Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Craig HoodMemo To: Mayor and City Council CG` Anna Powell Bill Nichols Ryan Adelman, Keller & Associates Mike Ballantyne, Troutner Business Park Development Association From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2~4 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Date: February 3, 2004 Re: Troutner Business Park No. 2 (PP-03-034) /Pennwood Street & 3rd Avenue Vacations (VAC-03-007) Staff requests that the Council pull the Findings of Fact/Conchisions of Law/Decision & Order (FFC"L/DO) for PP-03-034 (Troutner Business Park Subdivision No. 2) and VAC-03-007 (Pennwood Street & 3"{ Street vacations) from the consent agenda for a brief discussion to clarify the motion(s) and the FFCL/DO(s). After reviewing the FFCL/DO for the Troutner Business Park Subdivision No. 2 (item "C" on the consent agenda) and the associated right-of-way vacation of Pennwood Street and 3'' Avenue (item "B" on the consent agenda), staff would like clarification of the Council's actions, prior to acting on the FFCL/DOs. The motion for the vacation, taken from draft minutes of January 20, 2004, states "approve VAC 03-007, the request for a vacation of three feet of ACFID right of way on each side of `v'est Pennwood Street for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne, west of South Meridian Road and south of West Franklin Road and include South 3rd Street through to proposed Corporate Drive." The motion for approval of the preliminary plat, also taken from draft minutes, states that the "applicant may comply with the preliminary plat as submitted if ACFID concurs with the applicant and vacates the stub street to the south of Pennwood to connect to the southem boundary property or if ACRD complies -- or AQ ID concurs with this Council's decision for a stub street to the south, that stub street to the south of Pennwood can be located anywhere along Pennwood connecting to the southem boundary, pursuant to whatever ACRD staff conditions are available." The FFCL/DO for the VAG03-007 state on page 7: "The reduced width of Pennwood Street is approved. Vacation of Third Street north of Pennwood is approved. Vacation of Third Street south of Pennwood is not approved, but applicant may move this stub street if approved by Ada County Highway District." The FFCL/DO for PP-03-034 state on page 11 and 12: "The applicant shall be allowed one of the following: a) The applicant shall be allowed to cornplV with the Preliminary Plat as submitted ~ ACHD eoncw~s with the applicant and vacates the stub street to the south of Pennwood to connect to the southern boundary of the property; or b) If ACHD concurs with Council' s decision for a stub street to the south, the applicant shall be allowed to stub the street to the south of Pennwood but it may be located anywhere along Pennwood connecting to the south boundary, as long as it complies with ACHD's st aff conditions." It appears that these two motions and the two FFCL/DOs are not consistent with each other, and need ro be clarified. After reviewing the draft minutes, it is clear to staff that the Council votes{ to not approve the vacation of 3'a Avenue, south of Pennwood Street. However, the motion for approval of the preliminary plat, seems to allow ACHD to vacate 3'~' Avenue south of Pennwood Street if the ACIID Commission does not agree with the Council's motion on the vacation. W'as it the Council's intent to require a stub street to the southem parcel with the preliminary plat, but in a location to be deternvned later, or just leave the whole "to stub or not to stub" issue up to ACHD to resolve? If the latter was the intent, then one option maybe to state that the Ciry does consent to vacating 3"{ Avenue, if ACHD finds it to be in the public's best interest. If this is not intent of the motion, and the City wants to require a stub street to the south, then the FFCL/DO for the preliminary plat should more accurately reflect that requirement.