Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 20, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 8 of 72 several other people. An obvious example would be the president of a homeowners association and they can come up and say I'm speaking for ten or 12 other people who aren't going to speak, we also give that kind of a representative quite a bit of extra time to state what they have to state. After the general public testimony, we will, then, ask the applicant to come back again and to have taken notes while you were speaking and to fix anything that can be fixed, clarify anything that they can clarify. And then, after that we will have our discussion and, hopefully, conclude with a recommendation that we will make to the City Council. So, that's pretty much the procedure. Item 5: Item 6: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: CPA 04-003 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change approximately 48 acres from Industrial to Mixed-Use Regional for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: RZ 04-017 Request for a Rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L & L-O to C-G zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: CUP 04-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Conceptual Planned Development for commercial/retail uses for approximately 615,430 square feet of building areas in a proposed C-G zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Zaremba: And let us begin this evening with Item 5 and we have three similar items in a row, but at the moment we are only going to open the Public Hearing on Item 5, which is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, because the decision on that will impact six and seven very much. So, we, actually, will deal with one of them first and depending on the outcome of that we will deal with the other two. So, I am opening CPA 04-003, request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change approximately 48 acres from industrial to mixed use regional for Ten Mile Development, LLC, by Hansen-Rice Incorporated, southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue and we will begin with the staff presentation. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. Since you have just this CPA item open, I will go ahead and just touch on a few of the outstanding items that we talked about at the last meeting, rather than going into the full explanation, the background, since you did receive that last time. One of the -- there was a couple of items that came up at your last hearing. You did receive testimony from David McKinnon, who is representing the applicant in this matter, and from Mr. Mike Ford, who -- both of those gentlemen raised one question about the subdivision to the north. As you may recall, I had testified that I did not believe that there was office or non-industrial uses that were permitted and I did generate a memo for you about a Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20.2005 Page 9 of 72 week and a half ago. Did you receive that? Okay. And, again, we are talking about this -- this subdivision that is identified here where the arrow is at right now. Again, the property -- overall just a little over 60 acres that's outlined in red is the subject of the Comprehensive Plan amendment application. As you can see, it does have a mixed use regional on the frontage on Eagle Road and an industrial designation on the back, so as you read in the memo, I won't go into that. Yes, there are office -- professional office uses that are permitted up here with a kind of interesting requirement that was placed in '91 that said that the city staff and City Council will have design review authority. So, I think some of that remains to be seen, but I think given that Pine is intended to be five lanes at that location, you can expect that there will probably be some fairly very high quality construction buildings there fronting on Pine. You also received testimony last meeting from Mr. Marv Jensen, who was representing RC. Willey. He had expressed primarily concern about traffic and traffic mitigation along the Eagle Road corridor. You should have received a final staff report from Ada County Highway District. Their commission acted on this matter last Wednesday, the 12th of January, and they did approve the project with a number of conditions and, of course, they do not have full authority over Eagle Road in this area, but they did make some special recommendations to the city and lTD. We also received a letter from ITD that -- let's see if I can give you a date on that. December 17th, 2004. That was sent to Will Berg, city clerk, and they stated in that letter that no direct access will be allowed to Eagle Road. They mentioned a couple of other items there regarding noise abatement, but -- so just in terms of the testimony from Mr. Jensen about traffic and those other items, that there have been some items into the record since the last meeting on traffic. There was some direction given to both staff and the applicant last meeting on I think two main items. One was encourage the applicant to look at some other potential areas. If you approve this application tonight, it would remove approximately 60 acres of I-L zoned land and the question was posed I think by Commissioner Zaremba is there other locations that that could possibly -- we could possibly look at and staff, with the expert help of one of our new staff, Joe Guenther -- let's see, I'm going to have to place this up on another -- unless you have excellent excellent eye sight, we are going to have to get this projected in another manner. Anyway, while they are -- other staff is getting this maybe in a way we can zoom in on some of that, I'll just go on. Basically, this map kind of outlines what properties in Meridian are currently zoned industrial and have services and, then, which properties are designated for industrial in the future and gives you a little bit of sense there, so I think one other item that was discussed briefly had to do with kind of this issue of a discrepancy between the assessment -- the assessed value in the land use and I guess, frankly, we -- you know, at staff level, obviously, we are going to use the assessed value and the total valuation of the property is something that the applicant submitted to you some of the Ada County assessor sheets that kind give you a summary of both of the legal parcels that are the subject of this application and, you know, we are not tax experts, you know, at staff and in terms of the assessed value, I think the main thing I would add to that is that while the valuation may have some bearing in terms of the marketing, I think that one of the charges for the Planning and Zoning Commission through both the state land use planning act and the City of Meridian ordinances, you know, is to look, you know, kind of at this broader vision and certainly while we don't want to zone or plan properties that Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 100f72 are going to make them completely infeasible to build, I don't think staff is convinced that it would be the primary reason for a denial or approval, for that matter. So, I think -- let's see. Do you think that one is easier to read or the prior one? Yeah. That doesn't - - we'll have to move that one around. Okay. The colors aren't coming out real clear, but as you can see, there are some red parcels, some yellow parcels, some blue parcels, and some purple ones. The red ones are vacant parcels that are zoned I-L today, which you could assume, for the most part, have services that are greater than ten acres in size. And, again, that's the red. And there are -- there is 339 acres total, if you add those together. And, as you can see, they are kind of grouped in three areas, one over here on the west side -- or, I'm sorry, east side. Jabil is this large one here. Here is 1-84 coming through here. On the south side of the 1-84 -- again, this is -- will be Overland Road on the south side. There are a couple of parcels there, kind of between Western Electronics and Bodily RV, so you have a couple of I-L zoned parcels there. And, then, on the north side of Franklin Road. The yellow -- the yellow outlined parcels are the parcels that are also in the city limits zoned -- zoned I-L, but are greater than five acres. And, then, the blue area, which this wastewater treatment plant area is not designated industrial, but it does allow for some industrial uses, so these are -- the blue ones again, are not annexed, not available today with city services for the most part, but are designated for industrial in the future and they are -- the ones that are greater than five acres, there is 377 acres of those. So, the total -- if you add up all the industrial property -- excuse me -- approximately 1,120 acres throughout the entire city. I think the point of this map is just to show you also that if you remove idle land, there is a choice that's being made -- yes, there are other properties available today, for example, a large industrial user has some options available, if you remove this Elixir property, which is what you're deciding tonight. If you remove the Elixir and you remove the Jabil site, which, of course, does have a structure on it today that would probably provide some limitations, depending on what your type of use is. I mean unless you're high tech, you know, it would be a pretty extreme adaptive reuse of the property. But if you - - if you removed both of those, then, you're down to 233 acres of I-L in the City of Meridian that would be, essentially, available for service today. So, I think, basically, that's just the facts. There is not necessarily an argument one way or the other behind that. I mean I think staff is interpreting that certainly to be that if you have -- if you are looking for the community to be self-sufficient across the spectrum in terms of all industries and you want potential employers to have options to come in today without having long waits or having to put in large amounts of utilities and facilities to make their parcel usable, if you take -- you know, if you take a ten acre -- you have 233 acres. Now, if you want larger parcels than that, obviously, you get pretty limited, as far as what -- you know, if they need a 20 acre or a 30 acre -- of course, that number goes down in terms of the available supply. I think with that I'll just -- I'll go back to the other presentation. I think the remaining items have to do with the rezone application and the Conditional Use Permit application, both of which are pretty dependent on your decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Should you choose to approve that, there was -- in terms of the response -- the written response, I think from -- the letter from Dave McKinnon was largely dealing with those other two applications, so until you open those hearings, I guess I'll just end my comments there on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 11 of 72 Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Once, again, your work has been very thorough. Having to sort through -- it isn't always obvious when you look at something and say, well, it's zoned this way, your research into what kind of overlays are on it and underlays are on it and development agreements have been made about it and finding some obscure document from, what, 15 or 20 years ago, that's a lot of work on your part and we appreciate that and you always write up a report that makes it clear to us, so -- would you identify, since there are three existing, I recall, different zones on this piece of property now that we are discussing changing, maybe just outline with a pointer where each one of those pieces is, the current configuration. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yeah. Again, this map, unfortunately, doesn't show it, but this is the I-L zoning. There are only two zones on the property. The other one is a small little -- that's going to be hard to read, isn't it. I need two hands on that thing. There we go. There is a limited office, an L-O, one acre, that was zoned out of that corner for a Primary Health facility that was never built, but the zoning did go through. Zaremba: So, the whole rest of the property is currently I-L and the mixed use is just an overlay? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. The mixed use is a designation on the future land use map. Zaremba: And is the -- the mixed-use part of it is not the entire piece of property; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Correct. The mixed use is this brown area here. And if I could just -- I mean I guess one clarification on that. I think this Commission, for the most part, has seen -- when you have seen a property come to you that has a mixed- use regional designation, I believe they have all received a CoG zone. For example, the Eagle Road Ustick intersection where Mr. W.H. Moore -- Winston Moore and others have come in, those are all mixed use regional and did come in with CoG. The Comprehensive Plan by no means says that these have to be CoG. It does allow for some, you know, light manufacturing and other uses that, you know, could generally be designed to be compatible and so just for clarification I don't think that the intent of the mixed use regional policy in our Comprehensive Plan is -- if it says mixed use regional, it has to be CoG zoning. Yes, that's what they are asking for and, yes, I think that would be a compatible zone, but does it mean that they -- that the CoG zoning is the only one and you need to do retail to really meet the intent of the mixed use regional, I don't think so. So, just a clarification. Zaremba: Thank you. We are ready for Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. And like Chairman Zaremba -- congratulations on your ascension and to you congratulations as well on back. I'd like to thank staff for all the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 12 of 72 help they have given us on this project as well. They have been very helpful in preparing the presentation. Brad's memo was very helpful. I know all the work that Brad put into it, I know there was work put in by the clerk's office to find some information in the basement. I know that Mike Ford from the last meeting representing the Yanke family, dropped off some information as well to try to clarify the issues revolving around the Gemtone property, which is that property just to the north, as to what exactly that property could be used for in the future and so I appreciate everybody's help on that. I promised Commissioner Rohm -- not Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Moe and Commissioner Rohm that I would be short tonight. Brad did a really good job doing the presentation for us tonight. There were several items that he's already covered for us. You guys sent us off last time with about four items of homework. You should have all received a letter in response to those homework items you asked me to do and I assume you have all received that. Just to cover those very briefly, one was to figure out exactly what was available to be done in Gemtone. Brad's memo has covered that and it can be used for office uses and other high quality uses and, as Brad pointed out, with the widening of Pine Street to five lanes, that will be a high quality office commercial type development along Gemtone and we hope to do the same on the south side. The second item was to figure out what was going on with ACHD. As Brad mentioned, we went to ACHD approximately a week ago, met with ACHD, read their staff report, and we went to the commission and one of the members of the Hansen-Rice group got up, said we agree with the conditions of approval and we went ahead and approved it and so we agreed with all the conditions of approval, we didn't fight with them on any of them and so we don't have any intentions to fight with you on any of their approvals as well. The third item you asked was to figure out the value of the land. You should have all received a packet of information from Hansen- Rice concerning all the different assessed values for the land around the area and, like Brad, I'm not a tax expert or an assessor, but, needless to say, the value of the land in this area has skyrocketed, it no longer holds its value for industrial uses, but, rather, based on the types of uses that are developed around it, such as Blue Cross and the Crossroads and Presidential subdivisions, this land has become more valuable for commercial use and so that's basically -- basically what the information that was given to you states. Finally, there was the comment from Commissioner Zaremba, now Chairman Zaremba, to find out if there was an area that we could swap land and to figure out if there was some things and I appreciate Joe's -- Joe's work that he put into that. But if I could get somebody to grab the Comp Plan -- I did have a chance -- and, like I said in my letter, to talk to a few people that know a little bit more about industrial than I do and I spent some time on the phone talking to a few people -- you can just go ahead and put it on the easel right there. I don't know if you guys can all see that. If you can just go ahead and turn that just a little bit more. Thanks. In the Comprehensive Plan there is a number of areas that are highly residential. You can see basically this whole area is residential, except for the areas -- the wastewater treatment plant and that makes sense, because it's farther away from a major interstate highway that runs through 1-84 and because it's residential you want to see residential around that. Commercial areas are staying with commercial areas, industrial staying on the south side of the railroad track and along 1-84. In looking into the future, we have a large area of industrial designated land south of the railroad track, near what will be the Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 13 of 72 Ten Mile interchange. So, around the Ten Mile interchange area we have a large volume of commercial uses and, then, right in the middle -- thanks, Brad. Or Anna. Right back to it. Commercial along 1-84. Then, we have -- right in the middle of commercial and industrial we have placed medium density residential. The medium density residential, if it's to access Franklin, would be accessing the same area that industrial traffic will be exiting and entering and if they want to get out to the Ten Mile interchange without going up to Franklin, they'd have to travel through commercial land. This area seems bounded by Black Cat and Franklin, that if we have industrial on one side, commercial on two other sides, that that site may be more appropriate, rather than residential, to go to a commercial and industrial designation, So, there is a possibility of some swapping of some land in this area. As you are well aware, we do have the Ten Mile interchange study that's begun in this area down here, although it is highly residential right now, large lot and estate residential, there is a possibility that some industrial could go in that location as well, because it would have quick interstate access and there is large lots that could develop in that area. There is a possibility that land could in the future be developed with some industrial uses. I think that in looking at this Comprehensive Plan there is a few things that could be changed. I worked on the Comp Plan, I have a lot of value in this Comprehensive Plan, but there is some areas that need to be modified and as the city changes and -- the city is a dynamic thing, it's not static, it changes and it evolves, and we'd like to just point out that this piece of property at one point, the property that we are dealing with the Comp Plan amendment tonight, at one point made sense with industrial uses. Eagle Road was not what it is today, you know, five to even ten years ago. I mean originally we had the Club Wholesale there and some industrial uses and today we have a huge volume of traffic using Eagle Road, because of the Eagle Road interchange and just the tremendous growth that Meridian, Boise, and Eagle, even Star, for that matter, has seen in the past ten years. I know we have talked a lot about the Comprehensive Plan amendment. We still would ask for your support in the Comprehensive Plan amendment and ask if you have any questions at this time. Zaremba: Thank you for looking around and suggesting other areas that could change. I certainly think I agree with you on the major one you pointed out. That does make sense. McKinnon: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to take credit for that, but I can't. I had some help with that. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Rohm: Dave, I think you did a good job with your homework and along with Brad's comments I think we are a lot closer to understanding the needs of the developer and the concerns of the city, so thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 14 of 72 Zaremba: This is the opportunity for anybody else who has anything they wish to say about this. Did we have a sign-up sheet? Please go ahead. Come forward, sir. Ford: Mike Ford, Post Office Box 5405, Boise. 83705. Brad, could you put that other map back up. There. Thank you. First of all, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd also like to thank Brad and staff for the research they did in finding what our uses are allowed in Gemtone. Happy that that's resolved. Again, this is our property. As it's been said tonight, we do plan on doing high end office on that property, would not like to see industrial there. I'm not anti-industrial. I developed the Layne Industrial Park there. I developed the rail site industrial park over there, So, industrial users have bought ground from us when we develop those, They don't want to be next to retail and office. They don't want to be bad neighbors. And you find that all the time, where there is existing industrial and, then, you put residential around it and something and, then, the people start complaining about the industry. And if you put industrial here, it will be only a matter of time before the retailers here, the office users here, are complaining to the city about industrial uses there. So, I would just say that I would hope that you would approve the applicant's request. Any questions? Thank you. Zaremba: We have signed up Judith -- I believe it's Bellcastor? She's declining to speak, actually. I see hands waving. Anybody else want to speak? Okay, Well, then, we had just the one statement in favor and the applicant's remarks. Any discussion from the Commission or further questions to ask? Borup: No questions. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. The property to the north at Eagle and Fairview, that mixed use -- do we have anything pending there at Eagle and Fairview, mixed use on the north? The northwest and the northeast? I don't have a pointer, so -- right there. Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: These two? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: No, we do not. Yeah. There are -- I think there is a little over 250 acres, I believe, at both of those -- if you add those together on the north side of Fairview there that the city has not received any applications on, but it is designated all also mixed use regional. Newton-Huckabay: And what about -- is that all the way to Ustick? Hawkins-Clark: No. I guess we could pull up the other map. Newton-Huckabay: It's not all the way to Ustick. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 15 of 72 Hawkins-Clark: We can pull up a map, Commissioner, if you'd like to see the area north of Ustick. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm trying to think between Fairview and Lowe's, I'm trying to remember how -- or the new Lowe's location, how much of that is mixed use. Hawkins-Clark: So, Commissioner, if this is -- I guess this gives you maybe a little better sense of -- the east side of Eagle Road -- again, here is Fairview and the Meridian Crossroads shopping center is the commercial here, So, all single ownership on. the east side and we have -- staff has, I understand, received some preliminary discussions or rumors, shall we say, that maybe within a year there may be something happening, Newton-Huckabay: I guess what I'm getting at, as a Commissioner and more as a citizen, who drives Eagle Road everyday two times a day and spends 40 minutes, approximately, getting from the north to south and south to north, that we have this continuous development of retail -- mixed use usually ends up being retail and I'm -- at some point we are going to have every store there is to have in this town and you're not going to be able to get there. And that's my concern with converting industrial -- any industrial property to more commercial property. So I just -- you know, I can see where, you know, Lowe's will be opening soon, I believe. I imagine all of that will end up being -- because they are larger lots and bigger boxes -- just my stray thought. Moe: Just to kind of follow up with that, though, I think you got to remember that there is already mixed use that borders Eagle Road in that area. Basically, what we are trying to take care of tonight is the 22 acres of the industrial to the west; correct? In regards to this -- the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But that will be taking away potential development that isn't going to cause as much traffic in the area and possibly bring a little higher paying employer to the area than a retail. Canning: Dave, that wasn't a question, McKinnon: I know, Anna. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just to offer rebuttal to myself, I suppose. I'll take the opportunity. Moe: Good to see up here, Dave. McKinnon: Just a couple comments just on your comments, not in the form of a question I know. Part of the way we are going to see the traffic calmed in that area is Pine Street to be extended through -- all the way through, extension of five lanes all the way through, and that's all developer-borne costs. ACHD does not have the money or the funds to do that. So, this will be all developer-borne cost and it's expensive to build Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 16 of 72 a road that big and that wide all the way through and one of the ways to pay for that is if the value of the land at sale can help to pay for that. The industrial land itself won't pay for that expansion all the way through. There is going to be a new north-south connection soon, the Locust Grove overpass and the connection from Pine to Locust Grove will open up an opportunity for people to be able to get from Eagle Road to Pine and, then, from Pine to Locust Grove and over to the south side of the freeway and so this is, actually, one of the ways to pay for that to make that happen and, otherwise, it won't happen, because the value is not there to improve that area and pay for the cost of a 105,000 dollar traffic light at Hickory and Pine and to pay for the widening and the cost of donating that land and constructing that land. Sorry, Sorry, Anna, Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have got some questions for staff. On page 22 at the bottom where -- your staff recommendations, you speak to recommending a continuation of this for general site design comments and special considerations, if, in fact, we make a motion to approve this CPA and rezone, How do you -- how do you do that? How do you continue the discussion, if, in fact, you have already recommended approval of an application? I'm curious how you would do both. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, I guess there are three applications that this report addresses and at this point in time you have only taken testimony and deliberated on one, the Comprehensive Plan amendment. So, what this recommendation is addressing is if you, as a Commission, decided to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and, then, moved on to the rezone and the. Conditional Use Permit applications, staff's belief is that the Conditional Use Permit has enough outstanding issues that would warrant you having -- having a chance to look at another Conditional Use Permit site plan. Does that clarify -- Rohm: Okay, So, basically, there would be a Conditional Use Permit required on this property after the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezone -- they'd still have to go through a CUP process. Is that what the -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, for the use that they are proposing, that's -- they chose to submit a conceptual planned development. That's how they are proposing to develop the site. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is always going to be a Conditional Use Permit requirement on this land, because it is zoned today, it is annexed, and there are certainly rights to development under the industrial zone without a Conditional Use Permit. But what they are choosing to do does require a conceptual plan to be approved. For -- yeah. For the CoG zone, so -- Zaremba: The way I interpret the part that you're asking about, staff's recommendation was strongly in favor of recommending denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and, therefore, it's possible that they didn't spend a lot of time on the following CUP, because if, in fact, the CPA is denied -- Rohm: There is no point. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 17 of 72 Zaremba: -- there is no discussion on either the rezone or the CUP, If we go a different direction, in spite of staffs recommendation, and we recommend to the City Council that the Comprehensive Plan amendment be approved, then, staff's recommendation is that we have some discussion of the other two issues, but not make the final decision tonight, because staff wants another pass at it with the new circumstance of the CPA being approved. Does that make sense? Moe: That's how I read it as well. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, could I just make one other clarification, if that -- since you do have on your agenda tonight on that 04-004, another Comprehensive Plan amendment -- we did talk with the attorneys before the meeting today just a little bit and one suggestion that was given is that if the Commission does choose to recommend approval of this one, rather than moving all of these on, before you hear that other Comprehensive Plan amendment, since they should go together to the City Council, that you could table this until the end of your agenda tonight. Are you recommending that one be continued anyway? Okay. Well, that may change it, then. I guess just to bear in mind that as far as closing a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and formally moving this on to City Council without having your other one dealt with, that may put the other one in jeopardy. Zaremba: That's a good point. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Are we at a position where somebody has a strong stance one way or the other? Mr. Nary, you had something to add. Nary: Mr. Chairman, just, I guess, to follow up on Brad's last comment, another alternative is if this Commission does decide to make a recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, what you could do is direct staff to bring back that recommendation at your next meeting in February and, then, you will be able to know whether the other one was completed and you could do the same direction. If it isn't completed, then, you'd still have a date certain to have that recommendation, but the whole intent of the statute is that the recommendations are made once every six months. So, that's another way, rather than just putting it to the end of the meeting, you could just give it a date certain, say February -- the next February meeting, bring the recommendation back then. Borup: I would rather -- I think I would rather wait until the end of the meeting and try to handle them all today, rather than pushing it forward to next month. Rohm: I'm not opposed to that. I would like to say that even though I believe the staff has done an excellent job with their Findings of Fact and recommendations, I think that as a Commissioner I'm in support of this CPA and rezone and that is my tendency as we move forward and open up the other applications and if we want to table this until Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 18 of 72 the latter part of the meeting tonight, that's fine with me. But, generally, I believe that I'm in support of this application at this time. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'd like to follow up to Mr. McKinnon. I meant I think a Comprehensive Plan amendment on this piece of property is premature at this time. As you said, the Locust Grove overpass construction will begin very soon. The city seems to be in disagreement as to whether or not it's a feasible change. There is a lot of land available right now for commercial development, I just don't think it's the right time to jump in and start rezoning or amending the Comprehensive Plan. So, I will lean towards denial. Moe: Well, we are going down line, are we? Zaremba: Yes, sir. Moe: Quite frankly, I belabored over this thing for a couple weeks now, I have gone back and forth quite a bit. I think it was Mr, Ford, his comments tonight in regards to what happens to some of your industrial users when other properties, you know, commercial and whatnot, come in, that there seems to have a tendency to want to uproot industrial and whatnot out that gets established. Based on Mr. McKinnon's presentation tonight, quite frankly, in regards to where there may be some shifting of some properties and such in the future and whatnot, I'm somewhat -- I am in support of the Comprehensive Plan change. I just believe with the 40 plus acres in regards to the mixed use already fronting Eagle Road and whatnot, I don't see that this 22 acres is going to do much in industrial, especially when they are going to have the cost of installing the roadway extensions, as well as property values for the commercial properties are much greater than for industrial. Having said that, I would say that I would be in support of the change. Borup: I had an opportunity to have a little bit of information yesterday and probably one of the public input meetings, I think, is where it came from, that was looking at a future -- future use of the whole valley, not just -- not just Ada County and I don't know if -- well, actually, I don't think I do agree with it, but one thing that came out of that is they had -- had all the industrial -- a majority of the industrial area out around the airport in Boise and, then, over in Canyon county, Nampa-Caldwell area on that, and figuring that Meridian would not be a high industrial use. That was the input of those -- of those -- sounded like probably several committees. I'm not sure which one of the two it was. I don't think we want to be completely left out of that, but I think the general -- from that it looked to me like general opinion that maybe Meridian is intended for a little higher uses than an industrial area. I do agree that -- I hate to see things -- things losing that type of -- I we had a nice balance of -- I agree with Commissioner Huckabay, we may be a little premature on this. I don't know if -- what their time frame is, but I am also in favor -- I think the thing that was the biggest factor for me was Pine Avenue, a five lane road there, probably does not really lend itself to an industrial area. I don't think that exact location is a good area for industrial land either. I'm not happy what it's going to do with the traffic at that location. Eagle at certain times of the day is just an area to avoid, but Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 19 of 72 five lanes on Pine and an overpass on Locust Grove, hopefully, will help alleviate some of that. That's alii have got to say. Zaremba: Thank you, I guess I'm the only one remaining to express an opinion, Newton-Huckabay: I have another question. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Thank you, Commissioner. Speak up. Newton-Huckabay: Industrial uses would include -- I mean we are not -- we are not talking about a tire factory here. I mean this could be an industrial use, such as an electronics manufacturer -- Zaremba: A warehouse operation even. Newton-Huckabay: -- a warehouse operation. A -- would a call center -- I mean would be a use -- an industrial -- Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, probably not a call center. It probably would be more geared toward CoG. But to answer your question, yes, there a number of uses that may -- for example, think of Executive, Emerald Avenue, that area generally between like Cloverdale -- you know Eagle, Cloverdale, Five Mile, industrial. Hewlett-Packard probably -- you know, industrial type. It does not imply dirty industry. The allowed uses are quite broad and it would allow for, you know, a number of manufacturing, assembly type uses, whether that's high tech, other clean industry uses would be allowed in the industrial. And, of course, as far as design along Eagle Road, which I think I heard mention either this meeting or last meeting, those kinds of issues can also be dealt with in terms of a design review of buildings, but as far as the uses, I think to assume that this would be, quote, unquote, dirty industry, would, I think, be an incorrect assumption that it would have to go that way. Bear in mind that there are a number of those uses that could -- could be submitted in the future for the property. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Zaremba: Thank you. Well, my conundrum is that I support the existence of industrial property. Again, Meridian has so little of it designated. I appreciate that there are some opportunities to perhaps re-designate some other areas that are not identified. But the conundrum for me is that industrial property is very logical along the railroad. The opposite piece to that is we have Eagle Road that has a lot of traffic on it and is -- I have discuss before -- a lot of that traffic is not Meridian traffic, it's coming from other towns passing through and to have retail along Eagle Road to perhaps get some of those people to stop and leave a few dollars here, would be an equal benefit, if not better benefit, to Meridian. The difficulty is we have an intersection of a railroad where I'd like to see industrial and Eagle Road where I'd like to see commercial and retail and what do you do where there is two thoughts overlap? My assessment is even if we did nothing, even if we denied this application, only 22 acres would be developed as Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 20 of 72 industrial, if it ever were developed as anything. The rest of it already can be developed for retail, because of the mixed use designation, even though the ground is designated industrial, the mixed used overlay, and probably without an application, would allow that to go forward. So, my solution to the conundrum, much as I would like to reserve industrial lands, is a very slight tilt toward approving this application. That's about as far as I can go, unfortunately. If there is any further discussion, I think we have a sense of how the Commission would act. 1-- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I would say we should move ahead. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 04-003. Zaremba: Is there -- Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye, Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CPA 04-003 -- excuse me? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, Zaremba: I think the intention was -- because we have another CPA application later, that we table this one to the end of the meeting. The issue, for those of you who mayor may not have gotten it, is that we can only make a map change to the Comprehensive Plan every six months, that's Idaho state law, and we have two such applications before us and we are trying to keep them together, even though they are totally unrelated to each other, so that we don't make one decision tonight and, then, the other one has to be wait six months before it can be considered. So, even though the items are unrelated. I think the suggestion is that we continue this Item 5 to the end of the meeting -- Borup: Commissioner Moe is ready of a motion. Zaremba: -- when we have already made the decision on Item 11. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Public Hearing -- or the hearing of CPA 04-003 to the end of the meeting. Rohm: Second. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 21 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Would we also want to move six and seven to the same -- Zaremba: Do we want to continue six and seven and depending on how we go, then, we will discuss those? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: It doesn't sound like much of the general public is here to hear this issue anyhow. So, I think if we put -- I would entertain a motion to continue -- I'm sorry, I first need to open them, because I don't believe we did that. Borup: Can we just adjust the agenda? Zaremba: Let's see. Why don't I just open them and we will continue them. Is that okay? Rohm: It works for me. Zaremba: All right. I will open the public hearings for RZ 04-017 and the Public Hearing for CUP 04-051. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, there is no reason you can't hear.these items now. You don't have to table these to the end of the agenda. That was my understanding of what was going to happen, so I'm sorry if I interrupted inappropriately, but you can go ahead and hear the items, you just can't make -- you can't take action on the Comp Plan amendment until you know what you want to do with the other ones, So, there is no reason you can't conduct these public hearings. You don't have to put them off, you just -- you're just putting off your decision on the Comp Plan amendment. You just can't make a decision on it. They know how you're going, you just can't make a formal action on it. Rohm: Well, we wouldn't be able to make a decision on these either, though, until that's -- Borup: Until we vote on it. Rohm: -- until we vote on the other. Canning: But -- you can't make a final decision. Correct. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 22 of 72 Rohm: Right. Canning: You may need to direct staff to come back with a recommendation or some item of that, but putting it to the end of the agenda will not accomplish anything tonight. Borup: Commissioner -- I mean Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I would be interested if Mr. McKinnon -- if we did hear it now, if he would be staying for the final vote? So, he's going to be staying for the vote anyway, since we don't have any public testimony. The only thing it would accomplish, we would be able to move along and maybe get to some of the issues that most of the people are here to address. Zaremba: Well -- and that was my feeling. I -- the end result is that we are likely to continue the RZ and the CUP anyhow for further input and my instinct would be to take that testimony at the end of the meeting as -- whatever there is to be said about the two public hearings, to take that at the end of the meeting, since I think we have already learned that most of these people are not here for that subject. Borup: I would be favor of that. Zaremba: I would entertain a motion to continue these two public hearings to the end of the meeting. Rohm: I'd like to make that motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend that we continue Public Hearing RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051 to the end of the agenda. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Motion and second to continue these two items to the end of the meeting, All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 04-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.63 acres from a RUT zone to a R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 04-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 98 building lots and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road: