Loading...
2010 03-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 4, 2010 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 4, 2010, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Joe Marshall. Members Present: Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Scott Freeman and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Members absent: Chairman Michael Rohm. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Caleb Hood, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall Michael Rohm -Chairman Marshall: I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for March 4th, 2010. The first thing on the agenda I'd like to ask the clerk to call roll. Marshall: All right. Second thing on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two things on the agenda, the approval of the minutes of February 11th, 2010, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for MCU 09-002, known as Avendale. Commissioners any, comments? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Freeman: No. Marshall: Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda O'Brien: So moved. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Hill: Mr. Chair, we need to adopt the agenda. Marshall: Oh. Adopt -- oh, that's right. And there will be a change to the agenda tonight. Items 7, 8 and 9, CPA 09-010, AZ 09-010, and RZ 09-006 for South Ridge will be continued to -- will be opened to be continued to the next meeting of March 18th. Could I get a motion to accept the agenda? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 2 of 28 Newton-Huckabay: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? And the agenda is accepted. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 11, 2010 Planning and Zoning Special Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU 09-002 Request to modify the building elevations approved with the Conditional Use Permit for Avendale (fka Silver Oaks) by Engineering Solutions -north side of W. Franklin Road, approximately'/4 mile west of N. Ten Mile Road: Marshall: Now we can move to the Consent Agenda and there are two items on the Consent Agenda. Again, it's the items A and B, the minutes from February 11th, 2010, and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of MCU 09-002, known as Avendale. Again, I ask are there any comments? Freeman: No. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend -- I'd move we adopt the Consent Agenda with no changes. Freeman: Second. Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? And that carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Now we begin our public hearing. Before we begin I guess I should explain I'm going to go through this, even though you're the only one here, I'm going to go through this for practice for me. Let's see. We start off with the staff report and the staff explains the history and the subject to be approved or to be heard. After the staff presents we have -- the applicant has 15 minutes to present, after which there is a sign- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 3 of 28 up sheet in the back and anybody wishing to speak will be called upon then. After everybody on the sheet has been heard, we will have one last call for anyone wanting to speak, after which we will ask the applicant to come back and rebut anything that might has been said. Then we will deliberate and make a decision. I think I got that right. All right. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, one minor clarification. You will close the public hearing. Marshall: Oh. Friedman: And, then, you will deliberate. Marshall: Oh. Thank you. I better remember to do that. Okay. Okay. Live with me here. All right. Newton-Huckabay: Just because I know I have done the same thing. Item 4: Public Hearing: PFP 10-001 Request for approval of a combined Preliminary /Final Plat consisting of 3 building lots on 3.62 acres of land in an I-L zoning district for Monica Subdivision by B2 Investments, LLC - 327 N. Linder Road: Marshall: So, at this time I'd like to open the public hearing for PFP 10-001 for Monica Subdivision and ask for the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight -- before you tonight is a combined preliminary -final plat application for three industrial lots. The subject property is currently located on the west side of North Linder Road approximately a quarter mile north of Franklin Road. Back in 2005 the -- this site was -- the Commission acted on the application for, essentially, the same subdivision it was -- at that time was a three lot subdivision. The zoning is still proposed as I-L. The majority of the property that surrounds this parcel is also zoned I-L and current industrial buildings are -- industrial uses are going on around it as well. If you can see on this zoning aerial map, you can see the homes on the east side are still in the county and those are planned to go to some mixed use designation in the future and so at this time staff can anticipate that to happen and those future uses will more than likely be compatible with what's going on on the west side of the street. Here is the preliminary plat, like I mentioned. There is three lots proposed. Lot 1, which is the northern lot, is already developed with an air-conditioning and heating fabrication shop. The owner is here in the audience this evening. He wants to subdivide the property. It's currently 3.62 acres and he wants to divide the remaining basic portion of the property into two additional lots. So, if you can follow the arrow here, Lot 2 is here and, then, Lot 3 is south of Lot 1 and, then, the southwest corner. Also, I'd like to point out -- I apologize for how this map looks, but the hash mark that you see here is primarily the cross-access that's provided for these two additional lots. So, the only access point to this site currently is at Linder Road and depicted on this plat is the cross-access that will Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 4 of 28 provide access for future lots of the proposed Lot 2 and 3. One other thing to mention, too, is all of the ACRD improvements along Linder, the landscape buffer that's here before you as well, all of those improvements were done with the development of Lot 1, Block 1. So, that's in place, been taken care of, so, really, there aren't any outstanding issues for you tonight. The applicant's here. He's in agreement with the staff report. The one other thing .that I would mention to you that has changed since this plat came before you in 2005 was -- probably the biggest change was the Comprehensive Plan land use map change. At one point Ithink we -- now this is part of the Ten Mile specific area plan and it designated this site for mixed employment, light industrial uses are appropriate under that land use designation. So, currently the way the site is being operated and proposed before you tonight is consistent with the plan and with that I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Marshall: Commissioners? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have a question. On Exhibit B I saw here that ACHD is requiring a five foot sidewalk on Linder Road and it looked to me like there was a sidewalk already in place. So, are there improvements to that sidewalk required or a brand new sidewalk or is that your standard? Marshall: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, those improvements are in place. Essentially what happened was ACHD sent their conditions to us and just referenced the old conditions, so I just attached those as exhibits -- as exhibits in the staff report, so that if anything was to happen in the property in the future we would be able to see what conditions were tied to that property. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: All right. No other questions it appears. I would like to ask the applicant to come forward and state his name and address for the record, please. Minegar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Pat Minegar, I'm the owner of A-1 Heating and also be to development or LLC of the property and as Mr. Parsons stated, we actually had this approved in 2005. Unfortunately, there was a shift in -- in some members of the -- the people that worked for the engineering company that we had hired and unbeknownst to me, not being a developer, I didn't know that I needed to do a couple more steps and thought they are done and so recently found out that they weren't subdivided back in 2005. So, of course, permits ran out and here I am back before the Commission. So, stand for any questions that the Commission might have. Marshall: Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Freeman: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 5 of 28 Marshall: Thank you, sir. Minegar: Thank you. Marshall: All right. Well, Commissioners? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I assume, then, everything seems to appear to be the same as it was in 2005 with no major changes. I don't think there are. Or were. So, with that I think we can go forward. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Madam Newton-Huckabay. Commissioners Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close -- or move we close the public hearing on PFP 10-001 for Monica Subdivision. O'Brien: Second. Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on PFP 10-001. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I see no changes to the staff report and if everyone agrees I'll make a motion. Marshall: I guess you have the floor. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PFP 10-001 as presented during the hearing on March 4th, 2010, with no modifications. O'Brien: Second. Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to -- for approval for PFP 10-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: CPA 09-007 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation on 6.54 acres of land from Commercial to Industrial; and also change the land use designation on 1.12 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial for Seyam Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker -north side of Franklin Road, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 6 of 28 approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle/Franklin intersection: Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 09-005 Request for Rezone of 6.54 acres from C-G to I-L zone and Rezone of 1.12 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Seyam Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker -north side of Franklin Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle/Franklin intersection: Marshall: All right. At this time I'd like to open the hearing for CPA 09-007 for Seyam Subdivision and ask for the staff report. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, before Sonya presents you with a staff report, as we pointed out in the notes for you tonight, the balance of the applications before you tonight include Comprehensive Plan map amendments, as well as a couple of rezones in there. And because, as you know, we can only -- you can only make a recommendation once every six months on the map amendments and since one of them has been continued for two weeks, we would recommend you go ahead, open the hearings, take any testimony that might be presented, and, then, continue action on the recommendations for those to allow them to catch up with the South Ridge application, which you will be hearing on the 18th and, then, formulate your recommendations on the 18th, if that's acceptable. Newton-Huckabay: Pete, Ihave -- Mr. Chair, I have one question for Pete. Is the applicant here? In fact, he just walked in. Okay. Are we concerned that -- I mean there is no public testimony that when we meet again in two weeks that we will have public here to testify on this? I'm concerned that we may close -- that we may open -- or continue it to ask, then, and have public here thinking they can testify and they can't. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's avery -- that's a very good point. I think given the location of this, given the fact that there is not a lot of impacted adjacent property owners, we haven't received any real concerns from anybody throughout this notice period. I think it's highly unlikely that we will be denying somebody an opportunity to testify if you close -- in fact, close the public hearing tonight. Baird: Mr. Chair? And madam -- Mr. Chairman -- or Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if could just follow on that. Today -- and this meeting is the time and place that has been noticed for hearing. All those who wish to testify should be here. I don't think you should have -- be bashful next time about saying that your opportunity to testify was the last time. However, you always do have the ability to reopen as long as the applicant's there to hear that and has an opportunity to rebut as well, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Baird: -- with that I would just reiterate what Pete said and recommend you go forward. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 7 of 28 Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Baird. All right. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, you might want to open all three hearings. Marshall: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Five, six and seven. Marshall: I think you're right. So, I would like to open the public hearings -- Newton-Huckabay: No. No. My mistake. I'm sorry. I misspoke. Marshall: I would like to open the public hearings for CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-005 for the Seyam Subdivision and ask for the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The subject property before you is located on the north side of East Franklin Road, a designated entryway corridor into the city. Approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle-Franklin Road intersection. The portion of the site applicable to this application consists of a total of 7.66 acres of land and is currently zoned C-G and I-L, as you can see on the map here. The map shows one large parcel that is split zoned I-L and C-G. And there has been a final plat filed on this property that's been approved by Council, but has not yet been recorded. Surrounding uses to the north is industrial property. There is currently amulti-tenant warehouse building on the property to the north. It's zoned I-L. To the east are rural residential properties zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada county. To the south is Meadow Lake Village retirement community, zoned L-O. And to the west is commercial property where Ashley Furniture is, zoned C-G. The applications before you are a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land use designation on 6.54 acres of land adjacent to Franklin Road from commercial to industrial and 1.12 acres of land from industrial to commercial north of Franklin Road. So, the portion proposed to be zoned industrial is on the map on your right. And, then, the property proposed to be designated commercially is right here. A rezone of 6.54 acres of land from the C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial District, to the I-L, Light Industrial District, and 1.12 acres from I-L to C-G, is also requested consistent with the requested land use change. The map shown here on the screen is a rezone map. No development is proposed at this time. Because there are commercially zoned properties to the south and west of the property proposed for commercial use, staff is agreeable to the extension of a C-G zoning as requested by the applicant. Because there is industrial property to the north adjacent to the railway corridor, staff feels it makes some sense to extend the industrial zoning as requested by the applicant to the south. However, because the property is located directly adjacent to Franklin Road, an entryway corridor into the city, staff has some reservations. Structures in industrial areas are typically less attractive and more utilitarian in nature and have loading docks for shipping and receiving. Uses typically consist of manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment and/or packaging of finished products or parts, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 8 of 28 predominantly from previously prepared materials. Staff's primary concern with the industrial land use and zoning is that the property develops in an attractive manner consistent with the commercial properties to the west and the desired appearance of structures located along entryway corridors into the city. To alleviate this concern staff is recommending a development agreement be required with rezone of the property that includes provisions for future buildings facades and portions of the site directly adjacent to Franklin Road and the future extension of Touchmark Way. To develop consistent with the guidelines contained in the city's design manual for commercial developments, rather than industrial developments, and that outdoor storage areas and loading docks not be located within those areas. Staff believes this will assist in maintaining the design integrity of the entryway corridor, as well as accomplishing the desires of the applicant. Staff believes if the site develops in accord with the provisions of the development agreement, the requested Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone is in the best interest of the city. And, therefore, staff is recommending approval of the subject applications with the development agreement provisions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. There has been no written testimony submitted on this application. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions for staff? O'Brien: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Freeman: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments. Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: If this is the time for that. No questions, but I do have -- Newton-Huckabay: Or wait until after the -- Freeman: -- some things I wanted to talk about. Marshall: You may want to -- shall we -- Freeman: Well, I can form these -- I can form these questions, so I will go ahead and ask. Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I reviewed this application and I can see from the original zoning map that we had along Franklin Street up to the boulevard we had a C-G zone and I understand why and I echo staff's concerns about this becoming industrial and I -- I have a hard time understanding why, if we are concerned about the esthetic of this looking like an industrial zone, why we would go ahead and approve it as an industrial zone and I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 9 of 28 commend staff and I agree that it goes a long ways in saying that even though we go with an industrial zone, we would require the commercial design guideline to apply to this, but I'm afraid that would still leave the door wide open for an industrial use that isn't quite going to give you the look that you're -- that you're desiring and I can envision easily a scenario where we approve this now and, then, when we see something that's actually submitted on this as an industrial project, our hands are kind of tied and we might regret actually approving this as an industrial zone. The reason for that is just because we say it would need to be developed as a commercial type of property, an industrial use is a very different kind of a building and trying to apply commercial design features to an industrial building that doesn't -- isn't really suited for those, it doesn't work very well. And so I'm just -- I guess the question is do we really want to open the door to this being an industrial zoned property right up against Franklin Boulevard when we know it could cause this to look very industrial, even though our desire is for it to look commercial. Marshall: Commissioner Freeman, I think that's part of the question that we will be wrestling with -- Freeman: Okay. Marshall: -- tonight. Staff have any response? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think as Sonya pointed out, we certainly share your concern and we also recognize that there really is a difference between the industrial design standards and some of the commercial design standards. Obviously, that's why the recommendation is to try to adhere to the commercial standards from the design manual. You know, the applicant may have some additional comments on that, but part of this was based on knowledge we have about their potential end users that would be going in there and, you know, this wasn't an easy recommendation. It was one that was well considered by staff. Just so you know that if this is, in fact, approved, then, when an end user comes through they would go through the certificate of zoning compliance and design review process. It is highly likely what we would do as part of that, because of the very concerns that Commissioner Freeman raised, is probably convene our design professionals committee to review any potential building plans, elevations, for that frontage and, yeah, I certainly agree that there are different -- certainly different design factors that go into industrial versus commercial. So, again, we were trying to mitigate those in addition to recommending the restrictions on the loading areas and the storage of outdoor materials and so forth. So, you know, our thought is that those would be behind the building, so it's between a future building and existing industrial buildings to the north. So, I don't know if that eases your concerns, but that certainly was the rationale that went into the recommendation. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: Any other questions or comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 10 of 28 O'Brien: No. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Marshall: At this time I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record, please. Miller: Brad Miller with Van Auker Properties. 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. Mr. President, Members of the Commission, thank you for hearing this. What precipitated this -- or let me go back to 1994, 1995. We annexed and zoned this property and at that time we put arbitrary lines on there, what was going to be industrial, what was going to be commercial. So, there was no -- the city -- there was no guidelines from the city, it was us saying, okay, well, let's go 250 or 300 feet or whatever and let's call that commercial, let's call the back industrial. And so the line there is an arbitrary line, which is going to have to be moved one way or the other to match up to the -- to the lot lines. With the Ashley Furniture we sold them that property, built that building for them, and we had to move that property -- or that zoning designation to the north, because that was split zoned as well. So, what precipitated this application is to -- the building to the north is a 172,000 square foot building, which we constructed, which is amulti-tenant industrial building. We built it as at 72,000 square feet and, then, we added onto both ends and originally we had I think five or six tenants in there, we had one company that approached us by the name of Scentsy that didn't have the financial wherewithal to qualify to be one of our tenants, so we told them to go away and Scentsy has since come back and they started with 24,000 square feet and now they have the entire building, except for 14,400 square feet. So, in meeting with them they want to created a campus environment and so we met with them and what, in all likelihood, will happen is we will build a large distribution warehouse there for them. Orville Thompson, who owns Scentsy, is very particular about things and he's into the touch and feel of things and -- and wants to have a meeting area there as well for his employees and so what we will probably do -- I can't promise you this is what will happen, but this is likely what will happen and this is why we have submitted this application -- we will build a large warehouse for them there. The idea would be to have -- I don't know if you have seen the Schumacher Tile building that we built over on Pine Street and Touchmark, but it has windows all along the top. So, in all likelihood we would build a nice looking warehouse with fenestration, modulation, and articulation, which is directly from your code book. Fenestration being windows, right, Pete? Friedman: Yeah. That's correct. Miller: Okay. And so we would try to make it nice and, then, there was also -- there would be -- there would be lush landscaping there. That's something that Orville would want. Now, I can tell by your questions that none of you have been through the architectural review process with Planning and Zoning. Trust me, they are tough. We are just finishing the building -- or, no, we are just about to pull the permit on a building next to Lewis & Clark Middle School and they made us do things that made us -- that we were uncomfortable with, but, you know, once again, fenestration, articulation, and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 11 of 28 modulation. But it will be very nice. If you look at that corridor there and you look at Ashley Furniture and you look RC Willey -- and we also sold RC Willey those 22 acres there -- both of those are basically industrial buildings. I mean they are commercial buildings, but you look at them they are large industrial buildings. And our building, I believe, would -- any building that we build there would be nicer than either of those two buildings, because we would have that -- those different architectural features on it. The plan that we have now is to put all the docks on the north side, so you wouldn't see any docks, and it would really look like a large office building with the windows and things like that. So, I think we can build a very nice building there. I think it would look welcoming there on that entry corridor and I think the city would be very proud of it and I think you would be able to drive by and be proud of what we did there. I mean we don't want to build -- our mode of operations, we don't build and sell, we build and hold, and so it's something that we would want to -- to hold on and the only way that that wouldn't occur is if Scentsy ended up buying it and, trust me, those folks want things nice. Orville is very particular about that. So, I hope that answers your questions. If there is any questions I would be more than happy to try and answer them. Marshall: Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Freeman: I have none. Miller: Don't go easy on me. Come on. Marshall: Again, if that fell through, though, you still are willing, even if it -- Scentsy doesn't pick up that, eventually you go to someone else, you would still be willing to go through the design review and the C-G -- and accept the C-G design guidelines on that piece of property? Miller: Mr. President, we would have no choice. Newton-Huckabay: It's in the development agreement Marshall: Yeah. Right. Miller: The development agreement would include that. We would have no choice but to abide by those requirements. And if we got into a situation where we didn't think that we could do that, we would come back in and ask you for an alteration on it, but I mean we would be bound by those conditions whether we like it or not, so -- but I think we can do a good job there. I really do. Marshall: Thanks very much. Miller: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 12 of 28 Marshall: Commissioners, thoughts, comments? Freeman: Mr. Chair, yes. You know, my concern that I expressed earlier, I guess it would be that the use we end up with here would be a distribution center or a warehouse and I understand, you know, we think we may have an owner who is committed to good design, it may not be that owner, though. That's one. Two is it would still -- it's still a warehouse or a distribution center use, which is a big large building and it's very difficult to make that fit into the esthetic requirements defined by those C-G guidelines. That would be -that would be a tough thing to do, in my opinion. Those are my comments. Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Freeman. Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: I agree with Commissioner Freeman's comments on that. Nothing's a done deal until it's a done deal. And, yeah, until that's locked in we just don't know, you know. Crystal ball. I can understand the direction that we want to go, but whether we can make it there or not is another story. So, yeah, I have got that little file in the back of my mind about how successful it will be. And just another comment is, you know, Meridian, when I first got here, was a bedroom community of Boise and right now it's a showcase and I think that's why are standards are higher than what, I don't know, but I think they are -- they should be. I think the scrutiny that staff -- planning staff goes through to make sure that we arrive at a commonality that makes sure that we maintain that status in the valley is really important and I think those have certainly been voiced by Commissioner Freeman. So, I agree that there is just that little bit of chance of not achieving that goal, so -- and that was something we can discuss later. Marshall: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I actually have no problem with this change. I think that most of that area has developed in -- in aquasi-industrial and, like Mr. Miller said, you know, RC Willey is an industrial building. Ashley Furniture is an industrial type building. Those -- those kind of businesses need large buildings. Most of the buildings around it are large buildings. The Schumacher Tile building is quite a nice building and certainly doesn't take away from the scape when you're driving down Pine Street there. On the other hand, Car Quest is a commercial building and it's very, very ugly. So, I think that's all in efforts -- efforts that are put in. I think -- I think an industrial use in that area would be -- would fit with the spirit of what's out there. I like the idea of preserving that area along the railway, so that in the future we have the potential to generate revenue around that rail system. An industrial use is going to generate much more revenue around that kind of transportation than a commercial use on a smaller scale, so I think that along -- you know, there is a lot of things to consider for me and I think giving the potential for that corridor to -- you know, to generate revenue for -- you know, for whatever business is there and the city and employers and that type of thing, I think it -- I think it's awin-win situation. So, I would be favor of this plan amendment myself and I think this development agreement is going to do ample job to protect the city from an unattractive building and, as Mr. Miller said, if they couldn't come to an agreement he would come Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 13 of 28 back in and we would re-look at it at that time. But Ithink -- I think a lot of the industrial buildings that you're seeing nowadays are combination uses of, you know, you're combining offices and warehouses and meeting facilities, just because you're trying to be more frugal as a business. So, I'm comfortable with it and I think it would --Ithink it would be appropriate in that area, particularly given all the other industrial uses and the railway corridor. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I have a little further question. So, is there enough transition between this industrial complex and the residences across Franklin? I don't know how it's filled in. I -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. O'Brien: Is there enough transition there to make it -- Newton-Huckabay: There is quite a bit of space. I'm sorry, I interrupted. Quite a bit of space until you get up into Meadow Lake and -- O'Brien: Okay. Marshall: I, too, have a couple comments. One, I think we need to be a little bit looking forward with Franklin being some of the entryway corridor into Meridian I think it is going to expand, it is -- with the plans for traffic, ACHD, that will widen out one day and be a much larger corridor into the city than it is now and it already files a lot of traffic through there. Ithink it's very important to have a decent, attractive facade in that area, more attractive than what you typically find in an industrial district. I believe that the DA asking for the C-G esthetics is appropriate, because we do have very large -- Commissioner Freeman, speaking to your point, we do have very large commercial buildings to go in and they, too, have to adhere to those standards. I agree that it's got to be very difficult to try to get them to, but, hopefully, having the design review committee in place -- the one comment that stuck with me a little bit, that bothered me a little bit, was that, well, if the Scentsy project doesn't work out and we have somebody else in there that wants to do something else and wants to go, once we have zoned this industrial, we may be back in front of you and, to be honest, no matter what goes in there, my personal opinion is this DA needs to stick, that the commercial frontage there needs to appear attractive for that entryway, no matter whether it's industrial or commercial, and that's my opinion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Madam -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 14 of 28 Newton-Huckabay: I'm confused why you think a development agreement would become invalid. It's a legal signed document. Marshall: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I do not believe it would become invalid, I believe that the applicant would be back in front of us asking us to change that if they had another applicant and my point being that if they did I would be one to be sticking to my guns about the C-G. I'm very adamant about that and that's all my point is. Other than that I am in favor of it. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have one more comment, I guess. You know, ultimately, we do have a very good process in place. I have, actually, been part of the architectural review -- design review and it is very rigorous and the staff is very careful to make sure that they serve the best interest of the city in that. So, I like the fact that they want to make this go through the riggers of a commercially designed project. However, again, if I haven't clarified this, my fear is that even in that process if we allow an industrial use in this zone, it could force our hand to further compromise simply because of the use and its incompatibilities with the design standard that we are trying to achieve. So, in my mind what I fear is we make a compromise now thinking we are going to be okay, but, then, you know, Scentsy goes away or even with them, you know, we get something that crosses our desk that we are not real happy with, but an owner still says, you know, this is -- this is a distribution center, there is only so much we can do and make this economical and we are feeling the pressure to compromise our design guidelines. You know, if this wasn't a designated entry corridor to the city, I probably would feel much different about that, but because it is and I see staff is hesitant and has concerns, I had the concerns before I even saw in the comments that you had concerns. I think I would have to vote against it, because I don't think that any requirements we put on this, if we allow the industrial use, are going to protect us adequately from future compromises. Not that anybody would intend to do that, but once this is done we don't know who is going to own the property in the future, who is going to want to move in, we don't really know any of that. But we a stuck with it being an industrial zone now. Marshall: Any other comments, Commissioners? O'Brien: Well, Mr. Chair, I guess the question I had for Commissioner Freeman -- Marshall: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: -- is this -- is this something that -- that we could put off? I mean is it something that can wait until we know for sure that -- what the intent is, so we have a person that -- or group assigned to put this into place or -- I have to agree with Commissioner Freeman that we are taking a chance or will it be a -- be our saving grace in the way forward. I don't know. I still have that cloud, but -- Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could just chime in to help answer that question. You have an application before you that the applicant deserves an answer one way or the other. So, you can't put it off and the DA is the recommended vehicle to deal with the issues. And Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 15 of 28 while I have the floor, I might recommend that we make sure that Mr. Rohm reviews the transcript and/or the audio tape, because it sounds like his input is going to be necessary when this is brought back up for a final decision. Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Baird. So, can I get a motion to close the public hearing at this time? Sorry. Newton-Huckabay: We are continuing it; right? Marshall: Are we -- we are continuing it? Are we continuing it after closing the public hearing? Baird: You can reopen it. If the applicant has something that might be helpful to your deliberations, go ahead and reopen it. Marshall: Well, actually, it hasn't even closed, so -- Baird: There you go. Marshall: -- would the applicant like to come back up? Miller: Thank you. Brad Miller again. Just a couple of points. Number one, I mean there are no absolutes. I mean I don't think that you can say absolutely this is going to happen or this is not going to happen. I mean we are bound by the development agreement. And the development agreement, believe me, is more onerous than the zoning requirements -- or the design requirements are. The other thing I think you have to look at is I think you have to look at the developer and the developer's reputation. I mean we have been in the valley for -- since 1969. We do a lot of building. We own a lot of buildings. If you go on the east side of Lewis & Clark Middle School, all those buildings -- I think we sold off a couple of them, but all those buildings are ours. We do a good job with our buildings. Those are industrial buildings. I like how they look. Maybe -- maybe they aren't fitting for the -- the entry corridor, but I think you need to look at that and say who is the developer that's doing this. It's not some guy that's just coming here for the first time out of town. We have to live in the community. Our office is in Meridian. I have to appear before all of you a lot. I serve on committees. Mr. Van Auker and Ron, Junior, serve on committees. The 16th I have been asked by Bill Nary to be on the interview committee for the new fire chief. So, I mean we are intimately involved with the city on many different levels and I have to say Sonya and Pete and, trust me, I don't ever want to do anything that -- that they frown on, because they -- I mean they really do -- I mean they stick to the guidelines of the city. So, I mean we intend to meet those guidelines. I understand your concerns. But, once again, I think anything that we build there will be nicer than Ashley and will be nicer than RC Willey, because you look at those, they both have loading docks and they are both, basically, large industrial buildings. So, I think that we can do a very nice job there, whether it's Scentsy or whether it's someone else, I mean we are bound by those conditions. It would be very difficult for us to do anything other than make it very nice and you're Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 16 of 28 telling me to design it to the commercial standards and we would have to do that. So, I guess I -- you know, I guess there is a risk there for you, but I don't see it, to tell you the truth. Because how could we do it if we are bound by those standards. I just don't understand that. You know, when you look at -- you look at the corner of Eagle and Fairview, all those large retail stores, those are all just basically big industrial buildings with loading docks in the back and facade on the front. So, I mean we would do our best to make abuilding -- build a building that the city would be proud of, that we would be proud of. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Marshall: Any final comments, anyone? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one final comment. I probably should go on record saying I don't believe that an industrial building is a fairly unattractive building. The only unattractive industrial building is one that's empty and not employing people. So, I don't think to have industrial buildings in an entryway corridor, if you're presenting, again, the city of --as clean -- also it's going to -- I mean it's an employment center and it's prosperous. Those -- an industrial building isn't going to not send that message that this is a great -- not a good place to live. An industrial building has the potential to send that message louder and clearer than a dentist's office in every entryway corridor. You know, we don't need anymore dentist's offices and chiropractor's offices on the entryway corridors. I mean at some point all the dentists and chiropractors are going to move away, because they got no place to go, so -- but, anyway, my point being that I think that -- I think we are making an assumption that an industrial building is -- isn't appropriate ever in an entryway corridor and I don't think that's the case. I think this is -- has the potential by putting this type of industrial building in a development that already has industrial buildings, actually is going to, you know, bring up the neighborhood, so to speak, and kind of set the bar a little higher and I think that would be helpful in that area and I anticipate to be a huge employment center in that whole area. So, I -- again, I think -- I think it is not an inappropriate use, even though it is an entryway corridor. Marshall: Well, Commissioner Huckabay -- Newton-Huckabay, I would beg to disagree with you in that there have been a lot of people that have reviewed the standards and the guide map and that's how that -- this was developed through a lot of different committee meetings and public review and that we have those design guidelines for entryway corridors for a purpose, because that is what we, as the majority of the public, want. Newton-Huckabay: Well, then, vote no. Let's just move it to a vote and move on. I think we are at that point. I think we could debate it for hours. Marshall: Actually, I think we are at the point of having to close the public hearing and, then, probably continue this until the 18th. Friedman: That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 17 of 28 Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Well, let's finish, regardless of what action we take. Marshall: So, could Iget -- Newton-Huckabay: We -- I would like to ask a question. Do we want to close the public hearing without having with the potential that Commissioner Rohm's comments may be a tie breaker, so to speak, without having his comments and the applicants a chance to respond to those? Do we need to worry about that? Marshall: When we reopen the public hearing -- Newton-Huckabay: We just reopen it at that time? Baird: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm can certainly make comments after the record's closed, but there is no reason that you can't continue the public hearing until that next meeting as well in case you want to capture -- in case he's got some questions for the applicant. Since you do have a potential tie, I think that the best thing to do, unless planning has got some better idea, let's just continue it for the stated purpose of allowing Commissioner Rohm to ask questions of the applicant, that way, you know, you have already asked your questions, the public's had their opportunity, you know, whatever specific reason to continue it, you should put that on the record. Marshall: So, could I get a motion? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I'd move to close the hearing. Is that the motion? We are only closing the public hearing right now; right? Marshall: Well, that is in question as to whether we are going to close it and, then, continue it or just continue it. Baird: Mr. Chair, if you do -- if you do -- Mr. Chair and Commissioners, if your intention is to continue the hearing to the other date, don't use the word close tonight. Close is when you're done and the record has -- contains -- is self contained. If you want to leave that record open, continue is the word that you should be using tonight. Freeman: So, correction. I move to continue the hearing until the next date, which would be March 18th. Marshall: That would be for CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-005. Freeman: Yes. I need more practice at that. Thank you. Marshall: Is there a second? Newton-Huckabay: I will second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 18 of 28 Marshall: It has been moved and seconded to continue CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-005 to the next hearing date of March 18th. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: CPA 09-010 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation on 60.74 acres of land from Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), Green Space and Park Land (PARK) and Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) to Mixed Employment (ME) for Southridge West Commercial by Cabra Creek, LLC -NEC of S. Ten Mile Road and W. Overland Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 09-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.63 acres from RUT in Ada County to the M-E (Mixed Employment) district for Southridge West Commercial by Cabra Creek, LLC -NEC of S. Ten Mile Road and W. Overland Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 09-006 Request for Rezone of 9.33 acres from the R-8 zoning district to the C-C zoning district for Southridge West Commercial by Cabra Creek, LLC -NEC of S. Ten Mile Road and W. Overland Road: Marshall: All right. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for CPA 09-010, AZ 09-010, and RZ 09-006, for the sole purpose of continuing it until the next hearing of March 18th, 2010. Newton-Huckabay: So moved: Marshall: Can I get a second? Freeman: Second. Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 09-010, AZ 09-010, and RZ 09-006, to March 18th. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: CPA 09-008 Request for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by replacing the Public / Quasi-Public designation with a new Civic designation; changing the future land use designations for current and former churches and hospitals that are designated Public /Quasi-Public; adding new symbols to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 19 of 28 legend for future facilities (i.e., schools, parks, fire stations, transit stations); incorporating the land use designations of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan; removing the water and sewer line designations; updating the roadways designated as entry way corridors; and removing the roadway classifications by City of Meridian Planning Department: Item 11: Public Hearing: CPA 09-009 Request for Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment incorporating the changes associated with the concurrent map amendment; add text to clarify and define fire station and school sites; update old text in the recreation and park section of the plan (Chapter VI and VII) and incorporate language regarding the Marshall: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CPA 09-009 for request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the future land use map by replacing -- well, by staff and I'd like staff to give the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'd like to say it my pleasure to be before you tonight. No. I really do. I have missed you guys and it's good to be back. The Planning Department is proposing a couple of Comp Plan amendments. The title in the agenda is kind of hidden in there, but we are proposing a map amendment and a text amendment to, hopefully, make them better tools for us all as you deliberate at public hearings and for potential developers and property owners to really understand what the vision for the city is. Currently there are -- there are some pretty significant changes and I'm going to go through and highlight those more significant changes. There is also a majority of the changes that are of the clean-up variety. But I will, again, try to highlight those two, just so you can get a good understanding of all the changes that we are proposing. So, first, we are proposing to delete the public/quasi-public designation on the map and replace it with a civic designation. There is also some associated text on page one -- on page 106 of the Comprehensive Plan, the new civic name and updated definition are proposed. The definition explains that this designation will be used primarily for just some public schools, fire stations, libraries, post offices, utilities, cemeteries and other government- owned properties. So, we are removing, essentially, privately held parcels of land from having apublic/quasi-public designation. We are also proposing to our definition in the text for fire stations, to clarify that there are two types existing and proposed. The definition of schools on page 106 of the text, that is proposed to be updated to better define the symbols on the map and the intent of that designation. So, existing public parks, schools, and fire stations, will all be designated civic and colored green on the map and they will also be given a symbol to designate the use. So, as you can see on this map, which I understand and realize that the scale isn't that great, but the greens on there are the new civic designations. On those green areas you will see some other type of symbol and I have called out just a few of them on the exhibit on the screen to show an existing park, a existing fire station, and future parks and schools and fire stations. And, then, there is an inset as well that shows that City Hall, the post office, parks and government-owned facilities in Old Town are also identified on the map Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 20 of 28 where before it was all just OT and kind of that pinkish color on the map. In the future public parks sites, fire stations, and schools currently owned by the city will also be designated civic. So, again, color green, but will be given a different symbol in the legend designating the facility as planned but does not yet exist. This is the halo type symbol and I have called out -- and, again, I know that scale is very, very small. You can kind of see around this future transit station that halo and this is blown up, so that they really appear that large, but all these have halos around them. So, as to not designate an exact property that we are looking for or an exact location for that future civic use, but a general vicinity that we are looking to put that future civic use. Then, I wanted to also talk about -- let's see. Where we haven't acquired the property, but we still want to have a future civic use in the area, the underlying feature land use has not changed color, but, again, there is a halo in that site showing that that's where property needs to be acquired. Sorry I'm fumbling with that a little bit. Let me clarify. So, there is three different types of designations. Your existing facility which is green and has a symbol. Some property that a government entity owns, but does not yet have that facility on that property, that's also green, but has a halo symbol. And, then, the third option is there isn't any property that's been acquired by a government agency, but we still desire to have a park or a school or a fire station and that just has a halo or the underlying land use color. So, sorry to not explain that very clearly. And, then, there is associated text on page 107 that explains how those symbols are intended to float on the map and be those more general locations than which symbols represent more fixed -- or parcel specific locations. I do want to point out that planning staff did work with the Parks Department and Joint School District No. 2 in updating the map to accurately reflect the park and school sites. We had some pretty gross errors. It just hadn't been updated in awhile, but didn't really reflect -- we had future parks where existing schools were and some similar type errors. So, we really just took an opportunity to update it. The Parks Commission, excuse me, did comment on their desire to designate a few new future park sites on the map. However, the changes are of the clean-up variety and staff believes that the parks action plan should be amended before amending the future land use map to reflect any new future park sites. I will just real quickly point out the three locations that they ask for new parks to be put on the map. Up in this four square area mile, which we recently -- well, within the past couple of years added to our area of impact, they want to add a new future park location up in there and that is not in the parks' action plan, it was in the future land use map, so we -- we don't -- we are not opposed to that, but we need the parks to kind of lead that charge. And, then, there is two parks that are in the Ten Mile specific area that are in the parks action plan, but the parks action plan is older than the Ten Mile specific area plan. The Ten Mile specific area plan did not designate any public parks in that area, as you can kind of see. There are some linear parks and open space within the Ten Mile area and some other civic designations. See if I can kind a couple of the civic designations. They are the pinkish color, if you can see that right here up in the Ten Mile area. But no other true park sites were identified. So, there is going to have to be a sitting down and we are going to have to talk about that a little bit more with the Parks Commission. So, we kind of have put that on hold for now on updating or adding, excuse me, any new parks to the map. Associated with updating the text of the plan, the definitions of parks in Chapter 7, page one of six, and recreation in Chapter 7 of page 58, are also proposed for updating. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 21 of 28 When the Comp Plan was adopted in 2002, the Parks Department was in the process of adopting their action plan that they currently have on the books now and that's the language in the current text that the Comp Plan says. Well, we have been using that document for seven, eight years now, so we are proposing to just reference the document that's actually been adopted and is being implemented right now. It is kind of just a stop gap. It isn't the cure all for the definition of what parks and recreation are in the city, but it is at least better than what's there now. It does at least let the reader know that there is a parks action plan and you should go see that, because the still has adopted one. We will be fully modernizing our document, being the Comprehensive Plan, throughout the rest of this year. In fact, I'm just kicking it off here this past month or two and have been starting to work on the existing conditions report, which I will share with the Commission and maybe I will just plug right now. You should have received notice. There is going to be a joint meeting between yourselves and the City Council on May 11th to discuss that. Yeah. May 11th, not April. To discuss the existing conditions and kind of where staff is heading with the Comp Plan reformat and update. So, you will get your first bite at the apple then and, then, we will be working throughout the rest of the year on trying to compose that document and putting some subcommittees together and things to update some sections and even come up with some new sections. So, I'll get back to the business at hand, but I did want to give a quick plug to fully updating the Comprehensive Plan. There is a -- the park locations map -- you can see there have been -- have been quite a few changes that have been made. Blue ones are -- as it says added. The green means included being they are already on the future land use map and there have been no changes and removed are they have been removed. In fact, some of them -- like an example maybe up here where the park wasn't necessarily fully removed, it was rather moved to right here. You can see a couple of examples where you still try to keep a park in, basically, every section. There is Champion Park. So, that -- you can see it just shifted to really reflect where it's built. It's right here. Not -- we missed it by that much. So, that's the diagram that was used for the Parks Commission in their discussion. I will move past that. In conjunction with the public/quasi-public, the civic name change, staff is also proposing to change the designation for all current and former church sites and hospitals that are currently designated public/quasi-public. The individual church slash religious institutions and hospital sites will, instead, carry a future land use designation that most closely represents their current zoning and is compatible with adjoining land uses. So, this map shows all of those sites and I have it here, something like 32, I believe, properties that are actually changing. These were or still currently are all designated public/quasi-public or that green and we constantly struggle in the Planning Department when somebody is looking at the future land use map and it's colored green, it could be anything from, again, a church or a hospital or a park or a fire station and so we are trying to make it more simplified, so, really, you can get under a -- some type of government or quasi-government ownership versus private property. And the hospital, for example, St. Luke's -- technically or typically those are an office designation. So, zoning them L-O for professional office just seems to make sense, rather than it being a public/quasi-public use. Not to say that the general public doesn't use that building, but, anyways, it was more to clarify where our parks and those civic uses really are than to call these types of uses out. So, I will touch a bit on that -- bit more on that in just a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 22 of 28 second. The Planning Department is also proposing to add to the adopted -- add the adopted future land uses in the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan onto the map itself and into the legend. Currently, the -- those land uses are great out on the map and you have to go to a separate exhibit to see what those land uses are in the Ten Mile area. By adding the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan land uses to the map, all of our future land uses for the city will be in one place, so you can see that I have cut this out of this map and kind of blown it up a little bit, but you can see here are all the citywide future land use designations and, then, here are the Ten Mile interchange specific land use designations. So, all of these apply to the Ten Mile area and, then, everything else citywide. Likewise, there is language, again, in the text on page 98 and the notes as you can see as well that clarify that the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan is different than the citywide designation and go see that plan for further explanation of what those land uses mean. The sewer main line designations and the domestic well designations are also being removed from both the legend and on the face of the map. Let me jump ahead to the next slide real quick. You can see those. So, this is the current -- what we currently have on the books for existing domestic wells and potential domestic well sites and, then, sewer main lines, we are proposing remove those three out of the legend. The main reason, the Public Works Department has maps and plans that do that and they are updated more often, they are more accurate than our map, and they can change theirs, where ours we don't update as often, obviously. So, we are -- that's not to say we won't use those maps, but we are going to rely on Public Works to let us know -- or as they are in pre-apps to designation where those locations should be. We will also probably have exhibits when we do the total reformat of the Comp Plan, have other maps and exhibits in there that do show what the -- where the sewer main line plans are and domestic well sites are, but not on the future land use map. It just gets too busy and people don't really use it for that purpose anyways. No one goes to the future land use map to find out where sewer lines are planned, they go to Public Works to find out where sewer lines are planned. So -- and staff also believes that principal arterial, minor arterial, major collectors, section line, and interstate roadway designations -- where that star is kind of rotating on the slide, should also be taken off of the map, as there is no value added. Again, they are lost among the other colors and designations on the map. They do change quite frequently, although you don't get Fairview's changing designations too often, but there are changes throughout our area of impact between minor and simple arterials, collector roadways. And, again, we are proposing to just remove them from the map. Again, that's not to say we won't -- we don't need to know where arterials and collectors are, but we have other maps that do that and we use those as well, so -- the future interchange or future overpass are remaining on the map and, in fact, there is a new designation proposed for the map. I'm going to jump back, hopefully, real quick to show -- and I have highlighted on this front one -- that's the approximate location where State Highway 16 is once it gets across the river and comes into Highway 20-26. Some day we expect an interchange about two miles away from Meridian Road, although it's probably going to be offset to the west just a little bit to avoid a subdivision. And, then, we are also proposing to take off the Locust Grove overpass, as it's there today. So, we are proposing that you leave those designations on there, as we do believe they add value. And, then, the city's area of impact, I mentioned the four square miles up there Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 23 of 28 that were recently added and, then, we also had some area you may recall back up near the river that we added to our area of impact, again, within the past couple of years. This area up in here is fairly new to the city's area of impact. And, then, these four square miles. We are proposing to update the entryway corridor designation and you can see -- and the legend here where we have the existing ones and we are proposing new ones and where we have removed some that were on our fringe when we went a quarter mile south of Amity and now to our new future city limit boundaries. Again, there is text also in Chapter 7 of the plan that further defines what an entry corridor is and does and what's required of development as you develop along an entryway corridor. In Chapter 7, page 72, text of the plan was modified to include East 3rd Street that has nothing to do with the map, but that is a text amendment. The City Council last year adopted a resolution that supported an alignment for 3rd Street in downtown and so we are adding a little blurb in the Comprehensive Plan about as development occurs on East 3rd Street that we need to have right of way set aside to extend 3rd Street. I think that's the last thing I wanted to point out. We do believe that all these changes are intended and we do believe make the map and the text of the Comprehensive Plan more user friendly and provide a better guide for development in Meridian. Back -- I said I would get back. The church and religious institution and hospital discussion earlier. We did have a neighborhood meeting on December 7th of this last year and we didn't have a huge turn out. I think we had about six representatives. There was about ten people, but some of them came in multiples, and I have talked to some other property owners. They certainly have questions, but I have not heard anybody in opposition to what we are proposing. That goes not only for the churches and changes them to their future land use designation, but anyone else for that matter, I haven't received any negative comments or letters that I'm aware of in opposition to the two applications that are the table this evening. So, I believe that will end my presentation, unless you have any questions. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions or comments? Freeman: Mr. Chairman, yes. That's a lot of work that went into that and it's obvious that's going to be way more informative than what we had before. So, I'm impressed with what looks to be the new way to do these maps. I like that. I do have one question. Did I read something in here -- do I understand that this is kind of an intermediate step approving this, because we are still -- there is ongoing work on the Comprehensive Plan and the maps? Could you clarify that for me? Hood: Sure. Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Freeman. Yeah. The map -- we really don't anticipate too many changes to the map itself. We are undertaking a pretty good revamp and reformat of the text of the Comprehensive Plan. It's pretty archaic and needs to be updated and it's just not very easy to find those things. So, we are going to group things together a little better. We have some goals and objectives and action items that are over here and some that are over there, but they are really interrelated. So, parks and recreation are a good example. We have got some of parks in Chapter 7 and some recreation in Chapter 6. That should all be in some other combined section where it easily reads through and you know after you read it what you're supposed to do Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 24 of 28 or what the vision is and what actions we can take towards furthering those goals for the community. So, the map -- again, the map we think is a pretty good product and we don't envision -- you know, there may be some tweaks, you may get some Comp Plan amendments and things like that where somebody wants to change a designation, so this product itself we aren't proposing anymore changes to, but, again, the text we will get -- those are a pretty significant and substantial reformat. We are not throwing away our goals and objectives and action items and the policy direction we receive from the Council, because we think we are heading down the right track, but what we are trying to do is update some of the information, most of it's from the 2000 census. So, we have doubled and, then, some in the population and we have a business community that's established and we have -- so, we just want to feed in some of that information and kind of, again, update what we are doing and where we -- where we have come over the past eight or ten years. So, that will be a pretty substantial undertaking, with some community input, too. We are adding a few sections -- I will just quickly let you know, too, arts, we don't have anything on arts right now in our Comp Plan. So, we are going to have something in arts and quality of life. Sustainability. We don't have anything on sustainability. That's something that's relatively new over the past seven, eight, ten years. So, we are going to add some -- some new chapters, but it's primarily taking what we have and updating it. Freeman: Okay. Mr. Chair. So, if I understand the text changes: that you're making now are very much tied to these map changes to make sure they are communicating together and that's kind of phase one of the text changes and phase two is kind of a, excuse me, Comprehensive Plan revision of the format and everything of the text. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Freeman, that's a lot better summary that my long- winded answer, yes. Freeman: Oh, good. Thank you Friedman: A couple more things, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. As Caleb said, since the original plan was adopted in 2002, you indicated now that the parks action plan seems to be old. Well, I will be going through some updates. But the city is now undertaken more robust kind of functional plans. Sewer master plan. Water master plan. So, one of the goals will be to try to either marry those or create the appropriate nexus or connections between our Comprehensive Plan and, then, those functional plans. So, yeah. Freeman: Great. Marshall: Caleb, I would ask you to go back to the proposed map legend notes page that you had up. A quick comment or question first. Is there a difference in definition between civic within the Ten Mile interchange area and civic within the citywide area? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, there is a difference in the two. The one in the Ten Mile -- and I don't have it memorized, but it is pretty specific to that area. It does allow Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 25 of 28 for different things. That's why we have that note saying, hey, all land uses in here -- don't go read the civic designation in the Comp Plan referring to all citywide properties, you need to go to the Ten Mile interchange specific area to read what the definition of civic is, because there are -- I mean there are some ideas of what civic -- like civic here is a church. This is a church and, then, they have some green space that is more of a park. It doesn't necessarily mean -- Friedman: You have a transit center, too. Hood: Yeah. Transit center up in here that's also got a civic designation. So, it is very specific and different. It has different meaning. We may -- may look at updating that to -- and we tried to, quite honestly. We looked at having one legend to simplify all of the land uses. But Ten Mile is a -- went through a special process and has very specific goals and designations and definitions for those designations that it isn't -- it just doesn't transfer over to the rest of the city's land use definitions very well. Marshall: I understand. I just -- I just foresee some confusion from novices and others not familiar with the Ten Mile and the difference between Ten Mile and having difficulty in reading this, because you have got a dark green civic for citywide, a dark green space park land for Ten Mile, and they don't know where the Ten Mile is. Hood: Right. Marshall: And, then, civic is in pink and, then, civic is in green. And being able to differentiate that and having the same name, you know, isn't there some way we can call it civic Ten Mile area or something like that that specifies, hey, this is different -- this civic is different than that civic, even those it appears to be one legend, I know that it's two, but is the average citizen going to be able to tell the difference? Hood: Mr. Chair, that -- I think they will. What I didn't point out to you is there is -- and you can see -- if you can actually see it. I can't really see it from where I'm at. There is a line that goes around and you can kind of see it up here. There is a line that goes around the Ten Mile interchange -- Ten Mile interchange specific area plan that shows a demarcation line between citywide and Ten Mile interchange. So, I think -- it's right here. I think that will help. Now, will everybody understand that? No, probably not. And, again, I think we can probably look into maybe modifying just the simple name changes of civic Ten Mile area, but it's -- there is no really -- there is not another pink designation and citywide, they can't find any other civic area outside of this box for Ten Mile and be confused on what that is, because it's just -- it's not here. So, the only option is to have it be in the Ten Mile area. Is it perfect? No. But I think it's -- it's a lot better than what we have and these are some -- some ways we can improve it and make the clearer that we put, you know, some other symbols or something in there that make it clear that this is only applicable in the Ten Mile area, because I think it is pretty intuitive for folks once -- if you look at a full size one, I think it really does pop a little bit better and I think people can understand it for the most part. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 26 of 28 Freeman: Mr. Chair, I would agree, it seems like there has been a lot of thought that has gone into this and the way that they have divided this up. They are dealing with a lot of data and a lot of complexity and to try to go another avenue, like combining them all, I think probably has the potential of creating even more confusion. But the way they have separated it, I think this is probably not perfect, as you said, but probably a wise route to go. Marshall: I would not be recommending combining any of it at this time, Isimply -- my thought being that somehow specify -- since civic in the Ten Mile is different than the civic in the citywide, somehow specify that it is different by name, because it's called the same name, and if somebody looks up and sees civic in pink, well, that area and, then, they look up the Comprehensive Plan and they accidentally look up the citywide civic -- but, you know, I -- overall I'm very impressed. This looks great. I think it's a very good move. Picky comments that I'm making, okay? Hood: And, Mr. Chair, if I may just real quickly, it wouldn't be the end of the world if somebody in that scenario did look at the civic, because they are not like, you know, miles apart. I mean they both are, essentially, civic, quasi-public, public type definitions. So, it wouldn't be that we are asking -- you know, they get totally sent off down the wrong track if they by chance looked at the opposite -- or, you know, the other definition. Marshall: Comes from a background in thematic cartography, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, I just have one request. As we get along farther in this process, can we possibly, even if it's just printed off of a poster printer or something, get actual -- a map, so that we can kind of see in its totality what we are looking at? Because I find when I'm trying to make -- participate in things related to the Comprehensive Plan map, it's very difficult without actually having it in front of you, and, you know, I don't want to -- I'm not asking to spend a lot of money printing them, but maybe, you know, just get some, you know, large poster color copies or something and -- or a-mail me one and I will print it myself before I come, but that would be really helpful for me. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners Newton-Huckabay, that's no problem. Yeah, I can definitely -- and I thought about that, too. Its not a huge cost. I was hoping that you could make out, you know, a lot of what's 's going on just by the PowerPoint, but I definitely will make a note. Would you like to see that next -- even -- it's going to be continued, so do you want me to bring -- Newton-Huckabay: No. Hood: -- full size for -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 27 of 28 Newton-Huckabay: I don't think you need to bring it for the next time. I just -- as we get closer to -- like when we start reviewing with -- at the joint City Council meeting and I think that's -- Hood: Sure. Newton-Huckabay: -- where it would probably be most helpful for me as we say, okay, this is what we are thinking and we can view the whole. It would help -- I think I would be more -- I would give more benefit or helpful input. Marshall: So, seeing how these two items probably need to be continued, can I get a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue public hearing CPA 09-008 and CPA 09-009 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 18th, 2010. Freeman: Second. Marshall: It has been moved and seconded to continue CPA 09-009 and CPA 09-009 to March 18th. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: There is one more motion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we adjourn. Or I -- Freeman: Second. Newton-Huckabay: -- move we adjourn. Marshall: It has been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 28 of 28 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED l ~ _ , J M~4RSHALL - VIC C AIR AN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ~'~r - ; <~:,- ~,~,III~~~~IIIII~ ~, JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, I Y CLERK - \~,.~`,~y OF M~R.~,p~~%,,~~ c~ <o ~~a.~.Li ~' o~' ~~ O , 9Q SST 1ST . ~ .` ~~r///IIIi11111111\