Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 1, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 51 of 64 Zaremba: We didn't actually have it on our agenda, but it was in the -- it was in the statement about approving it. I could delete that, since we haven't discussed it. That's a City Council issue, not ours. Moe: Exactly. And, then, also the variance, they are willing to drop the variance. Do you want to make note that we are in agreement with that? Zaremba: Yes. I would add to the motion that the applicant is dropping the variance as no longer necessary. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, CUP 06-006, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: Motion carries. Thank you, folks, for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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 11: Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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: 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 related to Cedarcreek Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am following up on this application for Joe, who is no longer with us. The staff report you have is, actually, from April 20th. I will refresh your memory just briefly, give you some of the specifics of the project, and, then, maybe we can go home. So, this is an annexation and preliminary plat for a 28 acre subdivision, proposing 85 single family residential lots and 12 common lots. They are located on the north side of McMillan Road and on the west -- just west of Meridian Road. See if I can find some of the specs for you. I can't do that density in my head. We are looking at -- they have 5.7 percent open space, 4.34 dwelling units per acre, and the main reason that this application -- it shows up pretty well on this aerial view, that this application was -- has been continued for a couple of times now -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 52 of 64 was to discuss this out parcel and the strip that runs on the west side of said out parcel and it is part of the subject application, but there is some -- it doesn't make much sense for part of the subdivision to be over here. That was one -- the main reason that this body continued it. Also, there were some -- ACHD hadn't commented at that point in time. Those comments have been incorporated into the staff report. Really, that's the reason. I went through the minutes, but just briefly. I did not read the whole transcript, I just looked at the motion and went through them. I do have a staff report here and I'm a little bit familiar with it, so if you have any other questions -- I guess I should show you what the plat looks like. I will try to answer them the best I can. Rohm: No questions? I think at this time we are all anxious to hear what the applicant has to say. Nickle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. Shawn Nickle, 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. As you recall, we were sent back to work with the neighbors and try to figure out that strip there on the west boundary and the developer has indicated to me today that they do have a verbal agreement with the property -- the neighboring property owners on that strip. What we are going to do is we are going to submit to the county a lot line adjustment and, then, deed that property over to the neighbors. That was an agreement -- a verbal agreement made by the developer and the neighbors of that property. In addition, there is some other agreements the developer and the neighbor have as far as piping, irrigation ditch, some fencing and -- anything else? I guess the neighbors can get up and can -- if you want to talk about it. But, yeah, I think we have got everything worked out. What our plans do -- what we are planning on doing is immediately submitting that application for the parcel boundary adjustment to the county, probably do that next -- early next week, get that in the process and, then, I don't know if it will catch up to the City Council, but, if not, staff will put -- stated that they will put a condition that prior to the approval of the annexation that will -- that lot swap will take place. That way you're not annexing that little strip and it will remain in the county, along with the neighbor's out parcel. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. It appears to be a good remedy to a problem that everybody felt uncomfortable with. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you, Shawn. Carl Reiterman. Reiterman. Sorry about that. Reiterman: Carl Reiterman. I live at 770 West McMillan Road. My wife and I own the out parcel. We have had quite a few conversations with Kevin Amar and -- I assume he's the developer. He said he was. And we have agreements to -- he's going to give us the 50 foot strip and fence the property on the two sides that he has, give us -- and the road, they are going to put all the utilities, so future development can be there and we have talked about a sidewalk in front of the property, right in here, and it's going to be right in front of our carport, but I agree with the need to have accessibility on the sidewalk, so we are going to -- it's going to be in our front yard, but that's the only place it can be, short of being right on the street, and at 50 miles an hour down that street, the sidewalk would not go there. There is also trees and a ditch right at the street, so -- but Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 53 of 64 we have talked about it and discussed it and pending it coming out in writing and being acceptable, it's fine with us. We have come to some agreements and so here we are. And I appreciate the council -- Commissioners helping us work this out. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Reiterman: Oh. Future thoughts of what we could do to develop the land. Nothing pending right now. So, thank you very much. Any questions? Rohm: Thank you for your testimony. Reiterman: Okay. Rohm: Bonnie, would you like to -- do you have anything to add? From the audience she says nothing. She had signed up, but has no additional comments. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? At this time, Shawn, would you like to come back forward? Hood: Mr. Chair, just real quick before Shawn gets up there. I was going through my notes from the last meeting -- well, the meeting before last when there was actually a hearing. I did have a DA -- Joe did not propose a development agreement with one originally, due to the homogenous nature of it, but I think that one probably should be performed on this property, just because of what's happening with this property boundary adjustment. I did have some wording for you, in addition to requiring the applicant to enter into a development agreement, and it goes: Prior to annexation ordinance approval, the applicant shall provide a copy of a recorded property boundary adjustment from Ada County, with the Reiterman's parcel that shows all of the applicant's property being combined into one -- and then it stops. So, in effect, it just -- have them submit a recorded property boundary adjustment with what -- it sounds like they are both in agreement and the applicant is proposing to sell, bargain, trade, give, whatever that strip to the Reitermans, but that that actually be a part of it and that it happens before we annex the development into the city, so you don't have the Reitermans owning a 50 foot swath of the city and, then, you can't even get the property boundary adjustment done, because you have got one jurisdiction with one property line and -- so it would create a mess. The other thing, I guess, I would recommend now, based on -- and that's why I wanted to do this before Shawn got up there, was the -- there is some discussion in here about the sidewalk adjacent to their parcel, but it's not- _ Joe did point out, as the same with is Tanana, you know, those breaks in developments, but if they are willing to construct it adjacent to the out parcel, I think that's something else that could be put into a development agreement, but I just wanted to see if you had any comments about that or if the Commission has any feelings one way or the other. But that's probably the best vehicle to get that sidewalk. So, thank you. Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 54 of 64 Nickel: Mr. Chairman, again, thank you. Shawn Nickle. The issue over the sidewalk, the developer has agreed to provide that sidewalk and what we will do is we will work with the Reitermans and ACHD on the placement of that sidewalk. Again, as the neighbors have stated, there is a lot of mature trees, a portion of their structure would be in the way if we were to extend the sidewalk and line up with where the permanent sidewalk would be. So, again, in the past, if you recall, what we did across the street in Amber Creek, we kind of got around where that -- where that -- the ditch was and had, actually, a temporary sidewalk in front of a portion of the out parcel. So, again, the developer will build that, will coordinate that with the neighbors and with ACHD. So, with that any other questions? I think we have got everything worked out. Rohm: Thanks, Shawn. Any questions of the applicant? Okay. Thanks. Nickle: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I guess my only comment before a motion be made is the significant issue that this will carry forward was the out parcel or the side lot or whatever and it appears as if that's no longer an issue. So, thank you all for cooperating with each other and it appears as if that's made just a much better project. With that being said -- Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20 and the preliminary plat labeled C-1, dated 21 December, 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. On Exhibit B, page one, prior to site specific requirements preliminary plat, I would add annexation and zoning requirements that the developer will enter into a development agreement with the city, we can use the specific wording that Mr. Hood mentioned, but the two items to cover are the little strip of land west of the out parcel and the sidewalk crossing the front of this out parcel. End of motion. Moe: Second.