Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 28, 2005 C/C Minutes Meridiall City Coullcil Julle 28, 2005 Page 34 of 78 Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 19, VAR 05-012 and to approve the findings. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 19. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Berg: Hold on just a second. I wasn't prepared. I'm sorry. De Weerd: And that was all ayes. Motion carries. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 20. Wardle: I move we approve Item No. 20, PP 05-016 and to approve the Findings. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 20. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 05-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.3 acres to L-O zone for Ashtvn Park by David Price - SWC of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 21 is a Public Hearing on AZ 05-020. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this project is called Ashtyn Park. It's located on the southwest corner of Meridian Road and Ustick Road. A church is located immediately to the west. A small residential subdivision immediately to the east. And Settlers Park. The site currently has two structures in it. One is within the ACHD right of way -- or at least a portion of it is. What the applicant is requesting is to rezone 2.9 acres to L-O designation. The property currently has a Comprehensive Plan designation of both residential and public, quasi-public. This portion of the property was included through a property boundary adjustment in Ada county prior to this. It was formerly part of the church's land holdings, but now has been combined with the parcel to the north. Meridian City Council June 28, 2005 Page 35 of 78 The parcel to the north is the one that had the residential designation. The church, as the Comprehensive Plan went through, all their holdings were classified in the public, quasi-public. The recent text amendment that Council approved for the Comprehensive Plan allows properties to -- that have a residential designation, that are less than three acres in size, to request office uses at Council's discretion. That text amendment also talked about what would be appropriate for the development or redevelopment of properties that have a public, quasi-public designation if they weren't being used as was anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan went through. So, kind of have both sides of that text amendment in play here, because the property does have a dual designation. It does meet the -- it is less than the three acre threshold that is in the Comprehensive Plan text. The applicant has submitted a couple different conceptual site plans. This is one. This is the other. They both have a single access to Meridian Road and both the access points are in the same location. ACHD has asked that this property align their driveway with the -- with this public street entrance to the subdivision immediately to the east. It doesn't officially meet their offset standards for arterial streets, however, ACHD felt it was better to have the two aligned, rather than to have the entrance to the commercial development be offset, because the offset wouldn't meet their standards either way. So, they felt it was more appropriate for it to line up with the existing street. The conceptual site plan has approximately 30,000 square feet of office space in six buildings as shown. They have not provided elevations. Again, this is just a conceptual site plan, because they are not bringing a development application in with this annexation request. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval with conditions at their June 2nd hearing. The key issues of discussion -- there were several. David Price and Greg Thueson spoke in favor of the application and those -- the discussions were vehicular access and cross-access to the west and to the south. And this became particularly important, again, because of the -- this offset. At some point ACHD may decide that this offset is insufficient for full access and they may limited this to a right-in, right-out only. If they do that, then, it becomes critical that -- that the folks using this office area be able to get out through the church property and staff had committed to working with the applicant to make sure that the cross-access didn't provide a cut-through traffic to encourage people to come whipping through the site either. So, I feel confident we can work with both the church and this property owner to have some cross-access points that will facilitate that. The second issue of discussion was future uses. As staff -- as these have come in, we haven't necessarily taken a consistent approach on all these little office exceptions, but we sat down and we came up with -- looked at some of the past approvals that you all had done and tried to come up with a consistent approach. What we felt was the best was to limit it to strictly office and clinic uses on this property, consistent with what -- the intent of that text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission did also recommend that the applicant be allowed to come back in for day care on this site, if that's what they chose to do in the future. So, they did open it to office, clinics, and a day care. The third issue of discussion, the hours of operation. Staff had originally recommended 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. After discussion, the Commission has recommended the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The fourth and last major item of discussion was the existing eight inch sewer line for the church. This sewer line goes -- it's the service line for the church. So, the service line would be coming through