The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMay 19, 2005 P&Z MeetingMeridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 6 of 67 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. That motion carries. All in favor sa y aye. AnY opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: ALL BYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Rahm. Rohm: Do we need to have a motion to -- Zaremba: Technical) closing the loop. Y pr°bably nat, but we have been doin g that in the past, just Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I withdrawal of AZ 05.004 and PP 05- 06 a that we accept the a pplicant's requast for Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motian and a second. All Motion carries. In favor sa Y aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005; Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT t ~ 05 012 Request for Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC - R 4 zone for EI Gato Item g; 701 Black Cat Road: Continued public Hearing from April 21, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 p 05"014 Request for acres in a proposed R_4 Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat RoadEl Gato Subd v siontsb n 5.89 Y C2B Zaremba: Okay. Naw, we are ready for Items 7 simultaneously. This is AZ 05-012, re and 8. We will open both hearin s from RUT to R-4 zone and pp _ gUe$t far annexation and zoning of 6.34 acres building lots and two common lots on 5.89 acresein aor prelimina for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC ry plat approval of 17 proposed R-4 zone. Both of these begin with the staff report. 701 Black Cat Road, and we wil I Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a re ue an R-4 district for EI Gato. There is 17 lots that the a I' is immediately north of the Union paci ~ q st for an annexation and rezone to Pine Lane. This subdivision in this area is pp (cant is proposing. The location fic Railroad and off of Black Cat Road, south of wel-• The Comp Plan designation for all of the area in Castlebrook and that is an R-4 subdivision as low density residential. Low density being less than defined by the Comprehensive Plan. this vicinity west of Black Cat is three dwelling units to the acre, as 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 th Railroad, it is a large drainage ditch called the Purdom drain and it h e Union Pacific that on your staff -- I mean on the packet submitted by the applicant thas been indicated portion of the open space of Lot 1, Block 1, that is incorrect. It has be inthis would be a this is not a part of the subdivision, it is either owned or maintained __ o redefined that Project Control Board or Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and ne r owned by Boise from the calculation. The second feature is that there is a dual roadw Lane right in this location immediately north oft eds to be removed and, then, there is EI Gato Lane, which is immediat ay system on Pine he site, which is a 50-foot wide roadway puts together an entirety of 110 feet of right of way north of the site PTh Lane, which this application was tabled from the previous meeting was to allow AC a reason why try and address this issue. With the ACRD recommendation, their reco HD more time to to vacate Pine Lane in this location and it was their determination that right of way. There was some -- if you read the letter mmendation was and 12th, there was some confusion as to who ow this was ACRD that was submitted on the 11th ACHD's recommendation that their staff knows what they crept Ik nrtyab tall is going by ACHD right of way. Regardless of the designation of Pine Lane, „„~ ca °ut and that it is subdivide this property, because we are not looking at subdivide n still annex and houses. It is a portion of the annexation which would be brought intoghthat property for ACHD's recommendation, would be mitigated, sa that it is landsca ed to city and as per agreement with ACHD in order to move the traffic from what is existing P ne La a license which is an unimproved surtace, gravel surtace, to EI Gato Lane, which ne and -- up with Pine Street across the -- across the way, which is great in this locate is the preferred option for ACHD and staff. Meridian ci ° actually, lines has conditioned this application accordingly. The next __ w on and that ty staff is supportive of that and shown this before. This shows where the Purdom drain is on here.gThis • I should have wide canal. Actually, I'm not sure if it's a canal or if it's just a draina edit the applicant is -- without that, the applicant only shows is a very deep, Black Cat Road and, then, internal parkway buffers g ch' With that, the landscape buffer to the feet of off-street landscaping that will be for internal p ~nhspa~~ ~~agu° Provide eight Pine Lane is shown on here, but the actual access for this internal stree ations. Again, is defined as Ligar Street, would take access to EI Gato Lane, which ist system, which north of this site and that's where ACHD requires the connection for a li hta°gain, 50 feet -- to take access. This is a picture I took on Tuesday. I was sitting ap roxim court to be location, which is right at the intersection of Pine and -- this is Pine. T And this is the right of way from Pine, which ACHD P ately in this landsca ed and, his is EI Gato. P then, bollarded, so that it moves traffic from Pine onto EpGato w 'be is the improved surtace. This is a picture of the Purdom drain. As ou hich fairly deep, wide drainage ditch and approximately the location of the ro that fence line. This mud in the front is the new sewer y can see, it is a Cat Road system and it's normally not that mudd it P perty line is on trunk that is going in on the Black pictures. This is a picture from Pine Lane facing southWThis )s the EI Gaten I took the fence line, Again, approximate. The existing house that's on EI ° Subdivision removed and EI Gato goes approximately down to this location, which isG~wo Id uld be Purdom drain. The topography is fairly flat there and we don't see an be the anything. This is the property immediately to the west of EI Gato __ orph blems with e proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page S of 67 subdivision. Currently it is being farmed as pasture. One point of clarification. the letters that was submitted, the it was claimed that there was a ro~ec In one of There is currently aproject -- I did get the wran P J t going on. one of these two parcels further to the west off of ElrGatoerThis, s an IdahoaFis I' it is Game project, habitat improvement project, which is done at the owner's ex hand pense with the expertise of the Fish and Game staff and it is a program for develo ' maintaining natural habitat for fish and game in the area. And that would lead 'ng and discussion for the density for the site. Currently, the applicant has shown 17 lot nto the gives an approximate density of -- as they have calculated it, 3.08 dwellin unit ~ which 9 s to the acre. As far as I could calculate, the applicant has indicated in his notes that there w -- in the letter submitted yesterday there was 6.35 acre arcels -- I m __ as confused as to what the actual surve p staff is very up with a 5.13 acre parcel and 17 homes,rthat wo d gidve a dens to of 3 culated it I carne to the acre. And that assumes that all of the right of ways, all of the landscae'Inng units the lots, and all of the roadways are incorporated into that density calculate g' all of they would end up changing that slightly. With that, n, which recommended -- or requested a density bump up, which is aaComprehens vepPlan Hates that indicates that in low-density areas or medium density areas that are reside ' ntial to residential uses, the applicant can make the request. It's not a guaranteed bum u i ' p p, t s a request to this board for a consideration for higher density. This is Hat a -- somethin that is given to a developer just because they are requesting it and staff has made g 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 reduc density further to accommodate larger lot uses. Similar subdivisions that thised m happened on -- we heard less than a month ago for Kingsbridge, which has o has which had one -- one acre, three acre, and five acre parcels that surrounded their e' and their smallest lot in that subdivision was 12,000 square feet, which is a site a quarter of an acre and that is what staff is recommending far the western portion heere is a minimum of 12,000 square feet. That is not a condition of approval at this time. this board sa sees fit, in order to make that a condition, then, you can take that in If consideration, but that is staffs recommendation fora redesign, as well as to incorporate additional open space into this subdivision, because as currentl -- with -- losing the Purdom drain and a lot of the other calculations in there, they are Hoe allowed to take into any consideration that they are required to landscape Pine Lan t That is an ACHD issue. That cannot be calculated into the open space calculations. e for our -- as to the City of Meridian's landscape plan, Chapter 13 indicates -- ar sa s than 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 far 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 tats designated for o ens a within this proposal. Staff has indicated condition number five, p p ce number five, and three -- or the minimum residential density and the apen Islpa enbeinn those two concerns. The last concern, before I quit talking, Is that due to maintenan g issues with the Purdom drain, a lot of times the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District w e burn those ditches and staff has requested anon-combustible fence be ut in t ill 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 thin On condition number two, there was a typo in there. It says Locust Grove Road. should be changed to Black Cat Road. And that the s g page ten, this subdivision, as outlined by the conditions of ap rovalfl is recommendin a That stand for questions. p sted in the staff report,rand I II 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 s ace the very last -- p and it's in 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 Commi ' recommend half-acre lots around the perimeter and the City Council reversed that? sion, 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 s u lots along Zaldia Lane. There were some other parameters. The easterre foot somewhat the north that did have some half acre lots, that the developer a reed n and in there at your recommendation, that the Council did require them to do, bug thereto put same on the perimeter that went down to 12,000 square feet. were 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 McKinno 735 South Crosstimber. It's good to be back in front of you again. It's been a fen weeks or months, maybe. Joe did a y good job of explaining the subdivision. There was a lot of really interesting issues and we will jump into those re just to point out, we have read the staff report. The conditions of a p tty quick, but with. There is some points of clarification that we'd like to make. You have all receg ee a letter from me. I hope you have had a chance