Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 31, 2006 P&Z Minute .< Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31,2006 Page 13 of 59 Borup: Did that answer his question? Nickel: Mr. Chairman, did staff just want that on the record or there -- okay. Moe: Thank you very much. Staff have any other questions? Would staff have any other questions? No? Okay. No other questions. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have changes to -- we have no changes, then? Moe: I see none. Borup: Right. The only question is that one that -- yeah. There is no changes that I could see. Newton-Huckabay: Did we close the Public Hearing? Moe: No, we have not. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006, with no modifications. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe - 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August31,2006 Page 14 of 59 Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential lots and 3 common lots on 8.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe - 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: Moe: I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-041, request for annexation and zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision and PP 06-042, request for preliminary plat approval, 25 residential lots and three common lots on the 8.95 acres for Harpe Subdivision and start with the staff comments. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 8.95 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan Roads. To the north is some rural residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County, along with a large parcel currently zoned R-4. To the east is a future school site within the Settlement Bridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is the Havasu Creek Subdivision, also zoned R-4. And to the west is some more rural residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County. With that context, the applicant is requesting an R-8 zoning designation on this property. All of the property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. I don't think the aerial helps us too much in this situation with our protector, but this is just an aerial view of the site. We will move on to the preliminary plat. Along with the annexation and zoning the applicant is also requesting preliminary plat approval of 22 single family building lots and three common lots. As you can see, one of the proposed lots is approximately 89,000 square feet. This lot has been designed to retain an existing home and is, therefore, much larger than the other proposed lots which range in size from approximately 7,500 to almost 9,000 square feet. With the current configuration of lots, the total gross density of the project is 2.45 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area of low density residential, allows for up to three units per acre. Although this proposed density is consistent with the low density residential designation, it is important to note that the applicant is requesting an R-8 zone, which is designed to accommodate medium density developments. This zoning would allow the large lot that contains the existing home to re-subdivide and develop lots in the future that are only required to meet the R-8 standards. If in the future this large lot is subdivided and developed with similar lots as proposed in the current subdivision, the gross density for the entire area could reach up to four units per acre, which is above the low density standard, which it has on the Comprehensive Plan. Even if this scenario I just mentioned above played out, the potential gross density for this area is still in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because of the step up provision. This provision described on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map allows for the city to consider other residential densities than those shown on the future land use map, as long as the proposed density is within one step. For example, from low to medium of the density shown on the map. Due to this flexibility, the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant's attempt to include larger lots in this project, staff finds that the proposed annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat are in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but staff also recommends that the Commission consider that situation of this -- this lot being able to redevelop in the future as an R-8 lot. Therefore, they would be able to subdivide this lot in the R-8 standards, which is, indeed, a step up Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 15 of 59 for this area and it's something that could set a precedent as the rest of the lots in this area, which are all five acre lots similar to these, develop. Now, we can take a look at the landscape plan. Due to some -- some late changes that were basically imposed by ACHD, the landscape plan shown is not the landscape plan it will end up being, but this is just an example. You can see the difference. There is a small cul-de-sac that was placed instead of this common driveway. But the plat is correct and this is just an example just to show you the buffers along McMillan and I believe this is Linder Road here. Borup: Locust Grove. Lucas: Locust Grove. I apologize. You can also get a clearer view of where that current house is located. This access will be vacated and the house will take access off of a new driveway here. The applicant is also proposing parkway planters with trees, so it would be an eight foot parkway with five foot detached sidewalks and it shows up actually better here on the plat. There is going to be two micro pathways connecting to McMillan and Locust Grove. One micro pathway right here connecting up to the sidewalk and landscape buffer and another micro pathway right here connecting to the one on Locust Grove. In total it's .85 acres of open space, which is approximately 9.9 percent of the -- of the total project. Other than the issue of density, which I already mentioned, the only other issue that staff sees as a major issue or an issue for this project is the design of this -- this cul-de-sac. After -- because of these late changes that occurred, the fire department didn't have a chance to take a look at this necessarily early on in the project and it's just a little bit under what the fire department would like to see. So, staff did include a condition that -- that before submittal of the final plat that the applicant work with the fire department to insure that this turnaround meets their emergency vehicle turnaround requirements. The other issue is the requirement by ACHD that this lot here remain a non-build lot until this stub street is able to move through, due to the fact that, once again, there is a required turnaround there and rather than put the turnaround and allow a house to be built there, ACHD decided to acquire a non-build lot until that stub street moves through. But other than those issues, as stated earlier, staff is -- generally approves the project and I stand for any questions, Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Borup: Just one. The fire department -- we didn't see that on -- no, they didn't have comments earlier. Did they review the original plat and they didn't have any concerns with that? Lucas: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Borup, they did have -- this, actually, shows a little bit of what the original plat was -- Borup: Right. Lucas: -- before there was a -- they were using his driveway as an emergency vehicle turnaround, but the distance, actually, from the end of this common drive all the way Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 16 of 59 down to this was -- still exceeded the distance that the fire department wanted. And so that's why it originally went through a redesign. The issue is that the fire department doesn't have a chance to make official comments on it. They have a chance to make official comments on it at the comments meeting and after that it was more of an informal comment from Joe Silva, the assistant fire chief, saying that he was just concerned about that -- that proposed cul-de-sac. He just wanted to take a closer look at it and that's why that comment is in there that, really, he needs to have a chance to take a closer look at the -- Borup: Well, my observation was that without even driving around the cul-de-sac the fire trucks would still be closer on the new design than on the previous one. Closer to the houses and where they need to be. Lucas: Yeah. It's not the issue of being close enough, it's the turning radius of that cul- de-sac, being able to get that -- the 60 foot fire truck around the cul-de-sac. Borup: Well, I mean don't even -- don't even drive in the cul-de-sac and they'd still be as close as they were -- Lucas: The issue is of them being able to back up and turn around. Borup: And can't they still back up in the same -- back up before? But that was too far for them? Lucas: It was too far. Borup: All right. I understand. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? One question. I'm a little bit -- I just kind of want to get a handle on this. You know, I -- the step up that we are going for it -- basically, the area around it we are in R-4. Basically, these lot sizes here -- am I hearing you that if, in fact, at a future date that they want to go ahead and develop the other lot, that is why the density is going to go up, therefore, the step up was considered the thing to do at this time? Lucas: Chairman Moe, correct. Staff felt it was only logical to realize they are stubbing to this large lot and in the future their -- the subdivision is set up for that stub street to go through and to have lots there. It seems fairly clear on how they designed it and that's why staff felt it was important to realize that while currently, including this 89,000 square foot lot, they may meet the density requirement or density -- up to three units per acre described in the low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan land use map or future land use map. The staff felt it was important to look at a scenario where if this were to develop in -- as R-8, because that is the zoning designation they are asking for. If this is all zoned R-8, then, when this develops it can develop at the R-8 standard. In a sense, staff loses its -- they don't have to meet a higher standard, because they already have the zoning of R-8 to put as many lots as they can fit in there with the R-8 standard. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 17 of 59 And so there is options that the Commission can look at regarding how they want to condition this project. One of those options may be to allow some of the project to be zoned R-8 and maybe zone this large lot -- as this large lot to be zoned maybe an R-4 to insure that the lower density residential requirements are met in that area. Borup: That now does raise a question for me, but go ahead. Moe: Well, I think the main thing that I struggled on when I started reviewing this was the simple fact that at the present time it is noted as low density area within the Comp Plan at the present time and I know many of the folks that worked very hard to develop the UDC the way it is at the present time and the main reason that was done was to possibly try and curtail changes along the way, realizing that the step up does happen. I think he did a very good job explaining the reasons for the step up and I just wanted to make sure that everybody is aware that the low density and within the UDC, R-4 should be within this area, but I don't really have a real problem with the step up either. Borup: The question I had -- the project we approved two weeks ago a half mile to the west of here, was that also an R-8? Moe: Yes, it was. Borup: And weren't they about similar lot sizes? And was the Comp Plan the same on that one -- Comp Plan designation the same? Moe: No. That was -- I do believe that was mixed use there and we had R-4 to the south of that area, was it not? Borup: Yes. Same as we do here. R-4 to the south. But mixed use? Hood: The Comp Plan designation is the same. It's the same lots, in the same subdivision. Borup: Yeah. They are all five acre lots. This is just opposite ends of the same subdivision. And it's not -- I mean the subdivision was just five acre lots that was platted along McMillan. The developer didn't do anything other than survey it. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just real quick, I don't know if Justin was at the pre-apps. I just wanted to go on record and actually thank the applicant for providing the stub street, if you will, over that -- the out -- it's being platted, but the existing home. We did request that through out pre-apps. There is an existing access to McMillan. We wanted to see them relinquish that access and actually take access internally here. So, that is something that we, basically, pushed. I don't know that at this time they have any idea of when that property may redevelop. Just to let you know, they are not doing this to circumvent the system and trying to come back in next year and re-subdivide this and have ten dwelling units per acre here. It is something that may happen in the future and if you do look at these eight acres or nine acres all as one, you may end up with Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August31,2006 Page 18 of 59 something above the three dwelling units that the Comp Plan calls for. Again, I just wanted to point out that we were the ones -- staff was asking them to provide a stub street to that property so access to the existing home could be provided internally, rather than the driveway to McMillan. So, I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. Borup: And that was kind of my -- along with that, I think we are being consistent with what's developed at the other end, so -- and I assume the ones sandwiched in between are probably going to want to do about the same. Moe: Okay. Well, can we have the applicant come forward? Elg: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Van Elg. I'm with the Land Group, 462 East Shore in Eagle. I'd like to thank staff for the great explanation. They did a good job explaining this. And they have been good to work with. Justin, do you have that PowerPoint? Will that go in? Lucas: I'm attempting to load it right now. Elg: Okay. Okay. This is Harpe Subdivision. It looks like Harpe, but it's Harpe. And as Justin described, the southwest corner of McMillan and Locust Grove -- you can go to slide two, Justin. This plat just -- and I'm not sure if this represents some more recent tweaks to that cul-de-sac design or not from what you showed up there. It may not. Maybe the same one. But we did talk to Joe Silva. I know I was concerned about the cul-de-sac. And we thought that we had that worked out initially with the first design that we showed, but through discussions with ACHD and with Joe Silva, we realized that we better go back to the drawing boards and come up with something that was more palatable for all. And in coming back to the cul-de-sac design like this, we did end up giving up a -- what, two -- a couple of lots I think from the beginning -- from the initial design. But I think this cul-de-sac design will meet Joe's standards, that meets ACHD standards. We have gone to them in tech review already. So, I think -- I don't think Joe will have any problems with it. But as stated, Justin does have that condition of approval and we are completely satisfied and comfortable with that condition. If it doesn't, if it's a foot or two off or something, we have got a little bit of room to play with it and make it work. One thing that you need to note here -- these lots right here are all 8,000 square foot plus, 8,500. Across the street I think this is zoned -- Justin, if I'm not mistaken, unless my NGB thing is wrong, I think it's zoned R-8 across the street. Borup: Settlers is. Right directly across the street. Elg: Yeah. This whole area right here is zoned R-8 and down below Havasu, this area down -- this is R-4 right here and, then, there is R-8 right here. But it's R-4, R-8 mix for the most part. So, I think we are real compatible with what's there. The other thing is you can't quite see it, but see there is a line right there, that's one of the lots for Havasu Creek and I think those lots are at 65, 68 hundred square foot, somewhere around there. These lots here are 8,000 plus, 84, 85 hundred. So, we think that we are being very -- that this design is very compatible and sensitive to what's gone on in that Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 19 of 59 development there. These lots right here are still larger than the Havasu lots, although these lots right here in Havasu -- I believe the reason that they are larger in size is simply because they are going around a bend and in order to get that they had to pay for those lot lines. But, in general, these lots are all probably similar in size to every lot that's around it. We tried to maintain some compatibility with the aligning the lot lines there. I think there is four lots down here and there is six lots up here. So, it's a fairly consistent ratio of lots. It's hard to line up lot to lot when you have lots going around a corner down there along the south side of you. Again, this -- the new plat that we have talked with ACHD and with the staff and this lot will be designated a non-buildable lot until this stub street is punched through or some other alternate means of connection or turn around can be provided that satisfies ACHD and fire department's