this property. I think the Public Works staff just Meridian City Couneil June 28, 2005 Page 36 of78 wanted to make it clear during the Commission's Public Hearing that that could not be used as a main, it's only an eight inch service line, that they would have to bring in separate service lines for the -- or a main, I believe, for the -- for the other structures. They couldn't tie into the existing line. I did notice that there is a letter from Chris Boyer regarding this application. He's a resident of the Waterberry Subdivision and he was -- took an interest in the subdivision, since that went through, and he has some important points to make here. I'm not sure that staff has -- or I'm not sure that Council had an opportunity to read that letter. It is three pages long. I can read it into the record if that's Council's desire. He does make some good points. De Weerd: It's two pages and if you could -- if you have points you want to point out. Canning: Okay. De Weerd: Have you been able to read that? If there is anything specifically that you would like to make comment on. Canning: I will summarize for the audience, as benefit perhaps, but that would be the best thing. It does -- he points out that this was zoned as a mix of residential and public, quasi-public in the Comprehensive Plan and he doesn't feel that the office uses are with the intent of that Comprehensive Plan. He didn't feel that the applicant's justification of having a more intense use here, because it was a busy street, he felt that that was kind of -- that this -- that adding more offices to a busy street just makes it an even busier street. And, similarly, with the noise I think was the other big issue that the applicant had stated that the noise from the park made it such that noise from this property was justified, I suppose. And so I think that's the main points of his letter. Now, I can provide this to the applicant for his review, if he hasn't already gotten a copy. I'm not sure who the applicant is. There you go. There he is. I think those were the main issues discussed in the letter. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I do not, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address. Price: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, my name is David Price, I live at 2291 North Greenview Court in Eagle, Idaho. It states it at the top of that paper that I just gave you. First of all, my purpose in talking with you for just moment is that I wanted to mention a couple of things. First of all, the preliminary draft that was up onto the screen, I just wanted to make sure you or other people would understand that that was just a conceptual type drawing, in that in actuality before we would be able to go forward we have -- our plan is to do a planned development or subdivision type development on that property. So, when the actual time comes and the layout and the plotting and when we try to actually have the place parceled, then, we would have to come before the Meridian City Couneil June 28, 2005 Page37 of 78 hearing process again, of course, and actually have that be exact. But that was just a couple of ideas that we put together to try to see how the street would line up in relation to different buildings and structures and where the existing eight inch sewer was and so forth. I wanted to just mention to you that our purpose in -- or our thought in going forward with a limited office or light office zoning, limited office zoning, for L-O zoning designation was -- was separate and aside from the special resolution and what I have placed on that paper was I have gone through the Comprehensive Plan and tried to outline some of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan and objectives that I think apply to this particular piece of property and one is to locate new community commercial and I should say that when they mention commercial in the Comprehensive Plan, my understanding from my reading of it was that they combine anything to do with business, whether it be office or whatever, as commercial. To locate that in areas near arterials, which, of course, this property would be, and in such a way as to compliment adjoining residential areas, which I will address here. The second is to identify transitional zones to buffer the commercial and residential uses and to allow such use as offices and low intensity uses and that's another thing that I believe our development will do. Our goal four was to protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels and I believe as I go through this I will help support that that would be the case. And, then, finally, to identify locations for low traffic generating uses on key corridors and so, again, that was -- if we are going to go into something other than residential, that this would be a relatively low traffic generating portion to do. On part B it indicates the applicable Comprehensive Plan amendments and those were the ones that took in December of last year and in those the staff, of course, because it's under three acres, felt that this would -- or we gave a recommendation because of the special resolution that allows for consideration of that if it was under three acres and on major -- on arterials. Also, on a few pages later, on page 99 in that Comprehensive Plan, it indicates: Additionally, as noted in the residential district section of the Comprehensive Plan, light office uses may be appropriate in limited circumstances and at the discretion of the City Council. My point in bringing this up is that we felt that because of the way that the property is located -- the area the property is located in and what is adjoining the property, we feel that in and of itself is a reasonable and good