Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 4, 2003 P&Z CommMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 27 of 96 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, CUP 03-040, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for shell and core for amulti-floor medical office building in an L- O zone for Meadow Lake Village Medical Office by Hummel Architects, PA. East of North Eagle R oad a nd s outh o f E ast F ranklin Road, to i nclude a II s tall c omments o f their memo transmittal date August 29th, received by the Clerk September 2, 2003, and this is referring to their Preliminary Plat received by the Clerk August 26, 2003. Borup: Anybody want to second that? Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Butler, would you like some of these -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Just one clarification. Commissioner Zaremba referenced the plat received on August 26th, but that, actually, is the Site Plan for the Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: Oh. Preliminary Site Plan. Siddoway: Maybe just note that. Zaremba: It does say Site Plan right on it in big letters. Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 03-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +l- acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler 1 Cobbs 1 Eagy 1 Ruwe by BRS Architects -southwest corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-018, request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 acres from RT to C-G zones -- that's probably -- is that supposed to be RUT? For Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, Ruwe project by BRS Architects. This is at the southwest corner and the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Ustick. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Powell: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I am subbing for Brad tonight, so, hopefully, Iwon't -- I'll do him justice. This is a straight request for annexation and zoning. There is no development proposal tied to this request. This is something that the city has traditionally not approved, but we think we have come to some Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 28 of 96 recommendations on a way that they could safely do that and I will get to those in a moment. The reason that they haven't traditionally approved them without development -- or without a development plan is partly related to the status that our Comprehensive Plan has in relationship to our zoning ordinance in the state. It's kind of a statewide thing. In states where the Comprehensive Plan carries more weight, it isn't uncommon to see land pre-zoned, basically, you know, once the Comprehensive Plan goes through, if an area said mixed use, they'd zone it mixed used, or if it said commercial, they'd zone it commercial, but we don't tend to do that here in Idaho, because the zoning carries much more weight than the actual Comprehensive Plan does. The applicant's desire is to get this zoned, so that they can market it more effectively, to be able to say that it does have commercial zoning on it and we appreciate that fact and we have tried to work with it. What we have done is gone through the Comprehensive Plan and pulled out several of those policies that would pertain to the properties and suggested that they be put in the Development Agreement with the -- signed by all the owners and I should state -- should back up a bit, shouldn't I? We are dealing with all the parcels outlined in the dark outline, of course. This is the actual Kissler property. There are two properties -- or three properties here on owned by Eagy. I hope I'm not getting that too wrong and one on the corner here, which is Kennevick, and then Ruwe is down here, these two parcels right there. Centers: So, we are looking at two parcels across the road from each other? Powell: Yes, sir and -- Centers: Regardless of who owns them? Powell: Correct. They're all -- it encompasses the south -- the s outh p ortion along Eagle Road -- or south of Ustick on both sides of Eagle Road. They --the property lines or the annexation lines would -- of the combine properties meet at the centerline of Eagle Road. There was some small discrepancy in the acreages, but I believe the staff report adequately describes that. Did want to point out that there are residential uses adjoining t hese p roperties o ver h ere. This i s C ar61 S ub. There are r esidential u ses here. These properties will -- we have already been talking to people about similar type of requests for annexation on this property here and we will likely see it there as well. The south end of this property does adjoin a request we have in now for a Preliminary Plat, it's called Red Feather. I believe that comes to you later this month or in October later this month. Centers: Two weeks. Powell: I want to go through, in particular, the Comprehensive -- the finding that you have to make for the annexation and zoning Finding A. This is the one that really has the meat of some of the -- our issues of concern. For example, all development within this designation, the mixed-use area designation, will occur only under the Conditional Use Permit process, except the mixed-use regional areas. A CU application would not be needed for developments within the mixed-use regional area, unless a project lies Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meefing September 4, 2003 Page 29 of 96 300 feet of an existing residence or school or a CUP is otherwise required per ordinance. Again, with regard to this group of properties on the west side of Eagle Road, they do adjoin residential properties, so because we are considering just the C-G zone -- now, the C-G would, basically, allow commercial uses, not the mixed use that the Comprehensive Plan calls for, and that is our concern. As you see as we go down the next one, where feasible, multi-family residential uses will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to Highways 20-26, 55 or 69. That's, obviously, applicable in this area. We do anticipate it will be an employment center and it is a state -- Eagle Road is a state highway. With just the C-G zoning, residential uses could only be requested as part of a Planned Development where they were asking for it as a 20 percent use exception. That was a concern of staff. Moving down to the next Comp Plan policy. Where mixed-use developments are phased, a conceptual Site Plan for the entire mixed use area in encouraged with the development application or, depending on the scope of the development, prior to formal development application being submitted. This was one of the requirements that we did move to the conditions of approval, that they do enter into -- they do prepare a concept plan for this entire property. Again, we are focusing on the west side, because of the ownership pattern where there isn't a single owner. We were concerned about that one in particular. Moving on one mare policy there. Where the project is developed adjacent to low or medium density residential uses, a transitional use is encouraged. Again, we do have low-density residential uses here on this border with Carol Subdivision. Okay. Moving down to Page 5 now. Eagle Road is the major north south arterial in Ada County. The capacity of this arterial should be protected by minimizing cuts. We have been working with ITD on that and I think that it's clear why that should be continued. What we are asking that they show in their concept plan is a backage road that basically parallels Eagle Road. It might come in at this section and come over that way, something where this traffic would make use of that backage road to gain access to Eagle Road or -- in particular to Eagle Road. Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way to compliment with adjoining residential areas. This does have a frontage on two arterial roadways. If these are -- uses are controlled, they could compliment these -- the adjoining residential uses and we are proposing to control that, again, through the conceptual use plan development process. I think that's enough torture for now. Brad's other issue of concern was Finding J and that is the proposed Zoning Amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. At this point staff feels that with the proposals we made that it would be in the interest of the City of Meridian to go ahead and let them pre-zone at this time. With the understanding that they are well aware of the Comprehensive Plan policies that apply on the property and what the city is looking for in regard to the development of that property. I'll leave staff's discussion at that. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as always. You're saying on Page 8, Number 3 that you want them to come back with a CUP for every development period, even though the C- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 30 of 96 G zone shows permitted for a lot of different uses? Even if it's a permitted use, you want them to come back? Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, that was, actually, their proposal. I think that staff would be happy if they did a Planned Development on the whole property and, then, we establish those uses that would be allowed, if they were allowed uses. I don't think staff has any problem -- actually, I think staff would prefer not to have to see Cdnditional Use Permits on permitted uses. Again, that was the original request of the - Centers: I would agree with it the way it's written, because if you look at some of the permitted uses, I don't think I would want to see them there. If you look in the zoning book under some of the permitted use, there are a number of them that I don't think I would want to see there. Powell: I would agree, but I think that if we had a Planned Development on the whole property that established what the uses would be on that property or the range of uses, then, those that were permitted could or can be allowed to develop. Centers: But we are not going to require that and we don't have that. Powell: I believe we do have that. Centers: Where at? Borup: You're talking about a concept plan, but Ithink - Centers: And I had that on my notes. You mentioned you would like a concept plan, which we have seen before, and a concept is simply that a concept, and we have seen them change. In fact, we have seen them changed in the application just prior to this one in Meadow Lake. They had a concept and they changed it. They came back and changed it so, do you really think a concept plan is going to help you? Powell: Well, they came back with a new Planned Development, so they did have to go through that same process of the condition, and perhaps our misunderstanding -- it does say that the Conditional Use Permit -- perhaps the applicant can verify. I thought that when we were referencing it in that first condition, that we meant a CU for a Planned Development, but perhaps we could clarify that. Borup: Well, in my mind part of the concern was this is -- the Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed-use, so if we go a straight C-G zone -- Centers: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 31 of 96 Borup: -- we are no longer talking about amixed-use, so -- even with a C-G zone and coming through the Conditional Use, you could still get amixed-use development there. At least a mixture of types, but -- Centers: That's why I agree. You know, if they are going to come in and be annexed with a C-G zone, then, I agree, they should come back each and every development. Powell: With a -- do you want a conditional concept plan for the entire one and, then, a CU for each subsequent one, for each detailed -- Centers: I would, yes. If they are going to get a C-G zone wouldn't you agree, Keith? Powell: Yes. That's -- basically, that's what the Planned Development requires. Centers: Right. Borup: On a Planned Development, but if the conceptual plan could be changed -- Centers: Yes. Borup: -- what difference does it make? Centers: I don't necessarily --unless staff wants it, I don't care about it. Borup: It depends on how much it's going to change. Centers: Yes. Borup: The previous one you have referenced the roads didn't change, they stayed the same location and -- you know, they'did one building, instead two, but it's not a -- Centers: Well, they are going to come in with a concept, they are going to say we are going to have a restaurant here and we plan a little store in this corner. You know, that's all going to change when they get a buyer for a specific lot, you know, and the user, whether it's along-term lease or a build to suit. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, I think that the idea for the concept plan was particularly important here. We didn't want this property, in particular, to come through with a Conditional Use Permit request without considering how access would be provided to all these -- how cross-access would function and the backage road and getting a ccess. I t hink t hat t he c oncept p Ian i n that a rea was p articularly n eeded t o address those cross-access issues. Borup: I agree with that and that was the other question Ihad -- and I realize, again, this is just an annexation and zoning, but access points was not really discussed, which may be premature without a plat. You did make reference to the Eagle Road -- I don't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 32 of 96 know the exact wording, but the Eagle Road study and that does talk about number of access points along the mile. Powell: Yes, it does. You're right, that is something we can't consider at this time and you're hitting on a lot of the reasons why the city hasn't traditionally done these, so -- Borup: Right.. Well, I think it may not be -- it may be appropriate for the applicant to know what w e m ay a xpect a nd -- a specially, d ue to t he fact t here i s p roperty t o t he south. I have -- my idea on development of Eagle Road is it's a frontage road the whole way, pretty much. Centers: I agree, but we are too late. Borup: Well, we are too late on the residential area, but we are not -- we haven't approve anything else, other than one project, and that was discussed at that time. They had one access point for that third of a mile or whatever it was. I'm assuming ITD is putting theirfeelings forward on this. Are they still committed to follow the Eagle Road study as far as their recommendations from three years ago, whenever it was? Powell: My understanding is that they are looking, yes, at frontage roads and -- or alternative access at some other point, restricting access to frontage roads. I recent -- just so you know, I recently wrote a letter to them regarding Chinden Boulevard that asked them to require backage roads, because that's what we had been seeing on the plats that we have been approving that were up there. Staff and some members of the Council have expressed to me that there is not a desire to see a frontage road right next to the highway. That's why staff went with the backage road on Chinden. Now, Eagle is a little -- it's different at this point, so it may be appropriate -- Borup: Well, in my mind, whether it's frontage or backage, as long as there are not additional access points, it maybe doesn't make a lot of difference. Powell: And ITD is very much wanting to go that way Borup: On the access points? Powell: With restricting the access points and having some other form of access, yes Borup: Okay. Any other comments, Commissioners? Zaremba: I guess my question is are -- my biggest concern at the moment is the east border -- or west border, I mean, being C-G right up against the residential. Are we solving that we would have to have future review of anything that was along there as -- you know, with a concept plan and with a CUP for every individual use and the warning to the applicant that we are not looking for -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 33 of 96 Powell: Perhaps the only thing that we may not solve is that if they use -- if they are required to use only the 20 percent use exception to get the residential within the projects, then, they may or -- you may be at a point where they need to go beyond that. We probably could address that now if you wanted to see more than 20 percent residential or you wanted to insure that there was residential -- transitional residential uses adjoining Carol Subdivision, then, that would -- is possibly the one thing that we haven't yet addressed. Borup: But the staff report did talk about a transitional use along the property. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: So, y ou're s aying -- I guess t hat's assuming there will b e t heresidential -- I mean the transition would be some type of residential. Centers: Or office would be my -- correct? Or office? Zaremba: L-O uses. Powell: Yes. L-0 provides a good transition also. Centers: Right. Right. Borup: And we may get some input from the neighbors on what they -- Zaremba: I'm comfortable that the projects that are on the other side of Ustick are going to be similar, probably C-G, that they, themselves, are their own project on the opposite side of Eagle. I'm not too worried about the things that face Ustick or face Eagle I'm worried about the things that back up to Carol Subdivision. Borup: I agree and I think that's what staff was emphasizing, they had the same concern. Zaremba: Just because I always have off-the-wall questions, this combined on both sides of the road is 43.86 acres. Off the top of your head do you know what Crossroads -- Powell: Crossroads Center? Zaremba: How many acres is that? I'm just trying to scope this in my mind. Borup: More than that by quite a bit. Powell: Crossroads looks like it's probably 80 to 100 acres. Zaremba: Twice this. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 34 of 96 Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. First of all, I'd like to thank Brad for the help in this application. We went round and around and, quite frankly, we are very pleased with the staffs support of the -- and its positive recommendation. I think they are noting that the application does, in fact, meet all the criteria for annexation, in that we are contiguous to the city, we do have city services, and we do meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. I think one of the things I would like to point out to the Commission is that in our mind these sites, because of the configuration, the traffic, and the signalization, the projects that go on these sites are going to totally be market driven, in my opinion. You're going to be looking at major -- not only national, but regional tenants here. I spoke to ITD today and their latest car count south of Ustick Road was 36,000 cars a day. However, staff said they thought that that's probably been increased to some 25 percent today's counts. They are suggesting that it's closer to 50,000 --just somewhat shy of 50,000 cars a day. ACHD, on other hand, has Ustick Road scheduled for five lanes, 30,000 cars a day. I think those n umbers really make it very attractive to a larger type. user and probably less attractive, quite frankly, to any residential type uses. I mean having said that, we are not totally opposed to such a thing, but, in my mind, I think that through the Conditional Use process -- and I'd like to follow up on Commissioner Center's comment relative to why we suggested -- or why the suggestion was made to have all Conditional Uses, regardless of the u se within the C-G zone. I 'd I ike to remind you that I think it was Councilman -- gosh, I'm trying to recall which Councilman -- when we did Treasure Valley Business Center. If you recall, it was requested of us to bring each and every use back to that -- of that site as a Conditional Use, because at that particular time in the I-L zone, there was not specific uses identified. We had not identified specific uses and, thus, we thought that this, perhaps, would be very consistent with his original thinking. That when we come in to do this particular annexation, we would, in turn, also ask fora Conditional Use, w hich w ould a Ilow n of o my t his C ommission, b ut t he C ity Council to, once again, review any and all uses, regardless of the use on any particular parcel there. I would also like to suggest that we are very pleased with the staff report, but there is one concern that I think is in Condition Number 3. It would appear to me that the Development Agreement, if, in fact, it is necessary and essential, it might be a little premature, again, considering the market-driven situation. We believe that it might be better served that at the time of Conditional Use a Development Agreement would, then, in fact, if necessary and requested, would be appropriate, as opposed to hooking the Development Agreement to the annexation and that's specific, as staff has mentioned, to the southwest corner. At this particular point in time all four of those particular individuals have been asked and, actually, have had offers made on their parcels, but until such time as this ground is zoned, there has been no transaction. What I'm proposing here -- or what they are proposing is at the time this is anhexed and annexed to a zone appropriate, which we believe by Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The fact that this is mixed-use regional allowing the C-G zone, that each and every use could come back before you and could be scrutinized more closely on their individual merits, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 35 of 96 Borup: Mr. Strite, would you anticipate that at that time it would be under one ownership, then, or -- you're alluding to that or you don't know? Strite: Mr. Chairman, I -- if I had that kind of crystal ball, I certaihly wouldn't be drawing the cartoons I'd probably be owning the property. My guess is that if, in fact, what we are seeing today in the market place and the -- Borup: I don't mean the -- you know, one major tenant, I'm saying one ownership of the property. Strite: Mr. Chairman, my guess is that ultimately that's probably a very high potential. You bet. I think if you look at the individual parcels, just by the fact of their frontage to depth ratios, it would be exceptionally difficult in any case, with the exception of Cobbs parcel on the corner and part of the Eagy parcel along the Ustick frontage, to develop in any other way. I mean the depth to width ratio there is minimal and, consequently -- and Ithink, also, the staff brings up a good point. However -- and I think Chairman Borup did mention this and that has to do with restricted access onto Eagle Road. The majority of the accesses, as you well know, have already been deeded by virtue of the ITD takes, so those accesses are set. This access will be used primarily to create, in my belief, anyway, a master plan ultimately of all four of those parcels. At this particular point in time I think that's premature and I think the Development Agreement suggesting that a concept plan, which you alluded to, can be changed continually until we finally come to grips with what's actually there. Again, I make reference to Treasure Valley Business Center, the Krispy Kreme, we did that, what, four times -- you're going to see next month the Wendy's, Starbuck's, those are under Conditional Use. We have a retail facility, which normally would not require a Conditional Use, but we are coming back to you so you can scrutinize not only the building type, use, the landscaping, how it ties with the remainder of the existing center. To make a short question a long answer, I do believe that ultimately that's probably going to happen, yes. Borup: And how -- and the way I read the staff report, I believe there is only really two main concerns. One is the buffering to the west and the other is interconnectivity within the project. Strite: And I think those are very strong concerns and, quite frankly, that would be one of the first things that would have to be addressed under the Conditional Use. There is no question that there is going to be a transitional area on the west side. That goes without saying. What the idea of bringing the Conditional Use back, it gives not only you but City Council and adjoining neighbors the opportunity to review those types of uses and what type of buffering is going to be suggested. Borup: Okay. Strite: But it's kind of the cart before the horse, you know. In other words, if they are getting offers now or request for offers, but they can't do anything, because they haven't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2D03 Page 36 of 96 got a zone appropriate to provide a use, they are not going to be able to come up with a plan and I think that Anna made it very clear that -- Borup: Well, that may be, but the majority of the applications we see are done that way. Strite: W ell, I think this might be a little more unusual in comparison to same that, certainly, we have brought before you. We have -- Borup: Well, I'm assuming they are asking more per acre than a lot of the ones we have seen before us, too, so -- Strite: That I couldn't comment on. Borup: Okay. Powell: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, before you go too far into the question of when the Development Agreement is -- the proper timing of it, this is the only time you will get a chance to do that. Development Agreements are tied to annexations and zonings they are not tied to the development -- a Planned Development. Borup: So, it sounds like unless you want to change the city ordinance -- Strite: No. I would stand corrected. Then, I would suggest that it be written such that a development would not be required and that it tied to -- the request would be to the Conditional Use procedure. Borup: Okay and I interrupted. Did you have a question, Commissioner? Centers: Yes. I did. Directed back to Anna when we see a Development Agreement, we are also seeing a plat, and a -- not a conceptual use, but a definite use. I mean it's highly unusual to have annexation and zone request. Powell: Correct. Traditionally, you do see aplat -- there are other communities -- Boise City will do an annexation and Rezone with just a Development Agreement, but, legally, the only time you can do a Development Agreement to tie in these Comprehensive Plan policies is now. As I expressed at the beginning of my presentation, that that is the concern, that once the zoning is there, then, you lose that tie to the Comprehensive Plan, that strong tie, that you would at the -- at the annexation point. I mean the annexation time -- time of annexation you can decide I don't like this proposal, I'm not voting in favor of the annexation. Once the zoning is there, you need to fall -- you need to find findings that it doesn't meet the standards as established in the zoning ordinance. Centers: Right. You couldn't simply cover that by saying, yes, we'd like to annex it, we'd like to give you the C-G zone, but you can't do anything until you give us a conceptual plan and you give us a Development Agreement. We look at our first CUP, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 37 of 96 because I can see where he's coming from, he can give us a Development Agreement later when he has one ownership. If we said you just can't do anything until we have those -- we will annex it, we will give you the C-G zone, but with an asterisk. Powell: Well, we can ask the attorney present, but my understanding is that the Development Agreement can only be tied to the annexation, that that's -- you can't tie it to the Conditional Use Permit. This is your only chance to ask for the Development Agreement. Borup: We can get the same amenities that we want, I assume, when the plat or -- if it's going to be a plat or the design, as far as roads, interconnectivity, transition and all that can still be required at some point. I -- I'm assuming we are probably all in agreement on -- at some point we are going to want to see a conceptual plan. We don't want to see the whole --the project as a whole, not hit and miss. Centers: Yes. Strite: Mr. Chair, would not -- and I might address -- Anna, would not the Comprehensive Plan be, in fact, part of the Conditional Use? It would be tied to -- the Conditional Use would, obviously, have to abide by and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I mean it could be one and/or the other. I'm not sure the Development Agreement, quite frankly, is probably a little more cumbersome from everyone's standpoint. The Conditional Use process serves the same sequence and certainly, the