Loading...
2012 08-161 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2012 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 16, 2012, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman. Members Present: Chairman Scott Freeman and, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Joe Marshall. Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Bruce Chatterton, Caleb Hood, Sonya Waters, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Scott Freeman -Chairman Freeman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission beginning with -- oh. For the date of August 16th, 2012, beginning with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Freeman: Thank you. First thing we need to do is adopt the agenda. There are no changes that I'm aware of, so could I get a motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the agenda as written. Rohm: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of August 2, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Freeman: First item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We only have one item on that today and that's the approval of the minutes of August 12, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Are there any comments or additions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 2 of 36 Rohm: I have none. Freeman: Could I get a motion then? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the Consent Agenda. Freeman: We are accepting it or approving it. We made the same mistake last week. Yearsley: Approving the Consent Agenda. Rohm: I'll second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Okay. Before we get into Action Items I just want to review the process for those of you who are here. We will be opening each item, public hearing, and, then, we are going to hear from staff. After the staff report, then, applicant has 15 minutes to come forward and present their application and, then, after the applicant anybody wishing to offer public testimony can come forward, we will give you three minutes to state why you agree or disagree with the application, just comment on it. There are sign-up sheets in the back if you wish to offer testimony on any of the items. I will be going through those lists first. But before we stop I will ask if there is anybody else in the audience wishing to give public testimony before we continue. After all public testimony, then, the applicant will have ten minutes to come up and respond to anything that has been presented. Then we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will deliberate on each item and, hopefully, we should be able to come up with a recommendation on each item for City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing From June 21, 2012: PP 12-005 Canterbury Commons by Heartland Homes, LLC Located at South Side of W. Pine Avenue, East of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 107 Residential Lots and 12 Common Lots on 21.45 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zone Freeman: So, the first one we have tonight is the continued public hearing for -- do have the correct one in front of me? PP 12-005 and MDA 12-002, Canterbury Commons. Let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first item on the agenda tonight is Canterbury Commons preliminary plat. The subject property is all Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 3 of 36 zoned R-15 surrounded primarily -- or located on the south side of Pine Avenue just east of North Ten Mile Road. You can see the surrounding properties are residential in nature, ranging in zone -- the zoning district from R-4 up to R-15, which is consistent with the area as well. If you look at this site it is vacant and developable ground. In 2006 this project was before you and it was approved and annexed with that R-15 designation to construct a 196 unit multi-family development and 67 townhomes as well. So, a total of 263 units on the site. This property is currently been purchased by the new applicant-owner before you this evening. It is their desire to construct a single family development on the site and that's why they are proposing a 104 residential lot subdivision before you this evening. The Comprehensive Plan designates this as a mixed use community designation. Typically the city is looking to have a mix of uses on the site, meaning commercial, some office, and some -- a residential component, but given what's developed in the surrounding area with Sommersby, which is developed with multi-family and, then, just to the west here with the Courtyards at Ten Mile, it's also developed with some multi-family, there is some other developments just east of this that are developed at densities consistent with multi-family development. Staff finds that it is pretty consistent -- generally consistent with the Comp Plan and it does fit in with the surrounding area. As I mentioned to you earlier, primarily single family residential around this as well. So, the proposed plat is at four eight nine dwelling units to the acre, which is slightly less than the mixed use designation, but, again, it is consistent with. surrounding properties. Therefore, staff supports --finds it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Here is the plat that I mentioned to you earlier. There are some slight revisions that I want to present to you this evening. The applicant is proposing to develop this in three development phases and 1 have highlighted those here on the exhibit. One of the conditions from ACHD was in this location -- originally the applicant had public streets serving these lots, at least this northwest quadrant here. ACHD required a turnaround be put in place. If the applicant was to comply with ACHD's requirements that would require the loss of some lots. So, under the Unified Development Code the applicant is able to use the common lot. Four lots can take access to that common drive and he can comply with the UDC requirements. So, no loss of lots there. I would mention that the plat does comply with the open space requirements of the UDC as well. I believe this plat is somewhere in the number of 13 percent open space. That 13 percent amenities include a centralized park area here. There is a pathway planned for this common lot as well. There is a 25 foot landscape buffer along Pine. Along the south boundary you will have a 16 foot wide common lot to be used for future preservation for a city's pathway. Right now the plan envisions that pathway to be placed within railroad right of way. If that cannot happen the applicant has graciously set that aside to at least preserve some land so if the city goes in and can't get approval to do that, it can be place on this common lot and they have agreed to improve this and maintain it until such time as the pathway is put in. As I mentioned to you, here is kind of a blowup of that change with the common drives. All of these lots must have a minimum frontage of ten feet and, then, all four lots will have to take access from that as well. The applicant did not submit a revised landscape plan. One of my recommendations this evening will be that the applicant does so prior to the City Council hearing. But I did want to focus on stafFs recommendations that we addressed in the staff report and that had to do with a lot that was adjacent to the central park that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 4 of 36 the applicant is proposing with the application. On the left-hand side is the recommendation that staff made in the staff report and that recommendation included losing one buildable lot and, then, kind of reconfiguring those lots in the southeast quadrant there to kind of get a larger central open space. If you will recall the previous plat had three buildable lots that fronted on this one parcel and so staffs recommendation -- thought that was kind of an odd configuration given such -- the way that four homes would be butting up against a buildable lot. So, staffs recommendation was to lose that lot and what the applicant has done is revise that a little bit and change lot configuration. So, that's what you see on the right-hand side here. So, now that one lot is encumbered by three lots, instead of four and what they have created was this little pie shaped lot. So, the net result is the common lot remains the same size. You just have less impact on that one lot. The applicant had some more information for you on that as well. I think in discussion with the applicant This was staffs recommendation and we couldn't change that, because the staff report was already out and printed to you, so that's what we are sticking with this evening. The applicant wanted to show you that they did try to address staffs concerns and bring forward this change to you as well. I would mention even if the lot is to remain, the plat still complies with the open space requirements in the UDC. I'd also point out to Commission that the UDC doesn't really dictate the configuration of lots and how they are placed on the property, just merely gives you a frontage requirement and a minimum lot size requirement and this lot does comport with the R-15 standards. The applicant has submitted elevations. You can see here that they are proposing a mix of materials, board and batten siding, lap board, decorated corbels and some wood shutters. Staff has conditioned the applicant to comply with these elevations and it's been included in the DA provision as well. Moving on we did receive written testimony from the applicant and based on the changes to the plat that I just described to you, staff is recommending that Commission add some conditions of approval to the staff report. First condition that staff is recommending is that the applicant submit a revised landscape plan consistent with the conditions in Exhibit B, ten days prior to the public hearing to City Council. Second condition is applicant shall comply with the common drive standard in accordance with UDC 11-6C-3D. Third condition is, as I mentioned, there is a phasing plan that presented to you. In speaking with Public Works this afternoon and given the fact that that amenity, meaning the central park, may not occur until the third phase, staff is not supportive of that happening in the third phase. We'd rather see that in the second phase. So, in working with Public Works and -- we are recommending tonight that you require the loop system with the second phase and also the central park and the amenities that are planned for that park, which includes a tot lot with the second phase. And, then, finally, based on the change to the park -- the common lot -- or, excuse me, the changes that they propose to the buildable lots, staff is -- if Commission is amenable to the applicant's change on the right-hand side, staff is recommending that Commission strike Condition 1.2.1, bullet number one. Other than the applicant's response staff has not received any additional testimony on the application. There are no other outstanding issues before you this evening and with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 5 of 36 Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record when you reach the podium. Noriyuki: Scott Noriyuki. 3106 Ridgeway Drive, Boise, Idaho. Freeman: Thank you. Noriyuki: Thank you. First of all, staff -- I think they have done a very good job of laying out all the conditions and all the work we have done together. The only comments I have is apologies for not having the landscape plan prepared for tonight. We already produced one, as well as an exhibit, but we had several last minute changes that we were working on and, frankly, I ran out of time. So, we are going to have it done next week and we will have that transmitted to staff. As far as the common drive for the flag lots, we have got them set up as a 40 foot overall drive, with ten feet of frontage for each of them. We will comply. As far as the water loop system in conjunction with the park and the amenities, transpiring in phase two, we are comfortable with that. So, we will revise our phase lines to incorporate the park into phase two and we will have that submitted to staff as well. With that I stand for any questions. Freeman: Any questions of the applicant? None at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. Noriyuki: Thank you. Freeman: I don't have anybody on the list that is signed up to testify on this item. Is there anybody in the audience that wished to testify? No? Okay. I don't think the applicant wants to comment on your own comments, so could I get a motion to close the public hearing on this Item? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 12-005, Canterbury Commons. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Comments? From what I -- it sounds like the applicant is amenable to all of the additional conditions. The one item in front of us that I guess we need to decide upon -- we had an if-then statement from staff regarding the size of this -- the open space, the common space. Any leanings one way or the other on that, whether we go with the original recommendation or whether we are willing to go with this revised plan? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 6 of 36 Yearsley: Personally I like the -- the bigger open space, but I kind of fall -- since we already meet the requirements, I struggle to -- I guess to go beyond that, to what -- you know, let the applicant do as he wishes, as long as he meets those requirements. But would prefer ultimately to have more open space. I always am more -- more favorable to open space, so -- Freeman: Any other comments? Marshall: I'd like to second that in that once the applicant has met the requirements under code, I don't see how we can justify asking for more. 1'd like to see more. I always love to see more open space, but I can't see justifying -- I am a little -- and I do fully understand why turnarounds would have been originally required for fire department, but now with the flag lots, those common drives, obviously, a common cross -- ingress-egress easement, it's going to be 150 foot long- and, obviously, the fire department thought that was going to be okay with a 150 foot long driveway. I -- I know. That's in here and they -- they have already approved, so I guess that's okay. So, appreciate all the work everybody has put into it and I -- I'm good. Freeman: Okay. If there isn't any further discussion, can I get a motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 12-005 and MDA 12-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 16th, 2012, with the -- striking one dash -- 1.2.1, bullet one. End of motion. Freeman: Okay. And do we need to also state that we are accepting the additional conditions that were presented by staff beyond that one? I think those were additional, were they not? Marshall: Those were additional. Okay. So, yes, I intended to accept those, but to strike the 1.2.1, bullet one. Freeman: It think that covers it. Rohm: I'll second it. Freeman: Do I have a second? Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval for PP 12-005 and MDA 12-002, with the additional conditions as recommended by staff. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 7 of 36 B. Public Hearing: CPAM 12-003 Olson & Bush by Ronald W. Van Auker Located at 2950 E. Franklin Road Request: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation on 5.66 +/-Acres of Land From Commercial to Industrial C. Public Hearing: AZ 12-003 Olson & Bush by Ronald Van Auker Located at 2950 E. Franklin Road Request: Annexation and Zoning a Total of 7.2 Acres of Land to the C-G (1.41 Acres) and I-L(5.78 Acres) Zoning Districts Freeman: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CPAM 12-003, Olson Bush and AZ 12-003 Olson Bush, beginning with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are for an amendment to the future land use map contained on the Comprehensive Plan and an annexation and zoning request. The site consists of 7.2 acres of land that's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at 2950 East Franklin Road, approximately a quarter mile west of Eagle on the north side of Franklin. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is industrial property in Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 2, zoned I-L. To the south is Franklin Road and rural residential and commercial. properties, zoned RUT, R-1, M-1 and C-2 in Ada County. To the east is industrial and commercial property owned by the applicant, zoned I-L and C-G. And to the west is vacant land, zoned R-1 in Ada County. The applicant requests an amendment to the future land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on 5.66 acres of land on the north end of the property from commercial to industrial. The top map you see here is what is existing. The lower map here is what is proposed. The property on the corner would remain commercial. The back part would be changed to industrial. The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan showing how the property is intended to be subdivided in the future. The annexation request is for a total of 7.2 acres of land to the C-G zoning district, which is 1.41 acres and an I-L district, which consists of 5.78 acres, consistent with the existing commercial and proposed industrial future land use map designations. A portion of the existing Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 2 to the north of this site is proposed to be replatted in the future to include the property at the northwest boundary of this site, creating longer I-L zone lots that front on Lanark Street. You can see here this includes the portion that's already platted. The applicant does not have a conceptual development plan for the remaining lots that front on Olson and Franklin at this time. Staff recommends that the development agreement is amended to include a conceptual development plan prior to redevelopment of the commercial portion of the site. There is an existing home on the property proposed to be zoned commercial. The residential use may continue as a nonconforming use once the property is annexed, as long as the use remains lawful and is not expanded or extended. With the annexation staff recommends a development agreement be required with the provisions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. Written testimony has been received from Brad Miller, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. The applicant requests that the existing home be allowed to continue using the well and sewer until such time as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 8 of 36 either the well or septic fails or residential use of the property is discontinued and the property redevelops. Current city code requires hook up to city services within 60 days of the annexation ordinance being approved by Council. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed comp plan amendment and annexation and zoning per the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Yearsley: I -- Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Has Public Works commented on leaving the well and septic system on -- in place until redevelopment? Wafters: Chairman Freeman, Commissioner Yearsley, yes, they have commented. It's just -- it's standard city code to hook up to city services within 60 days. Yearsley: Okay. Wafters: The Council may modify that through the development agreement if -- and you guys may recommend that if you would like to. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Van Auker: Good evening. Ron Van Auker, Junior. 3084 East Lanark Street in Meridian. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are asking for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and annexation and zoning of the acreage shown here on the -- on the proposed development plan. We have owned the property for 15, 20 years. There is a big topography drop on the south side of the property between the proposed commercial and industrial use. There is really no way without significant site work cost to bring that land up and make it a part of the commercial, so our thoughts are to make that industrial land, tied into the lots that front Lanark Street already. We have two or -- we have two buildings that are on that side -- Lanark Street on the south side that currently are using the -- or they'd like to use the back part of the lots for yard storage, so our thoughts are that the other undeveloped lots would also be using that back property for yard storage as well or a longer, skinnier building. The proposed commercial parcel has a single family residential house on it right now. It is hooked up to well and septic and we would ask that, you know, we leave it that way until the rest of the property develops and, obviously, we'd hook it up to sewer and water. I think the staff report calls for a six month time frame for us to hook it up to septic -- or to sewer and water services, but, you know, at this point we don't have any plans for the development. We are just getting ready to -- you know, if we had a tenant come that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 9 of 36 wants to put a commercial use there, we could be ready to go and not have to say, well, we need -- we have to wait for a few months before we can get the land use changed. So, that's the purpose of the development and, you know, I'd ask for your approval and stand for any questions. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? No? Maybe so. Marshall: Yeah. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: You're saying -- but that -- the location of where the resident's at is already zoned C-G. Freeman: No. Marshall: Right. It hasn't been annexed in. Sorry. Yes. All right. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much. Again, I don't have anybody listed that wanted to offer public testimony. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to offer public testimony? No? Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: No, sir. Freeman: All right. Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CPAM 12-003, and AZ 12-003. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing CPAM 12-003 and AZ 12-003, Olson Bush. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Discussion. Especially on the question of hook up timing. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I -- I don't see any real need to require them to convert to city hookup at this time from the standpoint that when it redevelops and that residence goes away and they put something else in, that which they connect to today may not be exactly what's needed down the road. So, in my mind, rather than have them change it twice, it might be best just to leave it the way it is until they come up with a redevelopment plan for that specific -- that specific lot. Freeman: Okay. Any other comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 10 of 36 Marshall: I understand the argument there and that makes sense. At the same time, worry about what kind of precedent we set, since that's already in our code. We are saying that, look, if you're going to annex in you're going to adopt -- you're going to adopt to the hook up to the city sewer -- with the services, the water, the sewer, and things like that. You're right, though, a lot of times if there is already an existing use there, it's usually intended to stay that existing use. Whereas this will redevelop, but at what time frame? Is it going to be 25, 30 years? We don't know. It is going to be two years? Is it going to be next week. We have no idea. Yearsley: There is also a condition if the septic system or the well fails they can't put it in again, they have to connect to the city system, so -- Marshall: Good point. Yearsley: -- at some point it will connect no matter what. Freeman: And I think whether we recommend four or against that it's going to be taken up with the City Council regardless and that's ultimately going to be their decision. So, whichever way we want to make the motion, it's going to be -- it's going to be taken up again most likely. Yearsley: Well, I look at it it's -- whatever they do they are going to have to go in and cut the street to put those connections in and do we want to have to patch the street twice. So, I think we recommend -- at least I -- I feel like we recommend that we let them stay on the septic and well. And also I think it makes sense to make those parcels industrial and add them onto those other parcels. It's just because of the topography there. I think it's a wise smart move. Freeman: I agree. The change seems to make perfect sense given -- given what we are dealing with in that area. All right. Well, if there is no further discussion, what we need is a motion. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant testimony, I move to forward file number CPAM 12-003 and AZ 12-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 16, 2012, with the recommendation that the city not require them to hook up to water and sewer for the one residential lot. Marshall: Until it -- Yearsley: Until it redevelops. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 11 of 36 Marshall: Or fails. Yearsley: Or the systems fail. Marshall: Second. Rohm: I'll second that. Freeman: All right. We seem to have consensus there. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval for CPAM 12-003 and AZ 12-003, Olson Bush, with the recommendation to City Council that we allow the hookups to delay until such time as the property around develops or those systems in place fail. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: All right. Next I need to open the public hearing for CPAM 12-004 and CPAT 12-001, having to do with South Meridian and turn this over to staff for their report. Is our guy here? Chatterton: No, he is not at the moment and we need to -- we need to go retrieve him. Perhaps we could move on to -- Freeman: We can push him back also. Chatterton: Yes. And I will go retrieve Caleb. Freeman: Do we need to do anything special to push that to the back of our agenda? Baird: Just make a motion at this point to -- Freeman: Okay. Could I get a motion on this? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I am going to move that we move on to CPAM 12-002 and RZ 12- 001 and PP 12-002 prior to doing the South Meridian application. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to rearrange the agenda such that we hear CPAT 12-001 and CPAM 12-004 regarding South Meridian after the next item on the agenda. So, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 12 of 36 F. Public Hearing: CPAM 12-002 Paramount East by Brighton Development Located West Side of Meridian Road, Between W. Producer Drive and E. McMillan Road Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on Approximately 12.90 Acres of Land from Office to Medium Density Residential (MDR) G. Public Hearing; RZ 12.001 Paramount East by Brighton Development Located West Side of Meridian Road, Between W. Producer Drive and E. McMillan Road Request: Rezone of 12.47 Acres of Land from the L-O (Limited Office} Zone to the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zone H. Public Hearing: PP 12..002 Paramount East by Brighton Development Located West Side of Meridian Road, Between W. Producer Drive and E. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Approval of 46 Residential Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 12.90 Acres in a Proposed R-8 Zone Freeman: So, at this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CPAM 12-002, RZ 12- 001, PP 12-002, Paramount East, beginning with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant is here this evening proposing a comprehensive plan map change, a rezone, and preliminary plat to do a next phase of the Paramount Subdivision. This property was originally envisioned to be office as part of the Paramount Subdivision planned development. In looking at the Market analysis in the area, the applicant already has an office park along Linder Road by the high school over there. There is a commercial node there on the southeast corner on Meridian Road -- excuse me -- northwest corner of Meridian Road and McMillan and there is also another commercial node there on the Linder Road side and the McMillan side. So, in their opinion this site is better suited for residential development. And so, basically, on the left-hand side you can see here that we do currently show it as office. The applicant is now going to a medium density residential district -- or designation to -- and, then, rezoning it from the L-O zone to the R-8 zone as well. The site is located just west of Meridian Road in between West Producer Drive and East McMillan Road. The plat here on the left-hand side you can see the applicant has proposed a concept plan showing you how the open space relates to the adjacent phases and, then, on the right-hand side is the proposed plat that the applicant has before you this evening. Lot sizes are -- all comport to the R-8 standards. They are similar in size and dimensional -- dimension as previous plats in Paramount just to the west of this. Open space with this subdivision is proposed at 17.4 percent. A majority of that open space is really the center medians and, of course, the landscape strips along the public streets. A few stub streets will be extended with the plat as well and, then, also at the quarter mile the applicant is proposing a new collector street and that is consistent with the PD that was approved back in 2003 and that's the southern boundary here. So, again, that will be a collector road and along with West Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 13 of 36 Producer to the north here is also a collector road. Landscape plan is pretty similar to the concept plan, again, just basically street lined -- or tree-lined streets and, then, just those street buffers consistent with the UDC as well. And the applicant has also proposed elevations before you this evening. I don't know what happened to the slide, but elevations proposed for this subdivision are consistent with those elevations constructed in previous phases as well. Staff did receive written testimony from the applicant. They are in agreement with the staff report. Other than that there are no other outstanding issues before you this evening and I would stand for any questions you have. Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff? Yearsley: Was this supposed to be for -- phased at all or one construction? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, at this time there was no phasing plan. It looks like it may be phased -- or one phase, but the applicant is here, they can certainly clarify that, if you don't mind. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: Any others? Would the applicant like to come forward then? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. We appreciate and concur with staffs analysis and recommendations. In answer specifically to Commissioner Yearsley's question, this will be a single phase. It's just a -- it's not a large area, it's just kind of almost becomes an in-fill in a sense, but it is the wedge between the church that was constructed on Producer previously and, then, the high density residential and commercial areas to the south. But it really meets with a lot of the residential demand in that project is significant. And I would note that in the previous application that we had just several months ago on an area just to the north called Paramount North, we actually have the first final plat phase -- it's 38 lots out of 77 proposed for that phase, so these will move along rather quickly. But I would also note, Mr. Chairman, that during that hearing Commissioner Marshall raised the question of a sidewalk on Meridian Road and part of this property and this project actually fronts about half of that distance. We have hoped to have it all completed before school starts, but we have actually the plans. We are dealing with this separately from this project. We are just in the final negotiations for the additional right of way with ACHD, so within the next month or so the sidewalk on the west side of Meridian Road connecting producer down to McMillan will be constructed independent of this action. But I just wanted to update the Commission on that. So, would stand for any questions that you have, but the project is consistent with all of the previous phases of Paramount and we look forward to moving forward with the phase as well. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 14 of 36 Freeman: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: Mr. Chairman, I do. Mike, I was wondering, you know, Brighton owns most of -- most of the property within that square mile, I believe, that's still undeveloped. A good portion of it. That is still zoned R-4; is that correct? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, it's actually all of the residential zones are R-8. Marshall: R-8. Excuse me. Yes. Wardle: We -- and I'm not sure if I touch this does it disappear? There is parcels along Meridian Road and -- that we actually do not own and a parcel that juts into the development area. So, that -- we don't have control of that, and, then, there is an area on Chinden Boulevard, nearly 80 acres, that we don't own within that section. And, then, there is a small residential development to the -- to the south that fronts McMillan. But pretty much. I mean it's the bulk of the section that we do have and we actually have preliminary plat approval for the area to the southwest that was approved several years ago and has been incorporated, so as that phase in it will just be part of the overall development. So, let me just go back here, since this appears now to be working. We do not own that parcel or these parcels along Meridian Road. But the bulk of it, then, the remainder we do. Marshall: Okay. You still have considerable acreage out there that's zoned and prepared to go that is zoned R-8, so I'm kind of curious, how long do you think -- do you anticipate that to build out? What I'm wondering is is it going to be in two and three years we are coming back and saying, geez, now office is back up and our demand for office is back up, now that we took that office area and made it residential, we are going to need a new office area. Does that make any sense? Wardle: Well, the -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, but we actually still have some of the office park on the west side of the section, fairly well established little project, but there is still some area in there that has not yet been developed and that's -- it's slowly coming along, but -- then we have the commercial on the southwest corner of that section where the Walgreens is and, then, to the north of that is a storage facility -- Marshall: Uh-huh. Wardle: -- so we have some space in there. Now, that's zoned commercial, but it certainly does not preclude the possibility of some additional office uses in the future. So, we hate to miss the opportunity that might present itself currently given the market, but I think we all have our fingers crossed that circumstances don't change and that this continues to move along, but there is a lot of land actually in the area that -- in this general vicinity up here that we still have to plan and we have not yet formulated a plan for those parcels and we have not -- part of it's annexed, part of it is not, and it is still Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 15 of 36 subject to some detailed planning that might include some other uses, as well as residential. So, we are still a ways ahead in the game. Marshall: I appreciate that. Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Freeman: Would James Mitchell like to testify? From up here. Yeah. I need your name and address for the record when you reach the podium, too. Mitchell: My name is James Mitchell. Freeman: Speak into that so he can pick it up. Mitchell: I'm at 453 West Archerfield. It's a Corey Barton development just on the north side of McMillan there. My question was sort of indirectly related to this. I don't mind the rezoning for office to housing. That's fine for everybody's property values . That would be great. The city map initially showed the entire -- all of this down here. Does that work? Freeman: I can see where you're at, yes. Southeast corner. Mitchell: Yeah. Included that high density residential and that's -- I was pretty happy to see initially that that was going to be rezoned. I don't know, because I'm new to this, that high density residential may be like apartment buildings. Yeah. So, I guess my question is why aren't they including that. Freeman: Well, we can have the applicant answer that question when they come back forward, because they will have the opportunity to respond. Mitchell: Yeah. Previous in the plans -- I don't know if it's even owned by the same people that -- Freeman: Okay. Was that your only question you would like the applicant to respond to that? Okay. Thank you. Was there anybody else that wished to offer testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward again. We do have at least one question on the table. And, please, restate your name and address for the record. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle of Brighton. We are not proposing any change of zoning for that high density residential or the commercial area to the south. As the market provides the opportunity and somebody expresses an interest now that when we punch in the street on the south side of this phase, it will create in that collector access into the project that will open up that land for that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 16 of 36 purpose. So, that's still a decision to be made in the future and we hope that somebody comes along with that kind of a project request. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Parsons: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Yes. Parsons: If I may elaborate for -- Freeman: Yes, Bill. Please. Parsons: -- for the applicant. Under the approved plan development -- I don't want to get too technical for the gentleman, but, basically, in 2003 Brighton Corporation came through and got approval for that zoning and with that approval they were vested with 270 units on that property and that PD is still valid. So, at some point in the future that could and may develop with 270 units on it. Freeman: Okay. Thank you, Bill. Wardle: Thank you. Freeman: All right. Thank you very much. All right. With that I need a motion to close the public hearing. I don't think there was anybody else. We already asked. So, could get that motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CPAM 12-002, RZ 12- 001 and PP 12-002, Paramount East. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: I have a motion to close the public hearing on CPAM 12-002, RZ 12-001, PP 12-002, Paramount East. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Commissioners, any comments? Yearsley: 1 -- I think it looks good. I think they have done a good job and I'm sure a lot of the neighbors will be happy that there will be homes there, instead of businesses. So, I don't see any problem with it at all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 17 of 36 Freeman: Thank you. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chairman, my only hesitation -- I do like the design. I like where it's at. But I am a little hesitant in that there is quite a few acres that they still own that are undeveloped that are already zoned R-8. Why put the houses right here right now. Why not just develop over on the other side and -- there is a whole bunch of places to put in houses and leave that alone until suddenly we are getting to the end of our ability to build houses and we still want some more room to build houses and, then, change it from L-O to -- if that housing market slows off -- we can't predict anything. We sure didn't predict 2006. I know I didn't. And the market changes over night sometimes. And I'm just a little confused as to why with lots of area already zoned R-8 that they control and could build on, why we would change this to L-O -- or if It's L-O to R-8 now, when eventually we may need more L-O possibly. Nobody can foresee that. I'm just a little surprised by that. That's all. Freeman: Okay. Anybody else wish to comment on that? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: The thing that I heard was that this, basically, is an in-fill and it's property that's -- it has development all the way around it and by converting this from the L-O to the R- 8 it will be surrounded by existing residential development and will be contiguous to all of that and it flows well and in my mind that's not a bad thing and so from my perspective, even though there are acres like Commissioner Marshall addressed that could be developed into an R-8, making this in-fill fully developed at this time is the right move. The right move for this project. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. I tend to agree. It doesn't really concern me that we are losing some office zoning designation. I think it was clearly stated there is surplus already, even in the future it doesn't necessarily have to go right here, it's not like we have a big hole for commercial in the area and if we are ready to move forward now, if the developer is ready to move forward now or in the very near future with something that works, I'm all for it. And I like the development. Marshall: Yeah. I couldn't agree more with -- I like the development, yes. Freeman: Okay. Any other comments? All right. Could I get a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 18 of 36 Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CPAM 12-002, RZ 12-001, and PP 12-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 16th, 2012, with no modifications. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: All right. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval for CPAM 12-002, RZ 12-001, and PP 12-002, Paramount East. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: I would not normally do this, less than an hour into our meeting, but I have been informed that the water is going to be turned off in the building at 8:00 o'clock, so propose we take a five minute break for anybody that feels that they'd like to get to the restroom now while they have the opportunity and we will come back here in five minutes and continue. (Recess: 7:49 p.m. to 7: 54 p.m.) D. Public Hearing: CPAM 12-004 South Meridian by Meridian Community Development Department Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map (PLUM) to Designate Future Land Uses AND Amend the Area of City Impact (AOCI) in South Meridian E. Public Hearing: CPAT12-001 South Meridian by Meridian Community Development Department Request: Amend the Text of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan Which Includes the Following: 1) Changes to the 2010 Existing Conditions Report; 2) The Addition of the Airport-Overland Road Extensions; 3) Changes to the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan (TMISAP); and 4) Miscellaneous Text Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Freeman: Okay. It's time to call this meeting back to order. And as we do I'd like to open the public hearing for CPAM 12-004 and CPAT 12-001, South Meridian, and turn it over to Caleb for his presentation. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. First of all, I apologize. I thought I could swing home real quick and have dinner with the family before you got to my item, but, obviously, that wasn't the case. I thank you for taking mercy on me and only moving me back one on the agenda. I do have two items as was mentioned in the opening of these hearings. I will try to be brief on them. There is a lot of information to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 19 of 36 cover, so I will -- again, I will be comprehensive, but brief. Here is a summary slide of the thing that Iwill -- I will try to run through here quickly on the Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments. South Meridian land use is the headliner. We will spend a little bit more time on that one than most of the other ones. We did make some other modifications to the map, which I will run through here on a different slide. Part of South Meridian included Airport Road, Overland Road extension, which we have talked about previously, downtown transportation, that includes both map and text amendments, and, then, an updated goals, objectives and action items table throughout the document. So, in Chapters Two through Seven of the Comp Plan. We have some welcome signs text that we'd like to have you recommend approval of and Ten Mile interchange specific area and existing condition report text change. They are really kind of cleanup items that make those documents work a little bit more efficiently. Future acquisitions, that's something I have been discussing with the Council off and on since we adopted this Comprehensive Plan and got some direction from them last year and we are moving forward with the cleanup in the plan and there is some other miscellaneous cleanup items that I won't go through tonight, but, hopefully, you have had a chance to read through those in the application. There is actually two attachments to the letter that I submitted in Bill's staff report that have underlined and strike throughs, all the changes we are proposing throughout the document. So, hopefully, you have had a chance to go through those. Most of those are pretty minor. For example, we are no longer the Planning Department, we are Community Development. So, anywhere it said that we change it to community development. So, things like that that are really just of administrative cleanup type things and minor in nature, but if you have any of those -- questions about those we can certainly run through those tonight, so -- so, first I'm going to start with the future land use map changes. This is CPAM 12-004. I just on the previous slide, you know, there are some overlap, although this is mainly focused on map changes. There are some ancillary text changes that I will try to hit on while we are here talking about the map. What you see on the slide is the preferred land use scenario that came about from our South Meridian planning exercise. You all were involved at one if not all of the three different workshops that we had with stakeholders in South Meridian and throughout the community. We actually had a project that went on from February to July. Got the final report here just last month. As I mentioned, we had three workshops. We went through about six different iterations of the map in the study area. The area that's shown as a study area is actually currently the -- the future planning and referral area on the map. It's that area that's cross-hatched out and there isn't any color on our future map. So, we colored it in and this is what we would ask you to recommend approval of this evening. Just a little more background on that -- that four or five month process that we went through. We did establish a PAG or a process -- project advisory group that had members of the city of Nampa, Nampa Highway District, ACHD, Ada County, COMPASS, Central District Health, I think that's about it. Public Works was also on the team. And, then, we hired a consultant to help us out a little bit with the public information outreach side, Parametrics also helped us draft the report, which I will wave in front of you quickly. It is quite lengthy with all of the addendums and everything, but I will get you all a copy of this probably a short version that looks more like this that doesn't include all of the technical memos and all the history and background of everything that we did. But that's a little more background on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 20 of 36 the process to come to the preferred land use scenario that you see before you for South Meridian. One of the things that you will see in the next couple of slides that we -- that we took into consideration I will call it to your attention now. This area down in here. It's a little bit hard to see at this scale. But all of these properties down here within our existing area of impact have already been annexed by the city of Kuna, so they are still within our established area of impact, but Kuna has annexed those properties and I just want you to keep that in consideration as we look at the next couple of slides here. The other thing to keep into consideration, if you would, is the sewer sheds. You can see on this map the orangish lines that -- that are numbered. You can see a nine in the middle of this sewer shed, which is bound -- there is a northern boundary and kind of a southern boundary of this sewer shed. Something like that. And you can see there is other sewer sheds here. And not all of them are contained in South Meridian. You see sewer shed 12, for example, goes up into here. Those are stratified topographies, so everything is going to gravity flow to -- for example, again, sewer shed nine. This is about the low point of that. Everything sewers back down to the middle of that. So, we got another sewer shed one here. Sewer shed here. So, that's something that was considered as we looked at having enough density to sewer any one of those sewer sheds. You want to have at least three dwelling units per acre to make it pencil out for -- to extend services down there, so you can get your money back anyways on investment for the infrastructure. So, that's something to consider. The other .thing that really drove -- what I'm going. to recommend to you now or the final outcome here now is the participants designated a majority of the area you see cross-hatched in purple -- bluish purple there, is the ultra low or rural designation. That's the lightest green color that we offered them and it really is a no change or no density up to just a very small density -- I think one dwelling per five was the most dense that area could be. So, that was very popular amongst the workshop participants and people that live down there now. So, considering all those things, we recommended through the PAG and the preferred scenario, is to remove the area you see cross-hatched in there from the City of Meridian's area of impact and release it back to Ada County. So, if that's the direction we go, we will coordinate -- will coordinate with the Ada County staff on a Title 9 amendment and we will get that cleaned up so it's no longer within our city of impact. So, that's probably one of the biggest -- biggest things as part of this application. That doesn't happen very often, looking at releasing three and a half, four square miles out of our area of impact, but when you consider the relationship to the relatively new wastewater treatment plant that the city of Kuna built right about there and ours is all the way off the screen up at Ten Mile and Ustick, it's pretty cost prohibitive to bring utilities down there and; again, with the densities you're looking at, there is just a lot of things that -- that didn't make -- it didn't make sense to keep planning for that area, at least for the City of Meridian. So, that's our recommendation tonight is that -- and you forward on the recommendation to Council to remove that from our area of impact. A couple of other future land use things that I'd like to call out real quick. These are going to be a little bit tough to see, but there is a small piece right there just south of Walmart off of Fairview where that property owner owns the adjacent 20 acres. I think this one is about three acres and the City Council has already released that back to -- released it to Boise. Boise requested to develop it. Services were there. That's already a done deal, so that's sort of a cleanup. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 21 of 36 And there is a couple of small pieces --and, again, it's going to be very hard to see up -- up here are some mapping errors, basically, in the Aldape property, for those of you who were on the Commission then, there was some -- some properties up there and just got mismapped. So, we are going to work on cleaning that up with Ada County as well. So, this, without my green marks, is, essentially, what we would ask you to approve tonight and this cross-hatched area wouldn't be there, it would just be blank. So, it would look similar to, you know, up here where you have got our -- our city designations that fade to light. So, that's what -- that's what the map would look like or what we are proposing for it to look like and I will go into -- I think my next slide has a little more details on some other changes. So, this -- concurrently with our -- with the South Meridian plan, ACRD looked at the roadway network. So, this is a lot of the transportation land use integration. We asked them to come along side of us as we looked at the land uses and see what it did to the transportation network. They have a horizon year of 2035 that they are working off of, so what you see on the screen are the intersection configurations that would be needed based on the land use scenarios created -- a preferred scenario that I showed you earlier for South Meridian. This is fairly consistent with the Ten Mile corridor study that ACRD did earlier this year. There is one fairly significant change to that and that's at the intersection of Lake Hazel and Ten Mile. You can see on this map it's shown as a signalized intersection. In the Ten Mile corridor study that study called for a roundabout at that location. With the densities here it kind of balanced out where you have about equal traffic in all directions and Parametrics, who helped ACHD work on the study, is recommending a signal there. So, basically, all the other configurations are the same to the Ten Mile corridor study along Ten Mile anyways. One other thing I'd point out is a glaring omission that was left out of this study is the Overland Road alignment and we will talk about that here in the next couple of slides as well. We discussed with ACHD that alignment and they just weren't comfortable with -- with making the assumption that it would be constructed by 2035 and I can't argue with them. There is no guarantees when it will ever be constructed. But I just want -- I point that out just because it may -- and it probably will have some impact on the configurations of these -- both the roadway segments and the intersections if Overland is connected. That will relieve a lot of the need for Amity, Victory, to be widened and some of the turn lanes on those -- those roadways. So, just wanted to point that out quickly that that wasn't part of their assumption or the study moving forward, so -- and, then, also associated with that are some changes to the master street map. So, what you see on the left are the current designations, which are pretty vanilla, which you would expect, because they didn't have any land use designations shown down there. So, they were just all designated as residential arterials. What we have done in the proposed master street map or what we would ask you to concur to tonight is -- are so more specific designations that match the land uses adjacent to those roadways. So, again, down in the -- I won't use green. But you can see over here in the legend rural is green. Well, we aren't showing -- you know, that matches the new -- it's across-section of the roadway. So, the rural street section is going to have -- it will probably have sidewalks, but there may be no curb and gutter, for example. So, just a little bit different way to match your land use with the transportation plan and we'd ask you to support that this evening, as well as changes to the master street map. On that point, too, we have already been -- started coordinating with ACHD Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 22 of 36 and gotten some buy offs on those changes to the master street map. In fact, we have gotten down to the collector roadway network, you can also see some of those changes and we align some collectors that we'd also like to see where it's a little disconnected over on the left-hand side, now having a plan for the land uses we are able to have a little bit more of a network in there for collectors, too. So, sorry to go backwards, but wanted to point that out as well. So, here are the changes that we are proposing, except for the land use changes that I have highlighted in South Meridian. Items one and -- one and seven are just so Kleiner Park and the Ten Mile are online, so change those from existing -- or from proposed to existing to show that they actually are on the ground today. Items two and three Northeast 3rd and Broadway Avenue I will get into in a minute. There is also some text changes in Chapter 3 that I will show you on the next slide, too, that -- that will help the circulation in downtown. Item four is the Overland Road extension, so you can see that dashed line through there. That is alternative 2-B from that study. Overland and for two miles back to the east into Canyon county. And the other ones are just cleanups on entryway corridor designations. So, previously, like eight, nine, ten and 11, for example, we had the entryway corridor designations down at our southern boundary of our area of impact. Well, if we are not there we need to move those up to correspond. And so, similarly, items five and six we are proposing to have entryway corridors at the first half mile as you come into the city, which essentially means a little bit lusher landscaping and maybe some welcome to Meridian signs. So, those are -- those are the -- that's the extent of the changes that we are going -- we are asking approval for tonight. As promised I have got a diagram here that shows the downtown -- the detail of the downtown map changes a little bit more close -- more clearly. So, that the alignment -- alignment study that Six Mile did for us back in 2009 showed the preferred alignment for Northeast 3rd Street and the location approximate dotted line. So, we would just be proposing to -- to reinforce that by showing it on the future land use map. It's already in the text of the plan, but also put it in the -- on the map. The other change that we would propose is a connection of either Idaho or Broadway or some version of their current stubs over to Commercial Drive and Locust Grove. As you can see on this map, besides Pine there isn't any other way to and from downtown from the east or to the east if you're already in downtown. So, Pine gets jammed up and you're on Locust Grove wanting to get downtown you either have to go to Franklin or Fairview to get back into downtown. So, we'd like to preserve some opportunity -- I mean dashes aren't an exact location. It is just essentially we want this to connect to either this or this in some manner. So, however that needs to -- to squiggle through there is okay, as long as there is some connection to it, because it's so disconnected. You got the railroad corridor, which also creates that disconnect, but some connection downtown. And we have some text that also, you know, gives that flexibility in there that just says we need some connection in here. It doesn't say it needs to be this alignment, like some of these other things. Like 3rd Street is pretty specific on where it needs to go. So, just a little more detail on those. And, then, the Overland extension, I think you all are fairly familiar with this. It was completed in July of 2011. I won't spend too terribly much time on it. There was a bunch of agencies that got together -- there were two public involvement meetings. I attended both of them. was the team member representing -- representing the city. We were advised to participate from Nampa. The Nampa airport, Nampa Highway District, ITD, ACHD. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 23 of 36 This is the alignment that was chosen. I spent a little bit more time with the Council than you all and actually sent a letter back to the ACHD commission saying we support this alignment. But we are adding -- we would ask to add that to the map and some text as well that supports that. And these are some other kind of cleanup things that we will no longer need on the legend of the future land use map. Today on the right is what we are proposing. The future planning referral area goes away. We no longer will have any of that, so we are using -- re-using that designation for future roadways. So, some of those things I just talked about will carry that dotted or dashed red designation forward, but the text has changed. Waterways is a little bit confusing for some, so we just made it clear that's an existing waterway. Canals change, so that at that point in time those were where the waterways are. When you the them they may not be open anymore. So, we are just covering our bases a little bit there and changing the terminology slightly. So, on to some of the text changes. This is CPAT 12-001. I can pause if you have any questions on the map before I get into the text or just keep rolling right along. It's up to you I guess, Mr. Chair. Okay. I'm going to keep moving. Freeman: Yeah. That's fine. Hood: So, here are the -- besides the text that goes with the map changes, here is the biggest changes that we made in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. As you can see we have a number system, which should make it easier for Sonya and Bill to reference and staff reports for you to find as they reference these things they can just highlight a number -- the first number is chapter and, then, the goal number, then, the objective number. So, it should be pretty intuitive for folks -- a numbering system, which we currently lack in the text. We have also added the priority column, which is good for us, it makes us accountable. If it's something that's the highest or high priority it's something we should be working on, be completed within the next year or two. Ongoing, obviously, is self-explanatory and, then, we have low and medium priorities. So, we are adding that priority. I mentioned some of the other changes to responsible lead. We have completed a couple of things, so those are proposed to remove. I won't highlight those, but there are a few that we have actually completed over the past year and a few that we added as well. I did send this out to all the departments after a couple of reminders heard back from everybody and we have got buy in and changed, again, some -- some of the text, but mostly the responsible lead and who is going be doing what. So, that was a good exercise. Just to highlight some of the -- the other changes, we clarified gross density for -- in our -- for residential designation, so on the Comp Plan it was ambiguous, it didn't say net or gross. We expect to find that low density is a gross up to three dwelling units gross density and that goes for all the residential designations. Mixed use interchange, we actually only have two of those on the map and the text said we had three. There is one up at Chinden and one at Ustick. Those are the two on the map. And, then, SSC is no longer -- no longer SSC, it's Republic Services, so some changes like that that just reflect Qwest to CenturyLink. I mentioned a future acquisition map change will be in the text. We are referring to it as an infrastructure map -- a future infrastructure map and the idea is that we get -- all get together as departments and coordinate existing facilities and our need for future facilities and have that map that we used internally to communicate, so we can co- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 24 of 36 locate where expansion needs to happen, maybe we can put a well next to a park or vice-versa, those types of things moving forward. So, we will be working towards that. put a shout out to the Western Heritage Byway in there, so from the interstate south on Meridian Road, Highway 69, we have some text that talks about beefing that up and really reinforcing that and playing to that strength that we have as an asset here in our community. MDC's Destination Downtown plan you have all heard about that. That's also integrated into this plan. We cross-reference it. They were going to use it and, then, the acronyms, we cleaned up some of the acronyms that were either just wrong or outdated. A couple of quick diagrams -- and 1 swear I'm almost done there. These are the entryway monument signs. I don't know if you guys have seen these. I know Council has a couple of times. Ron McClure is largely responsible for designing these. This is -- there are three action items in the text that talk about how these need to be incorporated into, again, those entryway corridor locations primarily in Meridian. The one on the bottom is where there really aren't a lot of constraints. The tall monument would be where you're trying to fit some -- retrofit something in the back of a walk. So, a two to three foot area you can put the tall monument in. So, that's in Chapter 2, community design section of the Comprehensive Plan are the three action items we added there. The existing conditions report I won't spend too much time on, but you can see right here this diagram overlaps some of our text, so we inadvertently entered that -- that picture and just covered over the text, so we are just going to reformat this page, slide everything down, and that way you can read it and see the text. So, that's the extent of the existing conditions report change. And, then, Ten Mile interchange -- a lot of this has to do with canopies and awnings, lining the Ten Mile plan up with what you can and can't do in the UDC. You should be seeing an application for some UDC changes that represent where we are going with the Ten Mile specific area plan to really relate those canopies and awnings to more of a building or pedestrian scale than a car scale and just making it so they don't conflict with plans with something and, then, you can't do it by code. So, we are working with Kristi in our office to make sure that those match up. So, that's a quick summary changes in the Ten Mile specific area plan and with that that is the end of my presentation, so I will stand for any questions you may have. Freeman: Thank you, Caleb. Questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Caleb, can we pop back to the south Meridian plan? Way back that we early started on. Hood: Sure. Marshall: That one will work. I was hoping to get the one with the legend on it, actually. There we go. That works. Okay. As I look at that within this South Meridian zone I don't see any commercial; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 25 of 36 Hood: That is correct. Marshall: I see mixed use neighborhood. Hood: Correct. Marshall: Now, I believe the Comprehensive Plan has mixed use neighborhood, mixed use regional and community -- mixed use neighborhood and mixed use community and mixed use regional. Would you anticipate a mixed use neighborhood ever going C-G? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, absolutely. That is an allowed zoning district. There were compatible zoning districts with this designation. You can -- I mean it is more meant for the neighborhood type services, so an MUN designation or a C-N zoning district is probably the most appropriate, but like the intersection at Ten Mile and Amity, that's a major intersection. I could see somebody wanting a C-G zone -- a portion of that to general commercial and build something there that maybe wouldn't be allowed in a C-N zoning district or signing purposes or whatever. Maybe just some of the back stories, if I was to answer your question on maybe why I answered it that way, when you look at the designations that we put in South Meridian in general we didn't think there would be enough roof tops to support some of the other mixed use designations that you -- you mentioned, so -- mixed use regional or mixed use community even. You know, those are meant to draw a bigger box, a Costco in a regional designation for instance where people will drive four or five miles, but generally they are placed in an area that has -- you know, within a couple of miles of them some density to support them most of the time. Community -- you know, we played around with that a little bit, but, again, at the end of the day to make a long story short, mixed use neighborhood seemed to be the most appropriate fit, but we did receive some comments on wanting to do some commercial things along Ten Mile and this mixed use neighborhood designation certainly would allow that. Marshall: All right. Freeman: Other questions? Continued questions? All right. Thank you, Caleb. Hood: Thank you. Freeman: I don't have anybody signed up to testify on this. Was there anybody that wished to speak on this item? No? Okay. We can close the public hearing now on this item with a motion. Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 26 of 36 Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CPAM 12-004 and CPAT 12-001, South Meridian. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Comments? Who would like to go first? Commissioner Yearsley would like to go first. Yearsley: I guess I will start off first. I think all the changes looked really good. I guess my major focus is on the future land use map of South Meridian. Several years back we were visiting family out south Boise that -- just over by Lake Hazel and my aunt from -- who has been in Boise for a number of years said we used to go hunting out on this land and now it's high density residential. My concern with this future land use map is it's short sighted, it's -- well, I will take that back. I think it's not dense enough is -- is my feeling. As Meridian grows and as the valley grows I think there will be pressures to be higher densities, more commercial in this area. I mean it's a major corridor between Kuna and Meridian. We have got a couple of interchanges proposed through there. I think it's going to be fairly dense. So, with that that's my mayor concern and if we are proposing utilities and stuff for less dense, you know, we are going to be coming back to that in a future date with -- you know, making more -- the roadways wider and that type of stuff. So, that was my concern. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley. Anybody else? Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: Well, my thought was that this was probably one of the lower density areas that -- I think we do need mixes of areas and we need some lower density and some higher density and that the higher density needs to be next to the traffic corridors and the question, then, becomes what are the traffic corridors and is that Ten Mile Road one of those traffic corridors and I think the way -- I don't know -- I don't know quite how to answer that. But I really thought that there was a lot of work went into this to try to answer this as best we could now and seeing as far forward as we can. We do have quite a few areas that we have designated much high densities that we do want along Ustick Road and along the interstate and those areas and as we get closer to downtown we are asking for higher densities and I -- I like to think we have addressed that in a lot of areas, but, you know, in another hundred years you may absolutely be right that this may be a real -- a lot of pressure to move higher densities, but to me I -- I like the plan as it is right now for the foreseeable future. I think it's a pretty good plan to move forward with. That's my perspective. Freeman: I agree. I know there was a lot of planning that went into this over time. And know we went out of our way to involve the community. I saw the previous plans, as we all did, or the plan options and I really like the decisions that were made. I think it makes sense to take some of this area off the map and give them -- given what the people out there now want and given some of the challenges that we have in providing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 27 of 36 utilities out there, I think that was wise and I like the mixed use neighborhood density there that's going to allow us to do what is probably going to end up being appropriate. And I think this will be adequate for the foreseeable future, you know, as long as I'm around anyway. So, I like the plan. I like the work that was done. Everything else, cleaning up our text, et cetera, it just continues to mature. We keep making it more and more consistent and I appreciate the work that's going into that. Anybody else? We need a motion, then, on this item if there is no further discussion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers CPAM 12-004 and CPAT 12-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 16th, 2012, with no additional comments. Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval for CPAM 12-004 and CPAT 12-001, South Meridian. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. I. Public Hearing: CPAM 12-001 TM Crossing by Brighton Investments LLC, Steven Smith and CRS10 Located Northeast Corner of 1-84 and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 75.5 Acres of Land from LC (Lifestyle Center), MHDR (Medium High Density Residential) and HDE (High Density Employment) to Commercial J. Public Hearing: AZ 12-005 TM Crossing by Brighton Investments, LLC, Steven Smith and CRS10 Located Northeast Corner of 1-84 and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 89.22 Acres of Land from the RUT Zoning District to the C-G (General Retail & Service Commercial) Zoning District K. Public Hearing: PP 12-003 TM Crossing by Brighton Investments, LLC, Steven Smith and CRS10 Located Northeast Corner of 1-84 and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 50 Commercial Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on 75.5 acres of land. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 28 of 36 Freeman: I think that brings us to the last items on the agenda. I'd like to open the public hearing CPAM 12-001, AZ 12-005 and PP 12-003, Ten Mile Crossing, beginning with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are an amendment to the future land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan, annexation and zoning, and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 75.5 acres of land, is currently zoned RUT in Ada County, and is located on the northeast corner of Interstate 84 and Ten Mile Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is agricultural lands zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is I-84 and vacant land, zoned ME. To the east are rural residential properties in Primrose Sub -- excuse me -- Primrose Subdivision, zoned R-1 in Ada County and to the west is Ten Mile Road and vacant property zoned C-G and H-E. Summary of the applicant's request and staffs analysis. The applicant requests an amendment to the future land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use map designation on a total of 75.5 acres of land from Lifestyle Center, which consists of 30.45 acres, approximately, Medium High Density Residential, which is 8.5 acres, and High Density Employment, which is around 40 acres to commercial. Because 176 acres of mixed employment uses are planned to the south of I-84 and 76 acres of High Density Employment uses are planned to the west of Ten Mile and a Lifestyle Center is under construction at Fairview and Eagle, staff is of the opinion a commercial designation may be appropriate for this property, if the property is developed in accord with the Ten Mile specific area plan design elements. These elements focus on the quality of adult environment and include recommendations on the location and design of building frontages and limits on building heights. Pedestrian oriented design is key in this area. The annexation and zoning request is for 89.22 acres of land to the C-G zoning district. It's proposed consistent with the proposed future land use map designation of commercial. The conceptual development plan was submitted. It depicts future building locations, parking, streets and drive aisles. Sample building elevations were also submitted. Because of the zoning compatibility matrix in the Ten Mile plan was the C-G district as a zoning choice for the existing lifestyle center and high density employment designation -- designated areas and C-G is also appropriate for the proposed commercial designation, staff is supportive of the requested zoning. Also the C-G district allows for the types of uses allowed under the former and proposed land use designations. Preliminary plat consisting of 50 commercial building lots and four common other lots on 75.5 acres of land was also submitted. The preliminary plat is proposed to develop in two phases and this is the phasing plan here. First phase. Second phase. Although an abundance of lots are proposed, staff recognizes this is because future owners are unknown, making the ultimate size and configuration of lots impossible to know at this time. The proposed plat will allow for a future reduction in lots or property boundary adjustments as needed. Access to this site is proposed by an off-street access to Ten Mile Road north of the site right here. No other access is available to the site at this time. ACHD policy restricts the amount of traffic allowed on a collector street with only one public access in and out of the site to 3,000 vehicle trips per day. Additionally, the fire department requires commercial buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet to be provided with two Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 29 of 36 separate and approved fire apparatus roads. Therefore, development will be limited until secondary access can be provided to the site. The transportation system map you see here as contained in the Ten Mile plan depicts an offsite access to Ten Mile north of the site, which runs south to a roundabout at the north boundary of the site. So, you're looking at this area right here. From there a collector street is shown along the north boundary of the site to the east and also to the south and back to the west under the Ten Mile ramp. From the roundabout the street section map shows two lane streets as appropriate for this site. The applicant proposes four lane streets with a median turn lane throughout the site, except for the leg that runs to the west under the Ten Mile ramp, which is a two lane street consistent with the section map. While a four lane with a median turn lane is an option for a street layout in the Ten Mile area, a street of this size is meant to serve as an arterial with access restricted to collector streets. Because of the high volume of traffic that is likely to be generated from the proposed development, staff is of the opinion the proposed streets are appropriate. The applicant has revised the concept plan submitted with the application to depict a roundabout at the north boundary consistent with the transportation map you see here in the dashed lines. The Perdham Drain currently bisects this property from the southeast corner to the northwest corner. The Taylor Drain connects to the Perdham Drain from the south. The Perdham Drain is proposed to be relocated along the southern boundary of the site and along the west boundary here. Both of these existing easements are proposed to be vacated. Landscape street buffers and buffers to residential uses are proposed on the landscape plan in accordance with Unified Development Code standards. Hours of operation for businesses in the C-G district that are adjacent to residential uses are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. This will apply to businesses along the east boundary of the site adjacent to Primrose Subdivision. A Welcome to Meridian monument sign, like you guys saw in the previous presentation, is designated on this property, visible from the I-84 off ramp to Ten Mile Road. Staff is recommending a development agreement provision that the developer construct the street signs accordingly and coordinate with staff on the location and design. As a provision of annexation staff is recommending a development agreement with the provisions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. Additionally, staff recommends the following provision be added: Modify condition number 1.1.2A to read: Prior to submittal of the first certificate of zoning compliance for this site the development agreement shall be modified to include a revised concept plan that is consistent with the design elements of the Ten Mile plan. The second modification is actually in addition to the DA provisions. All street names within the subdivision shall be approved by the street name committee or the Planning Commission is applicable prior to final plat approval. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. The applicant agrees with condition number 1.1.1A that requires the plat and landscape plan to be revised prior to the Council meeting to provide for a roundabout to be split between the subject property and the property to the north and that is reflected on the concept plan I just showed you that is on the screen right now. The applicant submitted that this afternoon. So, it is not in your staff report. If the property owner to the north is prepared to participate in the dedication of right way and cost of construction on a 50-50 basis at the time of construction, the applicant will construct the roundabout with the first phase. If the property owner to the north is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 30 of 36 unwilling or unable to participate at that time, the applicant will design a roundabout so that right of way boundaries are determined, but design and construct the road without the roundabout, including interim connections to service drive. They will dedicate right of way on their property for the future roundabout and submit funds for the construction cost of the roundabout, less design cost and design and construction costs for the interim street section. At the time the neighboring property owner plats any portion of his property he would be obligated to construct a full roundabout, including modifications to any interim access points. Staff is recommending approval of the subject applications with the development agreement per the staff report, along with the modification to provision 1.1.2A and the addition of the terms pertaining to the roundabout in the applicant's response letter as previously mentioned. Any questions for staff? Freeman: Any questions for staff? Not at this time. Thank you, Sonya. Would the applicant like to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record again. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, once again, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I want to commend staff. This has been the result of about a three plus year effort and a lot of meetings and discussions with staff and with the neighbors as well, to come to a conclusion that varies abit -- not dramatically, but varies a bit from the adopted Ten Mile interchange specific area plan, but it recognizes a great deal of study and analysis of the various quadrants on -- at the intersection of I-84 and Ten Mile Road. It also -- we came to the conclusion that we needed greater flexibility than what the -- the Comprehensive Plan provided with the application of C-G or general commercial zone, but still with the same high quality of design intended for this area by the Ten Mile specific area plan. It was November of 19 -- excuse me -- not 19. Let's go to 2009. Get my decades correct here. That we actually provided the first concept plan. So, nearly three years ago and the iterations of that planning effort over time created a large stack of drawings for consideration, review, analysis, refinement and -- but we also did not deal just with this 80 acre parcel. On the slide that's in front of you you will see to the north of this parcel there is just a lightly highlighted parcel at the corner of Franklin Road and Ten Mile. We have about a 43 acre parcel to the north and between these two parcels there is a 120 acre parcel that's three-quarters of a mile wide east-west and a quarter of a mile north-south. We actually looked at all of that property and we have done a lot of planning, but it got down to the point for decisions beyond our control that we could not bring a larger plan to you, but because of interest in this particular location with the construction of the interchange, knew that we needed to move forward with the project. Hence we brought only the southern 80 acres or the going home parcel to the Commission at this point. I would note that -- on the second slide, which is the one that we provided the staff this afternoon and it wasn't a surprise, because we actually met with both city staff and ACHD on Monday to talk about how to deal with the question that they raised in -- that recommended condition 1.1.1 that was either provision of a roundabout intersection that would provide access to that northerly parcel or a collector roadway along the north boundary of our property. So, we -- we dealt with this matter with both agencies and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 31 of 36 came to the conclusion that it was logical to deal with that as a facility right at the property line. It would be equally split between the two. But the access coming in from Ten Mile Road was actually secured by the Idaho Transportation Department in conjunction with its project for the interchange and improvements on Ten Mile Road up to Franklin. So, that -- that location and right of way was actually secured and they have actually also provided funding for construction of the roadway. It won't be completely -- there will be elements that we are going to have to add to it that will add to that cost, but so funding and right of way has been provided by the Idaho Transportation Department, acknowledging that they needed to provide access to our property in the event that the adjoining property did not develop at the same time. We -- as noted by Sonya, we concur with the staff report analysis and recommended conditions of approval and in providing this and the next drawing, which delineates the phases of the project and also that same roundabout intersection, it does provide us, then, with the opportunity to move forward with anticipation that the first phase construction will begin next year. Staff had noted that -- let me go back to the first slide. As was noted, the Perdham Drain comes right across the site in this location -- is the first thing that has to be dealt with and we will be relocating that to the south boundary and to the west boundary this fall -- in the final stages of getting all of the necessary approvals, we have secured already the Corps of Engineers 404 permit for that activity. The last items with in Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District are underway. So, that's the first thing that will happen that would enable us, then, next year to begin site improvements for development activities that we trust will be coming forward rather soon. As we have noted with our neighbors to the east, phase one will retain a fairly large area, nearly 60 percent of the site between us and the Primrose Subdivision will remain in its agricultural activities. So, we would be moving forward and the actual impact to those adjoining neighbors will be some distance down the line. In dealing with the neighbors -- and we have met with them in the Ten Mile Church and, then, in the shade of one of the trees in their yard. The first meeting that we had with them was actually May 31st and, then, we met with them again on July 20th as we got a little bit more detail. But one of the concerns that they had was, of course, the impact and the buffering that would occur on that easterly boundary adjacent to their pasture areas, frankly. Pretty much all of them have a depth of agricultural use behind their homes. But as you can see we have the -- the benefit, actually, of -- there is a 32 foot wide city sewer easement that's already in place. The sewer trunk line was constructed there some time ago, so we began with a 32 foot wide easement that we can't plant trees, but we can do financing on the east side, we can do shrubbery and other landscape elements and, then, beyond that there would be tree lined areas outside of that easement. This detached sidewalk and another tree lined corridor before you get to the street. That total area of 62 feet, then, 48 foot wide street segment that would in some areas have islands in the middle with landscaping and, then, another 30 feet both half right of way and parcel landscape area on the other side of that street for about 140 feet of street and landscape buffer elements before you get to any of the site improvements for retail uses. One of the issues -- and the staff has given you a general statement about securing the street names, but when we met with the neighborhood one of their primary concerns was whether or not Verbena Drive was going to be connected through into the project and that, of course, is through that subdivision. We never proposed, nor do we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 32 of 36 support that kind of a connection. So, it's not anticipated that there would, in fact, be any street access from this development -- this long established neighborhood to the project. But the street naming committee, because it lines up with our east-west street suggested that Verbena be the street within the retail development as well and, of course, that raises a question that if you have that -- an address and somebody looks it up and they know that Verbena comes off Linder, maybe we can back door this and go down Linder to Verbena and get into the project. Hence it could create a real problem for the neighborhood. So, we -- we appealed that to the street naming committee and they said, essentially, we would have to deal with the city. So, we have -- we have requested I guess a waiver of the requirement and so staff I think has acknowledge that if we work through the process certainly we will before City Council action on this, have an approved name at that point. But I just wanted to stress the fact that we have met with our neighbors and have tried to provide the type of buffering and consideration that -- that their neighborhood deserves. We would just note that the site is an appropriate area and use for the broader commercial, hence the reason for the Comprehensive Plan amendment from the lifestyle center and high density employment and even residential. There was a medium high density residential component on the east -- northeasterly corner of this site and the neighbors generally feel that this was a better use and a better buffer, frankly, than to having an apartment project abutting the backs of their properties. So, with -- with those activities and a great deal of consideration that we provided to staff and the conclusions that they have drawn in terms of recommendation for amending the Comprehensive Plan map as proposed and requested, annexation and zoning with a zone of C-G, general commercial, and preliminary plat approval, we ask for this Commission to also concur with staff and to recommend approval to the City Council. I would be happy to respond to questions and would ask if there are any members of the team -- this is the team pretty much back here that have been laboring on this effort for a number of years. So, if I have the opportunity to answer questions I would be happy and if I can't answer them they will. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions of the application at this time? Rohm: I don't have any. Freeman: No. Okay. Thank you very much. If there is more testimony you will get an opportunity to come back and address any -- anything that may come up. I have a couple of names signed up to speak. I can't read the last name of Gary -- is Gary Fors? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mike Wardle. Mr. Fors and Mr. Atwood were both here. To my knowledge they have been very supportive of the effort, so I suspect that -- I gave them a copy of the PowerPoint presentation to review and they left, apparently. Freeman: They did mark on the sign-up sheet that they were for the application, so -- Wardle: Very good. Freeman: I will take it that neither one are with us still to testify. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 33 of 36 Wardle: Thank you. Freeman: So, before we close the public hearing are there any other questions of staff? I think I had one. I just want to make sure we are clear on the amended requirements. The first one is an amendment to 1.1.2A, which is -- you're now going to require a revised concept plan, rather than any sticking with the one that's been presented; is that correct? Wafters: That is correct, Chairman Freeman. Freeman: The other one is 1.1.1A and I want to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying about the roundabout there. We are actually changing the requirement for the roundabout? Wafters: Chairman Freeman, before there was a requirement to either provide a roundabout or a collector street along the north boundary of the site. The applicant has chosen to provide aroundabout -- Freeman: Okay. Wafters: -- with those stipulations that they listed. Staff is amenable to those. Freeman: So, we are just changing the shape of the roundabout is going to be provided? Wafters: Yes. Freeman: Okay. Wafters: Along with the rest of -- Freeman: If we -- Wafters: The applicant's request. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Discussion? Yearsley: Do we need to close? Freeman: Yeah, we do. Thank you. Need a motion to close the public hearing now. Yearsley: So moved. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 34 of 36 Freeman: I have a motion in a second to close the public hearing on CPAM 12-001, AZ 12-005, and PP 12-003, Ten Mile Crossing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The public hearing is closed. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley, now would you like to comment? Yearsley: I have to commend the applicant for this big of a project next to residential and everything, there is nobody here to comment, so it means they have done a good job. I think they have done a good job. It looks good to me. So, I just commend the staff and the applicant for a good job. Freeman: Thank you. Anyone else? Marshall: Well, Mr. Chair, a couple things. One, I'm really torn and it's breaking a couple of my rules. One, I don't like C-G against a residential period. Oh, I don't like it. But I understand it in this case. You have got large pasture areas looking at the aerial photos. You do have a lot of agricultural land and a lot of buffer lands that they have of their own and the applicant has provided some fairly nice buffer on top of that. Typically I do not consider a berm a buffer. A buffer is a change in intensity, a lowering of intensity as we go closer and closer to residences, should be L-O, it should be multi- family, something like that. This is an exception to my rule and I don't like breaking my rules. But this -- this is a good project and I -- the other issue was that I -- I really thought that for some reason I was thinking we were saving Ten Mile for something other than commercial and this just seems to look like -- I think a very nice presentation of it -- of commercial of what we see at the other off ramps, the interstate off ramps. understand and I guess, yeah, with the lifestyle center there marked this all makes sense, so, yes, I am in favor of it. I am in that -- but somewhere out here we are going to have to get some mixes of uses and somewhere in here we are going to have to fit some high density employment centers that this was kind of set aside for. This is -- I mean I know we don't have anybody to step forward to say I'm putting my building here, we don't know who is going in or how that's going to develop, but at the same time -- mean we really -- Meridian was holding this aside to be an employment center and something other than retail and it's -- and C-G just suggests to me it's going to go retail. It's going to go that way. I know it's going to the minute we do C-G. So, t am pretty torn there, but, again, it's very well done, very well presented. So, I guess that's where I fall. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. I share some of your concerns. However, I think staff has already done a wonderful job of addressing my concerns. hesitate to see us, quote, unquote, downgrade -- and that's probably a very poor word, from what the Ten Mile plan originally proposed. However, I see reasoning for doing commercial here. I'm encouraged by the fact that we are still going to insist on the design elements contained in the Ten Mile plan, so that's a positive. And I also think it's key that 1.1.2A is being changed such that this concept plan is going to have to be modified to stay in the spirit and intent of those design requirements, because I do have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 35 of 36 some concerns about the layout, but I understand it's just a placeholder for now that's going to developed and designed. So, with that I -- I can approve this application, believe. I think staffs done a great job of making sure that we still get a quality project in the spirit of the Ten Mile interchange plan. If there are no further comments -- and I don't see anybody -- Rohm: Oh, I just have one -- Freeman: Commissioner Rohm, go for it. Rohm: -- thing that I wanted to say and that is I believe that this kind of development relieves some pressures from other existing developments within our community and anytime you can expand to the point that you have commercial development on the west side of Meridian, it's going to relieve some of the pressure on the east side and as we have worked very hard to make our community accessible from all the residents at either end, I think this is the right direction to go and so I applaud the efforts of the developers and staff in coming up with something that will work for all. Freeman: Thank you, Commission Rohm. Now, which one of you wants to make a motion? Marshall: I'll take a stab at it. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CPAM 12-001, AZ 12-005, and PP 12-003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 16th, 2012, with the following modifications: That 1.1.2A be change to -- modified to require a revised concept plan and 1.1.1A to provide a roundabout provision with the additional modifications as presented. Yearsley: I'll second that. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval for CPAM 12- 001, AZ 12-005, and PP 12-003, Ten Mile Crossing amended as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: I think that's the end of our agenda, so I need another motion. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I -- move that we adjourn. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 36 of 36 Freeman: Tough one. Marshall: Second. Freeman: Motion and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: We are adjourned. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPR SC T FREEMAN - C AIRM DATE APPROVED A' Go4QDRp,TED q UcGSTl 3 r9 w A .~ City of E IEi.~LMAN, CITY CL'~C `/Vl ~ 1ll~( IAN ~ '°A"° ~~ SEAL ~ 'Y lsP e~~de THE A6U~Q'~~