Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 19, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 54 of 105 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 03-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 57.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W. H. Moore Company - northwest corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-025, request for annexation and zoning of 58.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W.H. Moore Company. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. This item was originally set for hearing November 6th, 2003, and at that point it was continued until January 15. At that point the property had not been appropriately noticed and so it was continued to tonight. There has not been a staff presentation, even though we have had this on two previous meetings, so I will just briefly go over the application that W.H. Moore Company has submitted to the city on this. The property is approximately 58 acres northeast -- I'm sorry, northwest corner of Eagle Road, State Highway 55, and Ustick Road. There are three separate parcels, but all under single ownership. Parkstone Subdivision, which came through as Champion Park, is abutting the entire west boundary. Jasmine is a subdivision that is to the north, which is Ada County. This purple line that you see on here is the area of city impact boundary between the City of Boise and the City of Meridian. This does show that this -- this northerly 12 -- 12 acres was added -- was withdrawn from Boise City, then, added to the City of Meridian's area of impact last year. So, this is at the extreme north -- sort of east -- northeast corner, really, of our area of impact, at least on Eagle Road. This would all be City of Boise, then, as you head north for a couple of miles. The applications on the south side of Ustick Road, other than our new Commissioner Moe, I think everyone else has been -- was on the Commission when these came through. This was part of the Kissler application, similar, in that they requested annexation and zoning only without a development plan, which is the same as this application for you tonight. That application included this approximately 24 acres here on the southwest comer and it also included 18 acres here on the southeast corner. Unfortunately, the city has not acted on those. There is no final action. That is planned for this coming Tuesday. So, stafFs hope was that we could come back to this commission and sort of tell you what the counsel's direction to staff was on these annexation requests without development plans. It is fairly rare. However, there has been quite a bit of activity that is -- well, I should say some activity that's different on Mr. Moore's property thari the ones on the south. One of them I have already mentioned, that's the fact that this area of impact change was done, but also the will serve letter was issued by the City of Meridian to W.H. Moore Company a couple of years ago, which did address the services of water and sewer, as well as an agreement, essentially, to annex when it could be annexed. Last year Parkstone was annexed, which, of course, made this property eligible, so at that point a couple of months later they chose to go ahead and submit their application. The South Slough Trunk extension project is complete -- pretty much complete. That Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 55 of 105 does run along -- does provide sewer service, essentially, to the parcel now. Municipal water does run along Ustick Road in front of the piece. Just to point out for the record, there was a letter dated February 11 submitted to the city by Jack Ketlinski, he's a Jasmine Acres homeowner to the north who did express some concerns about not seeing sewer services stubbed to the north. As I pointed out, a couple of these properties in Jasmine are not in Meridian's service area, so those would not receive City of Meridian sanitary sewer. These parcels here on the northwest, of course, would and the city has -- Public Works, as you well know, has a requirement for to and through on sewer services, so we can let -- if you like, we can have more discussion about that later, but I think that was a point of clarification there. We did also have in the record for this application comments from ITD, October 30 letter from Dan Kunz, who requested a traffic noise screen, since it is adjacent to a state highway. Those were not specifically included in our staff report. That has come up a couple of other times from ITD, but we -- the City Council has not formally incorporated that comment into a city condition, in part because we, frankly, haven't gotten a good explanation of what the noise screen study is. So, just for your classification, that's not included at this point in any conditions ih our staff report. Ada County Highway District did also comment. Meridian Fire Department commented. Both of those agencies -- typically those conditions would not become effective until we received the development application, so they -- we would, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, leave those conditions out of annexation and include them in a future development. And, finally, the -- on the slide here I just wanted to show you the way that Parkstone was approved, this is the entire preliminary plat for Parkstone. They were conceptually approved for this mini storage project, which abuts the property almost a thousand feet of shared property boundary with the applicant's property here tonight. They had some office retail here at their entrance off of Ustick Road. There are some -- a few residential lots, single family detached houses, that do abut this Blue Marlin piece and there are no stub streets to the property, however, as you can see. Their only stub street is to the Jasmine Acres to the north, which is located here. And sewer and water are in the stub street going north to Jasmine. Okay. That's from Bruce Freckleton. I think the only other item I'd like to point out in the staff report, which is dated November 6th for the November 6th hearing, received November 4 by the City Clerk, there is quite a bit of discussion in there about the required findings that the city must make before annexing property. So, I won't go over all those in detail, other than to say that we did get a response letter from Jonathan Seal, dated February 1 7, that responds to a couple of our recommended conditions. We are recommending that a development agreement be entered into between the property owner and the City of Meridian and that that development agreement include some basic standards for future development, whether that's this developer or someone else and those -- there are two of those recommended conditions that they are disagreeing with. They have agreed to enter into it at this point. They are opposed to that agreement stating that there would beapublic--somekindofa backageroad along Eagle Road. They would like to have that withdrawn from the development agreement and potentially discussed in a future conceptual plan. And, then, the second item that they are strongly opposed to is the inclusion of any residential within this 58 acres in the future. They do foresee this as strictly a nonresidential development and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 56 of 105 they have listed their reasons there on page two of Mr. Seal's memo to the city. So, I think, unless the Commission has other questions of staff -- Borup: Questions at this time? Zaremba: I would ask one and that's kind of to pursue the issue of the public or private backage road. It's my recollection that ITD has said that they either will refuse or seriously frown on any access onto Eagle Road, State Highway 55. Is our added requirement just a due diligence to say you know that we know that you know that we know that ITD isn't going to let you put access on Eagle Road? Borup: And maybe along that same line that the Eagle Road study addressed this, I remember v ery well what t hey were t alking about o n t he m ile b etween F airview a hd Ustick Did that study go to McMillan or did it go all the way to Chinden? I'm not remembering to what extent those recommendations were. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, are you referring to the 1997 -- Borup: I think so. Hawkins-Clark: -- E agle R oad c orridor s tudy? Yeah, I b elieve i t d id g o t o H ighway 20126. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Chinden. Yeah. Their jurisdiction, of course, goes to Highway 44, in terms of the entire stretch of ITD's -from the interchange to Highway 44. But I think the study, yeah, began at -- in some ways that bears less weight now. They are underway with another Eagle Road arterial study that they are actually having a three day workshop of this very time. They have brought in some outside experts to help them address a lot of the changes that have happened since '97. They have admitted that it's been a difficult corridor for them and I think they recognize that some changes need to be made. Borup: At that time I believe their proposal restricted it to three accesses in the mile, basically. No more than -- at least no more than three traffic lights. That's probably excessive, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: And so we could assume with the increased traffic that it's not going to be anymore lenient than that. Hawkins-Clark: The letter that we received from ITD from Mr. Kunz did not -- was not specific on that and their policy is that they really don't put down their hammer, so to speak, until an access permit is applied for, so we have numerous form letters from ITD Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 57 of 105 that talk about this general access policy, but until they actually receive an application for an access permit, they don't make their final decisions and, of course, if there is a deeded point of access -- they cannot isolate a parcel. ITD is -- the way that it was explained to me, if it's an isolated parcel, they have to provide access somehow to that, even if it's temporary. But those issues are addressed with the applicants at the time that they actually apply to - Borup: That makes sense. It's hard to comment on a plan that doesn't exist. Did you have some other -- Zaremba: Well, what I was getting at is are we trying to require something that ITD is going to require anyhow, whether we ask for it or not? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I don't believe so. I think it's an important discussion and, you know, these access management -- access controls are something that I think the city has the ability to talk about and really should. You know, they are leaning towards frontage roads in some cases and, you know, in this mile where you really are only talking about less than a half mile where you can do much with because of existing conditions, I think that you will --they will probably have to deal with these on a case-by- case basis. But this intersection is a -- certainly a key intersection in this entire corridor, sense all four corners today are undeveloped. It's a great opportunity for the city to place conditions that we feel are important to help keep Highway 55 moving traffic. Zaremba: Well, not to preempt their current ongoing meeting, but rumor has it that some of their discussion is urban interchanges and going to almost zero access on Eagle Road. Don't know if that's going to be the end result, but we will see. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude your remarks? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Seal: J onathan S eal, 6 00 N orth S teelhead, B Oise, I daho. Good evening. F first, i f l could, I'd like to just give a little bit of background information before I kind of get into the meat of it. Just thought I would mention it. We did have a neighborhood meeting back in October of last year, since then, because, obviously, we have tabled this on several different occasions, but made an attempt to keep the homeowners apprised of the cancellation, so they didn't come in here and sit and spend the evening. I also talked to Mr. Hedricks last week and explained to him that we were going to have the hearing tonight. If they wanted to, we could -- we would be pleased to meet with the neighbors, which has been primarily neighbors of Jasmine Lane. He said with an annexation rezone there is not a great deal to talk about. But wanted to mention that. Another couple of things Brad touched on, as he mentioned in his discussion, approximately 13 acres of this land was originally within the City of Boise. It was zoned for commercial use. We had discussions several years ago when we thought it would make sense to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 58 of 105 combine this into the City of Meridian. We had discussions with the former mayor, the current mayor, and also some council members and I think the vision always was that this would be a commercial development and my purpose in this I think will become evident as I move through my discussion. I think also as we discussed on Parkstone, that there was mini storage to the east of our project and I attached a copy of the minutes. Again, the vision again was that this would be a commercial development. So, I think all the way along it's been a commercial development, again, and I will get to it. I guess the first thing I'd like to address is the purpose that we are here simply for an annexation and rezone. We recognize that that's a little bit unusual. That's not typically what you see. You typically see the annexation, the rezone, the preliminary plat, and the various stuff. The reason is because what we are finding out here within the industry today is that prospective user or users as they come forward they approach us, one of the first questions that they ask is is the land zoned for this use. If the comment is n o, t hey s imply m ove o n a t t hat p oint. T he c onversation a nds v ery q uickly. You know, there might be a reaction that, well, that sounds pretty good, that's something a developer would dream up. But as Brad Hawkins-Clark -- as I have talked with Brad about -you may be aware there is, actually, a project right now called the Hercules project. It's going down into Silverstone. It's a fairly confidential project, but I can talk about it to some degree. We have had a meeting with these people, they are looking at bringing in potentially 3,000 employees into the City of Meridian, adevelopment -- that will go down there. It's very serious. We are moving forward. They have picked this area. Their intention is before the end of the year to have this project up and going. Had that land or lands not been zoned for that particular use, you may very well today be hearing about them moving to another city within the Treasure Valley, or, potentially, within another city outside the state. They were looking at a variety of cities from the' east coast to the west coast. I guess the point that I'm trying to make there is it is a critical thing for them. There is too many choices, there is too much competition, and even though you might say, oh, gosh you can get it rezoned, the point is they are not willing to take that chance, they simply move on. They don't need to waste the time for us to say to them, for example, yes, we think we can get it rezoned, just hang in here with us. We even had a preliminary discussion last week with a user for this Ustick and Eagle land. I think it would be very attractive. It's one that's not within the City of Meridian and I can't go into more detail, but the only reason they even began to approach us about it on an extremely