Triumph
Springs
fails to triumph
Sun Valley City
Council
decides against development
"I
(would) view this as a permanent loss of an environmental and community
asset."
Lud
Renick, Sun
Valley councilman
By PETER
BOLTZ
Express Staff Writer
Lane Ranch
Partnership’s dream of building a seven-home development called Triumph
Springs ended Thursday at the Sun Valley City Council meeting.
The three
applications the partnership brought to the council all failed to win the
council’s approval after the three-hour meeting.
The first
application was for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use
map from agricultural/recreational to residential.
The second
was for a zone boundary amendment to change the property’s zoning from
outdoor recreational to rural and ranch estate, a residential designation.
The third
was for a preliminary plat to create seven single family lots.
All three
of the applications were heard by the Sun Valley planning and zoning
commission, which recommended to the council that they be denied.
The P&Z
heard the applications in three meetings during July and August.
The Lane
Ranch Partnership, which is a partnership of O’Neill Enterprises Inc.
and Cascea Associates Inc., was represented by Peter O’Neill.
On
Thursday, Oct. 18, he presented the Triumph Springs project to the council
for the first time, along with his development team that included attorney
Evan Robertson, designer Doug Clemens, architect Jim Ruscitto and engineer
Barry Sample.
At that
three-hour council meeting, public comment was not allowed by Mayor Dave
Wilson so that the council could do a site visit and hear most of the
partnership’s plans.
Wilson and
the council heard public comment at its latest meeting and rebuttals by O’Neill,
but O’Neill could not persuade the council to overturn the P&Z’s
recommendations for denial.
While
public comment was impassioned, the council’s unanimous support of its
P&Z grew out of its interpretation of two vague texts.
One of
those texts was its annexation agreement in 1986 with Cascea Associates
and Edward R. Downe Jr., the partnership that preceded the current
partnership and brought the Lane Ranch subdivision into the city.
The
annexation also brought into the city the 166 acres north of the Lane
Ranch and west of Weyyakin, 67 acres of which was to be Triumph Springs.
The second
vague text was the definition of a "special site" in the city’s
comprehensive plan. The Triumph Springs property was designated a special
site in 1994.
Opponents
to Triumph Springs interpreted the annexation agreement to say that the
166 acres would remain agricultural/recreational.
The
developers disagreed.
O’Neill
told the council and the development’s opponents that he and his
partners never "gave up development rights" to the property in
the annexation agreement.
Opponents
to the development interpreted special site as a mandate, as attorney Doug
Werth put it, requiring "a heightened review of the pending
applications. It does not entitle Triumph Springs to a change from
agricultural/residential to a residential zoning district
classification."
Attorney
Robertson saw the designation differently.
In an Aug.
8 letter to the P&Z, he wrote the property, as a special site,
"was suitable for rezone and development, albeit a sensitive
one," if "an acceptable site-specific plan" could be shown.
Councilman
Latham Williams asked city attorney Rand Peebles for clear legal
interpretations of the annexation agreement and special site.
Peebles
told the council that the two things were unclear, "no doubt about
it. It’s your job to add clarity."
"You
are going to have to interpret the comprehensive plan. That’s your job,
and it’s a hard one," he said.
And
interpret they did.
Councilwoman
Linda O’Shea said that special site meant that the site was even more
restrictive than other sites.
"I am
of the mind it is not appropriate to amend the comprehensive plan for this
development," she said.
Councilman
Kevin Laird said he remembered when the Lane Ranch was annexed into the
city and that the Triumph Springs property was part of a larger parcel
intended to remain zoned outdoor recreational.
Councilman
Lud Renick said, "I (would) view this as a permanent loss of an
environmental and community asset."
Williams
said he had to be guided by the 1994 comprehensive plan.
"It
doesn’t say we have to approve this project. It doesn’t say we have to
rezone it as residential.
"The
burden is on the developer to show why we should allow this project.
"I see
no reason why we should overturn the P&Z’s recommendations.
"I
think we understand the project very clearly, and we reject it."
The council
vote to uphold the P&Z’s recommendation to deny approval was
unanimous for each of the three applications.