Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 14, 2003 City CouncilMeridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 26 of 45 McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-039. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. _ Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 03-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler / Cobbs / Eagy 1 Ruwe by BRS Architects -southwest comer and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 18, Public Hearing on AZ 03-018, request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler / Cobbs /Eagy /Ruwe by BRS Architects, the southwest corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road. We will open. with staff comments. Powell: Madam Chairman, Members of the Council -- Madam President, Members of the Council. I'll get this right one of these days. I'm sorry. This is an application. It's a straight annexation application with no development agreement attached to it. There are four properties represented as read off. Kissler owns this property to the east. Cobbs, Eagy and Ruwe all own property in this area here. Where to begin? Bill Strite represented all four applicants. I believe tonight there is a different representative for the Kissler property, just for your information. The Commission's discussion focused on whether a master concept plan would be required for these properties here and it was a rather lengthy discussion. Staffs intent in requiring that master concept plan was that because of the nature of the properties, if one of them developed, it could significantly affect access possibilities and coordinated circulation between the properties. The ultimate recommendation of the planning commission was to go ahead and keep the requirement for the concept plan for those properties. We did not -- staff did not originally ask for a concept plan on the Kissler property and the planning commission kept it that way. There were several of the neighboring residents of Carol Subdivision did come and testify in opposition to the proposed project and mainly they were opposed to the straight C-G zoning, they wanted to see some transitional uses and without the master -- the concept plan there was no guarantee of whether those uses would be there. Persons testifying included Mr. Thurston, Mrs. Roto, Mr. Grant, Mrs. Ruwe, who was one of the applicants and Mr. Eagy, again, one of the applicants. They were, obviously, testifying in favor of it and they did -- they were opposed to the concept plan aspect. There were no key changes to the staff recommendations. It did pretty much go forward. The outstanding issues, BRS did sent a letter on October 8th, which proposes to remove the development agreement requirement for a conceptual master plan on the six parcels, again, on the west side of Eagle Road there. Staff still states that that's absolutely critical as part of this application. Did you want to also discuss Meridian City Counal October 14, 2003 Page 27 of 45 what we recommended for the Development Agreement? We did take all the Comprehensive Plan policies associated with the mixed use regional Comprehensive Plan designation and we lifted those and did request that they be put in the Development Agreement. The real -- and it's becoming more of a concern, since this application came through, is we now have requests on every single corner. You know, there is -- they have either come to us with apre-app a couple different times or they are in the loop about this piece of property will come to you -- it's in the -- it's in the process of going to Planning and Zoning Commission, to also come in for just an annexation and no -- Annexation and Zoning, no Development Agreement, so we have this major intersection of Ustick and Eagle where all the property owners are now requesting C-G zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation was for mixed use, it was not for straight commercial. If we get the C-G zoning, if they do a planned development, then, a portion of that property could go mixed use, but we are really losing the flexibility. We tried, through the Development Agreement on this applicant -- application to come up with some way of catching those, but the concern is that once they have the zoning, if it came to you and you were to deny something that complies strictly with the C-G zoning, that we may not be able win that argument. Excuse me, Mr. Nichols, for getting into your territory. I got a wink from him. There could be a concern over there. So, we do have a lot of concerns about that. I guess I'll leave that as the end of the staff presentation. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is the applicant here? Would you like to provide testimony? It's your turn. Excuse me. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Terry: Hope to. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Please state your name and address. Terry: My name is Tim Terry with BRS Architects and my address is 1010 South Allante, Boise, Idaho. I'm representing the applicant and we have had quite a round about with this particular application and the issues that are before you are instrumental in a lot of different ways. We have polled several of the neighborhood groups and have addressed some of the concerns that I think are fairly tantamount to you, as well as the staff and concerns with this are the controls within the project, the controls of how we look at the reviews and what kind of impacts this will place on the neighborhoods. We feel that the controls that we would like to see are placed pretty well and adapt to the conditional use process. I think that the concerns that I have been hearing and seeing