Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 21, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 35 of 65 Zaremba: End of motion. Mae: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to fOlWard onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053, to include all staff comments with aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion ca rried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: And at this time we are going to take a short break. We will reconvene at 9:00 o'clock. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-054 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.40 acres from R1 zone to an L-O zone for Woodland Springs Professional Park by Morgan Development, Inc. - 1630 E. McMillan Road: Rohm: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to at this time reconvene the Planning and Zoning meeting and begin by opening Public Hearing AZ 06-054 related to Woodland Springs Professional Park and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. We are moving all the way one parcel over to the west of where we were on our previous item. It's located on the northeast corner of Locust Grove and McMillan. It contains 2.4 acres. As you can see on this exhibit it is currently zoned R-1. Sonya did a pretty good job last time of describing the surrounding uses and you can tell by the zoning that there are county zoned properties to the north, back to the west, and, then, south is the Idaho Power sub station, which shows up a little bit better on this aerial view. There are some rural residences in the area. Also evident from this aerial is the developing nature of this vicinity. This is Settler Bridge. This is Sheridan Place. And, the, of course, Portico Place. So, you can see the lots, but there weren't any homes when this was flown in 2005, so it's rapidly developing. The subject application is just an annexation and zoning request. I say just an annexation -- it's the only application they have submitted is for annexation and zoning only, there is not a Conditional Use Permit or a preliminary plat associated with this request. The applicant did submit a conceptual drawing. They are asking for an office zoning designation -. excuse me -. limited office zoning designation. The conceptual plan, as you can see, does show three buildings, parking, landscaping and, in particular, what I'd like to call out as two access points to the arterial -- adjacent arterial roadways. Back to the requested zoning. It is designated medium density. This parcel is designated medium density residential on the future land use map. However, I'm sure you're all familiar with that resolution 04-0454 which states that if you have a parcel that's on an arterial roadway and it's less than three acres, you are Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 36 of 65 eligible to request L-O zoning without having to do a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. So, that's the case you have here. They actually have access on two arterial streets being right at the intersection. In those instances if they are approved, no ancillary commercial uses are allowed and this Commission has in the passed placed some similar proVisions on properties, saying you are to only be clinics, professional office type uses and you can't have any retail sales or other commercial uses on the property. I think I'm going to just jump back to the arterial roadways. McMillan Road, as was discussed with Portico, is an entryway corridor into the city, therefore, a 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required on Locust Grove. This intersection is within ACHD's five year work program. I did speak with a couple of ACHD staff members about this project last week. Kendall Kemmer is the lead on that project at ACHD regarding the intersection design. They did submit some comments to staff. They aren't conditions. They did only submit comments, because there is no development proposed with this application. So, I wanted to get some clarification from Kendall on what's going on. He told me that they are looking at a couple of conceptual plans and they are in the process of working with a consulting firm -- and I can't remember who they have hired to do some of that preliminary design work, but one of the potential scenarios that they are evaluating is relocating the Lemp Canal, which currently runs along the south side of McMillan Road and, then, crosses at a 45 degree angle at the intersection of Locust Grove Road -- relocating that somewhere in here and having it run along the north side of the roadway and 90'ing it under the road and, then, having it run this way and, then, back across Locust Grove Road. That's just one scenario. The other scenario that we talked about was potentially buying all this lot for a drainage pond. There just -- this project is in the five year work program right now for finish design in 2008, right of way acquisition 2009, and construction sometime thereafter, usually a year after, so 2010 is when this intersection -- now, that may be accelerated, that's just the current plan. And, in fact, Kendall was hopeful that it could be moved up from that timeline. But there are some questions about what -- how ACHD is going to improve this. Again, they particularly revolve around that large canal that's there. If anyone has ever driven out there you're aware that there is huge power lines out there, too, and so that has a constraint of do you relocate the power lines or do you build on one side of the road or the other to avoid having to relocate the power lines. So, they are factoring all those different scenarios and others into a couple of concept plans that they will kick around for awhile, but did want to make that of note. Pretty much the only -- and I did speak with the applicant's representative late this afternoon, too, and we talked about it and I believe they are still in general agreement with the staff report. The one issue that is going to come up is the staff report allows this access to Locust Grove Road, this is approximately 220 foot, which is ACHD's requirements for a right-in, right-out to an arterial street. This access is about 315 or so, which would, actually, meet their policy for an arterial street, however, there is a public street proposed in Portico Place, which is about 90 feet over here. So, you have to factor that in, I believe, the public street. It isn't there today, but when that plat goes through there will be a public street in that location, so for that reason and it being pretty close to this intersection, for safety concerns didn't make sense to have that, so staff is recommending that they actually take this drive aisle, stub it over to the property line, when the parcel -- maybe this one is better -- this parcel Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 37 of 65 redevelops we will get them to reciprocate a cross-access easement and get them over to that public street that's going in right here. So, that's kind of what staff envisions for the property. I understand that right now this probably, you know, is not ideal, to say the least. I'll let the applicant speak to that more from their perspective, but from my perspective and safety and looking at the benefit of the community and access points, there are comp plan policies that talk about restricting access to arterial roadways and I think this is a real instance where that is pertinent. Just a couple real quick of other development agreement requirements that is included in the proposed development agreement that I am recommending that this owner-developer enter into with the city. The other one is that -- that and a cross-access to the parcel to the east and allowing -- limiting the future uses on the property to be principally permitted uses within the L-O zone, no ancillary commercial uses or other conditionally allowed uses shall be allowed on this property. Limiting the hours of operation from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. and that no more than three office type buildings be constructed on the site. Further, each building shall have some stucco or stone accents. They did supply these elevations. Pretty high quality -- visually high quality buildings, which will look good on that corner, if, in fact, they can construct one, two or possibly three of those in the future. And, then, the landscape buffers is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer on Locust Grove and 35 foot wide landscape buffer on McMillan Road. Again, when those buildings get put in. So, staff is recommending approval of this annexation request to L-Q for the 2.4 acres, as noted in the staff report and development agreement provisions listed therein and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask one -- and this is kind of a general question. As we find more of these that qualify for L-Q under the resolution, eventually, this is going to show up on a map of city zonings as an L-O. Is there any way to track the distinction between a standard L-O and L-Q that -- because there are some other requirements. They can't do the auxiliary businesses or commercial retail that might be allowed in a normal L-Q. Twenty years from now who is going to know? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, tracking is always -- probably and enforcement are two of our biggest, you know, how do you do this and I don't know that we have perlected the system. Institutional knowledge is great and I -- you know, we try to keep folks around so they can remember things, but we have -- we have some maps around the office and where we are trying to go with that is a history map, essentially, that state, hey, there is a DA on this, at least go see that document. There is really no way you can write that on a map. As our view progresses we may be able to enter in something into that and you click on a parcel and it gives you all kinds of information, you know, that says, hey, there is a restriction for this, that, or the other thing on there. We aren't there yet, but I imagine it's not going to be too far before we do -- at the click of a mouse we do have information about parcel -- not only our information, but county information, other jurisdiction information, and maybe we can even have tied into that staff reports and findings and things like that. So, we are not there yet. It is right now -- I think all staff is aware to -- you have to do some digging, you have to do some Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 38 of 65 research and you just can't take L-O zone, you can do this. 'think pretty much everyone in the office has been burned at one time or the other by just looking at the zoning and saying you can do this and, then, realize there is a development agreement or the CU required another CU or something to that effect. So, I mean' can't -- again, we are not -- while we are not there yet, we haven't perfected it, but right now we look at these parcels and it definitely throws up a red flag if it's less than three acres and zoned L-O, how did they get their zoning. And, then, we can look for a development agreement and make sure that that is one of the provisions. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Morgan: Hello. My name is Matt Morgan. 8519 Antelope Drive in Boise. I'd like to start by saying that we are mostly pretty much in agreement with the bulk of the comments made by the staff in their report. I wanted to give you a little explanation of the nature of the business that I do. Ninety percent of the business that I do in my developments is all presold medica' and dental office space. I -- very rarely do , ever do any shell space. We have just now completed over 60 new dental buildings, of which , think we are probably doing 70, 80 percent of them here in the Treasure Valley. This particular site was .