Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 46 of 82 Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items No. AZ 06-011 and PP 06-009 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single- family residential lots and 4 common lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06-012 and PP 006-010, both relating to Hendrickson Subdivision, for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both relating the Hendrickson Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006, to allow us to receive and assimilate the ACHD report and have full discussion at that time. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010 to April 6, 2006, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single- family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 47 of 82 Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on AZ 06-009 and PP 06- 007. Both of these items are related to Cedarcreek Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Cedarcreek Subdivision is located approximately one quarter mile east of Meridian Road on McMillan Road. As you can see here it is bounded by Paramount to the north and this is the undeveloped section of Paramount through here. This long narrow strip is a collector road from Paramount. This is Solitude, Amber Creek, and there is vacant property to the west of the site. As you can see, there is one small parcel right here that is an out parcel. The site is currently all agricultural with a -- I believe there is two residences located in here. I guess I'm being indicated there is only one residence, but there is multiple buildings in there. With this there is a request for 85 single family residential lots and 12 common lots. The applicant is meeting the R-8 standards of the ordinance. Most of these lots are 5,000 square foot lots, with the required landscape buffer to McMillan Road. And all of the connections to Paramount, as well as to the east and to the north to Paramount, as well as to a stub street to the undeveloped parcel, which would provide for future connections in that location. Again, this is one of those staff reports that has ACHD conditions of approval that are pending. Staff doesn't know what else this applicant could do, since they are connecting to all their stub streets that are required of the site, but this will go to tech review tomorrow, same as Basin Creek. Probably would have conditions next week for -- in a draft format. The main issue with this subdivision is the out parcel here. I wish I had a blow up of it. You can kind of see that this neck right there is left out. This is, actually, most of the -- there is a canal here and there is a maintenance road in there that is along that canal. And that also serves a purpose of being the driveway for this parcel. In this one you can see the -- their house is right off this property line. My guess is that is five or six feet to that property line and their garage is right here, which is almost right on the property line for what is going to be the future common lot in this location. Now with that there are two other lots in here, one for future right of way and, then, one for the required 25 foot landscape buffer to McMillan Road. Now, if the applicant does -- the applicant will be required to adhere to the City of Meridian UDC, which says that they are required to provide that 25 foot landscape buffer, which is, essentially, going to take that driveway access away. So, that will limit the use of this -- this residential property here and they most likely will have to make application to ACHD for another access point to McMillan in the future. Or some other resolution needs to be adhered to. But those are mostly off-site improvements that staff has not brought into this staff report at this time. The applicant's agent is here and I would request that they address that in greater detail. The only real comments that were conditions would have been that this is landscaped, which is what staff is requiring and that the common lot be maintained by the homeowners association. The other comment was that this alley is shown as a common -- or as a common lot. The alley should be dedicated to the public right -- or as public right of way as conditioned in the staff report. Staff is -- has prepared findings for approval and conditions accordingly and is recommending approval of this project with -- I guess there is some contingencies of hoping to try and get some resolution with this project here and get some off-site improvements, namely, similar comparable Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 48 of 82 conditioning as what Solitude recently did and Amber Creek, which would be to provide the sidewalk connection at a minimum across the frontage here in order to better facilitate any type of pedestrian access across the front of these properties on out parcels. However, that would be, again, off-site improvements. Staff has not made any conditions, but that could be requested or offered by the applicant and the out parcel residents who are here tonight. And at that I will stand for questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one, and if you said this I didn't hear it, but I will ask the question that City Council will ask. Are we absolutely certain that the out parcel is owned by people who have no relation to what we are studying now? Guenther: That is correct. The first thing that I asked the applicant to do was to provide deeds that predated 1984 and they give me a deed for this property at approximately -- I believe 1981. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions? At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 838 East Winding Creek Drive in Eagle, here tonight representing Centennial Development and the Cedarcreek Subdivision. Staff's done a good job of explaining the whatnots of the project. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Again, this does meet the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance -- the current zoning ordinance as far design, density, compatibility. As staff stated, we are providing stub streets to existing approved stub streets. We do have a tech review meeting in the morning with ACHD. I have reviewed our report, they did get that to me today, and it's a pretty straight forward staff report. We would like to, obviously, continue to move, but it sounds like your advice from your staff is to continue this on. So, I'll leave that with you. But we are confident and receptive of the draft staff report from ACHD. Again, we are in agreement with staff's recommendations. I guess the only outstanding issue that we will probably discussion tonight is this out parcel and I think staff has done the right thing with his conditions or his recommendations and that is that we work with the property owners on issues of sidewalk and issues of the driveway, the existing driveway, and we will continue to do that. The developer has had some discussions with the representative for the Reidermans and I believe they are here tonight, so let them speak and, then, we can continue on the conversation. And I'll stand for any questions you have right now. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 49 of 82 Moe: Shawn, in the report staff noted that the landscape plan that's been prepared and was not accepted. Is there another one planned or are you just going to take care of the conditions that are noted? Nickel: What we will do, Commissioner, we will revise that prior to City Council, rather than waiting until the final plat, once we figure out -- or get your recommendation and incorporate what needs to be incorporated, we will get that revised. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. Nickel, I know, as you have indicated, that you have read the staff report, but I just wanted to point out on page three, public works comment, that this development isn't sewerable until Paramount brings sewer to and through. I just want you to be -- to make sure that you have seen that and you're aware of whatever risk you're taking in delay waiting for Paramount to act. Nickel: We are aware of that. Zaremba: Okay. That was it. Rohm: I guess my only comment at this point in time -- and I'm sure we will receive testimony from the Reidermans, but I would think that with that out parcel being so much involved with this project, that there would have been greater effort put forth to resolve all outstanding issues with the Reidermans before this meeting and I would just strongly suggest that that would have been my preference to you folks early on. And with that being said, I think we will just close it at that and we will take testimony from the Reidermans and move forward. Nickel: Great. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. At this time would Carl Reiderman like to come forward, please? Reiderman: Carl Reiderman, 770 West McMillan, the out parcel in this project, and what else. Anything else? Rohm: Just your address. Reiderman: Oh. 770 West McMillan, which is the out parcel. We have tried numerous times, without any success whatsoever, to communicate and have discussions and resolve this issue with the applicant. They have said no to everything we have proposed to them. We have proposed to them to buy us out. We have proposed that Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 50 of 82 we could possibly develop this at the same time they are doing this with them and somehow in cooperation with them. They have turned us down. We have offered to take this out parcel, this extra 50 foot, off their hands, because we have been uSing it for eight years as a driveway. The owner Chester Dallas -- Dallas Chester -- I'm a little nervous -- promised to us many many times that he would not cut off access to our shop. That's exactly what they are proposing to do. The landscape plan that we see -- get my little pointer here. These trees right here block off the doors to our shop. It's on their landscape plan that our shop is there and that's where the doors are. They have been out to survey this many times. And almost feel like they are acting in spite against us, somehow or other. I don't know why. We have tried to negotiate. They just keep saying no to us. Paramount has told us they want to do this ditch in cooperation with the developers and they got up and walked out of the meeting with them. Paramount has no plans to bring sewer to them within the next three to five years. They have told us that. So, my understanding is the application is null and void after two years. Why would you approve it when he's not going to get sewer to it? That's one of the questions. We would just as soon that he just buy that from us and we could go away. We are not real happy with 85 lots going in next to us, when all of Paramount has much larger homes, much nicer homes than what Corey Barton is going to be putting in here. So, we are really opposed to this and at bare minimum we would like them to work with us, which they have not -- not shown any good faith whatsoever to do that. Any questions? Rohm: That's pretty straight forward. Thank you for your testimony. Reiderman: Thank you. Rohm: Bonnie Reiderman, would you like to speak, too? B. Reiderman: My name is Bonnie Reiderman and I'm at 770 West McMillan Road. And I am the owner, my name is on this property, and we had talked with them in regards to buying us out. Again, they wouldn't pay us. The property to the left here, which is -- we are surrounded by it. When we originally bought the property, the owners of the parcel that we bought said that we own all the way out. Well, we found out we didn't, you know, and so in the meantime we had already had a shop out there, because, you know, we thought where we were at and we weren't and so, anyhow, now they are trying to cut us off and they put landscaping coming down the road there. There is -- we have two shops out there. They have put trees and kind of at the shop. They wanted to cutoff the back of us at one point in time and give us this other side and I said, no, we don't want that, because there is encumbrances on it, because there is easements, there is -- I'm not really sure. There is two different easements on the west side of us. And so they said, no, there isn't. Well, we had it researched by the Idaho Power Company and they said there is, actually, four owners of that parcel. So, I don't know, I'm concerned as to what's happening to us, because we are surrounded by all four corners of this. Okay? Even on the front we are surrounded by -- and so if they go and do this to us, that means where the lane goes down and cuts into our property, there will have to be a cul-de-sac in there. Okay? And which means if we would ever Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 51 of 82 develop, we don't have enough land to develop to make it worth our time and so it's just -- you know, everything we do it -- it cuts us off our shop, you know, that's our living, you know. I don't know. I'm concerned that he's taking away our livelihood and I don't want him to do that. You know, if he wants to buy it out, we would be happy to sell to him. We don't want to fight with these people, but we want to have a fair evaluation of what's going on. Rohm: Thank you. B. Reiderman: Is there any other questions you might -- Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman, a couple. You had not addressed staff report's comment about the sidewalk in front of your property. B. Reiderman: I was not aware of that. Borup: Okay. Do you have any problem with them putting a sidewalk along the property that would continue on -- B. Reiderman: Well, first of all -- I'm sorry. On the front of our place we have these big beautiful blue spruce trees and everything. I don't know what's going to happen. We have been told it would be three lanes when McMillan -- or we have been told it will be five lanes. We are not sure what's going to happen. If it happens, they will take off our front carport and our -- part of our -- our office to our house. That means that we have to remodel our house, turn it around, remodel the back of it and, you know, again, a lot of expense to us, because of what this project is doing to us and so -- Borup: But you're talking about ACHD widening the road. The comment -- the question right now is just the sidewalk along there. B. Reiderman: Well, I was not even aware of the sidewalk issue. Nobody has -- Borup: That's what I'm asking you right now. B. Reiderman: Oh. I don't know. It depends on where it goes. Borup: Okay. B. Reiderman: Where is it going? Is it going to take our carport off? What's it going to do? Borup: No. No. The sidewalk would be out -- further out and it wouldn't -- it would just be within that buffer, the highway buffer. I don't know. They'll need to work that out. B. Reiderman: There is not very much-- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 52 of 82 Borup: It hasn't been addressed. It sounds like when you -- when you bought your property you did not have it surveyed; is that correct? B. Reiderman: Well, we were told that if we had it surveyed, we would have had to survey 640 acres. That was an awful big expense to survey -- Borup: So, you didn't even have property pins or anything? B. Reiderman: We had -- the owner stated out there -- we said to the pins and they said yes. No, we did not. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: I have a question for you. What is your current access to your shop that's out on the north end of the property -- northwest corner? Do you have an easement to -- on that strip of land to gain access to the shop area? B. Reiderman: No, we didn't. We do not have easements, but we went to Chester Dallas, which was our neighbor, and we said could we buy it from you and he said, no, but we said can we use it and he said, well, I'll never cut you off of it. And so the previous people that owned that had used it for -- that road for 27 years. We have now used it for going on eight years and we have maintained it. We have landscaped it. We have done everything to take care of that and so I don't know what our next move is. We are trying to -- what your wishes are, sir. Rohm: Okay. Well, I was just curious if you had an easement or if it was by -- I can't remember what kind of -- what's the right way when you have been using it for a number of years? B. Reiderman: Adverse possession. Baird: Prescriptive easement, Mr. Chair. I don't want to give legal advice to these individuals and I would certainly hope that they have sought their counsel on that matter. But it's -- it's not something for the city to declare. Rohm: Right. I understand that. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. B. Reiderman: Thank you. Rohm: Doug Eden. Eden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, fellow Commissioners. My name is Doug Eden, 1735 North Mansfield, Eagle, Idaho. And I've known the owners of this out parcel for quite some time. I have, actually, been the realtor involved with them on several dealings, including this particular parcel. We have tried to have communications with the developer for over five months. Over five months ago I pointed out to the developer Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 53 of 82 that that particular piece of ground right there had been used open and notoriously for over 30 years by the owners of that particular parcel. The folks that own it now have used it for over eight years. They were under the understanding that they owned that property up until it was recently surveyed for this development about two years ago. When it was surveyed for the development, that's when they realized they didn't own the property. That's when they went to the owner at that time and said could we buy the property from you and the owner at that time was already in negotiations with the developer and didn't want to cut off another half acre that he might get 100,000 dollars per acre for. So, he said, no, you can't buy it, but I'll never cut you off of it. These folks -- and, then, talked to -- we have talked to -- I've, actually, tried to initiate these discussions with the developer and several times I even said to the point was just make us any offer, any offer at all. And their exact quote was we are not making you any offer. Period. You know, we don't want the house, we don't want to buy the house. We don't want to make you an offer. And in regards to this -- this over here, I've actually gone over with the developer, I have told them this is notorious, this is prescriptive easement, yeah, I have gone to real estate school also and know this. You can go talk to your attorney and find out about it and they were like you can buy it from us, but we don't have to buy it from you. I mean we don't have to give it to you, we don't have to do anything, so -- and as for the sidewalk issue, if you put a buffer zone and a sidewalk, you will be cutting off their only access to the property, you will also be cutting off probably about three or feet of their carport, because they have a carport on the east side of the property, in addition to the shop on the north side. So, you will be cutting off their carport and you will be cutting off the upper piece. And it's really a very ill- conceived how this subdivision fits in with this other piece. And the only other issue I have with this property is, you know, we have got -- compared to the last subdivision we reviewed, you have got the same amount of lots and ten acres less ground. Thirty percent less ground. These are 5,000 square foot lots. My three minutes are up. Thank you so much. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Shawn, you want to come back up? Before -- let me ask if there is anybody else that would like to offer testimony on this application? Seeing none, Shawn. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Shawn Nickel. What I just passed out is a little history of correspondences that have gone on between the developer and the folks in the out parcel. There has been approximately eight attempts at talking -- or communications back and forth, including one as late as this afternoon, from what I understand. And this is -- this is a tough situation when you got a piece of property like this and you have got an existing house that's situated where it is. However, in -- and if the staff could put up the plan that I gave them. We, actually, have revised this plan and it was supposed to be in the file. It does show the landscaping out of this, which does indicate that we are willing to work with the Reidermans on resolving this. However, you know, a couple of the issues were -- you know, there was some verbal agreement from the previous property owner as to access to their house over his property. There was an attempt early on at swapping property -- trying to swap this piece here for an equal piece right there, which was denied by the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 54 of 82 neighbors. From what I understand from my developer there was a -- there was a -- an amount given by the Reidermans to the developer that the developer felt was too high to purchase that property, so there were other things that have been gone on. We have provided a stub to the western boundary of our development to provide for future access, not knowing what is ultimately going to come out. But as I stated earlier, I think staff did a good job at -- at recommending that we work with the out parcel neighbors, which we will do, as I have indicated on that revised plan. We are not trying to cut them off. We can't be forced to buy a piece of property that is either overpriced or can't be utilized by the developer. If it's something that has to go to court, it has to go to court, unfortunately. I'm hopeful that my developer is going to work with the Reidermans and get this resolved. But, in any event, it's my understanding that we can't -- we could not extend the sidewalk and line up with our sidewalk, because it would go through their carport. So, I know what -- I don't know what to do on that -- on that issue with sidewalk on a piece of property that we have no control over. Our intentions are to do our proper landscaping and everything along our portion of our frontage, which at this time is this piece of property. How that is -- how that ultimately comes out I don't know, but I think we are on the right path as far as the city is concerned, in that something's going to have to be worked out between the two property owners. It's just going to have to be. So, I'll stand for any questions you have or suggestion, advice. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Based upon your correspondence that you just handed out, am I to assume, then, that the -- the other property owners have not gotten back to you or your developer in regards to that -- purchasing their property? Nickel: I think they talked to the developer this afternoon about 4:30. I wasn't involved with that conversation. I have not been involved with most of these conversations. The developer has. Moe: Okay. I was just getting the understanding that there was no communication going on and I read this, now I see that there has been some communication. I don't know how close they are getting to that, but -- Nickel: You know, it probably hasn't been the best communication with either side, but there has been communication from both sides and it's something that's going to have to continue -- going to have to continue on to resolve whatever it ultimately is. Rohm: Thanks, Shawn. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 55 of 82 Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: What's this one? Nickel: Where did that come from? Newton-Huckabay: It was attached to this thing you gave me. Nickel: Oh. Probably-- Borup: We have all got a copy of that. Nickel: Oh, it's an old -- yeah, it's a very old plan. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it looks a little more beneficial to the property to the southwest. Nickel: Yeah. I think that was the plan if we were to swap the property. That's what it would have looked like if we would have swapped the -- now it's all coming back to me. If we would have swapped this piece right here with that piece right there, that's what the design would have looked like. I didn't realize that was part of your packet. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, yeah. And, Mr. Nickel, I was only going to comment that I believe what was worked on in the agreement across the street about a sidewalk across an out parcel was not that it aligned with their permanent sidewalk, but that it, actually, was a temporary sidewalk, even of asphalt, totally within ACHD's right of way. And it's just to make a connection for people walking and bicycling to school and it wouldn't cut off a driveway or access or -- it, actually, wouldn't be on their property. Nickel: And I -- and, Commissioners, I think that would be appropriate, as long as it's understood that that's what it would be, a temporary sidewalk or pathway that wouldn't necessarily line up with the permanent concrete sidewalk along the rest of the development, so -- because if it did, it would definitely go through their carport. Zaremba: Staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what the resolution was across the street. Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, your recollection is correct. I know that across the street was -- in Solitude that had to go around a bunch of large trees as well and they did not create the sidewalk connection that would have been fully within their 25-foot required landscape buffer. Nickel: And the Amber Creek one, actually, was on the other side of a ditch, so -- Zaremba: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 56 of 82 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment regarding this development. I think that the developer needs to work with the neighbor and maximize the design to the west that will most allow the neighbor to develop -- if they don't want to purchase their property, to develop it in the maximum way possible. The connectivity -- and I agree with Reidermans, that what they have now most likely would require a cul-de-sac, which would take up a huge amount of what's left of their property. I do believe that your client is in the power position in this point and I think that something needs to be -- they need an opportunity to developer their land as well and I don't think the connectivity that's provided now allows them to do that and get maximum use of their land. I think some other design maybe similar to the one you have here would possibly work better, but I think at the end of the day we are going to end up with a development that looks really weird, for one, because you're going to have Cedarcreek and, then, you're going to have this little out parcel and what's going to go on that little out parcel? Nickel: Okay. But you do understand that we have no control over that out parcel. Newton-Huckabay: I understand you have no control over the out parcel, but you do have control over how you provide access to that out parcel and you can work with that neighbor, just like you would work with neighbors in any other development that you have done, I believe. I mean you have to -- you can't look at that and say, oh, they have a multitude of opportunities left here. I mean we are kind of creating a bizarre in-fill