use for light office space separate and aside for something under three acres of the special resolution part that's on page 95 and we are asking for your consideration on page 99 as the reason for approving it, because our desire is to not have it limited to only a specific use and to be able to be open on that, realizing that the public and the neighbors will still be protected from any type of future use, because of the requirement of conditional use permits if we are ever going to deviate from that, to not place that restriction on it. And I gave the reasons why I think it's a good fit for light office on the second page and indicated, first, it's by two primary arterials and that the noise and traffic of that intersection itself is much more compatible to light office use than to residential. Secondly, that the use would be comparable to the light office designation that's exactly kiddy-corner to this on the northeast corner of that intersection, which is already designated where the red lines are -- yes, right in there, that's already a light office designation. Third, that the property -- a property would be a low intensity buffer, because of the inherent light office traffic and noise factors that are there, as compared to a regular commercial shopping center or something like that or a Meridian City Couneil June 28, 2005 Page 38 of78 Maverick like was tried to be brought up before to the Planning and Zoning. Four, that it would be less intense at times than the current church. For example, the church now on Sundays has much heavier use than this would have or like in the month of May when they had their large carnival and filled up all of the -- filled up a good portion of this property, plus all of their property parking lot with activities and so forth and the area seemed to handle that okay. Fifth, that it could be less intense in traffic and noise than Settlers Park at times. That doesn't mean that Settlers Park is tremendously noisy, but it's surrounded by the neighborhood there and that that area, in and of itself, would generate its own noise, it wouldn't necessarily be excessive over what this would be. And, sixth, that three out of four of the corners of this intersection do not have residential housing. Only the small residential section that is located at the southeast corner and, then, just to the south of the property there are two large acreages that I think are ten acres -- five or ten acres, I can't remember which, and the Sweet family owns them, which I think they are here tonight to testify. Anyway, that those are the only area's residential that really directly surround it. And, finally, I did hold neighborhood meetings in the area, I sent out notices to all the neighbors, I personally met with the neighbors closest in the subdivision that's there, the two that are closest to the property. I spoke a fair amount of times with Dan Sweet, who was on the second large parcel to the south and have communicated clearly to the neighbors -- at the neighborhood meeting no one came and to the Planning and Zoning hearing no one came. And, in fact, until the letter that was just read and I think that the Sweets are going to testify, I have not known of any opposition to this until just now. Finally, I think that regardless of whatever designations -- I mean once it's put into light office, that the neighbors are -- again, are fully protected, because this is only a zoning change and an annexation and it's not our planned development application yet or our subdivision application. So, that would still be in the future and if there was some type of use, even if it's a conditional use, it would still be protected, because it would go through the hearing process and I realize that on page 95, the light office zoning designation resolution limits it to have no commercial use whatsoever, including even a day care. But the Planning and Zoning at least allowed us to have that put in the record that we could have that. We are requesting that you consider doing it, because of the nature -- the unique nature of this property, that three out of four of the corners do not even have residential and are already either public or commercial or office type -- light office type use. And the fact that -- that the public itself would be protected with any future usage because our need for hearings, we would like to have it just be regular light office and then -- and not have any specific limitations placed upon it, other than what a normal light office space would have and to base that on the part of the resolution that's on page 99, rather than 95. Finally, on item two, as far as the time restraints, while I would suspect that most use that would be light office would be between the hours of 6:00 and 10:00, we are at least able to get it to that range. I would -- in listening to that, I listened to Councilman Bird and when he mentioned about rules and regulations and my only feeling on it is that the Comprehensive Plan doesn't state anywhere that there has to be a time limit on properties that's arbitrary or just placed on them and I feel similar to what Councilman Bird had said before, that I just think that if there needs to be some kind of time limit, it should be placed on when it comes through the planned development portion of it and not just in the zoning itself and that light office itself doesn't call for a special time limit Meridian City Council June 28, 2005 Page 39 of78 on it. And so we would like to at least in the initial stages not have a specific time limit placed on that as a means of further regulation, when nothing in the Comprehensive Plan requires that and the public is still protected again that if some type of use of concern were to come in the future, it would have to come through this hearing process anyway and, then, that could be specific to that use. And I gave reasons for that. I covered number one. I would mention just a couple of things, that I know from just being at the property there are times when the church usage is later than that. There are times in medical clinics -- I know in my own chiropractic clinic I have come in for people on an emergency basis that have been later than 10:00 o'clock or earlier than 6:00. Medical clinics, if the doctor has to come in on an emergency basis at a time other than that, and I realize that in Planning and Zoning one of the members said, well, you know, well, I don't think anybody is going to actually be out there setting a time watch and enforcing it, but I feel like if -- that there shouldn't be a rule placed on that you're not going to expect to be kept and that there is not a reason to place some arbitrary limit when it's already going to be protected with conditional use. And, finally, I wanted to -- on number five I wanted to make a little change there. I'm not great at writing this stuff, but I put lawnmowing -- I meant yard work and, then, I put in number five and extending well past, meaning that there have been times when I have gone passed, people are out right at dusk or something like that that would go past 10:00 o'clock just finishing up in what they might do in yard work or on car repair. Within the -- and, finally, I would just ask that those type of limitations not be placed on the property and that you use the designation on page 99 for the special resolution to finalize our approval, rather than on page 95. That's my thought. Thank you for your time and attention. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time? Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: Just a question for Anna. Excuse me. The letter that we received from Mr. Bohr -- is that right? Canning: Yes, ma'am. Donnell: He states that he lives off Meridian Road in Waterberry Park. Where is that subdivision in relation to -- on this map? Can you point it out? Canning: It's -- Donnell: Is it here? Canning: Right over here. He is not within the 300 foot notice. Donnell: Thank you. Meridian City Council June 28, 2005 Page 40 of78 Price: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I do have two people signed up in opposition. If you'd like to provide testimony, when I call your name, please, come forward. Molly Sweet. If you will, please, state your name and address. Sweet: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Councilmembers. Molly Sweet. I'm located at 82 East Eastbrook in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Sweet: We are the property that is directly across from this location. I wanted to first address Mr. Price's issue that no one showed up to the meeting and point out that that happened to be the evening of the carnival or large use of the parking lot. My husband went over and could not locate Mr. Price, as he had never met him. So, we did attempt to go to the meeting and are not trying to blindside him here. One thing I want to speak to is the fact that he keeps mentioning that three of the four corners -- well, we are that fourth corner and we were there first. There are 11 families there and when I say families, I mean families, and we have children and the -- there is a lot of traffic there already and while I understand that the ACHD wants to put the location directly -- the drive directly across, they don't live there and there is a center lane that -- although it's illegal for people to drive down that when they want to turn left, they do it anyhow, and I can count on fingers and toes how many times I have almost been hit attempting to pull out when people are obeying the law and allowing us to do that and I just feel that that's going to compound the problem even more. With issue to the church use, they are not directly across from any neighbors and so I believe that's a separate issue in terms of use. My concern with the use until 10:00 p.m. is the lighting. I assume there will be parking lot lights, which we will kindly see from our home and I believe all 11 homes will be able to see that. Which take into consideration the effects of what's going to be there and with no elevation plan, we would like to know how tall do they want these buildings to be. And let's see. Yeah. My main issue is the driveway there. We have already battled the Maverick and it is inevitable that something is going to go in there, but with due respect to the neighbors what can we do to make it the safest for the children that play in the neighborhood as well. I'd also like to speak -- I know that Ida Sweet does not care to speak and she is my grandma, so I will speak for her, if that's okay. For her the main issue is esthetics, as well as the lighting issues. That a vinyl fence, if this does pass, that it be mandated that a vinyl fence go in there, along with the landscaping issues that I know are required -- I believe are required with the issue. So, that's it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Molly. Any questions for the -- for Molly? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Meridian City Council June 28,2005 Page 41 of78 Canning: If the testifier could indicate -- there is a little laser pointer on the podium -- where your house and your grandmother's are. Sweet: That's me. I'm shaking. I'm sorry. And grandma is over here. Canning: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any other testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond? Price: Thank you, Madam Mayor, and Councilmembers. I think -- is your name Molly? I had a chance to meet Molly when she was out mowing her lawn when I went over to talk with her at one time and I'm aware of where she lives in that area right in there. I'm sorry, I'm kind of nervous here, so I better put it on here, so I can hold it still. I would say that if I lived in her house I wouldn't blame her on the concerns, but just so that everyone would be clear, the issue that we are simply bringing forth now is for a zoning change. Those type of things will be addressed on the planned development. If I were her, as far as lighting, I think it would be reasonable to put lighting in that has blockages, so that it doesn't -- it blocks the shining to go onto that -- onto the street, because also I think we would want to do lighting that blocks to here and a lighting that blocks it this way, so that it's onto the parking lot and I think in actuality in the end, if it has proper lighting, it would enhance the area, because it would keep the neighborhood somewhat lit with street lighting or at least the parking lot lit, as opposed to having the area be dark. But I think I would want them to be shadowed -- I would want to be shadowed if I was them, too. Additionally, as far as the fencing and those things, those are all issues that when it comes to the planned development, I think they would be protected on. And, then, also I was going to mention our -- just for Mrs. Canning, we might have put down wrong numbers on that sheet or something, but our calculations were that rather than 30,000 square feet, we figured that it would be more in the range of 25,000 would be the maximum we could put on and still get on the parking and per square foot allowance -- or parking per square foot allowances that we need. So, we may have done that. Sorry for that, if that was off, so -- I think that was everything that I wanted to mention. Do you have any other questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none, Madam Mayor. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a quick question, Mr. Price. You refer to -- and I understand the issues with the fencing are in the planning process and those sorts of things. Are you at least Meridian City Couneil June 28, 2005 Page 42 of78 amenable to considering that with the neighbors, the requirement for vinyl fencing when that comes forward? Price: Well, Madam Mayor and Mr. Wardle, I would -- I would want to -- we want to be a good neighbor with the people and our intent is if I lived there I would want to have a -- we can do shadows on the lighting and put structures over the lights, as I have seen in parking lots, to block it from going horizontally in a direction that you don't want it to go horizontally. And, then, with the fencing, just for the esthetics of the development itself, I would think that you would want to have -- you would especially want to have fencing along here, not -- I don't mean that it's a bad property at all, but it's just kind of a grazing type field right there and so I think for our own -- for our own development we would want to have it -- you know, make that a separation. So, I have no problem with that. Wardle: Madam Mayor, a question of Anna and, then, maybe a follow-up question, Mr. Price. Anna, to bring forward for any sort of a building permit, would they need to bring this forward as a conditional use and through the hearing process? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, no. Once the zoning is there, they could build a principally permitted structure with just a certificate of zoning compliance. Wardle: And a follow-up question, Mr. Price, would you be -- and certainly you have the intention to bring this forward as a -- as a subdivision development and to, I assume, plat the entire property, bring it forward with elevations. Is that something you would be comfortable with as a requirement of the zoning application? Price: Well, I would -- Madam Mayor and Mr. Wardle, I would be happy to do a couple of things. First of all, our intent is to do a subdivision type of development, so it's like a typical office-type space with independent buildings. If, for some reason, that changed, though, I would have no problem if you wanted to put in a requirement that the neighbors be protected in their lighting and fencing be used in that area, I would have no problem with that. And, then, of course, anything that's not on the list that's on your fourth page, that is a conditional use, it would have to come before you automatically. So, I don't have any problem in either one of those. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I need to clarify that statement. The only use that wasn't a principally permitted use that was allowed -- recommended as -- for approval was a day care. So, if it's -- there is very limited number of uses there. Most of them would not currently require conditional use approval. It seems like a more appropriate development agreement condition in this case might be that they obtain preliminary plat approval, rather than conditional use approval. Or one or the other. Either a preliminary plat approval for the subdivision or conditional use approval for a single structure on the site. Wardle: Madam Mayor. Anna, so either of those preliminary plat or conditional use require a Public Hearing, a notification of the neighbors? Meridian City Couneil June 28, 2005 Page 43 of 78 Canning: Yes, sir. The preliminary plat will automatically come up to you under the new -- under the new code you may not see this Conditional Use Permit. Depending on if you pass it that way. Wardle: Okay. So, Madam Mayor, follow-up question. So, we would need to place upon this annexation the condition of preliminary plat. Canning: Prior to release of any building permits on the property. Price: Madam Mayor, Mr. Wardle, I would