Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 4, 2003 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 48 of 83 (Recess. ) Item 7: Recommendation: VAG 03-007 Request for a Vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of West Pennwood Street for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No.2 by Mary Ballantyne -- west of South Meridian Road and south of East Franklin Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 03-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a re-plat of Troutner Park Subdivision Lots 4-5 and 10-15, Block 2; Lots 1-3 and 5-8, Block 3; Block 4; and Lot 3, Block 5 consisting of 6 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 17. 26 acres in a C-G zone for Troutner Business Park No.2 by Mary Ballantyne -- south of West Franklin Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene the Planning and Zoning Meeting this evening. The audience has thinned out a little bit. The next item is -- and this is not a Public Hearing, it's a recommendation that 0 ur Commission needs to make. V AC 03-007. This is a request for vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of west Penwood Street for the Troutner Business Park Sub. I'd like to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I just want to briefly kind of run through the vacation process again. As you stated, it's not a Public Hearing, but we'd like to discuss concurrent with the next application -- Item No.8 on the agenda tonight is tied in with this vacation approval, so I don't know how on the record -- I mean the applicant can, obviously, speak to this, but it's not a Public Hearing, even though there are some issues t hat are just kind 0 f tied in. So, specifically, tot he vacation application, staff would -- Borup: Would it be helpful if we went ahead and opened up the other hearing at this point, then? Hood: That may be helpful. Yes. Borup: Let's go ahead and do that. Let me open Public Hearing PP 03-034, request for preliminary plat approval of a replat of Troutner Subdivision. So, we will open this hearing at this time and realizing that it will be acted upon differently. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Running through the subdivision and with that, the vacation that's proposed concurrently with the subdivision, this is a subdivision on 17. 26 acres. It's currently zoned C-G and the proposal is for six buildable lots and one common lot. It's -- the site is located approximately 200 feet south of Franklin Road and 500 feet west of Meridian Road. The plat proposes to resubdivide lots in Troutner Business Park No.1 showing here on the screen. It was just recorded in 1997. The applicant is concurrently proposing to vacate right of way -- vacate the right of way -- this is 3rd Avenue and the applicant is proposing to vacate 3rd in this location, as well Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4.2003 Page 49 of 83 as south of Penwood here, and three feet of right of way on either side of Penwood, both sides, because ACHD's right of way requirement has changed since this was platted in '97 at 60 feet of right of way it was platted. They can do the same -- basically, the same street in a 57 -- 54-foot right of way, so that six feet goes away. Staff is not convinced that vacating 3rd Street south of Penwood -- again, this little stub street here would be in the public's best interest. Staff believes t hat a stub street tot he south, whether it be in the location platted as shown here or in another location, one should be provided from the property to the undeveloped parcel to the south. So, staff is recommending that this body make a recommendation to the City Council that we consent and allow ACHD to process that application Now, ACHD is the lead agency, they will hold a Public Hearing as well and make the ultimate decision on vacation application. However, in their process, in order to go through that vacation process, they require that the applicant come to the City of Meridian and get consent from the City Council to even start that process. So, this is kind of a first step in a long line of hearings and agendas that this item will be on, but that would be staff's recommendation that this board forward onto them approval of the submitted application, with the exception of the 3rd Street Avenue South. That is pretty much the staff report for both t he vacation and the preliminary plat a nd staff doesn't have any other concerns, really, with the -- let me show you a picture of the preliminary plat. There is an aerial that shows a submitted preliminary plat and the main difference, I guess, is that you can see the lots north of Penwood is now one lot north of Penwood with that right of way. This was the right of way that's platted that's proposed for vacation. That's all one lot now. And there are four lots along the south, with no -- that connection not being there. I believe that is the extent of the staff report and I believe the applicant would like to speak on that. That's the main thing that I believe the issue that the applicant has and I will stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to comment? Zaremba: Actually, I did have a question before we get to the applicant. We have in our packets two different letters from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. One of them dated 9 October, it lists a whole bunch of easements and stuff that they think need to be dealt with and, then, another one, which was dated the 4th of November that says Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District as no easements on either side of West Penwood, therefore, we have no further comment. 1st here some resolution 0 f those two? 0 f course, the one that says they don't have any is the more recent one, but the one of October 9th, they have a. 03 acre lot that would become landlocked with the easement -- if 3rd Street is vacated and several easements they don't specify, several ea'sements for a pressure irrigation system within the area. Do we need to be concerned about that? Borup: Well, which was the -- which packet was that other letter in? I'm looking at three different letters and I'm still not finding the same one you referred to. Mendian Planning & Zoning Oecember 4. 2003 Page 50 of 83 Zaremba: Just -- well, the cover it is the transmittal. The second page is the vacation application. And, then, this is like three pages down. The front of the packet is this one for the vacation. Borup: There we go. Zaremba: They do suggest a solution, a 20-foot permanent easement, combined with an existing 50-foot easement. Borup: Okay. We will have the applicant speak to that. That would be good. Ballantyne: Mike Ballantyne. Business address 250 South 5th, Boise, 83702. Chairman Borup and Commissioners, just to speak -- I'll let Ryan Addleman speak to the item related to Nampa-Meridian, but just to give you some background real quick on the application. In 1997 -- actually, beginning in 1996, but finishing in 1997, this property, nearly 40 acres, was platted as a business park with approximately one-acre lots. Phase two, we'll call it, the property to the -- that we are proposing to replat, that was under a non-development agreement with the City of Meridian. There was a development agreement on that west half of the property, non-development on the east half. That non-development agreement has expired and so in order to be able to do any land use action, we have to resubmit the plat -- resubmit a plat. In doing that, we have determined we have a potential user for the property and so we have determined to reconfigure the property, including a vacation of 3rd Street. So, that's the reason we are before you today. We have no issues with the staff report, with the exception of the site-specific requirement number one and that is the extension of Southwest 3rd to the south. We understand that connectivity is a priority for the city. It's a priority for us as well. The reason we are moving ahead with phase two is that it's important for us to have a connection out to Meridian Road. However, the property owner to the south, as well as the property owner to the north, who is here today, have repeatedly requested that we not put those streets in -- or not put Southwest 3rd Avenue in, because primarily the property owner to the south, it will dissect his property and potentially cause significant damage to him financially. So, as we don't -- we don't need it, we will have a connection out to Meridian Road. We have Southwest 5th stubbed down to the Corporate Drive extension. We have, you know, proposed vacating that, so Ryan Addleman has copies of letters from the property owners to the north and to the south to enter into the record requesting that that be vacated. He also has a letter -- the letter that you're referencing about the easement and that just relates to the drain there, so I'll let him speak to that, if that's all right. I can answer any questions first. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Is the -- I'm assuming the property owner to the south is going to testify? Ballantyne: He is not here. He did provide a letter to be entered into the record that requested that that road not be extended. Borup: And what are his intentions with the property, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 51 of 83 Ballantyne: Chairman Borup, your guess is as good as mine. He just -- he plans to develop the property at some point and certainly putting a road through the middle of it affects his ability to develop it in the future Borup: And he has access from -- is that a street to the south of his property? Ballantyne: Chairman Borup, his property runs from here all the way -- runs from Meridian Road all the way to the line that -- what I'm showing here and includes a potential future extension of 3rd. So, he has one single parcel here -- well, one property composed of, I think, three parcels. He's already had to work with the highway district to dedicate Corporate Drive in order for them to be able to put their detention or retention ponds here and doesn't want to have to be required to split the property to connect here. Certainly 5th Street, as I mentioned before, will connect here to the future Corporate Drive extension. Borup: Okay. So, he's feeling he's got adequate access on Corporate Drive? Ballantyne: Yeah. He feels certainly with his frontage on Meridian Road and on Corporate Drive he's got plenty of access. Or future Corporate Drive. And he will be required to dedicate the balance of the Corporate Drive right of way at the time he develops that property, so that the highway district can extend Corporate Drive. Borup: And this access point will n this isn't in existence right now, is it? Ballantyne: Chairman Borup, it is in existence. There is currently a temporary turnaround here and this is a different property owner, who owns this property, and he will be required to connect to 5th at thetime he develops his property. Borup: Does he own both sides of -- this property owner? Ballantyne: This property here is owned by Troutner Business Park Development Corporation; He owns this property. And this property is owned by the Ada County Highway District, which I believe was an illegal lot split, but we don't want to discuss the illegal lot split. And that is not in the scope of this application Borup: Right. No. No. Ballantyne: Nor was it ever part of this property here as far as the application. Zaremba: I remember back in 1824-- Borup: Okay. Ballantyne: It has it's own set of issues. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 52 of 83 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Addleman: Ryan Addleman, Keller and Associates. Business address, 131 Southwest 5th, Meridian. I have got the four letters from the adjacent property owners I'd like to enter into evidence. And, Commissioner, in regards to the October 9th letter, is that the one you're in question about? From Nampa-Meridian? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: I think that was the one, yes. Addleman: That was something that we worked out with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District as part of the original plat -- Troutner Business Park's plat. We have dedicated a 50-foot easement to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. However, as part of relieving the other lots that were in part of the big lot, we had to provide access to a pump station that's located right here. There is a very small lot there where the pressure irrigation system is for the subdivision. And so, therefore, what we have done is put a 20-foot permanent easement. This wouldn't necessarily be for N ampa-Meridian, it would be some day in the future that if anybody else took over the irrigation system, that they would have that access easement to that lot. Zaremba: So, as far as you know they are satisfied. Addleman: They are satisfied, yes. Zaremba: All right. Addleman: Their biggest thing is they didn't want to be a signatory on the plat, so that's the way around it. Borup: Anyone else to testify on this? Come forward. Olson: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, my name is Reed Olson. I currently own -- or am a representative of the owners of one of the lots, one of the buildings in the Troutner Business Park. And could we put back up there the plat that shows the parcel as it's presently configured? The one just after that. No. I think you had it, but I didn't - - that will work. Okay. The parcel that I'm referring to is that one right there. And the parcel that I'm concerned a bout in this proposed realignment is that 0 ne right there. And the reason that I'm concerned, the Troutner Business Park was established some five years ago, as was mentioned by Mr. Ballantyne and I represent the owners of the parcel that's located on the west side of Southwest 5th near the entrance of the business park. My understanding of the proposal is to begin the process to allow a mobile home park to be established in this parcel and I'd like to register my opposition to that use for this parcel. The covenants for the Troutner Business Park states that it's the intent of the park to be one of the premier business locations not just in the state of - - or not just in Meridian, but in the state of Idaho. And five years ago we built a building Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 53 01 83 that fulfills that vision. At this point we will have an upcoming annual association meeting and in that I will be requesting that the developer not use the lots that are currently along Southwest 5th, which would be that one that I pointed out second to be a part of this realignment, thus, maintaining the integrity of the business park concept along the street of Southwest 5th, hoping that that would segregate the parcel that's possibly become a mobile home park from the business park. And what I'd like to ask the Commission to do is defer a decision on this matter until after the association meeting takes place, which I believe is next week. Hopefully, in that meeting we can discuss things with the developer and come to some kind of an agreement that will be satisfactory for all sides and we don't need to bother the Commission about my concerns. I can take any questions if you have any. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. I had two. It appears to me that the other two plats we have that -- that line actually comes right down this direction and over. Olson: Yes. Borup: So -- is that correct, Mr. Ballantyne, that these lots right along here are not part of the application? Okay. Olson: That's correct. It's that one that's kitty-corner from my lot. Borup: Right. So, this lot right here is the only one that you've got question about. Olson: Well, I mean -- Borup: Well, the whole thing, but -- Olson: The whole thing. Borup: But especially that one. Olson: Because it's kitty-corner to my -- to my parcel. Borup: So, if this, indeed, did become a mobile home park, they are probably going to have access onto -- Olson: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Ballantyne. Maybe we can get some -- maybe we can get some comment from Mr. Olson: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4.2003 Page 54 of 83 Mallea: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Mallea. Like Mr. Olson, I have a lot in the project and we have put a building on it. The Troutner Business Park, Members of the Commission, is a subdivision. It was approved by the City of Meridian as a subdivision in 1997. The common scheme and design of the subdivision was for office buildings through the project. Now, not all of the lots have been sold. Mr. Ballantyne and his family still retain those and they retain these lots that are within this application for a replat. But the application represents to you and it says that the CC&Rs, the covenant, conditions, and restrictions, are in place for Troutner Business Park. That is true. The application also represents to you that all lots within the replat will be subject to these conditions. Well, Members of the Commission, the covenants and conditions -- which I know the city does not get involved in. You are not here to listen to me talk about what covenants mean or provide. I understand that. But when you are told in this application that the replat will be subject to them, I think it's permissible to talk to them. Well, what you have not been told, no one has, is what the anticipated use of the replatted property will be. Well, it will certainly not be what the original subdivision plan called for, which are commercial developments in the project. Now, the information that we have -- and the owner has never spoken to us about it, but the information that we have is that the plan is for an RV park within the replat. Well, I cannot believe that the Commission would approve a replat without being told what the purpose is or the intended use, when the common scheme that the Commission approved six years ago -- the city approved, called for commercial development, with access -- dedicated right of way on 3rd -- for all of that to be abandoned, to unilaterally and without the consent of others who have purchased in the project. I don't believe that this Commission or the City will do that and I urge you to deny it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Questions? Do you have concern that the CC&R's are going to be modified or changed from -- Mallea: If the applicant intended that, I'm guessing that that would be part of their representation to this Commission. That's not mentioned. All that is mentioned is that the replat would be subject to the covenants. Well, the covenants prohibit any trailer, any temporary structure, and have very rigorous design standards for any development within this subdivision. Borup: That's what I was wondering. So, if that's the case, then -- Mallea: Mr. Chairman, there are rigorous architectural and design standards. Borup: Okay. Then, where is the concern if you have rigorous requirements? Are you concerned they will ignore them, you mean? Mallea: Well, what you are being told is that they are subject to them. Obviously, they must intend the complete abandonment of whatever those covenants provide. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 55 of 83 Borup: Okay. That's your concern, that they will be ignored? Mallea: Abandoned and modified. Mr. Chairman, if I could draw a parallel to the previous application that you heard for three hours. We have half of that project that was before you, comes back to you in six years, and this fine lady that represented the developer and this gentleman that spoke to you, they come to the conclusion that the size of lot was no longer marketable. Borup: Well, no, I see where you're going, but I don't think that a comparison to any residential and commercial really apply, but -- but I can see the point you're making. But would that be any different if an owner went in and bought whatever -- six original lots or whatever they were and, then, decided to -- and, then, came in and went through the same process on his own? Mallea: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly, as your staff has mentioned, the proposed abandonment of 3rd Avenue is a serious issue. So -- I mean that's one issue, but-- Borup: Well -- and also -- and that's something this Commission doesn't do. Mallea: And I understand that. Borup: I mean ACHD would have to do that. Mallea: I understand. But I mean it causes me pause and I hope it will this Commission, for a 40 acre project to have a common scheme and approved and now they have half of it pulled out of that scheme when others, like myself and Mr. Olson and others who are not here, in reliance on it, purchased and built and now all of that is abandoned. It's a discretionary call for this Commission. Borup: But you're assuming it's going to be abandoned. Mallea: No. Oh. I have lots of confidence in that. Borup: Now, would you have a concern if a single large office building went in there on that parcel? Mallea: None whatsoever. That would be consistent, I believe, with what the city approved, what the city's approved and planned development for this area was. Borup: Okay. Mallea: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: I would probably ask staff for a clarification. I'm looking through Chapter 8, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 56 of 83 the zone schedule of use control. We are talking about a C-G zone. I do not find in any zone an RV park as being allowable. Under residential I see mobile home parks and subdivisions, which are not allowable in a CoG zone. Am I missing something? Can an RV park go in a C-G zone? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, you're absolutely right. And, actually, the applicant did come to us and they haven't been secretive about what they want to do there. But before I tell you all the conversations we had, you should -- and I'm sure you realize that the use on that property is not in question tonight, it's just a matter of the preliminary plat and the vacation. So, how they want to use that property would come back to you at another time. It won't be a principal permitted use. So, I will tell you they are looking at an RV park. An RV park is not similar to a mobile home park, it's more like a hotel on wheels, so -- Borup: Like the one up on Overland and Locust Grove. Powell: I'm not familiar with that one, but there is nods around the -- Borup: That's the only one I know about in town, but -- Powell: And it's -- so what we have told them is that they need to come to us, because it's not a listed use. What the zoning ordinance says is that you need to -- they need to come to us as a Conditional Use Permit f or anything that's not a listed use. I f we haven't considered it, it's not considered prohibited, it's just -- you have to come through the conditional use process. We can encourage them -- normally we encourage people to come in altogether as a bundle. In this case we encouraged them to get moving on their right of way vacation, because it is such a painfully laborious process, I think would be fair to say. It really does take a long time to get through that vacation process and we did encourage them to start that right of way -- right away. I think I'm getting a cold. Anyway. So, they have not tried to deceive us or anything on this property. They came in and said we want to do an RV park, you know, how do we do it. So, they are just following the -- kind of the sequencing that we gave them, but it is not a listed use, so it would have to be a conditional use, it would come back before you in that manner. Borup: Could there be some -- I'd like some clarification on the non-build agreement on this parcel that was made reference to. I wasn't sure that that -- Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe what -- since the Penwood right of way and the 3rd Street right of way of have not been constructed yet, the final plat has been recorded, ACHD put a non-build on this, because the roads aren't in. Borup: Oh. Okay. Hood: So, until the roads get put in, they can't build anything. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4.2003 Page 57 of 83 Borup: Okay. That's what that was referring to. Ballantyne. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Ballantyne: Chairman Borup, M embers of the Commission, to give you a little b it of background, the nondevelopment agreement, when -- ordinarily and customarily now as you enter into a plat, you enter into a nondevelopment agreement with -- or a development agreement with the city. A nondevelopment agreement is just the opposite, it says that until such time that you put in the infrastructure improvements, you cannot hypothecate, sell, or do anything with the lots and so we, basically, signed that with the city, you know, can't do anything -- and the other agencies. But our intention is not to build a mobile home park here. Our -- we have been approached by a group that does want to purchase part of the property to develop an RV park and whether that happens or not, it's our intention to replat the property. In the six years that we have owned the property we have sold eight lots, about eight acres, and -- or developed about eight acres and two of them have been ourselves, so there is not a great deal of demand for these large lots. It's our intent -- we really want to get this Penwood through and based on the current configuration, we would have to build 3rd as well, and so I have already got about 15 lots here that I can't sell, so I really don't want to build about 15 more lots that I can't sell. So, we have been approached by this party, we are under contract. This portion of the property is not included in that contract. If you go back to the approved plat, you will see that this -- any of them, you will see that this line takes a jaunt and the reason was these lots were getting so thin here at the back when they were platted so a s to not be usable. The problem is that t his lot in its current configuration is very unwieldy. We have done a number of layouts of buildings and because of this narrowness here, you can't circulate the cars the way you want. So, what -- our intent there was just to make this property line up here, move this line this way, we would still have over an acre buildable lot here and this would square up this property. It just made sense. There will be no access here. There is no -- Borup: And that was what I was going to ask. Ballantyne: There is no dedication of right of way. This would not be part of it. Certainly, you know, what's under your purview today is whether or not we can -- your recommendation on vacation and whether or not we can replat. Borup: So, why doesn't your replat design show this line going straight through, then? Ballantyne: Why does it? Borup: Why does it not? Ballantyne: It does. It does, sir. Borup: Oh. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 58 of 83 Ballantyne: The new one -- this is the old plat. If you go to the new one you will see what we have done is straighten that line to square this off. Borup: Okay. Okay. That does go through there, but this lot was just included in with the -- because that affected that lot. I understand. Ballantyne: Basically, our situation with the members of the association, the property owners in the park, is it did not make sense for us to approach them about the potential use of this property until we knew whether the city and the highway district would support a vacation of the road. If they wouldn't to vacate the road, we couldn't sell it, redevelopment it, and so it would be a moot point. We scheduled the meeting for next week, so -- after this hearing, so we would know what the opinion of the city was, so that we could, then, go to the property owners and say the city is allowing us to do this, this is what we'd like to do, this is the use, show them the design, that type of thing. So, there was no intent to deceive or -- I mean as your director -- Planning and Zoning director will say, we have been up front and trying to make sure everybody understood that. In terms of the CC&Rs, I know it's not part of your purview, but certainly this property would not be consistent with the C C&R's here, thisp roperty would, and we would need to, as an association, determine how to handle that. Most likely it would be to amend the CC&R's to have a separate use here. That's if we go with this RV park If we don't and we leave it as one single use, we will probably just leave the CC&R's in place and sell this one single parcel. Does that answer -- Borup: Yes. That answers my-- Ballantyne: -- the concerns that were raised? Borup: Anything else? Rohm: I think it's safe to say that the vacation of the right of way doesn't necessarily support the development of any new project. It would still have to come before the board as a Conditional Use Permit and so by vacating doesn't say, yes, you can do what is being proposed at the next stage. Ballantyne: Certainly. Absolutely. We recognize that there is many steps we have to go through and before we can get anything done. If It was an RV park, for instance, we would have to come back to this body and to the -- actually, do we come to body or go directly to City Council on a CUP? Go to this body first? Borup: Yes. Ballantyne: And, then, to City Council to get anything that was done there approved. So, this is just to make sure we can actually vacate the street and re-Iayout the lots. Borup: And I don't know that I'm still comfortable with the stub street to the south. I mean, you know, I realize that that property owner may not be interested, but how do Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4.2003 Page 59 0183 we know that -- how do we know that now? I mean are we planning properly if we ignore that? Ballantyne: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, that would be, you know, up to ACHD with your recommendation, but I would point out that this stub here this stub mere were certainly not extended because of the desire not to have connectivity and there is a possibility that this -- Borup: And that's residential over here. Ballantyne: Yeah. Exactly. But it's possible that the use would be such, even if it was closer, that you wouldn't want the road to go through. You might, certainly, and if you don't and we stub it in, you and I could drag race, I guess, on that little segment or -- I don't know what I would do with that little piece of ground. Come back later for vacation, I guess. Borup: Well, yeah. Yeah. But Penwood is going through right now to 5th and so there would be access? Ballantyne: Correct. 5th and then through the Commercial Tire Subdivision we will extend Penwood to Meridian Road. So, this will connect to Meridian and this will connect, if and what Corporate ever goes through, sooner, hopefully, rather than later. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Would you index the pictures back to one that shows more of the -- I think there was one that went all the way to Meridian. Borup: There. Zaremba: Yeah. That one. Borup: This is going through to Meridian. Ballantyne: Penwood will connect there to Meridian. We currently have an easement through the property. There was a plat, because this was an illegal lot split -- I don't know if you have ever experienced that before, but that Commercial Tire had to replat this into a single lot. As part of their approvals they had to extend the road to our east property line. As part of this, I guess they had a little -- they got the plat all done and didn't record it; is that right? So, they are coming back, I guess, in January to fix that and as part of our Penwood extension we will extend that road through. Borup: Well, I'd like, Mr. Hood, maybe to comment on -- I'm a strong advocate of continuity between areas, but I'm wondering, since this is a single owner, he has good access from here, and there is still access from this road down to Corporate, that it's not Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4.2003 Page 60 of 83 really greatly affecting the traffic through that area. I'm wondering how strong staff feels about that. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, let me just kind of walk you through my thought process when evaluating this application. I guess kind of similar to what the applicant just pointed 0 ut, if we vacate this right of way now, it's recommended that ACHD vacate this right of way, the opportunity is lost for that road to go through. If the stub is provided, it could be I'd if that property owner further to the south doesn't want to build the road all the way through to Corporate Drive. They do have a lot of frontage on Corporate. The other reason that I think that the stub street makes sense, without knowing what's going to develop on that parcel, is it allows future tenants in this subject development another access point to what will in the future be a signal at Meridian and Corporate, rather than having to go out Penwood, which won't be signalized, or back around and out to get to -- it just allows the interconnectivity and allows another way to get to a signal -- future signalized intersection. Borup: Well -- and that was the point that I thought made a lot of sense, but they do n I mean it's a few hundred feet down, but they have access by coming down to here and over to Corporate, which is not a great hardship. Hood: Mr. Chair, that isn't a done deal either. Fifth Street isn't extended all the way to Corporate. So, if that doesn't develop for another 40 years, that -- you know, that connection is not there today, so depending on the timing of the property directly to the south or the other extension of 5th Street to Corporate, depending on which one goes first -- I imagine they won't go together, so one of them is going to be constructed first and maybe one of them is not connected at all, but if we lose the 3rd Street, then, we rely on 5th Street to go through. Borup: Right. One or the other needs to go through. I think you would agree with that. Ballantyne: I would agree. So, I need to build another, just in case the other one that I already built doesn't connect through? Borup: Well, you built this one down to what point? To here? Ballantyne: To our property line. No. To here. So, it's got about 50 feet to go. Borup: Oh, you're clear down to here. Ballantyne: Fifty to seventy-five feet. You know, I understand Mr. Hood's logic. I mean we want connectivity. We want people to be able to get in and out of the park, but I have already built a connection to the future Corporate Drive extension that -- you know, and I have spent money for it to connect and so I have got to build another one just in case the one that I built, that you told me I had to build, because Corporate is going to be connected, just in case that one doesn't connect I got to build another one. Do you understand my logic? Like somebody has got to build Corporate Drive. I could build Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4.2003 Page 61 of 83 three or four more there and if nobody builds Corporate Drive, I mean it's just h so, we would very much like to built Corporate Drive. Our intent -- and these gentlemen, I think, will concur, is we have been told two or three times that Corporate Drive is a matter of months from being, you know, moved ahead and the whole reason we are trying to get Pen wood through is we are doubtful that Corporate Drive will happen within the next five years and we want these folks to be able to get out to Meridian Road without having to go back to Franklin. Borup: So, do you know what the intentions of this property owner are at all? Ballantyne: This property owner brought application to the city a few years ago for a preliminary and final plat. The preliminary plat was approved with some conditions, which weren't acceptable to the applicant. They were going to work to amend the conditions. The applicant had a heart attack and put the property up for sale. The property is currently for sale. The preliminary plat I think just expired a few months ago, so they have to go through the process all again. Prior to that, this property here was illegally split off and deeded to the highway district as part of the Meridian Road improvement. The highway district ran a drain line here for an infiltration bed in order to meet the Clean Water Act. Borup: Yeah. I remember that. Okay. Ballantyne: And this is classified, I think, as a collector; is that right? Hood: Mr. Chair, that has, actually, changed and that's something that has changed since -- I think on the 20-25 map it is no longer designated as a collector roadway, it's only a local commercial street -- a future local, I think, commercial street and I think that just recently changed. Ballantyne: Was that because of the redesign there, I think? Originally, the intent of the highway district was to eliminate any access point here on Penwood, to cul-de-sac Penwood and bring all traffic from this area up through Corporate, as well as traffic out of the Mallard Landing Subdivision, I believe, as well as Troutner Business Park through Corporate. They amended that and replanned this and brought this road -- or intended to bring this road here. So, that's probably why they downgraded it from a collector to a local-- Hood: Local commercial. Yeah. Ballantyne: -- local commercial. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any of the Commissioners. Thank you. Commissioners, discussion? And probably, specifically, on Item No.7, the vacation. Zaremba: Well, the vacation along Penwood is easy. I don't think there is any problem with that. Penwood? Is that the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Oecember 4. 2003 Page 62 of 83 Borup: Yes. And how about north of Penwood? Zaremba: Well, Southwest 3rd Avenue -- I don't think that would ever connect to Franklin. The only option would be to curve it and come -- and connect it back over to 5th. That's probably not likely to happen either. So, the only person this really makes any difference to is the current applicant, who is asking for it to be vacated. So, going north I don't have too much problem vacating that. Going south, it's kind of a toss up, but Corporate is going to have to go through sometime and if they have already put in a drainage line, that alignment probably isn't going to change, it's going to go right where it's indicated. And I think the south -- t he property 0 wner to the south has enough access and, again, within his own property he doesn't mind giving up that access, he has enough frontage on Penwood. I probably could go along with supporting everything the applicant is asking for on the vacation. I agree with staff's concern, but I also agree that Corporate, eventually, is going to have to be there and I think that will solve the concern. Personal opinion. Borup: Well, I think it looks like connectivity concern is answered. here is a lot shorter also. The connection Rohm: As long as that goes in. Borup: Well, it's going to go in if that property ever develops. Zaremba: Eventually, it will have to. It's just -- it's a matter of timing, I suppose. And I can't see that it's going to go anywhere else, because they already have their drain or pipe or whatever -- they already have that right of way established. It's not going to suddenly make S curves and go off somewhere else. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So, let's see, we still have the Public Hearing open on the other part. Do we need to close that first? Borup: Yeah, but -- no, let's go ahead and -- let's go ahead on No.7 and, then, we will close -- or I guess you could close it. Zaremba: Let's do that. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item No.8, PP 03-034. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4.2003 Page 63 of 83 Borup: Another thing that has already been stated -- and I just realized, you know, we are making a recommendation that's going to go to City Council and it's really going to go to ACHD, who is the one that needs to make the decision, so maybe we are spending a lot of time on something that we don't have a lot of way on. Zaremba: Well, on the vacation part I'm comfortable with offering our support to the applicant. So, I would move that we forward to the City Council and thereafter to ACHD Item 7 on our agenda, recommending approval of VAC 03-007, request for a vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of West Penwood Street for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No.2 by Mary Ballantyne, west of South Meridian Road and south of East Franklin Road, with the knowledge that the application also requests vacation of their portion of southwest 3rd Street and to include all staff comments, with the exception of -- this is from staff's memo for the hearing date of December 4th, received by the clerk December 1, 2003, with the exception of on page two, paragraph three, under special considerations -- that's not, actually, a condition, it's just a discussion. In that case, no changes. Borup: It is part of their recommendation, though. Zaremba: Okay. Then, I would say that -- Mathes: Are you doing the vacation? Zaremba: This is the vacation. This is a special consideration under vacation. Okay. So, continue with the motion. On page two under special considerations, paragraph three, I would delete. Borup: You'd delete the whole paragraph? Zaremba: I think so. It only talks about -- Borup: Yeah. Yeah. That's -- okay. Zaremba: Well -- okay. Since this is only a recommendation, do we want to say we recommend deletion of that paragraph? Borup: I don't know if it matters either way. If we are -- if you recommend approval of all staff comments -- did you already say that? I think you did. Zaremba: I did and -- Borup: Then, you wouldn't have to delete that one. Zaremba: And if staff objects, they can mention that it was a condition. Before City Council staff can mention it again. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4.2003 Page 64 of 83 Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. SO-- Borup: I'm sure they probably will. Zaremba: -- let me restate the motion from the beginning. I recommend that we forward to the City Council and thereafter to ACHD a recommendation of approval of VAC 03-007, request for a vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of West Penwood Street for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No.2 by Mary Ballantyne, west of South Meridian Road and south of East Franklin Road and noting that that also includes a request to vacate the applicant's portion of Southwest 3rd Street, to include -- Borup: I think it's just South 3rd Avenue. Zaremba: South 3rd -- the south portion of West 3rd Avenue. Borup: No. It's just south -- Zaremba: Well, the street is West 3rd Avenue and this is the south portion of West Third Avenue. Southwest 3rd Avenue. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. To include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 4th, 2003, received by the clerk 2001 -- 2003, with the exception of page two, paragraph three under special considerations is deleted. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Item 8, which was the Public Hearing. Zaremba: We did close the Public Hearing. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: I guess for discussion I would say on the face of it I have no problem with the replatting, with the knowledge that anything in the C-G zone that is not listed in the C-G zone, would have to come back to us for a CUP anyhow, the issue of the use really isn't before us, but if it's not something that's clearly a C-G, we would get to hear it again. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 65 of 83 Borup: That also gives the opportunity for the association to get together, as they discussed. Zaremba: And either agree or-- Borup: And we have also been told that that one lot on 5th has not been included. Zaremba: And make their point that they don't care to have the CC&R's changed, whatever they have. Rohm: Can we make it a condition that anything that's brought -- proposed be required to go the CUP route? Borup: It's a little late, but -- well, maybe since we are -- no, we are not changing -- there is not a zoning change before us, it's just a replatting. Rohm: Well, with it being a replat and changing the lots to accommodate other uses, then, what was proposed in the -- Borup: Well, the lot's not necessarily to accommodate other uses. At this point it's C- G uses. Zaremba: As long as it's a C-G use. Borup: And a larger lot probably accommodates it better. Did you have a -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, to my knowledge this was not a planned development to begin with, so there is no development agreement, so there is really no mechanism for you to require a Conditional Use Permit and just to clarify the record -- and this is complete nitpicking and, I'm sorry, it's not that any use not listed in the C-G would have to come to you, because some of those would be prohibited. It's that a use not otherwise listed in the schedule of uses would have to come to you as a CU or if it's listed as a CU in the C-G zone. Zaremba: Thank you. I think I actually understood it that way, but I misstated it when I was making my comments. That being said, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 03-024, request for a preliminary plat approval for a replat of Troutner Park Subdivision, Lots 4, 5, and 10 and 15, Block 2; Lots 1 to 3 and 5 to 8, Block 3; Block 4 and Lot 3, Block 5, consisting of six commercial building lots and one common lot on 17. Twenty-six acres in a C-G zone for Troutner Business Park No.2 by Mary Ballantyne, south of West Franklin Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo regarding PP 03-034, for the hearing date of December 4th, 2003, received by the Clerk, December 1 st,. 2003. Rohm: Second. Mendian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 66 of 83 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2. 8 acres from R-6 to L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No.2 by The Land Group, Inc. -- south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 03-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No.2 by The Land Group, Inc. -- south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road: Borup: Thank you. The next item is Items No.9 and 10, Public Hearing AZ 03-030, request for annexation and zoning of 2.8 acres from R-6 to L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No.2 by the Land Group. Accompanying that is PP 03- 036, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots on the same 2. 8 acres. I'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This -- Item No.9 is the annexation and zoning request. The acreage is identical to the next item. Annexation and zoning and plat are the same. Southern Springs No.1, the City Council approved just a couple of months ago. That's zoned C-G to the west. The Ten Mile Creek runs here along this east boundary and if you recall, a pathway, a public multi- use pathway, was quite a big part of the discussion on this project, running along the creek and so that does not affect this parcel. That was all contained on Southern Springs No.1. The project is surrounded with Country Terrace Subdivision and Running Brook Estates. There are six or seven lots that, actually, touch the parcel. Gold's Gym, as you know, is located across the street. Here off of 1-84 ACHD has a new storm water lot. This is an existing house in Ada County immediately across the street on several acres that has not been annexed and, of course, Meridian Ford is in the area. So, they have requested a rezone to two different zones. They are proposing to split zone the property. This is their boundaries on their legal description for their rezone, essentially, L -0 adjacent toe xisting residential and C -G adjacent to Southern Springs No.1, which is also C-G. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation. As I outlined in the staff report, it is designated for medium residential on the future land use map, so we do feel that even though the map doesn't explicitly support the proposed zone change, there are text policies that support a movement of the commercial, nonresidential uses, into this area. Probably two of the main ones are the fact that they do have the existing commercial uses immediately adjacent and it is the same developer, Mitchner Investments, and the Overland Road really is not conducive to single family detached housing, particularly adjacent to the future retail here in Silver Springs One, so, we -- or Southern Springs One. I'm sorry. So, we feel like there are adequate policies in the Comp Plan to support it. As I pointed out, there