The URL can be used to link to this page

March 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 59 of 90 Rohm: I think we are done with that one. We have one left. Thank you, everybody. I wonder if we should have commented on if, in fact, an easement could be obtained for the sidewalk in the motion, as opposed to -- because it -- if they couldn't get an easement for the sidewalk, then, Becky has proposed something that would -- Borup: That can be handled when that's developed and the right of ways given and stuff, isn't it? Rohm: I don't know. It's more of a question than anything else. Borup: I think it's just important to have something to walk on. Rohm: If that out parcel -- if they won't grant a sidewalk easement, then, it will have to be -- Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, since the anticipation, I guess, of the applicant in her testimony was that they thought they could get that worked out between now and the Council hearing, since the Council is going to have to hear it anyway, I think they could probably address it there. If it hasn't happened or isn't going to happen, they can do it then. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: .j. Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the last Public Hearing on AZ 06-004 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on your agenda this evening is just a small little 358 acre annexation, requesting several zones, an R-2, which is the two low density residential, 66 acres; an R-8 medium density residential zone, 167 acres; an R-15, medium high density residential, 79.8 acres. And a neighborhood business C-N zone, 17.26 acres. And, finally, a C-C, community business district, at 28.45 acres. The site is located on the north of Chinden Boulevard. It's approximately a quarter mile west of Black Cat Road, extending east and, then, continuing east. So, this is the western boundary. Continuing east they have about 5,300 feet of frontage on Chinden Boulevard. It's composed of ten separate tax parcels and five different property owners. There are some existing uses on the site. There is an existing tree farm in this approximate location and there are some other homes on the site. I think there is another one back over here somewhere. I did want to just mention this property is not currently within the city's area of impact. It is up on the City Council's agenda for this next Tuesday, the 7th, as part of the north Meridian comp plan amendment the city is proposing to annex in the subject site on this map and I apologize for the scale. The subject property is going in this approximate location and Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 60 of 90 extending back and goes like this. It butts up to Spurwing on the eastern side. There is a potential school site shown here. I guess I'll run through the proposed comp plan designations for the property real quick. This is a mixed use community designation. As I mentioned, a potential school site. The yellow is a medium density residential and the green is low density residential. The applicant has submitted a concept plan with the subject annexation and zoning application. There is not a preliminary plat or no land uses are being proposed at this time or subdivision at this time. This is a copy of a concept plan. In the staff report I did touch on several of the concepts and the street systems and adjacent parcels and things. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed concept plan. I think I will just touch on a couple of those real quick. The first thing, I guess, was the legal descriptions with the property. There is some discrepancy over ownership in this north area and I will get to that here in a second. I have asked the applicant to kind of clarify their understanding of who owns what kind of up in that area, because I talked to their surveyor and it's not real clear. The chain of title is a mess and just -- you will probably hear, I imagine, from a couple people about what's going on up there today and, like I said, I have another exhibit that I will jump back to soon. The comp plan -- I just want to -- while we are talking about descriptions, along the western boundary of this -- this is West Wing Estates. They have a 75 percent open space lot that is up for redevelopment here soon. It was done in the county, I think 1991 or something like that, in their 15 year moratorium to be platted, is up here shortly -- soon, anyways. And they are showing low density residential on the proposed future land use map. The applicant was proposing to have an R-15 adjacent to that property to create a transition. Staff is recommending that it be R-8 and, then, they have at least one block of -- more R-8 and -- R-15, R-8, excuse me, and, then, the remainder parcel could come back in, redevelop their open space with a low density residential for that transition from your R-15 higher density stuff to an R-8 medium and, then, the anticipated low on the property. So that is a request of staff. Stub streets. There were several stub streets outlined in the development agreement and the staff report. Basco Lane -- and I'm not going to spend too much time on Basco Lane. It is an existing private lane that takes access to Chinden Boulevard and, then, comes up and crosses the Phyllis Canal and heads -- continues north. That is one of the primary access points for several parcels in here. I'm not exactly even sure who all has an interest in that at this time. There is an agreement that was formed with Anderson and MDC, which is a subject applicant owner and one other party that I'm forgetting the name of. There is some language in that -- in that agreement that does restrict that lane being used for, basically, anything other than what it's being used for now and some other language that basically says that you cannot build a public street here in this location. Again, it's basically for as is and not future development. I did submit a memo to the Commission earlier and the applicant before the hearing, based on a letter that we received from the applicant yesterday and sitting down with the applicant and discussing the staff report with them. There were a couple of the conditions or provisions of the development agreement that in working with Mike Cole as well, we decided that it would probably work best to reword some of those conditions, so just to have that handy, I guess. I'll not spend too much time on them. Numbers five and six on page 11 had to do with sewer and water service. Just some points of clarification there in that, that it's just -- they are standard requirements, really, and just spelling out that this site is not sewer-able at this time and it will probably Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 61 of 90 be at least a couple years before sewer is even available out there. Number nine talks about the current access points and it was the intent of staff that when a development application is submitted, then, we will condition it, but your access points to Chinden go away, not that once you submit an application, then, all of a sudden your accesses go away, but as through the development process we will condition it that existing access points to Chinden Boulevard need to be abandoned and only provided at the half mile or at the arterial intersections, as UDC requires. Number ten. Basically staff did not feel -- Black Cat is shown as a future arterial. Staff did not want to propose, restrict, analyze, even, access points to Black Cat at this time and make that a provision of the development agreement. We will have another shot when they come in for preliminary plat approvals in the future to look at access points and see what makes sense. Chinden I did want to say, hey, you get these ones and that's it. Black Cat will have another shot at it. We can say this is what ACHD -- this is what their policy is and these are where your access points are, rather than approving them at this time. So, number ten just says that they are still subject to review and approval in the future by us and ACHD. Number 12. This has to do with the current Basco Lane. The last exhibit on the staff report had what I have access to and that's the Ada County assessor's records as ownership. So, when I click on a parcel it will give you the information that they have for who owns the parcel. They aren't always right. I will not say that they are. But that's what we generally go off of when we try to show ownership of parcels. Condition number 12 has to do with this question of how do you get to -- there is a large -- and I'm not even sure how many acres they have -- down over the Phyllis Canal down below and it goes to the river. But, really, the best location to have a public street come down and serve this property, as well as Black Cat -- sorry I'm going off the map -- Black Cat extended in the future, is to have this crossing be here. There is an existing access and it just -- based on topography, makes the most sense. However, there is this ownership question. So, number 12 just says if the current Basco Lane can't be used or the easement that I was mentioning earlier, this easement agreement, muddies things up and not all the parties can agree to use this crossing for a public street. Then, another access -- another stub street somewhere -- somewhere in this area, more than likely right along the western property boundary here, will be evaluated and even required if this can't -- can't happen in that location. So, that's kind of what number 12 does, is it makes it -- you know, the preference is for a road to come down here. If that can't happen, we need to get a road over there, so it needs to come in this location. And number 13 is just a -- the current tree farm owner or someone representing the tree farm anyways, had some concerns about an existing structure or structures on the tree farm not being able to comply with the setback requirements, because they are already too close to Chinden. This is something that's pretty standard that we deal with on a fairly regular basis anyways with residential homes that will encroach five or ten feet even, to required landscape buffer and we do have a mechanism through alternative compliance just for those instances where there is existing structures or there is other conditions that don't make full compliance feasible. So, the intent is not to have them have to knock down structures. As a business they are lawfully created in the county and will landscape around them or add some additional trees to kind of meet the intent of the landscape buffer anyways. With that I will note that we did receive a letter -- I received a letter this afternoon from White Peterson. I don't know if Mr. Nary got a copy Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 62 of 90 to all of you or not. It was quite lengthy. There is 20 pages or so in it, anyways. I just got it this afternoon. But did want to make a note that we did get that today and I think with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Staff is recommending approval of the subject application. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Any questions of staff? Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would have a couple of questions. One of them is on page three and this would be a clarification. Paragraph six, land use, E, existing constraints and opportunities, item two, vegetation, there are some existing trees on this site that should be protected or mitigated for when this property develops. That's an understatement. It's a tree farm. My question is is there a distinction between planted trees for decoration and retail stock or wholesale stock that is not intended for -- to remain there? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't think we have written that into the UDC, but certainly it's not the intent that every time they sell a tree they have to plant one to mitigate for it. So, I think when the preliminary plat comes in and if there are any trees that need to be removed that have -- that have been planted there not for sale, that they will need to mitigate for those trees or protect those trees, hopefully. So, we will work with the parks department in the future to have them go out there and say what trees need to be protected and what trees need to be mitigated for. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. And you mentioned Basco Lane and, actually, on page 12 and maybe it appears somewhere else. Page 12, item 9, when the property develops, Basco Lane access to Chinden Boulevard will be abandoned. Somewhere else in the report it mentioned that the reasoning for that was that Basco Lane was on the quarter mile. By your drawings it appears to be on the half mile and would be the correct place to have a collector and a public road that would go all the way to the Aldape property. Am I saying that correctly? And the only reason I'm familiar with that is it came up at the Comprehensive Plan amendment hearings. Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, you're right, the -- and I'm sorry I didn't have that exhibit, but there is a frontage or back-age road shown along Chinden on that map you're talking about, the north Meridian transportation system map or whatever we call it, that is part of this comp plan amendment. So, that the entrance comes in at the half mile and the collector -- it doesn't have to be a straight collector, the applicant is proposing a collector street system and it may loop as the whole collector or have one leg of it or the other be the collector. I mean it's to be determined. But they have agreed that a collector from Chinden to the north will be constructed when they come in for preliminary plat. So, that is something -- Zaremba: And one way or another that will go all the way to the north property line? Hood: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 63 of 90 Zaremba: Okay. Hood: And, then, so that, then, the existing tree farm can take an access to that future roadway and not utilize the access now. So, those can go away. Zaremba: One other question on page 12, item 15, all contiguous property currently owned by MDC at level C is part of a subject annexation application. I agree with that. That that should happen. I think the City Council will agree with that. We don't like out parcels owned by the same people, but my question is 11 -- Exhibit A is legal descriptions. Would that change the legal descriptions that need to be provided? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, it's still a question to me. Mr. O'Neil came into the office yesterday, had an exhibit. There may be a piece of property that MDC owns that's not contiguous, so that should probably be written into that number 15, that any contiguous property that MDC owns be part of the -- Zaremba: It does currently -- Hood: Okay. So, if -- and that's why I say, this is really -- I have not seen any two documents that show it the same. There is really a question mark out there of who owns what. Zaremba: I guess the issue is that the way you showed it as the County Assessor apparently has it and since that's the taxing authority, I would hope they are correct some of the time. Not that I want to speak to the motivation of the current applicant, but that would be a perfect spite strip -- spite strip if they wanted the road not to go all the way through and I don't think we should allow that. Hood: And I will let the applicant address that a little bit more, but that's exactly what staff's concern was, too, is that if, in fact, you own this, then, there is no way for the TICO One parcels on the east side to go anywhere. I mean they can't, then, provide that access to the Aldape property and that's why the condition that I read in earlier. Then, another stub needs to happen somewhere else, because the road does need to get down to those folks and if it can't happen there, it needs to happen somewhere else. And these -- that's the ideal situation for it to happen right there. And I think the applicant is willing to allow them to use that, but there are some other folks that are subject to this agreement that mayor may not be willing to cooperate and that's where the -- I have not seen correspondence from them saying we are willing to allow anything other than what's in the agreement that they created five years ago, whenever that easement was created to happen on Basco Lane. So, right now just looking at it, it doesn't look like it can be a public street there, based on the existing easement. So, that's why we have kind of written in the plan B. Not the ideal situation, not the preferred route to go, but if that happens and we -- they can't all get together, then, we still need to get a road down there. So, does that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 64 of 90 Zaremba: Thank you. Yes. I'm done. Rohm: All right. Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? O'Neil: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Derrick O'Neil, 222 East River Walk, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. I'm here tonight as a representative of the Treehaven, LLC, the applicant for the project. We will definitely deal with some of the issues that were talked about, but before that I'm going to step back and, as you said earlier, this is our opportunity to sell to you why we believe this is a good project. So, I'm going to do that in a ten minute -- or a ten second version -- ten minute version, as opposed to the time and effort that we have put into this so far. So, the first thing that I want to do is remind you tonight that the purpose we are here for is for the annexation and zoning of 358 acres, plus or minus. It is a large piece of property and I will get to that in a little bit. We will come back in; you will have another chance to see preliminary plats and more details, et cetera. You guys are certainly aware that this property -- I'm going to try to wait to see if we can get caught up. Take you through some exhibits. What I'm going to do is just jump passed the first slide and talk to you about -- a little bit about the team involved in the project. That's my slide four, but I will just fast forward until we get there. Treehaven, LLC, is a partnership between the Carnahan family -- the Carnahan family that's here tonight and they are long time Treasure Valley residents. They are the owners of the current Jaker Nursery, which people have referred to as the Tree Farm. They also have a house there. And so they have been around a long time. And, then, O'Neil Enterprises is our company, Pete O'Neil and myself. We have been developing in the Treasure Valley for the last -- over 25 years. What we have focused on is master planned residential communities. That's all we have done. And we have done it primarily here in the Treasure Valley, projects that I'm sure you're aware of. The rest of the team is our land planner, Downing, Thorpe, and James, who is out of Boulder, Colorado. They have been with us since the early '80s. What they focus on is land planning for master planned residential communities. Our engineer is River Ridge Engineering. Legal is Givens Pursley. And marketing we have a company is Stohl's Marketing Group. We put the team together first before we start anything on a piece of property. So, that's our team. Now that I'm caught up with the slides, I'm going to get you kind of oriented in a little bit different way. I think Caleb did a great job and just an anecdotal note I need to mention, tonight you guys had over 700 lots that were in front of you, not even including this. I got my draft staff report mid last week, which is earlier than I have gotten a staff report in any other jurisdiction. So, how you're keeping up with it I don't know, but these guys are doing a good job to keep up with it. In a regional context, I think it's important for you guys, you obviously are really aware of this area. This is the property right here. Eagle here. Star here. This is the rim. Phyllis Canal. So, the area below the rim. This is the much discussed McDermott. I'm not saying that that's in alignment, but that comes pretty much down McDermott and shows that somehow it's going to have to get across and over to there. All the stuff in white was -- up to two months ago what's been approved and being built. This is all now white based on what you have done in the last couple of weeks. This is the Bainbridge project. You were talking about access. Bainbridge access winds up exactly where we Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 65 of gO are at, one of our main accesses will line up. This is Spurwing. That gives you a fairly good idea of where we are in the world, of the regional area. As it relates to the property -- go to the next slide there, Jason. This doesn't show up real great, but it is 358 acres, plus or minus. There are two specific out parcels and the folks that are going to testify tonight would be the owners of this parcel and, then, the owners of this parcel. They are the two out parcels that are not owned or a part of the application. And those are, really, the two issues you're going to hear tonight. This is Basco Lane, the discussed item. This area, if you drive down Chinden, you're familiar with the red barn, that's the red barn. That is the Jaker nursery. And, then, you can see the rows of trees that are in there. Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct. We had, actually, comments on that same deal. If we have to preserve all the trees, we are going to be in deep trouble. There are some existing trees out there, though, that we will work hard to preserve that are big. In fact, there is a great willow tree here and that's part of what we do, we like to preserve and enhance landscape. And, certainly, the Carnahan family does. The Phyllis Canal, which runs here, right now there is two -- this is Black Cat and Black Cat stops here and, then, there is access to this property and it continues down here. There is about a SO-foot bluff from the top of the bluff down to the base of the canal. There are two areas, one currently crosses the canal and gets to the Aldape property down here and, then, the other has a little bit of a cut and is a logical area that ultimately could come down and cross over here. The rest of it is pretty steep bank. Then Spurwing Country Club here. This is the West Wing Estates, the non-ag or farm set aside that will convert back into the project at some point in time. So, that's a general property location. Yeah. And the Carnahan's house. Excuse me. That's Doug's house right there. That covers, essentially, the existing conditions. That's something we like to look at at the very beginning. We look at all the existing conditions, also irrigation laterals -- there is some irrigation here, there is irrigation here, all the elements that would require us to underlay a master plan. Next slide, Jason. We already talked about the project team. Next slide. Planning process. For us, we do an awful lot of work before we start drawing anything on a plan. We start out with existing features, conditions, drainage topography, existing buildings, et cetera. The next thing we do is have neighborhood meetings, in addition to the required meetings. We met with Spurwing, we met with surrounding owners, and it was a bit shock for many of them to say, geez, this 360 acres is going to be turning into a community. After we went through the kind of community most of them got very comfortable with what we were trying to do, but certainly you guys hear testimony all the time of people that are having trouble with that. So, we like to get their input to begin with. Then, we go to every agency we can think of that has something to do with the property, all the way from the highway district, Department of Transportation, drainage, and we sit down with them and say what are your concerns and we talk with them. Then we look at the Comprehensive Plan or the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for zoning requirements and we look at those and try to overlay those. And, then, lastly, but very important, we look at market conditions and competition. What's happening around us? What kind of projects are being done. Do we want to be just like everyone else or are we going to provide some alternative product, et cetera? We go through that for the planning process. Next slide. We end up with after probably 40 or 50 sheets of paper; we end up with what we call a concept plan. And that concept plan is based on the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2. 