preliminary basis is because they heard we were coming in tonight for an annexation a nd rezone. Also, Winston M oore, who is here tonight, got a call from another large user today, who is another opportunity. But, again, the first question comes out the. annexation and rezone. So, again, the reason that we are asking for this tonight is that it enables us to market this project, so that we can develop this as a first class project, whatever that might be. But without that annexation and r ezone, w e a re, essentially, f fighting w ith o ne h and t ied b ehind o ur b ack,maybe both. So, it's very critical to us to move forward to achieve that and to market it to have that annexation and rezone. That is, really, the purpose that we are here tonight for. We wouldn't typically. Now, having said that, within the staff report we can appreciate some of the concerns that might be addressed that you're, well, approving this, but what controls do we have. What we have talked with Brad -- and I think as I indicated in my letter, we are prepared to enter into a development agreement and even though I think it Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 59 of 105 wasn't spelled out specifically in there, we are prepared to either agree in that development agreement to either come back for conditional use permits or for a planned use development. And if I can, if you will bear with me -- and I know everyone here is familiar, but this is -- I thought it might be worthwhile -- this is just the general -- Zaremba: You need to stop talking until you're back on the microphone. Seal: Anyway, I understand that everybody is certainly very familiar, but I'd just like to read the language under general for a moment, because I think it's very clear. You know, what it says is conditional use is, by definition, are characteristics which require that the proposed use be reviewed and evaluated by the Commission and Council as to whether or not the use would be detrimental to other persons, property, or uses in the vicinity. The Commission shall hold public hearings and shall recommend approval, denial, or modification of the application to the Council. Recommendations for approval or modification shall include conditions deemed necessary to insure compatibility of development with other uses in the vicinity and such additional safeguards as is necessary to uphold the intent of this ordinance. I think what this says here, very simply, is that you're going to have another bite at the apple. What we are, in essence, agreeing to tonight, if it's approved, is almost certainly a nondevelopment agreement. It's really not even a development agreement, if you want get technical. What we are saying is we cannot do any development on this until we come back for you for a planned use development, conditional uses, or whatever it is and at that point, then, you can evaluate what we are doing, you can put conditions on it, you can deny it, you can modify it, you can change it, you can turn it upside down. You have that opportunity. I think this language here I think speaks very clearly to that and that's why I wanted to get a copy of this. So, again, I don't want to belabor this, but I think we appreciate the concerns, but the city has, I think by our willingness, to put within the development agreement either a planned use development or the conditional use. I think you have the protections, we are simply only asking for tonight is the approval of a m ulti-step process. We are asking for the first step of approval in a multi-step process to allow us to put our foot in the door, so we can move forward on this thing. Now, having said that, as far as the actual development agreement itself, the things it has mentioned in here we have issues with and I think that the private or public backage road -- maybe. I can clarify that. Again, I think that that's an issue that can be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit or the planned use development. I guess the part that corcerns me a little bit -- a nd t his i s w hen t hey t alk a bout p arallel road. Y ou k now, w e o ftentimes h ave approved things --and we have done this, too, and it doesn't sound to bad at that time and, then, we come back later and we find out, boy, why did we do that? Why didn't we recognize. My concern is maybe the parallel. You know, maybe the road will be perpendicular, maybe the road will go diagonal, but I think we can address that when we submit the plan to you at that point and I think as far as access points, they will be addressed, then, too. We do have deed -- deeded access points off Eagle Road. Whether or not we can use those, we don't know, but we are not looking at that right now. That's the next step in the process. So, again, that's my main concern in asking that that be removed. We recognize there will be roads. Whether they will be public, private, backage roads, whatever they will be, there is certainly going to be those within Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 60 of 105 this project, but let's not put that specific condition in now, let's address it through the plat, through the PUD, through the CU process. We are not trying to dodge anything here, we just -- we have concerns that you put certain language in now it comes back to bite you later. The other thing I'd like to mention is the multi-family. The reason that I mentioned about the 13 acres and change and talked about Champion Park and what have you, is because our vision has always been one of commercial. Up until recently, until approximately a month back in October when we started to talk with staff on this, that conversation of multi-family never came up. I understand within the Comp Plan it says multi-family within this zone, but it says where feasible we will encourage this. In our opinion it's not feasible here and it should not be encouraged. This is prime commercial land, you're surrounded by thousands of acres of residential that's either been developed, will be developed, or is being planned for development right now. Why would somebody want to locate within a business park or a business park type setting, when literally you could throw a stone to residential settings there. The economics doh't justify it. I mean I have gone through a list of things and I won't bore you. They are in my letter. So, we are asking that that condition be stricken from your -- we feel very strong about that one. You know, even the cost of it. I mean you can't justify building multi-family on this land as costly as it is today. Plus, the market for it just doesn't justify it. So, we'd ask that that would be -- would be stricken. So, I think it's -- in summary in this thing, you know, try to wrap this up and don't take a lot of your time, we are not trying to do an end run around anything, we are not trying to circumvent the process, we are not trying to be sneaky here, afl we are trying to do is allow us to move to the next step. I think you should know with Winston Moore -- I have been up here before. I was up here in front of you with EI Dorado, for example. You have seen the quality we have done there. We want to do the same of type of quality here. We went well above what was requested there. We landscaped the interior of that, we have done things there that are far beyond and were extremely expensive, but we wanted to do it, because we want to build quality, we want to build quality here, but we need your assistance in order to market it, so we can develop the quality project we want that will increase your tax base, will bring employees to the city, and bring the type of projects to this city that you will be proud of. So, I will leave it at that and answer any questions. Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Seal? The only one I have got is that pertaining to the -- well, as it says in the staff report, the private road, whether it's a backage road running parallel or whatever and I would agree that whether it runs parallel or not is probably not an issue. The pertinent things to me would be access to Eagle and access to adjoining properties. In this case probably the properties to the north. And if something could be worded that would address that and maybe it's not pertinent to a development agreement, I don't know, but would that make sense to you, something that can address those concerns, which I think that's really probably what we should be concerned with. Seal: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate your concern on that. I guess, again, I go back to the issue we are going to come in with a plat with a conditional use. If there is not an access road in a particular spot or road in a way that you don't like or you think it should be, you have the opportunity at that point -- I guess we are getting -- I think we are Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 61 of 105 getting the cart ahead of the horse here. Let's concentrate on the things and when we know what it is, we can evaluate it. I don't disagree, I suspect that the neighbors to the north would be extremely opposed to any access point and I'm sure that that would be there, but, you know, I think we are spending energy now doing things that we don't have to address at this point. Borup: See, I could see the neighbors -- some of the neighbors may feel just the opposite. Seal: Well - Borup: If the ground is that valuable and it may be not that pleasant of a place to live as a residential property. Without that access point, then, that would decrease the value of their property. Seal: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you on this, what I'm simply saying is I don't think that this is the time or place for us to discuss that. You will have an opportunity down the road when we come in with a plan to put those requirements or remove those requirements from our plan. I think we are trying to speculate on something that we don't know now. So, in all due respect, I think you will have the opportunity, you will have that bite at the apple later on to address that, along with a multitude of other things, whether it's buffers for the homeowners and I know they are here and they have concerns about that -- a variety of things. We will -- you know, we will make sure -- I mean I don't think we have ever come in front of the city with a project that I don't think everybody's not proud of. Borup: Other questions? Rohm: My only question would be if, in fact, it's rezoned and they come in with a proposal down the road that fits within that zoning -- Borup: They have already agreed for a conditional use on everything. Rohm: I mean can we make it a condition that the Conditional Use Permit or a planked development be attached to a rezone? Can you do it that way? Zaremba: Well, the development agreement would require - if we make it -- if we rezone it to C-G, then, there are certain things that are automatically permitted because of that. What we are saying is -- and I believe they are saying is we make a development agreement that says regardless of whether they would be permitted or not, you're s till going t o c ome back a ither a s a C UP o r a s a p tanned d evelopment a nd I forgot what the third thing was. There were three choices. Seal: Well, the plat, but I think conditional use or your -- Meddian Planning S Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 62 of 105 Zaremba: Okay. And, yes, at time of annexation we can make that a legal requirement that removes the automatic permitting element. Rohm: Okay. Well, that was my major concern, is if, in fact, you grant the C-G and once that's issued, then, they, under certain developments, wouldn't have to come in for a Conditional Use Permit or planned development or otherwise, then, we are -- our hands are tied. So, as long as we can make that a condition of annexation or rezone, then, I don't think -- Zaremba: They have agreed that in concept what the question is how many more elements are going to be in the -- in the development agreement. Seal: Well, Commissioner Rohm, I think, you know, as I mentioned to you, we are literally, in my mind -- I'm not an attorney, but we are really saying to you in this effect is we are agreeing to a nondevelopment agreement. In other words, yes, you got those uses in there, we can't go out there and just build this use or that use, you know, what we have to do is come back for a planned use development or a conditional use, you evaluate that with those uses and, then, you either say again if you look at the definitions in here, we think that's a good use, we don't think that's a good use, we think that there is certain modifications. So, that's -- you know, I think we are trying to give you the protection that you're -- Rohm: And I appreciate that. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: If I could just chime in. I think the initial concern of Commissioner Rohm's I think is a very good one and our planning director talked about it earlier as far as when you do zone, those vested rights that go with that underlying zone are strong and -- b ut c ertainly a d evelopment agreement i s a l egal c ontract that i s entered i nto between the property owner and the City of Meridian that is also very strong, but I think our -- there is a certain amount of buyer beware that goes on here. The city P and Z Commission and the Council have really put quite a bit of emphasis in the past on ihsuring that future property owners know what the city is looking for when they buy land and as much as we can sit here tonight and say that this is going to happen exactly as the applicant is stating to us, frankly, we need to be thinking about all possibilities and that's the reason that we are wanting to just inform all parties through as many opportunities as possible. And, of course, an agreement that talks about a strong desire of the city to get connection from Ustick up to the north without being forced onto Eagle Road is an important piece for all future buyers to be aware of. Borup: And I agree with that and I think that's important, but stating that it has to run parallel to Eagle may be a little too strong. Meddlan Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 63 of 105 Hawkins-Clark: And I would agree with that. I think the language I included in there was the same as Kissler's and that was why it was in there, but, obviously, the bottom line here is that there is -- there is public access without having to weave through a mirage -- a myriad -- is that the word? Amaze. That's the --amaze of commercial driveways to get up to Jasmine, under the assumption that that redevelops in the future is important, whether it's parallel or meanders -- yeah. I agree. Zaremba: I think the part that strikes me -- the other Winston Moore projects that are ongoing in the city I think are a tremendous benefit to the city. The difficulty is the rules are not made for the people that we trust and admire. They are made for everybody else and the difficulty is the people we trust and admire have to fit into the same rules: The point is we could annex it and rezone it and not have these conditions in the development agreement and you could sell it to somebody else who wouldn't have the same principals and I think that's what the city is trying protect itself from. Seal: And I think that that's what we are saying, unless I'm missing part of this, is that we are agreeing now that that's a condition. You know, again, I'm an attorney and I don't know how to exactly do it, you know, we are saying that -- in fact, if you look at the -- if you look at the commitment concerning development -- concerning use or development on your annexation, it says in here if the property is annexed and zoned the city may require a permit as a condition of zoning that the owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the, subject property. That's right within your --that's your zoning ordinance. You know, I'm certainly -- Borup: Right. And isn't that what the staff is asking for, that the commitment is made as part of the development? Seal: Yes. And I think the commitment we are making here is we are making a commitment literally to do a nondevelopment agreement. What we are saying is that we will agree to -- before we do any development we have to go through the PUD or CU. process. We can't develop until we have got that approval. So, maybe I'm missing something in here, but I think we are giving you the comfort that you need and it also enables us to move forward our marketing efforts. I mean as I read it here -- if you read the staff report --let me get that out. Powell: Chairman Borup, while he's looking that up, there is a difference. Your -the city's greatest influence is whether o r not you decide to a nnex a property and that's where -- even though they are agreeing to come in with a Conditional Use Permit, if they have the zoning and you look at the Conditional Use Permit, if it fits all the codes of zoning ordinance at the time that they submit it, then, your ability to say no is fairly limited. However, your ability to say no to an annexation is much greater and these are ones as they come down from the state. The state has said the cities have a right not to annex property, but because it's such a strong property right state, you don't have those same kind of opportunities to say no when it comes to a Conditional Use Permit and that's why all staff is trying to do is make the buyer of this property aware of what the Comprehensive Plan says and what -- the two things we would be looking for, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 64 of 105 consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and some sort of road system throughout there, rather than a private commercial drive and that's all we have tried to do and we are still acknowledging that this property could be zoned and come back in for a Conditional Use approval. On the previous request for the annexation we have also required some sort of conceptual plan and we did forego that on this one, but we are -- all we are looking for is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and some sort of road system. Borup: Is there some other suggested wording that would cover those concerns without maybe being as specific as saying it needs to be parallel backage road? Mr. Seal, were you starting to say something? Seal: Well, I guess I can say if this is what we are hung upon here, you know, Idon't -- I don't know if it's a hill worth dying for, quite frankly, you know. I think it would concern me that it would come back and it would be one of those things that would bite. I mean to say that there is going to be some type of road system in there, if you want, I think that that's -- you know, I think that's -- you know, we are comfortable with that. Again, we are not disagreeing, Mr. Chairman, that there is not going to be a road -- Borup: Right. Okay. And that's what I was just going to ask. You agree there needs to be a north -- some type of a north-south access generally parallel to -- Seal: Yeah. I mean that's truly the issue. Borup: And if you plan on doing that, then, I'm not sure why there is a concern. Seal: Well, again, like I say, I don't think it's -- Borup: Unless it gets too specific as far as the design and how that would tie in and, then, that makes sense. Seal: It just -- it seems to me -- Borup: You need some flexibility to make - Seal: That's all I was looking for, that I felt that that could be addressed in another step of the process. But, again, if that seems to be the only thing that we are really hung up on, I -- you know, Winston -- Mr. Moore's here, he can talk to it, and if he's fine with it, then, I'm fine with it. Zaremba: Could we say that there will be an internal roadway, either public or private, that has its access on Ustick? Borup: Has what? Zaremba: That has its access on Ustick? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 65 of 105 Borup: Well, I think it needs to say it's going to run generally in a northerly direction to -- Seal: Well, I think something is going to. I mean -- Borup: Well, it -- Rohm: We are getting there. We are getting there. Zaremba: We are going to agree somehow. Seal: Again, we are not trying to be difficult. We are not trying to nitpick things here. It's just sometimes it kind of struck me, again, we recognize there is going to be a road system through here, there has got to be, and there has got to be access points and everything else in this process, so we certainly recognize that, we would just -- I guess I was a little concerned that it was maybe more my call, when it says parallel it may be, you know -- again, maybe we are splitting hairs here. Borup: I think so. Seal: We are trying to move forward on this thing and I think, you know, we will work with you. Rohm: We'll just have to address the verbiage and I think we can get there, just -- we will have to work through it a bit. Moe: I would anticipate instead of the parallel, that we just note that it's north and south. Borup: And do away with the word backage. Zaremba: The other issue I would address is the multi-family part of it and I realize that the Comprehensive Plan says that this is a multiple use planning area, which may include residential. My question would be do we interpret the Comprehensive Plan as being permissive? In other words, if the applicant wants, they could have residential or as being demanding that they must have residential in this area? I interpreted the previous applications -- and I never anticipated that we were going to look for residential on this piece of property. I can understand the Comprehensive Plan allows it, but doesn't demand it. Borup: And I think it said -- used the word also encourage where feasible and so I'm sure the road -- Eagle Road is a feasible location for a residential development. Zaremba: Yeah. I agree with staff that the Comprehensive Plan includes it, but I'm not so sure that that's the right thing for this property. Certainly the applicant doesn't think its the right thing for this property and they are the ones putting their money up. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 79, 2004 Page 66 of 105 Borup: I'm comfortable deleting that from there entirely. Zaremba: I still would like to defend having some roadway sentence in there, but -- Seal: That's fair. Zaremba: Can we make a trade? Seal: Sure. You take this. You take that. Yeah. We want to be reasonable. Borup: How about just saying a public or private road generally parallel with Eagle Road, access from Ustick, and extending northward. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just put on the record that staff has concerns about it being private. Borup: Okay. I was reading your -- Larsen: My name is Cornell Larsen, address 210 Murray, Boise, Idaho. I'm here with the applicant this evening. The suggested language for the road might read: There will be a public or private road system that goes from Ustick to the north and, if required, connect to the northern boundary. In other words, the neighbors may be opposed to a connection to the northern boundary, but if required connect to the northern boundary. It may also connect to Eagle Road where permitted by IDT. Borup: Any problems removing the word private after public? Zaremba: Okay. Do that again now. Larsen: There will be a public road system that goes from Ustick Road to the north and, if required, connect to the north boundary. It may also connect to Eagle Road at locations permitted by IDT. That allows us the flexibility to go to Eagle Road where we can, so that we can create a roadway system, if necessary in there. If the project became a large shopping center, then, the roadway system may be a little different thari a public road and that was my concern of putting the word private in there, as was done similar to the family centers, there is an internal private road that acts as a backage road, which is created in the parking lot, and so if something like that were to occur, we'd like to have that flexibility, as opposed to making it a public road. So, my comment would --the request for a private road was simply to allow for a circulation system inside of the project that may be deemed wide enough to be a roadway system like was done at the family center. I personally think the family center is a little narrow and would like to have it a little bit wider and a little more generous, but that would be the idea and the request for the private portion of the road. And, then, also while I was up here I wanted to talk a little bit about utilities and annexation. We had requested about two years ago a will serve letter from the city for serving the property and going forward with the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 67 of 105 development in Ada county and the city was willing to do this at the time and agreed to provide that letter to us, simply because we had no path of annexation. We agreed in that -- in those initial meetings with the city that should the property become available for annexation or be requested at the city's request to be annexed, because we were taking city services, that we would not oppose that annexation. So, I want you to be clear that at that time we were not opposed to annexation and we were willing to do so two years ago, so I wanted you to know that. We also did a study with the engineering company checking to see how far north we could go from Ustick Road or where the service line is. I don't know whether Bruce remembers that, but I believe we had Pinnacle Engineers do that and we can get to the -- we can get to the north boundary -- I'm not sure how far north of the north boundary we could go. At that time we were only concerned about the north boundary. That was all the notes I had. Borup: Afl right. Thank you. Rohm: I think that the important thing as far as this internal roadway is that it's at least a part of this approval process, that they have to have an internal roadway that connects south to north, north to south, generally parallel to Eagfe Road. And I think that the applicant's agreed that that would be in good keeping. Borup: It needs to be a roadway, not drive aisles through a parking lot. Rohm: I don't know that it necessarily would have to be public, as long as it -- it would be part of a Conditional Use Permit process or the planned development and so it wouldn't necessarily have to be public in order to comply. Seal: Sure. It will still give you the same benefit. Zaremba: How about this? If we take Mr. Larsen's statement and include both public and private, but add the word continuos, so it says there will be a continuous public or private road system that goes from -- so whether parts of it are public or parts of it are private, at least it's continuous, which was the point. We didn't want a series of driveways. Seal: Sure. Understand. Zaremba: F or s omebody t o g o -- a nd, o therwise, I like M r. L arsen's s tatement. L et's see. I don't have any further questions, but I don't know if there is anybody else in the audience that -- Borup: Yeah. That's why we -- Seal: Ithink there is. Borup: Okay. Anything else you've goY? Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 68 of 105 Seal: No. Borup: Thank you. Seal: Thank you very much. Borup: Okay. We'd like to open this part up for public testimony. Do we have someone that would like to come forward? Hedrick: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Wally Hedrick. I live at 13984 West Jasmine. We are the property to the north. That's 44 acres with five homes. The two lanes that access that property are private lanes, so -- that's my property. These are the other four lots that exist there. These lots -- four lots are accessed by a private lane on this side. This is not a dedicated roadway. And that lot's accessed by a private lane right here. We met with the W.H. Moore Company on October 30th, had a discussion with Mr. Seal and several other representatives. Ithink the important thing here is there is insufficient information upon which to base any decisions. For that reason, the Jasmine homeowners association, as you might expect, is unanimously opposed to this rezone and request for annexation. You have discussed a little bit the roadway to the north. Since it's a private lane, we aren't anxious to have access in from this property. Secondly, it sounds like to me that Borup: And we weren't talking access to your private lane. Hedrick: I understand. Borup: We were talking about basically a stub street. Hedrick: I understand. I wanted to make it clear where we stood. In your discussion ii sounds like this is an unusual request and, for the most part, the rules that the City of Meridian follows reflect a more detailed information prior to taking these two particular actions. Also, the City Council has not acted on the two parcels on the southwest and southeast c orner o f E agle R oad a nd U stick a t t his point. What would h appen i f they would turn this down? And I realize they could tum down - or turn down the two requests that are before them. I realize they could simply turn this one down, but if we are going to apply the standards of land use in this community universally -- and I concur, Mr. Moore's operation is first class -- if we are going to apply the same standards, then, they ought to be applied here as well. We look forward to working with Mr. Moore and his company when there are specific plans with tenants, with roadways, with berms, with heights and all the other requirements that exist in the planning and zoning rules and regulations. So, with that I would be happy to answer any questions you might have and I'd like to get the clerk -- the deputy clerk some information I just spoke about. I don't know whether I said I was the president of the association, which is an illustrious position. Borup: You said there were five homes on 44 acres? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 69 of 105 Hedrick: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Hedrick? Hedrick: Thank you very much for your time. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Davis: My name is Tom Davis, I live at 2740 East Ustick Road, Meridian. The Parkstone property, for your information - Borup: And you're right here, Mr. Davis? Davis: This is all my ground, yeah. Hillview has bought this piece right here. This line right here. I still own this property right -- all of this property here. If they had a plan for this property, the biggest concern that Thad -- I represent the Layton Lateral, it is -- it is piped f rom Cloverdale Road and it's all piped in 30 inch concrete right down to this point. It is open ditch to here. It is piped across there to 30 inch concrete and this is the main lateral to go to 220 acres down here and our concern is -- maybe we are a little early here, but we want this in concrete, not in steel or plastic. And, then, there is -- right at this point there is headgates and to carry the water to these people over here would need to be in concrete, too, and this is a drain ditch, which if this parcel here is developed at some point, this could be eliminated. I guess that's all I -- we are just requesting that we have the same type of pipe in the Layton Lateral that we have above there and what we have at Eagle Road. Do you have any questions? Borup: Does that lateral feed anyone else beyond the Parkstone boundaries? Does it go to other properties to the west? Davis: Yeah. There is 220 acres. It goes clear to Locust Grove. Borup: Okay. So, the other acres that it feeds would be Summerfield Subdivision? Davis: Summerfield and the school property and Hollister property and all this of my property. My property is here now and Hillview --the pressure irrigation and all that. And the 30 inch pipe I think needs to be across here, because if, eventually, they had pressure irrigation -- and we have onto that with Settler's, is that if the power goes off and t hey a re p umping, y ou s till h ave t o h ave a b ig a Hough pipe t o c arty t hat water, unless you have auxiliary power to keep the pumps going and we can get into a lot of extra water and the 30 inch -- there is 320 miner inches of water that comes down that ditch. Borup: Okay. Thank you. And they are required to pipe the ditches through their property. That's astandard -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 70 of 105 Davis: Yes, but we -- Borup: But you want it in concrete. Davis: We want the concrete. Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question of Mr. Davis? Borup: Mr. Davis? Freckleton: Sorry, Tom. The Layton Lateral, is that under the jurisdiction of Settler's Irrigation District or is it a private -- Davis: That is private. Settler's Irrigation, when the water leaves the canal, it is up to the patrons on that lateral to maintain that ditch and take care of it and Settler's isn't like Nampa-Meridian where they deliver the water to your property, so all this -- this -- this ditch that comes down from Cloverdale has all been tiled because of development and, then, it's open ditch here and it's open ditch there and that is our responsibility, not Settler's, to take care of that and to see to it. Freckleton: Thank you. Ketlinski: Good evening. Jack Ketlinski, 2610 Jasmine Lane. I own the triangle property right there. I want to just say something that Tommy has just told what was concerned about the irrigation district. Our subdivision here is taken from a headgate here straight down Eagle Road into our property and that's how we irrigate. Not only do we have concerns about that water being kept and provided to us, we also have concerns with the drainage ditches along the southern part of our subdivision be left intact for a road: It's the -- it's not so much in here, but along my southern edge of my property that's a drainage ditch you see there and concerns have got to be made to what we are going to do with that drainage water. My last concern was -- I think Keith Borup said it, that if you give approval of that zoning tonight, there are implied things that we may not be able go back and fix without a development plan. That's all I have. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else? Okay. Mr. Moore. Moore: If I may, please. I'm Winston Moore, I reside at 11665 Thomas Drive in Boise. I'm going to try and be brief, but I do want to just touch on a few things that come to mind, just more or less as an attitude and the spirit that I have in this development and with the city and with our neighbors and the community. Starting at the back, more or less, as far as the irrigation goes, you know, we have done this all over the valley and we understand, you don't shut the water off, you don't impede the water, we work with the irrigation districts, we certainly work with the neighbors, the last thing we would ever consider is interrupting or interfering with irrigation to the adjacent properties. There is just almost nothing to talk about as far as I'm concerned. It won't happen. Now, how -- that's my word, but I mean there are also laws out there about water, which Tom Davis Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 71 of 105 knows infinitely better than I ever will. So, I respectfully suggest that that should not be a concern. I'll just touch on a couple of things, which, apparently, have already been decided, but just by way of clarification with respect to residential and I think you have already eliminated that, but it may help that the interpretation of the mixed use regional designation in the Comprehensive Plan, part of that says the intent of this designation is to o ffer t he d eveloper a g rester d egree o f design a nd use flexibility. l t d oesn't s ay i t would still offer the city a mandate to insist that we do certain things. This, to me, says it's the developer's call, it's the developer's money, the developer knows the market and, believe me, in this instance there is no market for multi-family in that area, the land is too valuable, and I think it should be a nonissue, simply because of what the definition is. And as far as our not having a conceptual plan with this application, we are not' intending to circumvent anything, to dodge anything, to be clever, what we are attempting to do -- and it's just as much for the city, believe me, as for anyone else and I might just digress for a split second. I was invited a week or two ago to visit with the new mayor's economic development council, I guess. I was up there for an hour and a half and the only thing they wanted to talk about is how the City of Meridiah could encourage new businesses to come to your community -- to our community to create jobs. What can we do -- they call me Mr. Moore and Idon't -that was my dad. I don't know. But, you know, what can we do, Mr. Moore, to encourage people to come here and my comment, frankly, was to just use common sense to try and figure out ways to make things happen, instead ways to make it difficult for them to happen. And in this instance with respect, again, to the development plan or the conceptual plan or the lack thereof, it's our intent that you folks will have total control of this through the development agreement, as you spoke about conditional use the way we interpret that and the way we are used to, that you have the a bsolute control there. We h ave no intention of coming back -- and I'm not going to sell that property, incidentally, so you would be dealing with someone else, but we have no intention of being, I don't know, devious or scheming, it's totally straight forward and above board and, in my opinion, you will have just as much control without having adevelopment -- a conceptual plan or concept plan as you will if you did have one and the reason that we are -- I'm maybe repeating what Jonathan said and I'm going to -- I'll sit down. A development of this size in a location that this is in, the market in -- I'm going to say the Treasure Valley is not such that we can lay out a firm plan on 58 acres and say this is exactly the way it's going t o b e. T here a re g oing t o b e t his m any b uildings, t here a re g oing t o b e t hese many uses, they are going to be this size and so on, because we don't know what it's going to be. But it will conform to the laws and ordinances of this city and certainly to the zoning. So, to me, there is - and I think I'm objective here --there is no down side to the community, to the city, certainly you folks, in letting us proceed without the conceptual plan. Jonathan touched on something that, you know, again, going back to Mayor de Weerd's committee and so on, how do we encourage people to come here, we can't do a concept plan. We just can't do it, because we don't know what's going to be there, as far as how it's going to be arranged, but the city has an investment there in sewer and water and utilities. You want hookups, you want to generate income from that investment and, therefore, it's obvious that if the sewer is developed in a quality way, the better off that the city will be. This is --this is the developer's risk and our investment there will be pretty close to 60 million dollars and if you extrapolate that into property Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 72 of 105 taxes, depending on which level, you go from 1.3 percent to 1.8 percent, that will generate just about a million dollars worth of property taxes. I don't know how it's distributed, it goes to Ada county tax assessor, I guess, we write those checks every year, but certainly a proportionate share would come back to your community. So, it's just very m uch to t he community's b enefit to h ave that i ntersection a nd certainly o ur property, developed in a quality way as soon as practical and quickest, soonest, best, most practical way is to let us proceed without the concept plan and I don't want to put this in the context of what's good for us, we want this, we want that, with me it's a partnership, we are all working together to make quality things happen in this community. And that's -- I probably rambled on too long. If you have any questions at all, I'd certainly welcome the chance to respond. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Rohm: Thank you, sir. Moore: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, the one comment that I'd like to make about this whole proposal here is that with this proposed annexation being in concert with the Comprehensive Plan, it seems more appropriate than if, in fact, the application was to have it a zoning other than what was proposed within the Comprehensive Plan. If there was a complete departure, I think that we should wait uhtil we see specifically, what would be moving forward, but, in fact, it's within the plan itself, then, it doesn't seem like we would be going down the wrong road here. So, I would be in support of moving forward with the application -- with the applicant. Borup: Then, let's do that. Let's move on or move ahead. Zaremba: I agree, Mr. Chairman. I move the Public Hearing be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we need any discussion? I think we have discussed the residential aspect. I don't know if there is anything more -- Zaremba: We've d iscussed i t p retty t horoughly. F rom t he s tall comments, I t hink t he paragraph that we are changing is on page eight, paragraph three, and we do want to develop -- to enter into a development agreement between the city and Winston H. Moore, but the elements of that development agreement -- well, I see whether Mr. Seal's letter might have said it the way we can comfortably say it with the addition of Mr. Larsen's s tatement. I f l c an find M r.Seal's I etter. O kay. I f e verybody w ill I ook a t M r. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 73 of 105 Seal's letter, I propose that I replace staffs paragraph three with Mr. Seal's paragraph one and two of the items they agree with and add a third paragraph that adds Mr. Larsen's statement. Does that sound like we cover everything? Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion. I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, AZ 03-025, request for annexation and zoning of 57.84 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Blue Marlin by W.H. Moore Company, northwest corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 6, 2003, received by the city clerk November 4, 2003, with the following change: On page eight, the current paragraph three will be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following statement. This is paragraph three and we will call this Subparagraph A. Prior to annexation ordinance approval the City of Meridian and Winston H. Moore will enter into a development agreement. This development agreement will require either a conditional use, planned development, or subdivision application be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to future development. Subparagraph B, a conceptual master plan would be submitted with the planned development for a site specific plan with any conditional use. Paragraph -- subparagraph C, any plan shall show a continuous public or private road system that goes from Ustick Road north and may connect to the north boundary and may also connect to Eagle Road, State Highway 55, if allowed by ITD. No other changes. End of motion. Yeah. Residential was part of the proposed development agreement from staff and I deleted that whole paragraph. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. That concludes that item. Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, can we get a clarification on that? So, on deleting three, were you aware that continues for a page and a half? Zaremba: Yes. Powell: Okay. Zaremba: I was deleting three in its entirety and replacing it. I asked if that was comfortable and I know that removes the residential requirement and it removes all -- really, all of the Comprehensive Plan discussion, but -- Powell: Yes. We just wanted clarification. Zaremba: Yes. I meant to delete the page and a half long paragraph. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 74 of 105 Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc. -south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 03-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 72 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc. -south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Bonap: Okay. Our last item is Salisbury Subdivision No. 2. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-036, request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres and Public Hearing PP 03-. 042, request for preliminary plat approval of 72 single family residential lots. Again, both these hearings are opened at this time and I'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You have received a staff report at your previous hearing on this application. I think I'll just point out for you a couple of the changes and discussions that have happened since the last hearing and, then, can take any questions that you might have. The reason -- the primary reason -- well, I guess there was a couple that the application was continued last hearing. First and foremost the noticing did not happen correctly, so that -- the property was posted and we did received confirmation at the city clerk's office that they did that. That should be in your packets. Secondly, the hearing was continued for discussion about some -- more discussion about Venable Lane and some of the treatment on that. There was a -- we also did not have the Ada County Highway District report as of the last meeting. They did approve the plat. The plat that the highway district a pproved i s s hown h ere o n t he s Green a nd i is s ubstantially t he s ame a s t he previous plat from the last hearing, with the exception of the stub street -- there is a -- there was formerly only one stub street to the north, which was this one here in the northeast corner and there was a pedestrian connection here on the north and they are now proposing that to be a public standard 50 foot right of way street. What was called Claire Avenue was shown about in the middle of this block on the west boundary adjacent to Venable. That has been removed in its entirety and, essentially, shifted up here to the north. I think maybe at this point I will go ahead and put the other plat that was presented at your last hearing, just so you know that there has been numerous discussions between the Salisbury Homeowners Association and the applicant for this project. That doesn't come up -- well, maybe if we can get a little more light on that, but, as you can see, essentially, they were proposing a stub street to the north as well, but the east-west connection here is removed on the proposed plan. There we go. Shed a little light on the situation. To create a knuckle here on the north side and, essentially, funnel traffic to the south. I just wanted to point out that that plat has always been floating around and part of the discussion since the last hearing. Zaremba: Brad, I'm sorry. Did ACRD see that choice?