HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp Plan AmdmtCPA 05-004
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 17, 2005
APPLICANT City of Meridian ITEM NO. 3
REQUEST Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map 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 - Tabled from October 3, 2005
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes
1
1 h
Date:
Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 2 of 67
president of a homeowners association, but there are other groups that have
spokesmen as well. We will allow that person ten minutes if we identify other people in
the audience who are not going to speak as that person is speaking for them. Then,
again, we, typically, would end with an applicant responding to issues that have been
brought up, but we will end probably with comments again from staff and, then, we will
deliberate and the objective is to make a recommendation to the City Council about how
we feel they should act and there will be a Public Hearing there as well.
Item 3: Public Hearing: CPA 05-004 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: So, with that said, I will open the Public Hearing for CPA, Comprehensive
Plan Amendment 05-004. This is the 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 and we will begin with
comments from staff, please.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. I hope this is
okay. I know that some people won't be able to see the staff table over here, but we will
-- we actually like it better that way. Just as a point of clarification -- forgive me if you
stated this, but we will need to -- since you have those other Comprehensive Plan
amendment applications in two weeks, not actually make a formal recommendation
tonight, under the assumption that all the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications
should probably go at once to the City Council. So, just to clarify that.
Zaremba: So, we would take testimony and discuss and, then continue until the other
meeting for the other two items to catch up and, then make a recommendation on --
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I don't know that you can't close the Public Hearing. I think the
statute is pretty specific that it's you actually making a recommendation. So, I think you
probably will have the authority under the Land Use Planning Act to make a -- to close
the Public Hearing and just hold, you know, any formal recommendation until the 17th
when you hear the other applications, but --
Zaremba: Okay. I see nodding of head from our city attorney.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, certainly that is probably the
preferred way to go. If you do choose to conclude testimony tonight, to close the
hearing, you can deliberate and, then, merely set it over for a final decision on the 17th.
Zaremba: For anybody in the audience who doesn't know why we have to go through a
little bit of gyration there, according to Idaho state law you can only make a change to
your Comprehensive Plan map once every six months and if we have four items that
have individual different changes, if they get separated, then, the second two would
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 3 of 67
have to wait until six months. So, what we are trying to do is keep all four together
without hearing all four in the same night, I guess. So, we will make the decision about
what is going to happen, but we will not, in fact, forward it to the City Council until two
weeks from now.
Hawkins -Clark: Good. Thank you. Given the size of the audience, I will try to keep --
try to keep my comments to mainly the highlights, since the application has been
available to you and to the public for over a month and, hopefully, anyone who has
expressed interest has been able to receive that and had a chance to look it over, so --
particularly when it comes to the detail policies, I don't think I will go into that, but what I
was planning to do is take a few minutes to hit the background and where we have
been and, then, kind of summarize your last two workshops where the Commission had
reviewed some of these items. This first slide is just kind of letting you know we have --
this is -- the genesis of this is really coming out of a private application for the north
Meridian area plan clear back in 2001. That application was generated largely at the
request and at the funding of several large land holders in the north Meridian area and
just to clarify when we are talking north Meridian, generally, we are talking north of
Ustick, west of Locust Grove, and in this case tonight we will be proposing over to Can -
Ada, but a lot of it is over to McDermott there, so -- but, anyway, we did -- this is largely
coming out of an initial application back in '01. There was a -- Washington Group
International did a traffic study also at the same time. We have had fires and schools
and parks that have been constructed. The White Trunk sewer project was the summer
of '02, that has instigated a large amount of development in north Meridian area and,
then, the north Chinden master sewer plan was just done last year and that is for the
area north of Chinden Boulevard between Linder and McDermott. This is just showing
you a brief comparison of the north Meridian area plan, the private plan, and, then, this
Comprehensive Plan amendment, the CPA. The first one was about ten square miles
done by Wardle and Associates. This one is about 16. The one four years ago did not
propose any changes to our impact boundary and this application does. The proposed
zoning ordinance amendments, this application does not do that. As you're well aware,
we have just completed that process. And, then, is transportation funding a part of the
application and this was not, although it was a charge of the first plan. To clarify, this
Commission did direct staff, when that plan was withdrawn, to incorporate a number of
the policies. You were in large support of many of the changes that Wardle and
Associates proposed. Excuse me. And we have incorporated, we feel, a majority of
those policies. So, what's happening now? Studies are underway. The Public Works
Department has a sewer study for Sections 29 to 32, which is the four square miles
west of McDermott, between Ustick and Chinden. The Blueprint for Good Growth and
Communities in Motion, are regional plans which we feel are very important and the City
of Meridian has invested a lot of time and money in both of those efforts and this should
compliment those. There is also a Parametrics and ITD are about -- I think about two
months into a study of the Chinden corridor to identify the amount of right of way that
they feel is necessary to accommodate future traffic projections. That's -- the scope of
that study is far greater than this. I think it extends from Eagle clear over to -- through
Caldwell to 1-84. But it's noted here, because, certainly, the north Meridian area has --
Chinden has a huge effect on planning up there. Some of the public construction
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 4 of 67
projects are listed there. The Committee of Nine process, which has now completed,
which did grant the city of Eagle right now their area of impact to Chinden Boulevard,
although an ordinance has not been actually adopted, but the Committee of Nine did
recommend that Eagle receive their planning area as to what they had originally
proposed, which does go up to Chinden Boulevard. And, then, another big item for --
that we are watching is the ITD state transportation improvement program. That is the
multi-year budget, essentially, for the Idaho Transportation Department, which includes
prioritization and funding and I can't give you an exact update as to where that is. I
believe the board is very close to making a decision on that and I put it in here mainly
because the State Highway 16 extension does have approximately two million dollars
allocated in that stip. This slide is just showing the basic summary of where we have
been. We had a public open house in May at Sawtooth Middle School. You held two
workshops in July and August. We are currently holding the first Public Hearing and,
then, should you choose to move it on, November, maybe early December, there would
be another meeting, City Council would have a Public Hearing on the same application,
incorporating your changes and recommendations. And, then, in December we would
anticipate submitting a Comprehensive Plan to Ada county for approval and, then,
renegotiating the area of city impact. There is really a three -fold purpose to this
application. The first is to expand the area of city impact in two areas, north of Chinden
to the Phyllis Canal, which is essentially the rim. And, then, west of McDermott to Can -
Ada Road. That's the four square miles. So, those two together would add about six
and a half square miles to Meridian's planning area. Four square miles west of
McDermott, about two and a half square miles north of Chinden. The second main
purpose is to designate new land uses and policies in those areas, as well as to amend
our existing land uses to reflect a lot of the approvals that have happened over the last
several years. And, then, last is a transportation component, which we will talk a little
bit more about. So, let me pull up our map here. We will talk from that. Just a moment.
Okay. So, in terms of the main areas that the open house in May and your workshops
and other public comments that we have received, this is just the big scale view here,
so you're, obviously, not expected to pick out too much, but this is Linder Road here,
basically, in the middle of the screen and, then, Chinden across the top quarter here.
And, then, of course, we have our main mile arterial grid breaking it up. The yellow is
medium density residential. This lighter green color is low density residential. Most of
the reddish type colors are either mixed use or commercial. The purple is office. So,
most of this area from Ten Mile Road -- this is Ten Mile -- over to Locust Grove, there
really were not any real substantive changes to the future land use map. We reflected
several planned developments which the city has approved in there. Two areas I would
point out are the -- the neighborhood center that is on the existing map that is here
between Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road, has been shown just large -- basically,
instead of a half noon, it's following parcel lines there. It reflects about the same area
as the existing neighborhood center does, but it's only going to the east. And, then,
there is a small mixed-use area here. All -- of course, all of this from Chinden up to the
rim -- this is, again, the Phyllis Canal that runs across here. All of this area is proposed
as new area of city impact and the land uses that we have designated in there are a
small mixed use community -- I'm sorry, neighborhood area right on the corner, a mixed
use community area about 12 to 15 acres. At the half mile between Ten Mile Road and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 5 of 67
Black Cat, this area immediately south of that little mixed use box is a development --
about 350 acres, I believe it was, that Brighton Corporation brought through. I don't
remember the name off the top of my head. But, anyway, they also proposed some
mixed use. So, this is reflecting that at the half mile. Estate type housing would be
along the rim. We envision -- even though this shows quite a bit of medium, we would
envision, you know, more sort of mid size residential lots, if you will, with some of the --
maybe acre to three-quarter acre lots along the rim. The key up here and our key area,
of course, is the -- the Spur Wing golf course, this residential area is part of Spur Wing
and their golf course does weave through the project and a little bit down over the rim.
So, these uses try to honor that. There is a coalition of property owners that initiated
some conversations with the city in this area and we understand -- staff understands
that what's shown here is reflective of what -- largely of what they would like to do.
There is one main exception to that and that's a collector road, which I can talk about in
just a minute. So, again, most of that remains the same. Now, in terms of -- probably
what a lot of the public is here to speak about tonight -- this State Highway 16
preservation corridor is what's reflected in the cross -hatched purple area. It is shown
with centered on McDermott Road one half mile to the west and one half mile to the
east for two miles. So, from Chinden to Ustick it is a full mile wide. As you go north of
Chinden it does extend to the Phyllis Canal. As you go south of Ustick this application
does propose to extend that to 1-84 and, of course, that's just one half mile wide south of
Ustick. This is Canyon county to the west. Our understanding is that Canyon county at
this point in time does not have any plans or policies underway that would match this,
although we have spoke with them about the McDermott alignment as a potential
extension of State Highway 16 and they -- they being public works and planning staff at
Nampa, have supported that, they just don't have any policies that would actually
preserve that portion from Ustick to 1-84 on their side of the county line. The other key
areas on this -- there are a couple of interchanges -- three interchanges, one at Franklin
Road, one at Ustick, and one at Chinden, that we are showing on this plan. Around
each of those interchanges is a new category that would be added to our future land
use map called mixed-use interchange and we do envision that if you move this on, they
would function differently in some way in terms of land use themes around those
interchanges with more of your heavier retail, commercial, vehicular type uses on
Chinden, less so at Ustick, which would reflect more of an educational and high density
housing and office and, then, Franklin having more industrial type uses. And the
policies did go into a little bit more explanation on those. These were placed on the
map through some conversations with the Idaho Transportation Department. I do want
to point out that this is -- this process that we are going through here does not in any
way, shape, or form actually designate where the Idaho Transportation Department will
ultimately put, if at all, the State Highway 16 extension. That is their process. It's a
separate process that will have separate public hearings and public input. As I
mentioned, they have approximately two million dollars that, if approved, would be used
to study that entire corridor from 1-84 all the way up to State Highway 44. So, in terms
of the actual specific alignment, the right of way, the parcels that would be impacted by
that, that's -- that's what that process would be for. This is the City of Meridian's attempt
to designate where we feel, in terms of how Meridian will grow, if there is going to be a
state highway on our western boundary, generally within this corridor is where we think
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 6 of 67
it would go, so -- and at the workshops we talked quite a bit about that. I'm trying to
think if there are any other changes. I think at one of your workshops you had
requested that we add a little bit more mixed-use commercial area on the south side of
Chinden, that is currently shown, Star Road over to about the half mile between Black
Cat and McDermott. So, I think I will go back to the -- the Thornton Oliver Keller study.
You should have received a copy of. That was completed. The goal of that study -- I
apologize to the public, it's not actually in here. We have copies that are available. But
this was about a month and a half study, which the goal was to try to identify in this
north Meridian area the amount of retail and office land that would be designated for
those uses that would help to accommodate absorption in the marketplace over the next
25 to 30 years. This is, of course, just one firm's opinion about what the market will do
and the goal of this was not to adopt it outright, it was to basically provide you and the
City Council with some specific numbers from people that specialize in market analysis.
Bottom line is on the retail side of things they estimate approximately 1.4 million square
feet would be necessary to accommodate the population of between 40 and 50
thousand people in this area. They do differentiate between anchored and unanchored
retail centers. Anchored being like Meridian Crossroads, of course, usually with a big
box and, then, unanchored being smaller neighborhood oriented service type retail.
The bottom line of what they are -- their study came back to us with is that -- is that
unanchored retail would be about 50 acres and anchored retail would be about 76 acres
of land set aside, zoned, designated, if you will, for those uses. So, between 130 and
150 acres to accommodate and that's based, again, on the spending -- discretionary
spending that is estimated for Meridian households. Today we do have -- if you assume
that all of our mixed-use areas will go retail, we do exceed that by -- by quite a bit and
one aspect on that is to cut back. Another aspect is to see, well, Meridian's centrally
located, maybe there are some affects, for example, of a future state highway that
would actually skew those numbers and would be just maybe potentially justified what
we have today in the plan or maybe increasing it even. So, again, this is a very crystal
ball kind of activity, but we just -- we wanted to provide you this study for that. On the
office side of things Thornton Oliver Keller projected approximately 550,000 square feet
of office area, which would equate to about 55 or 60 acres of designated office land and
we are already about 30 percent over that, in terms of the area designated for office on
our future land use map. I think that's all I'll highlight on the Thornton Oliver Keller
study. Again, I wanted to include in here, too, the key land use policies. We are
proposing that the one step policy, which allows people -- if the land is designated low
density residential, that they could request a median density use without changing the
Comprehensive Plan, that that policy would actually not apply to the area that is
adjacent to Canyon county. That is in part because Canyon county remains committed
and currently is more built out in that McDermott-Ustick area than Ada county is and
they are between 30,000 square feet lots and, you know, two and three acre lots. So,
we felt the need to allow people to go to a meeting with density residential in the county
boundary, may cause some potential conflicts in those corridors and it would,
essentially, help to create that silent effect, so you have more of our density closer to
downtown Meridian than feathering it out as you get closer to the boundary. And, then,
I think already mentioned the mixed-use interchange policies. A couple of last slides.
The auto circulation map is a new map that is being proposed with this plan. Our
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 7 of 67
current plan does, as you know, have a collector map in it. The goal of this map was to
go to one level of specificity more. The blue lines represent the potential new collectors.
There are some green lines on here as well that represent frontage or backage roads. I
don't think I'll go into all the areas in detail, but suffice it to say that this map is a part of
this application. It does -- it does, actually, require if -- on some of these areas that
have the solid blue lines, which are the collector type -- urban collectors, that if
somebody comes in and develops in that area, that they would be required to construct
it, for the most part, in that area to help create a network that is predictable and that
moves traffic. There are some areas that are dashed and we anticipate those to be
more flexible and not as critical to moving -- to creating a circulation plan within a mile --
within a given mile. At this point I wanted to have Keith Haiar, who is the engineer who
is with Washington Group International, who did the update to the traffic study for north
Meridian, just to spend a few minutes highlighting for you the results of their study. As I
mentioned, there was a very detailed study in '01. The goal of this study was really to
focus more on our intersections and projecting out for us when our key intersections in
north Meridian -• as we all know, many of them feel over capacity today, but we wanted
to get the hard numbers, which ones are at very poor level of service today and in 010
and the year 15 year, in the year 20, in the year 25, when are these intersections going
to basically require signalization. And there were some other elements to their study,
but, Keith, if you wouldn't mind kind of giving us a summary of that study.
Haiar: Good evening. Is this on? All right. Good evening. Keith Haiar with
Washington Group. I have got two things against me. One, I have a cold, and as an
engineer, you know, we don't usually speak in public a lot, so forgive me if I'm nervous.
Brad came in and talked to us mid summer about looking at doing traffic projections and
intersection capacity analysis for the north Meridian area. So, we were looking at the
area north of Ustick to Chinden and, then, from Locust Grove to Black Cat Road.
Essentially, this study has two major parts. One was obtaining some traffic projections
between now and 2030 and, then, looking at those traffic projections at each individual -
- each individual intersection and coming up with the level of service which is an
indication of the capacity or the function of the intersection. So, for the first part of the
study the traffic projections, we coordinated with the community planning association,
Compass, and they have a 2030 traffic model that we took and, essentially, how that
model works is they have the north Meridian area broken into what they call TAZ's,
which are transportation zones, where they have generators and attractors of traffic and
we worked with the City of Meridian staff looking at the population and employment that
they have for each of these TAZ's and customized it according to the current feelings on
the Comprehensive Plan. They, then, input those updated numbers and gave us, then,
2030 traffic projections for all the intersections. We, then, took those projections, we
had ACHD counts at the -- from 2004 and, then, we lineally projected the traffic volumes
between the two points and so we could analyze what the anticipated volumes will be at
five year increments between now and 2030. Then, we took those numbers and ran
them through highway capacity software. Well, I guess, first of all, talking about the
traffic growth, as one would expect, there is substantial traffic growth in the north
Meridian area. The range of traffic growth overall was between about the 130 and a
thousand percent increase between now and 2030. So, some pretty significant -- some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 8 of 67
of the major ones were along, actually, McMillan Road, especial McMillan and Black
Cat, but also on McMillan and Ten Mile. Let's see. Ustick and Black Cat. That had a
300 percent projected growth. Chinden and Ten Mile, 300 percent also. So, what we
came up with, then, were where the intersections were going to be as far whether they'd
need signalization and, then, what sort of lane configurations they would need, how
many through lanes, how many left turns and right turns and let's see if I can go to my
summary here. Essentially, we are projecting that by 2020 all the intersections in the
north Meridian area would need to be signalized to provide adequate service for the
traffic volumes. You know, I could get into specifics on any particular intersection, but,
big picture, what we looked at were as the traffic volumes grew we saw fairly consistent
lane configurations and needs as they progressed west, as we go from Locust Grove to
Black Cat and, then, north from Ustick. So, if there are any specific questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Do you have a timeline on that capacity -- I
meaning going from 2005 to 2030. You know, which ones are hitting that substantially
over capacity first?
Haiar: Okay. Sure. Let me flip through -- as part of the study that we did, we went
through and -- I don't have those -- we looked at each individual intersection and, then,
gave you a snap shot from existing to 2030 and then -- so you had a timeline of what
sort of improvements would need to be made. Offhand I don't remember as far as
which intersections need to be signalized -- you know, the -- immediately or what the
different timeline was. I would have to just kind of flip through them real quick if you
want me to summarize the intersection.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess my question is part of that study, since it will be used as a
tool for planning? I think prioritization of which intersections are the most over capacity
would be a key piece, the way I would think. So, it's a -- that's my question as to --
Haiar: Well, we didn't, essentially, rate the intersections as far as that. As far as the
over capacity, we looked at -- essentially, what we did was once the intersection went
over the threshold, over capacity, that's when we stepped -- took a step back and, then,
looked at what sort of improvements needed to be made for that intersection. We didn't
look at, you know, how much over capacity a particular intersection was. If it was
slightly over or extremely over, that warranted improvements regardless. So, that
particular -- that particular analysis, as far as summarizing that information, isn't in the
report. One can go back in the actual specific output from the capacity analysis of any
given year and you can look at the -- essentially, the out generated there and that will
give you an idea of how much over capacity any intersection is related to any other
intersection.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 9 of 67
Haiar: So, I guess what I'm saying is the information is available, it just wasn't
summarized and packaged in that particular format.
Newton-Huckabay: Thanks.
Zaremba: I was going to comment on the same subject. As you mentioned, the
executive summary that we have has each intersection and a year when you think its
need signalization or extra lanes or stuff like that and I think what Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay is asking could be interpreted out of that if you reassembled all of the
same information to give a priority, but you can tell by looking at this that the base
information is there, it just isn't quite put in the order that makes the priority apparent.
Haiar: Yeah. It's just packaging, which can be done.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe,
Moe: Yeah. I guess the question I would have -- has ACRD, as far as input on this,
have they reviewed the plan and have they had any discussions as to whether or not
they are in favor of and -- I would anticipate we are going to have to have their blessing
before. We are going to see a lot of this done anyway, so --
Haiar: Yeah. I'm not -- we didn't coordinate with ACHD as far as, you know, that was --
we were working just with the planning group. ACHD has its own process for evaluating
intersections as far as the CIP, Capital Improvements Program, and, you know, that's
independent of what we did and they have a different matrix for evaluating where they
feel the needs on different intersections are.
Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, Commissioner Moe, just a little on that. They have reviewed
it. Gary Inselman at ACHD has reviewed the study and pretty thoroughly. We are
actually meeting in a week, but his comment to me was that they would feel their --
that their current budget and Capital Improvement Program, largely reflects the
intersection improvements that are notated in the study. I mean they feel it pretty much
aligns right up there. I mean your Ustick-Meridian intersection, the Ustick-Linder
intersection, obviously, are high and that will be there. Ustick-Linder is 2009. Currently
for a signal -- I believe it might have been moved up to '08, but that right now I think is
the only actual construction project, but just so you know, yeah, they have reviewed it.
Haiar: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Brad, back to you.
Hawkins -Clark: The last slide here is just to let the Commission know what kind of
conversations we have had at the Planning and Zoning department over the last couple
of months. The phone calls at our front desk, inquiries, have -- we have had a few
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 10 of 67
people at the Locust Grove McMillan intersection expressed interest in changing from
residential to commercial. We have had a couple of the property owners around the
mixed use -- well, in the mixed use wastewater treatment plant area request that new
residential be allowed. Right now no new residential is allowed, as you know, in and
around the wastewater treatment plant. And, then, the State Highway 16 preservation
corridor, both property owners within the north Meridian area, as well as those south to
1-84 -- we did send notices to all of those property owners that have -- that own property
within that corridor and let them know that this application is being proposed and so we
did receive several inquiries, many just wondering what is the impact on the property.
We have received a written letter from Compass, from ITD, from O'Neill Enterprises, as
well as Ada County Development Services. I didn't verify with the clerk if you received
these letters as well. If not, we can certainly get those. They are part of the public
record. But we have received comments from all of these groups. So, I think that kind
of hits the highlights. Happy to answer any questions now or after public testimony.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions at this point?
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I have just got one that I'm just kind of curious. In our last
meeting, Brad, you know, we discussed that we were going to move forward with this
plan here, but we had discussions in regards the properties that were north of the
Phyllis Canal to the river and at that time I know we discussed that we wanted to move
this application forward, but we started in -- on a pre -application or -- of that or are we --
do we have to deal with the issue prior to that? I guess I'm just curious where we are at
with that.
Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, Commissioner Moe, we have not taken any further steps for
that area. On your desk tonight we did receive a letter from the Aldape family, who
owns several hundred acres in that area between the river and the rim, but they
continue to express an interest in being in our planning area. But, no, we have not
taken any specific steps to actually create that application. The city of Eagle, I believe,
has completed a sewer study for that area. We have requested a copy. I have not
seen it yet. So, certainly, any direction you want to provide to staff, we will take forward.
Zaremba: My recollection would be we -- at the time we expressed an interest to
include it. Is that -- is there any drawback should we end up suggesting that this be
recommended? Could that be among our changes to it, to say that instead stopping at
the Phyllis Canal, it should be recommended to the City Council that it go all the way to
the river or is there some preventative study that hasn't been done?
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, what I would recommend is -- if the Commission wants
to make it clear that they are interested in that, which it is obvious from the other
hearings that it was, but since this is -- the other meetings that it was. But since this is
your official hearing, I would not recommend to change the boundary of the application
that's before you, because that will affect noticing and other things. But I would
recommend that you make an official statement and you can vote on it if you want, that
you say -- that you're not including it at this time, but you look favorably upon the city
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 11 of 67
doing another Comprehensive Plan amendment at such time that we can -- that
includes that area. Something like that. Does that make sense?
Zaremba: It does. If we recommended including it and, then, the Public Hearing before
this City Council actually had that as part of the recommendation, would that solve the
legal issue of notice? Because their meeting would be noticed, including our
recommendation, I would assume.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, that particular circumstance is, in
fact, contemplated by the statute. The statute that you are meeting under, Idaho Code
67-6509, which reads if the Commission recommends a material change to the
proposed amendment to the plan, you shall give notice of that proposed
recommendation and if there is no further hearing in front of the City Council, it requires
you to hold another one, but there will, in fact, be one before the City Council. So, you
could do it. I think what planning staff is saying is it's such a change over what's been
noticed, that -- and the City Council has a desire to have all matters thoroughly
discussed and resolved at this level before recommendations are made, that they would
prefer that you not proceed in that direction. However, if you choose to do so, we can
cover you in the statute.
Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, if I could, I think the biggest issue, frankly, in terms of time
frame is that Ada county would require the City of Meridian to demonstrate that we can
provide sewer to that area. And we have not -- our public works department has not
studied anything north of the rim. That's just a huge piece of what Ada county requires
before they even consider expanding the city's area of impact is that serviceability
question. And so I think in terms of the amount of time frame it would take for the Public
Works Department to hire a consultant -- I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying
time frame wise it would extend it easily six months, so --
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Yes.
