2010 03-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 18, 2010
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 18, 2010, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. .
Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall,
Commissioner Tom O'Brien, and Commissioner Scott Freeman.
Members absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, Scott
Steckline and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and could
I get a roll call, please?
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. I do not believe there are any changes to the agenda tonight, so could I
get a motion to accept the agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of March 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Rohm: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and it's the approval of the
March 4th Commission meeting minutes. Any additions or corrections? Could I get a
motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 2 of 29
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2010: 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, approximately 1,200 feet east of the
Eagle/Franklin intersection:
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2010: 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:
Rohm: Okay. Before I open this first hearing I'd like to have it noted on the record that I
was not here at the last hearing and I have read all of the notes from all testimony and
feel like I am very well prepared to act as part of this Commission for the balance of this
hearing. So, with that being said, at this time I would like to reopen -- or it's not reopen,
but continue the public hearing on CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-005. And with the opening of
that I think that it might be a good idea to ask staff to just kind of hit the highlights of this
application and we will move from there.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The property
that's before you is located on the north side of Franklin Road, designated entryway
corridor into the city. Approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle-Franklin 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, General Commercial Retail, and I-L, Light Industrial.
Surrounding uses to the north is industrial property and amulti-tenant warehouse
building exists on the property. It's zoned I-L. To the east is rural residential property,
zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada county. To the south across Franklin Road is Meadow Lake
Village retirement community, zone L-O. And to the west is commercial property.
Ashley Furniture is there, zoned C-G. The application before you is the Comprehensive
Plan map amendment to change the future land use designation on 6.54 acres of land
adjacent to Franklin Road here from commercial to industrial and 1.12 acres of land
from industrial to commercial north of Franklin Road here. There is concurrently a
rezone application proposed of 6.54 acres of land from the C-G district to the I-L district
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 3 of 29
and 1.12 acres from I-L to C-G is also requested, consistent with the requested land use
change. No development is proposed at this time. A final plat has been approved by
City Council for the larger portion of this site, but has not yet been recorded. Because
there is commercially zoned property to the south and west of the property proposed for
commercial use, staff is agreeable to the extension of the 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. However, because the property is located directly adjacent to Franklin
Road, an entryway corridor, staff does have 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,
predominately from previously prepared materials. Staffs 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 building facades and portions of the site directly
adjacent to Franklin Road and a 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 in those areas. Staff believes this will assist in maintaining
a 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 Comp Plan 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. No written testimony has been submitted on this application. Staff will stand for
any questions at this time.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Sonya. Because this particular project was already heard
last time, I don't think that it's necessary for the applicant to come back up and give his
testimony again, but because it was continued, if there is anyone in the audience that
would like to testify to this application now is that time to come forward and offer
testimony and the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to any testimony offered
up this evening. Okay. If there is -- it doesn't appear as if there is anybody that would
like to offer additional testimony, so at this time I believe we can close the public hearing
and we will have our discussion amongst the Commission. So, could I get a motion to --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-
005.
Freeman: I'll second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 09-007 and
RZ 09-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 4 of 29
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. For the most part each of you have had an opportunity to offer up your
discussion items associated with this application and because I was not here I have not
had a chance to voice mine and so at this time I would like to first of all commend the
staff for doing an excellent job working with the applicant and coming up with a very
doable project that I think will enhance the city and it will serve the purpose that's
desired. The second thing that I'd like to say is just kind of as a definition. A
development agreement is tied to the property, it is not tied to the applicant or
subsequent owners. So, if, in fact, the development agreement that's been proposed by
staff and agreed to by the applicant is tied to the land, whether or not they develop as
envisioned at this point in time makes no difference. It is tied to the land itself. And the
development agreement is protecting the interest of the city as a whole by making sure
that there is design review on any structures placed on this property. With that being
said, I'm in full support of this project moving forward as the staff report designated.
End of my speech. So, any additional discussion before we move forward?
Freeman: No.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, again, my only concern is the appearance along Franklin Road
being that it is an entryway corridor. I appreciate staffs work. As you have stated, I
think it was very comprehensive and I believe that creating an industrial building to meet
our commercial code could be very. challenging, but in this case I think it's very
appropriate and I, too, am in favor.
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien, do you have anything to add?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I just want to reiterate what I had mentioned last time. I think that --
that the applicant had stated it in such a way that it is a pleasing esthetic building that
they are going -- that they had planned on doing. They would make sure that their -- it
would be pleasing to people coming into Meridian and I mentioned that Meridian is no
longer a bedroom community, of course, but it's now becoming a destination and so
more and more people are. paying attention to what we do and I really appreciate that.
So, I'm in favor for -- for this going forward.
Rohm: Thanks very much. At this time could we get a motion to the move this project
forward?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-005 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 18th -- March 4th and March
18th, shall I say, 2010, because we feel it's appropriate.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 5 of 29
O'Brien: I would second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CPA 09-007 and RZ 09-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Freeman: Nay.
Rohm: Motion carries three to one. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2010: 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 7: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2010: AZ 09-010 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.63 acres from RUT in Ada County to the ME
(Mixed Employment) district for Southridge West Commercial by
Cabra Creek, LLC -NEC of S. Ten Mile Road and W. Overland Road:
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2010: 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:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I would like to open CPA 09-00 -- or excuse me -- 010, AZ
09-010, and RZ 09-006 related to the Southridge West Commercial and start with the
staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The site before
you is located on the northeast corner of Overland and Ten Mile Roads. The portion of
the site applicable to the Comprehensive Plan map amendment application consists of
a total of 60.74 acres of land currently zoned L-O, TN-R, RUT in Ada county, and R-8.
Surrounding uses. To the north is vacant undeveloped land, zoned ME, Mixed
Employment, and rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada county. To the east is
vacant undeveloped property zoned TN-R and R-8, traditional neighborhood residential,
and medium density residential. To the south is vacant undeveloped property zoned R-
4and R-8. To the west is rural residential properties zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada
county. The first application is a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change the
future land use designation on 60.74 acres of land from medium high density
residential, medium density residential, green space and park land, and mixed use
commercial to all mixed employment. The map here in the upper left is the current plan.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 6 of 29
The map on the right is the proposed plan. There is also a request for annexation and
zoning of 5.63 acres of land to the mixed employment district, the ME district. That
property is indicated here as the annexation area. A conceptual development plan was
not submitted for the annexation area. However, staff anticipates one will be submitted
at a later date when the abutting property is rezoned consistent with the proposed map
amendment. The final application is a rezone of 9.33 acres of land from the R-8,
medium density residential district, to the C-C commercial business district. And that
part is down here marked as the rezone area, kind if pinkish area. Although no
development is proposed at this time, a conceptual development plan has been
submitted that shows how the rezone area may develop in the future, with a
convenience store, gas station, retail and two quick service restaurants. The concept
plan shows adrive-thru for each of those structures there. Because there is ME
designated property to the north of the subject property and because the topography of
the land in this area has changed, so that there is no longer a separation elevation wise
between these properties, staff feels expanding the boundary of the ME designation
further to the south in this area is a logical request. Additionally, Overland Road abuts
the side along the east boundary and Ten Mile abuts the side along the west boundary,
which will provide a buffer to exiting and future adjacent residential uses. Additionally,
the close proximity of the Williams natural gas pipeline to an area planned for residential
uses is a strong influence for the proposed change to ME, which would not require a
residential component. The Williams pipeline is this kind of gray line shown right here
across the site. Staff believes the diversity in these types of businesses encouraged
within ME areas will increase the amount of employment opportunities available within
the city. To insure the property proposed to be rezoned develops in a manner
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan staff recommends a new development
agreement be required as a provision of the rezone. The development agreement for
the remainder of the Southridge development would no longer apply to this portion of
the property, as it is now under new ownership. Pertinent provisions of the DA are as
follows: A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required to be constructed along the west
boundary of the site adjacent to Ten Mile Road in accord with the city's master
pathways plan that would run right along there. Development of this site shall be
consistent with the conceptual development plan shown and the provisions listed in the
development agreement. Prior issuance of any building permit on the subject property
shall either be subdivided if a public street access via Overland Road is proposed or a
property boundary adjustment shall be approved to adjust. the northeast property line
consistent with the boundary shown on the concept plan. No drive-thru establishments
are allowed on this site and the reason for this provision is ME designated areas
generally do not include retail and consumer service uses serving the wider community.
