Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 March 7, 2002Meridian Planning and ZOning Meeting March 7, 2002. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, March 7, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Jerry Centers, and Leslie Mathes. Members Absent: Keven Shreeve. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Dave McKinnon, Larry Moore, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes O Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, everyone. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for March 7th. Let's begin with roll-call attendance. Commissioner Shreeve is absent. He did call me a few days ago and said he had an engagement he couldn't get out of. Commissioner Borup is here. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2001: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I-L zones For proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2001: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: I'd like to begin on Items Number 4 and 5. Item Number 4 and 5, Continued Public Hearings from December 6th. Request for annexation and zoning of 34.6 acres for Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek and Item Number 5, Continued Public Hearing, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other on the same project. I was going to mention a letter received today, but I think I will go ahead and turn that over in the report from staff. Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We have Utility Subdivision again tonight. It shows some of the highlights about this project on the overhead. You see an aerial of the site. This site is essentially encompassed by the creeks along this way. We have Ten Mile that runs north and south that borders this property and then Ustick that borders the property running east and west. There is another picture that just highlights the area in question. A few months ago we had a Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Mamh 7, 2002 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was brought before you that would have been impacted this project. The Comprehensive Plan was a text amendment change only it was not a map amendment. The text amendment that was originally approved by you, Planning and Zoning Commission, is the above text that industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to or near the City Waste Treatment Plant. You made a recommendation of approval of that to the Council. The Council did not approve the language as you suggested. The Council approved the following industrial development may be considered immediately adjacent to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is quite a change. They are saying that only those uses that are immediately adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant may be industrial. So there was a change that the Council did -- Zaremba: David, I'm sorry to interrupt, but according to the minutes of the Council meeting that statement was actually, limited light industrial development may be considered. That's a significant difference. McKinnon: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Minutes weren't available when this presentation was put together, but I appreciate that, it adds to the presentation. In addition to that, I'd like to point out that as I noted earlier, there were no map amendment changes that came along with this, it was just a text amendment. The map in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan still shows that property as being a regional park with the agricultural type designation. We have the views from different parts of the property. I will go through those rather rapidly. As you know, you all have a letter in front of you today that came from the applicant Wayne Forrey. I'll just read a couple highlights from that. It says Dear Commissioners, as a representative of Falcon Creek, LLC, the owner and developer of proposed Utility Business Park Subdivision, I am respectfully requesting that you continue the Public Hearing for our development applications at your March 7, 2002, meeting and authorize continuation of our Public Hearings to your March 21,2002, meeting agenda. He goes on to say the reasons why is to provide a new layout for this. At this time you have a Public Hearing that has been continued and is open at this time. If there are any questions of staff, I will be happy to answer any questions. I'll turn it back over to you at this time and it looks like there maybe some changes to the site plan that we have in front of us tonight and you may want to continue it. I would defer questions concerning the timing of when we can get this on the agenda again to the City Clerk's Office for notification, if there is any need for that. Are there any questions? Borup: Questions of any of the Commissioners? Okay. One question I had is -- and I think we may need to ask Mr. Forrey the extent of the proposed changes, which will determine the timing on a continuation. If they are going to such an extent that it needs to go out to the agencies again, that would determine the date to continue to. Zaremba: I would not want to speak for the applicant, but from reading the notes of the Council meeting where the discussion actually was to the draft Comprehensive Plan, but whether or not this text change should be made. It sounds like the changes are elimination of any school bus participation, moving their proposed recycling next to the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 3 substation, moving the trash collection back closer to the back corner where the sewage treatment is. That to me is a significant enough change -- we have had discussions about what's significant and what's not, but to me that would be significant enough change as to start over. Just as a warning, I will offer -- after we have heard public testimony from the people who have come -- this is a Continued Hearing from the previous meeting -- I will offer a motion to actually close the Public Hearing and not continue it. I will then offer a motion to deny this entirely and have the applicant start over. Borup: Okay. Any other comments? Zaremba: Just letting you know where I'm planning to go. Borup: If we could bring the applicant forward. Centers: Well, first of all, the text amendment was approved by City Council. That's a given. Zaremba: It was -- whoever, it was stated slightly different. Centers: I understand that, but that's done, and I would concur with your comments, Mr. Chairman, that it would be very difficult -- well, we couldn't put this on the March 21st meeting, because of the advertising to the adjacent homeowners. Our normal meeting for continued hearings is the second meeting of the month, so that the soonest that we could hear it would be April -- Borup: The advertising to the homeowners would not apply here because it's a continued hearing. Centers: Well, not according to our Legal Counsel who is sitting on my right. They have to be notified again, according to -- Borup: For a continued hearing? Moore: If you're going to make a substantial change in what's being -- Borup: Well, that's what I said. You have to determine whether we are even talking about a substantial change, which hasn't been determined yet. Zaremba: My vote is that's a substantial change. Borup: But you don't know what the change is. Oh, you mean moving a building from one lot to another? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 4 Zaremba: It sounds to me like a complete reconfiguration. I don't see any way they could remove what was three-quarters of it before the bus system and move the trash around into that location without a significant change. Borup: Well, because we are not really considering those things, we are talking about a plat. We are talking about those lines on paper is all we are looking at and that's all -- and that's all technically we have been looking at all along. They have talked about some uses on those lots and now they are talking about perhaps changing those lot configurations. Centers: Right. Borup: And they -- to inform us of what they are planning on and what uses they are planning on the lots, they have told us about the bus barn and the other, but, you know, that's a whole separate issue. Let's get Mr. Forrey up here to answer some of these questions. Zaremba: Okay. Forrey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission. My name is Wayne Forrey. My address is 701 South Allen Street in Meridian, 83642. I'm the representative of Falcon Creek, the owner of this site, and the developer. I can definitely appreciate what the Commission is discussing and I'm impressed that you have read the minutes and analyzed that. As I was sitting there, with my wife, I said to myself limited light industrial and staff said light industrial. I agree with the Commission, yes, it was limited light industrial. So thank you for picking up on those things. Let me say this, the reason we are at this point in this entire process is because the Planning and Zoning Commission asked us to do this. You asked us to reconfigure -- you said meet with the neighbors, make the changes, try, and work with the neighbors. We have met with the neighbors, we have had about six neighborhoods meetings with different groups that came up and said I want to meet with the developer or I represent my cul- de-sac, or people up and down my street have said this. We have contacted those folks and met with them and overwhelmingly people said it's -- we want the school buses out of there. When we went in front of the city at our Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, we informed on the record that we would take the school buses out of the project and make three-fourths of that site subject to Conditional Use Permit. That's what your Planning and Zoning Commission back in December asked us to do, knowing that there might be some adjustments to some lot lines to meet neighborhood concerns. You asked us to look at more buffer areas, more landscaping, to widen things and move things and we sat down and we did that. Then we ended up at the City Council for a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that the Commission asked us to do. The City Council acted upon that, changed the wording to limited light directly near. We made the adjustment of moving the Sanitary Services site directly adjacent to the Waste Treatment Plant to comply with -- because the discussion was how do you define near and so we moved away from the meaning of near to adjacent. The proposed Western Recycling site and the Sanitary Services site would be directly adjacent to the city Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 5 property of the Waste Treatment Plant. The school bus site, all of the frontage along Ten Mile, all of the frontage along Ustick and basically three-fourths of this site would be subject to Conditional Use Permit. Our road layout has really not changed. A few lot lines will change. Borup: So you're still looking at the same access points? Forrey: Yes. Those access points have been pre-approved by ACHD and we would not be amending those access points. We have an Architectural Firm and an Engineering Firm both working on the site plan of Sanitary Services and Western Recycling. Again, your Commission many times has said to people show us what you want to do on the site, don't just do a bubble map where we think we are going have this kind of development on that lot. You wanted to see -- and so do the neighbors and we committed to do that. That's why I'm hoping we could continue this Public Hearing to give the Architectural Firm and the engineers enough time so that we can come to you with a very good drawing and show you exactly the distances from home, the buffer strips, the heights, the lines of those buildings, where the drainage will occur, all of those items. I understand that you normally continue your hearings to the second meeting in the month, so I'm agreeable to the second meeting in April. That gives us plenty of time to get all of that technical data together for a good -- and I also committed to meet with the neighbors when I had those drawings completed so that we can accomplish that as well. We have got a good working relationship with some neighbor groups and they said before you go to P&Z we want to see your site plan and so we'd like that chance to do that as well. I'm hoping you will continue this to the second meeting in April. Borup: In April? Forrey: In April. It sounds like March is too soon, the second meeting in March. Borup: Well, it would be too soon to give notice to the agencies. Forrey: Yes. Borup: And that's why I was wondering. Are you anticipating doing some plat adjustments? Forrey: I expect some internal lot lines, but no access changes. We are adding some landscape lots and landscape buffers. Again, that came out of direction from the Planning and Zoning and our neighbors. Centers: You mentioned a small little park area in your letter. Forrey: One of the neighborhood groups - Centers: Which site was that? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 6 Forrey: Can I point to it? Centers: Sure. Please do. Forrey: One of the neighborhood groups we met with asked us to consider -- one of the neighborhood groups we met with asked us to consider a natural park area. They used the term like Kathryn Albertson Park, a natural area, because we have two -- there are two creeks, Nine Mile Creek and Five Mile Creek come together here and this is a very natural area. The neighbors said could you consider taking a portion of this back of the property and making that into a natural area park and we said we would consider that. We are still evaluating. Centers: Okay if you did go with that, about how many -- about an acre? How many square feet? Forrey: Well, I don't know yet, Commissioner. Centers: Okay. Forrey: But we do have the opportunity for pathways here and pathways here and plus there is just a lot of public -- well, it's not public, it's owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. Former Bureau of Reclamation, it has been transferred to Nampa-lrrigation District, and we still need to meet with them to see their feeling about having a natural area near the intersection of two drains or creeks. There is some agency coordination. We are working on that. We can't have that ready, you know, maybe for -- if we have a '1 O-day -- Centers: Would you have it ready by the second meeting in April? Forrey: Oh, yes. Definitely. Centers: Well, I think that's good timing. Forrey: Yes. I mean we can work the best we can and we will be ready by then. If you require 10 days prior to the next hearing, if it's April 21st, 10 days prior to that, Monday, we won't be ready by Monday of next week. Borup: That was normally the time frame just for staff to do their review. Forrey: I understand that. The second meeting in April, that would be workable for us, and I believe the neighbors as well. Centers: Well, just a comment while I think of it, Mr. Chairman, in regards to your comment, Commissioner Zaremba. You know, this developer and landowner have been working on this project for many months. We first heard it in December. I'm very Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 7 anxious to get going with it, as they are, and let's hear it again the second meeting in April. You know, I wouldn't support having them start over and I think all the homeowners and the ones that are here tonight are going to go back and tell whomever. Then they will be re-notified, by the way, and have their chance again that night to say their peace. Zaremba: I certainly want to be flexible and I'm happy and ready to listen. My concern was we have already asked the public to come a couple of times and both wanting to give the applicant and the public time to mull this over and get back to us. If you're not stuck on March 21st and April 21st is the time that we are aiming for, then I'm not so concerned about-- Forrey: 18th. Zaremba: -- killing it and having them start over. Forrey: Thank you. Thank you very much. Is it the 18th? Centers: 18th, Forrey: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Any other comments or questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I would ask one question and I guess this is in reference to the trash trucks coming and going. As Meridian grows, we assume -- let's say the population doubles in the next 15, 20 years. You're probably not only doubling the number of trash trucks, but because the perimeter of the city grows, the distance gets bigger and the transportation issue comes in, you're probability more than doubling the trash trucks just to cover double. There are probably 14 now, so we are looking at 30 trucks, which probably make two or three trips in and out of there a day, that's still a lot of vehicles in and out and I realize that the facility itself is moving back, but the driveways are still right next to the residential. Does each truck come a couple times a day to unload or do they just make one trip out and one trip back? Forrey: That I don't know, Commissioner. Steve Sedlacek is the owner-operator of Sanitary Services and I will get that exact information for you. Not only current, but projected, exact number of the usage of each truck, the number of in and out trips and the impact on that driveway. Zaremba: I am concerned about the number of trips with heavy trucks. Forrey: Okay. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 8 Zaremba: You may already know this, but let me just make this comment for the general public. The trash group in another meeting -- I'm sorry, I don't know -- their initials are SSI -- in another meeting has mentioned that they are, for at least the next couple of years, going to operate their trucks on a certain portion of alternate fuels, which -- Forrey: Yes. Zaremba: -- which benefits the city in a way that they -- each truck will be offering less pollution. That doesn't solve noise problems, but this is a group that's trained to help the city. They are under contract to the city and they are trying to help the city solve some of our problems, one of them is pollution, by going to this alternate fuel. So we know they have to land somewhere. Forrey: Right. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Forrey, if that's okay. Borup: You bet. McKinnon: Wayne, the number of lots -- are you guys going to be modifying the number of lots significantly? Forrey: Well, I believe so, because the school site was one lot, 17 acres. McKinnon: Okay. Forrey: And I think now we will end up probably with three or four lots taking that space. But the access points would remain the same. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple follow-up questions if that's okay. If you will refer to the map up there, you have a cul-de-sac that pulls in right here. Forrey: Yes. McKinnon: In order to break that up, that cul-de-sac's orientation is going to change, I'm assuming, if we are going to break that up. Borup: Extend it down? McKinnon: It will be extended either down or further into the lot. Borup: That's what I meant. Are you anticipating that? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 9 Forrey: Yes. I don't know the exact dimension. That's what Hubble Engineering and Lynn Brown, the architect, are working on. I think it's in the magnitude of maybe 100 feet, 150 feet extension. McKinnon: Okay. Forrey: But still at that location and in that configuration, just a little deeper into the property. McKinnon: An additional question. The traffic impact study that you submitted was based heavily upon the bus parking lot being in that location. Are you going to submit a revised study at that time? Forrey: No. We asked ACHD about that and they said no. Everything that we would propose in there would be probably less of an impact than the school buses, so the school bus actually kind of a worst case scenario. They felt, if anything, it might actually improve or have less traffic. McKinnon: Do you have something in writing from ACHD or could you provide something from ACHD in writing? Forrey: Yes. I will do that. McKinnon: An additional question or two if I may. Trying to formulate how to ask the question. You said that you would allow Conditional Use Permits on all of the properties that would be south of the S$C and the recycling cente~ Forrey: Yes. That's our concept. McKinnon: Are you proposing any changes to the requested zoning designation? Are you still requesting I-L for those locations or are you changing the zoning to designation? Forrey: At this point I don't know. I would want to work with staff about the mechanics, but the direction we had from the Planning Commission in December was have Conditional Use with a Development Agreement and we are now saying that is good, we will do that. McKinnon: My concern stems from the fact that we noticed this as I-L for the entire neighborhood, rather than commercial or some other type of use. I just want to make sure that that is addressed and that the number of lots is not something that the Commission is going to be concerned with by noticing seven lots with one other lot and changing that to 15 lots with a separate zoning designation. I just wanted to make clear that we are talking about a number of different lots, a different traffic study and I mean -- and possibly a park in the back and a follow-up question to that is if we do have a park Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Mamh 7, 2002 Page 10 it's in the far back comer. Providing parking for that park, is that going to be part of the proposal that you're going to come forward with? Forrey: I guess we will have to cross that bridge on April 18th. McKinnon: Okay. Forrey: Those were things that are all under consideration and so if you will just, I guess, give us time to continue to meet with staff, work with the neighbors, do the architect and engineering and then we will have something we can all pick apart. Borup: I think one of the concerns of Mr. McKinnon was if you're talking about a zoning change, it will probably need to be re-noticed. Is that where you were going, David? McKinnon: I have concerns about that, but if he noticed it and sent out notices -- Borup: Even if it's a down zoning, but still a zoning change. McKinnon: The use is going to be different. You know, when the uses came out originally that 17 acres was, obviously, going to be used for the bus parking lot. If a retail use was to go in that place, the impact of the amount of vehicle traffic could be very similar. We wouldn't have the large vehicles, we could have a different type of vehicle traffic and more vehicle trips based on the retail types of uses that could go in there. If the zoning is different, retail is not allowed in an I-L zone right now, but if the zoning is different it could be a significant change. In addition to that, a lot of people received notification within the 300-foot radius notice that's required by State Code, that this was going to be an I-L zone piece of property. To change that significant -- to change that it may a significant change and I, you know, would defer to our attorney for some additional Legal Counsel on that. I have my own hesitancy to say that that's not a significant change. Borup: Is that what the word is, a significant change or just a change? Moore: Significant change. McKinnon: Significant change. Borup: To zoning? Moore; Yes. Borup: Okay. I guess I was --just any change, but -- so some people may be disappointed the bus barn is leaving and the office and retail may go in? McKinnon: I wouldn't say that, but it's a change. It really is. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 11 Borup: No. I was being facetious. McKinnon: Yes. Sorry. Centers: You're sticking with the I-L zone? Forrey: At this point, yes. Borup: With the Conditional Use on the other -- Forrey: That's correct and Development Agreements. Borup: You're not looking at mixed used or something else? Centers: With a few more lots, possibly? Forrey: Yes. That's correct. Although the industrial zone does allow for some business uses and so -- Centers: Of course we have a Development Agreement with the CUP. There you go. We will see each lot as it comes out. Forrey: That's correct. Centers: And the neighbors may be here each time if there are certain types of uses that are objectionable. Forrey: Yes. Centers: So I think they are very well protected. Forrey: The Commission asked for that, the Council said yes, we said yes, that's all in the minutes and it allows us to work together to try and do something that's workable on that site. Centers: Right. Forrey: The bus didn't work let's try something else. Centers: I think that was obvious the first night. If I could say in addition, Mr. Forrey, I appreciate your time again tonight and I don't want to steal any thunder, but we are going to hear this at a lengthy meeting probably on April 18th. Of course, we do have a Public Hearing right now and the public that came to testify, we are certainly quite willing to listen. However, if you want to save your comments until April 18th and regroup, we will be here then. I mean it would be repetitive if you came up tonight then at that time, too, but don't let me stop you from coming up if that's the case. Thank you. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 12 Borup: Thank you, Mr. Forrey. I would assume that probably staff may want to look at the application and decide what would need to happen at that time, would that be -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Forrey, I just have one comment and it's tied to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We are dealing with limited light industrial uses that would be allowed immediately adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. It would not allow for the rest of that project, according to the Comprehensive Plan if it were followed, the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, the rest of that property would not be allowed to be develop in an I-L, a light industrial -- a limited light industrial way, just the area immediately adjacent. I think we may be looking at a zone change. Forrey: That could happen after the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. McKinnon: Actually, the text amendment was to the 1993. Forrey: Yes but I mean the new -- the proposed may solve that problem. McKinnon: It may. Forrey: It may. Borup: So, Mr. Forrey, was that your interpretation of the intent of the motion was that limited light industrial -- when we talk about adjacent to -- Forrey: Yes. Borup: -- it was talking about the legal parcel adjacent to and not the whole project adjacent to? Forrey: No. No. The use adjacent to. We made that clear with the City Council. Borup: Okay. Forrey: The buffer-- Borup: I thought the motion was a little ambiguous on that meaning, at least to me, whether it meant that -- well, if that's the case, then it does need a zoning change, doesn't it, at this point? Forrey: Well, it may not help Sanitary Services and Western Recycling get moving forward and that's been our objective. Those folks need space in this community. The rest of it could be dealt with maybe years down the road when the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 13 Borup: Years down the read? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I got lost in that last discussion. Are we saying that this entire property may not be zoned the same? Borup: Well, that's the interpretation of the City Council motion, that the light industrial only be allowed immediately adjacent to the Wastewater Plant, so unless they made that one big lot, the only lot that could be light industrial would be the northern lot. Zaremba: That means the properties that bound Ustick and Ten Mile would be some other zoning? Forrey: Or a Development Agreement with a limit to what could or could not occur on that ground. Zaremba: All right. Borup: Mr. Forrey that may be the other thing. I'm thinking about a Development Agreement and limited uses. If there is some specific ones, rather than us stating what we feel would be appropriate, I think I'd rather see you come with a list -- Forrey: Come forward with -- yes. Borup: It's a lot easier for us to cross things off, than to add our own. Forrey: I agree. We will. We will be prepared for that. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. I might just mention, then, in light -- and I agree with what Commissioner Centers said, but anyone that is here tonight we do want to open it up, keeping in mind that the plat is going to change. We do not want any testimony on that. It would really be meaningless at this point. The only item that would be appropriate is if anyone has any comment that they would like to make on the zoning itself that would be at this time the only issue that's before us is the issue of I-L, light industrial zone. Comments on uses is not really before us at this point either. At this point, we'd like to open it up or invite any public to come forward on that one issue. Mr. Crane. Crane: My name is Charles Cane. I live at 3610 West Ustick Road. I'm the neighbor on the other side of Nine Mile Drain, the little triangle property there. This is my backyard that we are talking about turning into an industrial zone. The neighborhood meetings that we were speaking about, I wasn't involved in those. The hundred neighbors that I have talked to weren't involved in those. I would like to have a little more involvement in those meetings if they are going on. I would actually like to see this application denied and put a stop to. I would like Mr. Forrey and the developers to actually have meetings with the neighbors -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 14 Borup: Could you address this to the zoning issue, please? Crane: For the industrial zoning? Borup: Yes. Crane: I believe a less intense zoning use would be appropriate, because it's near the people's homes where children and families are and that the Comprehensive Plan would preclude the south area of this from being industrial at all. Even with the text amendment, the property that is immediately adjacent to the Waste Treatment Plant is the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation ditch. This property is the next property passed that. I think by definition this is not immediately adjacent, because the other property is immediately adjacent and this is on the other side of Nampa-Meridian's property. Borup: You're saying Nampa-Meridian is a separate deeded parcel? Crane: Yes. The Five Mile Creek, I believe. Borup: Who owns that? They do? Crane: Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. I believe it is separate property. It's not just an easement. Centers: Mr. Crane, when you said a less intense zone, what zone would you think would be more appropriate? Crane: I think that mixed use that was suggested to City Council by 100 people at the meeting. Centers: Which would allow offices, which would allow retail, restaurants, a number of uses all with a mixed use right? Crane: With a Conditional Use Permit. Centers: So you do agree that it's not residential type land? Crane: Actually, my house is right there and I plan on building another house-- Centers: As far as the large parcel. You know, I realize -- Crane: The entire parcel, no. Centers: Yes. It would be very difficult to sell that to a developer for the development if single family homes, which is the problem everyone is facing, so -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 15 Crane: I believe a planned project that has mixed uses would be appropriate. I don't believe a 35-acre industrial park in the middle of a residential neighbor is a right use for that property. I believe a mixed use with mixed uses, some residential, some businesses, some commercial would be appropriate, but I believe the neighborhood would be very interested in being involved in that project. I, myself, was - Centers: Now are you speaking for the neighborhood when you quote the mixed uses, retail, and everything or are you speaking for yoursel~ Crane: I'm speaking for the neighborhood. At the City Council meeting they went on record that there were some uses that they would be willing to -- Centers: Okay. All right. Well, I guess we will hear for sure on April 18th, so -- Crane: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions of Mr. Crane? Zaremba: I was just going to suggest that you give your phone number to Mr. Forrey, who I believe has contacted the Homeowners Association presidents or somehow. He appears to be quite willing to talk to people, so -- Crane: I would like to see some names. I hear the neighborhood supports them but the 300 people on the petition that was given to City Council in opposition to this they didn't support this. The 100 people at the meeting didn't support this. I would like to know who are these neighborhood meetings with if all these people from the neighborhood are here opposed to it? I would like to have them come to a meeting and say they are for this or they are -- Centers: I don't think he said they were for it, Mr. Crane. They were making suggestions if you did this, this is what we'd like to see. Could you leave some of this natural and/or, you know, that type of thing. I don't think he said that he had neighbors that were for it. He didn't say that. He had people that were making suggestions and would like to see extra buffers, extra landscaping, if it were ever approved. I don't know -- I don't think he made that comment. Crane: And what I'm saying, the neighborhood actually would be for development. I have never talked to anybody that opposes development. It just needs to be something that fits with our neighborhood. We would like to actually work with him, if he will work with us, and we'd like to be on record that the neighborhood supported the project. Actually, I would like to see this one -- this industrial zoning refused and to come back with the support of the neighborhood with a planned mixed use for this area. Zaremba: If we were to act on the issue of annexation and zoning tonight, you would be in favor of annexation with a multiple use? Borup: Crane: Borup: only? Crane: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 16 Crane: And Conditional Use Permits. Zaremba: And Conditional Use Permits. Development agreements. Crane: Right. Yes. I would personally. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: One other question, Mr. Crane. From what you said earlier, it sounds like you were telling us that you felt the motion from the City Council that their intent was that the industrial zone was going to be in Five Mile Creek, that was their intent to zone Five Mile Creek light industrial? Crane: Well, what they stated was immediately adjacent to the Waste Treatment Plant. Borup: Right. So you're saying you think that's what they meant? Crane: Well, they wanted to severely restrict -- Right. -- the industrial but they also -- not just the south side, but -- When they said immediately adjacent, you think they meant just down the ditch I'm not sure what their meaning is. You would have to check with them. What they stated was -- Borup: Thank you. I just wanted to see how forthright you would be. Crane: But they also -- they were considering the property north and east and west of the treatment plant, not just this property, at the City Council meeting. They were affecting people all around the Water Treatment Plant with that amendment so they did want to limit it very tightly to that. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Anything else you wanted to mention? Crane: That's all for now. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Henning: Good evening, Members of the Commission. My name is Sharon Henning and I live at 2696 North Morello, which is -- well, it's kind of to the south and east of Candlelight Subdivision. I'm off Ten Mile, but it's pretty close to what's happening. First Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 17 of all, I just wanted to formally have the testimony that I have given concerning this situation -- and I believe I gave testimony -- I'm not exactly sure on all the dates, but I suppose that's on record. I just wanted to formally just go on record that I still want to bring forth those ideas. The other thing is, is that I need some public clarification, because as you well know, there was kind of a problem with that original map, in the map with the floating dots. That caused quite a bit of confusion and I will have to be honest with you, from this new proposed map when it says that they wanted a change -- to change industrial to a public park, office, or residential, staff agrees with the mixed use designation. My interpretation is that the mix would be public park, office, and residential, but mixed use opens that up to a much larger scope in terms of that development. I don't consider myself to be an ignorant person, but being kind of new to this whole process, I don't know if that needs to somehow be reworded or stated in such a way that there isn't a misunderstanding. If I were to go on just the colors here, I would envision that entire parcel to somehow be developed very conservatively with residential office space and a lot of open green area. Centers: Are you talking about the 2000 Comprehensive Plan that's being proposed? Henning: Yes. Centers: Okay. Borup: You realize that is just a suggestion that someone made for that location? Henning: Yes, I'm aware of that. Centers: You don't have the colored map, Mrs. Henning. Yes. The color designations and, of course, Mr. McKinnon will address your questions. Henning: I understand. Okay. Thank you very much. Centers: Without a doubt. Henning: Thank you very much. Again, I wanted to say that I did receive a phone call from Mr. Forrey previous to the February 19th meeting. It was the week before, suggesting that we try and meet and I was basically only given two days to try and contact all of the people that I represent for a meeting that was going take place on an evening that was only convenient for the developer. Since then, I have not heard from Mr. Forrey and I also represent my entire neighborhood, which I had gone around too personally and talked with and got signatures. I would just like to say that I, too, am concerned what neighborhoods have been actually involved in these discussions concerning how the neighbors would appreciate having this parcel developed. I believe that he does have my number and I would appreciate being included in that. I need to say a couple of things -- and this goes back to a presentation made by staff, that they did not believe that the requested rezoning I-L was not in compliance with the adopted general plan. I also believe that in the development of this parcel, in order to stay within Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 18 the design that Meridian as a city has put in place by its ordinances to protect its neighborhoods, it clearly states that the kinds of uses that are going to go into this area cannot be hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future neighborhood uses. With the new North Meridian Development Plan that whole area is going to be surrounded by residential. I look forward to the meeting in April. I don't want to, you know, try this into the ground, but I do want to say to you there is still quite a bit of concern about how this actually is going to take place. I know that I can honestly say that at the last City Council meeting, in all the discussion that was said, I know of two Council members and I believe there was even a third who said in public that they -- their hope was that that could be a park. Now, obviously, that was said in discussion in terms of what I guess everybody would wish could be there, but if that desire exists in someone's mind and they are willing to, in their capacity as a governing body of the City of Meridian, if they are willing to wish that themselves, I guess I hold onto that wish. How we need to make that happen I don't know, but I think there still needs to be a lot of work done. I thank you for letting me just sort of bare my sole and let you know that there are still a large number of people who feel very passionately about this development and I just you will have to see our faces a lot more in the future. Thank you very much. Do you have any questions? Centers: Mrs. Henning, I think staff was going to address the 2000 Comp Plan for you. Henning: Okay. Centers: So if you want to just hang out there. Henning: Right here? Zaremba: While he's getting ready I would only comment -- and this is actually for everybody and many of us wish there were many more parks all over the place. This location would be a nice one as well. One of the things the public can do, since funding is very short is if you feel there is specific place where there must be a park, is get together a bunch of neighbors and do some fund raising and figure out how to buy the piece of property. That would help the city as well. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could address -- the map that I have got up on the easel right now is the map that you made a recommendation on a few months back. I believe it was in December that you made a recommendation to the Council. The map that Mrs. Henning has in front of you tonight that she showed you are recommended changes to the map that you adopted. Staff has flip-flopped on that being industrial, that entire area, we are now recommending that that go to mixed use, not industrial as you recommended back in December. The staff has made a change from what you have already recommended approval to for the Council. This is a map that was generated after you made the recommendation for approval of that to be industrially zoned. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Mamh 7, 2002 Page 19 Borup: I'd like to point out when you say our recommendation, at the regional hearing I don't think that was discussed. I believe that was put on as a staff recommendation maybe frem -- maybe frem some input, but I don't remember any testimony at all relating to that parcel. Centers: I don't either. Not at the meeting -- Borup: So that was a proposal that was put on them, somebody requested it, no one was in opposition to it, that was why it was on the map as part of our recommendation. Centers: Right. McKinnon: You're correct that back in the December meeting that you guys made the recommendation, I believe, and then Commissioner Nary made a point of saying that nobody came to testify in opposition of that prior to that meeting in December. Centers: If it was changed from industrial to mixed use, that was -- as you said, your change, and we had no testimony to do whatever with it, as we did with a number of other parcels and pieces of property -- McKinnon: That would be correct. Centers: But I think she wanted an explanation of mixed use. McKinnon: Mixed use is a -- is a Comprehensive Plan land use designation, it is not a zoning designation. If you were to look threugh our entire Zoning Ordinance, there is no definition of what a mixed use zone is, because they do not exist. The schedule of use contrel does not have anything listed under mixed-use zone, so you would have to look in an underlying zone, what would the actual zone be. Is it C-C, is it commercial neighborhood, or is it commercial business district. High density residential, other types of uses could all be in there with an underlying zone. The one thing that our Zoning Ordinance does rely upon with a mixed use is a statement that -- let me grab my codebook really quick and read it to you. It says essentially that anything that's in a mixed-use zone on the Comprehensive Plan map has to be developed as a Conditional Use Permit. Centers: Right. I remember that. McKinnon: So the same recommendation that came to you frem the original Utility Subdivision saying everything should be require a Conditional Use Permit, would then become mandatory with the adoption of that becoming mixed use. It would come to be that everything would be a Conditional Use in that zone. Whether you adopt it that way or the new map gets adopted, any use in there would have to go through a Conditional Use Permit. So it's still in line with the original recommendation frem staff on the original Utility Subdivision. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 20 Centers: Does that answer your question, Mrs. Henning? Henning: Yes, it does and -- it does. Very, very helpful and I guess I need to also understand the relationship with this to what you -- what you were working with as well. Zaremba: I think that's part of the reason that there is a series of Public Hearings. There are Public Hearings in front of this Commission and we pass that onto the City Council, who makes the final decision after they have their own Public Hearings. I think it's perfectly legitimate for us to have recommended a general plan to be forwarded to the City Council and for staff to have rethought some of the issues and said, well, maybe this needs to be different. To me that's not a significant enough change in the overall plan that they should have brought it back to us for more hearings, considering that it would already have hearings before the City Council. The fact that -- actually, this happened before I was on the Commission, but the fact that the Commission recommended forwarding something to the City Council that has a minor change, albeit in the exact area that we are currently looking at, is really part of the process, because, again, it goes to hearings before the City Council. Henning: May I add just one more thing? I know that Commissioner Borup was commenting at an earlier meeting that where we were during the other parts of this plan. I'm not trying to make excuses or anything, but for any of us who are relatively new to the area and were still looking at the earlier map, to be honest with you, there was a point of ignorance, I suppose, where we didn't even realize, you know, what was actually taking place. I don't know if it has to reach critical mass before people finally realize what's going on, but I just do want to say in defense of a lot of people, we seriously just didn't realize what was happening. Obviously, by trying to continue to stay current, which is still not easy to do, because I barely knew about this meeting tonight, that it is kind of tricky to try and stay up with all of this. We appreciate your patients and consideration of what we are asking. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come on up. Stevenson: Hello. Shane Stevenson at 6040 North Ten Mile Road. I'm the first one to admit I'm not really sure how all this stuff works, but I have been paying quite a bit of attention to this, since I do live just north of it. My grandparents live right across the street. I'm sure you have heard this several times before, but I just would like to go on record saying that I really think that putting an industrial park right here is a mistake and there is a lot better things, like a mixed use, that would be good thing to put here. Industrial use -- I'm just still in high school, but from what I have seen it's quite obvious there is still a lot of land out and available for industrial use. Why just -- I don't know why we wouldn't use that up first, instead of moving out further into out near the country? We have lived out here and -- we have lived out that way just because we kind of like being away from people. I feel that if it's industrial it would be bringing a lot more traffic and a lot more people around our -- down Ten Mile and down Ustick and I just don't think that we are quite ready for that. If we could move this industrial -- have this industrial stuff in an area that's already designed industrial, then it might be a lot Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 21 better for everybody. I understand the land might be worth more, but I certainly think that this is a bad place. I travel down Ten Mile Road every day to school and I know that the road is pretty beat up. I know that there would be changes made, but still I think that this -- from what I have heard, this industrial use and what has been planned for here, I think that's too big of -- too much big equipment traveling down that road, especially for the road right now. I don't know how that would work and it's getting more in the mornings when I travel up Chinden Boulevard, it can be backed up clear from Linder to Ten Mile. This industrial use -- I do not think this is a -- I just don't think it's the right place. There are places in town that are set up for this and they are already industrial use land, same type of roads and traffic is coordinated with it so I'd just like to go on record for saying that I think this is great for mixed use, rather than industrial. Do you have any questions? Borup: Thank you. Any final comments from any Commissioners? There is one thing I would be interested in and I don't know if we have a good definition of -- on the schedule of use control, the definition of Sanitary Service's business and I, for one, would be interested to know what that definition -- you know, the -- Zaremba: There is not a definition I don't find in the -- Borup: Well, maybe not a definition, but does it fit -- where would it fit in the discussion? Zaremba: In Chapter 7. If you look in Chapter 8 -- and I think you are looking -- there is a listing of waste transfer and recycling, both of which are permitted uses in an industrial zone. The difficulty that gives me is back in Chapter 7 there is a definition for light industrial. There is no definition for industrial. The only industrial zone we show in Chapter 7 is light industrial. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, you're actually right on. We don't have any other definition for industrial, other than light industrial. In the past there has been discussion about breaking out between heavy industrial and light industrial, but as of right now we only have one zoning designation for industrial uses, which is the light industrial definition. If you were to read that definition and apply it directly to this application, this application wouldn't work under the light industrial definition. The light industrial definition includes language stating that almost all of the businesses be enclosed entirely by a building. Zaremba: And be quiet and odorless. McKinnon: And be quiet and odorless and it doesn't apply to what they are actually requesting up there. We have to look at the schedule of use control for some additional guidance. In the schedule of use control we have, like we mentioned, the solid waste transfer station and we have recycling centers as permitted uses. Those uses are permitted uses in the light industrial zone. I think they were placed there, because we have no other zoning designation where they would apply. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 22 Zaremba: Those appear to me to be heavy industrial uses and, again, the difficulty is we don't have a definition for that in Chapter 7, but Chapter 8 all look like heavy industrial things to me. McKinnon: And, like I said, that's a problem with our code. We do not have it broken down to separate zoning designations for industrial, light industrial. We have three different zoning designations for commercial, plus an Old Town for commercial, plus a limited office for commercial. We have one definition for industrial, it's the light industrial definition in Chapter 7, and it would preclude by strict definition many of the uses listed in the schedule use of control. Centers: Dave, I think you owe the public -- you know, mixed use, as you appropriately stated, is not a zone. I think you could name the zones that would be applicable to mixed use and I think you should call those out, if you could. McKinnon: We have a mixed-use application currently before us in an R-4 zone. We have mixed use applications that have been before you just recently as last month with an R-8 zone. We have limited office uses that are also L-O zone, the C-N zone, the C- C zone, and the RSC zone. By definition we have planned developments which are what we are required to do with mixed uses in our zoning amendment, which you recently passed for planned development which say in which zone each different type of planned development. Essentially every zone could come in and say we'd like to have a planned development for this. I have got a copy of it -- Centers: Right. That was my point. Most zones are applicable to the mixed use. McKinnon: Absolutely. Centers: Okay. So I didn't want the public to be misinformed that with mixed use you are eliminating this type of project. Okay. McKinnon: In fact, planned developments in mixed-use zones are a Conditional Use by our code. Zaremba: Do you I understand correctly that it does overlay the requirement for Conditional Use Permit, the things that might otherwise not require it? McKinnon: That is correct. Borup: Okay. Anything else that the Commissioners would like any information on? Centers: No. Borup: Do we have a motion for a continuation? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Mamh 7, 2002 Page 23 Centers: Yes. I'd like move that we continue both Public Hearings, Mr. Chairman, Item Number 4, AZ 01-015, and Item Number 5, PP 01-017. I would like to move that we continue those Public Hearings to April 18th and with the notation, my understanding that both will be rs-advertised and rs-mailed again. Borup: Not on a continuation they wouldn't. Centers: Because of the substantial change to the plat. Wasn't that the -- Zaremba: And a possible change to the zoning request. Centers: I would like to see a rs-notification. Moore: Commissioner -- or Chairman Borup, Commissioners, it's certainly up to this body to determine whether that is a substantial change or not. If you want a legal opinion, it is a substantial change and it would require re-notification. Centers: So that remains -- Borup: So that's in your motion for it to be rs-notified. Centers: Right. Zaremba: I will second it. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a point of clarification. Commissioner Centers, as part of the re-notification, do we want to set a time frame as to when the new applications -- not new application, but the new information that's submitted to us, so that we can send the information out to everybody? The standard 10 days will not apply to this, because we need to have it beforehand in case it does need to go out to the additional jurisdictions. Borup: Well, you need mots than that for notification. McKinnon: Yes. We need that for notification. We can't have 10 days. Borup: What would be your time frame? McKinnon: Sharon? Smith: And, once again, I would need to ask Mr. Forrey how soon he thinks we can see this information. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 24 Borup: Well, I think you just need to tell him how many days you need and then that's their deadline. Smith: I need at least 14 working days. So I mean we would be looking at April 4th -- McKinnon: Sharon, is that to include the additional notification, having it done prior to the meeting, having notifications send out? Smith: We can send notifications out. McKinnon: Okay. We need all of the information. Smith: Right but the information could come in. McKinnon: Will that give other agencies enough time to respond back to us? Smith: If I have them in my office on April 4th and can get it out of there on April 5th -- we did it on -- I believe El Dorado. I mean that would be really cutting it close, but again J-- McKinnon: On El Dorado we didn't re-notice, though, did we? Smith: No but we had to send out a new transmittal. I'm just trying to respect the time frame that he is dealing with, too; in that. April 4th would be really cutting it close. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Borup: The only thing, if it's not in by -- what day is April 4th? That's a Wednesday -- or a Thursday it looks like. Why don't we say April 3rd by 5:00? If it's not in by then it will just be taken off the agenda, is that -- Centers: Absolutely. That would be my recommendation. Exactly. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Centers: Yes. That would be rPdart of the motion that any changes would have to be to the City Clerk's office by April 3 at 5:00 p.m. for notification purposes. Borup: Does the second -- Zaremba: Second accepts the amendment. Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor?. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES