Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 5, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning October 5, 2006 Page 3 of 25 Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 31, 2006: 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: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from August 31, 2006: 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: Rohm: So, with that being said, we will start by opening up the first hearing to be heard tonight and that's the continued Public Hearing from August 31 st, 2006, for AZ 06-041 and PP 06-042, both items related to Harpe Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just before the staff report, may I mention I was absent on August 31 st, but I would assure everybody that I have read the minutes and I believe I am up to speed, that you don't necessarily need to repeat things that have already been said. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. I wasn't planning on giving a full presentation tonight, because the Public Hearing had already been opened and this is just a continuation of that hearing. A full presentation was given at the last meeting, just to make that clear. Just a quick refresher on where we are. It's the southwest corner of McMillan and Locust Grove, two parcels there. Here is the aerial photograph. The proposal was for eight -- an annexation and zoning 8.95 acres to R-8 and it includes 22 single family building lots and three common lots. There is the landscape plan. And, once again, much of this was already discussed at the -- at the last hearing. This is also the -- kind of a conceptual plan that was put out, a conceptual landscape plan that I was provided by the -- by the applicant. The reason that this -- as was clear in the minutes, the reason that this Public Hearing was continued was there was a -- a little bit of confusion with one of the property owners that is involved in this project and I think in your packets there is a letter from that property owner and he, basically, retracted all of this statements and is giving his full support to this project as proposed. And other than that, I think that really clears up most of what was discussed. And I can answer any specific questions that the Commission might have regarding this project and I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 5, 2006 Page 4 of 25 Zaremba: I do have two. One of them is that I did not in the minutes see a resolution discussed among the Commission of whether or not they wanted to place a restriction on Lot 13, Block 1, which is the largest lot that it should only be built out to densities equaling R-4. Do we need to carry through that discussion, I believe? Okay. Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, that is -- that was part of the discussion last -- last time. It wasn't -- it's not a condition in the current staff report, but it's definitely something that can be discussed by this Commission -- by the Commission. Zaremba: Then, the other is that in my Exhibit B on the conditions, item 1.2.2 -- or, I'm sorry, 1.2.1, is it the preliminary plat dated August 23rd, 2006? I don't, actually, have a copy of that. The one I have is July 25th, 2006. Is the one that you're showing up here going to be the August 23rd one? Lucas: I believe the minimized copy in the staff report is from what I referenced as August -- excuse me. Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Zaremba, are you referring to the large copy that you -- that you have? Zaremba: The large -- Lucas: The full size? Zaremba: -- one that I have, yes, is July 23rd. Lucas: The full size copy was -- was revised and that date was changed. Zaremba: Okay. Lucas: And so -- and no full size copy was provided. It was a minor change with -- regarding a -- regarding the easement that was placed upon -- and what lot was that? It was placed upon Lot 2, Block 2, and it remains as a non-build lot and that was one of the ACHD requirements. Zaremba: Okay. Lucas: And some other minor changes. Zaremba: But for the most part whatever is going to be on display from the overhead is -- is, actually, the August 23rd one? Lucas: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. That satisfies me. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. If there is no other questions of staff, would the applicant like to come forward, please. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning October 5, 2006 Page 5 of 25 Elg: Good evening. My name is Van Elg. I'm with the Land Group, representing Mr. Harpe. Our office is in Eagle, Idaho, 462 East Shore, NO.1 00, Eagle, Idaho. We went through the full staff report, as Justin mentioned, and I don't think that there were any significant questions. We have reduced the densities, we have reduced the number of lots out of that to comply with some issues that ACHD had. We initially had, I think, three extra lots on this development when we initially came in to staff. But the -- the biggest question was one of these landowners who was selling the land to the developer and is, actually, involved in the plat, because he owns the large piece, was confused as to what was transpiring regarding the land sale. Just short of it all, he was just confused and we resolved that and I think you have got a couple of letters there. One a letter of apology to the P&Z Commission and one is a letter that agrees with what the owners says that they support. So, we hope that clarifies that. We apologize for that confusion. We were as caught off guard as anybody. I've never had an owner argue about a project before. So, I guess I will answer any questions that you might have tonight. Zaremba: I would just confirm I think on the subject that I brought up before, restricting Lot 13, Block 1, to a density no greater than -- than R-4 -- that didn't mean the R-4 dimensions, you're still an R-8 zone for the dimensions -- Elg: Right. Zaremba: -- but the density no greater than R-4. I saw in the minutes that you were okay. Elg: Yeah. We are perfectly fine with that. Zaremba: Okay. I understand that you have lots that are -- a few lots that are under dimension and that's why you need the R-8. Elg: That's why we needed the R-8. Zaremba: The density is what the Comprehensive Plan is worried about, so -- Elg: Exactly. And we are comfortable with that density. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Oh. Okay. Elg: To be honest -- but just for the record, there are no plans right now for that lot. There is nothing that we are -- in our back pocket in it right now or anything. It is what it is right now, so -- Zaremba: As staff pointed out, we need to think into the future. '. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 5, 2006 Page 6 of 25 Elg: That's right. That's absolutely -- and I agree. I agree. Borup: But at this point we don't know what the development to the west may be either. Elg: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions for this applicant? Thank you. Elg: Thank you. Rohm: Larry Harpe also was signed up. Did you want to speak or you just -- from the audience he indicates that he had nothing additional to add. There are no others that have signed up to speak to this application, but if -- if there is someone out there that would care to, this is that opportunity. And seeing none, I think, basically, this project was heard at the last hearing and issues that were not resolved at that hearing appear to be resolved now and so if there is any discussion amongst, the Commission, let's continue that. Zaremba: Mr. Chair? Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: At that last meeting, quite frankly, we were all taken aback by the fact that -- that the discussions came up from the landowner, that he was not in compliance with this plan whatsoever and that's why it was requested to be continued, so that they could get their issues resolved and the letters here do show that that was taken care of and I, too, also agree with Mr. Zaremba that I do want to have the -- the R-4 designation as well. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other comments before we close this Public Hearing? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to comment even though it appears that the Palmers may not be here, that I appreciated the final letter that they submitted clearing up the confusion and that was very nice of them to do that. It helped considerably that they did that. The issue of the R-4 can be discussed before or after -- Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-041 and PP 06-042. Mae: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-041 and PP 06-042. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. .Ii Meridian Planning & Zoning October 5, 2006 Page 7 of 25 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: My question would be, Mr. Chairman and staff, how to work into that comment. It seems like it would go under annexation comments and require a development agreement. Do we want to do that or can we make it a condition of the plat? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, it would -- it would be probably wise to put this in a development agreement and you can -- you don't have to change the zoning, necessarily, but you could restrict it to R-4 density -- Zaremba: Correct. Lucas: -- or no more than four units per acre on this lot. Zaremba: Okay. So, people would be comfortable if I added to annexation comments a 1.1.2 that says there shall be a development agreement regarding Lot 13, Block 1, that if and when it's subdivided it will be platted at a density no greater than R-4? Does that meet with what people are looking for? I see some heads nodding. Mr. Chairman, in that case I would make a motion. Rohm: Go ahead. Zaremba: Maybe. Find the right notes. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-041 and PP 06-042 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006, which was continued until October 5th, today, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: On Exhibit B, under Planning Department 1.1, annexation comments, I would add a 1.1.2 that says a development agreement will be required, specifying that Lot 13, Block 1, if and when subdivided, shall be platted at densities no greater than R-4 and applicant shall get together with City Attorney Bill Nary to workout the development agreement. Moe: Second. Zaremba: End of motion. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-041 and PP 06-042, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.