are that -- we look at this as something that is wide open in terms of development and things that can be considered used and I think that the conditional use process prevents that from happening by the core issue of review that it gets. We did send a letter to the neighborhood in addition to the staff in addressing concerns, so it became obvious to them that there is control within this process, the conditional use process, regardless of what does take place, the conceptual plan, I think, that is a very difficult issue to face at this time and I think, as you will hear in previous testimony, and in future testimony, that Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 28 of 45 the number of conceptual plans can be anywhere from 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 different uses. I have gone tfirough one now that's approximately 25 different conceptual plans and it's very, difficult until you get a reality based type of situation and when you get to those realities, it's a little easier to deal with and that's where the conditional use process takes -- takes precedence. I think we can look at that in terms of being able to have something that's real, something that has some substance to it, rather than a conceptual use look. I think that in terms of where we are going with this, we'd like to see, as addressed in the letter, several of the conditions waived. We'd like to see condition number one and two, as we stated in the letter from Bill Strite on 10/8/03, we'd like to see all future uses within the boundaries of this annexation only be approved in the conditional use process, excuse me, and we'd also like to see the conditional use process or a Conditional Use Permit, that it shall include the uses as required by the Meridian zoning ordinance. We do feel fairly strongly in regards to the concept plan. We'd like to state that categorically now at this time. I'm up here for any further questions or issues you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Not at this time. Thank you. Terry: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Eric Davis. Davis: Madam President, Members of the Council, Eric Davis. De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Davis: I swear. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Davis: Eric Davis. 602 Sandstone Court, Boise. I joined Jim Kissler's team about 60 days ago after this process had started and he came to me with the idea of a shopping center and wanted to help with some concepts and, you know, just options and talk things through and started to get nibbles from retailers and wanted to be in a position to respond to them when they started to ask about the rules and what the site had and didn't have and develop the process. So, I'm falling into the fold and all the while hoping that we can prevail with Annexation and Zoning, so we have got something to offer the marketplace. They are some -- you know, part and parcel to our market plan and to make the connectivity under the proposal, we had to go across the street and BRS has organized and talked to the neighbors and things have changed a little bit since then, partially due to Carol Subdivision got annexed and some of the rules are different now. Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 29 of 45 In any event, when it came to us if this didn't go through, it would be probably another four to six months delay, more public hearings, to really get us back to the same point we are today and, you know, we have done the best we can with the neighbors over across the street and sympathize with their inability to come up with a concrete plan at this point in time. But what I can offer you is that, you know, I truly believe that on our side, Kissler's side, and the other piece that's going to soon be a part of it, you know, we are ready to put a team together and work with staff and the .Comp Plan and the zoning ordinance and do a bang up job of it, if we can get out of the starting gate here. I don't want to get into too many of the details, because I don't know them all, but just to answer questions and I suppose if you have some questions later, if there are anymore -- and I know there are some of the neighbors that want to talk, so -- if I haven't missed anything, that will be it. Any questions for me? Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Yes. Come on up. Do you swear the testimony you provide tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you? Ruwe: Yes De Weerd: So help you God. Ruwe: Okay. That, too. De Weerd: Thank you. Ruwe: Janet Ruwe, R-u-w-e, 2935 North Eagle Road. I am the parcel -- the furthest down on the map. That one right there and that little box is my home right now, which is in the wrong place. I'm living right on Eagle Road and 30 years ago that was a residential neighborhood and a farm community type place, and now it's totally changed and coming from a homeowner point of view, I, actually, have had somebody interested in my property, but because it was not zoned went out of state, so something that would have been a real good use I felt and I think you would have approved it, too. But, anyway, I have been in a very similar situation to this 30 years ago when the farmers were selling the property that is now Carol Subdivision, came to us with the same kind of concerns and we were not bothered by the fact that they wanted to change from a farming community right there, to one acre parcels. I feel they have been good neighbors and have not been a problem. There were two people at that time who were farmers and homeowners like we were, who objected to that and since that time that has now turned into Packard Estates and the one