Loading...
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.