Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 19, 2005 P&Z Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 6 of 67 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Okay. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Do we need to have a motion to -- Zaremba: Technically probably not, but we have been doing that in the past, just closing the loop. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: AZ 05-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: PP 05-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: Zaremba: Okay. Now, we are ready for Items 7 and 8. We will open both hearings simultaneously. This is AZ 05-012, request for annexation and zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone and PP 05-014, request for preliminary plat approval of 17 building lots and two common lots on 5.89 acres in a proposed R-4 zone. Both of these for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC, 701 Black Cat Road, and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request for an annexation and rezone to an R-4 district for EI Gato. There is 17 lots that the applicant is proposing. The location is immediately north of the Union Pacific Railroad and off of Black Cat Road, south of Pine Lane. This subdivision in this area is Castlebrook and that is an R-4 subdivision as well. The Comp Plan designation for all of the area in this vicinity west of Black Cat is low density residential. Low density being less than three dwelling units to the acre, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The first issue with this one is there is several Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 7 of 67 natural features to be identified in the area. The first is right north of the Union Pacific Railroad, it is a large drainage ditch called the Purdom drain and it has been indicated that on your staff -- I mean on the packet submitted by the applicant that this would be a portion of the open space of Lot 1, Block 1, that is incorrect. It has been redefined that this is not a part of the subdivision, it is either owned or maintained -- or owned by Boise Project Control Board or Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and needs to be removed from the calculation. The second feature is that there is a dual roadway system on Pine Lane right in this location immediately north of the site, which is a 50-foot wide roadway and, then, there is EI Gato Lane, which is immediately adjacent to Pine Lane, which puts together an entirety of 110 feet of right of way north of the site. The reason why this application was tabled from the previous meeting was to allow ACHD more time to try and address this issue. With the ACHD recommendation, their recommendation was to vacate Pine Lane in this location and it was their determination that this was ACHD right of way. There was some -- if you read the letter that was submitted on the 11th and 12th, there was some confusion as to who owned that property. Staff is going by ACHD's recommendation that their staff knows what they are talking about and that it is ACHD right of way. Regardless of the designation of Pine Lane, we can still annex and subdivide this property, because we are not looking at subdividing that property for houses. It is a portion of the annexation which would be brought into the city and as per ACHD's recommendation, would be mitigated, so that it is landscaped through a license agreement with ACHD in order to move the traffic from what is existing Pine Lane and -- which is an unimproved surface, gravel surface, to EI Gato Lane, which, actually, lines up with Pine Street across the -- across the way, which is great in this location and that is the preferred option for ACHD and staff. Meridian city staff is supportive of that and has conditioned this application accordingly. The next -- well, I guess I should have shown this before. This shows where the Purdom drain is on here. This is a very deep, wide canal. Actually, I'm not sure if it's a canal or if it's just a drainage ditch. With that, the applicant is -- without that, the applicant only shows the landscape buffer to the Black Cat Road and, then, internal parkway buffers, which are going to provide eight feet of off-street landscaping that will be for internal open space calculations. Again, Pine Lane is shown on here, but the actual access for this internal street system, which is defined as Ligar Street, would take access to EI Gato Lane, which is, again, 50 feet north of this site and that's where ACHD requires the connection for a light or court to be -- to take access. This is a picture I took on Tuesday. I was sitting approximately in this location, which is right at the intersection of Pine and -- this is Pine. This is EI Gato. And this is the right of way from Pine, which ACHD claims, and is requiring to be landscaped and, then, bollarded, so that it moves traffic from Pine onto EI Gato, which is the improved surface. This is a picture of the Purdom drain. As you can see, it is a fairly deep, wide drainage ditch and approximately the location of the property line is on that fence line. This mud in the front is the new sewer trunk that is going in on the Black Cat Road system and it's normally not that muddy, it was just raining when I took the pictures. This is a picture from Pine Lane facing south. This is the EI Gato Subdivision fence line. Again, approximate. The existing house that's on EI Gato would be removed and EI Gato goes approximately down to this location, which is -- would be the Purdom drain. The topography is fairly flat there and we don't see any problems with anything. This is the property immediately to the west of EI Gato -- or the proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 8 of 67 subdivision. Currently it is being farmed as pasture. One point of clarification. In one of the letters that was submitted, the -- it was claimed that there was a project going on. There is currently a project -- I did get the wrong parcel here. It's not this parcel, it is one of these two parcels further to the west off of EI Gato. This is an Idaho Fish and Game project, habitat improvement project, which is done at the owner's expense with the expertise of the Fish and Game staff and it is a program for developing and maintaining natural habitat for fish and game in the area. And that would lead into the discussion for the density for the site. Currently, the applicant has shown 17 lots, which gives an approximate density of -- as they have calculated it, 3.08 dwelling units to the acre. As far as I could calculate, the applicant has indicated in his notes that there was -- in the letter submitted yesterday there was 6.35 acre parcels -- I'm -- staff is very confused as to what the actual survey parcel size would be. When I calculated it I came up with a 5.13 acre parcel and 17 homes, that would give a density of 3.31 dwelling units to the acre. And that assumes that all of the right of ways, all of the landscaping, all of the lots, and all of the roadways are incorporated into that density calculation, which they would end up changing that slightly. With that, staff -- or the applicant has recommended -- or requested a density bump up, which is a Comprehensive Plan note, that indicates that in low-density areas or medium density areas that are residential to residential uses, the applicant can make the request. It's not a guaranteed bump up, it's a request to this board for a consideration for higher density. This is not a -- something that is given to a developer just because they are requesting it and staff has made the recommendation that you do not increase the density higher than three dwelling units to the acre. And, even so, would recommend that the portion to the west be reduced in density further to accommodate larger lot uses. Similar subdivisions that this has happened on -- we heard less than a month ago for Kingsbridge, which has one -- which had one -- one acre, three acre, and five acre parcels that surrounded their site and their smallest lot in that subdivision was 12,000 square feet, which is approximately a quarter of an acre and that is what staff is recommending for the western portion here, is a minimum of 12,000 square feet. That is not a condition of approval at this time. If this board so sees fit, in order to make that a condition, then, you can take that into consideration, but that is staffs recommendation for a redesign, as well as to incorporate additional open space into this subdivision, because as currently -- with the -- losing the Purdom drain and a lot of the other calculations in there, they are not allowed to take into any consideration that they are required to landscape Pine Lane. That is an ACHD issue. That cannot be calculated into the open space calculations. As for our -- as to the City of Meridian's landscape plan, Chapter 13 indicates -- or says that dedicated landscaping has to be within a subdivision and it also has to be exclusive of right of way, which means that you cannot include the right of way for EI Gato or -- I'm sorry -- Black Cat Road or what will be EI Gato in this location. It has to be internal landscaping for open space. And there is currently no lots designated for open space within this proposal. Staff has indicated condition number five, site specific condition number five, and three --or the minimum residential density and the open space being those two concerns. The last concern, before I quit talking, is that due to maintenance issues with the Purdom drain, a lot of times the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will burn those ditches and staff has requested a non-combustible fence be put in the southern portion of that as to not impede any maintenance issues with the Purdom Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 9 of 67 drainage system. At this time I most likely have -- oh, one more thing. On page ten, condition number two, there was a typo in there. It says Locust Grove Road. That should be changed to Black Cat Road. And that the staff is recommending approval of this subdivision, as outlined by the conditions of approval listed in the staff report, and I'll stand for questions. Newton-Huckabay: Where on the -- Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have a question on the -- Zaremba: It's the second paragraph of paragraph two. It starts open space and it's in the very last -- Newton-Huckabay Oh. Okay. Zaremba: -- on the last line, not quite the last short sentence. Newton-Huckabay: Joe, on the Kingsbridge development, didn't we, as a Commission, recommend half-acre lots around the perimeter and the City Council reversed that? Guenther: Craig Hood was the planner on that and I'll defer to him, if you will. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, what they did at Kingsbridge was 12,000 square foot lots along Zaldia Lane. There were some other parameters. The eastern and somewhat the north that did have some half acre lots, that the developer agreed to put in there at your recommendation, that the Council did require them to do, but there were some on the perimeter that went down to 12,000 square feet. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Zaremba: Other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. It's good to be back in front of you again. It's been a few weeks or months, maybe. Joe did a pretty good job of explaining the subdivision. There was a lot of really interesting issues and we will jump into those pretty quick, but just to point out, we have read the staff report. The conditions of approval we agree with. There is some points of clarification that we'd like to make. You have all received a letter from me. I hope you have had a chance to read it. I won't be reading it to you tonight. I think Joe hit on the main issues and I'd like to stick with those issues tonight. I have prepared a DVD as well, a CD, and I don't think they are working for that tonight, so I went ahead and made some copies for Joe. We have got some color copies and he's going to put those on the overhead. Joe, if you could turn the overhead on, we will just go with those -- the first issue. We'd like to jump just directly right into a discussion Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 10 of 67 on the density issue. Kind of where Joe ended that discussion was with the 12,000 square lots and in the first three pages, basically, the staff report deals with issues related to density. As Joe pointed out, in the Comprehensive Plan this property -- as you will see the Comprehensive Plan sitting over here -- the audience can't see it. I know we have got a crowd tonight. Sort of light green to the light density, up to three units per acre. No matter how you slice this piece of property up with the density -- with the number of lots we have requested, it's either right under three acres, depending on which legal description you use, or it's just over three acres, depending on the legal description that you use. We have got a number of legal descriptions and I will explain some of the confusion that goes on with that. If you can go to that first slide, Joe, and give us that, there is a number of pieces of property that Joe mentioned. There is Pine Street that is 110 feet wide and so, obviously, it would be a lot easier to explain once it's on the -- the overhead for you. If you could put it so that it's right side up, it would be awesome. Just for orientation, up is north. With this subdivision -- no, it's not north. North is that direction. Thank you very much. It's -- okay. This is west. The Purdom drain -- this is the Purdom drain. The railroad track. As Joe pointed out, the Purdom drain is not part of our subdivision. That was an error in survey and we have corrected that. There is, however, a 20-foot right of way that's called out in this back -- on the back -- south side of this piece of property. A 20-foot right of way. ACHD claims ownership of that as well and that was discussed at the ACHD hearing. At the ACHD hearing it was determined in their staff report that we were to vacate that piece of property. Regardless of whether we vacate it -- and at that hearing they also said if you don't vacate it, we would understand that as well. Twenty feet wide. ACHD has no use for it. Twenty feet wide you can't drive two lanes of traffic up and down. It was tied to the deed and so the deed included a 20-foot wide right of way and, in addition to that, they included this right of way over here, Pine Street, which is the privately signed Pine Street. This is the gravel road that you saw that Joe took those pictures of where it jogs funny. Then we would have EI Gato, which is on the north side. So, the legal description included this 20-foot right of way, this right of way, this 50-foot right of way. In addition to that, it showed a prescriptive dedication of right of way on Black Cat to the center line of the road 25 feet. So, one legal description, we had to provide all of this in the legal descriptions for an annexation and, then, after talking with Joe initially, because this initial drawing didn't go to the center line of EI Gato, you had to provide another legal description to get to the center line of EI Gato to be contiguous with the city. The contiguity for this project is with Castlebrook caddy-corner, since we had to provide it all the way to the center-line, instead of just to the very edge of our property. So, we had to provide a number of different legal descriptions. The first legal description, which is based off of the deed, came up with 6.35 acres. So, we took the density based off of that, because this was all one parcel. None of these were dedicated easements as far as we were initially. And so if you take 6.35, multiply that by three, you end up with 19 units, plus change. We asked for 17 units. Now, we can start paring down all the rights of way. ACHD claims ownership of this right of way. They said we can vacate it. So, we add that to our property, in addition to this area. Can't count the 25 feet down here. It's already improved as right of way for ACHD. But this portion right here, ACHD claims ownership, but they say either we own it, we don't own it, we are not exactly sure. Their best judgment at the hearing was we do own it, Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 11 of 67 it's not yours, we want you to do a license agreement. They give us the option of vacating it -- if we vacate it because part of our property is part of a subdivision. Regardless, the homeowners association is going to have to own and maintain that piece of property. The deed says this is for a road -- a right of way for this road. It doesn't say it's the county. It's doesn't say it's ACHD. This was done in 1976 for this right of way right here. ACHD wasn't organized at that time. ACHD has since been organized and claims ownership of all rights of way. If you go to your Ada County assessor's map and you go to the GIS system that the City of Meridian uses, this 20 foot wide right of way and this right of way right here are shown as ownership under ACHD. And that's on the official records that we use from the City of Meridian and Ada County uses as well. We will talk a little bit more about that. As far as density, if you take out this 25 feet wide section of road that's part of Black Cat and leave the rest of this property in and this property in, you end up with roughly 5.89 acres, multiply that by three, it gives you over 17 units. 5.67 acres would equal exactly 17 units. So, we are right around that 17 unit ballpark number. So, it keeps us around the density for the Comprehensive Plan. Now, we start talking about the Comprehensive Plan. We had a lot of discussions; we have had a lot of discussions with you about the Comprehensive Plan, about how it's a guide. The Comprehensive Plan is just that, it's a guide, it's a goal, it sets a threshold for what they'd like to see developed. 3.08 dwelling units per acre, the number that Joe threw out, the number that's in your staff report, is 800ths of a dwelling unit more than what would be allowed. So, we are right there at the goal. We are either right under it or right above it. The density is just at what the goal was set for. We don't have so many units in this site that they are asking for a large bump up. Joe mentioned that we requested a density increase. There was no request for a density increase by us. When we looked at this, we said there is enough room on here for 17 lots, it meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. We weren't asking for a density increase. If we need a density increase to get to 3.08, I guess we are requesting it at this time. But there is a lot of legal descriptions that are out there for this and we will try to clarify that. And the legal description, Joe and I talked a little bit about how we don't go all the way to the railroad property and so the properties to the south may not be able to annex, unless we annexed all the railroad properties adjacent to it as well. So, there may need to be another legal description for this piece of property. So, sorry for the confusion. It is somewhat confusing, but we are right at the three mark, no matter how you cut it, you're just under or just over, so we are trying to meet that goal of the Comprehensive Plan of three units to the acre. The 12,000 square foot that Joe broached on, up on the north side, these lots are all above the standard 8,000 square foot. These average 9,500 square feet in size. As Joe pointed out to you, we would be buffering cows right now. It is agricultural use. If you have seven across here or six, you're still buffering cows and right now it's an agricultural use. The Comprehensive Plan anticipated this type of development when they came through. These lots are all broken up into lots larger than five acres in size. The reason for that is that they are zoned RUT, which is rural urban transition. That zone is a transitional zone for future development. They are not broken down into something smaller. We require larger lots back there. Whatever happens in the future on the next piece of property that develops is going to have to buffer for those larger lots and so it becomes larger and larger lots as you go back. We need to set a standard now for what those -- those uses are. We feel Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 12 of 67 that lot size of 9,500 is bigger than the minimum for that zone. We feel it's appropriate at this time. There is some things we can do and we will talk about those a little bit later for maybe making this a little bit bigger. Joe had some pictures for you. Joe, can you go to the next slide -- the next overhead? Joe had some pictures and we talked a little bit now the Black Cat trunk was recently constructed in this area. Black Cat trunk is a multi-million dollar sewer trunk project. The City of Meridian installed this sewer trunk in order to provide sewer for development that's happening. This runs right in front of this project. All the neighbors that are here behind me can testify that it's been broken up for a number of months now and it's going to be nice to have it all asphalted again and have this large sewer trunk several -- 20 to 30 feet deep in this area. We have got a lot of sewer capacity in that area. The City of Meridian is planning on this area for development. It's turned sideways for you, but what this map illustrates -- you can see where our project is, it's this green spot right here. I believe this is -- this is Black Cat Road running right to the left here. This is Black Cat. The Black Cat sewer trunk area only includes this area that's in brown. The city has drawn a line in the sand with their Black Cat trunk. They said nothing further west than that area. All that yellow area, nothing further west can be developed right now until the McDermott trunk is constructed and recently at -- as recently as last Monday night there was discussion about what's happening in north Meridian and discussion about the -- when that -- when that would be able to be constructed and we are two or three years out. I have had discussions with City Council, they said they don't want to see the McDermott lift -- McDermott lift station and the McDermott trunk be built until the Ten Mile interchange is constructed. They want to limit development in this area and they have drawn a line in the sand saying you can go no further west than this boundary that you see in front of you. And so all the properties to the west of this area will have to wait several years before they can be developed. So, we are, basically, one lot in from being able to go as far west as this sewer trunk will provide sewer to. So, there is a -- there is a boundary set right now in the City of Meridian for where development can reach and we are just inside that boundary. Onto the next slide, Joe, if you could. This is where it's going to get really interesting. We had a few neighborhood meetings with the neighborhood and both neighborhood meetings focused generally -- and specifically there was a lot of discussion at both those meetings and at ACHD about what's going on with the 11 O-foot wide access to these properties. Joe did a very good job explaining that to you. On the north side there is a public road that's improved with asphalt. It's not improved to today's standards, but there is asphalt. And that would be this side. We had our engineer go ahead and do a rendering as to what it would look like with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Across the road with Castlebrook -- you recently approved this subdivision. They improved this roadway for 24 feet of asphalt and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on this side and this piece of property right here isn't where the 110 feet wide right of way is right now. This is a schematic, I don't know if it's to scale, I'm sure it's not something we can scale off right now, so we went ahead and put a number right here. From centerline of the road to the ten-foot buffer, this is over 68 and a half feet from where the new center line will be. The rest of this roadway, outside of 36 feet of right of way -- outside of 36 feet of curb, gutter, sidewalk and roadway, has to be landscaped with a license agreement to ACHD. So, you have approximately 50 feet of landscaping entering into the subdivision. That's a lot of landscaping and in doing our open space Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 13 of 67 calculation, we took only half of that dimension, because the code says you can only count half of your dimension -- if you do above and beyond your -- above and beyond the ten foot minimum, you can only count half of your open -- you can only count half of your open -- you can only count half of your improvements towards your open space requirements. We only counted half of this area towards that open space. At the ACHD hearing, Joe put in his staff report, the perfect comment is on page five from ACHD explaining what this area -- and it's actually a paragraph long and this might be something we could look at if you want to. And I'm trying to move through this pretty quick. ACHD came in and said you either vacate it, make it part of your project, or go ahead and landscape it with a license agreement and we have chosen to landscape it with a license agreement and we will have almost a 50-foot wide entry into a subdivision for landscaping to be maintained by the homeowners association. As Joe pointed out, this will align with EI Gato. ACHD is in support of this aligning with EI Gato. We are in support of an alignment with EI Gato, it makes it safer than having 110 feet wide where you can access this property. From the picture that Joe showed you, you could see that people further down are, actually, coming off of this road and coming onto the improved road section and driving it right now. Recently construction for the Black Cat trunk extension was parking in this area, they are using this as a staging area, and everybody that lives in this area is unable to use the gravel road, but they are still able to get out onto Black Cat. And so by eliminating the private road that ACHD claims ownership to, everybody can still get out to Black Cat. It's better to have one controlled intersection than a very large intersection without control and two different accesses. And if we get rid of the gravel road it will probably save on car wash expense as well. Into open space -- Joe, can you go to the next drawing? This is how we calculated open space and Joe and I may have a different interpretation of your code, but in open space you count this area. This is an eight foot wide detached sidewalk. It's eight feet wide. Typical in subdivisions you will see at five-foot parkways. This is an eight-foot parkway. We are providing open space. In addition to that, because ACHD is requiring that either we vacate it and buy this property from them and make it ours or landscape it and the homeowners association is maintaining and -- maintaining and landscaping, we counted half of this area towards our open space. We did some calculations down below. In addition to this open space and this open space section, we actually come up with just over five percent open space for the area. We had some neighborhood meetings and we tried to get through all these issues. As you can see, there is a lot of people -- Zaremba: Your time is up. Can you conclude quickly? McKinnon: I'm going to conclude right now. We couldn't come to an agreement with the neighbors. They don't want -- they won't want to see this happen. We think it's, actually, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. We would ask for your support tonight. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval with those clarifications that have been made tonight and I'll stand for questions at this time. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 14of67 Zaremba: I suspect we will defer until we find out what other questions are raised. McKinnon: And there probably will be a couple. Zaremba: Thank you very much. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. We have a sign-up sheet that I will begin calling names off of and, again, if you would, please, come to the microphone and state your name and address and, then, make your remarks. Let's begin with Paul Sharratt. Sharratt: Thank you very much, Chairman. My name is Paul Sharratt. I live at 5556 EI Gato Lane. I am speaking for the majority of the homeowners on EI Gato Lane, as well as West Pine Lane. So, I hope you afford me the ten minutes that you will. Zaremba: Let me do it this way. Are there people here for who he is speaking, if you would raise your hand a minute. You have ten minutes, sir. Sharratt: Thank you very much. Our residence is approximately a half a mile west of the subject property on EI Gato Lane. I have lived in this residence since 1990. Some people in the neighborhood have lived there since the mid 1970s when this Skyview Ranchettes was originally platted. As I said, I am representing the majority of the homeowners who live on EI Gato Lane. These homes are on approximately three to five acres lots. We object to the subdivision as platted and want to review some of the pertinent points that were addressed in letters sent to the P&Z Commission, dated April 14th and May 12th, 2005. We don't believe that this subdivision meets the expectations of the Comprehensive Plan in several areas. As stated on page three of the staff report -- let me go ahead and read that. The Comprehensive Plan states on page 104, Objective D, would require new urban density subdivision, which abuts there in proximity to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscape screening to transitional densities with larger, more compatible lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. This is the main reason that we object -- one of the main reasons we object to this subdivision is we are one of those larger acre rural residential areas and believe that we need to have that transitional area. As stated in our letter dated April 14th, there is a housing -- about the house philosophy, that a vibrant community needs a good cross-section of housing and, therefore, must guard against an abundance of subdivisions in like density and price range. We believe that this is very similar to the Castlebrook Subdivision and other subdivisions that continue up both Cherry Lane, as well as Black Cat. We believe that we have -- that we have a transitional area in between the higher density subdivisions and the much larger lot acreages that we have. We believe that this proposed development is contrary to Meridian's goal for future development. One of those goals is to maintain a small town agricultural heritage. Many areas around this proposed development are actively pursuing this goal of agricultural heritage. There are animals Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 15 of 67 being raised, plots of ground actively being farmed by row crops, as well as pasture and hay fields, large gardens, as well as game habitats have been developed. The point that we want to make here is that there is one chance to make the right choice for the west side of Black Cat between Cherry Lane and Franklin. We believe that the largest possible lot sizes are needed as a transition to the existing homes in this area. There is no small lots along the west side of Black Cat at this point in time and we urge this Commission to use their discretion and their judgment, as best as possible, to grant that large as possible lot size in this development if it's approved. I would now like to address concerns of our neighborhood that are addressed in Article E and F of the staff report. We agree with the staff report that the developer has not met the open space requirements as equal to or exceeding five percent. It looks like they have addressed some of those issues and I will bring up another issue in a little while as well that will probably cloud the picture even further. We also believe that as proposed this development will change the essential character of this area. The staff report is correct that this area is changing. We realize that and -- we recognize that. Many of the residents in this area would like it to stay the same. In other words, we didn't want to see the Castlebrook Subdivision go in. But knowing that it's changing, we wanted to stay as close to the way it is as possible. By bringing small lot sizes to the west side of Black Cat, it is our belief that this will be a significant change. Article F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. We believe that this development will be hazardous and disturbing to the current neighbors. As stated, there are a variety of uses currently occurring in this area from animals being raised to ground being farmed. As more families are added to the area on smaller lots, the larger agricultural lots become attractive hazards. Animals can be fed inappropriate food, gates and fences can be damaged or left open, equipment a source of curiosity and a hazard, all causing problems for us the existing homeowners. Most of this area is also irrigated from -- irrigated ground with the source being open ditch -- open ditches, excuse me, which also become attractive hazards. The point that I was going to -- one of the points that we want to bring up is the easements and right of ways on both the north in dealing with the Pine Lane -- the Pine Road issue, as well as on the south with the Purdom Gulch drain, are complex and need to be understood. As the staff report says in special considerations number four, staff is unaware of the official status of the Purdom Gulch drain. So, even the staff is not fully aware of all of the details and/or possible ramifications that the easements and setbacks on the Purdom Gulch drain may have. As well, residents of Pine Lane are contesting ACHD's decision on the status of West Pine Lane as referenced to in a letter from J.C. Brown, dated May 11th, 2005. We do not believe that any development on this site should be approved until all easements, right of ways, and all of the over issues are understood and resolved. As stated, the developer has gone in and done several different legal descriptions of this property, which, there again, continue to cloud the issue of the rights of ways and easements on both the north and the south ends of this property. We believe that it should be once and for all finalized with the proper easements and the directions that those need to go, before any development is done on this property. As declared in the letters to Planning and Zoning, there are 24 homeowners who objected to this development as -- excuse me -- as proposed. I would now like to ask those in support of my comments and opposing this development to please stand up. As you Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 16 of 67 can see, the majority of the property owners that signed the original letters had enough concern and interest to show up tonight to support hopefully the Planning and Zoning Commission's either changing of this proposed subdivision or denial of this proposed subdivision. That's all. I would now entertain questions. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: appropriate density. In your statement you didn't define what you folks feel is Sharratt: We would recommend or like the Commission to approve the largest lot size density as possible. It's our understanding from talking with the staff that half acre lots would be the maximum lot size allowed, being that it would be annexed into the city. So, we would encourage the Commission to go with half acre lots, if possible. If the Commission chooses to make those changes, what we are really looking for is the transition from smaller density lots to larger density lots which we currently own. And, like I said and like I stated, we believe that we have one chance at this, that whatever is decided on this subdivision will detail what is done on the rest of the west side of Black Cat Road, being that the rest of it has not been annexed into the city and so we urge and encourage you to go with the largest lot size possible. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And that's -- where is the middle ground? Sharratt: Where is the -- Newton-Huckabay: The compromise. I mean in your -- Sharratt: In my opinion -- and I will not speak for the rest of the homeowners in the subdivision, because this is my opinion. We would like to see at least -- we would, actually, like to see one acre lots, if possible, but knowing that one acre lots are probably not acceptable to the city, half acre lots would be acceptable, in my opinion, because that decreases the density of the homes in that area, it turns them, then, into more agricultural type or large lot homes, rather than the smaller lot homes, which, then, blends better with our neighborhood. And as I stated, that is my opinion, not the opinion of the people that, you know, I'm representing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then I have one other question. Castlebrook like eight units per acre? Isn't the density of Zaremba: It's an R-8. I don't know if it's -- Rohm: Yeah. I would say it's probably about five and a half. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 17 of 67 Zaremba: I don't think they achieved an eight density. Rohm: Yeah. I'm sure it's not eight. It's an R-8, but not eight lots -- not eight lots per acre. Newton-Huckabay: On the one south of that -- wasn't there one of them that had eight - - they had like patio homes and -- Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, you're correct. The subdivision that is on the south side of Pine on the east side of Black Cat did have the R-8, but Castlebrook was R-4. Recognize that the Comprehensive Plan designation is different over there. It's medium density. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Black Cat is the -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Sharratt: And I believe with that the developer decreased the density on the south end of that property to accommodate the larger lot sizes that are approaching on the opposite side of Pine Lane. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Yes. You're correct. I have no more questions. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: A couple questions. You made a statement that there is still a cloud as far as a right of way and easements, I didn't know if you had some information that -- that Mr. McKinnon didn't have, because in his presentation I thought he made it clear that there was an understanding between ACHD and what -- what was their claim and what the options were. So, I don't know if you had some other information that we did not have. Sharratt: As I stated, in reference to J.C. Brown's letter dated May 11 th, the homeowners along Pine Lane are contesting the finding that that is an ACHD right of way and that there is an ingress and egress right of way to the associated properties down West Pine Lane and, there again-- Borup: So, do they have any documentation for that? Sharratt: Yes. If you refer to his letter, he has talked to the Ada County commissioners, as well as -- Borup: No. I mean as far as that easement. Have they got a recorded easement or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 18 of 67 Sharratt: It is recorded with each of the properties that are on West Pine Lane and it's not an easement per se, it is an ingress and egress across that property and that's the issue that's clouded, in our opinion. Borup: Okay. In lieu of at least presently, if that sewer boundary was accurate, it looks like it's not going to affect too many properties, at least in the near future, but do you have any information on the immediately adjoining property, the one that the stub street would go into is -- Sharratt: Is to Mr. Wilder's property? I believe Mr. Wilder is here, so -- Borup: He was the one that raised his hand. Okay. Sharratt: So, the issue -- if you'd like to address the question directly to him, you're more than welcome to. Borup: Okay. Well, I just so -- so many times over the years we have seen similar things and on -- on these larger lots that some day they get redeveloped and I have never seen anybody that was willing to -- to guarantee that that would never happen. Sharratt: Currently there are protective covenants on Skyview Ranchettes No.1 and No.2, which is the entire length of EI Gato Lane, which prevents any further subdividing of any of the properties along those lines. This property is not in Skyview Ranchettes No.1 and/or No.2. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Sharratt: Thank you very much. Rohm: Back to this compromise, if we would for just a moment. There is -- currently there are seven lots that are along the west line of this property and I believe staff had made a comment about maybe recommending that these lots be at a minimum of 12,000 square feet and if, in fact, you were to go to 12,000, I think that you would end up having to drop a lot or maybe two lots off of that west line and, then, leave the balance of it as platted. Is that any kind of compromise that even comes close to -- Sharratt: There again, stating my opinion, we would like to see, really, both sides increase lot size due to the fact that as you get larger lot sizes, you're going to attract people that are more like minded to the people that are in the three to five acre lots. You're going to attract people that want to have large gardens, that want to have animals, that -- and that's what we are fearful of and we have already seen -- as I stated, we are already seeing changes occur. We are seeing more and more people from subdivisions across the street being -- walking up and down our road. We are seeing people on the backs of our properties -- which concerns us, being the fact that Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 19 of 67 many of us have animals and many of us have, you know, livestock -- not only livestock, but also, you know, habitat -- there is two different habitat properties, one that they registered with Fish and Game, the other one hasn't, as well as large garden lots. And so that's a real concern is as -- you know, as the development continues to encroach, it makes us nervous and is going to cause us grief and hardship in the fact that we are going to have to continue to either protect our property more, continue to monitor our fences, you know, it is -- it is not an everyday occurrence, but it's not abnormal for horses to get out or -- you know, we had the occurrence the other day where a -- one of our young ladies was riding her horse down the road and one of the trucks from the construction zone came by and spooked the horse. It probably took her 15 minutes to get the horse to calm down and neighbors came out and helped her -- you know, and those are the concerns that we have, is you get increased traffic, you know, and they say there is not going to be that much increased traffic on EI Gato Lane, we believe there will be and that it will pose a hazard for a hardship, as well as hazards to the people currently living in that area. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I will continue down the list as you signed up, but if I call a name and Mr. Sharratt spoke for you, would you, please, just indicate that. Tom Noll. Noll: My name is Tom Noll. I live at 5947 EI Gato Lane. My wife and I submitted a letter to you. Paul spoke largely -- and I support and concur with Paul's comments. I just wanted to add a couple of points of clarification. One is on -- as far as the compromise, our compromise, the way we see it, is that this is identified as low density in the Comprehensive Plan and we -- we proposed, you know, one acre lots and we are compromising to half acre. We think that's a reasonable solution. And I'm speaking for myself. I believe I'm speaking for some others. I want to also address the easement issue. The existing easements and ingress and egress rights are held as deeds by some of these property owners to the west. As was pointed out, the property title here has -- I couldn't follow what the developer has proposed. I could not follow the arithmetic and I couldn't follow all the legal descriptions, you know, this one, and, then, we changed it to this and we changed it back to this and, then, we had five percent here, but now it's 3.0 and this -- so I found it -- well, I just couldn't follow it, so -- but, anyway, the point is that easements are very complex and I believe the developer needs to do his homework, he needs to get his locker in order, as my dad used to say. Get your locker in order. And he needs to work with the existing landowners, he needs to work with the title companies, he needs to work with the county recorder, and he needs to work and get all those easements vacated prior to development, or else there are going to be landowner issues down the road and you're going to be hearing about them. And so I think it's -- he's premature in his development. He hasn't done his homework. And I think he can do better. That's another thing that we have all heard a few times and we don't like to hear it, but sometimes it just needs to be said. That's the conclusion of my comments and I will stand for questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 20 of 67 Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Kathy Farerra. We had a letter from you with a lot of other names. Are you speaking for a group as well? Farerra: I think so. I'm sure that they will let you know if I'm not. Zaremba: Okay. Let me just see a show of hands if she's speaking for people. Thank you. Okay. We will give you ten minutes. Farerra: My name is Kathy Farerra. My husband and I have lived at our home at 4950 EI Gato Lane for 18 years. Zaremba: We are discussing whether the same people that gave their time to Mr. Sharratt are -- Farerra: I think we are probably almost done. Zaremba: I think we did see some overlap, but I think there was others that weren't. So, please go ahead. Farerra: I have something I want to read. I know some of it's already been said, but I want to read it. The City of Meridian's leaders, having the power to make policies for areas outside the city limits, also have an obligation to make development transitions into long established rural neighborhoods in a fashion that is least intrusive to the residents of those neighborhoods. We believe that the best reasonable way to transition from a new subdivision from the east side of Black Cat Road into the multi- acre properties to the west is by limiting these subdivisions bordering Black Cat on the west, to the largest possible lot sizes allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. We understand that would be half-acre lots. Homes situated on half acre lots,within what amounts to only the length of a football field in distance from Black Cat to the adjoining acreage residential properties, is the most reasonable and responsible manner in which to accomplish this transition, creating the least intrusion to the long time rural residents, while still accomplishing the city's goal for future development and establishing a standard that can be followed along the rest of Black Cat Road to the west between Cherry Lane and the railroad line. And I would like to comment -- and I'm -- if any of you agree with this back here, maybe you can raise your hand -- if half acre lots are not feasible for that entire piece of property, then, I believe that they should be half acre lots bordering the western boundary and a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots on the east side. I don't think we should get into 9,000 square foot out there. It's just not the right place to do it. Black Cat Road is a natural -- well, it's not natural, but it's there. It's a border. It's a boundary between the city as it exists in the small unit subdivisions to the farm ground that most of us plan to stay on. We don't plan to leave. That's all I have to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Apparently not. Borup: I had a question, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 21 of 67 Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Just your last comment. I'm trying to understand -- it sounds like you're saying that we should ignore the Comprehensive Plan as far as future land use designation. Farerra: No. It was easy for the developer to say that the Comprehensive Plan is simply a guide. Borup: No, that -- Farerra: What I would like to say -- that's not ignoring the Comprehensive Plan. That is allowing, I believe, reasonable transition into these acreage properties and as was shown on the map, you have like, what, 600 feet that you can go into the existing -- Borup: Well, the Comprehensive Plan calls for medium density rural there, if I understood that -- Farerra: That may be what the plan calls for, but I believe that -- Borup: Low density? Zaremba: Low density. Borup: So,then, it is a bump up in density. Zaremba: Yes, it is. Borup: Okay. I needed that clarification. Thank you. Farerra: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. David Farerra. Okay. Has been spoken for. I believe it's Rebecca Sharratt. Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. Carol Bishop. You need to come to the microphone, if you would, please. Bishop: My name is Carol Bishop and I live at 5751 West EI Gato and I agree with Paul Sharratt and Kathy Farerra and, basically, if I wanted to live in a subdivision, I would have moved to a subdivision. And that's it. Any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Ron Jackson. Oh, you spoke first. Okay. Ron Jackson's opinion has been given. J.C. and L. Sue Brown. It's been covered. Okay. Thank you. Amy Dierr and Mike -- I'm sorry. Seward. Spoken for. Thank you both. Let's see. I need to interpret this one. It's a short name. Something like H.J. Brower? Brown? Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. H.J. Brown that was. Ed Wilder. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 22 of 67 Wilder: My name is Ed Wilder. I live at 4961 Pine Lane. I have adjacent properties to the west. Lived out there -- first person to move on the lane in 1972. As far as I know on the -- my main question is -- is on the ownership of that ground. We have never once had a highway department road grader, maintenance, oil. Now that they want to do a subdivision -- I think I could fax you a copy of my grounds paper that shows nothing about ACHD owning the front part of my property. If they do that -- that legal description doesn't quite show the way EI Gato curves off to the north. That would force all 17 of our property owners, of which over the years has got quite a bit of traffic, everybody's got kids, grand kids -- they would be pulling out onto EI Gato at -- some of the cars 60, 70 miles an hour. I was the one that forced the double road there to begin with. A guy wanted to use my property -- he was a land down when he subdivided that and I said -- and I said no. So, that's how the -- that's how we got the double road to begin with. That was about 1974 when they -- when they subdivided the north side of EI Gato. It blows me that they can say they own in front of my house. Looks like a little bit of a land grab to me. And the back -- the back easement -- now they are saying they own that. Last year the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Company was in there and got their big tractor stuck on the end of my place about this time of year. I don't think they own that either. That's alii have got to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Borup: Mr. Wilder, your comment on the easement or whatever it is on the front of your property, you said you don't think ACHD owns it, but what is your understanding, then? Wilder: I think it's on my property that -- our property line goes to the -- what used to be down between the separation of the road. Borup: So, your understand that is a right of way or an egress-ingress -- Wilder: It's a right of way and everybody has got an egress -- Borup: So, it's a legal right of way? Wilder: Legal right of way. Yes. Borup: Okay. Wilder: For all the years before -- before that the property line -- not the line, but right down between the two roads. The fence line was there. The original property. Now-- and over the years I have never had no communication from ACHD that they own it or that they are willing to maintain it. Never once. Borup; All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 23 of 67 Rohm: I have a question for you, too, then. You're saying that this 20-foot right of way that is in question between Ada County Highway District and the proposed development, which would continue west along your south line -- Wilder: Yes. That continues -- that continues three lots. Rohm: And it's your contention that it's not Ada County Highway District's property, that is -- it's -- Wilder: That's right. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Marilyn, I think it is, Pettingill. Bettingill? Okay. Thank you. Gene Bray. Mr. Bray. Bray: Thank you. Yes. I'm Gene Bray and I live at 5654 EI Gato and I'm the one that has the habitat improvement program with the Idaho Fish and Game, which I have got 20 years invested in. But my main comment is going to be on -- I have been doing some work on the traffic going down our lane and even though the subdivisions to the east -- those traffic surveys indicated that there would be no traffic increase on EI Gato as a result of the subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat and that is just not the case. We are finding that now probably two-thirds of the traffic that now zoom up and down our residential lane are people that are not associated with the lane and they are just trying to escape and, boy, when they get on that 60 foot residential lane, they put the pedal to the metal and going westbound, even though it -- the speed was 30 miles an hour, the average speed going westbound is 40 miles an hour. Going eastbound it's -- they slow down a little bit, because as you get passed my vantage point and the ranges I have set up there are about a thousand feet of length and I do a timing with a hundredth of a second stopwatch and as they pass those ranges, so I can get the speeds very accurately. Going eastbound, the turn -- as the road veers to the south toward the confluence with Pine Lane and the traffic going eastbound, that is 35 miles an hour and, again, that's routine day after day, just picking an hour at random to go up and spot just the speed of cars and going west with a straight shot all the way down to McDermott. The cars go down there some of them as fast as 50 miles an hour. And those are people that are not tuned into the agricultural and the pastoral pursuits of the people that have invested over the 20 and 30 years that -- I have lived there myself for 18 years, just like Kathy -- just like the Farerras have and there is a lot of children, there is a child care facility there, animals, and people who are outside of that area, they just don't have any sensitivity to the fact that that is a residential lane, they just go as fast as they can. And I have got the facts and figures to prove it. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Rohm: I have just a quick question. Do you think that some of the increased traffic that you're seeing on EI Gato is related to the road construction on Black Cat? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 24 of 67 Bray: I would say that the -- it's a lot of construction tradesmen and I have noted, even particularly, a City of Meridian maintenance -- I wrote it down -- maintenance department truck. It was barreling through there, just like the best of them, and so we have -- you know, we have agency people and -- as well as private individuals bogeying down through there and I'm afraid it's going to be much more frequent once this -- once EI Gato gets opened up and gets black topped, because the traffic down at the end there has been pretty impeded, because for the last about three or four months the passage through there is restricted. So, once they cleared the way through there, boy, they get on that paved road there going west and 60 feet wide and they let her -- they let her rip. Rohm: Make up for lost time. Bray: Yes. Make up for lost time, I'm afraid. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: So, EI Gato doesn't go through clear to McDermott, then? Bray: Yes. It's just one mile long. Section line to section line. Borup: So, the subdivision goes that far also? Bray: Yes, it does. Yes, sir. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Bob Ewing. Okay. Thank you. That goes for Maurene Ewing as well? Okay. Thank you. Fran -- I believe it's Jorgensen. Come to the microphone, if you would, please. Newton-Huckabay: She said she agrees. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. If all you're saying is you agree -- okay. But not yet, let's go through the rest of the list and then -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be faster if you just asked if there is anybody else that wanted to testify? I don't know. Since so many of them have already -- Zaremba: It might be, except that the list is the public record and I want to make sure it's accounted for. Sorry. Let's see. That was Fran Jorgensen. L. Jorgensen. Okay. Going to be covered. It looks like John Anson, maybe, or there may be a few more letters in there. Spoken for? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, some of these people are on both lists. One moment while I do paperwork here. Okay. Jan Husky. All right. Thank you. Rick Venteck, Possibly. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 25 of 67 Vincha: Rick Vincha, 5442 EI Gato and I just had one clarification, is a compromise on density for me would not be half-acre size lots, but I would like to have a lot less density, minimum of one house per acre. Zaremba: Any questions? Phil Jeppesen. Spoken for as well. Okay. And -- oh, probably Jo Vincha. Okay. She's covered as well. Okay. That concludes our list. The first thing I'll ask if there is anybody who didn't sign up that cares to add anything. And, then, we have had a couple people ask for Mrs. Farerra to add a few words in their behalf and we will give you another three minutes. Farerra: Thank you. I will make this very quick. And it goes to the question of Pine Lane. We did not have the foresight tonight to bring with us a deed that had all the attachments with it and there has not been anything that has been filed with the city, to my knowledge, with you people, or with ACHD, that contained everything that was recorded with those deeds. The deed for this particular piece of property -- I'm going to read you something very short out of it. It says this tract of land is subject to a right of way for a county road along the east 25 feet, semi-colon, a right of way for a road along the south 20 feet, comma, a right of way for a 50-foot road as now located and constructed along the north boundary, which would be Pine Lane, and to all other easements and rights of way. The only reference to the county road for the deeds for that piece of property is along the east side, which is Black Cat Road. Now, attached to every one of the deeds -- and there are -- how many of them? Eight? Seven? Seven deeds from when this property was split. There is a written -- there is an agreement that is signed by every one of the property owners that is serviced by Pine Lane, saying I can get from Wilder's house to Mr. Jorgensen's house, to here, to here, to here until I get home and I can get back out. Us and our family and our friends. ACHD has addressed this issue by not providing any deeds to say they have -- that they own anything there. They have -- they said that they have shown through the assessor's office records that they own that. However, every one of these people is still paying the taxes on Pine Lane. Every one of them. And when a person -- a senior supervisor type person was contacted by Mr. Brown, who could not be here tonight, because he had a death in the family and he had to travel, that guy did some independent research at the assessor's office and he said I don't know where they are coming up with that from. I can't find anything that says they own any of that. So, I think there has been some material that has been left out and I agree with Mr. Noll, I think this is going to turn into a stink down the road if it's not cleared up. Thank you. Borup: Question. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: What was the date of that deed you just read from? Farerra: The deed I'm looking at now is the deed for this particular piece of property. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 26 of 67 Borup: Have you got the date? Farerra: 1976. September 1976. A warranty deed. Borup: Okay. Is that what most of them are on there? I was just going by -- Farerra: Some of them are, actually, a little earlier and, then, they figured out, as Mr. Wilder said -- it kind of started with Mr. Wilder saying that he wasn't going to give access to what is now the EI Gato Lane Subdivision by the use of the road that the people on Pine Lane had already started to construct. Borup: No. I understand. And I'm going back to Mr. McKinnon's statement that ACHD wasn't formed until 1976, so they couldn't have -- Farerra: I'm sorry? Borup: ACHD was not formed prior to '76, so they could not have had that -- a claim prior to that time, because they weren't in existence. Farerra: They also have been able to show no claim since then, except that they say that they own it. And the people on Pine Lane say, wait a minute, I don't think so. And so that is the official position and that was how the case came to be. Borup: Okay. I understand. I just wanted to clarify the date. Farerra: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: I'm not sure -- remembering now whether it was your letter or somebody's else letter, but -- Farerra: There was -- I think Mr. Brown wrote a letter. Zaremba: Okay. Well, there, actually, were several. Just to clarify, ACHD throughout this entire period has provided no maintenance to it. How has the maintenance been handled? Farerra: Mr. Brown has done some. I believe Mr. Wilder has done some. But ACHD has never spent five minutes on that road. They have ever graveled it, they have never graded it, they have never done anything. And the neighbors just went in and put in some speed bumps, because they were having problems with some teenage drivers who live on Pine Lane. So, they got a little bit of black top and they put it over in these strips across the gravel road. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 27 of 67 Farerra: You're welcome. Zaremba: I believe everybody has had an opportunity that cares to. At least their. viewpoint has been expressed and we appreciate that and we have heard it. Does staff have anything to add at this point? Guenther: In discussions with Mr. Hawkins-Clark, our principal planner here, I guess a little history on the Comp Plan. Mr. McKinnon keeps referring to it as a guide, but in certain areas -- and this being one of them, it was set up more along the lines of being more of a detailed layout of how the neighborhood wanted to have their neighborhood exist and this neighborhood, according to Brad, was very active in the Comprehensive Plan enactment and was very adamant in that this was a designation that they wanted and wished to maintain for their very rural lifestyles. The other issue is that Mr. McKinnon says that on his deed it indicates that there is a right of way. The open space calculations, even if you wanted to take half of that, still says, according to our Chapter 13, that exclusive of right of way, are not to be incorporated into open space calculations and, again, if you did choose to go with the neighborhood recommendation for a compromise to go with large lot sizes, then, I would recommend that the board draft a condition of approval to -- to the report in order to accommodate that type of an issue. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. The applicant has been taking notes and we will give you ten minutes, sir. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Let me just start with where Joe left off. I said we would probably have a disagreement early in the way we define open space and the way he just defined it, let me read it to you, how it says, and you've got your attorney here tonight, he can maybe help us out with this. It says open space shall mean land area exclusive of streetlights and street buffers, except for right of way specifically dedicated for landscaping within a subdivision. It says you can't count street lights -- it says you can't count street lights and street buffers, except for those -- excepting those saying you can count these, except for right of way specifically dedicated for landscaping within a subdivision. I need to get a clarification from you, but the way I read that when I see it -- Baird: I'll stand with staff's interpretation. We just got that this afternoon. McKinnon: Did you? Baird: And we will stand by that. McKinnon: And the reason why I bring that up is in the past you have counted right of ways, which are parkways. Parkways between sidewalks and asphalt, so you guys have a precedence for this. Halfway -- the parkway is between sidewalks and asphalt Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 28 of 67 and the roadway, curb and gutter, has been counted as open space in the past under this exception. Those parkways are located in the right of way, typically, with the sidewalk being outside of the right of way in an easement, which has been counted towards open space. I don't know if we are going to argue about that tonight, but is this accepting that, those are the ones you can count. You can't count the ones that aren't landscaped, but the ones that are specifically landscaped you can count. And I have had discussions with staff about that in the past and in the past they deal with parkways, they said, yes, you can count parkways towards open space. So, there is some precedent that's been set by that -- by staff and by the city. And I said there is a disagreement on that. Regardless of what it is, we have a 50-foot buffer at the entrance to the subdivision that needs to be maintained by the homeowners association. It is open space, it's maintained by a specific person and a specific group, and if it's owned by a specific group, maintained by a specific group, you can't say that that landscaped area is not open space and, in fact, it is open space, it's being paid for and maintained by a specific party. Just because the ordinance says that you can't count it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist and we would suggest that it does exist and should be counted towards open space. We are onto something kind of fun. Joe, could -- oh, you've got it up right there. Awesome. Commissioner Rohm touched on something -- touched a little bit about compromise and it's been touched on by a couple of Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay -- about compromise. And while there was some discussion going on, I leaned over and met with one of my -- one of my coworkers, talked about compromise on this site and if we went to 12,000 square feet, what would that do to this area. We have got, basically, seven units to back up to this one -- one site. These are all approximately 9,500, 9,000 square foot lots. Some of these are over 10,000, some of them are a little bit smaller. Regardless, you pick out on the north side, if would you take -- if you took this lot out and shifted the road up and, then, took the land that's separated between this, added it to these three, and to these three, shift it this way over to the north. There is a pie-shapped lot down here, it's a little bit difficult, we are not going to be able to fit anymore or less in this area if we went to 12,000 square feet. We still have six that would be backing up to the subdivision. If we were to take out one lot, it actually does a couple of other things. It's kind of neat and it makes for a good compromise. It gets our density down. We will lose one lot. It gets us down below three units to the acre, so it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, regardless of how you take your legal description. We are below three units to the acre. It provides a larger buffer, as far as transitional use, if we get rid of one. There is fixed use requirements for the distance from the roadway down to the south, so this is an additional stub street. We'd end up with one less lot, so we meet our density requirements, we would be able to continue to meet our open space requirements. Some of the major issues with this plat concerning density, concerning the buffers, go away and, then, we'd just have to deal with the open space issue that we have already addressed a little bit. And, Joe, if you can go back a couple more slides that you guys have. One -- there we go. Perfect. That works. Let's talk a little bit more about Pine Street. Pine Street is the private road that's signed as a private road. At the ACHD -- that's this road right here. Commissioner Borup, I think there was some confusion as to whether or not this road goes all the way through. Pine Road itself goes and dead ends at this location. EI Gato continues. EI Gato is a public road. It's not a private road. It Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19. 2005 Page 29 of 67 goes up -- it comes up and -- I don't see that it continues all the way through. Okay. It right turns and, then, comes down -- okay. EI Gato goes through. That I know. Not that it was discussed tonight. Again, we have 110 feet of right of way there. Staff is supportive of reducing that down to one road that lines up with EI Gato. ACHD has a policy in place that says you line up with the adjacent roadways. When you have tried to put 110 feet to line up with a 50-foot roadway and a 50-foot right of way, it doesn't line up. Especially when you have two roads that are coming out at the exact same point onto the same road. The point that ACHD made -- and this was discussed with their legal counsel, Mr. Price was at this hearing and Mr. Price's legal opinion was that these right of ways -- and there is a number of them throughout the county that are signed as private roads, are owned by ACHD, but not maintained. The right of way maintenance supervisor got up and said at that public hearing that there is a number of private roads that are not being maintained with signs on them and those signs that are private as an indication to ACHD not to maintain those. And the reason why is ACHD will not take over maintenance of a roadway until it meets their standards. ACHD doesn't build the roads, developers build the roads. ACHD will not take over maintenance of Pine -- maintenance of EI Gato in this area, or Pine, until it meets their policy. So, that's the reason why they haven't done any maintenance. It was a surprise to me to hear that there is a lot of private roads that are actually owned by ACHD. But ACHD claims ownership of all rights of ways in Ada County from the time that they are organized. There wasn't a massive process -- go over deeds and saying this is now all ACHD. It would have been too cumbersome. But ACHD claims ownership of all the rights of ways. Mrs. Farerra -- the report, I guess the deed, for our piece of property, talking about a 20-foot right of way, a 50-foot right of way, and, then, a right of way 25 feet to center line for a county road. The reason why it says county, instead of ACHD, is because at that time the county maintains those roadways, not ACHD, because ACHD wasn't in existence. We have ACHD for better or for worse. They maintain the roadways and they take ownership of the rights of way and that was their determination. I think that the compromise -- if we can -- if we can go back to that, Joe. It's in my head now and there is -- I guess it's something that would be able to work for -- for us, at least. You know, if we were to reduce this back here, that pushes all of these lots towards the 12,000 square foot. It may not meet the specific 12,000 square feet, but if we take one lot out and spread it equal distance around there, if we push those all to 11 thousand plus square feet, maybe just under 12,000 square feet. If we can add a condition that says we could make this six units on the western edge, rather than seven, with space of one of these going through or added as a compromise, we create the transitional densities, we allow this area to develop within the Comprehensive Plan. It reduces our density, makes larger lots, which is what the neighborhood has requested and I think we have a project that is a viable project. It complies with the Comprehensive Plan and, again, staff is recommending approval of this and we would ask that you recommend approval as well to the City Council. With that I will end testimony. Ask if you have any questions on that. I know there is a lot of issues that were brought up, but I think those cover the majority of the issues. Zaremba: Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 30 of 67 Borup: I do have a few questions. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, please. Borup: I guess I have got to agree, these are nice size lots. Anywhere else in the city they would be 300,000 plus homes that would normally go on this size lot. But I do have a couple of -- you had -- I'm sure your client understood from the beginning what the Comp Plan said for this area. McKinnon: Three units or less. Borup: Pardon? McKinnon: Three units or less. Less than three. Borup: Well -- I thought we were at low density? McKinnon: Commissioner Borup, this is low density. Comprehensive Plan is three units or less. Low density on the Borup: On the Comp Plan. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Okay. I'm-- McKinnon: This is not already zoned. This is an annexation request. Borup: Okay. Yeah. There is a difference in the definition between low density on the Comp Plan -- I mean on the Camp Plan low density and the -- on the ordinance. So, there wasn't any -- you had made a statement that you did not request a bump up in density. That was when you were assuming that you maybe had more acreage than it may appear that you do. So, you're -- what you're saying by your last comment is that by reducing one lot that you would be well under the three units acre, is that what you're getting, too? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, if you reduce one lot -- Borup: And I agree with your calculation. That had 11,000 plus square foot -- McKinnon: It would get it down underneath the three, depending on where you take those measurements from, but, yes, it would put you down below three. If you take one out, that's how close you are on the threshold of three units. Borup: It appears you still may have some trouble on your -- I mean on your open space. Earlier you had stated that ACHD gave you the option of vacating that property? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 31 of 67 McKinnon: ACHD says with right of ways you either improvement it or you vacate it. Borup: Okay. And vacate it, it would pass to your ownership, then? McKinnon: It would pass to our ownership and, then, all of a sudden we have-- Borup: And that would be on the open space at that point. McKinnon: Then, it could be open space. That's correct. Borup: And why are you -- why are you not pursuing that option, or was that too early? McKinnon: It's a process that's both cumbersome to the owner and to ACHD. It takes several months to go through the process. It requires public hearings to vacate right of way and through the ACHD process there is an exchange of money or property that takes place as well, because they can't just vacate it for no money, because it's privately -- it's not privately, but publicly owned land, because it's right of way. There has to be an exchange of money. They felt that it would be easiest to leave it as ACHD right of way, with a license agreement. Same thing happens. It's either owned by ACHD with the homeowners association maintaining it or it's owned by the owners of the homeowners association maintaining it. Rather than go through a cumbersome, you know, monthly -- a several month long process, why not just landscape it. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Other questions? Moe: Yeah. I'm still kind of hung up in regards to the open space as well. What I'm hearing staff and legal tell us already is that they pretty much do not believe the right of way area can be noted as open space in your calculations. So, I guess having said that, do you have any second plan of attack on this? Because I'm not anticipating that changing. . McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, just like Commissioner Zaremba just mentioned, if we were to take that right of way area, vacate it, purchased it from ACHD or land swap it with ACHD, then, it becomes owned by the subdivision, the homeowners association, then, you can count it, according to staff -- all it is is a matter of process. If it were owned by ACHD, and maintained by us, or it's owned by us and maintained by us -- does that make sense? Commissioner Zaremba -- Commissioner Borup said if you vacate it, you purchase the right of way, and, then, all of a sudden it's part of our subdivision, it's right of way that can be included. You can only count 50 percent beyond the ten feet that's required. In a local road the ordinance requires ten feet of landscaping fOr the local road. We can count half of whatever is extra to it. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 32 of 67 Moe: Okay. Having said that, you already -- you also mentioned that to vacate you got a time frame to deal with in order for that to happen. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, that time frame typically takes place during the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes place through the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes place with -- Moe: Okay. We are getting somewhere now. I understand. I want to thank you. Zaremba: If you have people who have a deeded right to cross this and what today would probably be called a cross-access agreement among -- it sounds like seven or eight property owners here. Isn't that something of value that you would also have to purchase from them by agreement? McKinnon: Well, that would depend if -- from what we have been told by public agencies, ACHD, is that ACHD owns it and if ACHD owns it, these people can still get out to Black Cat, there is no harm to these people, because you have a roadway that will be improved that run parallel to each other. You can get out on one and there is access to both of them all the way throughout, you're still getting out to Black Cat, everybody can get through on those roads -- all the way through. It's all getting to the same point, Commissioner Zaremba -- Mr. Chairman. ACHD says they own it. In fact, we wish we could have stayed out of this. Our initial plan for this was let's take access off of Black Cat, we don't have to worry about Pine Street and EI Gato, we don't have to worry about coming across any sort of easement. We went and sat down with ACHD, ACHD said, boy, we'd really rather not have another access to Black Cat. We understand what you're doing, I understand why you don't want to do that. We can live with that. We met with the city. The city said, you know what, we'd rather you take access off the side and Joe -- we got to pre-app and said, you know what, why don't you look into it a little bit more, maybe there is something else going on here. We went back to ACHD and said what's going on here and ACHD looked at the map and said, you know what, we own that and it would be best to come in off of that, you know, and even if you want to come in off of Black Cat and don't come in over here, you're still stuck at ACHD to either improve or vacate right of way. ACHD would still even make us improve or vacate that right of way, regardless of where we took access, because they claim ownership adjacent to this. Zaremba: Thank you. McKinnon: So, we are stuck having to appease ACHD, regardless of where our access was, because they claim ownership. So, we are kind of -- we are stuck between a rock and a hard place and ACHD said -- their attorney said we own it and so that's what we have to go with. Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions? Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 33 of 67 Zaremba: Discussion? Newton-Huckabay: You want to close the Public Hearing first? Zaremba: That's fine if you'd like to. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close this Public Hearing on AZ 05-012 and PP 05-014. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close these public hearings. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Discussion? Newton-Huckabay: I think they need to lose three lots. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: That's -- by my calculation that's about 2.39 per acre. Rohm: Three lots in the whole subdivision? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Borup: How many acres are you calculating on the -- Newton-Huckabay: 5.98 -- okay. Borup: 5.89? Newton-Huckabay: That's what the staff report says. Guenther: Commissioner Zaremba, we are not sure what the survey says. They have indicated -- there is one survey in our application that says 5.51 acres. There is one survey that says 6.35 acres and there is another survey that says 5.89 acres, which is the preliminary plat that is in your sub that -- your application. Newton-Huckabay: That's the one I'm using to make my calculation. Borup: The smallest one. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 34 of 67 Newton-Huckabay: I got to pick -- you know, we got to -- you know, I got to pick a number in our scale. Guenther: That's why there is a condition of approval in the conditions that says that they have to come back with a proper survey and proper calculations for the overall density. Rohm: And to follow Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's thought, if they dropped it by three lots, does the open space, then -- that issue, does that go away or are we -- are they clear with that recommended change? Guenther: Well, with the open space calculations, I did my own calculations today based on what was presented and what was interpreted by the subdivision. I came up with -- that they have 7,865 square feet of open space on -- according to the 5.51 acre subdivision, which means -- or survey that was submitted. That would mean that they have 3.2 percent of open space. They only have to come up with another roughly three thousand, thirty-eight hundred square feet in order to get to where they need to be. Zaremba: Then, I will express a couple of opinions that I think may surprise a few people. In the subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat, we received similar testimony and in that area I admit that I was not convinced and still am not convinced that it has that much impact on EI Gato. On the west side of Black Cat I feel entirely differently about it. The Comprehensive Plan envisions in a low-density area a maximum of three dwelling units per acre and the discussion we are having noodles that limit. I mean whether we get to 2.99 or 2.98, I don't think is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to that, as staff has pointed out and others have, there are areas where the Comprehensive Plan envisions that even that's too much density and the subject is the transition to the neighbors. I have no problems supporting the idea that half-acre lots are as small as these ought to be. In addition to that -- and I deliberately didn't put Mr. Wilder on the spot, but I personally feel that development of this small acreage is premature. If the two lots combined, if Mr. Wilder some day was thinking of developing -- and I'm not going to ask him to answer that question. But if you could combine those to pieces of property, you could do far more with this that would be much more advantageous, not only to the City of Meridian, but to the neighbors, have larger lots that would that be a much better transition to their area and what I'm admitting is I feel much differently about the west side of Black Cat than I do about the east side of Black Cat. I still feel eventually when Pine goes east, all of those people are going to go east and stop being a problem. I can admit that they are being a problem now, but I don't think they have a reason to go that direction once the sewer is done, once Pine goes east, which could be years, unfortunately. This is different. This is the entryway to this group. It's part of the existing properties and the Comprehensive Plan envisions taking into account the existing properties and I will have to say I feel it's premature at this point even to annex this small piece, which could be made much better for both the city and for the neighbors by having a discussion with Mr. Wilder as well. That's my personal opinion. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 35 of 67 Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Moe. Moe: I will weigh in, okay? Quite frankly, I have got a couple different issues on this project. In regards the Comprehensive Plan in regards to the three dwelling units and to anticipate it to be as per the Comprehensive Plan, which, in my view as a Commissioner here, we are somewhat under a duty to somewhat follow the Comprehensive Plan. So, therefore, I would anticipate that by what the developer is anticipating, reduction of one lot and whatnot, to somewhat get into -- under the three dwelling units, I happen to like that very much. My biggest problem on this -- and I'm going to kind of point at staff a little. I'm a little bit concerned that -- we have a lot of open issues on this project and in my opinion I do not think that I can vote for this development when I have to vote for it to go to City Council with all these open issues still out there. I think there is -- and it's been noted by a few people here tonight, there are issues I still think need to be resolved, i.e., legal descriptions and whatnot, as well as what we are doing with the open space, realizing that they may take and get the right of way from the county. I just think there is too many issues in here that I just can't support an approval tonight of this project. I'm not so sure I want to really deny it, but I don't think I can support it tonight. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Just a couple notes on calculations. If we take the lowest number, the 5.51 acres -- I think that was Commissioner Huckabay was -- was that the number you were using? Newton-Huckabay: I used the 5.89. Borup: Okay. Well, I used the lower one, so it can't go any lower than that. Sixteen lots would be 2.9 per acre. Fifteen would be 2.72. So, eliminating one lot would meet the three per acre. It doesn't address the open space. That's more for information. My comment would be that I think -- I believe -- I believe there should be an implied expectation when someone looks at the Comp Plan that that's what would be expected that you can develop in that area. I also feel, you know, that some transition is appropriate and because of -- because of this location, feeling the neighbors, I don't feel that there is any need to give any variance or any extra. I mean I -- the staff has already stated what their interpretation of the open space and right of way is and -- you know, and everything else is pretty black and white already in our codes and ordinances. So, I think I'm agreeing with what Commissioner Moe said, I mean these are larger lots from what we normally see. I think there is still a market for larger lots. At what point you reach where it's not practical to bring sewer and water services in, I don't know. Staff has commented on that in the past, but, you know, I think the developer can still -- still has a market for larger lots, but I think there still is an implied Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 36 of 67 expectation to be able to develop it as the Comp Plan says and how that's being already approved and run through the process, but I think maybe they need to work at complying with all aspects of that. And so I'm agreeing with Commissioner Moe that I'm not ready to deny it. Whether approving it tonight is -- it sounds like it could be a long laundry list of things that they would need to do and I'd feel much more comfortable maybe having that worked out before it goes to City Council also. Zaremba: Let me ask what you're thinking we should do as a process. In order to get some of these resolved, we would probably want to continue the hearing, which we have closed at the moment, but we have in the past reopened and continued. Are you thinking there are things that can be resolved? I have expressed my personal opinion that I think this is premature at this point and we have gotten burned other places where we annexed a piece of property that was too small to really do what needed to be done there. Borup: Well, I don't know. See, I guess I look at -- Zaremba: I'm just one person and we were looking for a consensus here. Borup: I'm in a -- somewhat of a rural subdivision, but -- and five acre lots surround it. One-acre lots with five-acre lots around it and in our area all the five-acre lots are developing. We never will. It's too small. I mean ours are too small to ever develop. You're not going to develop one acres into anything. So, at some point -- and it's not going to be next year, but maybe at some point something's going to happened here. Maybe in someone else's lifetime. And a lot of times that's what it would be, but, you know, that's part of planning is what's going to happen in 40 years. We have got the sewer line there. I mean the city has already got -- you know, that's saying something, too. Zaremba: Let me get the sense, though -- are we thinking that there are issues that could be resolved that would earn a recommendation to the City Council? I know all of my issues can be resolved. Borup: Right. Yeah. You're saying you want half-acre lots. Zaremba: And the more we talk about it, the more etched in stone is it, unfortunately, but there is -- Borup: Well, I feel like I could -- I could support a redesign with something with fewer lots. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: That's my sense. By my calculation, reducing three lots would be about an 18,000 -- provided I did the math right, on average, just about a half an acre. I mean I -- from a land planning standpoint, I don't even know if that would work, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 37 of 67 Zaremba: Well, the applicant has expressed a willingness to do that. What about the open space and easement and -- Newton-Huckabay: You know, I have to confess the open space issue is pretty convoluted and I'm having a little hard time following it, so I'm just going to defer to Joe on that, because with the people in the audience, I -- it's kind of a circus of points. But if we could come back with that resolved, which it seems to be -- everybody agrees that could happen and three -- you know, three or more or less lots -- it would only take three less lots, I think. I think it's not a bad design and I don't necessarily think it's premature to develop -- what you're doing, then, in my opinion, is setting the standard for how development is going to go to the west and basically you're getting, on average, half acre lots between Black Cat and McDermott, with a whole bunch of stub streets. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just a clarification. Commissioner Huckabay, made the comment about losing three lots and you made the statement that that was what the developer was saying, thought he was only losing the one lot. Zaremba: I'm sorry, I thought I heard her say one. Newton-Huckabay: No. I said three. Moe: Three. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: No. I agree. The developer has agreed to lose one lot. Newton-Huckabay: How many were you thinking? Borup: Two. Newton-Huckabay: Two? Borup: Well, I mean it would need to be at least that to get the open space. Moe: Yeah. Borup: Three would be a nice size, though. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 38 of 67 Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, do you have an opinion to weigh in here? Rohm: Well, yeah, I have to voice my two cents worth here. To start off with, the Comprehensive Plan is something that we use as our guide as we move forward with development in this area, as well as the entire area of impact and I believe staff has commented that the people from EI Gato had weighed in and expressed significant concern about larger developments or dense developments adjacent to their rural lifestyle and I think that the lowest development that could be assigned was assigned to this property. The low density, which is up to -- is up to three dwelling units per acre. Up to does not mean that you have to develop up to three. You don't have to go to three dwelling units per acre. I think that it would behoove the developer to reconsider and move to some compromise to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. The issue of the open space, I really think that at the end of the day the open space, whether they purchase that from Ada County or have it vacated, it's all going to be the same open space at the end of the process and SÒ, quite honestly, even if we should not consider it as open space as part of this hearing, if, in fact, it was vacated, you would end up with the exact same open space at the end of the day and so I personally don't think that the open space is as significant of an issue as what has been expressed, simply because through time that would be resolved and would end up with the same open space. So, anyway, that's as I see it. So, in conclusion, my thoughts are that the developer should go back and reconsider reconfiguration with a reduced number of lots that is in line with what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay had suggested, with at least a three lot reduction and that would get them down below the three -- I would imagine that would get it to 2.7 or something like that. . Newton-Huckabay: 2.3. Rohm: 2.3. And I think that that's working as a compromise to the concerns of the public and giving credence to the fact that the developer has a Comprehensive Plan that he's also tried to adhere to and once those issues have been addressed, then, that's something that we all, hopefully, could live with. End of statement. Zaremba: Thank you. I would ask a clarification from staff. We often in our discussion are talking about usable open space and to me I envision a place where people could actually have a picnic or the kids could play ball. Is usable part of the code or is that just an interpretation that we make? Guenther: That is an interpretation that we have kind of defined, as there are no amenities associated with any type of open space. Typically, with open space we get a gazebo, a park bench, or a bus stop or something along that line and there is nothing presented with this. That's what usable is as we interpret it as when we drafted the staff report. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: As a suggestion-- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 39 of 67 Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: As a suggestion, I would say that we should reopen the Public Hearing and continue them to a later date and give the developer an opportunity to come back in with the -- with a response that addresses the concerns that have been expressed by this body and come up with a design that addresses the concerns of the public, as well as the comments made by the Commission here and we will continue it to a point where they feel comfortable that they can address all issues that have been brought up this evening. That would be my recommendation. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Would you care to make that a motion? Borup: Mr. Chairman, there is one other option and I would be interested in the applicant's feelings on this. I mean the other option is we could just vote on it tonight. And that may -- you know, that may be appropriate to have them express how they feel about that and if we are going to reopen the Public Hearing, we can go either way. Rohm: Well, I don't think we can ask the applicant for his desires without reopening the Public Hearing. Borup: Right. That's correct. Unless he wants to express it to staff. But we can find out if he would -- if he'd like that idea, to continue it or he'd just as soon that there was a vote tonight. Zaremba: I would express, again, regardless of my original opinion being uncomfortable with a vote to recommend anything that has this many loose ends to it. Borup: Well, it would be real easy to recommend -- Zaremba: -- has asked us to -- Borup: It would be real easy to make a recommendation for denial. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I think that's where we go with that is to recommend denial. That would be my vote. Zaremba: I'm not trying to brow beat anybody, but I was already there. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the Public Hearing AZ 05-012 and PP 05-014. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 40 of 67 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries. Sorry. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I guess we just need to talk to-- Zaremba: Do you have any further questions for the applicant? Borup: I think we can get an answer just by a nod of their head if they would like it continued or a vote tonight. Rohm: I'd like a date certain for a requested continuance. Borup: Well, that's -- yeah, that would be helpful to have that, so we could put that in the -- Zaremba: We aren't looking for new testimony here. I'll need to ask Mr. McKinnon to answer this question. Beecham: I'm, actually, the owner. Borup: I think he can answer. Zaremba: Okay. Come forward. Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Scott Beecham, 405 South 8th Street. I'm an owner of C2B Development. We would appreciate the opportunity to go back, tie up some of these loose ends. I think there was some misunderstanding we can work through pretty quickly and we can redesign and run a detailed pro forma, see if that's feasible, whether it be minus two lots, minus three lots, and let staff know whether that makes sense to us or not and we can be back before you or not. I think the direction of the Commission is clear. Rohm: Do you have a date certain? Moe: While we are waiting on that, I do want to make ohe statement that was -- as I heard the Commission, it was more like three lots, not two. Beecham: Yes, sir. I got that very clearly in sign language. Rohm: It looks like June 2nd, June 16th, or-- Zaremba: Those are both pretty full. Rohm: Are they both? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 41 of 67 Zaremba: It would be July before we could do anything. Moe: If I might add, because we still have legal issues on this as well, I mean do you think it's -- I think the neighbors still have issues in regards to that right of way and I'm a little bit concerned that we are -- it's going to take a little longer than everybody thinks to get this thing resolved. Newton-Huckabay: How about August 4th? Zaremba: I certainly would want to see something in writing from ACHD and from the property owners as well. Moe: Exactly. I mean at some point -- Zaremba: We aren't going to make the legal decision, but there needs to be supporting documentation. Moe: A hundred percent agreement. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could, if we could do a July date, I will go to work on getting that in writing from ACHD. If we can't do that, I will notify staff in advance and make sure we are not wasting anyone's time. Rohm: Thank you. We have got the 21 st. Zaremba: A suggestion has been the 21 st of July. That would give staff adequate time, then -- if this is revised, staff needs everything ten days before the hearing in order to get agency comments and everything, so that-- Moe: If at all possible, could we make it the 4th of August? I think there is members that may not be present on the 21 st. Zaremba: That works for me. I'm not making the motion. Would that be a problem? Beecham: That would work. Zaremba: Okay. All right. A motion to continue is in order. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue public hearings AZ 05-012 and PP 05- 014 to the regularly scheduled planning and zoning meeting of August 4th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 42 of 67 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Thank you all for coming in. Zaremba: Thank you all. We will see you again. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we take a short break. Zaremba: This is the appropriate time for us to take a break. We will reconvene in about ten minutes. (Recess. ) Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 05-014 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 19.72 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by landmark Engineering and Planning - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 05-016 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots 5 other lots on 19.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting and let the record show that all Commissioners that were here before are here again with us and we will open the Public Hearing for Items 9 and 10 on our agenda. This is AZ 05-014, request for an annexation and zoning of 19.72 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone and also Public Hearing PP 05-016, request for a preliminary plat approval of 74 building lots and five other lots on 19.72 acres, in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, south of east Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road. And we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is for Sicily Subdivision. It's proposed for 72 building lots, five common lots, in a proposed R-8 zone. Bordered on the east by the recently approved Roseleaf and Chatsworth Subdivisions and, then, South Locust Grove Road. On the southwest property line bordered by the Ridenbaugh Canal and undeveloped RUT properties and, then, also bordered by an undeveloped RUT property on the north. It is also nearby to Tuscany Village and, then, across Locust Grove portions of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan designation of this property is medium density residential. The applicant has proposed 3.75 dwelling units per acre, which is in accordance with that medium density residential. Actually, on the low end. the Comprehensive Plan designates medium density residential as three to eight units per acre and this is much closer to the three than the eight. The staff doesn't have many issues for the Commission's resolution. I had spoke with the applicant and they are in agreement --