requirements. Although that lot will be undeveloped -- of course, all the stubs and everything will be there, but there will be a little area of asphalt that comes down here that meets Joe's requirements for fire truck turnaround -- emergency vehicle turnaround. Again, we have provided the stub street up here. This lot right here -- we have absolutely no intention to develop that at R-8, we just needed the step up -- you know, we are talking on these lots right here 60 foot frontage versus 57-foot frontage. So, you know, we are this far and that's basically -- besides the step down in, you know, four or five hundred feet of square footage, that's what we are looking for right there. That's where the step up really occurs. Everything else will be designed according to an R-4, basically. So, we have no problem if you wanted to place a condition of approval, a note on the plat for a condition that requires a note on the plat or for -- if you see it necessary to enter into a development agreement on this piece right here saying that we don't develop it at R-8 densities, it will maintain a similar density as this development here or similar lot sizes. We are comfortable with that. That doesn't alarm us at all. You might note also that part of the reason we had to go through a redesign wasn't just for the cul-de-sac here, but ACHD had some -- and Justin can verify this. We went back and forth and back and forth. They are trying hard -- they are trying to develop a plan right here for the intersection, just not there yet, so we developed this with worst case scenario in mind and I -- they have given us statements and -- written statements that if we design to this -- they are adjusting the staff report now, but what we show here is what ACHD will adopt and be satisfied with for that -- for that design of that intersection. So, we should be -- I think we are fairly safe. If for some reason it requires a little bit of extra right of way, which it shouldn't, we have discussed that thoroughly with them. These lots are a little bit larger and they can absorb some of that if they had to increase the size of those turning lanes right there. I have got lots of notes here, but I think Justin's covered the bulk of those. The next slide, Justin, is the landscape plan and I do have those revisements for you. I forgot to give them to you tonight. But this shows the -- a new pathway or landscaped area here, common area, open area with the covered gazebo structure for barbecue, picnic area. We have rotated it from up here, this narrow area, to this larger, more usable area down here. And, again, we are maintaining 9.9 percent open space versus the required five percent. Again, a meandering pathway connection through the -- the landscaped areas up to McMillan and over to Locust Grove and, then, of course, a circuitous connection there down into the subdivision. I believe we have provided more than the required amenities in this and the open space requirement. The other thing that we did in designing this -- we could have probably picked up another lot Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 20 of 59 right here, but we felt that with the changes in traffic that were going on right here, that we ought to make these lots a little bit larger, rather than try to squeeze them in, and so providing a larger buffer there to the traffic and what was going on in that corner and, Justin, you can go to the next slide I think. This is a colored rendering of our landscape plan where you can see some of the street trees treatment, the shrub beds, the shrub beds along here. The planter areas along this street. And the pathway connections up through to there. It's a -- with this piece being -- in essence, it's a part of the plat, but it's not a part of the plat. You know, we have this large chunk that just didn't -- just didn't come on board and so -- fully. So, we are left with this configuration of property and we have tried to be very creative in how to come up with something that will work and still blend with all the subdivisions in there and I think we have come up with a plan that's very palatable. Justin, you can skip the next slide and we will just show you briefly a couple of the -- several of the elevations that the builder plans on putting into this project. They are not going to be whimpy little designs, they are pretty substantial buildings. If we could show the floor plans -- I don't have them on this slide here, they are pretty lovely homes. The stucco -- a treatment of stucco and stone, brick, and a couple of modulation changes and color changes for each of the buildings. This is the Spruce A and the Spruce B over here and you can see some of the modulation changes on that, as in the next slide. We have the Aspen. you can see some modulation change in the roof and colors there. And the next one. There is four slide variations there. The Pine. And is there one more? Okay. We will just end with that one. I'll open myself up for any questions. Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Borup: I have one -- or maybe a little bit of a question and a comment. I notice on the setback and consistent with the R-8 zone it shows a side setback of four feet. Elg: Oh, do we? On the plat? Borup: No. On the note. On the zoning -- well, no, that -- it's stating that's a zoning setback and that's correct, but on your plat note -- Elg: It's four feet. Yeah. That's a typo. We will correct that. Borup: No, I don't -- well, it's not a typo. No. I'm saying that is correct. Four feet is a correct setback in an R-8, but you do have a note up there on -- note number three that says you are creating a five foot permanent public easement -- public utility easement along each lot line. Freckleton: Chairman Moe? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 21 of 59 Borup: So, is that -- can they change the size of that easement? It's got to stay five. So, is the city going to correct that some day? You're requiring a five foot -- you're requiring a five foot easement with a four setback. Freckleton: No. This isn't the first time this has come up. Borup: I know, but -- Freckleton: We took this to the utility coordinating council and asked how they felt about reducing their overall easement to eight feet versus the ten that they currently have and we got a resounding not interested at all. Five is even too tight. Borup: And which utility people are on that? Freckleton: You have power, gas, telephone, cable companies. Borup: How many of them have lines in those easements? Freckleton: That's a good argument. Borup: I mean have we seen any subdivisions in the last five years -- Freckleton: They actually utilize those side yard easements for the service lines to the home. Borup: Right. Exactly. That's it. Freckleton: The power company -- with the exception of the power company. The power company basically they go where they can get to the meter. But gas and telephone, they typically use that side yard easement. Borup: Just to get to the house. Freckleton: Correct. And that's the intent for it and that's what it's there for. Borup: So, why do we still have four foot on the books? Freckleton: I'll let Caleb answer that question. Hood: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, I'm not exactly sure how that all came about. I think we were optimistic in thinking that we could get the utilities to accept a lesser easement. In effect, it takes your building setbacks to five. I mean if there is an easement there -- you can't build to four if you have got a permanent easement there. So, it's a little misleading in that -- I haven't talked to Anna in awhile about it, but we will probably clean that up with our next UDC text amendment, which should be coming Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 22 of 59 here in the next month or two. So, it's something -- again, it will be something that's cleaned up here in the near future. Borup: That's what I was wondering. But I do agree that the utilities can get in -- I mean they can get in -- they don't have any machinery that won't fit in eight feet. Moe: But what they have they will never give up. I do have a question for you. In the presentation you discussed those lot sizes as being over 8,000 square feet. Am I looking at the wrong plat? Borup: Yeah. Just some of them were. Elg: Just some -- just on the -- right here along Locust Grove. Borup: And we do have the wrong plat. We don't have a revised -- Moe: We have the wrong one, because I don't see an eight anywhere. Borup: You don't have the cul-de-sac one, do you? Elg: Yeah. If yours doesn't have the cul-de-sac, that's the open one. Moe: Might help to get the right plan. Thank you. Elg: If I could, I will pass these to Caleb -- or to Justin. Borup: But I was wondering if it went all the way down and apparently it does. I was wondering the same thing. Moe: All right. We have one person -- Ollie. Mr. Palmer, come forward. Palmer: I have some questions for the Council. Ollie Palmer. Borup: Address? Palmer: 1615 East McMillan. Moe: Okay. Palmer: The berm across McMillan where they shut the road off from my driveway there, how did the city come to the conclusion that they could take an extra 13 feet of easement to make this subdivision when I was only selling the back two and a half acres. I wasn't selling nothing on this little short side here that you got for the walkway that goes off to the side of the property and I didn't sell my driveway entrance and all of a sudden it comes to the place where they have taken that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 23 of 59 Borup: This is your property? Palmer: This is my property. Yes, sir. Borup: It's not Mr. Harpe's property? Palmer: No. That's my property. And I called the board about that and told them that I didn't want my driveway being gone, that I would -- Borup: Which is your driveway? Palmer: Well, it would be right out front. Straight out front. Borup: The large parcel? Palmer: On the large parcel on McMillan. Borup: Okay. Palmer: And they said, well, they are going to have me come in the other end and we'd have the same size driveway through the subdivision, which is real narrow, and with my equipment and stuff that I bring in through there, it would be really hard getting in and out of that street, because I have got a boat and motorhome and it's just -- you know, it's just -- turning out into there is going to be difficult to get out of that on the new street that they have got there and I called them and asked them and said, well, they were going to do that, that's part of the requirements, the city said they was going to do it and so that's why I'm here this evening to find out about that and, then, he said they are going to have a real elaborate landscaping across McMillan and all I can see there is some trees. I thought there was going to be a 25 foot big mound covering that, plus the little point that comes out right up here -- this was never part of the property either, somebody just put that in there and I just got rid of another parcel of land there and I'd just like to have the clarification of all those points. Moe: Well, we will have the applicant come up and clarify that. Baird: Mr. Chair, before we hear from the applicant again, can I make sure we don't have anybody else that wants to testify? Moe: Yes. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Okay. Elg: Well, I stand here with my jaw dropped, too. Mr. Palmer, I apologize. We have worked with Larry Harpe on this project, who has a purchase agreement on the property, as I understand, and to our knowledge the information that he has given us is what he had negotiated with you. So, it sounds to me like Larry needs to probably discuss some things with Mr. Palmer. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 24 of 59 Moe: Absolutely. Elg: So, If possible, perhaps we can defer this or -- to the next hearing and gives us some time to -- for Larry to discuss this with Mr. Palmer. Borup: So, could you clarify the ownership of the -- Mr. Harpe has an option on the entire parcel? Elg: He has an option on this part and we -- Mr. Palmer is a co-applicant on it as well. He will have to sign the plat as well. Borup: So, I was -- Elg: Because he's maintained ownership of the large piece. Borup: Okay. It looks like one of his questions was that that landscaping pathway buffer -- so, is there a question on who owns that parcel of property -- that piece of property? Elg: You know, that discussion came up and to my knowledge that was part of the purchase deal, so that's -- Borup: And that was the original configuration of the lot? Elg: Uh-huh. So, that sounds like the applicant -- Mr. Harpe and Mr. Palmer need to sit down again and discuss what those bounds might be or if there is any lot size -- lot adjustments that we need to make on this plat still. Moe: Okay. I probably would like to ask staff a question that the point was made that the land owner made a statement that the city was the one that was requiring this berm across McMillan. Was there any discussions with Mr. Harpe in regards to this berming and taking that access off of McMillan away? Lucas: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, I stated earlier, I believe -- I wasn't at this pre- application meeting, but Caleb did state earlier that this was discussed at the pre- application meeting, the need to relinquish that access to McMillan Road and the landscape buffering, that's -- that's just -- the UDC requires the landscape buffer, the 25 foot landscape buffer along arterial streets, which both of these streets are. And so that's straight out of the UDC, the buffer requirements. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Elg: Could I make one other suggestion? Moe: Please do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 25 of 59 Elg: If you're comfortable with this, we could move forward with the plat and make any adjustments to that landscape lot, even if we had to skinny it over to the boundary line. I guess the biggest question, then, would be -- Moe: And I guess what I would tell you is I'm not comfortable with that at all. I think there are some things to be resolved between the landowner and the developer in regard to what's going on here. Elg: I think that's fine. Moe: There are some things that need to be resolved. Borup: And I would have thought that a lot of that would have been covered in their purchase agreement and -- Elg: Well, alii know is that when Mr. Harpe came to us and told us what -- where those lines were -- Borup: Right. And that makes sense. Elg: So, we assume that Mr. Palmer was well into -- Borup: Yeah. I think Mr. Harpe would have something in the agreement if -- if it wasn't approved that the contract would be void and -- Elg: Yeah. Borup: -- and Mr. Palmer gets his property back. Elg: These two need to talk and, then, we will adjust as we need to, but if we could be tabled for -- until the next meeting, I think that would work for us. Moe: Well-- Elg: That won't work for you, probably. Moe: It definitely will not be the next meeting, I can guarantee you that. Borup: It shouldn't be something that takes a long time, though, should it? Moe: Pardon me? Borup: How much time do we need to spend on this in the next meeting? It would be a one issue question, wouldn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31. 2006 Page 26 of 59 Moe: The problem is is our next meeting we are already full. We probably won't get through -- Borup: Right. On that one. Moe: The earliest, basically, is going to be the 5th of October would be the earliest meeting. Borup: And I don't know if Mr. Palmer had another question. I don't know if you wanted to -- Moe: Mr. Palmer, do you have another question? Please come forward. Palmer: One of the big concerns that I forgot to mention is that they have got this piece where the cul-de-sac is up here -- Moe: Please take the microphone right there. Palmer: This piece right up here -- my house sits right here and there is no way that I could keep the house there with that street coming in there. Borup: Well, there is no street coming in there unless you put the street in there. Palmer: Well, yeah, but if it was to be developed -- if I want to develop and keep my house, I couldn't keep my house there, because I can just sell the land, because of the way the street's coming in, and I was told by the city -- I called and talked to two or three different people -- I didn't bring their names with me this evening -- and they said that the berm had to be -- we had to cutoff and that's what they agreed to and this is the way that I was told and that's why I'm here this evening to see what -- who made that decision. Borup: So, Mr. Palmer, you didn't have any type of agreement with Mr. Harpe on the lot sizes or developing this or -- Palmer: None of the lot sizes was -- that I can recall. He was just going to buy the back two and a half acres. I wasn't going to be doing anything to the front of the property, anything to the side of the property, he was just buying two -- the back acres to connect it with his four acres or three and a half on Locust Grove. And, then, when the plat came back and I seen the picture of what this was, we initially had a conversation on it and I said I don't want my driveway to be dismissed and not be able to have access on McMillan and he says, well, it has to be, the City Council is saying it has to be and I says, well, I'm going to call them and find out why it has to be and, then, I'm going to go to the meetings and see if I can't get that changed, because I have got -- I have been there for 30 years with that same entrance and I think it de-values my property, because if they ever did change and rezone it or whatever for commercial down the road, they Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 27 of 59 would have no access to that from the property anymore. So, all of that property has been just eliminated. Borup: The Comp Plan I don't think is allowing commercial there. Palmer: At this pOint in time. Borup: Yeah. You're going to be sandwiched on three sides with residential property and you're only -- you're less than 200 feet from the intersection. I think that's a big part of the -- of why that needs to be eliminated, because of the access to that intersection. And you already know what that intersection is like at busy times. Palmer: It's not a problem to us getting in and out of there with the intersection being there. We haven't had any problems and traffic's thick, but people are courteous enough to let you in and out of your driveway. You know, we don't have any problem there. And the stop signal is 75 feet from -- Borup: But if you had a business there that couldn't get in and out, that wouldn't be very -- Palmer: No. No. As commercial, yeah. But I just don't like the fact that I have to go through a subdivision and make all kinds of turns with an 85-foot motor home and boat with the trailers on them and trying to get in and out -- Borup: So, I assume you have something in the agreement that if that -- the property revert back to your ownership if this is not approved? Palmer: Not necessarily along -- Borup: It sounds like that's what you're saying; you'd just as soon not sell the property. Palmer: I have already sold the property. It's already been sold and closed. Borup: Okay. Palmer: I just didn't -- and, then, another reason why I was here this evening, because I didn't how my property -- this two acres that's left, which should be two and a half acres, is part of this five acres or eight acres that we are talking about in this meeting, because if those two and a half acres -- or two acres that's left out, they took the half acre for the berm and that side piece is my property and is not part of this subdivision. Borup: It sounds like there is some things to get worked out. Moe: Absolutely. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Make a motion to continue? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 28 of 59 Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue AZ 06-041, PP 06-042, to the regularly scheduled meeting on October 5th, 2006. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue this hearing on AZ 06-041 for requesting annexation and zoning of the Harpe Subdivision and PP 06-042, request for preliminary plat of Harpe Subdivision. All those in favor -- to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning of October 5th, 2006. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Just one comment. I'm surprised that Mr. Palmer didn't ask Mr. Harpe about this back when he was aware of it. That would be the time for that to come out, rather than at this meeting. Moe: I'm not sure how long he knew-- Borup: I don't know either, but -- Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 06-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 11,029 square foot multi-tenant retail building for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #2 by W.H. Moore Company- NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we just -- Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- recommend the acceptance of the request to withdraw. Is that how the motion should go? Moe: Pretty much. Can I get a second on that? Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to open it? Moe: Do we need to open it? Borup: Yes. We need to open it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 29 of 59 Moe: Okay. Borup: No. Well, yeah, I -- Newton-Huckabay: We are behind schedule. Baird: Mr. Chair, let's at least identify it by its item number and then -- Moe: Okay. On Item No. 10, which was CUP 06-024, there has been a request from the applicant to withdraw this hearing. Can I get a motion to do such? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: And a second. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to withdraw CUP 06-024. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for six single-family residential building lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction - 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: Moe: The next hearing will be a Public Hearing for PP 06-037, request for a preliminary plat approval for six single-family residential building lots, one common lot, on 1.96 acres within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision. I'd like to hear the staff report, please. Hess: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Moose Creek Subdivision. The applicant has requested preliminary plat approval of six single family residential lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres in the R-4 medium low density residential zone. As you can see, Moose Creek is generally located south of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat Road, which runs here. The site is currently vacant land, as you can see on the aerial photo here. That's the property. To the east there is the existing Cherrywood Village Subdivision right here, zoned R-8. To the north is the Golf View Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4. South and west are residential parcels, this one here and this one here that are still under the jurisdiction of Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of six residential lots between 8,000 square feet and about 13,000 square feet. There is a connection provided by Cherrywood Village that will serve as the sole access to the subdivision upon development. Moose Creek has provided a stub connection right here at the west property line to provide connectivity to the county Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 30 of 59 parcel on the west here when it redevelops. Now there are three important issues to mention here. The first being the proposed Moose Trail Drive, which is the street right here. It does not meet ACHD's road design standards. ACHD is requiring at minimum 29 foot street sections, with 42 feet of right of way, with curb, gutter, and five foot attached sidewalks. ACHD is allowing the portion of Moose Trail Drive which abuts the south property line to be constructed as 40-foot right of way, with curb, gutter, and five foot attached sidewalk solely on the north street section. So, right here this area will be 40 feet street section and out through here will be 42. Earlier today the applicant provided staff with a revised site plan reflecting these requirements. So, they are up to code with ACHD at this point with their new site plan. The second is that it looks like perimeter fencing along the eastern property boundary is not shown on the preliminary plat. Staff would like the applicant to clarify along here whether permanent fencing will be constructed on that boundary. And the most important issue to mention here is that the property is encumbered by a 30 foot easement, which runs the entire length of the west property boundary. That is right here. The neighbor to the south, which is still an Ada County district parcel, utilizes that access easement to access their 2.5 acre property. In 1999 the southern neighbor applied for and was given tentative approval by Ada County to construct a private street called Jones Creek Lane on this access easement. Staff has contacted Ada County and discovered that Jones Creek Lane is a de facto road only. The conditions to establish Jones Creek Lane as a legal private road were not met by Ada County's required date and the private road application has since expired. However, these neighbors still do have that legal interest to cross the Moose Creek development in the form of that 30 foot ingress-egress easement and are not willing to relinquish their rights at this time. As ACHD does not recognize Jones Creek Lane as a bona fide private road, they would require that the easement be vacated and access to the proposed Moose Creek development and this property to the south be taken from Summer Tree Way upon development of either of those properties. Staff has conditioned approval of this application upon vacation of the access easement as well. Staff would like the Commission to note that we recently set up a meeting between the applicant -- the applicant's representative Sabrina Whitehead, who is here tonight, with -- along with planning staff, ACHD, this neighbor to the south, and the property owner to the west over here, who is also looking to develop shortly. This meeting is set to take place on September 8th, which is two Fridays from now. Staff is hoping at that time an agreement can be reached on how this entire area will develop that is acceptable to all parties. And that is all staff has. Staff is having me note that, hopefully, the Commission has received that large packet from this property owner to the south that discusses the access ingress-egress and I think just recently we received a letter from that property owner's legal counsel requesting a continuance of this hearing until an agreement can be reached with -- with this property owner, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Amanda, were you -- were you done? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 31 of 59 Hess: I'm sorry. Yes. That's all staff has. Newton-Huckabay: I, myself, would prefer not to even hear this application since we have some serious outstanding issues that would be better heard possibly at another meeting in the future. Moe: Mr. Borup, what is your opinion? Borup: Well, I had the same opinion and I mentioned something to Commissioner, but I might have changed my mind just from one reason only. As we got a fairly light meeting tonight, if we could see if there is any other issues and get them out of the way, the next time the hearing would be much shorter. And that's the only reason. If there would have been two more things on the agenda I would have completely agreed. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. 'have one other question. Moe: Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Possibly based on -- and I'm sure lots of conversation has gone on -- people who are under the assumption or may have believed that this hearing was not going to take place this evening at all. And if that is the case, I, again, would not want to hear it this evening, because we will, at whatever time we hear it again, have to hear it again, if people were under the impression that -- Borup: Why would they have that assumption? Hess: Well, Commission Members, I was notified about 3:00 or 4:00 this afternoon that the -- by the applicant's representative that they would like to have the hearing tabled to the -- Borup: Oh. Hess: -- but it was the 11 th hour and in order to give everybody sufficient notice, we felt that they should at least come and open the hearing and if people were planning to speak at this time that they would be able to, because that's what they were noticed for. Moe: Just to follow up on that, I, actually, was notified at about 3:00 o'clock that this came about and I, for one, said that I did want to go ahead and be able to open up the meeting and pretty much as you suggested, Commissioner Borup, I would like to get some of these items, you know, cleared up. The easement is going to take time and thereof we pretty much anticipated we would continue this hearing -- Borup: Okay. So, I'd like to go ahead and open the meeting and hear any testimony that didn't -- that had -- other than anything to do with the private road easement, because that's not going to be handled tonight.