Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 19, 2009 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 19 of 32 Item 11: Public Hearing: CPA 08-014 Request to re-designate approximately 265 acres from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use Regional to Mixed Use Non-Residential for State Highway 69 Sa Amity by City of Meridian Planning Department: Moe: At this time I would like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-013 for the Mixed Use Nonresidential Text, as well as the CPA 08-014 for State Highway 69 and Amity and start with the staff report and the applicant report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, once again, and Members of the Commission. We are going to go ahead and do both of these. They do bleed together somewhat, although the text I'm going to try to highlight first and, then, touch more on the specific implications that has for the properties around the intersection of Amity and Meridian Road. Moe: Just one other note. We will act on these separately, though. They are both open now, but we will act separately. Thank you. Hood: So, the Comprehensive Plan text amendment application is to rename the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant land use designation to be called Mixed Use Nonresidential and to add a purpose statement, revised standards, and sample land uses most appropriate in this designation. So, we don't have an overall Comp Plan map reference in your tips anyways. Right now we currently have that designation of Mixed Use WWTP and it only applies to the area basically quarter of a mile around our wastewater treatment plant at Ten Mile and Ustick. We are proposing, then, to keep those same properties designated the same color on the map, but, essentially, change the text to no longer read Wastewater Treatment Plant, but read nonresidential and, then, take that designation and apply it to other areas throughout our area of impact where we believe nonresidential uses -- there should be a caveat that no new nonresident -- no new residential uses should be supported in that area. So, in a condensed way is the application. I'm going to go into a little bit more detail, because after our staff report went to print, staff had some concerns from one of the property owners that one of that -- that that would apply to. That individual was Vick Conrad, he's in the audience this evening. He represents and works for J.R. Simplot Company and we met with him to discuss some further tweaks and changes that would better represent the intent of the Mixed Use Nonresidential land use designation, at the same time giving them some -- some flexibility and some certainty both into what they could potentially do with that property -- the property they own and I'll get specific about that property here in just a second. I did prepare a memo yesterday afternoon, got it to the clerk. You may or may not have had a chance to read that yet. If you haven't had a chance, please, bear with me for one more minute and I will read it for you or at least the highlights of it. Staff is recommending that we include in your motion: These new standards as outlined in that memo, with one more additional change -- the change I'll just let you know right now, when that memo went out, did not include food service or restaurants in the list of potential future uses out there. Staff does not have any heartburn with adding those to the list of uses that may be potential or envisions in this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 20 of 32 area. Let me jump back to the current language real quick of the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant. It currently reads now that the following standards apply to this category: Light professional office uses. Flex space uses, including light warehousing. No new residential uses will be permitted. Existing residential will be allowed to remain and expand accessory structures. Limited small scale retail uses, storage uses, and unless otherwise permitted by city adopted incentives, all developments within this designated area will require approval through Conditional Use Permit process. So, again, we have tweaked that language and kind of merged it with some of the language in our mixed use regional designation, which a vast majority of the subject properties on Amity and 69 currently have and add some of those components to the current mixed use wastewater treatment plant to make a hybrid designation. So, it's not simply just changing the name on the map from the wastewater treatment plan to nonresidential. There are some standards, a purpose statement, and a better idea of what that really means and what we are looking for out there. So, with that being said let me now read how we would like that text in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan to read. It would be Mixed Use Nonresidential and the purpose of this category is to designate areas where new residential dwelling units will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned uses for this area. A library of nonresidential land uses may occur in this category. Employment opportunities, professional offices, warehousing, flex buildings and storage uses, as well as retail uses are envisioned. The following standards will apply to this category and, then, a bullet point. No new residential uses will be permitted. Existing residential will be allowed to remain and expand accessory structures -- again, not the carry over from current language in the wastewater treatment plant. Retail uses and acompromise -- may comprise a maximum of 50 percent of a development area. That one is from the mixed use regional designation. As you may recall, I just read in the wastewater treatment plant it said limited small scale retail. So, that -- that's more from the mixed use regional designation. And, then, the third bullet is there is neither a minimum nor a maximum imposed on nonretail commercial uses, such as office, industry, food services slash restaurants or warehouse uses -- warehouse uses. And that one's kind of a compilation, again, of several things out of both categories, out of the mixed use regional, as well as the wastewater treatment plant designation. And the final bullet point: All developments shall have a mix of at least two types of land uses. So, they are looking to -- we focused a lot on the last part of that, the nonresidential, but, really, the mixed use component we want to see these developments have a mix of uses as well. And, then, finally, to read into Chapter 7: Some sample uses include employment centers, professional offices, flex buildings, warehousing, industry, storage facility, and retail. That does not mean that that's the only uses that we anticipate out there, it's just a sample use, gives you a flavor of the types of uses that we are looking for out there. Certainly there are several uses out there and when -- when somebody would come in for annexation and zoning we will evaluate the use and the zoning based on these polices and the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC, surrounding area, and our public input, the whole line. But that just kind of hopefully gives someone that is looking at this area a flavor of what the city is looking for in the future. So, I think that clarifies. I wish we would have had maybe some of this discussion a