have a park. One of the reasons ours was turned down was they said the location was not in the right spot and if you stood at one end you couldn't see somebody standing two acres away in the other corner of the property. My concern here -- although I want to go on record as being in favor of this subdivision, my concerns are that the Dunwoody people that were so much against ours -- and I don't see any of them here tonight -- you know, if you stand here can you see who is right here and what's the difference between having a park over here as a buffer and having 18 of the people in Larkwood sign a petition to support that and over here you have no park, I just want to make sure that when our subdivision comes up again, if the park's an issue, that you remember that if you approve this without a park, what difference does it make where we put ours. The second thing on road access, you talk about at the end of Larkwood these two six-acre parcels, those were the first two parcels before there was a subdivision. Manderly is a street that fed those. At the time of this subdivision Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 69 of 89 that street was vacated and those two -- the cul-de-sac was moved a little further down - - if you can show the map with the next -- other six acre parcels on there. The cul-de- sac was moved from this location to this location. If a stub street is put in here and they are allowed access, that would physically give them access off of Larkwood Place and access off of this street. My understanding is you can't have double access to a single parcel of property. If I'm wrong, please, clear that up now. The buffer in the front, they have a 25-foot buffer. We were required to have a 35-foot buffer. I question the consistency in the Council. My concern -- the commercial property that's in the front, the warehouses, that you have to have a house on, we also have similar concerns, so I will be watching very closely how you treat this property. If a stub street is required here and a stub street is required here -- in talking to Mr. Battazzo, before he was opposed to it, we were opposed to it, everybody's making us do it. If stub streets are required for both of us, there needs to be some kind of a plan as to what you intend to have done with the properties in the middle that we are stubbing to. I guess my time is up. Zaremba: If you're preparing to conclude, we will hear that. Lee: Okay. The Saguaro lots that abut the back of the property are 10,000 square foot lots. Back here from Saguaro Canyon. I did attend all those hearings. Also, I just want to make sure that you really understand, from prior testimony at my Leeshire hearings, that Larkwood, when it was originally developed kind of prostituted the ordinance at the time. They were the first subdivision, along with Dunwoody across the street, to be developed under the new cluster ordinance. The concept was for every five acres you take a one acre lot and you build on it, rather than have a bunch of 3,000 dollar land left over, they came up with a unique creative idea that sold and that was to take some other lots in the back and sell a build-able lot, coupled with an agricultural lot that could not be built on for 15 years and you get rid of twice as much land. When we went and offered the same thing with our land immediately after -- and attended all of those hearings -- we were told that, no, that's not the intent of the ordinance, they made a mistake, and they would not allow anyone else to develop under that ordinance. So, this is a really unique situation. This subdivision and the sister subdivision, both developed by Steve Smith, were not according -- did not fit the spirit of the cluster ordinance and they were the first two subdivisions to be developed under that ordinance. So, what you have here is an exception that has not been repeated in the county for these to subdivisions. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Lee: One last thing. You say that the ten acres was a county limit. That didn't stop Steve Smith across the street from developing his ten acre parcel and spitting it into two fives and the people next door to him taking their ten acre parcel and splitting it into two fives. So, when you say you have got six acres here that can't be split, there are ways around that if you're -- as you pointed -- creative. Borup: I think what she said you would have to have at least ten to make two fives. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 70 of 89 Lee: At the time that was not the ordinance that was in place and he kind of switched the names on some things for some property he didn't own and something was shuffled under the table. I checked that out thoroughly. Zaremba: Thank you. Anybody else care to testify on this matter? Please come forward. Wright: I'm Barbara Wright and my address is 5048 North Larkwood Place. Zaremba: Would you pull the microphone a little closer to you. Thank you. Wright: If you could show the map of -- that includes the walking path. Our property is this one right here where the walking path ends. My question, really, is not to -- about the subdivision. I was told by Mr. Christensen that there would -- the six foot high vinyl fence would close off the walking path at our property line. My concern is what's the future? If that walking path is there is it to be continued by the City of Meridian? If it is, it will cut a piece of our property from usefulness to us, because there is an irrigation ditch -- the North Slough goes through across that corner, as you can see, and our property line goes straight across. So,we have a triangle that's on the other side of the ditch that goes for about 15 to 20 feet. Zaremba: We will ask that. Wright: Okay. Zaremba: I think our other question is whether that's intended to be part of the future regional pathway system or not, so -- Wright: Yes, it is. Zaremba: -- we will ask about that. Wright: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Do we know the answer to whether there is a regional pathway coming through there? Canning: Sure. This is one of those unusual instances where the pathway was just kind of guesstimated in this section, because it didn't -- it was trying to get up to the neighborhood center that's along Chinden, so it's a ways away, it's up above -- let's see if I can find it. This is Arcadia and this is Jericho Lane. So, the neighborhood center kind of arcs in this area here and so the pathway was kind of brought in like this and meant to get up to -- to that neighborhood center. When Saguaro came in they have got a very solid pathway going to about here, north-south, and, then, a very solid kind of east-west pathway across where their sewer easement is going. So, we spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and looking at it. The platting pattern in this area is so Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 71 of 89 broken up that when Leeshire went in we talked to them and -- and it was difficult to see the usefulness of trying to bring the north-south pathway through these many many properties over to this neighborhood center, because we just had so many to go through and since Saguaro was already in there with a fairly strong north-south one, we felt it would be better to try and go and connect into the systems that had been put in place with Saguaro. So, the intent, yes, is to have a multi-use pathway there and that -- of course, we would not go across that without either obtaining the property or, more than likely, waiting until somebody wanted to give an easement for that use. So, it's -- the six foot fence will be there until that issue is decided with the homeowner and we are not going to send people traipsing across your property without permission. That would be trespassing, so -- there is a couple other issues that were more directed to Planning and Zoning than they were to the applicant's proposal, so I will go ahead and answer those. Mr. Lee's property that -- there is an entryway corridor in the Comprehensive Plan that ends just at his south boundary. So, you did have a 35-foot buffer, instead of a 25 foot buffer, as would be applicable in this -- in this development. Regarding the stub street, we do put a high emphasis on connectivity and interconnectivity in the Comprehensive Plan and we do require stub streets. We don't require that there be necessarily a plan in place. It's pretty obvious where they are going to connect, but, again, the decisions you're making are forever and it's -- to buy a house later on to put in a street just doesn't happen. So, we are leaving that opportunity available for sometime in the future. Maybe it's ten years from now, maybe it's 30 years from now, maybe it's six months from now. But that's -- that's good planning is to leave those stub streets in place, it just gives you more opportunity to provide that service. There is my preaching. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Christensen, please. Christensen: Any questions initially or should I go through and address some of the points? Zaremba: Please go ahead. Christensen: Okay. Thank you. We will start with the easy ones. I am in favor of putting up a six-foot vinyl fence as requested, buffering between Tustin and Larkwood. I am opposed to any, you know, connectivity to Larkwood's cul-de-sac, as previously addressed. The other issue brought up that we don't necessarily have a large park. We do have an area that could become a tot lot type park, but my intent is to provide something a little bit different where the parks are - you know, as Commissioner Borup mentioned in an earlier issue or project, you know, some people want to have their own parks in the backyard and put up their own, you know, rainbow play set, et cetera. I'm trying to provide that on the, you know, westerly portion here. So, that kind of explains the lack thereof that was pointed out. We do meet the open space requirements, though, I do believe, as required by the city. One issue, I think, that Dan didn't bring up was water rights and we are working with Settlers on that. Larkwood has requested me considering stubbing our pressurized irrigation system to their lots. I know that's not this jurisdiction, but I just wanted to bring it up, since it was in the letter, I think, that was presented to you. I'm initially opposed to that, just because it increases my irrigation Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 72 of 89 from 44 acres to 60 acres and it causes me piping up sizes and pump up sizes and the main issue is -- you know, I have families and friends that live in my subdivision and I live nearby and I know people in Larkwood and I feel that if we have some kind of commingling of homeowners associations and irrigation rights, we are going to get some taxation without representation and I can see a lot of cobwebs with that, but we will work through that. My ideal solution to that would be that Settlers, you know, allow them to build their own pump right there and extend accordingly. But I know it's not your jurisdiction, I just wanted to bring that up, since it was in the letter, and we will have a meeting with Larkwood and Settlers Irrigation. I know Settlers has some limitations on where they can pull water out and so we will work through that. On the issues that I'm opposed to that were asked for was, one, to move a lot in this location and I feel like, you know, I have tried to get to a good middle ground and there comes a point where, you know, if you -- a subdivision has a character and if you throw in a few lots that are out of character it just doesn't sell well and doesn't show well and if we get too wide in some of those lots you end up with big side yards that generally aren't desirable to some people because of mowing and maintenance, et cetera, and, obviously, I mean it's an economic sting to me also. I mean you lose one of those nice lots and it eats into the feasibility of this project. And the other one was along the same line and that was limiting the westerly portion to -- or at least on this portion, closer lots, to single story houses. Again, those are -- you know, those are going to be nice lots -- I'm trying to provide, you know, a lot of people sell this home and want to move into this home and I, actually, want to provide something for -- you know, you get single level and a lot of, you know, empty nesters go for those kind of things, but to get the economics to work for families and large families, I'm sensitive to that, because I am of that and, you know, I live on a third acre, but I could have never fit my home and my desired square footage on a single level. And so I'd just like to keep that open to the marketplace and let diversity and the market demand that and that's my personal request. I realize, you know, different opinions might exist amongst the Commissioners, but I oppose those two requests, but everything else I think we are in step. Any other questions? Did I address everything here? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Borup: I don't think so. Moe: Yeah. Probably one. Christensen: Yes. Moe: In regards to the two story homes, are you saying that you're not going to put any single story in that area or -- Christensen: I will just let the market demand. I mean I'm sure single story will come about naturally as they do in any development, but I don't like to -- the more you restrict something, the less marketability and just -- you paint yourself in a corner and I just don't like to do that, especially at such early stages. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 73 of 89 Moe: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I, myself, would like to think it would be reasonable to lose a lot there on the bottom of the west and maybe put a little more green space in the south of your development. The developments that have, you know, park area are -- they are nicer and there is so little of that for people in this city. Christensen: And, again, you know, there is always a difference of subjectivity, of course, and opinion. You know, I have talked to some people in Vienna Woods who don't like that big park, because they can't keep it nice, it's a big -- you know, large park, you know, they have expressed interest in here and, you know, they are involved with the homeowners association, some of these people, and they. see the expense that some of those parks incur and they -- and, again, it's difference of opinion. I like the big park in Vienna Woods, too, you know, so -- it's a good place to play football. So, you know, it's just difference of opinion. I'm just trying to provide something different. You know, we do provide interconnectivity with walking paths and, again, you know, I'm trying to do diversity out here, so that's - yeah. I see your opinion also. Very valid. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: I think one of the -- we have been seeing a lot more parks lately, but the lots are a lot smaller. I mean if you have 5,000 square foot lots, you need to have a park. When you have large lots, my feeling is the park is in your -- around your house. You have got places for the kids to play. They don't need to go to -- down the street to a park to have more than 20 feet to do something in. Newton-Huckabay: It takes more than 20 feet to throw a baseball back and forth. Or a football. Borup: That's what I'm saying, we have got some 100 foot lots here. You have got more than the 20 feet. Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions, issues from the Commissioners? All right. Thank you, sir. Christensen: Thank you for staying up late for me. Borup: Are we ready to move on? Zaremba: I believe we are. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close VAC 05-001, AZ 05-002, and PP 05-003. Moe: Second. Meridian Plannin9 & Zonln9 March 3, 2005 Page 74 of 89 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: My only comment would be when we get to Item 16, PP 05-003, to make sure that we reference the revised plat that was received by the City Clerk February 24th, 2005. Any discussion, Commissioners? Borup: My comment -- I'm liking the direction I'm seeing here. We have -- over the years we had it where every subdivision that came through was all R-4, 8,000 square foot, 80 by 100. You didn't have more than two lots that varied from that in the whole subdivision, you know, and, then, we started getting some variety, the next direction was all of the small townhouse lots and it looks like that's going to keep going. I find it rather refreshing to see somewhat of another direction. I mean maybe we are not going another direction, but we have had two before us tonight that have large lots and I welcome this kind of development. I think it's another direction for the city to go. Like I say, I'm -- not just on this -- not just on this application, but pretty much every one that has come up, I'm generally opposed to restricting two story homes. I don't think -- other than a very few situations that it is appropriate, especially in a situation where there is adequate distance. And the same thing on the lot restriction. We didn't -- we didn't do - - there was already -- these lots are already larger on this side than they were on the other side of Larkwood. I mean if it's appropriate for the west end, it should be appropriate from the east side. I guess that's alii have got to say right now. Zaremba: I would comment that we have had instances where a developer has volunteered to limit things to one story. The only times that I can think that we have actually made it a condition where the developer was not volunteering it were not view issues, they were more security issues for the existing neighbors, where it would be uncomfortable to have a second story house so close that they were looking in your backyard and I did not hear that issue raised this time, so we have not, in my recollection, ever taken the move that we would limit the height just to preserve a view. I think the basic principal is you have no right to a view through your neighbor's yard. Borup: Well, in this case there is a non-build-able agricultural lot separating the residential properties from this subdivision. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Any other comments? Newton-Huckabay: I'm batting zero on this one. I have no comments. I'm not getting any support from any of you people. Zaremba: Well, what are we missing? You think there should be larger lots than are proposed or at least along that one side or - Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 75 of 89 Newton-Huckabay: I just think there should be a little more common park area in this development, but nobody agrees with me. Zaremba: Well, our leverage on that, usually, with a planned development is that they are asking for reduced lot sizes and other things, then, it's a trade-off. In this case they are not asking for anything where we could require such a trade. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I realize that, but we are certainly adverse to, you know, encouraging -- Moe: You know, I guess I would say that I -- that it's a welcome change to see that they are not asking for something. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's true. That's true. Moe: It's refreshing to finally see someone actually do it as per what the ordinance is requiring. That's -- you know. Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, was there an unresolved issue with the out building or garage or shop or whatever that-- Borup: I think that -- Newton-Huckabay: They had to build a home on it. Zaremba: And I think that was a requirement that was in the conditions. Moe: It's already in. Yes. Let's go for it. Zaremba: I would entertain a motion, beginning with the vacation. Rohm: Everything's closed? Zaremba: Yes, we did close the hearings. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward on -- that we make an affirmative recommendation on VAC 05-001. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 76 of 89 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05- 002, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, to include all staff comments dated February 24th, 2005. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. So, if I'm opposed to the development as it stands now, I can nay on 15; right? Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I got affirmative - Zaremba: Yes. That would be the correct place. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-003, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, and dated February 24th, 2005, and received March 1 st, 2005, and the amended plat received February 24th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We have four affirmative and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 05-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use three story building consisting of retail, office and residential