area and I think that we are in a position that could be avoided, potentially. Nickel: And not to be -- I'm not trying to argue with you, but if you do look at that sheet that I had on that last page, that did show the opportunity to do that and the neighboring property owners choose not to work with the developer on the swap that would have created what you would call a better design or a better ability for them to develop. So, we only can do what we can do, which is to provide them with the best possible access, which if you look, that is the best possible access for them to redevelop their property and we have looked at that. We did not -- you know, we did not locate it down here, it's not located over there, it's located in the area that could be cul-de-sac'd and would retain their -- their house. So, there is not -- it's not that big of a piece of property that's left over, so there is only so much you can really do to provide them secondary access. So, we have tried to do that. We will continue and, obviously, we are going to be tabled for the ACHD issue, so I'll make sure the developer is aware of the comments and we will give it another go with trying to speak with the neighbors. Newton-Huckabay: I mean could you give them a stub on the north and a stub on the west -- or on the east? Zaremba: That would make it worse to develop it. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 57 of 82 Nickel: It would be worse. It would take out more property. Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I just would like to bring up the overall aerial photo again one more time. I'm sorry. Nickel: And, again, I'm not trying to argue with you and we will -- we will look into this before the next meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean -- but it looks to me that in -- I think that Commissioner Rohm made the point early on is that all the right people haven't sat at the same table and so, then, these arguments and disagreements come to the Planning and Zoning Commission and me personally, this is the type of thing that I find really annoying. Borup: Well, it's only about an acre. Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and that's fine if it's only about an acre, but my point being is that you still have an acre surrounded by development and what are you going to do with it? Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that's what I'd like to address here quickly. What we could proceed on is this parcel is completely undeveloped and this road is most likely going to have the stub to here, because there is no other connection across at this point and, then, there is a Paramount stub at this location. If this is stubbed to the west here, then, they potentially could continue the 5,000 square foot lots across the front and, then, two more lots in this area, which is probably the maximum benefit that that parcel's ever going to get anyhow. That's mostly going to be an ACHD call for tomorrow of how they would like to see that redevelop. Unfortunately, this spite strip is what this is turning out to be -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Guenther: -- and that's the biggest problem that we have and that's why the -- these two -- the applicant and the Reidermans need to work together to resolve how that's going to redevelop. That's as staff foresees as being the biggest problem. Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners -- and that's one reason I did revise that after looking at it today, because I didn't want to give the impression that we were planting trees and trying to cut them off. Unfortunately, that's going to get downloaded on the -- Rohm: Well, just from my perspective it looks like that's exactly what was taking place, is that they were being cut off. But that's just from -- from my perspective looking at the development as it currently is drawn, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 58 of 82 Nickel: With this layout no trees on this -- or landscaping at all on the strip. Is that what you are referring to? Rohm: Well, with the trees that were shown. Nickel: Right. And, again, that's why I did present that. And, again, we will give it another shot to work with them, but I just -- just so you know, when we come back in two weeks it might not be resolved. It's an issue that might have to be resolved outside of the city. Rohm: I think the -- I think we have examined this long enough. Nickel: Okay. Rohm: Both parties know that it's this body's position that you get it resolved. We are not here to resolve that for you. Nickel: Okay. Rohm: And I think that's enough said about that. Okay. Thanks, Shawn. Nickel: Okay. Thanks. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that I agree with I think what everybody else is saying, that hopefully in the interim while we are waiting for the ACHD report that the parties will resolve this, but I would also suggest whatever happens when this comes back, we will probably have further discussion and where I'm going with that is I would rather suggest we move this to April 20th, rather than April 6th. Rohm: I concur with that. Zaremba: April 6th is pretty full and we have already moved a bunch of them there, so - - that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007, both relating to Cedarcreek Subdivision, to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007 to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 06-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by