is the Sue and Tom Davis property, which is now going into residential homes. But I'm still there, but times have changed and I really do need for you to find your way to approve this different kind of zoning and annexation. I went along with the Kissler project, because I thought it was an avenue for all of us to get together to do the same thing at one time, but if this does not go through, I'm going to have to come back to you as an individual owner. The property to the top of me there -- I'm not sure -- I guess that would be north of me. The Eagy property. He is not going to sell or develop, but he went along with this and I do, too, because we thought it was a good time to, you know, get on the same page, have us all Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 30 of 45 zoned and annexed. I do plan to sell my property and having it zoned the way I think it needs to be zoned is an asset to me. The way it is now it's residential, it's not going to sell as residential. It's not a place where some -- you live on a five lane highway right now. So, anyway, Ithink -- in fact, the reason we are doing this this way and saying that we realize that we do need the CUP or the Conditional Use Permit way to go is because we do realize that the Carol Subdivision, they are there and through the CUP or however you call it, process, they do get a say in anything that's happening there. The other corners, as they mentioned, I know they have been on line for getting, you know, in this same process. Those are big hunks of property, where mine is just a ten acre property and so it's really hard for me and the other party owners right on our corner there, to go together with one master plan, because we are not all -- it's not going to be developed by one person, Greg is not selling, I am, it's going to be --Ithink that's almost an impossibility in the situation saying that we have to have a master plan right there, I don't see how that's really possible. That would make it that I couldn't sell my property. So, I'd ask you to look at this with an open mind and I have been a Meridian resident for many many years and I plan to say here and I just really want what's best for our community, too and living on Eagle Road we have seen the changes that have been made. They have all been good. The traffic is moving faster. They have torn down a lot of things that really shouldn't be there and I think it's a nice gateway into Meridian and I think with the CUP plan and your approval and the neighbors approval, I think things will tum out okay. So, thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Is there any other testimony in favor of this application? Do you swear the testimony you provide tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Orton: Yes. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Orton: My name is Richard Orton, I'm at 460 East Linkershim here in Meridian. I'm representing Greg Eagy tonight. Mr. Eagy asked me to give some testimony in favor of the annexation, in favor of the most recent letter from BRS Architects, the conditions identified in there and specifically ask that you waive the requirement to do a concept plan. Mr. Eagy, as the other proponents of this annexation have already pointed out, believe that the Conditional Use Permit process is the appropriate control and oversight for this development, that and market forces, of course, are the appropriate control for this development in any effort to try to develop a believable, honest concept plan at this time clearly is -- that opportunity isn't here yet. You can tell by the testimony of the people around us that they haven't thought about it enough to do that. That concludes my testimony. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 31 of 45 De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Orton Orton: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in favor for this application? Okay. We would entertain public comments against for those opposed. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thurston: Yes, it is De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Thurston: My name is David Thurston. I live at 1470 Leslie Way. This is my property right here. Right there on the corner. I'm one of the people who signed the roll that said that I'm opposed. I want to state that I'm not opposed to the Annexation and the Zoning of this property. I believe that all the property owners should have opportunity to develop or sell their individual properties, but the existing residential property owners must also have assurance that their interests are also addressed and protected. I support the Planning and Zoning staff recommendation that the property be annexed and C-G zoning, provided there is a development agreement between the four property owners and the City of Meridian prior to approval of the annex ordinance. This was stated very clearly in the Planning and Zoning meeting that we all attended and I think that's still very much applicable. I also support the idea that all future development and future uses within the 43.86 acres be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process. This process will require all planned development be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council. I think that is a -- definitely an essential part of the overall plan. With all the varied interest in this property, with the current property owners and the residential property owners, Ithink -- Ibelieve it is essential that there be a conceptual master plan, so that we have -- so we have an idea of the issues associated with the development will be addressed properly. The plan should demonstrate and address