HomeMy WebLinkAboutTen Mile Development RZ
RZ 04-017
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Hansen-Rice. Inc.
February 1 7. 2005
ITEM NO.
7
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 20. 2005 - Rezone of 61.63 acres from
-L & L-O to C-G zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC - SWC of North Eagle Road and
East Pine Avenue
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
See previous Item packet / minutes
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
~e.L. urJotul rYttmo
(;J
-17 . CO fV1f,rv/'. I )
N f'J1.. n{ûV~
f\r\~
C/{v
~
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at pubic meetings shatl become property of Ihe City of Meridian.
Phone:
Emailed:
Memo
To:
P&Z Commission
RE C E IVED
FEB 1 I, 2005
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLER:< OFFICF
From: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Principal City Planner
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager
CC: City Clerk, Glenn Walker (Hansen-Rice, Inc.)
Date: February 14, 2005
Re: Ten Mile Development (RZ-04-017, CUP-04-051) - Amended Conditions
At the January 20, 2005 hearing, the Commission continued the two subject
applications to the February 17, 2005 meeting for the purpose of receiving a revised
conceptual layout for the CUP/PO application. On January 28th, staff met with the
applicant to review their new concept and to discuss the "Special Considerations"
listed in 1/18/05 staff report (pg. 16). These areas of concem inciuded:
0 Commercial Court ingress/egress easement
0 Project amenities
0 General site design issues (6)
0 Fencing
In addition, the Commission asked the applicant to address the following issue as
part of their re-submittal:
0 Consider relocating the major anchors currentiy at the rear of the site
closer to Eagle Road
The applicant addressed each of these areas in their "Option A" concept, which was
submitted to the P&Z Commission last week. We spent quite a bit of time discussing
the "Main Street Boulevard" concept of their plan. Staff supports the general design
concept. Our main concem relates to protecting the pedestrian-oriented atmosphere
if the existing Commercial Court is connected to Eagle Road and how that relates to
truck deliveries, etc. We also believe that 2-story construction within this Main Street
Boulevard area is fundamental to its success as a pedestrian mall-type area.
Below are staff's revised comments and conditions for the Rezone and CUP/PO
applications (underline represents new additions/conditions with this memo):
REZONE COMMENTS & DA CONDITIONS
1.
/\eeliGatiElR COFFeGtieR: TAO Rezene appliGatien aRG map GO Rot r:ecognize that ther-e is
a one (1) aer:e seetioR of tho swGjeGt property IMr:eRlly zeRBe L 0 (Limitea Of:lice). TAis
2.
3.
. Page 2
lane was FezoneG fFElR11 L te L 0 iR 20Q2 (OrGiAaReEI Ne. G2 945), iRtenGee te !¡eooR1e
a FAOGiool oliRio. If the P&Z CoR1FAissicm F800FAFAOAÐS aet3r-'3'ÆI of tAG r&zene to Citv
CouReil; tAB aoelioation aRG aublio RotiÐe FAust be oorFoGleG te r:eflec:-t tAG ReZ-ClRe of
this 1,¡" OOFe fr-oFA L 0 te C G aRd sloJbtroÐt this aÐFElaae frOFA the I L aer-eaqe.
The legal description submitted with the application appears to meet the requirements
of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to
existing city limits.
Prior to the Rezone ordinance approval, the property owner shall be required to enter
into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City of Meridian as a condition of rezone.
The DA shall require that:
.
Uses shall be restricted to those allowed in the C-G zone and as agr-eecl IoJpon
Guring tho ploJbliÐ heaFings for File CUP 01 Q§1 follows: The developer shall be
reQuired to incorporate some professional office or non-retail use in the
development. No more than 300.000 souare feet of retail use shall be constructed
before the deveioper receives detailed CUP approval to demonstrate compliance
with this condition. The Zoninq Administrator is qranted authority throuqh this DA to
determine whether a future use and/or site plan complies with the intent of this
aqreement
All future uses within the property boundaries shall be required to obtain detailed
Conditional Use Permit approval.
.
Based on the submitted Traffic Impact Study, a continuous right-turn lane is
needed on Eagle Road for the proposed access points. ITD should require a turn
lane for any access that is approved on Eagle Road, and should acquire sufficient
right-of-way for those and any future improvements. The developer shall submit
written verification from ITD that this cond~ion is complied with at the time of the
first detailed CUP application on the site.
A maximum of one (1) riqht-in/riqht-out access to Eaqle Road is permitted (in
addition to the existinq E. Pine Ave access). All access on Eagle Road shall be
restricted to right-inlright-out operations only, and that medians be installed in
Eagle Road to restrict the access points, including the Commercial Court access.
.
Prior to any clo'l-elepFAent al3plieations detailed CUP application being approved on
the property, the owner shall provide written documentation to the City that all
parcels currently using Commercial Court to access Eagle Road have relinquished
their right to Commerciai Court and will be provided appropriate access to the
public street system.
.
The current layout of the site requires trucks to access Eagle Road to serve the
proposed uses. The applicant shall re-design the site to eliminate the need for
Eagle Road access for trucks.
All roof-mounted HVAC and other mechanical equipment shall be screened so as
not to be visible from either Eaqle RoadlSH 55 or E. Pine Avenue abuttinq the
~
4.
5.
. Aliloadinq docks. compactors. emerqencv qenerators. trash collection. outdoor
storaqe or similar facilities and functions shall be incorPorated into the overall
buildinq and/or landscape desiqn so that the visual and acoustic impacts of said
functions are minimized.
Any existing domestic weils will have to be removed from their domestic service per
City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. All septic system(s) will have to be removed
from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8, when service
becomes available to this site. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of naturai waterways,
intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be
tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the
appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch
owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to. the Public Works
Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will
be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat
signature.
6.
Any future subdivision, uses and construction on this property shail comply with the
City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PD)
1.
All conditions of the accompanying Rezone application (including the Development
Agreement) shall aiso be considered conditions of the Conditional Use/PO application.
2.
The Conceptual Master Site Pian labeled "Option A" (updated 1/31/05 bv Hansen-
Rice. Inc.) is herebv approved. with the followinq modifications:
a. Increase the amount of outdoor open space/patio area around the hotel site;
b. Clearlv depict/label the continuous pathwavs throuqhout the site;
c. Identifv the proiect phasinq plan on the face of the Master Site Plan;
d. Per MCC 12-13-11-2.B.. provide a minimum five (5) foot wide landscape strip alonq
the entire south propertY line;
3.
Prior to the first detailed CUP application beinq submitted. the appiicant shall submit an
easement or other leqal document that preserves the area between the UPRR riqht-of-
wav and the main street boulevard area as a public pedestrian area to allow for use of
the potential transit station. Coordinate said document with the Planninq & Zoninq and
Leqal Department staff.
4.
No new buildings are approved for construction under this conceptual CUP/PO
application (Fiie No. CUP-04-051). Ail future buildings shall require approval of a
detailed CUP prior to submittal of any Certificate of Zoning Compliance application
and/or building penmit.
ePage3
5.
6.
7.
The develo~er shall be resconsible to create a sYStem for trackina all required carkinç¡
and aDen s ace throuahout the course of the develocment and submit an ucdate with
each Certificate of Zenina Comcliance.
MCC 12-13-11-2.B reouires a five (5) foot minimum cerimeter landscace stric alona
the south crocertv line. No landscacina is
Provide at least two amenities, as approved by the City Council, for the Planned
Development. The Plannina & Zonina Commission recommends the followinç¡
amenities be required of the develocer.
a. A minimum of 10% of the aross area of the site (or 6.2 acres) shall be imcroved as
aDen scace at site build-out. exclusive of the Eaale Road and E. Pine Avenue street
buffers. This aDen scace mav include all outdoor catio/claza areas that are bevond the
standard 5-foot sidewalk required bv Meridian City Code.
b. A minimum 1 O-foot wide muiti-use cathwav that aeneraiiv extends from the northwest
comer of the site to the rail transit station in the southeast corner.
c. If the deveiocer constructs or costs surety for the future bus stoc on E. Pine Avenue,
this shall be deemed a croiect amenity.
8.
Off-street parking shaii be provided in accordance with Section 11-13 of the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. All vehicular use areas shall be paved
in accordance with Meridian City Code.
9.
Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to ail lots within this
development (MCC 12-5-2.N). The applicant has not indicated who will own and
operate the required pressurized irrigation system within this development. The City of
Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any
existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not
available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a
single-point connection is utilized, the developer wiii be responsible for the payment of
assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City
Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to ail
landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with MCC 12-13-8
and MCC 9-1-28.
10.
Unless a waiver is specifically granted by City Council, all irrigation ditches, laterals or
canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and
contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to
be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or laterai users association,
with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
11.
Aii fencing shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10. If no permanent fencing
is provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around
the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit.
ePage4
12.
13.
14.
A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required
and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking
areas. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with
Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best
Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards
and policies. Off-site disposal into suñace water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction
which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to
development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary
applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow
Injection Wells.
The applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this
proposed development (looped). Project designer to coordinate main sizing and
routing and new easements with the Public Works Department. Please provide the
Public Works Department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water
requirements for the proposed site. Flow and pressure from the existing mains should
be monitored with the Meridian Water Department.
No Parking signs and painted curbs will be required for all Fire Lanes. Paint the curb
red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane".
15.
A revised site plan and landscaping plan reflecting all the required modifications to the
site plan and landscaping shall be submitted to the City Clerk's office at least ten (10)
days prior to the next public hearing for this application.
16.
The applicant shan coordinate the location and design of trash dumpsters with Sanitary
Services Company (SSG) staff. Trash enclosures must be built in the location and to
the size approved by SSC. Prior to Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) submittal,
the applicant shall submit a revised site plan. stamped approved by SSC, for the
proposed trash enclosure location and design. All dumpster(s) must be screened in
accordance with MCC 11-12-1.C.
17.
No building or other structure shan be erected, moved, added to or structurally aitered,
nor shall any building structure or land be established or change in use on this site
without first obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) from the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Department (MCC 11-19-1).
18.
An required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of
Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may
be obtained by providing surety to the City in the fonm of a letter of credit or cash in the
amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping,
landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary
occupancy. Any temporary occupancy will not exceed 60 days to complete the
required improvements.
19.
This conditional use penmit shan be valid for a maximum period of 18 months. If
construction has not begun within this timeframe, a new conditional use permit must be
obtained prior to the start of development.
. PageS
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (CONDITIONAL USE PERMtT/PD)
1. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed in such a manner as to eliminate glare
and illumination of the adjoining roadways and properties, in accordance with City
Ordinance Section 11-13-4.C.
2.
3.
4.
All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the
City Zoning and Development Ordinance.
All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Applicant's (or successor's) failure to comply with any of the terms of approval
of the conditional use permit shall be cause for revocation of the conditional
use permit.
OTHER AGENCY/DEPARTMENT COMMENTS/CONDITIONS
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1.
2.
3.
All Fire Department Connections (FDG) must be within 100 feet of a fire
hydrant.
Applicant shall comply with Appendix D of the International Fire Code for
access to all building walls with a height of 30 feet or greater (including
parapets). It may be necessary to increase fire iane widths to 26 feet.
Applicant shall coordinate with the Meridian Fire Department and prepare
an addressing plan for the site.
4.
All driveways located behind buildings (as depicted on the conceptual site
plan) shall be posted as "No Parking."
5.
Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian
Water Department.
6. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire
Department.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 Yo' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners.
Fire hydrants shall not have any verticai obstructions to outlets within 10'.
e.
f.
7.
All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside.
. Page 6
8.
Provide a 20' wide fire lane for all intemal and external roadways.
9.
Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation.
10. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins.
11. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical ciearance of 13'6". This includes mature
landscaping.
12. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the
Intemational Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed
an average of 300' apart.
13.
Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
14. An portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved
surface as measured around the perimeter of the building.
15. Fire Sprinklers will be required for all buildings associated with this project.
16. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes.
17. Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex.
18. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the resuit of the
development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and
efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this
installation is to be borne by the developer.
19.
No Parking signs and painted curbs will be required for an Fire Lanes. Paint the curb
red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane".
20. Please contact the Fire Marshal at 888-1234 to work specific issues associated with
this project.
SANITARY SERVICE CO. CONDITIONS
1.
SSC has no comments related to this application at this time.
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1.
Pathway and Trail standards: The proposed pathway and/or trail shall meet the standards
as set forth in the August 2003 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan, pgs. 3-2
and 3-3, sections B & C.
. Page?
2.
Standard for City to assume Maintenance of a section of Pathway: The pathway must
connect from one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership deed must
be granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of pathway.
. Page 8
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 Planning & 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 100172
are going to make them completely infeasible to build, I don't think staff is convinced
thqt 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 0172
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 comer 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 haveall received a C-G 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 C-G. 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 C-G 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 C-G 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 Pianning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 120172
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 Camp 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 130172
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
Camp 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 theComp 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 Planning & 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 Planning & 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 concem 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.
Mae: 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 C-G 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 Pianning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 170172
Zaremba: -- there is no discussion on either the rezone or the CUP. If we go a different
direction, in spite of staff's 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 fonmally 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 18of72
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.
Mae: 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 C-G. 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.
Mae: 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 Planning & 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 Camp 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 Planning & 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:
~
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho St.
Meridian, ID 83642-2300
(208) 884-5533
To Whom It May Concern:
HANSEN-RICE, INC.
1717 E. Chisholm Drive, Nampa, Idaho USA 83687
Ph. (208) 465-0200 . Fax (208) 465-0272 . www.hansen-rice.com
The Ten Mile Development site has been appropriately posted for both the City Council
hearing (for a CPA) and the.P&Z Commission hearing (forß rezone and planned development).
The text has been reviewed andapprövedby Staff, ànJ'tñêsig¡i has been postecllupdated ann
February 2nd, 2005. See the attached pictures for verification.
Thank you for your time.
Dated this
éX~
...
RECEIVED
FEa - ? 2005
Cj/;YOfM. "'d',
CIty ('1.. .'(.011 IaJ.'
,erK, £fic!!
day of ~ "'4' 20 !5 ::lJ L
(Si lure)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWO~ to before me
."'" """
""'\,~'BN AI. """"
....~ 0" ..,...... (>0 ~
.: VI.. ". ~ ~
f ~OT""Il}-"\:,
æ * I -.- : * -
- " . -
;. '.. ÞlTBL\h ¡
~ <1>".. ^ .:
~~ -r' .0-.--. ... ...v"
~~ -1~'- .,v.."
~~'" l O,P \~ ...."
",........"..,
',\"
d-\(j.-d-DJù
"Dedicated to Excellence and QuDlity"
reb.II.2005 4:53AM
No.9743
p,
/.¡ 1 ~ f'Þvf¡
2-!7-(/Ç'
,
~&7 f "6
tm:J
fIoi.<r"'_f"'~~IC_MlII!g-
RECEIVED
FEB 1 ., 2005
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
DA TF.:
Fèbruary 16,2005
TO:
RF.:
Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Meridian
Ten-Mile Development., SoB.. Corner of Pinc and Eagle
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for all of the patience that you have shown to us while working on this
project. Staff has been extremely helpful in this last month in working with us to produce
a product that will become an asset to the City in years to come. At this point in the
review process we feel that there are very few outstanding issues to resolvc, so Icts get
right to them.
Afl.eT reviewing Brad's revised staff report we have three comments regarding the
Conditions of Approval for the RezonelDA and two regarding the Site Specific
Conditions of Approval:
.
REZONE & DA CONDITIONS
.
Condition # 3, (bullet points 3,4): These conditions willlirnit the access to
Eagle Road to I access (other than Pine) and make the access right in right
out. We are CWTently in negotiations with ITD to determine what
limitations they would like to place on this section of roadway and we
would like to resolve this issue with lID as the IIighway is within their
jurisdiction. We will agree to abide by the conditions ofITD on the access
issues when they have made their determination in lieu of the bullet points
3 and 4.
We have also had discussions with Ned McCall the property owner to the
west and owner of the ConunercjaJ Court easement and be does not wish
to be impacted by having his W1Iestricted easement encll!!lbered by a
right-in-right-out access to F.agle.
.
Condition #3, (bullet point 5): The easement mentioned in this condition is
no longer an issue with the revised site plan, Please strike this condition
Condition #3, (bullet point 6): Truck routes for the deliveries to this sitc
are planned through Pine Street, per the revised plan, and not along
Conunercial Court. However, we cannot limit Ned McCall's use of his
easement to drive trucks down this road. 1 do not believe that in the future
4055 8th Street, Suite 290. Boise, Idaho 83702. 208 336 5355 . Fax 208 3362282
FEB 16 '05 17:17
PAGE. 01
Feb.!7.2005 4:53AM
No.9 7 43
p. 2
¿
any trucks will use Commercial Court due to the fact that a controlled
intersection will be located nearby and it will aid in trucks gaining access
to Eagle Road during peak AM and PM hours"
COND1110NAL USE PERMIT IT!::: SPECiFIC CONDI110NS
. Condition 2,C: This conditions relèrences phasing plans li,r this project,
and due to the conceptual and commercial nature of this project a phasing plan
has yet to be adopted. Wc suggest revising the condition to read as fonows'
"A phasing plan shall be submitted with the first detailed ConditionallJse
Permit application for this project. Revisions to the phasing plan shaH be
approved by Planning Director, or hisiher assigns if changes to the plan are
requested. "
. Condition #18: This condition requires aU improvements to be made prior
to a Certificate of Occupancy, and that just is not going to happen with a project
of this siy.e. This condition of approval needs to be modified to state something
along the lines of "An improvemenL~ associated with each future Cup or phase
shan be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupant-')'-
Other than the comments noted above we are in agreement with the modilications made
to the StalfReport We look forward to hearing from you tomOJTOW night, and hope to
make the hearing as quick and easy as possible. -
If you have any questions pleasc fccl free to contact me at 336-5355.
S~=IYj. ly, ¡fA &f-
DWKinnon
Conger Management Group
FEB 16 '05 17:17
PAGE. 02
RECEIVED
FEBt 1 1005
CityofM~
citytJ.eIlr.v......-
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
RFJCElVEn
~t.'"'
" ~nf15
9ty ofMeri":-
CIty Clerk Om:
February 17, 2005
ITEM #
7
DATE
PROJECT NUMBER
RZ 04-017
PROJECT NAME
Ten Mile Development
FOR
AGAINST NEUTRAL
v-
J