certainly support that. I just wanted to clarify one thing. When Mrs. Canning was talking, she was referring to the fact that on your fourth page that there are the permitted uses that come with the light office zoning automatically and I believe are all allowable underneath that -- the resolution on page 95, with the exception of day care, child day care, day care that the Planning and Zoning added to it and said we could do a conditional use on that, because page 95 inherently says, in essence, that no other conditional uses can be made on that property. What my request was in coming before you was I would like to have light office approved, but I would like it to be approved based on -- based on your resolution on page 99 that doesn't place the restrictions on, with the recognition that any conditional use that I would ever desire for that property would have to come through you anyway and you would be welcome to place that as part of the resolution, so that it could have approval and the neighborhood would be protected and there would be -- that there would be nothing put on that hadn't gone through all of the hearing process, so -- De Weerd: And I think the point is by putting on the preliminary plat a condition, it would still have to come back, even the permitted uses -- Price: Yes. De Weerd: -- so that the neighbors would have an opportunity to see elevations, to see how things would align. Price: And, Madam Mayor and Mr. Wardle, I'm perfectly okay with that. Yes. So, there are probably a couple things. I completely support that, so the neighbors can see that, and Mrs. Sweet in this section below can see that there is fencing there to protect her, that Molly would have a chance to see the lighting is protected from, you know, their homes, and, then, I would just ask for you to consider page 99 as our reason for approval, so that we do not have page 95 limitations. Canning: Madam Mayor? The Comprehensive Plan test amendment specifically noted that no ancillary commercial uses would be appropriate with these -- within these residential designations. The findings that you have before you tonight do not support the applicant's request. They are only for that very limited number of approved uses that came to you from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I guess I should state that I'm Meridian City Couneil June 28, 2005 Page 44 of78 -- I think that it would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to allow the full range of L-O uses that are listed within the current zoning ordinance. Thank you. Price: Madam Mayor and Council, so I would ask Mrs. Canning, then, are you feeling that they would not have the option of doing it under page 99? Canning: Would you like me to answer that question, Council? Okay. I'm just trying to get the conversation going through you and I don't -- it didn't seem appropriate to go through him. I believe he's talking about the Comprehensive Plan text and I don't have a copy out right now, but whatever pages he's referring to wouldn't have the amendment text in there, so the office designation is only talking about a very limited number of places where we put that light purple on the Comprehensive Plan. Price: Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, I didn't know -- I'm sorry. Canning: And so I think that there is some confusion if you're only looking at the existing Comprehensive Plan, because we have not published a new Comprehensive Plan with that text amendment in it. But that text amendment was very clear that it was only for office uses and no ancillary commercial uses. And in the past you have not -- we have limited it to office uses for these things. De Weerd: Okay. So, what are you referencing? Price: This is part of that resolution that I pulled up from the computer from your date of December 14th, 2004. That's part of that resolution. I quoted the resolution is what I mean. De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call a five minute break, so that Anna can reference what you're talking about. We will reconvene at 9:20. (Recess.) De Weerd: Okay. I will bring this meeting back to order. I will, Anna, ask for your comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sorry for the initial confusion. I understand the logic the applicant is using now and let take a moment to explain that to you. As I spoke before, I talked to you about how there is actually a dual designation on the property of residential and public, quasi-public. When we wrote the staff report, in order to keep confusion to a minimum, the staff report really talks about the residential exception, the 3.0 acre residential exception, for a couple of reasons. It gets quite confusing talking about two Comprehensive Plan designations. The L-O -- the residential exception you have seen a little bit more and also it has a little more clearer language on it. What the applicant is asking is that instead of the residential exception, you consider the language that was added in the Comprehensive Plan text amendment regarding the quasi public use instead. That one didn't have a size limitation. It talked Meridian City Couneil June 28, 2005 Page 45 of 78 about redevelopment or development of church properties or public, quasi-public uses, when it's been determined that that's not the best way to go or that that property won't be used for that use. And that's where the 95 versus -- page 95 versus page 99 come in. He was -- the pages refer to the Comprehensive Plan, but he is referring to our staff report, which references those pages. So, page 95 talks about the residential exception that's three acres or less. Page 99 talks about the quasi-public uses. And so let me read that text, since we haven't spent much time on -- on these kinds of exceptions, I'm going to read the added language a little bit. It says upon redevelopment of such properties, public, quasi-public, a change in designation and use may be appropriate. The redevelopment of this area should be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation issues associated with the proposed development of the property. The appropriate land use designation and the accompanying zoning for these areas will be determine by City Council on a case-by-case basis. So, the question before Council is do you want to let it open to a number of commercial uses or do you want to limit those that would be normally allowed under the L-O zoning in general or do you want to limit it to the office uses and clinics and day care, as recommended by the P&Z, which would be more in keeping with the residential designation. If you decide to go with the quasi-public, we probably need to get you a new staff report and new findings, because, really, it's written more for the residential exception. Did that clarify things at all? De Weerd: It sure did, didn't it? It did for me. I'm sorry. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor. So, Anna, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussion and the addition of the day care end of that was based on the residential qualification; is that what I'm hearing? Canning: To my knowledge. Now, I wasn't there for the hearing, but I'm not sure that this change in thought ever took place there. I think it was -- my understanding was that the discussion was just about the residential exception and limiting the uses based on that. The day care is not really a retail use or commercial use, it's still somewhere between an office and a retail use. It's actually -- the industrial land classification doesn't have it as retail, it has it as a service organization, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Council, any information that you still need? Donnell: I'm totally confused, so I don't want anymore information. No more information. Rountree: I'm fine. I'm clear. De Weerd: Okay. I guess we always allow the applicant to have the final word. Did you have any -- and if you will, please, keep it brief. Price: Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, I will keep it brief. Just to clarify that, we are simply asking -- there are two designations as property that make it zoned quasi-public Meridian City Council June 28, 2005 Page 46 of 78 and also residential. There are two different ways that this can be made limited -- made light office. One is through residential, which has its own specific limitations, and the other is through public, quasi-public, which is regular light office. We are asking that you do it based on the quasi-public. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And the lower impact would be the residential exception. Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, what would you like to do? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there is no further comments, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 21. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close on 21. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: It's not often that we have a proposal brought to us that's somewhat speculative in nature and in my eight years off and on the Council I can only remember one and that one created a fair amount of havoc through the years and it's just some eight or ten years later that it's now actually being developed. I recognize at some point in time this piece of property will be annexed to the City of Meridian and it will be annexed with a known commodity. Not knowing what the future brings, other than speculation that it might be L-O, I'm not inclined to favor annexation of this piece of property at this point in time. De Weerd: Council, I don't know how many of you were on Council, but we have a similar issue right now, because we annexed without a plat, and it was on a corner and it certainly doesn't allow the public to comment and it just adds confusion. We annexed with a conceptual plan and it's really proved to be a bad choice. So, traditionally, the Councils of the past have asked the plat to come forward with annexation, that it gives the public an opportunity to comment and to know what they will be seeing and I guess Meridian City Couneil June 28, 2005 Page 47 of78 after the one exception we made -- or one of the few exceptions that have made that's kind of shown why that that seems pretty wise. Okay. Council? Are you still on break? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there is no further comment or discussion, I move that we deny the request for annexation as outlined in Item 21. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny the annexation on Item 21. Do I have a second? Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to deny the annexation on Item 21. Is there any further -- is there discussion? Canning: Madam Mayor, can I ask the attorney a question. Do they need to direct me to come back with different findings or -- Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council and staff. No. Canning: Okay. Baird: On annexations it's totally a discretionary legislative act. They don't need to give a reason, although you do have one on the record. No findings necessary. Canning: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 05-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Touchmark Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item 22 has been requested to continue because of the public posting issue. So, I guess we would need to know the date to continue it to. Canning: Madam Mayor, I believe we decided July 12th was the appropriate date.