interconnectivity, transitional uses, which the property owners are very much interested in, the access points and other land issues that were brought up in the Planning and Zoning report. This type of a master plan will allow a planned development approach and avoid a helter-skelter development process. Planning is essential with four property owners with different plans for their property, as you have heard. I believe that the traditional uses should address and maintain the integrity of the low density residents or properties located on the western boundary. I suggest that the development plan include such things as a professional office park, maybe even a high tech business park, would be a good recommendation for that use, similar to the Carol Professional Park, which is located south on Eagle Road. As we -- as you look at the property to the south of this planned annexation, there is some property right here, right now that property has no access.. I believe that once this question of Annexation and Zoning is resolved, that it needs to take into consideration that property, because this will probably be the model for that property in the future there will be additional property owners who will be very .much interested in the Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 32 of 45 transitional uses of that property once it's allowed to be developed. So, that's all I have. Thank you for this opportunity. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Thurston. Any questions? Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Grant: It is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Grant: My name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way. It's the third lot south of Ustick there on the east side of Leslie Way. Right there. I also would like to make sure that the Council understands that I'm not opposed to any commercial development here, I'm just -- Mr. Thurston has outlined that we want to see a plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission made that recommendation and I think it still ought to be carried forward. I have concerns. We wouldn't want to see -- the access points for that piece of property are those six parcels, has not been defined and one of the things I would not like to see is an access road along my -- the east side or the back lot line of my property. I wouldn't want to see -- I would want to see the proper transitional development occur, as Mr. Thurston has outlined, and not see something that was improper go in there, so that it would enhance the value of everybody's property, not just ours. I think there ought to be the proper barriers from the commercial development versus the residential area, which I'm sure we can incorporate it, but it's still a concern and I'm afraid that if this application is approved without a developmental plan, that it's kind of like the train that leaves the station, it's a lot harder to stop that locomotive and head it in the right direction if somebody -- if there isn't a plan to kind of control that. I think that the lack of agreement among the applicants regarding the development plan suggests this property isn't going to be developed as one piece. It's not a large piece of property and I'm not a developer, but I think there is some severe restrictions that would be imposed and the fact that Mr. Eagy has said through his representative that the middle piece of property is not going to be sold and will probably be developed differently, suggests the need for a master plan. Perhaps to convey what -- for what they have testified. I'd almost take the opposite view of them, that there ought to be a development that's been recommended, so I think my recommendation is that I hope that we would insist on this master plan or this development plan that doesn't have to be specific, but there is certain things that ought to be incorporated. and in terms of access and other items, that I would recommend that you deny this until such time as that plan is forth coming. That's all I have got. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Is Betty Russell -- Russell: I agree with everything that been -- De Weerd: Doris Martin? Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 33 of 45 Martin: I agree. De Weerd: Russell Martin? R. Martin: Yes. De Weerd: Would you like to provide testimony? Okay. Powell: Madam President, if you could read off the names that you just said that agreed that -- De Weerd: Okay. For the record, there is agreement to the testimony that has been provided by Betty Russell, Doris Martin, and Russell Martin. Thank you. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam President, were those individuals listed as being opposed to this development? De Weerd: They were. Yes. Bird: So, they would be agreeing with the testimony in opposition and not with all the testimony? De Weerd: Yes. With the testimony of Mr. Thurston and Mr. Grant. Okay. Powell: May I make one final comment, just so that the applicant has an opportunity to rebut. Mr. Terry did testify that he had a shopping center ready to go and I'm afraid that that's the perception that once that C-G zone goes in that it would be suitable to just do a shopping center on that property and I think that the mixed use regional did not have that kind of use in mind. My understanding of the Comp Plan would be that if just a shopping center were desired there, it would have been designated as straight commercial. So, again, it just kind of highlights the concerns that staff has about a straight C-G zoning of the property. De Weerd: Anna, I guess I would have a question for you. We discussed property to the north of that and they did bring in a conceptual, so we could look at some of the egress and ingress into that property. Powell: This property? De Weerd: No. I believe -- yeah. That property. On the Moore property and I guess we have always kind of looked for the -- and I understand that the applicant need to be Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 34 of 45 able to market and be able to respond to the market, but with it surrounded by a residential -- or with residential to the west of the property line, it does underscore a philosophy that we have been operating on and that we like to see a conceptual plan how they will deal with transitioning, buffering, and the appropriate uses and I guess from the testimony we have heard, those are pretty much the reason why. My question to you is we did require that or we did receive a conceptual on the Winston Moore property; is that correct? Powell: They -- at one pre-app they showed us a concept, but they have agreed that that is not what they intend to do. The last meeting we had with them it was rather amusing, they brought in a 24-by-35 plat and the site was outlined for the boundary with absolutely nothing on it, labeled conceptual plan, so it was, I think, kind of a true expression of their idea for development of the property at this time. They just don't know. So, although they had one in the past, I think right now they really don't know what they want there. De Weerd: Council? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond to the testimony? Davis: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Eric Davis, 602 Sandstone. It's all very well taken. I mean it's a definite chicken or the egg situation here and we will have all of these piled up and I would like to think that we can at least tell a retailer that, yes, we have land that's in Meridian and it's zoned commercial, because I think it allows your use and, by the way, it's not just open territory here, we have a public process we go through, we have a Comp Plan that's in place that talks about transitional uses and all the kind of things that have to 6e a good neighbor and we don't want to sidestep that process. That's not what this is all about, so -- you know, we will talk about access, we have talked about a development agreement and we will sign a development agreement that has conditions in it that bring us back through the public process when the time is right. It might be this year, it might be five years. We have access control through ACHD and ITD and those can get pretty hairy in the conditions and you have seen a project with -- you know, say you can have your access, property owner A, but you have got to allow property owner B to use that and that's a condition and, you know, they -- that's been pretty effective in other places in Boise that I have worked and the transitional use concept that I think the language that BRS would put in talks about submitting ourselves to that, you know, what is a transitional use or buffer of some type. So, trying to, you know, armor plate the proposal or at least this is the best we can give of what we know today. So, I -- again, I think I can answer all of the questions that came up, with the exception of the concept plan that can be a number of things, just left up to your imagination at this point. It will be market driven and we will work everything we can to make that market driven demand meet the chase -- the challenge -- the criteria of the city and we will come before you with a plan when that day comes. Anyway, any questions? Concerns? Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Bird: Madam President? Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 35 of 45 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: As I understand, the applicant has no problems with a development agreement with stipulations in it. I think that's a very typical situation and I don't believe it's -- in the six years I have been on here that I have seen before had so many different owners make application, joint application, and, you know, this application is actually split by a major road. So, I believe, like Mr. Thurston and Mr. Grant says, they are not against it, but I do believe that we need to have the stipulation and a development agreement that as bad as I hate CUP's, they are going to have to come back with CUP's for this kind of development and I understand where they are coming from, they need to have zoning and stuff out there if they were to market this ground and I do understand that and those corners are very good retail commercial corners, so -- but as long as they are agreeable to a development agreement with some stipulation in it, I could support it. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam President, I guess I'm a little like Mr. Bird, I'm a little torn here. I guess what concerns me here is when I look up and down Eagle Road, this corner is really all that's left of Eagle Road for any type of real significant commercial development and as Mr. Bird stated, I mean I think it's a fairly odd and unique situation we have here where we have so many owners that have banded together, but, basically, only for the purpose of annexation. I know that we are -- as Mr. Davis stated, we are always in this chicken and the egg. I mean we generally want to see the concepts, sometimes those concepts are very fluid and Silverstone we had a good example, we had a very fluid concept plan and those buildings moved around pretty freely on that property, but it was always a professional office park. The buildings might have moved, but we kind of knew what it was and I guess that's the difficulty for me in this one, is I have no idea what you want to do. To me, the marketing plan you have is that map right there. That future land use map is your marketing plan. That's what we said we would agree to as to what the zones would be. So, I guess -- I'm not a developer and wouldn't pretend to know all the nuances that you have to go through, but that's, to me, what the city has made a commitment to, to tum this property into at some point in the future. What we ask in return -- or have in the past is give us a pretty good idea of what that is and all I have heard tonight in annexation -- I guess to me what the applicant is asking and it just happens to have four applicants, rather than one, but the applicant is asking to become part of our city and what we have generally said is tell us what you're going to do with it before we agree to it. At least give us something to look at fairly strongly as to what it's going to be. We know the buildings might change. We know that footprints might move, we know that access points have to be decided and we know all that stuff, but we kind of have some idea that it's a store or it's offices or it's both or it's apartments or it's something and I don't have that and that's what -- that's what makes it very hard for me to say it's fine, it is our gateway and I know that term gets used a lot, but if you're coming from the north to the south, that's our gateway on both sides of the road. It starts right here, because this is in the city and this is in the city and I believe that's in the City of Boise. So, the City of Meridian starts right here and the rest of Eagle Road Meridian City Counrdl October 14, 2003 Page 36 of 45 we don't have anything left. I don't know -- I couldn't tell you today if a shopping center is the best thing for that corner. We have had a lot of discussions about those types of uses on the corners and the access points and lights and all of those other things -- I couldn't tell you today, but if you listen to what the applicant says, they don't have -- they don't even agree to do this as one unit. What I heard was this middle piece may be completely different than these other pieces. Again, I have a hard time being convinced that right now the best interest of the city is to annex that property now with no concept of what it will be. We did give you the ability to market it and now we have asked you to tell us what it's going to be before we agree to it and I just didn't hear that and so I guess I'm not convinced yet that this is the best thing in the interest of the city to annex this property today. De Weerd: Any other questions, comments from Council? Do you want a response from the applicant or -- Nary: The Public Hearing is still open. De Weerd: Does the applicant want to comment? Ruwe: Janet Ruwe, 2935 North Eagle Road. When you said look at the map before, do you mean this map down here? Okay. So, in the Comprehensive Plan are we mixed use regional? It was my understanding that mixed use regional really meant you didn't need a Conditional Use Permit? Is that right? Okay. But, anyway, we are agreeing to that and mainly because of Carol Subdivision, so that anything that we -- you know, that comes forward involves the neighbors, involves the City Council, involves Planning and Zoning, involves everything. Okay, and then, my other question is, okay, let's say -- okay, what do I do as a homeowner who wants to sell the property? I can't sell my property as mixed use regional unless I get the agreement of everybody around me to do the same thing -- I mean, you know, they have the same plans -- or in the same plan. I think that's really kind of tough. I mean I can see if it's one big parcel with probably one owner, but when there is several owners that maybe all don't want to develop right now or want to sell right now, I'm just not sure where I go with that kind of thing or, you know, what would happen and the reason I really went in with this Annexation and Zoning is because I thought why not all do it together, it just seemed like an easier process, rather than me going to ask for this and them going -- you know, all these different -- I mean I can understand it was complicated, but, yet, I don't really know where the rights are or where they end or whatever, so thank you. De Weerd: Well, you know, I understand your concern, but what I don't see in front of us is that this group annexation without any conceptual plan, gains anything. You would still have to -- whether you do this or go any other way, it doesn't gain anything. You still, from the testimony we are hearing, you still are working with -- if the property to the north of you doesn't want to do anything at this point and our process -- and one of the policies or the philosophies that we have been sticking to is we want those conceptual plans, in particular when it does border a residential, to have certain assurances, and I understand the willingness to do the Conditional Use Permit, but that doesn't save Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 37 of 45 anything here either. Whether you get annexed right now and, then, come back for the conditional use or do it all at the same time with the regional mixed used, come in with your annexation request and a plan, it takes all the same amount of time that you're allowing the testimony and the piece of mind for the residential to know what's being out -- what's being proposed and that's why probably we are struggling up here, we like to see a larger plan and really appreciate the fact that you have had a group of property owners come together for that reason, but we don't see a plan. So, there is no advantage to looking and considering this at this point. Ruwe: In other words, if a person comes in individually, how do you treat it? That you have to have the people -- property owners on either side of you, what do they have to do, just come and testify that they agree with it or don't agree with it? De Weerd: If you came in with your piece of property with annexation request and a plan, certainly they would be notified and would have an opportunity to testify to the proposed plan. Ruwe: So, then, the idea of a plan development -- can we call it group plan isn't in the picture anymore. A planned development I guess you would say is not in the picture anymore, it's just a compatibility with the neighbors that live on either side, if they agree -- De Weerd: It would be a piece by piece. Ruwe: Then piece by piece. De Weerd: So, we like the concept of everyone coming as a group, but the advantage to that is an overall plan that we can see the whole piece, instead of piece by piece, but we are not seeing that in this case. Do you understand? Ruwe: No. I understand it and I think it's coming at it another way, because we are different. I mean different property owners, who are not in one plan, I guess. I mean we are not all going to -- we are not going to sell to the same buyer, probably. Nary: And I don't know if this explains it any better, but, you're right, if you came in and asked for -- to be annexed just for your piece alone and every other one of those property owners did the exact same thing, would we annex you? I don't know. We might, but we might not. I mean but you -- Ruwe: But, then, you would be totally looking at us as individuals, not as a group. Nary: Right, and as Councilmember de Weerd said, that's not our preference, but ycu haven't been a whole lot different by banding together. Our preference is -- is a group application or one application and a bunch of property together in one concept plan for a large piece of property, some general idea of what's going to be there. That would be our preference. Our least favorite preference is to have every individual come and Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 38 of 45 request it, because, again, you have piecemeal development and that's not favored either. But you haven't given us either one of those. I mean what you have done is banded together to give us piecemeal development and you haven't done anything to assure us it isn't going to be piecemeal development, so since that's our least favorite one, just by you banding together, you didn't save anything, you didn't benefit anything from the city's perspective to me, because all you have done is really just -- you know, still is just piecemeal development, it just happens to be four of you all at once. But it didn't benefit us -- or at least to me doesn't benefit the city better just because you're together. The only benefit to being together, as Councilmember de Weerd was saying, was to have a concept plan, to have something that the group wants to accomplish and that's what we are not seeing. Ruwe: Okay. Thank you. Nary: Does that help? Ruwe: No. It does. It's still a little bit of a gray area and I think it's a gray area for you, too. I mean this whole thing is kind of interesting. I think it's an interesting situation how we have to be a whole corner there, but yet it's six different parcels or five across, but four different owners. Yeah. Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council? Powell: Madam President? De Weerd: Anna? Powell: Could I just point out in the staff report, Mr. Hawkins-Clark did point out that the two kind of discussion points and findings that were critical to this were finding A and finding J. Finding A is that will the zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and finding J is, is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. So, as you're making your motion you might want that information. De Weerd: Okay. The Public Hearing is still open. Council, do you wish to close it or do you need more information? Nary: Madam President, I guess before we close the Public Hearing, I don't know -- I mean we have had a lot of discussion -- I don't know if the developers want some opportunity to see if there is some way to get closer to where they want. I don't know. I mean maybe they want us to make a decision and move on, but -- De Weerd: Want to continue this? Meridian City Council October 14, 2003 Page 39 of 45 Nary: Right. If they think there is some opportunity to have some conversation with those property owners or they think there is a way that -- to deal with this, I don't know. I just wanted that opportunity to respond, so -- Davis: Could I have a chance to talk to Mr. Eagy's representative? De Weerd: Council, we could recess for five or ten minutes. Nary: Sure. De Weerd: Okay. I would go ahead and entertain a motion to recess or I will just recess for ten minutes. We will be back at ten after 9:00. (Recess.) De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the meeting back to order. Is the applicant -- thankyou. You need to state your name. Terry: My name is Tim Terry; BRS Architects. Madam President, Members of the Council, we appreciate the recess and we have had a chance to discuss the issues and at this time we'd like to request a delay for two weeks. De Weerd: Okay. Continue that until the 28th? Terry: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing that from the applicant, I would move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 03-018, request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler/ Cobbs / Eagy / Ruwe by BRS Architects until October 28th, 2003. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Public Hearing Item number 18 to October 28, 2003. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.