Baird: And Members of the Commission, I think what planning staff is saying is the
reason it was left out was because of that delay, if you choose to recommend it, this
would be delayed by that amount of time before the City Council could fully consider it.
So, it makes just as much sense to proceed with what's before you and give that
direction that you want to see it the next time. If it's going to take six months to do that
study, then, you will have your opportunity to make another map change
recommendation in six months. So, it sounds like it could happen according to that
plan.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any other --
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just a question of clarification from Brad. You referred to the
Committee of Nine recommendation for the Eagle city limits to go to Chinden. Was that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 12 of 67
area east of Linder? I didn't hear a boundary line that way, so -- but I'm assuming it was
east of Linder? Is that correct or not?
Hawkins -Clark: Commissioner, no, that's not correct. Their existing area of city impact
is already to Chinden east of Linder. This recommendation was west of Linder.
Borup: Okay. So, the same area we are considering?
Hawkins -Clark: Correct.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. Let us begin with all of you. I will call names from the list,
but let me first ask if there is anybody who is a spokesman representing a group of
people. If you would step forward, sir, and identify yourself, name and address. I
should mention that everybody needs to do that, please. When you come forward to
the microphone start with your name and address for the record. Before you start, may
I ask for a show of hands, who is he representing? Are there people here who will --
okay. If you signed up, I will call your names and we'd appreciate it if you would just,
from where you are, raise your hand and say I have been spoken for. We will know
what you mean. Appreciate that. Sir, go ahead.
Richards: Thank you. My name is Darrell Richards. I live at 6237 Serenity Lane, which
is the Peregrine Heights Subdivision, located just east of McDermott off of Chinden. On
this map, if I may, my house --
Zaremba: Sir, take the movable microphone with you, if you would, so that you're on
the record. It comes loose from the stand, if you want.
Richards: I like the stand. Our subdivision consist of these 15 lots. They are existing
homes. My home and my living room is right where that backage road is shown going
through. I finished construction on my home the end of August. I started in April. I was
not aware of this process. We had a community, a neighborhood meeting immediately
prior to this one and just despite what the city planner had said, none of us had received
notification of this process. We heard about this process through Ray Roark, one of our
neighbors, who I'm not sure how he was informed of the process, but, for the record, we
were not notified in any way, shape, or form of this process. That's -- I want to make
sure that's clear. That being said, going on, we also understand as a community that
traffic is going to continue to be an issue in our area and in the Treasure Valley in total.
And we understand that there is an absolute desire and requirement to connect the
Emmett highway with 1-84. 1 believe that the city planner kind of soft sold that. I believe
that that is almost a foregone conclusion. I had a lunch meeting with a gentleman who
is actually competing for the contract to manage the GARVEE bonds against the
Washington Group, who happened to do the traffic study for this presentation. We are a
neighborhood of 15 homes, with our wife's and our children, about 50 people.
Currently, the proposed plan would rezone our neighborhood of existing homes from
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 13 of 67
acre lots -- acre estates, to mixed use interchange. Obviously, that is of grave concern
to us, as that would absolutely profoundly affect our property values. And if that is to
occur, our question would be how do we get compensated for our investments? And
me personally, this is part of our life savings that we have put forth into our home and
we no more than get our certificate of occupancy on August 29th and we find out that
we are going to get rezoned to mixed use interchange or plan to be. There was
mentioned during the presentation that there is a policy within the planning and zoning
or the city of a one step policy. If I understand that policy correctly, that means that your
zoning would only be changed but one step incrementally. Is that correct? And if that's
correct, how could this even be possible that our zoning be changed from acre lots, R-1,
to mixed use interchange? Also, during the presentation there was mentioned that
there is a desire to do a staggered effect in that if you're -- again, if I understand that
correctly, if you're R-1, the optimum zoning change would go maybe from R-1 to R-2
and, then, our R-4 or R-5, providing a buffer and preserving property values. And, in
fact, I believe that that conversation was even associated with the golf course homes on
the north side of Chinden and also that courtesy was afforded in that presentation to the
Canyon county homes of 30,000 square feet to two or more acre estates. Why does
this plan not afford us that same courtesy and that same protection? It's -- I was going
to discuss a little bit of the alignment of State Highway 16, but it seemed as though the
state planner has soft sold that to where it may or may not happen. The corridor -- the
two mile wide corridor, if I understand that correctly, preserves the real estate for that
state route -- State Highway 16 to happen anywhere in that two mile width, thereby
giving you some latitude and understandably so. We would like -- as a community we
would like to be a part of that problem solution, so that we can effect and protect our
investments and our families. A question for the planner. What is the time line for
determining the alignment of State Route 16? And if -- and with the proposed rezoning
of our homes, when will we know for sure if that's going to take into effect? And, again,
what is our compensation for losing or having our home values profoundly affected to
the negative? We do believe that it would be -- it would cause an undue hardship for
this process to carry on for any length of time and not know definitively how it's going to
affect our homes, our families, and our financial well being. We all -- we all purchased
our homes -- I believe our development started in 1999 and I built on the last available
lot, finishing getting my certificate of occupancy on August 26th or 29th, somewhere in
there, of this year. We all purchased, built, or repurchased our homes, understanding
that they were acre lots and the surrounding area was also either R-1 or R-2. For our
area and for the area around us to be rezoned so drastically, obviously, has a profound
affect on us. There was a statement that -- and this goes to listening to the presentation
this evening. There was a statement made or several statements or discussion made
about notice and what it would do to the process, stepping the process back. In
listening to the dialogue tonight, I can't help but think that the planners and/or the
Commission is trying to push this through expeditiously at the expense of input from the
community. I hope I am wrong. But that's the impression that I got tonight. The
attorney Ted Baird had mentioned that the preference is to discuss these types of
issues thoroughly at this level and in order to have complete discussions, everybody in
the impacted area must be involved. I would strongly suggest that you take a step
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 14 of 67
back, do the proper notification, get everybody that's in the impact zone properly
notified, so that we can all have a voice. Thanks for your time.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I have one question. Mr. Richards, did you or any of the
people that you speak for attend the open houses that were held earlier in the year at
Sawtooth Middle School?
Richards: I am not aware of anybody attending. I don't -- Ray, did you attend that?
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think he raised probably some very good points, but -- and
maybe a little bit of clarification may be in order. I don't know if I'm the best one to do
that or not. But maybe just for piece of mind for you and some of your neighbors, this is
not proposing zoning your subdivision. You happen to be in a mile wide area that's
included in that -- in that area. I think part of what staffs anticipation was, assuming that
some day an interchange does go in there, then, the other type of uses would be
appropriate around an interchange. The city has not gone in and rezoned property from
individuals who do not wish to be rezoned. At least that large of an area. There may be
some enclaves that -- of a smaller area that could be included. So, your area is not
being zoned. In fact, this is just a Comprehensive Plan map. None of it is even zoned
until it's annexed into the city. So, this just is what the city would envision for that area.
So, I mean you can rest assured that area would not be zoned and get the right
information -- I understand that, to your subdivision.
Richards: The key on that shows that being zoned --
Borup: It shows a land use plan. A land use for that area.
Richards: We are under a misunderstanding on that, then. So, I guess can you go into
anymore detail on that? Because I'm not sure what the difference between a land use
plan is and zoning. If you're intending for -- through the land use plan for it to be mixed
use interchange, how does that interrelate to zoning. Obviously, mixed-use interchange
is not residential.
Borup: Well, that's a new -- that's a new term tome, the mixed-use interchange. We
have not seen anything specifically on that before. Mixed-use does have residential
opportunities, though. Is that -- Brad, is that the same mixed-use definition?
Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, Commission, Mr. Richards, I mean maybe the simplest way
to state it is that the language plan is precursor to annexation. Zoning happens at the
time that annexation occurs. Right now this plan does not address a plan for
annexation at all, it just -- the goal of this plan is to think out long term and once the city
continues to grow out that way, should property owners choose to annex or should the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 15 of 67
City of Meridian choose to annex some properties less than five acres, then, this map is
the blueprint for what that annexation would be. It does not change the zoning, as
Commissioner Borup stated.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, If I may make a statement. One thing that it gives the
potential to do is give you an option on your land if you chose to redevelop it.
Richards: What exactly does that mean?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, if you were -- when you're annexed into the city -- I'm going to
stick my foot in my mouth on this one, Brad, I have a feeling. That's not your zoning,
that's what the city envisions, because -- in the future as a potential use of your property
and when you become as -- become eligible to be annexed into the city, that is one of
the options that you could be annexed in at.
Richards: So, let me use this as an example, because, obviously, as anybody would be
concerned, we are concerned not only for our property, but the use of the property on
the surrounding vacant land. The property immediately to the east of us is currently a
farm. If the owner of that farm so desired to develop a business park, because it's no
longer -- or that the land use allows mixed-use interchange, which is a business park,
according to the report, is an appropriate use or consistent use within that definition, we
could have a business park immediately adjacent to our acre estates. Is that a correct
statement?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. With that buffer -- I mean you have buffers and that type of
thing, but, yes, that could happen.
Richard: We, obviously, take strong exception to that and if it's about semantics,
because it's not a zoning map, it's a land use map. I think it's accomplishing the same
thing. It's opening us up as landowners to land uses adjacent to us that do not support
the original intended use of our property and the adjacent properties.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Richards, you also understand this is long-term planning. I mean some of
the -- it was mentioned earlier 2030, 25 years in the future. I think we would be derelict
if we didn't try to plan ahead that far, especially with what's happening. And we don't
know entirely, but Chinden is a state highway, anticipated to be a very well traveled
state highway. And the use, as that increases, you know, looking into the future, there
is probably going to be some change in appropriate uses in that area.
Richards: When we purchased our lot, I understood that Chinden was a state highway.
I even anticipated that some day it would be five lanes with stop lights and look forward
to a slower speed limit on Chinden. That doesn't --
Borup: But you did not anticipate an interchange there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meering
October 3, 2005
Page 16 of 67
Richards: I did not anticipate an interchange and I did not anticipate the redefinition of
land use on the property adjacent to ours. We always anticipated R-1 or R-2 at the
worst immediately adjacent to --
Borup: So, you didn't think that would ever be annexed into the city limits of --
Richards: I don't know how that's -- how that has any bearing on my anticipating of land
use. Annexation still needs to take into consideration the existing land uses and is, as
you guys have developed, if it's a one step zoning change ordinance or policy, that
seems to be a healthy policy. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking
about taking it from acre estates to a business park.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba? I might remind you -- I might remind you that you have
a long sign up sheet and many people in here and that we probably need to get moving
on them.
Borup: Hopefully, we have clarified some of that.
Zaremba: We have another question, though, from a Commissioner.
Rohm: Mr. Richards, I just wanted to bring up one thing that I think that is very
paramount in this total discussion. This is a mile wide corridor that's being looked at
inclusively. That interchange or any interchange isn't cast in concrete. This hearing
tonight and the hearing in the future will take your comments into consideration and it's
not to say that anything is settled but this is your opportunity to be heard tonight and
many times into the future. So, I don't want -- I wouldn't want you to walk away from
this with the idea that the decision has already been made to the adverse effect of your
property and I think that that's the fairest thing that can be said at this point in time for
any and all of this, that no final location of anything has been established. So, your
testimony tonight and into the future will be given its due consideration. And I think that
that's the best response that we can give you tonight at this juncture.
Richards: So, in saying that, are you saying that the plan as drawn will be approved
and become a public document? Because that's our concern. If the plan is approved
and becomes a matter of record and a matter of what the city planners worked to do
smart growth, then, as we go through the years, however long that time line is, and we
decide to sell our homes and move up or move out --
Canning: Commissioners, I'm sorry, but we are getting testimony again. You need to
ask yes or no -- shorter questions, but we need to move on.
Zaremba: All right.
Canning: To be fair to everyone in the audience.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 17 of 67
Zaremba: We do try and let people answer questions, but, you're right, we have gone
well beyond the ten minutes, but -- I think just to clarify part of the process -- and we are
trying to deal with the issue that you're raising and the group that you represent has a
right to be concerned about this. The one thing that has not been said is that the City of
Meridian does not have a history of forcibly annexing anybody. Your zoning does not
change unless you're annexed. And, yes, this is a thought of future planning. If it is
thought in the City of Meridian that this is probably -- that McDermott is a better place to
locate a future Highway 16 than anyplace else, we don't even make that decision.
That's the Idaho Transportation Department. So, there is some things, even though as
Commissioner Borup says, we are trying to plan out into the future and some of these
decisions have to be sent in a certain direction, it doesn't even happen the way we plan
it sometimes. And even if it does, it's a long way off before anybody would be talking
about physically putting an interchange or even a business park next to you. But what
we are considering -- and the reason I appreciate your testimony, is should we preserve
this area for a future regional transportation corridor and that's a difficult decision,
because it affects people's lives.
Richards: And I think you can do that and take into -- appreciate and take into account
the existing land uses. Again, my fear is that this plan be approved and when we go to
sell our homes, our homes are no longer marketable because anybody that does any
type of due diligence prior to purchasing a home, sees the future land use, will not want
to purchase our homes. So, just as you have said, you can have -- predict the future --
and I'm paraphrasing -- don't put us in harm's way while this story is coming to unfold.
I'm asking that the plan be --
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think we really -- we understand Mr. Richard's position.
Zaremba: That is an excellent point. Thank you. Okay. I will proceed with the list.
Was there anybody also that was a representative of a group? We have one coming
from the back.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street
in Eagle.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, before he begins, can we get a show of hands on who he is
representing, please?
Zaremba: Are there people he's speaking for? We see some hands out in the foyer.
Okay. Thank you,
Nickel: And two other -- two other property owners that are here.
Zaremba: Who could not make it tonight?
Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you again. Shawn Nickel. I'm here
tonight representing several developers and property owners on property within this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 18 of 67
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The majority of the property owners are --
and developers are in favor of the designations as submitted by staff and recommended
by staff. There are a few specific pieces of property that I'd like to very briefly discuss
with you, if I may. Is staff able to zoom in on any particular property? Commissioners,
while we are waiting to get in there, I will go ahead and begin, so we don't take anymore
time. One of the properties that I'd like to talk about is the northwest corner of Linder
and Highway 20-26. There is approximately 55 acres spanning approximately half -acre
frontage on the north side of 20-26 at the corner of Linder. The area right in here. The
staff and workshop recommended Comprehensive Plan designation for this is neighbor
mixed use with medium density residential. We have been in discussions with your staff
and have actually had pre -application meetings and are designing that area right now.
And what we'd like to propose this evening is given the fact that this is Highway 20-26
and the high uses that are associated with that traffic -wise, we would request to have
the corner be redesignated as mixed-use community, with the area probably from that
line come in that configuration. The rest of that being -- or staying in the same
neighborhood, mixed use to help with the transition to the existing residential and, then,
they have the remainder of the frontage along this quarter right here, to also be mixed
use neighborhood, to help with the transition from Highway 20-26 to mixed use to
medium density and lower density as we get to the north of the property. That is a --
that is a colored map showing that. This is a proposed development that we are
working with staff on. So, again, that -- just that immediate corner, a little bit more
higher or more intense use with that neighborhood -- or, excuse me, that community's
next use and, then, put the buffering of the neighborhood, mixed use, along this portion
right there. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I also represent the developer on the
southwest corner and we do support that recommendation for that as -- or a -- yeah.
Community mixed use. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, in addition, the -- I have
been in discussions with the property owner to the southeast and you do have a
designation of mixed use community and I would like to speak in favor of that as well. I
also believe the property owner is here and will speak later on to that. I hate to do this
to you, but if you could zoom out. Again -- and I can just explain this a little without
going into the map. The southwest corner of Meridian Road and McMillan, you
currently -- or the proposed designation on that property is for low density residential
and we'd like to recommend that that be to a medium density residential. We are also in
the process of designing that property with a subdivision and have met with your staff
on pre -app and I don't know if know staff gave us a good indication of why it was low
density.
Newton-Huckabay: Where is it again?
Nickel: I'm sorry, southwest corner of McMillan and Meridian Road.
Borup: Shawn, do you have a map that you have marked up with these recommended
adjustments?
Nickel: I have presented staff with a map of the -- the most specific, which is that
northwest corner. This one I'm speaking of now about how -- that's the corner of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 19 of 67
McMillan and Meridian. That's this piece right here. And I don't know if we -- if we
really know why this was recommended as low density, with the medium density
surrounding it, but we'd just like many to be changed to medium density. And, then,
again, the other property owners that I represent, the designations that you have
submitted to you. So, I'll stand for any questions you have.
Zaremba: Commissioner, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you all very much. Have a good evening.
Zaremba: Okay. Assuming that we have heard from all the spokesmen, let me start
with the list. Steve Clayborne. Thank you. Spoken for. Charles Franks. You are a
spokesman? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I had all the spokesmen. Please come forward.
And is there a show of hands of people that Mr. Franks is speaking for? I see several
out in the foyer raising their hands.
Kartchner: My name is Richard Kartchner. I don't think I got on the list.
Zaremba: Say your name again, please.
Kartchner: Richard Kartchner.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kartchner: I live at 4325 North Ten Mile and I represent a group of landowners near
that wastewater treatment plant area and I believe in your packet you have a letter that
Brent Rasmussen sent to you in regards to an area adjacent to that. It looks like this. It
was an e-mail that was sent. Maybe you don't have a copy of that.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have a copy.
Moe: Can you reference that date on the e-mail, sir?
Kartchner: It was today.
Borup: That might be the reason.
Kartchner: Anyway, I'll make this as short as I can. The salient points of Brent's letter,
in regards to our property, which is -- Brad, do you know where that is? Next -- it's on --
the wastewater treatment area. Right on the fringes of it.
Canning: Sir, there is a laser pointer up at the podium that you can use.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 20 of 67
Kartchner: Oh. We are talking about this piece of property right here, right on the fringe
of this wastewater treatment area. Presently this is in the area and we would request --
and in this e-mail have requested that that be zoned similar to the adjacent property.
This property is an R-3, I believe. R-2 or R-3 and we would like to have the frontage
similar to this, a commercial land use, about 250 feet back and, then, the rest zoned
residential, primarily because all of the neighbors in the surrounding area are in
agreement that residential would be more appropriate for the use. All of our -- this
adjacent property is also residential. Another factor that is not in the e-mail that I'd like
to talk about is the only access to this zoned area here is through -- is on our property
and so it would be a simple matter of adjacent use of road into this area.
Zaremba: Thank you, Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Yeah. I'm sorry. You mentioned that the property owners to the south of that
property are also in favor of a change?
Kartchner: Yes. They would prefer to see residential, rather than a mixed-use office in
this area.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Kartchner: And I do have a proposed layout, but I don't know that that would be of any
use. It's just a make believe thing. Okay.
Rohm: I'd like to see it.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Kartchner: Any other questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions.
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir.
Kartchner: Thanks.
Zaremba: Okay. I did call the name Charles Franks and that was not who came
forward. Is Charles Franks here? Thank you.
Franks: Good evening. My name is Charles Franks. I live at 6096 West Becky Drive,
which if we could zoom out, please.
Canning: We don't know exactly where that street is, sir. Could you help us out --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 21 of 67
Franks: Actually, this street, but more to the left.
Zaremba: Say it again.
Franks: West Becky Drive. And this lot is my lot. Right here. Which borders
McDermott. So, I'd like to have my comments directed to the State Highway 16 corridor
preservation area, since I'm pretty much right in the middle of it. It was stated in here
that this corridor does not actually determine the location of the highway. However, in
retrospect it will. It will be the only space left within the time frame that's been
determined here, which is three to five years, before the location of the highway is even
determined. I think this is a disservice to the people in the area, mainly because it could
be, you know, a longer period of time. The placement of this zone will immediately limit
the property owners' ability to sell and/or get full price for their properties, should they
want to sell or should they need to sell. Also, it stated in this document people within
this zone cannot expand existing structures, nor can they build new permanent
structures, which I'd like permanent structures defined. I believe it was stated here
tonight that the state is actually starting from Eagle to Caldwell for the location of the
highway, so I think that's rather ambiguous to come in and determine a one mile
corridor within that range. And based on that, I think that the area should not be
determined, simply because what the state is studying is much more ambiguous than
what the City of Meridian is proposing. If it must be determined, I would say it should be
expanded, thus, the footprint being much larger, possibly from Ten Mile, which was in
the original proposal, all the way to Can -Ada. This will automatically reduce the impact
on property values, because it makes it ambiguous and, thus, doesn't determine that
anybody with property right in the middle of the zone as currently proposed now, will, in
fact, have a highway running through their front yard. So, I think the proposed State
Highway 16 corridor preservation area should actually be postponed until the alignment
is actually known. What this corridor effectively does is put a serious limitation to the
rights and freedoms of the people within that area with no obvious gain. And I believe
that the current document should not proceed in its current form. Any questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions? Okay. Thank you. Drew Eggers.
Eggers: Good evening. My name is Drew Eggers. I live at 2256 North Waggle Place in
Meridian, Idaho. My family owns and farms 140 acres north of Chinden Boulevard on --
directly west of the Carnahan property on both sides of Black Cat Road. I would first
like to -- I would first like to commend to the Meridian Planning and Zoning staff for the
developing of a solid Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal that is a very positive
step for the community of Meridian. Regarding the proposal -- proposed circulation
plan, one of the issues raised is provide access to approximately 1,400 acres between
the Phyllis Canal and the Boise River. Your initial proposal is to access this via a
collector on a private lane, private road called Basco Road, through the proposed Tree
Farm planned community. I am glad to see that the city is thinking about the need of a -
- thinking about the needs of the majority of the property owners below the rim, as well
as other growing communities. I believe the area below the rim could be best accessed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 22 of 67
via proposed Highway 16 extension, which would possibly connect McDermott.
Highway 16 access would provide a central collection of this 1,400 acres, rather than
Basco Lane's location on the far edge of these properties, which could be a challenge
for a long-term development. In addition, a supplemental collector to this entire area
could easily be gained over an existing public right of way via Black Cat Road. Black
Cat is a central access point, which also connects directly to a major north -south public
road and as a collector would be much more useful than a private road through a
residential -- excuse me -- residential development with no north -south collector --
collection access. To Chinden. I know that Highway 16 will have a very limited access,
but I believe that providing controlled access through this particular area is critical to the
best use of the property. If Black Cat is located -- Black Cat location is selected, it will --
it will necessarily change the nature of my property's potential use. I would, then, ask
that commercial zoning be provided on the north side of Chinden adjacent to Black Cat
Road and I would also ask that R-4 and R-8 residential zoning options be allowed in
limited areas along the bluff. Finally, regarding the placements of the out -- in summary,
I would like to conclude that there is placement of an elementary school on our property
and it's unclear the land plan of that school to what our plans are, so we would like to
have options on placement of that with our future land. We'd ask that Meridian -- we
ask that Meridian consider these issues and discuss possible alternatives with us before
finalizing the placement of the school. Sorry about being nervous. I have a copy of my
presentation I will give for you to get later. Any questions?
Zaremba: Give it to the clerk. It will be distributed to us. Thank you. Commissioners,
any questions?
Eggers: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Okay. Dean Meyers. You have been spoken for.
Okay. Marilyn Meyers. Thank you. John Ewing. Okay. Sherry Ewing is also signed
up. She will speak and John will agree with her.
Ewing: Well, I'm Sherry Ewing and I live at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and I'm
representing my mom and dad and my sister, the Aldape residents, and I understand
that just a few minutes ago we talked of us not being included in the impact area and, of
course, I have got all the reasons why we should, but I guess I'm confused in the fact
that we attended the open house on -- in May, on May 16th. I spoke directly to the staff
in July about being included. I met with the city of Eagle and talked to them and told
them that we did not want to be included in their impact area. When you had the
workshop in -- at that time you asked for a sewer study and I guess that did not get
done. And I have sent a letter to Planning and Zoning and now I guess I'm confused as
to what we really need to do to get the things going so in six months we will be done or
we can be included. I thought we had everything lined up already, but I guess we
haven't.
Rohm: I'm on the same page with you. I agree with everything you have said.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 23 of 67
Ewing: All right. Well --
Zaremba: Some of us expected it to come up that way as well.
Ewing: In six months I will be back with all my reasons why, then. But I do have a
concern about Basco Lane and being a collector road and I would like to see that be the
collector road. First of all, we are -- the Aldape property is the only property below the
Phyllis Canal that does not have direct access from a public road. Our neighbors to the
west of us have access -- oops. The east of us have access through Duck Alley and
neighbors to the west of us have access through Pollard Lane and Joplin. And so we
are, basically, the only ones that do not have access and so I would like to see Basco
Lane be a collector road.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? The Basco Lane makes sense to me. That
being your only access -- have there been any discussions or applications on property
that might somehow prevent that access? People can't take away an access, can they?