to read it. I won't be readin it to od tonight. I think Joe hit on the main issues and I'd like to stick with those issues toni y u 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 same copies for Jae. We have got some color co ies and he's going to put those on the overhead. Joe, if you could turn the overhead on we just go with those -- the first issue. We'd like to jump just directly right into a discus will sion Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 10 of 67 on the density issue. Kind of where Joe ended that discussion was with the 1 square lots and in the first three pages, basically, the staff report deals with iss~~00 related to density. As Joe pointed out, in the Comprehensive Plan this ro es you will see the Comprehensive Plan sitting over here -- the audience an'p see i- as know we have got a crowd tonight. Sort of light green to the light densit t• I y, up to three units per acre. Nv matter how you slice this piece of property up with the densit -- the number of lots we have requested, it's either right under three acres, de y with which legal description you use, or it's just over three acres, dependin on description that you use. We have got a number of lea pending on g I descriptions and I will explain same of the confusion that goes on with that. If au c g the legal give us that, there is a number of pieces of prop rty that oe mentionied slThereOe' and Street that is 110 feet wide and so, obviously, it would be a lot easier to ex lain is Pine p once it's on the -- the overhead for you. If you could put it so that it's right side up, it wou awesome. Just far 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 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 c Purdom orrected that. There is, however, a 20-foot right of way that's called out in this back -- back -- south side of this piece of ro ert . on the ownership of that as well and that was discussed atOthe ACCHD heaan .ACRD claims hearing it was determined in their staff report that we were to vacate thathei ACHD property, Regardless of whether we vacate it -- and at that hearing they also said if ou don't vacate it, we would understand that as well. Twent feet p ece of for it. Twenty feet wide you can't drive two lanes of traff c u and d ACHD has no use the deed and so the deed included a 20-foot wide right of way and,~n addit onstt1ed to they included this right of way over here, Pine Street, which is the private) si ne° that, Street. This is the gravel road that you saw that Joe took those pictures of whir d Pine e it jogs funny. Then we would have EI Gato, which is on the north side. So th e legal description included this 20-foot right of way, this right of way, this 50-foot ri ht of In addition to that, it showed a prescriptive dedication of right of way on Black Cat way center line of the road 25 feet. So, one legal description, we had to provide all of thishe the legal descriptions for an annexation and, then, after talking with Joe init' In because this initial drawing didn't go to the center line of EI Gato sally, another legal description to get to the center line of EI Gato to be contiguousow th the city. The contiguity for this project is with Castlebrook caddy-corner, since we had e provide it all the way to the center-line, instead of just to the very edge of our pro ertta So, we had to provide a number of different legal descriptions. The first p y description, which is based off of the deed, came up with 6.35 acres. So, we took gal density based off of that, because this was all one the dedicated easements as far as we were initially. And so ifryou take 6 35f multiel Were by three, you end up with 19 units, plus change. We asked far 17 units. Now wy that start paring down all the rights of way. ACHD claims ownership of this right of wa n y. hey said we can vacate it. So, we add that to our property, in addition to this ar Can't count the 25 feet down here. It's already improved as right of way for ACHD. ea this portion right here, ACHD claims ownership, but they say either we own it we But own it, we are not exactly sure. Their best judgment at the hearing was we do own tt Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 11 of 67 it's not yours, we want you to do a license agreement. Th vacating it -- if we vacate it because Regardless, the homeowners associationa s of°.°Ur property sypart ofsat subdiv'sionf piece of property The deed says this is for a road o_ have to own and maintain that doesn't say it's the county. It's doesn't say it's ACHD. Thight of way for this road. It right of way right here. ~ s was done in 1976 for this organized and claims ownershDip of all~ightsZed at that time. assessor's map and you go to the GIS sgste of way. If you go to D ua Ada Countn foot wide right of way and this right of way right hereh areas of Meridian uses, this 20 ACHD• And that's on the official records that we use from the own as ownership under County uses as well. We will talk a little bit more about that. city of Meridian and Ada take out this 25 feet wide section of road that's part of Black As far as density, if you this property in and this property in, you end up with rough) 5•8at and leave the rest of three, it gives you over 17 units. 5.67 acres would equal exact9 acres, multiply that by right around that 17 unit ballpark number. So, it keeps us aro Comprehensive Plan. Now, we start talkin abo y 17 units. So, we are and the density for the g ut the Comprehensive Plan. We had a lot of discussions; we have had a lot of discussions with ou ab Plan, about how it's a guide. The Comprehensive Plan s 'ustout the Comprehensive goal, it sets a threshold for what they'd like to see developed. 3.pt it's a guide, it's a acre, the number that Joe threw out, the number that's in your staff re dwelling unit more than what would be allowed. 8 dwelling units per are either right under it or right above it. The densit i p°rt~ is 800ths of a So, we are right there at the goal. We We don't have so many units in this site that they are ask nat fQhat the goal was set for. mentioned that we requested a density increase. There was no re increase by us. When we looked at this, we sa' g a large bump up. Joe lots, it meets the requirements of the Comprehensive quest for a density id there is enough room on here for 17 density increase. If we need a density increase to Plan. We weren't asking for a get to 3.08, I guess we are requesting it at this time. But there is a lot of legal descriptions that are o and we will try to clarify that. And the legal description, Joe and I talk ut there for this how we don't go all the way to the railroad property and so the ed a little bit about may not be able to annex, unless we annexed all the railroad propertpes a s to the south well. So, there may need to be another legal description for this i sorry for the confusion. It is somewhat confusin ,but djacent to it as matter how you cut it, you're just under or just over s p ece of property. So, 9 we are right at the three mark, no the Comprehensive Plan of three units to the acre. oThe 12 pep g to meet that goal of broached on, up on the north side, these lots are all above the sta foot. These average 9,500 square feet in size. As Jo square foot that Joe buffering cows right now. It is agricultural use. If ndard 8,000 square e pointed out to you, we would be you're still buffering cows and right now it's an agric Itua IeuseVeTheross here or six, Plan anticipated this type of development when they came throu Comprehensive broken up into lots larger than five acres in size. The reason fork These lots are all zoned RUT, which is rural urban transition. That zone is a transitional development. They are not broken down into s that is that they are back there. Whatever ha omething smaller. We require la ger lots peens 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 lar you go back. We need to set a standard now far what those -- those used larger lots as s 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 ' ' at this time. There is same things we can do and we will talk about thoselas appropriate far maybe making this a little bit bigger. Joe had some pictures for o little bit later go to the next slide _- the next overhead? Joe had some pictures and we ~Oe' can you bit now the Black Cat trunk was recently constructed in this area. Blac alked a little multi-million dollar sewer trunk project. The City of Meridian installed this $eat trunk is a order to provide sewer for development that's ha wer trunk in project. All the neighbors that are here behind meecan testify that it' 9 bey front of this for a number of months now and it's going to be nice to have it all ash n broken up have this large sewer trunk several -- 20 to 30 feet deep in this area. Welted again and of sewer capacity in that area. The City of Meridian is plannin on taVe got a lot development. It's turned sideways for you, but what this map illustrates __ his area for where our project is, it's this green spot right here. I believe this is -- this you can see Road running right to the left here. This is Black Cat. The Black Cat sew s Black Cat only includes this area that's in brown. The city has drawn a line in the san trunk area Black Cat trunk. They said nothing further west than that area. All that d with their nothing further west can be developed right now until the McDermo~llow area, constructed and recently at -- as recently as last Monday night there was discunk is about what's happening in north Meridian and discussion about the -- when t ussion that would be able to be constructed and we are two or three years out. hat -- when discussions with City Council, they said they don't want to see the McD I have had McDermott lift station and the McDermott trunk be built until the Ten Mile i ermott lift -- nterchange is constructed. They want to limit development in this area and they have drawn a ' the sand saying you can go no further west than this boundary that ou se Ilne in You. And so all the properties to the west of this area will have to wait severa~ront of before they can be developed. So, we are, basically, one lot in from bein ab years far west as this sewer trunk will provide sewer to. So, there is a -- there is set right now in the City of Meridian for where develo g le to go as a boundary inside that boundary. Onto the next slide, Jae, if you Pouldt Thiseis where iWe are dust get really interesting. We had a few neighborhood meetings with the nei hborho both neighborhood meetings focused generally -- ands s going to pecifically there was a lot of discussion at bath those meetings and at ACRD about wh g od and wide access to these properties. Joe did a ve at's going on with the 110-foot north side there is a public road that's improvedow thbasphalt Ingtts not Ymu~ On the today's standards, but there is asphalt. And that would be this side. We engineer go ahead and do a rendering as to what it would p oved to had our and sidewalk. Across the road with Castlebrook look like with curb, gutter, subdivision. They improved this roadway for 24 feet of asphalt andtlcu b, sidewalk on this side and this piece of propert ri ht h Y ppr°ved this Y g ere isn't