same demands and conditions placed upon the Conditional Use could be the same as it would be through a Development Agreement. I mean I think that's the beauty of coming back with a Conditional Use on any and all uses that are put in there. Borup: Well, I agree with that. I mean I -- personally, I'm comfortable with that. Most of the Commissioners here, I think, have fairly long memories. Centers: Well, -- and I'm trying to think and wonder what the Development Agreement actually does for us. Borup: It's a legal document. Centers: Right but what does it do for the city at this point? Strite: Well, I think Anna makes a point, that it does tie it more strongly to the Comprehensive Plan, but at the time, the Conditional Use can do the same thing, because you're not going to allow something in the Conditional Use that's inconsistent with your Comprehensive Plan. Centers: Right. Strite: And I think that even the staff report here is quite conclusive that this particular project does meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the individual issues, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing September 4, 2003 Page 38 of 96 quite frankly, whether in the Comprehensive Plan or not, are going to be addressed at the Conditional Use level, because they always are. I mean I think the transition area between those residences on the west, for instance, the 35-foot setback that's part of the -- the landscape requirements on an entry corridor is another example. All those sort of things are brought forth at the Conditional Use level and, once again, to be repetitive, they are scrutinized by yourself, by the neighbors, by the City Council. I guess in my mind I don't see the need, nor the desire, nor the want, especially from the applicant's standpoint, to have a Development Agreement tied to the annexation. That's getting the cart, again, before the horse. I think if, in fact, it's annexed, zoned, certainly by virtue of this testimony and the comments made not only by myself, yourself, and Anna -- it's on the record that we come back here with a Conditional Use and be pretty specific and I think that's the crux and I think that's probably more appropriate. Borup: I'm assuming we are looking at an overall project at that time Strite: My guess -- Borup: I mean not looking at developing a parcel at a time and having the buffer for, you know, one third of the project and, you know, those -- Strite: Again, Mr. Chair, I would have to suggest that I think you're right. I just don't see those breaking into small little parcels and become little projects. Borup: And that's what I would want to see on this project is the whole site. Strite: The site, if my math is correct, 80,000 cars a day, probably makes this thing pretty a ttractive t o l arger t ype u sets a nd i t can b e m fixed-use; i t can b e a mixture o f offices and retail. You know, to say -- to guarantee you that these things are all going to be one parcel atone time, I can't do that at this point and -- Borup: Well, I don't know if needs to be one parcel, but with some type of design -- Strite: Well, I think it's to the benefit all four of the applicants on the west side that, eventually, they do get together -- when one gets an offer -- they are going to have to sit down, b ecause t here is g oing t o be c ertain restrictions b ased o n t he I ateral, there i s going to be certain restrictions based on the access points that are coming off of Eagle. Borup: To develop it right you're saying it's going to need to be under one ownership? Strite: Right. If you read on further, I think that Bruce made a good point in there, that you have got sewer and water available, one's at Leslie, one's at Ustick, so it's going to have to come north or south. Ultimately, everybody is going to have to get together to get services, even though they are adjacent to, they are going to have to get together to do that, and I suspect that's going to be in the long-term plan. I think it's going to be beneficial to everybody. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 39 of 96 Powell: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you cannot condition a Rezone. That's why we asked for a Development Agreement so unless you want to approve wholesale facilities, truck stops that's allowed in the C-G zone. If you want the ability, to see these as Conditional Use Permits come through to you, then, you need to have the Development Agreement tied to the annexation and zoning, otherwise, you're zoning the property C-G and any use that's allowed as a principal permitted use in the C-G will be allowed on those properties. Borup: Without -- Powell: You cannot condition a Rezone. Centers: Well, it's not a Rezone. Borup: Yes, it is. Powell: It is. Zaremba: If we establish this as a C-G, then, anyplace on this property, regardless of who owns it, they can apply, even if they have to go through the CUP process, for something that complies with C-G. The protection that we are looking for now is at least to have no higher than L-O on I would say the western, what, 500 feet or something like that, and I agree with Director Powell, we can't get that later. If we make this a C-G, we have made it a C-G. Borup: And we have done that on other annexations. Have those all been accompanied by Development Agreement? Powell: I'm sure -- if you have conditioned it at all, then, it has been part of the Development Agreement. Borup: Okay. How extensive would the Development Agreement need to be? Can it be as simple as stating every project -- every application would be a CUP? Zaremba: But even as a CUP they -- they would have the legal right -- the applicants have the legal right to come to us and say we are going through the CUP process, but this is a C-G zone and I want this C-G development right on the western border. Borup: Well, no, because that's not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. As Mr. Strite mentioned, there needs tc be a transition. That's part of it. But -- so how extensive would the development -- can it -- I believe I'm agreeing with Mr. Strite that something this preliminary, you can't get very detailed. Powell: All we -- I'm sorry Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 4D of 96 Borup: But just stating that it needs a CUP and maybe mentioning a transition area and is that -- is that what you had in mind? Powell: What staff has proposed is the following things that we get a concept plan for all four of these properties, that they come in for Conditional Use Permits, and that we have asked to cite the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies that we feel are of particular concern in those areas. That's all we have asked for as far as the Development Agreement. Borup: But I tend to agree, I'm not sure if the conceptual plan means a lot. In my mind I'm more concerned about access points and transition to the west. Powell: Well -- and you would only see those as part of a concept plan and I think that that's why we were looking for those -- a concept plan in particular. Borup: But the roads could change and, you know, configuration of lot sizes and everything and on the interior I don't know if that really matters much if they move around. Powell: A nd a s y ou have s een i n p articularly R esolution S ub, that t he s tall a nd t he Planning Commission and the Council have accommodated those changes fairly -- fairly easily -- Borup: Right. Powell: -- within the overall plan of the concept plan. Borup: Is there such a thing as a blob concept plan, saying this end of the property will have this type of use, this area -- generally this area would have this type of use? Mr. Siddoway is shaking his head yes. Powell: We are looking up standards for a concept plan. Hold on. Borup: Okay. Let's --while you're doing that, Mr. Strite, did you have some other points you wanted to make? Strite: No. I just -- that's the end of my testimony and I will answer any questions you might have. Borup: I thought I might have interrupted you before you finished. Strite: No. No. No. No. I think you brought up good points. I just -- with the exception of the Condition Number 3, we are pleased with the staff report, pleased with the way the staff handled it. Perhaps without going on and on, maybe your concept -- I guess it was Commissioner Zaremba -- the comment that the Development Agreement would solely be a suggestion that a Conditional Use is, in fact, required and a traditional Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 41 of 96 transition buffer is required and that's the end of it. That probably wouldn't be too ominous in relationship -- I think it's quite unlikely, if I might -- Commissioner Zaremba mentioning like a truck stop on the west side. I mean I -- that's the whole idea of the Conditional Use, you know, you have the -- you can say I don't care if it's allowed or it's not allowed, we are not approving it. Borup: Well -- but we have to have a reason for stating that. Strite: Well, by virtue of this testimony we understand that. Certainly. That's -- Borup: The recommendation we make or -- should be in line with the Comprehensive Plan and city ordinances. Strite: Right. You would have a hard time finding findings to allow a truck stop on that parcel. Borup: Right. Exactly. Powell: They wouldn't need -- I'm sorry but the point I need to make is they wouldn't need to make those findings if it's a principal permitted use, they could just come in for a certificate of zoning compliance and a Site Plan approval. Borup: Without