If we had an application for development on what Basco Lane crosses we'd still have to
preserve it; right?
Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I do not know the legal details
of the easements on that lane. That's really what we are talking about. What are the --
what are the parameters on the ingress -egress easements, who is the -- who has rights
to that and who doesn't. I mean I don't have information here, so I couldn't answer that.
but I mean in principle, clearly we are looking for providing some good connection to the
area north of the rim and Basco Lane is one. Another gentleman tonight mentioned
Black Cat. Certainly that's a good idea.
Zaremba: Okay. I don't think you're going to lose your access one way or the other.
Ewing: I know that. I am going to speak for the neighbor that actually falls down to the
west of us from Black Cat and he does not want that to go that way. And he's, actually,
in the audience tonight, if you wanted to get comment from him. The access through
Basco Lane was actually obtained by my grandfather in 1912 when he bought the
place. So, that's how that happened, so -- other questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions?
Moe: No.
Zaremba: Peggy Everest. Been spoken for. Thank you. Carma McFadden.
McFadden: My name is Carma McFadden. I live on 6750 West Lazy Diamond Z Lane.
It's right off of McDermott Road. It's in the preservation corridor. And the only way I
was ever notified is because my father owns 40 acres and it appears the large
landowners are the ones that have been getting the notification. So, we did go to the
Sawtooth meeting. My question is what is the definition that you have of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 24 of 67
preservation corridor? I mean I don't understand what you have done to our land. I
would have to agree with the people that have spoke before. I don't want my land
marked as a preservation corridor for three or five years or something and I can't do
anything with my land. I mean if my father wants to sell, he cannot sell this. I mean
people don't know what you're going to zone this for, where you're putting the highway
through. And I know you said you don't really know, but why are you marking our land
and making us preserve it in some way? Then, also, I know there is the question of
access. You know, will I have access to even get out of my land? So, those are kind of
the questions -- what I'm basically saying is don't mark my land as a preservation
corridor. You basically have limited me on what I can do. And, then, also please notify
us. I mean we are landowners. I was not aware of any workshops that maybe would
have been through these questions. I have had to call Planning and Zoning to get on
the list. And, then, we have been calling to find out about the meeting, because you
canceled it and we have no idea -- you know, I have got children, I have to find baby-
sitters for -- so I can attend these meetings, so --
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Moe: Can we get the map up? I'd like to know -- see where your property is.
McFadden: Sure. It's off of McDermott Road between Ustick and McMillan. I own this
land right here. My father is right behind me. So, right here.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much.
McFadden: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Bob McFadden.
B. McFadden: I live on the same lane as Carma does. And I just wondered --
Zaremba: Would you state your name and address, please, for the record.
B. McFadden: Bob McFadden. 6830 West Lazy Diamond Z Lane. Now, you talk about
20 to 25 years down the road. That's past me. So, you're taking my retirement. I can't
even --
Zaremba: Thank you. Initials. The last name is Rice, I believe. Could be R.S. Rice.
You need to come to the microphone, sir. Oh. Okay. You have been spoken for. All
right. Thank you. R. Spraggle.
Spraggle: My name is Robert Spraggle. I live at 4005 North McDermott Road. I should
be right about there. I guess I would have to just agree with some of what has been
said about McDermott Road, in the fact that this plan seems to take away the right that
we should have as citizens as to how we deal with our property. It would be different, in
my estimation, if this was imminent, to happen soon, but we don't have any time line for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 25 of 67
this. This being set aside -- and if I wanted to sell now or two years from now or five
years from now, you're selling a piece of property that isn't worth what it should be.
Already we have seen property values, because of the -- because of the development
moving that direction, we have seen property values fold, because of this news. So, I'd
like to go on record, as others have said, that this is not done in this manner and that
there is another manner found out how to do this.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Bill Waterfield. Been spoken for.
Thank you. Angela Baden. Been spoken for. And Jeff Boden. Also spoken for. Okay.
Chuck Pond.
Pond: My wife and I own the property --
Zaremba: Please start with your name and address, sir.
Pond: Chuck Pond. I actually live at 4162 North Jones, but the property I'm talking
about is our farm property at 5595 North McDermott. The thing with the corridor is that
you guys are -- it's three to five years. Well, the state highway district -- state of Idaho
it's seven to ten years. Our land is going to be studied and studied and studied and in
the meantime we lose our property rights. If you're going to have that corridor -- I don't
know any highway in this country that's a mile wide. Why a whole mile? I'll tell you
why. Because of the fiasco that happened on Eagle Road. We are being punished for
that. What we'd like to see, if you are going to have a corridor, make it big enough for
what's needed, compensate us for the property that we have, and move on. But what
we are afraid of -- and we know what's going to happen, is that you -- the reason for this
whole corridor is Governor Kempthorne's program. Well, what happens in two years
when he's gone and it dies, the support in the legislature? We can't sit on that property
that long. We have already lost two sales. The other people around here have already
said they are losing property value. We are losing our property rights — that's what we
are losing. That's what I have to say. Any questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Pretty clear. Thank you. Janelle Bingaman. Been
spoken for. Thank you. Cynthia Ross. She's been spoken as well. Al Lutz? Been
spoken for. Okay. And Nan Lutz. Been spoken for. It could be Vern Strickland. Last
name starts -- looks like an S -T -R. Anybody with a name similar to that? We will go on.
If I haven't called your name, we will ask you to come up. Lois Sweezor. Sweezor?
Okay. Been spoken for. Jerry Sweezor. If you have a question, this would be the time.
We will make a list of questions and try to get some of them answered. Start with your
name and address, please.
Sweezor: My name is Lois Sweezor. I live at 4725 North McDermott Road, Meridian. I
take it that what we -- where we should really be is at the ACHD; right? Instead of here
tonight.
Zaremba: Possibly ITD, if you're talking about the McDermott corridor.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 26 of 67
Sweezor: Okay. Idaho Transportation. That's where we need to go, isn't it?
Zaremba: They will be the eventual decider.
Sweezor: Well, I'm surprised nobody is here to represent them, because I thought they
would be here. I will do things different next time. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: I think the reason they are not here is because, from what I understand, they
have no idea what they are doing yet; is that correct?
Zaremba: Well, that's true, too. Joan R -- could be Rath. Something similar. Been
spoken for. Thank you. Warren Watson. Spoken for. Thank you. Wayne Forrey.
Forrey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Forrey, 1952 South Wild
Creek Way in Boise. And I'm here tonight -- well, I'm the owner of Pathway
Development Company. We are planning consultants. And I have six clients that own
14 different large land parcels in this area, plus my wife and I are co-owners of an 80
acre farm in the corridor. I have practiced urban planning in this community for over 25
years. In fact, ten years ago I helped write the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. So, I
think I'm pretty good at recognizing good planning when we see it and also inadequate
planning when we see it, but, quite frankly, this is very good planning and I congratulate
you for being bold and taking a leadership position to think about future transportation.
And your staff has done a good job putting a bold plan forward and we -- as a
community, we really need to think about the next 20, 25 years in this community and
moving traffic and connecting to Gem county and parts north and regional movement
and the way this metropolitan area is growing. Now, other states have been growing
equally as fast as Idaho and in the last four or five years two new state highways have
been built in Utah. Four new state highways in the state of Texas. And they used a
very collaborative process in the corridor preservation, the very thing we are talking
about tonight. They learned from mistakes in Texas particularly, where the local
government, the regional, the metropolitan governments and the state kind all did
separate things and I have heard a little of that tonight -- say, well, the state's doing it
different and Compass is doing it different and ACHD is doing it different. And maybe
Canyon county is doing it different and Meridian is doing it different and, boy, on this
kind of an issue we all need to be on the same page. And Utah and Texas provide a
very good model for us to look at for corridor preservation and new state highway and
the model that they have utilized is very inclusive of getting property owners involved at
the early stage and throughout the whole process. And so you don't have the folks here
tonight -- and I'm one of them -- own property out here, that are questioning and in a
state of confusion, well, what do I do for three to five years. Or as one gentleman said,
what if the legislature wakes up with a headache and said, well, GARVEE is on hold for
a year. And, then, it's five to seven years or eight to nine years. Well, in Texas and
Utah, they had a time line, working partnership, they had a very formalized procedure.
So, I looked at your staff report and I would agree with everything, but I would ask you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 27 of 67
to add one thing and that one thing I would add would be that the City of Meridian
supports a collaborative public-private partnership process. That state and all entities
work with landowners. In Utah -- let me digress just for a minute. Both in the state of
Texas and Utah it's been demonstrated that their projects got built faster. So, instead of
a three to five year process or five to seven, we might be looking at a 24 to 36 month
process, when the property owners sit down with the state and all the players and work
this through. And so if you add a policy in the staff report that ultimately gets passed on
to the City Council, that the city encourages this collaborative process, and, then, you
say if it doesn't happen, then, it might be three to five years or five to seven. So, if there
is an incentive to get property owners to sit down and talk about the impacts, the
relationship of their future planning on state planning as well. That speeds up the
process. It will avoid some conflicts at the initial stages we are starting to see tonight. I
know that the red light is on, but I'm representing 14 different parcels, if you could give
me another minute. So, I think that's a way to kind of break up this log jam and get
some confidence to property owners that are making investments based on these plans,
that they are going to be included in the process and that your staff report would bring
that policy forward and you move that onto the City Council. You're looking for an
alliance here of property owners. I know just among my clients right now they control
900 acres in just that two-mile area from Ustick to Chinden in that one mile wide. And
so -- I mean the property owners got together to help define this on a faster track and
avoid some problems. And that would be the end of my testimony. Congratulations.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Mr. Forrey, one of my frustrations is the length of time that these studies take.
And I realize when the federal government gets involved, maybe that's the way it's
always going to be. Any suggestion or recommendation that can speed that up?
Forrey: Both Texas and Utah received national awards from the American Planning
Association and the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for
taking this collaborative more, inclusive more process. So, I think, you know, Meridian
should look at that. I mean those other states have plowed that ground and put some --
put a calendar in place that people can kind of bank on.
Borup: Right. I understood. So, that was part of the actual alignment study that --
Forrey: Yes. The model that they used -- because they had had so many failures in
decades prior, especially in Texas, so they went back --
Borup: It seems like the frustration -- I mean maybe not so much that it's going to
happen, is exactly where it's going to be and I don't know how we can take that long to
decide something that seems pretty logical from --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 28 of 67
Forrey: If you're a property owner and work with them and say in the next 22 months
they will happen, they can make good decisions. But to say to someone it could be
seven years, you can't make good decisions on that.
Borup: I agree with that. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Ken Robsky. Okay. Thank you. Doug Carnahan.
Carnahan: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is
Doug Carnahan and my address is 4410 West Chinden Boulevard, Meridian. My wife
and I own approximately 220 acres that's located north of Chinden, south of the Phyllis
Canal and between Ten Mile and Black Cat. We own and operate Jayker Wholesale
Nursery on that property. First of all, I applaud your efforts to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. There is a tremendous amount of growth in this community and
we need to all work closely to plan together for the future that's coming on us very fast.
Our vision for our property is to develop a true mixed use community with a variety of
residential densities, significant open space, and a small retail environment. The name
of this project will be called the Tree Farm. It's based on the history of the wholesale
nursery. We have opted to partner with O'Neill Enterprises, because of their experience
and track record on a number of very high quality developments in a number of
communities. We reviewed the Comprehensive Plan documents that were distributed
and, for the most part, we find that they are very compatible with our plans. We would
like to comment, however, on an item relative to access. Specifically with access
relative to properties below the bench. One specific change I would propose, which is
in contrast with the proposal you heard earlier, is to eliminate the proposal with of a
collector road at Basco. We do plan in our development to continue to provide access
to the Aldape property, but there are better alternatives if you think about serving that
1,400 acre parcel down there, specifically Highway 16 as it connects to McDermott or
Black Cat to better access that 1,400 acres below the bench. These roads were
already public and they are in a much better position to serve that aggregate
community. We agree that this issue needs to be addressed. However, it involves a
number of other communities, specifically Star and Eagle. It requires some fairly careful
study and should not be addressed as part of this amendment. If I could take a minute
or two more, I would like to just answer some comments relative to Basco Road, so I
put that in context, because you have heard some comments about that.
Zaremba: That is a hanging question, yes, please.
Carnahan: Okay.
Borup: Is your property adjoining that or --
Carnahan: It is my property adjoining it on both sides of Basco Lane.
Borup: Okay. So, it goes through the middle. Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 29 of 67
Carnahan: Well, no Basco Lane is our property. We own it.
Borup: Okay.
Carnahan: So, just a couple of facts about it. First of all, it's a private road that we own
totally. The access to property below the bench, the Aldape property, which the access
has been provided for many years, has no written easement of record. It's only
proscriptive easement. It's just because it's been used for a number of years. We have
no conflict with that use. That's not the issue. We would retain a connection down
there, but we are going to put estate lots up there and we would provide for some
continuity of a road down there. But in terms of thinking about that 1,400 acre block of
properties that needs to be addressed, the -- this is a private road that would conflict
very much with our proposed use. There is several -- and if you take this 1,400 acre
block, it's to the very far end of the 1,400 acre block is the location of -- where Basco
connection would be. If you took the other alternatives, a Highway 16 connection, or a
Black Cat, they are very central into that access and could provide much more
distribution. The other point is there is no connection to the south on that road, but
there are on Black Cat and, then, there would be on Highway 16 if it didn't connect to
McDermott. So, we think there is some good options. We encourage you to pursue
that as a later plan. We have no conflicts with that at all, but we think the access could
be -- if you develop this collector road at that location, it could put a huge amount of
traffic through our properties and we think that would do us a great disservice. And I
thank you very much and I'm open to questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Thank you.
Rohm: Are we done?
Zaremba: We are about, except for the one name that I couldn't interpret. It looked to
me like Vern Strickland or something like that. But we have gone through the list of
those that have signed up, but if there is somebody that has something to add that didn't
sign up, this would be your opportunity. Or if you think you might be Vern Strickland or
I'm reading that wrong. Come right up to the microphone, please.
Maxwell: Yes, sir. I'm not Vern Strickland.
Zaremba: Okay.
Maxwell: My name is Melynda Maxwell. M -e -1 -y -n -d -a. And I live at 4455 North
McDermott. You have heard from several of the neighbors. I'm not sure -- this is north
of Chinden; correct? Okay. I will probably break it if it's computerized. Told you. What
do I need to be pointing at?
Canning: Ma'am, are you further south? What's the nearest cross street?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 30 of 67
Maxwell: McMillan and McDermott.
Canning: He's got the -- it's just on McMillan right there.
Zaremba: It should be pretty close to that intersection.
Maxwell: Okay. And right there is Five Mile Creek. That's our property right there. To
echo some of our neighbors, you know, we are in limbo and, you know, they have larger
properties that the impact for them is very different than for us, but still an impact. One
of the things, listening to some of the people talk and briefing earlier, who established
this one mile corridor? Was that the City of Meridian? Ada county? The state?
Federal government?
Zaremba: That's a good question. It's probably the City of Meridian. If I'm interpreting
it -- and maybe I'll get a correction from staff. ITD will not make a commitment about
where they are going to put it.
Maxwell: Okay.
Zaremba: And the difficulty of saying it should be somewhere in this area, they have to
pick an eventual route that misses wetlands, that misses all sorts of environmental stuff.
Maxwell: Right. I understand.
Zaremba: And I agree with the thought that there ought to be a way to make this much
narrower than a whole mile -- a half mile on either side of it.
Maxwell: My gripe is not even that. It's who decided? You know, if Idaho State
Transportation Board hasn't decided where to put it, why would Ada county or, for that
matter, Meridian, say, oh, this is where we are going to decide to do it, because that's
kind of what it sounds like.
Zaremba: Well, at this point it's Meridian trying to give ITD an option.
Maxwell: And that option, then, toasts --
Zaremba: And that's why we are discussing it. It's not set yet.
Maxwell: Well, except that having this corridor -- I know a number of people that have
had offers made on their property, found out, backed out, been really low balled price,
you know, penny on the dollar for property, because who is going to want to buy it?
They don't know how long, as far as when that seven lane connector goes in, we have
heard everything from two years to 12 years. In addition, on the McDermott part, we
are also under restraints because of the sewer. And, again, five, six year time frame,
variances, depending on whether you're talking to Planning and Zoning, whether you're
talking to developers, you know, you can't get a straight answer. At least not a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 31 of 67
consistent one. When you talk -- had the traffic study and the percentages of volume,
the largest one was McMillan and Black Cat. The second was McMillan and Ten Mile.
And until recently, basically, McDermott to Can -Ada north of Ustick, has been the red
headed stepchild, we are not even sure we are part of Ada county. At least that's how
it's been feeling. Well, if you stopped your traffic study at Black Cat, that's your highest
one at Black Cat and McMillan and Ten Mile and McMillan, what do you think's going on
at McDermott and McMillan? And we don't even have a stop sign there. That's an
incredibly dangerous intersection. We just had three people killed there this spring, you
know, and so that's not even looked at? And we have got -- you know, is that because
we are in this corridor freeze? On our property and surrounding, got the yellow. Well,
we have seen it marked medium density and medium high density and different R-3,
four -- you know, okay, what are we? In your -- in your long range plan what -- you
know, if don't sell, but our neighbors do, how many people are we going to have sitting
around us? And as far as public notices, as a number of people have said, not
happening. We didn't know anything about the open house in May. Found out by
accident about the last meeting that we were told was a public meeting, came to it, and,
no, it's a briefing -- it's open to the public, but you can't ask questions. Well, Planning
and Zoning is the one that told me that it was a public meeting, not a briefing, you know.
Okay. Right hand, left hand, let's talk, let the public know. Same story. Stay on the
same page. And got a letter said all notices to the public will be in Valley Times. I must
have asked 30 people what's Valley Times. Oh, it's Meridian's newspaper. I grew up in
this valley. I have never heard of it. Found out --
Canning: Mr. Chair --
Zaremba: I do need to ask you to conclude.
Maxwell: You know. This is -- we are not getting notified of meetings. Even checking
on the internet for tonight's meeting, it was listed at 7: 00 o'clock last week. Today it
was listed at 6: 00 o'clock.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Borup: Maybe just a clarification. I think the workshop was not a Public Hearing, but it
was open to the public.
Maxwell: But what I was told was that it was --
Borup: Public hearing or that it was open to the public?
Maxwell: It was a public meeting.
Borup: Right. It's open to the public. It's not a closed door meeting. And there is a
difference between that and a Public Hearing. So, that's what you're here for tonight,
for the Public Hearing, so that's good.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 32 of 67
Maxwell: But I would assume that if it was a briefing, it would have been phrased that
way. So, misunderstanding words, but, you know, still, you finding out when and where
and --
Borup: Well, it looks like it's been successful. We are more than capacity in here, so --
Zaremba: Thank you. There was somebody else. You will be next.
Coleman: I apologize. I did sign up, but, apparently, I signed the wrong thing, so -- I
don't know what I signed up for, but -- Commissioners, Thomas Coleman. I live at 715
Bruce Lane in Boise. I'm here on behalf of Coleman communities, we are a developer
of approximately 320 acres on both sides of McMillan, north and south, between Black
Cat and McDermott. I have some maps here that will detail that. All right. Our
company has been in real estate development and home building for about 30 years
now. We operate in southern and central California and Nevada and here in the
Treasure Valley. As a developer of what we believe to be quality projects and quality
communities, we have always seen ourselves as a partner in the cities in which we
operate. This will be our first project in Meridian. We are extremely excited to be
working here. We think this is a great city. We hope to be a part of it as it continues to
grow and develop. However, as a developer we have to oppose what's currently being
proposed in the comp plan amendment. We feel that the Highway 16 preservation
corridor, as detailed in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, is an extreme
over-extension on behalf of the city, especially in light of the fact that there is no specific
time frame from the state. I understand there is a time frame for the environmental
study, but, then, beyond that I think it gets a little bit gray. But I think that's been stated
before. The over extension is going to cause substantial undue financial harm to
property owners in the area. We believe it's unnecessary and unfair. That said, we are
not opposed to planning for future transportation corridors, we would welcome the
opportunity to work with the city in doing so. We are not trying to bend planning for the
Highway 16 corridor, we welcome it, we think it's a good idea, we just think it's just a
huge overreaching. We also feel that the city lacks the legal authority to impose the
Highway 16 preservation corridor, but I really won't get into that. I was actually -- when I
signed up, I was hoping that Gary Allen with Givens Pursley, who has been advising us
in the matter, could follow me on that.
Borup: We have received a letter from him, I believe.
Coleman: Okay. Yeah. I think he'd also like to testify and that's fine. And I'm open for
questions if you have any.
Zaremba: Thank you. The lady in the back is next.
Paul: My name is Peggy Paul. I live at 16429 McDermott Road, Nampa. We are on
the Canyon county side of McDermott. But I did not get a chance to sign up, because
there were way too many people and it's too crowded tonight. But I'm not -- we are on
the Nampa side and we are not in your jurisdiction and Nampa says there is no
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 33 of 67
moratorium on Canyon county, but I, as a realtor, I do represent some farmers in the
area that have land on the Ada county side and it's not fair to them, that they are
getting, you know, pushed by the growth, the farmers, everybody else, the traffic on the
road, they can't get the product out or get the price that they need to for the crops
anymore. There are a lot of farmers out there that would love to sell. But since you
have slapped this so-called moratorium on the half -mile corridor east of McDermott,
these farmers are missing some very top dollar offers. There have been a few who
have already that have turned down 100,000 dollars an acre. When you're looking at a
farmer who has slaved hard for many years, 11 million dollars flying out the window isn't
really the best thing. As long as this moratorium in on, the developers that have came
to town with some money in their pocket, are backing away and it's not fair. It's not fair
to these farmers and these landowners who have tried for years to hopefully make
some good money and they should be given the opportunity make some good money
right now. You should get along with ITD and figure this out. And, oh, by the way, I did
speak with ITD two weeks ago and I asked them about the railroad overpass on
McDermott. Are they going to put one in? They said, oh, sure, we are. It's going
between Black Cat and Robinson Road off of Greenhurst, connecting Kuna Mora.
Sorry, folks, that's south of the freeway. What about north of the freeway? They forgot.
They overlooked it. So, I think is a little -- you know, a lot of matters that they need to
represent and bring, you know, to the public's eye, because there is a lot more cost
going here than just a little connection and a corridor. But I do think you guys should
consider dropping this so-called moratorium. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Gary Allen.
My address is 601 West Bannock in Boise, Idaho. As Thomas mentioned, I'm counsel
for Norpack and the Coleman communities. We have submitted written testimony
earlier today and I'd just like to hit some of the highlights. As Thomas mentioned, we
have significant legal concerns with the creation of a State Highway 16 corridor or
preservation area. As you have heard, there is a great deal of uncertainty about
whether this project is -- when and how this project will occur. I just add that we have
talked with some people that are very familiar with this and one of the things that hasn't
been mentioned is the likelihood that you will compete for the dollars for this project with
the widening of 1-84 from Gowen Road to Orchard. Those projects cost about the same
thing. And one or the other of them is going to go in the short time frame, but not both.
So, if that Gowen Road project gets preference, you may be waiting quite awhile for this
project to happen. On the legal issues, the first point is that you cannot use this corridor
to reduce the acquisition costs of this right of way, as the staff report suggests the
purpose of it is. Courts all across the country have rejected attempts to reduce property
values by freezing development. The value that will be paid for the right of way is based
on its highest and best use, not based on an artificial Comprehensive Plan designation.
And the value of this land has little or nothing to do with whether or not Highway 16
goes in. Now, as stated in our letter, you have got an additional issue that this isn't just
a matter of saving or not saving ITD money, if you designate this property in this way
and that results in a loss to property owners when it's acquired by ITD, the city has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 34 of 67
potential takings liability to those property owners. I don't see why you would want to
get yourself in that position. As you can see, there are a whole lot of people interested
in this and I think you put yourself at some risk by taking that on. And I also see this as
a very clear case of violating the legal principles that would lead to takings liability. This
is an abrupt change from your current policy. All of these properties have been
designated for urban density development since at least 2002 and some since 1993.
So, it's created reliance and investment backed expectations for the property owners.
And the city has been very clear about the purpose of this, to save ITD money. So, we
think that that's an area that you ought to take a close look, consult closely with your
counsel, before you decide that this is a good idea. The second thing is, as the lady
before me said, this is -- looks an awful lot like a moratorium, without following Idaho
law about limits on the length or a finding of emergency that's necessary to pass a
moratorium. My final point is if the city is not willing to serve this property for some
indeterminate period of time, why is this land in the area of impact at all? That's the
purpose -- the purpose of an area of impact is to designate land that you're willing to
serve. And you're apparently not here until that Highway 16 issue is resolved. So, in
conclusion, we would ask you to table the preservation corridor portion of this
amendment, so that all affected parties can sit down with the city, with ITD, and figure
out a solution that works for everyone. We have heard some promising ideas tonight.
We think that there needs to be a much more collaborative process. So, with that I
would stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: You mentioned table -- table this Comprehensive Plan. Would you also
recommend, then, tabling any annexations or rezones or anything else in the same
area, too, then?
Allen: Well, I think until something is worked out, so --
Borup: Until something is worked out, you know, either this would go in or there would -
- the same result, not taking a look at any development in that area, would be the other
option from what I understand you're saying.
Allen: We are looking for the imposition of this corridor preservation overlay to be
tabled until it can be worked out.
Borup: Right.
Allen: But that doesn't necessarily mean that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 35 of 67
Borup: So, in the meantime, you're saying still go ahead and do development in that
area, then?
Allen: I think that with good planning, that it is possible to do development in this area.
For example, some of my clients' property is adjacent to Black Cat and could be served
by the Black Cat trunk up there and that's been limited more than necessary and we
think that, you know, there ought to be at least a significant amount of our property on
that side that could be developed. You know, one of the problems is you're preserving
this mile on either side of the -- or half mile on either side of the section line. Well, 90
percent of the land -- and maybe a hundred percent -- you know the road is going to
follow a section line. It's not going to go in between, so --
Borup: I guess I agree with that.
Allen: You're preserving --
Borup: So, what happens to that -- I know one of my concerns and reasons that I feel
preservation is essential is -- as has been brought out earlier, is to avoid some of the
fiascoes of Eagle Road. And this is the time to avoid that, not 20 years from now, 25
years from now, but -- and I think part of the -- in my mind and maybe staff had different
things in mind, but when we are talking about reducing costs when you're buying
highway right of way as bare land or you're going in there and tearing out hundreds of
homes, there is a big difference. And if this is a limited access highway, you know, we
are talking -- we are talking some other transportation issues in there --
Allen: Right.
Borup: -- that needs to be designed within whatever development is going to happen. I
mean that's all the things that we are taking into consideration.
Allen: Well -- and I think you're right to take them into consideration, but I don't think
you need to go nearly as far as you have. There are definitely parts of this land that can
be -- can be developed. We haven't seen any -- the only reasoning that's articulated in
the proposal that's before you today is fiscally responsible acquisition of right of way.
Now, we are --
Borup: Well, when I read that I envisioned it saying that, again, bare land acquisition,
rather than tearing down existing homes and --
Allen: There is at most going to have one place where this road crosses that half mile
stretch and very likely that could occur north of your area of impact, depending upon
how the environmental studies go. So, I don't see why -- you know, we'd have no
problem with a few hundred feet. So, you know, a hundred feet or 200 feet, whatever
you would really need for a right of way along the section line. Whatever access
restrictions you think you need. That makes sense.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 36 of 67
Borup: Well, the city is not the one to determine that and, unfortunately, we have got
frustrations dealing with the federal government on these studies.
Allen: And you can figure out what the most you would need for a four lane highway.
Borup: Thank you.
Allen: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thanks. Commissioners, discussion?
Newton-Huckabay: Are we done with public testimony?
Zaremba: That was everybody, yes.
Borup: Do we have some comments from the staff?
Canning: You had told Mr. Ewing, I believe, that he could talk. He had raised his hand
earlier.
Zaremba: He was signed up and didn't speak. Come on up.
J. Ewing: I changed my mind. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm John Ewing, I live at
2934 East Lake Hazel in Meridian, Idaho. There was a couple of comments that was
made that I -- and I'm going to the piece of property that my wife talked about that is
north of the Phyllis Canal, down Basco Lane, and the testimonies after that talked about
Basco Lane not being a main connector and there was comments about 1,400 acres
down in there. I think that it's important -- and I know that this has been said, but to say
it again, property that is the Aldape property, is landlocked, does not have Black Cat
hitting it. Has no roads from the east or west hitting it. The only access they have right
now is Basco Lane. There was the issue of the easement, who owns the easement and
everything. One of the things that concerned me when that was brought up -- I saw
your attorney here smile and shake his head yes, you know, the land isn't owned by
that. I think that the thing is -- and I can speak for the Aldape family, that maybe Aldape
-- maybe Basco Lane is an important access down there as a main connector. It does
surprise me -- and I -- on some of my other projects that I have been involved, staff has
been pretty adamant that there will not be any land locked. We have had situations
where we have actually had to give more than one access -- two, three accesses.
That's what the city prefers. Or has in the past. So, I think that I can speak for the
Aldape family on this, that the project that is south of the canal, they are in favor of.
They think that they are doing a good job putting it together. They want to be good
neighbors. I think, though, as far as the access goes, I think that they don't care if it's
Basco Lane. I don't know that they are looking for this super highway going down there.
Any two spots going down there would be fine with them, if that would be a better thing
for the developer. So, with that being said, I want you to know that we are not talking
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 37 of 67
about 1,400 acres that this road -- or that they are asking for. They have less than 300
acres down there. So, that's all I have.
Zaremba: You're saying the landlocked portion would be 300 acres?
J. Ewing: Yes. To the east they have access off of Duck Alley. Black Cat hits the
neighbors to the west and, again, I think earlier my wife testified that, you know, they
are not in favor of Black Cat coming down through their land. And it would not do the
Aldapes any good if it did. It doesn't touch until -- well, Black Cat will cross this property
clear back by the river, so there is, I don't know, I'm going to tell you 40 or 80 acres
between it -- you know, maybe a half a mile. So, I think that, again, I believe that the
Aldape piece of property is the one that's landlocked. And the project to the south is
going to be the first one that comes in and that could give access to that property. So, I
guess -- I understood on the testimony why maybe they don't want to straight shot down
Basco Lane and -- or that would be all right with them, too. I mean we are not trying to
say -- I think that it's just important that they get access.
Borup: Access.
J. Ewing: Thank you.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Let's see. We have gone through the list. Are you
people that have signed up previously? You didn't speak?
Borup: Something new?
Zaremba: Please come forward, sir. State your name for the record, if you would.
Sindon: My name is Wilfred Sindon and I live on 1515 West Ustick Road. And it is the
southeast corner of Ustick Road and Linder. And I have lived there since 1969 and as
most of us can attest to, my quality of life has gone down from a plus ten down to about
a three and I understand there is going to be a traffic light put right on the corner and
that will give me something to look at from my bedroom. And, anyway, my main
purpose for being here is since the 1960s or 70s, the planning, if I understand the
planning and zoning -- and this is the first meeting I have ever been to. But the planning
and zoning is a long-term plan, 25 years -- 20, 25 years. Is that what you were talking
about earlier? Zoning? Planning?
Borup: Partof it.
Sindon: And, then, annexation kind of cements it; is that -- am I correct there? Okay.
Anyway, that little piece of property has been on the planning maps identified as
commercial -- future commercial forever. So, when I had a real estate person come by
the other day and say you have a nice piece of property, I'll give you X amount for it and
I says, well, on the planning map it's identified as commercial and it always has been.
And he says, no, that's not true, I got a new map. So, I'm just wondering -- I would just
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 38 of 67
like the Commissioners to reconsider. I think that corner is an extremely busy corner,
there is going to be a traffic light, my quality of life will go to zero and I think the best use
of it is commercial. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. All right. Comments from the staff?
Canning: Yes, sir. I think I had some comments on the corridor area and, then, Brad
has some on the access to the Aldape. I can't understate how unlikely it is to have
sewer in that preservation area before the corridor actual -- the actual area for the
highway alignment will probably be determined. So, I think the planning commission --
a lot of things that they could do and the public has asked you to come up with an
alternative and I think we have one for you that may work for all concerned. Because I
do want everybody in this room to understand there is not sewer available in that area.
I can't understate that. Now that I have said it twice, I'll stop. But I think Mr. Forrey had
a good idea in that if we kept the boundaries and took off the word preservation and had
just one statement that talked about that the landowners would work together with ITD,
the city, and Ada county to determine a proper placement for the Highway 16 corridor, I
thought that was a really good suggestion and I think that that is something that the
planning commission could consider. Because the availability of sewer will dictate most
of the development in that area, you could take out the restrictive policies that have
been proposed currently. So, it would just be an area identifying that this is an area
where these landowners need to all work together with ITD to come up with some
alignment for this future highway extension. But in conjunction with that, I would also
recommend that as part of the area of city impact agreement with Ada county, when we
take this amendment forward to them, that we ask them to adopt the standards in our
zoning ordinance regarding development along state highways. And for the benefit of
the public, what that would do is currently we list McDermott as the likely location for
Highway 16 extension and we limit access to that facility. So, no new access points to
that. So, those of you who are still along McDermott, I don't want to mislead you, you
would still be impacted, but it would be through the implementation of the standards that
we currently have for any development along state highways. So, it would be similar to
what we do along Chinden, what we do along Meridian Road. And so with a
combination of those three things, putting in a statement about working together, taking
out the restrictive policies and working toward getting Ada county to adopt the standards
for development along state highways, it seems to meet a lot of the concerns of the
folks that have been expressed tonight.
Zaremba: It sounds like that would also eliminate many of the unknowns.
Canning: Yes. Yes. It takes out that timing issue. Our code for the development along
state highways, it says the current McDermott alignment or an ITD determined
alignment at some later date. So, it leaves that switch -- assume that ITD determines
an exact alignment, then, those standards switch over to where ever that exact
alignment is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 39 of 67
Zaremba: Is that something that the city could facilitate or actually drive or would we be
at the mercy of wait until ITD felt like talking about it, to gather all the neighbors together
and --
Canning: Well, if it's in our Comprehensive Plan, you can certainly -- they have taken a
much more pro -active approach to their road designs. The one they did on Eagle Road,
they held numerous open houses, I think in three different communities, so that they
could get everyone involved. I think Chinden they are doing a similar thing. And I
would think once -- well, I would think they would anticipate they would do the same
things along McDermott. I guess I agree with Gary Allen in that it's hard for me to
imagine that ITD is going to put that road anywhere except on top of McDermott. But if
for whatever reason they need to, that's all we were trying to identify was -- they said it
could move a half mile either way and, actually, it was published in the paper one time,
there being a half mile off of McDermott. And that's when the city got involved and said,
geez, we'd really like it just to be on McDermott to provide that easement of two mile
spaces for the access to 1-84. Thank you. And so that's what kind of peaked our
interest, because we didn't want it a half mile off, separating all those folks. That would
just be in that half mile between Highway 16 extension and the county line. We wanted
those people to feel like they were part of our community and not the ugly redheaded
stepchild. So, it's a suggestion that staff offers you that is something to contemplate --
that seems to address a lot of their concerns but still meets the city's concerns as well.
Zaremba: Any questions on that subject?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: As far as the -- the alignment is what I'm -- what would happen if say there was
a 300 foot corridor? Is ITD going to -- I mean, then, we would be pretty much forcing
them to use McDermott. That would allow for -- that would allow for the highway, it
would allow for controlled access, allow for frontage roads, you know, whatever would
need to be in there. If it was too difficult for them, would they take a whole alternate
route or -- I mean I guess they can do anything they want. But I mean it definitely
seems like a logical place and the Highway 16 is not anything knew. I mean the city
was looking at that three years ago. At that time it was Ten Mile and they realized that,
you know -- I mean Ten Mile is developed all the way down it now almost and that's why
it's logical to move to McDermott. Again, with the freeway interchange makes a lot of
sense, too. So, I spent a lot of time asking -- does anyone have any idea what ITD's
attitude would be if it was a narrower corridor?
Canning: They have generally -- I think the idea is that if we can't get it -- if there is too
much development along that street, that's when they go to a half mile and that's why
when it was first talked about, they talked about it at the half mile, because they felt
there would be less --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 40 of 67
Borup: Less development.
Canning: Less development along there. But, really, there is such limited development
currently along McDermott, that it probably wouldn't matter whether you went a half mile
in or along the actual alignment as we have looked at it. So, it doesn't seem to -- like I
said, I just can't imagine why it would go away from the McDermott alignment at this
point. Regarding the 300 foot corridor, if you want to recommend as part of the
Comprehensive Plan that they adopt the standards from the zoning ordinance in the
area of city impact, that will have more of an effect than the 300 foot, because a lot of
properties will go beyond the 300 foot. And we are really only concerned about the area
immediately adjacent to the existing right of way, the planned and in the future right of
way. So, it will have about the same effect.
Borup: Okay. Now, I don't know if 300 foot was the magic number. It is something that
would definitely preserve enough to do at a control access highway, plus whatever other
road needs on that would be.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm wondering that if we put on our recommendation to City Council
and that -- and, it's, obvious, we are making recommendation that -- that we go to, you
know, the collaborative, Anna's suggestion, is that putting a width if necessary, because
that would be the result of a collaborative effort with the community on making that
decision on the width of that corridor; is that correct? Would that be --
Canning: Yes. And --
Borup: The state highway standards would probably take care of that.
Newton-Huckabay: And that's true, too.
Canning: I'm sorry, Commissioner Huckabay, I don't understand exactly the question. I
don't understand exactly the question. Do you not want to put any width to it? Is that
what your question is?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm wondering if it's really necessary. I think if we are
attaching a recommendation that, you know, a comprehensive collaborative effort with
the community and city is going to take place, I don't know that -- that putting a width on
is really going to -- I mean if it's going to be a state highway, that would be the only
width I would think that would be --
Canning: That's a good point, too. Are you saying we would work with the people that
it's appropriate to work with and we don't need to show it on the map?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meering
October 3, 2005
Page 41 of 67
Newton-Huckabay: Right. That would be my preference. And, you know, get -- I think
that gives -- one, it's less convoluted language, which I think has come out tonight that
to a lot of public it's very confusing what all this means. As a planning and zoning
commissioner, they are confusing what all of this means, and so, hopefully, an effort like
this would simplify that and make it easier for everyone to understand and clear what
the intentions are. That's my -- that's my comment.
Zaremba: At some point would you want to suggest wording that would replace what's
in there that -- I mean I'm all in favor of helping ITD steer towards using McDermott. I
agree with the others that the half mile on either side of it seems a little excessive and
I'm not so sure we need to even set the space on it. I like the idea of the collaborative
effort, but I guess my question is is there a specific wording that would get that in?
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Wayne -- Mr. Forrey's language wasn't bad. Is he
still here?
Zaremba: He did leave.
Canning: He's gone. Did he leave written testimony?
Zaremba: I did see him leave.
Newton-Huckabay: We could take it off the record.
Zaremba: Well, in fact, we aren't actually going to make this motion until two weeks
from now, so perhaps staff could supply us with some wording by then. It doesn't have
to be tonight.
Borup: Well, I think it --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I guess there are a couple of other things I want to kind of just address as well.
Number one, that this -- this corridor issue is big time, that's what everyone is here for.
But we have the other issues as well and I realize we are not going to make any
decisions, you know, for two weeks, but am I assuming that staff is going to review
meeting minutes or is that we take care of ourselves on these other issues as well?
Because I think I've counted there is six different items that we have actually somewhat
addressed this evening and will we be getting an overview of that prior to the 17th or are
we going to just review our meeting minutes and take each that way?
Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, Commissioners, no, we will certainly take all of this input
and all of this information off of the record and consolidate it and give you what we
heard and a concise summary and include this wording that Mr. Forrey proposed and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 42 of 67
but, certainly, I mean if there is one you want to talk about tonight, maybe give us more
direction on, please, do. But I mean in terms of this particular issue, what -- I think what
staff is hearing is we are removing all of the current language that is in this plan and
trying to replace it with a collaborative public-private partnership kind of language.
Zaremba: Just my personal instinct is that we need to preserve the idea focusing ITD
towards McDermott as their State Highway 16 connection. I'm agreeing with the public
testimony that what was selected was maybe a little excessive and if we can reduce
with the size or the impact of what we are asking to preserve, it would still focus ITD on
it and I'm agreeing that if we can find the wording that Mr. Forrey used, that seemed to
be pretty satisfactory. Is that kind of a consensus?
Moe: Yes, it is.
Borup: Yes. And I think that's something that could have a positive influence on land
values. If you know there is going to be a direct access -- I mean it may be a long way
down the road, but a direct access to a freeway interchange, is a lot -- I mean there is
some positive benefits to that, as opposed to driving four or five miles through the traffic
in Meridian trying to hit -- trying to hit the interchange.
Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, I think one of the key things to bear in mind from now and as
we move forward is we are not just talking about the thoroughfare of the future highway,
but the parallel road system. We need a parallel road system on a state highway.
Zaremba: Well, that's on a state highway --
Hawkins-Clark: It is, but in terms of width, you know, I mean that's not sufficient to
accommodate the highway itself and, then, east and west of that getting a parallel with
having feeder roads. I mean it's just not adequate. So, I mean that's another aspect of
the width I think I just wanted to clarify.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: So, maybe there needs to be some concept plans and that needs to be part of --
part of working with future developments to make sure that's included, is that what
you're saying also?
Hawkins -Clark: Sure.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, one more question.
Zaremba: Sure.
Newton-Huckabay: Under the umbrella of this collaborative plan are we covering this --
does that include this mixed use interchange suggestion? I know that was a question of
a group of homeowners. Because that would only be mixed use interchange if there is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 43 of 67
an interchange, so would we put that under -- that would be part of the wider access to
your --
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Commissioner, you're saying not just to add -- the language be
about the transportation corridor alone, but also the land use -- the land use policies that
go with the --
Newton-Huckabay: I think it's kind of symbiotic. They are going to be -- you can't have
one without the other. So, I think we should include that and that would -- that would
hopefully at the end of the day be good planning.
Zaremba: Okay. Do we want to -- I think a consensus is clear on that one. Do we want
to discuss other issues?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Zaremba: Go ahead.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel was -- had the piece of property that was the piece of
property at Meridian and McMillan -- southeast corner Meridian and McMillan.
Borup: Southwest.
Newton-Huckabay: Was it southwest?
Borup: That's what I wrote. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Zoned as low density in a sea of medium density.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, there was a reason for that, but the reason doesn't seem
to exist anymore and I will briefly describe it. The idea concept that the current
Comprehensive Plan was based on was neighborhood centers at the half -mile and,
then, lessening densities as you get away from that. So, what happened was that the
arterial intersections, those were the low-density corners and this was one of those low
density corners, but when the Paramount neighborhood center shifted -- Paramount?
Yeah. Paramount neighborhood center shifted, the logic should have shifted this to
medium density as well.
Borup: So, that makes sense, then.
Zaremba: Works for me.
Newton-Huckabay: So, we are going to recommend that designation change on that
one?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 44 of 67
Borup: That would be up to us. That's what you're asking. No. That makes sense to
me, either medium density or commercial.
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, the other piece --
Zaremba: Well -- and, actually, across the street from it is going to be commercial.
Newton-Huckabay: Plus the middle school.
Zaremba: Across McMillan. Well, across McMillan. And, then, caddy -corner is the
school, so do we want that to be residential or do we want to continue the commercial?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think given the Thornton Oliver Keller, it we appear to have
somewhat of a surplus of commercial acreages, if I read that properly. I would -- I
would recommend --
Zaremba: That was the conclusion that they drew, but as with all statistics, there are
ways to -- the choices you make in determining what pieces you're going to use to
develop your statistics are difficult for me to agree with sometimes. If we look at the
actual Comprehensive Plan change text on page seven, paragraph A, we mention that
more than 8,000 new building lots have already received a preliminary plat in the last
three years. If those are residential, then, that -- if you use 2.9 people per residence,
we are talking about almost, what, 22, 23 thousand new residents and Thornton Oliver
Keller used a total of 14,500 for 25 years from now. Even if we stopped taking
applications, we would exceed that by the time the currently approved plat's built out.
Am I interpreting that correctly? I think they are way underestimating --
Borup: I think they are talking about daytime population
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Daytime population.
Borup: Which that was a new term to me, but that's people at work; is that correct?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Zaremba: People that leave the area to go work somewhere else
Borup: No. No. That's people working within the area. So, that would be business and
offices within that boundary that are working there during the daytime. Is that correct?
That was a new term to me, but that's my interpretation.
Hawkins -Clark: Correct. As well as I think, you know, any stay-at-home parents, you
know, during the day. I mean it's the population that is estimated to be there during all -
- you know, the day hours during the week.
Borup: I didn't know that included them, too.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 45 of 67
Zaremba: Well, all I'm saying it seemed to me like their population estimate was lower
than what I think we have already approved and a greater population would support
more commercial.
Hawkins -Clark: Just to clarify, Chairman, I think the current number is more like about
84 or 85 hundred dwelling units, not 14,000. In terms of approved preliminary plats.
Zaremba: Yeah. No. I was using the 8,000 dwelling units, but they were using the
1,400 population.
Hawkins -Clark: It was households.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. I got that -- okay. But, still, that's only adding 6,000 --
Hawkins-Clark: It is probably low.
Zaremba: -- in the next 25 years. We will probably do that this month. I guess what
worries me is that along with the transportation estimates being low, that the
commercial need is low and my feeling is -- as you mentioned yourself, Brad, that we
have to look at more shoppers than just the Meridian shoppers, since we are in the
center of this valley, we should be able to have all the people that are passing through
stop and shop here. You know, if you're coming through anyhow, leave some money.
Just a personal opinion.
Newton-Huckabay: My opinion is that should be zoned residential, so why don't we --
that particular piece of property.
Zaremba: You're talking about the one Mr. Nickel mentioned?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Borup: Well, there may be a time in the future time where that's appropriate. I mean I
still think the individuals that have the most at stake are the ones that maybe need to
have some input. I mean I'm for the marketplace determining how much -- how much
commercial and office property we need. I think we need to make sure that's available,
that they can do it, but, you know, if we reach a point where there is too much, then, that
may need to be zoned down to residential, if that's what it needs. I mean that's always
a problem we face, too. It's hard to -- I mean there is no way of knowing exactly what,
but -- and the marketplace -- no matter what we do, the marketplace is going to
determine it anyway.
Zaremba: I guess I only ask the question, because it isn't all residential across the
street from them, but I'm happy either way. They asked for residential, so -- just a
greater density.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 46 of 67
Newton-Huckabay: And there was the other property on Chinden. I didn't really think
that -- I didn't really follow that that was -- couldn't they just apply for a step up on that?
The neighborhood commercial.
Hawkins -Clark: No. Actually, the step up policy applies to the R --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh.
Hawkins -Clark: --the R designations.
Borup: Their layout seemed logical to me. Staff, any concern with what they were
proposing?
Hawkins -Clark: No.
Borup: It didn't have any access from Chinden or from the other -- the access was all
internal. More of a buffer, so -- so what does that leave, just the Kartchner property?
Newton-Huckabay: The Basco Lane.
Moe: Well -- and also the property off of Ten Mile Road on the change for the
wastewater treatment area and going to commercial -- or I mean to residential.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: I sympathize, but the City Council has been pretty firm that there shouldn't be
any new residential and their issue is -- as well as they try and operate the sewage
treatment plant and it's going to get bigger and bigger, there are days when smells
escape and the result of that thinking is they said no new residential. We have
discussed that with them several times and the answer has always been no new
residential. It hasn't seemed to be open to discussion. Commissioner Rohm, you
appear to be mulling that one over.
Rohm: Not just that one, I -- Mr. Chairman, what I think that we have got here is there
has been so many items of discussion brought up tonight, that I think that staff will be
able to encapsulate those and to a more concise order for us to consider at the next
time we hear this and be able to kind of digest the testimony we have heard tonight and
I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay brought up some things that we have heard
testimony from and all of those things need to be addressed. But staff is probably best
suited to categorize those, so that we don't miss something when we hear this -- or
when we discuss this in two weeks from now.
Newton-Huckabay: I didn't think we were discussing it in two weeks, I thought we were
just making our recommendation that we decided on tonight.
Rohm: I don't think -- well, I'm not ready to decide on anything tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 47 of 67
Borup: I don't think we -- I don't know we necessarily need to vote tonight, but I think
out of respect for the audience, that it's probably appropriate to let them know the
direction we are going.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Zaremba: And in that line, I don't disagree with you, there are a couple I would still
discuss. I think the idea is to let the audience know we have listened to them and how
we would want to incorporate their testimony and the other is to be able to give some
firm direction to staff to what we need to see two weeks from now.
Borup: Well, I think the hot issue was McDermott Road and if we are having, so -- and
maybe that's probably why a lot of them left, I think they could see that the Commission
felt maybe that the mile wide corridor was not necessary and we were looking at
adopting the state highway standards and working at a collaborative effort among all
agencies and homeowners -- landowners. Is that the consensus of the Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Borup: Okay. At least --
Rohm: No. I think so.
Borup: I mean I think that's -- we owe that to those that had come to know that that's --
at least on that one issue that that's the direction.
Zaremba: I'd like to have a little discussion on how far north to put the area of impact. I
think as we discussed at our workshop, we don't need a full engineering decision about
how well it can be served, but if public works can give us the nickel -- you know, give us
a ten minute study of it --
Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: I would be strongly in favor of asking for the impact area to go all the way to
the river.
Borup: Well, anything can be done. It's how much money do you want to spend.
Zaremba: Well -- and the actual answer doesn't have to be made until we make the
application to the county. So, there is time to think about it.
Borup: You're saying just a consensus on whether we would be in favor of that
eventually you mean, rather than moving the boundary at the same time?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 48 of 67
Zaremba: What I'm looking for is a consensus of whether we want to move the
boundary now.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: And the mechanics of how we would accomplish that. Or do we want to
suggest to the people north of the canal that they reapply six months from now?
Newton-Huckabay: I thought Brad made it perfectly clear that they didn't think that
could be done.
Rohm: It would put the whole change to the Comprehensive Plan on hold for an
additional six months while that study is conducted, so that they can make appropriate
application to Ada county.
Zaremba: What I took away was that the Ada county application couldn't be made until
that was done. Maybe I missed something.
Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, Commissioners, I think the -- well, two things. One, while
the Ewings and representative of the Aldapes have had a lot of discussions with us and
we do support them, I think what we have tried to make clear all along that we don't
believe that just -- just that 300 acres is appropriate to extend the area of impact around
that. I mean we really are -- that's where the 1,400 acre figure came from, because it's
everything west of Linder to the Boise River, so that whole area. But we haven't looked
at land use designations either and, you know, to just add it to the area of city impact
boundary is one thing, but, then, to actually say, well, where does the low density go,
you know, generally speaking I think we can safely assume that being the majority of
that land is flood plane, clearly low density residential is probably likely. So, I don't
know that it would be too difficult. But, yeah, I think our point was just -- it will put a
delay and if your recommendation is to do that and we take that to the City Council, you
know, that's fine. I think with the sewer analysis and the land use and putting land use
designations on that property and getting more research on this Basco Lane issue,
those three will, you know, take some time. That's my main point.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Well -- sorry. Let me ask a question the other way. Should we not go north
of Chinden until the Basco Lane issue is resolved?
Hawkins -Clark: I mean so much analysis has already been done there. You know, we
have received communication from Eagle city council that says that they would support
that area being in Meridian. More conversation needs to happen between Meridian and
Eagle since the Committee of Nine decision was made, but I guess there is just -- you're
right, I mean as to how many access points do you need to get over the rim to serve
whatever population is going to be down there is key, but I think I heard tonight that they
were willing to work with them to provide a local street connection. Their main concern
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 49 of 67
was to have a major collector dividing their project.
there can be access as a local street isn't an issue
number of them.
So, it seems like whether or not
It's just the type of street and
Zaremba: Well, I sense our consensus is not to do anything that would hold up the
current issues.
Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think in our last meeting that's exactly where we got to as
well, is we were somewhat instructed that if we wanted to do something with that, then,
it would hold up the rest of this process and we also didn't want to see that either. My
biggest concern on this whole thing is, number one, we did have a consensus at that
last meeting that we were all -- we are in favor of going to the river with this property
and I'm concerned on how this is all working timelines. Realize we have got -- we have
to research some of the things, but in the interim where we have Eagle and Star fighting
on properties and whatnot, where does it sit with us in regards to making sure ACHD is
well aware that we are looking to want to go to area of impact to the river on the north
as well and is there something that can be done now to make them aware of that or do
we have to wait until we are fully ready to go and put an application together for that?
My biggest concern is that I want it somewhat known now that we want that done.
Zaremba: But the decision will be made before we have voiced our opinion. I agree
with that concern. The question was is there a way we can notify the county that we are
looking at that area, too?
Hawkins -Clark: You bet. We can -- maybe part of your recommendation could be to
have staff work with City Council, even, to write a letter to the board of county
commissioners to state that.
Moe: Well, does that have to be a recommendation in two weeks or, hey, can I say can
you, please, start working on that letter and let us look at that in two weeks? Is that
agreeable to the Commission?
Borup: Yes,
Hawkins -Clark: What we would do is to identify the public hearing date at Ada County
Board of County Commissioners for adoption of Eagle's area of impact, because that's
really a critical piece there and have that letter from Meridian be a part of the public
record at Ada county.
Zaremba: Yes.
Rohm: Personally, I think that it would carry more weight if it was included in this
application myself and if that area was included in this application and if this application
has to be delayed for enough time to dot the I's and cross the T's, then, it would carry a
lot more weight than just submitting a letter that said we'd like to also encumber that
north of the canal, but we are not ready to make application. I don't think that that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 50 of 67
carries as much weight as actually having it part of the application itself. That's my
position.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't want to belabor the point, but I
think it needs to be reiterated that the way that these four items that you will be making
recommendations on on the 17th, they were intended to go together. If this isn't ready
on the 17th, it doesn't go for another six months. So, everything that you're considering
tonight gets unnecessarily delayed if you tack on this additional request. It hasn't been
properly noticed, the studies haven't been done, and, like I say, the intent is to make a
package recommendation on the 17th. So, you certainly are able to make that motion if
you want to, but the way they have been packaged, it means that this misses the train,
really. This entire matter before your hearing -- I think that would be the practical effect
of that.
Rohm: You're saying that if, in fact, we make recommendations to change the
proposed area of impact, that the whole package has to be withdrawn for six months?
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, not necessarily withdrawn, but it doesn't
-- we are only allowed to make map changes every six months and the desire is to have
this package go through to Council on the 17th, all of your recommendations together.
I think it would be unfair to the other matters to delay them for this one particular item.
So, therefore, the practical result would be if the other three would go forward to the
Council and this one would lag behind and the next opportunity to make that
recommendation, according to the statute, is after six months.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: There is some more information I just realized I think I'd like to have. We know
what the Aldape property -- we know what their wishes are, but apparently there is
another close to 1,100 acres. I would like to know the feelings of those property
owners. If we are going to include them in this, I think that might be somewhat
pertinent. If we could get that in writing, I think that would make -- be some nice
information and, then, if we could have that at our next meeting.
Zaremba: And anecdotal comments also from a workshop with the other property
owners would be --
Borup: And I think it makes sense, but we haven't got the written --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 51 of 67
Zaremba: Yeah. Well -- and you're saying that's another reason to get all those ducks
in a row and consider that piece in six months from now.
Borup: I think we are in agreement on everything and this is something, again, is going
to be long term just getting the sewer there alone, but -- but that would -- I think that
would just be one more piece that would help it. And I think -- I don't know. It should be
some pertinent information for the county, too, if they see that all the property owners
want to go to Meridian. That should have some influence on them. Maybe it won't, but
it should.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Director Canning.
Canning: Part of the reason that staff has counseled you toward not adding it at this
point is that it's likely going to be contested by Eagle and the question is do you want to
have the whole north Meridian area plan contested, held up until that issue is resolved?
Or would you rather we move forward with that as a separate application? Because it's
not just holding up this proceedings, it's holding up the eventual adoption of the area of
city impact agreement as well.
Borup: I guess if there was any question, I think it makes sense that it's a separate
application.
Rohm: I guess my question would be of staff, then, is if the city of Eagle makes an
application for that area to be included in their area of impact, is there going to be -- is
there a process for the City of Meridian to object to that based upon what we are
hearing tonight, that the Commission wants to see that within the City of Meridian?
Canning: They already have and it's been approved. That's a big part of the issue, is
that this -- that area has been approved by the Committee of Nine that that be part of
Eagle's area of city impact. That's why staff has always cautioned against including this
with the north Meridian, because it's never been agreed -- we didn't comment on the
time that they made the application.
Borup: So, the Committee of Nine says go to the rim or to the Phyllis Canal?
Canning: The Committee of Nine says go to Chinden, but the city of Eagle has said that
they are in agreement with the areas that we want to put in. So, we are not anticipating
any legal battle there, but there may be, but --
Borup: The Committee of Nine was made up of people from Eagle, Star and Ada
county?
Canning: The Committee of Nine -- yes, sir. Those three entities.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 52 of 67
Borup: Well, no wonder that's what they want.
Zaremba: Well, the consensus is that for the 17th, two weeks from now, we want to see
the boundary at the Phyllis Canal --
Borup: That's my feeling.
Zaremba: But some side letter to the county saying this is coming down the pipeline,
but Eagle needs to know we are working on going to the river.
Borup: Yeah. But that would be not part of the applications. It would be a separate
communication.
Zaremba: And that would have to come up six months from now. Does that make
sense?
Newton-Huckabay: I would be in favor of that. I would like a final comment on this, if I
could, and I think that -- and I may be over -- what's the word I'm looking for? I think
that the opportunity for Meridian here to move forward and -- on this -- the highway
corridor within the plan that they have put forth to get the community involved and really
take the lead in where this highway -- and where the city would like this highway to go
and, you know, with the least impact on the property owners, I'd like to see that move
forward as quickly as possible, so that rather than having a situation where, you know,
you have all these people making decisions in a vacuum, you have got the city going to
the transportation department saying this is what we want to see, this is what our
community wants to see, and, you know, what do you guys think? And I think this is
kind of laying the foundation to have -- to see that type of opportunity take place and I
think that's -- in my experience with the city is -- appears to be a rather unique situation
and I don't want to hold up that for all of these unknowns. I agree that we need to
resolve this issue to the river, but I don't think -- we have been messing around with this
Comprehensive Plan amendment for quite awhile. I know that people have been -- you
know, they have had meetings cancelled and rescheduled and et cetera and et cetera
and I think that we need to be very clear to people where we are going with this and
move this forward and make our recommendations to City Council and, then, deal with
the -- with the area north of the rim after -- when it comes through again. I don't think
we can hold it up with all the unknowns on there at this point. And that's my -- so I
would be in favor of making a recommendation to City Council on the 17th.
Zaremba: Okay. Our next official act would be to continue this until the 17th, but does
staff have anything they want to discuss before we do that or have we talked everything
out?
Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, I didn't hear any discussion or recommendations to staff on
the mixed use wastewater treatment area, that -- there was that one five acre parcel just
south of the one low density residential, or did I miss that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 53 of 67
Borup: We talked about it, but we didn't come to a conclusion.
Moe: Basically, the Chairman did point out that City Council has been pretty much in
favor to leave it as it is at the present time without any change to go ahead and do any
residential. Quite frankly, I would rather just see it stay as is as well.
Zaremba: I think the City Council has kicked against changing that often enough that
I'm not sure that's a winner.
Hawkins -Clark: And I think the only other comment that I wrote down that was made
was on the north side of Chinden on Black Cat, I think the gentleman had suggested
that -- well, there was two or three folks that suggested Black Cat extending to the north
and this gentleman was asking for both sides of Black Cat there to go to commercial, so
I just --
Zaremba: I personally have no problem with that. I see that as very reasonable. Any
other --
Newton-Huckabay: That was north of Chinden?
Hawkins -Clark: North.
Zaremba: The property on Chinden, both sides of Black Cat. Again, this is going to be
a major east -west between Canyon county and Ada county and I think the more
commercial -- I mean they will have to do their own marketing study to see of that's
justified, but the more commercial we can allow there, the more benefit that is to the
city.
Borup: And that's Mr. Eggers -- Mr. Eggers' property? Is that the one?
Hawkins -Clark: Yes, sir. Drew Eggers. Yes.
Borup: And I agree with the Chairman, with the stipulation that it has to meet all the
other setback standards, the state highway standards, you know -- you know, maybe
some frontage roads -- there is a lot of things that -- you know, if his property is big
enough to do that, then, it makes sense, you know, and there may be some -- some
restrictions, but --
Zaremba: And I don't -- I'm not sure the size and shape of his property, but we are not
talking about all the way from Chinden to the Phyllis Canal, we are just talking about
some corridor along Chinden and, then, behind that, between there and the Phyllis
Canal would be residential again?
Hawkins -Clark: I certainly would recommend that. I don't know if that was his point,
but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 54 of 67
Zaremba: Yeah. No, I'm not thinking commercial all the way from Chinden to the
Phyllis Canal, but anything fronting Chinden -- I support commercial on anything fronting
Chinden.
Borup: Okay. Someone from the audience said that was Mr. Eggers' intention, just the
property fronting Chinden, apparently.
Zaremba: So, we would have a consensus on that I think as well.
Moe: Just so I can get -- just so I'm understanding, we are -- in regard to the property to
the north, we are recommending that staff does at least draft a letter to go to ACRD; is
that correct?
Borup: No. To Ada county --
Moe: I'm sorry. Ada county. Excuse me.
Zaremba: Ada County Development Services, I think it is, that decides the area of
impact boundaries. Just to signal them that we are looking at that area.
Moe: Yes.
Zaremba: And by request.
Moe: Well, I think it's very important that we do -- I'm in agreement that I want to see
this stuff go forward, but, at the same point, without us making intentions now, I'm very
concerned that basically the city of Eagle or whoever is just going to figure, well, they
didn't argue the point, they just wanted to go to the Phyllis Canal and, gee, now they are
wanting to do it now. I just want to make sure that everyone is on notice that we are,
indeed, wanting to go to the river.
Zaremba: With supportable logic. The zip code goes there, the fire district goes there,
you know --
Borup: School district.
Moe: Yes. Exactly. It is part of Meridian as far as I'm concerned.
Zaremba: People access their property heading towards Chinden. Other issues?
Hawkins -Clark: The last one that I had, Chairman, was the last -- the last -- I think it
was the last gentlemen to speak at the Ustick-Linder intersection. Did you talk about
that?
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, no. I'm sorry. That was zoned residential and he thought it
should be commercial.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 55 of 67
Hawkins -Clark: Correct. That a signal being in his living room or --
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. And I fully agree with him that it should be commercial.
Borup: But our 2002 comp plan calls -- shows medium density there, I believe. So, is
he saying the '93 comp plan shows residential there?
Hawkins -Clark: I believe that was his point, yes.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Tell me again. Ustick and Linder, is that what you said?
Hawkins -Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: Well, that's going to be a major crossroads. I don't have any problem with
commercial there either.
Borup: I don't know if we know exactly which property was his. He never really --
Newton-Huckabay: He's the one right on the corner that backs up to the canal.
Zaremba: Are you sure he's on the corner?
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: He said it was on the corner.
Zaremba: I'm pretty sure he said corner.
Hawkins -Clark: Was that - I'm sorry, was that the southwest?
Newton-Huckabay: Southeast.
Rohm: Southeast.
Hawkins -Clark: Southeast. I don't know if legal can maybe help us with that. I mean
the noticing for this application is generally -- I mean it's all stated north of Ustick.
Newton-Huckabay: Good point.
Zaremba: I'm sure we weren't discussing south of Ustick, were we?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 56 of 67
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think you have answered your
question. It's not under consideration -- for the same reasons that we didn't want to go
any further north of what you're considering, you probably don't want to go --
Newton-Huckabay: Further south. Yeah.
Baird: Mr. Chair, you might want to direct staff to follow up with him and make sure we
understand exactly where his property is and it sounds like with that direction like it is,
within the plan that's before you, you had direction to go to commercial, but it sounds
like it's not.
Zaremba: Or suggesting that he ask for --
Baird: And, Mr. Chair, while I have the --
Zaremba: Mr. Baird.
Baird: -- floor, when you are done with your deliberations, I'd suggest that you actually
close the Public Hearing to give public notice that when the matter comes back before
you there will be no further testimony. You have heard the testimony, you have
deliberated, you have given staff direction, so the matter I would suggest be tabled to
the 17th for your motion.
Zaremba: Close it first and, then, table it?
Baird: Correct.
Zaremba: That makes sense.
Baird: Close the Public Hearing portion, yeah. And you can certainly continue the
matter and the language that you use is not as important as the fact that the public had
notice that when it does come back you wouldn't be expecting to take any further
testimony.
Zaremba: Works for me. Are we ready to do that, staff?
Hawkins -Clark: I believe so, Chairman. I think the only -- there was several comments
tonight about public notice and not getting notice and --
Borup: I have that in my notes.
Hawkins -Clark: If we could just clarify that this is something that planners often -- I
mean these are not the best situations to do planning in, let's all admit that. You know,
much more collaborative. That's why we tried to have the open house and get as many
people as we could. But as far as what we are required to do, we are actually not
required to send anyone to their home a notice of a Comprehensive Plan amendment
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 57 of 67
when it affects this large of an area. The legislature and the state statue -- I mean it has
made it pretty clear, if you're over, you know, X number -- I think it's 200 property
owners that are affected, you know, they recommend -- it gets a little bit cumbersome to
have to track all of these addresses and all the current property owners and things like
that. So, what we had attempted to do is to work with as many people who have -- if
they have expressed interest to our department, we have put them on the list. And we
have tried to make a website, we try to use the Valley Times, because that is Meridian's
paper and the --
Zaremba: The actual legal requirements are that it be published --
Hawkins-Clark: -- is that it be published in the paper. Correct. And through other
public service announcements, I believe is what it is. So, I just -- you know, we are
doing our best, we want to include people on the list, but as far as sort of intentionally
trying to leave people out, I mean that's certainly not the goal. But we feel that we have
gone beyond what the law actually requires, it's just that it's such a large area it is -- it is
a challenge to get the --
Borup: And I think we understood that -- at least I did and the Commission and, of
course, there was a lot of people here didn't realize that, but I still think the system
worked, I mean just by the turnout. And that's really one of the big intentions, hopefully,
when something comes up, neighbors are going to talk to their neighbors and, you
know, that's one of the methods that's intended.
Zaremba: Well -- and I think we had the opportunity to hear -- I'm assuming every point
of view -- I'm not sure of any opinion anybody could have had that we didn't hear. We
at least had every idea represented, I'm pretty sure. And we have considered them.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on CPA 05-004, 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.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: The chair would entertain a motion to table a recommendation until the
meeting of the 17th.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
660 E. Watertower Lane
Ste. 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Chairman Zaremba:
REcEivEn
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY ([_ R;fi t`' I
We attended the public hearing of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on
October 31a. Please record our views for the record and your future deliberations.
My wife and I own approximately 300 acres of farm land immediately north of the
Phyllis Canal. Our property is just north of Black Cat road. We are not interested in
developing or subdividing our property.We really do not want our property to be
included in any city's area of impact but favor retaining it in Ada County agricultural
land. The city of Star considers it in their area and I have received letters in the past
from Eagle as well.
It is distressing to us that individuals would testify at the meeting that Black Cat
should come off the rim. It would gut our land. It would not be reasonable to do this to
aid commercial development at Black Cat and Chinden. An impression was fostered
at the meeting that there are 1400 acres of land locked land down on the river and that
the owners are hungering for roads to develop it. This is just not true. The Aldapes are
our very good neighbors. They should be given access somewhere through the Basco
Lane area. They have had this road from early times. We do not dispute their right to do
with their property as they see fit but a road through Black Cat is not a solution.
There should also be limited access off Highway 16 extension when built. We are
opposed to access crossing our river property from Highway 16 extension.
Finally we were saddened that the meeting was all about development. "Highest use of
the land" seems to mean the most money that can be obtained. We think the highest use
of our land is cattle grazing. It is a wonderful piece of this earth that would be gone
forever with houses and roads. A little slide went up at the beginning of the hearing that
parks will be established which apparently makes all the development permissible. We
need to keep some good working farms and allow farmers to be able to continue their
chosen occupation. Pressure for development and difficulty moving equipment over
congested roads are increasing problems.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
S. Kirby and Susan Orme
E C E E- f')
October 11, 2005
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Dear Mayor deWeerd, C I.,FY C C_. F R K 0 F r= I C, F
Last week we attended the Planning and Zoning meeting on the Comprehensive Plan
For North Meridian Area Plan (NMAP) and the Community Planning Association of
Southwest Idaho (COMPASS). As a property owner of approximately 30 acres along
McDermott just south of Chinden, I have many concerns and comments that I would like to share
with you and the council.
First of all I would like to say that I commend you and the other people involved on your
foresight of possibly making McDermott a connection to State Highway 16. 1 agree that
McDermott is the most logical location for such a road. After much discussion and testimony I
am hopeful that the council will change the corridor area and reduce the corridor to a more
appropriate size. Creating a mile wide corridor would create an extreme hardship for the
concerned property owners. I believe that a 300 foot corridor was suggested to be more
appropriate. I am hopeful that the council will listen to the property owners concerns.
My next concern is the City of Meridian is including the property north of Chinden in the
New comprehensive plan. This area has great potential for a substantial tax basis for the
City of Meridian and would be a great asset, however it was clear from: the planners report that
the City of Eagle is also interested in including that area in their area of impact. It appears that
Eagle has done the appropriate studies and has a plan to provide
Services to that area. My question is, Has Meridian been proactive in researching the probability
of getting services to that area? If the council is truly interested in including that area into
Meridian then a plan to provide services should be in place. Eagle appears to have a head start!
Lastly I think there has to be better communication with the concerned property owners. This
would eliminate many problems. I and many others I spoke with were never notified of the
meeting. I found out about the meeting when I went to the Planning and Zoning office. I was
given. the new map at that time. I then called my neighbor Ray Roark to see
If he was aware of the meeting and the new proposal, he was not. The homeowners in Peregrine
Subdivision were quite upset and rightfully so. My land that backs up to the
Subdivision is designated mixed use. This would adversely effect their property values.
I am aware of the balance which is required to do what is best for the city as a whole and
Keeping the individual property owners happy but not communicating and informing the
Property owners creates undo animosity. I think a more suitable plan would include
Residential zoning backing up to the existing homes and then transitioning to mixed use.
These are a few of my thoughts, I would appreciate your comments. Thank you for your time
and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
C
r -
Barbara L. Waterfield
cc: Meridian City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning
October 14, 2005
4 -at—Meridian
Planning —Zoni g Commission
660 E Watertower
Suite 202 -
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Reference: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application
North Meridian Area
Dear Commission,
R - -- I E(- EIVE
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY
I am writing on behalf of the following home & land owners (see attached land
ownership map):
• Peregrine Heights HOA — consisting of 15 homes on approximately 20
acres in the Peregrine Height Subdivision
• Ray Roark — Owner of 60 acres immediately east of Peregrine Heights
• Barbara Waterfield — Owner of approximately 40 acres immediately west
of Peregrine Heights adjacent to McDermott
• Jeff Han — owner of approximately 20 acres adjacent to McDermott
immediately south of Barbara's Land
October 14, 2005
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning
Future Land Use Map
The Peregrine Heights Subdivision consists of 15 homes which are all less than ten years
old with the newest home completed August 2005. Each of these homes is valued at plus
or minus $500,000 and represent a substantial investment for each of the owners. When
each of us made the decision to either purchase or build a home in this area we
understood that the area surrounding our subdivision was to be eventually developed as
low density housing.
(1 of 15 upscale homes in Peregrine Heights)
The land owners surrounding the Peregrine Heights subdivision have all invested in their
property with the intention to develop this open land consistent with the uses allowed by
the current land use map.
While we now all recognize that there is a strong possibility that state highway 1.6 may be
aligned with McDermott Road some day, we also recognize that this decision and the
actual construction of this highway may be years in the future. With this in mind we
commend the City of Meridian for efforts to anticipate and plan for the expansion of
critical infrastructure such as the extension of Highway 16.
The proposed changes to the future land use map have revised the land use designation
for the Peregrine Heights Subdivision and the adjacent property from low density housing
to mixed use interchange. If approved this change will adversely affect the property value
of the current homes within the Peregrine Heights Subdivision and preclude the adjacent
property owners from developing their land to be residential.
We understand that if Highway 16 becomes aligned with McDermott Road, the
intersection of Chinden and McDermott will become a freeway interchange. While this is
not something we would choose to have this close to our neighborhood, we have
accepted it as a possibility. However, in order to preserve the residential nature of our
neighborhood and protect our property values we are requesting the proposed Future
Land Use Map be amended to allow residential development immediately adjacent to the
Peregrine Heights Subdivision as a buffer to other potential uses adjacent to McDermott.
I have included a color coded map of this proposal for your reference.
Page 2
October 14, 2005
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning
Future Land Use Map
1�w.rr.o rw�v��w, wn..a,, 14�a�w.vr�aa
I
i
w cHwn�
W MCMILI�AN RU
1190
There are numerous examples of situations with resolutions similar to our proposal. I
have included aerial images of a few examples from Clark County, Nevada, an area that
has seen explosive growth over the past decade growing from approximately 600,000
people to more than 1.2 million.
(in the photo above there is a number of uses being incorporated into this interchange
with a high school on the NW corner, medium density residential on the NE corner, and a
city park with medium and low density residential on the SE corner.)
Page 3
A.' JN
,e
�:fy";,N• any.--„+mri'n,r. l
Sx.C�::;tea
s i y ”
d '•� 7, ✓,�+�.y,,;,M1r�Yrr A"'",. y... da',r 'e' t ,Jn
,ry 1' Ca
A
Lms
1A
. 4
1 • • THOu"Ej
107,ver rignt comeroT the intersection• 1 of off
1 medium 1" 1
I aa.
` �,� . .,vf�° � �=V�IY7-!M� � "'$ Uf �A.1�P�'Fdtal"S/ic^,1'.'1 I � � -' � 'Yi1. �•�. i �; r�^_f r.
'
77 -r'��.'
r
� 9.• �CS..:'`ad �}- rec � s�_ ... �.� ��IIIM IIS
AL
r — -
. I --
S
October 14, 2005
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning
Future Land Use Map
t his treeway interchange incorporates residential on the SE corner, and Retail &
Residential on the SW and NE corners.)
The homeowners within the Peregrine Height Subdivision have come together with the
adjacent land owners (representing over 140 acres) to present the proposed solution
which is illustrated by the color coded map on page 3 above. We are all in agreement that
this proposal represents a good solution to a potentially difficult issue. We hope that you
will accept our proposal and amend the proposed Future Land Use Map Accordingly.
Thanks you in advance for your time and assistance in resolving this issue:
Darrell & Chris Richards — 6237 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Terry Lester / Susan Westly — 6289 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Steve & Sandy Claiborne — 6185 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Roy & Rita Huntsman — 6133 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Bob & Melissa Solito — 6081 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Richard & Shannon Runer — 6029 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Page 5
October 14, 2005
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning
Future Land Use Map
Larry & Debbie Wickham — 5977 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Bobbie & Chuck Hay — 5925 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Ray Roark / Linda Osgood - 5952 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Debbie & John Rinker - 6002 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Paul & Valerie Hoyer — 6072 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Cathy & Stan Frazier — 6126 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Kristen & Cory Coltrin — 6178 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Sue & Ken Ropski — 6262 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Kathleen & Russ Poole — 6302 N. Serenity Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642
Barbara Waterfield -- 6100 North McDermott Meridian, Idaho 83642
Jeff Hon -
Page 6
K
October 19, 2005 �1 � t+ i]
3 61z (Z -
E C E IVES
NOV — 'i 290F'1 DJJ,I,.L.C_
Fd Jenkins Jr-
CITY
r_
Cy F I T Y OF M E R I D I A ��,] William Jenkins
l , fTY_ p (( rrlr� r Ed DeCouto
2584 N_ Bullock Ave
Meridian, Id 83642
(208) 859-3990
To: Planning & Zoning Commissioner David Zaremba
Dear Commissioner,
We appreciate your efforts and time sacrifices to help in the City of Meridian's planning.
There are many excellent ideas incorporated in the "Future Land Use Map" as discussed
in the September 22, 2005 public meeting.
Sometime after the September 22 meeting and before the October 17, 2005 (Closed to
public comment) meeting, a decision was made to change the use of a portion of our land
from "Mixed use - Interchange" to "Residential". While listening at the October 17`s
meeting the impression I got and probably the impression you got, was that the
landowners were in agreement with the Peregrine Heights HOA letter dated October 14,
2005. This is NOT the case. Because we found about this at the October 17"l' meeting,
we have had no opportunity to comment. We also were not contacted or asked our
opinion and believe there may be others in the same situation. We received a copy of the
Peregrine Heights HOA letter after the meeting on October 17''.
According to Brad Hawkins -Clark, as per our discussion on October 18, 2005 the final
map will be completed next week. Please consider our comments. Attached is a copy of
the letter we sent to Planning& Zoning, expressing some of our concerns. If you have
any questions please call me at 859-3990.
Thanks for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Ed Je ' Jr.
Managing r, DJJ, L.L.C.
October 19, 2005
DJJ, LL.C.
Ed Jenkins Jr.
William Jenkins
Ed DeCouto
2584 N. Bullock Ave
Meridian, Id 83642
(208) 859-3990
I am writing in regard to the property we own approximately 1 block South of Chinden on
McDermott Rd. Please see the attached map, Exhibit 4, which depicts the 8.33 Acres we
own, described as Waterfield Place Subdivision and Shady Meadows Drive.
11w best way to present our concerns for planning and Zoning regarditig our property is to first list a
simple outline of events that take us to where we are today. From this point we can then present our
issues.
1. September 2003, Barbara Waterfield began discussing the possible development Of her
approximately 39 acres off of McDermott rd with Ada County Planning & Zoning. I
was part of those discussions. A cluster subdivision of 6 — l Acre lots was the result of
the meetings and the process was started.
2. The next approximately I th years Barbara Waterfield sought approval for her
subdivision.
3. After the required public meetings and approval process thru ADA County, initial
approval was given.
4. In April 2005, Barbara Waterfield sold 8.33 Acres to DJJ L.L.C. for personal reasons.
5. With final approval of ADA County Highway District requirements, final approval to
have pre -construction meetings was given on July 19, 2005.
6. On September 20, 2005 Barbara Waterfield informed me of a comprehensive plan
meeting for the North Meridian area. I picked up a set of documents and maps for the
September 22,2005 meeting which I attended.
7. Between the September 22, 2005 meeting and the October 17, 2005 meeting at Meridian
City Hall, I met with Brad Hawkins -Clark from Planning and Zoning.
S. 1 attended the October 17, 2005 meeting at Meridian City Hall at which no opportunity
for comment was available to concerned parties. 'There were several discrepancies and
changes from the earlier meeting, which I had no knowledge or notification of.
9. 1 met with Brad Hawkins -Clark at Meridian Planning and Zoning to discuss my concerns
of the change from Mix use to Residential without any notice or comment from the
actual land owners being affected.
Page 1 of 3
October 19. 2005
Comments on the September 22, 2005 Meeting
Although we appreciate the long range planning for the North Meridian area, it is difficult
for us to understand how the planned and approved plat for Waterfield Subdivision is not
even shown on the map. Meridian Planning and Zoning has signed off on this project as it is
in the Meridian Area of Impact. After this meeting and review of the written material we
have gathered, it appears that we may or may not be able to proceed with our subdivision.
After following the rules for 2 years to get to this point, we don't know if we can proceed
and no one seems to be able to tell us if we can proceed. Because we have an 18 month
Purchase and Development loan that expires in one year, We feel that we have been
adversely affected.
Comments on the October 17, 2005 Notice of Special Meeting Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Before we can understand exactly where we stand from the Sept 22, 2005 Comprehensive
plan Amendment, I attended the October 17,2005 meeting only to find out no questions or
comments will be taken at this meeting. Another change from the plan map that had
indicated our property was to be "Mixed Use Interchange" is discussed between Brad
Hawkins -Clark of Planning & Zoning and the 3 commissioners. The result of this discussion
was unclear. The minutes of that meeting may help clarify.
I believe Brad said that he recommended that the commission approve the change in use
from "Mixed Use Interchange" to "Residential" dust as the letter dated October 14, 2005
from Peregrine HOA had outlined. I believe Brad Hawkins -Clark also stated that the
residential designation would extend all the way to McDermott.
These two statements are in conflict.
Other Points:
1. I don't believe all the land owners affected by this new change have either been
informed or contacted, just as we had not.
2. Residential right up to an interchange is poor planning. Transitions are needed.
3. There are at least 2 incorrect issues in the letter from peregrine HOA letter dated
October 14, 2005, and the commissioners have made a decision based on this letter.
4. Although the planning examples for Las Vegas NV. Are shown in the October 14, 2005
letter, I don't believe we should plan like Las Vegas.
5. 1 am sympathetic to the good folks at who live in Peregrine Heights Subdivision and
believe they should have some buffer or transition to protect their interest_ The problem
is that you should not change the designation 1/2 way to McDermott without input from
the landowners who are directly and Adversely affected.
Page 2 of 3
October 19, 2005
6. The line drawn by the letter of October 14, 2005 from Peregrine Heights HOA splits
Barbara Waterfield's property in half and the line extends through part of lots 5 and 7 of
Waterfield Place Subdivision. This makes no sense.
7. Although Barbara Waterfield signed the October 14, 2005 Peregrine heights HOA Letter
she is in dispute of the final map that was submitted to the commission on her behalf and
she has verbalized this issue to Brad Hawkins -Clark on October 18, 2005 in a phone
conversation. Barbara Wateffield agrees with us that the residential border.should
be no more than 230 feetig we have ind' ted in p -EM on exhibit 4.
Conclusion
On October 18, 2005 I met with Brad Hawkins -Clark at Meridian Planning & Zoning to
discuss some of these issues, especially the changes of the October 17,2005 meeting. I also
want to note that I did receive a copy of the Peregrine Heights HOA letter dated October 14,
2005 but not until the October 17`h meeting was over.
The answers we received from Brad Hawkins -Clark were unclear as he stated he would have
to see if there was a conflict in his statements. He also said that the "Preferred Backage
Road" that is shown connecting thru Peregrine Heights would now be shortened, although
this was never discussed at the October 17th meeting at Meridian city Hall.
As anyone can tell by reading this we have a very confusing situation. We are requesting
that our designation remain "Mixed Use Interchange" at this time. The adverse effects on
our approved development are substantial and we would appreciate any clear answers you
can provide. Also please advise us of any decisions, new maps, notice of meetings that
affect our property.
Respectfully,
Ed J ' s Jr.
Managing Member
DJJ, L.L.0
W
William Jda4ns
Member DJJ, L.L.0
zI
Edward DeCouto
Member DJJ, L.L.C.
Page 3 at 3
w
!b''1d �ibb'NJW17321d
H � ',� �. w/,�.°" �lu"�7✓t :� 7A+¢ �a rnu�nr v w cw��
NQIS1Af08f1S 30Y7d 073U83dYM
a
AVT77�'� 1 7 (pll! 4'
r
w� ��i Flu
bq bC 1
r1
r
H11Ni
Jill V -1 h
4,6by �Y2 IN;
���dR
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILEI E
FROM: ANNA BORCHERS CANNING, AICP i d
PLANNING DIRECTORti,+
DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2005
City of Meridian
RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS City Clerk Office.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval. to City
Council of four comprehensive Plan amendments. The purpose of this memo
is to discuss hearing dates for those items.
Downtown Design Guidelines CPA -05-003: The Council has been kept
informed on the progress and content of this project, so we anticipate that you
will not want a workshop. Also, there was not public testimony at the Planning
and Zoning Commission hearing. Therefore, Staff recommends that the
Council hear this item on their December 6, 2005 agenda. This item can be
heard at any time, staff would just like to get it completed.
North Meridian Area CPA -05-004: Council expressed a desire to have a
workshop, and staff concurs this would be appropriate. Staff recommends that
the Council conduct a workshop in November 2005 and a public hearing on
December 20, 2005. If Mr. Borton were present at the workshop, this public
hearing could be deferred to the first hearing date in January, which will be
January 10, 2006.
Conger Comp Plan Map Amendment CPA -5-002: The Planning and
Zoning Commission has recommended approval of this application, but only
with an accompanying application for annexation and zoning and specific
development plans (preliminary plat and/or conditional use permit) that
substantially comply with the concept plan that the applicant provided to the
Commission.
, the Council chooses to honor this recommendation Sta recommends that the Council
take action toni ht to defer schedulin this item ora Public hearing and review this matter no
later than Febraaary 7, 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
660 E. WATERTOWER ROAD
MERIDIAN, ID 83642
The purpose of the three month delay is to give the applicant sufficient time
to submit the applications as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. On February 7, 2006, the Council would set a date for the public
hearing.
The applicant will not be in favor of this process. They want the Council to
give their approval to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment before they go to
the expense of preparing annexation and development applications. However,
this is clearly not what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended. I
have attached excerpts from the Planning and Commission hearings that
provide detail on the motions for both the Conger and the Alliance (see
following) proposals.
The Council may also reject the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission and schedule this matter for hearing. That could be
before the end of the year or afterwards at your direction.
South Eagle & Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance CPA -05-001:
The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of this
application, but requests that City Council hold action on the amendment until
the applicants can make an annexation application with a concept plan and/or
specific development plan (see attached motion by Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay).
Staff re nends on torsi bt to de er schedulin thi item or a
public bearin and review this matter no later than Februa 7 2006.
The applicant is in favor of this action. The Council may also reject the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and schedule this
matter for hearing. That could be before the end of the year or afterwards at
your direction.
PA
Conger/Woodbridge CPA - PZ Motion
10/17/05
Borup: Yes. So, two of the things I thought was a concern -- I mean traffic was a
concern. It looks to me like of all the traffic scenarios, this one is the least detrimental
__effect. I know everyone's always worried about the worst case and what's going to
happy. -Over -the last eight years since I have seen this so many times and I have
Y! never seen the scenarios happen that people present at these meetings. Not saying it
won't some day, it just hasn't happened yet. And with a lot more intensity developments
than this. It's never come about. The other thing I think is in an influence to me is that
they are single ownership, individual lot ownership, it's not like an apartment complex.
So, that being said, I move to recommend approval to Citv Council of file number CPA
05-002 as 12resented in the staff report for the hearing date - that still would change;
right?
Canning: It's just a staff report for the hearing date and there has only been one staff
report prepared for use, so
Borup: All right. Okay. The staff report prepared for the hearing date of September
22nd. It was changed to October 17th. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? We
have two in favor and one opposed. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
Staff Report Recommendation as referenced in motion
"Staff is in support of the conceptual development plan submitted by the applicant, and supports
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment provided that the development of the property
substantially complies with the submitted conceptual plan. Staff is recommending approval of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the reasons outlined in this report, Providgd that an
Annexation/Rezone application requesting an R-15 Medium Hi-gh:Density Hi-h-DensityResidential zone
and an accom an in devela ment ro asal which substantial) com lies with the cance tual
Ian attached to this re ortis submitted for concurrent a royal by Cit Council."
Eagle/Victory Alliance CPA - PZ Motion
10/17/05
Discussion Leading to Motion
Zaremba: Well, again, the only way to really make that happen is to attach it to an
annexation request and if we take the suggestion and do the same thing we did
Previous, move it forward to City Council, but ask them to hold it until the other
applications have come through --
Newton-Huckabay: And I might recommend, maybe, that the developer get together
with the neighborhood again, show them, you know, what you're planning on doing, and
meeting with them and listen to those folks who didn't get anopportunity to get a
notification, because they were outside of that, maybe you can come to some
compromises that works for -- you know, that works for everybody. Because, obviously,
for you to -- we have seen it time and time again and I have not been a Planning and
Zoning Commissioner for very many years, thank goodness, but a lot of time these
pieces of property like this can come in and you see these small little pieces and it's
very very hard to make good planning decisions, because you're making decisions
independent of what could be a big picture for folks.
Zaremba: I would make a comment that I think that's probably a good idea. Once the
applicant and the owners of the properties involved have an idea that this might be
possible, then, I'm sure they are more willing to spend the money it costs to make the
drawing that they can show to people. I mean why would you do that if you don't know
you can do that with your property and if we are signaling to them that we would be
open to the things that they have described, then, I think it's probably worth their while
to put it on paper and have another neighborhood meeting and show it around. I would
suggest to those who felt they did not get notified, if you give your name and address to
Mr. Forrey, even if you're outside of the legal notice zone, I think he probably would
invite you to such a meeting. I see him nodding his head. And I think that would be
helpful. My personal feeling is I would be willing to see this kind of a project move
forward, as has been described.
Motion
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of CPA 05-001, request to
amend the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan for approximately 50 acres
from medium and low density residential to mixed use community by the South Eagle
_ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ .Road_ and_ Victory_ Road Property Owners Alliance land at or near the northeast and
southeast corners of South Eagle Road and Victory Road and we would like to request
that City Council hold action on this CPA until the licants can make an annexation
application and it will catch uD with this which would then bind them to the
development guideline PrinCiDles that they iout forth in thei Dresentation and we arealso
asking them to or anize another neighborhood meeting with the folks to the west in
Thousand Springs --
Borup: Sutherland Farms.
Zaremba: The surrounding area.
Newton-Huckabay: And east at Sutherland Farms and the surrounding areas. Anything
else? End of motion.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of
the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 6:00 P.M. on Thursday, September 22, 2005 for the
purpose of reviewing and considering the applications of:
South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance for a Request to Amend
the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for Approximately 50 acres from Medium to
Low Density Residential to Mixed -Use -Regional generally located at or near the northeast and
southeast corners of South Eagle Road and Victory Road;
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to add design guidelines for the Urban
Renewal District;
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department 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 boundaries;
Conger Management Group for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change
approximately 11.79 acres from Office to Mixed -Use Community located at 675 and 715 South Wells
Street;
A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at
Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, and is available for inspection during regular business
hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
A copy of the application is available for review. Any and all interested persons shall be
heard at said public hearing, and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral
testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written materials should be submitted to
the City Clerk no later than seven (7) days prior to the above hearing date so that all interested
parties may examine them prior to the public hearing. All materials presented at public meetings
shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities
related to documents and / or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-443gptk Ift"/y��
hours prior to the public meeting. �
DATED this 19th day of September, 2005
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY SLE _
October 3, 2005 CPA 05-004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 3, 2005
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3
REQUEST Public Hearing — 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 of
expan the area of the city impact boundary
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT: \b\
CITY FIRE DEPT: \ Xp
CITY BUILDING DEPT: ""��
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
, ' ` 1 8.6
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING September 22, 2005
APPLICANT City of Meridian ITEM NO. b
REQUEST Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map 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
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
No Comment
Comments from COMPASS; Market Study; Letter from Residents
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Idaho Statutes
Page 1 of 2
9! Idaho Statutes
- -, TITLE 67
- STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 65
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING
67-6511. ZONING ORDINANCE-. Each governing board shall, by ordinance
adopted, amended, or repealed in -accordance with the notice and hearing
-px-.cedures provided under section 67-6509, Idaho Code, establish within its
jurisdiction one (1) or more zones or zoning districts where appropriate. The
zoning districts shall be in accordance with the policies set forth in the
adopted comprehensive plan.
Within a zoning district, the governing board shall where appropriate,
establish standards to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories,
size, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings and
structures; percentage of lot occupancy, size of courts, yards, and open
spaces; density of population; and the location and use of buildings and
structures. All standards shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings
throughout each district, but the standards in one (1) district may differ
from those in another district.
Ordinances establishing zoning districts shall be amended as follows:
(a) Requests for an amendment to the zoning ordinance shall be submitted
to the zoning or planning and zoning commission which shall evaluate the
request to determine the extent and nature of the amendment requested.
Particular consideration shall be given to the effects of any proposed zone
change upon the deliver{ of services by any political subdivision providing
public services, including school districts, within the planning jurisdiction.
An amendment of a zoning ordinance applicable to an owner's lands or approval
of conditional rezoning or denial of a request for rezoning may be subject
to the regulatory taking analysis provided for by section 67-8003, Idaho Code,
consistent with the requirements established thereby.
(b) After considering the comprehensive plan and other evidence gathered
through the public hearing process, the zoning or planning and zoning
commission may recommend and the governing board may adopt or reject an
ordinance amendment pursuant to the notice and hearing procedures provided in
section 67-6509, Idaho Code, provided that in the case of a zoning district
boundary change, and notwithstanding jurisdictional boundaries, additional
notice shall be provided by mail to property owners or purchasers of record
within the land being considered, and within three hundred (300) feet of the
external boundaries of the land being considered, and any additional area that
may be impacted by the proposed change as determined by the commission. Notice
shall also be posted on the premises not less than one (1) week prior to the
hearing. When notice is required to two hundred (200) or more property owners
or purchasers of record, alternate forms of procedures which would provide
adequate notice may be provided by local ordinance in lieu of posted or mailed
notice. In the absence of a locally adopted alternative notice procedure,
sufficient notice shall be deemed to have been provided if the city or county
provides notice through a display advertisement at least four (9) inches by
two (2) columns in size in the official newspaper of the city or county at
least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date, in addition to site posting
on all external boundaries of the site. Any property owner entitled to
specific notice pursuant to the provisions of this subsection shall have a
right to participate in public hearings before a planning commission, planning
and zoning commission or governing board subject to applicable procedures.
(c) If the request is found by the governing board to be in conflict with
low it kutt
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=670650011.K 8/30/2005
Idaho Statutes
the adopted plan, or would result in demonstrable adverse impacts upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services,
including school districts, within the planning jurisdiction, the governing
board may require the request to be submitted to the planning or planning and
zoning commission or, in absence of a commission, the governing board may
consider an amendment to the comprehensive plan pursuant 'to the notice and
hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. After the plan has
been amended, the zoning ordinance may then be considered for amendment
pursuant to section 67-6511(b), Idaho Code.
(d) If a governing board adopts a zoning classification pursuant to a
request by a property owner based upon a valid, existing comprehensive plan
and zoning ordinance, the governing board shall not subsequently reverse its
action or otherwise change the zoning classification of said property without
the consent in writing of the current property owner for a period of four (4)
years from the date the governing board adopted said individual property
owner's request for a zoning classification change. If the governing body does
reverse its action or otherwise change the zoning classification of said
property during the above four (4) year period without the current property
owner's consent in writing, the current property owner shall have standing in
a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this section.
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for commercial purposes, nor may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Search the Idaho Statutes
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
Page 2 of 2
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho law, I. C. § 9-350.
According to Idaho law, any person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial purposes
in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be deemed to be an infringer of the state of Idaho's
copyright.
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=670650011.K 8/30/2005
Idaho Statutes
A? Idaho Statutes
TITLE 67
STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 65
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING
67-6509. RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTION, AMENDMENT, AND REPEAL OF THE PLAN.
(a) The planning or planning and zoning commission, prior to recommending the
plan, amendment, or repeal of the plan to the governing board, shall conduct
at least one (1) public hearing in which interested persons shall have an
opportunity to be heard. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing,
notice of the time and place and a summary of the plan to be discussed shall
be published in the official newspaper or paper of general circulation within
the jurisdiction. The commission shall also make available a notice to other
papers, radio and television stations serving the jurisdiction for use as a
public service announcement. Notice of intent to adopt, repeal or amend the
plan shall be sent to all political subdivisions providing services within the
planning jurisdiction, including school districts, at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing scheduled by the commission. Following the
commission hearing, if the commission recommends a material change to the
proposed amendment to the plan which was considered at the hearing, it shall
give notice of its proposed recommendation and conduct another public hearing
concerning the matter if the governing board will not conduct a subsequent
public hearing concerning the proposed amendment. If the governing board will
conduct a subsequent public hearing, notice of the planning and zoning
commission recommendation shall be included in the notice of public hearing
provided by the governing board. A record of the hearings, findings made, and
actions taken by the commission shall be maintained by the city or county.
(b) The governing board, as provided by local ordinance, prior to
adoption, amendment, or repeal of the plan, may conduct at least one (1)
public hearing, in addition to the public hearing(s) conducted by the
commission, using the same notice and hearing procedures as the commission.
The governing board shall not hold a public hearing, give notice of a proposed
hearing, nor take action upon the plan, amendments, or repeal until
recommendations have been received from the commission. Following
consideration by the governing board, if the governing board makes a material
change in the recommendation or alternative options contained in the
recommendation by the commission concerning adoption, amendment or repeal of a
plan, further notice and hearing shall be provided before the governing board
adopts, amends or repeals the plan.
(c) No plan shall be effective unless adopted by resolution by the
governing board. A resolution enacting or amending a plan or part of a plan
may be adopted, amended, or repealed by definitive reference to the specific
plan document. A copy of the adopted or amended plan shall accompany each
adopting resolution and shall be kept on file with the city clerk or county
clerk.
(d) Any person may petition the commission or, in absence of a
commission, the governing board, for a plan amendment at any time. The
commission may recommend amendments to the land use map component of the
comprehensive plan to the governing board not more frequently than once every
six (6) months. The commission may recommend amendments to the text of the
comprehensive plan and to other ordinances authorized by this chapter to the
governing board at any time.
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for comaercial purposes, nor may this
Page I of 2
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=670650009.K 8/30/2005
Idaho Statutes Page 2 of 2
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Search the Idaho Statutes
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho law, I. C. § 9-350.
According to Idaho law, any person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial purposes
in violation of the provisions of'this statute shall be deemed to be an infringer of the state ofldaho's
copyright.
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=670650009.K 8/30/2005
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Monday, October 3, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe Michael Rohm
Chairman David Zaremba
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all
presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter "
3. Public Hearing: CPA 05-004 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:
4. Public Hearing: CPA 05-003 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to add design
guidelines for the Urban Renewal District:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting Agenda — October 3, 2005 Page 1 of 1
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Joe Huarte
Property Owner/ Project Manager
1963 E. Blue Tick St.
Meridian, ID 83642
August 9, 2005
Mr. David Zaremba
Chairman
Planning and Zoning commission
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
SUBJECT: North Meridian Zoning
AUG 18 2005
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Dear Mr. Zaremba,
This letter is referring to the 75 acres on the SE comer of Chinden and Linder. I have met
with the staff and understand that the proposed comprehensive. plan calls for a Mixed Use
Community designation with some residential zoning to the SE of the property. We
envision a Mixed Use Community project and see this property as the "Gateway to
Meridian".
We ask that the proposed zoning designation be approved and we look forward to
working with you and the staff.
Sin
e
Property Owner/ Project Manager
j ohuarte&yahoo. com
208.867.7447
COMPASS
COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
Southwest
September 15, 2005
Brad Hawkins -Clark, AICP
Principal City Planner
City of Meridian
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - North Meridian Plan
Dear Brad:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft policies in the proposed State Highway
16 Corridor Preservation Policies in the North Meridian Plan. After my review, I have the
following comments. These comments are by staff and do not constitute formal policy on the
part of COMPASS.
In the Purpose and Intent section, I recommend that reasons related to public health,
safety and welfare be reinforced. One impact of a high-speed arterial on adjacent areas is
noise. Noise mitigation is a public health and safety issue that necessitates thoughtful
land use planning
2. COMPASS staff applauds your coordination with ITD on the McDermott Road corridor.
There is no "second chance" to preserve a new north -south corridor linking Highway 16
to Interstate 84. ITD will need time to consider alternative alignments, and limiting
potential land use conflicts will assist their efforts in preserving a corridor for the long-
term benefit of the Treasure Valley region.
3. Regarding Policy #2 concerning the actions that would trigger the provision of City of
Meridian services, I would recommend that the City consider withholding services until
the right-of-way is acquired by ITD. To accelerate this process, the City may want to
consider incentives to property owners to dedicate the right-of-way to ITD in exchange
for equitable value in the form of clustering of development and density bonuses on the
remainder of the property. The Federal Highway Administration approval of the
preferred alignment and the completion of subsequent construction drawings in and of
itself does not protect the right-of-way and could leave the corridor vulnerable to
incompatible land development.
800 S. Industry Way, Suite 1009 Meridian, ID 83642 9 (208) 855- 2558 9 Fax (208) 855-2559 - www.compassidaho.org
4. Regarding the policies on the Mixed -Use Interchange, the city should encourage, and
perhaps require, park and ride lots and transit facilities at all interchanges, not just the
SH16/U.S. 20/26 interchange. Analysis of the roadway system conducted for the
Communities in Motion plan reveals high levels of congestion on most regional arterial
roadways in 2030, and preserving the opportunities on all corridors for alternate
transportation modes should be considered. Valley Regional Transit and ACHD
Commuteride would assist the city in determine the appropriate facilities at each
interchange.
The City should be careful in recommending noise -sensitive uses, such as educational
uses, at the Ustick Road interchange location due to the additional noise mitigation
requirements that could be placed on ITD.
6. Due to its importance as a regional transportation corridor, ITD and COMPASS staff are
assuming a 55 mph speed on U.S. 20/26 rather than a 45 mph speed. Future speed
reductions on major corridors results in major traffic loadings on the local collector
system, and maintaining the function of U.S. 20/26 as a higher speed arterial will benefit
the entire roadway system.
7. I encourage a review of the key transportation assumption # 4 regarding signal spacing by
the Traffic Section of ACHD. Traffic progression on at a 45 mile per hour speed with
signals at a half mile may be difficult to achieve. It is unclear if this assumption is in
conflict with the subsequent arterial policy #4 that contemplates access at the quarter -
mile and even more access at "intervening points."
While not specifically asked to comment on the proposed Auto Circulation Map, I recommend
that further work be completed on the map prior to adoption. ITD, ACHD and COMPASS staff
can assist in minimizing gaps in the proposed frontage and backage roads. For example, there
are no proposed frontage or backage roads for the three-mile stretch of land north of U.S. 20/26
within the proposed impact area boundary.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely yours,
Patricia A. Nilsson, AICP
Principal Planner
PAN:
cc: Sue Sullivan, ITD District 3
Bruce Mills, ACHD
Shawn Martin, ACHD
Kelli Fairless, Valley Regional Transit
Don Kostelec, ACHD Commuteride
-Experi ewee �evgll--t.
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLALVNING & ZONING
• • SLIVER
C Q M M E R C I A L R E A L E S T A T E
�1r�crier96e �JN/�J.
SECTION I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Introduction (p. 1)
• Purpose & Scope (p. 1)
• Methodology (p. 2)
SECTION II - MARKET OVERVIEW
• Submarket Map (p. 3)
• Ada County Office & Retail Statistics (p. 3)
• Retail Absorption & Construction (p. 4)
• Office Absorption & Construction (p. 4)
SECTION III - SUBMARKET COMPARISON
• Revised Submarket Map & Statistics (p. 5)
• Comparison Description (p, 6)
SECTION IV - RETAIL ANALYSIS
• Demographic Summary (p. 7)
• Retail Expenditures Analysis (p. 7-8)
• Unanchored vs Anchored Retail (p. 9)
• Retail Projections (p, 10)
• Retail Conclusion (p. 11)
SECTION V - OFFICE ANALYSIS
• Daytime Populations (p. 12)
• Office Projections (p. 13)
• Office Conclusion (p. 14)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•E IM10OLIVIE v
C O M M E Ft C 1 A L R E A L E S T A -r E
Introduction:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Thornton Oliver Keller Commercial Real Estate performed a study of the North Meridian commer-
cial real estate market in order to provide a basis for determining the amount of land that should be
zoned for commercial use to provide for the area's expected growth over the next twenty years.
Purpose and Scope:
The purpose of this survey is to compare the North Meridian market to other areas in Ada County,
thereby determining benchmark statistics to aid in planning for the market's commercial growth.
The analysis provides perspective on attaining the careful balance between zoning an adequate
amount of commercial land while avoiding overbuilding in the market. The following report is an
overview of the entire Treasure Valley commercial real estate market, including vacancy and ab-
sorption statistics. By recognizing the areas that have the strongest and weakest retail and office
markets, it identifies strategies that are best suited for a primarily residential area with limited free-
way access. In addition, the survey describes the average size (both building and land) for small
office buildings, large anchored retail centers, and smaller unanchored retail shop space to help
determine a targeted amount of acreage for both the office and retail sectors.
PAGE 1
CMLIXFIE
C 4 M M E H C 1 A 4. n E A E E S T A T E
't�jc�pGr%�1CG �JN��J.
Methodology:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Both demographics and commercial real estate statistics were examined. The survey analyzes
the entire market and by comparing North Meridian to other submarkets in the Treasure Valley,
it was determined what type of model for commercial growth might be used. Based on location
and demographics, the most comparable model for commercial growth is the city of Eagle (see
p. 6). Though smaller in size, these areas both face limited freeway access and booming growth.
In addition, the Eagle retail and office markets are among the strongest in the Treasure Valley.
Furthermore, comparing North Meridian to the Eagle submarket allows us to set statistical
benchmarks that will help in determining what size of retail and office market the future North
Meridian population can support.
While population is invariably tied to a market's retail success, it was determined that an area's
total retail expenditures provided a more specific measure in determining what size of retail market
is sustainable. Analyzing this market in comparison to Eagle, it appears that the North Meridian
retail market should have total retail expenditures between $250 and $300 per retail square foot
(see Exhibit G). Assuming the average household's retail expenditures are $26,500 and projecting
a total of 13,500 households, we can then calculate that the amount of retail space supported in
2025 would be approximately 1,400,000 square feet (see p. 8).
Also of note is the distinction between anchored and unanchored retail centers (see Exhibit H).
Without freeway access, retail in the North Meridian market will predominantly serve residents
living in that area and will lack the commuter traffic generated in Central Meridian and West Boise.
While those markets carry a larger unanchored -to -anchored ratio, North Meridian will be best
served with approximately 65% of retail space in centers anchored by large tenants (i.e. grocery
stores) and only 35% of the market in smaller unanchored shops (see p. 9). Using these statistics,
the survey suggests the need for approximately 100 to 135 acres zoned for retail use, comprised
of two to three major retail centers and the remaining land for low to mid-sized retail lots (see p.
10-11). It should be noted that the city of Meridian estimates 2025 households in North Meridian to
be slightly higher at 14,500. This would result in a change from 1.4 million square feet to over 1.5
million. The estimated acreage needed would increase to approximately 140 acres zoned for retail
use.
While primarily focused on the retail market, the survey also analyzes the North Meridian office
market. By linking the area's population growth and its future job growth, the survey estimates
what amount of square footage and acreage might be zoned for office use. Connecting the area's
projected office -use positions in 2025 and the industry average of 250 square feet of office per
employee, the survey suggests the need for approximately 40 to 70 acres zoned for office use
(see p. 12-13). Once again, using the city of Meridian's estimated population of 14,500 rather than
13,500 leads us to conclude that the North Meridian area would support approximately 600,000
square feet of office space and over 60 acres zoned for office use.
PAGE 2
• OLIVEI2
C O M M E R C I A L R E A L E$ T A T E
-�xperiehce Y�e1�/�i.
.MARKET OVERVIEW
The following is the standard submarket map used in defining and tracking the different areas of the
Treasure Valley commercial real estate market.
EXHIBIT A: Ada County Office & Retail Statistics (as of 7/31/05)
NOTE: Figures below do not include banks or single -tenant buildings below 2,000 square feet.
Office
Submarket # of Bldgs Total SF Vacancy Rate # of Centers Total SF Vacancy Rate
Airport
Central
Downtown
Eagle
Meridian
North
Southeast
Southwest
West
10
121,012
0.00%
188
2,229,210
11,66%
251
5,331,247
5.54%
37
328,955
20.02%
61
917,210
9.40%
85
603,464
13.97%
.
. ,.%v
2,120,570
8.71%
50
1,266,520
11.80%
194
2,801514
12.24%
MEN
do
r a.
L
�iii7�!AIA_AM�Iwiw���
®
EXHIBIT A: Ada County Office & Retail Statistics (as of 7/31/05)
NOTE: Figures below do not include banks or single -tenant buildings below 2,000 square feet.
Office
Submarket # of Bldgs Total SF Vacancy Rate # of Centers Total SF Vacancy Rate
Airport
Central
Downtown
Eagle
Meridian
North
Southeast
Southwest
West
10
121,012
0.00%
188
2,229,210
11,66%
251
5,331,247
5.54%
37
328,955
20.02%
61
917,210
9.40%
85
603,464
13.97%
77
2,120,570
8.71%
50
1,266,520
11.80%
194
2,801514
12.24%
TOTAL 953 15,719,702 9.35%
Source. Thornton Oliver Keller database
1
4,016
0.00%
25
1,124,913
12.60%
13
484,004
15.69%
11
517,681
4.37%
24
730,970
7.14%
24
1,077,824
18.16%
21
1,149,681
15.46%
14
781,079
12.49%
41
4,858,931
3.70%
174 1 10,729,099 1 8.79%
PAGE 3
MARKET OVERVIEW
C U M M E Ft C I A L R E A L E S T A T E
-Uxpeeie ee TKejzf11-t.
The tables below show the breakdown of net absorption and construction statistics over the past
three years. In terms of growth, a healthy market would have a total net absorption equal to or
above the total amount of new construction.
NOTE: Figures below are in square footage. Single -tenant retail structures are not included in the construction statistics.
EXHIBIT B: Retail Absorption & Construction Statistics (2003-2005)
Submarket
Airport
Central
Downtown
Eagle
Meridian
North
Southeast
Southwest
West
TOTAL
Canstruction Absorption
0
0
0
55,402
0
-9,587
0
14,167
14,800
24,909
0
-28,608
0
-13,867
15,000
-5,385
70,000
37,944
99,800 1 74,975
Source: Thornton Oliver Keller database
Construction Absorotion
0
0
0
13,225
0
-32,450
125,000
147,763
108,936
141,871
13,107
-18,007
4,750
-19,011
4,127
6,731
0
48,603
Constructio Absorntion
0
0
3,358
15,731
0
-1,105
21,200
660
25,129
4,931
14,56018,929
24,603
24,198
32,191
23,450
-12,855
183,900
116,700
795 1 175,182
EXHIBIT C: Office Absorption & Construction Statistics (2003-2005)
Submarket
Airport
Central
Downtown
Eagle
Meridian
North
Southeast
Southwest
West
Construction Absorntion
0
0
9,672
-39,104
19,158
80,110
63,636
34,011
42,847
59,557
29,824
24,603
0
12.859
271,234
173,253
51,516
72,034
l'nnet-tinn Ahenmtinn
0
0
12,142
-19,324
229,591
108,767
35,809
77,326
56,601
53,701
57,101
29,064
2,368
4,987
17,854
53,007
64,310
3,043
Cnnetrortin Ahsnm/inn
6,000
6,000
15,454
2,603
0
254,310
59,918
31,416
31,968
88,767
21,000
19,728
4,566
1 -54,968
73,005
117,148
55,000
120,071
TOTAL 487,887 417,323 475,776 310,571 1 1 266,911 1 585,075
Source: Thornton Oliver Keller database
EXHIBIT D: Three -Year Absorption & Construction Totals (2003-2005)
Submarket
Airport
Central
Downtown
Eagle
Meridian
North
Southeast
Southwest
West
Construction Absorotion
r`nnetrurtinn Ahsnrntinn
6,000
6,000
3,358
84,358
-
-43,142
146,200
162,590
148,865
171,711
27,667
-27,686
28,948
-707
42,577
-11,509
253,900
203,247
r`nnetrurtinn Ahsnrntinn
6,000
6,000
37,268
-55,825
248,749
343,187
159,363
142,753
131,416
202,025
107,925
73,395
6,934
-37,122
362,093
343,408
170,826
195,148
TOTALF 651,515 538,862 1,230,574 1,212,969
Source: Thornton Oliver Keller database
PAGE 4
• or_�vErz
C O M M E R C I A L FA FAL ESVAIFE
�xperierce �fc,/��.
SUBMARKET COMPARISON
For the purposes of this market study, the Meridian submarket was divided into three separate mar-
kets as seen in the map below. The North Meridian area was expanded northward above Chinden
and eastward to include the northeast corner of Ustick & Eagle. Central Meridian was expanded
eastward to include properties on the east side of Eagle Road. The South Meridian area was ex-
panded similarly to include properties on the east side of the Eagle corridor.
SOONER, OIL
121,012
S:J
im
}
11.66%
-�
5.54%
37
328,955
20.02%
7
44,003
11.60%
51
800,510
8.15%
749,537
17.77%
603,464
13.97%
77
2,120,570
8.71%
31
601,804
2.68%
193
2,794,414
12.22%
WIN3%
.0
■
.%PYX .
1
•
i
M
all
EXHIBIT E: Revised Statistics & Map
Submarket # of Bldgs Total SF Vacancy Rate
Airport
Central
Downtown
Eagle
N Meridian
C Meridian
S Meridian
North
Southeast
Southwest
West
10
121,012
0.00%
188
2,229,210
11.66%
251
5,331,247
5.54%
37
328,955
20.02%
7
44,003
11.60%
51
800,510
8.15%
23
749,537
17.77%
85
603,464
13.97%
77
2,120,570
8.71%
31
601,804
2.68%
193
2,794,414
12.22%
TOTAL 953 15,724,726 9.35%
Source: Thornton Oliver Keller database
9 of 61dos Total SF Vacancv Rate
1
4,016
0.00%
25
1,124,913
12.60%
13
484,004
15.69%
11
517,681
4.37%
1
168,000
0.00%
23
1,570,186
4.98%
4
47,134
40.97%
24
1,077,824
18.16%
21
1,149,681
15.46%
12
757,629
11.70%
39
3,828,031
4.45%
174 10,729,099 8.79%
PAGE 5
• aLIVErr
C O M M E R C I A L R E A L E S T A T E
-Experieeee
SUBMARKET COMPARISON
Submarkets were analyzed by location, vacancy, and absorption in determining the comparisons
shown below.
Submarkets were compared using factors such as vacancy rate, absorption, construction, and
location. West Boise and Central Meridian are comparable, as are South Meridian and Southwest
Boise. The city of Eagle is the most comparable market to North Meridian. This comparison will be
used in determining a model for commercial growth.
• The location of Eagle is comparable to North Meridian. Whereas
Central Meridian and West Boise have direct freeway access, North
Meridian is a more isolated market.
• Eagle has a very strong retail market, posting a vacancy rate of only
4.37% and net absorption over 160,000 square feet.
• While Eagle's office market currently has a vacancy rate of 20.02%,
the majority is due to recent construction. This rate is expected to
decrease over the next 12 months as much of this office space
is absorbed. Absorption in the Eagle market has maintained a healthy
rate.
PAGE 6
1, d.,
•
4�„i,
(y, $�
i!N4
=
”. pit {!d• ,P id`' An
°°°ppp
r
Submarkets were compared using factors such as vacancy rate, absorption, construction, and
location. West Boise and Central Meridian are comparable, as are South Meridian and Southwest
Boise. The city of Eagle is the most comparable market to North Meridian. This comparison will be
used in determining a model for commercial growth.
• The location of Eagle is comparable to North Meridian. Whereas
Central Meridian and West Boise have direct freeway access, North
Meridian is a more isolated market.
• Eagle has a very strong retail market, posting a vacancy rate of only
4.37% and net absorption over 160,000 square feet.
• While Eagle's office market currently has a vacancy rate of 20.02%,
the majority is due to recent construction. This rate is expected to
decrease over the next 12 months as much of this office space
is absorbed. Absorption in the Eagle market has maintained a healthy
rate.
PAGE 6
• • or_�vErz
C O M M E R C I A L R E A L E S T A T E
-Cxperieeee T�efw/fJ.
EXHIBIT F: Demographic Comparison (2009 Projections)
Submarket
Airport
Central
Downtown
Eagle
C Meridian
S Meridian
N Meridian
North
Southeast
Southwest
West
TOTAL
RE TAI L .ANALYS I S
Pnnulatlnn Househalds Oavtime Poo." Population Density Ava HH Income Retail Ero_ per HH
3,243
1,228
12,861
157.8
$59,331
$22,048
49,615
20,763
33,354
4,464.8
$51,463
$18,656
11,744
6,296
29,701
3,172.8
$66,628
$18,685
13,848
4,849
3,243
895.7
$79,927
$26,893
60,174
21,080
16,767
1,112.4
$63,890
$23,592
8,396
2,726
1,450
432.0
$84,841
$27,953
6,337
2,122
786
330.8
$94,399
$28,240
47,135
20,145
16,907
2,932.6
$61,451
$22,024
45,289
18,902
16,871
1,832.3
$74,363
$247946
23,500
7,983
6,451
1,286.0
$68,184
$25,127
80,244
30,071
40,492
4,193.3
$61,852
$2.2,464.
136,165
1
*2004 statistic
Source: STDB online - Demographic data from Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
$21,495
While population is certainly a factor in determining how much retail space will be needed, a more
specific measure is an area's retail expenditures. This takes into account the area's population as
well as its population's retail spending.
EXHIBIT G: Retail Expenditures Analysis
Submarket
Total Expenditures Retail 5F Exp Eer Retail SF
Retail Vacancy Net Absorption
Airport
$3 M 4,016 $747
0.00% 0
Central
$387 M 1,124,913 $344
12.39% 84,358
Downtown
$118 M 484,004 $244
16.48% -43,142
Eagle
$130 M 517,681 $251
5.88% 162,590
Meridian
$497 M 730,970 $680
10.44% 171,711
North
$444 M 1,077,824 $412
17.53% -27,686
Southeast
$472 M 1,149,681 $411
14.13% -707
Southwest
$201 M 781,079 $257
12.43% -11,509
West
$676 M 4.858,931 $139
3.22% 203,247
Sources: Thornton Oliver Keller database / STDB Online - Demographic data from Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
An area's household expenditures per retail square foot provides some insight into the size of retail
markets these areas can support. For example, the West submarket has the lowest ratio at $139
per retail square foot. This indicates that much of the retail activity in the area is supported by
people living outside of West Boise. However, the Meridian submarket has a very high ratio of $680
per retail square foot. This indicates that the people in Meridian are doing much of their shopping
outside of the area and that the retail market has strong potential for growth over the next five years.
The city of Eagle has a ratio of $250 and posts the lowest vacancy rate in the valley. Following
Eagle's example as a comparable market, the survey suggests that the North Meridian area should
have a targeted expenditures -to -square feet ratio somewhere between the range of $250 to $300.
PAGE 7
• • 4L['VER
C O M M E R C I A L n 1E^1- ESTATE
-EXPer'iewee %�ejo//-j-
RE TAIL ANALYSIS
North Meridian's average household expenditures are currently projected at $28,240. This
appears to be an inflated statistic due to the limited number of households currently in the area.
North Meridian's household income is not expected to be higher than the city of Eagle, which
is projected at just under $27,000. For the purpose of this study, we will assume an amount of
$26,500 in retail expenditures per household. As time passes, the following formulas may be
revisited with more reliable data.
According to COMPASS, North Meridian's projected number of households in 2025 will be
approximately 13,500. Using this statistic with the average retail expenditures per household
gives us the total retail expenditure for North Meridian. Note that inflation is not taken into
account for this ratio.
North Meridian - Retail Expenditures
Projected Households x Avg HH Retail Exp = Total Retail Expenditures
13,500 x $26,500 = approx. $358 Million
Source: COMPASS - 2025 Projections
With the $358 million in total projected retail expenditures, we can now divide this number by the
targeted expenditures -per -square foot ratio of $250 to $300 to determine a projected retail square
footage total for the North Meridian market.
North Meridian - Projected Retail Square Feet
Total Retail Expenditures Exp. per Retail SF = Projected Retail SF
$358,000,000 $250 = approx. 1,400,000 sq ft
To determine the number of acres needed to support 1,400,000 square feet of retail, we first have
to examine the distinction between anchored and unanchored retail centers.
PAGE 8
MOMMIM11111ilUlloL.IVER
C O M M E R C I A L R E A L E S T A T E
�xp�riehce Y�e�y/�i.
Anchored vs Unanchored Retail
RETAIL ANALYSIS
Anchored retail centers can be defined as centers with at least one tenant occupying over
15,000 square feet, serving as an "anchor" to surrounding smaller retail shops. Examples are
centers anchored by Albertson's, Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, etc. Unanchored retail centers can
be most easily defined as any centers without an anchor.
EXHIBIT H: Anchored/Unanchored Breakdown
Submarket
Retail SF
% Unanchored Unanchored Va
Airport
4,016
100% 0.00%
Central
1,124,913
65% 8.60%
Downtown
484,004
82% 20.56/.-
0.56%Eagle
Eagle
517,681
31% 5.88%
Meridian
730,970
56% 18.44%
North
1,077,824
47% 18.77%
Southeast
1,149,681
51% 15.95%
Southwest
781,079
44% 21.73%
West
4,858,931
63% 4.23%
Source: Thornton Oliver Keller database
The applicable retail markets (not including Airport or Downtown) with the greatest proportion of
unanchored space are West Boise and Central Boise. Based on their relatively low unanchored
vacancy rates, both of these markets are clearly able to support this amount of unanchored
space. The activity in these markets is driven not only by the residents of these areas, but also
by the high traffic counts generated by freeway access and and a large daytime population (total
employees in the area).
Retail markets with the lowest proportion of unanchored space include Eagle, North (Garden
City), and Southwest Boise. These markets are primarily supported by nearby residents and
have limited freeway access, lower traffic counts, and lower daytime populations. North Meridian
fits these criteria and should, therefore, have a greater proportion of anchored retail space as
opposed to unanchored.
Once again, we will use Eagle as the comparable market, where only 31 % of retail is
unanchored. Eagle's distance from the freeway and lack of daytime population sources require
that retail centers have anchors to draw a strong customer base. North Meridian faces similar
challenges. Therefore, as a general basis, we will use a ratio of 35% unanchored retail and
65% anchored retail for the North Meridian area. Please note that this. ratio may need adjusted
in the future as the market grows and the landscape of the area changes.
PAGE 9
Cmumt-
C O M M E R, C I A L R E g L E 8 'r A T E
RETAIL ANALYSIS
This distinction between anchored and unanchored retail is important on two levels. First, for
understanding what type of retail centers can best serve the people of North Meridian. Second,
the amount of land needed for an anchored center differs from that of unanchored centers.
Primarily this is due to the additional parking needed for an anchored center.
The average size of an anchored retail center is 300,000 square feet of retail on 25 acres. The
average size of an unanchored retail center is 10,000 square feet of retail on 1 acre. This
provides us with the following ratios:
10,000 SF unanchored = 1 acre of land
12,000 SF anchored = 1 acre of land
Applying the targeted proportion of 35% unanchored and 65% anchored retail to the projected
total retail square footage gives us a specific breakdown of projected unanchored and anchored
retail square feet.
Projected Retail SF x Unanchored % = Total Unanchored Retail SF
1,400,000 x 35% = 490,000
Projected Retail SF x Anchored % = Total Anchored Retail SF
1,400,000 x 65% - 910,000
Using the land ratio above, we can now calculate the approximate number of acres needing to be
zoned for the projected unanchored and anchored retail space.
Unanchored Retail SF 10,000 SF = Unanchored Retail Land
490,000 10,000 SF = 49 Acres
Anchored Retail SF 12,000 SF = Anchored Retail Land
910,000 12,000 SF = 76 Acres
PAGE 10
JfiiJJjJWfilMj�_o LAVEAZ
C O M M E R C I A L R E A L E S T A T E
Retail Conclusion
RETAIL ANALYSIS
Based on the previous calculations, an adequate number of acres to be zoned for retail use over
the next 20 years is projected at approximately 40 to 60 acres for unanchored retail centers and
70 to 90 acres for anchored retail centers. The acreage for anchored centers should provide for
two to three major retail centers while the unanchored acreage should provide for anywhere from
20 to 50 low to mid-size retail centers, depending on building size.
It should be noted that the city of Meridian estimates the 2025 number of households of North
Meridian to be slightly higher at 14,500. This would result in a change from 1.4 million square
feet to over 1.5 million. The estimated acreage needed would increase to approximately 140
acres zoned for retail use.
It is important to us that these numbers not be taken as blanket recommendations, but rather that
they provide the concepts, formulas, and calculations necessary to plan for the future of North
Meridian. A few statistics that your committee may wish to adjust in the future are as follows:
• Expenditures per Retail SF: In our final calculation, we used the average of
$250 of retail expenditures per household. It is unlikely that this statistic would be outside
of the range of $200 to $400. Using $200 would result in more acreage zoned for retail,
while using $400 would result in less.
• Avg HH Retail Expenditures: Based on our comparison to the city of Eagle, we
used an amount of $26,500 per household. Using the initial projection of $29,000 (this
appeared inflated) for North Meridian would result in more acreage being zoned for retail
use.
• Unanchored/Anchored Proportions: Our calculations used 35% unanchored and
65% anchored for North Meridian. This statistic should fall between 30-40% of
unanchored retail and 55-70% of anchored retail.
Information Resources
Demographics: CCIM's Site -to -do -Business website (STDB.com)
Commercial Market Statistics: Thornton Oliver Keller
Maps: Thornton Oliver Keller
2025 Population Projections: COMPASS - Community Planning Association
PAGE 11
• • OLIVEFt
C M M E FC C I A L R E A L E S T A T E
Daytime Populations
OFFICE ANALYSIS
While retail expenditures were key for projecting retail space, office space is best indicated by the
number of office jobs in the area. The current daytime populations (total employees) are posted
below:
Boise Meridian Eagle
Daytime Population: 134,763 13,540 2,581
Source: 5TD5 Online - Demographic data from Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
North Meridian currently has a daytime population of less than 800 people. To adequately project
the amount of employees in this area in 2025, we must examine the current ratio of daytime
population to total population in Boise, Meridian, and Eagle.
Boise Meridian Eagle
Daytime Population Ratio: 67% 33% 22%
North Meridian's daytime population to total population ratio would likely fall between that of Meridian
(entire city) and Eagle. For the purpose of this study, we will assume a ratio of 30% for the North
Meridian area. Note that this is an assumption and could fall anywhere between 20% and 40%
depending on the city of Meridian's perspective of how many employees they want to work within
this area.
Applying this ratio to COMPASS'S 20 -year projection of North Meridian's population will provide us a
projection of how many employees might work in this area in 2025.
Projected Population x Daytime Population Ratio = Projected Daytime Population
40,300 x 30% = 12,085 jobs
PAGE 12
+ OGIVE[i
C Q M M E Ft C I A L H E A L E S T A T E
-UXPeriehee 7Ce_j f1&.
OFFICE ANALYSIS
The breakdown of office, retail, and industrial jobs in the city of Meridian is as follows:
Office Retail Industrial Other*
Current Jobs: 2,484 3,845 4,021 3,209
% Breakdown: 18.2% 28.4% 29.7% 23.7%
*Other jobs include government, education, medical, etc.
bource: b I uta cmiine - Demographic data from Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
Assuming North Meridian has a similar breakdown of job types to the rest of the city, the number of
office jobs in 2025 can be calculated.
Projected Daytime Population x Office -use Jobs % - Projected Office Jobs
12,085 jobs x 18.2% = 2,200 jobs
The average amount of office space needed per office worker is 250 square feet. Using this rule, we
can now project an amount of office space needed in 2025.
Projected Office Jobs x 250 square feet = Projected Office SF
2,200 jobs x 250 square feet = 550,000 SF
The average single -story office building is 3,000 square feet on .30 acres of land. Therefore, we
can use the following ratio:
10,000 SF office = 1 acre of land
Dividing the projected office square feet by the ratio above, we can then generate an estimated
amount of office land needed to support 550,000 SF and 2,200 office jobs.
Projected Office SF x 10,000 square feet = Projected Office Land
550,000 x 10,000 square feet = 55 Acres
PAGE 1.3
o��vErr. OFFICE ANALYSIS
CC) M M E R C I A L R E A E es-VALVE
Office Conclusion
Based on the previous calculations, an adequate number of acres to be zoned for office use over
the next 20 years is projected between 40 and 70 acres. This would suffice for anywhere from 50
to 150 office buildings depending on building size.
It should be noted that using the city of Meridian's estimated number of households of
14,500, rather than 13,500, leads us to conclude that the North Meridian area would support
approximately 600,000 square feet of office space and over 60 acres zoned for office use.
As with retail, it is important to us that these numbers not be taken as blanket recommendations,
but rather that they provide the concepts, formulas, and calculations necessary to plan for the
future of North Meridian. A few statistics that your committee may wish to adjust in the future are
as follows:
• Daytime Population Ratio: We used a ratio of 30%, though this statistic could fall
anywhere between 20% and 40%. Using a ratio of 20% would assume that you are
zoning North Meridian to be primarily residential and would result in a high percentage
of residents commuting outside of the area for employment. A ratio of 40% would indicate
plans for a large business park such as Boise Research Center in northwest Boise.
• Job Breakdown %: We assumed that North Meridian's breakdown of job -type would
be similar to that of the rest of the city. If the city of Meridian prefers to see the percentage
of office jobs increase or decrease, that would subsequently change the amount of acres
needing to be zoned for office use.
• Average Building Size: We used the average of 3,000 square feet for a single -story
office building. Plans for the construction of any large office buildings (20,000+ SF) would
skew this number upward and a new projection would have to be considered for the office
square foot -to -acre ratio.
Information Resources
Demographics: CCIM's Site -to -do -Business website (STDB.com)
Commercial Market Statistics: Thornton Oliver Keller
Maps: Thornton Oliver Keller
2025 Population Projections: COMPASS - Community Planning Association
PAGE 14
Joe Huarte
Property Owner/ Project Manager
1963 E. Blue Tick St.
Meridian, ID 83642
August 9, 2005
Mr. David Zaremba
Chairman
Planning and Zoning commission
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
SUBJECT: North Meridian Zoning
Dear Mr. Zaremba,
This letter is referring to the 75 acres on the SE comer of Chinden and Linder. I have met
with the staff and understand that the proposed comprehensive plan calls for a Mixed Use
Community designation with some residential zoning to the SE of the property. We
envision a Mixed Use Community project and see this property as the "Gateway to
Meridian".
We ask that the proposed zoning designation be approved and we look forward to
working with you and the staff.
Sin
e
Property Owner/ Project Manager
j_ohuarte a�yahoo.corn
208.867.7447
10/03/2005 MON 16:41 FAX 2083881300 3—Color IM002/006
GIVES - SLEY'`r
LAW OFFICES
Gary G. Allen
Jeremy G. Ladle
Kenneth L. Pursley
601 W. Bannoek Street
Krislen A, Atwood
Franklin G. Lee
Bradley V. Snead
PO Box 2720. Boise, Idaho 83701
Kelly T, Barbour
David R- Lombardi
H. Barton Thomas. LL.M.
TELEPHONE! 208 388-1700
Christopher J. Beeson
Emily A. MacMasler
J. Will Vern
FACSIMILE! 208 38&1300
William C. Cote
John M. Marshall
Conley E. Ward
WEBSITE; www,givenspursley.com
Michael C. Creamer
Kenneth R. McClure
Robert a, While
Thomas E. Dvorak
Kelly Greene McConnell
Roy Lewis Eiguren
Cynthia A. Melillo
Timothy P. Fearnside
Christopher H. Meyer
Jeffrey C. Fereday
L. Edward Miller
Raymond D. Givens
Melissa A. Finocchio'
Patrick J. Miller
RETIRED
EMAIL: GaryAllen@givenspursley.com
Steven J. Hippler
Judson 8, Montgomery
Karl T. Klein
Angela K, Nelson
James A. McClure
Debora K. Krislensen
Deborah E, Nelson
RETIRED
Anne C. Kunkel
W. Hugh O'Riordan, LL.M.
'Licensed In Callranla
October 3, 2005
Via Facsimile and Hand Delivery
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: North Meridian Comprehensive Plan Changes
Our File: 7476-3
Dear Commissioners:
This law firm represents Norpac LLC ("Norpac"), which owns several hundred acres in
the north Meridian area of city impact ("AOCI") as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. We believe
Norpac is one of the largest landowners in the north Meridian area. We appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the City of Meridian's (the "City") proposed changes to its
comprehensive plan (the "Plan"). Unfortunately, we have to raise serious concerns regarding the
proposed Plan amendment to set aside a one-half to one mile -wide "corridor preservation area"
(the "Preservation Corridor") around McDermott Road.
Norpac was among many, including, we suspect, the City of Meridian (the "City"), who
were surprised by Governor Kempthorne's Garvee bond proposal in the 2005 legislative session.
The State Highway 16 extension (the "SH16 Project") included in the governor's proposal would
of course have a huge impact on the City. Norpac joins the City in being excited about the
prospect and concerned about the potential impact of the SH16 Project, Norpac is committed to
working with the City to make sure development on its property harmonizes with the SH 16
Project, wherever it may be located.
However, Norpac is gravely concerned about the proposal to set aside such an enormous
area for corridor preservation, This proposal is unwise from a policy standpoint and, we believe,
is legally vulnerable on a number of grounds. We discuss these issues in more detail below,
OCT 03 105 17:06 2083881300 PA5E.02
10/03/2005 MON 18:41 FAX 2083881300 3 Color
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2005
Page 2
1. The Plan amendment strikes a poor balance in proposing the Preservation
Corridor.
Norpac is having difficulty understanding why the City feels the Preservation Corridor is
the right solution for the SH16 Project. This proposal seems to tie the City's hands and impose
huge burdens on area landowners for a project that at best has only begun to gel and at worst may
neverhappen.
The SH16 Project is anything but certain. We should all remember this project has been
driven by a governor who will retire in 2006, before the first study will be undertaken. Further,
the project really is little more than a glimmer in the governor's eye at this point. For example,
the usefulness of the Preservation Corridor depends on the location of the I84/SH 16 Interchange
at McDermott Road. This is not in any agency's plan at the moment and is only one of several
possibilities. In addition, the entire project is subject to changes in priorities and governing
philosophy, not to mention changed economic conditions or other circumstances. The timing of
the project is also completely up in the air. The earliest the road location could be determined is
two to three years from now, but it could take much longer than that. Perhaps more importantly,
we understand the project will have to compete for priority with the improvements to I-84 from
Orchard Street to Gowen Road. If Orchard -to -Gowen gets priority, the SH16 project may not be
completed for ten years or more. Will the Preservation Corridor remain in place for this long?
Despite these uncertainties, the City's Preservation Corridor proposal is, from Norpac's
point of view, a most disruptive and heavy-handed way to address the SH16 Project. The City is
proposing to idle indefinitely over three square miles of the most valuable development land in
the Treasure Valley for a maybe, someday road project. To put this in perspective, consider that
if this land were developed at urban densities, it would add close to $2 billion in assessed value
to the City (conservatively assuming $1 million per acre multiplied by approximately 2000 acres
affected). Yet all that has to wait on the vagaries of the highway planning process. Further, we
have not seen any correspondence from ITD to suggest it believes such an enormous restriction
on development is needed.
Most of the land affected, including all of Norpac's land, has been in the City's AOCI for
at least a dozen years, and has been designated for urban density development since the adoption
of the City's 2002 comprehensive plan or before. Copies of the City's land use maps in the 1993
and 2002 Comprehensive Plans are attached as Exhibits "B" and "C" respectively. The City has
done at least some level of service planning for most of the area. The only reason articulated for
imposition of the Preservation Corridor is to allow the Idaho Transportation Department ("ITD")
to acquire right-of-way in a "fiscally responsible" manner, in the words of the amendment. Aside
from the legal ramifications of this approach, which are discussed below, imposition of the
Preservation Corridor is highly disruptive to the expectations of landowners who have purchased
property in reliance on the existing plans and development patterns.
OCT 03''05 17:06 2083881300 PAGE.03
003/006
10/03/2005 MON 16:42 FAX 2083881300 3 Color
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2005
Page 3
We believe there are much simpler ways to encourage ITD to locate the SH 16 Project on
McDermott Road, which location Norpac supports. We would not object to preserving 100 feet
or more on either side of McDermott as reasonably needed for future right-of-way acquisition,
with additional land set aside at planned interchange locations. This is good planning. What the
Plan amendment proposes, in contrast, goes too far.
2. The Preservation Corridor cannot be used to reduce ITD's right-of-way
acquisition costs.
The City is not the first jurisdiction to have the idea of reducing right-of-way acquisition
costs by prohibiting or severely restricting development in the tight -of -way corridor. However,
most courts have seen through this end run around just compensation requirements and have
found such requirements invalid or inadmissible in assessing the valuation of the property at
issue. E,g. City of San Diego v. Rancho Penasquitos Partnership, et al. ("RPP'), 105
Cal.App.4"' 1013, 1033 (2003); People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Southern Pac. Trans. Co., 33
Cal.App.3d 960, 965 (1973); Board of Commissioners v. Tallahassee Bank and Trust Company,
108 So.2d 74, 80 (F1a.Dist.Ct.App. 1958); see Zoning as a Factor in Determination of Damages
in Eminent Domain, 9. A.L.R.3d 291, 304-05 (1966); Rathkopf s The Law of Zoning and
Planning, § 85.10 (4"' Ed.)("A restriction on the use of property adopted for the sole purpose of
reducing its cost upon eventual condemnation is invalid."). Thus, ITD will have to pay just
compensation based on the highest and best use of the land, with no account for the creation of
the Preservation Corridor.
Since zoning and planning restrictions of this kind cannot be considered in determining
the value of condemned land, the only possible savings to ITD is to prevent the construction of
structures in the Preservation Corridor that ITD would later have to condemn. However,
adoption of a plan change for this purpose is also of questionable validity. See Kissinger v. Los
Angeles, 327 P.2d 10 (1958); Eminent Domain: Validity of "Freezing" Ordinances or Statutes
Preventing Prospective Condemnee From Improving, or Otherwise Changing, the Conditioh of
his Property, 36 A.L.R.3d 751 (updated 2004).
3. The City risks takings liability in enacting a "freeze" provision for the
Preservation Corridor.
The City also risks liability on its own behalf by imposing the Preservation Corridor. As
stated in RPP, supra: "... where the zoning authority and the condemning authority are different
entities, the landowner would have a right to bring a direct action for inverse condemnation for
its damages against the zoning authority and at the same time receive just compensation from the
condemning authority in a separate action." RPP, 105 Cal.App.4"' at 1032.
CM 004/006
While Norpac does not have the slightest desire to pursue litigation against the City, we
have to question why the City would want to place itself on the receiving end of a lawyer's full -
OCT 03 '05 17:07 2083881300 PAGE.04
10/03/2005 MON 16:43 FAX 2083881300 3 Color
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2005
Page 4
employment act by adopting a proposal of such questionable legality as the Preservation
Corridor.
4. The Preservation Corridor is an improper moratorium in disguise.
The effect of adoption of the Preservation Corridor would be to prevent development in
the corridor. We believe a strong argument can be made this action is in fact a moratorium in
disguise, i.e. the City believes it cannot have development in this location until the road location
is determined. However, the proposal cannot meet the precondition for adoption of a
moratorium, which is that an emergency exists affecting the public health, safety or welfare.
1. C. § 67-6523. The fact is the SH 16 Project is not an emergency, but rather a larger version of
the kind of road planning and siting that happens all the time.
5. Land to which the City does not intend to provide services should not be
included in the AOCI.
The AOCI is intended to be an area where the City intends to annex and provide
municipal services to property. See I.C. §§ 67-6526, 50-222(a). The Preservation Corridor
proposal raises serious concerns in our minds that the property should not properly remain in the
AOCI if the City does not intend to service it for an indeterminate period of time. We would
think this issue would have to receive serious consideration in any negotiation between the City
and the Ada County Commissioners over the City's AOCI.
Finally, we are concerned about the City's postponement of the original hearing from
September 22 to October 3. 1 called the Planning & Zoning Department on September 22 and
was told that the hearing had been cancelled. My client later learned that it had merely been
postponed and that the only notice of the timing of the postponed hearing had been an oral
statement made at the outset of the September 22 public hearing. We wonder how many people,
like ourselves, were confused by being told the hearing was cancelled and were awaiting the
issuance of a new public notice for the hearing. We ask that the City properly re -notice the
hearing to ensure that all public input is received before transmitting the application to the City
Council.
In conclusion, our sincere hope is to begin a dialogue with the City, ITD and other
affected landowners on a solution that meets all parties' needs. We ask that the Commission
table the corridor preservation portion of the proposal so that we can work with the affected
parties on a solution that meets all parties' needs.
IM 005/006
OCT 03 '05 17:07 2083881300 PAGE.05
10/03/2005 MON 16:43 FAX 2083881300 3—Color
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2005
Page 5
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and I look forward to addressing
you this evening.
GGA:sIc
cc: Norpac, LLC
Tom Coleman
Thomas Coleman
William Nary, Esq., City Attorney
SACI_I1-',NTS17476\3\MERIDIAN P&L RE COMP PLAN CHANGESDOC
Very truly yours,
OCT 03 '05 17 08 2083881300 PAGE.06
0 006/006
10/03/2005 MON 16:40 FAX 2083881300 3 Color
FAX COVER -SHEET
DATE: Monday, October 3, 2005
PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): to
ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW: 4f�)
RE: North Meridian Comprehensive Plan
Changes
GP File No. 7476-3
TO: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
884-5533
SEND TO FAX PHONE: 888-4218
MESSAGE:
10001/006
GARY G. ALLEN
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 West Bannock Street
Post Office Box 2720
Boise, Idaho 83701-2720
Telephone: 208-388-1257
Fax: 208-388-1300
Email: GaryAllen@givenspursley.com
RECEWE)
C)G T 0 3 2007
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Please see attached for tonight's meeting. l will provide the original and exhibits at the
meeting.
— Gary G. Allen
If this fax does not transmit fully or is difficult to read, please contact me or my secretary, Sharon
Cuslidge, at (208) 388-1274.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product: privilege. It is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not a named recipient or an employee responsible
for delivering the facsimile, you are instructed not to deliver, distribute or copy this facsimile, nor should you disclose its
contents or take any action in reliance on the information it contains, If you have received this facsimile in error, please
notify us immediately by telephone to arrange for the return of the transmitted documents to us. Thank you.
DOCUMENTS
OCT 03 105 17:05 2083881300 PAGE.01
September 19, 2005
Meridian City Council and
Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commissioners
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Members,
"R C E' 1 1 V E
y 2005
CITY OF ME.RIDI.Ar-J
Re: Aldape Property — located between Ten Mile and Black Cat, north of the Phyllis Canal to the
Boise River. (map attached)
This letter is to notify you of our desire to be included in the Meridian City impact area.
We have met with Nichoel Baird Spencer, City of Eagle and also with Richard Cook, Ada County
Development Services and have discussed our desire to stay with Meridian. (See attached letter to
Richard Cook and Cheryl Brown.) Our reasons include:
1. The mailing address and phone number have been in Meridian for at least 85 years.
2. The only access to the property is through Basco Lane which is south of the property and
located miles closer to Meridian than Eagle.
3. All of the services including fire protection and police are currently being provided through
the city of Meridian. The Aldape property is located only five miles from the Meridian
Fire Department, whereas Eagle and Star are significantly farther, plus they have to cross
the Boise. River. And just recently when my parents called 911 in need of an ambulance,
the Meridian Fire Department was the first response team to arrive.
4. Four generations of "Aldape's" are attending, or have graduated from Meridian schools.
5. The City of Meridian is proposing the adjoining land south of the Aldape property to be
included in the Meridian impact area, which means Meridian sewer services would be
within feet from the property, rather than the multiple miles from Eagle.
6. Basco Lane is the only access to our property and is being proposed into the Meridian
impact area with a residential development. We want to make sure that full access for our
property is unrestricted and will be available for present use and future development.
Our vision is to develop the land into a low density, residential development with ponds, similar to
other river side developments. This would also be an ideal setting for a public park along the
Boise River.
If you have any questions and would like to discuss this matter with us, please feel free to call
Sherrie at 888-7700.
Sincerely,
o
Peggy Everist
Sherrie Ewing
(Daughters of Elias and Margaret Aldape)
August 20, 2005
Mr. Richard A. Cook
Ada County Development Services
Planning & Zoning Administrator
200 W. Front Street
Boise, ID 83702
Dear Mr. Cook,
Re: Aldape Property
On July 7, 2005, my sister, Peggy Everist and I met with you to discuss our parent's property located
between Ten Mile and Black Cat south of the Boise River. At that time, we indicated that we
would like to be included in the Meridian impact area, rather than the Eagle impact area for the
following reasons:
1. The mailing address and phone number have been in Meridian for at least 85 years.
2. The only access to the property is through Basco Lane which is south of the property and
located miles closer to Meridian than Eagle.
3. All of the services including fire protection and police are currently being provided through
the city of Meridian. The Aldape property is located only five miles from the Meridian Fire
Department, whereas Eagle and Star are significantly farther, plus they have to cross the
Boise River.
4. Four generations of "Aldape's" are attending, or have graduated from Meridian schools.
5. The City of Meridian is proposing the adjoining land south of the Aldape property to be
included in the Meridian impact area, which means Meridian sewer services would be within
feet rather than multiple miles from Eagle.
The reason for this letter is to document our desire to be considered in the Meridian impact area,
rather than Eagle. We have been in discussions with Meridian Development and Planning & Zoning
and they have recommended a follow up with you. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Sherrie Ewing
2934 E. Lake Hazel Road
Meridian, ID 83642
208-888-7700
CC: Cheryl Brown — City of Meridian — Economic Development Coordinator
+ Aldape Property I'll
Vicinity Map
1 inch equals 2,000 feet
May 17,2W5
Ll
i
p4
R
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE October 3, 2005 ITEM #
3
PROD CPA 05-004
ter--.
PIComp Plan Amdmnt North Meridian
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
will
i-
I1rcI J �
-_ , ... tea
WAM
G%r Vii' �C�A tt-/ A Lt v�. _�-
a
I
cr-
.. ..... ....
. ...........
. . ...............
. ..............
. .. . .............
.............
C.d........,.........
..................................... ...........
.................
40
04
.......... . . ..........
..............
. . . . . . . .... .................... ...
j
..................
..................
. . . ..................
...
.
...............
.. . ... ... ...
........
......... ................. .
....... ......
. .............. . .............
.............
.......... ...
................................ . .
F........_............_............
.........
.. . ....... . .... .... ...........
. ... ...... .
. ....... . ..... ... ..... .. ..... ... . .. ......
..... . ... . . ....
.......................
.. ......... ........... .... . .. E:
..........
..........
............
... .. ........... ..............
...... .. ..
.............. .............. .......
..............
......................
..............
....... .... .......
. .
. ........
l
... .....
tt
vY
...................... .. -
................
.........
..........
M.
... .......... .......
...
..................
....... ..
31
- - -----