where the 110 feet wide right of way is right now. This is a schematic, I don't kno gutter, and something we can scale off right now, so we went ahead and put a plumber rirhtth n°t From centerline of the road to the ten-foot buffer, this is over 68 and a half g ere where the new center line will be. The rest of this roadway, outside of 36 feet of et from way -- outside of 36 feet of curb, utter, right of g sidewalk and roadway, has to be landscaped with a license agreement to ACHD. So, you have approximately 50 feet of land entering into the subdivision. That's a lot of landscaping and in doing our o en taping p space Meridian planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 13 of 67 calculation, we took only half of that dimension, because the cod count half of your dimension -- if you do above and beyond your ~ apys you can only the ten foot minimum, you can only count half of your open __ ou ove and beyond your open -_ you can only count half of your improvements towards oQUy count half of requirements. We only counted half of this area towards that opens a hearing, Joe put in his staff report, the perfect camme y r °pen space explaining what this area _ nt is on page f vef rome ACHD something we could look at if you want to.uagndal'm tagraph long and this might be quick. ACHD came in and said you either vacate it, maike t part of through this pretty ahead and landscape it with a license agreement and we have cho with a license agreement and we will have almost a 50-f y°ur project, or go for landscaping to be maintained by the homeowners sen to landscape it this will align with EI Gato. ACHD is in °ot wide entry into a subdivision association. As Jae pointed out, support of an alignment with EI Gato, it makes t safer than havinlth1ElgGato. We are in you can access this property. From the picture that Joe showed you, people further down are, actually, coming off of this g feet wide where road section and driving it right now. Recently connt y°U could see that road and coming onto the improved extension was parking in this area, they are using this as acstag n°r areaBlack Cat trunk that lives in this area is unable to use the gravel road, but the are ' onto Black Cat. And so by eliminating the private r g ~ and everyb°dy everybody can still get out to Black Cat. It's be y still able to get out oad that ACHD claims ownership to, than a very large intersection without control and two differs t accessrolled intersection rid of the gravel road it will probably save on car wash expense as s. And if we get space -- Joe, can you go to the next drawin ~ well. Into open and Joe and I may have a different interpretation oif your° ode, but nlaoted open space pen space you count this area. This is an eight foot wide detached sidewalk. It's ei h Typical in subdivisions you will see at five-foot parkways. This is an ei g t feet wide. We are providing open space. In addition to that, ght-foot parkway. we vacate it and buy this property from them andbmake tours or la dscring that either homeowners association is maintaining and -- maintaining and landsc ape it and the half of this area towards our open space. We did some calculations plug, we counted addition to this open space and this open space section, we actuall co over five percent open space for the area. We h down below. In we tried to get through all these issues. ad some neighborhood meetin I s asst As you can see, there is a lot of people - 9 d Zaremba: Your time is up. Can you conclude quickly? McKinnon: I'm going to conclude right now. We couldn't come to an the neighbors. They don't want -- they won't want to see this ha a agreement with actually, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. We would ask for tonight. We are in agreement with the conditions of pp n' We think it's, that have been made tonight and I'll stand for questions at thi y°ur support approval with those clarifications s time. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 14 of 67 Zaremba: I suspect we will defer until we find out what other questions McKinnon: And there probably will be a couple. are raked. Zaremba: Thank you very much. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. We have asign-up sheet that I will begin callin n again, if you would, please, come to the microphone and state yougname a off of and, and, then, make your remarks. Let's begin with Paul Sharratt. nd address Sharratt: Thank you very much, Chairman. My name is Paul Sharratt. Gato Lane. I aryl speaking for the majority of the homeowners on EI Ga I live at 5556 EI as West Pine Lane. So, I hope you afford me the ten minute to Lane, as well s that you will. Zaremba: Let me do it this way. Are there people here for who he is s would raise your hand a minute. You have ten minutes, sir, peaking, if you Sharratt: Thank you very much. Our residence is approximately a half a the subject property on EI Gato Lane. I have lived in this residence since lmile west of people in the neighborhood have lived there since the mid 1970s when this0 Some Ranchettes was originally platted. As I said, I am representin the Skyview homeowners who live on EI Gato Lane. These homes are on ap roxim a~ority of the five acres lots. We object to the subdivision as platted and want top evie ately three to pertinent points that were addressed in letters sent to the P$Z Commissi n sda a of the 14th and May 12th, 2005. We don't believe that this subdivision meets the a ted April of the Comprehensive Plan in several areas. As stated on page three of thexpectations -- let me go ahead and read that. The Comprehensive Plan states on staff report Objective D, would require new urban density subdivision, which ab page 104, proximity to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscape stcreeh~re in transitional densities with larger, more compatible lot sizes to buffer th Wing to between urban level densities and rural residential densities. This is the e interface that we object -- one of the main reasons we abject to this subdivision is ~,~ ain reason those larger acre rural residential areas and believe that we need to are one of transitional area. As stated in our letter dated April 14th, there is a housin -^have that house philosophy, that a vibrant community needs a good cross-section of h about the therefore, must guard against an abundance of subdivisions in like densitousing and, range. We believe that this is very similar to the Castlebrook Subdivision and of subdivisions that continue up both Cherry Lane, as well a y and price we have -- that we have a transitional area in between the Back Cat. We believe that and the much larger lot acreages that we have. We belgieve that i th15ubdivisions development is contrary to Meridian's goal for future development. One of proposed is to maintain a small town agricultural heritage. Many areas around thithose goals development are actively pursuing this goal of agricultural heritage. There s proposed are animals Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2p05 Page 15 of 67 being raised, plots of ground actively being farmed by row cro s hay fields, large gardens, as well as garde habitats have bee that we want to make here is that there is one c p ' as well as pasture and west side of Black Cat between Cherry Lane n developed. The point hance to make the right choice for the possible lot sizes are needed as a transition to the exist n'g h m~5en1eve that the largest no small lots along the west side of Black Cat at this point in time a Commission to use their discretion and their 'ud this area. There is large as possible lot size in this development if it' nd we urge this J gment, as best as possible, to grant that address concerns of our neighborhood that are addressedp n Articl I would now like to report. We agree with the staff report that the developer has not met requirements as equal to or exceeding five er e E and F of the staff some of those issues and I will bring up anothere Is It looks like they have addressed probably cloud the picture even further. We alsoebelieve (that ile as well that will development will change the essential character of this area. The that this area is chap in as proposed this residents in this area wougld li eeitrto staytthe Sad ~ staff report is correct see the Castlebrook Subdivision o in we recognize that. Many of the me. In other wards, we didn't want to stay as close to the way it is as possible. By bringing smallllot changing, we wanted to Black Cat, it is our belief that this will be a significant chap ~ es to the west side of proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future nei Will the We believe that this development will be haz g Article F. neighbors. As stated, there are a variety of uses cur 9hboring uses. ardous and disturbing to the current animals being raised to ground being farmed. As more falm I es areg in this area from added to the area on smaller lots, the larger agricultural lots become attractive hazards. Ani fed inappropriate food mals can be ,gates and fences can be damaged or left open, equipment a source of curiosity and a hazard, all causin Most of this area is also irrigated from -- irgrigat d ground with th xisting homeowners. ditch -- open ditches, excuse me, which also become attractive haz source being open I was going to -- one of the points that we want to bring up is the ea ards. The point that ways on both the north in dealing with the Pine Lane _- the Pine Road iss is and right of on the south with the Purdom Gulch drain, are complex and need to be ue, as well as the staff report says in special considerations number four, staff • understood. As official status of the Purdom Gulch drain. So, even the staff is not f's unaware of the the details and/or possible ramifications that the easements andully aware of all of Purdom Gulch drain may have. As well, residents of Pine Lane are setbacks on the decision on the status of West Pine Lane as referenced to in a letterontesting ACHD's dated May 11th, 2005. We do not believe that any development on from J.C. Brown, approved until all easements, right of ways, and all of the over issues' a e e should be and resolved. As stated, the developer has gone in and done sever understood descriptions of this property, which, there again, continue to cloud the • al different legal of ways and easements on both the north and the south ends oft belleve that it should be once and for all finalized with issue of the rights directions that those need to go, before an dev hls property. We the proper easements and the declared in the letters to Planning and Zon ng, the~e aren24 homeow this property. As to this development as -- excuse me -_ as proposed. I would now liners who objected support of my comments and opposing this development to please st nd ask those in uP- As you Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 76 of 67 can see, the majority of the property owners that signed the on i concern and interest to show up tonight to su Commission's either char in g nal letters had enough g g of this proposedp ubdhofseofnllyo~heePalnoing and Zoning subdivision. That's all. I would now entertain questions. f this proposed Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton_Huckabay. Newton_Huckabay: In appropriate density. y°Ur statement you didn't define what you folks feel is Sharratt: We would recommend or like the Commission to density as possible. It's our understanding from talkin with would be the maximum lot size allowed, bein approve the largest lot size So, we would encourage the Commission g that it wouldtbe annexed nto thre lots Commission chooses to make those chant es o with half acre lots, if possible. If the transition from smaller density lots to larger dens ty aots whit really looking for is the like I said and like I stated, we believe that we have one cha h we currently own. And decided on this subdivision will detail what is done on the re Cat Road, being that the rest of it has not been nce at this, that whatever is and encourage you to go with the lar est to annexed into thehcity and so WfeBlack 9 t size possible, urge Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And that's -- where is the middle Sharratt: Where is the -- ground? Newton_Huckabay: The compromise. I mean in your -- Sharratt: In my opinion -- and I will not speak for the rest subdivision, because this is my opinion, We would like to s actually, like to see one acre lots, if os . of the homeowners in the probably not acceptable to the city, half acre lots ee at least -- we would, p Bible, but knowing that one acre lots are would be acceptable, in my opinion, because that decreases the density of the homes in that are more agricultural type or large lot homes, rather than the smaller lot ho blends better with our neighborhood. And as I a, it turns them, then, into of the people that, you know, I'm representing, stated, that is my opinion, not the opinion' Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then I have one Castlebrook like eight units per acre? other question. Isn't the density of Zaremba; It's an R-S, 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 ei acre. ght lots per Newton-Huckabay: On the one south of that -- wasn't there one of them tha - they had like patio homes and -- t had eight - Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, you're correct. The subdivision that is on the s of Pine on the east side of Black Cat did have the R-8, but Castlebrook oath side Recognize that the Comprehensive Plan designation is different over there. I ,was R-4. density. t s medium Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Black Cat is the -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Sharratt: And I believe with that the developer decreased the density on the s of that property to accommodate the larger lot sizes that area oath end opposite side of Pine Lane. pproaching on the 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 right of way and easements. I didn't know if you had some information that __ th r as a McKinnon didn't have, because in his presentation I thought he made it clear t at Mr. was an understanding between ACRD and what -- what was their claim and whaththe options were. So, I don't know if you had some other information that we did not hav e. Sharratt: As I stated, in reference to J.C. Brown's letter dated Ma 11th homeowners along Pine Lane are contesting the finding that that is an ACHD ri ' the way and that there is an ingress and egress right of way to the associated prop rties 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 commis as well as -- stoners, Borup: No. I mean as far as that easement. Have they got a recorded easemen -_ t or Meridian Planning $ zoning May 19, 2005 Page 18 of 67 Sharratt: It is recorded with each of the properties that are on W not an easement per se, it is an ingress and egress across that ro issue that's clouded, in our opinion. est Pine Lane and it's p perty and that's the Borup: Okay. In lieu of at least presently, if that sewer bounda like it's not going to affect too man -Y was accurate, it looks have any information on the immed ately adjo ninat leapst in the near future, but do you would go into is -- g pro erty, the one that the stub street Sharratt: Is to Mr. Wilder's property? I believe Mr. Wilder is here so -- orup: He was the one that raised his hand. Okay. Sharratt: So, the issue -- if you'd like to address the question dir more than welcome to. ectly to him, you re Borup: Okay, Well, I just so -- so many times aver the years we things and on -- on these larger lots that some day the have seen similar never seen anybody that was willing to -- to guarantee that that w uld neverd and I have Sharratt: Currently there are protective covenants on happen. No. 2, which is the entire length of EI Gato Lanek whi hRa~ chettes No. 1 and subdividing of any of the properties along those lines. This pro ert i Ranchettes No. 1 and/or No. 2. p events any further P Y s not in Skyview Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Sharratt: Thank you very much. Rohm: Back to this compromise, if we would for just a moment. T __ there are seven lots that are along the west line of this propert and Jere is currently made a comment about maybe recommending that these lots be abeaieve staff had 12,000 square feet and if, in fact, you were to go to 12,000, I think that minimum of up having to drop a lot or maybe two lots off of that west line and then would end balance of it as platted. Is that any kind of compromise that even come n, leave the s close to -- Sharratt: There again, stating my opinion, we would like to see re increase lot size due to the fact that as you get larger lot sizes, ally, both sides people that are mare like minded to the people that are in the three to fiv You're going to attract people that want to You're going to attract animals, that -- and that's what we are fearf laof and we ardens, that want toehave stated, we are already seeing changes occur. We are seeingvmorleean Y seen -- as I from subdivisions across the street bein d more people seeing people on the backs of our properties WaWhigh Concerns us bei road. We are ng 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 -- n but also, you know, habitat -- there is two different habitat r of only livestock, registered with Fish and Game, the other ane hasn't, as well as lar so that's a real concern is as -- p °perties, one that they you know, as the development contg ues to enl~roa hnidt makes us nervous and is going to cause us grief and hardshi in going to have to continue to either protect our ro ert p the fact that we are fences, you know, it iS -- it is not an everyday ocpcurrence ebut ntinue to monitor our horses to get aut or -- you know, we had the occurrence the oth Its not abnormal for our young ladies was riding her horse down the road and one of the trere a -- one of construction zone came by and spooked the horse. It probably took he ucks from the get the horse to calm down and neighbors came out and helped her __ r 15 minutes to those are the concerns that we have, is you get increased traffic say there is not going to be that much increased traffic Y°u know, and there will be and that it will pose a hazard for a h ~ You know, and they on EI Gato Lane, we believe people currently living in that area. ardship, as well as hazards to the Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I will continue down the list as you si ned u and Mr. Sharratt spoke for you, would you, please, just indicate tha P, Tut if I call a name Noll: My name is Tom Noll. I live at 5947 EI Gato °rrI Noll. letter to you. Paul spoke lar el Lane. My wife and I submitted a g Y -- and I support and concur with Paul's comments. I just wanted to add a couple of points of clarification. One is o - compromise, our compromise, the way we see it, is that this is identified as in the Comprehensive Plan and we __ we proposed ou n as far as the compromising to half acre. We think that's a reasonabl low density Y know, one acre lots and we are myself. I believe I'm speaking for some others. I want to lalsonadd ess'm speaking for issue. The existing easements and ingress and egress ri hts ar the easement some of these property owners to the west. As was pointed out, the ro e has -- I couldn't follow what the develo er g e held as deeds by arithmetic and I couldn't follow all the legal descraistions p p rty title here we changed it to this and we chap ed • proposed. I could not follow the p ,you know, this one, and, then, here, but now it's 3.0 and this -- sog foundat k'tWeth'i ~ just~couldnWe had five percent anyway, the point is that easements are very complex and I belie~eo he S° -- but, needs to do his homework, he needs to get his locker in order, as m da developer Get your locker in order. And he needs to w°rk with the existin land d used to say. to work with the title companies, he needs to work with the count r he needs needs to work and get all those easements vacat g °wners, are going to be landowner issues down the road and Y ecorder, and he ed prior to development, or else there them. And s° I think it's -- he's premature in his develapmenlt g H be hearing about homework. And I think he can do better. That's another thin that we hasn't done his few times and we don't like to hear it, but sometimes it just needs to conclusion of my comments and I will stand for g e have all heard a be said. That's the questions. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 20 of 67 Zaremba: Commissioners, an from you with a lot of other namesuestio ~ ? Thank you. Kathy Farerra. We had a letter Are ou speaking for a group as well? Farerra: I think so. I'm sure that they will let you know if I'm nat. Zaremba: Okay. Let me just see a show of hands if she's You. Okay. We will give you ten minutes. speaking for people. Thank Farerra: My name is Kathy Farerra. My husband and I hav ' EI Gato Lane for 18 years. a lived at our home at 4950 Zaremba: We are discussing whether the same peo le Sharratt are -- p that gave their time to Mr. Farerra: I think we are probably almost done. Zaremba: I think we did see same overlap, but I think ther So, please go ahead. a was others that weren't. Farerra: I have something I want to read. I know some of i ' want to read it. The City of Meridian's leaders, having the owe areas outside the city limits, also have an t s already been said, but I into long established rural neighborhoods in a p r to make policies for obligation to make development transitions residents of those neighborhoods. We believes thatn the this least intrusive to the transition from a new subdivision from the east. side of Black est reasonable way to acre properties to the west is by limiting these subdivisions barderin west, to the largest possible lot sizes all Cat Road into the multi- understand that would be half-acre lots. Homes sb g Black Cat on the amounts to only the length of a foot y the Comprehensive Plan. We ball field in distanu et from Black Cat tQts,within what acreage residential properties, is the most reasonable and responsibl to accomplish this transition, creating the least intrusion t the adjoining while still accomplishing the cit s o the long time u a e esidents standard that can be followed along ghel rest oftBlackeVelopment and establishing a Cherry Lane and the railroad line. And I would like to comment ad to the west between agree with this back here, maybe you can raise your hand -- if half feasible for that entire piece of property, then, I bel and I'm -- if any of you bordering the western boundary and a minimum of 12 00 acre lots are not side. I don't think we should et into ieve that they should be half acre lots 9 9,000 square foot ou0t there It's just not the east place to do it. Black Cat Road is a natural -- well, it's not nat the right border. It's a boundary befinreen the city as it exists in the sm ural, but it's there. It's a farm ground that most of us plan to stay on. We don't plan to 111 unit subdivisions to the say. eave. That's all I have to 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 -- its that we should ignore the Comprehensive Plan as far as future founds like you re saying Farerra: No. It was easy for the develo er and use designation. simply a guide. p to say that the Comprehensive Plan is Borup: No, that -- Farerra: What I would like to say -- that's not ignoring the Com r allowing, I believe, reasonable transition into these acres e r p ehensive Plan. That is shown on the map, you have like, what, 600 feet that you ca 9 opn perties and as was Boru 9 to the existing -- p~ Well, the Comprehensive Plan calls for medium densit rur understood that -- y al there, if I Farerra: That maybe what the plan calls for, but I believe that -- Borup: Low density? Zaremba: Low density. Borup: Sa,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 Sharratt. Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. Carol Bishop. You nbelieve it's Rebecca microphone, if you would, please. eed to come to the Bishop: My name is Carol Bishop and I live at 5751 West EI Gato a Sharratt and Kathy Farerra and, basically, if I wanted to live in a nd I agree with Paul have moved to a subdivision. And that's it. qn subdivision, I would y questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Ron Jackson. Oh opinion has been given. J.C. and L. y°U $p°ke first. Okay. Ron Jackson's You. Amy Dierr and Mike -- I'm sor Sue Brown. Its been covered. Okay. Thank I need to interpret this one. It's a hort name. Somethinr IThank you both. Let's see. Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. H.J. Brown that was. Ed Wilder.H'J. Brower? Brown? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 22 of 67 Wilder: My name is Ed Wilder. I live at 4961 Pine Lane. I have a ' the west. Lived out there -- first person to move on the lane in 1972 on the -- d~acent properties to my main question is -- is on the ownership of that ground. We havel~cnow once had a highway department road grader, maintenance, oil. Now that do a subdivision -- I think I could fax you a co of m er nothing about ACHD awning the front part of m ro they want to pY y grounds paper that shows Y p perty. If they do that -- that legal description doesn't quite show the way EI Gato curves off to the north. all 17 of our property owners, of which over the years has of u~ That would force everybody's gat kids, grand kids -- they would be pulling out onto EI Gafo the cars 60, 70 miles an hour. I was the one tha g q ite a bit of traffic, with. A guy wanted to use m t forced the double road there to beg n and Isaid -- and I said no. So, that's how thews that'sdhow n when he subdivided that begin with. That was about 1974 when the we got the double road to Gato. It blows me that they can say they own in front of my house~~ the north side of EI of a land grab to me. And the back -- the back easement -- now the oks like a little bit own that. Last year the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Company was in there big tractor stuck on the end of my place about this time Y are saying they that either. That's all I have got to say. of Year. I don't th nk they own Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Borup: Mr. Wilder, your comment on the easement or whatever it is on property, you said you don't think ACHD owns it, but what is your understand n nt of your Wilder: I think it's on m 9~ then . y 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-in ress -- 9 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 th ' down between the two roads. The fence line was there. The original aline, but right and over the years I have never had no communication from ACHD that they Now that they are willing to maintain it. Never once. Y own it or Borup: All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 23 of 67 Rohm: I have a questian fior you, too, then. You're that is in question between saying that this 20-fioot right of wa development, which would continuedwest alony Highway District and the y g your south line -_ proposed Wilder: Yes. That continues -- that continues three I ots. Rohm: And it's your contention that it's not Ada Cou is ~- it's ntY Highway District's propert y, that Wilder: That's right. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Oka you. Gene Bra y' Thank you. Marilyn, I think it is, Pettingill. Bettin ill? Y Mr. Bray, g Okay. Thank Bray: Thank you. Yes. I'm Gene Bra has the habitat improvement program with the Idaho ' y and I live at 5654 EI Gato and I'm the one that 20 years invested in. But m Fish and Game some work on the traffic going down ou'r anetand ev g to be on _` ~ which I have got east -- those traffic surveys indicated that there wo I have been doing as a result of the subdivisions on the eas en though the subdivisions to the uld be no traffic increase on EI Gato We are fiinding that now probabl t side of Black Cat and that is just not the case. our residential lane are people thatt a~e not assoc ated ic.that now zoom up and down trying to escape and, boy, when the with the lane and the pedal to the metal and going westbound, even thou h it -_ Y are just Y get on that 60 foot residential lane, they put the hour, the average speed going westbound is 40 miles the speed was 30 they slaw down a little bit, an hour. miles an I have set u because as you get passed m vanta a Ding eastbound it's -- pthere are about a thousand feet of length and I pda~nt and the ranges hundredth of a second stopwatch and as they ass speeds ve p those ranges so I I cang with a ry accurately. Going eastbound, the turn -- toward the confluence with Pine Lane and the traffic o~ ~ get the as the road veers to the south an hour and, again, that's routine da after da and spot just the speed of cars and Y g ing eastbound, that is 35 miles Y, just picking an hour at random to go u going west with a straight shot all the way down to McDermott. The cars go down there some of them a p those are people that are not tuned into the agricultural a people that have invested over the 20 a s fast as 50 miles an hour. And nd 30 years that nd have I vedt here mts of the ~ 8 years, just like Kathy -- just like the Farerras have and is a child care facility there, animals, and yself for there is a lot of children, don't have an people who are outside of that area, they just the can. y sensitivity to the fact that that is a residential lane, they 'ust Y And I have got the facts and figures to prove it. J go as fast as Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Rohm: I have just a quick question. Do you think that you're seeing on EI Gato is related to the road constructio me of the increased traffic that n 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 tra particularly, a City of Meridian maintenance desmen and I have noted, even department truck. It was barreling through there, just likrote it down have -- you know, we have a enc `- maintenance down through there and I'm afraid~t'seOOin and -- a the best of them, and so we p as well as private individuals bogeying EI Gato gets opened u g g to be much more frequent once this -- once there has been pretty im ~dedgets black topped, because the traffic down at the en p ,because for the last about three or four months the passage through there is restricted. So, once they cleared the they get on that paved road there going west and 60 fee way through there, boy, let her rip, t wide and they let her -- they 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 ~ Bray: Yes. It's just one mile long ~ then . Borup: So, the subdivision goes that far also? Bray: Yes, it does. Yes, sir. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Bob Ewin as well? g• Okay. Thank you. That goes for Maurene Ewing Okay. Thank you. Fran -- I believe it's Jorgensen. Come t if You would, please. Newton-Huckabay: She said she agrees. o the microphone, Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. If all you're saying is you a ree -~ through the rest of the list and then -- 9 okay. But not yet, let's go Borup: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be faster if you just asked wanted to testify? I don't know. Since so many of th ~f there is anybody else that em have already -- Zaremba: It might be, except that the list is the public rec it's accounted for. Sorry. Let's see. That was Fran Jor eord and I want to make sure Going to be covered. It looks like John Anson, rna be o g nsen. L. Jorgensen. Okay. letters in there. Spoken for? Y r there may be a few more on both lists. One moment ~ le I dohank you. Oka . Thank you. Rick Venteck, Possibl , Y S°' s°me of these people are paperwork here. Okay. Jan Husky. All right, Y Section line to section line. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 79, 2005 page 25 of 67 Vincha: Rick Vincha, 5442 EI Gato and I just had one density forme would not be half-acre size lots, but I wo clarification, is a compromise on minimum of one house per acre. uld like to have a lot less density, Zaremb~ • Any questions? Phil Jeppesen. Spoken f probabl Jo Vincha. Okay. She's covered as well. Okaor Ts well' Oka . first thing I'll ask if there is anybody who didn't sign u t y And -- oh, then, we have had a couple people ask fo y hat concludes our list. The behalf and we will give you another th r Mrs. Farehrat to add ~ d anything. qnd, ree minutes. words in their Farerra: Thank you I will make this very quick. And i Lane. We did not have the foresight tonight to brin wi attachments with it and there has not be t goes to the question of Pine en anything that has b en fi ed With tad all the my knowledge, with you people, or with ACRD, that cont recorded with those deeds. The deed far this particular 1eC arced eve he city, to read you somethin ve rything that was g ry short out of it. It says this tract of landps subject to a ri way for a county road along the east 25 feet, semicolon a y ~- I'm going to the south 20 feet, comma ght of ,aright of way fora 50-footriroatd asanow to ate along constructed along the north bounds easements and rights of wa ry, which would be Pine Lane, and to all other y. The only reference to the county road for the deeds for that piece of property is along the east side, which is Black every one of the deeds ,_ and there are -- how deeds from when this property was s lit. Cat Road. Now, attached to many of them? Eight? Seven? is signed by eve p There is a written -- there is an agreement that ry one of the property owners that is serviced by Pine Lanes can get from Wilder's house to Mr. Jorgensen's house, to here get home and I can get back out. , to here, to her auntigl I addressed this issue by not providin lJ an nd our family and our friends, ACHD has anything there. They have -- g y deeds to say they have -- they said that they have shown through the assessor's office records that they own that. However, every one of the taxes on Pine Lane. Every one of them. And when a person was contacted by Mr. Brawn, who could se people is still paying the death in the family and he had to travel th person -- a senior supervisor type not be here tonight, because he had a a guy did some independent research at the assessor's office and he said I don't know where they are comi can't find anything that says they own any of that. material that has been left out and I agree with Mr. Nall ng up with that from. I stink down the road if it's not cleared So, I think there has been some I think this is going to turn into a 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 'u Farerra: Some of them are, actually, a little ~ st going by -- Wilder said -- it kind of started with Mr. Wilder) sayin 'that ' they figured out, as Mr. access to what is now the EI Gato Lane Subdivision by the use of ~n't going to give people on Pine Lane had already started to construct. he road that the Borup: No. I understand. And I'm going back to Mr. McKinnon' wasn't formed until 1976, so they couldn't have -- s statement that ACHD Farerra: I'm sorry? Borup: gCHD was not formed prior to '76, so they could not ha prior to that time, because they weren't in existence. Ve had that -- a claim Farerra: They also have been able to show no claim since the that they own it. And the people on Pine Lane say, wait a minutn~ except that they say so that is the official position and that was how the case came to bel don't think so. And Borup: Okay. I understand Farerra: Okay. Borup: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify the date. Zaremba: I'm not sure -- remembering now whether it was our else letter, but -- y letter or somebody's Farerra: There was -- I think Mr. Brown wrote a letter. Zaremba: Okay, Well, there, actually, were several. Just to clarif this entire period has provided no maintenance to it. How has the ~ ACHD throughout handled? maintenance been Farerra: Mr. Brown has done some. I believe Mr. Wilder has done has never spent five minutes on that road. They have ever ravele Some. But ACHD graded it, they have never done an hin g d it, they have never some speed bumps, because the wereghavnd the neighbors just went in and put in who live on Pine Lane. So, the y g problems with some teenage drivers strips across the gravel road. y g°t a little bit of black top and they put it over in these 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 o viewpoint has been expressed and we a pportunity that cares to. At least their have anything to add at this point? Ppreciate that and we have heard it. Does staff Guenther: In discussions with Mr. Hawkins-Clark, our principal planner little history on the Comp Plan. Mr. McKinnon keeps referring to it as here' I guess a certain areas -- and this being one of them, it was set up mare aloe the lin but in more of a detailed layout of how the neighborhood wa a guide, exist and this neighborhood, according to Brad, was v g es of being nted to have their neighborhood Plan enactment and was very adamant in that this was a designation th °mprehensive and wished to maintain for their very rural lifestyles. The other issue i McKinnon says that on his deed it indicates that ther at they wanted e is a right of way. The open space calculations, even if you wanted to take half of that, stills s that Mr. 13, that exclusive of right of wa aYs, according to our Chapter calculations and, again, if you did choose to go w'th the'neighbo hoodinto open space recommendation for a compromise to go with large lot sizes, then, I would recommend draft a condition of approval to -- to the report in order to accommodate that the board issue. hat type of an Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. The applicant has been taking notes and w ten minutes, sir. a will give you McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Let me just start with where Joe left Again, Dave off. I said we would probably have a disagreement early in the way we define apes s ac way he just defined it, let me read it to you, haw it says, and you've got our here tonight, he can maybe help us out with this. It sa s o p e and the area exclusive of streetlights and street buffers, exce t Y attorney Y pen space shall mean land dedicated for landscaping within a subdivision. It says youf can gcount toy specifically eet lights -- it says you can't count street lights and street buffers, except far those -- exce tin th saying you can count these, except for right of way specifically dedic g ose landscaping within a subdivision. I need to get a clarification from ou b aced for read that when I see it -- Y ut the way I Baird: I'll stand with staffs 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 cou ways, which are parkways. Parkways between sidewalks and asphalt, so ou have a precedence far this. Halfwa nted right of y -- the parkway is between sidewalks and asphalt Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 28 of 67 and the roadway, curb and utter, g has been counted as open space in the past under this exception. Those parkways are located in the right of wa t sidewalk being outside of the right of way in an easement, which haYplcally, with the towards open space. I don't know if we are going to argue about that tonibeen counted accepting that, those are the ones you can count. You can't count the ones landscaped, but the ones that are specificall lands ght, but is this had discussions with staff about that in the past and in t that aren't Y Gaped you can count. And I have they said, yes, you can count parkways towards open spaceeY So I with parkways, precedent that's been set by that -- by staff and by the city. And I saidr th's some disagreement on that. Regardless of what it is, ere is a to the subdivision that needs to be maintained by the homeowners ass t the entrance open space, it's maintained by a specific person and a specific group, and if tlsn. It is by a specific group, maintained by a specific group, you can't sa that th °wned area is not open space and, in fact, Y at landscaped by a specific art . it is open space, it's being paid for and maintained p Y 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 towards open space. We are onto something kind of fun. Joe, could -- oh counted up right there. Awesome. Commissioner Rohm touched on somethin -- t little bit about compromise and it's been touched on b ~ You've got it Commissioner Newton_Huckaba g ouched a Y -- about compromisey Anduwhile f there wiasi some discussion going on, I leaned over and met with one of my -- one of m talked about compromise on this site and if we went to 12,000 square feet w that do to this area. We have got, basically, seven units to Y Coworkers, site. These are all a ~ hat would pproximately 9,500, 8,000 square foot lotsa Sometof these are-over 10,000, some of them are a little bit smaller. Regardless, you pick out on the if would you take -- if you took this lot out and shifted the road up and th north side, land that's separated between this, added it to these three, and to these ten' took the this way over to the north. There is a pie-shapped lot down here, it's a little ree, shift it bit difficult, we are not going to be able to fit anymore or less in this area if we went to 12 square feet. We still have six that would be backing up to the subdivision. If we wer000 take out one lot, it actually does a couple of other things. It's kind of neat an a to far a good compromise. It gets our density down. We will lose one lot. It d it makes below three units to the acre, so it complies with the Comprehensive Plan re how you take your legal description. We are below thr gets us down 9ardless of larger buffer, as far as transitional use, if we get ede Q f tone th There ~$ provides a fixed use requirements for the distance from the roadway down to the south, so this additional stub street. We'd end up with one less lot, so we meet our is an density requirements, we would be able to continue to meet our open space re uire Some of the major issues with this plat concerning density, concernin theq meats. away and, then, we'd just have to deal with the open space issue that we habe alreado addressed a little bit. And, Joe, if you can go back a couple more slides that Y have. One -- there we ga. Pertect. That works. Let's talk a little bit more a You guys Street. Pine Street is the private road that's signed as a private road. At th bout Pine that's this road right here. Commissioner Borup, I think there was some conf e ACHD -- whether ornot this road goes all the way through. Pine Road itself goes and d i°n as to at this location. EI Gato continues. EI Gato is a public road. It's not a rivate ad ends p 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 wa thro right turns and, then, comes down -- okay. EI Gat° goes throw that it was discussed tonight. Again, we have 110 fe Y ugh. Okay. It supportive of reducing that down to one road et of right of way the en°Staff st policy in place that says you line up with the adjacent oadwat s.E W at°. ACHD has a to put 110 feet to line up with a 50-foot roadway and a 50-foot ri ht up. Especially when you have two roads that ar y hen you have tried ont° the same road. The point that ACRD ma g °f way, it doesn't line e coming out at the exact same point de -- and this was discussed with their legal counsel, Mr. Price was at this hearing and Mr. Price's le al o right of ways -- and there is a number of them through°ut theg own ini°n was that these private roads, are owned by gCHD, but not maintained. The ri ht taf that are signed as superyisar got up and said at that public hearing that there is a number of that are not being maintained with signs on them g way maintenance indication to ACRD not to maintain those. And the reason prlvate roads and those signs that are private as an over maintenance of a r°adway until it meets their standards. hACHDCdoD will not take roads, developers build the roads. ACHD will not take over mainte sn't build the maintenance of EI Gato in this area, ar Pine, until it meets their olicnance of Pine -- reason why they haven't done any maintenance. It was a surprise to m there is a lot of private roads that are actual) awn p Y• So, that's the ownership of all rights of ways in Ada County from the by gCHD. But ACHD claims There wasn't a massive process -- time that they are organized. would have been too cumbersome~oBut ACHD c anms aywnershi is now all ACRD. It ways. Mrs. Farerra -- the report, I p of all the rights of about a 20-foot right of way, a 50-foot righttaf way, and,rthen,pa rieh f pr°pertY' talking center line for a county road. The reason why it says county, instead because at that time the county maintains those g t of way 25 feet to wasn't m existence. We have ACHD for betteQaorways, not ACHD, be ause ACHD roadways and they take ownership of the rights of way and that was they I think that the compromise -- if we can -- if we can a ba Y maintain the now and there is -- I guess it's something that woul it determinati°n. g ck to that, Joe. It's in my head d be able to work for -- for us, at least. You know, if we were to reduce this back here, that ush towards the 12,000 square foot. It may not meet the specific 12,000 s all of these lots we take one lot out and spread it equal distance around there, if we ush t thousand plus square feet, maybe just under 12 000 Aware feet, but if condition that says we could make this six units on th p hose all to 11 square feet. If we can add a with space of one of these going through or added aseatcompromi ether than seven, transitional densities, we allow this area to develop within the Com re ' we create the reduces our density, makes larger lots, which is what the neighborhaodensive Plan. It and I think we have a project that is a viable ra'e has requested Comprehensive Plan and, again, staff is recommendinp a1 ct. It complies with the ask that you recommend approval as well to the City Coun )al o1fNthh and we would testimony. Ask if you have any questions on that. I know there is a I that I will end were brought up, but I think those cover the majority of the issues. °t of issues that 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 I they would be 300,OOp plus homes that would normall °ts. An have a couple of -- Ywhere else in the city you had -- I'm sure your client unde stood from) the beolnn But I do the Comp Plan said for this area. g g what McKinnon: Three units or less. Borup: Pardon? McKinnon: Three units or less. Less than three. Borup: Well -- I thought we were at low densit ? Y McKinnon: Commissioner Boru Comprehensive Plan is three units or less s is low densit . Y Low density on the Borup: On the Comp Plan. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Okay. I'm -- McKinnon: This is not already zoned. This is an annexatio Borup: Oka n request. y Yeah. There is a difference in the definition between low d Comp Plan -- I mean on the Comp Plan low density and t __ there wasn't an he on the ordinance n So, Y -~ you had made a statement that you did not request a bum density. That was when you were assuming that you ma b may appear that you do. So ~ Y e had more acreagethan i t by reducing one lot that you would be well under the thre g by Your last comment is that getting, too? a units acre, is that what you're McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, if you redu ce one lot -- Borup: And I agree with your calculation. That had 11,000 McKinnon: It would get it down undern plus square foot -- Bath the three, depending on where you take those measurements from, but, yes, it would put you down b out, that's how close you are on the threshold of three units. slow three. If you take one Borup: It appears you still may have some trouble on o space. Earlier you had stated that ACHD gave you the op on of vl mean on your open acating that property? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 31 of 67 McKinnon: ACRD says with right of ways you either improvement it or ou v y acate 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 hav -- e 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 ACRD several months to go through the process. It requires public hearings to vacate ri way and through the ACHD process there is an excha It takes nge of money or property that takes place as well, because they can't just vacate it f ght of privately -- it's not privately, but publicly owned land, because lt's right of wa ause it's has to be an exchange of money. They felt that it would be easiest to leave it y There right of way, with a license agreement. Same thin ha as ACHD ACRD with the homeowners association maintaininggit orptp's owned b itthe owned by the homeowners association maintaining it. Rather than go through a cu wners of you know, monthly -- a several month long process, why not just landscape itmbersome, Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Other questions? Moe: Yeah. I'm still kind of hung up in regards to the open space as well. W hearing staff and legal tell us already is that the hat I'm way area can be noted as open space in your a ctu ations. dSo, I guess havin fight of that, do you have any second plan of attack on this? Because I'm not antici a ~ g said changing. p tmg that McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mae, just like Commissioner Zarem mentioned, if we were to take that right of way area, vacate it, purchased it from ACRD or land swap it with ACHD, then, it becomes owned by the subdivision, the homeow association, then, you can count it, according to staff -- all it is is a matter of processe I it were owned by ACHD, and maintained by us, or it's owned by us and maintai f us -- does that make sense? Commissioner Zaremba -- Commissioner Boru saidbif you vacate it, you purchase the right of way, and, then, all of a sudden it's part of our subdivision, its right of way that can be included. You can only count 50 e beyond the ten feet that's required. In a local road the ordinance requires tenp rcent landscaping for the local road. We can count half of whatever is extra to it. feet of Meridian planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 32 of 67 Moe: Okay. Having said that a time frame to deal with in order fo rthatto hayau also mentioned that to vacate you got ppen. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, that time frame t icall during the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes Y takes place the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes place wit pl~Ce through h Moe: Okay. We are getting somewhere now. I understand. I want to than Zaremba: If you have people who have a deed k You. would probably be called across-access agreementramono cross this and what today g -- it sounds like seven or eight property owners here. Isn't that something of value that you would a purchase from them by agreement? Iso have to McKinnon: Well, that would depend if -- from what we have been tol agencies, ACRD, is that ACHD owns it and if ACRD owns it, these people dCany public out to Black Cat, there is no harm to these people, because you have a road still get will be improved that run parallel to each other. You can get out on one a way that access to both of them all the way throu hout, nd there is everybody can get through on those roads- all theoway through Inlgt's all t°e Black Cat, same point, Commissioner Zaremba -- Mr. Chairman. ACHD says they own it. In fa we wish we could have stayed out of this. Our initial g tong to the off of Black Cat, we don't have to worry about Pine St elet and Els was let's take access worry about coming across any sort of easement. We went and satod wndwth qCe to ACHD said, boy, we'd really rather not have another access to Black HD, understand what you're doing, I understand wh Cat. We with that. We met with the city. The city said, you don't want to do that. We can live access off the side and Joe -- we got to pre-app and saidQyou know whatawh r da u, take look into it a little bit more, maybe there is something else going on here. Wey n t You to ACHD and said what's going on here and ACHD looked at the ma and Went back know what, we own that and it would be best to come in off of that, you know if you want to come in off of Black Cat and don't come i p said, you n over here ~ and even ACHD to either improve or vacate right of way. ACHD would still even make ulll stuck at or vacate that right of way, regardless of where we took access, because themplaim ownership adjacent to this. y 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 and a hard place and ACRD said -- their attorney said we own it and so that's w rock have to ga with, hat we Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions? Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 33 of fi7 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- and PP 05-014. 012 Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close these public hearings. All in fav say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. or 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. The have indicated -- there is one survey in our application that says 5.51 acres. There s 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 number in our scale. I gat to pick a Guenther: That's why there is a condition of approval in the conditions they have to came back with a proper survey and proper calculations fthat says that density. or the overall Rohm: And to follow Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's thought, if the three lots, does the open space, then -- that issue, does that go awa or dropped it by they clear with that recommended change? Y are we are Guenther: Well, with the open space calculations, I did my own calcu ' latlons today based on what was presented and what was interpreted by the subdivision wlth -- that they have 7,865 square feet of open space on -- accordin to th I came up subdivision, which means -- or survey that was submitted. That would mea 5'51 acre have 3.2 percent of open space. They only have to come up with another n that they thousand, thirty-eight hundred square feet in order to get to where the neeroughly three Y d to be. Zaremba: Then, I will express a couple of opinions that I think ma s people. In the subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat, Y urprise a few and in that area I admit that I was not convinced and still amrnot fconvincedrth stimony that much impact on EI Gato. On the west side of Black Cat I feel entire) at it has about it. The Comprehensive Plan envisions in slow-density area a maximu dwelling units per acre and the discussion we are ha ~ Y differently m of three whether we get to 2.99 or 2.98, I don't think is the intent o 9 he Comprehens It I mean addition to that, as staff has pointed out and others have, there are areas N, Plan. In Comprehensive Plan envisions that even that's too much density and the sub' here the ~ect is the transition to the neighbors. I have no problems supporting the idea that hal - f acre lots are as small as these ought to be. In addition to that -- and I deliberately didn't ut Wilder on the spot, but I personally feel that development of this small p Mr. premature. If the two lots combined, if Mr. Wilder some day was thinking of develo ~ is -- and I m not going to ask him to answer that question. But if you could combine t ping to pieces of property, you could do far more with this that would be mu hose advantageous, not only to the City of Meridian, but to the neighbors, have larh more that would that be a much better transition to their area and what I'm admittin ger lots much differently about the west side of Black Cat than I do about the east side of BI Cat. I still feel eventually when Pine goes east, all of those g is I feel people are going to ga east and stop being a problem. I can admit that they are bein a ack think they have a reason to go that dlrection once the sewer srdolne, once put I don't east, which could be years, unfortunately. This is different. This is the ent Ine goes group. It's part of the existing properties and the Comprehensive Plan env) ons tak nls into account the existing properties and I will have to say I feel it's prematur g point even to annex this small piece, which could be made much better for both at this and for the neighbors by having a discussion with Mr. Wilder as well. That e city personal opinion. s my Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 35 of 67 Mae: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Moe. Moe: I will weigh in, okay? Quite frankly, I have got a couple different issues on t ' project. In regards the Comprehensive Plan in regards to the three dwelling units and to anticipate it to be as per the Comprehensive Plan, Commissianer here, we are somewhat under a duty wait somewhat fol ow tha Comprehensive Plan. So, therefore, I would anticipate that by what the devela er ie anticipating, reduction of one lot and whatnot, to somewhat get into -- under the phree 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 an this project and in my opinion I da not think that I can vote far this development when I have to vote for it to go to City Council with all these a en issu still out there. Ithink 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 ri ht of way from the county. I just think there is too many issues in here that I ~ust 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 --Ithink 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, the three per acre. It doesn't address the open space. That's more foreinformationmM t comment would be that Ithink -- 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 appropriate and because of -- because of this locationou know, that same transition is that there is any need to give any variance or any extrainglthmeangl bothel st ff ha I already stated what their interpretation of the open space and right of way is and -- au 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. Ithink 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 developer can still -- still has a market for larger lots, but I think there still ids Ian im lied p 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 bein approved and run through the process, but I think maybe they need tog already complying with all aspects of that. And so I'm agreeing with Commissioner Mo work at not ready to deny it. Whether approving it tonight is -- it sounds like it could a that I'm laundry list of things that they would need to do and I'd feel much mor be a long maybe having that worked out before it goes to City Council also. a comfortable Zaremba: Let me ask what you're thinking we should do as a process. some of these resolved, we would probably want to continue the hearin ,whit have closed at the moment, but we have in the In order to get thinking there are things that can be resolved? p haveoexened and continued. Are you that I think this is premature at this point and we have gottenr burned other sonal opinion we annexed a piece of property that was too small to really do what need dl to be here there. done 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 One-acre lots with five-acre lots around it and in our area all the five-a surround it. cre lots are developing. We never will. It's too small. I mean ours are too small to ev You're not going to develop one acres into anything. So, at some oint -_ er develop. going to be next year, but maybe at some point something's going po ha send it's not Maybe in someone else's lifetime. And a lot of times that's what it would b ed here. know, that's part of planning is what's going to ha e, but, you sewer line there. I mean the city has alread pyen in 40 years. Vie have got the too. Y got -- ou know that s sa ing something, Zaremba: Let me get the sense, though -- are we thinking that there are i could be resolved that would earn a recommendation to the Cit Council? ssues that my issues can be resolved. Y I know all of 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 unfo but there is -- rtunately, Borup: Well, I feel like Icould -- I could support a redesign with somethin w' lots. g Ith fewer Zaremba: Commissioner Newton_Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: That's my sense. B about an 18,000 -- provided I did the math right, oln avefrage justfabout aehats would be mean I -- from a land planning standpoint, I don't even know if that would workab acre. I Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 37 of 67 Zaremba: Well, the applicant has expressed a willingness to do that. What open space and easement and -- about the Newton-Huckabay: You know, I have to confess the open space issue i convoluted and I'm having a little hard time following i't, so I'm just going to defer to J on that, because with the people in the audience, I -- it's kind o s pretty oe we could come back with that resolved, which it seems to be ~ aeve~pody alnree B ~ if could happen and three -- you know, three or more or less lots -- it would onl at three less lots, I think. I think it's not a bad design and I don't necessaril y take 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 gettin on half acre lots between Black Cat and McDermott, with a whole bunch of stgb streVerage, ets. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just a clarification. Commissioner Huckabay, made the comment about three lots and you made the statement that that was what the developer was s losing thought he was only losing the one lot. aying, 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: Now 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 & Zpning May 19, 2D05 Page 38 of 67 Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, do you have an opinion to wei h i ~ Rohm: Well g n here . Comprehensive Plan lis someth ngcthat wtwo Cents worth here. To start off with th development in this area, as well as the entire area a 9 mpa t and move forward with commented that the people from EI Gato had weighed in and expressed ' concern about larger developments or dense I believe staff has lifestyle and I think that the lowest development that could b significant developments adjacent to their rural this property. The low density, which is up to -- is up to th ee dwelld was assigned to Up to does not mean that you have to develop up to three ng units per acre. three dwelling units per acre. I think that it would behoove the develo n't have to go to and move to some compromise to address the concerns of the ad"acent issue of the open space, I really think that at the a per to reconsider J neighbors. The whether they purchase that from Ada County or have it aacated, is a the open space' same open space at the end of the process and so going to be the quite honestly, even if we should not consider it as open space as part of this hearing, if, in fact, it was would end up with the exact same open space at the end of the da and vacated, you don't think that the open space is as significant of an issue as so I Personally expressed, simply because through time that would be resolved and would e the same open space. So, an what has been are that the developer should go backaand r consider So, in conclusion, mythoughts reconfiguration with a reduced number of lots that is in line with what Commissioner Newton-Huckaba had with at least a three lot reduction and that would get them down below suggested, would imagine that would get it to 2.7 or something like that. the three -_ I Newton-Huckabay: 2.3. Rohm: 2.3. And I think that that's working as a compromise to the public and giving credence to the fact that the developer has a Com concerns of the that he's also tried to adhere to and once those issues have been a ehensive Plan that's something that we all, hopefully, could live with. End of statement.ddressed, then, Zaremba: Thank you. I would ask a clarification from staff. We often in are talking about usable open space and to me I envision a place where eo actually have a picnic or the kids could play ball. Is u our discussion just an interpretation that we make? sable part of the code oreis tha Guenther: That is an interpretation that we have kind of defined a s there are no amenities associated with any type of open space. Typically, with opens ace gazebo, a park bench, or a bus stop or something along that line and there i we get a presented with this. That's what usable is as we interpret it as when we drafted thothing report. e staff Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: As a suggestion -- Meridian Planning 8, 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 Hearin an continue them to a later date and give the developer an opportunity to come back ind with the -- with a response that addresses the concerns that have been expressed b this body and came up with a design that addresses the concerns of the public, as we I 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 u this evening. That would be my recommendation. P 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 the feel about that and if we are going to reopen the Public Hearing, we can go either way. y Rohm: Well, I don't think we can ask the applicant for his desires without reopenin the Public Hearing. g 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 bein uncomfortable with a vote to recommend anything that has this many loose ends to it. g 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 8 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 fo-ward. 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 one statement that was -- as I heard the Commission, it was more like three lots, not two. Beecham: Yes, sir. I gat 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 d think it's -- I think the neighbors still have issues in regards to that right of wa ando~you Ilttle bit concerned that we are -- it's going to take a little longer than everybod thin) m a get this thing resolved. y ks to Newton-Huckabay: How about August 4th? Zaremba: I certainly would want to see something in writing from ACRD and from property owners as well. the Moe: Exactly. I mean at some point -- Zaremba: We aren't going to make the legal decision, but there needs to be su o documentation. pp rting Moe: A hundred percent agreement. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could, if we could do a July date, I will go to work getting that in writing from ACRD. If we can't do that, I wlll notify staff in advance and make sure we are not wasting anyone's time. Rohm: Thank you. We have got the 21st. Zaremba: A suggestion has been the 21st of July. That would give staff adequate tim then -- if this is revised, staff needs everything ten da s before the hearin e' get agency comments and everything, so that -- y gin order to 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 21st. Zaremba: That works forme Beecham: That would work. I'm not making the motion. Would that be a problem? 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? Tha motion carries. t 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 Heariing: 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: Pubiic 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 far 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 --