a CUP. Powell: Correct. Borup: But I don't think anyone is talking about doing that. Powell: Okay but without a Development Agreement, so that's -- Borup: You're saying we can't enforce a CUP without a Development Agreement. Powell: Correct. Borup: Okay so, that kind of simplifies it. Centers: Well, does it say that in the City Code? Powell: Yes. Centers: Or where does it say that? Powell: It's state law that you cannot condition a Rezone. Centers: But in my mind, it's not a Rezone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 42 of 96 Borup: It is. It's an annexation and Rezone Centers: It's an annexation and we are applying a zone. There is no zone on it by the City of Meridian now. It's RT, rural transitional. Powell: But there is a county zone on it. Centers: Okay. Powell: So, it's being rezoned to a city zone. Centers: So, we can't do the Development Agreement in our motion, which would include all your items on Page 3, Page 4, and Page 5? That's what the Development Agreement's going to say, part of it. It's going to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. That's -- I guess that's my point. I agree with Mr. Strite going back to the four property owners, you know, I think we could do a Development Agreement in our motion, that it will comply with the Comprehensive Plan as noted by staff on Pages 3, 4, 5 and any -- any future development will require a conceptual plan with CUP's. Borup: You mean that the items would be included in the Development Agreement, because that needs to be drawn up by the City Attorney, I believe, and signed by the -- Centers: But, I guess, you know, I'm voted down, we cannot do it without a Development Agreement. Powell: My understanding of state law is that that -- you would -- it would be illegal for you to make that motion. Borup: But the development can be simplified. It can be fairly simply, though Powell: Right and regarding your question about the concept plan, the concept plan needs to show the general arrangement of uses, density, location of major streets, open spaces, utility, et cetera. It could conceivably be a blob diagram. It would be hard to show the open spaces, but it could be a blob diagram. Borup: Okay. Centers: I don't make special requests, but I'd like to make a special request and see that in writing, that it is against the law to annex property without a Development Agreement. Powell: No, sir to condition a Rezone. Centers: And change the zone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 43 of 96 Zaremba: Otherwise, you have no opportunity to do it. That's the only time you can do it. Powell: It is illegal to condition a Rezone of a property. Borup: That's the key word there, put a condition on it, is what she's saying. Centers: Okay. Rohm: You can't request a CUP after you have turned around and rezoned it. Centers: Okay. It doesn't make sense to me. Zaremba: Once the horse is out of the barn and there is no fence -- Borup: I think -- let's go ahead and take some testimony from others and, then, I think, Mr. Strite, you kind of probably sense the direction it looks like we are going. Strite: Thank you very much. Borup: Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this application? Come forward. Thurston: Mr. Chairman, other Commissioners of the Planning and Zoning and the staff of the Planning and Zoning, my name is David Thurston, I live at 1470 Leslie Way. My property is the very bottom there on the southwest side of the proposed -- right there. As a property owner, I'll state that I'm opposed to zoning this as general commercial. I believe that there needs to be, as stated in the staff report, there needs to be some sort of a master plan demonstrating interconnectivity, transitional uses, access points, and other key land planning issues prior to the zoning taking place. I don't know exactly all the formalities or how the procedure works here, but it sounds like you can't annex it without giving it a zone. Then, I would propose that we take the recommendation on Page 3, there on the second bullet, Item C, deny, or table the annexation report until a development application accompanies the annexation, which demonstrates that some residential uses are incorporated. As a property owner, I'm concerned that there is a transition from the -- from our low-density residential area into this new proposed area. I think also there needs to be part of the plan what's going to happen with the 17 acres on the south that's just sitting there right now with no access. I believe that once there is access through this property, that will open up the access to this 17 acres and that would not only create a situation for the five property owners, but all the property owners that border that 17 acres, which, no doubt, would be zoned also a general commercial. I'd like to see a Comprehensive Plan that shows the accesses and -- the accesses to this property and encourage that there be a plan to show transitional usage of residential to a commercial along the frontage road of Eagle Road. I would like to voice my opposition to this at this time. I thank you for this opportunity to speak. One question I have for the staff. The south border there on that property, is that actually the property line that ditch? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2oD3 Page 44 of 96 Borup: That's what's been -- Thurston: That's as crooked as a hind leg on a dog. I just wondered is that, actually, the property line? Powell: That's what our records from the County Assessor shows, so it's probably pretty close to it. Thurston: It's a ditch that kind of meanders all over the place and Ijust -- Borup: That's why it's crooked. Thurston: Yes. I guess so. Well, thank you. Borup: Mr. Thurston? Thurston: Yes. Borup: I'm assuming you realize that some day this is going to be developed to some usage? Thurston: Oh, absolutely Borup: And I assume you also assume that with that location on a state highway and another busy road that it's not going to be all residential. Thurston: I recognize that and that's why I would like to see it transitional residential into light commercial or whatever you want to call it. Borup: I think we are in agreement on that. One of the Commissioners mentioned that and this is going by I think experience from other applications -- that a lot of -- I can think of two or three projects where the adjacent property owners would rather have seen an office use, as opposed to high density residential. Thurston: That's a possibility Borup: I don't know if you had any thoughts on that. Thurston: Yes. That would be something that we -- I'd like to consider that also. Borup: See, a transition use here -- and I'm not -- I don't mean to speak for someone else, but, normally, from what we have seen, it's probably going to be a fairly high- density residential use as a transition. Again, others have said they would rather see, you know, an office where the place is probably going to be, you know, empty on the evenings and weekends and -- rather than -- rather than a residential where the people Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 45 of 96 are looking down in their yards or whatever. Do you kind of tend to agree that that may be preferable? Thurston: Yes. The thing that concerns me about zoning this C-G is when we got the list of all the land uses -- Borup: Right. We have got the same concerns. Thurston: I mean there is hotels and -- mortuaries, motels, truck stops, heavy equipment, those are all -- Borup: You understand the concern on having it with the Conditional Use, so that that means that each thing would need to come before another Public Hearing and it would be looked at. Thurston: I'm totally in favor of that. I feel that, you know, best interest for everybody involved. There is the four property owners, there is five property owners, there is also potentially lots of other property owners that have an interest in this, so I think it needs to be the best interest of everybody involved. Borup: Right and we can a ddress this. This project down here, this p roperty here, would have to be addressed at the time, of course, that they made an application and I guess it's probably reasonable to assume that some day that -- Thurston: Well, I know they are waiting for some access to that property, because right there is none and this -- Borup: Well, I visualize only one access point on this whole way on Eagle Road, so they would all need to take advantage of whatever that would be. Thurston: Right. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Thurston? Thank you, sir. Thurston: Thank you. Rossow: My name is Betty Rossow and I live at 2832 Leslie Drive. I -- my property abuts the 17 acres that's not developed or not in this plan,. but I agree with Mr. Thurston -- Zaremba: Would you pull the microphone closer? Rossow: Oh, I'm sorry. I agree with Mr. Thurston about probably if it's going to be a high density housing, then, (certainly -- if it were me, I would rather have offices where people weren't there all the time. I have a question on Page 4 where it says the -- in italics, the Public Work's Department in that area -- down here it says the legal Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 46 of 96 description for the annexation places the property contiguous to the city at the northwest corner of the Eagy parcel, which has a touch point with Champion Park Subdivision. Where -- how big is a touch point and where is that touch point? Because it doesn't come -- Borup: Well, they are saying this is a touch point. Hasn't these others been annexed, though? Didn't Carol Subdivision get annexed just recently? Rossow: No. Zaremba: Piecemeal. Not the whole thing. Rossow: Just piecemeal. Borup: Okay. Rossow: There are some of us that don't want to be. Borup: Yes. Rossow: And we are not. Borup: So, I'm assuming none of these lots were, then. Some of them were so, then, there is another access point, too? Rossow: Okay. Borup: Where ever those lots would be. I think at the time it was written they probably weren't annexed yet, at the time they first did their research. A touch point doesn't need to be anymore than a pinpoint. Rossow: Well, all right. In the -- across -- Borup: Right here? Rossow: That's the Davis's and they still have property and the Champion -- whatever it's called, Champion Park, it's over further, so there was no -- there is no -- Borup: So, you're saying the David property, they withheld that from the -- I didn't think so. Rossow: Well, what is -- what at least at this point that's being developed is all to the west. The west and north. That's why I was wondering what this -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 47 of 96 Borup: Clarification there? Freckleton: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Champion Park Subdivision, when it was originally annexed, it was -- it came in under the -- Parkstone was the original name. The annexation took in all of the Davis's property clear down to this point. Borup: That's what I thought. Rossow: Okay. Freckleton: So, it took it all in. Rossow: So, a touch point is like across the street. Freckleton: Basically one point, yes, they come together. Borup: But it sounds like at this time it's more than that, if some of these lots have been annexed. Freckleton: Correct. Rossow: All right. Well, that clarifies it. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Grant: Members of the Commission, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way. It's just the third lot from the south. Right there. I agree in principle with the comments that Mr. Thurston has made. He's spoken well for us. I do have some concerns about what the transitional plan would involve, whether it be, you know, some kind o f a h ousing o r some k ind of a commercial o r o ffice s pace. There a re e Hough questions about some of those -- some of different ones could be acceptable, but without a development plan that would lay out those, I would be opposed to approving the annexation plan without more information and those are substantially my comments and, again, I agree with most of what Mr. Thurston has said. Borup: Mr. Grant, would you be comfortable with a statement that it would need to be either residential or office? Grant: What are the other alternatives? Borup: Well, I mean it would be equivalent -- I think we have stated before, we'd maybe need to look at that zoning. It would be the equivalent to an L-O zone or we could just state strictly office building. Grant: I'm not familiar with what an L-0 is. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 48 of 96 Borup: Well, that would be light or -- office. Grant: Light office? Borup: Limited office. Grant: Limited office. Borup: But that would have to be handled in -- and do you have a preference in your mind whether office or higher density residential? Grant: There is enough variability in any of those. Borup: Without seeing the project. Grant: Yes. It could be acceptable and, again, that's why I would be hesitant to -- Borup: Well, I'm assuming you would rather have a single or a two-story office, as opposed to a three-story apartment building. Grant: Exactly. High-density housing would be the last on my list. I think most everybody's. Borup: Well, maybe not the last. Grant: Well, the truck stop. Okay. That might be the last or the mortuary. I don't know Centers: And if I could comment to -- the staff has it written and it would be covered in the Development Agreement that they have convinced me of -- because it states on Page 4, staff finds that transitional uses could be addressed as part of future CUP applications and that would be in the Development Agreement. All of their italicized words would be included in that Development Agreement, I think, or most of them, so it would definitely transitional, either higher density residential or office, I mean -- Grant: I understand. Centers: T hat w ould b e i n w riting a nd, t hen, i f i t c ame t o u s fora t ruck s top, t here wouldn't even be -- they know that they couldn't get consideration of that. I think you're protected or will be with the Development Agreement. Grant: Well -- and that's -- are you speaking to the fact that this annexation ought to have a Development Agreement associated with it? Is that what I just heard you say? I see a head nodding. Centers: Yes. I think we are all in agreement at least Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 49 of 96 Grant: So, without one -- and which we don't have one now right? Borup: Not at this point, no. Grant: Okay. Centers: Well, even if we didn't have one, I would put one in there, you know, because I don't want to see you burdened by other properties that would be annoying. Grant: Something that's not compatible. Centers: Right. Exactly. Borup: I think we are all in agreement that there needs to be a Conditional Use Permit on any application coming forward and if a Development Agreement is the only way to accomplish that, then -- Grant: Then so be it. Centers: It tells the developers that don't even try to ask for something that's other than transitional next to the Leslie Subdivision. That's what it tells me. Grant: Okay. Again, thanks for your time. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. Strite, final comments? Oh. Come forward, ma'am. Ruwe: Good evening. My name is Janet R uwe and I have the 10 acres o n Eagle Road. The address is 2935 North Eagle Road. I have lived there longer than any of the other people that live in the Carol Subdivision, because we were living on that property before Carol Subdivision was even proposed and at that time -- and I'm still living there. Things change. When we first moved there, Eagle Road was atwo-lane highway, Highway 69, we had afour-party telephone line -- things have changed. You have to change along with it. Progress is what's happening. When Carol Subdivision came in, the people who were developing that came to us, and, of course, we were -- that was all farmland. At the time when we moved out there, I think that was appealing to us, we wanted to be in the farm -- farmland. They came and asked us if we would go along with them dividing their farmland up into one-acre parcels and we did. At that time Tom and Sue Davis were really up in arms with us, because we were in agreement that they put the Carol Subdivision in. Now, things have changed. I'm still there, I'm still there on 10 acres, Tom and Sue Davis are now putting in a subdivision with lots of homes. Again, I didn't have opposition to that. Things change. We are totally in agreement with what Mr. Strite is agreeing to, that we will definitely do what is best for the neighborhood, for the area, go along with the Comprehensive Plan, go along with Conditional Use Permits, but that's just the nature of life. I mean things change and I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing September 4, 2003 Page 50 of 96 really believe that lots of people that are here this evening were not probably the original owners of those homes either. I really think when you buy in an area you have to look around the area and know that you are in an area of change. Eagle Road has gone from a two lane, to a three lane, to a four lane, to a five lane, practically, and the traffic is tremendous. I live there but it's not a place to live -- it's not a residential area. I mean it really isn't. I mean I have a lovely home that -- I mean I really have a nice place, I keep it up well, but, yet, things change and it's not a place where I, you know, plan on staying to live for much longer, because it's not a residential area. Things have changed. I believe that we will take care and bring any proposals to you that would meet the needs of one-acre parcels behind us. Thank you. Borup: Mrs. Ruwe, do you see any concern with that -- what did we decide, four property owners, three, or four? Well, counting the one across the street, but -- this parcel on this side is three property owners; is that correct? Well, either way. Ruwe: Four. There are four on the west side. Borup: Okay. Do you see any concern with all four of them coming to agreement and signing a Development Agreement? Ruwe: What do you mean by that? You mean as a plan where we all have to -- Borup: No. Well, since it's separate ownership, all four owners would need to sign that agreement is what's been stated earlier. Ruwe: Sign an agreement that states -- Borup: That -- essentially, that it would be developed with a Conditional Use. That's more or less notification -- Ruwe: I mean I'm fine with that. I mean speaking for myself and I -- Borup: Okay. Ruwe: -- I pretty much believe the others are. I mean I would think they are. I mean, you know, we are not in there to do something that's going to -- and I have lived there all that -- lived there longer than any of these people have. I mean it's home. I mean I'm not going to see it -- but things have changed and we are putting this application for -- Borup: I think what it comes down to I guess if they want to sell their property, they will sign it. Ruwe: I mean I can't imagine why we wouldn't want -- I mean I'm totally in it myself for signing it, because I really felt that the Planning and Zoning did a really good job -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 51 of 96 Borup: Well, it was mentioned that it may be hard to get all four people doing that, but I don't see a big problem. Ruwe: I don't think it is, because I think we agree pretty much with what was written in the statement. Borup: You got together to agree on the annexation, so there has already been some -- Centers: That's what I was going to say. You all signed the document -- Ruwe: I mean I am sure that -- I mean like I say, I'm totally in agreement. I think the others would be, too, but you have to ask them for sure. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Mr. -- Powell: Chairman Borup, just for clarification. There are -- we only have three property owners listed here, so when we talk about four property owners, we are talking about all the properties associated with this annexation request. Borup: Right. That was what I said originally. I thought there were three on this side. Powell: Yes. Borup: Either way, they all need to -- yes, sir. Go ahead. Eagy: My name is Greg Eagy. I have -- Borup: You're another property owner. Centers: Is there a pointer up there? Eagy: A pointer. Thank you. Centers: Yes. Eagy: I have that property that property, and this piece of property right there. Borup: Okay. Eagy: We lived -- we remodeled and live in this home right here for probably eight or nine months, until I came and my wife said I can't take this traffic anymore and we moved up to The Legends, so we still held onto the property. I empathize with the folks Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 52 of 96 that I ive o n L eslie D rive i n a b ig way, b ecause, q uite frankly, I, a s a p roperty o caner wouldn't want somebody to build a truck stop next to me or chicken coops next to me or apartment houses next to me, quite frankly. Okay. As I sit back and I look at this property, I would, quite frankly, like to move my commercial office from Emerald Road out to that property and take like an acre or maybe two acres and build a really beautiful office building out there. Okay. Again, seeing that I can get together with who buys this property or who does whatever on this property and decide a road at this point through that property. I can't guarantee you that, because I don't have any kind of working agreement with these folks that's other than coming in for city zoning here at this point in time and commercial zoning. At the same time, I'd like to tell the neighbors that whatever I do with this piece of property right here, that I'm going to be over sitting in your backyard with a cup of coffee asking you what to do, okay, because that's only right so, that's what I wanted to say. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you Strite: For the record, Billy Ray Strite, again, 1010 Allante. I'm not really here to rebut any of the comments made by the neighbors. I think they are very all well taken and, quite frankly, we took that into consideration and that's exactly why we suggested that a Conditional Use be required of each and every use. Until such time as there is a plat or a parcel map or -- and/or a concept plan done, we cannot define exactly what goes into the transitional area. However, I guess I could suggest, first of all, if the Development Agreement is going to be simplified in such a manner as to suggest that all uses come before the Commission as Conditional Uses, there may also be a statement in there that all uses that are on the -- bordering the westerly boundary are bound by a transitional use. Quite frankly, I have to agree with the Chairman and also the neighbors who also agree. I'm sure that multiple family housing is not appropriate, Number 1. Number 2 I think that's been fairly well stated by all three of them. I would like to point out that, if, in fact, we do have this Development Agreement, there are two things I'd like to suggest, and one has to do with the access points on Eagle Road. I believe it was Chairman Borup who brought up that there is only one access -- please be advised that there is probably six of those that are existing there today that were deeded by virtue of the right of way take. Borup: And I didn't say there would be only one, I said that's what I would visualize and if I had anything to say about it, there would be. I don't, necessarily, have anything to say about it, but -- Strite: Well, I'm certainly not suggesting that we would be using all six, but I wanted to point out that there were deeded accesses at the time I -- Borup: Right for residential use. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Melting September 4, 2003 Page 53 of 96 Strite: Well, I think you're going to find -- at least as we found on the parcels to the east side, that the two access points that were deeded were deeded as all movement, all purpose. I have not read the agreements with those on the west side, but my guess is that they are going to be one and the same. I don't think that's going to be in question, because at the time we bring a concept plan, ITD is going to have total control over it. We are not going to end up, I would hope, with another Krispy Kreme situation where the single access had to be negotiated for, what, I think it was -- we were here for, what, two years trying to get that done. I did want to bring up the fact that they are there they are under the disposition of ITD. Certainly, we are cognizant of that and we are going to limit, as we do always, as many access points -- Borup: Well, those were in there before the Eagle Road access study was done, too Strite: That's absolutely correct. Another thing -- Borup: Policies do change. Strite: -- I would also like to point out is that in this Development Agreement, as simple as it may be. I would ask that in the motion and in the conditions that you split out that Development Agreement between the west side parcel and the east side parcel, so that there is no confusion that one -- that the east side parcel has to contend, necessarily, with the same conditions that might be imposed on those on the west side. I think that's reasonable to assume and I would hope that that would be something you would consider. Centers: In other words, they would -- each parcel would have a Development Agreement, so there would be two? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Centers, there would -- that's correct. There would be two. There would be the three property owners on the west side, if you will, and the single property owner on the east side, if you will. I just wanted to clarify that, because - Centers: It's a good point. Strite: We got into the four parcel owners versus three and I think Anna made it clear that there are three on the west, one on the east. Again, trying not to be very repetitive, but I think if, in fact, the Development Agreement must be conditioned as part of this annexation, I would strongly suggest and ask for your consideration that it be simplified. That, perhaps, just in need of a Conditional Use would satisfy not only you, but, hopefully, would satisfy the neighbors that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as general as they are, would not be in terms of specifics, but would be as noted in these three pages that you have made reference to. If, in fact, that's how you decide you want to tie the Development Agreement, if that makes sense. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 54 of 96 Centers: Yes, it does, but we don't write the Development Agreement and I'm not prepared to do that in a motion, Mr. Strite. I think the staff and gets the gist, though, and you have made it good forthe record and the people here tonight I think really prefer light office, compared to residential. They are all shaking their head yes. Strite: And that would be fine with us. Centers: As a transitional use, so the staff or the attorney that writes the Development Agreement could refer to that and refer to the three pages you're talking about and as I keep talking we are expanding the minutes for when they write the Development Agreement. It's not that I disagree with you, Ijust -- you know I don't want to write the Development Agreement here tonight. Strite: No. Borup: No. I think we can give some input, perhaps. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Centers, I think the thing is you're making the recommendation onto the Council, who, in effect, will -- Centers: Right. It says prior to the Annexation Ordinance approval and the City Council is the one that does the ordinance approval. You're going to have to get that Development Agreement together before the City Council offers an approval, correct, staff? Powell: Yes. Centers: Correct. Strite: Understand. Centers: Okay but I agree with you on the two parcels. I would like to have staff address that. Strite: Thank you. Any other questions? Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Strite? It sounds like, really -- are we looking at talking -- well, you said Number 3 was the only thing you would even question on the staff report and I think we have discussed that, so -- Centers: We've discussed it, that's for sure. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Thank you. Yes, Mrs. Powell. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 55 of 96 Powell: Can I ask for a clarification on the need to address the two Development Agreements? My only concern about separating them is that the ability for the 20 percent use exception is somewhat diminished. It would have to be 20 percent on one side of the road, versus 20 percent on the other side, if for so reason -- it would leave a little more flexibility -- Borup: If it was all one -- Powell: -- for the city to approve uses that wouldn't otherwise be allowed. Now, that would be particularly critical if we were talking about more residential, but offices are a principal permitted use, so perhaps it's not necessary, but I just wanted to bring that up, that that would be the only fall back in separating out those. Borup: You're saying allow the 20 percent would have on the other parcel would be a -- Powell: Right. It would be -- Borup: -- larger area. Powell: It would be 20 percent of 20 acres, versus 20 percent of 40 or -- Borup: Twenty percent of 40. Powell: It's not exactly those acreages, but -- Borup: I think that makes sense, other than that I don't get the sense that it's -- as you said, it's probably not going towards residential. Powell: It doesn't seem to be going that way, but the Comprehensive Plan does -- Borup: Unless a nice little townhouse project would go in there or something, but I -- I don't know if that's visualized or not. Strite: No comment. Centers: So, Anna, are you saying that you really don't think two Development Agreements would be that big of problem, because you would have 20 percent on each. Borup: Well, she's saying that would be a problem, because that would limit the amount of residential use, because the only --unless we make exceptions to that 20 percent. Powell: Right. Borup: I don't think anyone here would have any problem with that, probably, depending on the project and how the neighbors felt. Maybe that doesn't make a big difference. Are you concerned, Mr. Strite, getting four people to agree, rather than three Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 56 of 96 or -- but if we still have a Development Agreement across the street, he still needs to sign that, so does it make any difference? Strite: I think it's just a little more cumbersome to try to get all four parties together and get it done. I think it would be easier and I think the parcels are split and you have a single parcel owner on one side, that the development be specific to that particular parcel. Borup: Well, it would be anyway, because the part that we are talking about is on the west side of the west property and that wouldn't even pertain to the property owner on the east. Strite: Well, as long as that's specific in the motion -- in the condition, that's fine with me. Borup: Okay. Centers: And as far as getting four together, you have two tonight. Borup: Right here. Yes. Centers: Fifty percent. Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I don't think that's going to be a problem, quite frankly, but Ijust -- the one fairly large participant here on the east side is not here to speak for himself, so my guess is it would be preferable to split the two. Borup: Okay. We will take that into consideration, I guess. Thank you. Strite: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Quickly. Yes. Thurston: David Thurston at 1470 Leslie Way talking again. On Item Number 3 where it says prior to Annexation Ordinance approval, a Development Agreement shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the four property owners. Will the other property owners on the west side have a chance to see that Development Agreement or participate or -- Centers: They have to sign it. Thurston: Okay. Would have to sign it, then. Centers: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 57 of 96 Thurston: Because it doesn't say that in here about the other property owners, so -- Borup: Well, it says four. There is only three on the west side. Thurston: Yes the three. Zaremba: You mean the applying property owners, not the neighboring property owners; right? Thurston: I mean the neighboring owners. Centers: No. Borup: No. Thurston: Would we have a chance to see that or -- Centers: No. Thurston: I see some saying yes and some saying no. Zaremba: Well, it's public record and you could see it before the City Council agreement, but you would not be invited to approve it. Thurston: Okay. Just a clarification on that, then. Borup: But, if it goes the way we have discussed, it would be under the Conditional Use process, so there would be another Public Hearing and that's when we would like to see the input from the neighbors. Thurston: Yes. That makes sense. Borup: At least this Commission would like to see the neighbors input at that time. Thurston: I can only speak for myself. I know that this change has been coming, that this property was going to be put to other uses besides just a pasture, I just want to make sure that it's in the best interest of all parties involved and recognizing the four property owners have the opportunity to maximize their investments. We realize there is change, we just to make sure that it -- and this appears to be in the best interest of all the parties involved. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, discussion how we need to proceed? Centers: Well -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 58 of 96 Borup: Are we even talking -- I don't know that we are talking about even amending any of the staff recommendations, are we? Centers: No. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman, initially, you know, the staff has convinced me, whether it's right or wrong, that Number 3 has to stay in there in its entirety. Mr. Strite had a good point for two Development Agreements and -- but, then, he brought up right at the end, the property owner for that other parcel that he's talking about on the east side isn't even here. I don't see any -- and as you -- you made the point, he has to sign one Development Agreement, whether it's a combination with three other owners or on his own, so I don't see the need and if he wasn't here to make his case, then, I think we ought to just proceed exactly as the staff has recommended. Rohm: I agree with that. Borup: Just so we --this whole thing and everything stayed just like it was written? Centers: Can you believe it? Rohm: Well, there is a lot more clarification now than there was two hours ago Borup: Okay. Well -- and that's -- no, I think it was time well spent. I have been wondering for a long time when something was going to happen. on that. Centers: So, saying that, I would like to make a motion that we approve Item 9 on our agenda, AZ 03-018, request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 plus or minus acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, and Ruwe by BRS Architects. Southwest corner and southeast corner of N orth Eagle Road a nd East Ustick Road, including all staff comments as written from their memo dated August 28tH and received by the city clerk on August 29tH Rohm: Second Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Ithink -- we did establish that a conceptual plan could be fairly simple. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 20D3 Page 59 of 96 Centers: It's in that -- it's in the -- Borup: Here it says conceptual plan, but the definition of conceptual can be -- all right. We had a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I would recommend a break, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess. ) Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 03-017 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.00 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC - 355 West Ustick Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 03-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.00 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC - 355 West Ustick Road: Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. The next project is Item Numbers 10 and 11, Public Hearing AZ 03-017, request for annexation and zoning of six acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development. Then, accompanying that is a request for -- is PP 03-022, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 lots and three other lots on the same property. We'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for the annexation and zoning of six acres. It's currently located in the county and zoned RUT. The applicant is proposing a Rezone to R-4. The Preliminary Plat, again, is for 14 building lots and three other lots. The property is located on the south side of West Ustick Road and it's approximately a quarter mile west of Meridian Road. Here is an aerial where you can see -- well, there is a subdivision to the south, it's still mostly agricultural rural uses. Let's see. I wanted to make a couple quick corrections to the report. Let's see. If you to go -- oh, okay. If you go to Page 2, under the location, the property is, actually, located a quarter mile west of Meridian Road. I had mistakenly written down east. If you go down to surrounding properties, I have inverted east and west. Where it reads east, that should be west of the subject property is rural residential property zoned R UT. East of t he s ubject p roperty t here i s m ore property zoned RUT and also the Strausser Farm Subdivision, which is zoned R-4. Let's see. I had a couple other minor corrections I wanted to make. If you go to Page 5 of the staff report, under Preliminary Plat findings and requirement B, again, I wanted to correct the direction. Let's see. If you go to the second sentence -- third sentence. The applicant