week ago, so I could have got all this in the staff report and wouldn't have to be just reading it in for you, but such is life Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 21 of 32 and I think it's worked out, I think we have a compromise that isn't necessarily a compromise, I think it fits the city better and I want to thank Simplot for -- and Vick Conrad in particular, for working with us to make our Comp Plan better than what we had originally proposed. So, I think that's all I have. Oh, I did also want to let you know, we did talk with -- two more things. I need to highlight a little bit on the -- that's it for the text portion of it, so let me talk about the map portion of it, since they are both open. I almost forgot we had both of those open. So, the map amendment, then, application applies to areas on the map located at the northeast and southeast comers of Amity and State Highway 69. There are approximately 211 acres of land that the city is proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation from low density residential, medium density residential and mixed use regional, to have it all be designated mixed use nonresidential. There are eight different property owners. They are all zoned in the county. Some of them have RUT zoning and some of them have R- 1 zoning. It doesn't necessarily show up very well on either one of those maps, but most of them are zone RUT, with a couple of R-1 parcels. The city did coordinate with the current land owners and initiated -- the city has initiated the CPA on -- on the subject property. Again, I don't want to jump back into the text stuff, but that's one of the reasons that we made the text changes, so we could apply it to this area in particular. Similar to the -- the last application we are not proposing any changes to zoning or annexing any of these properties or any development, it will all be initiated by the private community or private property owners, we are just proposing to change the designation on our map to reflect this revised designation. Currently a majority of the subject properties are operating with similarly allowed uses in the proposed mixed use nonresidential designation and/or are vacant. There are two homes, though, that are -- property lines don't show up there on that one. Let's look at this one. There are two homes that are on both of these properties here. One of those property owners, Patricia Rabel, showed up to our neighborhood meeting, coordination, kick-off meeting, whatever you want to call it, and -- and did not express any concerns at that time to Matt, the one that held that -- he was the staff member that organized that meeting and held it. I have not heard from the adjacent -- her adjacent property owner neighbor on that application, but I did want to point out there are currently two -- two residential units out there. They are fine. The text says no new residential, so -- let's see. So, staff believes that the subject area is one of those areas suitable for the Mixed Use Nonresidential land use designation. In view of the current operations occumng and anticipated nature of redevelopment, the aerial may be the best at explaining currently what's out there, the part that's out here being filled in or has been somewhat filled in. I haven't been out there recently. And, then, the storage -- old chicken coup storage facility, Simplot owns. It's over the 94 acres that we are proposing to change here. I can't remember exactly what the land holding is. We have got American Paving's operations. ACRD does some other extraction and their operations on a large portion of this property, too. So, I mean you can see it pretty -- it's also pretty heavy industrial, but certainly residential uses aren't a very good fit in what's currently out there. In the couple of conversations we have had with Simplot and -- my take on it is they are just trying to keep all options open, which I can't fault them for doing that. But the other folks that I have talked about potential redevelopment of their properties are looking at something real similar, you know, something along the lines of a contractor's yard or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 22 of 32 pretty heavy industrial type redevelopment. No one's really approached us with doing retail or office or, you know, some of those traditional stuff. So, I think that the flavor that's out there will improve over time I would hope, but it certainly has an industrial type of flavor to it now. We don't envision that changing too tembly much, so -- we did receive a verbal confirmation from the Ewing Company in support of the proposed land use change. They were one of the ones that were not at our -- well, when we held our kick-off meeting some additional -- this property was not part of the application at the time. After further discussions staff decided it did make sense to include three additional parcels or two and a half additional parcels all owned by the same property owner, which the Ewing company has since acquired and I called them and said, hey, we are -- we are proposing this change from low density to this mixed use nonresidential, do you have a problem with that and they are on board with it and support the application. So, this four and a half acres, approximately -- and, again, it cuts off -- cuts off the back side of one of those parcels, but it makes a straight line south there and that wasn't part of the original application. But those folks -- the additional folks were noticed within the 300 feet and were somewhat late add, but that additional area is also part of the subject map change and like I mentioned, we have worked with the Simplot company about changing their designation from this mixed use regional to mixed use nonresidential and they are on board, but, again, Vick's in the audience this evening and I won't try to put words in his mouth. But with that staff would ask that you act favorably on both of these applications and I will stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Any questions of staff at the present time? O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Caleb. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: On that property that -- those two, two and a half parcels that -- that are being acquired by American Gravel or is this being designated the -- could possibly sell that off to American Gravel for further excavation of the gravel pit, in which case I think it would -- it would want to notify people more in the whole area, because of the noise issues. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, American Paving is at the hard comer of State Highway 69, Amity. The subject parcels -- get to maybe something that's a little bit closer -- do not abut that property. It's not directly adjacent. I have not heard any intentions of American Paving acquiring that property, so if -- if that's the case I have not heard any rumblings about that. O'Brien: I thought they moved their pit to a little further east and southeast of their existing pits, of which they have been reclaiming over a period of time and recently have stopped in the last couple of years, but I just wondered if that was in the evolution that they might acquire more land and I know they have asked in the past to do that, but I don't know what the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 23 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, I think, again, this is just a map designation. I don't think that that applies to that -- your concerns. It would have to come back through, if there was any kind of rezoning or anything like that and so designating it as a mixed use nonresidential doesn't give -- give them any -- any presumed right until they are annexed to do anything. O'Brien: Okay. I agree with that. Okay. That makes sense. Newton-Huckabay: I think that although valid concerns and points, I don't think that it's going to do us any good to discuss them here right now, but -- O'Brien: Fine. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. There is one person signed up, Vick Conrad. And, again, if you would state your name and address for the record, I'd appreciate it. Conrad: My name is Vick Conrad. I work for the J.R. Simplot Company. Our address is 999 Main Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. I got to start out with a question and a request. When preparing our comments I have submitted them in connection with application number CPA dash 014 and because we are hearing them together, but have decided to vote on them separately, I would request that also a copy of those comments be submitted in connection with CPA dash 013 as well. Moe: I think that can be done. Conrad: Okay. After submitting our comments last week, I met with Matt and Caleb to discuss the resolution to the concerns that I expressed in our letter and after that meeting Caleb provided a revision to the proposed land use description, which is the version that Caleb just described. We find that this proposal is acceptable and I want to thank the planning staff especially, Matt, Caleb, and Anna, for taking our comments into consideration. We appreciate the level of courtesy service and professionalism in how they conducted this matter and thank you very much. Moe: Thank you very much. Again, that was the only one signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to come forward, please do. Ewing: Commissioners, Tuck Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado, Boise. I'm representing the Tico One parcel or it was referred to as the Ewing Company parcel. I guess, just a clarification, it's that southern piece, the five -- four, five, six acre piece there, just for clarification, to kind of answer the questions I heard there. There is no rumbling about selling to American Paving. We do now own that parcel. At the time when some of this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 24 of 32 discussion was coming through we had it just optioned. Since, then, we have acquired it, but we are in full support and as Caleb stated, would like to be included in this new designation. So, with that any questions? Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Okay. There were no more questions of staff on that either, so, Commissioners, any comments, questions? I, myself,- think that the change is a good one. No problem whatsoever with this. It's kind of nice that some of the folks that it's affecting have already come in and said they are very much in approval of it and I would love to see this even take -- take off and something happen to it sooner rather than later, but that's just me. Newton-Huckabay: My only comment is that I -- that I hope that this change in text and clarification resolves what would seem to be an ongoing issue around wastewater treatment plant area planning. This has always has been a very political -- that sure give you a lot of headaches. So, I'm hoping that that will resolve that issue for us to move forward on that, but -- and I think it's -- I have -- I don't think any of it's unreasonable, so I'm good. Moe: Okay. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have one question for you. Moe: Yes, sir. Marshall: Even though we are going to act on these separately, can we close the public hearing on both? Moe: Yes, I opened them up that way, so yes. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CPA 08-013 and CPA 08-014. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-013 and CPA 08-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: And since we are on -- you know, that would be the first one that we would be working our way back through. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 25 of 32 Marshall: Mr. Chair, to clarify, we are going to work backwards up through? Moe: Basically -- well, basically, we will go ahead and act on 10, 11, then, we will go back up and take care of the -- Newton-Huckabay: Seven, eight and nine. Moe: -- seven and eight and, then, nine. Okay? So, having said that, is there someone that would just love to make a motion, other than myself? Newton-Huckabay: Do you want me to do it, Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: I'm trying to get there. Give me second. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: We need to include in that the new text as well; is that correct? So, should I read that for the record as part of the motion? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, I don't think you need to read -- if you can just reference the memo with the add or the restaurant and food services that wasn't in the memo, if you could just make that clarification, but -- unless you see something else that needs to be changed, just to reference that memo -- Marshall: Other than the slash restaurant wasn't in there. You want to add the slash restaurant to the food services. Hood: That's the proposal from staff. Marshall: The second one didn't have slash restaurant. And that's the memo dated February 19th. Getting there. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA 08-013, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009, with the following comments: To reference the new text on the memorandum dated February 18th, 2009, received February 19th, 2009, restating the Chapter 7, page 103 text, to include lodging and food services slash restaurants on the fourth bullet. Moe: No. Newton-Huckabay: Not to include lodging. Marshall: Oh, excuse me. Not to include lodging. Food services slash restaurants. Excuse me. Thank you. O'Brien: End of motion? Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 26 of 32 Marshall: End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to send onto City Council approving CPA 08-013 for Mixed Use Nonresidential text as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Eleven. Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 08-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009, with no further comments. Moe: I thought we were noting that same information. Marshall: Oh, do I have to note the same information on this one as well? Moe: Yes. Baird: Mr. Chair, I would think you don't need to, because what it's doing is incorporating what you just recommended in 08-013. Moe: Okay. I follow you. Okay. I'm song. Okay. O'Brien: End of motion? Second. Moe: All right. It's been moved and seconded to approve to City Council CPA 08-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: CPA 08-012 Request to add 54.9 acres of land to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map with designations of "Public/Quasi Public" and "Low Density Residential" for River Planning Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA 08-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009, with no comments.