Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 17, 2005 P&Z Sp Mtg Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 2 of 88 why -- how it complies with the law. In this case we are -- for a Comprehensive Plan amendment we are actually trying to change the law, but we have to do that in a legal way. So, staff is not actually advocating a project, but they are explaining to us, if it is going to go forward, what are the requirements. Then, following that the applicant will have time to either respond to issues that the staff has raised or make their points to convince us -- they are the advocate for why it should happen and they will be given ten -- 15 minutes, I'm sorry, to do that and that includes any supporting staff that they may have that has been a party to putting the application together. Following that we open it for public testimony and we ask that each of you try and confine your remarks to three minutes. You can see we have a large group of people who want us to hear what you have to say and if it was important enough for you to come down, we want to make sure we do hear it. So, we do ask that each of you be concise and keep it within three minutes if you can. We also ask that you only speak when you're up at the microphone. From a sign-up sheet I will call names. We have an exception to that and this is if there is a spokesman for a group and a typical example of that is a president of a homeowner's association, who, in fact, is going to speak for a number of people who -- whether you signed up or not, are not going to speak, because you're giving your time to the spokesman. We allow the spokesman ten minutes. And, then, as I go down through the roll call sheet of people that have signed up, if that person spoke for you, if you would indicate that you have been spoken for. Of course, if you have some great new point that the spokesman didn't include, please, do come forward and add it. But it will help us if you don't repeat things that have already been said. That way everybody gets a chance and, hopefully, we hear it while we are still alert enough to absorb it and understand it. In the cases where there was an applicant, then, the applicant takes notes through the time that the public testimony is coming on and is actually given a final ten minutes to again try and support their application to respond to any issues that have been raised by the general public and to explain to us how it can be resolved. Then, the pattern normally is we close the Public Hearing, we deliberate amongst ourselves and professional staff and, then, make a recommendation to City Council, where, as I said before, again, there will be another Public Hearing, which will be noticed the same way this was. We do have a handy light system over here. When the green light is on you have time to speak. When the yellow one comes on that's a warning that you should begin to conclude if you would, please. And when the red one goes up your time is up and we appreciate your cooperation in not going over your time. Item 3: Tabled from October 3, 2005: CPA 05~OO4 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text and future land use map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the North Meridian Area and to expand the area of city impact boundary: Zaremba: That being said, we are not opening the Public Hearing on CPA 05-004, we are -- we are un-tabling it, is that -- let me ask for a legal opinion on how we discuss the tabled action. Nary: Mr. Chairman, you can certainly open the discussion of that, although, again, we are not -- as you stated, it's not for public testimony, it's just for discussion, so you can Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 3 of 88 just start that item on the agenda. If you have questions of staff or if staff was supposed to provide you some follow-up information, they can certainly do that. Zaremba: Okay. So, we will open the tabled Item CPA 05-004 and staff does have some updates for us. We will begin with the staff. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just as a point of clarification, my understanding was that the item at the last October 3 meeting was continued. I think there was a couple people that called our office and were told that they may have a chance to testify. I understand now that I was probably misinformed with that, but I just -- I guess I just wanted to make sure that both you and if the people that called are in the audience, that they know that they have another chance at City Council should you not accept any new testimony. Zaremba: Well, I would comment that I think I have answered the same question the same way you did, but I was reminded tonight that we did not continue the hearing, that we actually closed it and tabled it, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: -- we are both letting everybody know you will get another opportunity and, hopefully, we are only discussing the points that you brought up last time anyhow. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, may I ask a quick question? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: But the letters that we received are entered as public testimony on this issue? Zaremba: They are -- Newton-Huckabay: And they count as testimony, even though they were late, so to speak, by our self-imposed deadline? So, they are okay? Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. And, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think the ones -- the letters that I have received, anyway, are items that will be addressed as part of the clarification of your motion or what you anticipate a motion was. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 4 of 88 Hawkins-Clark: So, I don't think they were brand new information. What I have placed on the screen is a summary of the key issues of your discussion at the October 3 Public Hearing and what the Commission was instructing staff to basically look at and so this is just a summary, essentially, of what the Commissioners discussed amongst yourselves after you closed the hearing and were kind of moving towards a possible motion. There were six specific areas of the future land use map. The first one, the southwest corner of McMillan and Meridian agreed to change to medium density residential. Northwest corner of Chinden and Linder, Commissioners agreed to change to mixed use community. The east and west sides of Black Cat north of Chinden, change to mixed use community. And I will stop on that third bullet just briefly and note that that was Mr. Egger's testimony, who owns property on the north side of Chinden on both sides of Black Cat and he -- that was his request. The Commission generally supported the idea of changing the land use map in that area to something other than medium density residential. We did not discuss, however, on October 3 if it was commercial, mixed use regional, mixed use community, mixed-use neighborhood. Staff's recommendation is mixed use community, in part because we also have a mixed-use community designation about a mile to the east on the north side of Black Cat. In addition, it probably, in terms of just the development potential, it's going to be better served to be small square footages, if you're going with retail, as compared to big box. So, staff doesn't support the mixed use regional. A commercial may work. Mixed-use community is what we place there. So, do you want me to just go ahead and hit all these or do you want to discuss them one by one as we go through them and -- Zaremba: Commissioners, do you want to hear them all or do we want to discuss each one? Newton-Huckabay: I have no preference. Zaremba: Okay. Why don't we comment on them while we are doing them? Hawkins-Clark: I could go to the map easier. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Was this all of them or were there some more on the next page? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, the ones that were just on that slide were the only items that the Commission discussed at the last hearing. There were a couple of new items, but -- so, again, here is the -- the old map, which, again, we will touch on this in a minute, but this is State Highway 16 preservation corridor with -- is going to be either removed or reduced and we will talk about that in a minute, but here is Chinden Road and -- let's see. Where am I? Here is McDermott and, then, Black Cat Road. So, Black Cat here on the north side. So, as you can see, we currently have a mixed use regional here at the southwest corner of Black Cat and Chinden and the discussion was to extend some commercial here to the north side on either side of Black Cat. Here is the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 5 of 88 mixed-use community that we already have on the map and so what staff would propose is to add approximately 15 to 20 acres of that mixed-use community on both sides of Black Cat here on the north side. So, you could go with mixed use regional, which would match the south side of Chinden or you could go with mixed-use community, which would match the north side of Chinden there. We would -- staff would recommend not extending that much further north than 500 to 600 feet in terms of how it's designated on the map, recognizing that that's a guide, but -- so I will stop there and take any of your direction at this time on that item. Zaremba: My comment would be that I'm supportive of one of the mixed-use choices there. Mixed-use community would work. But I also agree with you that regardless of the depth of -- and shape of current properties, we probably do want to state that -- that that designation only goes -- 500 feet would be satisfactory to me, but that doesn't mean that it's commercial all the way to the bench or the Phyllis Canal or whatever the end of that is, that there is some distance close to Chinden that it is. I don't really have an opinion on whether it would be regional. We have had quite a bit of discussion around all of Meridian that we are getting a little bit over-balanced with commercial, as opposed to residential, and we risk having vacancies, so if it's regional on the south side, I can certainly understand staff's recommendation that it be a step down from that on the north side. That's not a problem for me. Commissioner Borup, you appear to be pondering a statement. Borup: Well, no, I think I generally agree. I think that the vacancy concern was more in office at this point. The commercial has a tendency not to be built until they have tenants and what I was thinking about, how viable that is to have regional on one side of the road and not have it on the other side, if it makes more sense to -- if it's a more viable project if it's on both sides. I don't know. I mean, again, that's a little bit of a marketplace decision, but -- Zaremba: You're on board with it being one of the mixed use choices for commercial and -- Borup: Oh, I think so and restricting the distance from Chinden makes sense, too. Yes, I -- Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: This request was driven by the property owner? Is that -- I don't remember -- okay. Mixed-use community would be okay. I think regional -- that's just so hard to call, until you have development out that far. Zaremba: Well, there is good reason to go either way. I agree that having regional across the street from it makes sense to have the whole area regional and even if -- even if we designate it as regional, there isn't any reason why they couldn't put in something with less impact, is there? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 6 of 88 Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Newton-Huckabay: I'd rather go the other way on that. Zaremba: You mean -- specify-- Newton-Huckabay: It's more likely that somebody is going to want to step up, rather than step down. Zaremba: Well, that's what I'm saying, so if we designate it as regional -- Newton-Huckabay: Err on the side of caution. Regional or community? Zaremba: Regional is a bigger impact than community. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: And you're wanting to stay-- Newton-Huckabay: I'm more in favor of mixed-use community. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Then would they need a Comp Plan change if they wanted to go regional? Zaremba: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they would. Borup: That's probably far enough out that that may be the best way to do it. Zaremba: Community? Borup: Yeah. And if they want to do a change, then, do a request the years down the road whenever that would be. Zaremba: Well, we would all be -- already be on record with a concept with it going to some commercial development, as opposed to residential in the first X hundred feet. Borup: And it could be determined at that time if that's feasible. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: I'm okay with that. Zaremba: Okay. So, we are supporting the staff's recommendation that it be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 7 of 88 Borup: Yes. Zaremba: -- mixed use community for about 500 feet from Chinden. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. We will do that, assuming that's what you include in your motion. So, that takes care of the third bullet, then. So, as I have stated here, then, with approximately 500 feet added would be what you agree to. The fourth bullet, southeast corner of Ustick and Linder. The Commission chose not to recommend this for a change to commercial, since it's outside of the area of the public notice. We noticed this application as north of Ustick. So, there really was not much discussion, but since it was a specific request from a property owner, we wanted to include it here. Zaremba: Well -- and the comment would mean that -- that doesn't mean we wouldn't consider it and discuss it at another application, but legally we can't discuss things that are outside area that was noticed. Hawkins-Clark: As part of this one. Correct. Zaremba: Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: Right. And, then, you also at your October 3 meeting talked about North Ten Mile Road, a quarter mile south of McMillan, there is some property that's in the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant area and the Commission chose not to recommend that for a change to office on Ten Mile frontage, with residential behind. That was the request. But you chose to keep that Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant intact. And, then, the last specific item you discussed was the area of city impact expansion north of the Phyllis Canal and you had directed staff to prepare a letter to the Board of County Commissioners. There is not specific hearing date set for that Eagle area of city impact ordinance at this time, but we will proceed with the direction you gave us last time to the City Council hearing on this application. We can make that very clear that the Commission's full intent is to support an expansion of the area of impact at sometime in the future and we want to make sure that the Ada County commissioners are aware of that. So, if you want to participate in terms of drafting that letter or if you want to see that, we can talk about that I guess maybe at a subsequent meeting, but that's -- we understand that that's your direction. Zaremba: And, once again, the final -- and, actually, the last two bullets -- City Council has been pretty clear that they don't want to change the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant. That does not mean that the people who spoke on that can't bring it up again at the City Council hearing and see if they have changed their mind. And on the last bullet, clearly the City Council will be the final decider on whether the city is going to send a letter or not, but we would like to -- guess the direction to staff is to prepare one that the City Council can look at and recommend to the City Council that they do it. So, it's, actually, not our final decision to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 8 of 88 Hawkins-Clark: Understood. Okay. So, those are the specific items on October 3. Since that meeting there have been some discussions with staff and as Commissioner Newton-Huckabay notes, was some written comments submitted to the city. The first one that I have listed here is the Peregrine Heights Subdivision, which is approximately 15 lots on the south side of Chinden between McDermott and Black Cat and I will just go back to the map here. Currently this crosshatched area -- again, here is McDermott and Black Cat and Chinden. So, this crosshatched area is currently proposed as mixed-use interchange. The testimony from Mr. Richards -- he was the first to testify at your last meeting -- was that given the high valuation of the houses in Peregrine Heights and that subdivision has been there since approximately 1996, as well as some agreements that their homeowners association has come to with the abutting property owners, they would prefer not have mixed use interchange. Again, there is a potential interchange shown here at McDermott and Chinden. Staff met with -- with both property owners, as well as Mr. Richards, and you should have received their -- a copy of their letter in your packets there for tonight. We understand their position and concern and, as I stated to them in our meeting, there are several Comprehensive Plan policies that support transitioning away from existing uses, recognizing that those property owners do need to be protected in terms of what's going to happen next to them. So, we would support their proposal, which they currently have medium density I believe designated on both sides of Peregrine. Their intent is to provide low density on the east side and one of our reasonings for this is to think that if this is an interchange here, that, really, you have kind of created a separate -- four separate quadrants that are separated by a state -- two state highways and that, really, those could be looked at as a quadrant that is residential in nature and you could see your other heavier intense uses happening either on the north here or over here in the southwest quadrant. The northwest, of course, is Star's area, which at this point in time I can't tell you what they have designated that, but the west I think is open for that designation to have happen. So, in short, staff would support, if the Commission directs us to change this area over here to the -- to reflect the letter that you received today from -- from the Peregrine Heights property owners. Zaremba: Well, both the letter and your comments about your discussion with them are not a surprise, since I -- they did make that point at the Public Hearing. This is not new information, I want to make that clear to everybody. And I agree that's something we should discuss and that was raised during the public testimony at the last one. Borup: I think the thing that is new is the adjoining property owners and -- Zaremba: And I agree with that. Borup: Right. Zaremba: Yeah. My personal -- there is several elements that go on here. One -- and I'm not sure how clear this gets across. In our long range planning that doesn't mean that this property is going to change tomorrow or even 20 years from now, it could very well be 30 years from now before anything happens to that. We are all hoping that ITD '. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 9 of 88 will get their study done quickly and within the next year or so we know what's projected to happen there. But the physical actual happening of it could be 20, 30 years away. That being said, as long as it's understood that there is very likely to be an interchange, I'm not -- I'm not sure we need to hang onto the interchange overlay district, if the people who currently live there don't have a problem -- if they still live there 40 years from now and there is an interchange and they don't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with it. Borup: Yeah. Makes sense. Zaremba: But, like I say, I do hope that ITD gets their study done real quick, because it's uncomfortable for the city and the current residents to have things in limbo. Newton-Huckabay: And the uncertainty. Zaremba: Yeah. The uncertainty is uncomfortable for everybody. Newton-Huckabay: I just have a clarification. So, the west side of McDermott we are proposing to stay -- I'm sorry, now the designation is just-- Hawkins-Clark: A mixed-use interchange? Newton-Huckabay: Mixed-use Interchange. Hawkins-Clark: This cross-hatched here? Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. And, then, the southeast we are going to suggest R-4 and R- Borup: No. Just a comp plan designation, not a zoning -- Newton-Huckabay: Also low density and medium density? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. That's their proposal in their letter to you on page three. They have provided two different designations, a low density on the east side of Peregrine and, then, medium continuing beyond that and, then, medium on the west side of Peregrine. So, I think if -- for simplicity, if you just wanted to reference their map, if you're in agreement with that, we will take their map and make the changes accordingly, but -- and I think the other reason that we supported it is just as you said, Chairman, as an interim measure. It could be that the market pressures become so great in a few years that they just decide they don't want the residential anyway and maybe they want to come back. But I think to honor their request now -- and since there is such an unknown factor, that residential makes good sense and is the -- always easier to bump up instead of bring back down in intensity of uses. Zaremba: I can support that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 10 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: Me, too. Zaremba: Okay. Next. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Just a couple more items on this. So, that was the Peregrine Heights No.1. Another item of discussion at your October 3 meeting was a designation of Basco Lane and whether or not that is designated as a collector or not. There was testimony from both the Aldape family, represented by the Ewings, and as well as the property owners on the -- that are below the rim, as well as the property owners on the north side. Or, I'm sorry, on the south side represented by Mr. Carnahan and, again, we are talking about this collector right here. Here is West Jenna Boulevard. The way we have currently shown it is that a collector actually stubs to the -- the rim and, again, as with most of these, this is a preferred collector, since it's hashed -- or, I'm sorry, dashed. And we would -- we would -- in discussions with both parties since the October 3 meeting, staff has tried to make it clear that we believe that a public connection that is stubbed to the rim is of vital importance to provide access from people on the north side to Chinden. We are not necessarily married to the idea that this is designated as a collector and would support showing it as a collector only, you know, midway, for example, between Chinden and the Phyllis. And, then, at that point the local street system could be planned at the time of annexation and the development application. So, to -- we think that it helps to resolve the concern between both properties that there will not be a collector that would bisect the project here, if that's done by the Carnahans and O'Neils, and also shows -- if we -- that there is commitment to provide public street access to the north, that would be dealt with at the time of application. So, that would be one other change that we would support. Zaremba: And I don't remember whether the Commissioners discussed that our last time, but that was the sense that I got, that the objective, whether it was called a collector or not, was that it would at least be public road all the way to the property north of it and, you know, whether it goes in a straight line or doesn't go in a straight line where Basco Road is right at least it would be a public road all the way from Chinden to the property north of it and mayor may not be called a collector. So, the point to me on number two would be to make sure that Basco Lane was designated a public road. I'm comfortable with that it being a collector. I think it probably should be, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. And maybe since we are not showing public streets per se -- all the public streets on our map, if you would like, we could just handle it as a text -- we could be specific in the text, if you want to provide that assurance to the Aldape family that that's going to be there or not, but -- Zaremba: To call it a collector would be a map change. To call it a public road would just be a text change. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Of course, at this point we don't really -- we don't have a section in our text that just addresses locations of public streets. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 11 of 88 Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: But since this was such an item of discussion, we could do that in this area, if you want. But, yeah, our recommendation would be to actually shorten that collector and only show it part way up and, then, maybe add a next policy that states local street access was expected. Zaremba: Well -- and I'm sure ACHD would say that as well. I mean in almost every project they want a stub street to a project that hasn't presented yet, even though if the people say they are going to live there forever. Hawkins-Clark: There will be some challenges given the crossing of the Phyllis Canal in terms of future bridges and whatnot. Zaremba: Is that a consensus? Borup: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Number three there is the auto circulation map and an addition of a preferred collector between Star and McDermott and Josh is just going to switch this over. At this point in time this was an item that staff actually discussed after your last meeting, so if you're uncomfortable making this a part of your motion, since it is new material, then, I guess don't listen to me, but -- but what we were talking about at staff level is extending this collector -- this is Can-Ada and Star and, actually, maybe bringing this collector down more to approximately the half mile point to better reflect these other collectors and expecting that this is medium density residential and show it as a dashed preferred collector. So, is there any discussion yea or nay on that item? Borup: I thought I heard you say the proposal between McDermott and Star, but you're saying between Star and Can-Ada? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Star and Can-Ada. Borup: What does your text say? Did I read that wrong? No. The text that you had up on the previous -- Zaremba: Go back to the previous slide that you were showing. Hawkins-Clark: Oh. Yes. Correct. I see. That should be Can-Ada. I'm sorry. Borup: That's why I was confused. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 12 of 88 Zaremba: Well, I agree with the one between Star and McDermott, which is shown. Okay. Any discussion on whether there should be one west of there? Borup: It's got the same logic as the other one. Zaremba: In long range planning, it may not look like it it's necessary today, but -- Newton-Huckabay: I support that. Zaremba: Is there -- Newton-Huckabay: We built it originally as five lanes. Zaremba: I think that's a reasonable recommendation. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. And, then, the last item was the big one from last time and that's the State Highway 16 preservation corridor and we got three revised items here that are open for your discussion and this wording -- I'll go ahead and read it, this Item A, and, again, this is the general direction that staff thought you were going with removing most of the more restrictive policies in this area and replacing it with this -- a statement something like this. The City of Meridian supports a collaborative public-private partnership with property owners, Idaho Transportation Department, Ada County, Canyon County, and other affected parties, to identify a preferred alignment for the future State Highway 16 extension. And as a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, this would show up and would become an action item, essentially. Chapter 8 of our Comprehensive Plan has a list of implementation policies and this would really probably fold into becoming an implementation policy that we would begin much more focused efforts with the property owners along McDermott and the other agencies listed there to become more pro-active about identifying that. And as Mr. Forrey testified, he gave some examples from Utah and Texas, I believe were the main ones, where there have been successful state highway projects that have been expedited with these kinds of programs and so we didn't go into a lot of detail here, but I think if you want to add more detail, we certainly can at this point. I think the record reflects the intent of this policy and it would just -- it would replace -- or be a new policy in Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. Zaremba: Well, I think we clearly got the message that today trying to preserve a half mile on either side of McDermott was not acceptable and if I'm interpreting what A is saying, that the suggestion was made during public testimony that that still exists, but reduced to 300 feet either side. If I'm interpreting A, we are saying that we would not make that designation, but that would be a product of this collaboration. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. There was some discussion about that, whether 300-foot would actually still be graphically shown and I believe Commissioner Newton-Huckabay Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 13 of 88 and Commissioner Moe both felt that that probably isn't necessary, let's leave that up to this collaborative effort instead. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: That's the direction that I took. Zaremba: Well, if it's really going to be a collaborative effort, we probably don't want to tie their hands, so I suspect that may be a good solution. Hawkins-Clark: So, we would take that -- B is a little bit more specific. This would, basically, be a request to Ada County to adopt the access management policies of Article H of Meridian's Unified Development Code as they pertain to the future State Highway 16 corridor. And, again, that would likely -- that would be incorporated into the area of city impact agreement between the two agencies and should this be adopted Meridian would promote with Ada County that our Article H, which deals with all state highways, but in particular with this alignment, be adopted to help preserve and not allow any additional access points to McDermott Road. They would -- any new development that would happen before a state highway is constructed, they would have to find alternate means of access. Zaremba: I agree with what's there. I think my question would be since the state Highway 20-26, Chinden Boulevard, is also within the area that we are currently talking about, wouldn't we ask them to honor our Article H on both of those highways? It would make sense to -- Hawkins-Clark: Sure. That's a good point. We could change that to reflect all state highways. Zaremba: I think it should include Highway 69, Meridian Road south, but that's part of the map amendment that we are talking about tonight. But it certainly could include that portion of Chinden. That may be a consensus from the other Commissioners. I would just add that. I would not subtract from what you have. Newton-Huckabay: Is that changing the substance of what we are doing? Zaremba: No. But when we were talking about it two weeks ago, I know I was using the term state highways in the area, I wasn't thinking of 16 for a request of the county, so I don't think it's changing from what we discussed during open hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Is that a consensus or would you rather have it just to 16? Borup: No. I agree. It should be to all state highways. That's already in there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17,2005 Page 14 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Then, item C is remove the restrictive policies regarding down zoning -- I probably would not include the word down zoning. That's not the correct term there, but -- in your motion, but, essentially, what we are talking about is in the application on page nine of section E -- and the footers at the bottom reflect the section, as well as the page, so section E, page nine. That's where we talk about the implementation policies for this corridor and what I gathered from your October 3 meeting was that we were going to omit and delete three of the policies that are currently in that section. The first one is that -- for limiting residential densities to one dwelling unit per 40 acres. That's item number four. That would be deleted. Number five, if any parcel is divided by the corridor boundary, no permanent structure being placed there. There is more language there, but, to summarize, that's what it says and we would delete that, talking about new structures in this area. And, then, item number six talks about the City of Meridian considering additional standards for a future land use map and that would, essentially, be replaced by our Article H. So, I guess that one wouldn't be necessary to be deleted, but replaced. It does, however, still leave in there the statement that the City of Meridian services will not be extended for new development proposed under Ada County. So, while we might -- we are removing the State Highway 16 designation, it doesn't change the existing policy which has always been in our Comprehensive Plan since 2002, that we are not extending urban services, specifically water, sewer, into this area until a State Highway 16 corridor is designated. So, that is still in there, unless you tell us to take it out. Zaremba: And let me just clarify, that is designated, as opposed to existing; right? If the collaborative effort with ITO within the next year or two designates where that's going to go, then, would the city move ahead with plans for making service -- urban services available there or does it have to be built before we do that? Hawkins-Clark: Well, I think the question of whether or not public funds are going to be designated for sending -- I mean for new sewer projects and water projects are, obviously, a policy decision between City Council and the Public Works Department, largely. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Hawkins-Clark: So, I think -- does that answer your question? I mean I think that whether or not we would extend it or not is probably going to be at -- that decision would have to be made at that point in terms of budgeting. Zaremba: Okay. Once it was designated, not necessarily waiting until it's built. The decision would be made at -- Hawkins-Clark: The decision would be made. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 15 of 88 Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Zaremba: And as far as number C, I think our discussion -- the sense of it was that with A and B combined, the three items that you mentioned are going to be the product of A and B and can be removed and just leave the one statement about -- and that's really a warning statement. It's not really a policy statement, it's a warning statement that it's not going to happen until we know where the corridor is going to be. Hawkins-Clark: The other -- the first policy under that page nine of these implementation policies says that the desired effect of the corridor is to prohibit the construction or expansion of permanent structures and that one I assume you would also want us to remove, since you're largely wanting to leave the decision up to a separate effort. Zaremba: Up to the group in A. Hawkins-Clark: Right. I mean-- Zaremba: They may very well include that in their discussion, but I think that should be not prejudged and open for their discussion. That's a personal opinion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Since our suggestion is going to be to take off that corridor designation, do we -- can we not just strike this whole section from the -- our motion, rather than parse it? Borup: I think we still want a corridor, don't we? We are just not looking a mile wide corridor. Newton-Huckabay: I think the fact that a collaborative effort is going to make a decision on the details of that and we are front loading -- we are taking out some restrictions, but -- I don't know. It's almost like comments -- I don't think they apply anymore. Borup: What happens if this collaborative effort doesn't result in a decision? Then, is that whole area open to development? It still -- I mean my assumption would be that they need to reach a decision and have a -- have a designated right of way determined before it would be available for development. If that decision is never made, then, it would revert back to the non-development. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 16 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: I guess I'm just thinking of clarification for the property owners out there. You already have to -- it's already difficult to understand what all this means for the average property owner and I think these -- in my mind once we take our four or five, six, one -- they are basically just arbitrary statements at that point. If you feel strong about leaving them in, that's -- that was my question or my concern with that. Zaremba: I would say the Comprehensive Plan does need to have some kind of a marker, however it's worded, that the intent is to have a corridor for State Highway 16 in this area. We have backed off from us making the decision, we want this collaborative group to make the decision about exactly the alignment what needs to be protected and what can develop around it, but I think the idea is instead of us listing the restrictions, we are saying, yes, it's going to happen, but the group will decide the restrictions. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Borup: And the alignment. If they never decide that, then -- Zaremba: Then, I'm comfortable with the additional statement that there won't be any development there until that is completed. Borup: Did Mr. Hawkins-Clark have a comment? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I guess what staff was just discussing is there is currently in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan a section called Urban Services Area and it -- that's where it has language about the city's policies on extending urban service outside the city limits, but within the area of impact, and for clarity's sake maybe we just -- as Commissioner Newton-Huckabay suggested, strike the implementation policies header and just include in that section, that urban services section, a very specific statement about the City of Meridian's preference is that State Highway 16 be along the McDermott corridor and no urban services are expected to be extended until that alignment is known. And, then, it takes away all the language in the text referring to some corridor, but it still makes clear that that is where we are going. Does that make sense? Borup: So, we delete which? Hawkins-Clark: On the bottom of page nine, section E. Borup: Okay. So, all of section E? Hawkins-Clark: Well, implementation policies is the sub-header. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hawkins-Clark: That's at the bottom of that page. So, we would still leave in there the support for the McDermott Road alignment section, but you would take out the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 17 of 88 implementation policies and replace it with kind of a combined statement which reflects what I just said a minute ago. Zaremba: Okay. In thinking of the most clear, but short way to make this motion -- and maybe I will ask both you, Brad, and Mr. Nary to comment on this. There is -- all of this, of course, was in the minutes of both nights' meetings, but would be able to make the motion to recommend this to City Council, including a list of items that staff has prepared, modified by the October 14th letter from the Peregrine. Does that cover all the stuff that we have -- or do we need to identify everything we have just discussed? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, your record is all of the minutes, all of the hearings, all the letters, all the testimony you have received. You don't have to go back and identify each one as part of your motion while you're making it. You have synthesized all that material, you have asked the staff to capsulize that in these different points that have been raised to you tonight and that has been your discussion points that you have had. You're free to make the motion based upon all the information that you have gathered to this point. The letter that is included in your public record is simply just another document that's part of the record and it's certainly not a problem to include that as part of your discussion, because, again, it relates to all the testimony you have previously listened to and all the testimony that's already part of the record. So, you can go ahead and do that if you wish. Zaremba: A good shorthand motion. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman-- Zaremba: I don't know if I'm jumping the gun. Are we at that point or were there more issues? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, we are. Hawkins-Clark: Staff is. If I could just make one other comment that you did -- before your last October 3 meeting there were two letters submitted into the record, one from Tricia Nelson of Compass, a planner, as well as Sue Sullivan of Idaho Transportation Department. These letters are both dated September 15th to myself and have specific recommended changes in their letters. So, didn't know if you had a chance to review these or not, but if you want those included, those changes, then -- Zaremba: I do remember reading those and, unfortunately, I don't think I agree with everything they asked for. Where did I put that? Well, let ask you, are you comfortable with what they have asked -- modified by what we have already discussed tonight, is there anything that's contradictory to what we have just discussed? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would say that Sue Sullivan's letter dated September 15th from Idaho Transportation Department, if you wanted to recommend that we include her changes -- several of these are just very specific and Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 18 of 88 almost cleanup in nature. She does talk about the State Highway 16 preservation area, which, of course, we would not include and -- but other than that, I think we are comfortable. Zaremba: Okay. Including those? Hawkins-Clark: Including those, yes. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Regarding the September 15 letter from Compass, there is a couple of very good inclusions that I think, you know, we would support. Some of them get -- that mixed-use interchange policies -- probably in some ways warrant more discussion. I don't know if you want to spend that time here tonight or not or -- we could raise these as issues with the City Council at their hearing in November. Either way. I would -- given the crowd here tonight and the other items on the agenda, I guess I'm just sensitive to the fact that it might take us another 15, 20 minutes to kind of hash through those and I'd rather not just include her entire letter. Zaremba: Well -- and my thinking on that is that if there is or is not a mixed-use interchange in this area, that's up to the committee in paragraph A here. So, I probably would not include the Compass comments on that, although make them available to the committee to see if they want to incorporate them. I guess my opinion is regardless of who it comes from, I don't want to pre-judge the output of that committee, except that there will be an alignment for State Highway 16. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Whatever your preference is on that. Zaremba: Yeah. I -- yeah, I probably would not add their interchange comments. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: So, you're recommending just adding them as additional testimony, per se? Is that -- Zaremba: Say that again. Newton-Huckabay: Those two letters. Zaremba: They are in the public record. We had them before the last-- Newton-Huckabay: Right. I mean rather than incorporating them into our motion -- Zaremba: Just reference the letters. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 19 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: -- just reference them. Okay. Borup: Both of them or just the Compass letter? You're saying the ITO letter just -- Zaremba: Well, ITO was about the State Highway 16 corridor. Borup: Yeah. So, the same thing. Zaremba: The Compass one, I would incorporate, except for, again, the parts that relate to the State Highway 16 -- Borup: So, they don't even need to be referenced in the motion, then? Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Well, staff would ask -- I mean we do support the specific changes to the text that ITO is recommending, so I think it might be helpful for us to know -- if you want us to make these changes, then, include that in your motion. Zaremba: Yeah. There were a couple of wordings that were just clarity kind of things and those are fine with me. Borup: Okay. So, are we ready for a motion? Zaremba: Commissioners, any further discussion or are we ready for a recommendation on this one? Borup: No. Let's move it on. Zaremba: I think it's been discussed. Borup: 00 you want me to try it? You got the notes or do you want me to try it? Newton-Huckabay: I made some notes, but as I understand it we don't need to include the notes, we just include the comments. Borup: I think we can. This may be a long motion. You want me to try it? Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval of CPA 05-004, to include all previous staff report and comments and to specifically include comments from the staff report this evening, particularly, bullet points one, two, and three on the presentation, the proposed medium density on the map on page three proposed by Jeff Hohn -- I notice the letter -- excuse me, I'm interrupting my motion, but was he the one that wrote Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 20 of 88 the letter, Brad? There was no address or anything. That was the last name on the letter. So, was that who that came from? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Borup, the letter was actually from I believe about 12 different people. He just happened to be the last one on the list. But it was actually drafted by I believe Mr. Richards. Darrell Richards. Borup: Because it started out saying I am writing. So, there was some individual that wrote this. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Which I believe -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Richards and he stated that he was the author. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: And, then, Barbara Waterfield also had -- Borup: He didn't sign his name to it, just stated that. Hawkins-Clark: -- a lot of input there. Borup: All right. Okay. Then, leave it at that, as designated on their map on page three of that letter, that there also be a public road designated basically in the Basco Road area to the north and that would be included in the text. That also includes a designation of a collector between Star and Can-Ada. That we delete the section on page nine, E on the implementation policies on the state highway preservation, that that section be deleted and add or replace that. I'm not sure you want to add it in the same section or somewhere else, but the statement that -- pertaining to the urban service area, which is already our policy, that that would apply to that area. And also include the text changes as recommended in the letter from lTD. Anything else that I needed to add? Zaremba: It sounded like it to me. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Did you do the mixed use community? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Just references bullet points. Borup: Right. Yeah. I referenced the first three bullet points, so we didn't have to read all of those. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 21 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: My apologies. Okay. Borup: End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Public Hearing: CPA 05~OO2 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change approximately 11.79 acres from Office to Mixed- Use Community by Conger Management Group - 675 and 715 South Wells Street: Zaremba: All right. That one is being forwarded onto City Council. Thank you all very much. And at this time I will open the Public Hearing for CPA 05-002, request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change approximately 11.79 acres from office to mixed use community by Conger Management Group at 675 and 715 South Wells Street and we will begin with the staff report, please. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is by Conger Management Group to change the Comprehensive Plan designation on two parcels, which total approximately 12 acres located on South Wells Street in Meridian, which is West Eagle Road and north of 1-84. Some of other uses in the area include a residential subdivision to the west, Woodbridge Subdivision, which was platted in 2000 on approximately 80 acres in the R-4 zone and contains approximately 260 homes at a density of 3.28 dwelling units to the acre. To the south of the subject properties -- my mouse is not showing up here. We are dealing with the wireless technology here. Okay. The properties to the south of the property that we are proposing, the change on here, are currently rural residences still in Ada County. The area surrounding these properties is a mix of properties which are annexed into the City of Meridian as residential properties and also that remain in the county and were developed within the county. There is a county subdivision down on the freeway, I believe it's Locust Grove Heights, and there is also a county subdivision up on Franklin Road that remains in the county. The area in the vicinity of Magic View Drive and Eagle Road is a mix of recently developed commercial, recently developed office, and also lands that are proposed to develop as commercial or office. The L-shaped parcel here has received annexation approval as Cottonwood Lane, it was called. The portion of the project on Wells Street was approved as office uses and the portion of the project -- I will have to look at the name of that street here. Zaremba: Something like Freeway Road, I think.