Loading...
2004 12-16 :ð, >L- Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina December 16. 2004. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe. Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Josh Wilson, Joe Guenther, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X David Zaremba X David Moe Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm -2L-Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and start with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: The first item is that of the Consent Agenda. Does anyone wish to remove anything from the Consent Agenda? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, prior to that, may I make a comment on the adoption of the agenda? Borup: Yes. Commissioner. Zaremba: Items 7, 8, and 9, it's a recommendation on Item 9, which is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, may have an impact on our discussion on 7 and 8. I would ask that we move the 9 in front of 7 and 8. Does that need to be in the form of a motion? Borup: Do we have a second? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I think there has been a revised agenda. I think it's already been taken care of. Borup: We just haven't been given that is all. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page2of4l Zaremba: Well, I best get myself a copy. Borup: That's exactly what they did do, Commissioner, is what you recommended. Zaremba: All right. Then I was going to comment that, just for the audience, in case anybody is here, that we are very likely to continue what was Item No. 12, AZ 04-029, until January 6th and, then, I was going to ask -- I had in my packet a request from somebody to change an Ada County ordinance and I wanted to add a final item, an Item 13, to -- for about a two minute discussion of whether we want to make a recommendation to Ada County or not. Borup: Good. Zaremba: Please. So much for the agenda. Okay. I have one correction on the minutes. Does that mean we should move it from the Consent Agenda? Borup: Yes, I think probably so. We have a motion for the Consent Agenda and, then, we will amend the minutes. Zaremba: Agenda. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Item B be removed from the Consent Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Adult Business License Application for Paul McLeod with Valley Video - 433 North Main Street: B. Approve Minutes of November 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: We do we have a motion for the Consent Agenda? Zaremba: So moved. Rohm: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 3 of 41 Borup: Okay. Item of minutes for November 18th. Zaremba: I have one very small comment. On page 43, the second time that I speak, I am making a motion about the third line of that motion it says to -- all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date November 18th, received by the City Council, that word should be clerk. I mayor may not have said Council, but it would be far clearer and the intent is that it should be the word clerk. That's the only comment I have. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the meeting of November 18th, 2004, with the one amendment. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Recommendation: VAC 04-009 Request for Vacation of existing 20-foot right of way south of the Milk Lateral and vacation of portions of East Granger Street within Redfeather Estates Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of Duane Drive: Borup: Okay. Our next item is not a Public Hearing, it's a recommendation in file number VAC 04-009. This is a request for a vacation of existing 20-foot right of way along the Milk Lateral and portions of Granger Street within Redfeather Subdivision by Packard Estates. I'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. As you can probably tell we are having a little problem with the overhead tonight, so I will just go ahead and reference your hard copies. Staff did issue a staff report to you that addressed the applicant's request for the vacation. There is two -- two general areas of this subdivision where they are asking for vacation of existing right of way. One of them is along the west boundary and it's a shared right of way with the Perkins Brown Lateral and -- I'm sorry, the Perkins Brown Subdivision to the west and, then, the other one is Granger Drive and if you're looking at the reduced version of the plat that was submitted with their application, these are below the halfway point. The Milk Lateral is shown there and both of these are on the southern half of the subdivision, so -- and staff did review this request. Our only condition that we recommended was that they get final approval through Ada County Highway District for either vacating or exchanging the right of way before the city engineer signs the plat. So, we recommend approval. Borup: Comments from any of the Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page4of41 Zaremba: Sometimes with these applications we actually have letters from those that are interested in the easement already giving them up. Do you have any anticipation of this being a problem or is it likely to happen? Hawkins-Clark: No, Commissioner Zaremba, the -- there is no easement -- in this case it is right of way that's owned by the highway district. They are the sole -- Zaremba: They'll give it up? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they are. I think their staff report for Redfeather Estates -- actually, even, you know, conditioned that they needed to get this taken care of, so -- Zaremba: Mr. Chair, I -- Borup: Your staff report said that was one of the original conditions of the city. Zaremba: Okay. But I knew it wasn't the city, I was just confirming that ACHD agreed with it. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of VAC 04-009, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 16th, received by the city clerk December 14th, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 04-018 Request a Rezone of .74 acres from L-O to C-C zone for Kinetico Quality Systems of Treasure Valley by Irma Jean Phillips - 544 West Cherry Lane: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-031 -- or, I'm sorry, it's Public Hearing RZ, a rezone, 04-018, request for rezone of .74 acres from L-O to C-C zone for Kinetico Quality Systems. I'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Wilson: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the application before you is for Kinetico Quality Systems of the Treasure Valley, 544 West Cherry Lane, an application to rezone .74 acres from limited office to commercial, to the Community Business, which is the C-C zone. The applicant is proposing to use the existing residence on the property and convert it into a retail -- some retail, some service business. The applicant has stated that it's a neighborhood friendly business that is retail in nature, but has minimal site visits by customers. Most of the business activity takes place in a customer's home, with the business site used for supporting office activity, light retail of accessory products and storage of the product as installed into the customers' homes. Bring up the site plan here. It looks like it didn't make it into the presentation. This is a site plan of the property with parking for customers in the front and, then, parking in the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 PageS of41 rear for business vehicles and employees. As a rezone it does not require a detailed site plan, only a conceptual one, which they have provided here. A few of the key concems that staff had was adequate land use buffering in the rear of the structure, which would be the north, to the left there on the site plan. Meridian City Code does call for a 25 foot landscape buffer between the retail use and residential use to the north. It appears from this plan that that would take up about half of that area in between the house and property line. In speaking with the applicant on the phone today, he did state that on this conceptual site plan here it does kind of appear that the asphalt is proposed to go all the way to the fence just the way it's drawn, but he did state that there was ten to 12 feet of landscaping in between that property line and what would be the asphalt and there are more trees and shrubs that show up on this plan as well. If it's found that this is an appropriate use for this site, the applicant would need to work with staff on alternative compliance for that land use buffer and also the western property line requires a 20 foot buffer between the multi-family residential that's on the adjacent lot and this retail business. There appears to be about 18 feet available, so they would also need alternative compliance for that two feet that they can't provide there as well. Also in discussions today with the applicant, the question about whether or not they had adequate room for parking and the applicant will probably speak to this, but I can kind of go over what we spoke about. They are proposing approximately 225 square feet of retail space, which would require the -- at one per 200 -- at one parking space per 200 feet, that would require the one parking space and, then, approximately 600 square feet of office space, which is a space and a half at one to 400, which we would round up to two spaces. And, then, we also require for storage area, one parking space per 1,000 square feet, plus one for each vehicle used in the business. 'lIlet the applicant address how many vehicles they do have, but in kind of going over the site with them, it did appear that they had room for at least eight or nine parking spaces and that it appeared to be sufficient room to work with. One of the other issues raised in the staff report was the need for cross-access to the commercially zoned lot to the east. It is a parking lot currently for an existing commercial enterprise, Excel Hospice. It's a little bit difficult to see, but to the east of this lot there is a lot with frontage on Cherry Lane, with a lot kind of behind it that has frontage on it. I believe Crestwood is the street that goes there. That's the actual Hospice business that exists on that rear lot and, then, that front lot with frontage on Cherry Lane is their parking lot. Staff has recommended that because of the commercial use of these -- the proposed commercial zoning and the current commercial zoning of that lot, that the applicant provide an asphalt drive to the property line to provide for cross-access and also record an easement to facilitate cross-access for the future development of that lot commercially. Also, the staff has recommended that the business hours be limited from 7:00 in the morning to 7:00 at night. With the applicant requesting the C-C zone, that does open up this site for retail use. The CoN zone, which the land next to the east of it is zoned, retail use would be a Conditional Use Permit on that land. So, you know, in anticipation of future commercial uses or-- and in light of the residences to the north of here, we did feel it was appropriate to limit the hours of operation 7:00 to 7:00. And the cross-access to the east, the restriction of hours of operation and those would be the two items we'd like to see in a development agreement for the applicant to enter into with the city and, then, anything else that the Commission feels like is appropriate. We did not receive the staff report from ACHD. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page6of41 The applicant did mention that they are wanting the drive expanded to the west. It's a little bit difficult to see in the materials we have here, but there is a street that lines up with this property across Cherry Lane and in order to line those up better ACHD has requested that that drive be expanded to the west a little bit and also widened. And with that I will end staff's comments. Borup: Anything from any of the Commissioners? Moe: I just wanted to -- could you go back over and -- just briefly in regards to the landscape buffer, what would be on the north, I assume? Wilson: Yeah. The landscape ordinance does require 25 feet along there, because it's a difference in uses. The applicant could maybe address the exact distance between the rear of the building here and the north property line, but it does appear that that buffer would take up at least half of that area, reducing the area that they have proposed for parking for the business's vehicles. Moe: Okay. Wilson: And so they would need to work with staff on alternative compliance on -- for that buffer for the 10 to 15 feet that they can provide. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: With that, plus the moving and widening of the driveway access to Cherry Lane, are they still going to have adequate parking? Wilson: Yes. The applicant represented that ACHD only wants them to expand the drive about five feet to the west, so it really doesn't interfere with the area that they have proposed for parking. Borup: Would the applicant like to add anything, make their application? Burton: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I'll just stand for any questions or -- I think staff has done an excellent job of presenting what we had asked for. If there is any clarification about the issues that have been discussed here, I would be happy to -- Borup: I think maybe the aspect of the buffering along the north side. Burton: Yes, sir. Borup: If you could -- how much distance you have between that and the building and -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page 7 of4l Burton: May I use a pointer pen here to illustrate? What we have, if we take the north boundary here, if we start in the northeast corner, from that northeast corner to this shed, about three or four feet off the fence line there is already a grape arbor in there that stands about seven feet tall. Canning: Excuse me, sir. Chairman Borup, we need to get the gentleman's name. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. State your name and address. Burton: My name is Don Burton, I'm the owner of Kinetico Quality Water. Home address is 1949 North Pear Tree Avenue in Meridian. So, we do have a grape arbor along here and, then, from the shed here for, I don't know, probably 10 or 15 feet the arbor extends on that side as well, so it's a nice buffer and the fence back there. In addition to these two trees here, there are other shrubs, landscape shrubs, that are in this area right here. As staff has said, 25 feet would severely curtail our ability to just use the area for parking. Our purpose or this area is simply to park two company service vans in this area overnight when they are not in use. They go out in the morning, return late in the afternoon, and just to simply park them there. So, we are not talking about any traffic back there to speak of, just simply parking the company vehicles. This area in here will remain in line with the trees to maintain a nice -- just a nice atmosphere and environment for company and employees everyone else that -- there will be much of that left around the property in the plans. Does that answer the question on that north boundary? What we just asked for, as staff has alluded to, is some sort of -- I don't know what you would call it, I don't know the terms, variance, if you will, if we leave the asphalt, you know, that 10 or 12 feet off the back line and our purpose is simply to park those company vehicles during the nighttime when they are not in use. Moe: But I guess what I -- the question I would have is if you did have to put the landscaping, you would still probably have enough room to take care of both your service vans; right? Burton: If we leave about 10 or 12 feet. As it is now, the asphalt line will probably run right about in there. If we take 25 feet that would severely compromise our ability to park those vans back there. And, then, what we would like to do over here on this side is just have two parking spaces there in front of that grape arbor and that would be for office staff parking, principally myself and my office manager. Rohm: I think that it's suffice to say as long as you can work with staff and come up with alternate compliance, then, that is what we are looking for here. Burton: Absolutely. In fact, the request to extend the asphalt over to the contiguous east parking lot over there is -- I had no idea it was going to come up in the staff report. It was something I had hoped to do, to work with the neighbor over there to be able to do that, so I'm certainly amenable to doing that. In fact, that's desirous for us. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page 8 of41 Borup: And you had mentioned that alternate compliance. What that normally would be, rather than the ordinance standards on the amount of landscaping, with the reduction in that setback it would be an increase in the amount of vegetation and stuff there. Burton: If that is needed. Borup: Yeah. Depending on what you have already got there. That's what you would need to work with staff to see what's there and if there is some area that would need to be an increase in the amount of vegetation, that's how it can accomplish some of the same things with that buffering. Burton: Certainly. Yeah. Let them review what is there, if it's not sufficient, if there are deficiencies in the landscaping, I have no problem with adding to that to extenuate that buffer, but we'd like to keep that a little wider than what we would have if we had to give up 25 feet for parking back there. Moe: And, then, on the other conditions here, you have no problems with any of these? Burton: No, I have no concern with any of those. Rohm: The cross-access agreement and associated easement for that cross-access? Burton: That's very desirable to me. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: And I will pick the ACHD question. I'm sure you have read and you agree with their site specific condition, which is remove the existing eight feet -- 18 foot wide curb cut driveway approximately 25 feet west and reconstruct the driveway to be a curb return type that is a maximum of 36 feet in width and in alignment for Crestmont? Do you understand that you're required to do that? Burton: I do, I understand -- well, I didn't understand it at first. I spoke to Mrs. Tunning, who is the contact there at ACHD, to get some clarification, because I didn't understand it and -- because, basically, what I was seeing as I drove out of the property, as you drive out of this driveway, you're looking right at the cars that are egressing onto Cherry Lane from Crestmont straight across. That's why I asked her how far do you want to move the east edge of the driveway and she said, oh, five feet. But we need to widen it and I needed to widen that anyhow. So, we will move the west edge five feet, widen it on down here to make it about a 24 foot wide driveway, put in the 15 degree radials as required and that's very workable. Zaremba: That's doable with your plan? Burton: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 9 of41 Borup: Okay. Burton: Thank you, Commissioners. Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Any questions or comments? Thank you. Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 04-018. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Before I make a motion, I guess I do have one question, which would be I would assume that we should, probably under special considerations, add a number four in regards to working with staff for alternate compliance for the area of the landscape buffer. Wilson: Yes, I would agree. That, actually, should have been in there. Moe: All right. Zaremba: Actually, on page six my suggestion would be to add it as another bullet under the development agreement. Wilson: Okay. Moe: Okay. Put it there. We can do that. That's where we'll put it. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-018, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated for the hearing date December 16th, received by the city clerk's office December the 10th, with the following changes: On page six, under the site specific conditions, I would like to -- paragraph three, I would like to add another bullet point, after any other conditions desired by the Commission and Council, I would add another one stating to work with staff for alternative compliance for the area of the landscape buffer. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page10of41 Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 04-031 Annexation and Zoning of 8+ acres from a C- 2 zone to a proposed CoG zone for Meridian Gateway by White-Leasure Development Company - SWC of South Meridian Road and West Overland Road: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-031, annexation and zoning of eight plus acres from a C-2 zone to proposed CoG zone for Meridian Gateway by White-Leasure Development. I'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a 9.0-acre site, as referred to by the survey submitted by Roylance and Associates on October 15th. There was a letter in the application that came in from an attorney, who did reference that the submitted deed was inaccurate, so the legal description should refer to the survey, not the deed. And in saying that, the property is -- is located on the southwest corner of Overland and Meridian -- Kuna-Meridian Road, State Highway 69. This area is designated as -- for future commercial by the Comprehensive Plan and it's currently in Ada County zoned C- 2. The request is to make this a General Commercial and there has not been a detailed plan submitted with this for a planned unit development project. The conceptual plan shows a large box retail site, something around the order of 50,000 square feet, with the existing nonconforming gas station also being included on that site plan, which is listed as item number six there. And with that proposal being conceptual only, staff feels that with the additional conditions that -- or the comments that have been made by the Meridian fire department, as well as within the Comprehensive Plan, that this project can go forward for an annexation if those conditions are met. Now, the comments that were received by Meridian fire were generally pointed towards the existing gas station, which predated the Ada County ordinance, as well as when being annexed into this project would not be in compliance with the Meridian City Code, due to setback issues, as well as placement of certain materials on site. In speaking with the Ada County code enforcement officer, there is also an undefined junk yard on the site that, upon annexation and prior to issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance would -- staff would like required to have been cleaned up. Now, with this we are requesting that the development agreement address these issues, as listed by the fire department and staff. That is what I have to say. I'll stand for questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? complying use, even with the county? At this time you said this was a non- Guenther: It's a nonconforming -- it's a legally nonconforming. As far as the records that Mr. Williams, the code enforcement officer from Ada County has indicated to me, the use predated the Ada County ordinance and, therefore, is legally nonconforming. Borup: Okay. Guenther: The junkyard is what Mr. Williams has indicated is not in compliance with Ada County code, nor is it allowed in the CoG district, i.e., illegal. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page II of4l Borup: Right. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Huber: Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Jeff Huber, I represent the applicant. My address is 416 South 8th Street, Suite 200, Boise. We have been working with this property owner for, oh, about the last year and a half to come up with some plan and devise some plan to develop this property in the future. The first step in doing that, in order to attract any tenants -- major tenants or medium size tenants, would be to have this property annexed into the city and zoned as per the city zoning designation. So, that's why we are here before you tonight. We -- this is purely a conceptual plan that we added to the application. We realize that we would have to come back before you for each use that would go into this site. Currently the -- there is the existing gas station and the convenience store that's operating on site. There is also an approved DEQ remediation that's going on on this particular site. As far as the junkyard goes, I'm not aware that it's actually an operating junkyard. I think there is just -- that Mr. Howell has acquired some junk over the years and he does allow some of the trucks -- truck drivers that he knows, oh, from his past years working there, he allows them to park there sometimes. We would like to -- we believe that the staff report is accurate. We would -- we are in agreement with the staff report. As far as the development agreement goes with the city, we want to keep continuing to operate the convenience store for now until -- because there is this remediation that's going on from the DEQ that has to continue. Once we do have a major tenant for this site, then, we will come back before you and we will -- we would have a particular use at that time that we could show you and we would work the access points out with ITD and the Ada County Highway District, but if this annexation is going to trigger a closure of the convenience store, then, we would not want to go forward at this time. But I don't think that that's staff's intent, it's just that it says that's it's not an approved use in the CoG zone and I have a question for staff on that. Is the convenience store not an approved use in the CoG zone? Guenther: A convenience store is a conditional use in a CoG zone. Huber: Okay. Well, however the Commission would like to treat that, I'm all ears. Any questions? Zaremba: Is there a time frame for removing the junk that mayor may not constitute a junk yard? Huber: Currently we do not have a time frame for that. And we do not have a tenant yet. Again, as I stated earlier, the very first step in redeveloping this property -- and I realize this is a key commercial corner, it's one of the gateway corners into the city, is that it become part of the city. The tenants just won't look at it unless they are sure that they can have water and sewer and proper zoning and be in the city. The time frame in getting annexation and rezone tends to turn off a major tenant. They want that done first before they will even consider the site. So, that's why we are here before you tonight. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 12of41 Zaremba: I'm not sure which is first. I would think compliance with existing laws would be first. Huber: For the tenant? Zaremba: For the property. Huber: Well, true. I -- we don't have a time frame to remove the junkyard and I don't know what the Commission's pleasure is on that. Rohm: Yeah. I think that -- trying to think out loud here just for a moment. To move forward, obviously, you'd need to clean the junk up, number one. The existing use of the land for the existing convenience store, gas station, would remain until you submitted a redevelopment plan for that property after it's been annexed and accepted and rezoned. That seems to be the order of the day. But the first item would be as accepting -- being accepted into the city, the cleanup would have to take place between now and when it goes before City Council. That seems to be the order from my perspective. Buy that, Dave? Zaremba: I could see that. Moe: Well, if I might just point out, basically noting in the -- as far as for the development agreement, how it's incorporated, there is already notation on the second bullet point on page ten that pretty much -- you know, prior to the issuance of any building permits on the subject property all existing uses shall be properly abandoned or brought into compliance. Rohm: And I don't think that that necessarily means that they have to take the existing gas station and close it down, as I read it. It's just anything that's to be redeveloped would have to be in compliance with the new ordinance -- or existing ordinance. Huber: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. That's fine. Zaremba: Let me ask a question on the -- Huber: The applicant's in agreement with that. Zaremba: On right of way, the discussion of the future right of way, as identified by ITD for Meridian Road, State Highway 69 -- Guenther: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: I'm not sure how wide that would be, but doesn't it go about where the gas pumps are? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 13 of41 Guenther: And that's -- that was the concern of staff, is that ITD has a standard 120 foot right of way designated for that area for future acquisition and that is going to be a significant portion of that gas station and with the existing uses, as well as the existing speeds of Meridian Road, it is staff's opinion that prior to release of any building permit that the nonconforming uses come into compliance -- full compliance with the City of Meridian Code, which if that means removal of the convenience store or relocation of it, then, that's what this development agreement should state. Rohm: And I think the applicant concurs with that. Huber: Yes, I do. Rohm: Yeah. Zaremba: So, essentially, its continuation as its current legal nonconforming use could continue that way until the right of way became an issue and, then, it's already understood by the applicant that some day it's going to change, even if we said it's okay today. Huber: Correct. Zaremba: Some day it's not okay and that doesn't mean that you can stop the right of way. Huber: That is correct. Zaremba: Okay. As long as that's the development agreement and everybody understands it and is happy with it. Did I misstate something? Canning: Well, I'm not hearing the same things from the two people. We are saying prior to release of any building permit that that nonconforming use should be brought into compliance. Is that what you stated? Because what I heard was that it would continue until they redeveloped that portion of the property. But what we are saying is any portion of the property, if they want a building permit, it needs to be redeveloped -- brought into compliance. Rohm: Well -- and that's the way it states in that -- on page ten is that prior to issuance of any building permit on the subject property, it has to come into compliance. Zaremba: I guess my question is compliance with what? Compliance with Meridian ordinances is obvious, but also compliance with a future right of way? Canning: Yes. Both of them. So, you would have the right of way and, then, you would have the landscape buffers. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 14 of 41 Canning: Okay. Moe: Well, not only that, you're right into the subject of the conditions of the county and lTD. Rohm: Does that all make sense to you? Huber: Yes. Rohm: Okay. I thought it did. Huber: Okay. Borup: Then, are you comfortable -- one of your earlier concerns was that the business would be able to continue to operate and I don't know if we have addressed that. Rohm: Yeah. Right. The business would continue to operate until they requested a building permit on the property and at such time that convenience store or gas station would have to cease operation. Huber: Or come into compliance. Rohm: Or -- right. Borup: But just -- has that been with -- does that handle that as being one of the conditions of the annexation or do we -- Rohm: I think by ordinance. Guenther: It would be by a development agreement. Borup: Be by which? Guenther: By the development agreement. Borup: The development agreement can handle that. Okay. That's -- I mean we need to do something more than just state it now. Okay. I'm fine. Zaremba: Development agreement works for me. Borup: And that's what I wanted clarified. We didn't need to talk about a conditional use at this, if the development agreement will handle it. Moe: And it's noted in the development agreement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 15 of 41 Zaremba: So, my other question: Were you satisfied that there has been a resolution to the question about 24.20 feet of the property? Huber: Well, that's for the man in the black robe to decide, I think, the 24 feet that's in dispute. That will probably -- that will be worked out between the attorneys, between the two property owners. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: So, that was -- okay. That was a dispute between the survey and an old deed? Huber: Right. Borup: Any other questions? Huber: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that wanted to testify on this application? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close Public Hearing AZ 04-031. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-031, to include all staff comments of the hearing date December 16th, received by the city clerk's office December 13th. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Public Hearing: CPA 04-003 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change approximately 48 acres from Industrial to Mixed- Use Regional for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. The next item is Public Hearing CPA 04-003, a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change approximately 48 acres from industrial to mixed use regional by Ten Mile Development by Hansen-Rice, Incorporated. This is located at Eagle Road and Pine. I'd like to open this-- Item 7: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page 16of41 Canning: Chairman Borup, before you finish that sentence, we forgot to ask you to deal with Maverick Country Store, which is going to be tabled. Are there people here from Maverick? Borup: Oh. Canning: Yeah. So, we probably need to deal with that. We are sorry that we made you sit through that last couple confusing ones. We should have dealt with it sooner. Borup: Yeah. That was from -- oh, that's right. That was not continued, it was just moved to this, wasn't it. We probably should have had that earlier on in the agenda. Canning: Yes. Sorry, sir. The applicant did not post the property, so we are going to have to table it to the 20th. Borup: Oh, this was not posted. Okay. I was not aware of that. You know, just -- we can open the hearing, but we will not -- is the staff ready for a report or -- Canning: Sir, I think we need to get some direction from the attorney. Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, since there had been some notice issues, my recommendation would be to simply set the matter over, so it can be properly noticed. If there are people here tonight, they certainly can submit their testimony in writing, so it can be part of the record, but there isn't going to be a hearing tonight, because it hasn't been noticed properly. So, you shouldn't be taking testimony at this juncture, you should take testimony when it's all completed, because, otherwise, there isn't any staff report, there isn't any report tonight, because, again, it hasn't been completely noticed properly. I know some of the folks received notice, the mail notice has gone out, they don't send another mailed notice, but the posting is required as well to have a hearing, so to properly hold a hearing, you need to have all the notices completed. So, they can submit written testimony if they want to, that can become part of the record, but if they want to testify in person, they are going to have to come when we can hold a hearing properly. Zaremba: Do we know the hearing date that's going to be posted on the posting notice? Nary: I think that's what you decide it to be. Zaremba: So, they haven't even started to be posted yet. Nary: Right. They have ten days -- they have a ten-day window to post it. I think this was one they didn't post it. I don't think they posted the wrong date, I think they didn't post at all. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Pagel7of41 Canning: Chairman Borup? Borup: The 20th would be the next available date? Canning: We would suggest the 20th. The 6th agenda is looking pretty light, but you have already kind of pre-committed to putting the last item on the agenda to the 6th and we were trying to keep to the Comprehensive Plan amendment ones, so you will probably have Ten Mile on the 20th also or -- we were afraid of putting all three of them on the 6th, I guess is what it comes down to. Rohm: And you will be talking to the applicant about that posting? Canning: He was in this morning -- or this afternoon. Rohm: You might suggest that they have a community meeting. Borup: A neighborhood meeting? Rohm: Neighborhood meeting, just to give these people an opportunity to talk to them before we come back before this Commission on the 20th. Canning: And, Chairman Borup, with your indulgence, if those folks can raise their hand, I will take a quick hand count, so that they have some idea. Borup: Yes. All those that are here for the Maverick application? I count seven. Canning: Seven. Thanks. Seven. Thank you. Borup: Would you like to make that a little bit stronger and say we would like to see that meeting before -- Rohm: I would. I'd like to see a neighborhood meeting before it's brought back before this Commission. Zaremba: I definitely support that idea. Borup: So, at this point it's not a recommendation from this Commission, that is a requirement. Canning: Chairman Borup -- Borup: Can we do that before the hearing? Canning: I think you can. It says you can do that. It doesn't say you have to do that in a hearing, but can they take an action without a hearing being open? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 18of4l Borup: Yeah. I was wondering that, too. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, probably not. I tell you what, make a very strong recommendation that when you hear it on the 20th it would nice if you had a neighborhood meeting, but I don't know how you can make them do it. Borup: I was just going to say, I think we can do it that way and, then, on the 20th if it hasn't happened, we can make a decision then. Zaremba: I would convey to the applicant that if they don't want to risk having it continued again from the 20th -- Canning: I will -- Zaremba: -- be prepared with a neighborhood meeting before that is a good idea. Canning: Sounds like a good spin. Borup: January 20th. Sorry. Zaremba: 2005. Borup: Our meetings are the first and third Thursdays of each month. So, this is our last meeting for December. Sorry we didn't get that earlier for those that were here. Zaremba: So, to make sure I'm clear, Items 10 and 11 are moved to January 20th, 2005; is that correct? Borup: Yes. It's my understanding, January 20th on 10 and 11. Moe: If they get their notice out. Borup: Yes. Okay. Thank you, director. I was not aware of the notice. I think where I left off was ready to turn our next hearing -- if I didn't open it, it is open at this point and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The application before you is combined, as you read both this staff report and the staff report from Maverick, the one you just moved to your January meeting, they are both Comprehensive Plan amendments and I think both of our staff reports reminded you that as Comprehensive Plan amendments, the state talks about this body needing to recommend changes to the land use map only once -- only twice a year and I so just clarify that up front, that the staff is recommending that you not close this hearing. We have talked briefly with the applicant, too, and I think they are in agreement with that, too. So, it doesn't seem like there is an issue, but just a reminder on that front. And we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 190f4l had also requested, even though there is three applications associated with this project, we are focusing on just the Comp Plan amendment and that's what my staff report -- Borup: That's the only one we opened. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thank you. We will deal with -- the property is kind of formerly known as the Elixir property and I guess could still be known as that, since they are the property owners today. Eagle Road fronts the property on the east. Union Pacific on the south. Gemtone Industrial Park on the north and there is some county property, along with Layne Industrial Park to the west. There is two different projects there on the west that would abut this project, so -- the application is requesting a little -- about a third of this property that you see highlighted here to be removed from the industrial designation and put into the mixed use regional designation. As you can see, it is today already annexed and is zoned light industrial as the gray color indicates. This aerial photo gives you a little bit of a sense for what's on the subject property and what some of the surrounding uses are. Blue Cross Insurance headquarters is located here immediately to the north. A future Pine extension. Pine is constructed to approximately this point and would be extended to the west in the future with development -- private development dollars. ACHD does not have that extension built in as far as public funding, so that -- that would be anticipated to be in that alignment, but would be reliant on development there. There is a warehouse -- well, two warehouses. One larger one and one smaller one on the property here in the southeast corner. The Coors building and some other industrial uses on the opposite side of Eagle Road. Olson Bush Industrial Park is on the south side of the railroad tracks there and as you can see the Layne Industrial Park that I mentioned is largely built out. Here is a shot at the Comprehensive Plan that incorporates the area. The red outline here is the same property. As you can see, it's split with the designation that's in the Comprehensive Plan. Mixed use regional is on approximately 40 to -- 40 acres or so and, then, there is about 22 acres that is on the back western half that is designated industrial, which is what it's zoned. So, the application for the Comp Plan amendment really is dealing with this, even though the other two following applications that you will deal with in January do propose a rezone of this entire area that's outlined in red from the industrial to a CoG, General Commercial, and, then, they have a conceptual plan for a retail project on the site. So, I know we have a few new commissioners since -- I think since we have had a comp plan amendment, at least to the land use map. These are a little bit unique in that you -- you're almost kind of putting on your planning hats and taking off your zoning hats as far as Planning and Zoning Commission with these Comp Plan amendments. In some ways you're almost thinking as economists and I don't know if we are asking you to fully be full fledged economists here tonight, but there is recently some of the issues as we talked about in the staff report and as Dave McKinnon talked about in his response, you know, some of the issues in thinking about land use and, you know, do involve some projections and a lot of crystal ball work, frankly. So, you know, there are no required findings in the ordinance for Comp Plan amendments. The Land Use Planning Act doesn't say that there is specific findings, so this is really just does the Commission feel that the industrial land and/or commercial or some other use is most appropriate here and in 2002 when this map was adopted the Commission and the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page20of41 Council and the community at large felt that what's represented here was a reasonable shot at a mix of uses. So, I think I will just go ahead and just basically touch on the broad categories that were addressed in the staff report. The applicant on page four, I just summarized, and, hopefully, you read the application itself, but I did summarize. There is kind of four areas that they feel warrant this area industrial being changed. One of those is high visibility. The next one is ease of accessibility. The third one is a potential future transit station. And the third one is just a general positive impact to the city and the valley because of jobs and revenue that would be generated with the retail project. I, then, went on to highlight some of the specific Comprehensive Plan policies that I felt were applicable to your review of this and generally found that there are -- there is definitely some policies, as with any analysis that we do of the Comprehensive Plan, that support a project and some that don't. I guess in this case I felt that there wasn't enough to warrant the change and as such we are recommending denial of the change. The issues that start on page six of the staff report, the first one I have mentioned was industrial land base and this is a -- basically a look at what the Comprehensive Plan designates. I'm just going to change screens here real quick and show you -- I guess I got that even more crooked, didn't I. This is from our Comprehensive Plan and it is -- was generated by Intermountain Demographics, which was one of the consultants for the team that put together the Comprehensive Plan. This is the 1997 to 2020 Ada County employment forecast and, again, most of the data that's available for economic analysis is county based, so recognize that there is, you know, some guesswork, if you will, when it comes to going to a city area of impact, because normally these numbers are county, but for -- and, again, this is countywide, but it does show that the 1997 employment for industrial is 36,922, the 2020 forecast was 67,964, with an increase of 31,000. And that, again, is in Ada County over the next 15 years or so. In terms of how does job growth translate to land use, you know, certainly when it comes to industrial land you are normally going to have -- take up more land to have an industrial use than you will most any other use and the way that it's shown here on page six, I mentioned, is 4.3 percent of our area of impact that's designated for industrial. That compares to Boise's 9.2 percent. There is approximately four percent -- I'm going to switch this Comprehensive Plan here for a second. This is the breakdown of land within the future land use map that you can see for office a hundred -- almost 200 acres in the area of impact, which is about three-quarters of a percent. The industrial about 4.35 percent, a little over 1,100 acres. Commercial -- straight commercial takes up about 5.4 percent of the area and, then, the mixed-use areas are shown here as well. We do already show 8.35 percent of the area in mixed use regional, which is what 40 acres of the property already is and what they are proposing to add to. So, I guess why I'm showing these, just let you see that there is -- you know, there is -- these are just what is shown on there. There is a lot more office land that's actually used for office than what's shown here, because office uses are allowed in commercial districts. We also have some projects, you know, at Bridgetower, for example, that have residential zoning, but have office uses in them. So, that, you know, these numbers are going to change a little bit. But generally this is the ratio and our feeling was that we need to plan for the future industrial areas. Whether or not they are here today, it's somewhat sacred territory that if it's well placed we need to hold it so that once those industrial demands do come, whether they are here today or not, there is a place that serviced Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page21of4l that they can go and have good access for the large trucks, et cetera, that are part of that use. This next item that I pointed out was just a -- was a contiguous block of industrial land and the point there being that normally the industrial uses -- the goal being to operate them in a block that is going to help to mitigate some of the noise and vibrations and truck impacts, et cetera. As you can see, the industrial use here on the north and the south and the west, you would have the retail basically punch in into that area, you also have this southern area which is vacant today, is not a part of the applicant's application, but remains industrial on the Comp Plan, they have not proposed to change that, so the -- there is some benefit we feel to having a block that is large enough to operate some industrial uses that will not negatively affect others. Residential-wise you really don't have much affect in this area. As you can see, there is really no residential uses, except for Crossroads Subdivision, which is the closest, about a quarter mile across Eagle Road. Eagle Road is probably going to mitigate any kind of impact that industrial uses would have here, since it has its own barrier, if you will. The third area we talked about -- or I talked about in the report was on page seven. That's the oversupply of mixed use and the commercial land. There is a lot of land that's in our area of impact that's already designated for mixed use and/or commerciaL We question whether or not we should be adding more to that. The transportation issues, there was a traffic study that was presented -- or that was submitted with the application. Ada County Highway District has asked the Funkhouser -- Gary Funkhouser, who prepared the study, to go back and do some additional analysis. I believe they are in the process of doing that. They are going to come back to ACHD with some revised numbers. Generally, though, what his estimate is right now is that approximately 30,000 new vehicle tripß would be generated with the 60 plus acres of straight retail and, you know, we -- staff doesn't need to tell you about Eagle Road or about Pine in terms of its impact. Normally, though, I think you find that the industrial -- most industrial uses are going to generate far less impact on the system than the retail will. Now, all this to say, as was pointed out many times in Dave McKinnon's response, much of the property is designated mixed use regional today. That does not mean that it has to go that. I mean the land today has a right to develop as industrial land without changing this map, because they already have the zoning. The other thing is that mixed use regional would actually allow for some light industrial uses. It doesn't all have to be commercial. Their concept that they submitted does not show any mix of uses, it is straight retail. They did clarify that that doesn't necessarily have to be the case, but just wanted to point out that the mixed use, again, is different than the commercial, which you see up here at the corner of Fairview and Eagle and that's something that especially with a future transit, should that happen -- and, again, that doesn't mean that it's on the east -- or west side of Eagle Road, it just, you know, potentially somewhere in this area. This is, obviously, probably the side that it's going to go on, because the east side is largely built out at the railroad tracks, but -- and, then, there was just two clarifications that I wanted to make. In Dave's reply he mentions about the Gemtone subdivision to the north being office park. The Blue Cross building, obviously, is office, but there. is Tri-City Meats, Food Service America, and Yellow Freight, among others, that are already in Gemtone today and operating. So, it is designated for industrial uses. Let's see. I guess that was the main classification. And, then, just to clarify on the staff report, again, on the last page we do just reference the Idaho State Code section there for your guidance, which, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 22 of41 again, just references the Title 67, Chapter 65, that states about recommending amendments to this. So, generally, to summarize, I think staff feels that the industrial land is an important element of our total mix in our land uses and as Meridian grows there is a lot of benefits, we think, to having a designated area where it's existing built out, where there is good access to the 1-84 Interchange and makes a pretty compatible use for the Union Pacific and other areas in this area. So, I think that kind of summarizes where we are coming from.. If you have got any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners at this point? Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Brad's given you a lot to chew on. I'm going to give you more. So, let's just jump right into an overview of the site. And Brad just finished up with a clarification that he said and I'd like to address right away with Gemtone. This is Gemtone industrial park and he said this is industrial. He talked a little bit about contiguous land and making sure that all the industrial is kept with the industrial zone. I have talked with Mike Ford of the Yanke family and also worked with the City of Meridian Gemtone -- this phase of Gemtone came in. As recently as last month in the Idaho Business Review Mr. Yanke representing -- Mr. Ford representing the Yanke family spoke to the paper saying this would all be high end office use. So, this whole area adjacent to the north side of our property will be an office use. It will not be an industrial use. Again, as Brad pointed out, you have the office use immediately north of you, so on the north side we are completely bounded not by industrial, but by office uses. As you remember, those of you that were on the Commission when Gemtone came in, this rail spur piece that runs down to the railroad, this small triangular shaped piece with this funny arch in here, was also approved for an office use. There actually is a building lot within the subdivision for an office use. There is a 25-foot wide strip that runs all the way down to Machine Avenue. This small little stub street right here is Machine Avenue and that connects with this piece of property with the 25-foot strip that leads all the way down to there and this piece of property as well is part of Gemtone. And that was all approved for office uses, so on the north side it's all office. On this side it's mixed use and this will be coming to you soon, it's called Pinebridge Subdivision, it has been applied for by Dennis Baker, and this piece of property is going forward with a commercial designation off of Pine Street. Pine Street is not going to be your basic collector, Pine Street will be a 96-foot right of way. It's going to be a five-lane road. The initial projections from Ada County Highway District were to be -- for Pine Street to be 70 feet wide after you get off of Eagle and continuing all the way through to Locust Grove at three lanes, with a 70-foot right of way. In recent discussions with ACHD they have revised their numbers, because they realized the traffic counts that they were looking at were inaccurate and revised it to a 96-foot wide right of way for five lanes of traffic. So, this is going to be an actual five-lane collector coming off of that. Bigger in size than most of the section line roads and the arterials that you see in Meridian, so this is going to be a big street. They recognize traffic is going to be on this street and they have prepared for that. As Brad talked to you about the contiguousness of the industrial zone, this piece of property right here is adjacent to a railroad. The piece of property that we are dealing with tonight we are asking to be changed to the mixed use Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page 23 of 41 regional has no access to the railroad. The only access that this piece has to a major thoroughfare is coming off of Pine Street with the office to the north, commercial to the west, and some commercial to the east on Eagle Road. So, they would have to go -- with industrial traffic through office, commercial, office to get to this site or they could go through the commercial site to get to it. So, Brad talked about contiguous blocks. Well, this is actually an island within -- it's an island of industrial within commercial, office, and commercial. It's not a large contiguous block, because this will be going to a commercial zone, we are asking for the CoG zone. The Comprehensive Plan supports this CoG zone, which would be the commercial zone. Office to the north. And, again, commercial to the west. This is actually an island of industrial. There is no access to the railroad. The only access that you could get to this site would be if you came off of commercial through Layne Industrial Park to get to this site and so if you wanted to keep industrial with industrial, you would have to be bringing it in through this site, otherwise, you're having this piece in between everything else that's industrial. So, I'm going to jump on to the issues that Brad had. I noticed you guys received my letter tonight and as Anna and Brad pointed out earlier tonight, Mavericks had to be continued. We realized that you will probably want to move both of these forward together and we are more than happy to move to January 20th, but we'd like some feedback from you tonight as to how you feel about the Comprehensive Plan amendment that we are requesting. And on January 20th we'd like to discuss with you at that time a Conditional Use Permit for the conceptual site plan for this to go retail and at that time we'd like to discuss the annexation. So, if that's something that you guys are agreeable to, I'd like your feedback with that. If I could have you all go ahead and grab the response letter I had prepared for you. As far as the order if Brad Hawkins- Clark's presentation and his staff report, I'd just like to go through that briefly, as I know you haven't had a chance to review it, because I gave it to you tonight. Do you guys all have that? Just on the project summary, Brad, can you go back to the first slide that was on this presentation? Item number seven, when you make your motion, if you make a motion to approve or deny this in the future, the request of the Comprehensive Plan map amendment as noted on item number seven here, it says approximately 48 acres from industrial to mixed use regional. The actual request is for 22 acres from the industrial to the mixed use regional. As Brad pointed out, we are dealing with basically one-third of this site to be requested for the mixed use regional as its shown in industrial on the Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of this site is shown as mixed use regional on the Comprehensive Plan. So, the majority of this site is already shown as commercial. And so in the future we might get that corrected if you make a motion to continue it, you may make the motion to continue it with the correction to the item in the packet that you have in front of you. It's also in the staff report under the first bullet item on page one, request for Comprehensive Plan, it says 48 acres. That needs to be revised to 22 acres. Regarding the location of this, that's the site. Brad got that right on. This is exactly the piece of property we are talking about tonight. The surrounding properties -- I have been through the surrounding properties with you. What we are talking about is taking the island of industrial and making it part of something that's a larger project. Within the Comprehensive Plan they talk about contiguous blocks and developing them all together. I have been drilled by City Council saying why can't you get everybody together and do a development all at once and that's what we are trying Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page 24 of4l to do, we are trying to develop this site as one large project, rather than a chunk of it one-third that is industrial and the rest of it is commercial, we are trying to develop it as one project, rather than separating it out. What we are doing is taking one project that's got a little bit of industrial -- a third of the area is industrial and saying based on the idea that this is expensive land, it's on a very highly traffic corridor, we are not talking about a general industrial type of use that you see out by the airport that has large wide lanes and roads for truck traffic, we are talking about the most highly traffic north-south corridor in the state of Idaho. Eagle Road is that road, it's very high traffic, and right now because of that, the land values have gone up and it makes it more profitable to be used for a commercial use, rather than industrial use. The actual amount of traffic and the value of the land starts to price out the industrial users, because it is that valuable at this time. If I could get you to go on to page two. The proposed and potential uses of the property. Again, the majority of this site is already -- Brad, if you can go to the Comprehensive Plan map. The majority of this site is already set aside for the type of use that we are requesting. It's for the mixed-use regional zone. I have put in three bullet items that are found on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan saying there is limited on upper -- no upper limit on nonresidential uses. Over 200,000 square feet of nonresidential buildings are forecast in these areas and so we already -- the City of Meridian at one time already planned for this area to have the large nonresidential buildings and have a lot of commercial uses in this area. And, number three, that this is a major employment center and that you can have all the uses and other mixed uses here. If the 63 acres -- or 62 acres are all brought together, this would be a major employment area for the City of Meridian. It would be for the retail sector. Brad showed you some numbers that were there, you know, showing that retail is on the rise. Eagle Road is great for retail, because of the amount of drive-by traffic that is on Eagle Road. There will be some trip generation. I'll talk about trip generation in a minute. Eagle Road is a busy road and we will talk about that and talk about some of the mitigation efforts that we are working on there. Moving to the applicant's justification. Brad talked about already. We believe that this is a highly visible piece of property. I'd rather see this with the commercial types of uses, rather than industrial uses. We feel that this is more appropriate now at this time to go with the commercial uses, as it's surrounded by office and commercial. In addition to that, the way -- we are not talking about the conceptual site plan tonight. I don't know if Brad has that as a slide for you to look at, but if you have taken a look at it -- if you look in your packet, you can just envision this, the back of those buildings will be facing the railroad. The back of the buildings would be facing the only other existing industrial uses. So, in effect, the commercial uses here would act as a buffer to the office uses and you're dealing with the back of a building, rather than the front of the building, facing on the industrial uses. If this is to go industrial, you typically have large buildings back in here, backing up to it, with no buffer before you get to Pine. With the commercial use the back of the buildings would be facing against the industrial uses, providing a buffer for the commercial use and providing a buffer from Pine Street, from the noise from the industrial to the south and providing a more attractive appearance on Pine Street. Industrial -- industrial buildings are not the prettiest buildings. If you have driven up and down Eagle, Brad mentioned you have Coors across the street, if you have driven by Coors, the truck site, they typically have large open areas that are chain link fenced with barbed wire to keep Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page 25 of 41 people out, because that's what the industrial use is, it requires the land -- it's not the prettiest and, again, I'd emphasize that Pine is going to be a 96 -- it's going to be a 96 foot piece of right of way, it's going to be five lanes, and we'd like it to be attractive, although it's not necessarily a gateway like Eagle, it will be a highly trafficked roadway and it should be attractive in the City of Meridian. Down to the Comprehensive Plan analysis. As Brad pointed out, there is items for good and for bad. One item I'd like to point out just at this time is that the transit station, the developer is in agreement with the transit station on the site plan. You don't have it in front of you, but in this area they did put in an area for transit, a transit station. We agreed with the city that this is a good spot. We think that right now would be the time to set aside that area and decide that that's the appropriate location for that. We are doing that in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and we agree with that. We realize we will be generating traffic, but if we can put a transit station in this area, we have a way to mitigate for some of the traffic that is created. Onto the items that Brad talked about, the industrial land base. Talking about that is almost a sacred cow. There is a lot of area in the City of Meridian that is already industrial zoned and not being used for industrial uses. Case in point Gemtone Subdivision. It's all office use. And we have a lot of industrial uses in Meridian and there is a lot of industrial areas outside of Meridian as well. If you were to take a look at Nampa and Caldwell and Boise, a majority of their industrial uses are on the outskirts of town. You have them by the airport with the avigation easements, they won't allow residential uses there. Most commercial businesses don't want to operate near an airport. They have a great amount of land out there that can be used for industrial types of uses. Meridian doesn't have that. What Meridian has in this area is a very heavy traffic flow on Eagle Road, which would support a retail development, rather than an industrial development. The next item that Brad talked about was the contiguous block. Again, this really is not a contiguous block of industrial -- industrial zoning. I have said that a few times. The oversupply of commercial uses, commercial property, Brad showed you a map -- I guess a graph from the Comprehensive Plan saying here is all the different types of uses that we have got and the land that's designated for that. There is a number of commercial sites in Meridian that are designated that have no ability to be serviced right now. In Brad's staff report there is a couple mentions of the Ten Mile interchange that in the future that will be an area that we will see a lot of commercial growth. However, that area is not in play right now, is because the Black Cat Trunk hasn't been constructed out to that area to provide sewer. Water is not there yet. Plus the Ten Mile interchange hasn't happened, so there is not the vehicle count there to support the retail uses. We have the vehicle count here to support the retail uses and so this is the appropriate place for this type of use that we are requesting. As far as transportation, it's a busy road. I drive it every day. My office is just off of -- actually, it's just off this map right there. I drive up and down Pine Street every day onto Eagle Road. It is a busy road. Pine Street needs to be continued. Pine Street, once it's continued to Locust Grove, will, then, be able to provide a second north- south access within this area. As I said before, coming soon to a P&Z commission just like you, this piece of property will be coming through with Pine Street to be extended all the way. With the construction of Pine Street at 96 feet wide, it will be able to take a traffic flow off of Eagle Road over to Locust Grove. The Locust Grove overpass is scheduled right now for construction in the next few years. If you have driven up and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page26of4l down Locust Grove lately, you know that Franklin Road improvements have included a new large traffic light with a road widening on Locust Grove in anticipation of the Locust Grove overpass. In addition to that on the opposite side of the freeway they have already installed the wider lanes for Locust Grove overpass to come through. So, a secondary north-south road is coming and so traffic will be able to be pulled off of Eagle Road through Pine Street, through Pine Bridge, over to Locust Grove and so there will be an additional north-south route as a part of this subdivision. This subdivision will be entitled to that, because this portion of the roadway will need to be constructed with this site and this is the time to do that. We are talking about 22 acres. It's not the 48 acres. Overall in the City of Meridian in the area of impact there is over 26,000 acres in Meridian. We are asking for a Comprehensive Plan change for basically what would be one tenth of one percent of the land available in Meridian. It's not a great deal of land in Meridian. It makes sense. It's a highly visible area, there is a heavy traffic flow, it's a great deal of traffic that will be generated and carried on Pine Street. We feel it would be more appropriate for this land to be commercially zoned as a part of that, so that it would be able to be a more attractive streetscape for Meridian. We'd ask for your support at this time to change the Comprehensive Plan for these 22 acres to allow a mixed-use regional designation to be placed on the Comprehensive Plan. Do you have any questions? Moe: Just a couple. Basically, you speak of mixed use regional, but I keep hearing nothing but commercial coming up, so I'm assuming you're just looking to do all commercial within that zone. McKinnon: The conceptual site plan that was generated was for -- was for retail uses, but in my letter and as Brad pointed out, that is a conceptual site plan. Moe: And, then, the only other thing, I'm still a little bit unclear of, the property to the north, which was stated, is planning to be office. Has that already been approved to be office? McKinnon: Yes, it has. Rohm: I was -- I was, actually, still working for the city when that happened. It was Becky McKay Bowcutt that brought that through and I have had discussions with Mike Ford from the -- representing the Yanke family that that is to be office. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just clarify. I believe that that's wrong information. The land is zoned industrial today. There was no planned development to allow an excepted use. The Comprehensive Plan designates it industrial. It would take a Comp Plan amendment and a rezone to do anything but industrial uses. Borup: Maybe we need to clarify which property we are referring to. Let's just clarify which property we are talking about. Is that what you were referring to, Commissioner? Is that what you were wondering about? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 27 of41 Moe: Yes, it is. Borup: Just the property directly north of Pine. Zaremba: Well, I remember some discussion about this odd shaped piece. I don't remember exactly, but I thought that was going to be an industrial use. I thought what they were proposing was a paint manufacturing facility or something like that. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just spoke with Mike and when he came through with that, he was assured from Becky that that could be used for office and it was an office use. Borup: Without re-application? McKinnon: Without re-application. If you remember -- Brad, can you go back to the Comprehensive Plan? There we go. We have got a Wendy's going in right here. This is industrial zoned. That's Wendy's. Right now in the industrial zone you have ShopKo, you have Applebee's, that whole Corner in Crossroads currently is zoned industrial. This whole subdivision is zoned industrial, yet we have Krispy Kremes and we have got Blue Cross, Blue Shield, the main center there. That's zoned industrial, it's not zoned office at this time. This was all part of a larger planned development many years ago and when this project came through, office uses were discussed and that's what the Yanke family has intended to do for this area is the office uses. There may be something that we can clarify with staff. We are asking for this to be continued, but this was to be office uses here and the office uses were -- the way it's subdivided, these long, narrow pieces, actually, don't fit well with an industrial use. You typically see a large land user, rather than small narrow pieces for industrial uses. It's right next to the Blue Cross, Blue Shield. This is an office site. And we can go through that with staff. Again, this is something that we are asking to be continued, but -- and just talking with Mike just now, the intent was for office use there. Moe: Then one other question I have. On the aerial photo is there not -- you know, the buildings there on the south property, are those planning to stay or are those going to be removed or something when you start development? McKinnon: These buildings right here? Moe: Those two, yes. McKinnon: I believe, actually, that they are going to be scrubbed. They are all going to be scrubbed. Just as a side note, this was, actually, one of the retail buildings, for those of you that were old timers, that's the old Club Wholesale. The precursor to the Costcos and the Sam's Clubs. This was a warehouse retail site initially. It wasn't an industrial site initially, it was warehouse retail. Borup: Do we have other questions from this Commission? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page28of41 McKinnon: Okay. I think there is some other people signed up to testify here, but I guess I would reserve the right for rebuttal if you have any questions. Borup: Okay. This is the time for other public testimony. Who -- do we have anyone here that would like to come on up at this time? Ford: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mike Ford, Post Office Box 5405, Boise. I represent the Yanke family that owns what is Gemtone Subdivision, which will be called Crossroads Professional Park. Before buying the property several months ago, first of all, the seller of the property assured me that office could be built there. I asked Becky Bowcott McKay to clarify that for me to make sure. She assured me that we could get a building permit and build office without any kind of design review, anything else. In reviewing the covenants for the subdivision, Blue Cross has a covenant that there will be no industrial built back there on Gemtone. Only high quality office. That's in Blue Cross's covenants when they bought their property. So, if I went back there today and started building industrial, I'd get sued by Blue Cross. If the city -- Borup: That's part of the same subdivision? Ford: Same subdivision. Right. If the city tells me that I can't build office, then, I guess I go back and ask for my money back from the seller, because that's what we were assured. Now that's my problems that I'm giving here during these folks' hearing. As far as these folks' hearing goes, I would much rather see the west end of that property in some kind of retail office, other than industrial. Industrial is not going to be attractive to what we plan on doing on the north side of Pine. I just -- if you look at Blue Cross's property, I believe Blue Cross's property is one of the most attractive, well maintained properties in the City of Meridian. I'd hate to think of what they spend on maintaining their landscaping. To build industrial buildings around that, I think would certainly not be fair to Blue Cross and I assure you Blue Cross didn't think that that could happen. As far as the other industrial to the north, I don't have one of those fancy things, but -- this property right here today is industrial, that little strip right there, that's Diamond Lines Trucking. We own that property. Diamond Lines is begging me to find them properties somewhere else to build them a facility, so they can get out of here. They do not want to have to have their trucks coming in and out of this traffic and stuff that is generated there. I know an individual that is talking to Yellow Freight right now about the same things. Yellow Freight wants out of there. Yellow Freight does not want to be having their truck drivers coming in and out of there with the traffic that's going on. Ada County assessor, you know, he's really proud of this property. You can't afford to do this property industrial. I'm not sure what industrial user that they can find that can afford to go in there and do property -- to buy the property. The development that's gone on around there has driven these property values so high that it makes no sense for industrial to go in there. Any questions? Borup: Questions for Mr. Ford? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 290f41 Ford: Thank you. Borup: It does sound like maybe you need to clarify. At this point you -- the zoning is industrial. It is zoned industrial? And was there a conditional use? Sir, you need to get on the microphone. Ford: They are telling me that a number of years ago -- and I'm not sure -- I wish Sheri was still here, because she would have remembered. Borup: Well, it doesn't really matter what someone remembers -- Ford: I think it was of record. Borup: Right. It needs to be on the record. Ford: It was of record and -- so I don't know. I mean, again, we have got a real mess here if that is the case. Borup: But it's all public record, so it should be able to be clarified. Thank you. Ford: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Who is next? We didn't have anybody sign up, so I don't know if -- Mr. McKinnon said there was several that wanted to, so this is your opportunity. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, staff, I'm Marv Jensen, 476 West 1000 South in Orem, Utah. Borup: Right. You were the only that did sign up. Jensen: I'm here representing R.C. Willey. We are pleased to see additional retail come into the area here, but the one thing that we are very very concerned about is traffic and I think that speaks for itself. You're all concerned about traffic and we are impressed that some effort is going to be made on Pine Street to carry some of that traffic, but it's going to not solve the problem. If there is going to be 30, 40 thousand additional trips created by this property on that road, you have got to do something or cause Ada County Highway District to do something on that road to even handle it. And so we are going to be interested all the way through in the hearings on the traffic issue. We want something to be done on the traffic issue. We have customers now that turn around and go back, they can't get to us from either direction, and we just need to face that. You know, I have been coming up here for six years now on this building and Ada County tells me every year I come up, we are going to do something. We are going to do something, but it's always in the future and those roads are still highly congested and this will just add to it. We are glad to see it come, the retail, but not the added congestion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page30of41 Borup: Don't they come together? Jensen: They do and so that's our request is that you really consider strongly before giving approvals additional mitigation for the traffic and we will be interested to see the new traffic study, the addendums that come out to that and what they propose. Pine Street is one thing. A transit station might be something. But you have got to do something on Eagle Road and Franklin Road to alleviate the horrible traffic mess that's there. Or, you know, the retail zone -- the retail that you're going to get there will create a lot of jobs and it will create a lot of sales tax revenue for the city. We realize that and we look forward to having additional retail and competition in the area, but if people can't get there, they are going to go somewhere else. They are going to find other places where they can get to and not to have to wade through so many light changes at every light to get where they want to. So, that's our concern is, please, consider very carefully -- I know you already are, but we just want to echo it, the traffic impact of additional retail right now in this area. Thank you. Borup: Thank you? Questions from the Commissioners? Do we have anyone else? Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Dave McKinnon, representing the applicant tonight. Traffic is a big issue. Hopefully, some of the mitigation efforts we are making will work to help alleviate the conditions that are there right now. Just for your edification, the traffic has been extremely bad recently, because of a number of different issues, partially with the fact that there is a large sewer line that is going in on Cloverdale, the north-south lane of traffic on Cloverdale has been closed recently in the last few months to keep people from driving across it, because they are doing a large amount of work there, everybody was having to come to Eagle. In addition to that, Franklin Road has been going through a widening process that has also forced a lot more traffic to come onto Eagle Road that wasn't dissipated to other areas. At the same time, infrastructure, of course, always comes after the people. The Idaho Transportation Department is working on the Eagle Road study. The City of Meridian has not yet adopted the most resent study. However, I know that the Mayor and Steve Siddoway, the transportation planner, have a meeting with Idaho Transportation Department to work with them on mitigation efforts on Eagle Road, similar to like you will see on State Street soon with barriers or center medians on Eagle Road. So, there is some effort being taken by ITD to mitigate the traffic friction that's caused by people pulling off and on. In addition to this, this site is actually going to be a little bit easier to reach than what you would see on a hard corner, because it is mid block, which is where the City of Meridian wanted to see a mid mile -- the City of Meridian wanted to see commercial accesses with the Comprehensive Plan. Because it's not at the hard block, there is a traffic light right there, people can get to it from different locations, rather than having to make a turn through traffic. I'll just address Mr. Ford's comments. I was working for the City of Meridian at the time when Gemtone came through. There is notes of record and it was represented at the P&Z meeting and at City Council that this property would be office. I'm more than happy to work with staff to talk to them about that and to eliminate any concerns that Mr. Ford has tonight on behalf of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 31 of41 Yanke family. I would ask for your support tonight. I know that you're going to continue this, so we can move this forward with the Maverick piece of property, but I would love to have some feedback to see what your opinions are with the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment before we go to continuance until January 20th and meet again. Borup: Any other questions, discussion, while Mr. McKinnon is here? McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Comments from the Commission at this point or do we -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman, my first comment would be the most compelling testimony that I heard out there was the land value. If, in fact, you have Ada County assessing it at one value based upon its neighborhood or the neighboring properties being retail and you -- and their assessment is at that level and, then, you require these people to develop as industrial, their tax base and land use are not in agreement and it seems that the applicant and their testimony has a pretty good point in that regard. I don't know that that's the final thing that we should be looking at here, but I think that that is a real significant issue. Borup: Commissioner Moe? Moe: Yes. I guess I would tend to agree with Commissioner Rohm, but my biggest concern is, reading through the staff reports and whatnot, I do have a concern that we don't have enough industrial property in this area, but at the same time, after hearing testimony tonight, I have got some concerns I would like to know for sure what is going on with the properties to the north of this property to verify that office is possible or planned, as well as I would like to know what Blue Cross does have in -- I'd like to know exactly just what the status of that is, because I would hate to see that we lose a great neighbor in Blue Cross, because of something that we want to do as far as going industrial. So, having said that, that's what I'd like to -- definitely before the next hearing that we get some closure on those issues, so we know exactly what's going on. Borup: Yeah. My understanding on Blue Cross that was covenants within that subdivision. This would be a different subdivision, so -- Rohm: Wouldn't there have been a -- in the development agreement at the time that the original subdivision was developed, some language speaking to what can be constructed within that entire subdivision, though? I would think that that would have been addressed not only for the Blue Cross -- for the entire area. Wouldn't there have been some discussion? 1-- Moe: We are still in Public Hearing. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page 32of41 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Would you like some comment from Mr. McKinnon? Rohm: Yeah. Go ahead, Dave. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, actually, it's just the Gemtone site. The whole entire property that you outlined from the railroad north to Fairview, that wasn't all part of one subdivision. However, this was part -- this area was basically a part of a larger subdivision. Blue Cross is a part of it as well. There was a -- there used to be a file sitting on the file cabinet back in Meridian and Brad might remember this, it was -- it's in tatters and it's kind of falling apart, it's an old application and there was a whole bevy of uses that you could put on this site. You know, Krispy Kremes was one of the uses that the previous planning director Sheri Stiles said was one of the things that could be approved on this site. Recently you guys have approved a drive-thru for a Wendy's in the industrial and you have also approved a medical office building in the industrial. Those are all under construction at this time. There were a number of uses that were allowed there and Gemtone, when it came through, there was discussion about Blue Cross and Blue Cross's CC&Rs requiring that this all be developed as office and there is a record of that. The development agreement for this site may be somewhat hard to piece back together, based on my recollection of the file, but there is testimony at the hearing for Gemtone in regards to Blue Cross. Rohm: Well, I would think that it would behoove you to reconstruct that to some degree. McKinnon: I would be happy to. Borup: Yeah. Because just the straight zoning does not -- as mentioned, does not allow for that industrial zone, so there would need to be another -- in the development agreement or some other agreement. McKinnon: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, keep in mind when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted it's a conceptual idea and they took the basic land uses that were there. On the Comprehensive Plan they didn't show this whole area as industrial, but that's what it's zoned. This is conceptual; it doesn't necessarily match the zoning. Zoning doesn't have to match this. This is based on the existing land uses and as Brad put it, you know, your best guess looking at a crystal ball in the future saying how is it going to happen in the future and how does it impact the city economically and for design. Borup: But Gemtone is zoned. McKinnon: It is zoned, it is annexed, and it is approved for office uses, to the best of my knowledge, and I guess if we are moving forward until January 20th, we have time to get that straightened out and we will be able to present that to you at the next meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page330f41 Rohm: My only additional comment is along the lines of the staff report. You know, it's our responsibility also to make sure that we maintain a certain amount of industrial land available and so, you know, we have got to take a look at both sides of that coin, Dave, so, you know, it would be nice for you to bring some of that additional information back when we continue this hearing. Borup: Anything additional, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Interestingly enough, we have an I-L zone to struggle with here. Always my bugaboo. Staff did an excellent job of summarizing. Some of the thoughts that came to me first and -- and I always struggle with Comprehensive Plan amendments in that the Comprehensive Plan went through a lot of public hearings and a lot of thinking and a lot of hearings, a lot of Angst, a lot of research and to make changes to it for me requires a pretty high threshold of they were wrong. Borup: But by that same logic, we would never change it. It would stay like the way -- Zaremba: I don't know if I'm at that threshold. With it already being so stingy on industrial properties -- and maybe this is one more assignment to hand Mr. McKinnon before it comes back on the next one -- if there were some trade, if there was an ability to couple this kind of Comprehensive Plan amendment with saying here is where I think the Comprehensive Plan ought to be changed to include industrial that it currently doesn't somewhere in our area of impact -- and I don't know if it's fair to leave that on you to go looking for that, but I certainly hear the argument about the value of these pieces of property and that retail or office uses are more likely to be what's supportable in that area, but industrial has to be somewhere and I don't know if it's a requirement, but if you had any suggestions about somewhere else in our area of impact that we ought to be doing industrial that we are not, I would be more comfortable about that kind of a trade. Just a personal opinion. McKinnon: I'll do my best. Zaremba: Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, do you have any homework for me as well? Borup: Probably not. My comment -- I mean when I read the staff report, I agreed with everything. I mean it all made sense. And Commissioner Rohm said there was one thing that struck him the strongest and me it's probably Pine Avenue. This is where -- this is a mile section where we have a signal light. If there is any place that the traffic is going to be helped it's at that light and with Pine Street extending through -- I mean after thinking about that tonight, this is making more sense to me, and mainly because of Pine. I'm still very concerned about the traffic on Eagle. I don't know what we are going to do with that. But Pine Avenue with existing signal light probably lends itself more to some type of commercial than industrial, but -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page34 of4! Zaremba: I'm known for sideways moves in discussions, but I will just make a comment on Eagle Road. My recollection is that the latest traffic count in this area of Eagle Road is something like 54,000 vehicles a day. A year ago I asked the motor vehicle department if they could tell me how many vehicles were registered in the City of Meridian. They could not, so I turned to the Air Quality Board, figuring they may have information like that. They could tell me in the 83642 zip code, which includes much more than the incorporated city, it goes -- I believe the southern boundary is Hubbard and nobody knows where the heck that is. It's way below everything that anybody thought of and the northern boundary is the bench north of Chinden. Borup: Especially for our impact area. Zaremba: Well, it's much greater than our area of impact. And, basically, from Cloverdale to the county line. So that entire area there are 39,000 vehicles registered, 54,000 of them are driving up and down Eagle Road. My point being this traffic is not all Meridian traffic. The majority of it we have no control over. It's coming from Eagle, Star, Emmett, Horseshoe Bend, probably trying to access the interstate. Eagle Road is the only road -- north-south road in Meridian that has all three elements of access. It has a river crossing, it has a railroad crossing, and it has an interstate interchange. The majority of the traffic that's there isn't us, it's other people, because we aren't everyone of us, 39,000, driving on Eagle everyday. I don't. It's other people. And the effort to control that, you know, shouldn't be laid on Meridian's projects, your project, or other projects across the street from it. Yes, something needs to be done, but we can't say that Meridian isn't going to have economic growth because everybody's traffic is going through here. We can't just stop that. Yes, it needs to be solved, but it is not entirely us. So, that's just a sideways comment. Rohm: Well -- and to continue that, I think as development continues you're also going to see Locust Grove develop and you're going to see Pine go all the way through and you're going to see Franklin Road improved from Eagle Road east and all of the things that are currently on that wish list will all help calm some of this issue on Eagle Road. Even as they finish Cloverdale's expansion, that's going to calm some of this. So, all that being said, this isn't something that's created today and it's not going to be solved tomorrow, it's a continuing effort as the area develops, so -- Zaremba: Of course, the other piece of it is how do we capture that through traffic to make them stop in our shops and buy stuff and to put a nice retail center in a location like this, in addition to the other retail things that are happening up and down -- if they are driving through here we may as well stop them and have them leave some money here if we can. Rohm: Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page350f41 Borup: Okay. Any other discussion? Are we ready for a motion to continue? Moe: Probably need to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Well, not if we are going to continue it. Moe: I'm sorry. You're right. Borup: This is on the Comp Plan amendment. Moe: Yeah. That's right. Zaremba: I'll do it. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the hearing on CPA 04-003 to our meeting of January 20, 2005. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to continue. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 04..()17 Request for a Rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L & L-O to CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 04-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Conceptual Planned Development for commercial I retail uses for approximately 615,430 square feet of building areas in a proposed CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. So, we probably ought to open and continue the other two, which are going to be dependent upon this one -- positive results on this one for them to proceed. I'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 04-017 and Public Hearing CUP 04-051 at this time. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051 to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 2005. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: CPA 04-004 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Low and Medium Density Residential to a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 36 of 41 Commercial designation for a 2.298 acre parcel for Maverick Country Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc. - 201 West Ustick Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 04-032 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 2.298 acres from R-4 zone to C-C zone for Maverick Country Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc. -201 West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. That takes care of 8 and 9. Ten and 11 we have already -- now wait a minute. Yeah. We have already continued it to the 20th. Zaremba: I believe we stated we were going to. Did we physically do it? Moe: No, we did not. Borup: Okay. Then, this might be a good time to do that. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we either table or continue as appropriate CPA 04-004 and AZ 04-032 to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 2005, with a requirement that it be property noticed. Borup: I didn't open these hearings yet, did I? So, if the motion is to table it, I don't -- we don't need to open it, I believe. If we continue it -- and it wasn't noticed, so that would be fine. We can table this -- Mr. Nary, would that be correct? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think what the issue -- if my recollection is -- Borup: It's not noticed. Nary: I thought part of it wasn't noticed. Part of it was noticed for tonight. Isn't that correct, Mrs. Canning? Wasn't this the issue on the sign? Canning: Yes. Just the posting was not -- Nary: Just the posting. So, you should probably continue the matter tonight, because it was noticed properly with mailed notices, that's why some of the folks were here, so continuing the hearing from tonight would be the most appropriate. Borup: Is that -- no, I understand. Is that the way our ordinance reads is that it does have to be posted or -- at one time it used to just be one of the three, didn't it? Nary: Yeah. The state law requires all three. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 37of41 Borup: It does require all three. All right. Okay. I don't think I opened these hearings, so I'd like to open Public Hearing CPA 04-004 and AZ 04-032. And now we need a motion. Zaremba: In that case, I will eliminate the ambiguity about continuing or tabling and, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue hearing CPA 04-004 and AZ 04-032 to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 2005. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-029 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 8.58 acres from RUT zone to CoG zone for Cottonwood Lane by Tom Holliday/Cottonwood Lane Partners - 985 East Freeway Drive: Borup: Our last item, I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 04-029. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 04-029 to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 6, 2005. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Okay. So, motion and second. All in favor? opposed? Any MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Ada County Ordinance Change Discussion: Borup: We now have Commissioner Huckabay with us and we have -- any other motions? Rohm: I move that we close -- Borup: One more -- Zaremba: We asked to add -- or I asked to add an agenda item discussing the Ada County ordinance change. Does staff have an opinion on -- Borup: Yeah. That was on the agenda. I left mine home, but -- Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, can you let me know what you're talking about? Is this the day care one? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page38of41 Borup: No. It was a general one for the whole county pertaining to -- well, go ahead, Commissioner. Zaremba: Ada County Development received by the City Clerk December 3 and I was given a copy of it. This is a zoning in Ada County. Not Meridian City, but Ada County zoning text ordinance amendment -- or ordinance text amendment and the subject -- this is -- the applicant is Shawn L. Nickle of SLM Planning and -- see if I can summarize what they wanted to do. The subject was riding stables and the question is, essentially, if uses around something changes, can somebody that has a riding stable rebuild their riding stable. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I had not seen that one. Can you look -- can you give the exact code reference and Brad will bring it up on the screen. I spent a full day going around looking at riding stables before I wrote what is now in the Ada County code, so I will be prepared to speak on it, but I need to see the original code. Zaremba: This is -- the application apparently is 04-09 ZOA. Does that help? Canning: I need the title eight dash two or -- it's probably eight dash five dash something or other. Borup: It sounds like they want to change their code. Canning: How dare they. Zaremba: They are wanting to amend Section 8-2-A-3. Canning: 8-2-A-3? Zaremba: And 8-2-B-3. And 8-5-3-107. Canning: Yeah. The 8-5-3-107 is probably the more important. Zaremba: 8-5-3-107. I guess my main question is do we need to have an opinion? The thought being that at some day we may annex some of things into the city. Hawkins-Clark: Normally, what we do as staff when we get Ada County applications is we do review them and make a comment if we think it's appropriate and/or take it to either you or the Council. I know we haven't had one for quite some time, but -- Zaremba: Well, that may have been in my box by accident, but -- Moe: No. I got one as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 39 of4l Zaremba: Yeah. We all got them. While that's being considered, may I broach another subject. December 30th would be a fifth Thursday in this month and we sometimes do workshops and stuff. Are we not having a meeting on December 30th? Borup: Didn't we talk about that last time? Zaremba: I don't remember the answer. Borup: We said because of the holidays -- no? Zaremba: I didn't remember the answer. Borup: Commissioner Moe, was that correct? Moe: That would be my suggestion. Zaremba: Even if we didn't decide that, I would support that resolution. So, no meeting on 12/30. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, from what I can tell from this, what they have done is just kind of clarified that -- there is -- the issue was -- we will go back to why it was drafted. The issue was there is some riding arenas out there that were becoming basically commercial uses. They were all on private property and it was hard to draw a distinction between what was commercial and what was private. We originally kind of zinged all riding arenas and I got a lot of flack for that, so I got dragged all over town to various riding arenas and with the help of the horse folks tried to come up with a definition of what a commercial riding arena was and those are kind of grouped in that first one under A where it says commercial. It looks to me like what they are doing is just saying that in the absence of being a commercial arena, you're a private arena. Now, one would think staff could make that distinction, but Ada County staff is clearly limited in their thinking sometimes and if it's not exactly in the code, they don't want to go there. So, I think that this is just a way of clarifying if you're not commercial, then, you're private is all that it's doing. So, it seems pretty innocuous to me. It still requires commercial conditional use, so -- Zaremba: Doesn't really have any impact on the City of Meridian or some future annexation is what you're saying? Canning: I don't think so. The private ones, really, all they are -- you know, they are about the size of this room and they are a little dusty. The good ones they keep it watered so it doesn't get too dusty and likely if the property is being redeveloped they are just going to divvy off that portion of the property anyway and put another building lot there. So, I don't see a redevelopment issue surrounded around these. I think a lot more of them are getting covered and so they are larger structures, but, again, there is not a whole lot of investment in those, necessarily, so I think that as the land value goes up they would probably be redeveloped with residential uses- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page 40 of 41 Zaremba: Would Ada County care to hear whether we support that or don't support that? Canning: Sure. Yeah. I - this is actually - these changes are all to the -- oh, it is -- some is in the RUT. Most of them are in the R-R and the R-P, so sometimes I don't comment on those, but if you'd like me to comment, that's fine. We can just say we don't have a comment -- we don't see that it's a problem, but -- I try not to say too much on -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we respond to this issue with a no comment. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: So, does that mean -- that doesn't even require a letter, does it? Zaremba: No. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn. Borup: Yeah. Mr. Nary. Nary: I think this is the last meeting in December and I think you have a new chairman in the month of January and -- Borup: We elected him last week. Nary: And I just wanted to make note of that, because I know you have been the chair a long time and I, along with the rest of these Commissioners, had the privilege to serve on this Commission with you as the chair and I know it's not very easy to do, so I just wanted to -- Canning: You mean it's not easy to serve under him, Bill? Nary: Thanks for catching that, Anna. It's not easy to be the chair. So, I just wanted to say thank you for your service and -- Rohm: And a great job you have done. Moe: I agree as well. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Canning: Here. Here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page41of41 Borup: I will still be here. Zaremba: An excellent job and -- Nary: Well, I didn't think you would be dying, I just wanted to note that you weren't going to have to be the one corralling people, since we were talking about horse corrals here. Zaremba: Absolutely. Borup: And Commissioner Zaremba is going to do a wonderful job. Zaremba: Well, you have set the bar high and I will do my best to -- to follow in your footsteps if I can. And I also wish everybody happy holidays. Canning: Yes. Rohm: Do we have a motion? Borup: I did. Moe: I gave a motion. Zaremba: There was a motion. I'll second it. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED