CC - Meridian PZ Hearing Minutes 8-16-12Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012"—
Page 30 of 36
i ing or unable to participate at that time, the applicant will design a roundabout so
that right of way boundaries are determined, but design and construct the road without
the roundabout, including interim connections to service drive. They will dedicate right
of way on their property for the future roundabout and submit funds for the construction
cost of the roundabout, less design cost and design and construction costs for the
interim street section. At the time the neighboring property owner plats any portion of
his property he would be obligated to construct a full roundabout, including
modifications to any interim access points. Staff is recommending approval of the
subject applications with the development agreement per the staff report, along with the
modification to provision 1.1.2A and the addition of the terms pertaining to the
roundabout in the applicant's response letter as previously mentioned. Any questions
for staff?
Freeman: Any questions for staff? Not at this time. Thank you, Sonya. Would the
applicant like to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record
again.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, once again, Mike Wardle, Brighton
Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I want to commend staff. This has
been the result of about a three plus year effort and a lot of meetings and discussions
with staff and with the neighbors as well, to come to a conclusion that varies a bit -- not
dramatically, but varies a bit from the adopted Ten Mile interchange speck area plan,
but it recognizes a great deal of study and analysis of the various quadrants on — at the
intersection of 1-84 and Ten Mile Road. It also — we came to the conclusion that we
needed greater flexibility than what the — the Comprehensive Plan provided with the
application of C -G or general commercial zone, but still with the same high quality of
design intended for this area by the Ten Mile speck area plan. It was November of 19
-- excuse me -- not 19. Let's go to 2009. Get my decades correct here. That we
actually provided the first concept plan. So, nearly three years ago and the iterations of
that planning effort over time created a large stack of drawings for consideration,
review, analysis, refinement and — but we also did not deal just with this 80 acre parcel.
On the slide that's in front of you you will see to the north of this parcel there is just a
lightly highlighted parcel at the corner of Franklin Road and Ten Mile. We have about a
43 acre parcel to the north and between these two parcels there is a 120 acre parcel
that's three-quarters of a mile wide east -west and a quarter of a mile north -south. We
actually looked at all of that property and we have done a lot of planning, but it got down
to the point for decisions beyond our control that we could not bring a larger plan to you,
but because of interest in this particular location with the construction of the
interchange, knew that we needed to move forward with the project. Hence we brought
only the southern 80 acres or the going home parcel to the Commission at this point. I
would note that -- on the second slide, which is the one that we provided the staff this
afternoon and it wasn't a surprise, because we actually met with both city staff and
ACHD on Monday to talk about how to deal with the question that they raised in — that
recommended condition 1.1.1 that was either provision of a roundabout intersection that
would provide access to that northerly parcel or a collector roadway along the north
boundary of our property. So, we -- we dealt with this matter with both agencies and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012
Page 31 of 36
came to the conclusion that it was logical to deal with that as a facility right at the
property line. It would be equally split between the two. But the access coming in from
Ten Mile Road was actually secured by the Idaho Transportation Department in
conjunction with its project for the interchange and improvements on Ten Mile Road up
to Franklin. So, that — that location and right of way was actually secured and they
have actually also provided funding for construction of the roadway. It won't be
completely — there will be elements that we are going to have to add to it that will add to
that cost, but so funding and right of way has been provided by the Idaho Transportation
Department, acknowledging that they needed to provide access to our property in the
event that the adjoining property did not develop at the same time. We — as noted by
Sonya, we concur with the staff report analysis and recommended conditions of
approval and in providing this and the next drawing, which delineates the phases of the
project and also that same roundabout intersection, it does provide us, then, with the
opportunity to move forward with anticipation that the first phase construction will begin
next year. Staff had noted that -- let me go back to the first slide. As was noted, the
Perdham Drain comes right across the site in this location -- is the first thing that has to
be dealt with and we will be relocating that to the south boundary and to the west
boundary this fall -- in the final stages of getting all of the necessary approvals, we have
secured already the Corps of Engineers 404 permit for that activity. The last items with
in Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District are underway. So, that's the first thing that will
happen that would enable us, then, next year to begin site improvements for
development activities that we trust will be coming forward rather soon. As we have
noted with our neighbors to the east, phase one will retain a fairly large area, nearly 60
percent of the site between us and the Primrose Subdivision will remain in its
agricultural activities. So, we would be moving forward and the actual impact to those
adjoining neighbors will be some distance down the line. In dealing with the neighbors
— and we have met with them in the Ten Mile Church and, then, in the shade of one of
the trees in their yard. The first meeting that we had with them was actually May 31st
and, then, we met with them again on July 20th as we got a little bit more detail. But
one of the concerns that they had was, of course, the impact and the buffering that
would occur on that easterly boundary adjacent to their pasture areas, frankly. Pretty
much all of them have a depth of agricultural use behind their homes. But as you can
see we have the -- the benefit, actually, of — there is a 32 foot wide city sewer easement
that's already in place. The sewer trunk line was constructed there some time ago, so
we began with a 32 foot wide easement that we can't plant trees, but we can do
financing on the east side, we can do shrubbery and other landscape elements and,
then, beyond that there would be tree lined areas outside of that easement. This
detached sidewalk and another tree lined corridor before you get to the street. That
total area of 62 feet, then, 48 foot wide street segment that would in some areas have
islands in the middle with landscaping and, then, another 30 feet both half right of way
and parcel landscape area on the other side of that street for about 140 feet of street
and landscape buffer elements before you get to any of the site improvements for retail
uses. One of the issues — and the staff has given you a general statement about
securing the street names, but when we met with the neighborhood one of their primary
concerns was whether or not Verbena Drive was going to be connected through into the
project and that, of course, is through that subdivision. We never proposed, nor do we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012
Page 32 of 36
support that kind of a connection. So, it's not anticipated that there would, in fact, be
any street access from this development — this long established neighborhood to the
project. But the street naming committee, because it lines up with our east -west street
suggested that Verbena t e the street within the retail development as well and. of
course, that raises a question that if you have that -- an address and somebodv looks it
up ansa tney Know mat verpena comes on Under. mavoe we can tack door this and ao
Gown Uncier to veroena and get Into the project. Bence it could create a real problem
for the neighborhood. So, we — we appealed that to the street naming committee and
T2y said, essentlaii, we would have to deal with the city. So, we have -- we have
requested I guess a waiver of the requirement and so staff I think has acknowledrie that
Ir we wont tnrou2n tele process certainly we will before City Council action on this have
an approved name at that point. But I just wanted to stress the fact that we have met
with our neighbors and have tried to provide the type of buffering and consideration that
— that their neighborhood deserves. We would just note that the site is an appropriate
area and use for the broader commercial, hence the reason for the Comprehensive
Plan amendment from the lifestyle center and high density employment and even
residential. There was a medium high density residential component on the east —
northeasterly comer of this site and the neighbors generally feel that this was a better
use and a better buffer, frankly, than to having an apartment project abutting the backs
of their properties. So, with -- with those activities and a great deal of consideration that
we provided to staff and the conclusions that they have drawn in terms of
recommendation for amending the Comprehensive Plan map as proposed and
requested, annexation and zoning with a zone of C -G, general commercial, and
preliminary plat approval, we ask for this Commission to also concur with staff and to
recommend approval to the City Council. I would be happy to respond to questions and
would ask if there are any members of the team — this is the team pretty much back
here that have been laboring on this effort for a number of years. So, if I have the
opportunity to answer questions I would be happy and if I can't answer them they will.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions of the application at this time?
Rohm: I don't have any.
Freeman: No. Okay. Thank you very much. If there is more testimony you will get an
opportunity to come back and address any — anything that may come up. I have a
couple of names signed up to speak. I can't read the last name of Gary -- is Gary Fors?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mike Wardle. Mr. Fors and Mr. Atwood were both here. To my
knowledge they have been very supportive of the effort, so I suspect that — I gave them
a copy of the PowerPoint presentation to review and they left, apparently.
Freeman: They did mark on the sign-up sheet that they were for the application, so —
Wardle: Very good.
Freeman: I will take it that neither one are with us still to testify.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012
Page 35 of 36
some concerns about the layout, but I understand it's just a placeholder for now that's
going to developed and designed. So, with that I -- I can approve this application, I
believe. I think staffs done a great job of making sure that we still get a quality project
in the spirit of the Ten Mile interchange plan. If there are no further comments — and I
don't see anybody —
Rohm: Oh, I just have one —
Freeman: Commissioner Rohm, go for it.
Rohm: — thing that I wanted to say and that is I believe that this kind of development
relieves some pressures from other existing developments within our community and
anytime you can expand to the point that you have commercial development on the
west side of Meridian, it's going to relieve some of the pressure on the east side and as
we have worked very hard to make our community accessible from all the residents at
either end, I think this is the right direction to go and so I applaud the efforts of the
developers and staff in coming up with something that will work for all.
Freeman: Thank you, Commission Rohm.
motion?
Marshall: I'll take a stab at it.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Now, which one of you wants to make a
Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to approve file number CPAM 12-001, AZ 12-005, and PP 12-003, as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of August 16th, 2012, with the following modifications:
That 1.1.2A be change to — modified to require a revised concept plan and 1.1.1A to
provide a roundabout provision with the additional modifications as presented.
Yearsley: I'll second that.
Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval for CPAM 12-
001, AZ 12-005, and PP 12-003, Ten Mile Crossing amended as noted. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: I think that's the end of our agenda, so I need another motion.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I — move that we adjourn.