A small amount of these types of uses are allowed, however, they must primarily serve
employees and users of the ME areas. Staff does not feel the proposed drive-thrus are
consistent with the objectives of ME designated areas as they will primarily serve the
motoring public, rather than employees and users of the immediate area within walking
distance. No direct access or driveways to South Ten Mile Road, except for emergency
access if required by the fire department, are allowed on this site. The right-in, right-out
access shown on the concept plan to this site is not approved. The reason for this
provision is the current development agreement and Ten Mile interchange specific area
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 7 of 29
plan prohibits direct access to Ten Mile. ACHD also does not support access to Ten
Mile. The UDC requires access to be taken from a local street when available. An
access to the site is shown on the concept plan that will serve as a local street. That's
this road right here. This standard applies unless waived by City Council. Only one
access via Overland Road for the site is approved as shown on the attached conceptual
development plan. All other access points to Overland Road are prohibited. Now, this
development agreement, just to reiterate, just applies to this rezone area that's right on
the corner of Overland and Ten Mile. It does not apply to the larger area that is
proposed for the Comprehensive Plan amendment or for the annexation area here. No
written testimony was received on this application. Staff is recommending approval of
the proposed Comp Plan amendment, annexation, and rezone with the development
agreement provisions included in Exhibit B of the staff report.
Rohm: Thank you very much, Sonya.
Wafters: Actually, let me add to that. The applicant did submit a very short response to
the staff report, but he will address that in his testimony.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, question of staff.
Rohm: Yes. Go ahead.
Marshall: Sonya, I am curious. When creating the future land use map what -- what
type of calculations were done to project future population growth to develop sizes and
square footage or square mileage of area that we wanted to designate high density,
medium density residential, things like that? Were projected population growths --
assume were taken into that and how --
Wafters: I would defer to Pete on that. He was more involved in the future planning
than I was on that.
Friedman: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, the
Ten Mile plan was done a little bit differently than we have done our Comprehensive
Plan. It's an element of the Comprehensive Plan and it was a very intense -- pretty
much design focused type of Comprehensive Plan. Our general population estimates
come from COMPASS. They -- we don't necessarily allocate them to different portions
of the city. We had -- particularly in this area we had a pending development anyway
and so what we really tried to do was meld the wishes of that particular developer with
some of the outcomes of the plan, therefore, that was pretty much the genesis of the
Comprehensive Plan in and of itself. So, to answer your question directly, we didn't say,
well, we anticipate that there is going to be 3,000 people in this, so we need to
accommodate 3,000 people in this area, but we did look at, you know, the transitioning
of residential to the residential further to the south, even though there is still an interface
between rural and urban, but generally -- I don't have a copy of our old Comp Plan, it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 8 of 29
may have been designated residential down there also before we did the Ten Mile
specific area plan. I'm not a hundred percent certain, I'd have to go dig one out. I could
do that if we -- if you feel that's important.
Marshall: No. Pete, I think you have answered a lot of my questions. It was mostly
focused on why this specific area of the Ten Mile area was proposed the way it was.
Friedman: Okay.
Marshall: And you're suggesting -- please correct me if I'm wrong. You're suggesting
that a lot of it was based on the area around it as it was developing and what was
guestimated to be developing there based on wishes of the developers that were there
at the time.
Friedman: Yes. Commissioner, that's one of the things that's part of the whole planning
process that, you know, it was a fine balance of, you know, property owner's desires,
what the traffic model showed and circulation model showed, what the objectives really
were in terms of employment centers. Also recognizing that we wanted to take this and
move the Ten Mile specific area plan in a direction that was a little bit different than our
existing Comprehensive Plan. More detailed. The intent is not to have more of the
same and particularly with respect to employment and commercial. So, that's more why
there is a heavier reliance on mixed use, for example, why this heavy reliance on
design. In the discussions we have had with this applicant about that site and previous
potential applicants they looked at that and they said, you know, right now clearly the
residential market is not as strong as it was three years ago. There is still ample
opportunities within the Southridge development itself for residential. As Sonya pointed
out, until the recent regrading out there and the relocation of the Ridenbaugh you really
did have quite a bit of an elevation difference, so that, you know, kind of separated
some of the mixed employment from the current residential area.
Marshall: And --
Friedman: So, what I was getting to is we have been approached by a number of
people who are interested in looking at this area for pretty much standard big box retail
and we said that's not in keeping with the plan. But the whole concept of the mixed
employment was kind of a suburban office campus, flex spaces, and things like that, as
we have along the south side of the freeway and to the north also, seemed to be a
reasonable compromise for this area. The other distinction I wanted to point out is at
least for the bulk of this area tonight they are merely asking for a Comprehensive Plan
map amendment. It still remains zoned residential until such time as they -- if -- if the
Commission recommends approval and the Council ultimately approves the application,
if it does change ME, the Comp Plan will still be ME, but the zoning will still be
residential. They would have to come back with a rezone application before the
Commission and the Council and with that we will nail down another concept plan for
that area. So, really, the only concept plan you're looking at in rezoning you're looking
at tonight is that portion that is south of the northwest pipeline.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 9 of 29
Marshall: Right. I appreciate all of that work, Pete. One more question, though. Is
there a reason we are going away from the proposed park areas and park space? Is
that because there is no longer residential up against it?
Friedman: Mr. Chairman -- and, Sonya, I think you had some discussions with the
parks director on that. I was not privy to those conversations, so --
Wafters: Yeah. Apparently, the elevation of the land was such that it just wasn't a
buildable area. So, that's why it was designated as park land. Really no other reason.
It wasn't necessarily a place that the parks department wanted to have a park, it was
just not buildable.
Marshall: But it is buildable area now.
Wafters: But now it's been regraded and it is billable now.
Marshall: Thank you.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: I have a question of staff. I don't know if this is for Scott or whatever, but
regarding the pipeline, I remember not too long ago we had a discussion with Anna
about restrictions within a certain distance of the pipeline and she mentioned that -- that
it depended upon what was going to be developed in and around that pipeline and she
also mentioned that the pipeline ownership would maybe make it more robust. Is this --
Iguess digging up the pipeline and making another one, I guess, I don't know, but what
discussions have been -- been -- have occurred and what restrictions, if any, will there
be with -- with this development of this -- well, in and around this pipeline?
Friedman: That's a -- thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien,
Commission Members. The city's very concerned about activities around the northwest
pipeline, as is the pipeline owner themselves. So, they currently have requirements of a
set of development guidelines that is -- they imposed on all developers who are actively
working in and around, on and around the pipeline. There are specific encroachment
permits that are required. We have not adopted specific setback requirements as yet.
The pipeline easement itself is 75 feet wide. Within that pipe -- within that easement
you have two pipelines, I believe one's 30 inch and one's 20 some inches line within
that 75 foot area. Now, it's my understanding from Williams, when you get a certain
level of density somewhere along the pipeline and it reaches a certain point, then, they
have to go in and study it and reclassify it and potentially replace it. They haven't
indicated any concerns with this development so far and, actually, as Sonya pointed
out, where we had residential butting up against it, we no longer have residential butting
up against it. There has also been -- if you have been by there -- and I know you have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 10 of 29
-- a fair amount of activity going right over that pipeline. If you go out there and you see
the big yellow stakes sticking up, that's the edge of the pipeline -- the edges of the
pipeline easement. So, that has even been -- I mean the amount of development that's
been occurring with the regrading of the property out there is -- probably has -- I mean
I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing probably has more potential for anything to go awry
than any development that we will have in the future. But I think that the buildings -- I
don't think the buildings will be right up against the easement. I'm not -- I mean the
concept plan shows them close, but there is some recommended setbacks. We haven't
codified them yet. The fire department is working on an ordinance for development
adjacent to the pipeline easement and so forth, but we have no specific setbacks now,
but, again, you have a 75 foot easement and within that easement you have, you know,
50, 60 inches worth of pipeline. So, you still have -- and I can't tell you where the pipe
lies within that easement, but if it's in the center of the easement you have pretty
significant distance already. Obviously, if it's to the edge of the easement that setback
distance goes down.
O'Brien: So, when we had the discussion, Pete, the last time they -- I thought they had
mentioned something about a 200 foot wide swath around the pipeline where they
couldn't -- now, is that for residential only or is that for anything?
Friedman: I -- Commissioner, I don't recall what that -- that distance was. I do know in
some of the work that we have been doing in other areas of the city where the pipeline
occurs, that actual setback has come down significantly, closer to 40, 50, 60 feet in
some instances. We haven't applied it specific, but some of the research that the fire
department's been doing, we could have a development and annexation that you saw a
few months ago, Meridian Crossing, where the pipeline goes kind of right up the middle
of it and --
O'Brien: Yeah. Near a school, I believe.
Friedman: Yeah. Yeah. Could be a future elementary school out there. But for the
commercial buildings I know that they -- they showed about a 30 to 50 foot setback off
that easement, which the fire department was very comfortable with.
O'Brien: The reason I brought this up is I'm very concerned about the safety and I'm
sure everyone else is as well. So, the first question I have, again, is how old is the
pipeline?
Friedman: Almost as old as I am.
O'Brien: And that concerns me.
Friedman: It should.
O'Brien: Nothing against you, but -- they had a -- there was an accident, one particular
one, I believe it was south -- it was New Mexico or Texas or somewhere, and this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 11 of 29
pipeline suddenly erupted. It killed 12 people and they were more than 200 feet away.
It incinerated them. Except for the people that were -- there is a river near by and that --
and that was just because of poor maintenance thing. But it was an old pipeline and
things accumulated over time and so I'm greatly concerned about this thing going
through where it's going and we are putting all these commercial things in place that, my
gosh, I don't know how we are going to cope with that. It's a scary thought.
Friedman: Sure. And I appreciate that concern. Again, as I mentioned, the pipeline
company says when you get a certain level of density and development adjacent to that
pipeline, then, they go back in and they take a look at it and they run the tests that they
run, they do some tests to measure the -- you know, the thickness of the wall and so
forth and, then, they either reclassify it, which means it, then, has to be brought up -- it
either has to be fully examined or it has to be replaced and usually that's on their dime.
So, I don't have those numbers right off the top of my head, but they are very cognizant
of development adjacent to their pipeline.
O'Brien: That was my main concern is that -- yeah, I wondered whose nickel it is going
to be on and it sounds like the pipeline is willing to take care of that issue.
Wafters: Yeah. And if I may add to that, Commissioner O'Brien. I was just looking at
the project I think you were referencing that we looked at earlier this year. The
northwest pipeline conveyed to us at the time that when a higher intensity use than the
existing use goes in, that significant improvements are required to the existing pipeline
and, typically, those improvements are completed by the pipeline company after
development occurs.
O'Brien: Okay.
Wafters: And what you were referencing earlier also in regard to the distance is that the
pipeline company suggested at the time that that development went through that uses
such as day care, schools, hospital, assisted living facilities, et cetera, where occupants
are not able to leave the area quickly in case of an emergency, are discouraged within
440 feet of the actual location of the pipeline. However, they do not prohibit those.
O'Brien: Okay.
Wafters: So, anyway, just having said that --
O'Brien: Thank you, Sonya. I have no further --
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please, and state
your name and address for the record.
Elg: Good evening. My name is Van Elg. I'm with The Land Group, 462 East Shore,
No. 100, Eagle, Idaho. It's been awhile since I have been before you. So, good to see
you folks again. We appreciate the effort that Sonya has put into the staff report and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 12 of 29
the staff. We have worked long and hard with trying to come up with some solutions for
this area. Our firm has been working with Southridge -- working with and coping with
Southridge for -- since about 2005 -- 2004, 2005, I think, and so it's good to see some
things moving forward on Southridge. Some other portions of it are moving forward on
the other end as well right now. So, the -- what you see today compared to what you
saw when Southridge first came in is significantly different. Overland Road has now
been realigned, there is some fill occurring at this potentially -- or this old designation as
a park site, that green area there, and a lot of changes occurred out at Southridge in
that general area. The old owner, JLJ Enterprises, has sold -- I believe it was JLJ who
owned that at the time. It might have been one of the other corporations, but -- it's
changed from time to time. But that has been sold now to a new owner and we are
delighted to be working with them as well in coming up with some solutions for this -- for
this large portion of what was Southridge development. When we first came into
Southridge it was on this side of it, this portion of the project, according to the master
plan was a -- kind of an ambiguous residential area. There was some residential lots
shown on it, there was a lot of area that was undecided that was still set for future
planning, we hadn't really -- it hadn't really jelled out yet. But we anticipated that this
corner, particularly the one that you see before you tonight at the north side of new
Overland Road and Ten Mile, has always been identified as a potential commercial or
retail area. In fact, in the most recent development agreement that was approved,
development agreement modification that was approved for Southridge, a convenience
store was identified in that development agreement for this corner. We -- we concur
with -- to keep it short tonight, we concur with most of what Sonya has put in the report
and think she's done a fabulous job at doing that, as she always does. But we do have
a couple little items. First of all, one question was made -- was asked about the park
designation for the Comprehensive Plan and, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner
Marshall, I think you asked that question; is that right? The -- I think you will find that in
many comprehensive plans land that is simply difficult to develop or challenging to
develop often gets that designation, just because you don't know what else to do with it,
really, and it just -- and this was one of those -- one of those particular pieces that was
just obviously next to impossible to develop. Had a little house on it -- it's part of the
reason Overland Road was rerouted, because of the topography right there. It was
terrible. And so it got that designation. Now, that things have changed and the
Ridenbaugh has now been rerouted, it's like moving the Red Sea. I mean we have the
Ridenbaugh through the site and it's opened up new possibilities for this project.
Southridge already has a park, which we went over extensively during the -- the initial
phases of the Southridge development. It has a park internal to it. We looked at
several locations, we looked at having it as a community park, it was determined that it
should be a private park, so -- we are not here to discuss South Ridge, but just so you
know that that park was -- that's why it's green and why we are asking that it been
changed. Pete hit it on the head. Tonight we are here simply for the Comprehensive
Plan amendment, which staff seems to support. The annexation of -- Sonya, last time
used this thing I send us off to the moon somewhere. Do I just touch it or do I do
something funny. Oh.
Wafters: Don't touch it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 13 of 29
Elg: Don't touch it.
Wafters: Is that the slide you'd like?
Elg: No. Go back to the other one there that was there. Yeah. You can't see anything
I'm doing here, can you? If I touch it what happens? Oh. Okay. Anyway, you saw that
little quick arrow. The -- that little piece, the park area it was called -- we used to call it
the Schumacher piece. It was bought by ITD as part of the Ten Mile interchange project
and, then, subsequently traded to the South Ridge development and, then,
subsequently sold to the new developers. So, we are here for that annexation and
understand that it will be part of a future plan, that's why there is no development plans
for it right now. And that's an annexation and rezone. Then, we are here for a Comp
Plan for the entire site and, then, we are here for the rezone of the -- of that small
commercial site on the corner. Again, we have worked with staff and we understood
that we had to submit a -- a master plan, some sort of a concept plan, in order to get
this thing off the -- off the ground and so that brings me to the question of -- or the
concerns, I guess, that we have with the -- with some of the conditions. When we were
working with ITD and ACHD for the Ten Mile interchange project and the rerouting of
Overland Road. We approached ACHD and talked to them about this connect to Ten
Mile. Now, keep in mind that Ten Mile -- the Ten Mile plan came in part way through
the process of our processing and planning for Southridge. So, we regrouped, met with
staff when this was occurring, and kind of redid our design for Southridge at that point.
But it's always been our intention to have a connection to Ten Mile Road. We
approached ACHD and talked with Gary Inselman and Gary indicated that he thought
that because we were approximately a half mile from -- from the interstate and we had
enough distance from the new Overland Road intersection, that that would be
acceptable right-in, right-out only mind you, connection or access point. So, we
submitted that on the plans and ACHD approved our plans and I have a copy of those
here tonight, but when the construction actually started, I believe the inspector, when he
was out there, said that -- told the contractor to go ahead and put the curb in and block
it off, because until the City of Meridian actual approved it, they couldn't -- they couldn't
allow us to have the access. So, we are fine with that right now and although it was a
little awkward at the time, could have been an approved plan, but we understand that
process and we are certainly willing to come back in and talk with the city again about
that access. What we would ask you to do is to not incorporate that specific condition
into the development agreement right now, but that you keep it in mind. You still have
all the tools that you need to address it when a development comes in, so whether it's
platting or for a conditional use or something and your Ten Mile plan does state what it
is. So, if necessary, we will come back in with a detailed plan and show you whether or
not we can get around it or it's just essential to have it. You can imagine how important
this corner is to not only you, but to any developer that develops there. We are
restricted by the accesses off of Overland Road. It's a little bit awkward to get in off of
Overland from Ten Mile and make alert-hand turn into this site on that one road. That's
why aright-in only makes good sense to us and I think to most developers that come to
that, they look at that and go, well, obviously, there is a right-in, right-out. And we say,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 14 of 29
well, that's a little bit up in the air right now. So, I would ask you that you not make that
hard and fast just yet, but that you give us the opportunity to come back and re-discuss
that with you when a plan finally jells out and we have more detailed --amore detailed
plan to present to you. The second item is the drive-thrus. Now, the client told me
tonight that -- you know, we do show three drive-thrus there --- and, Sonya, maybe you
could go to our master plan there. Great. You can see our -- perfect. Those are our
two quick serve restaurants, where the arrow is and, then, to the east and, then, our
convenience store gas station is the one right there on the corner. The convenience
store, it's -- the intent is that that will be a co-branded type of facility. For those of you
that don't know what that is, it would be a -- you know, a convenience store gas station
with perhaps some sort of a quick serve restaurant. We understand that BME doesn't
necessarily support that type of activity, but it's always been our intention that that would
be a convenience store. Now, certainly I think you can probably all understand that a
convenience store doesn't rely on foot traffic, it relies on motor traffic, and since it was
approved as a part of the original -- or the last development agreement modification as
a convenience store, we anticipated that there would be a significant amount of vehicle
traffic, albeit some of it may be from the campus development as it develops within this
portion of Southridge or the old Southridge development, now called Cabra Creek. So,
we will make that distinction now, so we don't have to keep calling it Southridge. But
certainly there will be some -- and we are hoping that a great number of foot -- a great
amount of foot traffic comes from the campuses that develop and the facilities that
develop on this site. However, there is going to be motor traffic to that convenience
store that was -- that's being allowed there. So, I would ask you that you allow us,
again, to not -- not be hard and fast with this and strike the drive-thru, but to let us come
back in with a plan that shows you how we might address that drive-thru and even
maybe be a little more sensitive to it if you're uncomfortable with its location. Now, as I
came in this evening, the developer pondered this idea of the three drive-thrus and as
indicated that he's comfortable in me telling you that if we can have one of the three that
we will be happy. So, we are certainly willing to negotiate and address that -- that and
to reduce that initial request, if -- if you would be so inclined to allow us to do that with a
future application or design. The -- you had some questions about the Williams pipeline
and we are well aware of the Williams and their concern -- the pipeline's concerns with
setbacks and development on that. We are trying to be highly sensitive to that
development and we will continue to do so to meet all their requirements. I don't know
-- you're probably well aware that Williams flies that thing, as most gas lines do, and
they fly it and try to monitor and keep track of that and as development occurs they -- a
different set of rules kick in and they start to look at it a little more seriously. I mean not
that they are not looking at it seriously now, but they look at it a little more intently. So,
we -- with that I think what I'd like to do is just open myself up for any questions that you
might have and see if we can move this thing forward.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I have a question of the applicant.
Rohm: Go ahead.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 15 of 29
O'Brien: Regarding the right-in, right-out, what is your understanding of the
consequence or issues that currently are preventing this from happening or at least they
don't approve it right now, but what are the -- what do you think the -- the issues are in
your mind about not having aright-in, right-out access?
Elg: From the perspective of ACHD not approving it?
O'Brien: Yours.
Elg: Oh, mine. I think that. -- well, as we have always maintained, all the developers
that we have talked to, including the old developer and the current and others in
between, have all indicated that that is just a vital component to develop a commercial
or campus development of this site. One of the things that was considered -- and we
have some sketches -- we have a zillion sketches, believe me, of this site. One of the
concepts that was considered in order to make this campus, which was developed north
-- in this area and the campus probably more northerly of this site across the Williams
pipeline, several of the concepts have included a vehicular access off of this right-out,
you know, this right turning movement that crosses over and down into that campus,
providing a connectivity, instead this left-hand turning movement that you have to make
on Overland Road if you're coming from this direction. So, for anybody heading north
that wants to get to the campus, if you don't have that right-in, right-out, you'd have to
turn down Overland Road, go all the way down Overland Road and make a left turn
against traffic on -- that's east-west bound on Overland. It may not be all that terrible at
times, just depending on the time of day. But it certainly would provide a connection
that could be vital to -- to the success of the overall project. That's why we have looked
at that so -- and I have to say that it's not just us, it has been every person, every
developer that has come in has indicated how significant that right-in, right-out is to
them. It's -- you know, if we don't get it, well, I guess we will have to adjust, but would
ask you to -- you know, ACRD did have us put it on the plan, they were comfortable with
that and they did approve the plans. So, would ask you to -- rather than strike it and
say, no, you can't have, let us come back, let us renew -- re-discuss it with ACRD and
you will see the plans again, but -- and let us discuss it with your staff.
O'Brien: So, sir, I don't know what would change, unless they changed the layout of the
roadway itself. Now, is Overland Road -- is it going to have a center lane turn lane, like
is going there -- so, that helps being able to make a left turn from Overland Road into
the area. But on Ten Mile I assume that that's afour -- or a two lane each direction,
maybe staff could --
Friedman: It's five lanes.
O'Brien: Five?
Friedman: I believe it's five -- five lanes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 16 of 29
O'Brien: Okay. So, if you had aright-in, right-out, I can appreciate the -- the issues
from transportation department about vehicles slowing down all of a sudden, especially
if the speed's normal speeds, I guess. And, then, coming out from the project onto Ten
Mile could be kind of harrowing. That's my concept. Okay? That's my feeling. And I
haven't even been out there to look at the issues and how far away it is from the actual
interstate or from the on-off ramp to the freeway. So, I don't know what could change or
-- to convince me that -- to hold off on voting one way or the other if they are set in
keeping the roadways as designed, that would change anything that would help you in
that area. I don't know.
Elg: Yeah.
O'Brien: Do you know where I'm coming from here on the issue of safety, et cetera?
Elg: Uh-huh.
O'Brien: Okay.
Elg: I guess one of the questions that we -- or one of the things that we discussed with
Gary Inselman of ACHD when -- when he told us that we could go ahead with this right-
in, right-out, and they approved these plans, the feeling was is that it was close enough
to the intersection that the traffic that may be coming through there, especially traffic
that's coming through after having stopped, would be slowed anyway. So, I think at the
-- right at the intersection, if I remember right, Pete, I think there is six lanes at the
intersection. It chokes down to five eventually. It's a little further north of the right-in,
right-out. So, the -- I guess ACHD was at one point -- and to my knowledge, unless
Sonya's received another letter that says we specifically don't allow it, which I haven't
seen yet, they did approve that. They were comfortable with that access. So, there
seems to be a little bit of confusion as to whether or not that access is a viable point for
this project and I understand what the city's requirements are with their Comprehensive
Plan. But, again, the Comp Plan is a guideline and although we try to follow them
explicitly, there are adjustments that can be made in a comp plan.
O'Brien: So, sir, who did you say was comfortable with --
Elg: Gary Inselman is the one that our engineer talked with at ACHD. He's --
O'Brien: And there is a letter, Sonya?
Watters: Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, I do not have a letter. However, I
have spoken with Mindy Wallace and she has specifically said that access to Ten Mile --
they will not support it. However, it sounds like we are getting some conflicting
information, so --
O'Brien: Thank you. I have no -- nothing further.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 17 of 29
Wafters: Their staff report will be added at a later date. It just wasn't available by this
meeting, so we will have it by the time we go to Council or a subsequent meeting.
Elg: Sonya, do you have an overhead?
Wafters: Yes.
Elg: If I could --
Rohm: While she's placing that on the viewer, I have a question. Do you know or not if
the intersection of Ten Mile and Overland will be signalized?
Elg: Yes.
Rohm: Okay.
Elg: And that was, yes, I do. It will be. Not, yes, I --
Rohm: Pardon?
Elg: It was, yes, it will be, not, yes, I know.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Elg: You will notice this is the -- this is a copy of the approved plans for that
intersection. Although you can see the highlighted area in yellow, that's the right-in,
right-out area and in the bottom right-hand corner next to the sheet number is ACHD's
stamped approval of these plans. So, obviously, there is some -- there is a
disconnection there at ACRD that we probably need to resolve.
O'Brien: What's the date on it.
Elg: I don't remember. It's -- it's recent. These are the most recently approved plans,
so --
Wafters: They were approved on 11 /26 of 2008.
O'Brien: Thank you.
Wafters: By somebody K. Graham it looks like.
Elg: Yeah. Exactly. Kasey Graham. Other than that, Ithink -- Commissioners, I think
we are -- we are close. We are not -- we are not center -- off dead center, we are -- we
just have a couple of questions and I think we can move forward with this fairly
comfortably. We are comfortable with the staff report and the conditions written.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 18 of 29
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Elg: Thank you.
Rohm: I have a couple questions of staff. In the applicant's testimony they -- he
suggested that -- to remove the right-in, right-out and the no drive-thrus from the
development agreement and that there would be opportunity at such time that the -- the
property had a final design platted and everything and at that time those issues could be
addressed at that time, what -- could you respond to that?
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, the access to Ten Mile could
be addressed at a later time. As it sits now, the UDC prohibits it, but it does allow for
Council to waive that if they would like to. So, it would not come back before you, but it
would be required to go back for Council review.
Rohm: The right-in, right-out, is that what --
Wafters: Yes. Uh-huh.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Wafters: Yes. And in response to the drive-thrus, it -- if you take it out of the
development agreement, the UDC permits drive-thrus unless they are within 300 feet of
a residential district or within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility. In that case they
would require Conditional Use Permit, which would require coming back before the
Commission.
Rohm: So, in either case, then, there is a vehicle to exam those components of this
application at such time down the road?
Wafters: A drive-thru would not. If it is not within 300 feet of a residential district or a
residential property it would be a permitted use, which would not come back before the
Commission.
Rohm: Oh, I thought it would be a Conditional Use Permit. Aren't all drive-thrus
required to have Conditional Use Permit?
Wafters: No. No. Only those within 300 feet of a residential district or within 300 feet of
another drive-thru establishment require Conditional Use Permit approval. Otherwise,
they are principally permitted.
Rohm: Okay.
Friedman: And as a supplement to that comment, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, as
Sonya pointed out, not only does the UDC preclude that access to arterial Ten Mile
Road and it is supported by the Ten Mile comprehensive plan, but the current
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 19 of 29
development agreement for the property prohibits access to Ten Mile Road. With
regard to the drive-thrus, again, it was our feeling that Sonya had indicated to allow the
drive-thrus there is to serve a much broader public than those that would be just the
workers and employees of the mixed employment district. Now, if it's the Commission's
recommendation to remove that from the development agreement and pass that on to
Council and say the Council does that, when -- when you get a Conditional Use Permit
application for adrive-thru, you know, you will be reviewing the Conditional Use Permit
and, then, would have to figure out, you know, if there is a compelling reason to either
approve it or deny it.
Rohm: Could we not just modify the development agreement to say any drive-thru
would have to -- would require a Conditional Use Permit?
Friedman: You have that option of making that recommendation.
Rohm: That would just be more specific to the development that will occur, rather than
the conceptual development that we are talking about tonight. That seems like that
might be a compromise that would work both for the city and -- and that doesn't give the
drive-thru, but it at least leaves the door open for discussion. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
We do not have anybody signed up to testify to this application, but now is that time to
come forward and if there is anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this
application, please, come forward and you shall be heard. And state your name and
address for the record, please.
Puga: My name is Janet Puga and I'm at 3325 West Davis Lane and I hadn't planned
to talk tonight, but I appreciate the opportunity. I guess I would just ask as I heard the
discussion that if you're not absolutely certain that this development is going to be the
right development that you just be very cautious in approving it for mixed employment
and the reason that I say that is it reminds me of a little bit of a book that I read to my
kids as a child and Idon't -- I mean this in all -- I'm just going to share this. If you -- you
know there is that book where if you give a mouse a cookie he wants a glass of milk --
or maybe it's a moose. I don't remember. And if you give them a cookie and a glass of
milk we wants a table. And it just kind of grows from there and initially when this plan
was put together with understanding that there would be a park and it would be
residential and we ended up with a cement plant and, then, when that was approved we
ended up with a gravel pit and I understand that the property has been sold to another
developer, but I recognize the man that gave testimony today and I'm just saying if
you're going to move it to mixed employment, it would really -- we'd really appreciate it
as the residents in that area that -- that you know what the implications of that is -- are
going to be, because we certainly didn't expect to see the progression of things that had
happened before and so I do appreciate that you're saying even with the -- the drive-
thru restaurants that you would like to have to opportunity to really review those,
because I think with this -- this area what -- what I have seen is that it needs careful
review with everything that goes on. At least that's the way I feel. I don't -- I don't --
haven't been I guess pleased with some of the -- the progression that has happened
and I understand that development is a part of things that's going to happen in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 20 of 29
community and I understand that profit is really important, but I'd just like you to keep in
mind there are residents in the area, there are neighborhood, and so I just -- I would
really appreciate if you guys would analyze it carefully before you go to the next step
and if you're not sure, then, waive the decision -- or delay the decision until you know for
sure that this is the right move. So, I just would appreciate that. Thank you so much.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify?
Nichols: Good evening. My name is Scott Nichols. I'm at 2730 West Val Vista Lane,
just south of the proposed Southridge Subdivision and development. I would just say
that -- sort of ditto the previous speaker's comments. We -- we saw the development
and it is sort of a creeping change in what's been expected in Southridge since we
originally came to testify on Southridge. You know, that set the mixed employment --
you know, Ithink -- I just want to ditto what was said previously. Every single change
we make extends things further. I understand there is going to be development there.
The Ten Mile interchange is a prime location north and south. At what point do you say,
you know, we have gone far enough. I'm absolutely appalled that we have a 30 acre
gravel pit out to the north of us at this time. The residents were very upset about the
batch plants that occurred previously. I testified on behalf of those for Van and JLJ from
the standpoint that it was construction, but we have gone far beyond construction at this
point and far beyond anything that was ever contemplated or that we have ever heard
about in terms of the gravel extraction and those trucks are not going just to Ten Mile,
they are going all over the county. So, as you can consider this change to mixed
employment, mixed employment is a change from the residential. The drive-thru is a
change from mixed employment. At what point do you say this is what it is? And I
would encourage you just to be cautious about that and thanks for the comments.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have a question. So, considering the fact that residential
really isn't developing at all at this time, there is no growth, you look around, we just
don't have any. How would you foresee this growing? How would you like to see this
develop?
Nichols: You know, as -- we have a couple of residents, myself and another from Val
Vista and another one to the south and I think the mixed employment is fine where it is.
I think it's a good overall plan. Ithink the idea to cut down from Overland and drop that
development down on the level where -- where you have got some visual, you know,
buffer so to speak and retain some views is overall a very good plan. Ithink Van and
The Land Group have done a good job there. I like the purple. I was looking here, the
civic on the corner, that's fine. The --Ithink everything to the south as it blends into the
other residential communities is very good. There has been some questions about -- if
we are going to just have a discussion here -- there have been some questions about
the track hoes that have been doing geotechnical testing south of Overland now. The
question is is there a gravel pit proposed now south of Overland and I don't think so,
but, you know, it always raises questions when the neighbors see the track hoe digging
20 foot test holes in the backyards. We know there aren't going to be any septic tanks
out there. We know the houses probably don't need a foundation examination to a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 21 of 29
depth of 20 feet or so or whatever a track hoe can reach to. So, then, there was
questions about gravel extraction. Well, you know, if they want to take gravel off and
lower the level of the houses north of those in Val Vista and down by Indian -- Aspen
Cove, those are things that they just need to come talk to us about, so we know what
the plan is. You know, to date not a problem, there has been some unexpected issues
come up north of Overland. That's the way it is. I guess if -- with that in mind,
Commissioner, you know, I think probably the only real concern that we have got and
that I thought about coming over here and it's not part of this discussion -- I would really
like to see Jim plant that area south of Overland. It's a dust bowl for the adjacent
neighbors and he's not required to plant it. It was one of the recommendations we had
in the conditional use application is to require it to be planted if it's going to be vacant for
-- for more than 18 months. And I think that would be a really good standard stipulation
given the current state of the economy and where things are going. Well, it doesn't
matter what the economy is doing. From the planning standpoint if you're going to
approve someone to strip off all the top soil and, you know, prep the site, tell them they
have got to seed it and put it back in -- not agricultural, but conservation reserve,
crested wheat grass -- crested wheat grass is fine. Just not a dust bowl we -- and, you
know, I'll continue to talk to Jim about that on a personal basis, so -- but, otherwise,
think, you know, it looks okay and that's just a caution, the same as what was
demonstrated earlier -- commented earlier and I appreciate the time.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Gruba: Good evening. My name is Scott Gruba. I live at 3475 Tasa Drive. You have
to excuse me, I had a little bit of a cold. I have just a couple of concerns. One of them
is I really don't have an issue with the mixed employment myself, but I think the city has
a wonderful opportunity here to create a classy environment and I guess I would have to
be a little bit against the drive-thrus, because I think that detracts from that just a little
bit, considering some of the residentials that are around. The other concern I have is
what's to say that somebody else doesn't come in and buy this again in the future and,
then, want to change it again. I mean how often do we go through this process each
time a developer comes in and buys it and/or piecemeal it out or whatever. So, those
are just a couple of concerns that I would like to -- you know, for you to think about as
well. And that's about all I have. Thanks.
Rohm: Thanks very much. Please come forward.
Turco: Good evening. My name is Liz Turco and I live at 3451 Tasa Drive and I am just
reiterating what everyone else has said, that -- that I have a concern about the major
commercial area right there in a -- what we thought was going to be a residential area.
The mixed employment sounds viable for the rest of that group and so that makes
sense, but that commercial -- all of that is -- and it will just -- obviously, with the
development of Ten Mile will just be even greater. But that's my only -- that's one of my
concerns. Thank you for your time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 22 of 29
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. Thank you
very much. Would the applicant like to come back?
Elg: Well, I appreciate the comments from those that have spoken tonight. We have
met with some of them in the past. I have seen -- I recognize some of their faces as
well. One of the concerns was, I guess, that -- to be careful with the -- with the
development and make sure that it -- it develops, as I understood it right, with the plan
in mind that you don't give us a cookie and we keep asking for more. And I hope you
see that we are -- we are trying -- something's coming to a head now and we are finally
-- we finally got the concept plan that we think -- what we haven't had to this corner,
other than we have always designated it or identified it as a potential future commercial
node. But today you have adeveloper --anew developer who has come before you
with a concept plan and has committed to live by the development agreement and to,
again, present a detailed plan, if a -- and I like the idea of the -- adjusting the
development agreement such that if a drive-thru is required, that we come back and
present that to you in the form of a conditional use. We are comfortable with that. We'd
like to present something to you that you're comfortable with and that works for us and
we certainly understand their concerns. With regard to the gravel pit, that's probably
better left for another discussion, as it doesn't really involve this project or this
developer. But I guess there has been some -- some testing going on out there, as I
understand, but that will be something Jim has to address. So, I don't have any other
questions or comments, but certainly entertain anymore if you have any additional of
me.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you very. Any additional questions of the applicant?
O'Brien: I have none.
Freeman: No.
Marshall: No.
Elg: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Freeman, do you have some discussion items that you
would like to throw out here associated with this development?
Freeman: Sure, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. I took some notes and I'd like to
address, hopefully, briefly, some of the perceived concerns, maybe, and some of the
voiced concerns that we heard about. And I will take them roughly in order that the
applicant presented them. The first one that came up was the elimination of the park
zoning and that one I would have to say my opinion is when I saw the staff report on the
explanation of that, that that was kind of there because at the time there was no -- there
was no other perceived use for that thing. That actually satisfies my concerns and I'm --
I'm fine with the elimination of the park. I think what we are proposing here in general
makes a lot more sense for -- for this location. Regarding the -- the right-in, right-out off
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 23 of 29
of Ten Mile, my opinion there is there is enough confusion, having seen what appears to
be an approved plan from ACHD and the fact that we have not yet seen written
comments from them, I don't believe, as of the time of this report that it would probably
be wise on our part to take that condition out of any approval of this at this time, so that
it can be looked at in more depth. We can get more clear information from ACHD and
make a better decision. My understanding is from your question, Mr. Chairman, that we
are not losing anything by doing that and delaying that decision. The third item
regarding the drive-thrus, if you give a mouse a cookie is an excellent book, by the way.
used to read that to my little girl. However, the comments I heard is, you know, let's be
cautious with ME zoning and it seems to some of the people with concerns that adrive-
thru maybe goes beyond what ME really intended. That comment in particular I have to
agree with. We -- you see in the staff report that drive-thrus were not intended for an
ME use and this Ten Mile area has been looked at very, very carefully and we have
some very specific and special criteria for developing each one of these zones, which I
think will alleviate the concerns of the residents, because if -- if those standards that are
in place are upheld, this should be a high quality ME development that's distinct and
different. The whole focus of the Ten Mile plan was to create something different and
nice for everyone. It should be more pedestrian friendly. It should go well against a
residential zone. So, I think the ME zone requirements will take care of themselves.
However, I do agree with staffs restriction on drive-thrus. And as far as the gas line
goes, I -- you know, that's really a gas line issue. I don't really have any concerns about
that. So, just summing that up, hopefully, in one sentence, the park issue -- I'm fine with
removing the park. I agree with staff. I agree with staff that the ME zone is appropriate
for this location. I agree with staff that drive-thrus are not appropriate or not and
consistent with what we are trying to do with this Ten Mile area and if we compromise
that now, you know, we have just set a -- we have set a precedent for further
compromises in this Ten Mile zone, which we don't want to see and either do the
residents. So, the one -- the one change I think I would make is that we don't include
the condition that we disallow aconnection -- a drive -- a drive access off of Ten Mile.
Thank you. That's it for my comments.
Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it very much. Commissioner
Marshall
Marshall: Mr. Chair. First off I would like to acknowledge my limited knowledge of that
area out there. I am very aware that I -- the residents out there have had to put up with
quite a bit and especially -- and I'd like to thank them for putting up with the processing
plant and things like that for the interstate and the Ten Mile exchange. There really
wasn't a lot of alternatives and when I agreed to approve that, I was rather hesitant, but
at the same time it needed to go somewhere. I would like to see this go ME, because
as Commissioner Freeman pointed out, I believe if we stick to that ME plan they will get
what they deserve. It will be a nice development. But we have got to stick to it. And so
I, too, am against the -- I don't mind restaurants out there -- a couple restaurants. But a
drive-thru, no. I don't think that's appropriate. It's not -- that's exactly why the ME is
written to exclude those. My one difference with you, Commissioner Freeman, is the
right-in, right-out to Overland. That's one I cannot agree to. And I don't care if ACHD --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 24 of 29
I don't care if the president himself came down here and said he approved it, this is how
Eagle developed and everybody pointed to everybody else saying, well, they approved
it, so we have got to approve it and, okay, well, we will approve it. Well, we will approve
it if they approve it. And that's how Eagle developed. And Eagle does not operate at
capacity because of that. That was all supposed to be frontage roads. Eagle -- Eagle is
not the way it was intended and I don't want to see anymore arterials in this area
develop in that manner. I don't think -- I see people doing the left-ins and right-ins only
going right across traffic, even though the thing -- and I have had to slam on my brakes
for people to do it. I do not like right-ins, especially on arterials and that's one I'm
adamantly against, so -- personally, to conclude, I am absolutely for staffs
recommendation as written.
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Hopefully, I can keep this really short and sweet. I am concerned and since
Mrs. Puga's testimony regarding the issue that had come up in that general area. At the
time the biggest concern was construction traffic and how it was going to flow. I
understand they were supposed to have something done about that. But for the
continuation of the gravel pit after the construction of the freeway was finished, I have
concern with that. I don't know what we can do about that. However, I am in favor of
the ME. I am not in favor of a right-in, right-out. I am not in favor of convenience of a
drive-thru in that area. I think it's the wrong thing. I think that we could do a better job
of getting something there that will look classy, that will compliment that area and --
because there is a lot of people that are going to be passing by that and I don't want to
see that, I guess, line of commercialization in that particular place. Hopefully, with the
DA it will prevent something else from happening downstream that would cause
concern for the residents that are, basically, there for one particular reason, quality of
life. And I think that we need to make sure that we maintain that. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Okay. And, last, my comments on this
application are I'm -- I'm not comfortable restricting development when we only have
conceptual plans initially. My opinion is we still have every vehicle available to us to
disallow right-in, right-outs, disallow drive-thrus and anything that comes with the final
application for development and if we stop it now before the developer has an
opportunity to come up with a plan specific, I think that we have done a disservice to the
community as a whole and that's not just to the developer, it's to the residents of the
area and the customers that will ultimately be utilizing this project. The right-in, right-out
specifically is something that most commercial developers are adamant about in terms
of having access to their commercial properties. This specific right-in, right-out, is being
proposed very close to the signalized intersection at Overland and Ten Mile and my
opinion on that is the traffic will not have got up to maximum speeds at a great deal of
the time, because of the change and flow of traffic. So, I'm not as afraid of the right-in,
right-out as other Commissioners, but, all that being said, we have a Commission that
will be -- a motion will be made and each Commissioner has done a good job of
articulating their position and so whoever makes the motion will more than likely
stipulate his main concerns and we will vote accordingly. So, thank you and that's the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 25 of 29
end of my comments. So, with that being said, could I get a motion to close the public
hearing.
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 09-010, AZ
09-010, and RZ 09-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we -- after considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of
file number CPA 09-010, AZ 09-010, and RZ 09-006, as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of March 18th, 2010, with the following modifications: That we
removed the condition prohibiting access to Ten Mile in order to give the developer an
opportunity to demonstrate how it could work for our further consideration.
Rohm: End of motion?
Freeman: That's the end of my motion.
Rohm: Thank you. I'm going to second that. Therefore, it's been moved and seconded
to recommend approval of this project -- or recommend approval to the City Council of
this project with the modification as listed. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Marshall: Aye.
Rohm: There is three voted in favor and one against. So, the motion carries. Thanks
very much. Appreciate everybody's testimony tonight and we will -- we will see how it
goes. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2010: 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 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:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 26 of 29
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2010: 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 East 3rd Street Alignment Study by City of Meridian Planning
Department:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing from March 4th,
2010, of CPA 09-008 and turn it over to staff.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, as you recall at the last meeting we did have
a public hearing on a number changes to the Comprehensive Plan land use -- future
land use map. As staff had indicated, they are primarily housekeeping and clean-up
measures. We are briefly -- just to run briefly through, you're changing the designation
of public/quasi-public to a new designation of civic. We are reallocating where schools
and fire stations go, so that we will have little buildings with flags and things on them
where they currently exist and where they are proposed for the future we will, then,
have a little halo around it indicating that they are generally proposed in that area, but
they are not site specific. There is also accompanying text in the Comprehensive Plan
that we are recommending to you for approval. We are also recommending the removal
of the sewer main lines and water main lines and the arterial street designations
because all they really tend to do is clutter up the maps to begin with. The road
designations change over time, as we all know, and the city now has very functional
water and sewer master plans where you can go to and really find the details of those
utilities and they really don't serve a useful purpose on the map. They -- I think as staff
had indicated last time, that this is kind of a stop gap. We will be looking at -- not so
much the map itself, but within the next few months you're going to be involved with us
in pretty much a rewrite of the text of the plan. So, we don't anticipate many changes to
the map, but this is a kind of a precursor to the next updated Comprehensive Plan.
Clean up the map. We also had some text that we were recommending that talks about
the parks master plan. We didn't have a parks master plan when the original Comp
Plan was adopted, now we do. So, there is certain references to that in there. So, kind
of in a nutshell those were the proposals that were made to you at the last hearing. I
know at that time Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Marshall had
asked -- we had a very small map in our presentation and I have a larger one for you to
view. Does that help you?
Marshall: This one?
Friedman: Yeah. Okay. I have another one, in case you need to look at it. So, with
that I will entertain any questions that the Commission might have.
Rohm: Thank you, Pete. Any questions of staff?
Freedman: I have none.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 27 of 29
Marshall: Actually, my questions were answered two weeks ago and I'm good.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Should we have opened the other one at the same time or --
actually, Ijust opened the CPA 09-008, but I would like to also have open the CPA 09-
009 and I think that you have spoken to the package deal, have you not?
Friedman: I have.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion before we act on these two items?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I think the -- from what I have heard last week and thought about,
looked at the map, it all seemed very appropriate to me and I think it's actually a good
move.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall.
Freeman: I agree. We discussed it last time. I think it's agreat -- a large step in the
right direction. I'm in favor.
Rohm: Good. Okay. And Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: I agree with that.
Rohm: Great. Well, we have a consensus here and, you know, I think the staff does a
great job and this -- you know, as our economy has kind of slowed down a little bit, it's
given our staff an opportunity to work on cleaning up some of these things that have just
been kind of hang nails out there and we are going in the right direction. So, good job.
Friedman: Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CPA 09-008 and CPA
09-009.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 09-008 and
CPA 09-009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: So, quick question, Mr. Chair. We are recommending approval to City
Council on these?
Rohm: I would say so.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 28 of 29
Marshall: All right. So, Mr. Chair, at this time I'd like to move that we recommend
approval of CPA 09-008 and CPA 09-009, recommend approval to City Council.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of CPA 09-008
and CPA 09-009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, one last thing. I move that we adjourn.
Freeman: I'll second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Freeman: Wait. Does staff have a --
Friedman: Chairman, Commission Members, if you haven't received notice yet, just a
little update for you. April 6th, I believe, is a -- that you received notice of the work
session with the City Council on April 6. Okay. Yeah. Great.
O'Brien: April or May?
Marshall: April. There is one in May, one is April.
O'Brien: Oh. Okay.
Friedman: Yeah. There is going to be a series of workshops coming up for you, but the
first one is the destination downtown on April 6th.
Hill: Also, we won't have a meeting on April 1st.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Hill: There are no items to --
Friedman: And that is not April Fools either. I mean there really is no meeting.
Rohm: Okay. We have a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: We are done. Thank you very much.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:31 P.M.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 18, 2010
Page 29 of 29
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
/' ,'- ~ _
~~' - ~ ICI ~ b
MICHAEL ROHM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: ~~ C ~
JA CEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ,~~~~~"""'~~l,,,
.~~~~\\\\~~ O~ M~O~9'Y ~~~:
SEAL
_ ~~~ 1
.,~~ p,9 `~Q. ,\:
''%,,,,~ovNTY ~.