Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMeridian Planning an~ning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 72 It is not just a condition use, it is an annexation ordinance and you can put some attachments in that as well. De Weerd: Which by approving the conceptional drawings on this, you are putting those conditions on there, is that correct? Hawkins: Right. If you are saying this is going with that, then it is going to run with the land. De Weerd: I know a lot of the problems in the past is P & Z hasn't even seen these development agreements until after it is signed anyway, so.. Borup: Do we even see any then. I do, but I don't think the rest of the commission does . De Weerd: No, we don't. Okay, thank you. Borup: We still have a motion on the floor. Hatcher: I was re-thinking though, we are dealing with annexation and zoning right now. We go off track even with my motion. Borup: I don't think so. Staff had that under the annexation and zoning. Ready to vote? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3-2 Hawkins: Mr. Chairman, could staff just get a clarification. On Item number 12, page 3, what was commissions- Borup: To eliminate the reference to the development agreement. Is that what you meant to clarify Brad. The platting was not addressed. So that was left in. That was part of the motion the recommendation on the platting. Do we need to hold up here a little bit? Hawkins: There was a resolution passed by City Council last week that allows one time splits which the City has not had. In the meeting between staff and the developer, we didn't really complete this issue correct. (Inaudible discussion from audience). If you let the motion stand, that can be modified and (inaudible) by staff when we go to City Council. It stays in the recommendation. That way it will give us time to look it over. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE SITE AND AN ANCILLARY RESTAURANT IN LO ZONE FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY-EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 73 Borup: Our general policy has been not to take anymore-we are trying not to take anymore applications after 12 o'clock and close the hearings at 1. Again, that is subject to modification by this commission. I assume we would like to at least deal with number 10 and then go from there. That correct Commissioner's. De Weerd: Yes, but I think it would be fair to open the public incase anyone here would want to issue they testimony. Borup: That is what I said. We will proceed with number 10. De Weerd: No, 4 items-11- Borup: Oh yeah. Then we will address that as soon as 10 is over and see what the time looks like. Hawkins: I would point out 2 items that I don't think got addressed. Page 5, number 1 deals with the conditional use permit-shalt become null and void if the work does not commence within one year of approval and that was something that staff discussed. We would have no problem moving that to 2 years and I think the developers would like that too. Brown: So then at the applicants request, they will be back with a detailed conditional use permit on the restaurant. Are you willing to remove your recommendation 5 that there is no details - Borup: You talking about page 5 and 6. Brown: Yes. So it is portion 2 what we are going with. Borup: Anything else we need to be aware of? Hatcher: Consistent with condition of the annexation and number 14 needs to be modified to 5 foot, is that correct? Hawkins: 14 goes with a different issue. That is on the south side of the road. END OF SIDE 6 ** Borup: Applicant come on up. We are ready for the applicant. Oh, I didn't open up the public hearing. I asked for a staff report within the public hearing be opened. The public hearing is open. Seel: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore,Company, 600 N. (Inaudible) Boise Idaho. We are in agreement with the comments that Brad made and our previous testimony stands and we won't take anymore of your time. Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 74 Brown: I think the only thing that needs to be added to 15 then is the fence is going to be solid and 6 foot, per requirements of the annexation. Borup: Any other questions Commissioner's? Anyone here from the audience? Now is your time. Step forward quickly. Hrueax: Just one clarification I wanted to ask is probably of staff, on the birm height again and there was some clarification here I did not quite understand the motion. When were talking about the 20 foot buffer only on the west side or was that-but this is still 30 something on the other side. Then the height of that birm, was that a fixed height or was that based on the ratio previously stated. Borup: The motion was 4 feet with a 6 foot fence, total boundary, the whole length. To comply with that, they may have to move their pond or redesign it or something, but that is the intent of the motion-the whole length of the boundary. Hrueax: Would that include mosquito abatement? Borup: The pond is a run off. You don't have water in those anyway. Anyone else. Thank you. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing. Brown: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: I'll make a motion that we approve Item 10 conditional use permit for a multi building on a single site with some kind of restaurant, subject to staff conditions with a previous stated modifications to condition one being 2 year requirement, highlighting that condition 5 were making reference to submitting a separate CU for the restaurant. Condition 15 that it is a 4 foot birm and that the fence be constructed to 6 foot and it is solid for the annexation requirements. Hatcher: Second. Borup: Discussion. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman perhaps that needs to make clear that that is through the entire property line, that the buffer and parcel A would be the 20 foot buffer and parcel B have the 30 foot that they agreed upon ACHD whatever and that be continuous. Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 75 Borup: And you expecting Mr. Strite to convey that to ACRD at the meeting tomorrow night. De Weerd: We can't require that. It would be advantageous for him to do so. It would be in his best interest. Brown: I will accept that amendment. Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, if we could also instruct staff to communicate that to ACHD so they have that. Borup: I am really concerned that the first section didn't have the buffer in that we thought we was going to have. Hatcher: Could we request of staff to look into that? Hawkins: I've got it down. Borup: Commissioner's, we still have 3 items. Actually 4 items. I guess I would be of mind to open the public hearing and see how it goes. We say 1 o'clock is when we want to shut things off. Can we get things done by then, fine. Let to let the applicant know this may be continued if we don't. We are not going to do anymore 3 am meetings. No one thinks straight at that time. We have a lot of people here so we'd like to go ahead and open the meeting. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 8:25 ACRES FROM RT TO R8 FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN WOOD, D.W., INC. -WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND WEST VICTORY: Borup: Might mention we had to have 3 hearings on this same application. One is for annexation and zoning, one for preliminary plat and the third for conditional use permit for PUD. Item 11 is annexation-and zoning. Brad. Hawkins: Commissioner's, again request that these comments be combined for all three applications. Memo dated December 6, 1999 that these conditions be included for your consideration. I think the overhead shows fairly well what piece we are talking about. Eagle Road north and south, Victory here to the south. Currently Ada County. I believe we have two lots that are zoned R-1 and others RT that are immediately across McDonald lateral on the south side of this parcel. The all ready approved Thousand Springs Village Subdivision raps around to the north and the west. The annexation is - the request is legal. It is contiguous to city limits and the legal description has been Meridian City Council • January 18, 2000 Page 61 tenant, they may dictate a different type of design for us, then we're back here again, and we don't want to dq that. Shari says, if you get these 50-page Development Agreements that are just so onerous as just a -you can go right. one foot and then left another foot, and that's it. As I said, in the City of Boise, we have never done a Development Agreement. When we have, we started to look at one that was specific to the use, and that's it. tt didn't get into all the other details. Quite honestly, you really do want to avoid it for that reason because we don't know. If we are specifically tied, my feeling is Winston Moore is going to say let's pull this. Then you don't have the road. That's a catalyst to this. Again, I'm not trying to make threats here. He doesn't want to get locked into that because he doesn't know. I'm not sure if I understand all the nuances of these issues and all. All I know is we are trying to propose something here which is an office in an L-O zone. We're trying to propose something here that is generally what we're going to propose and we'd like to get approval (inaudible) conditional use permit. That's what we're trying - I'm sorry. I don't understand all the details of it, but that's what we're really trying to do. Again, if the City comes back and says, we're going to go through this very specific Development Agreement, we can't do that because we don't know and we don't want to get ourselves locked into it. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: Jonathan, I think what we're hearing from our legal counsel is that he recommends that the State Land Use Planning Act says that we ought to use the Development Agreement. What we're talking about here is one that would be fairly loosely written that would allow you to do some of the things that you're asking, Do you think Mr. Moore would be opposed to something like that? Seel: I think if it's something like that and it's a fairly loose in nature and again, it speaks generally to this concept, then I think he would not be opposed to it. I can't speak for him, but that would be my gut feeling. Again, if it takes (inaudible) other thing where we're going to get very specific, then, no, that's not going to work. Then again, I'm not trying to - I don't know what the term is here - I'm just trying to see where our dilemma is here, but we don't want to get boxed in. I think it can be fairly specific, like, okay, you're going to have office use and you're going to have four buildings, and there might be down the road possibly that one might be a restaurant or something like that, I don't know if that's legal or not. Then, yes. Yes. We can do that. Again, we're talking about a respected developer who's not going to come in and put up garbage here. This land is not coming cheap. I think that's what we're trying to achieve. I think that if we can do that, we can work it. We would like to do this, we would like to build this project. We don't know if it's going to be two months from now, six months or two years from now, but we would like to build this. We would like to see this road in. I think it's in the benefit of everybody else. So if we can achieve Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 62 something like that with some latitude in there, you know, we're not proposing gas stations or any of the other things. We're basically talking office here, and we will say office, and we said that at the P & Z with the possibility of a restaurant of a conditional use. We will not come back here and ask anyone else here for - oh, we changed our mind, and we'd like to put a Shell Gas Station on that corner. We'd like to put a retail complex. We won't and we said that at P & Z. I think we're trying to be fairly specific and give everybody the comfort they need. (inaudible) answers questions. Kind of in a nutshell. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you, Jonathan. I think you answered the question. Anderson: Mr. Foley wants to comment. Corrie: If somebody opens it up, comment (inaudible) Howard. Foley: I'm Howard Foley. From my perspective, I don't represent the homeowners either, but I just represent myself. I'm not opposed to a general; loosely-written Development Agreement. My concern is the lack of specifics as to what may or may not go in there that isn't office building. That's my concern, and 1 want the staff or the City to continue to have some control over it. I understand legal counsel to say is if you just annex it L-O, you're done. No other conditions. You can't put conditions on it that are other than limited office. If it's limited office, it's just a limited office. Restaurants aren't limited ofFices. That's my only concern that they're continuing to be some kind of control. If we had the Design Review, then that would be some further control. We just don't have it. So that seems to me, and I think that would be acceptable to me as a resident, if we had a Development Agreement that simply said, if you're going to do something beyond limited office or those kinds of things that you go through something that's akin to the conditional use permit or something that gives us notice and opportunity to come in and talk with staff and say, gee, these are the concerns that we have. That's really my concern, and we have given what I understand Mr. Seel to have said if that's acceptable to the applicant. I think that would be acceptable to us, also, but, you know,. we've had these issues before where we think we know what's going on, and then it's sort of gets a life of its own and it sort of changes. Then we are back here lots and lots, and I don't want to do this anymore either. So, that's my only concern. Corrie: Thank you, Howard. Is that what you were saying, Jonathan? Seel: I think (inaudible) 30 seconds because I think we have gone through this. I think that's all we're really saying here. We will put an office here. We will put in there we will be very specific. It's not going to be a gas station, it's not going to = ~ Meridian City Council ~ • January 18, 2000. Page 63 be retail, it's not going to be a liquor store, whatever it is. It's going to be office here. What type of office? It could be medical, it could be general, but it will be office. Then, if we do come with a restaurant, we'll come back with a conditional use permit, again, you've got that second bite at the apple. So I think we're all in agreement here. You know, 1 think we could accept that. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Council, have you heard what you wanted to hear? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that we close the public hearing. Bird: I second it. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 7 and 8. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Okay. Are you ready then for your Item No. 7 on the annexation and zoning? Anderson: Go ahead, Tammy. It was your idea. Go ahead and take a stab at it. deWeerd: I knew - Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. Then, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we have a Findings of Facts and Decision of Order for the request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from R-T to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that the Development Agreement be a very loose -very general L-O Development Agreement and anything outside of light office will come for a CUP. Anderson: Second. deWeerd: Mr. Bird, would that include - Corrie: Just a second. Motion is made and seconded. Okay. Now discussion, Mrs. deWeerd. Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 64 deWeerd: That needs to include staff comments - Bird: It includes staff comments -- deWeerd: -- and would you include - Bird: -- and Development Agreement. deWeerd: -- anything on the signage? Bird: The signage is in the staff comments. deWeerd: Oh. Did you put in there height restriction on this? Bird: Ten foot, yeah. Stiles: It's just a suggestion. Bird: We don't have an ordinance. Anderson: Wouldn't that be covered under the CUP? deWeerd: If they come back for a CUP. Cowie: ,All right. Any other discussion? Gigray: Point of clarification. Cowie: Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, is the motion with the inclusion of staff comments as the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as proposed to be amended by staff and staffs comments here today? Bird: Yes, it is. Gigray: Okay. Cowie: Is that agreeable on the second? Anderson: Yes. Cowie: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Meridian City Council January 18.2000 Page 65 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now we have a public hearing request on the conditional use permit, Item No. 8. Bird: Mr. Mayor Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that is to include the staff comments which I'm not going through and outline and for the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Decision of Order. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the conditional use permit on Item No. 8 and the attorney to draw up ,the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Order. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: That would have a condition that if they do put a restaurant in here they will come back with the CUP; correct? Corrie: That's part of the conditional use. deWeerd: Just wanted clarification. Corrie: Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now, given the hour,. it's 11:00 and we had a lot of people that was here to do the Walgreen's on 9 and 10. I would recommend to the Council, it's your decision, that we have that on the 1St on the public hearing continued to the next meeting. Bird: Yeah. We've had I'll bet you four, five, six, seven people leave because we told them -they were under the impression that we weren't going to go. There's some sitting back out there, but there were four or five sitting. right - a ~ Meridian City Council M~ February 1, 2000 Page 2 of Mirage Meadows Subdivision and Lots 19 and 20 of Chateau meadows East located at the end of Oakcrest Drive: Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 99-005 Request for vacation of the easement lying adjacent to the lot. line common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Thunder Creek Subdivision by Thunder Creek Partnership, LLC -south of Cherry lane, west of Ten Mile on Gray Cloud Way: Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Item K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-040 Request for conditional use permit on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Item L. Tabled from 01/18/2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit - Commercial subdivision mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC - 1230 East Overland Road: Item M. Approve bills: Corrie: Okay. We have on the Consent Agenda tonight Items A through M. Council, pleasure on Items? Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we pull Item D which is an agreement between the City of Meridian, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., to Item 1A on the Regular Agenda; Item F which is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, pull that to 10B, we need to discuss something on that; Items I, J, K and L, table to 2/15/2000. If that's agreeable to .Council, I'll make a motion that we accept the Consent Agenda as noted. Anderson: I'll second that. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda with the exceptions as noted, Items D, F, I, J, K and L. Further discussion? I have Meridian City Council M~ February 1, 2000 Page 3 one thing, Mr. Bird. On Item C and the dog license agreement - do you want to - we don't need to pull it. We discussed it earlier. Bird: Are we going to take that - I'm sorry. If Mr. Anderson will accept this (inaudible) second. Item C, the dog license agreement, I would like to take back into Item 10C to discuss in the Regular Agenda if that's agreeable to Mr. Anderson's second. Anderson: Sure. Corrie: The correction is noted. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote: Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye; Mr. Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 1. Update on Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., by JoAnne Butler: Corrie: Okay. The Regular Agenda, Item 1 is update on Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., by JoAnne Butler. JoAnne. Butler: Mr. Mayor, Council members, .JoAnne Butler, 101 South Capital Boulevard representing Cherry Lane Recreation. With me here tonight is Wally Lovan, Nancy Link, Tad Holloway, Jennifer Lovan-Holloway, and on behalf of Idaho Independent Bank, Jerry Madison. As the Council knows, we've been in the process of constructing a clubhouse at the golf course. Cherry Lane received a conditional use for this purpose last summer. Just by way, for the Council so that you know, one of the conditions of approval reflected in that conditional use permit and also reflected in the agreement that's before you tonight was not actually the condition of approval that the Council deliberated on if we looked at the Council minutes of June 15th, and we assume that was just a drafter's mistake. Anyway, that is one of the reasons that is why we are going back before your P & Z next week, actually, for a modification of that particular conditional use permit in connection with some timeframes, and that's next week. That's not why we're here today. Tonight we're just here to review the agreement for Cherry Lane that has been under discussion by your attorney, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane. The agreement is there to provide the bank with the comfort it needs to give Cherry Lane the loan to construct the clubhouse, and the agreement is there to provide the City with the comfort that it needs to be able to step into borrowers' shoes and complete that work if it should ever have to. We have just asked the counsel through your attorney to make a slight modification to that agreement, and I think your counsel's passed that out. Under the agreement, the conditional use permit is a defined term. It just references your file number, and we just added that it's a conditional use permit as may be amended from time to time just to reflect the fact that we're in that process now in coming to the City over the next month or so to request an Meridian City Pre-Counceting January 18, 2000 Page 9 Corrie: -Table Items C and F. Table those two. Bird: He's saying we might be able to - Corrie: Cis all right: Bird: Okay. Leave C on? Table D and E? Corrie: Right. Bird: We're tabling D, E and F. We're tabling, but in the same motion we'll move E and F to re-open to a public hearing on February 15, 2000. Corrie: Anything else on the Consent Agenda? Explanation -anything to talk about? Item H. Building Inspectors -Contract for Services: Anderson: Oh. The Building Inspector's Contracts? Corrie: Did you get copies of those? Anderson: Yes. Ask Gary a question? Corrie: Yes. Anderson: Gary, on the Building Contract for Services, did you review those and is that the same contract, the same dollar amounts and everything as last year? Smith: Yes, sir. Everything's the same except for the date. Anderson: All right. Thank you. Gigray: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Gigray. Item 2. ORDINANCE NO. 853 Solid Waste Collection Services/Franchise: Item 7. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Approve - Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L-O Meridian City Pre-Counc~ting January 18, 2000 Page 10 zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct a single-tenant commercial building with adrive-thru window (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Gigray: Mr: Mayor, members of the Council, I just might note on the regular agenda, and I don't know if the Clerk's office has this, but with Ordinance - proposed Ordinance 853 on the Solid Waste Collection Services and Franchise, there should be an agreement also with SSI as a follow-up to that ordinance. I believe I have gotten a transmittal from their attorney, Mr. Freeman, that they have, in fact, signed that agreement, and I think we've got a copy of their corporate resolution. That's an item that the Council if it doesn't take action on tonight should come fairly soon and then I would encourage the Council to take a look at Items 7 and 8 and 9 and 10, and the Mayor as to whether or not 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 might be considered a motion to combine those companion applications for public hearing purposes only. That's something you've tended to do and can speed up the process subject to consent of the applicants and anybody appearing. Bird: Mr. Mayor, getting back to -I've got one question. On Gary's proposal concerning the latecomers fee, by approving that, is that the proposal, Gary, that you want to implement? VVe don't have any real facts and figures on there that I can see. You've got an approximate and something like that. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Bird, I just wanted to change - propose that change to the policy. There is not specific language that I wanted you to approve tonight, but I wanted to get your review and your comments concerning the format as far as how we return latecomer fees to those that extend sewer and water lines. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Gary, don't you believe that is something that we could take about 10, 15 minutes in the workshop this month and discuss? Smith: Yes, sir. You bet. Sure could. Bird: So, would you be offended if we agree with you on this proposal but pull it from the Consent Agenda and bring it to the workshop? Meridian City Pre-~Councng January 18, 2000 Page 11 Smith: No, not at all. We've got several latecomer agreements in the process of being finalized, determined, et cetera. I just want to get the language straight in those agreements so that we can return this fund and it will have to be taken care of in the agreement with that particular language or that specific language. Bird: Maybe City Clerk could get us a copy of each one of the Councilmen and the Mayor a copy of that latecomers fee, generic, I know they're all different, but the generic agreement to let us look at when we're doing that. Smith: I'll make you a copy of an example agreement that we presently have approved and under contract, so to speak, that's operational right now. Bird: Then we'll put that on the 28th workshop agenda for a short meeting. Smith: Okay. Corrie: That's fine. Anticipating, you being the Council President, we need to sit down and discuss what we can put on the workshop. We might take a half a day on some of these things because there's a lot of ordinances coming up. Bird: I wouldn't have a problem with that, Mayor. Corrie: Okay. Anything else, any other questions that Council has? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Mr. Gigray, on this Ordinance No. 853, did 'you say to hold that -you didn't say that. I just wondered. I didn't think you had, just the agreement's coming in. Okay. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, all I'm saying is we have prepared an agreement, we have worked with SSI on the terms and conditions of that agreement. That has been approved all the way around. SSI has taken corporate action to enter into the agreement, and I'm just saying it is appropriate in my view if the Council wishes to consider it, that agreement could be approved following the passage of that Franchise Ordinance. Corrie: Thank you. Item 3. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning (R-T TO R-4) by Charles Crane -located at 3610 W. Ustick Road: Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had a question on Item 3 that public hearing and the request for annexation for Charles Crane. Refresh my memory. What was the deal on that one and what were we waiting on? . ~ Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 45 Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Corrie: Item No. 7 and 8 are public hearings on the Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, and since there was no objection to opening .both public hearings on 7 and 8, we will do so so we can have testimony on both of them. We'll take them one at a time when we do the requests. Item No. 7 is public hearing, request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View and also Item No. 8 is a public hearing, request for conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L-O zone proposed Magic View Office Complex. At this time I'll open the public hearing and have staff comments first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I have some suggested changes to the recommendations to City Council. I'll begin with the annexation and zoning recommendations. On Page 1, Item 6 should read subject property is bordered to the north by Greenhill Estates Subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut south and east sides of the property. It should be south and east instead of all. Page 2, Item 10, the last line Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as commercial should be added and mixed/planned use development. Item 12 should be re-numbered to 11. Page 4 we're requesting some. rather significant changes: There was- significant discussion about the buffering between Greenhill Estates Subdivision and this development.. We would ask that Item 1.10 be revised to read: Applicant shall enter into a license agreement with Ada .County Highway District to construct a 30-foot high buffer - I'm sorry. Okay. Let me start over. 1.10: Applicant shall enter into a license agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct a 30-foot wide buffer with a 4-foot high berm and a 6-foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel B. That would be the eastern most parcel that has the Ada County Highway District retention pond. As an explanation to that, that portion there where the retention pond is shown on that parcel is going to be owned by Ada` County Highway District. I think all of you are more than familiar with the way Ada County Highway District maintains those parcels. They're very concerned about aesthetics and beautiful landscaping. So that is the reason why we asked the applicant to enter into that agreement to make sure that it is landscaped and that they are responsible for the construction of the fence and the appearance of that entire area. I'd like to ask that 1.11 be the next item that would read: Applicant shall construct a minimum 20-foot wide buffer with a 4-foot high berm and a 6-foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel A. Item. 1.11 would then become 1.12. 1.12 would become 1.13. We'd ask that the requirement or the staff recommendation for the plat be removed that last sentence and instead of that sentence that the following be added: Applicant shall coordinate with Public Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 46 Works Director and Planning and Zoning Director for direction on appropriate action to accomplish subdivision and/or lot line adjustment. We still need to work on some standards for those lot line adjustments or one-time splits, and I think as part of the standards, we probably won't include a roadway dedication to be permitted as part of a one-time split, but since this is a roadway section that is very much needed and should be included in our Comprehensive Plan, in fact, is something that we need to have done. We may develop some standards for that, but Gary and I can both work with Jonathan to work out the. best way for that. Item 1.13 would then become 1.14. We'd ask that a sentence be added to the end: Applicant shall vacate conflicting easements prior to applying for building permits. The applicant very eloquently made his case at Planning and Zoning Commission for removal of the Development Agreement requirement. They felt it was too restrictive and it tied them down too much to exactly what they're proposing which is kind of the idea of a Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement is not required by the City Council, I would ask that you add an Item 1.15 included as part of the annexation that reads: As a condition of annexation, all uses are to be developed under the conditional use process as a planned development. That way if they make significant changes to their proposal, we'll send them back through the process. Maybe legal counsel has something to say on that. We have in the past included that directly in the Annexation Ordinance that all uses would require to be developed under the conditional use process. On the conditional use portion, Page 4, Item 1.10 of the Recommendations to City Council, staff would support on Line 4, end of the sentence striking "approval" and inserting "building permit issuance." So it would read that the conditional use permit will become null and void if the construction's not complete within two years from the date of the building permit issuance instead of two, years from .date of approval here which seemed a more reasonable timeframe. Under 1.11,, the staff's recommendation that all free- standing and wall signs be included and approved as part of this application. No details have been forthcoming for any of those signs that because, basically, they don't have tenants now, but I think that we should set some restrictions on at least the number and the maximum height of those free-standing signs due to the experience we've had with the Eagle Partners project, we had this same - a similar comment to that signage shall be approved as part of the application. No details were ever submitted, so they've gone through one modification request for 100-foot pole sign, and they're back again with another application fora 77- foot high pole sign. So I think if we could add somewhere within the text of this that free-standing signs are limited to four with a maximum height of ten feet or they can make their case if they want to attempt something else, but I think we need to put some definite limitations on this because we don't want to have to negotiate with every sign that comes through and have to make a judgement call on what a significant change is to their plan. On Page 5, Item 1.15, that could be stricken as they have provided those details. I believe they were presented at Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 6, Item 1.24 should read: A four-foot high berm and six-foot high solid fence is required for the boundaries adjacent to the Greenhill Estates lots. That was covered in the annexation and zoning, but it Meridian City Council ~ • January 18, 2000 -- Page 47 would be good to reiterate it in the conditional use permit. Other than that, we had no further comment. This is a good project. The roadway is needed, and staff recommends approval with the changes noted. Corrie: Okay. Any questions of Shari at this point? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I have one. Shari, you struck a nerve again with that sign deal with me. You said you didn't want to make a judgement call, but then you kind of rolled your eyes and said I'm thinking in the neighborhood of 10-foot, yet we have another application that's on Fairview that you're talking about 20-foot. Have you come up with a Sign Ordinance and these seem very much like judgement calls to me like you're making a judgement. Here it's 10 foot, another it's 20 foot. How do you determine what you're going to allow for height? Stiles: Where was it 20 feet? Anderson: I think it's on the -one of these other projects that we were looking at. The Walgreen I think is a 20-foot sign recommended there. Stiles: No. That was a 72-foot maximum. Albertson's which is way back -- you can't even see the building. The building's higher than 20 feet. It's not along an entryway corridor. You wouldn't even notice a 20-foot high sign back there. The reason I recommend the 20 feet is because directly south of this property, this entire five-acre parcel has restricted itself to a maximum 10-foot high free- standing signs. Every lot in that, they have four or five lots in there, and they have made a commitment as part of their annexation and zoning that they will not exceed that. As a condition of annexation and zoning and the conditional use permit, we could say you can only have two-foot high signs. Anderson: I understand that. I'm just -- Stiles: I would rather - Anderson: -- trying to urge you to -let's get that Sign Ordinance up so you're not making a judgement on all these so that we can push forward with that, and then you've got something to go by. Stiles: I would rather make a legal judgement - I mean that becomes a legal requirement rather than not have any requirement and then have to deal with each one when they come in and make that judgement call and have nothing to stand on. That's why I ask (inaudible). Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 48 Anderson: Okay. Cowie: Any further comments? Bird: I have none. Cowie: This is a public hearing. Any developer? Seel: Good evening, Mayor, Council members. We have read through the report - Corrie: Name. Seel: I'm sorry. Jonathan Seel with W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead, Boise. We've read through the report, and we have no problems. I don't know if we want to talk about the annexation first or if we want to merge them together. Corrie: Go ahead and do the annexation. Seel: Annexation? Okay. We'll talk about the annexation first. We read through the annexation, the report that you received. We have no problems with that. Wth respect to the annexation and rezone, recommendations that are included on the letter from Shari, we also have no problems with that. We talked to her about that already. I'm certainly pleased to answer questions you have. We'll try to keep this short.. Corrie: Okay. Council? Bird: Which letter are you talking about, Jonathan? Seel: I'm talking about this one that Shari, had provided to me this evening which reflects the modifications she just discussed with you. Stiles: They don't have that. Bird: We don't have a copy of it? So we need to enter it into the records? Stiles: The memo was to myself and Jonathan and the City Clerk from Brad Hawkins-Clark, and I went over every one of those items -- Bird: Oh. Okay. Stiles: -- verbally. Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 49 Seel: Yeah. We're in agreement with them, so, I was under the understanding you had this. Corrie: Okay. And the request for the conditional use permit? Seel: Okay. You want to do that next, huh? Corrie: If you're through with - Seel: Yeah. We're through with that. With respect to the conditional use permit, again, reading the report, the recommendations provided to you, we're in agreement with that, and we're in agreement with the conditions, again, that were applied here with, I guess, with exception of a couple things I want to clarify. One, I talked a little bit with Shari about the signage, and I understand where Shari's coming from with her concern for signage. I'm a little reluctant right now to kind of pull something out without understanding what we're going to be potentially developing there. I would like to have the flexibility based on that. If you look at most of our projects throughout the City of Boise, our signage is never -has not been above ten feet. Typically it's been below that. In fact, we've submitted a concept plan reflecting one that was seven feet. But there may be instances where we may need a sign that is slightly higher than that, so I would like to suggest that we have some flexibility in that depending on what we're going to get in there, we had talked about a restaurant. And if it's a restaurant, maybe we will need to look at a little bit higher sign. So I guess I'm just trying to leave that somewhat open at this point to give us the opportunity depending on what we arrive at to determine then instead of locking ourselves into ten feet at this point which may or may not be, you know, may be acceptable. I don't know. So I'm a little uncomfortable in that. The other thing I'll just mention, I don't know, Shari, if you didn't mention 1.4 on Page 3. I didn't - *** End of Side 3 *** Stiles: -- tonight because I'm not in agreement with changing that. Seel: Okay. Well, I don't know if it's just simply. we need clarification on it. I mean, I can explain - my concern about that one, I don't know if you want to (inaudible) rain on your parade here. Stiles: Mr. Seel had a concern because on Page 3, Item 1.4 of the conditional use permit recommendation, it speaks to providing sewer and water to and through the development. I believe that is an ordinance requirement, and I felt it was covered by the remainder of that paragraph that said project designer is to coordinate sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Mr. Seel's concern is that he's going to be required to extend sewer and water to and through his property whether or not it's needed. It's -that's just the wording out of our ordinance. That's the reason it reads the way it is. That's why I thought it Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 50 should just stay as it read because the Public Works Department is not going to require him to build lines that are not necessary. Seel: That was my only concern. It was more simply a clarification. If we can tie to sewer on Magic View, and I understand we can. I understand with water we can't. But in the - if, in fact, we can go ahead and tie to sewer on Magic View, I don't want to have language in there that might imply down the road that we need to bring sewer through with what's referred to as St. Luke's Street. As we all know, memories fade, and a year from now or ayear-and-a-half from now, somebody looks back and-says, oh, Mr. Moore, you were supposed to put sewer down St. Luke's Street. It says it right here, to and through. So I would just like to have some clarification here that if it's necessary, we would put it in, but if it's not necessary that it will not be a requirement. I'm not trying to go against the ordinance because we've had to do the to-and-through policy before. I think it's just clarification because we're talking two streets here with sewer and water right now. That's my only thing. Corrie: But you do agree, Jonathan, that perhaps that last sentence does take that into consideration? Seel: I think it generally does. I guess it doesn't completely satisfy me. You know, I just want it - like I say, I just want something in my mind that's a little clearer on that. As we say, we're talking two streets. We're going to be (inaudible) ACHD is depending. I just don't want that to become an issue, and if it's not necessary and someone down the road decides it, it would be nice to have, but we don't necessarily need it. So maybe I'm being a little picky on this, but as I say, we believe memories fade. So anyway, it's a minor thing. I think it's just simply that and the signage are the only two items that I had any comments; otherwise, we're in agreement with this. Corrie: Council, any question of Jonathan? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony on Item 7 the annexation and also the conditional use permit? Yes, sir. Harl: My name is Chuck Harl and I live at 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian. Thank you for your time this evening. I just would like to clarify that I'm a resident in Greenhill Estates, and I would like to clarify a couple of things here. In particular, the berm issue because it becomes a noise, light and privacy issue of separation between this project and our residential subdivision. At the Planning and Zoning meeting, we somehow came up with this four-foot berm on a 35-foot wide piece of right-of-way, and it comes out to a 3:1 ratio, and I'm still confused on how this works. Because even if the 35 feet is split in half, that's 17 feet, and 3:1 is not four. I -for some reason,,, I think we can raise this berm for a little bit more or a Menclian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 51 little bit more of a privacy issue is what I'm concerned about here. We talked about before what goes on top of this berm. I'm hearing now that we want a solid six-foot fence that's made out of wood. At the P & Z meeting, we had requested either brick or vinyl, something that doesn't need long-term maintenance. Something that is permanent. This is what we're looking for. I don't think it's really out of the question to do something like this if you look at the maintenance costs that are going to be incurred by having wood on there as to no maintenance on the other things. If we could have some clarification on why exactly this berm is going to only be four-foot high, I would really appreciate that. I guess those are my comments. Corrie: Okay. (inaudible) comments, questions at this point? Thank you. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Yes, sir. Foley: My name is Howard Foley. I reside at 2875 Autumn Way in Meridian, Idaho. I'm a resident of Greenhill Estates Subdivision, also, and I have, in addition to Mr. Harl's comments or concerns, two. others. I have the same concern that was raised by Shari regarding the sign and Sign Ordinance. Our subdivision has been through this process with Eagle Partners before where the sign's not been designated and we've been back to hearings, and we've had discussions about 100-foot signs and whatever. Now, I understand we're going to be maybe having another hearing about a 72-foot sign, and this seems to be repetitious, and it seems that this is probably the time and the place for these discussions to end so we don't find ourselves back again and again. It seems appropriate to me that if these are going to be office buildings that the signage be consistent with office buildings. That they be ground-level monument signs or that they be signs on the buildings themselves, that they not be free-standing, illuminated signs. Assuming that the offices will be open from eight to five, you know, I'm just not sure we need 10, or as Councilman Anderson asked, 20-foot or whatever they are illuminated signs. I know you've heard from us in our subdivision on too many occasions, but I can assure you we're well illuminated by signage from Jackson's and the Chevron's and the McDonald's in our backyards as it is, and the further that development comes down our backyards, the bigger the concern for us with free-standing, internally illuminated signs -just some definition of what that's going to be and some consistency in terms with the development seems appropriate to us. Certainly, the buildings have to have signage, and we understand that, but we just don't see the need for it to be wide open and then the signage issues that we've had to address before, all of us. Secondly, I think there ought to be a Development Agreement. When I first heard about the project and viewed it, I understand there is a proposal for a restaurant. At one time, I'd heard the proposal was that the restaurant would be internal to the office facility itself, would be one of those things where people who worked inside the office buildings would come and have lunch or whatever the case might be. Now I understand that the developer's not exactly sure what they want. They really don't want to be tied down, understandably, Iguess, if you were in our position, we'd like them tied down. We'd like to know what they're Meridian City Council _ January 1 S, 2000 Page 52 going to do, we want to know if there's going to be restaurants that extend beyond the eight to five timeframe, and if so, what kind of traffic and lighting, and those kinds of things are going to go on. If that is done by the mechanism of a Development Agreement, many of the applicants that come before you are required to enter into Development Agreements, and that's a safeguard for us through your process, and I'd ask that you pose that on the applicant. Thanks. Corrie: Any questions for Howard? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Howard. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Jonathan, any comments on the questions that were raised? Seel: Yes. Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company. I think with respect to the question about the berm and the fence, I think the thinking behind that was that if we have afour-foot berm and asix-foot feet, you basically have ten feet there. I think that would obstruct any type of lighting that would come from the cars. I can appreciate their concern with the noise and lighting, and so I think that was where it was addressed; the fact that we would put afour-foot berm with asix- foot fence on top of it which would give you your ten feet. Presumably, that should be adequate to eliminate the lighting. As far as the sound goes, I'm not sure that you're ever going to completely eliminate noise there, and (inaudible) given the fact that you also have, I don't know how many thousands of cars running up and down Eagle Road every day and every night. So that's where that came from. With respect to the question of the fence, I don't recall - my memory's failed me before, but I don't recall any discussion or approval about a vinyl or brick fence. I do recall some discussions about that, but we would be opposed to that. You start getting into brick, you get into something very substantial in terms of costs. It's not cheap. Winston Moore, I think .you're probably all familiar, is awell-respected developer in this community. He's not one that kind of comes in here, throws up a project, sells it and blows out of town. It's in his best interest to maintain this fence, too. We don't want that to deteriorate if we end up, in fact, putting up a wood fence. We want that to look nice. If that starts to deteriorate, then, obvious, that impacts our marketing ability. We want full buildings. So, again, I would like to say that we would (inaudible) wood fence. It would be attractive, it would be well-maintained as well as the landscaping that's in our best interest. As far as the restaurant goes, I would point out that we also say here that we are here for a conditional use permit. In the event that we do come in for a restaurant, we will come back for a CU. So we will come back at that point and there would be conditions put on us. At this point, we don't know what kind of restaurant it is. We don't know what kind of hours of operation. This is a concept. We know generally how it's going to look, but we don't -that's one of the reasons we said to P & Z and we're saying to City Council, that we are prepared to come back in the event it is a Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 53 restaurant and ask for a conditional use permit for that project. So you have essentially another bite of the apple down the road as well as the homeowners who can either say, yes, that's acceptable, or, no, we have a real problem with that. So we are not proposing right now that, yeah, we are going to create a restaurant tomorrow based on this. So I think that's an important point, and I think that's my only comments. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: Generally what building you'd be looking at fora restaurant? Seel: Yes. I think most likely if you're looking at it, you'd look at that building right there. (inaudible) Right there. You know, our feeling is that because that is so -that is close to the Chevron Station that that's going to be the most. likely place for a restaurant. We also feel that i#'s far enough away from the homeowners that will not be disruptive to them -certainly minimize any disruptions to them. That is right now what we visualize it as working out that way. I think, again, that would minimize it and it backs up the gas station would be the most likely place. Anderson: Thank you. Seel: Any other questions? deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: Mr. Seel, would you be -since you'd have to come back for a CUP if you put a restaurant in that spot to agree to a height on your signs because that sign could be designated with that piece and could come through with a CUP at that point. Seel: Well, .again, I would prefer at that point to address the sign on that. Without knowing what type of restaurant it is - deWeerd: Exactly. That's my point. You could commit to a height on the other facilities, but in case that you did have to come back for a CUP on that particular area, you could come back with the sign package at that time as well. Seel: I don't see -- like I say, if you look around at anything that Winston Moore's done, drive up and down Emerald or over Forest River (sic) stuff, you'll see that those signs are monument-type signs that I think are seven, eight feet tall. They're no more than that. They're a brick structure with (inaudible). They Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 54 have lights that shine up. They're not internally illuminated. I don't see where that will, personally, where that will be a problem. I think that will go well with an office complex. deWeerd: Would you have a problem putting aten-foot maximum on signage with the exception if you come back with a CUP on the particular lot. Seel: I don't think so. I think that's reasonable. Again, I understand the homeowners' concerns that they don't want 150-foot sign shining down into the backyard. We can appreciate that; the homeowners' concerns about that. deWeerd: Just one last thing. I know that Shari and her changes had mentioned if we didn't do a Development Agreement there was some other verbiage .that she suggested. Do you have a problem with either of those? Seel: No. Because what we presented here is what we think is a concept, the way it will generally look. We've talked about the building, the westerly (inaudible), and I can't remember if that's Parcel A, but the northerly building would be a one-story. Again, we know we're backing up to neighborhoods, so we don't want it to be two-stories. The one below would be potentially atwo- story. So we see this as kind of a concept plan that we're going to do, so we're comfortable with trying to stay within these perimeters. I don't see where we're going to erratically deviate. We're not going to throw five buildings on this one and six on that one or something like that. deWeerd: So you wouldn't object to a Development Agreement? Seel: A Development Agreement? Yes, I would. deWeerd: That was part of my question. Okay. Seel: Yeah. That's the whole thing. That's what we argued with before was that we don't want to get locked in, quite honestly, if we are forced for that, then, you know, we don't know at this point what precisely we're going to do, and if you get into Development Agreements, they're a very specific thing. You have a concept here, and I don't know if we - we don't -we're opposed to that. deWeerd: That's all I had. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Seel: Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 55 Corrie: Any other questions or any other testimony you would like to hear, Council? Bird: I have none. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just for staff. Shari, since I didn't write every change down that you had suggested, in regards to the Development Agreement versus the other alternative, what are the differences between those two? Stiles: Well, a Development Agreement will definitely lock them into exactly what they proposed, what they've shown. I saw Mr. Gigray over there shaking his head when I was talking about just making it a part of the annexation that all uses had to be developed under the conditional use permit process as a planned development. I think that we can do it that way. I think it can be included in the Annexation Ordinance that that's a condition. It's just as easy, in fact, probably easier to track than a Development Agreement; less staff intensive. I'm sure Mr. Gigray wouldn't mind getting rid of some Development Agreements whenever he has the opportunity. I think we have the same control by going with the conditional use permit process as we would through a Development Agreement with a lot fewer trees killed. deWeerd: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: With that, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No. 7 and Item No. 8. Bird: So moved. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 7, request for annexation and zoning, and Item No. 8, request for conditional use permit. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Okay, Council. Let's take then one at a time. Item No. 7. Mr. Gigray. Gigray: I would advise the Council that it would be my legal opinion that regarding Development Agreements that you can use them to craft conditions of development as well as conditions of use. You don't have to include both. They Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 56 can include one or the other. I do not recommend that you have an Annexation and a Zoning Ordinance that has conditions in the Zoning Ordinance because I do not feel that there is clear statutory authority allowing that. I think the vehicle which the Land Use Planning Act provides as a Development Agreement is a condition of a rezone or a zoning designation, and that's why we've used those. Now, if your ordinance which is proposed on this annexation requires a conditional use permit in an L-O zone for what they proposed to do, then that would take care of itself under the Zoning Ordinance. If it doesn't require a conditional use permit, then if there's part of this that wouldn't be governed by the conditional use permit, then the zoning without a Development Agreement wouldn't control it. They would be able to do what the zone would allow. Corrie: Any discussion? Bird: I think Shari's got something to say. Corrie: Shari. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I need to address what Bill just said. If I'm hearing you right, you're saying that you can't include in an Annexation Ordinance that as a condition of annexation, all uses shall be developed as conditional uses, and that under the conditional use permit process as a planned development. You can't do that? Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, no. We can write it that way, I just don't recommend that. I don't think that there's clear statutory authority. I think you have an Annexation Ordinance that includes property, an annexation and then we're required as soon as possible to zone it, and that Annexation Ordinance includes a designation of the property in a zone. We have an ordinance that prescribes what you can use property for in a particular zone. We can't rewrite that Zoning Ordinance in an Annexation Ordinance, and I wouldn't recommend that we try to do so, and I think that's the idea of Development Agreements and why the statutes allow us to use them so that through the Development Agreement as a condition of that zoning you can further limit the use of the property and/or the development of the property in that agreement. Now, if, for instance, the annexation were to the L-O zone and the L-O zone had requirements in it that this developer, whatever that is they wanted to do, required a conditional use permit by the terms of the L-O zone, then what you've recommended works under the terms of our own Zoning Ordinance. If that doesn't work, if then - if you have an annexation into an L-O zone, then they can, without a Development Agreement, then they would be able to develop the property subject to whatever uses are permitted in that zone. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council January 1 S, 2000 Page 57 Bird: This is for Mr. Gigray. But if we, in approving the annexation and zoning to an L-O, require that all buildings come under conditional use permit, then that takes -they can't (inaudible) go back on that, can they? ,That takes place of the Development Agreement? Gigray: I'll be directed to draft the ordinance as you require. I just don't recommend that because I think then you get into issues of conditional zoning, but by specific ordinances, you have an ordinance that prescribes your zoning regulations, and you can't amend that by various annexations. You have to go back and change the whole ordinance. But you can, in the Idaho Land Use Planning Act specifically gives you authority if you choose to exercise it, to govern and restrict as a condition of the zoning, the use and/or the development of the property. You don't have to do both. You can just do one. Or you could do both, depending on how you see the evidence in the particular case and what's reasonable. But if you started annexing property and zoning it subject to conditions, we'd have a bunch of mini-zoning ordinances all over the place with every annexation, and I just don't see in the Idaho Code clear authority to do that. But if you direct me to draft the ordinance, I have to do what I'm directed to do by the governing body which you are. Corrie: Okay. It looks like you've got two choices. Annexation and zoning with the Development Agreement or with the conditional use permit on the zoning. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: May I ask Shari -Shari, if I recall, I don't believe it's probably been the two years I've been on here, but I believe we've done a lot of annexations and zonings with conditional use permits, have we not, instead of Development Agreements? Stiles: Most of them ended up requiring a Development Agreement. Practically everything that's been annexed since 1994 has a condition that they enter into a Development Agreement. Bird: Okay. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I guess I just have a general question, then. This seems like a development that we're not the only city that has these types of developments where we don't actually know who the tenants are going to be at this point. How are those other cities dealing with this same type of issue? Are they requiring Meridian City CounGl ~ , January 18, 2000 Page 58 Development Agreements or are we - is our ordinance restricting us or do we need to look at that? I'm not -anybody that can answer it, I guess. Bird: I'm with Councilman Anderson. I'd like to know, too. Corrie: Shari, any idea? Stiles: I believe Star is getting into requiring Development Agreements, Eagle is way different and does require some Development Agreements, but they also have very restrictive design review guidelines. Boise City has a lot of zones that are design review. They have Design Review Committees which helps them a lot, but when you are just trying to do it with Planning and Zoning and Council and staff, it gets down to design review of practically every project that comes through the door. That's why we put the Development Agreement requirement on them because we may have conditions that aren't necessarily outlined in the existing ordinance that is sometimes a lot of it's site-specific, too. Depending on where it is, what the surrounding uses are, some of their presentations they may make during the public hearings that they may say they're going to do that, but if you can really tie them down with a Development Agreement, it's easier to enforce, but I don't know how many Development Agreements Boise City has done. I know that they do have the mechanism for them, but I believe, and maybe Jonathan can even answer that, too. It's governed more by design review in those other cities. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: It seems that you have a little bit more control, a little bit more chance of feedback with a conditional use permit, though.. At least you can see what they're proposing. If it's just under a Development Agreement, you don't see it, if it's permitted. Corrie: Shari. Stiles: I don't particularly like the way Development Agreements are turning out as far as - I mean, they are extremely restrictive. It says - it has -it's 50 pages long, it has the Findings attached to it, it has an exact site plan that sometimes is so restrictive that it doesn't leave them any room for even slight modifications because of the way that it's written. deWeerd: So it's almost better off that they come in and ask for annexation and zoning without a plan. I've seen that happen. So why on earth do we allow that to happen and don't put any conditional use permit requirements on but we're holding -we're- considering holding this one up because the CUP process is not the way to go? Meridian City Council January 1 S, 2000 Page 59 Corrie: I don't think it's not a way to go. It's just one of the ways. Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor,- members of the Council, the only time that you have authority to require a conditional use permit is if the applicant is in a zone and they propose a use of that property that that Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit. They've already been annexed, they're already subject to a Zoning Ordinance that applies to that property, and they propose to, let's say, put a gas station in an L-O zone, and in order to use that as a gas station, takes a conditional use permit. Then you go through and they go through the conditional use permit. But if the L-O zone allows an office building, they don't need a conditional use permit because the zone allows an office building. Now, if in a Development Agreement, you require as a condition of giving the L-O zone to the applicant that they go through a conditional use permit in order to get the office building, you need a Development Agreement in my opinion. That's an example. Obviously, in this application, one of these would be subject to a conditional use permit, but I'm saying do not pass annexation ordinances with zoning designations that include conditions on the zone because I don't think you have clear, legal authority to do that. You have your zoning ordinance, and once you're designated in that zone, it's. subject to the terms and conditions of that zone whatever they may be. Now, if you want to limit that further, then you do a Development Agreement. Whether or not you do that is a matter of discretion and determination. Yes, you could accommodate an application for annexation and zoning and no development, and if you feel in your wisdom that's proper, you'd grant the annexation and zoning with no conditions. You know, those are going to be fact-driven by each application. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: Mr. Gigray, so can you request that a Development Agreement be made but not particularly tying to that and ask for them to come through with conditional use permits with their - Gigray: You could have a Development Agreement simply just governed the use, and it'd have a provision in there that any uses proposed of the property or any development of the property would require a conditional use process and of conditions. Corrie: Any further discussion? deWeerd: Well, Mr. Mayor, I guess some of the change in this, I would be interested to hear what the applicant had to say. Corrie: We can't do it. It's a public hearing. Meridian City Council i January 18, 2000 Page 60 deWeerd: That would be my proposal. I would move that we re-open the public hearing. Bird: I'll second it. Corrie: Motion's made and seconded to re-open the public hearing on Item No. 7 and 8. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: All right. Let's hear what you've got to say, Jonathan. Seel: I think there's a couple things to think about here. This kind of caught me flatfooted because I didn't think we'd be going through this again. The City needs the road and County wants to put it in, and Winston Moore -let me back up. The process behind us was Winston wanted to, about six months ago, wanted to get an idea how this road would be laid out. He went to ACHD and said to them, we'd like to know how much right-of-way you'll be taking and how's this going to be used so we can begin to design a concept plan on this project so we can begin to market it. ACHD's comment at that point was, okay, you go ahead and submit an application, and based on that, we'll be able to determine what kind of road we put. Based on that, we came up with a concept plan is what we're proposing here which we don't see is going to radically deviate from this. This is an L-O zone, we are allowed to put office in here. With multiple ofFce, we go through the conditional use. So we submitted this concept plan without knowing precisely how this is all going to work out because we haven't started the marketing process yet, and we don't know how market conditions are going to dictate for this. So we have a concept plan here. I don't want to say this as a threat, but this is almost verbatim from Winston, is if the City of Meridian requires me to do a Development Agreement that's very specific, then I'll simply pull the application. He doesn't want to get locked into something because we don't know. As Shari's said, we've gone through this before where it gets so specific is the type of building, the size, the footprint and everything else, and we begin to deviate from that, we're back here, and we don't want to do that. That's just counterproductive. I don't think you enjoy listening to me talk, and I certainly don't want to be here until 11:00 multiple times. I'm not trying to be smart here, I'm just trying to lay it out. What we're trying to do is say, okay, this is generally what we're going to do. It's an L-O zone. The homeowners, from what I understand, and Billy Ray is probably spent many meetings here with homeowners and their concerns, they wanted office, we're proposing office with a possibility of a restaurant which we will come back under a conditional use permit to provide. So we're not really talking about a restaurant today. The restaurant is for all intents and purposes in my mind off the table. We're just saying that there's just a possibility down the road, we're kind of laying out. Maybe it'd be better if we never had. So we're trying to give you a concept plan, but we don't know if this is specific. If we get a particular type of tenants or Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 62 something like that with some latitude in there, you know, we're not proposing gas stations or any of the other things. We're basically talking office here, and we will say office, and we said that at the P & Z with the possibility of a restaurant of a conditional use. We will not come back here and ask anyone else here for - oh, we changed our mind, and we'd like to put a Shell Gas Station on that corner. We'd like to put. a retail complex. We won't and we said that at P & Z. I think we're trying to be fairly specific and give everybody the comfort they need. (inaudible) answers questions. Kind of in a nutshell. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you, Jonathan. I think you answered the question. Anderson: Mr. Foley wants to comment. Corrie: If somebody opens it up, comment (inaudible) Howard. Foley: I'm Howard Foley. From my perspective, I don't represent the homeowners either, but I just represent myself. I'm not opposed to a general, loosely-written Development Agreement. My concern is the lack of specifics as to what may or may not go in there that isn't office building. That's my concern, and I want the staff or the City to continue to have some control over it. I understand legal counsel to say is if you just annex it L-O, you're done. No other conditions. You can't put conditions on it that are other than limited office. If it's limited office, it's just a limited office. Restaurants aren't limited offices. That's my only concern that they're continuing to be some kind of control. If we had the Design Review, then that would be some further control. We just don't have it. So that seems to me, and I think that would be acceptable tome as a resident, if we had a Development Agreement that simply said, if you're going to do something beyond .limited office or those kinds of things that you go through something that's akin to the conditional use permit or something that gives us notice and opportunity to come in and talk with staff and say, gee, these are the concerns that we have. That's really my concern, and we have given what I understand Mr. Seel to have said if that's acceptable to the applicant. I think that would be acceptable to us, also, but, you know, we've had these issues before where we think we know what's going on, and then it's sort of gets a life of its own and it sort of changes. Then we are back here lots and lots, and I don't want to do this anymore either. So, that's my only concern. Corrie: Thank you, Howard. Is that what you were saying, Jonathan? Seel: I think (inaudible) 30 seconds because I think we have gone through this. I think that's all we're really saying here. We will put an office here. We will put in there we will be very specific. It's not going to be a gas station, it's not going to IVlen~an City Council • • January 1 S, 2000 Page 63 be retail, it's not going to be a liquor store, whatever it is. It's going to be office here. What type of office? It could be medical, it could be general, but it will be office. Then, if we do come with a restaurant, we'll come back with a conditional use permit, again, you've got that second bite at the apple. So I think we're all in agreement here. You know, I think we could accept that. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Council, have you heard what you wanted to hear? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that we close the public hearing. Bird: I second it. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 7 and 8. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Okay. Are you ready then for your Item No. 7 on the annexation and zoning? Anderson: Go ahead, Tammy. It was your idea. Go ahead and take a stab at it. deWeerd: I knew - Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. Then, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we have a Findings of Facts and Decision of Order for the request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from R-T to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that the Development Agreement be a very loose -very general L-O Development Agreement and anything outside of light office will come for a CUP. Anderson: Second. deWeerd: Mr. Bird, would that include - Corrie: Just a second. Motion is made and seconded. Okay. Now discussion, Mrs. deWeerd. Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 64 deWeerd: That needs to include staff comments - Bird: It includes staff comments -- deWeerd: -- and would you include - Bird: -- and Development Agreement. deWeerd: -- anything on the signage? Bird: The signage is in the staff comments. deWeerd: Oh. Did you put in there height restriction on this? Bird: Ten foot, yeah. Stiles: It's just a suggestion. Bird: We don't have an ordinance. Anderson: Wouldn't that be covered under the CUP? deWeerd: If they come back for a CUP. Corrie: All right. Any other discussion? Gigray: Point of clarification. Corrie: Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, is the motion with the inclusion of staff comments as the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as proposed to be amended by staff and staff's comments here today? Bird: Yes, it is. Gigray: Okay. Corrie: Is that agreeable on the second? Anderson: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Meridian Ciry Council i January 18, 2000 Page 65 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now we have a public hearing request on the conditional use permit, Item No. 8. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that is to include the staff comments which I'm not going through and outline and for the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Decision of Order. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the conditional use permit on Item No. 8 and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Order. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: That would have a condition that if they do put a restaurant in here they will come back with the CUP; correct? Corrie: That's part of the conditional use. deWeerd: Just wanted clarification. Corrie: Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none,. all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now, given the hour, it's 11:00 and we had a lot of people that was here to do the Walgreen's on 9 and 10. I would recommend to the Council, it's your decision, that we have that on the 1St on the public hearing continued to the next meeting. Bird: Yeah. We've had I'll bet you four, five, six, seven people leave because we told them -they were under the impression that we weren't going to go. There's some sitting back out there, but there were four or five sitting right - Meridian City Council S i January 18, 2000 Page 66 Gigray: (inaudible) Bird: Is there anybody that can't come back, Mayor, (inaudible) 1 Sty Corrie: Is there anybody that can't come back on the 1St of February? We can take - Hawker: Mr. Mayor, Colby Hawker, Hawkins Smith - if we - Corrie: It's not open yet. Let me - I just wanted to know if -the reason you can't. Hawker: I'm with the applicant, and our issue is simply with we have made a commitment on the property, and we have got to finalize where we are in this project or our commitments on this thing - we started - we applied in August, we were deferred through Planning and Zoning, we were deferred through ACRD, and it just keeps going on and on and on, and I know the timing was bad with the first of the year and the new City Council members that have come on for the last hearing that we were supposed to be on. So - Corrie: One of the things, if I open it, it'll have to be continued to the first, so it'll be the same thing because we've got people that left that have a right to testify. Hawker: Well, I understand. I don't know what to say other than (inaudible) specific commitments that we have got to make and I would just hate to have that go - I think we have a plan in front of the City Council that we can talk about tonight. I know there are several neighbors that had some concerns, and I think we've got a plan that we will present to you that will alleviate the concerns that they had. Corrie: That may well be, but they're not here. Hawker: Well (inaudible) - Corrie: So that's why we have to have the continued public hearing. You're in a Catch-22 here. Some people have left because of the hour. Hawker: I understand. Bird: Mr. Mayor, can I explain something? The Mayor asked earlier if there was anybody here that, you know, -- told them that if it comes 10:30, we were going to decide on these two things to go, and then at that point, five or six people left. It would not be fair to them, and I understand your dilemma, you know, and I realize you've went on about six months trying to get this thing through, but it's Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 67 not fair to those people that were under the impression that we were not going to have a public hearing. - *** End of Side 4 *** Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct asingle- tenant commercial building with adrive-thru window (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Hawker: -- I understand that Bird: I understand your dilemma Hawker: It's an unfortunate situation, I guess. We've just been involved with this process for so long, and our commitments that we can make to the landowners out there -you know, the property that we're taking down as part of this, there's a huge financial commitment that we have to make to go ahead and close on those pieces of property, and without knowing that my development is approved as part of this, there's a huge financial risk that I take there. Bird: When do you have to make the commitment? Hawker: Well, our commitments have to be made by the end of this month. Bird: By the first of February? You couldn't get a 15-day extension on those guys? I don't think somebody's going to jump in and buy it up (inaudible) Hawker: I don't know. (inaudible) approach them and make that recommendation. That's my concern. Bird: And I apologize for the -you know, we can only go so much - Corrie: The thing is, you wouldn't get a commitment from the Council anyway until they. voted the 1St if they had it tonight. So you're still in a Catch-22. They have to approve the Findings of Facts on the 1St, so you're not in time anyway. Hawker: Sure. I understand. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson.