Loading...
2005 01-20 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meetina Januarv 20. 2005. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Craig Hood, Joe Guenther, Ted Baird, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X David Zaremba X X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X Chairman Keith Borup David Moe Michael Rohm Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. We will open this regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for January 20, 2005, and we will begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: The first item is the adoption of the agenda. If there are no objections, I'll simply adopt the agenda in the order it is. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AUP 04-016 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin by Marina Galushkin - 2843 North Wolverine Avenue: B. Approve minutes of January 6, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Zaremba: The next item is the Consent Agenda and, normally, those are items that require no discussion and can be passed together. However, I have a comment on each of them, so I will remove them both from the Consent Agenda and, then, we will vote on them individually. On item A -- the pages aren't numbered, but it is, I believe, the second page of it, paragraph C, Decision and Order, paragraph one under C says applicant's CUP and that should be changed to AUP. As an accessory use permit. And that is my only change on Findings of Facts and Conclusions. I would accept a motion from -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Pa~e 2 of 72 Canning: Commissioner Zaremba -- or Chairman Zaremba, did you want to -- also want to change that pursuant to the Planning Commission's authority? Zaremba: And where is that? Canning: Just above the AUP. Borup: Paragraph C also. Zaremba: Same paragraph C, the beginning of the sentence pursuant to the City Council should read pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Commission's authority. Is that the same Meridian City Code number? Canning: If you can give me a moment I can look it up. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, it should be 12-3-3, I think. Let me find it. 12-3-3J. Zaremba: 12-3-3J? Canning: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. All right. So, the three changes are all in paragraph C and the new reading will be pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Commission authority as provided in Meridian City Code No. 12-3-3J. The rest of the sentence is as is and, then, paragraph one -- and a subparagraph one under that says the applicant's AUP. Those, I believe, are all the changes and I will ask for a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for AUP 04-016. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, I'm sorry, this is embarrassing. That was for a preliminary plat denial. So, you might want to just hold this over another week and we will review it in depth and make sure we get all the code references, if you wouldn't mind. Zaremba: That would be fine. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I remove my motion. Borùp: Is there a chance we could maybe have that at the end of the meeting? Canning: Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 3 of 72 Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we will delay Item 3-A until the end of the meeting and we will revisit it at that time. Item B is approval of the minutes of January 6, 2005, and I have two changes to make on those. On page five of 54 -- we moved around, so we are giving our recorder a challenge here, but where the first attribution is given to Mr. Borup, that actually was said by me, Chairman Zaremba. Commissioners, any questions, was the statement. Then, on page 45, again, the first attribution this time given to Mr. Freckleton is me. It should be Zaremba. Those are the only comments I have. I would entertain a motion on the minutes. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes with the recommended changes by yourself. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes-of January 6, 2005, as amended. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you. The minutes are approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: COMPASS presentation on the Communities in Motion Plan Zaremba: Next on our agenda is a presentation by Compass. This is the very first in a series, I hope, of other educational items that the public is welcome to listen to, that are also geared towards informing us as Commissioners of things that are going on in the community. As many of you may know, the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho, which is abbreviated Compass, is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization for this area. As such, almost anything that happens in Ada or Canyon counties that involves federal funds has to comply with what Compass's planning has indicated. They are also the people that do a great deal of study of our traffic and transportation issues and -- they have other reasons for existing, but it seems like traffic and transportation are the 800 pound guerilla that wave everybody around and with that introduction I'll turn it over to you. Tisdale: Thank you. My name is Toni Tisdale and I'm a principal planner at Compass and he took my first line there in explaining who we are. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Tisdale: That's okay. And, actually, transportation is our focus. so -- we do a little bit with air quality that's related to transportation as well, but transportation is our main focus. And I have handed out a packet and that also has a brochure in it that tells a little bit more about what we do and who our members are and that sort of thing. What we are working on right now is the long-range transportation plan. It's a 20 plus year plan and it will have a lot of the demographics for the area and all the transportation projects that we expect to see in the next 20 years -- or about 25 years, actually. This Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 4 of 72 plan would be the first time that Ada and Canyon counties join together to make a truly regional plan. In the past they have been -- there has been one plan for Ada County and one plan for Canyon and, as you can imagine, sometimes when you put the two together after they have been looked at separately, everything doesn't exactly match up. And so this is the first time that we are looking at everything regionally and when we first started talking about this, ITD joined us late last year and said, you know, we are kind of looking at something similar, but it expands your area into some of the rural counties surrounding you and so we partnered with ITD and we are also looking at other than Ada and Canyon county, we are looking at Elmore, Boise, Gem, and Payette counties, too. So, there is a lot of people that live out in those rural counties surrounding us that come into Ada and Canyon county to work and to play and so that also affects how our road system works. And so we are looking at a more in-depth detail at Ada and Canyon counties, of course, but we are also including those four rural counties that are surrounding us. And so it's really an exciting process, because it's never been done before, maybe anywhere in the United States, we are not positive about that, but for sure anywhere in Idaho we have never had that type of partnership. The reason that this long-range transportation plan is important is because' -- the main reason is because federal regulations' quire us to have it. In order to get any federal funding for transportation projects it has 0 be listed in that plan and so that's the main reason. And another thing is that it takes long time for some of these bigger projects to be funded, as you all well know. It can ke ten or 15 or even 20 or 30 years to get some of the big major projects funded and 0 getting support at this level and keeping that support rolling through the years is r lIy important. We also have more of a chance, especially utilizing ITD's partnership, going out to those other counties. When ITD's new director, Director Ekern, sa what we had been asking for for additional funding from Congress. he said why are u dreaming so small? He said you should be asking for lots of money. You're as ng .- I think the last time we applied for congressional earmarked funds, I think th largest was about 20 million dollars for some -- I think the Locust Grove overpass was he number one priority and he said you should be asking for 150 million, because we an actually get that. So, with this type of planning, looking at corridor level planning ac ss county borders, it's going to allow us to be able to get some of those big projects u derwaya lot sooner than maybe we had anticipated. Also, one of the big differences i this plan and in the past is how our growth scenario is being developed. In the p st we have looked at pretty much one scenario and that trend on how everything ha been done in the past and where growth has been, where employment has been, and. his time we are doing something entirely different. If you have ever heard of Envision Utah, Utah did this really innovative program probably about 10 or 15 years ago and we have got the same consultant doing that type of program for us. We have had the first set of workshops in November and what we do is we've had mass -- we had about 500 people participate and they showed us -- this was elected officials, planners, business people, regular citizens, come to these meetings and they told us where they thought growth should go, what type of growth .- it, actually, ended up most of the time it was just -- employment was disbursed a lot more between the counties than it has been in the past and getting that jobs-housing balance is going to be important in the future. We come down to four new scenarios that it's kind of been boiled down to. We have another set of scenario building in February and so it's really - , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 5 of 72 - we are encouraging you all to be there. It's been a really exciting process and, actually, a lot of fun. It's a game. They call it gaming. This next time it's going to be more geared towards the transportation. We did allow people to put in their transportation ideas on the map before, but this time it's going to be a fiscally constrained transportation issue and so they only have a certain amount of money to spend this time, where they could dream as big as they wanted last time, this one they are going to see how much it costs to do these projects. And so through that we will be able to see where the growth should be going and how the cities might expect to be changing possibly comprehensive plans and their planning processes to meet that type of growth. And this is saying that -- I know there is an age old question what drives transportation, is it transportation drives land use or land use driving transportation. This is saying that land use drives it and that's how our consultants look at it and how we have come to look at it, too. Without the people that live there, the roads aren't used and so, really, whatever is on the land is what drives where the roads go. Or public transportation, for that matter. So, our next -- the next step is at the workshops. November 2nd and 3rd are the dates. You have a postcard in there that -- in your packet that -- if you fill that out and let us know which date that you would be able to make it. There is five different workshops on those two days. It's a three-hour commitment -- Zaremba: February 2nd and 3rd; right? Tisdale: What did I say? Zaremba: November. February. Tisdale: November? Back at the first workshop. Sorry. February. And, then, after that we expect a preliminary decision on how the growth scenario should work from our board in March and we will go out to the public and -- to as many groups as want to hear us and let them know what our board has preferred for the growth scenario and, then, they should be making a final decision in April and so those growth scenarios will determine what our needs will be for transportation for the next 25 to 30 years. So, that's kind of our presentation. If you have questions, which I'm sure you do, I will stand for those now. Zaremba: Commissioners? Certainly very important work. Tisdale: It's very important and we have -- Zaremba: In terms of future for all of us. Tisdale: -- had great turnout so far. Zaremba: I, actually, attended the November workshop over in Nampa and it was very well planned and very well done and a good exercise, a lot of people with some good , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 6 of 72 input, and anybody that can make the February ones -- I believe all the public's invited. This isn't just us. Everybody is welcome to go to these things. Tisdale: There is a website that's specifically for this plan. It's called Communities in Motion. The website is www.communitiesinmotion.org. There is a place where you can sign up to get information if you'd like it. We have got all the technical data that we have developed so far on the website and that will be added to -- pretty soon, almost daily, so you might check those out if you're interested in transportation planning. Newton-Huckabay: What is your projected attendance so far? Tisdale: I'm sorry? Newton-Huckabay: A larger group of people attending? Tisdale: We have actually added a fifth. We had four meetings in November, so we added a little more, because some of them are really crowded, so we do expect more people. Borup: I think she answered the question I had and that was on the information available and that is available on the website now, then? Tisdale: Yes, sir. Borup: That's got the maps and everything on there? Tisdale: Uh-huh. It's got pictures of the maps that were developed. At the workshop there was 500 people and they were divided into about ten people at each table, so we ended up with 40 different maps, so the consultants had to really do some crunching on that, but they got it down to kind of ideas of what people had, different -- there was similarities -- a lot of similarities. It was actually amazing to me how much people were thinking a lot a like throughout the Treasure Valley and so we ended up with six and, then, after our consultants talked with our technical committee this week, it was actually narrowed down to four, because they call them -- the scenarios, they call them crash test dummies. They said, you know, we don't expect them to be perfect, we are just doing to catch -- we have a ton of analysis from all of the findings that we got out of those workshops, based on what the vehicle miles -- the VMT -- what is -- vehicle miles traveled. It's hard to breakdown when you're used to using acronyms. Vehicle miles traveled, travel time, and also I forgot to mention this, but for Ada County there is also a campaign project called Blueprint for Good Growth and these scenario processes are going on hand in hand. We are working -- they are working with us throughout this project as well. So, these scenarios will be used for Blueprint for Good Growth and so in Ada County the Blueprint for Good Growth consultants will have a whole lot more detailed information on things, other than transportation, but for our purposes and for the partnering counties, those four rural counties, we have basically transportation, but , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 7 of 72 there is a lot of it and that will be shared during the February meeting, what we have learned so far. Zaremba: Great. Thank you very much. Tisdale: We are always available for questions, if you hear. something or see something, just let us know. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you, Toni. Tisdale: Thank you. Canning: Before she leaves -- Zaremba: Toni, hang on. Canning: Toni is the one that took this picture for us that we have been using a lot. Tisdale: We looked out our window and that's what we saw. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. We are ready to enter the public hearing phase of our meeting for this evening and I will just describe for a moment the procedure that we go through. Our professional city staff and the applicant have already spent quite a bit of time together on each of these items and so our procedure will be that our professional staff will make a presentation on where and what the application is about and identify any issues that may be remaining that need to be brought to our attention. After that the applicant themselves will make a statement about their application and their project and respond to any details that have been brought up by the staff for our attention. Following that is when the rest of you get to speak and make your comments, either for or against or for part of it or against part of it or however you want to phrase it. We have found that to keep our meetings from going until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, we do need to put a time limit on some of those remarks. The applicant will be limited to 15 minutes and public testimony from -- is it 15 or ten? Fifteen for the applicant. And we ask that individuals making remarks limit your testimony to three minutes. We also welcome people who come up and say I agree with Joe that spoke before me and we will know what you mean. You don't need to repeat everything. We do ask that since it's important enough to you that you came tonight, it's important for us to hear what you have to say, so we do ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone and I realize a lot of people aren't accustomed to public speaking, but, please, don't be afraid of the microphone, speak loudly enough that we can all hear what you came to say, and also loudly enough that our recorder can get all of it down. And when you do come to the microphone, please, identify yourself, give your name and your address. We have a handy dandy little light system over here that -- when the green light is. on you have plenty of time to talk. When the yellow one comes on, we. ask that you wrap it up in about 30 seconds. And when the red one comes on, please, conclude as fast as you can. We do make an exception, if somebody identifies themselves as a spokesman for , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 8 of 72 several other people. An obvious example would be the president of a homeowners association and they can come up and say I'm speaking for ten or 12 other people who aren't going to speak, we also give that kind of a representative quite a bit of extra time to state what they have to state. After the general public testimony, we will, then, ask the applicant to come back again and to have taken notes while you were speaking and to fix anything that can be fixed, clarify anything that they can clarify. And then, after that we will have our discussion and, hopefully, conclude with a recommendation that we will make to the City Council. So, that's pretty much the procedure. Item 5: Item 6: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: 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: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: RZ 04-017 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: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: CUP 04-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Conceptual Planned Development for commercial/retail uses for approximately 615,430 square feet of building areas in a proposed CcG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road - and East Pine Avenue: Zaremba: And let us begin this evening with Item 5 and we have three similar items in a row, but at the moment we are only going to open the Public Hearing on Item 5, which is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, because the decision on that will impact six and seven very much. So, we, actually, will deal with one of them first and depending on the outcome of that we will deal with the other two. So, I am opening 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 Incorporated, southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue and we will begin with the staff presentation. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. Since you have just this CPA item open, I will go ahead and just touch on a few of the outstanding items that we talked about at the last meeting, rather than going into the full explanation, the background, since you did receive that last time. One of the -- there was a couple of items that came up at your last hearing. You did receive testimony from David McKinnon, who is representing the applicant in this matter, and from Mr. Mike Ford, who -- both of those gentlemen raised one question about the subdivision to the north. As you may recall, I had testified that I did not believe that there was office or non-industrial uses that were permitted and I did generate a memo for you about a Meridian Piannlng & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 9 of 72 week and a half ago. Did you receive that? Okay. And, again, we are talking about this -- this subdivision that is identified here where the arrow is at right now. Again, the property -- overall just a little over 60 acres that's outlined in red is the subject of the Comprehensive Plan amendment application. As you can see, it does have a mixed use regional on the frontage on Eagle Road and an industrial designation on the back, so as you read in the memo, I won't go into that. Yes, there are office -- professional office uses that are permitted up here with a kind of interesting requirement that was placed in '91 that said that the city staff and City Council will have design review authority. So, I think some of that remains to be seen, but I think given that Pine is intended to be five lanes at that location, you can expect that there will probably be some fairly very high quality construction buildings there fronting on Pine. You also received testimony last meeting from Mr. Marv Jensen, who was representing RC. Willey. He had expressed primarily concern about traffic and traffic mitigation along the Eagle Road corridor. You should have received a final staff report from Ada County Highway District. Their commission acted on this matter last Wednesday, the 12th of January, and they did approve the project with a number of conditions and, of course, they do not have full authority over Eagle Road in this area, but they did make some special recommendations to the city and lTD. We also received a letter from ITD that -- let's see if I can give you a date on that. December 17th, 2004. That was sent to Will Berg, city clerk, and they stated in that letter that no direct access will be allowed to Eagle Road. They mentioned a couple of other items there regarding noise abatement, but -- so just in terms of the testimony from Mr. Jensen about traffic and those other items, that there have been some items into the record since the last meeting on traffic. There was some direction given to both staff and the applicant last meeting on I think two main items. One was encourage the applicant to look at some other potential areas. If you approve this application tonight, it would remove approximately 60 acres of I-L zoned land and the question was posed I think by Commissioner Zaremba is there other locations that that could possibly -- we could possibly look at and staff, with the expert help of one of our new staff, Joe Guenther -- let's see, I'm going to have to place this up on another -- unless you have excellent excellent eye sight, we are going to have to get this projected in another manner. Anyway, while they are -- other staff is getting this maybe in a way we can zoom in on some of that, I'll just go on. Basically, this map kind of outlines what properties in Meridian are currently zoned industrial and have services and, then, which properties are designated for industrial in the future and gives you a little bit of sense there, so I think one other item that was discussed briefly had to do with kind of this issue of a discrepancy between the assessment -- the assessed value in the land use and I guess, frankly, we -- you know, at staff level, obviously, we are going to use the assessed value and the total valuation of the property is something that the applicant submitted to you some of the Ada County assessor sheets that kind give you a summary of both of the legal parcels that are the subject of this application and, you know, we are not tax experts, you know, at staff and in terms of the assessed value, I think the main thing I would add to that is that while the valuation may have some bearing in terms of the marketing, I think that one of the charges for the Planning and Zoning Commission through both the state land use planning act and the City of Meridian ordinances, you know, is to look, you know, kind of at this broader vision and certainly while we don't want to zone or plan properties that , Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page100f72 are going to make them completely infeasible to build, I don't think staff is convinced that it would be the primary reason for a denial or approval, for that matter. So, I think -- let's see. Do you think that one is easier to read or the prior one? Yeah. That doesn't- - we'll have to move that one around. Okay. The colors aren't coming out real clear, but as you can see, there are some red parcels, some yellow parcels, some blue parcels, and some purple ones. The red ones are vacant parcels that are zoned I-L today, which you could assume, for the most part, have services that are greater than ten acres in size. And, again, that's the red. And there are -- there is 339 acres total, if you add those together. And, as you can see, they are kind of grouped in three areas, one over here on the west side -- or, I'm sorry, east side. Jabil is this large one here. Here is 1-84 coming through here. On the south side of the 1-84 -- again, this is -- will be Overland Road on the south side. There are a couple of parcels there, kind of between Western Electronics and Bodily RV, so you have a couple of I-L zoned parcels there. And, then, on the north side of Franklin Road. The yellow -- the yellow outlined parcels are the parcels that are also in the city limits zoned -- zoned I-L, but are greater than five acres. And, then, the blue area, which this wastewater treatment plant area is not designated industrial, but it does allow for some industrial uses, so these are -- the blue ones again, are not annexed, not available today with city services for the most part, but are designated for industrial in the future and they are -- the ones that are greater than five acres, there is 377 acres of those. So, the total -- if you add up all the industrial property -- excuse me -- approximately 1,120 acres throughout the entire city. I think the point of this map is just to show you also that if you remove idle land, there is a choice that's being made -- yes, there are other properties available today, for example, a large industrial user has some options available, if you remove this Elixir property, which is what you're deciding tonight. If you remove the Elixir and you remove the Jabil site, which, of course, does have a structure on it today that would probably provide some limitations, depending on what your type of use is. I mean unless you're high tech, you know, it would be a pretty extreme adaptive reuse of the property. But if you - - if you removed both of those, then, you're down to 233 acres of I-L in the City of Meridian that would be, essentially, available for service today. So, I think, basically, that's just the facts. There is not necessarily an argument one way or the other behind that. I mean I think staff is interpreting that certainly to be that if you have -- if you are looking for the community to be self-sufficient across the spectrum in terms of all industries and you want potential employers to have options to come in today without having long waits or having to put in large amounts of utilities and facilities to make their parcel usable, if you take -- you know, if you take a ten acre -- you have 233 acres. Now, if you want larger parcels than that, obviously, you get pretty limited, as far as what -- you know, if they need a 20 acre or a 30 acre -- of course, that number goes down in terms of the available supply. 'I think with that I'll just -- I'll go back to the other presentation. I think the remaining items have to do with the rezone application and the Conditional Use Permit application, both of which are pretty dependent on your decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Should you choose to approve that, there was -- in terms of the response -- the written response, I think from -- the letter from Dave McKinnon was largely dealing with those other two applications, so until you open those hearings, I guess I'll just end my comments there on the' Comprehensive Plan amendment. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 11 of72 Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Once, again, your work has been very thorough. Having to sort through -- it isn't always obvious when you look at something and say, well, it's zoned this way, your research into what kind of overlays are on it and underlays are on it and development agreements have been made about it and finding some obscure document from, what, 15 or 20 years ago, that's a lot of work on your part and we appreciate that and you always write up a report that makes it clear to us, so -- would you identify, since there are three existing, I recall, different zones on this piece of property now that we are discussing changing, maybe just outline with a pointer where each one of those pieces is, the current configuration. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yeah. Again, this map, unfortunately, doesn't show it, but this is the I-L zoning. There are only two zones on the property. The other one is a small little -- that's going to be hard to read, isn't it. I need two hands on that thing. There we go. There is a limited office, an L-O, one acre, that was zoned out of that corner for a Primary Health facility that was never built, but the zoning did go through. Zaremba: So, the whole rest of the property is currently I-L and the mixed use is just an overlay? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. The mixed use is a designation on the future land use map. Zaremba: And is the -- the mixed-use part of it is not the entire piece of property; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Correct. The mixed use is this brown area here. And if I could just -- I mean I guess one clarification on that. I think this Commission, for the most part, has seen -- when you have seen a property come to you that has a mixed- use regional designation, I believe they have all received a CoG zone. For example, the Eagle Road Ustick intersection where Mr. W.H. Moore - Winston Moore and others have come in, those are all mixed use regional and did come in with CoG. The Comprehensive Plan by no means says that these have to be CoG. It does allow for some, you know, light manufacturing and other uses that, you know, could generally be designed to be compatible and so just for clarification I don't think that the intent of the mixed use regional policy in our Comprehensive Plan is -- if it says mixed use regional, it has to be CoG zoning. Yes, that's what they are asking for and, yes, I think that would be a compatible zone, but does it mean that they -- that the CoG zoning is the only one and you need to do retail to really meet the intent of the mixed use regional, I don't think so. So, just a clarification. Zaremba: Thank you. We are ready for Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. And like Chairman Zaremba -- congratulations on your ascension and to you congratulations as well on back. I'd like to thank' staff for all the , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 12 of 72 help they have given us on this project as well. They have been very helpful in preparing the presentation. Brad's memo was very helpful. I know all the work that Brad put into it, I know there was work put in by the clerk's office to find some information in the basement. I know that Mike Ford from the last meeting representing the Yanke family, dropped off some information as well to try to clarify the issues revolving around the Gemtone property, which is that property just to the north, as to what exactly that property could be used for in the future and so I appreciate everybody's help on that. I promised Commissioner Rohm -- not Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Moe and Commissioner Rohm that I would be short tonight. Brad did a really good job doing the presentation for us tonight. There were several items that he's already covered for us. You guys sent us off last time with about four items of homework. You should have all received a letter in response to those homework items you asked me to do and I assume you have all received that. Just to cover those very briefly, one was to figure out exactly what was available to be done in Gemtone. Brad's memo has covered that and it can be used for office uses and other high quality uses and, as Brad pointed out, with the widening of Pine Street to five lanes, that will be a high quality office commercial type development along Gemtone and we hope to do the same on the south side. The second item was to figure out what was going on with ACHD. As Brad mentioned, we went to ACHD approximately a week ago, met with ACHD, read their staff report, and we went to the commission and one of the members of the Hansen-Rice group got up, said we agree with the conditions of approval and we went ahead and approved it and so we agreed with all the conditions of approval, we didn't fight with them on any of them and so we don't have any intentions to fight with you on any of their approvals as well. The third item you asked was to figure out the value of the land. You should have all received a packet of information from Hansen- Rice concerning all the different assessed values for the land around the area and, like Brad, I'm not a tax expert or an assessor, but, needless to say, the value of the land in this area has skyrocketed, it no longer holds its value for industrial uses, but, rather, based on the types of uses that are developed around it, such as Blue Cross and the Crossroads and Presidential subdivisions, this land has become more valuable for commercial use and so that's basically -- basically what the information that was given to you states. Finally, there was the comment from Commissioner Zaremba, now Chairman Zaremba, to find out if there was an area that we could swap land and to figure out if there was some things and I appreciate Joe's -- Joe's work that he put into that. But if I could get somebody to grab the Comp Plan -- I did have a chance -- and, like I said in my letter, to talk to a few people that know a little bit more about industrial than I do and I spent some time on the phone talking to a few people -- you can just go ahead and put it on the easel right there. I don't know if you guys can all see that. If you can just go ahead and turn that just a little bit more. Thanks. In the Comprehensive Plan there is a number of areas that are highly residential. You can see basically this whole area is, residential, except for the areas -- the wastewater treatment plant and that makes sense, because it's farther away from a major interstate highway that runs through 1-84 and because it's residential you want to see residential around that. Commercial areas are staying with commercial areas, industrial staying on the south side of the railroad track and along 1-84. In looking into the future, we have a large area of industrial designated land south of the railroad track, near what will be the , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 13 of 72 Ten Mile interchange. So, around the Ten Mile interchange area we have a large volume of commercial uses and, then, right in the middle -- thanks, Brad. Or Anna. Right back to it. Commercial along 1-84. Then, we have -c right in the middle of commercial and industrial we have placed medium density residential. The medium density residential, if it's to access Franklin, would be accessing the same area that industrial traffic will be exiting and entering and if they want to get out to the Ten Mile interchange without going up to Franklin, they'd have to travel through commercial land. This area seems bounded by Black Cat and Franklin, that if we have industrial on one side, commercial on two other sides, that that site may be more appropriate, rather than residential, to go to a commercial and industrial designation. So, there is a possibility of some swapping of some land in this area. As you are well aware, we do have the Ten Mile interchange study that's begun in this area down here, although it is highly residential right now, large lot and estate residential, there is a possibility that some industrial could go in that location as well, because it would have quick interstate access and there is large lots that could develop in that area. There is a possibility that land could in the future be developed with some industrial uses. I think that in looking at this Comprehensive Plan there is a few things that could be changed. I worked on the Comp Plan, I have a lot of value in this Comprehensive Plan, but there is some areas that need to be modified and as the city changes and -- the city is a dynamic thing, it's not static, it changes and it evolves, and we'd like to just point out that this piece of property at one point, the property that we are dealing with the Comp Plan amendment tonight, at one point made sense with industrial uses. Eagle Road was not what it is today, you know, five to even ten years ago. I mean originally we had the Club Wholesale there and some industrial uses and today we have a huge volume of traffic using Eagle Road, because of the Eagle Road interchange and just the tremendous growth that Meridian, Boise, and Eagle, even Star, for that matter, has seen in the past ten years. I know we have talked a lot about the Comprehensive Plan amendment. We still would ask for your support in the Comprehensive Plan amendment and ask if you have any questions at this time. Zaremba: Thank you for looking around and suggesting other areas that could change. I certainly think I agree with you on the major one you pointed out. That does make sense. McKinnon: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to take credit for that, but I can't. I had some help with that. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Rohm: Dave, I think you did a good job with your homework and along with Brad's comments I think we are a lot closer to understanding the needs of the developer and the concerns of the city, so thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 14 of 72 Zaremba: This is the opportunity for anybody else who has anything they wish to say about this. Did we have a sign-up sheet? Please go ahead. Come forward, sir. Ford: Mike Ford, Post Office Box 5405, Boise. 83705. Brad, could you put that other map back up. There. Thank you. First of all, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd also like to thank Brad and staff for the research they did in finding what our uses are allowed in Gemtone. Happy that that's resolved. Again, this is our property. As it's been said tonight, we do plan on doing high end office on that property, would not like to see industrial there. I'm not anti-industrial. I developed the Layne Industrial Park there. I developed the rail site industrial park over there. So, industrial users have bought ground from us when we develop those. They don't want to be next to retail and office. They don't want to be bad neighbors. And you find that all the time, where there is existing industrial and, then, you put residential around it and something and, then, the people start complaining about the industry. And if you put industrial here, it will be only a matter of time before the retailers here, the office users here, are complaining to the city about industrial uses there. So, I would just say that I would hope that you would approve the applicant's request. Anyquestions? Thank you. Zaremba: We have signed up Judith -- I believe it's Bellcastor? She's declining to speak, actually. I see hands waving. Anybody else want to speak? Okay. Well, then, we had just the one statement in favor and the applicant's remarks. Any discussion from the Commission or further questions to ask? Borup: No questions. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. The property to the north at Eagle and Fairview, that mixed use -- do we have anything pending there at Eagle and Fairview, mixed use on the north? The northwest and the northeast? I don't have a pointer, so -- right there. Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: These two? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: No, we do not. Yeah. There are -- I think there is a little over 250 acres, I believe, at both of those -- if you add those together on the north side of Fairview there that the city has not received any applications on, but it is designated all also mixed use regional. Newton-Huckabay: And what about -- is that all the way to Ustick? Hawkins-Clark: No. I guess we could pull up the other map. Newton-Huckabay: It's not all the way to Ustick. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 150f72 Hawkins-Clark: We can pull up a map, Commissioner, if you'd like to see the area north of Ustick. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm trying to think between Fairview and Lowe's, I'm trying to remember how -- or the new Lowe's location, how much of that is mixed use. Hawkins-Clark: So, Commissioner, if this is -- I guess this gives you maybe a little better sense of -- the east side of Eagle Road -- again, here is Fairview and the Meridian Crossroads shopping center is the commercial here. So, all single ownership on the east side and we have -- staff has, I understand, received some preliminary discussions or rumors, shall we say, that maybe within a year there may be something happening. Newton-Huckabay: I guess what I'm getting at, as a Commissioner and more as a citizen, who drives Eagle Road everyday two times a day and spends 40 minutes, approximately, getting from the north to south and south to north, that we have this continuous development of retail -- mixed use usually ends up being retail and I'm -- at some point we are going to have every store there is to have in this town and you're not going to be able to get there. And that's my concern with converting industrial -- any industrial property to more commercial property. So I just -- you know, I can see where, you know, Lowe's will be opening soon, I believe. I imagine all of that will end up being -- because they are larger lots and bigger boxes -- just my stray thought. Moe: Just to kind of follow up with that, though, I think you got to remember that there is already mixed use that borders Eagle Road in that area. Basically, what we are trying to take care of tonight is the 22 acres of the industrial to the west; correct? I n regards to this -- the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But that will be taking away potential development that isn't going to cause as much traffic in the area and possibly bring a little higher paying employer to the area than a retail. Canning: Dave, that wasn't a question. McKinnon: I know, Anna. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just to offer rebuttal to myself, I suppose. I'll take the opportunity. Moe: Good to see up here, Dave. McKinnon: Just a couple comments just on your comments, not in the form of a question I know. Part of the way we are going to see the traffic calmed in that area is Pine Street to be extended through -- all the way through, extension of five lanes all the way through, and that's all developer-borne costs. ACHD does not have the money or the funds to do that. So, this will be all developer-borne cost and it's expensive to build Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 16 of 72 a road that big and that wide all the way through and one of the ways to pay for that is if the value of the land at sale can help to pay for that. The industrial land itself won't pay for that expansion all the way through. There is going to be a new north-south connection soon, the Locust Grove overpass and the connection from Pine to Locust Grove will open up an opportunity for people to be able to get from Eagle Road to Pine and, then, from Pine to Locust Grove and over to the south side of the freeway and so this is, actually, one of the ways to pay for that to make that happen and, otherwise, it won't happen, because the value is not there to improve that area and pay for the cost of a 105,000 dollar traffic light at Hickory and Pine and to pay for the widening and the cost of donating that land and constructing that land. Sorry. Sorry, Anna. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have got some questions for staff. On page 22 at the bottom where -- your staff recommendations, you speak to recommending a continuation of this for general site design comments and special considerations, if, in fact, we make a motion to approve this CPA and rezone. How do you -- how do you do that? How do you continue the discussion, if, in fact, you have already recommended approval of an application? I'm curious how you would do both. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, I guess there are three applications that this report addresses and at this point in time you have only taken testimony and deliberated on one, the Comprehensive Plan amendment. So, what this recommendation is addressing is if you, as a Commission, decided to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and, then, moved on to the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit applications, staff's belief is that the Conditional Use Permit has enough outstanding issues that would warrant you having -- having a chance to look at another Conditional Use Permit site plan. Does that clarify-- Rohm: Okay. So, basically, there would be a Conditional Use Permit required on this property after the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezone -- they'd still have to gothrough a CUP process. Is that what the-- Hawkins-Clark: Well, for the use that they are proposing, that's -- they chose to submit a conceptual planned development. That's how they are proposing to develop the site. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is always going to be a Conditional Use Permit requirement on this land, because it is zoned today, it is annexed, and there are certainly rights to development under the industrial zone without a Conditional Use Permit. But what they are choosing to do does require a conceptual plan to be approved. For -- yeah. For the CoG zone, so -- Zaremba: The way I interpret the part that you're asking about, staff's recommendation was strongly in favor of recommending denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and, therefore, it's possible that they didn't spend a lot of time on the following CUP, because if, in fact, the CPA is denied -- Rohm: There is no point. , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 170f72 Zaremba: -- there is no discussion on either the rezone or the CUP. If we go a different direction, in spite of staff's recommendation, and we recommend to the City Council that the Comprehensive Plan amendment be approved, then, staff's recommendation is that we have some discussion of the other two issues, but not make the final decision tonight, because staff wants another pass at it with the new circumstance of the CPA being approved. Does that make sense? Moe: That's how I read it as well. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, could I just make one other clarification, if that -- since you do have on your agenda tonight on that 04-004, another Comprehensive Plan amendment -- we did talk with the attorneys before the meeting today just a little bit and one suggestion that was given is that if the Commission does choose to recommend approval of this one, rather than moving all of these on, before you hear that other Comprehensive Plan amendment, since they should go together to the City Council, that you could table this until the end of your agenda tonight Are you recommending that one be continued anyway? Okay. Well, that may change it, then. I guess just to bear in mind that as far as closing a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and formally moving this on to City Council without having your other one dealt with, that may put the other one in jeopardy. Zaremba: That's a good point. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Are we at a position where somebody has a strong stance one way or the other? Mr. Nary, you had something to add. Nary: Mr. Chairman, just, I guess, to follow up on Brad's last comment, another alternative is if this Commission does decide to make a recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, what you could do is direct staff to bring back that recommendation at your next meeting in February and, then, you will be able to know whether the other one was completed and you could do the same direction. If it isn't completed, then, you'd still have a date certain to have that recommendation, but the whole intent of the statute is that the recommendations are made once every six months. So, that's another way, rather than just putting it to the end of the meeting, you could just give it a date certain, say February -- the next February meeting, bring the recommendation back then. Borup: I would rather -- I think I would rather wait until the end of the meeting and try to handle them all today, rather than pushing it forward to next month. Rohm: I'm not opposed to that. I would like to say that even though I believe the staff has done an excellent job with their Findings of Fact and recommendations, I think that as a Commissioner I'm in support of this CPA and rezone and that is my tendency as we move forward and open up the other applications and if we want to table this until , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 180f72 the latter part of the meeting tonight, that's fine with me. But, generally, I believe that I'm in support of this application at this time. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'd like to follow up to Mr. McKinnon. I meant I think a Comprehensive Plan amendment on this piece of property is premature at this time. As you said, the Locust Grove overpass construction will begin very soon. The city seems to be in disagreement as to whether or not it's a feasible change. There is a lot of land available right now for commercial development, I just don't think it's the right time to jump in and start rezoning or amending the Comprehensive Plan. So, I will lean towards denial. Moe: Well, we are going down line, are we? Zaremba: Yes, sir. Moe: Quite frankly, I belabored over this thing for a couple weeks now. I have gone back and forth quite a bit. I think it was Mr. Ford, his comments tonight in regards to what happens to some of your industrial users when other properties, you know, commercial and whatnot, come in, that there seems to have a tendency to want to uproot industrial and whatnot out that gets established. Based on Mr. McKinnon's presentation tonight, quite frankly, in regards to where there may be some shifting of some properties and such in the future and whatnot, I'm somewhat -- I am in support of the Comprehensive Plan change. I just believe with the 40 plus acres in regards to the mixed use already fronting Eagle Road and whatnot, I don't see that this 22 acres is going to do much in industrial, especially when they are going to have the cost of installing the roadway extensions, as well as property values for the commercial properties are much greater than for industrial. Having said that, I would say that I would be in support of the change. Borup: I had an opportunity to have a little bit of information yesterday and probably one of the public input meetings, I think, is where it came from, that was looking at a future -- future use of the whole valley, not just -- not just Ada County and I don't know if -- well, actually, I don't think I do agree with it, but one thing that came out of that is they had -- had all the industrial --a majority of the industrial area out around the airport in Boise and, then, over in Canyon county, Nampa-Caldwell area on that, and figuring that Meridian would not be a high industrial use. That was the input of those -- of those -- sounded like probably several committees. I'm not sure which one of the two it was. I don't think we want to be completely left out of that, but I think the general -- from that it looked to me like general opinion that maybe Meridian is intended for a little higher uses than an industrial area. I do agree that -- I hate to see things -- things losing that type of -- I we had a nice balance of -- I agree with Commissioner Huckabay, we may be a little premature on this. I don't know if -- what their time frame is, but I am also in favor -- I think the thing that was the biggest factor for me was Pine Avenue, a five lane road there, probably does not really lend itself to an industrial area. I, don't think that exact location is a good area for industrial land either. I'm not happy what it's going to do with the traffic at that location. Eagle at certain times of the day is just an area to avoid, but Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 190f72 five lanes on Pine and an overpass on Locust Grove, hopefully, will help alleviate some of that. That's alii have got to say. Zaremba: Thank you. I guess I'm the only one remaining to express an opinion. Newton-Huckabay: I have another question. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Thank you, Commissioner. Speak up. Newton-Huckabay: Industrial uses would include -- I mean we are not -- we are not talking about a tire factory here. I mean this could be an industrial use, such as an electronics manufacturer -- Zaremba: A warehouse operation even. Newton-Huckabay: -- a warehouse operation. A -- would a call center -- I mean would be a use -- an industrial -- Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, probably not a call center. It probably would be more geared toward CoG. But to answer your question, yes, there a number of uses that may -- for example, think of Executive, Emerald Avenue, that area generally between like Cloverdale -- you know Eagle, Cloverdale, Five Mile, industrial. Hewlett-Packard probably -- you know, industrial type. It does not imply dirty industry. The allowed uses are quite broad and it would allow for, you know, a number of manufacturing, assembly type uses, whether that's high tech, other clean industry uses would be allowed in the industrial. And, of course, as far as design along Eagle Road, which I think I heard mention either this meeting or last meeting, those kinds of issues can also be dealt with in terms of a design review of buildings, but as far as the uses, I think to assume that this would be, quote, unquote, dirty industry, would, I think, be an incorrect assumption that it would have to go that way. Bear in mind that there are a number of those uses that could -- could be submitted in the future for the property. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Zaremba: Thank you. Well, my conundrum is that I support the existence of industrial property. Again, Meridian has so little of it designated. I appreciate that there are some opportunities to perhaps re-designate some other areas that are not identified. But the conundrum for me is that industrial property is very logical along the railroad. The opposite piece to that is we have Eagle Road that has a lot of traffic on it and is -- I have discuss before -- a lot of that traffic is not Meridian traffic, it's coming from other towns passing through and to have retail along Eagle Road to perhaps get some of those people to stop and leave a few dollars here, would be an equal benefit, if not better benefit, to Meridian. The difficulty is we have an intersection of a railroad where I'd like to see industrial and Eagle Road where I'd like to see commercial and retail and what do you do where there is two thoughts overlap? My assessment is even if we did nothing, even if we denied this application, only 22 acres would be developed as , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 20 of 72 industrial, if it ever were developed as anything. The rest of it already can be developed for retail, because of the mixed use designation, even though the ground is designated industrial, the mixed used overlay, and probably without an application, would allow that to go forward. So, my solution to the conundrum, much as I would like to reserve industrial lands, is a very slight tilt toward approving this application. That's about as far as I can go, unfortunately. If there is any further discussion, I think we have a sense of how the Commission would act. 1-- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I would say we should move ahead. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 04-003. Zaremba: Is there -- Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CPA 04-003 -- excuse me? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh. Zaremba: I think the intention was -- because we have another CPA application later, that we table this one to the end of the meeting. The issue, for those of you who mayor may not have gotten it, is that we can only make a map change to the Comprehensive Plan every six months, that's Idaho state law, and we have two such applications before us and we are trying to keep them together, even though they are totally unrelated to each other, so that we don't make one decision tonight and, then, the other one has to be wait six months before it can be considered. So, even though the items are unrelated. I think the suggestion is that we continue this Item 5 to the end of the meeting -- Borup: Commissioner Moe is ready of a motion. Zaremba: -- when we have already made the decision on Item 11. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Public Hearing -- or the hearing of CPA 04-003 to the end of the meeting. Rohm: Second. , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 21 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Would we also want to move six and seven to the same -- Zaremba: Do we want to continue six and seven and depending on how we go, then, we will discuss those? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: It doesn't sound like much of the general public is here to hear this issue anyhow. So, I think if we put -- I would entertain a motion to continue -- I'm sorry, I first need to open them, because I don't believe we did that. Borup: Can we just adjust the agenda? Zaremba: Let's see. Why don't I just open them and we will continue them. Is that okay? Rohm: It works for me. Zaremba: All right. I will open the public hearings for RZ 04-017 and the Public Hearing for CUP 04-051. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, there is no reason you can't hear these items now. You don't have to table these to the end of the agenda. That was my understanding of what was going to happen, so I'm sorry if I interrupted inappropriately, but you can go ahead and hear the items, you just can't make -- you can't take action on the Comp Plan amendment until you know what you want to do with the other ones. So, there is no reason you can't conduct these public hearings. You don't have to put them off, you just -- you're just putting off your decision on the Comp Plan amendment. You just can't make a decision on it. They know how you're going, you just can't make a formal action on it. Rohm: Well, we wouldn't be able to make a decision on these either, though, until that's -- Borup: Until we vote on it. Rohm: -- until we vote on the other. Canning: But -- you can't make a final decision. Correct. , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 22 of 72 Rohm: Right. Canning: You may need to direct staff to come back with a recommendation or some item of that, but putting it to the end of the agenda will not accomplish anything tonight. Borup: Commissioner -- I mean Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I would be interested if Mr. McKinnon -- if we did hear it now, if he would be staying for the final vote? So, he's going to be staying for the vote anyway, since we don't have any public testimony. The only thing it would accomplish, we would be able to move along and maybe get to some of the issues that most of the people are here to address. Zaremba: Well -- and that was my feeling. I -- the end result is that we are likely to continue the RZ and the CUP anyhow for further input and my instinct would be to take that testimony at the end of the meeting as -- whatever there is to be said about the two public hearings, to take that at the end of the meeting, since I think we have already learned that most of these people are not here for that subject. Borup: I would be favor of that. Zaremba: I would entertain a motion to continue these two public hearings to the end of the meeting. Rohm: I'd like to make that motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend that we continue Public Hearing RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051 to the end of the agenda. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Motion and second to continue these two items to the end of the meeting. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 04-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.63 acres from a RUT zone to a R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 04-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 98 building lots and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 23 of 72 Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 04-052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road: Zaremba: Next item on the agenda is -- are, actually, three public hearings. We will deal with eight, nine, and ten together. This is AZ 04-032 request for annexation and zoning of 19.63 acres from RUT zone to an R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road. Also Public Hearing PP 04-043, request for preliminary plat approval for 98 building lots and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road. Also Public Hearing CUP 04-052, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road. And, again, we will begin the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. On this first item number eight, the property is located on the north end of our area of impact. North Meridian Road is the frontage that this property has. It is approximately 20 acres in size and recent applications in the area that the city has seen include Paramount Subdivision, which is shown in yellow here on the west side of Meridian Road, Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, which abuts a portion of the east property line, and, then, the Ventana Subdivision, which the City Council just approved last week, is located on this 60 acres here. This map doesn't reflect the fact that it's zoned, but it is zoned with the preliminary plat approved for it. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property a medium density residential and they are proposing an R-8 zone for annexation. Staff has submitted some findings to you and we do find that the R-8 zone meets the intent of that designation and we are recommending approval of that. The aerial photo is included in here, largely to help you understand the site. It currently is used for some agricultural, but there is a large estate type house here in the center of the property, as is the property -- 20 acres to the south has the same similar design and setup. This plat is, actually, a revised plat from what was submitted with the application. We received this about a week ago. The application originally did not include a stub street here to the east, nor did it include a stub street to the north. That's really the main two changes, but our staff report was based on this design, just so you know. So, if you recommend approval with our staff report, you would be recommending approval to the City Council of this plan, not the one that was originally submitted with the application. There are 125 lots total, 98 of them are build-able, and the remainder are common lots. The applicant is proposing two access points onto Meridian Road. All of the street system is public. They have one here on the south and one on the north, which they have shown generally to be their main entry. It does have a median in the center. There are two different types of products, a house product that they are proposing with this application, both detached single family, which is in this area here, generally, along the north and along the west and in the center are all single family detached. Then, along the south and the east they are proposing three different structures. There is -- they are all town homes, as they are defined by our ordinance, attached single family, four attached, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 24 of 72 five attached, and six attached. So, there is, actually, three different types of buildings, but they are all single family in terms of the ownership. Each, as you can see, have narrow lots, but the - there is no separation between the structures and these areas, other than where you see some of these common lots that do break it up. The other thing that they are proposing is, fortunately, to maintain the existing residence and would convert that to a clubhouse. They are also proposing to construct a parking lot in this location off of the southern public street that would cross a common lot here in order to access the clubhouse. Let's see. As far as some of the features, they are proposing 14 and a half percent of the site as open space. There is 4.99 dwelling units per acre. That is a gross number, so net density is slightly higher. The planned development, which is here, Item No.1 0 on the agenda tonight, the planned development is submitted for a couple of different reasons. One is they are asking for an exception to the lot sizes in the R-8. That does affect, of course, the attached products. You can see the groupings better with this planned development site plan. You can see these open space lots, how they break up the units. So, the planned development is asking for an exception -- right now the city ordinance says you cannot do two attached dwelling units -- more than -- more than two. You can do one zero lot line per lot and, as you can see, some of these need two zero lot lines. Most of them actually, in order to be constructed. So, that's one of the waivers that they are asking for, is to do more than one zero lot line on the lot. Another one is the lot frontage. They are asking to be reduced to a 30-foot minimum lot frontage and, again, that 30 foot mainly applies to the 37 attached units. Most of the other detached homes have the standard lot frontage or slightly under. The stub streets were asked to be created or provided by the Ada County Highway District when they went to the highway district. That was one of the requests of them. Staff is supportive of it. The one question -- I will just go back to the aerial, so you can get a little bit of a sense. This is the Catholic Church here on the corner of Chinden and Meridian Road. This green area down here is owned by the church. However, as you can see, their parking lot -- they don't have any structures, there is no -- there is no uses on that. So, in terms of do you put a stub street to that or not was a question that was raised by staff and, you know, is certainly partly dependent on the church. Without -- at this point the record doesn't state if they intend to do -- what they intend to use that for. It certainly is possible that that ten acres could be sold off or redeveloped as residential or office or something else in the future and in that case we really would like to see a stub street there. If it's just a church parking lot, does it make as much sense, probably not. But it is a little bit of an outstanding question. I'll ask the applicant to kind of provide us a little more information on that if they have it tonight. And, then, there is just three other items on page ten of the staff report that I wanted to call the Commission's attention to. We have asked that the applicant address the status of the North Slough lateral easement. You can see, down here on the southeast corner of the site, the existing South Sough -- I'm sorry, the North Slough, and they are proposing to realign that and bring it up through this common lot from the south and, then, go underneath the street with it and, then, into this common area. It would actually be piped for a portion of that, but, then, would be open near the clubhouse and, then, of course, piped underneath the street and, then, would be open in that area and the preliminary plat doesn't call out an easement for that, but our understanding on other projects in this area is that there is a 40 foot Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 25 of 72 easement, so we want some clarification on that. Who claims the easement and is the width going to change if it's piped. So, that was one question. Another one was they are certainly showing a gravity pipe irrigation on a common lot here. However, Saguaro Canyon doesn't show a common lot there, so we wanted some clarification, if that may involve a change of a common lot if they have to shift that. I already talked about the north stub street. Item D on page ten is the street section widths and they are proposing reduced street sections with this project. Standard 50-foot right of way width, but the loop drive around the whole perimeter -- well, up to this point right here. All of this is reduced street section. This main entry road -- I think they are calling it Rio Vista -- would be a standard street section and have parking on both sides. The main reason I bring that up is that if you approve this -- this plat tonight and this stub street is approved with a 32 foot street section, rather than a standard 36, it could impact the property -- the subdivision to the east and they would -- there would be maybe some transitional issues with the right of way there. So, at a minimum we are asking that that be 36 up to -- to this north-south street. But as we are recommending to go ahead and just make it a standard 36 all the way out to the entry, because it is a 50-foot right of way and they do have the room to do it. Then, the last thing I wanted to bring up was item F on page ten. That has to do with the clubhouse parking lot and this was, I guess, mainly, you know, a recommendation for the -- tied to the planned development, not necessarily a code violation, but we do have just a recommendation that the applicant consider moving this parking lot up to this lot here or the one on the corner, so that it's not sandwiched between two residential lots. The police department also made a comment about that in terms of visibility into that and they'd prefer it to be a little bit more open. And, then, the last item -- there is a fence, a concrete decorative wall that is on the -- that currently surrounds the residence. That fence comes within a couple of feet of this Rio Vista Drive. Staff's original recommendation to them was to, you know, try to shift the street, so that that wall isn't so close to the back of the sidewalk right there. They prefer not to shift the street. If possible, we'd still like to see that happen. If not, then, you would need to talk about that and they would need to request a waiver or an exception to the ordinance, we believe, unless the attorneys have another way to handle that, but as a part of that planned development application, that they would need to do that. So, I think I'll just end staff comments right there. Oh, I'm sorry, I did have one -- the last slide has to do with -- this is a concept elevation of the townhouse. This would be a townhouse that has four attached and, as I mentioned, there are concepts with five attached and six attached as well, but I think they are generally proposing that design. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have one. On that stub street going to the west -- Zaremba: Speak to the microphone. Newton-Huckabay: The stub street going to the -- I really need a pointer. Rohm: Here, I have one. Remember where you got that. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 26 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: This is -- Saguaro Canyon is down here, not right here; right? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: So, this hasn't been developed. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Ah. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, I'm sorry. This location. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Zaremba: Let's see. I do have a couple of questions, if nobody else does. Brad, on page three of your report at the top, while you were talking you told us a number of things that ACHD wanted and the applicant has had time to redraw their presentation and that's what your report is based on, but you said the ACHD commission isn't going to hear this until January 19th, which would have been last night. Do we know their final decision? Hawkins-Clark: I do not, Commissioner. Zaremba: We assume it matches with their staff report, probably? Hawkins-Clark: I do, but I have not received final word. Actually, we are being handed something right now. This is magic. It was approved by the highway district. Zaremba: Okay. Essentially as you saw it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: One minor -- which may be a typo. At the bottom of page four you say Ventana is proposing a 35-foot wide landscape buffer and my question is that's the subdivision just to the south of this. Either your next sentence was going to be this one needs to match that or was that supposed to be that Hacienda, is proposing the 35? Hawkins-Clark: That was a test, Commissioner. You passed. It should be Hacienda. Zaremba: Hacienda is proposed? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Just wanted to be sure. Those were my questions. Anybody else? Is the applicant ready? Is that Mr. Nickle? Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 27 of 72 Nickle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickle, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, representing Doug Jayo. It sounds like we have a lot of outstanding issues, but we have, actually, been working with staff and most of them are -- have been ironed out. So, I will just go through them very briefly and, then, stand for any questions you have. Staff did an excellent job of explaining the intent of the development. I do have a couple pictures that they are going to put up on the screen to show you the wall and the drainage ditch and kind of explain our intent on that. With regard to the South Slough - Anna, could you put back up my plat with the open space? Thank you. With regards to the South Slough, our intent is, as staff said, to pipe that ditch to this point and, then, we would like to keep the remainder of it open, meandering through the open space. Now, that's going to be dependent upon Settlers Irrigation District and our understanding is they haven't been too kind about leaving those ditches open in the past. I think Saguaro did have to tile those. We are going to ask for consideration to that, because it really does lend itself to the atmosphere with the existing trees and the open space, to leave that open. It's not that large of a ditch. It kind of meanders through the property. In either event, we have provided for 40 feet at all spots, so if we do have to -- that represents the easement and, then, we are to tile it, we would be able to contain that within the open space, as you see right there. But I guess we are asking for a waiver to keep it open and not tile it, but it's ultimately going to be Settlers' decision on whether we can leave that open. Rohm: And so what's your position on this if Settlers says we want to tile it, are you willing to concur with that or are you -- Nickle: I don't think we have a choice. We are going to have to concur with it, if Settlers -- we are not going to fight Settlers. Rohm: That was the question. Thank you. Nickle: Yeah. Borup: I think you have got our permission to fight them if you'd like. Nickle: If you'd like to fight my battles for me, that would be great. With regards to the gravity pipe location that we have on our plat, we provided that -- and my engineer is here and he can explain in more detail if you'd like -- don't like my answer, but we are showing the existing location of that -- of that ditch coming into the property, in the event that Saguaro was not to develop. Now, obviously, their plan shows it in another location, so we will provide for that -- for that connection. But we are just showing where it's coming out right now, because we have to maintain that drainage coming off that other property and pass it along. So, Dave can come up here and explain where we would be putting it and how we can adjust those lots appropriately. With regard to the, stub to the north, I tried in desperation to get a hold of the church, someone at the church, to find out what their plans were for that north parcel and did not have any luck doing that. We are assuming that they are going to develop it at some point and extend . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 28 of 72 the church and so a stub street in the middle of the subdivision, I don't believe, and neither does my client, would be appropriate to drain from their parking lot down through our subdivision. I think it's more appropriate to have it at the entrance to the subdivision. ACHD concurred with that. That's where they approved the location. It does split up the block length, as staff has indicated. We would prefer to have it at that location, we just don't know what the church is going to do, and I'll continue to try to track someone down there and if we can get a little more concrete decision from them prior to City Council, maybe we can talk about it at that time, but we'd prefer to have that stub at that location. We did provide the sub to the east. Saguaro did not provide a stub for us and so staff felt it appropriate to have some sort of access to the east and so we did -- we did located that there. Regarding the street section width, it's my developer's intent to have parking on both sides, so we are going to provide a street width that will accommodate that. Now, whether that's 33 or 36, you know, I don't -- I don't know what -- what -- if the city has a preference. The main boulevard will be 36 and, then, also to this point will be a 36 width. What we are proposing is to have I guess a minimum of 33 to accommodate parking on both sides. That would be in line with the -- with your fire -- fire department. So, I'll just leave that to staff. We have no problem building it all to 36. We would like a little bit of latitude on this area right here, it's just the wider the road the faster the traffic is and the narrower it can be, I believe that traffic slows down with a narrower roadway. Of course, we have to meet fire district policy and we will do that. We are going to provide -- we are going to do shared and common accesses to the townhouse lots. Staff's concern is that each lot would have an individual driveway, so it is our intent to have those shared. Regarding the clubhouse parking, we do show it right here. We would have no problem moving it to this location right here, if that's the preference of the city. We'd prefer it right here, rather than over there. This is a build-able lot right there, so regardless if we put it here or here, it's going to be adjacent to at least one build-able lot. Could you put up those wall pictures? One thing that's unique about this site is that existing dwelling. If you have driven by it, it's a very nice Spanish style house and the concept for this development, which is why we call it Hacienda, is to kind of keep that theme going throughout and we are going to convert that existing house into a clubhouse. There is a picture of it right there. This wall staggers from six feet and as you can see it goes down to four feet and, then, the three feet. That's a little bit better of a picture right there. This is six feet at this -- at this juncture right here. Again, we'd like to -- I mean we can remove the walls, if that's the decision of the city. We'd like to keep that and incorporate it into our landscape and the theme of the subdivision. It is a stucco -- bricked stucco wall with brick. I do understand the concern of the police department. I don't know if we ever got a response from the police as to their concerns with people hiding behind that wall. Again, this is going to be a clubhouse with a pool. It's going to be occupied most of the time. I mean we could gate the front entrance that can be opened and closed and locked during off hours, if that would help. I guess I'm looking for some -- some ideas from the city, but we'd really like to keep that. If you look at that picture right there, it really is a neat layout and we'd like to keep that wall in that location. Rohm: I believe the staff had commented that possibly adjusting the location of the road. Can you address that or maybe your engineer? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 29 of 72 Nickle: Yeah. Dave can. I'll let him. Rohm: Okay. Nickle: I think that's all I have. If you have any questions for me, if I didn't answer anything that staff brought up, please, relay that. Everything else -- we are in agreement with the conditions of approval. We will provide a revised plan to show some of these issues that staff has brought up and we are in agreement with everything else. Thank you. Borup: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. One of the amenities listed a swimming pool and I did not see that on the site anywhere. Is it drawn on there? Nickle: Yeah. If we can go back to the site plan again. I don't believe it is on the plan, but it's going to be located back in this area over here. Borup: Well, I assumed it was in that area somewhere, but that's a big area. Nickle: Yeah. Borup: But, still, it's still planned for-- Nickle: Yeah. We will build it. There is not a pool there currently and we will put one in. Zaremba: And that's within the walled area? When it ends up it will be within the walled area? Nickle: Yes. Rohm: Do you have any specific measurements to that pool or -- Nickle: No. I mean it -- I don't. Average size. It will be more of a pool than a pond. Zaremba: How many openings are there in that wall? Are you expecting to have an opening only where they would access it from the parking lot or are there other ways to walk in and out or -- Nickle: I believe the intent is to have it enclosed. Yeah, to have it enclosed and have that access. There will probably be some access points on the other side that will line up with the open space, because there will be pathways and things like that, but for the most part it will be enclosed. Zaremba: Any further questions for Mr. Nickle? Okay. Is this a tag team? Do we need Mr. Bailey? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 30 of 72 Nickle: He will answer the questions I didn't. Thank you. Bailey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is David Bailey. My office address is 1500 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle and I'm representing Doug Jayo for the Hacienda Subdivision. And should I just go ahead and rattle a few here? Zaremba: Please do. Bailey: And maybe we will get those taken out. On the streets, the concept was to keep the traffic -- keep the parking on both sides and I probably missed the mark on that, because I thought it was 32 feet and we could still park on both sides. So, 33 feet I understand is parking on both sides, but we do intend -- and when we designed this we kept this at 36 feet along this south side and down this way and this is 36 feet, so if we have connections, we are maintaining those as the full width through there. I didn't adjust the street when we added the stub street, but I think that we will go ahead and increase the size of this street to 36 feet along the north boundary here to, so where we have connections we have streets that go through at full local street width to 36 feet. We would like to keep this portion of this street and this portion around this end at the 33 feet, with the approval of your fire department to park on both sides within that 33 feet. So, that would be my intent or my understanding of how we would proceed on that. I may cover these, again, real briefly. I think Shawn did, but the door was banging a lot and I didn't catch if he got it all, so I will. This easement that currently runs through on here is maintained by the -- by the Settlers Irrigation District and it is 40 feet wide and we will provide -- actually, the common lots that we have shown through here are, in fact, 40 feet wide and we would have the easement on top of the common lots and so -- and I spoke with Nathan Draper of the Settlers Irrigation District before we even started doing this, talking about pipe size and easement width, we would make sure we would make that and at the time he didn't seem too opposed to portions of it staying open and I think their policy has evolved a little bit since then and I think they have made a decision on an adjacent subdivision since then about piping that ditch and I'm pretty sure they are going to make us pipe it all the way through and we are amenable to doing that. I don't know if Shawn addressed it, but I will real quickly. On the east end here - currently the portion on Saguaro Canyon field drains across and comes into the east end of the property and, then, dumps into the North Slough down here, so I wanted to make sure that we recognize that on our preliminary plat, so if they didn't develop, we have a plan to take care of that water and not let it run across our subdivision here. So, that was the only purpose for putting that on there. On Rio Vista Drive here, we could increase the radius of this curb and bring that out a little bit. I guess if we could come to a number that would be acceptable for that setback and I think we are saying that it needs to be 15 feet or 20. Brad? Hawkins-Clark: The ordinance says 20. We have allowed waivers to ten normally. Bailey: To ten. We could easily make the ten on there and I guess I would point out that my understanding, anyway, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, that the purpose for that setback from the road is so that it doesn't create a site distance problem on the " Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 31 of 72 street and on a corner or between -- between lots and so that you keep a consistent distance back there and if we bring this back to ten feet, that is on an outside corner and we are not in this case producing ourselves a site distance problem or I don't believe we are. So, I think we could easily make that ten from the right of way by adjusting the street there, if that would be acceptable to the Commission. And the last issue I had written down here is on the stub street we -- when we met with the highway district -- and I'm talking about this stub street. We certainly agree with this one here. We did measure the distance from here to the church entrance, which is to the north of this and there is -- I don't remember exactly what we came up with, but there is more than 600 feet -- a little bit more, it's about 630 or 640 feet. So, that parcel to the north technically could, by ACHD code, get another access to Meridian Road there and still meet the 300 foot offset. So, we said, well, the highway district would like it, we think the city is probably going to like it on there and so we would like to go ahead and put it in here, but in talking with Doug Jayo, the owner, he would prefer this to a mid block, because, then, if it is a parking lot it's not their parking lot from the middle of the subdivision. So, that was the decision making process on that. And that's all I had written. I'll answer any questions you have. I see I'm out of time anyway. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Rohm: Yes. I wanted you to talk about the fencing around the central complex and its relationship to the road. This -- maybe I missed it. Zaremba: That's the one where he was talking about he could gain a ten foot-- Rohm: Oh. Oh. Excuse me. Excuse me. I was -- Zaremba: Just by bending that curve a little bit. Is that what you're saying? Rohm: Yes. Okay. All right. 1-- Bailey: And I think this point here is the only place where that wall fence -- Zaremba: It looks like a very short conflict. Bailey: Yeah. Gets within that 20 feet there, so if we had the ten there, we could keep that in place. It looks really nice as seen from the pictures and we'd move that road back to get our right of way ten feet from the -- from the front of that and I don't think it would affect this lot too much here and just pull this over a little bit in this area. But I do want to maintain the 40 feet, so I would push that into this -- this lot in here. Newton-Huckabay: Are those just lots for a house? Bailey: Those are build-able single family house lots and the square footage on those -- Newton-Huckabay: Ten thousand plus? Meridian Piannlng & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 32 of 72 Bailey: Yes. Ten thousand square feet. But they are served by a common driveway, in accordance with your ordinance. They are 15 feet each on the flag. Rohm: And could you speak to this drainage here just a little bit more? And I'm not sure exactly how you're going to tie it to the adjacent subdivisions. Bailey: Commissioner Rohm, on -- what I said on this is that this field in Saguaro right now currently drains when it's flood irrigated. It would flood across that field and it comes in at this east boundary of the property and, then, makes its way down to -- makes it way down to the slough here in the center of this. So, my purpose of putting that on here as far as the pipe location, the intent was if they don't develop, we want a way to handle that water without it going -- and getting it piped to come here and go into the slough down this way, to pipe that into the slough without -- without it running across our subdivision. If they develop that, then, they are going to have roads and lots built there. We no longer have flood irrigation on that adjacent parcel and that's not needed, so we wouldn't use that at all. It's just a drain. The North Slough, I guess -- I guess that's something that doesn't come up here. The North Slough is a -- is a ditch, it receives runoff from this property and from other properties into it, as opposed to -- in this area anyway, as opposed to being an elevated irrigation ditch that provides water out. And so it's low and it's taking water in, so I always -- when I do a preliminary plat and do an irrigation analysis, I always look at the entire perimeter of the project to see where water could come in and could go out, so that I'm making sure that we are handling those issues when we get to that point. Does that answer it? Rohm: Yeah. Thank you. Zaremba: Other questions? Thank you. Bailey: Thank you very much. Zaremba: This is the opportunity; again, for other people to ask and at the moment the only person signed up is, again, Judith Bellcastor. Same comment. She's declining to comment. Anybody else care to comment yea or nay on this or add any enlightenment? Sir, come right up to the microphone. Beeler: I didn't sign up on the sheet, but my name is Doug Beeler and I own the property just -- where the stub street goes to the east side. The only question I had -- and, of course, I wasn't able to attend the meeting the other night, is what type of fencing or separation on the east side is going to happen on that -- on that drawing. I don't see anything on there. Newton-Huckabay: The perimeter fencing on the development? Zaremba: We will get that answer from the applicant. .. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 33 of 72 Beeler: Okay. Thank you. Jayo: I'm Cameron Jayo with the developer Jayo Construction, 1323 South Five Mile Road, Boise, Idaho. On the fencing, we intend to put in a nice upgraded vinyl fence, six foot fence, on the east border of the development and on the south border of the development. So, to answer that question. Zaremba: Thank you. Anybody else care to comment? Mr. Nickle, you would have an opportunity to wrap up. Nickle: Mr. Chairman, again, Shawn Nickle. I think Dave answered all the questions you needed. One thing to note, we did hold a neighborhood meeting earlier this week and we did have a couple people and I think we answered their questions. They didn't come tonight, so -- Zaremba: We appreciate that. The Commission can tell when a neighborhood meeting has been held. Nickle: The system works, I guess. And I'll talk to this gentleman afterwards to see if there is any other concerns he has and show him the plan. So, thank you very much. Zaremba: I guess one question I had for staff while the hearing is still open. You mentioned in your report, of course, that the city only allows one common lot line and, then, there must be space outside of that. I know in other cities brownstones or row houses or whatever they are called, quite a number of separate properties in a row seem to work very well and be very popular. So, in my mind I think, okay, how did we get this rule to begin with? Is there a fire department issue with access to a backyard or is there some other driving force that I'm not thinking of that would have caused us to have that rule? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I don't believe so. I mean the fire department has asked for the roofing material, because of the length of the structure, to be noncombustible and, of course, there are some firewall separation issues in the International Building Code between, you know, two independent living units, but my -- if I was to wager a guess, I think that the only reason it currently says one per lot is because, you know, it just really wasn't envisioned that you would have multiple -- and I think the definition of a townhouse in our code clearly anticipates having more than two attached, so by no means is it, you know, not looked at, because the ordinance defines a townhouse as three or more attached single family dwelling units, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Chairman, Mr. Zaremba, the only other thing that I can think of would be during the development plan process there may be a requirement for additional hydrants along those roads to get the spacing tighter, because the fire department does have certain requirements for when they pull a hose line. They -- it's not as the crow Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 34 of 72 flies, they are going to have to go out and around buildings. So, you have to -- when you have these zero lot lines, the longer the building, the fewer attack points you have on the structure. So, that's something that we will be looking at with the fire department during the development of the plans for the subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. Well, I feel like that subject's adequately covered. Thank you. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close public hearings on AZ 04-034, PP 04-043, and CUP 04-052. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the three public hearings. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Do we want to ask staff to go through the staff report and identify items that are satisfied or are you ready to make a motion? Rohm: Let's do that. That's a good idea. Zaremba: It sounds like most of them were satisfied, but-- Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it did sound that way. Yeah. Just one clarification. I think the last comment by Mr. Jayo had to do with -- he mentioned fencing along the east boundary of the subdivision and the south. The landscape plan that was submitted with the application does show a five foot solid fence on the north for just -- for just a portion on the very west end, but, then, it doesn't have any fencing right now currently shown, so -- as well as it doesn't actually call out fencing on the east and the south, so if the Commission could include it, if that is a concern of yours or you would like to see and require that vinyl six foot fencing, to go ahead and specify that in any motion you make tonight, just to clarify that. Zaremba: I suspect that inclusion would be appreciated. Borup: Either way, solid fencing is required, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, actually, the ordinance does not require perimeter fencing. I mean, you know, it -- the only place it requires it is along micro-paths. You know, clearly you do see the vast majority of the time it constructed, but it's not actually ordinance. Borup: Okay. , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 35 of 72 Hawkins-Clark: On the -- and just to clarify on that, construction fencing to contain debris is required during construction, but as far as permanent fencing it's not. So, are you asking, then, Chairman, to just kind of highlight the conditions that would be affected by the comments tonight? Zaremba: It sounded like the discussion solved a whole lot of the issues that you identified and if our motion could include those at your direction -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. I think the -- on page 12, the site specific conditions for the preliminary plat, item number four deals with the North Slough lateral. That was addressed tonight. I think the testimony was that they would be piping it, so that, actually, is a moot condition now, because that only deals if it was going to be left open. If the Commission wants to voice an opinion on that and you'd like to still see them try to keep it open and we could keep number four in there, it doesn't hurt anything, but -- and maybe you could do that. Yeah. Okay. If they are going to keep trying for the open ditch, then, maybe just keep four in there. I don't think it hurts anything. Zaremba: We could add our support to that idea. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Zaremba: It sounds like a nice amenity to me to leave it open. Rohm: Now, where is that again? Zaremba: Assuming that it doesn't become a liability of children falling into it. Hawkins-Clark: Well, that was why staff had recommended that the slopes be no greater than four to one. It's very gradual. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Hawkins-Clark: Item number six, they did confirm the location of the gravity irrigation line and at this point in time it sounds like the correct location is there, so that could be deleted. I think the rest of the items on the preliminary plat are okay as written. The site specific conditions on the Conditional Use Permit start on page 17. And item number four is talking about that decorative wall and if you support an exception, then, they are going to have to submit a revised application basically formally asking for that waiver, so-- Zaremba: I think the offer was a compromise. They can tweak the road just a little bit and -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Okay. So, if you could clarify that maybe right there, so you would -- that the Commission would like to revise the preliminary plat to provide a minimum ten foot setback for the fence. The one item that really was not discussed Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 36 of 72 was the townhouse elevations, all 37 units at this point in time do appear to be the same materials and the same center scheme and the Conditional Use Permit right now there is not, actually, a condition that said that -- that requires that. If that is a concern of yours, that would need to be a condition that's added in there to provide some variation in the 37 units, so -- and the applicant's nodding their head that they are in agreement with that, so if -- Zaremba: I remember that you put that in the discussion, but it was not -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It was not actually added as a condition; so that would -- probably be appropriate as item number ten under conditional use. So, I think that would be -- that would be it for the conditions of approval. Zaremba: We also didn't discuss -- I had marked it and forgot -- one of the fire department positions is that the existing residence, which is going to be the future clubhouse, shall be brought up to an assembly occupancy and the second part of it is comply with the IFC, which is obvious, whether they said it or not, but have you had any discussion with the applicant about assembly occupancy requirements? Hawkins-Clark: We have not. We have not. Zaremba: I would just comment, so that we know that the applicant is aware that that condition is in there. I see heads nodding again. Okay. That condition already exists, but we didn't talk about it. Hawkins-Clark: Also, I guess the last change would be on page 19, the police department conditions. They have a condition that reads: Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. And, again, that pertains to the common lot there in the center of the project and we did not receive any further comment from the police department on that. I think if you're comfortable with the change that's made tonight, then, that should either be deleted or if you want to ask them to get more clarification for the police department before the City Council hearing, that might be another way to go. Rohm: Deletion works. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, you appear to be prepared. Rohm: I'm not sure, but I'll make a stab at it. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-034, to include all staff comments dated January 18th, 2005, for the hearing date January 20th, 2005, and for this motion I don't believe there was any changes required. Moe: I would second that. , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 37 of 72 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-043, requesting preliminary plat for 98 building lots and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road, including all staff comments dated January 18th, 2005, for the hearing date January 20th, 2005, with the following changes -- I'm not as good at this as you. Zaremba: You're excellent. Borup: Page 12? Is that what you're looking for? Rohm: Okay. On page 12 -- thank you, Commissioner. Item four, we need to add a sentence at the end that says the Commission lends our support to the open ditching and that's just for their -- lending support to the developer. Number six is to be stricken in its entirety. And we will add an item 13, which states the perimeter fencing of six feet will be required as is acceptable by staff. And on page 17, item four, a revised preliminary plat will be provided before this is heard by City Council, depicting the minimum ten-foot setback along the interior roadway. Item ten will be added that says there shall be a varied color scheme within the townhouse development that is acceptable to staff. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: The elevations as well. Borup: Yeah. Wasn't that part of the CUP, rather than the-- Rohm: Oh. Strike that one and -- but all other revisals to be included. This is part of the CUP. Moe: On page 17 -- both of those on page 17. Rohm: Both of the items on 17 will be included in the CUP motion. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Last motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-052, including staff comments, dated January 18th, , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20.2005 Page 38 of 72 2005, for the hearing date January 20th, 2005, with the following changes. On page 17, item four, a revised preliminary plat to be provided prior to City Council, depicting the minimum setback of ten feet and an additional item, number ten, be added that there shall be a varied color scheme within the townhouse development that is acceptable to staff and -- was there something on the elevations as well? Borup: Item A under special conditions, just -- you could probably just include that in. Just include that in as a motion -- I mean as item -- item ten. Rohm: Adding Commissioner Borup's comments. End of motion. Borup: I'll second that. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Traditionally, around 9:00 o'clock we take a short break to stretch our legs, walk a little bit, and we will do that. We will recess for about ten minutes and, then, reconvene. (Recess.) Item 11: Public Hearing: CPA 04-004 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Low and Medium Density Residential to a Commercial designation for a 2.298 acre parcel for Maverick Country Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc. - 201 West Ustick Road: Item 12: 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: Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene our session and note that all Commissioners have returned and the next item on our agenda -- again, we have two items that deal with the same subject, but since one of them is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, I'm only going to open Item 11 at the moment, so we will have a public hearing open on CPA 04- 004, request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, future land use map, from low and medium density residential to a commercial designation for a 2.298 acre parcel for Maverick Country Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc., 201 West Ustick Road, and we will begin with the staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to start off by saying it's good to be back in the saddle again. I missed you all, but we are doing staff reports again, so with that I will maybe jump right to the chase, since we did have another CPA on the agenda this Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 39 of 72 evening. I will give you the amended recommendation, other than what the staff report said that you have in your packet today. Christy Richardson from the Ada County Highway District sent me an e-mail late Wednesday stating that she had not seen the traffic impact study from the applicant. They haven't addressed any of the traffic concerns, ACHD hasn't generated any response to this application, so without having all the facts, we hesitate to have you make a decision on this until ACHD has had a chance to comment on the traffic impact study, which they are requiring, because of the change in the Comp Plan and there are access issues surrounding this property, which are brought up in the staff report. But, in fairness to some of the neighbors, surrounding property owners, they were here December 16, I believe it was, it was tabled from then, we thought we should go ahead and have the hearing, but if you would, staff is now recommending that you table any decision to a date certain after I give this -- the rest of this staff report. So, with that I will jump into the details of the subject Comp Plan amendment. It does propose to amend the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. What I would just like to touch on real quick -- and we have scanned in the wrong site, but -- see if there is another on that -- I guess that works. It's got some property lines there. Disregard those. There are two parcels, actually, on this site, that were combined into one. In 2003, I believe, they were combined. Just after the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. So, that's why the Comprehensive Plan shows the northerly 1.2 acres being medium density residential. And I don't even have that now. And the southerly portion is public, quasi-public, the green designation. So, again, a record of survey has been done post the adoption of that 2002 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing to change all of this 2.3 acres located on the southwest corner of Meridian and Ustick to C- C or commercial designation. Excuse me. Currently zoned R-4 in the county. There are two homes and an outbuilding on the site currently. Surrounding the property Settlers Park is that big purple property there on the map. It's zoned L-O. There are -- to the south are single-family residences in Strasser Farms Subdivision. That's a county sub, zoned RUT. To the east are single-family homes in Eastbrook Village Subdivision, that's also in the county, zoned R-6. I'll come back to that subdivision in just a moment. To the west are the Presbyterian church. They are zoned R-4 in Ada County. The church originally -- with that parcel -- that record of survey that was done, did an L-shape kind of around the exact corner or 1.2 acres. That's since been combined. I'll touch on that in just a little bit more. Again, the surrounding properties know they have a comp plan up. You can see a little bit better the subject -- see if I can zoom in here. It's going to be this half here that's yellow and the half there that's green. Again, the church owned all of this in 2002 when the Comp Plan was amended, that's why the whole L-shaped thing is all green and the very corner was in another holding. Medium density residential is what the yellow stands for. Public, quasi-public, is the green. Thus, the park across the street and the church that owns the subject parcel and the church day care that's adjacent to it. The property is directly to the north again. The park and the church as both designated public, quasi-public. The east and the south are both, as you can see, medium density residential. But as part of the Sundance subdivision, which is right on the opposite corner, the northeast corner, to the subject site, they did set aside four acres of L-O. It's not zoned L-O, but there are four acres set aside for office type uses that has not currently been constructed. We were working on the residential portion today, but as part of that PD they did request a 20 percent use Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 40 of 72 exception and that was granted on the. merits of that office being incorporated to the 80 percent of the residential subdivision. In 2003 -- andl already touched on this a little bit -- the -- the designation as shown today, primarily when churches, schools, parks, any public, quasi-public uses were owned by those entities, they were just on the Comprehensive Plan map based on ownership. So, as that changes we see a couple of these that clean up, where a church doesn't need a remainder parcel, they sell part of it off to be developed. That's the case you see here. If the current Comp Plan amendment is approved, the applicant does intend to construct and operate a convenience store, gas station, on approximately 1.2 acres, so approximately what is shown in yellow here would be a convenience store, gas station. The remainder 1.1 acres would be for some other type of future retail use. The applicant did not submit a conceptual site plan with the application. However, on Friday -- late Friday I did get an e-mail from the applicant, one, stating that they hadn't done a neighborhood meeting, as requested by this body in December. And, two, they brought a site plan in, provided staff with a site plan that Friday, of conceptually how this would layout. They did not show anything for the southern retail area, but access points were at least conceptually proposed, a building was shown, parking, et cetera, et cetera. So, I don't want to dwell too much on that site plan with this application. We are going to talk more about the merits of a Comp Plan amendment than a gas station, necessarily, and if commercial works in general for this site, rather than a gas station, but we can talk about that if we need to later on. There are existing residential uses directly to the south and east and a neighborhood center is planned along Ustick Road. As you can see here in that -- the circle that's there in the mid section on Ustick Road. Those are the primary reasons that staff doesn't believe that a Comp Plan amendment is appropriate at this point in time. Something that wasn't discussed earlier is that the Comp Plan amendment is fairly new. 2002. Obviously, 2002, I don't think that's enough time to see that come to fruition. I don't think there is enough time, you know, for -- this neighborhood center hasn't developed yet. We have seen some uses on the north side of this. We recently approved the -- that development there. That car wash. Some other competing type uses with commercial and we do want to give some of these neighborhood center concepts a chance to really develop and if they don't work, maybe, then, you go back and you change it to the more traditional commercial at the corners. But I don'tthink that a little over two years, two and half years, is enough time to fully realize that and start saying, ah, this didn't work, let's go to commercial at the intersections. So, just as an aside, kind of, the potential for this to develop single family residential as is across the street in that Strasser Farms Subdivision, they are approximately the same size, you could get approximately the same density, eight to ten to eleven dwelling units, similar type residential, you know, densities, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I don't know -- that's obviously not what this applicant intends to do, but it is feasible and could work on this site with one access point to Meridian Road, a Gul-de-sac street, you wouldn't have any access close to the intersection there of Ustick and Meridian Road. And that's a primary concern with any commercial user that goes in there, they are going to want to have access to both arterial streets and there are only -- there is limited frontage on both roads that is planned to be signalized in the future, creates traffic conflicts, you're, obviously, going to have more traffic with a commercial user than an eight to ten, eleven, dwelling units, estimated at a hundred trip -- or about ten trips per Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 41 of 72 day per dwelling unit. So, again, the main reasons that may adversely affect the existing residential uses and the future residential uses to the south, it was mentioned there are a couple of larger accounting parcels. If they are developing to residential, as the comp plan shows, that's directly abutting commercial now. Those land uses -- generally, we don't support commercial directly abutting residential uses. It's make it difficult. You do like to have the transitional zone and L-O, some storage units, something like that that's a little less intense in the commercial, a little more intense than the residential. Generally, not preferred, though, excuse me, to have two directly abutting. The Cedar Springs professional center, I'm sorry, that's the name of the -- the neighborhood center portion that was recently approved this last year. Within that portion of the neighborhood residential there were four office buildings, a car future wash, two field pumps and a drive-thru coffee stand on the 5.51 acres. Thank you, Chairman. That's -- whoever that was in the neighborhood center. And the intent, as the Comprehensive Plan calls out for these neighborhood centers, is to serve all residents with a one to two mile square area. So, the intent is that it will draw people from the area we are talking about today, will go to those areas for those types of services. I believe that I touched on pretty much all the -- the issues related to the Comp Plan amendment and staff's recommendation. I did want to reiterate a couple of things that the applicant did submit a letter stating that they did c- they did meet. I'll let them talk to you a little bit more about that. I had a chance to speak with the applicant this past week -- or, actually, in the past few weeks, about that. We can talk about the site plan if need be, but, again, we would ask you, depending on how this goes, anyways, if you make a recommendation -- if you're leaning towards a recommendation for approval, that you at least put this off a little ways, so we can get all of the facts from the Ada County Highway District. But with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Rohm: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Craig, did you say that there are currently gas stations within the community centers at other locations within the area of impact? Not this adjacent one, but -- it seems to me that gas stations are -- they are not well received in most locations and if, in fact, they are not going to approve a gas station down the road in an adjacent community center, then, I'm just wondering where you put them. Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, I did not say that there were any in the area of impact or north Meridian even. I can't think of too many off the top of my head within a general area here. I was just stating that there has been one recently approved for construction, not in operation yet, about a half a mile away. But the correct location for those -- I mean these core commercial areas of these neighborhood centers, according to the Comprehensive Plan, are where those types of uses are supposed to go. I can let you know, however, that just down towards the wastewater treatment plant , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 42 of 72 -- it's not constructed yet, I don't know if you remember McNellis, it's right on the corner there, they have at least conceptually they talked about putting a -- I believe it was a Texaco station even in at that intersection. Now, again, we haven't seen that Conditional Use Permit. They would have to come in. There are some arterial intersections where a convenience store gas station would make sense. This one just -- there seems to be too many conflicts with this location. I hope that answered -- Rohm: Well, no, I was just wondering about gas stations in general. There seems to be an exception to them regardless of where you put them and so I just was wanting to get a little clarification on the community centers themselves. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman. Craig, are you talking about the corner -- the Ten Mile and Ustick, the northwest corner? Wasn't it specifically stated that there would not be a gas station there in the -- that that was not a -- we didn't zone it C-G. Zaremba: And the Ten Mile and Ustick one in their development agreement it was supposed to state some things that even they would normally be approved in a CoG, it would not be there. Newton-Huckabay: It was not an allowed use. Zaremba: And we specifically listed that there would no gas station or convenience store in that one. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, after it went through this body, the City Council decided that they would, with a Conditional Use Permit, allow convenience stores, gas stations, on the two lots that are zoned CoG. So, it's CoG right on the corner, L-O kind of surrounding that, and I-L around that. Newton-Huckabay: So, they went ahead and approved that. Okay. Hood: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: And there is one proposed? Hood: No. I'm just saying that that -- we haven't seen that Conditional Use Permit, which the City Council did require, but at least in the preliminary stages it has been discussed at an intersection not too far down the road. I mean it is not in this neighborhood, but at least in the north Meridian area another gas station and a grocery store. But we just haven't seen those type of things happen yet, but according to the Comp Plan -- Zaremba: But one which is approximately where the C is has been approved? Hood: Yes. On the north side. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 43 of 72 Zaremba: We recommended approved, City Council -- Hood: Correct. Zaremba: -- did act to approve it. Hood: And that's just what staff was -- you know, we gave that approval, not that it's not a free market society, but just to give that a chance to have that come to fruition. It doesn't seem fair that we tell these people this is where those type of uses are going and, then, we approve a Comp Plan just down the road for a competitor when they look at this map in possibly choosing that location to go. So, I don't know that, but that's just some things to think about, anyway, when reviewing this application. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward? Murray: Dan Murray with the Maverick Country Stores. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you tonight. And let me apologize for a couple of things. Number one, with ACHD. ACHD did request of us a traffic study, but I didn't realize that that traffic study needed to be submitted prior to this hearing. I thought it was a separate issue that I just had to address with ACHD. Let me also apologize for not -- it probably would have saved some confusion had we have included in our submittal a site plan. Many of staff's comments deal with the site plan. Of course, the Comprehensive Plan amendment is more of a zoning issue than it is a layout issue and it's not requested that a site plan be submitted. We probably should have had the foresight just to provide that. I think that it would have addressed many of their concerns relative to lighting, relative to berming along street frontages to mitigate lighting even further relative to buffering along our south property line. Also, relative to the size of the property, because this is, actually, a very large piece of property. It would be the largest of our stores, our facilities, in this area, which facilitates us moving driveways substantially further away from the intersection than you will see on most similar uses in the city. Let me address some of staff's comments, if I can. Many of their comments dealt with our specific use here and the lack of a buffer for the adjoining residential. I have two comments in that regard. Number one, the property is a little bit unique in that as it's situated it is largely buffered. So, to the west of the property we have the church property. I'm not sure how many acres they sit on, four to six acres, something of that size. Of course, to the north we have the city park. Kiddy corner across the street we have our acre that was held out of the Sundance development for office development, and we actually face the residential across the street and on the south. So, on our other frontages it really is buffered. In addition to that, in many of the communities that we deal with they actually look at placing commercial at the intersections; so as to buffer residential uses from the traffic of these busy intersections. Here the view, obviously, is a little different. With regard to the concept of the neighborhood centers, as we -- we use a sales forecasting model that's through a company called Prediction Analytics and as I run the two scenarios, the location of Meridian and Ustick, and as I run -- I assumed -- I didn't know exactly where this neighborhood, center was, so I used Cooper and Ustick. I hope I picked the right street there. There is a 30 percent difference in sales , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 44 of 72 forecast between the two scenarios. I think that the city's goal -- I was on Eagle and on Fairview this evening at 5:15 and so I appreciate the traffic there and I appreciate the city's goal and I think there is some wisdom to it, to provide some of these services within the neighborhoods and not require that anytime anybody needs any service, that they go to Eagle Road or to Fairview., Certainly those roads are about as busy as they can get and it's not a pleasant experience to be on them. But I think the challenge comes in that for many retailers that are destinations, a neighborhood center concept, which is at an artery and a half-mile intersection, that's fine. For a destination it doesn't matter. But for a convenience retailer it matters to us. And, you know, it matters to the degree of 30 percent difference in sales. We certainly don't have those types of margins at the projection that we had on the half mile intersection a store isn't economically feasible. Certainly, if I thought that it was a viable alternative for me, this is never a pleasant experience, I wouldn't want this experience, number one, and, number two, I would pay less for property at a half mile intersection than I would at the intersection of two arterials. I think it's important, because, again, for destination uses I think the neighborhood concept works well, but for convenience uses, I don't think it serves our needs. From a retailer's perspective, it -- from this retailer's perspective it doesn't make economic sense to us and we can't build at that type of a location. Comments have also been made about a 2.3-acre residential subdivision. In my conversations with ACHD, the Eastbrook Subdivision, which is to the east of this property, wouldn't be permitted today, because of the location of the streets relative to the intersection. And our driveways are actually -- both, as proposed on the site plan, are further from the intersection than that roadway is. But I'm not sure how desirable or how really functional a 2.3 acre residential subdivision would be at this intersection. That's really the sum of our comments. We have an existing store here in Meridian. We appreciate the patronage. We have plans, as you know, to build a second store at Overland and Locust Grove. We are excited about that. And we are also excited about serving the north end of the community. Many of the concerns I know are site plan related. We are more than happy to address those. If you have specific concerns on site plan related issues, I'm more than happy to address those. But that's really the sum of our comments this evening, so I appreciate your consideration. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Then, this is the opportunity for other testimony. The first person that I have on the list is Allen Anderson. Anderson: Allen Anderson. 10012 Ironclad Court in Boise, Idaho. I'm representing or am a committee member representing the Presbytery of Boise, the owners of these properties. Initially, just for background, both properties were purchased and the old home that was -- that's on the property was used as the Snake River Missionary offices, while the current building that's on the other parcel was built. It was now the intent, then, once that function of that building is over with, that we seek the highest and best use for that piece of real estate and how we can best support the church development on that site on the other side. That's the intent of selling the property. The Presbytery meets in committees, it's -- you understand how committees work and how long things can take, is very supportive of Maverick and we don't feel in conflict at all with the use of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 45 of 72 our facilities there, that there would be a problem there. In fact, we embrace it, we think that it's appropriate. We really seek the highest and best use for the benefit of the City of Meridian and for the development of the other property that we have available. Additionally, we understand the concerns with regard to traffic. That's a -- you know, the headlines in the Statesman are pretty clear. It would seem to me if we could save a few dozen trips downtown to get gas and milk that maybe we could ease some of that by having those folks being able to use the retail facilities at Ustick and Meridian Road. And, again, we do support it and I guess that's about alii need to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Judith Bellcastor. Is this the item you actually came to speak about? Bellcastor: Yes. Zaremba: Would you, please, come forward. Bellcastor: My name is Judith Bellcastor. I live at 3165 North Meridian. The home that's on this property, my children, my husband and I rent it. We are not the owners. We don't have a lot of say. However, we are surrounded by neighbors. We have watched all the old farms be torn up and subdivisions built. A gas station at this location would have a tremendous impact. There are small children that run and play through the neighborhood. There are many families. The traffic on NQrth Meridian Road and Ustick -- I have to wait sometimes 20 minutes to pull into my driveway, which is off of Ustick. There is no entrance on Meridian to the home. It's only on Ustick Road. I also have neighbors, the Sweets, they have built family homes, they are an extended family, they would be severely impacted by a gas station and thousands of cars coming in and out of that property every day. I'm not fighting to stay in that house, I realize it's for sale. We need to move. No one has mentioned the fact that home is an historical landmark. That house was built in the 1890s. There is birds of prey that have come to live in our trees that are 150, 200 years old, because all the other farms are being ripped apart. There is a lot going on there and I just don't understand the reasoning behind putting a slab of concrete and gas pumps and all this more traffic there at North Meridian and Ustick Road. If anyone wants to try the traffic out there, go there between 3:00 and 5:30 and see how long it takes you to travel just to get to Linder. I mean it's a terrible traffic impact place. I can't imagine how the families will be affected by a gas station in the cul-de-sac that the previous speakers have mentioned. They are all families. They have little kids that run and play. It would be an endangerment to those families. There are people that are living there. They have lived there for a long time. No neighborhoods coming up. I just -- I can't understand how it could be logical to put a big gas station right in the middle of where people live. The gas fumes, the traffic, the dangers, they have had to lower the speed limit to 35 because of the traffic problem at the intersection of North Meridian Road and Ustick. It would be a travesty to lay a slab of concrete and have the gas fumes coming up. Cutting down those old trees where the bird have nowhere else to live -- and, as I said, I have neighbors, the Sweets, they are an extended family, we have watched them, learned from them over the years, how they live, how they keep their place, what a family is. That's alii have to say. . Meridian Piannlng & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 46 of 72 Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Okay. Thank you. James Bellcastor. From the audience he says the same thing. Okay. I believe it's Roger M. Hucks. Is that close? Huckins: How are you doing? My name is Roger Huckins. I reside at 112 East Eastbrook Court, which is Eastbrook Village, which would be directly across from this establishment that they are trying to put in there. I'd just like to state that, number one, the traffic being a major issue is something I'm really deeply concerned with, being number one. And as the gal that was just up here, I support her as far as the children in our neighborhood. I live directly across the street there in the cul-de-sac. Everybody on that block has children that do play in that cul-de-sac. That intersection alone it -- in probably just a little over a year I have been there, I have seen probably over five accidents. People coming through the back -- parts of our backyard and through the fences. The gentleman here from the Presbyterian church says, yeah, the convenience store would be nice to have for milk and groceries and that thing. Well, then, you have alcohol that comes into playas well to sell and use for someone to come purchase alcohol and end up in my cul-de-sac, run into one of my children or someone else's on the neighborhood lot there and just -- to me I just -- I don't agree with it and I'm opposed to it and that's pretty much alii have to say. Okay? Thank you for your time. Zaremba: Thank you. David Beck. Beck: Commissioners, I'm David Beck. I reside at 6901 West Victory Road in Boise. I'm a Presbyterian minister representing Boise Presbytery, where I serve as one of their trustees. It was our intention from the beginning and the philosophy of Boise Presbytery that owns the property, that Maverick being there would be an asset to the area. I, myself, am a bit surprised. I live two blocks from a Maverick and I think of it more as a convenience store, because that's how I use it. It's open every day of the year, including Christmas. It's open 24 hours a day where mine is. In the middle of the night if somebody gets sick I can get cough drops two blocks away. When my wife comes home with a car that just has fumes, I've got a gas station two blocks away. And we haven't had one of those big blizzards everybody tells me about, but when that day comes I can get groceries walking two blocks away from my home. And I saw it from the beginning as an asset to everyone. Watching the traffic on Victory, which is very very busy and more busy now that it's been widened, I can't recall any great problem in terms of entrance and exit from the Maverick Station there and I would not really think that would happen here either. The church wants to do what's best for the community. We had intended to use the proceeds where we would sell it to bring down our indebtedness on that property and be in a position to develop a major church for Meridian there to serve you, hopefully, in the next century. That's our plans. And it was with that that we have engaged in this effort and is why I support it. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Seeing no questions, Cindy Hicks. Okay. Hicks: I'm Lonnie Hicks. I live at 185 East Eastbrook Court. I'd 'like to put a couple of numbers to the traffic thing here a little bit. In the public meeting they had, they -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 47 of 72 Maverick indicated there would be approximately 1,000 to 1,200 cars per day in and out of there. That's 2,000, 2,400 additional traffic interdictions at the road cuts. If it was left as the Comprehensive Plan says now, you would have 90 to 100. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's the best. I'd also like to talk a little bit about the impact on the property values. Talked to a number of real estate people and they, basically, indicated that a convenience store is the kiss of death on the property values, at least for the first three to four years. Typically how it works is the first year you will take that one percent hit with no appreciation. The second year the property values will stay the same. The third year it will stay the same. The fourth year you will start to pick up some appreciation. So, over the four-year period you basically are taking a 20 percent hit. There is approximately three million dollars worth of property in the -- in the impact area, not including the property in behind the church. Twenty percent, that's approximately 600,000 dollars. Most of it -- if that were to be reimbursed, most people would take that as ordinary income. They have to add the 28 to 50 percent. Basically, it would take about 900,000 dollars to make people whole in this project just from the economic impact. And what I want to know is who's going to pay it? Is the church going to pay it? Is the developer going to pay it? Is the city going to be involved in a takings claim? I don't know. We just need to see if we can come up with a couple of answers here. One other item. When the -- this is sort of a side light thing, but when the property turned over to the church from the farm, oh, here four or five years ago, there was a discussion in the neighborhood about rusting drums and five gallon cans of stuff that was spread around and they were going to check the DEQ to see if they could have that tested for pesticides or oil or whatever and we don't know if that happened, so we have a current request into DEQ to research their complaint to see things done -- has been checked on that and if it hasn't, you know, we would expect that, you know, the owner would do an environmental assessment. That's alii have got. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. May I ask did you sign up after your wife? The signature that follows your wife is not one that I can read. That was you? It actually looks like it may be the initials T or J.W.w. or M.w. Okay. I will assume that-- if we get to the end and someone wants to testify that I haven't called, you will come up. Carrie Sharp would be next. I believe it's Sharp. Or Shaw. Chase? Robert Tharpe. Tharpe: Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for hearing me. I'm not a very good public speaker, so I apologize. Zaremba: Please start with your name and address. Tharpe: My name is Robert Tharpe. I live at 83 East Eastbrook, right on the corner facing the lot there. You know, we have beat the traffic issue to death. Obviously, that's the main concern. And I don't know a lot about numbers, but I can't see this being good for our property value. And along with the traffic pollution there is also going to be light pollution, there is going to be smell pollution, there is going to be an increase of crime, where nobody has robbed a house that they are renting now, I could see somebody robbing a convenience store. I think all of my points that I would want to make I will leave up to Ted, because he's got this big thing we all got together and drew up, so I . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 48 of 72 just wanted to come up and express my concern for the Maverick County Store. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Seeing no questions. Scott Avery. Avery: Scott Avery. 347 East Santiago Drive. I'm currently living in the Sundance addition. All the issues -- we have heard from all the other ones -- is pretty much the traffic, the noise, light pollution. But just in consideration, I would like to -- just also in consideration is those conveniences that are saying they are offering is -- we currently have Albertson's at Meridian and Cherry or Fairview and, then, we have Fred Meyers there, too. All the conveniences within five minutes from the house already. So, it doesn't necessarily -- the only thing they would be offering is fuel that's not as close where we currently can go to Albertson's at -- what is that -- Zaremba: McMillan and Eagle, probably. Avery: Right. Exactly. That Albertson's there or -- so, we are still -- there is still -- the conveniences are still really extremely close by, so I don't -- to me I don't see the real great benefit of this, other than on top of all the other issues that have been addressed. Appreciate it. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Ed Sweet. Okay. Ted Williams is next on the list. Williams: Good evening. I'm Ted Williams. I live at 3880 North Meridian Road. And I appreciate your time. I'm aware of the time and I know it's late. Appreciate your service to the community. I'm representing the families that live in the direct impact area of this proposed development. And we have gone around and talked to quite a few folks in the surrounding areas as well and we have collected 40 or 50 signatures here and I will submit those to the clerk and also some extra topics that I probably won't get to, a lot of which has already been touched on, so I don't want to belabor some of these points. I'll just submit those in writing. But a couple points that I did want to touch on. If you notice, all those that are for this project so far have -- they are either from out of state or from out of town and so we just want to make it clear and reiterate what we want is -- you know, our request to you is that you deny the amendment to amend the Comprehensive Plan and we also oppose the annexation and rezoning from R-4 to CoCo And one point that Dan had mentioned with his sales, you know, they did forecasting models based on traffic flows and he's saying that, you know, where we have already -- the city's already approved this other gas station, they couldn't survive there. Now, if we go ahead and put in a gas station here, that's just going to really not give the other gas station a chance and that was a plan that the city came up with and that's why we make plans and I think we need to give that a chance. Also, some of the data that he collected may not be accurate. He invited us to an open house. I looked at this plan. If a traffic light does go in at this facility, based on the traffic codes' that we have and where the cutouts have to be, the Meridian Road entrance slash exit would be a right-in right only -- right-in, right-out only entrance and exit. And so that would cut down on 25 percent of the traffic that I'm sure that he included in his traffic report. Also the minister , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 49 of 72 from the church spoke and his comment was the church wants what's best for the community and so now the community is speaking and we are saying that we are opposed to this project. I had another point here. Zaremba: The timer is about to go off, but several people gave up their time to you, so we will extend your time, even though the beeper is going to go. Williams: Okay. Thank you. We have concerns, if this project did go through, like I said, we did meet with Dan at his open house and the purpose of the meeting, as he stated on his card that he sent out to us was that so we could give input on improvements to his project. And so we went there and we listened to his proposal and the first very small piece of input that we gave to him, which we felt was just a very small point regarding buffer -- mounds of dirt that he had proposed to be three feet high, we simply suggested, you know, is it possible to go four or five feet high to block headlights from going down into the subdivision and to quote what he said: I don't think we would be interested in doing that. That's not something we would be interested in doing is what he said. So, from that I don't feel like it would be very -- it's not very open to our suggestions on this project. So, again, I think all the major points have been touched on, traffic and safety being the number one issue, and we are opposed to this project. That's alii have. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Williams: May I submit this? Zaremba: Yes. Please hand it to the clerk. Did you count how many signatures there are on there? Williams: About 48. Zaremba: About 48? Thank you. Brian Sweet. Sweet: My name is Brain Sweet. I reside at 82 East Eastbrook Court, right across the street from the proposed Maverick store. Mine is actually the closest, right on the corner, on the impact, so I see the traffic. I also don't want to beat a dead horse. Everyone stated most of the things. And I understand Maverick wants to come in and have a profitable store. That's why they want to go there, they want to have a profit. I understand that the church wants to sell it to Maverick, because they are going to pay a lot of money, they care about their profit, that's the whole purpose they are selling. But all of us in that subdivision who bought there in the last couple of years have bought based on the Comprehensive Plan, based on -- I mean we had people who just called, who just moved in last year, who called before they purchased their property, basing what is it they are designing for what's going in here, what the road's going to do -- I don't know one of us who would have bought our home there if we knew a gas station, a Maverick County Store, was going to be right across the street and the impact that would have on our families and on our -- on our property values. Again, talking to real Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 50 of 72 estate people, it will affect our property values. In talking to Dan at -- I also went to his open house and we asked questions, you know, about many different things, about, you know, the crime rate, the lighting, the hours of operations, how it's going to affect property values and basically every question we had he just said that he didn't know and that we'd have to contact someone else. And I understand he's not -- you know, he doesn't -- he didn't have the traffic zone, he didn't know how that -- he didn't have, you know, a bunch of other things, he's just a real estate guy, but when we specifically asked him about how it was going to affect property values, he just said that he didn't think it would, but he didn't know. So, I mean the meeting was nice that he put it on, but it really -- it really didn't help us, because there wasn't hardly any questions that he was able to answer of the concerns that we had. So, obviously, I'm opposed to this based mainly on the fact that it wasn't zoned that, it isn't zoned that, it wasn't proposed to be anything -- and this is probably the highest impact commercial building you could put there. It's not like it's a low impact office building that's going to be open during the day, this is a 24 hour, you know, operation and, again, he said they don't know, sometimes they are open for 24 hours, sometimes they are not, it depends on, you know, how the demand is going to be. Well, most of the gas stations around here are open 24 hours. You get traffic coming in and out of there. It's a family neighborhood. It's a family park. There is more neighborhoods going in, more houses being built, almost everything around there is zoned and being built as neighborhoods and this is not a neighborhood friendly place and I think there is better places, that the zone -- the approval for the pumps in the NC area has already been approved and it's an area that they can go, but they chose not to based on profits and I understand that, but I also want to understand how it's going to affect us and we have heard how it has, so thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. That's the end of the sign-up sheet. Anybody else care to add comment? Actually, you have the opportunity to have the last word, but I'm just making sure that there isn't anybody else that wants to speak. Hood: Mr. Chair, as the applicant comes forward, if there is no other -- I just wanted to touch on a couple of things, kind of some issues that were brought up and, then, I'll let the applicant have the last word, but the traffic study, everyone mentioned traffic, even just in passing. I don't think anyone's going to be surprised with any traffic study that it's going to say that a commercial use on this property is going to generate more traffic than a residential. I don't know exactly how a traffic engineer is going to analyze access points to this property, but frontage is limited for this. They have about 230 feet of frontage on Ustick Road and about 340 feet of frontage or so on Meridian Road. You're looking at -- according to ACHD policy, you're looking at right-in, right-outs on both of those, maximum would be -- you know, if that's a signalized intersection and, as mentioned before, the subdivision across the way is really close to that intersection, it's about 100 feet south, wouldn't be approved today. A median is probably the most likely scenario for that. Unfortunately for these residents, in the future they are going to be unable to make a left turn out of their subdivision in the future is probably what's going to happen, just because of the traffic conflicts. Now, some of that would come out in a traffic study. I don't know how much of that is going to be really applicable to the application you have here tonight. It would be more information, one way or another, . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 51 of 72 though, I don't -- we already know the traffic is bad out there. I don't think the traffic study would come back saying that this would make it any better, I guess is what I'm trying to say. But just to get that out and kind of let folks know that's probably what the highway district is looking at is a right-in, right-out, or a median, if not both. And, then, just, finally, the neighborhood center, for the applicant -- actually, I have got two things. The neighborhood center concept is a little bit different in that you do have the core commercial, but, then, you have the office stuff kind of around it to buffer your residential and it kind of goes out from there from the most intense commercial uses to a light office and kind of -- that transitions outward. It's kind of a -- it is a lot different than a lot of other jurisdictions and what you see a traditional commercial at the corner and that's where some of the words that we use, these convenience versus destination uses, we are looking at these as being convenience uses. I can walk there and get my gallon of milk, not necessarily I'm driving home and want to stop and get gas on those type of things, but they are convenient for the folks that are within that area to use, but they aren't intrusive and to their lifestyles at the same time. There is walking paths to these types of places. I think those are just the kind of a clarification. The last thing for -- and this is really for the church benefit, depending on how this goes, but according to our most recent Comprehensive Plan amendment, these parcels that are less than three acres that have frontage on an arterial street, are eligible for office uses. So, if it doesn't go commercial, a separate application in the future for light office -- and maybe that works better with the neighbors -- just to throw that Qut there, that that's kind of an in between that the city has said in certain situations like this, high traffic volume areas where a residential subdivision mayor may not work, they can apply. So, I'm sorry, I just wanted to get those couple of things in. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Murray. Murray: Thank you. Just to clarify a few things. In our neighborhood meeting the neighbors did pose questions about valuation. I felt in that meeting that it would be awfully bias of me to tell them that this would have no effect on their property values. In passing out invitations to the neighbors, one of the residents of the Eastbrook Subdivision is a realtor and my suggestion to them was to go to national realtors association publications that would address that issue. So, rather than give them my bias opinion, which they obviously know what bias I'm going to have, they were better served by trying to get some facts. When it came to the issue of the berm, the suggestion or the request was actually an eight-foot berm, which we weren't really interested in putting an eight foot berm around the property. When it came to the customer count that we shared with them, that's actually a customer count and not a car count. There is a big difference between the two. The other thing that's important to understand, even about car counts, is the reason why the -- why the intersection of two arterials is important versus an arterial at a half mile street, is that for our type of a use, the large, large, large portion of our business comes off of people who are passing by, live within the neighborhood, and are passing by the site. There certainly is a percentage of our sales where we are the destination and they come home to us and return home. But much of the traffic is already on the street. Certainly, the argument can be made that we increase movements. We do when they pull into our parking lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 52 of 72 But I think you would find in looking at our site plans, that our driveways are further from the intersection than most any -- if you look at our site plan, the drives that we have proposed have been pushed as far away from the intersection -- the 256 feet of frontage along Ustick, it is pushed to the west, and the 340 feet of frontage along Meridian, it is pushed to the south. On issues such as crime, my suggestion to the neighbors in the meeting was that I would ask them to look at their experience -- in our society today we typically buy gas at a convenience store and my question is -- to them was do you feel threatened by crime. I mean certainly our stores -- we know what our trade area is, so largely the people shopping at that store are a reflection of the residents and the traffic on those streets in this type of a location, where it is not a through highway, most of the patronage is going to be from residents a mile, mile and a half around that store. So, is there the potential for crime? Is the -- is your experience at a convenience store as evil as we sometimes -- I mean I have done this for 22 years and so I know that people -- as a rule people are concerned whenever change is proposed around them and convenience stores, I think because of the number of them, also draw a lot of attention. But I'd ask you just to reflect on your experience, you know, as you shop for gas and shop at a convenience store, is it as terrible of an experience as we paint it to be. So, that's all. I appreciate your consideration and, believe it or not, I even appreciate the concerns with the neighbors. Thanks. Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners or staff? Thank you. Discussion time? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, 1 recommend we close the Public Hearing on CPA 04- 004. Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you close the hearing, if you're going to continue the matter to get the traffic study, you may not want to close the hearing, because you may have to reopen it to get a traffic study, so just -- since that was brought up by the staff. Borup: I'll second that motion. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion to close the Public Hearing carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Further discussion? Moe: Further discussion? I guess what I would -- Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Thank you, sir. You know, I shop at Maverick all the time. Get gas there, too. Great place. But I'm going to -- but I got to tell you, I know that the city worked long and hard and many many hours putting together the Comprehensive Plan and there was lots of discussions in regards to the neighborhood center concepts and whatnot, I, for Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 53 of 72 one, when this came up, I -- even before reading staff comments and whatnot, I am very much wanting to see the neighborhood center concept come to fruition. We do not have one as of yet built out think. I think it's very important that we move forward to try and get a neighborhood center built out, so that the concept can be reviewed. Therefore, I will be opposing approval of this. That's my comments. Zaremba: Thank you. Other comments? Borup: I don't think I have anything really different from what Commissioner Moe said. You know, my feeling is probably it's premature at this site. It may be viable some day, but I don't know, but I don't know, so maybe a location further to the west may be more appropriate, but that's not what we are here to talk about. Zaremba: Well, I would add, you know, certainly I have shopped at Maverick stores. The one on Overland was a very easy approval for us and the whole point was what surrounds it. In a case where it is surrounded by neighborhood and future neighborhood, and as some of the other properties developed to be residential, people are going to be walking to the park. I'm not convinced that this is the right location for that business. And seconding the idea that the neighbor center concept needs to have a serious -- a serious try before we start fracturing it and I think this would fracture it. There is a convenience store gas station car wash already a half a mile from here. As a matter of fact, I think there is a Maverick that's at Linder and Cherry Lane, which is -- I believe that's a Maverick that's there. So, there is already a Maverick in this neighborhood that's well patronized, but I -- my instinct with the bthers that this area is not of that nature and the designated neighborhood center near by needs to be the focus of commercial activity at the current time. Borup: Well, one difference between the other one we approved was that it did not necessitate a Comp Plan change. Zaremba: That's also true. Newton-Huckabay: Well, as I have said before, I live in north Meridian, the estimate is there is going to be approximately 55,000 people living in north Meridian in a very short time. Those 55,000 people, in my opinion, need a place to -- convenience stores to go to. I have not bought off on the neighborhood center idea, but I'm not seeing one put together. I want to see a neighborhood center put together in the city to see if it will work. I live very close to this area, I wouldn't mind having a convenience store. I lived close to convenience stores before, I find them to be very -- as they say -- Borup: Convenient. Newton-Huckabay: -- convenient, but I strong -- I have a stronger feeling that I want to see a neighborhood center come together with the paradigm that the city set forth and we had one on -- on Locust Grove -- on Locust Grove and that's not really coming together like I had hoped it would, so I'm hoping that this one will come together and , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 54 of 72 that it will prove to be successful as the city hoped. So, for that reason I would vote against a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, anything to add? Rohm: No. I think they have pretty well said it. Zaremba: I suspect we are ready for a motion on this item. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending denial for CPA 04-004. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: It's usually good to -- is it usually good to include a reason for the denial? Zaremba: On some applications that is a good idea. Borup: I don't know that this was -- Zaremba: On a Comprehensive Plan amendment, I don't believe we are required to do that. Borup: Okay. Okay. Moe: Reasons as I stated before. Zaremba: I think the opinions have been expressed during the discussion. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, the staff does have to prepare that recommendation for denial and if you could at least assist the staff by condensing down your reasons succinctly, so they can forward that, that probably would be more helpful. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup appears to be prepared to do that. Borup: And it's very condensed. I would say the denial would be based on the staff analysis, staff report, and public testimony. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 55 of 72 Zaremba: That works for me. Moe: That's great. Rohm: Well, I would like to add it that also does not support the development of the neighborhood center and that's what we are here for. Borup: The staff report said that. Rohm: Okay. Fair enough. Zaremba: Then, the issue is what to do with Item 12. I suppose we open that public hearing and recommend denial of that as well or since it's not a possibility under the current situation, do we even need to deal with it? A question for our attorney Mr. Nary? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I think you have to take some action on this agenda item and since -- I think you can simply -- I guess you could probably open the hearing. I think you're going to have to make a motion to do something with it. Your recommendation can be based upon the fact that it isn't possible under the current Comprehensive Plan, it's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan that this currently is. Zaremba: All right. Borup: Or we could have 45 minutes of testimony. Zaremba: All the same people are signed up to talk on this. We can go through the list. Hood: Mr. Chair, in fairness, I think you do have to open up the Public Hearing again. It is a separate issue, but -- Zaremba: We will do that. I am now opening the Public Hearing on AZ 04-032, request for an annexation and zoning of 2.298 acres from county R-4 zone to a city C-C zone for Maverick County Store by Dan Murray, Maverick County Stores, Inc., 201 West Ustick Road. Do we even need the staff comments? Rohm: Yeah. I don't even think we need to do that. I think we can -- Zaremba: I think we are prepared to close the Public Hearing and make a motion. Rohm: Yes. I think so. Zaremba: I would entertain such a motion. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 56 of 72 Hood: You need to open the Public Hearing first. Zaremba: I did. Rohm: He already did. Canning: You need to ask them if anybody wants to testify. Borup: That's true. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Yes, I will. Would anybody like to add anything? All of the testimony from the previous issue was recorded and is public record. It appears that people are in agreement with what they already said, so we will -- we will go with that. Rohm: Okay. All right. Good. With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-032. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to the City Council recommending denial of AZ 04-032, based upon previous concluded CPA 04-004. Borup: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Thank you very much. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 office lots on 4.65 acres in an R-8 zone for Verona Subdivision No.3 by Primeland Development, LLP - NEC of North Ten Mile Road and West Milano Drive: Zaremba: All right. We will open the Public Hearing for PP 04-044, request for preliminary plat approval for six office lots on 4.65 acres in an R-8 zone for Verona Subdivision No.3 by Primeland Development, LLP, on the east corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Milano Drive. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the second time you will actually have seen this one. The site is in the existing Verona Subdivision. The applicant came in -- let's see, when was the original date of this? It was an '02 application for three -- they . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 57 of 72 are called office lots under the R-8 planned development. They were given an exemption for an office lot in an R-8 district. They were -- originally in their configuration of one, two, three with the same access points as what are explained here with the existing roads. This is Milano Drive here accessing Ten Mile Road. The applicant has requested that six lots be created out of the original three. Staff's recommendation is for approval with the condition specifically to request that the applicant bring us an L-O designation for a rezone for this property. The R-8 is -- with the exemption, would require that all of the properties receive conditional use approval for any operation and staff feels that with an L-O designation, with the understanding that the condition that only office uses be allowed on these sites is appropriate for this site and as well as with limiting it to just office uses, we would not need to see six separate conditional use applications. And I have discussed this with the applicant and they are in agreement as well. If you have any questions, I'll try and be quick here. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? I would only comment that in the past we have struggled with the 20 percent use exception and' the decision has gone back and forth and if I remember at the time that this project came through, the current thinking was that the whole project should be zoned the same and, then, with development agreements and other conditionals, we defined that use area. The new thinking is that it's much easier to administratively actually -- we say, yes, this is available under the 20 percent use exception, but let's really zone it the way it's going to be used. And I think this is just a move to do that and it doesn't -- it seems to me it's an administrative correction. Is that what we are doing? Canning: Yes, Chairman Zaremba. And it's not necessarily administratively, it's a little easier for us, but it actually facilitates their lending also, because the lenders get a little confused when they see a residential designation on an office lot or a commercial lot or sometimes we get residential lenders asking us why this property has an office zoning on'it and can they still build a house if the house burns down. So, it's of benefit to the property owners as well just to have that consistency. Zaremba: So, the point is we are not really changing anything in the original concept, we are just -- Canning: Only the fact that they previously had three lots and now want six lots. Zaremba: All right. Any other questions? Would the applicant care to comment? McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. Just want to state for the record that I have reviewed the staff report and we are in full agreement. I think that's the least I have ever said here. Rohm: I'm pretty sure it is. Borup: You waited all night for that. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 58 of 72 Zaremba: Let's see. Once, again, Judith Bellcastor signed up for this one, but since she has left the audience, I believe we will go with the fact that she spoke in the issue she intended to speak on. Commissioners? Well, let me ask. Does anybody else care to speak on this issue? Borup: I have none. I think -- we have already looked at the project in the past. Gone to smaller lots is all. Zaremba: I believe a motion to close the Public Hearing would be in order. Borup: I move we close Public Hearing PP 04-044. Moe: Second. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and two seconds. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We moved several items to the end of the agenda. Let's-- Borup: Do you want a motion on that? Moe: We just closed the hearing is all we did. Zaremba: I'm sorry, we have another motion to go. Borup: I would move that we recommend approval of PP 04-004 with all staff comments for the hearing date January 20th. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you very much. That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AUP 04-016 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin by Marina Galushkin - 2843 North Wolverine Avenue: , Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 59 of 72 Zaremba: Okay. Let's revisit Item 3-A, which was the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Does staff have a comment on that? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I do believe we need to have a little time to review this and make sure that the code references are accurate. So, I would ask that you table it to your next meeting. Zaremba: Okay. Sounds appropriate to me. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table Item 3-A to our next scheduled P&Z meeting. Borup: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: 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: Zaremba: Let's see. Now, we are ready to go back to Item 5, which is Comprehensive Plan Amendment 04-003. We have denied the other CPA issue that was on --or we have recommended denial of it and I'm not so sure that there is the need to keep these two together anymore. Rohm: I see no reason to keep them together. Zaremba: Unless the City Council did overrule us, but I suspect they will at least agree with us on the -- on the one we just recommended. So, if there is no discussion on -- let's see, did I reopen the hearing. I'm reopening CPA 04-003 and for further discussion. Well, the staff comments were all geared toward denial. Borup: I think each of the Commissioners had a chance to express their views, unless there is anybody that had anymore to add. Zaremba: Would we like to review those again? Rohm: I don't think so. Newton-Huckaday: I think I was the only dissenting Commissioner. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 60 of 72 Rohm: Commissioner Moe, did you want to take this one? Moe: Well, basically, yeah, I mean I was going to make a recommendation earlier and I was told that's a time out, until the end of the meeting, so I guess basically I -- I don't know if there is any need for discussion, I just -- Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward -- I just move we forward to City Council recommending approval of -- Rohm: We have got to close first. Zaremba: We need to close the Public Hearing first. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 04-003. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of 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, Incorporated, southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue. End of motion. Borup: Second Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We have a motion carried by four in favor and one against. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE AGAINST. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: RZ 04-017 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: . .. . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 61 of 72 Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: 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: Zaremba: Okay. In that case we will open the Public Hearing for the remaining two items, No.6 and 7. This is RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051. We have a request for a rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L and L-O to CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC, by Hansen Rice, Inc., southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue and CUP 04-051 is a request for a conditional use permit for a conceptual planned development for commercial, retail uses, for approximately 615,430 square feet of building area in a proposed CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC, by Hansen Rice, Inc., southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue and not to put staff on the spot, because we assume we are going to end up continuing this, but we will start with the staff report if there is anything to say. Hawkins-Clark: I can add just probably a couple items that we hadn't talked about under the CPA application. This -- item number five, the rezone, does apply to the entire property, whereas the CPA application only applied to the 22 acres to the west. So, just for that clarification. The legal description that they submitted that was prepared by a surveyor does include that all that area that's outlined in black and the -- the main point that I made in the staff report on this, I think, is that their application did not clarify the fact that there is, actually, one acre of this that's L-O. So, I think to make the legal description correct for the public notice, we need to, you know, make sure that that happens and I didn't have a chance to ask Mr. Nary, but if this -- if this body can actually recommend approval when the notice was incorrect, because the application was incorrect, or if we can just fix it before it goes to City Council. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it wasn't noticed properly for this hearing, then, they can't hear it, then, they have to -- they will have to table it or continue it and set it over. If it was just -- it was just the radius notice that was incorrect, then? Hawkins-Clark: No. It's the description. Nary: Oh. Hawkins-Clark: Because the description said it was -- you know, all of the property is currently I-L, when, in fact, one acre is L-O. So, it's -- Nary: So, all of the notices would have probably been incorrect? Hawkins-Clark: Incorrect. . -' . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 62 of 72 Nary: Okay. Yeah. Then, they should notice it -- then, they should continue this matter and -- or they could table this matter, either way. They have to re-notice this hearing. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Nary: Because you have to notice it properly for this hearing, as well the City Council. Borup: Even though the property -- the amount of property didn't change. Nary: Right. The notice still has to be right under the state code. Whatever the notice says you have to provide, has to be correct, has to outline the proper -- the property correctly and has to have a property description. Borup: Of zoning. Nary: Of zoning. Correct. Rohm: I don't think that's a significant issue, because we are going to -- Zaremba: Yeah. But, technically, that means we can't even have the public hearing tonight. Nary: Correct. Moe: So, we need to decide when we do want to continue it to. Zaremba: Well, if it needs ten days notice -- it can't necessarily be our next meeting, it would have to be the meeting after that, 'I believe. Is that correct? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I believe that mailed notice is 15 days. I think the posted notice is ten. So, you're probably best -- I guess we have made it more complicated than it needs to be. We probably didn't have to open these hearings at all. I wasn't aware of this issue, but you could probably just continue this matter to your second hearing date in the month of February and, technically, they are still going to have to notice it anyway. Zaremba: And require re-notice. Nary: And require re-notice anyway. Zaremba: All right. So, a motion would be in order to continue both of these hearings to February 17th, requiring full re-notice. Rohm: Okay. I think they are actually seeing if their schedules can -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 63 of 72 Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, Commissioner. I was just checking -- we have two different issues in the application here. Could we have -- Machelle, do you happen to have the notice that was actually sent with you at the dais there, the public notice? In my review of the file, I -- there was one location where it did not identify the L-O, but I see now on the cover sheet of their application they do identify an L-O. So, I just wanted to see if the notice itself -- which one it went off of. Zaremba: While she's looking, let me ask an opinion of whether there is any need to keep the CPA application together with these two applications or can the CPA go forward on its own? Hawkins-Clark: I think staff is of the opinion that it could move on. Rohm: I think it's, actually, preferred to move on. Zaremba: Knowing the rest of the materials that are come up kind of helps in the decision. I mean we all read the materials on these two items, even though we, technically, weren't considering them as part of the CPA, and that did have an affect on my decision I know. I just wondered if-- Borup: Mr. Chairman, the L-O was mentioned in the public notification? Zaremba: We haven't determined that. Borup: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: What I'm wondering is whether we shoot the CPA recommendation in the foot by not keeping the other two applications together with it. Rohm: Yeah. I don't think you do myself. I think it could move forward and, then, once that's acted on by the city, then, these other two can catch up with it and the development after the developer is working with staff, bring them back together again. Borup: So, will City Council have all the same information that -- they should. If they have the same staff report, then, they should. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba -- sorry, Chairman Zaremba, Commissioners, if you only take action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, then, only the findings will go forward for the Comprehensive Plan amendment, so they won't have all the information for it, so it's really up to you. If you want it to go forward so that they consider it by itself, similar to what we have tried to do at the hearings, then, you can do that or if you want it to kind of all go up as a package, then, you can do that. Zaremba: Well, we technically did consider it by itself, but we had all read the two following applications and had those in mind, even though they weren't, technically, part of the decision and I just wonder, you know, if -- if the City Council got the CPA ,", ~ ! Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 64 of 72 application absent the other two pieces of information, are they likely to disagree with us? Canning: Apparently it's a moot point, because the notice does say L-O. Zaremba: I was just looking at it, so that means we can discuss it tonight. The written notice of hearing does say from I-L and L-O to CoG. That's the one that's been sealed by the city. Thank you very much. In that case, the hearings are open, we did not close them, and we will proceed to -- does the staff have comment? Hawkins-Clark: I think on the rezone we do not have any further comments. Yeah. I mean, obviously, the findings as they were presented in the staff report, do recommend denial of the rezone, largely based on our recommended of the CPA application, so I think I would ask that the Commission direct -- if you recommend approval, that you direct staff to -- to make findings for approval and provide us a little guidance on that, so I guess I would ask for that. Zaremba: In a rough pass, are you likely to want to add a lot of conditions that we ought to see before making a recommendation to the City Council? Hawkins-Clark: Well, not on the rezone itself, other than -- Zaremba: It's kind of unfair to you to say -- the assumption was that we were going to recommend denial of the CPA and I understand you, therefore, would not have done a thorough study of the two. Do you need time to do that? Hawkins-Clark: For the rezone probably not, because there is, really, only one -- there is really only one comment on the rezone that would be applicable and that is a recommendation that you require a development agreement and we do have a few bullet points of what might be in a development agreement between the City of Meridian and the developer and there is just maybe a little tweaking on that. Other than that, I don't think that there is, really, a lot of issues from the staff's perspective, other than cleaning up a couple of those. Zaremba: The CUP? Hawkins-Clark: On the CUP that's another matter and we do have some concerns that we would not be comfortable moving it on. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I think that the right thing to do with this is to go ahead and continue these until -- if one meeting is sufficient, that's fine, or if two is better, we will just continue it and, then, let staff work with the developers on both the rezone, which there is not significant issues on that, but the CUP, so that the staff can interject the conditions to the developer to make this thing work cohesively and we will just continue it -- one meeting is sufficient or two? What's it going to take to bring you together on this do you think? ,-- .. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 65 of 72 Hawkins-Clark: If I could ask that we have -- get some feedback from the applicant, because they would be the ones to actually redraw it and -- Zaremba: The Public Hearing is open, so, Mr. McKinnon, if you just want to come to the microphone after a slight discussion. Hawkins-Clark: And I think we would also appreciate at least some feedback. I mean do you agree or do you not agree as a Commission with some of the concerns that were raised in the staff report about the concept, because, you know, it is a conceptual planned development, but they do have an entitlement that goes with that. I mean it doesn't mean that it's -- it's just sort of not worth anything, if you will. You know, I mean they do have -- if it's granted, they have 18 months that this conceptual plan development is good and eligible for another Conditional Use Permit to be submitted later on and I think that was our main concern. We have a couple -- one is there is a significant -- there is an easement across this property that significantly affects the lay out that needs to be addressed, in our opinion. Rohm: Well, let's hear from the applicant. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, David McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. We have been at this for a long time now. I think we submitted in October and we are pushing into February if we continue this one more time. It's a big project, we know. We know that staff's had it for a number of months and at the last public hearing we asked them to prepare a staff report that would cover all the other issues, including the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit. Staff has done that. In fact, I have got a copy of the whole staff report and all of our correspondence and it's really condensed to go through all issues with you. The one thing I'd like to point out is, of course, we'd love to move forward with this tonight, this is a conceptual Conditional Use Permit that we are dealing with. You will see this again. The entire site plan -- if you can go back to that site plan, Brad. That site plan that you see is conceptual in nature and because it is conceptual in nature, you will see this whole site plan come back to you again for approval. The layout of the buildings is subject to change, everything is subject to change, just like the other conditional use permits you have seen for planned developments, they come back and they change as they come back, because we don't know who the retail users are going to be in here. So, we'd like to move forward tonight with a full staff report and if there is a need after that point to continue it, then, that's your decision, but we would like to move forward tonight if that's a possibility. Rohm: The staff report was not in support of this development and so everything that is contained in that report is in disagreement. Borup: Well, Mr. Chairman, how I read the staff support is both of them -- it says if the Commission does approve the Comp Plan change, then, these are the conditions that staff would recommend. So, they are in the staff report. But under special '. ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 66 of 72 considerations, there is a number of things that's mentioned that asks the applicant to address and I don't think that has happened. And that may be the reason to continue it is for an opportunity address those issues. But I'm talking about specifically the issues on page -- starting on page 16. Newton-Huckabay: I think that continuing it for one or two meetings is a good idea at this point. I have said before I think this is premature, the Comp Plan amendment. I think in Meridian we have -- you know, we have a duty to make sure we do this right if you're going to do it and Eagle Road is a very critical area right now and I would think that most any member of the public would want to make sure that a lot of time was spent reviewing it and making sure that all the issues are being addressed and that's -- I mean I'm not a professional at that, but I have an opinion that I would want to make sure that the right amount of time was spent and if that includes delaying this another 30 days, I think for the public good that's probably time well spent. Borup: I count about nine issues that need to be addressed and I don't know that -- are you prepared to address all nine of those issues? McKinnon: I don't know that I have got the same nine, but I've got a stack. Borup: Staff hasn't had a chance to review those is all. McKinnon: I guess I'm under some confusion here, what -- if you got nine issues that staff has brought up that -- are you talking about all the bullet point items on the -- Borup: Well, I'm talking about -- yeah, the easement, the amenities, and, then -- and, then, A, B, C, D, E, F. And the fencing. McKinnon: Okay. I actually -- Moe: What about the rezone as well? You have some conditions there. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I think that there is a significant enough number of issues that are still just out there and I think Dave has done a good job encapsulating those and I think if the staff and the developers can get together and review that list and come back at the next meeting, we will just continue it to the next meeting and you can work with staff and it's a lot easier for us to act on something that the staff has had an opportunity to provide feedback and back and forth between you and the staff and, then, we can make a much more informed decision at that time. That's better for both you, the developer, and for us as a community. Borup: I would agree with that comment and even though the applicant's been working on this for a long time, this is -- Rohm: I think two weeks is -- ..; .. . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 67 of 72 Borup: - really the second hearing. If you compare this with Crossroads project across the street, this is zooming right through. Zaremba: And it's a large project. It needs to be -- Rohm: I think -- I think we have made great headways tonight and I think to stop short of going all the way is not in anybody's best interest and so with that being said -- Borup: Just one thing if I may -- you know, with that being said, I think the applicant should leave with an understanding of what we are expecting, so I don't know if there is -- if that's understood -- Zaremba: And staff, too. They all need to know. I would say, in concept, I -- by my vote on the Comprehensive Plan I have already stated that I'm in favor of retail here. Whether it's this configuration or not, I have a little difficulty with a major anchor that's buried in the west end of the property. I have seen in other cities retails that are laid out like that and a major anchor usually wants more frontage towards the street, I guess I would -- towards the major street, which would be Eagle. I don't know. I'm not the expert on that, I just have seen enough shopping centers where a major that deep in was suffering. Whether minors that deep in would be better or whether turning that one property 90 degrees and replacing it with parking or something, I don't know. Not to get into the engineering, that's just a personal opinion. Borup: Well, I feel that should be up to the developer. I mean they know what's going to work. I really like -- I'd like -- personally like the layout. I think it's going to have a more attractive view from Eagle Road. Are we going to be seeing landscaping and hopefully the back of the buildings will have some character to them, too. And this is a real isolated interior. That's definitely going to be destination, not -- Zaremba: And Pine in a five lane road and -- Borup: Well, that -- it is open to Pine. Yeah. It looks like that's where they are expecting it to be. Zaremba: And even though Pine is kind of a back road now, if you consider the -- all the way from EI Gato, I think it is, though Pine, Emerald, Executive, something else. I mean it changes name ten times, but this is a long arterial thoroughfare through the valley and there may be a lot of traffic on it and this orientation may work very well. I'm focusing on Eagle, but Pine could very well be just as busy at some point. That's scary for downtown. Rohm: Well, it's going to be five lanes anyway. Zaremba: Yeah. .... ~ . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 68 of 72 Rohm: You know, I have a lot of faith in staff a d the developer to be able to work together to workout the issues that are obvious an we can hear this again on -- Zaremba: On February 3rd. Rohm: -- on February 3rd and come to some con usions, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, if I could ju t add -- I do think that that's highly highly optimistic. If the Commission is in agree ent with the nine bullet points in the staff report and you are asking us to encourage th applicant to make the changes that I have listed here -- Rohm: We are. Hawkins-Clark: Then, for us to have a chance -- e need to get, you know, a site plan back in one week to get you comments back in 0 weeks and I don't know, I mean I haven't heard enough tonight from the applicant t at they can come back and redo this thing and work out the easement with the neighbo and, you know, redesign based on -- if ACHD commission -- you know, that -- they ha e several conditions that affect this and to me I just don't see that that's realistic. Zaremba: Are those significant enough that all t is needs to be distributed to all the departments that want ten days to look at it, too? Hawkins-Clark: Probably not. I mean I think it's a continued Public Hearing, if that's what you do, and I guess -- and just for, I guess the benefit of both the Commission and -- you know, and Dave, I mean, yes, he -- yo know, he says that it's a conceptual plan, but if they get approval for this, whatever yo r concept is, they can come in with, you know, a detailed Conditional Use Permit on 0 Iy one building and, you know, they don't have to change anything else on this plan in he future and, first and foremost, it's not a mixed use project today, it's only a retail c mmercial project, it's not mixed use, and they haven't addressed that either. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Com ission, we can make it by February 3rd. We can get it back to staff within a wee. Some of the issues that Brad's addressed and, you know, some of the concerns t at are in there, you know, is the site large enough, you know, is there enough parking talis, and the special considerations concerning Commercial Court and the easement, hose sort of things, are fairly easy to workout, you know, the pathway or the amenitie. Among those five bullet points A through E under site design, the only one that we ad any comment on was C and that was just the transit design, we just don't know e actly what the transit design is yet, because we don't have a transit system, so we d n't know what the demands are yet. But those are all things that you can place as co ditions as well. upon the conceptual site plan. It doesn't necessarily say that you ha e to see all those changes prior to going forward, you can make those as conditions f approval towards the site plan and, by and large, we agree with all of those comment. That's what I was going to tell you ". .. . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 69 of 72 tonight, we can, absolutely, get a site plan revis d and back in to the staff for their review within that time frame. Rohm: It would be nice if you could give them a little -- a little bit more than just the bare minimum for sure, because this is a big unde aking for the City of Meridian and we don't want it to fall short of what it can be at this ju cture, so -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, just a question for Brad. Will he 17th be long enough time to get it taken care of by do you think on your end? Hawkins-Clark: That would be more comfortable r us, yes. If I could at least get one statement on the record about where the applican 's at with the easement, because we haven't heard anything on that. Zaremba: Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Co mission, we have contacted McCall Properties that owns that piece of property back t ere and weare in negotiations with them. Could you show the site plan -- just he overall with Commercial Court. Commercial Court apparently runs down right the e. We are in discussions with them. There hasn't been anything set up just yet as to ow that's going to play out. He may want to take access through our property and b come a part of this project is in the future, so he may want to have it taken care of th way. Secondary to that, if need be, we could allow that to remain open through ther to retain his easement, his 50 foot wide easement through there and design around it so he would still be able to have his access back to his property and we would be willin to put that on the record. So, that's -- we have been in contact and we will continue to e in contact with him. Zaremba: I would suspect that ITD would come d wn on the side of closing his access. It would be difficult to control who used that acces . McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of he Commission, that was one of the same comments that we had, but it's -- it's an ea ement that he has with the express rights to do that and so the development that -- Zaremba: Am I hearing you say that you might 0 er him a rerouted easement in trade for that. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: So that he could use, for instance, the rive aisles that you're going to have through your parking lot anyhow. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: That's what you're planning to offer. "" ... . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 70 of 72 Hawkins-Clark: Absolutely. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Well, it still takes input from a third party. It's not something that's just you, the developer, and the staff to work out, there is another party that's going to have to jump on board to make this happen and with that being said, I think that we are over zealous in trying to move to the 3rd and I think that it's in everybody's best interest if we can just take it to the 17th and that would be -- that would give you folks the time to work your easement issue and give the staff more time to get a settled take on the conceptual plan as well. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, was that a motion? Rohm: Yes. That would be a motion. I think we have to close the Public Hearing, though, before we can -- Zaremba: No. We are continuing it. Rohm: Oh, excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I move that we -- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that -- did you have one last comment? Zaremba: Further comment from Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Just a point of clarification. Is the Comprehensive Plan application moving forward? You guys have already made the recommendation -- Rohm: Yeah. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: We are not holding that. Yeah. Borup: I would be interested to know what the applicant -- if they have any comment on that. If that's their preference. McKinnon: I would love it to go forward. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. You don't feel that it's threatened by not having this information go along with it? ~~ ~, . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 71 of 72 McKinnon: I wouldn't say that it's threatened, but I think that they are going to look at it and say -- they are going to get the same packet you did originally and there was a lot of discussion that took place -- Zaremba: And it's a public hearing and in your comments you can tell them all the other plans that they don't see yet. McKinnon: That's correct. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051 to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of February 17th. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question after we close the meeting. Borup: Don't we still need one more motion? Newton-Huckabay: Can I make a motion to -- Borup: No. No. On Item 5. On No.5, the CUP. Did we already do a motion on that? The CPA. Moe: Yes. That's done. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Sorry about that. Zaremba: Five, six and seven are dealt with, 3-A is dealt with, and I believe a motion to adjourn would be in order. -..... Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 72 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I -- Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: -- move that we close the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 20th. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: All in favor to adjourn? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We are adjourned at 11 :15. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) ~1.Jl12QQ5 DATE APPROVED