Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 4, 2010 PZ MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 5 of 28 Marshall: Thank you, sir. Minegar: Thank you. Marshall: All right. Well, Commissioners? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I assume, then, everything seems to appear to be the same as it was in 2005 with no major changes. I don't think there are. Or were. So, with that I think we can go forward. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair`? Marshall: Madam Newton-Huckabay. Commissioners Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close -- or move we close the public hearing on PFP 10-001 for Monica Subdivision. O'Brien: Second. Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on PFP 10-001. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I see no changes to the staff report and if everyone agrees I'll make a motion. Marshall: I guess you have the floor. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PFP 10-001 as presented during the hearing on March 4th, 2010, with no modifications. O'Brien: Second. Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to -- for approval for PFP 10-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: CPA 09-007 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation on 6.54 acres of land from Commercial to Industrial; and also change the land use designation on 1.12 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial for Seyam Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker -north side of Franklin Road, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 6 of 28 approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle/Franklin intersection: Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 09-005 Request for Rezone of 6.54 acres from C-G to I-L zone and Rezone of 1.12 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Seyam Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker -north side of Franklin Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle/Franklin intersection: Marshall: All right. At this time I'd like to open the hearing for CPA 09-007 for Seyam Subdivision and ask for the staff report. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, before Sonya presents you with a staff report, as we pointed out in the notes for you tonight, the balance of the applications before you tonight include Comprehensive Plan map amendments, as well as a couple of rezones in there. And because, as you know, we can only -- you can only make a recommendation once every six months on the map amendments and since one of them has been continued for two weeks, we would recommend you go ahead, open the hearings, take any testimony that might be presented, and, then, continue action on the recommendations for those to allow them to catch up with the South Ridge application, which you will be hearing on the 18th and, then, formulate your recommendations on the 18th, if that's acceptable. Newton-Huckabay: Pete, Ihave -- Mr. Chair, I have one question for Pete. Is the applicant here? In fact, he just walked in. Okay. Are we concerned that -- I mean there is no public testimony that when we meet again in two weeks that we will have public here to testify on this? I'm concerned that we may close -- that we may open -- or continue it to ask, then, and have public here thinking they can testify and they can't. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's avery -- that's a very good point. I think given the location of this, given the fact that there is not a lot of impacted adjacent property owners, we haven't received any real concerns from anybody throughout this notice period. I think it's highly unlikely that we will be denying somebody an opportunity to testify if you close -- in fact, close the public hearing tonight. Baird: Mr. Chair? And madam -- Mr. Chairman -- or Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if could just follow on that. Today -- and this meeting is the time and place that has been noticed for hearing. All those who wish to testify should be here. I don't think you should have -- be bashful next time about saying that your opportunity to testify was the last time. However, you always do have the ability to reopen as long as the applicant's there to hear that and has an opportunity to rebut as well, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Baird: -- with that I would just reiterate what Pete said and recommend you go forward. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 7 of 28 Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Baird. All right. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, you might want to open all three hearings. Marshall: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Five, six and seven. Marshall: I think you're right. So, I would like to open the public hearings -- Newton-Huckabay: No. No. My mistake. I'm sorry. I misspoke. Marshall: I would like to open the public hearings for CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-005 for the Seyam Subdivision and ask for the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The subjecl property before you is located on the north side of East Franklin Road, a designated entryway corridor into the city. Approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle-Franklin Road intersection. The portion of the site applicable to this application consists of a total of 7.66 acres of land and is currently zoned C-G and I-L, as you can see on the map here. The map shows one large parcel that is split zoned I-L and C-G. And there has been a final plat filed on this property that's been approved by Council, but has not yet been recorded. Surrounding uses to the north is industrial property. There is currently amulti-tenant warehouse building on the property to the north. It's zoned I-L. To the east are rural residential properties zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada county. To the south is Meadow Lake Village retirement community, zoned L-O. And to the west is commercial property where Ashley Furniture is, zoned C-G. The applications before you are a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land use designation on 6.54 acres of land adjacent to Franklin Road from commercial to industrial and 1.12 acres of land from industrial to commercial north of Franklin Road. So, the portion proposed to be zoned industrial is on the map on your right. And, then, the property proposed to be designated commercially is right here. A rezone of 6.54 acres of land from the C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial District, to the I-L, Light Industrial District, and 1.12 acres from I-L to C-G, is also requested consistent with the requested land use change. The map shown here on the screen is a rezone map. No development is proposed at this time. Because there are commercially zoned properties to the south and west of the property proposed for commercial use, staff is agreeable to the extension of a C-G zoning as requested by the applicant. Because there is industrial property to the north adjacent to the railway corridor, staff feels it makes some sense to extend the industrial zoning as requested by the applicant to the south. However, because the property is located directly adjacent to Franklin Road, an entryway corridor into the city, staff has some reservations. Structures in industrial areas are typically less attractive and more utilitarian in nature and have loading docks for shipping and receiving. Uses typically consist of manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment and/or packaging of finished products or parts, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 8 of 28 predominantly from previously prepared materials. Staff's primary concern with the industrial land use and zoning is that the property develops in an attractive manner consistent with the commercial properties to the west and the desired appearance of structures located along entryway corridors into the city. To alleviate this concern staff is recommending a development agreement be required with rezone of the property that includes provisions for future buildings facades and portions of the site directly adjacent to Franklin Road and the future extension of Touchmark Way. To develop consistent with the guidelines contained in the city's design manual for commercial developments, rather than industrial developments, and that outdoor storage areas and loading docks not be located within those areas. Staff believes this will assist in maintaining the design integrity of the entryway corridor, as well as accomplishing the desires of the applicant. Staff believes if the site develops in accord with the provisions of the development agreement, the requested Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone is in the best interest of the city. And, therefore, staff is recommending approval of the subject applications with the development agreement provisions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. There has been no written testimony submitted on this application. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions for staff? O'Brien: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Freeman: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: If this is the time for that. No questions, but I do have -- Newton-Huckabay: Or wait until after the -- Freeman: -- some things I wanted to talk about. Marshall: You may want to -- shall we -- Freeman: Well, I can form these -- I can form these questions, so I will go ahead and ask. Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I reviewed this application and I can see from the original zoning map that we had along Franklin Street up to the boulevard we had a C-G zone and I understand why and I echo staffs concerns about this becoming industrial and I -- I have a hard time understanding why, if we are concerned about the esthetic of this looking like an industrial zone, why we would go ahead and approve it as an industrial zone and I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 9 of 28 commend staff and I agree that it goes a long ways in saying that even though we go with an industrial zone, we would require the commercial design guideline to apply to this, but I'm afraid that would still leave the door wide open for an industrial use that isn't quite going to give you the look that you're -- that you're desiring and I can envision easily a scenario where we approve this now and, then, when we see something that's actually submitted on this as an industrial project, our hands are kind of tied and we might regret actually approving this as an industrial zone. The reason for that is just because we say it would need to be developed as a commercial type of property, an industrial use is a very different kind of a building and trying to apply commercial design features to an industrial building that doesn't -- isn't really suited for those, it doesn't work very well. And so I'm just -- I guess the question is do we really want to open the door to this being an industrial zoned property right up against Franklin Boulevard when we know it could cause this to look very industrial, even though our desire is for it to look commercial. Marshall: Commissioner Freeman, I think that's part of the question that we will be wrestling with -- Freeman: Okay. Marshall: -- tonight. Staff have any response? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think as Sonya pointed out, we certainly share your concern and we also recognize that there really is a difference between the industrial design standards and some of the commercial design standards. Obviously, that's why the recommendation is to try to adhere to the commercial standards from the design manual. You know, the applicant may have some additional comments on that, but part of this was based on knowledge we have about their potential end users that would be going in there and, you know, this wasn't an easy recommendation. It was one that was well considered by staff. Just so you know that if this is, in fact, approved, then, when an end user comes through they would go through the certificate of zoning compliance and design review process. It is highly likely what we would do as part of that, because of the very concerns that Commissioner Freeman raised, is probably convene our design professionals committee to review any potential building plans, elevations, for that frontage and, yeah, I certainly agree that there are different -- certainly different design factors that go into industrial versus commercial. So, again, we were trying to mitigate those in addition to recommending the restrictions on the loading areas and the storage of outdoor materials and so forth. So, you know, our thought is that those would be behind the building, so it's between a future building and existing industrial buildings to the north. So, I don't know if that eases your concerns, but that certainly was the rationale that went into the recommendation. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: Any other questions or comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 10 of 28 O'Brien: No. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Marshall: At this time I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record, please. Miller: Brad Miller with Van Auker Properties. 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. Mr. President, Members of the Commission, thank you for hearing this. What precipitated this -- or let me go back to 1994, 1995. We annexed and zoned this property and at that time we put arbitrary lines on there, what was going to be industrial, what was going to be commercial. So, there was no -- the city -- there was no guidelines from the city, it was us saying, okay, well, let's go 250 or 300 feet or whatever and let's call that commercial, let's call the back industrial. And so the line there is an arbitrary line, which is going to have to be moved one way or the other to match up to the -- to the lot lines. With the Ashley Furniture we sold them that property, built that building for them, and we had to move that property -- or that zoning designation to the north, because that was split zoned as well. So, what precipitated this application is to -- the building to the north is a 172,000 square foot building, which we constructed, which is amulti-tenant industrial building. We built it as at 72,000 square feet and, then, we added onto both ends and originally we had I think five or six tenants in there, we had one company that approached us by the name of Scentsy that didn't have the financial wherewithal to qualify to be one of our tenants, so we told them to go away and Scentsy has since come back and they started with 24,000 square feet and now they have the entire building, except for 14,400 square feet. So, in meeting with them they want to created a campus environment and so we met with them and what, in all likelihood, will happen is we will build a large distribution warehouse there for them. Orville Thompson, who owns Scentsy, is very particular about things and he's into the touch and feel of things and -- and wants to have a meeting area there as well for his employees and so what we will probably do -- I can't promise you this is what will happen, but this is likely what will happen and this is why we have submitted this application -- we will build a large warehouse for them there. The idea would be to have -- I don't know if you have seen the Schumacher Tile building that we built over on Pine Street and Touchmark, but it has windows all along the top. So, in all likelihood we would build a nice looking warehouse with fenestration, modulation, and articulation, which is directly from your code book. Fenestration being windows, right, Pete? Friedman: Yeah. That's correct. Miller: Okay. And so we would try to make it nice and, then, there was also -- there would be -- there would be lush landscaping there. That's something that Orville would want. Now, I can tell by your questions that none of you have been through the architectural review process with Planning and Zoning. Trust me, they are tough. We are just finishing the building -- or, no, we are just about to pull the permit on a building next to Lewis & Clark Middle School and they made us do things that made us -- that we were uncomfortable with, but, you know, once again, fenestration, articulation, and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 11 of 28 modulation. But it will be very nice. If you look at that corridor there and you look at Ashley Furniture and you look RC Willey -- and we also sold RC Willey those 22 acres there -- both of those are basically industrial buildings. I mean they are commercial buildings, but you look at them they are large industrial buildings. And our building, I believe, would -- any building that we build there would be nicer than either of those two buildings, because we would have that -- those different architectural features on it. The plan that we have now is to put all the docks on the north side, so you wouldn't see any docks, and it would really look like a large office building with the windows and things like that. So, I think we can build a very nice building there. I think it would look welcoming there on that entry corridor and I think the city would be very proud of it and I think you would be able to drive by and be proud of what we did there. I mean we don't want to build -- our mode of operations, we don't build and sell, we build and hold, and so it's something that we would want to -- to hold on and the only way that that wouldn't occur is if Scentsy ended up buying it and, trust me, those folks want things nice. Orville is very particular about that. So, I hope that answers your questions. If there is any questions I would be more than happy to try and answer them. Marshall: Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Freeman: I have none. Miller: Don't go easy on me. Come on. Marshall: Again, if that fell through, though, you still are willing, even if it -- Scentsy doesn't pick up that, eventually you go to someone else, you would still be willing to go through the design review and the C-G -- and accept the C-G design guidelines on that piece of property? Miller: Mr. President, we would have no choice. Newton-Huckabay: It's in the development agreement Marshall: Yeah. Right. Miller: The development agreement would include that. We would have no choice but to abide by those requirements. And if we got into a situation where we didn't think that we could do that, we would come back in and ask you for an alteration on it, but I mean we would be bound by those conditions whether we like it or not, so -- but I think we can do a good job there. I really do. Marshall: Thanks very much. Miller: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 12 of 28 Marshall: Commissioners, thoughts, comments? Freeman: Mr. Chair, yes. You know, my concern that I expressed earlier, I guess it would be that the use we end up with here would be a distribution center or a warehouse and I understand, you know, we think we may have an owner who is committed to good design, it may not be that owner, though. That's one. Two is it would still -- it's still a warehouse or a distribution center use, which is a big large building and it's very difficult to make that fit into the esthetic requirements defined by those C-G guidelines. That would be -that would be a tough thing to do, in my opinion. Those are my comments. Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Freeman. Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: I agree with Commissioner Freeman's comments on that. Nothing's a done deal until it's a done deal. And, yeah, until that's locked in we just don't know, you know. Crystal ball. I can understand the direction that we want to go, but whether we can make it there or not is another story. So, yeah, I have got that little file in the back of my mind about how successful it will be. And just another comment is, you know, Meridian, when I first got here, was a bedroom community of Boise and right now it's a showcase and I think that's why are standards are higher than what, I don't know, but think they are -- they should be. I think the scrutiny that staff -- planning staff goes through to make sure that we arrive at a commonality that makes sure that we maintain that status in the valley is really important and I think those have certainly been voiced by Commissioner Freeman. So, I agree that there is just that little bit of chance of not achieving that goal, so -- and that was something we can discuss later. Marshall: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I actually have no problem with this change. I think that most of that area has developed in -- in aquasi-industrial and, like Mr. Miller said, you know, RC Willey is an industrial building. Ashley Furniture is an industrial type building. Those -- those kind of businesses need large buildings. Most of the buildings around it are large buildings. The Schumacher Tile building is quite a nice building and certainly doesn't take away from the scape when you're driving down Pine Street there. On the other hand, Car Quest is a commercial building and it's very, very ugly. So, I think that's all in efforts -- efforts that are put in. I think -- I think an industrial use in that area would be -- would fit with the spirit of what's out there. I like the idea of preserving that area along the railway, so that in the future we have the potential to generate revenue around that rail system. An industrial use is going to generate much more revenue around that kind of transportation than a commercial use on a smaller scale, so I think that along -- you know, there is a lot of things to consider for me and I think giving the potential for that corridor to -- you know, to generate revenue for -- you know, for whatever business is there and the city and employers and that type of thing, I think it -- I think it's awin-win situation. So, I would be favor of this plan amendment myself and I think this development agreement is going to do ample job to protect the city from an unattractive building and, as Mr. Miller said, if they couldn't come to an agreement he would come Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 13 of 28 back in and we would re-look at it at that time. But Ithink -- I think a lot of the industrial buildings that you're seeing nowadays are combination uses of, you know, you're combining offices and warehouses and meeting facilities, just because you're trying to be more frugal as a business. So, I'm comfortable with it and I think it would --Ithink it would be appropriate in that area, particularly given all the other industrial uses and the railway corridor. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I have a little further question. So, is there enough transition between this industrial complex and the residences across Franklin? I don't know how it's filled in. I -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. O'Brien: Is there enough transition there to make it -- Newton-Huckabay: There is quite a bit of space. I'm sorry, I interrupted. Quite a bit of space until you get up into Meadow Lake and -- O'Brien: Okay. Marshall: I, too, have a couple comments. One, I think we need to be a little bit looking forward with Franklin being some of the entryway corridor into Meridian I think it is going to expand, it is -- with the plans for traffic, ACHD, that will widen out one day and be a much larger corridor into the city than it is now and it already files a lot of traffic through there. Ithink it's very important to have a decent, attractive facade in that area, more attractive than what you typically find in an industrial district. I believe that the DA asking for the C-G esthetics is appropriate, because we do have very large -- Commissioner Freeman, speaking to your point, we do have very large commercial buildings to go in and they, too, have to adhere to those standards. I agree that it's got to be very difficult to try to get them to, but, hopefully, having the design review committee in place -- the one comment that stuck with me a little bit, that bothered me a little bit, was that, well, if the Scentsy project doesn't work out and we have somebody else in there that wants to do something else and wants to go, once we have zoned this industrial, we may be back in front of you and, to be honest, no matter what goes in there, my personal opinion is this DA needs to stick, that the commercial frontage there needs to appear attractive for that entryway, no matter whether it's industrial or commercial, and that's my opinion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Madam -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 14 of 28 Newton-Huckabay: I'm confused why you think a development agreement would become invalid. It's a legal signed document. Marshall: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I do not believe it would become invalid, I believe that the applicant would be back in front of us asking us to change that if they had another applicant and my point being that if they did I would be one to be sticking to my guns about the C-G. I'm very adamant about that and that's all my point is. Other than that I am in favor of it. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have one more comment, I guess. You know, ultimately, we do have a very good process in place. I have, actually, been part of the architectural review -- design review and it is very rigorous and the staff is very careful to make sure that they serve the best interest of the city in that. So, I like the fact that they want to make this go through the riggers of a commercially designed project. However, again, if I haven't clarified this, my fear is that even in that process if we allow an industrial use in this zone, it could force our hand to further compromise simply because of the use and its incompatibilities with the design standard that we are trying to achieve. So, in my mind what I fear is we make a compromise now thinking we are going to be okay, but, then, you know, Scentsy goes away or even with them, you know, we get something that crosses our desk that we are not real happy with, but an owner still says, you know, this is -- this is a distribution center, there is only so much we can do and make this economical and we are feeling the pressure to compromise our design guidelines. You know, if this wasn't a designated entry corridor to the city, I probably would feel much different about that, but because it is and I see staff is hesitant and has concerns, I had the concerns before I even saw in the comments that you had concerns. I think I would have to vote against it, because I don't think that any requirements we put on this, if we allow the industrial use, are going to protect us adequately from future compromises. Not that anybody would intend to do that, but once this is done we don't know who is going to own the property in the future, who is going to want to move in, we don't really know any of that. But we a stuck with it being an industrial zone now. Marshall: Any other comments, Commissioners? O'Brien: Well, Mr. Chair, I guess the question I had for Commissioner Freeman -- Marshall: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: -- is this -- is this something that -- that we could put off? I mean is it something that can wait until we know for sure that -- what the intent is, so we have a person that -- or group assigned to put this into place or -- I have to agree with Commissioner Freeman that we are taking a chance or will it be a -- be our saving grace in the way forward. I don't know. I still have that cloud, but -- Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could just chime in to help answer that question. You have an application before you that the applicant deserves an answer one way or the other. So, you can't put it off and the DA is the recommended vehicle to deal with the issues. And Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 15 of 28 while I have the floor, I might recommend that we make sure that Mr. Rohm reviews the transcript and/or the audio tape, because it sounds like his input is going to be necessary when this is brought back up for a final decision. Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Baird. So, can I get a motion to close the public hearing at this time? Sorry. Newton-Huckabay: We are continuing it; right? Marshall: Are we -- we are continuing it? Are we continuing it after closing the public hearing? Baird: You can reopen it. If the applicant has something that might be helpful to your deliberations, go ahead and reopen it. Marshall: Well, actually, it hasn't even closed, so -- Baird: There you go. Marshall: -- would the applicant like to come back up? Miller: Thank you. Brad Miller again. Just a couple of points. Number one, I mean there are no absolutes. I mean I don't think that you can say absolutely this is going to happen or this is not going to happen. I mean we are bound by the development agreement. And the development agreement, believe me, is more onerous than the zoning requirements -- or the design requirements are. The other thing I think you have to look at is I think you have to look at the developer and the developer's reputation. I mean we have been in the valley for -- since 1969. We do a lot of building. We own a lot of buildings. If you go on the east side of Lewis & Clark Middle School, all those buildings -- I think we sold off a couple of them, but all those buildings are ours. We do a good job with our buildings. Those are industrial buildings. I like how they look. Maybe -- maybe they aren't fitting for the -- the entry corridor, but I think you need to look at that and say who is the developer that's doing this. It's not some guy that's just coming here for the first time out of town. We have to live in the community. Our office is in Meridian. I have to appear before all of you a lot. I serve on committees. Mr. Van Auker and Ron, Junior, serve on committees. The 16th I have been asked by Bill Nary to be on the interview committee for the new fire chief. So, I mean we are intimately involved with the city on many different levels and I have to say Sonya and Pete and, trust me, I don't ever want to do anything that -- that they frown on, because they -- mean they really do -- I mean they stick to the guidelines of the city. So, I mean we intend to meet those guidelines. I understand your concerns. But, once again, I think anything that we build there will be nicer than Ashley and will be nicer than RC Willey, because you look at those, they both have loading docks and they are both, basically, large industrial buildings. So, I think that we can do a very nice job there, whether it's Scentsy or whether it's someone else, I mean we are bound by those conditions. It would be very difficult for us to do anything other than make it very nice and you're Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 16 of 28 telling me to design it to the commercial standards and we would have to do that. So, I guess I -- you know, I guess there is a risk there for you, but I don't see it, to tell you the truth. Because how could we do it if we are bound by those standards. I just don't understand that. You know, when you look at -- you look at the corner of Eagle and Fairview, all those large retail stores, those are all just basically big industrial buildings with loading docks in the back and facade on the front. So, I mean we would do our best to make abuilding -- build a building that the city would be proud of, that we would be proud of. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Marshall: Any final comments, anyone? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one final comment. I probably should go on record saying I don't believe that an industrial building is a fairly unattractive building. The only unattractive industrial building is one that's empty and not employing people. So, I don't think to have industrial buildings in an entryway corridor, if you're presenting, again, the city of --as clean -- also it's going to -- I mean it's an employment center and it's prosperous. Those -- an industrial building isn't going to not send that message that this is a great -- not a good place to live. An industrial building has the potential to send that message louder and clearer than a dentist's office in every entryway corridor. You know, we don't need anymore dentist's offices and chiropractor's offices on the entryway corridors. I mean at some point all the dentists and chiropractors are going to move away, because they got no place to go, so -- but, anyway, my point being that I think that -- I think we are making an assumption that an industrial building is -- isn't appropriate ever in an entryway corridor and I don't think that's the case. I think this is -- has the potential by putting this type of industrial building in a development that already has industrial buildings, actually is going to, you know, bring up the neighborhood, so to speak, and kind of set the bar a little higher and I think that would be helpful in that area and I anticipate to be a huge employment center in that whole area. So, I -- again, I think -- I think it is not an inappropriate use, even though it is an entryway corridor. Marshall: Well, Commissioner Huckabay -- Newton-Huckabay, I would beg to disagree with you in that there have been a lot of people that have reviewed the standards and the guide map and that's how that -- this was developed through a lot of different committee meetings and public review and that we have those design guidelines for entryway corridors for a purpose, because that is what we, as the majority of the public, want. Newton-Huckabay: Well, then, vote no. Let's just move it to a vote and move on. think we are at that point. I think we could debate it for hours. Marshall: Actually, I think we are at the point of having to close the public hearing and, then, probably continue this until the 18th. Friedman: That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 17 of 28 Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Well, let's finish, regardless of what action we take. Marshall: So, could Iget -- Newton-Huckabay: We -- I would like to ask a question. Do we want to close the public hearing without having with the potential that Commissioner Rohm's comments may be a tie breaker, so to speak, without having his comments and the applicants a chance to respond to those? Do we need to worry about that? Marshall: When we reopen the public hearing -- Newton-Huckabay: We just reopen it at that time? Baird: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm can certainly make comments after the record's closed, but there is no reason that you can't continue the public hearing until that next meeting as well in case you want to capture -- in case he's got some questions for the applicant. Since you do have a potential tie, I think that the best thing to do, unless planning has got some better idea, let's just continue it for the stated purpose of allowing Commissioner Rohm to ask questions of the applicant, that way, you know, you have already asked your questions, the public's had their opportunity, you know, whatever specific reason to continue it, you should put that on the record. Marshall: So, could I get a motion? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I'd move to close the hearing. Is that the motion? We are only closing the public hearing right now; right? Marshall: Well, that is in question as to whether we are going to close it and, then, continue it or just continue it. Baird: Mr. Chair, if you do -- if you do -- Mr. Chair and Commissioners, if your intention is to continue the hearing to the other date, don't use the word close tonight. Close is when you're done and the record has -- contains -- is self contained. If you want to leave that record open, continue is the word that you should be using tonight. Freeman: So, correction. I move to continue the hearing until the next date, which would be March 18th. Marshall: That would be for CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-005. Freeman: Yes. I need more practice at that. Thank you. Marshall: Is there a second? Newton-Huckabay: I will second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 18 of 28 Marshall: It has been moved and seconded to continue CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-005 to the next hearing date of March 18th. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: CPA 09-010 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation on 60.74 acres of land from Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), Green Space and Park Land (PARK) and Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) to Mixed Employment (ME) for Southridge West Commercial by Cabra Creek, LLC -NEC of S. Ten Mile Road and W. Overland Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 09-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.63 acres from RUT in Ada County to the M-E (Mixed Employment) district for Southridge West Commercial by Cabra Creek, LLC -NEC of S. Ten Mile Road and W. Overland Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 09-006 Request for Rezone of 9.33 acres from the R-8 zoning district to the C-C zoning district for Southridge West Commercial by Cabra Creek, LLC -NEC of S. Ten Mile Road and W. Overland Road: Marshall: All right. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for CPA 09-010, AZ 09-010, and RZ 09-006, for the sole purpose of continuing it until the next hearing of March 18th, 2010. Newton-Huckabay: So moved: Marshall: Can I get a second? Freeman: Second. Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 09-010, AZ 09-010, and RZ 09-006, to March 18th. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: CPA 09-008 Request for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by replacing the Public / Quasi-Public designation with a new Civic designation; changing the future land use designations for current and former churches and hospitals that are designated Public /Quasi-Public; adding new symbols to the