- when I bought this site was with -- , have 50 -- 50 percent of it presold to a dental professional who is up the street at this time, up at that Aspen, which would be farther to the east on McMillan up towards Eagle Road. He's currently leasing space there and looking to own his own building. The one that's on McMillan would be his -- would be his building. The reason I didn't propose a preliminary plat, along with my annexation and rezone, is I had intended to occupy myself probably half of the one that is on the -- would be -- I guess looking at that, the east side and, then, I think I have an oral surgeon who is -- who is interested in one coming in right off of Locust. So, I'm just -- I tried -- on a project this size it -- I prefer if I can to presell it with my clientele and the connections with people "m working with, if' can presell it, then, I can sit down and iron out the details of the plat more and make sure I get it right for my clients. That being said, you know, I have no problem at all with restrictions on retail. That's just not the nature of it. It's medical dental. Related project. Professional that we are looking -- we are looking to do. This type of a location is prime for this kind of project. I don't think that that type of a parcel of land is -- suits itself very well to residential, obviously, being a small piece. For an in-fill it's great for L-O. You know, obviously, a person could try to -- and I would also like the Commission to know that I diligently attempted to buy that 85 foot strip and was told -- the last attempt I was told she'd call the police and get her attorney and everything else, so we put that on -- Rohm: That would have been a no, then? Morgan: It was a no. And I sent -- I sent nice ladies over there to do it for me. I never went. But she got frustrated with the last gal that made an attempt, but she -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 39 of 65 Zaremba: She indicated that very gently and very kindly, but the message came through? Morgan: Yeah. Yeah. So, we haven't bothered her -- needless to say, we haven't bothered her since. She's an elderly lady. She's in her 80s. Ironically, she doesn't live there. There is renters in it. But she says that she won't be selling anytime soon. On other developments that I have done like this, I develop these type of little in-fill projects all over southern Idaho. We have got a lot of these little projects I have done in Idaho Falls, Pocatello. We are doing some stuff in Twin Falls now and all over Boise. We did the Time Square Professional Park on Overland next to the Whitney Fire Station. That was one of my first developments here. The buildings are higher -- they are high end buildings. Very attractive buildings that the clientele I have got, obviously, they are making lots of money off of cleaning our teeth, so they can afford to have nice buildings. The landscape that I have proposed in these projects is always pretty lucrative. It's usually in excess of what would be considered a minimal requirement and I provide more parking in our projects than what is minimum required. So, we are not -- we are not cramming that density to the maximum that you could propose on a piece of land. In regards to the ACHD comments that were made, Mr. Hood shared those with me -- I believe probably the same day he got those. He give me a courtesy call, which I very much appreciated Mr. Hood and at this time I'm a little nervous with that comment they made, because I have got guys -- I have got doctors counting on this. I told them don't count on too much, because I got to get passed the Planning and Zoning Commission first and City Council, but they are hopeful that this is the location for their facilities to finish their careers in. At this point I just have to continue, because I don't know what ACHD is going to do and I will be -- if I can get my annexation and my rezone passed, then, I will be -- I will be bringing in an application for a preliminary plat in the near future. I looked at the access on -- the access points are vital for these doctors and dentists. They would be vital for them. A right-in, right-out on Locust is fine. To lose that one on McMillan would be very detrimental -- very detrimental for these gentlemen. With that 85 foot strip there I .- like I say, diligently tried to get ahold of it. I know Mr. Sargent and I knew what he was doing on his project coming off with the road, it made sense to come possibly off of Portico and, then, you know, turn and come back to the west and, then, in that scenario I would have had one more building right there on the frontage where the 85 feet is and, then, I would have just come into the long drive that runs east and west. If I can get this project approved and we do this and Mr. Sargent does his project, the 85 foot strip lends itself to one of two things, two more professional offices or more of Mr. Sargent's town homes would be, really, all that would make sense. The townhomes, obviously, would come off of Portico. What I would like -- and I have Mr. Frank Lee with me here, who has some other ideas. He's my attorney and I value his opinions and his opinion on an approach for different solutions. We would like to have a temporary access off of there in the future with a cash deposit or whatever we need to do, thinking that in the future that 85 foot strip is probably going to lend itself mostly to another professional office right there in the front and, then, it could go away and it could be -- you know, the association could sell where that drive is and that could be another building sitting just on that side of that parking, east of it, just like the one on the west, if you look at the little -- little section of parking that I have laid out there next Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 40 of 65 to the access. So, I guess all that being said I think I'd like Frank to maybe discuss with you some of the other thoughts and ideas that Mr. Lee has