2006 Page 66 of 90 belief in master planning. We really believe that and you guys have seen that all night long. You have seen out parcels, you have seen small parcels, you have seen the benefit of having larger acreage assemblage and be able to master plan so it all has a plan and in the future you're not worrying about stubs, you're not worrying about a lot of things that you guys have seen tonight. So, master planning is a very important concept to us. And in doing so, we do it in a way that can allow separate different types of uses to co-exist well together. Commercial uses, higher density uses, residential, lower density uses. And we have done that in every project we have done and it's really -- they have worked well together. So, master planning is a key thing. Our goal-- we have about ten goals in terms of what we set out to create as the key elements for a community. Our first goal is to create an authentic sense of place and we can do that here, very fortunate, in that there is an existing tree farm. That's where we have debated that -- as someone talked earlier tonight about what to name the project and Tree Farm seems a very logical name. It may not be conventional, but it's very logical. That's what the property has been and there is a lot of identification to that. The next thing is there is an existing barn on the property that's used as offices for the retail nursery and we anticipate keeping that and having that a critical element as you enter the project, to create an authentic sense of place, to say that, you know, something was done here and they are keeping some of that. So, that's a key element. That second goal that we always work to is having greater diversity in housing. We really believe that. And we believe that for not only the product type, but also pricing. We believe that a greater diversity of housing creates a just more diverse social community. It creates a lot of different types of people. We think that's very positive. So, from a housing perspective, we took and looked at the existing constraints and condition in the comp plan and you will see that we have put the majority of our density along Chinden Boulevard, along with some commercial, and, then, we start scaling our density back until we get to the rim and we put some higher density housing. Black Cat -- Black Cat here. There is some discussion that it will come down the rim and maybe some day connect up to McDermott and across the river. So, we have put some different housing types along there with the thought that the highway district and the city is -- said that this would be an arterial at some point in time. So, our plan anticipates somewhere between 1,000 to 1,200 units and on the property that equates to just over three units per acre. Again, most of that density is along Chinden and, then, it moves back. About 15 percent would be estate housing or larger home sites. And, then, about 35 percent would be single family -- traditional single family housing. Thirty percent would be lifestyle housing and lifestyle housing, in our definition, is a smaller home site, a patio home, a cluster home, that is for -- what people were talking about tonight, empty nesters, retirees, single people, people in transition. And, then, the last component of our housing would be village housing and village housing would be condominiums, townhomes, or apartments. And that would be closer to the Chinden Road. So, diversity of housing is very very important. In diversity of housing, not just one area, one type, and, then, go like that, but we also have been able to mix different types of housing next to each other and around each other. We think that's important. The next element was everyday convenience in social interaction. We have a part of the property here, which is C-C, community commercial, and we are working on a plan now that would turn that into a combination of retail, office, restaurant, and things that would not Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 67 of 90 only benefit this area, but all the residents around here. Designing a way to become very compatible with the project here. And, then, the next element that's key and a goal to us is connection to nature and open space. Over 15 percent of the project, approximately, will be open space and our open spaces, what we like to do, instead of having just an all-in-one area, we like to link open spaces from one part of the project all the way to the other and put pathways within those open spaces, so you can from one point to the other. So, you see our open space ribbons separating neighborhoods, but also connecting neighborhoods. So, we have not only the connectivity of the roads, but we have pedestrian connectivity as well, so you don't always have to be on a road to get to areas. Next goal is -- for us is health and well-being. We have a significant community facility and neighborhood commercial area here. That community facility is on about a ten acre site and that would be for the use of the tree farm residence, it would tie together with our neighborhood commercial where we see child care, we see coffee shops, we see a retail nursery and not necessarily the wholesale nursery, but a retail nursery as our anchor in this neighborhood commercial area. It would have a workout area, a swimming pool, and be a very extensive place for people in the community to gather and recreate. Also, open space before that. And, then, we have a few other goals. Sustainable development. We are working on some things that incorporate responsible use of water recycling, storm water runoff, and energy efficiency. Then, lastly, to other key items. School. You notice on the comp plan that there was a school designated somewhere in this area and we have met with Wendell, we have talked to him -- until he saw this plan he didn't even -- he didn't even think of a school on the north side of Chinden. He saw this plan and he said, boy, there probably is a need for that. But it's not -- because the other school that you're working on is right over here in Keego Springs, I believe. We have met with them. We are willing to work with them. He hasn't decided that this is the only location and best located, but we certainly see a school as a positive to the community. We will continue to work with them and are excited about that potential. And, lastly, which I should have started with, because it's really how we overlay our plan, is transportation. And, obviously, the key elements with transportation are access to Chinden. We have met with the Department of Transportation, met with the highway district, and our key accesses -- only accesses are at the required -- what they are now requiring half section lines. So, this lines up directly across from Bainbridge and, then, this lines up directly across from Black Cat Road. And, then, you can see -- people have been calling this a backage road. I don't know that I would define it as that, but it accomplishes that. This is a collector -- commercial collector status road that allows a buffer or separation between more conventional residential uses and that and, then, we have a collector road here and, then, it connects over to here. And, then, stub streets, obviously, is a big topic. Every project you had has referred to that. So, we are going to -- stub streets were discussed and we are okay with a stub to here and we are okay with a stub somewhere in this neighborhood and Doug Carnahan is going to talk to that in a minute. So, from a timing standpoint, we are expecting a preliminary plat for the first phases in spring-summer of 2006. We are expecting to start construction so it's concurrent with the sewer that will be brought to Black Cat right now. Public Works has told us that's late 2007, early 2008, and we want to time up with that. We realize that that's in process and we are going to pay close attention to that. We are not going to get a project built without Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 68 of 90 having sewer. We are going to need to do that. And, then, the other think that I think is important -- and you guys have seen, is that on a project of this scale, we would have a very difficult time coming in and giving you a preliminary for the entire project. We will give you a preliminary plat for the first phase and, then, we will go forward and we can give you preliminary plats on larger parcels, but to preliminary plat 1,000 lots for us is taking the flexibility out of it, A, and it's also not letting us respond to the market and we think that's very very important. What's good today may not be good five years from now, seven years from how, ten years from now, and we see this as a ten year project plus some. So, that goes through kind of the sales pitch in a very very fast format. I want to talk quickly about the -- Rohm: Derrick? O'Neil: Yes. Rohm: We have got 15 minutes here, so you're going to have to conclude fairly quickly. O'Neil: Okay. I'll conclude quickly. I want to talk about the staff report comments. We are in general agreement with the conditions for the development as modified with the March 2nd, 2006, memo that Caleb sent you. There is two conditions on that, Condition 12 and 13, that Doug wants to talk to and I'll let him do that and we will kind of go from there. I'm going to turn it over to Doug, who is going to speak as a property owner and a business owner, if I can real quickly. Rohm: Quickly. O'Neil: Yes, I will, and he's going to get to -- he's going to get to the issues that I know that the public is going to talk about. Carnahan: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Carnahan, I live at 4410 West Chinden Boulevard. Derrick gave you a pretty good history and context of the property, but what I wanted to do is just visit that again very briefly. Let . me start with about 17 years ago my wife and I bought the property that's bounded in the green. It's 110 acres. We bought that, because we had a nursery that was started in Eagle and we moved our -- expanded operations and so started on that area in the green. And, then, about ten years ago, if you look at the area outlined in the blue up near the rim there, that's where we decided to build our home and that's where we reside today. And not today, we do plan to stay there. About five years ago, if you look at what's bounded in yellow, that's when we added incremental property to our holding to expand the nursery. But about three years ago it became clear, the die was cast, development was going to take place in a major way in this area, and so we opted to acquire another property that's further out in Middleton and started to move our growing grounds out there. So, we never really fully planted out that area that's bounded in the yellow. When we acquired the property in the yellow -- you heard reference to an agreement with the person Anderson and the other name was Thomas. Well, at the time we bought it the condition they put upon it, they said we will only sell it to you if you Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 69 of 90 agree you will not approve any public access or any expanded access over Basco Lane without our permission. And I said what's that about? And they said, well, we own all the property -- both sides of the Boise River north of the Aldape property and what we are interested in is we are turning that into a wetlands conservation area, we are going to preclude any development and make it a very natural state and we would just like the opportunity to put a -- to have some voice if anybody is to be doing things of increasing density or putting things down there, we'd just like some voice in there. I have subsequently talked to them and they have said we are not trying to stop any development, that's not our goal, but just keep in mind we are interested in knowing what's going on. So, that's a little bit of history I'll get to in some more detail. First I'm going to put on my -- Jason, can you flip back one slide? First I'm going to put on our nursery hat and, as I said, over time all of our growing grounds will be gone, but if you look in the purple, as Derrick said, we are going to retain the use of that space and we are going to use it for an office and a distribution yard. We have some infrastructure there, we have a number of buildings that some of them are relatively new and expensive and large and we have a limited amount of things that we can change and as the expansion of Chinden takes place, we are going to have some difficulties with setbacks, et cetera. There is a condition that we have to file a certificate of zoning compliance. We are concerned. We are concerned our business will be shut down, because a new set of conditions are going to be thrown upon us that we just can't respond to. And so we are very concerned. Our request is that -- there was some discussion about a use of alternative compliance. We would request that we are allowed some privilege for a broader use of alternative compliance, because we just can't take all our buildings, start moving them -- we have some real limitations. We have got canals, irrigation systems, we have got a number of things that we just can't be moving and picking up and changing or it will disrupt our operation significantly. So, we have operated there for 17 years and we want to use that space just the same. We will comply if it's reasonable, but we may not be able to comply in every case. So, we would ask for some help on that one. Rohm: Sir? Carnahan: Yeah. Rohm: I think, really, at this point in time you have done a pretty good job -- both of you of selling your project and I think maybe what would be best is if we gave the others an opportunity to voice their concerns and, then, you folks have the last word to come back up and respond to any questions from -- or comments from the audience. But, technically, we have already over -- we have exceeded your time here and I think that if we go ahead and allow them, then, you will have an opportunity to respond. Carnahan: Okay. But just can I ask one question? Rohm: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 70 of 90 Carnahan: So, I heard quite a number questions about the Basco Lane, about why -- what property did we not add, because it's not contiguous. I have answers to all those questions. I was going to walk through them. If you would like to hear answers to those questions, I'm happy to do it. Rohm: Yeah. Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, yeah, the Basco Lane seems to be something that's been ongoing for a number of months, so if we can quickly get through -- Rohm: It has been all along. Borup: If we can quickly get through that, I think that would be pertinent. Rohm: Let's go through that and that's it. Carnahan: Okay. So, this is Basco Lane. But let me -- on the prior slide you saw where my house is located. We are concerned that there is only two access locations from the upper ground to the lower ground. The logical place is Black Cat on the one hand and the ravine that Basco goes through today. Okay, Jason, can we have that next one? So, let me reference some parcels. This line is -- south of it is owned by Treehaven, the applicant. North of it, except for some parcels I'll mention, are owned by TICO One, which is owned by family that's also connected with the Aldape family. This parcel here I do absolutely not own. So, that's why we did not make the parcel that I do own, which is this one right there, that's why we did not include it in the application, because it's not contiguous. The issue is right -- with this letter, the issue is access right there. The concern is is that that's controlled through this letter with this other group of people, but I talked to them and I'm convinced that we can solve that problem. The issue -- the way the statement is written and the language of the staff report, they say there is two alternatives; we either put it right where Basco Lane is or you put it way up the cliff, which makes no sense at all. What really needs to happen is it has to move to the west and it has to move to the west, because if you look at -- right there were the road is in the red, that is -- you can maybe see the trees. That is a wooded hillside. What we own in that area is a wooded hillside. If you try to build a road, it's currently 12 feet wide in that area, you are going to have a lot of problems with removal of trees, that -- those are the trees on the property that are mature, they are 80 years old, that's a huge stand of trees all in that area. Also, if you don't have the rights to go across that property, why not just go like this? I wrote up a document that I feel totally comfortable with and let me try it on. A condition of approval for our development. The City of Meridian shall withhold signing of the final plat until one of the two following conditions are met with regard to providing public access from Basco Lane to the Aldape property north of the Phyllis Canal. One, MDC, LLC, provides easement across the parcel it owns -- and I have an exhibit. A legal description. That will allow a public road connection to the north of the Phyllis Canal. Two. An alternative plan for the public road access across the Phyllis Canal near Basco Lane as agreed to by the Meridian city planning staff. What I would suggest -- Basco can't stay where it is. It can't, because Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 71 of 90 there is another owner intervening there that's going to take years to find. Just move it over. It's owned by people that are the same family. Just move it over and let me deal with the issue of clearing that one up, which I feel comfortable taking that on and we can get our access. Does that answer the question? Rohm: I think it does. This application tonight is for zoning, not for roads or anything, and so I'm not sure that that has to be resolved tonight, but I appreciate your testimony, but I think the application that's before us is just for the zoning itself, so -- Zaremba: I would suggest, though, that that could be included as a development agreement. Rohm: And possibly will be. Thank you. Carnahan: Sure. Rohm: Okay. Bill Nichols. Nichols: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bill Nichols, 5700 East Franklin Road, Suite 200, Nampa, Idaho. I'm here to speak for the Rabehls. Mr. Rabehl would like to talk about his property a little bit with you, too, and I realize the hour is late, but I will try to make my points short and to the point. You have the position statement, which Bill Gigray in our office prepared and submitted and I apologize to staff, it was delivered to the clerk's office yesterday and we should have tried to get it to you the same day and I apologize for that. That was my doing, because I know Will likes to get those things and I said give them to Will first. I want to point out some things with regard to this and I will try to be brief. First of all, the Comprehensive Plan that applies to this application is the Comprehensive Plan that's in place at the time the application is made, not the Comprehensive Plan that's adopted later. And there is a case Blaser, I believe was the name of the case that dealt with that issue in Ada County and the holding is that the comp plan at the time the application was filed. So, to consider this application when it's not in your area of impact, it's not in the urban service planning area, violates those provisions from that case law in the urban -- the local Land Use Planning Act. Your current code requires that the annexation only occur within property that's in the urban service planning area and this is not. Sewer and water are not available and they won't be available until late. There was a reference in the staff report to negotiating with United Water and I sat where Mr. Nary sat for over four years and that's like Anathema and I can't understand why you would entertain an application where you would not have control over who supplies water, because if you give up control over the water, you also give up control over how you collect your sewer charges. The annexation without a development plan, specific develop plan, despite Mr. O'Neil's reasoned argument, doesn't make sense and the reason it doesn't make sense is as I can point out to you -- have you ever heard of Kodiak development and the problems that you had with that one when it was annexed and it was zoned without a specific development plan? That's one. The second one is the Kissler Cobb Rewe annexation. That one was also with a concept plan and that one also presented Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 72 of 90 problems to the city, because at one point it had you in a lawsuit over it and I submit to you that it's ill-advised to not have a specific development plan. A concept plan is just not specific enough. Annexation and zoning is your opportunity, through the development agreement, to get concessions from the developer and have those binding. Once it's annexed and zoned, the entitlement lies and, then, you're faced with just dealing with little preliminary plat issues. So, I submit to you it's not appropriate to do that. There is also, as revealed in our position statement, there is a bit of a boundary issue with the Rabehl's property and the Eggers' property. And, lastly, I would point out that the Highway 16 extension and the necessity of perhaps using Black Cat for that mitigates against some kind of annexation and a concept plan when you don't know what's going to happen with that. With that I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Any questions of Mr. Nichols? Zaremba: I would like a clear identification of where the Rabehl's property is. Nichols: It would be this property right here. Zaremba: It's the out parcel in the middle? Nichols: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. That was it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Nichols: Thank you, Commissioners. Rohm: Tuck Ewing. Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tuck Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado, Boise. I represent TICO One, which are these two parcels of dirt right there. One three acre parcel and one six acre parcel. I'd like to start off by saying I apologize for my bad speaking. I'm not a very good public speaker, so I will do the best I can, but -- and I'll keep it short. I'd like to say that we are in support of the annexation and proposed zoning that we have seen on their maps and we think it will be a good addition to the City of Meridian. At this stage we've really only got one major concern and, obviously, I think we all know what that is, it's Basco Lane and it's the access issue between our parcels of dirt there. And can we get that blown up map? This map was -- as staff said, pulled off of Ada County assessor's map and that's the map that we currently have been using as well. I know there has been discussions with Mr. Carnahan and Mr. O'Neil to the fact that there -- that could potentially be wrong, but at this stage I have not seen anything that shows why that's wrong or the map that Mr. Carnahan put up with the strip that he showed. So, the best thing that I guess that we can go off of right now is what Ada County is showing and is showing as their tax parcel. I guess our position on this thing right now is that the agreement that was made between the other parties, as far as the no access Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 73 of 90 down to the Aldape property, is definitely an issue, but it's really not an issue of Aldapes or TICO's, it's really an issue of MDC's and MDC is the one that's ultimately putting this - - MDC, along with Treehaven, putting this application in and so we feel they need to take care of that issue and we need the collector completely through this project clear through. They say they are taking the collector clear to their north property line, but their north property line really doesn't end with us, it really goes clear down to here. We are not suggesting that they have to come in and -- we have even went as far as saying that we would consider it, given the dirt needed to put the road through there of our property. So, I guess that, finally, the last thing I'd like to say is we'd like to see the legal description on this, if this annexation is approved, the legals show what Ada County has on their records and if the applicant disagrees with Ada County's records, I would like to see it tabled until such time that we had the real -- what really happened here, so that we could have that clarification before the annexation happened. So, with that I will answer any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. You touched on it a moment. You heard the suggestion that even the terrain would be more appropriate to have the roadway come through part of your property, as opposed to going through what's indicated as MDC. I have not been out there and looked at it, so I have no idea how valid that suggestion is, but can you comment on that? Ewing: Well, we can get with staff and show them -- we have got topography maps and everything. But this six acres -- actually, this right here falls right in the existing Basco Lane and from that point it actually starts going up the grade and, then, from over here it starts coming up as well. So, my opinion of it is that this strip right now really lies in the ultimate -- where the drainage ends, the water runs, and the road runs right now. Like I said, we wouldn't be against working with the developer and even given them dirt if they need some more, because, obviously, they do narrow down in a couple spots right up there at the south end and, then, again, up at the north end, but I think ultimately it's going to fall -- that road's going to fall somewhere in that location and it's not, in my opinion, going to be to the west, because of the geographic features that exist today. I know Mr. Carnahan talked about the trees, but I don't know that the trees will outweigh the amount of effort that's going to be needed to dig the side of the mountain off to move it over. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Sherry Ewing. S. Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Sherry Ewing and I live at 2934 Lake Hazel and I am representing the Aldape property and the Everest property, which is also down in the Aldape property. And my main concern is I just want to say that we need adequate access for emergency vehicles, for the future development of the property going to the Phyllis Canal, and I'm really feeling like we really need two Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 74 of 90 access points, Basco Lane being one and another one on the development. And the reason that I'm saying that is that's the only access that we have to our property. Black Cat does not connect to the Aldape property at all. So, that's one thing. I also want to make it clear right now that TICO One and the Aldape property have no ties. So, that was a misstatement from the other party. Do you have any questions? Borup: Mr. Chairman. Then who is the owner of TICO One? S. Ewing: TICO one is John Ewing, Tuck Ewing and Ben Ewing. And I have nothing to do with that, even though my last name is Ewing. And, then, the Aldapes is my parents and, then, the Everest is my sister. So, I don't have anyone in there. Borup: Okay. And your current access now is down Basco Lane? S. Ewing: That's the only access we have. The only access we have. Borup: But it did look like it narrowed down pretty tight, at least as far as what the assessor's note was showing, is that -- so that's just a real narrow road in those areas? S. Ewing: There is a dirt road that goes down to the canal and across the bridge. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I do have a question. And this has come up several times in Meridian. The ones that come to mind are Wingate Lane and Venable Road, where the ownership of an easement has been either in question or in a difficult situation. I would guess that your parents have some document that proves that they have the right to pass over property that they don't own and there would be some value to that document. The city, of course, doesn't enforce those things; it's a legal matter between the neighbors. But at the present they would have the right to enforce that document I would think. At least for the current use. The drawing that I see and even the statement by staff that Basco Lane should be abandoned, doesn't deal with that. And I guess -- I guess my question to you is is there anything that you or your parents could think of, because there is value to that easement, that maybe you could trade with the developer to -- you know, for giving up part of that easement, which you don't have to do? S. Ewing: Well, that easement was, actually, obtained by my grandfather, who bought the property in 1912. And at that time it was a wagon wheel road. And so I think what they are trying to do is keep it to two houses down there and agricultural. And, of course, we would like to develop it, we would like to possibly put a park down there and none of that would be possible with what they are wanting to give us right now. We would be land locked; basically, because that's the only way we have to get to our land. Zaremba: Well, I may need a legal comment on this, although Meridian isn't going to take up the legal aspects of it, but if you have the right to pass over that land, even with Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 75 of 90 a wagon wheel or one car or whatever, they can't take that away. Their plans show Basco Lane not existing. You have the right to say that's not possible, I believe. S. Ewing: That's not possible. Zaremba: And that gives you something to trade to say to them I need a complete connection or I need to continue all the way to Chinden the access that I currently have. Is that typical of an easement? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, yeah, I think it is typical of an easement. I mean, certainly, that's -- I mean you have raised the issue that we have dealt with before, but certainly if they have an easement and have a continuous right to have access through that property, they certainly have the right to maintain that. But it is between them and the property owners. It appears -- I guess I'm in the same quandary as the rest of the staff as to where the ownership pieces lie, but if you have an easement that gives you access all the way to Chinden, you're going to maintain -- you're going to be able to maintain that and have to deal with the property owners to how that's going to be. I think what's being proposed by the applicant was to simply move the access to a different spot, but still maintain the access there. Zaremba: I guess that was another part of my question. Does the easement or the access have to be maintained exactly where it has historically been or will an alternative satisfy it? Nary: It depends on what it says. Zaremba: Okay. Nary: I don't know. That's probably between the Aldapes and the Carnahans and maybe the Ewings. Rohm: Thank you, Sherry. Appreciate that. The next names are Art and Sandra Rabehl. How do you say that? Rabehl: Rabehl. Rohm: Rabehl. Rabehl: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Arthur Rabehl. My wife and I reside at 6745 North Black Cat Road. And we are the little parcel that is in question right there. We have lived there for the past 38 years now and, of course, it's a dead end road that as far as the highway district is concerned ends at my driveway. From there on it's the -- the road that does go passed there is just for access to the farming of the property around me there. But the highway district when they take and grade or anything, they grade to my driveway, because that is as far as they go. I want to take and state that I'm not opposed to development and so on. I mean it's something that's inevitable. It's Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 76 of 90 going to happen and we know that. But we want to take and protect ourselves as well as we can from things that are going on and -- because we do have quite an interest out there that we want to take care of. At the present time, like I say, we are on Black -- on the end of Black Cat where there is no traffic, no pedestrians, whereas if this project is to take and go on as it is stated, there is going to be an enormous amount of traffic, it's going to completely change the way things are right now. As far as the view, like I say, from where we are there you can look to the Bogus Basin, all of Boise front, up north to Squaw -- that's changed, but Squaw Butte. And you go off to the southwest you got the Owyhee mountains and so on, a very clear, beautiful view. With all these houses that they want to take and put in, we are going to see walls, roof tops, a lot of people, a lot of cars and if you go to the south there is going to be stores down there and you're going to see the back of the store walls. We got a couple other concerns and that is that I take and raise some pigs out there and some cattle, hay, and so on and what's the complaints going to be when it smells a little bit? I mean I have heard of grandfather rights and things like this, but it seems like after a little bit complaints are raised and pretty quick you're squeezed out and as I say that's a real concern to me. The other thing that I have got is that we have a boundary issue that has arisen. When we bought the property out there I would say 38 years ago, we had 4.08 acres. Now, we are listed at 3.85 I think it is and I haven't sold anything. Rohm: You're shrinking. Rabehl: It shrunk. What we did do with the former owners, which was Bill and Berrith Crookham is on this corner right there Bill was having troubling going around that corner and he's got a road all the way around that -- the west -- it went around this way like this to start with. And he was having trouble getting around there with his equipment in that corner down there. The other part was that the irrigation ditch went through here and zigged up into my area more, so he came to me and he said, Art, would you take and consent to changing the ditch? At first he said let's go this way and straight and I said, no, I said let's go south and straight and he said okay, we do that, can I take and have a little piece of your corner down there, which I had agreed upon and he agreed. And so that is the only change that we have had in the property, but, actually, I picked up more ground on this side than what he got on this side, but I lost on the tax assessment now and so there is an issue there that we have and that we are going to have to get squared away and get that settled before we can really move on I think. I mean because at the present time what they are -- Doug is getting could be my ground and I don't want to be annexed at this time. So, that's where I stand on that, so -- do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask was the land swap agreement recorded or was it just a gentleman's handshake? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 77 of 90 Rabehl: That was a gentleman's handshake, which we -- we both know now that we should have done -- you know, had it surveyed at that time and done it, but we didn't. It was just a -- you know, a gentleman's agreement and that's what we did. Zaremba: So, if the county doesn't know about the swap, your acreage shouldn't have changed. Rabehl: But there is a map out there that -- and I don't have a copy of it here. That does show an overlay of the corner up there as it was and as it is now, it's a fence line, and, of course, as you can see, this line here is going to be straight where the ditch actually is, it doesn't show the zigzag, so I'm not for sure how they come up with these - - because we didn't file it, which, like I say, that was our mistake that we didn't do it, so - Borup: Sir, when you originally bought your property, did you have a survey at that time with the metes and bounds description? Rabehl: Yes. Yes, we do. Borup: So, that's still the same description that your deed shows today, then. Rabehl: Right. Right. Borup: So, it seems to me like that should be your property. Zaremba: That 4.8 acres. Borup: Well, I don't know how many acres it is, but that should be your property, whatever your deed shows. Rabehl: But the -- like I say, we got the -- dug out the tax papers and they showed us with less property and Doug mentioned that, so I'm not for sure what the heck -- Borup: I think whatever is recorded at the recorder's office would take precedence over tax information. Rabehl: I hope it does, but that's something we need to check out, because we are not for sure now just where we do stand. Borup: So, it would probably be worth checking out. Rabehl: Yes. Rohm: Thank you. Rabehl: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 78 of 90 Rohm: John. J. Ewing: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I'm John Ewing, 2934 East Lake Hazel, Meridian, Idaho. Just a quick point. My feeling is is that -- and I know this is for annexation, but Basco Lane keeps coming up. Our property, TICO One, my two boys and I's property, I feel like that -- and I'm just going to kind of repeat some of the things that were said real quick, but there is an issue with who owns that land. I think that I would like to see this not be granted until we knew who does own the land. I will make it real clear, we will do -- we will be good neighbors and we can work and see if we move, but definitely if we move the road to the west, we have got as big an issue or they do of going down there as they do between the yellow and the white and the -- and the purple area here. So, you know, the only thing I can see different is the 300 and some acre development wants to take this six acres right there and take part of it. But, anyway, the bottom line is is I would like to see who owns the property through there, with legal descriptions, and before this is approved I think that the owners of that land, if it's not them, be notified -- legally notified that these hearings are going on where they can put their two cents worth in and so that's my feelings on it. I will stand for questions or sit down. I'm still in the green. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I have got a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Your last comment that someone should be notified if they own -- what were you referring to there? Ewing: What I -- you know, this is something new. Ever since my two sons and I have owned that property, we have always been told that we did not own the land that actually the tree farm did. Borup: Which land are you referring to? Rohm: Basco Lane? Ewing: Basco Lane. The land through our -- you know, actually, the other map is a lot better. We were always told we didn't own any of this. We were told we didn't have access to any of this. We have had quite a bit -- and we also was told that this was also -- all of this land that's dashed was owned by the same owners that have the tree farm. Carnahans. Now, it's just been the last week that this has come up that they don't own it and stuff and I'm not saying they do own it, I don't know. You know, I'm not saying that they -- Borup: But you said someone needs to be notified, another owner. Ewing: Well, what I'm saying now is as if they are saying they don't own the section in here and they don't own this, somebody's got to own it. And all I'm saying is is I have always heard -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 79 of 90 Borup: Okay. Ewing: -- that property owners within so many feet of a project-- Borup: No. I understand what you're saying. You're saying if they don't own it, somebody else does and they need to be notified. Do you feel comfortable that the survey that you have is accurate on the property that you do own? Ewing: Well, yeah, it was a certified survey and -- Borup: Okay. Ewing: -- and we have got it. We can still find all of our pins. I guess to answer your question, I feel very good that ours is right, but, you know, if our neighbors come and say our survey is wrong and they show us and -- you know, and our -- and everybody accepts that, that's all right. 1-- Borup: Okay. Ewing: I think it's as good as you can ever think that any of your surveys are. Borup: I understand. Ewing: Yeah. Borup: Thank you. Ewing: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Just a comment on that. It would seem to me that the tax assessor's office would send out a bill every year. If that bill's not being paid, then, this property is in default and the county would take it and auction it off. If it has been paid, would the county assessor tell us who sent the check? Does anybody know the answer to that? Borup: Well, they probably would, but just because the county bills you and the person pays it, if you own multiple properties, it's hard to figure out what goes to where and, believe it or not, they do make mistakes. Zaremba: Well, there would have to be two mistakes. The county would have to be a mistake in who they were sending it to and that person would have to mistakenly pay it. Borup: But it happens a lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 80 of 90 Zaremba: I guess I wonder is it possible to find out who has been paying it, if it's been paid? Borup: I think so. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to -- does this burden fall to us to sort out the Basco Lane problem or does it not fall to the property owners in question here? Rohm: Well, I think that, ultimately, is falls back on the property owners themselves, but what I'm kind of thinking after taking the testimony tonight, that we have got a lot of information here that needs to be absorbed and I personally don't think that I'm anywhere close to being ready to move forward with this and I think that as a Commission we would not be doing justice to the application or any of the other concerned parties by acting on this tonight and my personal opinion is that we should continue this and have an opportunity to read the 22 page letter issued by Mr. Gigray's office and also take into consideration all the testimony we have heard tonight and possibly even confer with staff some more and -- and I don't think that there is anything that we can move forward with tonight that would provide any concrete solution to response to the application and that's -- Borup: And that may be, but, Mr. Chairman, I do have two questions I'd kind like to see if staff may be able to answer. Rohm: I mean I'm not saying that we need to shut it down right at the moment, I'm just saying that I don't think that we are going to get a -- I wouldn't recommend we make a motion to conclude this thing, but go ahead. Borup: The two questions I have -- and I don't know if it was a right assumption, but assuming responsibility on access to the north would go as far as ownership of the applicant would be, would that be correct? Hood: That is correct. Borup: Okay. So, the only -- so, the part that -- whether Basco Lane is pertinent to this would determine where that north -- or that north access point would be or the north stub street. If the property does end right there, that's where that would end. If they do own it clear to here, then, I assume -- so, it sounds like -- is that where the question -- the contention is? I don't know if it's -- I shouldn't say contention, but that's where the question may be? So, someone has to determine where the north property would go to. So, I think this ownership is pertinent to that extent -- in that aspect. The other thing -- the only thing I had a question on is that of the legality of -- I mean this is not in our area of impact. Have we ever looked at anything before as far as an annexation when it Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 81 of 90 hasn't even been in the area of impact? Is there any legal aspect we should be taking into consideration here or are you comfortable with proceeding as we have started? Rohm: I think that we have taken into consideration applications along our east line of our area of impact where it butts up against the city of Boise and there has been swaps all along that -- that east line and -- Borup: But this is a parcel that's not in any city's area of impact. Rohm: It's not in the City of Meridian's area of impact and that's where it is similar to property along the east line of the City of Meridian where we will go into areas that is outside of our area of impact. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Go ahead. Zaremba: I believe I recollect reading somewhere in the staff report that that issue is, actually, going to be heard by the City Council March 7th, which would be next Tuesday. That's one more reason for us to continue this and not try and make a decision tonight. The action of the City Council, we -- if they act on our recommendation, which was to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, then, upon that happening this will be in our area of impact. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: So, like I say, that's one more reason to continue it. I also feel that there are a number of issues -- and I won't call them legal issues, but border issues to identify exactly what property is being annexed and agree with staff, if there is common ownership of any parcel that's not included, it needs to be included. We don't want little pieces left over. There must be some way to prove that or not prove that. And that's something that would be cleared up during a continuance. I'm sensitive to the fact that applicant's and developers usually want to move stuff forward as fast as they can and I would be more sensitive if there were already a plat or CUP coming with it. This is only an annexation. We aren't slowing them down. The sewer won't be there for two years. So, they can't really start moving anything. I don't believe we are doing any damage to the applicant to continue it. Rohm: I would concur with that. I would also offer one additional comment that in all of our considerations on development, we are always talking about having a continuance of accessibility from one property to the next. I don't see this as any different than any other application in that regard. If, in fact, this property is to be developed, it is going to have to provide an opportunity for egress to the property to the north, whether it's Basco Lane or some other road that's adjacent or otherwise, because there is no way that they can land lock their neighbors to the north. And I just throw that out as a comment, not necessarily for anything to be resolved tonight. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 82 of gO Zaremba: It might be appropriate to have the applicant come back and speak. Rohm: You may come up, yes. No. No. We are not trying to stop you from discussing anything. P. O'Neil: There is no problem with a continuance. I think we can clear up -- I sense some confusion -- Zaremba: Sir, you need to state your name. P. O'Neil: Yeah. I'm Pete O'Neil, 100 North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho. Yeah. I think there has been some confusion and what I'd like to do is try to shed a little light on that if I might. As -- you know, I can't help but make the observation that the bulk of the conversation tonight was dealing with parcels that weren't part of any master plan that kind of got left out and stub streets and access onto Locust Grove and so on and so forth. We've worked hard for 25 years just to try to include things so you avoid that. We haven't been successful yet, because the Ewings decided not to be part of the annexation process. The Rabehls initially were part of it, they were advised that they should pull out, so they did. We have met with them before, during, and after all of these processes. So, let me make a couple of observations. In terms of our understanding of can you annex property that is not in the impact area, we were asked by the City of Meridian to request consentual annexation of our property. If that came before the impact area change, so be it. So, we were doing what we were requested to do by the city. City services, we have discussed that, we understand that's all in process. The services for us are no different than the services for the acres and acres and acres of projects you approved to the south of Chinden before the services were there. So, there is really not a big issue there. As far as the Rabehls are concerned, you know, I really respect somebody who moved out to the country a number of years ago to live in the country, just like the Carnahans did, just like John Ewing bought the property and so on. So, the fact is the world's changing out there. You're not going to be able to protect four acre ranchettes forever and that's unfortunate, but, you know, the progress, if that's what it is, has moved west and things are changing. Now, we are trying to be good neighbors, want to work with everybody. If there is a property dispute on Ruvel's property that we can help resolve, we are happy to do it. We have the legal description of Eggers and the legal description that we are matching up, we have told them we will do what we can to resolve. So, I don't think that's -- those are serious issues. We'd like to work with them. We probably got ahead of ourselves by having an appraisal done on the property, so, you know, at least a starting point on what would happen if we gave you some money and you can go duplicate your rural lifestyle somewhere else. We have acquired the Avery's property, which is on the corner of Black Cat and Chinden for the same purposes. The Ewings' access concerns, the Aldape access concerns, are legitimate concerns. As it relates to Ewing, we have made it very clear and I think they understand that this is a collector road and we will give them a stub with all the services on the collector road to the neighboring property to the north. The fact that there is an easement that goes through their property to Aldape's, I Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 83 of 90 don't think it's our responsibility to build a collector road over an easement, regardless of who owns it, you know, across a neighboring piece of property to the next piece of property. But I guess the lawyers can figure that out. The Aldapes have a -- and we have met with them several times -- a very serious concern. They don't want to be land locked. They don't want to be limited to two houses, an easement to two houses. We have never said we are going to limit them to an easement to two houses. There is ample room and Mr. Carnahan showed how that would work, of getting a collector road down the canyon. He will do what he can to make sure any property that he controls will be available for that right of way. Some of it's going to have to come out of Ewings' property when they come in with an application to access the property to the north. Now, to Tuck's point, this legal confusion -- legal description confusion, he's dead right. I mean we met with John and Tuck ten days ago, we are looking at the same stuff and we got two or three different pictures of it. We have had the smartest title people and the smartest lawyer people in town and they don't even agree. We received two days ago, you know, the latest update on who owns what. Doug actually went out with a surveyor again on the ground, so on and so forth. We promised the Ewings that we would sit down, share with them everything we have learned, they can share with us everything they have learned, and I'm absolutely convinced, A, there is a resolution to who owns what, and, B, regardless of who owns it, there is a way to get from the Ewing's south boundary to the Ewing's north boundary without screwing up their property and allowing the Aldape access. I will say that to -- for us to provide two accesses to the Aldape property I think is unreasonable and unfair. You're opening up a can of worms of 1,400 acres below the Phyllis Canal north to the river, which, as you know, is grounds for World War III with your neighbors to the north and so on and so forth as to who controls that ground. We have suggested Basco Lane is one approach to that ground to the south -- from the south and Black Cat is the other. Now, whether it comes from Duck Alley or whether it lines up on Pollard or something to the east or west, there is a much bigger issue than one property owner's property there and I don't think that's a subject of this annexation or agreement -- or up to us to resolve. It's up to bigger powers and bigger problems and bigger politics to resolve. I will say as developers of the property on the rim and Doug as the owner, we care what happens down there and we are going to want something nice to happen down there, so it's pleasant for the owners and it's -- we are planning open spaces on the rims, so everybody can enjoy the views and so on and so forth. So, I think that's -- that's all I can add and we are not opposed to a continuance, but I just thought rather than leaving all of these things dangling, they are not quite as confusing as they are made out to be and I -- Doug might reiterate his commitment to making this happen. Rohm: Yeah. Actually, I think it's clear enough that I'm pretty sure that just a continuance at this point will suffice and all of this will be worked out over the next couple of weeks and I would say also that the area of impact adjustments that the Commission has forwarded onto City Council recommending approval includes this property that you're talking about, just as Commissioner Zaremba pointed out, and so I don't think that there is anyone on this side that is the least bit interested in stalling this. We are all on the same page. We are all trying to work to the same goal. So, that's -- if we -- I or any of us left you with the impression we are trying to stop this, I apologize. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 84 of 90 P. O'Neil: No. I understand that. I just wanted to clear up -- and there is one other issue that -- Nary: You need to get closer to the mike, sir. P. O'Neil: Bill Nichols mentioned that you can't annex and zone without having a detailed plan. Then, I have been operating illegally for 30 years, because that's the way I have done every project we have done. We have done PUD's. We have got annexed. We have got zoned. We have got concept plans. And we come back in with detailed plans. I think that provides a much better end product than coming in with these monster subdivisions of cookie cutter lots. But mean I would argue that all day with anybody who wants to. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman? P. O'Neil: Could I say just one -- I'm concerned. I'm concerned because I saw four people stand up there and say we are trying to restrict access and do -- what I said was that we support public access through there and we are willing to have that condition upon our agreement and I heard all this -- I don't know where it came from. I just wanted people to understand real clearly. We support public access down that location in the ravine. I don't want to chop down a bunch of trees to do it, but we support it and we can deliver it and I just don't want there to be any confusion on that, because there sure was based on what I heard from the comments and I know who owns those parcels. I absolutely have certainty on who owns those parcels. So, just to clear that up. Rohm: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman? I just wondered if I could at least address the legal issues that the Commission has raised and some of the comments, if you would like. I don't know when you're going to continue it, so I don't know who will be sitting here. What was raised -- a couple of different issues were raised and one was the Blaser case, which is an old case from the Cty of Boise, but that's not an area of impact case, that's a city limits case, and whose law applies at what point when property is annexed into the city and that case involves entitlements that pre-existed annexation. So, the court -- the Idaho Supreme Court in that case addressed it pre-existing entitlements to properties that were in the county that were annexed into the city of Boise. I don't necessarily think it's analogous to this situation. Idaho Code allows for cities to annex consentual properties that are contiguous, whether they are within or without the area of impact. As all of you have stated, the City of Meridian has requested an area of impact adjustment, that process is ongoing; it is in front of the City Council Tuesday for their final consideration. If they do make a final decision on Tuesday, it still has to go to the Ada County commissioners for their agreement as well, but once it is approved by the city, Meridian Plannin9 & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 85 of 90 the city can begin to apply its land use zones and land use regulations to those properties at that particular point. This obviously -- the Commission is a recommending body. So, this project would not reach the City Council until after that other one or your recommendation could be for the City Council not to consider it until they have completed that area of impact adjustment process. The staff's recommendation isn't to annex the property until that's all completed anyway, because applying the appropriate zones and the like is part of the process. So, there really isn't a particular legal issue there. The city code allows the city to annex an area outside its area of impact. There is a conflict with the Ada County code, but that's for the Ada County commissioners to decide on whether enforcement is appropriate. If they choose to enforce, I guess they'd have to enforce it against the city of Eagle as well, which they have chosen not to do, because they have the exact same conditions with the city of Eagle and they have allowed Eagle to annex outside its area of impact and have chosen not to enforce the Ada County code in relation to the city of Eagle. So, there isn't a legal issue on annexation. This city has the right to annex property that is contiguous, that is consentual. So, that isn't an issue. I don't believe Mr. Nichols' stated as Mr. O'Neil heard, that we cannot annex property that is only on a concept plan, I think he was -- maybe I misunderstood him. I think what he was saying is he wasn't recommending to you as a Commission to recommend it, nor would he recommend to the City Council, who has the ultimate decision, to do that and he cited two examples and I know Mr. Nichols knows I know the Kodiak project and the Kessler Rewe project just as well and there were some issues and some problems that those two projects had when they were annexed based on concept plans. But as this Commission knows and the City Council knows, the Uniform Development Code has cleared up many of those issues about what happens to properties when they get annexed, how to deal with these conceptual plans and attach them to the underlying development that's going to come in, how do development agreements that we have been doing may address those types of concerns. But, again, those are all discretionary choices that the City Council can make and choices that this body can make as a recommendation to the City Council. They aren't prohibitions to annexation; they are simply considerations that this body can make as a recommendation going forward. The final issue that was raised was on water and whether or not it's wise to annex property when the water issues may still be up in the air. We, actually, have made significant progress as a city with United Water on some of the areas that they are either currently serving or would like to serve. I guess we are confident and comfortable that those issues can be worked out. And, again, most of these services, I think as Mr. O'Neil stated, you approved projects tonight that there aren't services available currently and there aren't services that may be available for a year, year and a half, two years. These projects know that. We include that in the conditions of approval, so there is certainly no hiding the ball there. They recognize what they take at this particular point if they choose to annex consentually. So, I just wanted to address those legal concerns, so that as -- if you're going to continue this matter as it appears you may, that is an issue I would hope maybe -- if you have a question we can answer it tonight, but that you don't have to re- factor in or concern yourself with for the next time period and if you want to focus on some of the other issues, like whether or not this issue on the north and the access road and those type of things need to be cleared up before you feel comfortable making a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 86 of 90 recommendation, you can focus on those things and not these other legal issues. And, certainly, you want to have opportunity to read the objection that's filed by the White Peterson, but I, hopefully, have addressed at least the issues that were raised tonight. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your comments and I think at this point in time what I would recommend is we get a motion to continue this until the -- at least the April 6th regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning and we will have opportunity to digest and we may end up having to continue it yet again. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: Before we do that, I would add one comment to Mr. Nary's excellent remarks, and that is to Mr. and Mrs. Rabehl. There is provision for us to include what's called the Right- To-Farm Act, and which protects you from complaints of people that got there after you and that is something that's usually attached to the plat, not to the annexation, but that issue will come up if they file a plat and right on the plat they put Right- To-Farm Act, which means anybody that buys a house that backs up to your property line, knows you have animals and raise hay and their complaints are not accepted. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: May I make a comment? Rohm: You may. Newton-Huckabay: Or ask a question? What exactly will we be resolving on April 6th? I don't see any clear issues that would hold up annexation on this. I mean I understand there are these disputes -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the things I'd like to see is the new configuration with the additional R-8 parcel along the eastern boundary; I'd like to see a final depiction of that. Rohm: And it might not be a bad idea to vocalize those things that you'd like to see, so that we will have additional information to make better decisions from whatever date we continue it to. Before we go on, if you will -- one more comment. O'Neil: Derrick O'Neil again. I was just going to follow up on that. It would help us a lot and I'm sure help everyone if we could come to some things that we need to focus on, so when we come back to you we will be addressing the specific issues that you have. Rohm: And I concur with that, but I don't know that we can list every single concern that there may be. I think that this is something that possibly could be continued with some Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 87 of 90 answered next time and if we continue again and -- this is a big project and I think that it's important that we do it right. O'Neil: I realize that and all we are asking is if you can give us direction and we will come back and do every bit we can to solve the issues that you have. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the additional suggestions I would make -- and this is not a new suggestion, everybody has suggested this ahead of me -- that the people that are here tonight get together off site and everybody has agreed to work together and everybody has offered to be considerate and helpful. There isn't any way for us to practically enforce that, but I would say during the period of our continuance if you can all get together and air your grievances and agreements with each other, then, when we do have the continued portion of this, I feel that would be a lot more helpful for us and probably staff as well. Newton-Huckabay: Well, again, I need to be clear on what the issues are, because I don't -- I mean that would hold up an annexation? Borup: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I feel the same as Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. You said that we'd need to consider a myriad of issues, but I haven't really heard one -- I have only got one question in my mind, now that I think about it. Rohm: I haven't read the 22 page -- Borup: Well, he mentioned about four things and I think that -- Rohm: I'm just telling you, I haven't read the 22 page letter written by that office and I'm not going to limit -- one of my concerns are until -- Borup: I did read it. Rohm: -- and that's it. So, with that being said, if anybody would like to make a motion to continue this to a later date, date certain, I'd certainly entertain it. Hood: Mr. Chair, can I get -- just one more thing real quick. I think you're heading in -- wanting to get out of here. But the memo that I wrote -- did anyone have a chance to look at it? Can I include those provisions and we can discuss further? Shall I not include them? Borup: I think Mr. O'Neil said he agreed with your comments, if I remember right. Hood: The last two it sounds like they had some issues with. Number 13 goes back to that existing barn and there may be some other things maybe on Chinden that encroach and the intent is not to have any -- cause any hardship or do any harm to the existing Meridian Planning & Zonin9 March 2. 2006 Page 88 of 90 business. We will do everything we can to accommodate the existing business out there and that's all I was trying to get here is that we do want to see it improved, you know, paving the parking lots, you know, do those types of things, bringing it up to standards, but if there are existing conditions, you are -- and someone said grandfathered earlier. You are grandfathered in with some of those things, so -- and they can be discussed further, I was just wondering if it would be easier for me to put this into the staff report and we can discuss further at that point. Commissioner Zaremba, I will also call Ada County and see if I can find -- just because someone's paying the bill, doesn't necessarily mean they own it, but at least you could have information on who's been paying it, if, in fact, I can get it. So, I can do these things, I guess. I don't have -- it doesn't sound like there is a lot I can do in the next two weeks, four weeks, however long you decide you're going to continue this out, if that's what you're going to do, so -- Zaremba: My comment on that -- and I forget who it was, whether it was Mr. O'Neil or Mr. Carnahan, but one of them said they know who ones it. Hood: Yeah. Zaremba: We didn't ask for the answer to that, but maybe you could. Appreciate that. Hood: And I think, really, the only outstanding issue from staff's perspective, and based on the applicant's testimony and everyone in the audience tonight that has testified, is I think everyone agrees that the best place to get a street is where Basco Lane is today. At least at the Phyllis Canal. Now, if the trees are there or not, maybe the road doesn't go right exactly where -- but the crossing needs to happen where Basco Lane is. So, if we can get -- and the applicant seems to have made some concession to say we are not trying to hold this up, but there is this easement out there that also has two property owners that we haven't seen anything from, so I think until we see something in writing from them saying, yes, in fact, we will allow a public street to go there or something, that's the issue that's still in my mind is -- he's relinquishing his third of that, but the other two-thirds can put the kibosh on it. So-- Borup: Now, who haven't we heard from? Hood: Well, there is -- and I don't know all the history, but back in 2001 -- Borup: I asked names was all. Hood: Anderson and Thomas, was it? Borup: Okay. They are not on the -- they are not on the -- Hood: They are not a part of this at all, but they put this easement together and kept a right for that easement on Basco Lane. So, that's, really, in my mind, if that issue can be worked out, that they can allow a street to go -- to get to the Aldape property, a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 89 of 90 collector road stubbed or partially constructed by this applicant or however that that works out. That's not even, really, what I'm concerned more, it's more getting that crossing there and who owns that even doesn't become as important as if can get the crossing, so -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Caleb, I think that's -- that's what interests me as well. I'm not so concerned to specify what the answer has to be, but it does include -- have to include how there is going to be public access, public road access, to the Aldape property. And the people are already in this room who can discuss that. Borup: But this applicant -- if this applicant doesn't own that property, they can't construct a public road here if there not a legal -- I mean if there is not a proper right of way. Zaremba: I'm not even sure it needs to be constructed yet, but we need agreement from everybody that -- Borup: That they will have something to their north property line. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Yes. I think we agree with that. Rohm: At least across the property that -- Newton-Huckabay: We have that. It's right here. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Then, the other question I would have is that on the annexation, if there is contiguous property that is owned, should that be excluded. Zaremba: It should not be excluded. If it's under same or similar ownership of other parcels, it should be included. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 06-004 to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006, to give applicant and neighbors opportunity to work out some issues and staff the opportunity to incorporate some of those ideas into a revised staff report. Moe: Is that the end of your motion? Zaremba: That's the end of the motion. Moe: I'll second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 90 of 90 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-004 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: Motion passed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: We need one more motion. Zaremba: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close tonight's Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:05 AM. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN -I I DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK