Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 8, 2005 P/Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 5 of 36 Zaremba: Okay. Next, for any of you that don't come to our meetings regularly, let me describe our procedure, as we are about to get into the Public Hearing portion. In all cases the applicant and our professional staff have spent quite a bit of time together reviewing the application and discussing various different items. We begin with our staff giving us a presentation on where the project is and what the project is and how it does or does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances of the City of Meridian and raise any issues that they feel need to be resolved. In that capacity the staff is not either advocating for or against the project, but just clarifying for us what they feel we need to know about it. Following that, we invite the applicant to come forward and make their presentation and, in fact, they are advocating for their project and, again, describing to us anything they feel we need to know, take that opportunity to answer any objections that the staff has raised that they can't answer, and clarify for us and the audience anything more we need to know about the project. We will allow the applicant, along with their supporting members, who would be architects or engineers or whoever, we allow them 15 minutes to make their part of the presentation. Following that is when we do open it up to the general public and at that point we ask that you prepare to be a little concise in presenting to us what you feel we need to know about this application, questions that you have or items that you think need to be brought to our attention, and we do ask that you confine your remarks to three minutes. And as well, since we want to make sure that we hear everybody, we do ask that you only speak when you're on the microphone. That way we can hear you and our recorder can get it recorded for the record, and we also ask that you begin with your name and address for identification. And as I said, we allow three minutes for that. There is an exception. If there is a representative of a group -- for instance, the president of a homeowners association, who is going to speak for other people who are not going to speak, we do allow that representative to have ten minutes. And, then, as I say, we will go through the list and call on people that want to speak. If a representative spoke for somebody already, then, we ask that you just say that you have been spoken for. Following that, the applicant has the opportunity -- theoretically, they have been taking notes during the public testimony and the applicant has the opportunity to come back up and take ten minutes to answer any questions that have been raised, make any further explanation that needs to be made for us, then, theoretically, we close the Public Hearing and deliberate among ourselves and staff and end with a recommendation that we make to the City Council, where there will, again, be a Public Hearing on the same subject. In theory that's the way it goes. And, let's see, I can't think of anything I missed on that. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: AZ 05.050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 6 of 36 Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Zaremba: So, we will proceed and I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-050, PP 05- 051, both relating to Reserve Subdivision, and even though these are continued hearings, I will comment that all we have done in the past is continue them to this meeting and there has been no prior discussion. So, we will begin with the staff report, please. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As was just mentioned, this item was on a previous agenda, but due to a noticing error this is the first time that it's been heard, so I will give you all the facts around the subject applications. In fact, there are two applications. The first one is the annexation and zoning for five acres and the second one is a preliminary plat that includes 12 build-able lots and five common lots. The site is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately 1,000 feet south of Chinden. It is currently rural residential. There is an existing single family home. If you look at the map on the one acre parcel, it's on the northeast portion, there is an existing home on that site currently. This property has not been previously platted. The property is designated for medium density residential uses on the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. As you're aware, these aerial maps are oftentimes out of date. This one is no exception to that. There is a school north of this -- of the subject site there and I believe it's a joint campus. Eventually there will be another school facility constructed on that site. To the east is rural residential, it's Dunwoody Subdivision. It's zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south, excuse me, that's un-platted. There is some large -- directly south there are two large parcels that are very narrow, skinny parcels on Locust Grove Road. To the west is a vacant five acre parcel, which I'll talk about a little bit more here in just a minute. And just to the west of that is Arcadia Subdivision. That's zoned R-8 in the City of Meridian. So, four of the five proposed acres that are proposed for development with this property have been the subject of previous preliminary plat and annexation applications. I did want to give you a little bit of history, because that does tie in quite a bit to staff's recommendation on this project. The co-owner of the subject property, Mr. Jake Centers, also developed Arcadia Subdivision to the west, as I mention earlier, and after receiving approval for Arcadia, he bought the nine acres just to the east and C5 subsequently submitted a development for annexation and preliminary plat approval to the city. The proposed subdivision did not include connecting the public street to the Locust Grove Road to Jericho Road. Instead, the applicant proposed a long cul-de-sac street. City staff did recommend approval of the project with the condition that Hidden Path Street, which was the name of the street coming in off of Locust Grove Road at that time, be connected to Jericho, because that five acres did have 60 feet of frontage on Jericho Road. Planning department staff also did attend the ACHD public hearing on this and requested that the ACHD also require the applicant to connect Hidden Path Street with Jericho. After ACHD and the city both required the street connection, the applicant withdrew those applications. Mr. Centers did tell staff that he does not intend to construct -- that he did intend to construct his personal residence on the western portion of the site and, therefore, did not want to Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 7 of 36 extend Hidden Path Street, so that's why it didn't -- he didn't want to construct the connection. And that was the first submittal for Reserve. Subsequent to that submittal we did -- the city did receive and review an application for a four acre subdivision, which is similar to what you see here. What's changed is they have also acquired the one acre parcel to the north that I spoke of earlier in the introduction. Mr. Centers did deed the five acres to the west to Not For Sale and it was not included with the boundaries of that second preliminary plat application. Jake is the registered agent of Not For Sale. He, then, submitted the applications -- that one included eight build-able lots on the four acres and he continued to own it in his name. Shortly after submittal the property owner to the north showed interest in partnering with Mr. Centers and they did withdraw their application before it made it to this body. Staff is appreciative of Mr. Centers' willingness to partner with the one acre parcel. That's something that we had talked about, you know, trying to get that one acre parcel to come in with them, so we could limit access points to Locust Grove Road and things like that. So, that was -- that was a good change from the previous submittal. However, both the City of Meridian planning department and ACHD staff made it clear that an extension of Jericho Road was necessary -- was necessary within Arcadia Subdivision, so that street could be extended to Locust Grove Road through the subject property. City staff had informed Mr. Centers several times that a connection to Locust Grove Road from Jericho Road is in the best interest of the city. Staff continues to believe that development of the subject site is not in the city's best interest if the entire ten acres cannot be developed together with a vehicular connection to Jericho Road. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the proposed Reserve Subdivision for the reasons listed in the staff report. I didn't touch on the merits of the subdivision too much. If you want to talk about the development a little bit, I guess staff doesn't necessarily have a problem with the layout of the proposed development and, in fact, if we were to condition this for approval, there probably wouldn't be a whole lot of changes required. Really, the only concern that I have is some driveway locations around the roundabout. They are proposing a micro- path to the school site. That's good. There is a temporary turnaround shown for the extension of the public street in this location on that build-able lot, so that would go away once this road -- if that road ever gets extended. That's probably about the only changes that we could see. I mean it's a fairly straight forward -- I guess density would be the third. It is, I believe, 2.4 dwelling units per acre and the Comprehensive Plan does call for between three and eight dwelling units per acre. So, it's a little bit below what the Comprehensive Plan is calling for in this area. The applicant did submit a letter and I'm sure he's got some -- some additional comments for you, but I think I'll stop staff's report at this time, unless you have any other questions for me. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Mae: Yeah. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 8 of 36 Moe: Craig, in the report you do note that the five acres now to the west is now owned by others, not the -- what was it, Just For Sale or Not For Sale. They have now deeded it over to someone else? Hood: That is correct. The deed -- the applicant did, actually, submit a deed for the other five acres with their application and it was someone -- an individual who is not a party to Not For Sale or other -- as far as I know. So, yes, a third party. Moe: Okay. That will do it for now. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: In that case, we are ready for the applicant, please. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Craig's right, this property has got some history to it and Craig did a pretty good job outlining the history of this. It's kind of funny. Jake, when he came back with that second application and deeded it to Not For Sale, LLC, the reason why he did that is because he kept getting numerous phone calls from other people and he puts all of his properties now as Not for Sale, LLC, so when people pull up the name on the public listings, they see that it's not for sale, so they won't call him. So, that's the reason why he did that. So, Craig, if you could go onto the next slide. I think you have got a color copy. There you go. This is what I handed out to you earlier tonight and I think you guys all have a copy. including the attorney has a copy. I know he wanted one, so -- let's talk about what this project is and we can talk about what it was in the past and, then, we can spend a little bit of time discussing how it needs to move forward or -- with your recommendation one way or the other. What we have is a piece of property, it's five acres in size, and as Craig pointed out, there used to be a one acre piece that basically sat just like this. The roadway came in and jogged and came up. The one acre piece is now part of this. It's done a couple of really good things for this project. Number one, it centered the driveway, so it didn't have the jog in the road anymore. Got rid of another access up on Locust Grove. And it created some additional building lots because there was not that jog in the road. It became more developable for both parties. So, instead of trying to cram a couple more houses onto that little one acre piece by grabbing a stub street in the middle of the project, they are able to just go ahead and front those houses on, instead of trying to put those with no frontage, which was the plan initially. So, Jake actually has that property under contract with Go Properties, LLC, and will close on that property and develop it with the rest of this property, rather than this third party that's out there. The five acres to the other side, Jake has deeded that over. It was originally two parcels of ground. He has sold it to somebody. He no longer owns it. Doesn't want to do anything with it. Wants to develop this piece of property. In doing his market study and market research, as you know, we started this project -- I think I submitted the original application June 5th of 2005, so almost full circle a year later and this is what we have ended up with. In that Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 9 of 36 time he's done some market studies and the market studies say people want bigger lots with bigger houses. This piece of property is 655 feet in length. It's 325 -- 335 feet in width. So, he wanted to create some lots that were big, not too skinny, but they are, obviously, going to be deep, because once you take out the 50 feet of right of way in the middle and you have some deep lots -- he didn't want to create 65 foot wide lots with 130 feet deep, so twice as deep as they are wide. So, he tried to create a lot that's big. And, more often than not, when people talk about the Comprehensive Plan, they are trying to jam as much density as possible into a project. We have, actually, got a developer who wants to do less density than is required and note number two on the Comprehensive Plan allows you to go up and down at your discretion as to whether or not you want to allow more density or less density without going through a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Craig, can you go to the next slide? We have a couple of elevations. No. I had submitted a couple elevations and I have got some copies of those and I will hand those out and I have some additional colored photos that I had sent in, just showing what the houses would look like. I had sent those to planning and zoning. But we are trying to do a wider, larger product, and there is a large demand for that and that's what Jake Centers would like to do on this property. Craig had mentioned that the reason for staff denial is this doesn't connect all the way over to Jericho. To that end we have provided a stub street to the west, so that when the new property owner of the five acres wants to develop, he can develop that all the way through to Jericho. We haven't eliminated the ability for that to happen, rather, we have just come back with a smaller project and Jake's decided that this is what he wants to build and does not want to include that five acres anymore. It's hard for me to evaluate fully the comments from staff. The only comments we received were those from the Planning and Zoning staff. We didn't receive comments from fire or Public Works Department, or any of the others. You didn't receive them either in your packets. I don't know how we can evaluate fully what all their comments are unless we receive those. Because they recommended denial, they decided they would not include those at this time. In the future we'd like to be able to receive those, so we know what the other comments are from other agencies. There may be some comments from the other agencies that would create some changes here, we just don't know what those are. So, in the future we'd like to see what those are, but -- even if there is a recommendation for denial. With that we think we actually have come up with a project that's going to work. Craig, if you can go to the aerial. Just point out a couple things that may need to be pointed out. The long skinny pieces, this has been purchased. Recently contacted Jake Centers. It's an out-of-state buyer wanting to know what was going on in the area. He bought it -- he just came in, bought it just this last week and said what's going on in the area? I see that you're the property owner to the north for this portion of it. Just wanted to know what's going on. So, we are going to start seeing some more development in this area. It's a long skinny piece. We have provided a stub street to the south for them to develop in the future. In the last year or so Jake has tried to work with that property owner and they wanted more than what Jake was willing to pay. So, we decided that a stub street would be appropriate at that location. ACHD has reviewed this. We sat down with their staff numerous times on this project. They are happy with our stub street locations. They recognize the fact that in the future when that property to the west develops, the city and ACHD will require that property to Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 10 of 36 provide a stub street to Jericho -- stub street to Jericho to connect Saguaro and Arcadia all the way through to Locust Grove. So, in the future you're going to have everything that the city wants to have happen. You have the authority to do that by your discretionary authority with annexation. I'll hand out a couple of those pictures of the elevations, what we are trying to build on this property, and at that point I'll ask for your questions if you have any, and we can move forward. Sorry I didn't have copies for everybody, but -- we are trying to build larger homes on this site and Jake Centers will be the builder for this area. Tahoe Homes. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. McKinnon, as far as the low density on this thing, is there a possibility -- would you anticipate that you could put another lot in there to where we can maybe increase this just a little bit, because the -- we are a little bit lower than the city would like to see. McKinnon: Oh, there is definitely a possibility to do that. Like I said, we don't often get asked by the Commission to add lots. Usually we have recommendation to lose some lots. One thing I thought was kind of interesting, just up to the north of this site we have some one acre lots that were approved by the city, developed in the county, with city services. Also shown in the medium density residential area. And so we do have some large lots in this area in what is the medium density area and -- Newton-Huckabay: Are you talking about the houses on Jericho? McKinnon: Yeah. Those are all on one acre lots. Newton-Huckabay: I just shake my head every time I drive by. McKinnon: Seems kind of different, doesn't it. But across the street we have Dunwoody and as you might remember when Leeshire came in that was the property a little bit south of this, the Dunwoody people came in and said we don't want these small lots, we want big lots, because all our houses over here are on two and a half acre lots and we'd like to see some bigger lots. So, there is definitely a possibility that we could add a lot to it, but the market research shows that people would really like to see some big lots in north Meridian and so it provides some choices for people, rather than just the 8,000 to 9,000 square foot that you typically see in the R-4 zone in Meridian, which is the predominate size of lots in Meridian. Moe: Basically, the reason for my question is is that, again, this body is trying to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and, basically, so I'm trying to get just a little bit closer to where we are in agreement with that. I don't know whether you can answer this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Just, basically, reading through the report and whatnot, I was struck somewhat that your client, who was pretty adamant about not Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 11 of 36 wanting to put a street over through that other five acres and so he's turned around and sold the property. Why was he so adamantly not wanting to do this? McKinnon: Can't I answer -- I can answer that question. It's really pretty simple. Originally Jake Centers lived near this area. His office is on Locust Grove. He wanted to build a very nice large house at this location, like many builders, he builds his own houses and sells them after he builds a new one and moves up. This is where he wanted to be. He wanted to be at the very back end. Craig, do you have a bigger map? Can you go to the GIS map? There we go. He wanted to build at the very back. That was a cul-de-sac there and what he wanted to do was live at the back of a cul-de- sac lot where there is not any traffic, where all the traffic would peal off before it got to his house, and so that's where he wanted to build. But when there was a requirement for -- to connect all of Saguaro, 450 homes, plus all of Arcadia, was the only access to Locust Grove, because Leeshire was denied right through there, right passed his front yard, what he wanted to build, he decided he didn't want to do that anymore. So, he said I don't want to deal with this piece of property. He mayor may not build his own personal house in this new section, but he said at this time I don't want to create a traffic lane that runs right here. If someone else wants to develop this property, someone else stepped up, said they would purchase it from him, he sold it. In the future you guys have the ability to provide that connection. He's provided a stub street for that and there is 60 feet of right of way, like Craig pointed out, on Jericho with Arcadia. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Well, the difficulty with that is that when Arcadia was before this Commission I know there was a great deal of discussion about providing some kind of a stub there. The people who at the time lived along Jericho and the future were going to live in Arcadia, were promised that they would have other access out of there at that point, as well as -- along with that public access it would -- it would make it easier to have a pathway that would get to the school. The difficulty I have is that the developer of Arcadia and the current application had the key piece of property under his control at one time -- I don't know him personally, but I'm -- when we talk about a spite strip we are usually talking about something that's 20 or 30 feet wide. I suspect he would have the wherewithal to provide a five acre spite strip and I have got to admit my personal feeling is that's what's happening here. This is something that ACHD feels should happen, something the city feels should happen, something that I believe we have promised to the people on Jericho and even before they moved there, the people in Arcadia, that this is where the access would be by providing a stub street and it's difficult for me not to take this as an intentional frustration of the city. And that being the case, I agree with staff that it isn't in the best -- regardless of the merits of how it's laid out, that it isn't in the best interest of the city to go along with that. That's just a personal opinion that I'm having some struggle with. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a comment back. Zaremba: Yes, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 12 of 36 McKinnon: There is some definite stubbornness by the developer of this. He really wanted to build his house there and he did not want that street to connect through. When Arcadia was developed there was, actually, no right of way that was proposed to be on Jericho. He did not want to have any right of way on Jericho to connect to this piece of property and that was -- I got a little bit of history with that, because I worked on that project and on the project Saguaro. He didn't want to connect to Saguaro initially, because that's a whole lot of people running through his property and the city said you're going to put a stub street here to Saguaro and I worked on Saguaro, so I came and said we agree to put a stub street here and Jake came in and wanted to block that off and we said you can't block that off, Jake, that's a stub street. We have to provide a connection up to the north. So, we came through and there was a lot of discussion as to what this 60 foot strip of road was here. It's a 60 foot strip of road, but ACHD did not call it a stub street. Remember, we had a lot of discussion of whether or not that's a stub street or if it's actually just right of way and we had a lot of discussion about that. We had a lot of discussion with ACHD. They didn't call it a stub street in their staff report either. When he came back in for Arcadia he did not want that to connect. It's 60 feet, it would create a jog -- it's only 60 feet down, so it would come down, you would have to have a 50 foot wide road, come down right here, start, and, then, droop up -- you know, run up to the top there and he just felt that it didn't work well for his project. He didn't want to do that, so he fought against it. It's that initial -- like I said, there is history. Initially he fought against that and -- Zaremba: It was a battle type discussion when Arcadia was before us. McKinnon: And so it's been like that and Jake has been of the opinion that he doesn't want that to come through his neighborhood, because he felt he was going to have a lot. But don't forget at the same time this was all happening Leeshire Subdivision was also being discussed. Leeshire Subdivision being this larger piece here, which was promised that this is where another large access would be. In fact, a collector road was proposed at that location, because that's the half mile location, which is the appropriate location for a collector. The city denied Leeshire, because of density, because the people in Dunwoody came out and said the density is not right. I think the comment was it's a kingdom with the shire down below. I can't remember. Peasants -- the smaller lots with the big one. I think in that hearing the Dunwoody people came out in opposition to it. You had opposition from the neighborhood down below as well. And they said density is too much. So, Jake brought the density down. He said let's make some bigger lots. Let's not fight the neighbors on this. And he said if we got a collector here that would get built first, this would not become the highway out. All these people over here in Saguaro could get out through the collector at the proper location. leeshire hasn't been -- hasn't sold. It hasn't been resubmitted to you. The only access that would have been built all the way out to Locust Grove would have been at this location. The traffic light is going to be built at Locust Grove, people trying to get out to turn left onto Chinden, probably run all the way through there and he felt that that's not what he wanted to do. That wasn't the market he was trying to reach, so he fought against it. The two properties -- Jake definitely knocked heads with the city. I've tried to Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 13 of 36 say, Jake, let's just build it this way and get it over with. The city's recommending approval. The developer wants to build what he wants to build. He doesn't own the property anymore and so if he doesn't own the property, we don't have -- I don't have the ability to convince him now to say you have to build that road in there. If it's not in the best interest of the city, as you mentioned, Jake could hold that out as a five acre spite strip. He doesn't own it. But even if he did own it and was holding it out as a five spite strip, are we better off with a five acre spite strip or are a ten acre spite strip? If he's got the wherewithal to hold a five acre, he's probably got the wherewithal to hold a ten. I think it's in the best interest of the city to provide a road that would in the future connect, rather than not have a road that would connect and leave that where it is right now. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Borup: The comment I'd have is I find it kind of refreshing to see a larger lot subdivision. We have had a little bit more going that direction lately, but -- but for so long it was -- everyone was wanting to do a step down -- or step up in density, not a step down, and it seemed like just about everything coming through was asking for variances and below minimums on lot widths and setbacks and just everything. From the past testimony -- I mean that was the other project's -- proposed for this area that the neighbors -- we don't seem to have any here tonight, so I think that says something, that at least the neighbors are satisfied with it. We had a lot of opposition from both those subdivisions previously on the density. That, to me, seems to answer that question. You know, whether a house on the other five acres develops or what's going to happen, I -- you know, that's not up for anyone here to probably know, but I do agree that the Leeshire project is probably the more appropriate one for that connection to be made anyway. You know, this is only 12 lots at this location. And I guess that's -- what I'm saying, I'm in favor of it. Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to comment if I can, Mr. Chair. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: If I remember on the -- on the Leeshire, the biggest problem with it that I had was the layout, was the -- he had all the green space in the back, surrounding the big house, and, then, he had a bunch of row houses up front and it just was lopsided. There wasn't a real problem with the density at this Commission level -- in fact, I think this Commission actually recommended approval of that, but that being said, I don't -- myself don't have a big problem with this -- this particular layout of this development. It's a lot better than the last one before us. I think this is a bad area anyway, the way that they -- the Jericho was built out I think was a prime example of really bad planning in the county myself and I think no matter what you do over there, it's going to be -- I just -- I think this is as good as anything you're going to get, because I just don't think it was well thought out how all that was going to interconnect. Because those are county properties, aren't they? On Jericho? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 14 of 36 Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: But -- I mean as far as -- Zaremba: Well, they were developed in the county. We had -- I'm trying to remember. They may be in the city now. I know this thing on the corner is in the city and the school was in the city. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I don't know if they were annexed -- Zaremba: I think that was part of that annexation. But, you're right, they were developed in the county when -- at a time when people thought that was a long way from the city and the city would never get there. So, yeah, it was not planned to be an urban area. McKinnon: Actually, Commissioner Zaremba, those homes are still under construction. Those are brand new. Zaremba: Oh, they are? McKinnon: Oh, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: No, they are all built. McKinnon: They are built, but it was just in the last year. Zaremba: Along Jericho? McKinnon: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. McKinnon: Those are brand new. Zaremba: Oh, I thought they had been there for awhile. Newton-Huckabay: No. McKinnon: Those have city services. They are not on septic. Those have city water and sewer and they had to come through and get approval from the city in order to build there. Hood: Mr. Chair, just maybe some more history, because that -- all of this, actually, did get annexed here recently into the city. The ordinance just was approved a couple weeks ago. There are five one acre home sites there, as Dave mentioned. Some of them may even be occupied now. But the Comprehensive Plan designation for this has Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 15 of 36 changed, just because the county did allow all this, Jericho was a county sub. Basically, a long story short, they threatened to go and do septic and well and get United Water, so the city said we will let you develop, we don't want you to bring other services in, we will provide you the services, but we didn't really get a comment on what they were doing, we are like we will just provide you the services, so, anyway, that was kind of how we ended up with a little bit of these five acre lots next to a school site. And primarily that's why this area makes sense to have a little bit higher density, is because there is a school right here and some folks -- you know, so the kids can walk to school -- I mean this isn't a huge parcel, it isn't going to make a big difference, but, generally speaking, I mean those -- that's why we have these designations on our Comp Plan is because it does make sense to have that medium density or -- and they shouldn't be estate lots, they should be more of a size where you can get a few more folks in there, so their kids can walk to school and the infrastructure makes sense. Just on the Leeshire thing real quick, another point of contention for the neighborhood was they also had some office and commercial zoning there and that was a huge thing for them. So, density was a major portion of that, but also the mixed use that they were proposing I think is what ultimately brought them down and the layout. So, I just want to point those things out and maybe just a couple other things that Dave brought up in his -- his testimony tonight, is that I think that planning staff can include other agency's comments in the future when our recommend is for denial, because primarily it's the planning department's recommendation for denial. The fire department didn't say we recommend denial. Public works didn't say we recommend denial. Mainly the issues were planning issues. So, I think we can include those other agencies. What you won't continue to see is the planning department's conditions of approval when the recommendation is for denial. And, generally, when we can recommend approval, when we can condition something for approval, that's the direction I like to go 99 times out of a hundred, if I can condition them. Unfortunately, the two reasons that we are recommending denial on this you can't condition. You can't condition that they add the five acres, you know, over there and you can't condition more density, because you have to, basically, hold another hearing, because now the property owners were noticed that you have 12 lots and we wanted 14. So, both of those reasons we can't recommend denial of this project as submitted, so -- or recommend conditions for approval as submitted. So, I think that's alii really wanted to touch on for now, so thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Let me-- Newton-Huckabay: Is there public testimony? Zaremba: I was going to say, let me do one thing. Let's go the public testimony portion, which I believe is going to be very short. We have no one signed up to speak, but this is an opportunity if anybody wants to add something that didn't sign up, you're welcome to, and I see heads shaking no. So, Mr. McKinnon, we are ready for you to rebut all the things that the audience have said. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 16 of 36 McKinnon: Thanks for your time tonight, guys. I know you guys had this special meeting. It wasn't your fault. It was a notice thing. I know you guys have given up your time for us tonight. Jake wanted me to pass that along. He's thankful you guys were willing to have this hearing tonight. I want to pass along my gratitude as well. Thanks for meeting with us tonight. Regardless of how this turns out, I'm thankful for your patience with us. I know this is the third time you guys have had to deal with this one. You've had to deal with me and I know how hard that can be. We'd ask for your recommendation for approval and we think we have got a product here that the larger lots I think is the right thing in this location. There is a market demand for it and I think that this is what needs to happen in this area. The future stub street will connect -- there is a stub street for it and there is a stub street to the south. We have provided connection to the city school. But I'll sit down and ask for your approval. Unless you have questions. Moe: I do have one more question. Is the new property owner to the west, does he understand what may happen to him in the future when he bought that property? McKinnon: That's a question I can't answer, because I haven't talked to him. I do have the name on the deed and that's alii have dealt with him. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Is it your opinion that that new property owner is unrelated to Mr. Centers or his -- McKinnon: He is not related to Mr. Centers. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: I don't know where or how or who that is. All I know is Jake said it's no longer mine, it's this other guy's, and that's where I left it. Cole: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mike. Cole: If I might ask one question of the applicant regarding that. Zaremba: Yes. Cole: The western part of the small five acres would have to sewer from Arcadia. If you don't know that person that owns that, are you confident you will be able to secure the necessary easements to route the sewer to this to sewer it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 17 of 36 McKinnon: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Mike, my understanding is that in Locust Grove we actually have a gravity line that can get back to the lifter in Vienna Woods. Cole: The conceptual plan shown that was submitted shows that you run out of grade about a half to two thirds through the project in the western third to a half that sewers Arcadia. McKinnon: This direction? Cole: That's correct. McKinnon: Okay. We have already worked with the easements. In fact, there was an easement that was granted that actually went onto that five acre parcel already and it was for the water system, if you remember that. Cole: I know -- well, but the water was going to go through as a condition that Arcadia needed the -- McKinnon: Yeah, that's -- Cole: -- which has gone away, basically. They have bonded for that through the Saguaro -- the Saguaro Canyon. McKinnon: Okay. Cole: The conceptual plans your engineer has submitted show that the western third of this has to sewer back to Arcadia. McKinnon: Sewer back to Arcadia? Yeah. I -- you know, Jake -- I know Jake has talked to the guy. I don't know who it is, but I'm sure that's something that has been worked out, because they are going to have to get sewer back that direction anyways, there is no other way for them to get sewer -- Cole: Well, yeah, they would sewer through Arcadia, obviously. McKinnon: They would sewer through Arcadia and you guys in the future would say it has to be to and through. Cole: It would have to be to and through. However, Wendy platted this, those back lots would be subject to Sanitary Sewer restrictions until -- until that developed to bring you sewer. McKinnon: That's -- it's those kind of comments that we don't get that would have been great to have, so I'd have an answer for them, we just didn't get them until tonight. That's something we can definitely address. I know if there is a recommendation for Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 18 of 36 approval tonight, you can't move it onto Council, because we haven't seen what those conditions are or what the comments would be and they can definitely come forward with an answer for that and get in touch with Jake and talk to him about that. I do know that the pace of development for Saguaro has gone so fast that the sewer is actually back to here already. It's gone that fast. All those lots are basically sold in Saguaro Canyon. Build out has been a lot faster than expected. Jake initially had planned to put a lift station here to pump back in Arcadia -- and which direction was that going, do you remember, Mike? The lift station? Was that going back up through Jericho? Cole: Yes. The lift station was originally planned in Westborough and, then, Mr. Centers struck a deal with Mr. Jewett to locate the lift station roughly there where your pointer was. That's as soon as Saguaro's sewer is installed and approved, the lift station will be brought offline, essentially never having being built and never being operated, essentially. McKinnon: So, the gravity line would actually be able to service back -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, my question is if we -- we can't recommend approval on this development tonight, it will have to be continued; is th'at correct? Zaremba: I sense we have two choices. One, we can recommend denial. Newton-Huckabay: Denial. Flat out. Zaremba: Or we can ask staff to bring us conditions for approval and add into that anything we wish the staff to consider, but that would mean continue it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I was going to say that I don't know that -- we need to have the sewer discussion then, rather than this extra planning meeting on December 8th. McKinnon: I will sit down. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: It just seems that there is a lot of details yet to be worked out. Zaremba: Do you have a sense of which direction we want to go of the two choices that I mentioned? Are we working towards a resolution that we want to ask staff to make or are we working towards denial? Borup: I'm ready to make a motion right now. Moe: My biggest concern is -- well, I guess I would ask staff -- as far as the other agencies were there comments that they just -- that we just did not get? I mean are they -- I'd be curious to know what the other agencies' opinion of the project is. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8. 2005 Page 19 of 36 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there was an agency comments meeting held. Boy, it's been awhile now. Probably a couple few months. From what I can recollect at that meeting the main concerns from the fire department had to do with that turnaround and SSC -- actually, both had concerns with the turnaround, people parking there and it not being signed adequately enough to know that, hey, you can't park here, this isn't your driveway, this is a turnaround. And parking across the street, because if you park on the north side of that road, you effectively have taken away where you can back up to. So, that was pretty much the main comments that I had. And a lot of standard comments from the fire department. It was radiuses and things like that. The police department I believe commented -- Zaremba: Before you go on, is it your sense that if that turnaround is temporary or for however long that other five acres isn't developed, but for the duration of the turnaround would no parking signs in the area and across the street be okay, which could also be temporary, when the turnaround goes away, the no parking signs go away? Hood: That's what I envision. Correct. Yeah. And if you -- it doesn't really show up well here. It's really an extra long driveway. They have got -- I don't know if that's 20 or 30 feet, but, then, they have got, really, a 20 foot pad on the other side of that and, then, the garage. So, it's really -- it's really quite deep. But, yeah, signage is going to be huge out there and just letting people know that you can't park basically anywhere at the end of that road, so people can turn around. Borup: I don't see a problem with the turnaround. It's deeper and you have got a radius. It's a lot easier than pulling out of a parking lot -- parking spot in a parking lot. You have got a lot more backup area. Hood: But on paper it works fine. It's just when you get people that are parking there, that you can't actually turn around, because -- Borup: But I mean even with somebody parking there you got more room than you have got in a parking lot. Hood: Yeah. It's for the ladder trucks and, you know-- Borup: Oh. Hood: -- not your standard vehicles. It's not generally for the public, it's more for-- Borup: For emergency vehicles. Okay. Yep. That's the difference. But I thought -- I didn't think you needed an emergency turnaround on that short of a stub. Hood: It's longer than 150 feet, which is ACHD's maximum length you can have without requiring a turnaround, so -- just briefly, I guess, maybe another one popped in my head is the police department had some concerns about lighting of the micro-path. They wanted to make sure that visibility in there is taken care of. They asked that it be -- it Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8,2005 Page 20 of 36 could even maybe be taken care of with a street light. They just want to make sure it's not some dark alley, you know, there. That's probably the main concerns now. As far as Mike's concerned, I'm going to give it to him a little bit, because he has his own little section on the staff report and he could have added -- there is a little thing that says any issues or concerns from the Public Works Department and he put in none, so we could have -- that could have been a topic of discussion -- not off the cuff tonight, but -- anyway, we can discuss that more, but -- but, again, for future reference we will include all our agency comments in the staff report. And just so the Commissioners know, I did draft -- on page one there are the two proposed motions that we envision. There is a third one I guess if you wanted to continue it again, that one is not proposed on there, but, basically, the motions are there for you, so -- Borup: So, it would be my understanding -- if we did a recommendation to remand for approval, as long as we didn't close the hearing and continue it, if there were any concerns on any of the other agency reports, I mean that's not saying we have to approve the -- or approve the application, just because we made a motion to have conditions of approval. Zaremba: Well, the motion would be to ask staff to provide us with conditions of approval. Borup: Right. Zaremba: That doesn't automatically mean that we are going to approve it. Borup: Exactly. We'd still have the -- well, we'd have the opportunity to hear any of the agency reports. Zaremba: Yeah. Moe: That would be the one to do. Zaremba: And if that's the direction we are going, I think there are some things -- Craig has already mentioned some of them that -- how the driveways around this traffic circle are going to work and that my first instinct, at least on these two southern lots, is that they ought to take their access off this stub street and remove themselves from Commander Street entirely, but I mean those are things that staff and the applicant would look at if we remanded it back to them to discuss. We can certainly give some direction to staff. We want them to look at the access around the traffic circle. Do we want them to be firmer about the density? My thinking is we probably made the Dunwoody people happier with this kind of density and even during those public hearings I've said that I'm all in favor of density closer to the core, but I can listen to less density farther out in an area like this. Borup: Yeah. We are about as far out -- I mean Chinden is the boundary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 21 of 36 Zaremba: About the end now. Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and didn't -- didn't we just have a development there, though, at Chinden with a bunch of four-plexes or something like that? I mean it's kind of a -- Zaremba: Jericho and Chinden has four-plex8s. Newton-Huckabay: It's a bit of a mixed bag out there in that area, that -- Borup: These are going to be half a million dollar homes. Might be nice to have more of that in Meridian. Or more. Newton-Huckabay: So what was the -- Zaremba: If we are moving towards hearing more of this at a later date, anything else we want to tell staff to put in their staff report? Borup: Well, I considered this as a conceptual design, that that's not necessarily where the driveways are going to be going, you know, but I don't see a problem on those two lots on the south of the roundabout and maybe that one on the north is kind of pulling right in where it could be a traffic thing if there is -- Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open if Mr. McKinnon cares to comment. McKinnon: When we got this drawing back -- oh, sorry. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. When we got this drawing back from the landscape architect who drew it up, that was the first thing we saw was that jogged driveway on the north side and said that's not going to work. So, we are aware of that. This is just a landscape architectural rendering of what it could look like in the future. The things we thought were important was to show you what it would look like with houses on it. A lot of times you get a black and white drawing and it doesn't show anything. It's hard to envision what houses would look like on it and this just gives you a better representation of what it would look like. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I had one -- Zaremba: I assume we are not discussing immediate denial tonight, so let me throw in another mix, would be discussion of when we would continue it to. Next week is not an option and I think January 5th is no longer an option, so we are probably talking about our second Thursday in -- or third Thursday in January. Second meeting in January, which I think is the 19th. At the moment that schedule doesn't look terribly full. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 22 of 36 Moe: Oh, I'm sure we can change that. Zaremba: Yeah, it will change between now and then, but there is one subdivision on it at the moment. A couple other little things, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one question that I don't really understand -- Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Was the reason for -- and I probably read it and I just let it go -- the City wanting the five acres was just the connectivity? Was that the main -- and we don't think that without that connectivity now that it's going to work? Is that kind what that -- in a nutshell? Hood: Yeah. Connectivity to Jericho is the main reason for denial of it. Having that connection to Locust Grove Road is in the best interest of the city and anything else isn't. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Well -- and I continue to think that's important. I mean there are -- Newton-Huckabay: But if that -- there are stubs on the west side of that five acre parcel already as well, right, so that -- that it's going to connect if it -- when it develops. Zaremba: Let's say there is the opportunity there for a connection. As Mr. McKinnon pointed out, it's not physically a stub street, but what happens is the existing street comes right up to the property line. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Well, I remember that. Zaremba: For some distance and the anticipation is that that will become an intersection. McKinnon: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, ACHD and city staff made it very clear at ACHD's commission hearing that that is intended to be a stub street on the other side of Jericho. So, the east side of Jericho at this location is a stub street. That's 60 feet. They made it really clear and staff from your P&Z came to that meeting at ACHD and they made it very clear that they wanted that to be a stub street. So, it is a stub street and it would connect in the future when the five acre parcel develops. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm sorry to belabor this, but I got to ask one more question. Can I ask it of staff? Zaremba: Please do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 23 of 36 Newton-Huckabay: Craig, under what circumstances, if this Commission does recommend approval, could this whole thing get messed up and we end up with no connectivity to Locust Grove, other than one, obviously, the property never develops, but what -- what risk are we running to -- do you understand what I'm asking? Because I don't think I'm articulating it very well. What kind of -- like I said, I think that this is really bad planning all up in this area anyway when they approved that -- the county one. I think it just set the stage for a real conundrum out here, but if we annex -- if we annex this or recommend that we annex this, it develops, what are we setting ourselves up for potentially? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I don't know that we are necessarily setting ourselves up for anything. The stub street is there. What I don't know is if a home's already been constructed on that five acre out parcel in Ada County that's right where that quasi stub is what Ada County Highway District calls that 60 foot piece that touches that five acres. They could go in there and pull a building permit in the county, pop a house right there, you never get the connection. That could still happen if you deny this, though. You don't get that connection. So, that's why I said before that the only thing that's in the best interest of the city is to have the whole ten acres come in, we get the connection, and it's done. I don't -- again, I don't think we are setting ourselves up for anything. We will get another connection when Leeshire comes in, when Mr. Lee's property develops, and it will, but the problem is going to be is that's going to be your only east-west and is going to be a collector. This one was trying to come and alleviate and split those -- the traffic distribution in this area from either having it all go through Lee's property or all go through this property. If you get both of them coming in, the traffic is going to be somewhat evenly dispersed. Now, obviously, the traffic split isn't going to be 50-50, but it's going to be fairly split. So, that's -- again, no setup. I think either way it's just more of -- we are throwing it back at the developer and say, hey -- you know, it's similar to that one that was over by the freeway that we had the skinny narrow parcel -- show us how it's going to develop. Until we see the whole picture together, is piecemealing it together in the best interest of the city and that's really the question. I mean we can -- if we say -- we can wait. We can just wait until it all just comes in together and, then, that's when it's appropriate, but, again, you know, this isn't setting the city up for anything. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I'm trying to -- let's poke holes -- let's poke holes in the logic that this is a good idea and, you know, what could happen -- what could go wrong, I guess is what I'm asking is -- other than you thinking that another parcel -- or a house gets built in the county on this property, that's been -- and that risk stands either way, as you see it? Hood: It does. I mean I have seen a letter from Ada County saying that they recognize that five acres as a build-able parcel. So, that in itself -- that letter was kind of disconcerting, because it really has only 60 feet of street frontage, which we provided to it recently and that's, actually, below what their minimum street frontage requirement is, but, anyways, yeah, I don't think I have anything else to add. It's just that's the best interest of the city. This isn't necessarily the end of everything. I don't think it's a good Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8,2005 Page 24 of 36 point that, you know, because some bad planning has happened in the past, though, that we just say, yeah, it can be okay, because we have pretty much given up on the whole -- the whole area. So, I disagree a little bit there. I think we can make -- we can make lemonade here, you know, so -- Newton-Huckabay: No. I agree. I think that's what I was trying to get at, is what's the best way -- because I think the way they developed Jericho has messed up the whole thing. If they would have done something a little more in the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan out in that area, I think it might have come together better and I agree with you, we need to make lemons out of lemonade and I guess I'm just not wanting to throw any -- Zaremba: The one issue that helps me not be so certain that this is in the best interest of the city is just the problem that you suggest. This developer had it within his power to solve that problem and is intentionally not doing that. Is it in the best interest of the city to let developers treat the city that way? That's my struggle. Moe: Mine as well. Zaremba: But not to belabor that point, do we want to ask staff for conditions of approval and discuss it again on January 19th, I believe it would be? As well as all the other agency comments. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: If we deal with it tonight, I would vote for denial. If we are -- if we are considering it, then, I would like to see all of the other comments and the conditions. Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: In the spirit of moving along, I'd move to remand AZ-- Moe: We need to close the -- Borup: Not if we are going to -- Moe: Oh. I'm sorry. Borup: I move to remand AZ 05-050 and PP 05-051 back to staff so staff can draft findings and conditions of approval, to be accompanied by all other agency reports and continue this to January 19th, 2006. End of motion. Moe: I will second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 25 of 36 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. So, that was to January 19th, I believe. Has anybody confirmed that day? I believe it's the 19th. Borup: Yes. I looked on a calendar. Zaremba: I have the agenda. January 19th it is. Thank you. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05.054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: CUP 05.050 Request for a Conceptual Conditional Use for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road: Zaremba: Okay. Next we'd like to open the Public Hearing for PP 05-054 and CUP 05- 050, both of these relating to Touchmark Center Subdivision. And, again, even though these are continued, we had no prior discussion. They were continued for a notice problem. So, this will be our first discussion. And we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission; I am pinch hitting this evening for Josh Wilson. He's at home with his kids. So, I will give this a shot. I did make some notes here. This project also has quite a history behind it. I'll touch on that in a minute. The subject applications are for a preliminary plat approval of 22 building lots and one other common lot and conceptual Conditional Use Permit approval for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone and those 15 acres are bolded there on the map. The site is located on the south side of Franklin Road, west of Touchmark Way, approximately a quarter mile east of Eagle Road. The site is currently vacant. There is a single family home, I guess, on that property, I believe. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates the land to be mixed use community. We'll go back to that map for just a second. To the north are future commercial developments. This is the road that goes around RC. Willey, zoned C-G. To the east are existing future phases of Meadow lake Village residential development. This is the zoning code, so everything in purple here is office district. The reds are commercial. That's industrial there, the gray. To the south are professional offices and St. Luke's, which is -- their campus is right here. To the west are the existing -- quickly going away residences in Montvue Park Subdivision. That's -- most of those are zoned R-1 still in Ada County.