in regards to -- for our concerns about the access. Other than that I'd just like to say I appreciate your cooperation and we'd provide you a nice project to the city that you could be proud of. So, thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Lee: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Frank Lee. My address is 601 Bannock, Boise, Idaho. I'm legal counsel to Matt Morgan and he asked me to come to discuss primarily the issue of the access. Caleb produced a very good staff report, actually, you know, a quality work product and we agree with it in its entirety, with the exception of their desire to have no access at all onto McMillan Road and there was nothing, as Matt just explained to you, there is nothing that you would like more than to continue the drive aisle over to the Portico project and access the public road. Makes sense all around. But there is a person who owns the 85 foot strip and doesn't at present want to sell it. That, of course, will change in the future. Eventually that will be developed and staff has recommended that when that is developed that that application be restricted such that that road will go through and this project will connect to the road at Portico. Again, it makes sense all around. As Matt had described, it really is -- will be a hardship for this project to have a right-in, right-out only at Locust Grove. That's not very good access, it's not very much access, and jf you look at this site, having a temporary access off of McMillan it's a sensible solution and a sensible way to resolve these issues now, pending, you know, the future development of this entire area. Staff cited two reasons why they thought that the right-in, right-out off of McMillan Road would be inappropriate. One is even though this project is, you know, more than ACHD's requirement in terms of having an access to a major arterial intersection like this one, that it is -- you know, it is within 300 feet of the road and, you know, that -- that meets the standards, but it's still pretty close and, then, there is a -- another public street that's going on about any 90 feet farther down the road and, again, I'm not going to argue with the wisdom if we were able to -- to do the connection to go that route, that makes perfect sense, that option is just not available to us at the moment. And, really, the medical-dental offices that will be in here in this site -- there is about 14,000 square feet of office space at build out -- that's not a huge amount of traffic. There will be people going in and out, but this isn't the -- this isn't a store. These are medical-dental offices where people who go there will be there for some time and there will not be that much traffic. And, lastly, we think -- I mean in addition to being able to -- well, actually, in this issue, in addition to being able to persuade you as to being able to allow us temporary access, when we actually submit our development plans in the preliminary plat we will discuss this issue at length with ACHD, who also have -- also has a great interest in where the access pOints are, where the roads are, and as the traffic experts they will have a lot to say about that and we think we can persuade them to allow us this particular access. Staff cited another reason to me on the phone earlier today that I don't think he really described in detail tonight and that is that it's his belief that a temporary access could find itself being permanent by matters of inertia and staff's concerns aren't -- you know, they are, you know, real issues. People get accustomed to Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 41 of 65 temporary accesses and, you know, this could -- this particular access, the solution in terms of the next door neighbor lady selling the property and us being able to do things right, might be a few years from now when these buildings are occupied by dentists and oral surgeons and so on and so forth and Matt's no longer involved in the project, but we recognize those concerns, but we don't think that should govern the decision, because I think that we can take reasonable steps to make sure that when -- when the proper access is being provided that this temporary access will go away. You know, item number one is -- is that when, in fact, the connection is made over to Portico that -_ where access is right there and the 85 feet is a perfect location for yet another office building and anybody who sees that will see, you know, oh, great, I can get rid of this access, I have better access over here, and I have a new office building to sell. I think there will be plenty incentive to have that access removed, an actual incentive, which is, again, a great incentive to have that great incentive to have something done is to have it be financially beneficial to do so. We can certainly put the temporary nature of this access very conspicuously, very openly in the plat, the CC&Rs, where ever else it will be appropriate, so that anybody who acquires an interest in this site knows that that is a temporary access and it will go away eventually and that they are ready for it. With that they can -- we can have the design what it would look like in terms of landscaping and so on and so forth already prepared and costed out so people know what they are getting into and they -- if further assurances are needed, like anything else, it just is a planned expense, you can set aside a reserve fund for it, for the development, so that when it happens the money is there. Staff has suggested a sunset provision, like, for instance, you know, eventually this access will go away no matter what -- I'm not sure if that's necessarily a wise choice, but that's another consideration. But, you know, there is lots of different ways that you can make sure that something that is intended to be temporary stays temporary, make sure there is an incentive to eliminate it, make it clear that everyone knows it's temporary, and if there is a financial impact it can be planned for. And as long as people know, I think that they will be inclined to actually remove it when the time comes. And, again, this issue will be, you know, brought before ACHD when the development plans occur and I'm sure this will be the subject of great discussion with ACHD. They are the traffic experts, they deal with this a lot, and we believe that we will be able to persuade them and this committee or commission shouldn't foreclose that opportunity of having that access if we can certainly persuade ACHD. Lastly, the city has two of the best municipal lawyers I can think of and they know how to make things enforceable. So, again, I'm truly confident that we will able to meet whatever obligations we have in terms of this temporary access truly being temporary. So, with that I will stand for questions that you might have. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Moe: I have a couple on your presentation. Am I understanding, then, you're pretty much in agreement with everything, other than this access point? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 42 of 65 Lee: That is correct. Moe: Okay. In regards to the access point, in your presentation you made comments that you're not anticipating a lot of traffic into this site and you also made comment about that it's a hardship if you don't get it. I would like to know what the hardship is if you didn't get it, when you're saying you're not going to have a lot of traffic into it. Lee: Well, that's an excellent question and that may appear to be a conflict, but, really, it's not. These are dentists, oral surgeons, they are service providers to residents __ nearby residents and having them to be able to get in and out easily is very important for these sort of businesses and having a right-in, right-out only on Locust Grove makes it that much harder for them to -- depending on which direction they are coming from, to get into the site and we think by having a right-in, right-out on McMillan it will be that much easier for people, they don't have -- if they are coming from a particular way they don't have to go to the intersection and do a U'ee or do something -- it reduces that aspect of the traveling. I just don't think that, you know, this size of a development with these kinds of uses is going to create a high safety hazard in terms of having, you know, stacked traffic and long periods of wait and people get impatient. That's kind of what I'm thinking. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, since it seems to be the subject, if we go for only one access, that being on Locust Grove and that being a right-in, right-out, except for the few people who are able to link a lot of trips together and may be able to approach making a right turn and leave making a right turn and go someplace, that most people are going to make a u-turn somewhere, because if they came from the south, they are going to want to go back to the south. If they came from the north, they want to go back to the north, which means that the subdivisions to the north of this and maybe in the middle of McMillan people are going to be making u-turns, in the subdivision to the north they will be making u-turns -- that creates a safety hazard to me. Lee: I would agree. Zaremba: I have no problem with the discussion of making the current access as depicted onto McMillan a temporary one until there is a way to cut across to Portico. That, to me, makes sense. One thing -- this is only an annexation, so we are not discussing the plat yet anyhow, but we appreciate a concept plan with the annexations and we appreciate that you brought it in, but we do consider them a concept and we know your plat may look different. What we won't accept is if you gave this as a concept plan and, then, you come back with an auto shop or a body and paint facility, that's different than the concept plan. But if you come back with a plan that says, okay, we can provide for future access to eliminate this access, I agree that temporarily I think Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 43 of 65 you need it. Who knows how long it's going to be before you can use that 85 strip -- 85 foot strip that's between -- and I also agree with you, it makes more sense to cover what you're depicting with part of a building and go across to Portico. So, I guess what I'm __ what I'm asking staff is -- in the sentence that says vehicular access to this site shall be restricted to one right-in, right-out driveway on Locust, located at the north property line, if approve by ACHD, then, the second sentence says: Direct lot access to McMillan shall prohibited. Can we add to that: Except that it can be -- there can be an access temporarily until such time as there is access to Portico. I'm not sure how we phrase it, but it's -- can we even go the direction of discussing that? Hood: Oh, sure. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, sure, I mean you can modify the conditions however you see fit. The trick becomes the trigger and this is, what, the third time we have talked about it tonight, but enforcement tracking -- that lady, I don't know when she's going to sell the property, I don't know when that's going to be connected. I mayor may not be working for the city when you remember that that access needs to be closed when that goes across and, even so, how do we go -. as was mentioned earlier, maybe Mr. Morgan isn't in the picture anymore, who pays for it? How does it -- and if they post surety today and say we agree it's 5,000 dollars to rip up the asphalt and put in landscaping, well, if it doesn't happen for 20 years, that 5,000 dollars probably isn't going to go very far. So, now the city has to make up the difference for that. There is just a plethora of scenarios where this could -- the enforcement aspect of making it go away becomes ugly. So, if you want to go that direction -- and I don't know if legal counsel has any advice about a good trigger -- and I did talk with Mr. Lee on the phone a little bit about a sunset, okay, how about five years, then, it doesn't matter if that goes in or not, you get it for five years and that's a reasonable time in my mind the way things are developing that that parcel will probably go in five years. But that's not a guarantee. That's easier. We can put it on the calendar, we can say, this day it's done, we have got money that should cover that cost, whatever, but, again, that's the trick is an enforceable condition. That's what I need. I need an enforceable condition that we can track and that's why it's easier just to say no today and you don't have to worry about it anymore. Lee: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond briefly to that? Rohm: Absolutely. Lee: I understand where staff is going. I mean it's certainly easier to tell us no, but I don't think it's the right decision. As an attorney I deal with enforceability issues all the time and I think that the documents can be drafted so that clearly it is the responsibility of the owners of this subdivision to pay for the removal of the temporary access and the installation of the landscaping and to do it in such a conspicuous way that it will not be missed by buyers or their lenders and they will make sure that, like any other expense that is an unknown expense, they will make reserves. This isn't a bunch of homeowners, these are professional offices who are -- who buy high end products, these aren't the shabbiest buildings as you saw from the elevations. These are quality brick, stone buildings and they are going to care and I think that, really, from my part, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21. 2006 Page 44 of 65 you know, reasonable steps can be made to have that removed, plus the natural incentive that comes from the creation of a perfect building site by the removal of this accessway. Zaremba: My instinct would be that the property owners would probably trigger it. What it sounds to me that you are saying is there is a higher use for that little piece of property -- little piece of land than an access, when there may be another access available. Lee: When there is a public road 90 feet down the road, yes. Zaremba: And I guess what I'm thinking forward to, eventually, when you plat the property, if you were to make a little section like that on which you're going to put your access for now, but call that a common lot that's already legally described as a separate lot, it would be much easier in the future for the future owners of that business owners association -- Lee: I'll take that one step further -- Zaremba: -- to redevelop that piece and whatever would happen and if it's that way on the plat I think it would help it happen. Lee: Exactly. I'm going to take that one step further. That my client Matt Morgan keep that piece in his possession, so that he can do so when it comes up, because the homeowners -- because the business owners association would need that land at that point, so it will be there to assemble it and make it work. Zaremba: So, I guess the question was also put to our attorney, though, is there some wording we would need to have to help make that happen? Baird: Mr. President, Members of the Commission, at your direction, if this is your desire to do, I'm in agreement that I think that we can make an enforceable provision in the DA. So, it's really up to you, if you're comfortable with that, coupled with what's been described as an economic incentive and I think that that, while not really a legal enforceability issue, it might provide you an additional level of comfort that this is going to happen automatically, that we can work with the applicant's counsel and make sure that the language in the DA fulfills your desires. Zaremba: Thank you. Am I the only one that feels that way? Rohm: Well, I have some thoughts on this, too, but I think before we move forward, we should throw it out to public testimony before we try and come up with a solution. There has not been anyone that has signed up to this application, but at this time if there is somebody that does want to testify and come forward, now is the time to do so. Okay. All right. Now, we have gone through that and nobody has stepped forward, so would one or other of you come forward -- and I have got some thoughts on this as well. From Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21.2006 Page 45 of 65 my perspective, I think that full well knowing that you're going to turn this into a professional plaza, maybe the right solution is to provide a preliminary plat application at the same time you are presenting your rezone and it would, then, have an opportunity to have that second -- that lot set aside as part of that preliminary plat, so that it could be redeveloped at such time that the adjacent property becomes available. That seems like that might be able to fulfill both the staff concerns and your desire to have that access to McMillan. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may before the applicant responds to that, that only -- not only does it maybe takes this legal document out of it, but maybe we don't need a DA if that plat shows it. What it also does is it also gets ACHD to provide us site specific comments and you will know whether or not that driveway is approved, because they have to comment on a development application. So, it takes the guesswork out of maybe ACHD gives you an access or maybe it doesn't. If there is a plat they will give us conditions for approval and now the offset is no longer an issue, they either tell them, yes, you get it or, no, you don't and we don't even need to have this discussion if there is a plat. Rohm: It in my mind seems like that's the best of both worlds is if you're going to have a professional plaza development and you know that, then, let's take care of everything at once. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, as far as the idea of the individual lot platted right there, I think that's fantastic. That's an outstanding idea that I will implement into the plat. I want -- I wanted -- and that's why I invited Mr. Lee to come with me today, because I greatly -- I greatly value his opinions and how to not only take care of me and get things done right -- when I leave these projects I don't want these doctors having problems. I want it all spelled out for them very clearly what they are getting into for in the future. I think through the CC&Rs and the declaration and that be platted into a common lot of it's own, I think we could very easily make sure that -- that we satisfy all of these different concerns and I guess I would ask -- I would like to move fOlWard today with my annexation and rezone and I will be back -- and I will be submitting a plat inside of 30 days. I have an architect, an engineer, that works on staff for me and so it doesn't take us long to do it, we are just -- I have just been waiting for commitment from the oral surgeon and I got a pretty good idea I'm going to get it right after the first of the year or so. Zaremba: It's like pulling teeth to get it from an oral surgeon. Morgan: Literally. Literally. Literally. I think we are going to get it, but -- but, anyways, I would like to continue today if I could and, then, I will be back in with a plat right after the first of the year and we will -- we will make that suggestion work. I think that's a terrific solution. Fantastic. Rohm: I guess my point, though, going along with what staff is saying, is if, in fact, we were to submit a preliminary plat along with the rezone application, Ada County would Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 46 of 65 provide site specific comments that would say, yes, in fact, we will allow this McMillan Road access or, no, we won't and if, in fact, Ada County provides that specific language, then, we have got everything taken care of without having to have this temporary access that mayor may not be needed down the road. And is there an objection to providing a preliminary plat application? Morgan: Mr. Chairman, the other reason why I didn't provide the -- you know, with the preliminary plat, I always prefer to do my annexation and rezone first, so in the -- if that becomes approved, then, I have a project. Otherwise, that preliminary plat, the work I put into that, becomes basically .- Rohm: An expense that -- Morgan: It's an expense and it's work that we have done that's been in vain. So, I -- it's always my typical -- my normal practice to just try to move a little slower with the project and just make sure I obtain my approvals as I go is -- Rohm: I guess -- and, again, my concerns are that Ada County may, through their objections at -- during that preliminary plat, disrupt your plan that you currently have conceptually visualized and they would put a stop to it themselves. Morgan: They might make a pond out of it and I might be done anyway. Rohm: Well, there you go. Morgan: Yeah. 50-- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that the distance from Locust Grove currently, the way they are depicting it on the concept, I believe ACHD -- it meets their current requirements. The issue becomes what happens when -- it starts with a P, the project -- Portico. What it doesn't meet the distance separation from is Portico. It does meet the separation from the existing today streets. So, my instinct would say that ACHD would be willing to work with a temporary arrangement. They would want it to go away eventually, I'm quite sure. But I think they would be comfortable with it as a temporary thing if they knew it was going to go away. Rohm: I tend to agree with you. My concerns are the location of the canal more than anything to -- that the county would, then, have to provide specific comment as to this development and the long-term development of that intersection in its entirety. Zaremba: I guess my comment would be I know we like to have -- like to have annexations and preliminary plats and even any CUPs all come together so we can discuss them, but my personal opinion is I'm comfortable on this one that L-O uses under the resolution that allows them on this property, are acceptable. I don't see much doubt that we are going to deny that or recommend denial of it. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 47 of 65 Rohm: Again -- and I tend agree with that, too. Zaremba: And in that case I don't have that much problem treating them separately. The plat still has to go through all these same discussions. Borup: I agree, I think that the applicant is the one that's taking the risk, so maybe that should be up to them. Lee: Mr. Chairman, if I could maybe briefly respond. We have actually been in communication with ACHD. They are in the process of -- very early in the process of making some of their decisions and so we are going to be part of what -- you know, know very much so what ACHD is going to do with this intersection. They can certainly tell us no in the future and that's a risk that we are taking. We just -- in our discussions that we have had informally, as well as our knowledge of ACHD and what they value and what they don't, we just feel like this is something that we can persuade them and we intend to do so when the preliminary plat comes through, we will .- like I say, we will have an extended discussion with ACHD and this is a matter that they will decide. Rohm: Thank you very much. Okay. Any final thoughts, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Did we already establish nobody else signed up to speak? Rohm: Yes. Yes. Hood: Mr. Chair-- Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing AZ 06-054. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, before you go -- excuse me. Just to follow that last thought that you had about ACHD and not meeting the offsets, would you not think, then, that their temporary would be when Portico -- whenever Beethoven, I think it was, Street goes in, then, that's the trigger for the temporary to go away? I mean if, in fact, they allow it on a temporary basis, that's what I would think they would allow it until this road gets constructed, which they have already approved, that makes you -- and that's going a different direction than what we were saying -- Zaremba: I could actually see a step that if this project gets built first, it could be a full access. If Beethoven Street in -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 48 of 65 Hood: Portico. Zaremba: -- Portico is, in fact, in place before this driveway is, then, this might end up needing to be right-in, right-out, too, until they can bridge that other 85 feet. I'm not speaking for ACHD, but just personally, my experience around the country with transportation and traffic infrastructure, to only have a right-in and right-out on Locust is going to be very difficult. It does involve, I guarantee you, unsafe u-turns and I think ACHD would see the wisdom of having some kind of temporary access, other than just the one right-in, right-out on Locust Grove. I certainly understand why that would seem to be the right thing to do to only have that one access and not allow any access on McMillan, but I think it causes more traffic problems somewhere else than it solves on McMillan and, you know, I could see at some point ACHD saying, okay, if Beethoven is there, then, this McMillan access has to be a right-in, right-out, too, which does at least give some other options to people coming and going and, then, the end result is when that 85 feet is available, then, this does go away. I can't speak for them, but I can see that scenario. I know I'm not helping. Hood: No. I mean that helps to understand your thought process and I was just curious on what -- what you would just -- and, again, I'm not saying that -- Zaremba: But it may be -- Hood: -- you are ACHD, but-- Zaremba: -- access. Hood: Yeah. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup, do you have any final comments? Borup: No, 1 don't have anything extra to add. I agree with Commissioner Zaremba. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Nor do I. Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Moe: Nor do I. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, would you care for me to attempt a motion? Rohm: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 49 of 65 Zaremba: After considering all staff and applicant testimony and giving the public an opportunity to testify, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-054 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21, 2006, with the following modification to the proposed development agreement provisions. And that is under -- let's see. This is, I believe, Exhibit B, paragraph two. I believe I'm on the tenth bullet down. This is the paragraph that begins that vehicular access to the site shall be restricted to one right-in, right-out driveway to Locust Grove Road located at the north property line if as approved by ACHD. That sentence is to remain. The second sentence is modified. Direct lot access to McMillan Road shall be temporarily acceptable until such time as there is alternate access provided to Beethoven. Are there any other wordings that I need to add on -- and there may be an interim period where Beethoven exists, but there still is not access to an 85 foot strip between the two properties where the access to McMillan may be limited to right-in, right-out. Hood: Mr. Chair, maker of the motion, would you also add that -- how does it get closed part? Is the applicant responsible or like Keith talked about adding it as a platted lot and retaining ownership and -- that's the meat that we need to be able to enforce. Who do we go back on to close this. If you can address that somehow. Zaremba: That when platted that -- I'm still adding to the same bullet. When platted their area that is being proposed for the access to McMillan will be platted as a separate common lot to make it more easily divisible when the access to the east is available. Mae: Is there any provision for a cash bond for that work to be done? Zaremba: Do we want that? I don't have a problem with that and I'm sure that the applicant doesn't either. Mae: They already said they -- Zaremba: Okay. So, let's say: And applicant will bond for any necessary relandscaping or redevelopment of that one parcel. I'm done. Mae: I will second that. Zaremba: Maybe I'm not done. Mr. Hood is -- Hood: I'm just wondering if maybe -- we will take that language and work with it. Would you mind if legal kind of -- if we just -- Zaremba: I have no problem if staff and legal massage that language a little bit. It was convoluted. Baird: And if I may add, Mr. Chair, that there is a desire for some sort of surety, whether it's a bond or cash. I'm interpreting that motion to allow us sufficient leeway to Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 50 of 65 work out those details with the applicant, that it sounds like you do want something there. Zaremba: A working it out is acceptable to the maker of the motion. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Second agrees. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of ACHD 06-054, to include all staff comments and the aforementioned additional comments from the motion maker. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from November 2nd, 2006, of Items No. AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048 for the sole purpose of continuing them, once again, to the January 18th, 2007, regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 18th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006 (Re-Noticed for Modification): AZ 06.045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.556 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds - 4515 South Locust Grove Road: