HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 17, 2006 C/C Minutes
"
,.
. Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 5 of 36
Canning: Oh, the snoopy is because if you think about Snoopy lying on his back on the
dog house -- see, there is his head and, then, there is his nose.
De Weerd: What will we come up with next.
Canning: That one's actually been around for awhile, but --
De Weerd: I guess we haven't seen Snoopy rear his head yet. Okay. Council, any
questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Move that we approve Item No.8, FP 05-078 and Item 9, FP 05-081.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 8 and 9. If there is
no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
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:
De Weerd: Okay. We have a second Item 9, it's a Public Hearing on CPA 05-004. I
will open this Public Hearing with --
Rountree: Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. I mean -- I'm sorry. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Wardle is down there.
De Weerd: I know.
,.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 6 of 36
Rountree: Having reviewed this item and the topics for the Public Hearing, given the
integral aspects of the state highway system with the major portion of this Comp Plan
hearing and given my capacity with the Idaho Transportation Department, I'm going to
have to recuse myself on this item, though it's going to be the best show in town,
apparently. So, with that --
De Weerd: We will see you later.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. This Public Hearing is open. I will start with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did want to mention that I do have
a handful of eight and a half by 11's of this map. If people are unable to see the one on
the board and just -- we will -- please try and share. There is not enough for everyone
before they disappear. I do have a file that we can zoom in on. As people are having
specific discussions about a property and they want us to zoom in, I will be able to do
that, so everyone will be able to see enlarged versions of this. Mr. Siddoway is going to
put them on the back table. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you had a
workshop on this item that went through the application in detail. So, tonight I thought it
would be best to give you a summary of the staff report and to really focus on some of
the outstanding issues related to public comment letters or phone calls that we have
received and so that's how I have structured my presentation for tonight and, hopefully,
that will meet your needs, as well as those of the people in the audience. On that line,
there is one issue I wanted to clarify for the public before the discussion begins and that
in many of the public comment letters we have had there is -- there is an
understandable and very common misunderstanding with regard to zoning designations
versus Comprehensive Plan designations. So, I just wanted to take a moment and
explain the difference between those two items before we get started. The application
you have before you tonight is the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the
Comprehensive Plan is the vision document for the City of Meridian. It tells us how we
want to grow, where we want to grow, and what kind of development we anticipate in an
area. It is, again, the vision document for the city. The zoning ordinance or in our case
the Unified Development Code with zoning designations is what rules -- what applies as
law for the property. It has very specific standards and very specific outlines for those
areas. Whereas Comprehensive Plan designations can kind of move around a little bit
or are a little more flowing, zoning districts are generally done parcel by parcel and are
very specific. If you wanted to develop in the city, you would need to be annexed and
zoned. This application before you tonight is not annexing any property and it's not
zoning any property. It's just giving a vision statement for what that will be in the future.
When you come in and want to develop or when -- then, you would request annexation
and you would request a zoning designation that is consistent with this plan. But it does
not physically zone anybody's property. Okay. There is my public education for the
day. And I'll get right into the project now. The applications that are before you tonight
is for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and it includes three general requests. One is
to expand the area of city impact, which currently runs along McDermott and Chinden.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 7 of 36
We would extend it to go out to the county line along Ustick and, then, back along
Chinden. And, then, also to include an area north of Chinden from McDermott basically
over to Linder. And you can see everything that's colored is part of that area of city
impact expansion. So, that's the first. The second purpose of this application is to
designate new land uses and policies within the proposed expansion areas and to
amend the existing land uses in the current area of city impact. The third purpose is to
create a new circulation map and associated transportation policies to address multi-
modal forms of travel in north Meridian and I have our transportation coordinator here
with us, Mr. Siddoway, to -- and we are going to do kind of a tag team as we go through
this presentation. He's going to focus on the transportation issues and I will raise the
other ones. The Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, had
recommended approval of this application at their October 17th hearing and there were
-- your staff report notes numerous folks that came to testify in opposition and to
comment on that application and I am not -- I'll leave it to you to reference that staff
report, rather than go through those names at this time. I did want to make it clear up
front that staff is recommending that you hear this item tonight, but that you continue it.
We did not get comments from the Ada County Highway District regarding many of the
policies that relate to road design, particularly arterials and collectors, and we felt it was
important to get those comments and storm drainage and we felt it was important to get
those comments from them. They were not able to be here tonight to provide those.
However, having said that, you do have Findings for approval should the Council wish
to go that way tonight. The key issues of discussion by the Commission I'm going to list
and before I walked into the packed house today I thought most of those issues had
been resolved at the Commission level, but, clearly, there is a lot more interest here
than I was anticipating, so I won't presume that to be true at this point. Anyway, the
discussion included the Highway 16 preservation corridor, discussion of the northwest
corner of Chinden and Linder. The southwest corner of McMillan and Meridian. The
North Ten Mile, south of McMillan, the mixed use wastewater treatment plant area.
Compensation if state highway is constructed on or near the property. There was also a
fair amount of frustration about the public notification and involvement during the
application process. There was a discussion about including land north of the rim in the
area of city impact and access to said area. There was discussion of using Basco Lane
as a collector or not as a collector. There was discussion about providing incentives to
speed up the right-of-way acquisition for State Highway 16 and making the process
more collaborative. There was also discussion about the .southwest corner of Ustick
and Linder. Staff is -- I'll go through these rather quickly. On the outstanding issues
that we know of we will go through in more detail in just a moment. The key
Commission changes to the staff recommendation were to change the southwest corner
of McMillan and Meridian to medium density residential. That's this one. To change the
northwest corner of Chinden and Linder to mixed-use community. To change the
property east and west of Black Cat Road north of Chinden to mixed use community.
There was a future expansion of the area of city impact north of the rim to the Boise
River and direct staff to draft a letter to the board of Ada County commissioners. So,
that was with regard to the property north of the Phyllis Canal. There was quite a bit of
discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission stage, but to include that. They
were not in favor of amending the mixed use wastewater treatment plant area along
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 8 of 36
North Ten Mile to allow new office and residential uses. And most significantly of all,
they removed the State Highway 16 preservation corridor from the future land use map
and most of the associated policies in the text. The Commission emphasized the
importance of retaining McDermott Road as the preferred corridor and creation of a
private-public collaborative effort to address the future alignment. One of the interested
parties did call me and I would like to note that there is still a need to delete the last
sentence of item number two, page one of the transportation policy section, and that still
references that overlay district. The rest of the policy is fine; we just need to take out
the reference to the overlay district. I'm going to go now and use the file that I can zoom
in on more, so you will have a better idea what's going on. Just a moment. On the
southeast corner of McDermott Road and West Chinden Boulevard you have several
comment letters in your packet. I think there is four or five, actually. And the property
owners -- there was -- there was a misunderstanding, perhaps, at the Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing that this property owner was in agreement with just having
the mixed use designation on this portion of her property. She has written several
letters asking that that be extended to go to the adjoining subdivision as a mixed use
designation. She understands that she would have to buffer that residential use to her
east, but she would like the mixed use designation on -- to continue to her east
boundary. The next issue -- outstanding issue isn't related to a map item, it's regarding
future planning for the State Highway 16 corridor, however. The Planning and Zoning
Commission motion to Council included the following statement: The City of Meridian
supports a collaborative public-private partnership with the property owners, the Idaho
Transportation Department, Ada County, Canyon County, and other affected parties, to
identify a preferred alignment for the future State Highway 16 extension. Staff is just
requesting that City Council, if you choose to adopt that statement or make that a part of
this plan, that you give us a little additional guidance, in particular, what type of role do
you want the City of Meridian to play in this partnership. Are we the initiator? Are we
an advocate for area of impact citizens' interest? Are we a participation -- or participant
with ITD as lead? We just need to know City Council's thoughts on that, so we can act
appropriately. And, then, what level of priority should this corridor planning have in
relation to our other long-range planning projects. The next issue is land uses near
future Highway 16 -- Ustick and 16 interchange. That's this area here. A suggestion
was made to overlay the typical interchange diamonds you would get for -- to state
highways or for a state highway and we did do that and what we found out is that this
east-west width is appropriate, but the north-south dimension is probably lacking. So
staff would recommend that the mixed use designation extend 500 feet further north
and 500 feet further south. The east-west dimension, again, is okay, it just needs to go
further north and south. Again, the next one is not a map related issue. The Planning
and Zoning Commission chose to retain new policies regarding City of Meridian's
commitment to regional planning and cooperation and those are in Section G, page
three of the application. We just weren't sure how those would relate to recent
developments with the city of Eagle and their expanded area of city impact and the
pending action by the Ada County commissioners. As you know, this area to the north
of Chinden was also in the Eagle proposed area of city impact and Ada County has not
yet made a decision, but that will be in two Comprehensive Plans once this -- if it is
adopted as part of this application. If Mr. Siddoway can make his way back, he is going
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 9 of 36
to address the Compass letter from Patricia Nelson. In the staff report it did note that
the Commission did not want to go into in-depth review of Compass's letter, so they did
not specifically discuss it. Staff does believe that some of the points warrant discussion
by City Council and Mr. Siddoway is going to go through those.
Siddoway: Brad pointed out three points from the letter from Patricia Nelson that she
asked -- that he suggested warranted some further discussion by Council. If you have a
copy of her letter, it's items four, six, and seven. I will go through them. Item number
four talks about the policies regarding the mixed use interchange designation,
specifically regarding transit and park and ride facilities. Right now there is a specific
policy suggestion that transit and park and ride facilities be encouraged at the
interchange of Highway 16 and Highway 20-26. Her -- she agrees with that, she's
saying that it shouldn't be just specific to that one interchange, that it -- that such an
encouragement for transit facilities should be general to all interchanges. Her next point
on item number six in her letter talks about 20-26, Chinden Boulevard, and the policy as
currently written in the proposed Comp Plan amendment states that it would be a
corridor of at least 45 miles per hour. She points out that it's -- that they are assuming a
55 mile per hour speed and as a high speed facility. I think that this warrants maybe a
larger discussion about what we expect 20-26 to be. Through our planning thus far we
have been encouraging access management to 20-26 to every half mile and no more
often than that. As currently shown in the draft Communities in Motion plan, Compass
is envisioning 20-26 as an expressway, which would be a very limited, almost freeway-
style development, where you would have very limited access points and it would not be
accessed every half mile and they would propose to do that to maintain those speeds
up around 55 miles per hour and maintain the cross-regional transportation for mobility.
By having accesses every half mile, maintaining 55 miles per hour is not realistic, it
would most likely function at a 35 to 45 -- around the 45 mile per hour designation as
currently written. So, I just raise that for some discussion as to what we envision 20-26
as in the future.
De Weerd: Steve, the policy is every half mile.
Siddoway: Per our current ordinance it is every half mile.
De Weerd: And per the policy I believe for lTD.
Siddoway: ITD has been accepting of it. They are also supportive of the expressway
design, because their primary interest for 20-26 is regional mobility. But they have
accepted half mile accesses. They would accept less than that if that was the way we
chose to go.
De Weerd: So, you will rush to wait, is that it? The speed limit at 55 and you rush to
the next light.
Siddoway: To get to the road.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 10 of 36
De Weerd: Okay.
Siddoway: Number seven, actually, rolls into the discussion that I just gave on number
six. They talk about signal spacing and how it's difficult to maintain 45 miles an hour
progression with half mile spacing on signals. So, that's a summary of kind of the
outstanding letter -- outsta.nding issues from Compass's letter and I will turn it back to
Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, those were the outstanding issues
noted in the staff report. So, now I'm going to go onto some of the letters from the
public comment we have received since the Planning and Zoning Commission. Some
of them are -- I highlighted as discussions by the Planning and Zoning Commission
previously. The first is with regard to the area north of the Phyllis Canal and you have
two -- three letters in your packets. Two are from individuals that wish to be included in
the area of city impact and one is from a husband and wife that do not wish for their
area to be included in this area of city impact. And perhaps I should spend just a little
bit of time talking about this. The Planning Commission wanted to send this back to
staff to have them include the area in the area of city impact. That was not the direction
we had from Council, nor did we have funds approved for further study of that area to
see if we could sewer and water that and those kinds of issues. So, we asked that
those folks that were interested, let this one go through, and that if Council desired we
would come back with another area of city impact amendment to include their property
or to extend that area of city impact. So, we did not go north of the Phyllis Canal for that
reason and -- but there was quite a bit of discussion at the Planning and Zoning
Commission level. The next -- the next area is that west of McDermott. You have got
an e-mail today from Wendell Bigham. Mr. Bigham was in the office and we started
comparing notes on how many schools he would need in these four square miles. I
noticed that we only had one proposed. His general policy -- and that's what he states
in there -- is that he needs one elementary school per square mile. He also was looking
to have a middle school and a high school somewhere in these four square miles to
serve the area going north. It wouldn't necessarily go east-west, as much as it would go
north to serve the Star area. Because this is -- this is Star Road. So, the city -- or the
Meridian School District boundaries do go quite a bit further north and, then, they go a
little bit south into Canyon County right in this area, but not much, really. So, I wanted
to point that out. There was a comment from one of the folks in the audience that the
handouts that we provided are a little hard to read. I would suggest that they look up at
the screen. The color resolution is a little better up here. This is the low density
designation. This is medium. This is a mixed use, this brown area, as is this hatched
area. This is another mixed use neighborhood center. That's a fire station, I believe.
And that's a park. This is an office designation. Just to help the folks out in the
audience. Okay. Moving onto the next item. The sewer treatment letter -- or the sewer
treatment plant area, although the Planning and Zoning Commission did consider it in
their application and they only changed a small portion of it, there is still a letter
requesting that additional property be removed from that mixed use designation. Next
we will go to the northwest corner of Chinden and Linder.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 11 of 36
De Weerd: Anna, I do think it's important to note that the fire station, the parks, and the
schools, except for those that we have already gotten indication from the school district
from, they are floating.
Canning: Yes.
De Weerd: Because there is an abstract or a building there, it doesn't mean that that is
exactly where it's going to go.
Canning: Yes, ma'am. Thank you for remembering to point that out. You also have a
letter from, I believe, one of these homeowners in this general area expressing some
concern with the mixed use designation along Chinden right at this Eagle -- or Linder
intersection. There has been a developer working in this area and they are just
concerned that the nature of that development and -- expressed general concern with
that designation. Next we will go to the northeast corner -- oh, I should also mention
this. A letter with regard to the southeast corner of Chinden and Linder as well and I
believe that they are stating that they are just in favor of what's being proposed. Okay.
Now, I will move to the northeast corner of Ustick and Linder. And, in particular, it's this
little five acre piece right here. And the person who wrote the letter, I believe, is here to
testify tonight and to my knowledge this issue wasn't raised at the Planning and Zoning
Commission level, but it may have been. I don't recall it. They would like a commercial
or mixed use designation on this property and they have provided you layouts. The -- I
think staff's recommendation would be that the neighborhood center at Venable and
Ustick, we have been really trying to make this neighborhood center work at the half
mile. If we -- we have had discussions with folks in the past and previous applicants
about if we start pulling that commercial to the arterial sections, we will lose the viability
of this half mile neighborhood center area with commercial and higher density
residential and neighborhood-serving uses, similar to those that are being proposed on
this five acres. And, then, finally, staff has noted just a few outstanding issues. One
was at Champion Park -- we tried to go through on the land use map and note where a
planned development had approved a use that -- such as Paramount, where they had
gotten a commercial designation and a high density residential and an office
designation and we tried to change the map to reflect those previous approvals. Well,
one of those that we missed was just right here, this small portion of medium density
residential was actually approved for community commercial in the front and, then,
neighborhood commercial. So, we are going to see some commercial uses there. We
thought it appropriate to amend the map to reflect those previous approvals. The
second one is -- the second and third one are both text amendments or -- with regard to
the text that's before you tonight. One is there was a discussion about arterial planning
in north Meridian that includes state highway discussion, but that state highway doesn't
include Eagle Road. The area before you tonight, actually, has little actual frontage on
Eagle Road, but there is no doubt that Eagle Road plays a huge impact on this area, for
planning for this area in general, and Mr. Siddoway has asked that he be able to provide
you a paragraph regarding discussion on Eagle Road and have that for your next
hearing, should you choose to continue this. Similarly, in the public transportation
section there is a policy regarding valley regional transit stops at activity centers and
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 12 of 36
right now it just calls out those along McMillan Road and we would ask to drop the
reference to McMillan Road, so that it applies to all activity centers or neighborhood
centers as they are shown on the map, not just those along McMillan. As noted at the
beginning of this presentation, staff feels it's very important to get ACHD comments on
the arterials, the collectors, the back-age road, and the storm drainage policies that are
before you tonight. There were a number of amendments in your proposal tonight that
are updates of the arterials list and the road projects list that were in the original Comp
Plan. Staff thought that the more appropriate thing to do, rather than update those on a
regular basis -- although we can, because the arterials are updated annually, the capital
improvements project is updated generally every three years, that maybe it's just more
important to reference the applicable documents in the Comprehensive Plan and not list
them out. Now, the pros and cons of that would be if the city saw a project that they felt
was important that wasn't on the list, they could call it out in the Comprehensive Plan.
But, again, these are very fluid lists as compared to the vision document for the city,
which is a longer term vision and shouldn't be changing from moment to moment. So,
we give that to City Council for their consideration tonight. And the last thing, there are
a number of specific policies that read a lot like standards in what's before you tonight,
and what we would like to do in the future, just so you know, is to bring those -- all those
rather standard-like policies back to you and say, okay, which ones of these do you
want us to incorporate into the Unified Development Code? Which of these are
important to get on every single policy -- project or which of these are more -- a little
more situational, that you want to be able to consider them as part of the development,
but not be held to a specific development standard on those issues. And with that I
believe staff's presentation is over and I can answer any questions you have.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for staff?
Bird: Not at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. This is a Public Hearing and we will now entertain public
comment. Do we have a sign-up sheet, Will? Thank you. Okay. First page we have
Shawn Nickel signed up. Would you like to provide testimony? Please state your name
and address for the record.
Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Shawn Nickel. 839 East Winding Creek Drive,
Suite 201, in Eagle.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nickel: Mayor and Council, I'm here tonight representing several property owners in this
north Meridian area proposal. Specifically, Madam Mayor, I'm representing property
owners -- get my bearings here. Property owners near the -- in the section of North
Chinden Boulevard and west of Black Cat, about 160 acres in here. I'm also
representing a two acre property right here on the northwest corner of Ten Mile and
Chinden. I'm representing the northwest corner of Chinden and Linder Road. And the
southwest corner of Meridian Road and McMillan. Yes. All the properties that I have
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 13 of 36
mentioned, the property owners are in support of the proposed designation changes
that have come from staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. I did submit a
letter to staff last week regarding the two acre piece on the northwest corner of Ten Mile
and Chinden. Anna, can you --
Canning: Zoom in on it?
Nickel: -- zoom in on that? It's this property right here, which is bound by, obviously,
20-26, the non-farm subdivision right here, that's an open space parcel. This is the
Spur Wing golf course. The property owner would like to request that this property right
here be designated as either a neighborhood mixed use or more consistent with the
medium density residential that is proposed to the east in the Spur Wing development
right here. Specifically, the reason for that request is the intersection of Ten Mile and
20-26 and the traffic signal that will be there that would have direct access through that
signal without having to have access onto the highway. So, that's the request -- I don't
know if staff has had a chance to analyze that, so I will let her present that information
to you. And, then, finally, if you could go to the northwest corner of 20-26 and Linder
Road and, again, Madam Mayor and Council, the property owners that I represent on
this property right here, they are in support of this recommended designation and they
do understand that this is a sensitive area, especially when you start abutting existing
county platted subdivisions with larger lots and they do understand that sensitivity and
also understand that transition and compatibility are issues that will be looked at once
the developments would come your way and annexation would be proposed. So, I'd
like to get that on the record. With that, any questions you have?
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Creston Thornton is signed up for. Would you like to provide testimony?
Canning: Madam Mayor, just for those testifying tonight, there is a laser pointer at the
podium for your use. I think it's working.
Thornton: My name is Creston Thornton, I'm one of the developers on the piece that
Shawn Nickel just addressed up here in the northwest corner, and real quickly we'd like
to just address that we are very sensitive, again, to the issues of the people who have
larger pieces of land, parcels around us, and that we plan on doing a very high end
project there, Sun Valley style, and we would also like to propose on the two corners
coming into Meridian, as it will be an entranceway, waterfalls on each corner with a
welcome to Meridian artistic design that is like in some other areas of Eagle and
Meridian where you enter the city. So, we would like to work with you as a Council on
designing that entrance to the city there, as we own both sides of the street and would
like to work it into a very high end project that is also a way that we can low impact the
people around us. Thank you very much.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 14 of 36
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Curt Giles. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Giles: My name is Curtis Giles and I live at 5120 Larry Lane, Council.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Giles: And this afternoon I received a copy of the proposed north Meridian plan and I
noticed that it portrayed some commercial property directly north of myself and I'm at
the corner of -- let's see. I'm in the southeast corner of the intersection of Black Cat and
Chinden. I own this lot right here. It's a five acre parcel. It's lot number three, Compton
Subdivision No.2. There are five lots in this -- six acre, five, five, six and six and this is
the residential urban transition property right now and I have lived on this property for 30
years and to buffer my property from noise and wind from the north, I planted trees in
here over a 30 year period, which are matured now. I have got a hundred trees in
there. Mixed species. And Planning and Zoning advised me there was going to be
frontage road on my property, which would remove all that protection and so forth and I
was taking exception to that part of the plan, because just to keep a buffer there for the
noise and abatement for the commercial area. And my neighbor also has planted a
buffer there along his side of the property there. I would rather not have commercial
there, but if it were to be there, I'd rather it not be on me in terms of providing a frontage
road. If they have to have the frontage road, it should be moved up and evened up here
with the other properties along there. And I had prepared a letter and I wanted to
submit that to you.
De Weerd: Thank you. If you can submit it to the city clerk there.
Giles: Thank you, Council.
De Weerd: Thank you. Barbara Waterfield.
Waterfield: Mayor and Council, my name is Barbara Waterfield. I live at 6100 North
McDermott, which is right off of Chinden and McDermott. Most of my area -- I have
about 30 acres there and my brother owns eight acres adjoining. So, most of my land
will be impacted greatly by this. A lot of my land butts up to the people in Peregrine
Subdivision. I realize that they don't want commercial next to their property and I
understand that. I am in support of the whole Comprehensive Plan in overview. I didn't
realize that -- I guess I'm kind of confused. They are stating that some of the land would
be mixed use and some would be medium density. It just doesn't make sense to me to
have medium density next to an overpass. And I understand the concern of the people
in Peregrine that those are the residents and I would like to work with them, as well as
with the city, to do what is best for everyone. I think it's going to be impossible to make
everyone happy, though. So, with that being said, I am hoping that the Council will
listen to the people in Peregrine, with the understanding that they have to do what is
best for the city as a whole. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 17. 2006
Page 15 of 36
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Next signed up is Ed Jenkins. Thank you.
Jenkins: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Ed Jenkins. I live at 2584
Bullock Avenue in Meridian. And Barbara Waterfield is my sister and I'm talking about
the same area that she's talking about. Within the scope of the mixed use interchange
and the circle of that interchange, my business partners and I own 8.33 acres. It was an
approved cluster subdivision through Ada County, of which we received the blessing of
the City of Meridian as a comment last year when we received approval. We were
ready to start construction last year in late summer when we got our approval. We
were, then, confronted with this planning and zoning change. We are in general
agreement with the corridor and on the original planning and zoning map, all of our
subdivision was mixed use interchange and with the comments from the folks at
Peregrine, I understand their concerns about a buffer zone, but they have, basically,
requested a buffer zone that's equal to the whole distance of their whole subdivision as
far as the width and we have presented a couple letters, one I presented to you on
January 10th and another letter October 19th to Planning and Zoning. And, basically,
we are just asking that that -- if they do get approval for medium -- for their residential
zoning, that that buffer zone not be half the way to McDermott Road, that it be more
reasonable, like 250 feet, and that's basically our position, if you have any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Jenkins: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. Thomas Fassino.
Fassino: Thomas Fassino.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fassino: You're welcome, Madam Mayor. 372 South Eagle Road, Suite 375.
De Weerd: Well, it did remind me -- I will apologize well in advance that I will not
guarantee I will not mess up your name, but it will not be on purpose. As you can see,
with my name, my name gets messed up a lot, so --
Fassino: Madam Mayor, Council Members, again, my name is Thomas Fassino. I'm an
urban planning consultant with Pathway Development and Castera Homes, both in
Boise. First, I would like to say that we support the McDermott Road corridor for the
future state highway connector and we congratulate you for taking a leadership position
in furthering good planning in our community. Wayne Forrey, a colleague of mine,
spoke to your Planning and Zoning Commission about the creation of the public-private
partnership that would work in a collaborative manner with the City of Meridian, ACHD,
other affected agencies and parties, on developing this corridor down McDermott Road
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 16 of 36
for Highway 16. Since we spoke with your Planning and Zoning Commission, many of
the major property owners have approached us in support of this public policy -- or,
excuse me, this public and private partnership. In our experience new state highways
can be built in half the time when these partnerships are developed. We have direct
experience working these partnerships in the Salt Lake City, Utah, area. And we have
also done extensive research in the Texas market. In addition to our research, the
Federal Highway Administration has studies and shows that these partnerships also
mitigate the time to about one half what it would normally take with government
agencies just strictly working on their own. In addition to that, the Federal Highway
Administration gives extra bonus points when it comes to funding during funding cycles
for agencies -- government agencies that are working in these type of partnerships to
help facilitate a more fluid process. So, in conclusion, we feel that this partnership will
help Meridian get the new Highway 16 alignment it desires and accomplish that in a
faster time frame. With that, we agree with the staff's recommendation on the creation
of a collaborative effort between all affected parties and in that spirit Pathway
Development and Castera Homes are willing to organize an initial meeting between all
the affected parties, that being property owners and staff at the City of Meridian level, to
come up with some thoughts or some ideas that can be brought back to the City
Council. We also invite City Council members to join that process if they so do wish to.
With that, I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Wow, that's truly unique. We appreciate that and I'm sure Mr. Siddoway
does, too. Transportation issues are definitely something that projects take a long time
and anything you can do to reduce the amount of time and certainly get all of the
stakeholders together is appreciated.
Fassino: Thank you. You're welcome.
De Weerd: Council, any questions or cheers?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Sorry.
Wardle: One of the questions I have is certainly we are talking about a large portion of
north Meridian, but, in addition, we are talking other communities. Is it your intention to
coordinate, essentially, from the freeway all the way through to connect at Highway 16
where it meets State Street?
Fassino: Madam Mayor, Councilman Wardle, that is, indeed, our intention. We feel
that this is an important project to the community of Meridian, but it does also impact
other counties, Canyon County, and many property owners all the way to 1-84 from
Highway 16. So, yes, that is our intention.
Wardle: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 17 of 36
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fassino: Thank you.
De Weerd: Robert Spriggel.
Spriggel: That is correct.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Spriggel: Madam Mayor. Mr. Chairman.
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address for the record.
Spriggel: Oh. Robert Spriggel. 4005 North McDermott Road in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Spriggel: First of all, I want to say that my remarks are really pointed at the State
Highway 16 extension, the McDermott Road portion of this. I'm here to oppose the CPA
05-004, because of the property in the affected areas. I would be unable to sell my
property at a fair market value as determined by similar property sales in an adjacent
vicinity. We have been told repeatedly by Meridian Planning and Zoning staff that
Meridian has no plans to extend services into the four square mile area bounded by
Ustick -- Ustick and Chinden there, so these four square miles, and we live right here.
Therefore, it appears that the main purpose and the timing of this amendment is to
provide a location for the State Highway 16 extension. The suggestion to extend State
Highway 16 from State Highway 44 to 1-84 is nothing more than one single item on the
governor's current huge wish list. This project has not been approved by ACHD,
Canyon County, or Idaho Transportation Department. This project has not been
approved by the Idaho state legislature. No funding has been allocated or approved.
We all know that politics and politicians change. During the previous meetings of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain public comments, I do not recall
anyone expressing positive views with the current application as it is currently written
with the McDermott Road -- with the property owners on McDermott Road, with the
exception of the gentleman from Pathway Development, who, on October 3rd, stated
that this was good planning and, then, went onto express his concerns -- that of his
clients who hold over 900 acres affected by this plan. The overwhelming consensus of
those who testified during the previous meetings were asking for a reasonable solution,
other than locking up our investments for an unspecified amount of time. No one can
state for sure how long. For example, at the October 17th Meridian Planning and
Zoning meeting, the chairman, David Zaremba, stated at the conclusion of this
discussion on CPA 05-004, that it could be 20, 30, or even 40 years before this road is
built. A number of ITD projects have been on the books for 15 to 25 years and are still
not in the construction phase. What assurance do we have that this will not be the case
in this instance? None. Property owners must be protected from indiscriminate
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 18 of 36
governmental actions that will adversely affect their property values. Therefore, I'm
requesting that the Meridian City Council not approve the entire application until all
references to State Highway 16 alignment using McDermott Road be dropped. Thank
you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
(Applause from the audience.)
De Weerd: If you will, please, withhold that kind of response. Bruce Poe. If you will,
please, state your name and address.
Poe: My name is Bruce Poe. I am with Cole Thorpe Architects at 519 West Front
Street in Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Poe: I am representing a developer who would like to request a modification to the plan
and I believe you have a packet of material that, essentially, lays out the argument in
support of this concept. We have also provided you -- our board is in the way of your
projector, but we have provided you a conceptual idea for the corner of Ustick and
Linder. If you take a look at that particular intersection, we -- right now it is a medium --
it is slated to be medium density residential. We would like consideration for a mixed
use community designation on that corner. If you take a look at the site, at Ustick and
Linder, and the projections from Compass that we have with the traffic counts, we
currently have approximately 9,000 vehicles east-west and 10,000 vehicles in a north-
south direction at that intersection. By 2015 the counts have doubled in the east-west
direction and increased to about -- between 11 and 12 thousand going north-south. In
2030 the counts on the east-west direction have jumped to 22,000, almost tripling the
amount of traffic going east-west and, then, in a north-south direction, again, it has
increased up to 13,000 vehicles. As you can see -- and both roads are slated for future
modification to five lanes. ACHD has also slated that particular intersection for a stop
light. And so you have got five lanes of traffic coming from the north and south, five
lanes of traffic coming from the east and west, all of which is going to be stopped at that
intersection at some point in time. The current designation of medium density
residential on the northeast corner, from our perspective, is not the correct designation.
It's not compatible with the type of traffic that's going to be anticipated in that particular
area. So, our concept is that we are suggesting that we change to mixed use
community, with mixed use. We have got retail and office slated for the corner and,
then, transitioriing back to a residential component to transition into the neighborhoods
to the north. We do have a letter -- we also submitted a letter and I'm going to submit
this additional letter to you that wasn't with your packet. You can pass this down the
line. We asked Thornton Oliver Keller to take a look at the property and give us their
professional opinion on that and in the letter they, essentially, state that the market
demands show that that particular corner would be better used for commercial and
mixed use. It also, they pointed out, as I already have done, that using the mixed use
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 19 of 36
community will, actually, benefit the residential area by providing a buffer between the
heavy traffic on the corner and what is happening -- what would -- with the residential
development to the north. We also have support -- verbal support. We don't have
letters to back this up. We have the potential developer of that property has verbal
support for the concept from the two property owners to the north and to the west and
we also have submitted a letter of support from the current property owner. And with
that I will open it up to questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Joe Hewert.
Hewert: Madam Mayor, Council, my name is Joe Hewert. I'm a property owner --
De Weerd: That was really bad, wasn't it?
Hewert: It gets the job done.
De Weerd: Well, you need to spell it, so everyone knows why I said that. No, you don't.
Okay.
Hewert: My address is 1963 East Blue Tick and I'm just here to -- well, actually, I am on
the southeast corner -- the property on the southeast corner of Linder and Chinden and
I just wanted to voice my support and go on the record in support of the CPA and that's
about it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Hewert: Thank you.
De Weerd: Dan Collins. Okay. Thank you. Richard Kartchner.
Kartchner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, my name is Richard Kartchner, 4325
North Ten Mile in Meridian and I'd like to talk about the area near the water treatment
plant. We are one of those people that have requested to be removed from that
designated area. We have been -- we are surrounded by residential area at this point
and have been for the last 20 years and feel that there is no reason to have such a
large buffer between us and the treatment plant as it is now designated. I represent
myself as a landowner and my neighbor Brent Rasmussen and this is our property and
we'd like to have that green line moved 350 feet this way, is what we are requesting.
We have put in your packet a letter from both of us with some salient points, I think,
about why that's an appropriate thing to do. We think it's best for our neighbors. We
are interested in developing and I don't think we can without a designation from the City
Council. I believe P&Z and staff hesitated to make any kind of additional
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 20 of 36
recommendation, because of the specific statement by City Council to have that area
designated under a restricted area from the sewer treatment plant. So, we'd like to
have that changed if we could to -- well, we want to put in some low density housing
residential. I think we would request a mixed use community, so that we could do
residential and perhaps some commercial frontage to Ten Mile.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further?
Kartchner: That's all I have. Any questions?
De Weerd: Yeah.
Bird: I have none at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Kartchner: Thank you.
De Weerd: Darrell Richards.
Richards: I am Darrell Richards. I live at 6237 Serenity Way -- Serenity Lane in the
Peregrine Heights Subdivision.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Richards: Excuse me. We have come a long ways with this proposal and it's coming
together. The crowd tonight is a lot less hostile than it's been at the P&Z meetings.
You have heard from Barbara Waterfield, as well as Mr. Jenkins, with regards to our
proposal to change the designation at Peregrine Heights Subdivision, as well as the
surrounding area. I think we are in general agreement and still consistent with the
original letter that we submitted. There is a little bit of a misunderstanding in how much
of a buffer Mrs. Waterfield would like to see to our west. The original -- I think it's the
2002 land use map provided low density throughout that area and through the revision -
- the proposed revisions and the injection of Highway 16, obviously, low density doesn't
belong up against an interstate. But I would also suggest that there does need to be a
buffer between the Peregrine Heights Subdivision, which is a subdivision of one acre
lots, homes that are, generally, a half million dollars plus or minus, to any commercial or
mixed use use. So, whether the map is entirely accurate to what needs to be there, I
just ask that there be some medium density housing behind us. Mr. Jenkins proposed
250 feet. I don't know that that's right or wrong. Maybe there is enough room for one or
two cul-de-sacs in there. I'm not a residential developer, so I don't know what that land
requirement would be, but we do ask that there be some medium density housing
between us and the mixed use interchange. I do represent the homeowners
association on all those points.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 21 of 36
De Weerd: I appreciate you clarifying that and I guess this is something that we will find
as we move out and start abutting some of the county subs and Council has been really
conscientious about a transition and I think in a mixed use venue, you will have a
greater landscape buffer than in some regards as you transition from one acre lots into
a medium density, you will probably find that you have a greater landscape buffer if you
abut a commercial type of development and that's just been our experience. And,
certainly, it's supportive by our ordinances and those kind of required buffers, that you
will definitely have an opportunity to comment as any application comes in front of
Council, to make sure that some of those are heard and you will have an opportunity to
voice that again.
Richards: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Thomas Coleman.
Coleman: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, I'm Thomas Coleman, 715 Village Lane. I
work for Coleman Communities and we own approximately 320 acres right in this area
between Black Cat and McDermott on the north and south side of McMillan. I just
wanted to commend staff for working through all the public comments on this
Comprehensive Plan amendment and just that we are in support of it at this point.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Coleman: Thank you.
De Weerd: Val Stack.
Stack: Good evening.
De Weerd: Good Evening.
Stack: My name is Val Stack and I live at 6072 North Serenity Lane and that's in the
Peregrine Heights Subdivision. And I want to commend Darrell for making some
commentary about the buffer zone around us. For most of us that live on that lane, our
biggest issue is really noise. So, although I appreciate your comment that maybe there
is a parking lot and some trees behind us, we would still have the traffic noise and the
congestion that goes with that. So, that's really the big thing. We are not so worried
about little kids in the backyard so much. I'm really here on just a couple of quick points
tonight, just to kind of weigh in a little bit on the Highway 16 through McDermott.
Primarily I'm here because last time we didn't get counted as the tally of the number of
people that were for and against that were written up from the October 17th meeting.
Darrell had represented 15 people and it was counted as one. So, I'm here to say, hi,
I'm here, count me, too, please.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 22 of 36
Stack: Some of the other things is before we all started clapping about Mr. Fassino's
willingness to collaborate, which we think is a commendable thing, is we'd like to
propose that you continue to look at the Star Road opportunity for -- instead of
McDermott. That road along there is mostly agricultural. There aren't so many
residences and you're also not going to have to readdress the environmental impact
issues that you're going to have to deal with as you go over the wetlands once you go
over the top of the hill from Chinden, you know, down into the Star Road area towards
Highway 16. Some of the other things, just kind of wanted to comment that I was the
one who -- maybe you thought this sounded nitpicky, but I'm not color blind and these
maps have three different shades of neon yellow, four similar shades of green, that are
all overlapping and pretty much impossible to read. And the only reason that I comment
on that, other than the fact that that can be fixed for next time, is that instead of this
being posted to the web where we should have been able to download it and print it on
good quality printers that you could be able to tell the difference, this has not been
posted on the web and it causes people to have to leave work, take time off of their job,
to go down and pick up a hard copy. So, I think because last time we also didn't get the
notice on the last meeting and we haven't had notice on this particular meeting -- the
only people that were receiving notice were those who had 40 acres or had spoken at
the meeting and so that's also why I'm here, so I get notice of the next meeting. Okay.
Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stack: Appreciate it.
De Weerd: Ray Warick. Okay. Thank you, sir. Paul Hoyer. Okay. Thank you. Mr.
Endecott. Or Mrs. Endecott. I couldn't read your first name, so I thought I had a 50-50
chance; right? Boy, I'm striking really out tonight.
Endecott: My name is Renee Endecott.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Endecott: And I live at 1450 West Ustick Road. Mayor, City Council, I was very
pleased with the presentation Mr. Poe presented on our property. We have lived there
33 years. Raised our children. Had a marvelous time. Meridian country is no longer
country and at this point the traffic is horrendous, you can't get out of the driveway
unless you go out to Linder Road after 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. We can really no
longer raise animals there like we used to. We had an issue a couple of years ago with
our animals. Neighborhood dogs came and killed eight sheep while we were in McCall.
I don't -- I can't -- don't feel like I can put animals on there with that risk anymore. It's
time to let the city expand and grow and I hope that you would give consideration to this
development. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Derrick O'Neil? Okay. Thank you. Paul Hoyum. Okay.
Maybe I have really messed that one up, but I can't read the writing. So, is there any
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 23 of 36
Paul who would like to provide testimony? Okay. Robert Solito. Okay. Those are the
ones that have signed up to testify. I would open this up. Is there anyone who would
like to provide testimony that hasn't been called on? Okay. Staff. I thought we were
going to get through a whole evening without this.
Turnbull: I have got a laser pointer in my hand.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Turnbull: David Turnbull. Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Turnbull: I am here to encourage adoption of this plan. It was a long time ago, it seems
like, when we started working on this in a collaborative effort and I appreciate staff's
efforts to bring this forward. They took some of the work that we started with and made
appropriate modifications, I believe. I think that what you have before you is a good
plan. I would make a couple of comments on transportation issues, particularly. I think
that it is important if you're going to make some major transportation improvements that
those plans need to be made well in advance. Some discussion was made about the
Compass letter, talking about 26, and I'm afraid, like other areas that we could talk
about, that the horse is out of the barn on that in many respects and, in fact, ITD has
required us to install signals at the half mile intersection there already. If it was going to
be planned for an expressway, that should have been started many years ago. And I
don't see a viable alternative for retrofitting that at this point. If McDermott Road is
going to be the location for a future transportation corridor from the interstate all the way
to the Emmett Highway, then, I think that that needs to be taken into consideration now
before any planning -- or, you know, major development starts in that area, so that the
state isn't faced with expensive retrofits in the future to accommodate that transportation
corridor. With that I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any further testimony?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as public testimony started I realized
I forgot to let Mr. Siddoway talk about some outstanding issues or just minor changes
to the other map that's associated with this application. So, it -- with your indulgence,
we will go back to that portion at this point.
De Weerd: Is that to the circulation map?
Canning: Yes, Ma'am.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 24 of 36
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did review the auto circulation
map as proposed with the new revised land use map and would recommend a handful
of changes to you that we could bring back should there be an additional meeting. The
first change, really, is just a simple clean-up item. There is off of Ustick an existing
collector that we would want to show, just like we have shown all the other existing
collectors going into the subdivisions, so that's just a simple clean up. The second one
up in -- up at McDermott and Ustick. You saw on the land use map the mixed use
interchange designation, if we can go back. The mixed use interchange designation is
up here and skirts down here. What I would propose is that there would -- there is
needed a back-age road on the north side of Chinden along the back of that mixed use
and -- I guess that's all -- it's various mixed use designations, but behind the mixed use
designations that are there we need to add a back-age road that would simply separate
the commercial area from the residential area and provide that access that we need to
get people to and from those uses without having to go out onto Chinden. The same
issue exists over here near Linder Road where you saw a strip of mixed use community.
I would propose that there needs to be a back-age road shown, again, on the north side
of Chinden, that would connect from the half mile location over to Linder Road. As a
removal, there is shown a preferred back-age road that goes through the Peregrine
Heights Subdivision and that made sense when the land uses showed mixed use
regional there. However, that's been changed based on the testimony of -- at Planning
and Zoning and if the mixed use regional designation no longer occurs in that area, I
would propose that the preferred back-age road to the east of the collector be removed.
Over on the east end toward Locust Grove, we have shown a collector connection up to
Chinden at Jericho. In further work with ITD since this was created, we have
determined that the better location for that is actually closer to the half mile per our
policies and would align with -- I can't remember the name of the road to the north. The
subdivision to the north in Eagle has an existing road that stubs out to Chinden. We
would propose that that connection should be in alignment with it and that the Jericho
connection would go away, as ITD intends to have a future center median that would
prevent left turns from that location. So, the collector location would need to be at the
signalized intersection. Finally, down near McDermott and Ustick, there was also a
proposed interchange here with mixed use interchange land use around it right here
and I would propose that, once again, the mixed use interchange designation has -- was
being enlarged on the land use map and the back-age roads that would be associated
with that land use need to be added to the circulation map. That would be all the
changes that I would have and I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Steve?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 25 of 36
Borton: Steve, when you get the comments from ACHD on some of these issues, are
the changes that you have just described, have they been presented to ACHD to be
part of those discussions?
Siddoway: They are on the list of policies that they need to weigh in on. The collectors,
the back-age roads, the arterials, the drainage, and those are the comments that we are
needing back.
Borton: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do have one transportation -- whether Steve answers it or who answers it --
McDermott, I think, is the third road I have heard that's going to connect SH 16 since I
have sat on here. Originally, it was going to come over to Chinden from -- come up and
hit Chinden and come over the Black Cat and -- or to Ten Mile and, then, it was going to
go to Black Cat and come down to Franklin and over to Ten Mile and now it's -- this is
something before I would -- I think Mr. Turnbull stated it properly, is if we are going to
make a corridor, we need to know right now and start proceeding with it as
developments come in, If that's the chosen corridor. Or are we going to change another
three or four times, so -- and I think ACHD -- we definitely need to get the roads before
we make any kind of decision of what type of roads, you know, they want out there and
how we are going to do it, what we are going to do the deal. But I'd like to know definite
that they are going to McDermott. I mean McDermott is the ideal location as far as an
interchange every two miles. Somebody said go over to Star. Well, Star's a good --
Star's a nice road, but how do you put an interchange on? You can't put an interchange
on it, because you got people coming off about the time you have them coming on from
there, they are going off of Garrity. So, it's pretty hard to have a mile -- every mile of
interchange. Anyway, I'd like to -- as a Councilman, I'd like to make sure that
McDermott is the corridor before we adopt any plan going out there, Steve.
Siddoway: Thank you.
De Weerd: And I guess -- I think it's important to note that this wasn't arbitrarily picked
from the governor's office as a connection north or south, it came -- it has been
discussed over the last year and a half in the Communities in Motion. It's kind of
surfaced in a lot of the public participation that we have had in that and what has really
supported it and with the Canyon County Highway District and the City of Nampa, is the
location between Ada and Canyon County, as well as the lack of development along
that corridor. So, there would be less disturbance. Star has a number of residential
developments up and down it and so this -- this corridor seems to be at least the most
preserved as far as what is built today. And I know there has been an effort to get
planning dollars by ITD to make sure that it is planned as expedient as possible, so it
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 26 of 36
answers some of the landowners' questions along that area. So, I think what we are
seeing in this corridor, Steve -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is it has surfaced rather
rapidly and it's already gotten funding for a study, because of the sensitivity of the
landowner issues and being able to move forward with their own personal plans.
Siddoway: That's correct. It's been as -- Commissioner -- or Councilman Bird noted,
there has been a connection for State Highway 16 shown for years. It's been debated
where it should connect, Ten Mile, Black Cat, McDermott, but this McDermott
connection does reflect the latest planning through the long range transportation
planning process of Communities in Motion. The City of Meridian's staff certainly
support that as a preferred location, as opposed to Black Cat or Ten Mile, for many
reasons as noted in the staff report. Rather than dividing our community, it goes to the
edge and it is the most preserved in terms of the existing development along it and in
terms of interchanges along Interstate 84, it does set up the logical two mile progression
of interchanges where you would have an interchange at Meridian Road, Ten Mile,
McDermott, and, then, Garrity in Nampa. To move it one mile either direction would set
up a spacing that would not be allowed under today's ITD policies.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Mr. Bird. Okay. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, there was about five issues that came
up during the public testimony that I wanted to just give a little more comment on.
Some of them were kind of -- the person giving the comment asked for staff's input.
The first, Mr. Nickel asked if staff had had an opportunity to look at this area. And, I'm
sorry, I forgot to include -- oh.
De Weerd: Oh, that makes it a lot clearer.
Canning: Sorry about that. See if I guessed right. I'm sorry, I forgot to include Mr.
Nickel's letter in my first presentation. The piece of property in question was this one
right here and they wanted some nonresidential designation, whether that be mixed use
or commercial. This site presents a number of challenges. There is a small access
road that comes over to an undeveloped portion of Spur Wing that was originally -- their
concept plan that they used in the marketing of the project has always shown this as
kind of townhouses. And, then, the question is does this become a road out, access
out, which would tend to encourage a lot of traffic through that small portion of the
development, or do you keep it here. And that's very much tied into what happens on
this piece of property, whether or not you had a light there. My general thoughts on the
development of this area would be that this connection is not likely to happen and,
therefore, it may not be appropriate to have a very small bit of commercial property
there at that mile location with little reference to the surrounding areas. We tend to try
and get a larger concentration of commercial uses than just one single property and that
would kind of tie in with some of the comments that I had about property that Mr. Poe
spoke about on Ustick and Linder just over this way with this property here. They do --
you know, we often hear that about these arterial intersections, that they are just not
suitable for residential properties, yet we see example after example, even along Eagle
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 27 of 36
Road, where you have very nice residential developments that are along the arterial
connections. And, again, staff has been working towards achieving that vision in our
current Comprehensive Plan of having a neighborhood center here. That neighborhood
center will have a hard time surviving if there are other commercial uses pulling away
from that half mile location. There was -- Mr. Spriggel expressed concern about what
he would be able to do on his property by being put into this area of city impact and I did
want to make it a little bit clearer as to how this mayor may not affect it, based on what
you can do in Ada County currently. Currently, this property is zoned rural residential in
Ada County, which allows you to do five acre lots or a non-farm subdivision. I'm sorry.
Ten acre lots or a non-farm subdivision, which allows you one unit per five acres. That
would be the most dense development that you would be able to obtain on this, unless it
were part of a planned community. If it were brought into the area of city impact, there
is opportunity to do something called a cluster subdivision, which we heard reference on
the Waterfield property and it allows one unit per five acres. So, really, the development
rights to the property change very little with regard to full optimal build out between the
two designations. They are really very much identical. The standards for development
are actually a little more lenient in the cluster subdivision than they are in the rural
residential, non-farm subdivision. When we first started looking at this four acres, the
Governor had not even mentioned the Highway 16 and the GARVEE bonds. Staff
looked at this as an opportunity to expand our area of city impact to really look towards
a long range vision of the city and we felt that these four acres were more appropriately
folded into the community of Meridian than they would be into Star or Canyon County,
for that matter. And so we are just looking to a long range vision of the city, how to best
plan for this area, and kind of bring it into the community of Meridian. The other
statement I wanted to make -- when I was talking about the land use colors, I didn't
mean to offend the woman who had asked about them, I was trying to acknowledge that
the colors were very difficult to read on the handout we had today and that if you looked
up here it was easier to tell. So, certainly, I wasn't trying to minimize her concerns
regarding that. There are 12 shades of green on that handout that I got today. It's a
fault with color copiers. They have a hard time with greens. This map has been posted
on the web for several months now. I apologize that she wasn't able to find it, but it has
been available on the web. With that, I'll answer any questions the Mayor and Council
may have of staff.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, how long would it -- is it going to take to get ACHD and all these reports
back that we are going to need or -- can we get it in a week or -- I, for one, am not going
to feel comfortable until we get the road designations and stuff, because I don't want to
be coming back visiting this every six months.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor and Councilman Bird, I spoke with Gary Inselman at ACHD
this afternoon and he suggested that if our next hearing was in two weeks, they could
have comments to us by then.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 28 of 36
Bird: So, in other words, we are not -- our 31 st meeting is going to be a workshop, I
believe -- isn't that right, Council President? So, February the 7th would be your
recommendation, Steve?
Siddoway: Yes.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Hey, Steve, can you also -- there was some testimony about
concern about a collector road that was going to take out a bunch of trees on some
private property. Can you address that?
Siddoway: The collector roads generally are not roads that would be built by ACHD or
the city coming in and forcing them into a location, they would -- they are expected by
the city to be built on properties as they develop. Assuming the properties to the south
do not redevelop and stay residential as they are shown on the Comp Plan, I would
expect to see that collector on the parcel to the north and as long as his trees are fully
on his own property, I don't see that the collector would take the trees out. It should be
on the -- on the commercial property that would be the one requiring that back-age
road.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, do you have any questions for staff at this
point?
Bird: I don't, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, do you want to continue this Public
Hearing? We have until February the 7th, 2006, and get back as strictly for -- do you
want to do it strictly for the road situation and locations, collectors, whatever we are
going to have?
De Weerd: I would.
Bird: We don't want to open it back up for everything, do we?
De Weerd: I believe Mr. Baird could tell us what your options are.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, after the close of the public testimony
tonight, you did hear some new facts about the auto circulation and an indication that a
new map would be produced. It's my understanding that that would be available in
advance of the next hearing. And the other possible issue would be for those ACHD
comments. It would be my recommendation, if it is the Council's desire to continue this
hearing, to make it a continuation for those purposes only and to specifically limit new
testimony to the new issues that would be raised.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 29 of 36
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Baird, is that also where you would recommend deliberation on any of
these other issues or shall we do that at this point in time?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my recommendation would be to begin
your deliberations after the close of all of the testimony. So, because of the intertwined
nature of the transportation with all the other issues, that would be my recommendation.
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, what would you like to do?
Bird: Is there any other testimony?
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any additional testimony? Sir, If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Wood: My name is Ed Wood and I live at 6110 West Ustick.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wood: And I had notice of one meeting and that was in early October. That meeting
was canceled. My property is going to be pretty highly impacted, because I live within
the circled area on -- near the intersection of McDermott and Ustick. And I also just
found out there is a planned back-age road, which might encircle my property, as well
as the mixed use zoning, which I'm not really sure what that means. I think it would be
nice if somehow I could get on the mailing list and be able to find out about things that
might impact my property. I live -- I live in this property right here. And I now see that
the back-age road is planned to go around the property and I'm not even real sure
exactly what I am able to do in this new marked area. I don't know if I can sell, build, or
exactly what my options might be.
De Weerd: This will give you an opportunity -- it sounds like it will be continued -- to talk
with staff, ask them about the back-age road and what that designation means. And it
sounds like if Council continues it, it will be open for public comment regarding
transportation-related comments. So, you could certainly provide your thoughts at that
time.
Wood: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. If you could ask it of staff -- okay. Certainly.
Stack: I just have a quick clarification question to ask Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 30 of 36
Bird: Yes.
Stack: You had made the comment that if we had the road at every two miles be the
major juncture, that that would put Garrity Road as an interchange area, yet you had
previously said that Star Road, which, you know -- or Can-Ada Road in that whole area
-- I mean that's the other end of the same road. So, why would it be appropriate at one
end and not the other end?
Bird: Well, no, Star Road is Robinson Boulevard to me.
Stack: Okay. Robinson Road.
Bird: It's one mile -- it's one mile from Garrity exit. You start three-quarter mile back
getting off to get off at Garrity and, then, you're going to put an interchange, people
coming down, it looks like -- if you're going on. If you put an interchange on Star Road,
you don't have the room. And I don't believe ITD or the federal will let you do it every
mile, which McDermott is the ideal -- every two miles.
Stack: So would --
Bird: You'd hit Ten Mile.
Stack: Uh-huh.
Bird: Then you got Black Cat and you would skip Black Cat and, then, you'd go to
McDermott and, then, you skip -- well, Can-Ada isn't quite a mile.
De Weerd: No. That's Star-Robinson.
Bird: And, then, to Robinson's a mile and, then, you have got Garrity. But it would be --
I think it would be a safety nightmare to be having people coming on at Robinson
Boulevard and getting off at Garrity. I mean you'd just have to keep a wrecker and a
police officer and ambulance there.
Stack: What about the Can-Ada -- you know, since that's the highway -- or the county
split area --
Bird: The Can-Ada?
Stack: -- because that would be an option.
Bird: And, you know, like I stated earlier, since we -- since that has been discussed, it's
been three roads that I know of and now it's McDermott. And, I don't know, I just would
like to know which one it is. Robinson Boulevard does not work. I mean Nampa, to be
truthful, wanted to put an interchange there, it was said no. They are just too close.
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 31 of 36
Stack: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: And I think, ma'am, that those were all considerations in the long range
transportation plan with the Communities in Motion and it just reiterated the every two
mile policy that ITD had with the interchanges and Can-Ada does connect to Garrity.
So, it already has an interchange.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Question for Mr. Baird. On the options that we have got, my inclination with not
having ACHD's input on some of the changes, an auto circulation map, changes that we
are going to see, I'm not sure how you can limit public comment at a continued hearing
just towards transportation issues. It seems like it's a slippery slope of where you draw
the line and you run the risk of having someone, you know, start talking about
transportation and it kind of sneaks into something else and -- I don't see how that's
feasible. I mean it's my inclination to error on the side of having duplicative testimony
versus, you know, keeping someone from talking about an issue that concerns them.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Borton, I certainly
understand your concern and I don't want to quash somebody's ability to testify.
However, I wouldn't want to have the continued hearing result in the people need to feel
that they have to come back one more time and say exactly what they said tonight.
Certainly, you will hear all testimony -- all relevant testimony at the continued hearing,
but, again, for those people who review the materials as they are presented, the ACHD
response, the newly revised map, for those individuals it doesn't change what they have
already said, there is no need for them to come back, because what they have said is in
the record. So, when I do make a recommendation that it be limited to those issues, of
course, it's with the understanding that there is some intertwined and necessarily wiggle
room and it's all up to the discretion of the chair. The Mayor.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess I would ask staff if you can get all relevant information or new
information on line as you get it, so the public -- we will continue this to -- if Council does
provide that in their motion to February 7th and be looking at our website for related
materials or if you don't have web access, certainly, go to our city clerk's office or
Planning and Zoning and that information would be available for review as well.
Stack: Okay.
De Ween:!: The information can be found under which department on our website?
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 32 of 36
Siddoway: If you go to the city's website, which is www.meridiancity.org, you click on
Departments and Planning and Zoning. Then, on the left-hand side of the Planning and
Zoning page, towards the bottom, there is a link to North Meridian Area Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. If you click on that it will take you to a page with all of the relevant
documents, both the original ones at the P&Z and the updated ones for the meeting
tonight.
De Weerd: Can you kind of earmark them new, so people know--
Siddoway: They have dates on them.
De Weerd: Okay. That's even better. Okay. Sir, would you like to provide testimony?
If you will, please, state your name and address.
Anderson: My name is Scott Anderson. I own this piece of property on this other
corner.
De Weerd: And your address is?
Anderson: I live at 500 River Heights Drive in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Anderson: But I own this other piece of property.
De Weerd: There is a pointer there in front of you.
Anderson: Oh. Okay. This piece of property right here.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Anderson: My question -- this may have already been answered, so I apologize. I
came in late. And maybe you have already discussed this. But I noticed that on the
28th of December Nampa city had an article in the Statesman about building sewer
around this corner right here. How does that -- I know that Meridian is putting a
moratorium on development of this property. How does that work out that Nampa is
going ahead and doing things, but Meridian is not? Is there ever discussion between
your Council and their Councilor is there some kind of coordination that's going on?
De Weerd: Who wants to speak for Nampa?
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd have to check up on what Nampa is
doing there. I do know that we have met with them as soon as three months ago and,
basically, they are going to stay on the Canyon County side and we are going to stay on
Meridian City Council
January 17, 2006
Page 33 of 36
the Ada County side. As far as any sort of moratorium, I'm not aware of any moratorium
on sewer in that area.
Anderson: Okay.
De Weerd: Yeah. Our efforts are not through moratorium, we are expanding our sewer
treatment plant right now and can't bring on new land until that is brought into operation,
which is two years. I believe that the article indicated -- and, certainly, the elected
officials have indicated on our long-term transportation planning, that their intent is also
to preserve that corridor for planning purposes, so that they know what is needed. I
don't know if they will commit clear up to that corner. That is what they have said
publicly.
Anderson: That was my question is if the highway department is trying to keep this
option open, why is Nampa going ahead and developing it, so -- no one knows here.
Okay.
De Weerd: I can't answer that.
Bird: Somebody could find their phone number for you.
Grady: Madam Mayor, if it's tabled, I can sure gather that information.
Bird: Thank you, Len.
De Weerd: Thank you, Len. Okay. Council, do I have a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we continue Public Hearing on CPA 05-004 to February 7th, 2006.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue this to February 7th to receive the
transportation-related reports. Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: We will take a five minute break and invite Councilman Rountree back in.
(Recess.)