Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 19, 2006 P&Z Minutes ..1 ..~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 38 of 92 Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC - 3475 East Ustick Road: Rohm: Well -- and carrying it out to the 16th gives them plenty of time to get that done. Okay. Good. With that, at this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05- 061 for Una Mas and start with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Staff is recommending continuance of this project. However, we would like to hear it. The applicant is here. This is a 9.55 acre parcel. It is approximately 300 yards to the east side of Ustick Road. This site plan -- this is a conceptual site plan drafted by the applicant. The ACHD property that we just continued is this site right here, which is approximately four acres, which is for their new public road connection. This public road is going to be the extension of Records, which is across from where the Sportsman Warehouse is and the Meridian Crossroads project. This road would be the mid block future collector connection, splitting Ustick and Fairview, and that is why the staff was recommending the continuance, is because this site -- the Una Mas project, which is the 9.55 acres immediately to the east of the ACHD project, and the Gateway Marketplace, which is immediately east on the intersection of -- the southwest corner of the intersection of Eagle and Ustick, are all open applications at this time at the planning office. Currently, in front of you tonight would have been the ACHD and Una Mas, which are for annexation only. With that, this application did come in prior to the City Council, essentially, giving better direction to staff that they don't want to see annexations without development proposals. However, this is kind of a unique situation due to the fact that this site for Una Mas does not have a public road access. It does have frontage on Ustick Road, but ACHD has determined that the site would be for a full access point offsite for this project. If you look at -- at the actual site right now, there is a single family residence in the center of this site, which ACHD has granted future construction access point for this site, if it takes a bit for the ACHD project, as well as the undetermined Gateway Marketplace project, to deliver their cross-access to this site. So, currently, this is kind of landlocked due to the fact that ACHD has already improved Ustick Road at this site and they did not give the site an access point and there is no cross-access to the existing points on Ustick Road. Now, that being said, one of the conditions -- or not -- one of the comments, which will be written into the development agreement for this site, would be cross-access to the east to the ACHD site, to the west, which is the Gateway Marketplace, and to the south, which is a commercially zoned Redfeather site. At this time one point to bring up is that the ACHD project is not going to retain all of that project. They are only going to keep what they need for their future collector road. The remainder of that portion, which is requested to be considered as a C-G, general commercial zone, is going to be sold to the highest bidder. Now, if the bidder turns out to be this site, then, this site plan would be completely not inconsequential as a preliminary plat would be filed that would be brought all the way over to the future collector road. Now, there is a lot of what ifs with this site, which is why staff recommends a continuance of this application. However, { Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 39 of 92 the applicant is here and wanted to have discussions. with this board -- or with the Commission in order to try and get this project moved forward. So, I will stand for questions at this time. Rohm: Did you say that there is existing cross-access to the west or -- Guenther: There is no cross-access at all. Rohm: At all. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions of staff before I ask the applicant to come forward? Okay. At this time -- Rosse: My name is John Rosse, I'm with Hansen Rice representing Una Mas. We are at 1717 Chisholm Drive in Nampa. We are here today for annexation only and I want to point out that, you know, I want to clarify that we have no access to this site at all, which is -- you know, we are working on trying to resolve that, but in the -- currently right now this access right here isn't on our property at all, it belongs to the neighboring -- to the neighboring parcel and the access agreement that is in place right now is for the residential. As soon as we change the -- change the usage of it, that access agreement is null and void we don't have it. However, we do have a verbal approval from Gary Inselman at ACHD to put a temporary access in until such time that the neighboring parcel is developed and according to our discussions with Planning and Zoning that cross-access agreement will be granted north, south, east, west, basically, on all those type -- on all those parcels, which we don't have a problem in doing. You know, we are more than happy to work with the neighboring parcel when their development is -- comes through and is approved. Our understanding right now is that there is a -- that there is a lot of issues with that site that -- that have not yet been resolved and one of the things that we are concerned is we have got -- we have got potential clients for both of -- you know, along the top and the bottom of our site and we would like to -- we can't submit any applications, we can't do anything until we are annexed in and so that we can even submit development applications with -- you know, on what we would like to do. With that said, I want to address this parcel a little bit. Once ACHD does propose and -- or gets their road approved, there is going to be a strip of land in here that, you know, we are hoping that we can be the highest bidder on and make it feasible. However, there is not -- that's not -- that is the what if. Right now all's we'd like to do is be annexed in and we don't see that -- staff denying that or asking for a continuance on the 16th pending getting ACHD in and this parcel in is going to make any difference at this point. We look at it as if the neighboring parcel comes in and they have got a bunch of problems and they are continued or moved off or denied at that point, we have wasted a month that really didn't make any difference to the annexation process. We understand that when we submit our parcel for -- after annexation, we still have our development agreement that still has to go in front of Planning and Zoning again, where we can have conditions put upon us at that point. We will have -- you know, by that time the neighboring developments, ACHD will have been in, and you guys have had time to look at that and we can -- at that point we will know a little bit better on what's going on from all of the other parcels. So, I'm asking for you guys to grant us the annexation tonight and to wait and get our development agreement. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 40 of 92 Rohm: Discussion? Zaremba: Public testimony? Rohm: Before we do that, there is one other person that has signed up, Michelle Broadhead. Would you like to come forward, please? Broadhead: Michelle Broadhead at 2875 Duane Drive. I guess I -- I wasn't sure exactly what would be happening at this meeting. Annexation I don't have a problem with, but we are a neighbor -- that little street that ACHD owns, we back up to that on Duane Drive and mostly our concerns are what is going to happen with this and nobody seems to have any answers, which you can see from the discussion tonight there is lots of what ifs and nobody knows what's happening. So, as a neighbor that's all I'm concerned about is just what that's going to be like when it develops. So, if that's not going to be decided tonight, then, we will come back and wait again. So, thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, at this time maybe we will have some discussion amongst the Commission. Start down at the end. Commissioner Zaremba, do you have some thoughts? Zaremba: I looked like I was about to speak, I guess. Rohm: You did. Zaremba: Yes. I understand the applicant's desire to get something moving on this property. I'm sure that often makes it easier for them to close a deal on who a future tenant might be. The city, however, has consistently -- and the City Council, specifically, has consistently asked either for a full concept plan or a preliminary plat to accompany annexation requests. One, so that it's confirmed that the annexation request is for the correct district and also so that they can hear the applications at the same time. While I understand the desire to move it along, I agree with staff's request that this probably is going to have a lot of questions hanging over it until some of the neighboring issues are resolved and, again, as the previous applicant on another subject has said, it's hard to hold one property hostage to the neighboring properties, but there are a number of things that need to be resolved and I support the idea of hearing the three subjects together on the one night. Staff? Guenther: Well, the purpose for the continuation request is not as much for the Gateway Marketplace project as the ACHD project. Staff was recommending -- if you got the ACHD staff report, if they had posted the site we would have recommended approval of that site tonight and gone forward with that. But because of their being held up, it seems that this one probably has to be held up as well, which is why the recommendation was the way it is. However, that being said, again, ACHD still has to Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 41 of 92 sell that portion of the property and it's up to this board to determine if this, as an annexation, can just go forward or not, so -- Zaremba: I realize the other piece of property is not actually before us, but we continued that issue, because there was not notice. But would you speculate that the portion that they wish to sell off -- it appears to me to be too small for anything to be built on it and meet any setbacks and that gives me great optimism that this applicant would be successful in the bid, because who else can use something that that's narrow. Is it wide enough to put anything on it? Guenther: It is wide enough to put something on it. It would be a very weird looking project, but it is wide enough to put something on it. Because this road, being a collector road, would require a 20 foot buffer for the entire length of that road, as well as if there is a use buffer between two uses, typically it's a five foot landscape buffer between parking lots. That narrows it down to about 45 feet of build-able area. So, you could have a 45 foot wide something in there, excluding parking. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I am in favor of continuing as well. As I have stated before, it's nice to be able to make a decision with the bigger picture and that would be my preference. Especially since I do not want to see a 45-foot wide building come before this Commission in the near future or a strip of property. Rohm: I view this a little bit differently than the rest of you, inasmuch as this application is for zoning, not for specific building structures, and albeit that it is going to be affected by both the property to the east and the west, the zoning itself won't change regardless of what happens with either parcel east or west and from my perspective, the zoning doesn't tie anybody's hand to how this specific nine acres will be developed, it -- that is still yet to be decided by what happens with those adjacent properties and so we are not -- from my perspective, we are not tying the city's hands by moving forward with an annexation with the commercial designation, we are only giving the applicant an opportunity to explore his options, so that when he comes back to us with a preliminary plat or something to present from a construction standpoint, he will have potential tenants, because he already has the zoning to market from and so that's just the other side of the coin to your opinion. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe? Moe: Sorry. Rohm: No. Go ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 42 of 92 Moe: As far as the property to the west, are there any dates set for reviewing that project as well? Guenther: February 16th. Moe: The 16th. Well, I guess my point is that as far as trying to go ahead and looking for the approval as far as this evening, my concern is by letting them go ahead and if it was approved tonight and, then, they go forward trying to work through their development and whatnot, when we still have cross-access agreement situations and whatnot to that other property, I would like to see how they are looking to develop before we get too far along on this property as well, just to make sure that we don't have any conflicts on what -- how they are looking at their property in regard to access to this one as well. So, therefore, I think I would -- I think it would be better to continue this until then, so that we could see that one as well. Did I just confuse you? Borup: No. No. 1-- Zaremba: together. That gives the applicant time to talk to the other neighbors and work Rohm: Commission Borup, you're -- Borup: I think the only question I had -- and I have gone back and forth on this, but the project to the west beyond the 16th, is that going to have a preliminary plat? Guenther: Yes, that is with a preliminary and a conditional use for design. Borup: Okay. So, we will be able to see specific projects. Well, then, I'd think maybe that does make sense. The ACHD property was strictly the annexation only also. So, waiting for that design would really have no effect on this, but perhaps the other one does. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, the Public Hearing is still open and the applicant appears to care to add something. Rohm: Absolutely. Rosse: I just wanted to add, you know -- Rohm: You need to restate your name and -- Rosse: I'm sorry. John Rosse with Hansen Rice. I appreciate, Chairman Rohm, your comment. I mean we are -- we are just looking for the zoning and I appreciate your standpoint. We have talked with the neighbors on both sides. You know, we have had the discussion with the development. The proposal for them to have an access road coming down here, we have talked with them about it, it seems like that's in their Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 43 of 92 development agreement -- in their development application currently, doesn't it show that? Guenther: It shows a service drive. Rosse: A service drive. Which we have issue with. But there is a service drive down that road, which we have talked with them about. We have also talked with them about at the bottom of the south of our project providing cross-access agreement across ours or putting a road in there to connect Eagle up to cross over the alley way. We have had these discussions already with them and they -- you know, it's more of a fine tuning at this point, rather than, you know, trying to come up with something. We have already had the discussion, we are just trying to, you know -- like I said, it's just fine tuning at this point. And I think -- Moe: But please consider we haven't seen any of this, so, therefore, we don't know exactly what you guys have really discussed with the property to the west. Rosse: I understand that, but I don't understand where the -- where the zoning is going to have any affect on that. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, the zoning does have a bit of an effect on that, because once you have your zoning, you still have eligibility for one building permit and you can pull a certificate of zoning compliance and actually put the building down without having cross- access, because when we changed our Unified Development Code, you can have multiple buildings on one parcel in a commercial district. Rosse: But that would be subject to Planning and Zoning approval; correct? And conditions of approval? Guenther: No. It's subject -- by the way the development agreement is written in my staff report, it is conformance with the Unified Development Code, which states that a commercial district that is an approved use, permitted use in a C-G district, would only receive staff level approval and would not have to be heard by this board. Rosse: Okay. Well-- Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe just one other question. If you did receive the annexation and zoning, you're still coming back with a preliminary plat; is that correct? Rosse: We were not -- when we submitted our annexation application, it was not requested for a preliminary plat. We could have provided that. We don't have a problem with that at all. It was not -- at the time when we submitted it wasn't a requirement, otherwise, we would have provided it. I mean it's not -- ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 44 of 92 Borup: So, the intention was just to receive the zoning and, then, whatever was built on there would comply with -- Rosse: Absolutely. Borup: -- with UDC? So, we would not see anything, then? Rosse: No. Borup: Okay. Rosse: I mean we have got -- we have got two potential clients that would like to pursue a develop application to submit, which we would -- I guarantee we will be at the February 16th meeting whether we are zoned or not, because we definitely have interest in what goes on on the -- our east and our west neighborhood. However, to hold us up a month over zoning when we still have to do our development agreement makes no sense. It seems that we are -- it's just the zoning and we still have to do our development agreement per the code. We still have -- Borup: Thank you. Rosse: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Before we move forward with a motion on this, once we do, I'm wondering if we could go back and reopen AZ 05-060 and rather than continue that to the 16th, go back to the staff's recommendation that we continued it to the 2nd and at least rather than having it a full month out for this applicant -- because I think the consent is that they would continue this and we can continue them both to the 2nd, rather than the 16th. Is there any support for that thought process? Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? Would it be appropriate to ask the city attorney to weigh in on this? I'm utterly confused. Is that appropriate? Borup: Do you want to weigh? Rohm: Well, I think you can always ask a question of counsel, that's why he's here. Newton-Huckabay: Well, there you go. Nary: And your question would be whether -- Newton-Huckabay: I would like your opinion on this. I mean with approving or recommending the annexation and zoning approval of that tonight versus waiting. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Chairman Rohm is correct, I mean, certainly, you can consider this zoning application and request for annexation without - Meridian Planning & Zonin9 January 19, 2006 Page 45 of 92 any project that's planned for it, without any plat. There have been occasions in the last few years that the City Council has reviewed those types of applications and granted that. But as Commissioner Zaremba stated, that isn't as common as having a better idea of the -- either that development application or the surrounding applications. The comfort level of the Council has felt is either that the application or proposed development concept that is being brought forward will be and can be developed or that by the nature of the surrounding uses of the property that the types of development that will occur on the property that's not platted or not -- or doesn't have any proposed uses on it at the time it's being requested to annex, are going to be more limited. Here you have a fairly narrow small piece of property that may have some limitations on uses and I guess my only concern is in looking at the staff report and listening to the testimony is that I'm not really sure what to do a development agreement on, other than to say they were going to limit -- unless you want to limit specific types of uses to try to be compatible. But I think both concepts that the Commission has raised are valid. You certainly are welcome to go forward and consider this matter separately. The idea of having a better sense of the surrounding properties and what is being proposed and how this relates to those certainly gives both you a better picture, as well as the City Council, and certainly the chairman's suggestion of only continuing this a couple of weeks versus a month is probably a fairly reasonable compromise. But I mean the applicant's correct, he can certainly request to go forward, but it may get delayed at the Council level just as well, because, again, their concern is going to be the same as what this Commission is asking is what's the rest of the surrounding areas going to look like, how is this property going to relate to the rest of the property that are looking to develop, even if they are going to be approved to be annexed without any concept plan being proposed. Borup: I think the 2nd's a good compromise. How full is that agenda? Moe: One more thing about that, though. The 2nd would be to hear the ACHD -- Borup: Right. Moe: -- but nothing to the west. That is still planned for the 16th. Borup: Right. I think the only thing we need to make sure there is a cross-access agreement and -- Rohm: Between the ACHD property and -- Borup: No. And to the one on the west, too. Rohm: Well, we can make that a requirement that -- Borup: Right. At that time. . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 46 of 92 Rohm: '-- when that's heard. You know, we have got a 14 item agenda and this one's significantly longer, so I don't think that's out of the question to add it to the 2nd. Guenther: Commissioner Rohm? Attorney Nary is completely right, though, there is not much in the development agreement, other than to require them cross-access to the other parcels. So, there is not a significant development agreement with this site and it is the same conditions of approval for the ACHD site, that they provide this applicant cross-access. And that's the only conditions that staff has included with that development agreement. Zaremba: On that subject, I'm reading page six of the staff report, item ten analyses, where you say prior to annexation and ordinance approval there will be a development agreement. I don't find the cross-access among the bullets that are listed there. Guenther: It would be on page seven at the absolute last one in the development agreement. It says that in the case of any division of the property cross-access to parcel south and west of the site be granted. I'm sorry. I'm reading the ACHD staff report. It would be southwest. Zaremba: It would a division out of that, regardless of whether it's a whole property or it's divided, there needs to be cross-access among -- Guenther: But the ACHD property will be divided because of the road. That's why I was reading the wrong one. In the Una Mas one it should probably read that it would not be up to ACHD to determine the access points, as well as the limitation on the division. For the annexation it should be cross-access regardless of division or not. Rohm: Thank you. I think it's probably time to move forward and with a recommendation for a continuance. Have we closed yet? Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chair? Sorry. Zaremba: We wouldn't if we are going to continue. Rohm: Oh, that's right. Question? Nary: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of clarification, Mr. Hood reminded me -- when you continued your prior matter, we didn't -- we didn't actually survey if anyone was here to speak on that matter. You did mention at the beginning of the meeting you would be continuing that matter. So, since you already took the action and to back up, you may have a notice problem, because if someone was here to speak on the highway district application, they left thinking it's going to be on the 16th. Borup: Did anybody sign up? , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 47 of 92 Nary: I don't know that anybody was even here. But that's the danger of backing up and trying to change something you have already taken an action on. And my concern would be the notice problem of doing that over. Rohm: The only person that signed up is still here and -- Zaremba: On the other matter? Rohm: On the other matter. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Personally, I think that we should still continue to the 2nd and running the risk of not having heard anybody that was hear to speak on that -- on that matter, because there was just the one sign up. So, it's still my desire to see both of these continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of the 2nd. But that's -- I guess we will see if we can get a motion to that effect. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, can I ask my question now? Borup: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Joe, were you saying when you made your comments about the only item that would be in the development agreement being the cross-access as justification for approving the annexation tonight? Guenther: As Mr. Nary had said, there is no use restrictions on this site. It would be general commercial as per the UDC and the only thing that staff would require of this site would be the cross-access. And, then, the standard development agreement conditions, which are mostly Public Works conditions. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: I'm not sure what we accomplish by -- Newton-Huckabay: That's what I was just thinking. So, the only thing we accomplish by continuing it is avoiding them having the ability to put one commercial building with access to Ustick Road in compliance with the UDC code, is that what you're saying? Guenther: Well, you can put multiple buildings on a commercial lot under the UDC. So, you're not limiting the number of buildings by -- Borup: But if they have got no access -- Guenther: That's the problem. That's the what if is where are they going to get their access from once they go for their certificate of occupancy and ACHD eliminates the access point to Ustick, if none of the other projects come through in a timely manner. .~ Meridian Plannin9 & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 48 of 92 Borup: That's-- Guenther: That's the applicant's risk. Borup: Right. Newton-Huckabay: But that's irrelevant to -- Borup: Yeah. We can't control that. Newton-Huckabay: -- annexation. Rohm: That was kind of my point about 45 minutes ago. Newton-Huckabay: Well, you could have been a little more clear 45 minutes ago. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, we have got a motion. Borup: I'm going to do a 180 here. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Well, let me float a motion and we will see if it flies. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 05-061 to our regularly scheduled meeting of February 16, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 05-061 to our regularly scheduled meeting of February 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Let me do that again. Two ayes. Newton-Huckabay: You have three. Rohm: Okay. It's been move and seconded that we forward -- or we continue AZ 05- 061 to the regularly scheduled meeting February 16, 2006. All those in favor say eye. All those opposed? And I'm going to go with the continuance to the 16th. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, folks. Thanks for coming in. Newton-Huckabay: February 16th? Rohm: February 16th, 2006.