Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 17, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 30 of 76 Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only one I have is how does that pathway continue to the north? Guenther: At this time it would cease at their property until such time as the Union Pacific Railroad grants a crossing to the north. Borup: Okay. That's what I was wondering how it crossed the railroad. Thank you. Zaremba: We have been provided with a letter that discusses that pathway and, essentially, suggesting that they commit to building it, but be allowed to build it later as a security issue with them. It is -- have you read the lelter? Guenther: I have read through the letter. Like I say, I just provided that to Jessica. I was not aware that it did not make it to your packet, so I have provided you -- we can make copies of that for you. I discussed this with Mr. Nary earlier today. He might have an additional thought on the malter. Right now we believe that it can be addressed through the development agreement. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: And it has potential that they could bond for the construction of the pathway or. come to some other agreement with -- within that development agreement. But the preferred method is to have it constructed upon the certificate of zoning compliance and the development of the site. Zaremba: Mr. Nary, anything to add? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's correct, that has been pretty much the standard practice of the Council is to have these constructed at the outset. Certainly bonding is an option. The problem always ends up being of the enforcement later and when is that start point going to be when it connects and what's going to be -- what's going to determine that connection and how they are going to get enforced by staff at some point in the future. That's the reason for that. It's just from an enforcement standpoint it's very difficult to do these and I guess the only other point I'd make is, philosophically, again, that has been fairly standard, almost all developments that have pathways are required to construct them at the outset. Very few, if any, have been allowed not to do that. If the rationale were simply that we have to wait for connectivity, then -- and to bond for them, then, we would still be holding millions of dollars of bonds waiting for the magic point that they all connect and, then, everybody would construct them and at that point the bonds would probably be insufficient to cover the cost of construction, if that's the case. And those are the things I would think are difficult from both this Commission's standpoint or the Council to try to address, which is why they are simply asked to be done right at the outset to get them done. They are working very diligently to get the connection points done and just from that standpoint I think that's the reason for the staff's recommendation. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 31 of 76 Zaremba: Thank you. Let see. No other questipns, I guess we are ready for -- Borup: Just one maybe along that same point, Mr. Chairman, and that's on the connectivity issue. I could -- and that's on the comment of that needing to connect at both ends. There is, obviously, some merit to that, but it may be awhile before it's going to be able to connect to the actual pathway on the north end and I would not be in favor of waiting until that point comes. I'm not sure how long the one to the south -- it sounds like, from what staff said -- is that church development in the near future plans? Guenther: The church development, when we met with their representatives, their plan is to develop this site to the south, which is roughly 35 acres, over approximately the next five to ten years. They are looking at starting their development in the next nine months to a year. Borup: Okay. Guenther: But their development is contingent on the annexation of this property, so that they can be contiguous to the City of Meridian for annexation eligibility. Furthermore, immediately to the north of the railroad tracks is where the connection would be. It would not be on the property north of there. The pathway continues along Ten Mile Creek, but connectivity would be maintained, as there is a location in the right of way for the UP Railroad, as per the Comprehensive Plan. So, there would be a pathway all along the railroad to the north of the railroad. Borup: Could -- okay. The pathway would be in existence now you mean, basically? Guenther: No. Borup: But the -- I mean the right of way -- the location for it -- Guenther: The location for a future pathway would be within the UP route right of way immediately to the north of the property. Borup: Okay. Guenther: Or immediately north of the actual tracks. Borup: So, it still has to cross the tracks? Guenther: Yes. Borup: Okay. Well, as was stated - but they have to start somewhere. Or the pathways. Or if no one put it in there would never be a connection for anybody to make to. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 32 of 76 Zaremba: That's a good point. Let's see. You mentioned the bridge. Did you say that it's already constructed now? Guenther: Yes. They constructed that through an agreement with Ada County, one of their development applications through the county, and it has -- Zaremba: Do we know if it meets fire department -- Guenther: We have discussed that with the fire department. I brought this to a comments meeting and their comment was that they were more concerned with having a secondary access. The fire department actually asked for an access here and they also provided an access in the rear of the site, so that the route -- the fire trucks could get across this bridge, as well as have multiple accesses to the site. The minimum constructed width of the bridge is 20 foot of paved, which is required by Ada County code on the recommendation of the fire code to meet their 70,000 pound standard in width requirements. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. That will -- Canning: Just a quick reminder that the rural fire district is the same as the city fire district. So, the rural fire district looked at it for Ada County. So, it was reviewed by them before it was constructed, basically. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant. Callahan: Good evening. Craig Callahan, 6170 Shandee Road in Meridian. Mr. Chairman Members of the Commission, I'm here to represent the owner Avest and respond to any questions that you might have. As we have just been talking, this is an area that's just under development right now and it's a very dynamic process going on. We wanted get in the loop of everything, so that the utilities could be extended to us and everything could be brought up to this site and kind of work with the new neighbors, the church, the high density that's planned to go to the west of it and to follow up with an agreement that the previous owner had to annex once it became available for annexation and it's now available for annexation. The city previously provided water to the site and so we are following through with the previous owners deal that they had. Like I say, it's a dynamic process and the whole thing about the path is they want to make sure that that's where everybody wants the path before they build it. They have another project similar to this in Boise where they built the path and nobody can connect to it now. So, we just wanted to hold off long enough to make sure that's where everybody decided it should go before they go to the expense of gelting it built and that was why we sent the letter in requesting that. This is the second Stor-It storage unit project in the City of Meridian. They started the other one about 12 years ago and it took probably six years and four phases to get it all flushed out to its final full development and this is going to be the same way. It's going to take them awhile to work their way around this thing. It's kind of demand driven in that as the area grows around it, you start determining what kind of storage units you need inside of it as per Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 33 of 76 the demand. So, the first thing they'd like to do is start with the outside, get the screen walls up, so that everybody is not looking in at a bunch of parked vehicles and things like that, and keep marching forward like the past one did. I think all the things that staff said can be worked out in the development agreement process that are outstanding at this point. There is no issues that the owner is not willing to work through and enter into in a development agreement with at this point. And that's basically alii need to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Moe: I have none. Zaremba: Okay. Callahan: Could I add one more thing? Zaremba: Certainly. Callahan: The bridge was built to fire department standards. Zaremba: Thank you. Callahan: Nice concrete bridge. Zaremba: Okay. This is the opportunity for anybody else to offer testimony. On our sign-up sheet there is no one signed up for this issue. In that case, the applicant doesn't necessarily need to rebut anything that's been said. Commissioners, discussion? Newton-Huckabay: My only comment is I would hesitate to -- as Mr. Nary stated, deviate from our general practice on the pathway. We generally require the pathway to be built to continue on this with project, otherwise, we could create a tracking nightmare. End of comment, which is much shorter than my last comment. Zaremba: You would propose to leave the staff comment the way it is -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I would. Zaremba: -- on that issue? Rohm: Well, if there aren't any additional comments, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on continued Public Hearing AZ 04-033. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 34 of 76 Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of application AZ 04-033, to include all staff comments for the hearing date February 17th -- and I don't have a date of the staff comments. Newton-Huckabay: Here it is right here. Rohm: Staff comments dated January 3rd, 2005, for the hearing date February 17th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from February 3, 2005: CUP 04-055 Request for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned. Development for office, retail and daycare uses in an I-L zone as required by CUP 04-009 and a request for a building height modification from the previously approved 40- feet to 52-feet for DBSI Realty Corp. by DBSI Realty Corp. - north of West Overland Road and east of South Linder Road: Zaremba: We are ready for Item 10 and, Mr. Moe, you have a comment? Moe: Yes. Before you open this hearing, I need to make a point. I received a phone call this morning from the applicant of Item No. 10 in regards towhat she explained that the company I work for at a later date will be one of the companies able to bid this project when it comes up in a couple months. We have not done any work for DBSI in the past, but because they did call make and that statement I wanted to go on record as stating that I think I probably should -- I'm a little bit concerned, a liltle bit of conflict of interest, come two months from now, if, in fact, we bid the job and we were awarded it, that even though this is a height issue on this, I'm not sure that I should be in this hearing, so, therefore, I'm asking the Commission your opinion as to whether or not I should excuse myself. Zaremba: That is something that I would ask for input from our legal counsel first. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commission Moe did speak to me before the meeting. Under Idaho Code, the only conflict of interest that the Idaho Code addresses is financial interest that a Commissioner would gain or benefit from.