Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 15, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15.2006 Page 18 of 39 Borup: You're dOing fine. You're doing fine. Mae: Okay. Okay. It has -. okay. All those in favor -- AZ 06-0 -- sorry. AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, with all staff conditions for the hearing date of June 15th signify by saying aye. All those opposed same sign? Borup: Aye. And my opposition is basically just on one area. I'd like to see more 80 foot frontage lots. Mae: Okay. Thank you. Okay. It has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, with the conditions as the city staff comments. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, just for the record, it was moved, seconded, and approved with one person in the negative. Mae: Yes, sir. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: Mae: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024 for the request for annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat approval for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Incorporated. And I will open it with the staff report, please. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications before you include an annexation and zoning request for 95.57 acres. It's currently in the county today. And there are two zones being requested. 93.89 acres is requested for an R-8, which is a medium density residential district and 1.68 acres for the limited office district. The site is located on -- you can see it there. The scale is not the greatest. It has frontage on Black Cat Road, as well as Franklin, with primarily most of the frontage being along Franklin Road. It does go a quarter mile east -- excuse me -- a quarter mile to the west of Ten Mile Road. And, again, has frontage on Black Cat Road. There is a vicinity map with the proposed subdivision, overlayed within. To give you some more -- Silver Oak Subdivision, which final platted as Umbria, which you probably Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 19 of 39 didn't even know that, but Silver Oaks Subdivision, which is a multi-family development, there is a day care, I think, an office lot or two right near Franklin Road is here. And the subject plat is proposing to align a roadway -- this looks like the old plat is what's in the system. There is a roadway that aligns with the public street into Silver Oaks Subdivision, so I will get off that slide, since it's outdated. And -- let me just make sure we got -- yeah, this is the good one. Okay. So, here is the office lot that they are proposing and, then, everything else would be the R-8 zoning. There are 406 single family residential lots and the one office lot and, then, 23 common lots. I'm going to point out a couple of the common lots. The largest portion of the open space, besides the open space that's along the Perdham Drain and the multi-use pathway that also runs long the Perdham, is this lot here and this lot has a park with open space, a clubhouse, a pool, those types of amenities. So, really, it's going to be neighborhood park in this area. It shows up a little bit better, I guess, on the landscape plan, too, as some of the amenities and some of the tree-lined streets that the applicant is proposing. Speaking of streets, there is a collector roadway that's proposed, again, to align with the access in Silver Oaks, comes down and it's a full street section to the southern boundary of the office lot and, then, it's two-thirds of a street or their portion with the adjacent property finishing off this roadway when they develop in the future. There is no front-on housing in this -- along this collector roadway. That access -- and, then, there is one more access to Franklin Road, basically at the other side of the development, and, then, they do also have one public street access out to Black Cat located right here. I think I'm going to stop with the staff presentation. There was -- and just get to the main issue, I guess, with the plat. In the staff report there -- there is an issue, I guess, with this being designated medium density residential on everything to the west here. Basically west of the Perdham, also it runs north-south on the future land use map. And, then, it being mixed use on the eastern side of the plat. Staff has some concerns with approving the whole development, being that we are just underway with a consultant and trying to study what is the highest and best use in this area after the interchange goes in and that includes roadways and land uses and transitioning those uses to one another. Everyone kind of has a different opinion on what may work best, but until the Public Hearing process really gets going and all the stake holders get involved and something gets proposed, it's a little bit tough to -- for me, anyways, to try to envision how this area will completely develop. And, again, the concern is that you're setting a precedent in this area by approving single family residential throughout this development. The next guy in, really, is at a disadvantage to have to try to work around that constraint if they don't do the same thing. And I guess the thought throughout the office is -- or at least some of my coworkers in the office is that this is going to be a higher intense use, retail, office, maybe even some industrial as you get at the interstate, possibly. So, again, until that gets determined, in the staff report it asks for 18 months for the city to work with that consultant and, then, adopt a specific area plan for this area, so we can determine if -- whether or not medium density does work in this area for this project or not. And it very well may. Again, it was just something to -- we are aSking for a little more time. Since that staff report came out we did meet with the applicant -- I believe it was Tuesday and Anna, myself, Kent from Bailey Engineering was there, and Matt Schultz, and we did talk about the staff recommendation. We discussed this alternative layout that the engineering firm has put together, which, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 20 of 39 basically, takes the single family detached lots along that collector roadway, so now we are on the far eastern boundary of that plat, and they are proposing townhouse lots. So, it would be attached three, four, five townhouse -- townhouses together there. It does provide -- in my opinion it does provide a better transition to whatever is going to happen across the way, if it's multi-family, if it's office, more intense uses on the other side of that collector. The collector roadway also does provide a pretty good transitional breaking pOint for that. I'm still not totally sold on the idea, but I think it is a compromise that does -- could work, too, and it would just be something that would be -- have to be factored in when we get to the specific area plan and say, hey, we have already approved this development here, it's no longer an assumption, this is here, there is going to be a single family and a townhouse development right here and go forward with that specific area plan. So, I guess that's on the -- on the board for the Commission to decide. That's throughout the staff report, too, is this enough of a mixed use development, does it comply with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. There are policies in there and specific standards that say a three to 40 dwelling units per acre are appropriate in mixed use regional designations, which this property is. So, again, it's the -- it's the appropriateness of the uses on this site and at the scale. With that, I think that the staff report pretty much outlines the rest of it. It's really quite a clean layout as far as compliance with the UDC. There were a couple of changes, but I don't even think they are worth spending any of the Commission's time with and unless you want to talk about some of them specifically, so I will stand for any questions. Moe: Any questions, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Caleb, I think we got a memo that included the subject that you talked about, about adding a greater density along the eastern border of this. Totally apart from the merits of that, does a higher density require renotice? Hood: Yeah. I'm sorry, I should have followed that thought through. If you decide to approve what the applicant is showing here, they would -- they would need to replat that area, basically, and rezone it as well, because the R-8 zone doesn't allow lots that are this size. If they went to an R-15, which would still be appropriate for that -- that mixed use designation, they could still get the R-15 zone, which allows 2,400 square foot lots and there is no minimum lot size. So, that would need to be a condition of approval, that the applicant -- basically, the way I envisioned it was taking some of the language saying, you know, you don't have approval for anything east of the Perdham Drain and change it to be anything east of whatever that road is there or the first block west of the collector roadway up to that micropath along Franklin Road that would require the applicant to, then, submit a rezone and new preliminary plat for townhouses in an R-15 zone or an appropriate zone or however you choose to word that, I guess. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: What were those lot widths on the townhouse? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 21 of 39 Hood: I believe they are 37, if I -- and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's, I believe, what Kent told me, they were about 37 feet wide. Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant come forward. Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners and staff. My name is Matt Schultz, with RMR Consulting. I am the applicant. My address is 2127 Alaska Way in Meridian. And I'm here on behalf of the Baraya Subdivision. It's -- maybe you could show the overall landscape plan. That probably shows it best. Thank you. This site's comprised of two separate deeded parcels, one of them being a larger rectangular 80 acres and the other being a little panhandle, if you will, 14 acres on Black Cat. The 80 is bisected by the Comp Plan, in that everything west of the halfway point is shown as medium density residential, everything east of that is shown as mixed use regional, which is a very broad Comprehensive Plan paint, if you will. In fact, I went and mapped out how many acres we have out there of mixed use regional and I think there is eight or nine hundred in the area of mixed use regional, around the Ten Mile corridor going both ways along the freeway and we are on the fringe of that mixed use regional plan. Back in February when we got going on this and we got going very rapidly, we met with staff, we were concerned about asking for too much density, although the Comp Plan may support it, there had been some previous decisions at Council that got shot down with higher densities and they are totally appropriate and the reason they got shot down makes us a little nervous about asking for too much. In fact, with this layout here we probably left about 80 or 90 lots on the table, even with an R-8. R-8 would have allowed us even more than what we have here. We did a mix of some 50s and 60s and left it -- left it kind of big and loose and nice open space and yet still tried to get four to the acre. We are, actually, on the east side we are up to about 4.8, a little more efficient on that side. That was back in February. I don't believe the city put out their RFP for their study until April. In fact, I don't believe they have even awarded that study yet. I know they have identified a consultant. They haven't awarded it. We have long since been done, submitted. we do, in my opinion, conform to the current Comp Plan in that we believe that what we have on that east side does conform to mixed use regional. It happens to be residential, with some office. But towards that compromise with staff earlier in the week -. and you do have a memo to that effect from me, I believe that's the memo, saying that, yes, we agree this is more density. It's a problem we usually don't have. We are usually asked to give away lots, not pick up density, and it's something that my -- my end user is agreeable to, doing single family detached with some attached, with a minimum of that many lots, need to go back and see if maybe he wants to do a little bit more on that -- on that east side. I don't know. But the condition is that as a minimum we would replat those and that could be in our development agreement, that we reapply for a rezone and to R-15 for that -- for those blocks along there on that east boundary. We have done a lot of forward planning, if you will, the pioneering effort on that -- that area plan in that we have worked with the adjacent landowners. ACHD. We put the collector on that side, even though we didn't have to. We thought that was a very good idea to provide a nice transitional buffer between a more intense use towards Ten Mile and also provide a good access down to the south for potentially future industrial. Who knows. Instead of putting it in the middle. Which would have taken that Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 22 of 39 traffic through the middle of our site, so we put it over on that east side, we thought that was a good location for it and everybody since then has agreed with us, that, hey, that was a pretty good idea. And it does line up with the Silver Oak. It's a higher density residential, I'm not sure what the zoning was, but it's a high density residential and ACHD is talking about putting a signal there, potentially, which I think is a good idea, with high density coming from one side and us from the other, I think a signal might be a good idea. We do have -- actually, you can't tell, but there is actually two regional pathways potentially on here. There is one along the drain, the long one, and there is also one there at the connection between the panhandle, the bigger one. You can't really tell, because it's so short, but the Williams pipeline goes diagonally right through there and it's about 75 to 100 feet wide. You can't build on it. You have got to turf it. We may as well put some pathway in it. And it runs through Oregon and down to Utah, I think. I mean it goes trucking through Meridian and it's going to be a good potential regional pathway, because you can put a pathway in it, as long as you work very closely with them and if you don't, then, they will show up in about an hour after you start digging on it. I guess they fly it twice a day, just making sure nobody messes with that pipeline, but -- but it is a regional pathway, potentially. We have worked with the parks department very closely in identifying regionally in this area where the best property is and we have ~- you know, not because it's my property I don't want the park on me, I just truly believe, if you look at the bigger picture, there is a better spot for a future 20 acre park than this and they do agree with me. They have identified another parcel they are going to try to get a regional park that links to our regional pathways and that makes sense regionally. We do have a nice central open space for our residents, a pool, a nice -- a nice central spot. Pathways connecting to it. We really did believe R-8 was the appropriate zone, given the timing. The neighborhood commercial zoning wasn't quite solidified at the time we started this. There was some changes being talked about. We just weren't comfortable proceeding in that direction. We thought R-8 was the way to go and we worked closely with Public Works on the Black Cat trunk. It's going to go down the road parallel to the drain there on the west side and they are going to start that hopefully very very soon. We are working closely with them on that design to get that going for everybody and Kent Brown from Briggs Engineering is here to back me up if I forget anything or shut me up if I start saying something I shouldn't, but I think he did say it was 33 feet to the lot width on those townhome lots. Borup: He said 37. Schultz: Thirty-two -- I think it's 32 and 32 and there is 37 on the ends. There is four of them attached. That's what we will proceed with probably immediately after this moves forward. We really to hope start our first phase on that east side, you know, we did truly pick that even before it came up to the hold thing -- we didn't find out that they wanted to delay this until a few days ago. We think we are pretty far along to do that and we feel that we have the best plan and I think there is some advantage to having this in there first. I really do. I mean having a totally blank slate is sometimes hard to -- hard to deal with and I think we have made some really key first decisions in the area to make some of their jobs easier as they move forward on how other things fall into place. But the main high intensity is really going to be on that Ten Mile corridor. That Ten Mile Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 23 of 39 corridor, which is a quarter mile away up and down, that's where it's really going to be. I truly believe that's the break before we go into residential zoning west and when you look at a bigger map, there is a lot of acres out there for other uses. I guess with that I will stand for any questions and ask for your approval. Moe: Any questions from the Commission? Borup: I don't have any questions, other than comment. I think I can understand the staff's maybe -- I don't know if concern is the right word, but their -- their comment on that, it does not -- it does not incorporate very many of the mixed use regional aspects in there. I mean because it -- I mean it talks about greater than 200,000 square foot buildings and -- and just about no -- no limit on some of the other uses, up to 40 residents -- you know, up to -- isn't it -- yeah. Forty units per acre. So, I don't know why you were confused on the -- that there be concern about density when it was already in the Comp Plan for up to 40 units per acre, but -- Schultz: Well, like I said, mixed use is a very broad range and you're not going to put all that -- all those components into 40 acres. Borup: No. Schultz: You're going to put it into 800 acres, different from pulling some different parts. There is going to be transitional areas and when they draw these camp plans, as you know, they use a very broad brush sometimes and they bisect boundaries and __ Borup: Right. And you are -- and you are -- Schultz: And we are bisected and we want one use and so we are trying to work with everything and get the right mix for the specific area. Borup: I think I agree with what you're saying, is that closer to Ten Mile where the more intense use is going to be -- Schultz: Uh-huh. Mae: Any questions from Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: Not at this point. Mae: I'm just kind of curious, you know, with everything on the east side, you're only looking at one office lot and the rest of the area is all residential at that point. Schultz: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 24 of 39 Moe: Was there any reason why you just picked .- you decided to put one lot for office in there, just simply because it was mixed use regional? Schultz: No. In fact, if I could have made it all residential I probably would have, but with lining up that road across the street, it created an outparcel that, you know, it made sense to put some office there. Like I said, I truly believe the higher value office, apartments, shopping centers, malls -- I really truly believe the higher value stuff is going to happen along Ten Mile first and we would have vacant lots for ten years there if we set them aside. The buy I think is going to go quicker along those corridors first and we paid top dollar for this property, we would like to get our best and .- highest and best use out of it sometime in the near future than long term. Those other areas are going to go first. They really will. Especially after we annex and, you know, they were out doing core samples on that the other day on the interchange. They are moving forward on design. That's going to get going and you're going to see a lot more things start happening in the next year, probably, but -- Moe: Just another -- I'm just kind of curious as far as that office, I mean what kind of size are you looking at and do you have any concept plan of what this thing is going to look like? Schultz: You know, there is some very good architecture going on right now for offices and light office stuff that I have seen along Overland and along Franklin in the -- over here in Silverado and EI Dorado. Something similar to that in appearance. Just a very modern looking stuff. We haven't got down to an architect on that yet. It will probably be a dental office or, you know, a pediatrics office like that. In fact, it may just blend in with whoever does what they are doing to the east of us, we may end up selling it to them and they can blend it in with whatever they are doing as a contiguous parcel moving forward. But we haven't been approached by them yet and we will see what happens as things progress, but -- Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Let's see. On the list here we have Steve Moore. Moore: I'm Steve Moore and I live at 820 South Black Cat. This appeal is offered in the spirit of what I believe is the best for our community. Meridian has been my home since 1972 and I remember the time in the late 70s until the 1990's when the citizens of Meridian were Boise chamber of commerce's best friend. Boise had the business and industrial revenue and Meridian had the expense of building the houses and schools for employees for those enterprises. In short, our community was an unbalanced bedroom community. In the last decade we have seen a great turnaround, more balance, business and industry locating, as well as residences to a balanced growth. This particular subdivision, in my opinion, represents a step back in the wrong direction. My concern is fueled by reality such as a recent front page Idaho Statesman article noting the population shift to the west, so that the population center of our valley is now Eagle Road and Pine Street. This shift predictably will continue west and may soon be at Ten Mile Road and Pine Street. Availability of residential parcels are and will continue to be Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 25 of 39 less of an issue in the long term Meridian and commercial and industrial parcels. A healthy community preserves it's most attractive and logical places for commercial and industrial use, not already taken for residential use. Residential use contributes far less and takes much for financially from a community. It appears to me that Meridian's present impact area and proposed impact areas offer many more places to build houses than logical industrial and commercial options. Specifically, Meridian has only one interstate and one railroad track and areas in proximity to them should be preserved for their best use. As an off ramp continues to -- comes to Ten Mile, the present face of our community can change for the better radically. Unfortunately, mistakes of the past will be financially compensated. It's too bad that an interchange was not decided and built years ago with a legitimate artery going north to Chinden years ago. We are consequently left with incredible amounts of pollution, road rage, wasted time, to name a few of the compromises created to our quality of life in its tardiness. Ten Mile north and south will never be the way it could have been and millions is going to be spent seeking to improve an unnecessary lack of planning and zoning requiring right of way. Houses will be moved. Turmoil among homeowners and clinical entities, tension between residential and commercial or industrial use. Why make that mistake again. Residential use of this property is -- in this sector of our city is a mistake. Traffic patterns and street uses for residential property is far different than mall, commercial, industrial residential and community uses. Demands of city services for residences are radically different in the sense of police, fire, sewer, schools, traffic flows, et cetera. In summary, I think it is a mistake to allow these 400 plus homes and others in the future within this sector. If this subdivision is approved, I will not be surprised if this Commission is soon hearing requests for other residential developments in all directions within proximity, including a request for variances. I am very heartened to hear that the staff of this city is asking for 18 months to decide a better use for this area. I have no personal animosity to these developers and the property owners and I respect the fact they have invested greatly to be a part of the application. However, it was their choice to risk, as we just heard in testimony, top dollar for this area. And as was made point by the staff member, what we are doing is setting a tone and disadvantaging neighboring property owners and future development. My appeal is one of principle, I believe, and I ask that you put the brakes on a land use that will affect our community adversely in the long run and disadvantage and limit contiguous development. One interstate, one railroad track, let's protect it from Meridian's planned growth wisely and avoid previous mistakes. Let's not be a bedroom community, let's be a city and control our own destiny. Thank you. Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Next on the list would be Ryan Stoker. Stoker: Yeah. My name is Ryan Stoker. My residential address is HGR-33, Box 2606, Las Vegas, Nevada. My local business address is 320 East Corporate Drive, Meridian. If you could go back up on one of the earlier -- yeah. Currently, we are in contract with a group to purchase this 40 acres. This and this. The basic issue I have with this subdivision is there is virtually zero access. The access provided currently is aligned to this road over and down. This is zoned for medium density. This is mixed use regional. Mixed Use Regional. The issue here is going to be if we are going to be providing Meridian Planning &. Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 26 of 39 access out onto Ten Mile, you're going to be off the 120 acres dumping a tremendous amount of traffic out on Ten Mile with no access this way and I can certainly see this going forward as a development, this being built, we do something on a medium density residential here and, then, we get protested by the people living there, because we end up having to run our traffic through their subdivision. I support staff's current plan to go ahead and take an 18 month continuance on this, so that they can look at this and analyze it, because I think that's something that needs to be looked at. These three parcels, basically, have no direct existing access to either Ten Mile, Black Cat, or Franklin and, obviously, 1-84 is down on the southern boundary there. Any questions? Borup: Yes. Have you had any discussion with the parcel to your northeast? Stoker: We are trying to contact those parcels. We, actually, have a pre-application meeting next Wednesday at 1: 15 with city staff. Borup: So, this is the parcel that you have here; is that correct? Stoker: Yes. Currently under contract from the Brandts. Borup: But you're not sure -- you haven't talked to these people? Stoker: No. We have got a call in to them and we are supposed to meet them on Wednesday of this next week, both this parcel, this parcel, and I believe this parcel. What we want to do is talk to these guys about, hey, how can we look at this overall area and develop it into something that works for everybody and we aren't necessarily, you know, trying to do the same thing on the same parcel. We can get a compliance -- or complimentary zoning and use out of all this stuff in this area. Borup: It looks like right now the Comp Plan has this -- just this square here as a medium density and the rest of this is mixed use. Stoker: Exactly. Yeah. This is the mixed use regional here, which is the 200,000 square feet, up to 40 units per acre. This is the medium density, the 40 acres right there. Borup: Thank you. Stoker: Time's up? Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Caleb, I do have one question for you. When he brought up the 18 months, within that report, that 18 months is, basically, the property east of the Perdham Drain; right? Or is that the whole -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, yeah, that's correct. In the staff report everything to the west of the Perdham Drain could be platted as soon as they can do their engineering and get their final plats in. And, then, we are just asking for 18 months for Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 27 of 39 the things east of the Perdham Drain to not be platted until that consultant can get done with their work. Mae: I wanted to make sure you were aware of that, because that is property that the -- the property just north of what he was discussing, so that is not ~- Borup: This is the Perdham Drain here? Moe: That is correct. Everything east of that, then, would be the 18 months. Next person on the list Ron Moore. R. Moore: Good evening. Ron Moore. 350 South Black Cat. And, myself, I think it's a little bit too dense of development for that area. Right now the traffic, if you tried driving through there at 5:00, 6:00 o'clock at night, I have seen traffic from Ten Mile back clear up to Linder, to where it's just going to stack on what we already have and until that road's widened or something, it's just -- it's going to create gridlock even worse than what we already have, plus the construction that's going on with that off ramp to where so if you stack all that on there and as per the townhomes and so on, I think that's kind of even be just way too dense. I would just as soon see larger lots there, but that's my opinion on it. Borup: But you don't want to see residential there? R. Moore: I would actually -- I was told from the previous property owner of that at one point in time that he had intended on some type of medical use, stuff like that, because you have got the freeway access there, Meridian, really, hasn't got any good commercial areas that I know of to -- downtown Main Street, that's -- there is nothing you can really do there to where I'd rather see it go more towards small office and so on out there, but I'm not opposed to going either way, as long as it's a controlled growth. Borup: You realize once the interchange goes in the cars are not going to be stacking up on Franklin, more than likely, they will be stacking up on the freeway. R. Moore: Yeah. I hope not, but -- yeah, look at Eagle and Garrity, they both stack up right now, too. Borup: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Next on the list is -- Zaremba: If I'm remembering ACHD's five year work plan correctly, somewhere in the next few years that section of Franklin is going to become five lanes, so that will help a little bit. Mae: Okay. Next on list is Brad. Come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 28 of 39 Janicek: Commission, my name is Brad Janicek and I live at 4325 West Chinden Boulevard in Meridian and I have this piece of property right here -- Borup: Oh, you're the one. Janicek: -- this 80 acres right here. And on a minor scale I'm opposed to -- in this application here it has three stub outs that come onto my property within a quarter of a mile and I'm adamantly opposed to that and I don't need three stub outs coming in. The one that's at the quarter mile line, I wouldn't have any problem with that. But these other two -. you know, I don't know what I'm going to do with them on my property. My intention with this property here is definitely commercial, not residential. And as the staff report said, you know, if you do residential here, then, the next guy in is probably going to have some problems and that's probably going to be me. So, I'm opposed to those three stub outs. On the bigger picture -- and the first fellow, I believe his name was Pete, he said it eloquently, in that, you know, the center of the Treasure Valley could wind up at Pine and Ten Mile and here in Meridian we have got a chance to get this off-ramp here and in spite of a study or not, I think good logic just tells you that this probably needs to be commercial here and it probably doesn't not need a residential area in it. It's probably going to just cause problems. We got the fellow from Las Vegas that's got the Brandt place, his intention, you know, is commercial. Hawkins-Smith has this here. His intention is commercial. Shacurry is here. He's told me his intention is commercial. Gary Carney is here. His intention was commercial. And this actual piece of property was owned by Ronald Van Auker, who is a commercial developer, until he sold it to them. So, I think it's pretty obvious that the intent of this area is to be commercial and I think that's what fits in the City of Meridian. End of story. Thank you for your time. Moe: Any questions? Borup: Just one. I mean that is true, most of it is intended for that, but there is some of it that's still designated as medium density residential in the Comp Plan, unless we look at changing the Comp Plan, but it was changed with the interchange in mind and all this was changed to the -- to the regional use there. And, then, the only other comment is it sounds like Mr. Stoker would like talk to you about seeing what -- what plans you both have for your properties. So, maybe this is a chance for both of you to get together. Thank you. Janicek: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. That was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else who would like to speak. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle as my business address. This is the second property that our engineering firm has had on this piece of property. The previous client walked after we had a bunch of mixed uses east of the Perdham and the direction a few months ago that the City Council was headed and so we went in Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 29 of 39 with a little trepidation. But over the period of time that we have been working with staff, some of the things that have come up as we have kind of looked at this area is that they have talked about an east-west collector going somewhere in here to help move the traffic, kind of like a frontage road, kind of like what Overland acts to the freeway and, then, also having north-south collectors. If you extend here pretty close to the half mile, the discussion in our previous plat that we were bringing forward until the client decided to go away, was to come in here at the half mile with a collector and, then, follow the topography. There is a great grade change here. Everything along the -- that backs up to the drain drops off quite rapidly and so the discussion, basically, came and where does this collector here that feeds the commercial area need to be. If you come all the way out with a collector here and you run the collector through the residential or the mixed use that you would have there, you end up having an opposite situation that you would have at Sutherland Farms and Silverstone, where you have the commercial out next to Overland and the residential behind and you would have industrial users driving through those mixed uses to get to the commercial area. So, realistically, the decision for us to put the collector on this site makes a definite line and a change. As we looked at the design of this, looked at other interchanges in the area, the Milwaukee interchange there next to the Town Square Mall, you look at that and maybe as you drive into that you see Chilli's and where Costco used to be and you see those commercial uses, but on top of that grade change is low density residential. Closer as you get to the freeway there is high density with some apartments. As I looked at each and every interchange, at Cole that the state transportation department just completed, you have industrial on the south, but in every case, closer than we are to where this future interchange would be, is residential, medium family, low density, residential uses in those interchanges. I have copies of those here if you'd like to look at some of those and I have labeled them. But looking at that, the interchange basically takes about this much room here. You take the Town Square Mall, if you put that in, it would fit, basically, in an area like this. The Town Square Mall is on the right side for right turns in and out type of a situation as you look at that. I think that we have made a wise choice in the way that we have tried to put this together. Yes, we are drawing a line in the sand and saying, you know, you need to transition from this point. The gentleman from Las Vegas here talking about that his traffic will go to the north, maybe he's not aware of what ACHD makes us put at those stubs. A big sign that says these roads are extending in the future type of situation. Makes -- and puts those people on notice they will be going through those streets. I'd stand for any questions. Mae: Any questions, Commissioners? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just one and that was, again, maybe a minor thing, but on the -- the three stubs in -- on the area to the east -- Brown: To the Janicek property? Borup: Yeah. Was that -- was that done because of block length or ACHD -- Brown: Yeah. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 30 of 39 Borup: That was the only reason? Brown: Yes. Borup: And does this stub right there need to be there to comply with the block length? Brown: Everybody seemed happy with what we have provided, so I mean that -- I guess we could make that one go away. It is one lot away from the other. Borup: My thoughts are just on -- I mean if this is intense commercial development, it makes -- I mean I like the idea of interconnectivity and not having things -- but here it would be a cut through, a convenient cut through for people, perhaps. Here it's available if need be, but it's not going to be convenient. Brown: I guess -- Borup: Maybe staff may have a comment. Brown: When you look at -- as I sat on -- in your shoes on the P&Z Commission years ago when the Crossroads came in, the residential was the first thing that went in to what I believe and what we have heard recently as the busiest intersection in the state of Idaho and that residential use went in and they did have connections to that area. You have industrial users behind them and commercial to the front of them and I believe that this neighborhood does the same thing. I know from my client's standpoint we are not opposed to removing the stubs if you're supportive of that. Borup: I'm in favor of the stubs. I don't know that this one is necessary, is my only comment. Brown: From my standpoint what we tried to do is keep as far away from the drain as it made some sense of how buildings might back up in there, but we are just providing connectivity. If you wanted to remove one or more of those stubs, this collector level road on the easterly boundary is the one that I think is critical and, realistically, if someone can make a decision as to where that collector needs to be, then, you're deciding where the mixed use or mixed use being commercial, office-type uses need to be. The decision for us to put it here has to do with the topography difference that you have here. Truly, that's -- that's the reason. You put it closer to that -- Borup: But you have got that in a good spot. It makes sense. And my comment is just based on the previous testimony that it should not have any and I wouldn't agree with that, either, not have any, but-- Brown: In our discussion with Mr. Janicek from our neighborhood meeting with the highway district and everywhere else, we made them aware that we are not opposed to Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 31 of 39 those going away and we have made them aware that we might write them a letter and ask for some of those stubs to go away. Moe: Mr. Zaremba, do you have a question? Zaremba: No, I don't have a question for Mr. Brown. Brown: Thank you. Mae: All right. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward? Seeing none, the applicant, please. Schultz: Hello. Matt Schultz again. There were three or four different comments I wanted to respond to real briefly and maybe I will just start with the most recent one first, Mr. Borup's point about the stub streets. We have been working with Brad all along, saying, Brad, ACHD is a little stub happy, you know, we put them in because they want them, we'd like to delete them, but they like them. I'm all for -- especially the one that Mr. Borup pointed to -- deleting that, I think that's unnecessary for sure. The other one -- hard to say. You know, yeah, I guess at worse case you could cul-de-sac it off later and that would be a turnaround or something and blend it in with what he's got. But for now, not knowing what that's going to be, I mean Brad could sell that to somebody else and they may decide to do something different than what he's thinking tOday. It's hard to say what's going to happen with that property until it gets submitted. So, the stub street -- I don't know how we could word that condition, but that we -- that we delete that stub street and, then, we will just go back in front ACHD and get that done. You know, we will take it to them, because you do have the ultimate jurisdiction, I believe, over ACHD when it comes down to issues. It is your city and you can make that decision and we will try to get it done with them, so -- Franklin. You are correct, Mr. Zaremba, ACHD is, as we speak, trying to write a check for right of way along Franklin. Since we closed on it, they're like let's buy it. So, they are moving forward rapidly with a five lane design and construction. I'm not sure when they plan to construct it. I mean soon is two years in ACHD terms, but -- Borup: To Ten Mile you're talking or from -- Schultz: To Ten Mile -- Borup: I mean to Black Cat is what I meant. Schultz: I believe it's all the way from Ten Mile to Black Cat on Franklin, widening out to five lanes, and we have accounted for that in our design. There is some big power poles on the north, so we had to shift over the right of way slightly onto ours, put the sidewalk in an easement, but there is room to put five lanes in there and we have been working closely with ACHD on that. As far as an 18 month hold on this, I just don't think that's real feasible. Obviously, for us 18 months is an eternity around here in terms of how things change and where we are at and we believe that the time is right, this does Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 32 of 39 meet the Camp Plan. We do believe it meets the Comp Plan that was already previously approved and to the bedroom community point, Meridian is no longer a bedroom community for Boise and I work in Meridian, I live in Meridian, you see more and more people wanting to live in Meridian because of all the energy, the new commercial that they are getting around Eagle right now. It's outside. And they will get more. We are going to see them all pretty soon, probably. I mean it's hard to say what we are going to see here. It gets exciting, though. I'm excited for Meridian and what we are getting here and it's not a bedroom community anymore. It really isn't. It's where people want to work and live and recreate and everything else, so -- I mean with that we think we have got the right plan at the time and we ask that you move it forward with the condition that we replat the east side or reapply for a rezone on those -- that one block for the R-15, I believe. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Discussion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have to comment that I agree with absolutely everybody who has spoken tonight on all sides of the issue. Everything that has been mentioned and some of which are not compatible with each other, but everything that was mentioned is something that I have thought about on this property. I live farther north along Black Cat Road and I drive this stretch frequently and look at that piece of land, look at the interstate, which you can still see from there, from Franklin Road at this point, and think about what a marvelous commercial area this would be for maybe even that whole square mile. I would have thought at least the closest half mile to Ten Mile, which I think probably splits the property about here, would be the half mile from Ten Mile -- should certainly be considered to be heavily commercial, retail, other kinds of commercial. However, it is pretty much a mixed use designation and mixed use does include residential. Just looking at this piece of property it's not much of a mix. This is all residential. So, in some respects it -- if you consider the whole area, this is part of the mix. If that's going to be residential, then, I very much support a higher density of residential that close to Ten Mile and the interstate interchange, even higher than you have proposed. Maybe, again, as far as here and to the east of that being higher, just a small issue, I would agree with not having this stub street. I think if this is a collector and you have another stub here, that would be -- seems to me to be plenty for both properties, this one and the one to the south of it. I really would like the plan that the city is -- I mean they don't have the plan yet, but the fact that they are hiring consultants and going to do a well thought out plan for this area, I wish that had already happened. It would be nice to know what that's going to be before having to make a decision on this. Do I feel so strongly that I would hold this up for 18 months? That's a tough one. Probably not. Which brings me back pretty close to, essentially, what the staff has said and what the applicant has talked about, a little greater density in that one area, but if I understand the staff request, it is to, essentially, recommend approval of what we are seeing, but put an 18 month hold on part of it and if nothing comes of the design for the whole area, then, this applicant already has an approved plan. But if -- and a lot of the people are in the room tonight that can bring this focus to -- you know, if you all get together, it sounds like even this applicant would listen to some change on that eastern portion. And if it were to come about that there was -- needed to be change there, if Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 33 of 39 there had been that 18 month hold on that part, then, the change would be appropriate at that time, if I'm understanding the way the staff is asking. I read it a couple of times and I think that's what's being asked for. So, I guess after going around a whole lot of circles, I probably am in support of the staff report exactly as it is, with two changes, and that is the mention to greater density along here and eliminating this one stub street. That's a long way to say not very much. I'm sorry. Moe: Mr. Borup, do you have any comment? Borup: I think Mr. Zaremba said -- said it very well. Only one thought I had and this just kind of came to me as he was talking and also with the benefit of the other testimony, where we -- there has been some discussion on this being a mixed use and mixed use includes the commercial and the residential. Well, the previous testimony states that to the south, to the east, and across Ten Mile is all going to be commercial, if that's the case and, then, we try to make this commercial, then, we are maybe weighing too much to the other way. We are not getting any of the residential mix in a mixed use. Now, if we are looking at the area as a whole, this probably does help balance it out if this is -- this is a residential area, assuming that there will still be some maybe higher density coming in -- coming in somewhere, but so far we -- I mean it sounds like the -- most of the plans are for a commercial use. So, my thoughts have changed a little bit that maybe having this residential does balance out the area -- you know, that area at hold there as mixed use, if you take it all in consideration. Moe: I have kind of gone back and forth on this project as well. Again, I would say I'm pretty much in agreement with both of you as well. The first time reviewing this I did take into account the fact that it is mixed use regional and when I saw residential and one office building, it just doesn't do much for me in mixed use regional when we go through this, but based on testimony that I have heard tonight, I do agree with Mr. Borup, it sounds like everyone around is anticipating going commercial, but I guess what I would also say in that regard is -- is that you are also in mixed regional and, therefore, you may, in fact, need to plan others, other than just commercial as well with in your properties as well. My biggest concern when I saw this is that we are taking the residential component and you're first in, so you're taking it all and, then, basically, everybody else will do something else. That may work itself out. But I guess I would say I'm in agreement with Mr. Zaremba as well. I would like to wait this 18 months and see what the study can bring forward, at least the property to the east of the Perdham Drain. I have no problem with what you have noted as your phase one. Other than that, that's alii have to say. Borup: And I guess I didn't clarify my comments. When I said I was in agreement, I -- other than that aspect, because of my belief that it does balance out overall, I don't know that -- in my mind I don't see use in waiting 18 months will accomplish a lot. I think the study is important and maybe should have been done a long time ago. We have been talking about a Ten Mile interchange for 30 years and so this isn't anything new. But I realize the city is still growing and stretching and in the planning. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 34 of 39 Moe: I guess I would just make the comment again that because they are the first in, you're giving them the benefit to go ahead and anticipate that their mixed -- mixed use regional is going to be just the one office, along with, you know, the higher density residential and the components. Borup: No. I realize -- that was the same concern I originally had, but now I'm looking at -- at a more -- at the overall area, assuming that the testimony we heard tonight is fairly accurate, that this -- this would be -- this may be the majority of the residential aspect of the whole area. Schultz: May I approach? I have something that relates to actual areas and -- Moe: That would be fine. Schultz: You know, I didn't make multiple copies like I should have to hand to you, but if I could -- I did a little analysis in .anticipation of this discussion and stepping back regionally, this area analysis is going to study 2,700 acres. It's going to study 1,700 north of the freeway and 900 south. You know, that's like four square miles. Within that four square miles we have currently, in the current Comp Plan -- I'm just taking the current Comp Plan and doing areas. I measured these on the computer. 682 acres of low residential, 582 acres of medium residential, only 48 acres of high. 65 acres commercial. 385 acres industrial. 864 acres of mixed use regional. And, then, 61 acres of mixed use neighborhood. This Saraya Subdivision is 94 acres. This is only three percent -- three and a half percent of the overall study area. The 40 acres is one and a half percent of the overall study area. And, like I said, we have over -- in the Comp Plan today there is probably over 1,250 acres -- 1,300 acres of low, medium, high density residential within the area and only 65 of commercial. So, that just goes to show you that that mixed use regional is going to be something of all those previous ones. It's going to be probably not very much residential, but a lot of commercial, because there is only 65 showing actually commercial today, to mixed use. So, it's interesting stats. I like to do the numbers, I like to see the percentages. It gives some reality to what we are looking at in that this is not a big chunk of the residential in this study area. It's actually a very small chunk when you count the areas. So, I hope that helps a little bit and I can just introduce this for the record, please. Moe: Thank you very much. Any other discussion? No discussion, is there any motion? Zaremba: I think I spilled everything that I had to say. It doesn't bring me any closer to believing that there is one right answer, but with the additional comments also made, as for the study in a four square mile area around what will eventually be an interchange, I still lean towards being supportive of this with the staff requirements and it doesn't deny the eastern portion of this, but it just asks them don't build it yet and it may very well be that in discussion with the other neighbors who have now identified themselves, even the applicant might decide something different with that eastern portion. But if 18 months from now nothing has happened, there doesn't need to be a further Public Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 35 of 39 Hearing for them to go forward with what's already -- the only other option would be to hold the whole thing off -- or, well, deny it. I don't feel strongly enough about it to deny it. I don't feel strongly about it to just continue the whole process for 18 months. I think it's a good compromise to say let's put this on the boards, don't make it happen on the eastern portion of it yet, but if there is no other answer by 18 months from now, go ahead. I'm comfortable with that. Borup: Yeah. Which number was it in the staff report that asked for 18 months in their conditions of approval? Zaremba: I thought it was in the development agreement, but I'm looking at it right now. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's the first bullet point on Exhibit D, page one. Borup: There we go. I wasn't reading fast enough. Zaremba: While Commissioner Borup is mulling that over, I would comment on another 18 month that's suggested in the same place and that is that the applicant would have 18 months to contact the city attorney for the development agreement. I'd rather see that be -- we have had some discussions on this. I'd rather see that be two months or no statement at all as to length of time. Anybody care if we change that to two months? Borup: I'm sorry, which -- Zaremba: I'm talking about how long the applicant has to contact the city attorney to even make the development agreement happen. The actual annexation ordinance gets help up until this happens and -- Borup: And that consisted -- what was it we had talked about, was it two months? Zaremba: We have talked about shortening that time frame considerably and I think two months was what we compromised on. Maybe Caleb knows differently. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, what we talked about at that joint meeting here, I don't know, six months ago now, with the City Council, there is no deadline for development applications to submit their development agreement or sign them and return them. So, we have ones that are three and four years old that have never been signed and the problem is that they don't expire. So, the 18 months I think - - there was not a consensus on that. This is something that we have been putting in the staff reports recently as ordered by the director, for 18 months, but that isn't something that's code, so feel free to modify that as you see fit. I think we are going to work on putting some six month or 12 month duration -- sometimes two months -- not in this case, but sometimes you get owners that are out of town, overseas, and there is some back and forth with the legal department, too, in these oftentimes and two months is -- for someone that's really working on it can be tough to make sometimes, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 36 of 39 Zaremba: I believe there was definitely a consensus in having a deadline, which, as you say, traditionally there hasn't been one, but it seems like there should be one. And I agree there was a mixed discussion about how long it should be. Borup: I was thinking six to 12. Zaremba: Six months sounds like -- Borup: Six to 12 was -- Zaremba: I would go with six months. Moe: One other point on page one, Exhibit B, your second to the last bullet point on the second sentence there, on the direct lot access, should that not be Franklin Road also? Not Victory Road? Hood: You are correct. I must have cut and pasted that condition in. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: Let's see. Mr. Borup -- Commissioner Borup was studying the 18 month delay on the eastern portion of it and I await his discussion. Borup: Well, yeah, my opinion hasn't changed. I think this is a small portion of the area and I don't think I would -- I'm not in favor of delaying that. Zaremba: If we left that in there, would that be a deal breaker for you? Borup: Well-- Zaremba: Want to deny? Borup: --I voted no one other time. Zaremba: Okay. All right. I'm just wondering. Just trying to work it out. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Mae: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 37 of 39 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Borup: So, you mentioned you're going to talk about rezone and, then, the stub that was on the other changes? Zaremba: Yes. Just where are we going to put that. I think I know where that's going to go. Borup: 7.11 on the stub maybe. And I don't remember the name of that street, but -- Hood: Castle Peak Avenue is the first stub street due west of the collector. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: All right. Zaremba: I believe I'm ready. Mr. Chairman? Mae: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024, presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 15th, 2006, including approval of the preliminary plat, dated March 22, 2006, with the following modifications. On Exhibit B, page one, that's the beginning of the annexation and zoning section, the applicant shall contact the city attorney to initiate this process within 18 months -- I would change that to six months. I -- one, two, three, four, five -- after the sixth bullet I would add another bullet that says that the applicant will change the plat to have the eastern section east of Castle Peak Avenue become R-15? Okay. And not the bottom bullet, but the second bullet up from the bottom in the last of that sentence is Victory Road needs to be changed to Franklin Road. Still in Exhibit B, now on page nine, under section 7.11, the fifth bullet down it talks about a stub street at Castle Peak and that stub street shall not be stubbed. I believe that's everything. End of motion. Borup: Second. Moe: All right. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024, include all staff comments for the hearing date June 15th, 2006, with modifications as noted in the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Borup: Aye. Commissioners Newton-Huckabay is not here. Someone has to stick up for her. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.