Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter by Vic ConradJ^ .. ;~`~x J CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS February 12, 2009 J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY ONE CAPITAL CENTER 999 MAIN STREET SUITE 1300 P.O. BOX 27 BOISE, IDAHO 83707 (208) 336-2110 FAX (208) 389-7515 Hand Delivery Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 86342 ~' ^' - Re: Application CPA 08-014 of City of Meridian Planning Department. Dear Mr. Ellsworth: The J. R. Simplot Company ("Simplot") requests the following comments become part of the official record in the above referenced application. Simplot owns approximately 121 acres located on the northeast comer of Amity Road and State Highway 69. Under the above referenced Application, approximately 43 acres of Simplot's ownership will remain within tie "Medium Density Residential" land use designation. The balance of Simplot's land, approximately 78 is proposed for the new land use category "Mixed-Use Non-Residential." ~~ ~ `~~ ,;: ~~~ , Without waiving any rights to object to the City's down-grading of the 78 acres of Simplot's land to prevent residential development, Simplot acknowledges this pazcel may be more suitable for future non-residential development. However, the lack of clarity describing allowable uses under the proposed "Mixed-Use -Non-Residential" use together with limiting Simplot's flexibility on developing the 78 acres places Simplot in the unfortunate position of objecting to the new land use designation in its current form. From the description of the proposed change provided by your staff, the Simplot's current Mixed-Use -Regional land use designation provides for the following: 1. No upper limit ofnon-residential uses. 2. Over 200,000 sgft. Ofnon-residential building azea. 3. CUP application would not be needed unless a project lies within 300 feet of an existing residence or school or CUP is otherwise required per ordinance. 4. Residential density of 3 to 40 units/acre. 5. Samples Uses include: All MU-N categories, entertainment uses, major employment centers, clean industry. ,' ,:.,: ~~'' {`i .'.F' From various documents provided, it is our impression the proposed change would limit the 78 acres to the following: A „n :a- ~, a. Light professional uses, including light warehousing. b. Flex space uses, including light warehousing c. Limited, small-scale retail uses d. Mini-storage uses. It is not clear whether all development within this proposed land use will require a conditional use permit, which imposes further costs on developing this 78 acre parcel under these limited uses. Without any compensation, the value and use of Simplot private property will be negatively impacted by the following limitations: (1) the removal of its existing rights to residential land use on 78 acres, (2) the removal of the right to plan a large scale retail and commercial development, which this parcel is ideally suited for, and 3) potentially the loss of the right to process a development without requiring additional permitting and the costs associated therewith. The following is quoted from the Land Use section contained in the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted with respect to "Mixed-Use". "The intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility. " The land use proposed effectively takes-away the flexibility available to Simplot in developing its land. This taking is contrary to the goals of the City as described in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan; will direct and substantially reduce the value of Simplot's land; and potentially adds complications and cost to future development by requiring additional permitting requirements. In order to achieve the City's objective to limit residential growth on the 78 acres while protecting existing private property rights, Simplot would recommend the following minor changes to the proposed new "Mixed Use-Regional" land uses and the new "Mixed Use -Non Residential" land use category. Proposed Mixed Use -Non Residential fmodafications shown in red italics or strikethrou~hl l;\ Do 'a.....tiol_ TT~o~ ~.l,.,ll ...,,..,,..,..~.o ., ,...,,,,,»,,,,ti. .,~ 1110% ,.4 41... (i) Retail uses shall comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area. (ii) There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. (iii) All developments shall have a mix of at least two of the three types of uses: retail, non-retail commercial; and public/quasi- public ' r ~~~ ,~::x :sue r ;:.,,~~ y; ~ kr -°~ SP '- ~~ n :° i ~~ ~ ; ~,_ ~_~~ -, '_,w- r ~.. ~' ~= •. SA~y a,;, 4 ~~.,-.'. ~~ yk ~~ . 4~ s.` (iv) Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development, the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development (beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below. i. Supportive public and quasi-public uses would include parts, plazas, outdoor dining and gathering areas, open space, environmental restoration, libraries, public schools, etc. ii. All such areas must be open to the public and not limited to patrons of the development. iii. For land that is being donated (or nominally sold) to the public, such as a library or school, the developer is eligible fora 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a five-acre library site, the project would be eligible for ten additional acres of retail development iv. For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a part, tot-lot or playfield, the developer is eligible fora 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the part is 10 acres in area, the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. v. For plazas that are integrated into a retail project, the developer shall be eligible fora 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point (such as a fountain statue, and water feature), seating areas and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing ahalf--acre plaza, the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. vi. CUP application would not be needed unless a pYOject lies within 300 feet of an exiting Yesidence oY school oY CUP is otherwise v~equi~^ed peY ordinance. Sample uses include: All MU-N and MU-C categories, entertainment uses, major employment centers, clean industry. [end of proposed changes for new Mixed Use -Non Residential]. With existing access to the 78 acres off both Remple and Amity, the site is ideally suited for a substantial retaiUcommercial development. Using these access points to enter a new development reduces the potential that additional new access points will be sought ~' ~ between Remple and the intersection of Hwy 69 and Amity. Because the 78 acres already extends to these existing roadways additional access that would otherwise be necessary to serve an intervening ownership between Remple and the intersection of Amity and Hwy 69 is not necessary. The Simplot parcel is substantially large enough to accommodate an extensive retail and commercial development. With our long term presence in the Treasure Valley and ;~ experiencing the outcome of the Eagle Road corridor, we appreciate how important it will be to avoid a similar development result. The Simplot parcel already has many of the features that promote a successful retail and commercial development. ~:~: :~ _. ~~i ;~i ~Lt ~~',r~:{ ~ ~ •'_~ ~3 ~~ .. ~.. ~~'at ~fi, If limiting the residential growth on the 78 acres is the objective, the focus on the developing the new land use category should concentrate on restricting that use. Preserving the "..design and flexibility" available for future development should continue to be the goal for the remaining uses consistent with the stated intentions of the Comprehensive Plan. Limiting potential development of the parcel by prohibiting the uses most ideally suited for this parcel without any consideration for the taking of such rights is unacceptable. We look forward to working cooperatively with the City on finalizing an acceptable land use definition that fulfills our mutual goals. It would be prudent for the City and Simplot to meet as soon as possible to attempt to resolve its concerns prior to the City moving forward with the approval of a land use definition that will result in expensive and adversarial proceedings. We encourage the City to accept the Simplot offer to efficiently utilize the additional time to work with Simplot towards an acceptable resolution. - Sincerely, ;~ c~ Vic Conrad Director Land, Water & Asset Recovery yr ~r5`~ i.;"r. ~~y ~~:, 4111, J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY ONE CAPITAL CENTER 999 MAIN STREET SUITE 1300 P.O. BOX 27 BOISE, IDAHO 83707 (208) 336-2110 FAX (208) 389-7515 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS RECEMD February 12, 2009 EC. 12 2009 sty of Meridian Hand Delivery�nva�rtme� Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department - 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 86342 Re: Application CPA 08-014 of City of Meridian Planning Department. Dear Mr. Ellsworth: The J. R. Simplot Company ("Simplot") requests the following comments become part of the official record in the above referenced application. Simplot owns approximately 121 acres located on the northeast corner of Amity Road and State Highway 69. Under the above referenced Application, approximately 43 acres of Simplot's ownership will remain within the "Medium Density Residential" land use designation. The balance of Simplot's land, approximately 78 is proposed for the new land use category "Mixed -Use Non -Residential." Without waiving any rights to object to the City's down -grading of the 78 acres of Simplot's land to prevent residential development, Simplot acknowledges this parcel may be more suitable for future non-residential development. However, the lack of clarity describing allowable uses under the proposed "Mixed -Use — Non -Residential" use together with limiting Simplot's flexibility on developing the 78 acres places Simplot in the unfortunate position of objecting to the new land use designation in its current form. From the description of the proposed change provided by your staff, the Simplot's current Mixed -Use — Regional land use designation provides for the following: 1. No upper limit of non-residential uses. 2. Over 200,000 sqft. Of non-residential building area. 3. CUP application would not be needed unless a project lies within 300 feet of an existing residence or school or CUP is otherwise required per ordinance. 4. Residential density of 3 to 40 units/acre. 5. Samples Uses include: All MU-N categories, entertainment uses, major employment centers, clean industry. From various documents provided, it is our impression the proposed change would limit the 78 acres to the following: a. Light professional uses, including light warehousing. b. Flex space uses, including light warehousing c. Limited, small-scale retail uses d. Mini -storage uses. It is not clear whether all development within this proposed land use will require a conditional use permit, which imposes further costs on developing this 78 acre parcel under these limited uses. Without any compensation, the value and use of Simplot private property will be negatively impacted by the following limitations: (1) the removal of its existing rights to residential land use on 78 acres, (2) the removal of the right to plan a large scale retail and commercial development, which this parcel is ideally suited for, and 3) potentially the loss of the right to process a development without requiring additional permitting and the costs associated therewith. The following is quoted from the Land Use section contained in the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted with respect to "Mixed -Use". "The intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility. " The land use proposed effectively takes -away the flexibility available to Simplot in developing its land. This taking is contrary to the goals of the City as described in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan; will direct and substantially reduce the value of Simplot's land; and potentially adds complications and cost to future development by requiring additional permitting requirements. In order to achieve the City's objective to limit residential growth on the 78 acres while protecting existing private property rights, Simplot would recommend the following minor changes to the proposed new "Mixed Use -Regional" land uses and the new "Mixed Use — Non Residential" land use category. Proposed Mixed Use — Non Residential [modifications shown in red italics or strikethroughl : (i) Residential Uses hall—eempris„ u mimfniwimef 190""e of th-e development ua�u at densities ranging fr-efn 6 t 40 t (i) Retail uses shall comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area. (ii) There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non -retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. (iii) All developments shall have a mix of at least three two of the three fouf types of uses: retail, non -retail commercial; and public/quasi- public and residential. (iv) Where the development proposes public and quasi -public uses to support the development, the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development (beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below. i. Supportive public and quasi -public uses would include parts, plazas, outdoor dining and gathering areas, open space, environmental restoration, libraries, public schools, etc. ii. All such areas must be open to the public and not limited to patrons of the development. iii. For land that is being donated (or nominally sold) to the public, such as a library or school, the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a five -acre library site, the project would be eligible for ten additional acres of retail development iv. For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a part, tot -lot or playfield, the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the part is 10 acres in area, the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. v. For plazas that are integrated into a retail project, the developer shall be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point (such as a fountain statue, and water feature), seating areas and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half -acre plaza, the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. vi. CUP application would not be needed unless a project lies within 300 feet of an exiting residence or school or CUP is otherwise required per ordinance. Sample uses include: All MU-N and MU-C categories, entertainment uses, major employment centers, clean industry. [end of proposed changes for new Mixed Use — Non Residential]. With existing access to the 78 acres off both Remple and Amity, the site is ideally suited for a substantial retail/commercial development. Using these access points to enter a new development reduces the potential that additional new access points will be sought between Remple and the intersection of Hwy 69 and Amity. Because the 78 acres already extends to these existing roadways additional access that would otherwise be necessary to serve an intervening ownership between Remple and the intersection of Amity and Hwy 69 is not necessary. The Simplot parcel is substantially large enough to accommodate an extensive retail and commercial development. With our long term presence in the Treasure Valley and experiencing the outcome of the Eagle Road corridor, we appreciate how important it will be to avoid a similar development result. The Simplot parcel already has many of the features that promote a successful retail and commercial development. If limiting the residential growth on the 78 acres is the objective, the focus on the developing the new land use category should concentrate on restricting that use. Preserving the "..design and flexibility" available for future development should continue to be the goal for the remaining uses consistent with the stated intentions of the Comprehensive Plan. Limiting potential development of the parcel by prohibiting the uses most ideally suited for this parcel without any consideration for the taking of such rights is unacceptable. We look forward to working cooperatively with the City on finalizing an acceptable land use definition that fulfills our mutual goals. It would be prudent for the City and Simplot to meet as soon as possible to attempt to resolve its concerns prior to the City moving forward with the approval of a land use definition that will result in expensive and adversarial proceedings. We encourage the City to accept the Simplot offer to efficiently utilize the additional time to work with Simplot towards an acceptable resolution. Sincerely, 6'.1- C-L) Vic Conrad Director Land, Water & Asset Recovery