Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 17, 2005 P&Z Minutes ~ ~.. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 52 of 88 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. Anyopposed? We have two in favor and one opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Borup: That should also tell City Council something, that it wasn't unanimous and that they usually take those type of things in their consideration, too. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you all for coming and participating and this will go onto City Council. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Typically we take a short break around 9:00 o'clock and we have gone well beyond that, so we are going to take a break. We will reconvene in about ten minutes. (Recess. ) Item 5: Public Hearing: 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-Regional, by the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance - Land at or near the northeast and southeast corners of South Eagle Road and Victory Road: Zaremba: Welcome back, everybody, and thank you for your patience through the other hearings. Let the record show that the three Commissioners that were here before the break are again here. And let's proceed. I will open the Public Hearing for CPA 05-001, and this, again, is a request to amend the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan and we will begin with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. This area should look somewhat familiar to you. We are talking in this application just south of the area on the previous application. This vicinity map shows just south of Overland Road. If we need to, we can certainly go back to a larger view, but this vicinity map is cut off a little short of Overland. Copperpoint Way is the road shown here at the top of the screen. South Eagle Road. Easy Jet. Victory Road. This is the area, the general vicinity. Thousand Springs Subdivision is on the west side of Eagle Road. Sutherland Farms Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 53 of 88 Subdivision is shown platted here, as well as this un-platted area to the east. Southstone Subdivision is the L-O, limited office zone, in the purple. And this area here is also Sutherland Farms Subdivision that was approved as a planned development and this area was approved with a use exception to allow nonresidential uses, although none have been submitted to the city at this point, but that is what their planned development allowed. So, that's the general area. The request before you is to amend the Comprehensive Plan from medium and low density residential to mixed use regional. So, here is a shot of the Comprehensive Plan as currently adopted and the yellow reflects medium density residential. The green represents low density residential. So, green is generally south of Eagle -- of Victory Road, as well as these county lots here on the northwest corner of Eagle and Victory, also low density, and, then, medium density for both Thousand Springs and Sutherland Farms. The mixed use regional designation is shown in brown and that is what they are proposing to extend to the south of the Ridenbaugh Canal, which is generally shown here in this cross-hatched area. There is a fire station -- fire substation number four is under construction, which is shown here as a symbol, just right at the Ridenbaugh. This slide shows the applicant's proposal as submitted in their application. The outlined area -- again, here is Eagle Road along the left side of the screen. They are proposing this area to be amended to mixed use regional. The applicant is the south Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance, who is represented by Mr. Wayne Forrey and they have -- they comprise ten tax parcels and five owners. The properties -- the property here right at the southeast corner of Victory and Eagle and, then, as you head north, that includes four more property owners to this parcel here. So, it includes all of that. Now, they have in their application, which is allowed, proposed to change the Comprehensive Plan for a greater area than we actually have received application -- or, I'm sorry, notarized consent from the other owners, but we have asked that the applicant address that in a little bit more deal in our staff report. So, I just wanted to clarify that while this -- the applicants are not all of the property owners that are shown here, they are just representing this area down at the south end. There are approximately -- acres owned by the applicant and about another 30 acres north to the Ridenbaugh Canal. The depth of their proposal is about 800 feet and it's, essentially, from Eagle Road to the west boundary of Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Just go back here. The existing zoning is shown on our first slide here and, as you can see, most of the property that they are proposing to amend in white here is -- represents unincorporated land. All of the color represents the annexed land. So, some of this -- these properties on the north end are existing city limits and -- but they are just -- they are proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan. So, just to clarify there that the majority of this -- it would not affect, per se, the uses on this approved annexed and zoned land, but it would have a bigger affect on these areas down here on the south. The application, unlike the previous Public Hearing, does not include a specific proposal or a concept plan at this point. They are just proposing to change the future land use map. They have stated in their application that their intention, if approved, is to develop a mixed-use business campus, not unlike some of the product that you see in the Silverstone-EI Dorado. Just a few other points to kind of familiarize you with the area. There is approximately three and a half -- 3.2 to four dwelling units per acre. If you take -- about approximately a three-quarter mile radius that's overlooking that, you can see Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 54 of 88 here in Sutherland Farms, this is a little bit higher density product for them up here and, then, they do have some larger lots as they go east. Thousand Springs Subdivision has generally the 8,000 square foot lot averages. If you take the average lot size of all the lots in Sutherland Farms that abut the unincorporated area, the average lot size is 9,100 square feet. There is about two million square feet of warehousing, retail, entertainment, hospitality type uses approved for the Silverstone-EI Dorado combined. Let's see. There is -- as you know, there has been approval on this parcel that is right at the very end of the slide here for a senior assisted living facility. So, I wanted to point that out, that while it's shown as unincorporated, it has, indeed, been annexed and approved for, as you well know. There is also a pending application before the city for the property here at the southwest corner of Victory and Eagle for residential, some attached multi-family products, as well as single family product. And, then, Kingsbridge Subdivision, which is just off the screen down here, was also another recent approval in the area for a subdivision that has approximately -- I think it was about 2.3, 2.4 dwelling units per acre, so -- the McDonald Lateral doesn't show on here, but it's a fairly sizeable irrigation canal that does kind of run from southeast to northwest here across -- I believe it's the Carpenter's property. And I will just touch on a couple of the highlights from the staff report. Starting on page six, we list kind of four main topic areas that we feel are important for the Commission to review as part of this application. The first is over- supply of mixed use and commercial land. Staff really does not find that there is -- that there is good evidence presented in the application to warrant the change in terms of just needing more mixed use or commercial land in the area. There have been real estate studies, as well as the Chamber of Commerce reflecting high office vacancy rates. We have some concern about that, as well as over-designating commercial land. The Southstone Subdivision, as I mentioned, has about eight lots, already designated for limited office, as well as about, let's see, five acres there on Sutherland Farms that's got potential. So, there is already land designated for nonresidential in this area, just to point that out. And so we just don't see that it warrants any additional land down there for that use. There is 250 acres of vacant or significantly undeveloped land within a mile and a half of this that's designated already for mixed uses or commercial and that does not include EI Dorado or the Silverstone. Excuse me. That's primarily the land along -- between the freeway and Overland Road, as well as we have neighborhood centers that are designated along Victory to the west. The second major area I wanted to point out is the transportation issues. This got quite a bit of discussion on your last hearing, so I won't talk about that too much. Suffice it to say that Ada County Highway District did not submit any detailed report for this application, since there was no exact development proposed. They didn't have, really, the ability to generate traffic numbers. Generally speaking, they did state that the Eagle Road north of Easy Jet has 13,838 vehicle trips per day. I would qualify that to say that's a number that is a year old. So, given some of the recent approvals, certainly that's going to be upwards of probably 15,000. Victory east of Eagle has 6,000 and Victory west of Eagle has 4,600, which, again, are older numbers. They do have programmed 2007 to complete the widening of Eagle Road from Ridenbaugh to Victory with a signal. It's a 2007 project that is budgeted and planned for. Compatibility and design issues. I think two major points there that staff wants to point out is that there is really 800 feet of depth, essentially, is forcing a strip type development. You could get a road, potentially, down the center Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 55 of 88 there, but in terms of -- the city's general policies have been to discourage any kind of strip type development. We think that having a node and developing in the center is a preferred style of development pattern. Obviously, the big issue here is the compatibility with both of the residential subdivisions, as well as the lower density type county projects on the south side of Victory. Now, I wouldn't -- it would not behoove staff to say that never do you have nonresidential next to residential, because that's the very nature of mixed use and there is allowances in the code that help to buffer those kind of noise and lights and mitigate those kind of issues, so -- but I think from a compatibility standpoint, we think that -- good planning needs to take in both sides of the street and, obviously, the west side of Eagle Road, for the most part, is built out. Thousand Springs Subdivision is there. And so you're really talking about one-sided commercial development and we would argue that the Ridenbaugh Canal probably makes a very clean, very nice distinguishing marker in this area for residential to mixed use. One last point is the -- on the market and assessed value issues. We did contact - - the applicant did address the several points in their application. We did call the Ada County assessor's office and they did confirm that clearly from their standpoint they are looking at highest and best use and it could be argued that some of this property, particularly at the intersection, could be appraised and assessed at the highest and best use being something other than residential. Secondarily, on that point, the -- whether or not residential is appropriate in this area, just out of curiosity, I asked them what the ownership changes were in Thousand Springs, since Thousand Springs has the longer history here, I just choose to ask them about Thousand Springs and of the -- of eight residential lots that actually back up to Eagle here, only one has had a change in ownership since the houses were occupied in about 2000. So, I guess one interpretation of that is that residential seems to be an acceptable and a use that people find acceptable in this area, even given Eagle Road. I won't go into anymore on the staff report. I did want to point out that we -- for the record, that there have been letters received from Turner, Dr. Roberts, Bonner, Krusinsky, and Simpson. And there is also a petition with 107 signatures in opposition to the project. Our recommendation is to deny the application. We do support a change to the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the existing uses that are already approved for the two areas that I discussed earlier along Easy Jet. We also think that the corner property, given that the other three corners have mixed -- have medium density residential already designated, that to have all four corners have the same designation probably makes some sense. So, we would support a change from low density residential there to a medium. And I think I'll end staff's comments with that. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: I was just curious on the two commercial pieces already in this area that we are considering. Were those previous Comp Plan amendments or were they -- I don't think those came -- those came through before I was on the Commission. I was just -- they seem out of place. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 56 of 88 Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe they were approved before you came on, Commissioner, and they were both approved as planned developments, which, you know, up to 20 percent of the land area could be nonresidential. So, for Sutherland Farms, that's how they -- that's how they were approved as office for that, was because they had enough area that 20 percent of their project could be office. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: The Southstone project was not a Comprehensive Plan Amendment either, but was approved through the exception that our Comp Plan allows for properties that -- sorry. We were just discussing how that was -- because our current Comp Plan policy says if you have a lot that's three acres or less and you front an arterial and it's designated residential, you can actually request an office without filing for an amendment. In this case they have filed for Southstone at the exact same time that we were running that Comprehensive Plan amendment through and Council chose to allow the larger than three acres, which in this case I believe it's about five or six, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant. Forrey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Forrey. My address is 1952 South Wild Creek in Boise. 83709. And I'm the owner of Pathway Development Company, where we are an urban planning consulting firm and I'm here tonight representing the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance and if I could ask my assistant over here and your staff to load -- I have got a presentation with some maps and text I'd like to put up on the screen and, then, I can click through this pretty efficiently. I know I'm under a time limit. Zaremba: Okay. Forrey: Give them a moment to load that. Those are supposed to be fast technology chips. Zaremba: Electronics are wonderful, aren't they? Forrey: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: That's why we call you Mr. E-mail, Dave. Zaremba: Yeah. Thanks. Newton-Huckabay: He doesn't have e-mail. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 57 of 88 Forrey: Well, I can say this, that the five families that compose the ownership of the alliance are here tonight. The Thomason family,. the Bauman family, the Sharp family, the Carpenter family, and the Axlerod is in California, but they have a family member that's here representing them as well tonight. So, I would be happy to -- I have got -- my first map is to show you where their properties are. Get that loaded up. Okay. You see the green bar there and there you see the Thomason family at the top and, then, all the way down to the bottom is the Axlerod family here on the south side of Victory Road. So, here -- this is what composes the property owners alliance. And the reason that we made the application clear to the canal is because we wanted to have a regional approach, to be contiguous. You know, as an urban planner, I don't feel it's appropriate, sometimes, to just do spot kind of analysis or spot zoning or spot -- especially in a comprehensive plan amendment. So, our approach was to go up to here and come clear to the south side in a bubble concept to show a Comprehensive Plan designation that took a regional approach. Okay. If we could go next. Let me go through some of the city staff report elements out of the staff report. In the staff report it mentions that the immediate vicinity is transitioning rapidly to urban scale development and that's correct. Three years ago when your Comprehensive Plan was adopted -- and it started a year and a half before that. So, four and a half years ago this area was not in this type of transition, but now we have this 1-84 Eagle Road interchange less than a mile away and it has significant influence on the area. And that's noted in your staff report. The Silverstone project, the EI Dorado project, have really accelerated the demand for office and business use because of proximity to 1-84 and Eagle Road. In the staff report it also says the purpose of the mixed-use designation is to look at highly visible transitioning areas and, then, the city encourages flexible design and we feel we meet that. We are definitely in a transition area. Your staff report says that you can bump up from medium density to high density residential, that it's possible to do that. The staff report also says that 18.7 percent of your impact area is commercial and mixed use and they make a point that maybe we have enough already. But I'm going to give you some information tonight that I think will show you that we need yet even more in the impact area here in Meridian. And, then, your staff report says it's possible to design mixed use projects to compliment adjoining residential and we do adjoin residential and you do that through landscaping buffers, restricted hours, lighting and noise restrictions. That comes out of your ordinances. And so we are going to talk about that tonight, too. Right now the Communities in Motion and Blueprint for Good Growth is going forward and here are three things that are really driving -- here we are in this area. Of course, 1- 84 is a major corridor for business and commerce in this Valley. There is a proposed commuter rail from downtown Nampa out here to the Micron Area and downtown Boise, and, then, the proposed bus rapid transit here that goes from Middleton back to Boise. But Eagle Road is right in the center of all that. So, there is tremendous emphasis by Boise businesses and Meridian businesses to get close to the center of the valley. Now, here is a project in Caldwell, it's called Sky Ranch, and it's -- if you could hit the back space button there. It's right in this area here and it's right next to the freeway in Caldwell and 40 percent of the lots were sold before they even paved the streets, because there has been a backlog of unavailable space next to the freeway in Meridian and so businesses have been pushing west. So, it's in our best interest as a community here in Meridian to capture that growth. I mean that is an economic development .... Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 58 of 88 opportunity for Meridian, because you're in the center of the valley. I mean we -- obviously, we want jobs in Canyon County as well, but our Comprehensive Plan needs to reflect the central position of Meridian in the whole valley for commerce. Okay. Next. Here is an article recently in the Statesman in late September and it shows the new hospital going up in Eagle next to Eagle Road, State Street there in Eagle, and the article goes on to make some very key points. We are not building office space fast enough to keep up with demand and that is at these primary corridors, like Eagle Road, like State Street, Highway 44. But, you know, in Meridian I have heard the Planning and Zoning and even some Council members and staff say, well, we are getting rumblings that we may be overbuilt with office. That might be true in secondary sites, sites that are not on major high traffic corridors. And oftentimes when we get kind of stuck on land use, the implication is, well, let's just put offIce there and it will work. But those are usually secondary sites and I was here about al month ago when you had an application at Meridian and Ustick Road that shows on the Comprehensive Plan neighborhood commercial and the applicant chose to do single family detached residential, because they said that it was a secondary site for commercial uses, it was not on a primary corridor. And so they chose to do subdivisions on areas that you have designated for a neighborhood commercial center, again, because that's secondary. We have a strong housing market, so there is an increase for office and services and the office park, out of this article -- this was a group of experts that came into Boise and talked about the real estate and commercial market -- they said the majority is going to continue to be on 1-84 and Eagle Road corridors. Those are the primary commerce corridors and these other secondary arterials are not seeing that kind of demand for commercial and office. Okay. Let's look at your Comprehensive Plan and the mixed use that you have. Right now 36 percent of the land you have designated for future regional mixed use is in this area. Here is the Ten Mile interchange. The Federal Highway Administration has been talking about funding cuts on this highway bill, because of Katrina. This thing is probably eight, maybe nine years out, unfortunately. I mean we need Ten Mile interchange today. But it's out there. Years away. The next spot you have is an area that doesn't have sewer and it won't have for several years. So, 46 percent of the mixed use regional that's in your Comprehensive Plan is not developable today. Up here we have 27 percent and here is North Eagle Road and, then, here we have 27 percent. So, this is really balanced along Eagle Road. And this is south of 1-84 here, but there is zero mixed-use community land use in your current Comprehensive Plan. It's all regional right here. And so I want to talk about mixed-use community here in a few minutes. Here is some land use and some acquisition issues that are facing the alliance property owners every day. These are things they have to live with. Realtors almost every day come to them and say I have got buyers for your property for commercial for use and they want to be on Eagle Road, they don't want to be on a minor arterial. ACHD has been working for months and months with each of the alliance property owners to acquire land for this new five lane arterial and the appraisers and the appraisal report that ACHD has prepared all say that the highest and best land use is commercial. Every one of those appraisals come to them and say it's commercial land. They have investors, developers, and realtors and even appraisers working for public agencies that want to acquire this land, because of its proximity to 1- 84 for business-park and the Ada County appraisers even say commercial use. Your Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 59 of 88 staff is correct when they contacted -- call the Ada County Assessors office and they will say, yes, we envision that commercial value. In terms of future uses, we took a long look at would this area be appropriate for housing. The alliance members have attempted to sell their land and developers have said we cannot buy it for R-8 or R-15 subdivisions, we just don't feel there is enough buyers that would live on that high traffic corridor for a standard straight subdivision. But we think we'd like to build apartments. That's the kind of input they have been getting lately. It's an R-15, which is your medium density residential, that's 345 units of apartment housing and that's minimum. And when you take an apartment developer with the land values that are in those appraisals, it gets up to about 630 units and that is achievable and your staff pointed that out in your staff report, that these property owners would not have to amend the Comprehensive Plan, they could come to the City of Meridian and say we want to put medium to high density housing and the staff has a procedure where you can bump up to the next zone up and so you could get R-40 zoning here, high density zoning, and get at least 600 units and that would be a mega apartment development in this area. And we sat down and thought about that and as owners and in talking to neighbors, we came to the conclusion that these mega apartments could negatively change the character of the neighborhood and that's, really, what's at issue here. If you have an apartment development versus a nice office business park, those are the fundamental things we have been talking about. So, we developed some -- a guiding principle and -- we developed seven guiding principles that we handed out to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting, which we had in mid September and I'd like to hand out a copy of that to each of the Commission members. Let me quickly read that into the record. This is a copy of the document we handed out to various neighbors and guiding principle number one: The alliance property owners have joined together for a unified development that is coordinated with good master planning, rather than individual site development without coordination. And I know many times the city has lamented the fact that they wished a group of owners would get together, rather than onesy, twosy or cherry pick, you know, an area. So, right from the get go we said that's a guiding principle. Number two. The development approach will be to feather land use intensity from residential to professional office and business uses. The most intensive land uses will occur along Eagle Road and Victory Road, with less intensive land use farther away from the arterials. Number three. The alliance properties located next to the residential portion of Sutherland Farms Subdivision, to provide either a residential buffer with same size lots or a 40 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Sutherland Farms. If the landscape buffer is selected, then, the Sutherland Farms homeowners association will be invited to assist with landscape design and selection of vegetation plantings. You know, we recognize that we have residential neighbors and, so, again, a guiding principle here is to respect that fact and try and work with the land use around us. Guiding principal number four. Alliance Properties desire to construct a landscape buffer along the east side of Eagle Road, similar to the landscape buffer on the west side of Eagle Road. Landscape buffers will also be constructed along Victory Road. Number five. Alliance Properties desire to construct an internal roadway system that runs north and south to minimize curb cuts to Eagle Road. This internal roadway will connect Easy Jet Drive with Victory Road and provide good internal access. If you recall -- maybe we will have another map up here in a bit -- the Easy Jet has a stub Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 60 of 88 street to the south that goes through their commercial site and so there is already thinking by the city and ACHD that there would be an internal roadway system there. Number six. The intent of the Alliance is to facilitate a well planned neighborhood compatible office and business-park. The Alliance will evaluate proposals from like- minded developers. They have had many proposals from realtors to investors to developers, but they are saying on record here that they want to work with someone that agrees with these guiding principles. And, No.7, the Alliance believes there are advantages in selling their properties to one development entity, to insure a coordinated development plan consistent with these guiding principles. And, then, the second page is a copy of a letter from Kowallis and Mackey and one of the property owners -- this is just a sample letter that they received from Commercial brokers and developers stating that this is an area they would envision for something other than residential development. Okay. Then we had this neighborhood meeting and we had a lot of good input and that was on I think September 21 -- or not -- excuse me. The 19th. And, then, we met on the 20th of September, the next night, and we sat down as a group of Alliance and we said given the input we got from the neighbors, let's make some changes to our guiding principles and so here is what we came up with. As an Alliance we want to reduce from the regional -- mixed use regional to mixed-use community designation, because that gives the city and the neighbors a less intense land use and more conditional use permit control. So, that's something we feel, hopefully, the neighbors would agree with. This came as a result of that neighborhood meeting. They talked about heights and how that's bothered them in other areas of the city and so we are agreeing to a height restriction to be the same as the homes in that area. No big box, no big retail or any 24-hour operation. That's to be a quiet business park. And no glare. Internal roadways to minimize curb cuts on Eagle Road. No development until after Eagle Road five lane completion. That was an important point the neighbors brought up, that it would be devastating to have the road turn up in about a year from now, plus all the construction traffic, so, again, here is a way to solve that. We are proposing larger landscape buffer to the neighbors and especially Sutherland Farms. Large setbacks and a design review commitment for this entire area. And we would hope that the city would see the need for a very specific development agreement with teeth, so that these guiding principles can be monitored. So, we spoke to the neighbors. A lot of them said, well, I can see that this might be a good project, but I have had experience where a developer gets up and says all these nice flowery things and, then, a year or two later it doesn't seem like it was carried through. And so we talked about a development agreement and how that works and so the alliance it totally in favor and thinks it's appropriate to have a very strong development agreement in this case. So, let me give you a summary here quickly. The Alliance -- they have the ability to achieve unified development in this very high traffic corridor for a common benefit. So, it's a unified approach, not individual owners, but they are all coming together like- minded. They want to do a well-planned business park to enhance this neighborhood, generate taxes without adding school children, and we really feel that a mega apartment complex could tend to be negative to this neighborhood. We are willing to reduce the intensity from a mixed use regional to a mixed-use community designation and that gives more Conditional Use Permit control to the city and to the neighborhood through a hearing process. And these guiding principles could be incorporated into a specific Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 61 of 88 annexation development agreement in accordance with Idaho code and it could be recorded to run with the land and so it would go to the subsequent land owners. And so we would respectfully request that you recommend approval of that procedure for a development agreement at the annexation process and thank you. Be happy to answer any questions. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none right now. Borup: Maybe just a short one. That's on Eagle Road access. You talk about internal roadway to reduce that. Do you visualize any conceptual visualization of how many access points there would be? You have mentioned Easy Jet and, then, an access to Victory. Anything else in there? Is there one more in between? Forrey: I would imagine there would be one -- there are several streets on the west side of Eagle' Road that come out of the Thousand Springs, so the highway district would probably want one additional -- maybe between Easy Jet and Victory probably one additional. Borup: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Forrey: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. We do have a number of people signed up -- both sides. Okay. Let me first ask is there a spokesman for a group? Anybody representing a group of people? Sir, come forward. And let me ask are there others here in the audience for whom he is speaking? If you would just -- okay. Thank you very much. Hines: Thank you. We were larger, but we shrunk through the late hour. We don't have an organized homeowners organization yet, because we are still under development, so the developer holds that. At any rate -- Zaremba: For the record would you start with your name and address, please. Hines: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Darrell Hines and I live at 3471 East Publisher Street and that is in the Sutherland Farms Subdivision. We have studied both the application to amend, as well as the staff report prepared by Mr. Brad Hawkins- Clark and, first, let me just say that Brad's written report seems at least to us as lay people to be thorough, certainly addressing all of the assertions made by the applicant. The Sutherland Farms Subdivision is new development that is hardly even half completed, so we are not an older subdivision that would reasonably expect these kind of changes to take place around us as the one proposed here tonight. At the time of our purchase we were aware of the business campus just to the north of us that's been Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 62 of 88 addressed tonight and we were also aware of the undeveloped properties to the west. However, those undeveloped properties were planned residential. This proposed amendment to change this undeveloped area's designation to mixed use regional -- and I understand there is some compromise on that, but I wasn't aware of that until tonight. But that doesn't really change a lot. It causes us great concern. We are new homeowners there. It's a new subdivision. We are fully aware of the possible development that could result from this change in designation. Provisions like no upper limit of nonresidential and residential up to 30 to 40 units per acre, this is not what we envisioned when we purchased just months ago. If adopted, this change has the potential to permit zoning in commercial and/or residential development that would seriously erode the integrity if our new residences. In spite of the well-intentioned efforts of Mr. Forrey and the Alliance, we see scary potential under mixed use regional. The Alliance's application makes numerous assertions in support of their argument to amend. However, the very thorough staff report refutes virtually all their arguments and recommends denial of the proposed amendment. During a neighborhood meeting Mr. Forrey strongly implied to us that the best way to protect our residential integrity would be a joint -- to join with the Alliance's efforts, that if we would simply provide him a list of desired developmental restrictions, the Alliance could make those restrictions binding on any potential buyer, that the Alliance just would not sell to the developer who would not accept those limitations. Also strongly implied that if the current plan designation remained, which is medium residential that's adjacent to us, that at the time of development a bump up from R-8 to R-16 would likely be requested and allowed, resulting, of course, in multi-level apartments appearing over our backyard fences. However, after consulting with planning and zoning staff, we learned that trying to impose restrictions on a buyer-developer would be difficult at best to follow through with. There is no plan at this point. It would first require finding a buyer who is willing to accept those limitations and restrictions. And, secondly, it would also require that the city accept that. So, both of those steps, unfortunately, would have to occur after you make a decision to recommend the proposed amendment. We don't feel at ease with that. We feel that that's very risky. We have the greatest respect for the property owners that have formed this alliance and we acknowledge their absolute right to organize and attempt to bring about changes that serve them best. Most are long-term residents and seem to have genuine concern that their properties be developed in a residential friendly manner. However, they, obviously, have financial concerns and goals as well, as do we, we who will remain behind after they exit. We are, quite frankly, very skeptical of Mr. Forrey and the Alliance's ability to successfully impose restrictions on a commercial developer. They seem confident of that and we just are not. Based on the staff findings, there is no shortage of mixed-use regional designated area. The Comprehensive Plan is working and does not need to be fixed. As stated in the staff report, the future land use map, which was created as recently as 2002, which has been discussed here earlier tonight, was the result of months of public workshops and hearings. This is what residents and prospective buyers have used to make purchase decisions. Based on our study and research and investigation of the facts, we believe the community interests are best served by denying this proposed amendment. If during the development process there is, in fact, a request to bump up the zoning to one level, R-15, we will most assuredly be there to oppose that. So, respectfully, we Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17,2005 Page 63 of 88 would request that you vote to deny this proposed amendment as recommended by the staff report. So, I thank you and thank you for your attention and just want to acknowledge once again, as Brad had already pointed out, there has been a petition submitted with a little more representation on than we were able to maintain here tonight at this late hour with over a hundred signatures on it that are from our subdivision that are in opposition to this proposed amendment. If you have any questions I would be glad to -- Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Borup: Just a couple to get a clarification from my mind. It sounds like you are opposed to the commercial development and you would be opposed to apartment -- Hines: Absolutely. Absolutely. Apartments are scary and I know -- Borup: I didn't get a feel for if you had a preference one for the other. Hines: Commercial or -- my preference would be R-8, which the most it would allow is - - are duplexes, two residents per-- Borup: Which is the same zoning as your subdivision. Hines: No. We are R-4. Borup: Under a planned unit development. You have got some 40-foot wide lots in there. Hines: I know through the planned development there has been some exceptions allowed. You're talking about the office area? . Borup: No. I'm talking about the residential area.. Hines: Well, I'm not a subdivision expert. Borup: Okay. Hines: So, I know that when you submit a considerable size subdivision, you can have some exceptions there, as I understand, but we are basically R-4, low density, and the properties that we are talking about -- the ones that are adjacent to us are medium, which normally carries an R-8 and I understand the request can be made for a bump up to R-15, which we would definitely be in opposition to, because they can do a lot more with that. But, then, the other -- the one that's not adjacent to us on south of Victory is actually low density and I think Brad addressed his thoughts on that. But, you know, the way that it is right now, again, you know, you have heard a lot of conversation tonight about changing the plan and all that's gone into putting that plan together and you're not Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 64 of 88 that far down the road and if it's working, why does it constantly have to be changed? You know, staff has -- Borup: If it didn't have to be changed, we would have stuck with the same plan we had 20 years ago. Hines: But we are not 20 years. It was only 2002. Borup: Right. Hines: And a lot of community input -- and I wasn't here to do it -- Borup: But your question was why does it have to be changed. Because times change. Maybe not this soon, but -- Hines: Well, it has to be changed 20 years down the road, I understand that, but it's a very short time down the road and based on staff recommendations and their observations, which, obviously, are a little bit different than Mr. Forrey's about need, staff recommendations are is that the need is not there as they have described it and -- Borup: Just one final thing. Can you see where some of these homeowners may have had the same concerns later on, you know, five to twenty acre parcels and a residential neighborhood went in right next to them. Hines: Well, they have been there for a long long period of time. Borup: Exactly. Exactly. Hines: You know, I can't -- it's a different -- I can't identify with that, you know. I can't address that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Do we have anybody else that is a spokesman? Seeing nobody moving, I will go down the list and, again, please, if you have been spoken for, just raise your hand and I'll comment on that and if you do have something to add, please, feel free to come forward and do that. Thomas Fecino. Okay. Spoken for. First name is Dolly, last name I think is Baugh. B-a-u-g-h. Spoken for. Thank you. Dan Baughman. Baughman: Good evening, Council. Thank you for this time. Baughman, B-a-u-g-h-m-a-n. My name is Dan Zaremba: Sorry. Baughman: Quite all right. I reside at 1215 South Eagle Road in Kuna. My wife Dolly and I own the property at 2990 South Eagle Road. I will make a long story short, it was Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 65 of 88 a nice country road when we moved there 30 years ago in the late 70s. Times change, but there is four reasons I think you ought to consider our proposal. Number one, to maximize our investment. We have been there for like 30 years. Allow us, as private property owners, to maximize the potential of our investments. We have been told and we believe that we have marketable commercial properties. Number two, precedence. You have already allowed two commercial ventures south of the Ridenbaugh Canal. All we are asking is that you extend those considerations to our properties. Number three, a higher value to the community. We believe that a commercial development, according to our plan, would have much higher returns to the community than the current R-8 designation. Lower impact. We believe that a commercial development, according to our plan, would have a much lower impact on the community's infrastructures, its roads, schools, fire, police, et cetera, than the current R-8 designation and especially if it were allowed to be bumped to an R-15 or even higher. Thank you for your time. Zaremba: Thank you. No questions? Okay. Sybil Duece? Is that correct? I see nobody moving. We have had some people that were here earlier that have left. I guess she's one of them. John Sharp. Sharp: Good evening. My name is John Sharp. My wife and I live at 3020 South Eagle Road and I'm one of the Alliance members. We have been there since 1978 and at the time we moved in there -- excuse me. 1986. And when we moved in there the Eagle interchange hadn't been built yet and, unfortunately, I was part of the problem, because I was a traffic engineer for the Idaho State Transportation Department. Newton-Huckabay: And you're very brave. Sharp: And at that time it was a blessing. Since then it's become a curse. At the time we moved there we were able to walk or ride our bicycles on Eagle Road and Victory Road. Now it's difficult just to turn right onto Eagle Road to go north to the interstate. ACHD has now a project to add some lanes to it, rebuild it to a five lane section with a signalized intersection at Eagle and Victory, which will be a help, and what we would like to do with our Alliance is try to take advantage of that, plus the fact that there is a commercial area north of there and after watching that development and, plus, the stuff that Sutherland Farms has put in there, it seems like a very good idea to us to try to extend that through our properties and become the same type of situation as theirs. Since, then, we have found out that the zoning that they have is -- allows a lot higher intensity use than what we would like to see and we are! no different than the property owners that are surrounding this that are opposing this. At the time they went in we had I the same concerns and so now the roles are reversed a~ little bit and we would like to maximize what we can through the -- getting the rezonø on this, but we would like to I lower the intensity of the use down to something more luseful, like the commercial -- mixed use commercial that Wayne Forrey talked about. The Alliance has joined together intentionally to try to develop this and put together a package that would be attractive to a developer, but that the restrictions and ,,¥hatever things that we could impose on him would be enforced and he would walk intd the situation knowing full well I I Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 66 of 88 what he was getting into. He could either take it or leave it. And there isn't any of the Alliance that's particularly ready to move today, but if something comes along I guess we would be willing to do that. We have lived there for quite sometime and we figured we would stay there quite awhile, but it's got to the point now where at least for someone that was born and raised in the country, it's not country anymore. And I'd like to try to get someplace where I have a little more elbow room, personally. And that's really -- I have a lot more to say, but that's my main points and I thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion on this and I really support the zoning change and I guess the staff report is -- whether good or bad is in the eye of the beholder and we are certainly not on the strong end of that, but I think we make a case to change that. If you have any questions, I'd certainly like to try to answer them. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Thank you. Juanita Sharp. J.Sharp: My name is Juanita Sharp and I reside at 3020 South Eagle Road, but almost 20 years ago when we moved there, like my husband said, and at that time it was really agricultural country and it was so enjoyable and we thought we had found the perfect place to live, because I could be outside in the garden or anything and I could hear morning doves, I could hear birds singing and everything like that. There wasn't the traffic at that time. We could walk, like John said, on Eagle Road, take walks in the evening and that and it didn't bother things. And also I could hear cattle, you know, that were in the fields behind us where Thousand Springs is now, and I would hear hay balers in the summertime and I could identify with all these things. And now there has been such a complete change. We are surrounded by subdivisions and, like John, I would like to be able to get as much as we possibly can out of that to enable us to locate in a place that would be more suitable to ourselves and to what we need. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Thank you. Sandy Thompson. Been spoken for. Thank you. Fred Thompson. Thompson: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Dr. Fred Thompson, I reside at 2853 Nephrite Way. Have for several months now, having acquired the home that we live in and love, with the clear understanding that the Comprehensive Plan use plan precluded the very kind of development that's being proposed here tonight in this application. I would like to just make clear a little bit of unsettledness I have. While I appreciate and honor the people wanting to maximize their investment, the implication that Mr. Forrey's remarks carried with it was that there was a thorough screening and opportunity for people to respond to this proposal back in September. Such is not the case. It appeared to be somewhat selective. I wasn't even notified of a meeting and had no opportunity to listen and hear what they were doing. All of which says that that implies to me that some of the due diligence was everything but and there was a degree of disingenuous to that -- to that effort and I feel very -- I'm very upset about that and I really would like not to see the commercial development go into the property behind me. My property abuts the property that's being requested to change and I just do not want Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 67 of 88 that kind of stuff beyond my backyard and I urge you strongly to deny this request. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. The last name is Jenkins and the first name starts with a D. Donna? Okay. And you have been spoken for? Thank you. AI Someroff is it? If you care to speak, you need to do it on the microphone. Thank you. Someroff: I'm AI Someroff, I live at 2839 Nephrite, and I wasn't going to speak tonight, but after hearing Juanita speak I just had to say something, because we feel exactly the same way she does. Our property backs up to Kibby's Kennels and we have horses and llamas behind us and we love that. So, my proposal is that you just take a few million out of petty cash and buy the land and make it a Meridian park. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Take that in consideration. Zaremba: Ruel Barnes. Barrus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I am probably the most recent - Zaremba: Please start with your name and address. Barrus: I'm sorry. My name is Ruel Barrus and I reside at 2879 South Nephrite. I'm going to try your pointer out. I believe that's me right there. I have been in that house -- I actually got here last Saturday. Our house closed on August 5th. The applicant -- when we made the offer on our home was the day that Mr. Forrey filed his application with this body. Now, I am not yet licensed in Idaho. I'm a licensed attorney in Arizona, so, please, excuse me if I use legal terminology, but legally we consulted with our real estate professional and made reference to the plan. We relied on the fact that what is to be behind us was not to be commercial. One have one of the -- I believe there are four two story homes along those properties. I challenge Mr. Forrey to actually come up with a landscape plan that is going to shield my two-story home from this property. I don't believe that's possible. Also, Mr. Borup, you asked a question of one of the prior people about what our expectation was regarding the property. Legal reliance. I expect that the town of Meridian -- or the City of Meridian is going to follow that and let me one say thing -- I'm sorry. Though I'm from out of state, I'm an Idaho native, a grew up here. The Idaho I remember was one where we followed -- when your word meant something. Part of the reason we came back. We did have some reliance -- and with all due respect to the property owners, I also may use another legal term and that's unjust enrichment. I have no problem with people going to the highest and best use of their property, but this land is zoned something different. They have the right to receive remuneration that's appropriate for their property within the guidelines of what that property is. It's not commercial property. It's not zoned commercial property and for Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 68 of 88 them to say we want to go -- what they want to do is go buy residential property somewhere else after they have had the chance to received commercial property rates for this property. I don't begrudge that, that's okay, except for the fact that it will have negative impact on my home and I don't think that's fair. I certainly would be open to any type of request that -- or questions that you would have of me. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions. Thank you. Kaylene Barrus. Okay. She's spoken for, I assume, anyhow, by you. Okay. Thank you. Robert Carpenter. Carpenter: Robert Carpenter, 3250 East Victory Road, Meridian. We own the ten acres on the corner, 10.3 acres, three houses on four lots there. When we first moved to our property 15 years ago in the fall of 1990, the Eagle Road interchange had just been completed and the area was very rural, as expressed before. None of the development along Eagle Road had started. And it stayed relatively unchanged during the next five years, until about 1995. As you are aware, since 1995 development has increased significantly and has exploded since 2001. We have seen the area north of our property to the freeway develop from rural farmland to commercial mixed-use development. The area to our west has developed from a dairy farm to Thousand Springs Subdivision. The area to the east, the Sutherland farm horse ranch has been developed into a large subdivision with commercial uses approved along Eagle Road, both north and south of Southstone. Since 2003 the area south of Victory Road has been developed by Tuscany development into large subdivisions. To our south within a one mile corridor of Eagle Road approximately 3,800 acres, six square miles, bounded by Victory Road on the north, Columbia Road on the south, Cloverdale Road to the east and Locust Grove to the west, there have been approximately 2,500 housing units approved since 2001. If growth continues, which fully -- is fully expected and is being planned for by both developers and local governments, this area will support approximately 9,600 homes and 24,000 people. This projection is conservatively based on only two and a half housing units per acre and currently proposed development is higher than this. Our purpose in requesting the change to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is to provide us the option to develop our land immediately adjacent to Eagle Road as office and light retail uses, which are consistent with the way the rest of Eagle Road to the north of us has been developed. When looking at Eagle Road corridor between Victory north to Chinden, remember the pattern that existed on every intersecting corner just ten years ago, all those corners were residential or agriculture, every one of them. Today not one of those corners exists as residential, they have all been converted to office and commercial. The Victory-Eagle Road corner and north will logically follow the same pattern, it's just a matter of time. The Eagle-Victory corner has become so noisy that it will not be reasonable to put a residential subdivision immediately bordering this intersection or immediately adjacent to Eagle Road to the north. When Ada County Highway District completes the reconstruction of the intersection and Eagle Road to five lanes with bike lane and seven foot sidewalks next year, traffic will sky rocket to support the continued residential development to the south of Victory Road. Over the last five years we have been respectful of our neighboring property owners, Sutherland Farm, in particular, their desire to develop their lands, and now we are expecting the same respect from them and the people that have moved in as a result of that development. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 69 of 88 In conclusion, while housing and residential development for the Eagle-Victory intersection may have seemed logical at the time of the last Comprehensive Plan change, it is not logical to plan housing immediately adjacent to a five lane intersection on Eagle Road and, therefore, we are requesting this Comprehensive Plan change to allow a mixed use office, light retail development, be approved. Thank you. Questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Borup: Yes, Mr. Carpenter, I assume your property is 15 acres, give or take? Carpenter: 10.3. Borup: 10.3. What was your feelings at the time Sutherland Farms went in? Here you were a ten acre property and -- Carpenter: Well, we were -- you know, anytime -- you know, you have heard them say we don't want ten houses per acre adjacent to ours, where we got a third of an acre. Well, how would they like it -- I mean we got -- we had five -- two five acre parcels adjoining theirs -- I mean it's kind of reversed. It's kind of reversed, it's kind of -- kind of not in our backyard. We knew development was coming. They had been proposing that and tried to get that development for a number of years and had been blocked by people down east of us on Victory and, finally, were able to get it through. So, we knew it was coming sooner or later. So, we backed off and our main concern was fences, the irrigation ditch that ran back -- or those types of things be protected. We realized that the plan for the residential area incorporated two story houses, which blocks our view. I mean we had a beautiful view of the foothills and we have got a beautiful view of Bogus Basin and so, you know, it's -- it's always not in my backyard. However, on this corridor -- you folks have been here long enough to know exactly what's going to happen with that chunk of property there. We have got 800 feet, which is not that small in depth, you have got a bigger proposal over here on the corner of Overland and Meridian Road that has been approved for a higher density type commercial development that is a lot less wide than that and -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Carpenter: -- so I didn't mean to ramble. Zaremba: Thank you. Nedra Carpenter. N.Carpenter: My name is Nedra Carpenter. Robert's my husband. And I live at 3250 South Eagle Road. And I have got several points I want to make, just little comments. We have llamas there and when Bob and I moved out there we -- we were out in the country and it was wonderful and we have lived in our house for 15 years. Like Bob said, we knew that sooner or late development would come. We did not oppose that, because things are going to grow and things are going to change and I think that one of the things I want to say is, like Bob said, people say not in my backyard, but what they Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 70 of 88 don't realize is they had to get in somebody else's backyard to have what they have and we went along with that. We said, okay, this is fine. The second point I want to make is the road development that's going in there. Because we live on the corner, we are going to be affected by South Eagle Road and Victory, five lanes on both sides of us. That is going to put our house in noncompliance. We don't have a choice here. This is my home. If I had a choice, I wouldn't sell my 10.3 acres. I would stay there. I love my home. But the city -- but the highway department has made other plans for me and I'm going to have to move. Now, is it not right for me not to be able to maximize on my property when I have been there a long time before they came and we have done everything we can to try to accommodate our neighbors. And to verify that, I want to tell you this: Bob and I had a gentleman come to us in June. He wanted to put large apartment buildings on our 10.3 acres. He wanted to pay us -- he wanted to pay us a million four for that property. That's a lot of money, guys. You know what we told him? No. Because it wasn't right for that area. Bob and I want to see that area developed really well, because we love that area. We love where we live. We are not moving because we have to, because we don't have to move, we are moving because we have to. And our neighbors and I, we all feel the same, we are trying to do the best we can for the neighbors and not leave them, like they are saying, with a mess on their hands. That's about it. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Mark Hattenstein? Hartenstein. Hartenstein: So, I'm representing the Axlerods, who have the southern most parcel and we are situated at the intersection of Victory and Eagle Road. Wayne Forrey submitted at the beginning of his presentation a letter from Kwallis & Mackey, an agent for them, who is an individual who I contacted and asked him about the area of South Eagle Road and I'd like to rapidly read through the four points, because I think he's an outsider and, in fact, he is not someone that we have engaged to represent us commercially. The only person that I have talked to commercially is Mark Bottles and he and his crew came out to our corner and told me that it should be retail on the corner and office pads on the perimeter. That was the logical place for that property to be. Not residential. Not high density residential. With five lanes in both directions it can't be much else. Two and a half years ago I took an option from a client of mine to buy that parcel. I planned to put a home office where the corner house sits right now. I attempted -- subsequent to that we exercised our option and I attempted to transition into that and that corner is too noisy now and, as Bob indicates, will become so much noisier with five lanes, that operating a home office out of that corner just makes absolutely no sense. So, Ray Freshette of Kwallis and Mackey says -- Borup: We do have the letter here with us. Hartenstein: Okay. Is it in the record? Borup: Yes, it is. Hartenstein: Okay. So, I need not go through that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 71 of 88 Borup: Yeah. I didn't know if you wanted to take your time to do that or not. Hartenstein: I appreciate that. I just wanted to make sure that it got in the record. We have also had appraisals conducted by ACHD on the property and the appraiser say this property should be commercial and office, supported by Ray's letter, supported by Mark Bottles, supported by the best use of the property. The noise level at the corner is such that residential makes absolutely no sense. I put a sign on the house to see if I could rent it. One third of the people who came wanted to set up offices and commerce, one third of the people, until they saw the size of it, though they might move there, no one wanted to move there when they found that it was going to be five lanes. The point that Ray makes is that whole corridor, the demand for commercial and office along that whole Eagle Road corridor, is going to be equivalent what it is north of 1-84. Where are all the homes and those people going to go, they are going to jam up the roads going north on Eagle Road, creating more traffic and congestion, start the commercial down south, so the people who live around where I have my office will have access to places without having to travel that gantlet of congestion. My time is up, so I will stop here. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman? Zaremba: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: record. I'm sorry, I don't believe we got Mr. Hartenstein's address on the Hartenstein: It's 3210 South Eagle. Zaremba: 3210 South Eagle he said. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Dawn Williamson. Williamson: Good evening -- or is it morning yet? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Dawn Williamson. My family's residence is located at 3466 East Beamer Court, which is within the Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Our home is directly adjacent to Alliance parcels on the northeast corner of Eagle and Victory. We are adamantly opposed to the proposal to amend Meridian's Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: One. The proposed mixed-use regional designation is in direct contrast to the immediate surrounding property owners and neighborhoods. Two. Increased traffic and noise concerns. Three. Impact on quality of life and the possible negative impact on property values. Within one mile of our subdivision there are two existing mixed use regional developments totaling over 300 acres, with Silverstone and EI Dorado. Two key observations should be made regarding both of these developments. First, neither development is directly adjacent to an existing residential Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 72 of 88 neighborhood. Second. Both developments currently have a substantial amount of undeveloped land. It would seem that these two combined business centers more than meet the need of currently mixed-use regional development in our immediate area. Additional commercial development appear to be on the drawing board on the northwest corner of Overland and Eagle Road, as well as further west on Overland. We believe that the Ridenbaugh Canal is an appropriate border between heavy commercial development and residential neighborhoods. We bought our home a year and a half ago. Given the growth in Meridian, we anticipated that the adjacent pasture to our west would be developed at some point in the future. So, prior to purchasing our home we did do some research. What we discovered was that the land in question was designated residential for future development. We took comfort from the fact that if and when developed, our neighbors would certainly be residential, definitely not commercial. The future land use map clearly designates the Alliance parcels as either low or medium density residential. This designation is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and should remain as it is. As members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, we are hopeful that you will assist current homeowners to maintain the integrity of existing area to preserve the values and ambience of those areas, to encourage similar uses to minimize conflicts and maximize uses of land and to protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. Once again, my family's adamantly opposed to the -- or adamantly against, rather, the proposed amendment before you tonight. It would certainly have an adverse impact on our property in particular and to the integrity of our subdivision and surrounding subdivisions in general. We respectfully request that the proposal before you tonight be denied. Thank you for your time. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Bob Aldridge. Aldridge: Commissioners, I come before you again. My address is 3300 Falcon Drive. I'm immediately at the south end of the map there. I was here a week and a half ago on Medford Place and we discussed, then, some of the issues that are coming back today. In 1893 Boise had less than 3,500 people. The edge of town was 14th Street. Way out in the country, about halfway out to a little tiny number of maybe 200 people that lived in a place called Meridian, was a dirt intersection called Cole and Fairview and some people at that time donated some property to be a country school and in the deed restricted it to the school in perpetuity. We now have the Cole School in the midst of the biggest commercial development area in the entire state of Idaho. That is why comprehensive plans change, because reality changes. Developers know reality, often before city councils and boards and often before comprehensive plans. The whole idea of comprehensive plans is that they can reflect reality, they can try to direct reality, but they can't change reality. And the reality is that Eagle Road has become a commercial road. I have seen what's happened in my area where I have lived now more than 20 years, when roads go from two to five lanes and from 55 miles and hour down to 45 and, then, 35 and the residential uses go away. Maybe now there is not much change along Eagle Road in the residential areas, but when that goes to five lanes that will change. I spoke last time about the need to look at Eagle Road from Victory South. The current plan doesn't even start until 2011. That's not going to happen, because the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 73 of 88 county and city are allowing huge amounts of residential development to the south and it has to go someplace. I think that what happened last time with Medford Place shows what can be done. As the other neighbors have stated, I didn't come here in opposition to that, I came here to try and make it so it was a good buffer, so it would work, and we moved the road and it did work. That's what needs to be done here. I'm not part of the Alliance, but I'm going to be tremendously affected by what happens to the north of me. I want to live there. I can in another ten years. But kind of like the Carpenters, I may not have that option. The developer of Sutherland Farms has bought up almost all the surrounding acreage in my subdivision. He's going to turn it into high density residential. That's going to dump even more traffic on -- Kingsbridge has broken ground now in its first phase. It will be dumping directly off Tuscany. When all these projects came forth I did not come here in opposition, because reality does change. And even though I bought my property as rural agricultural, I had a great view. I can't freeze that into park land. I can't make other people with my dream and that's what's happening now. And so what I see as the use of this, exactly what developers say, the best use, number one, is that commercial, if you do it right. If you feather it out and you buffer it and you use frontage roads and do those sorts of things. Number two, the usage that comes -- my direct conflict with traffic doesn't come from Silverstone. It doesn't come from EI Dorado. It came from Tuscany. It comes from Thousand Springs. And if we allow that kind of continued high-density residential development along Eagle Road, you're going to have tremendous problems in the future. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Borup: No. But very well said. Zaremba: John Ashby. Spoken for. Thank you. Wendell Jefferies. Jefferies: My name is Wendell Jefferies. I live at 3130 East Beamer Court. One of the few people that I have seen tonight that actually lives on the west side of Eagle Road. I don't know if that's due to the way notices were sent out. Looking at the map that was in ours, only a few houses on the west side of Eagle Road received notice, if that's what this shaded area indicates. Talking about the traffic, our house borders on the corner of Moon Dipper and Eagle Road. At night we can't open our windows, because of the traffic noise. And every morning I spend five to ten minutes trying to get out onto Eagle Road. On weekends we spend the same five to ten minutes trying to get out at noon. People going south on Eagle Road for other developments. Those types of traffic are not going to go away by putting in commercial. If anything, as one of the speakers spoke earlier, as you put in commercial, those commercial developments tend to generate more traffic per square foot than the residential does. And even though you limit some of the access off of Eagle Road, you push it down closer to Victory, which is where we are at, and it's just going to get worse at the intersection, even if you extend it to a five lane road. There is -- also some of the people were talking about they weren't opposed to some of these other developments that developed along Eagle and Victory. Those developments have all been residential. We are not opposed to a residential development along there. We have seen all the commercial developments develop ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 74 of 88 north of the canal. The canal seems to be a very definite dividing line between the residential and commercial. You go up the hill, you cross the canal. It seems to be a reasonable area to designate. One of the things that we were surprised was when they built the commercial development there at the corner -- northeast corner of Easy Jet and Eagle. We have lived in our house for four years. We never received any notice or anything that any commercial development was going in there. I don't know if that was part of the plan at the time it was developed before we moved in -- again, we never had any opportunity to speak on that. I think everybody gets impacted when there is development, but I think a residential development is more in line with all of the surrounding area than a commercial development would be and speaking for some of the people on the west side, we would oppose that commercial development also. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Actually, Mr. Jefferies, I haven't driven out there recently to see the development there at Easy Jet, but has -- is that where you turn out onto Eagle Road? Jefferies: No. We are in the last cul-de-sac on the southeast -- or the -- I guess it would be the northwest side. Zaremba: Somewhere in there? Jefferies: Right in there. And we come out Moon Dipper. Every night when I come home, if it weren't for the fact there is a turn lane from Easy Jet all the way to Moon Dipper, it would probably take me 10, 15 minutes to get into my subdivision. The only street that I have to turn in on is Mackey, which is the one with the little divider there and Moon Dipper. Easy Jet, actually, goes -- is farther to the north and, as you can see, you go all the way around before you can even come back into our area. So, there is no other alternative for us to get in. Newton-Huckabay: How do you feel that the commercial development that's currently in place on the east side has negatively impacted your property? Jefferies: The part that's there? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Jefferies: Right now I think they are still under development. I haven't seen a whole lot of activity in there. If a business opened -- it's just opened in -- within the last month or so. The building's just been finished. They are planning another foundation for something else in there. I'm not sure what that is. So, it's -- they have only got one building and as far as I know one tenant in there. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 75 of 88 Jefferies: It's to be seen how much traffic that's going to generate. I know some of the widening of that intersection -- we have seen near accidents, people pulling out of Easy Jet trying to get onto Eagle Road, even though there is a de facto turn lane, they are -- people pull out in there and try to use that to try and get into the Eagle Road. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Tammy Syler. She may have escaped due to the late hour. Ruby Stubble. I don't see any activity. Perhaps gone as well. And Jeff -- is it Brower? Brower: My name is Jeff Brower. I live at 3117 East Beamer. This is my first meeting, so, first of all, I'd like to say you guys -- I wouldn't want your job for nobody. Just being here tonight, just no way. I also appreciate the landowners that are here tonight. I guess I opposed the whole plan -- the whole thing about changing the plan. My feelings are -- is that we built a plan, it was built in 2002, and I know that times change, but three years -- I even heard you tonight say, geez, I'm getting tired of changing these -- you know, making these amendments. I believe that our people that work in our government have spent thousands of hours building this plan. And all we are doing -- ail I'm seeing here is we are just tearing it apart. Why did we even build it? You know, we have this plan. One of the things that I have seen here is that if a subdivision is built first, then, we should not be building businesses by it. People building -- buying property, putting their life savings into these homes, and next thing you know somebody's trying to build a home. If they go out there, as I found out down the road -- down Victory is a neighborhood center where they potentially could build an Albertson's. Okay. If they were to build an Albertson's there and a homeowner decides that they will buy that place, so be it. They know it's there, they are planned for it, they can live with it. But when you build a home and, then, you have somebody come in and potentially put whatever in there, who knows, as far as I know it could be a Chinese place and they have their garbage dumped once a week and it's going to smell in the back alley next to the Sutherland homes, who knows what's going to happen there. You know, I do not know the laws of the -- what could go in there, I just know that potentially it could be bad. And I just wanted to say to Keith, I did go to their meeting and I did think about, you know, these people, they lived here for 30 years and over across the street was hay fields or whatever was in there. Now they have homes, you know. But I think if they didn't build homes and they wanted to build a complex there, I think they would have complained. Also, this -- even though we have two commercial places there, I guess two wrongs don't make a right that we should just continue on going down that -- down Eagle Road. You know, I guess one -- I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission is here to help the common person make sure that things are done right and not done wrong, you know. Like everybody else is saying, the canal seems like it's a good place to cut things off. I guess I have listened to your staff report. They say no. I believe that the homeowners association alliance, I believe that they were trying to use scare tactics with us in that they were trying to take us way up here to the worst possible scenario to get us to agree to something less and I still believe it should still be a residential neighborhood. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 76 of 88 Zaremba: Thank you. That is everybody signed up, but, again, if there is somebody that would like to add something, please, come forward. Jones: My name is Loretta Jones and I live at 2810 East Sheep Creek, which in the Thousand Springs side. I wasn't going to say anything and I don't have my glasses, but after listening to a lot of what was said, it occurs to me that there is some misinformation and so, then, I thought, you know, I'm going to give my thoughts and, then, maybe give some rebuttal comments. First of all, I'd like to sell your land. I'm a realtor. I'll sell it to a commercial developer or residential, whatever. So, having said that, I have sold property up and down this corridor and all over the Treasure Valley. One of the comments that was made, of course, by Mark Bottles, would be in Mark Bottles' best interest, because he is a commercial real estate representative and mostly deal in commercial property. But to say that that property should be commercial is from his point of view. I deal in commercial real estate, investment real estate, single family real estate, and I can tell you that in the neighborhood's best interest, not only because I live there, but because I would see the area, I would say, no, don't put commercial development there. As far as approvals and things of that nature, I can understand why the homeowner, you know, would want to get the best value for their property. I would, too, if I was there. And I guess, you know, I wasn't invited either and I have lived in Thousand Springs for four years and I had no knowledge of this until someone put a little pink notice in my mailbox a couple weeks ago and I showed up and it was changed. You know, I sympathize with these people. When I bought my first home in Idaho in 1977 at Five Mile and Victory, there was no such thing as Overland Road, hardly. Things happen. Things change. I expected that. But when I bought my home here, knowing what the zoning was, I wouldn't expect it to change in three years. So, I would say if it changes in 20 years, that I vote for commercial on that little spot. But ask me 30 years from now or 20, not three years or four after I bought my property. R-15 I Wbuld definitely oppose as well, like the other people said, if that comes up -- and I'll tell you I would have a chance to speak, because I, too, wouldn't want apartment buildings across the street and I was really PO'd, to put it politely, when I saw that little purple section go up with commercial and you asked if it would have impacts yet on that property just south of the Ridenbaugh Canal. It's still being built out, it's not occupied. But I thought how does that happen? And nobody notified anybody. And I'm not sure that that wasn't a change that just sort of went through without a Public Hearing. The subdivisions south on Eagle -- north on Eagle Road are very desirable. Bristol Heights and those subdivisions, the property values area going up, people are still turning their homes, people do okay with living on five lane intersections. They just do. I mean some people don't mind that. What they do mind is commercial right next door, so I would -- but, as I say, I don't think you're going to have a problem filling that out. Real quickly, I think it's unfortunate, if I was these people, I would feel like they do. But, you know, over years things change. I don't know why or if they were approached by Sutherland Farms at the time to -- you know, to sell their property or not or what their choices were. But to ask now -- when this was built out there was five property owners that were impacted. Now for five property owners they are asking thousands of people to be impacted. So, it's a little bit different and, naturally, that's why we have governments, you know, to make decisions and boards like this to help sort these out, Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 77 of 88 because there has to be some balance. And, lastly, I would just say when Fairview and Overland -- when we moved here Overland was two lanes. When Overland got developed they didn't bulldoze all the residential. When Fairview became more and more commercial, they didn't bulldoze all the residential. It's still there. Okay? What we don't need is more, especially with Silverstone and EI Dorado. So, lastly, I would just say -- I'm going to admit to something here that I don't know what you -- but I'm from California. When I came there were bumper stickers that said hunting season is open, shoot a Californian. And I survived that. And I came to love Idaho and I know it grows and those kinds of things are going to happen, but what's been so disheartening to me, as an ex-Californian and a current Idahoan, is to have that mentality when we came and, then, watch Idaho become California. The bumper stickers said don't Californianate Idaho. And guess what? We saw this happening. So, at some point I'm like stop, you know, don't do this anymore. So, my comment is don't take the Eagle Road mistake any further south, because that was a mistake, it was meant to be an expressway and it didn't turn out that way and it's a nightmare. So, please, don't take it any further south. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Just a comment. I think they did bulldoze all the houses on Overland. From Eagle to Locust Grove. Zaremba: I think I would clarify two things that were brought up and one of them is who gets noticed for a meeting. There are actually three notices. Of course, it's published in the paper, but not everybody is looking for that. There are now required by the city big wooden signs put up along the rights of way on the affected property and, in addition to that, a letter is mailed to everybody that's within 300 feet. Now, you may be outside of that 300 feet, would explain why you were not given a message, but the theory is that -- for instance, in a homeowners association, somebody got that letter and, hopefully, they would take it to their homeowners association. Anybody that was in 300 feet should have gotten that. The other is how did the little office or commercial -- the purple area next to Easy jet happen? There was a Public Hearing for -- was it Sutherland Farms? The whole Sutherland Farms Subdivision was a noticed Public Hearing and we did have quite a few people come to it and as staff pointed out earlier, within the ordinance there is a possibility of making up to a 20 percent use exception for your land and even though that was in the Comprehensive Plan to be all residential, they exercised their ability under a planned development to have an exception for a small portion of it and that is how it happened, so -- and just to comment on those people, there was nothing that happened in secret or behind closed doors on it. It was all done in public and complied with the ordinances at the time. Anybody -- let's see. We went through the list. And, again, is there anybody that needs to add something that didn't come before? Go ahead, sir. Thomason: My name is Marty Thomason. I live at 2910 South Eagle Road. I own two of the properties, 2910 and 2960, right in the middle of this alliance group. I moved there in 1986, September. We had a horse ranch behind us and hay fields cross from Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 78 of 88 us and that's what everybody has said more eloquently than I can how that has changed and I have opposed it all the way. These folks said they didn't oppose it, but every opportunity I had I had opposed it. I want to live in a rural area and I will ultimately. Our property right now is not what we want and so we will sell it. That's what everybody around me needs to understand, that we will sell it. And if I can get it bumped up to 15 units and I get more money for that, that's the approach I will take. I didn't want to have two story houses behind me and they won't want to have four story apartment complexes in front of them and I understand that and I to a degree sympathize with that. But I'm going to live in a rural area. I'm only going to be there until my daughter graduates from high school at Mountain View, because it's close, and, then, I'll sell it. So, it's going to change. The people that back up to my property, it will change for them. And if we don't get a better plan in place than what I'm going to be allowed to do in two years, they will have those four story buildings of apartment complexes if I'm allowed to bump up to that. What we are proposing here is something that is unique and I think fits better with that area and that is that we join together as property owners and do something that is more esthetically pleasing for this area. When we first moved into our area I saw a plan -- Comprehensive Plan with a date of 1986 on it and I'm wondering why that plan hasn't stuck around. That's what I'd like to know. But, then, later I saw one with '88 on it and, then, I saw one with '92 on it. I saw another comprehensive plan with '93 or '94, '97 -- I have seen a lot of comprehensive plans with different dates on them that it's the evolution of that plan that brought all these people opposing this to the place where they can oppose it and we are not asking for anything different than that, we are actually taking a better approach, I believe, than sticking our heads in the sand and we are taking the approach where we will join together as a group of property owners and we will do something that, if possible, is more esthetically pleasing and more fitting for this community. This area is going to change. It's as simple as that. Because my five acres will sell to somebody who won't have horses back there. And so I will end my comments with that. Any questions and - Zaremba: Questions? Thank you. Okay. I believe we are ready for Mr. Forrey. For those of you that don't know, this is the applicant's opportunity to respond to all the notes that he's been making. Forrey: Thank you, Members of the Commission. Let me comment a little bit on each -- some of the folks that asked for some comment and information. To Mr. Hines, we are proposing a very solid development agreement approach at the time of annexation and that's an extremely solid tool to address these issues and this is something that the Alliance is volunteering. This is not something the city has required or the staff didn't say subject to development agreement, we put together guiding principles and are volunteering that there be a very strong development agreement approach and that these restrictions can, then, be placed through the Conditional Use Permit process on subsequent owners. Mr. Hines questioned about what would happen if there was a denial of this. Well, I don't know exactly how each Alliance member would respond to that, but what it does, it sets the stage for them to say, well, I guess I'll just go ahead and sell my piece separately and the offers they have been getting have been for Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 79 of 88 apartment or office or commercial development. And so they may sell and then, this neighborhood would be bombarded, then, with separate people coming before the city for their various reasons to do different things. And we feel it's better to be a unified approach here, one development entity, rather than a separate situation. So, we are proposing an office park development here with a lot of restrictions and there is need along Eagle Road for this type of development. Mr. Thompson asked about not being notified. I sent 147 letters out to the neighborhood meeting and I used the same mailing list that the city used for the Public Hearing notice. So, I think if he didn't get notified, it could be a postal problem, perhaps, but maybe he's outside the 300 feet. And, then, Mr. Barrus talked about transition on the -- in this area and what we are proposing is a land use transition within the Alliance properties. In other words, if you look at the guiding principles, we said we would put a row of home lots, the same size as in Sutherland Farms on the Alliance property and so they would back up to a home just like theirs. Now, how many developers have come to the city and done that? Very few. So, there needs to be a transition and the Alliance is willing to do that on their property, their side of the fence, to make that concession and so that it's more compatible with the folks on the other side of the fence. And there has been documentation, Mr. Barrus, about the highest and best use and it comes through government agencies and government agency sponsored appraisals and analysis. And the current zoning is rural-urban transition in Ada County. And, then, to address Dawn Williamson's comments. We recognize that the mixed use regional has a really high intense level of uses and so we reduced that after the neighborhood meeting, sat together the next evening and said mixed use would probably be better at the commercial scale, not the regional scale. And I have checked with the marketing agents in both Silverstone and EI Dorado and they are ahead of absorption. When those projects were approved by the city they had a certain absorption schedule and they are way ahead of that. And, also, when your last Comprehensive Plan update, the widening of Eagle Road to five lanes was not in the plan of ACHD at the time you completed your Comprehensive Plan and it's because of the development of the 1-84, Eagle Road area and because of EI Dorado and Silverstone that ACHD said, boy, we have got to widen Eagle Road. So, there has been a significant change in that neighborhood that wasn't there when the Comprehensive Plan was updated. That is a major change. To Mr. Jefferies' comments about traffic and, yes, traffic is a challenge in that corridor and that's why ACHD is going to five lanes. But we firmly believe that office use is a better transitional use than apartments or multi-family. You know, the city has a fire station now on the west side -- or I guess it's not built yet, but proposed -- Borup: It's under construction. Forrey: Under construction. Okay. Fire station. Yes. Thank you. And, then, I understand that this area right here -- and I'd like Planning Director Anna Canning to verify, but I believe this is part of a nonresidential use in the Sutherland Farms project; is that correct? Zaremba: Commissioner Canning -- I mean Director Canning. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 80 of 88 Canning: I disband you and you promote me. That is the planned developed that's been referred to all night long, Mr. Forrey. The part that's in purple was done later and that was not, actually, part of the planned development. Forrey: And this right here is not part of the planned unit development for a nonresidential use? Canning: It is also. Forrey: See. So, from the canal clear to -- and this is Kibby's Kennels, which is a business, so all the way from the canal clear to here starts the Alliance properties, is all nonresidential use. It's all business use. Canning: It's limited to office, though. Forrey: But it's a non-residental use. And that's the point I'd like to make, that all of this right here -- this entire area is nonresidential use, already approved or in existence and so we would like to just continue that opportunity in a very well planned development. These people didn't have to go through that effort of transitional uses, but we recognize that's different here and we are willing to talk about that. And there is also going to be a traffic signal here at Easy Jet and Eagle Road. That's in the works as part of this five lane widening. And here is the stub street right here for an internal roadway that comes through here and, then, ACHD has also anticipated a connection either here or this way. To Mr. Bowers' comments, he asked about government planning. It's ironic, but it's government planning that's taking away my clients' homes. ACHD is taking away their homes to widen this road and so they have to do something with their property. Their homes are going to be taken away in order to widen the road to accommodate traffic. But, fortunately, the neighbors that are in the property owners alliance are very sensitive people to the neighborhood. They recognize that there has to be a buffer here and nice buffers of landscaping on the arterials, because they live there and they know the area. To Mrs. Jones -- oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. To Ms. Jones, you offered to sell the property. Boy, line up. There has been -- there has been about 50 realtors approach my clients and they have strong feelings and they have buyers and that's what my clients are dealing with. They have buyers that just want to take that property and chop it up. Anyone of the Alliance members could individually sell this in just a few days if they get return phone called. But we have decided to stick together and I'm trying to keep a group approach to this and they are very willing to do that. But there might come a time when they say, you know, ACHD's taking my house in a couple months, I got to make a decision, I'm going to have to sell. And we are coming up to that. And so we are hopeful that this Alliance approach, working with the city, your planning staff and your Comprehensive Plan, have encouraged people to do this, to work together unified, so we are trying to take it to the next level. We came to you with some problems, but we offered a solution. ACHD is acquiring those homes and they have no choice in that matter. If they don't, it just gets condemned and taken. We have provided a set of principles that we think are good for the neighborhood, good for the city. This bump up to multi-family and high density is a reality. In fact, in the staff report at the very end it Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 81 of 88 says the city supports -- they recommend denial based upon what we applied for was mixed use regional, but in that same paragraph you will see that the city supports neighborhood commercial for this area and also supports multi-family. Most people we have talked to have said, please, don't put apartments there. And so we are trying to avoid that. We feel office is a better use. It's a much softer transitional-type use. Better management. Especially with the guiding principles that we have proposed. And the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to reflect economic conditions and economic conditions change. So, the fact that this area is in transition, that the highway district recently now has announced construction of a five lane and these folks are losing their home, this creates an environment where the Comprehensive Plan should be looked at and so we hope you will agree with this approach and let us keep moving forward with this Alliance. Be happy to answer anymore questions. Zaremba: Any questions? Borup: Mr. Forrey, I -- yes, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: You had mentioned on placing restrictions -- I think it's been commented that -- and I -- my understanding, the only restriction that can be placed is time of annexation. Forrey: Yes. In a development agreement. Borup: So, how so -- how is there any assurance, other than that statement, that with a Comp Plan change that those will be the restrictions in place? Forrey: I think you could treat this application like you did the one prior, where you directed the applicant to take some next steps and get to the City Council and they would hold it until they saw some site plans. My clients are prepared to apply for annexation. We could do that very quickly. And, then, the City Council would have a physical annexation application and you would have it as well and you could drop the hammer at that point on a very strong development agreement with an annexation request. Borup: Okay. You are proposing -- again, I guess, I'm repeating myself, but internal roadways -- with probably only three access points, two to Eagle and one to Victory, with the residential on your east side. Forrey: Correct. Although you would have to -- Borup: Well, right. I'm thinking of the property north of -- Forrey: The property north. That is correct. Borup: North of Victory. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 82 of 88 Forrey: Yes. Borup: Right. Forrey: Yes. When we spoke to the highway district, they anticipated one connection here to either of these two streets, a connection here, and coming down. So, you would have an internal north-south and you would have an internal east-west. Borup: Okay. Forrey: And we are prepared to do either landscaping or a row of home sites to match, so that we have a one-to-one -- Borup: Oh, that's right. Yeah. You -- landscaping is the other option, whichever the subdivision prefers. Forrey: Correct. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Forrey: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to close the Public Hearing or -- Zaremba: Discussion? Are we ready for that? If we feel we have had most of our questions answered, then, we can close it and just deliberate among ourselves instead. I'm not anticipating I would have any other questions, but would -- Newton-Huckabay: I don't think I will. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close CPA 05-002. Zaremba: This one, actually, is 01. Borup: Oh. What am I looking at? Zaremba: We did them in a different order. Borup: I'm sorry. I grabbed the wrong paper. Change that to 001. Zaremba: CPA 05-001. Is there a second? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 83 of 88 Borup: Yes. 001. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on CPA 05-001. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Discussion? Borup: Maybe comment. I really appreciate that the -- these property owners got together. We have looked at other projects in the past that -- I think we have recommended denial every time, because there was -- there was no planning between -- between the different parcels. We really haven't seen a plan, but we have got a commitment and, you know, a little bit of a verbal idea on what the layout would be. So, I -- I mean I really feel that's much better than a piecemeal development doing one parcel at a time. Zaremba: Well, I have spoken that exact point myself several times. It's very helpful to have the opportunity to discuss a larger group of properties than piecemeal. Many of the difficulties we get into are single properties that have come in individually and I first say that I appreciate that they got together. Borup: I also feel -- and based on what we have seen everywhere else in the city, that this is not going to develop as a medium density residential development. I don't know that anybody in this neighborhood would like -- or anybody in this room would live in that location with, you know, single family residential. So, it looks to me like the choices, if it's going to be -- it's going to be high density or it's going to be commercial or office. I mean that's the way Eagle Road is to the north, that's the way Meridian Road is developing from the freeway south. I think that's one of the realities. I really thought Mr. Aldridge's comments made a lot of sense. We can all have wonderful ideas how we think the city out to develop and it can be controlled and moved to a certain extent, but reality is what's probably the biggest thing that dictates that. And maybe we are staring reality here in the face. Again, it's much sooner than I anticipated. When the last Comp Plan was discussed, I don't believe we realized Eagle Road was going to become what it is today. I would like to see all this slow down a little bit, but we have got what we have got. Zaremba: We have commented about how recently the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, in 2002 -- Borup: The previous one was -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 84 of 88 Zaremba: And we started on that 18 months before that and to put that in perspective, when the planning was being done for the Comprehensive Plan Meridian was a city of 32, 34 thousand people. Borup: And the plan before that was from '93 when it was closer to -- Zaremba: Closer to 10,000. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: And there are elements of the anticipation that went into that planning document that I think they got right. There are other places where I just don't think they anticipated the fact we are pushing 60,000. Borup: I don't think there is anybody that anticipated that. Zaremba: Yeah. And it's one of the reasons it needs to be a fluid document is to be able to adjust to the fact that we just don't have the same situation we had three years ago, four years ago. I have said many times I don't have any problems with as much commercial as we can get in this city. We are the central city in this valley, we are going to have everybody's traffic coming through here. They are coming through here anyhow, we might as well have places where they can stop and spend money. And I -- you can't stop them from coming through here, but let's figure out a way to take advantage of it and I don't think every inch of South Eagle Road needs to develop the way North Eagle Road is developing, but I certainly can see the sense of it in this area. I think we have a verbal commitment to provide a plan that does provide buffers and I like Mr. Forrey's suggestion that, one, we down grade this from mixed use regional to something less than that in our recommendation and, two, that we suggest a similar thing that we did with the one we talked about before this, we make the recommendation that City Council sit on this until the other applications catch up to it. Because, in fact, the conditions that they are offering, as welcome as they are, cannot be attached to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, they can only be attached to annexation by way of a development agreement. I think they are offering protections that have not been offered in other places before. I like the idea of having residential along their east property line and I hope that's the way the plan comes in, but I have no problem with commercial along Eagle. I think that's the logical progression of a city that is now at about 60,000 and soon going to be 80,000. It's sad to be moving that fast, but I have seen it happen other places, that it accelerates, it doesn't slow down. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I will make my comments. When I got here yesterday, after reading the staff report, I felt very compelled coming in that I -- you know, again, and it's been no secret tonight, I have been very clear that I'm not a big fan of Comprehensive Plan amendments and we have had a whole bunch of them, because of the time window coming through over the last few weeks or the last month. I think that the property owners have made a very compelling argument and I was thinking about the situations that we have had in northern -- you know, in the northern Meridian area Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 85 of 88 where had those property owners come together and put forth a plan, we wouldn't have some of the problems that we have in north Meridian now. For example, we had one two weeks ago on Linder where you have about a 60 foot wide piece of property trying to figure out how to -- how to make sure that property can develop in the future and all you can put in there are, you know, 14 row houses. I don't remember what their proposal was on that. Zaremba: More than that, to begin with. Newton-Huckabay: But that's the type of thing that keeps coming forward on these small pieces of property and this is not a huge amount of land here comparatively and I think seeing all those -- all those individual parcels coming in separately and I see -- you know, those developers that come before us with -- you know, I want to put eight four- plexes on here, I want to put five -- you know, that type of thing. And given what's happened in the northern part of the city, that's exactly what I see coming in on this. But with the possibility of putting in a plan with CUPs, so nothing -- you know, most things don't go in without everybody knowing what's going in and getting a chance to have public comment on that, the fact that, you know, they are proposing houses along the eastern perimeter, so you have houses backing up to houses, I think -- I think that that is -- I think that's a reasonable -- a reasonable compromise on that. I mean, obviously, none of this would be set in stone until it comes in with an annexation and it's put on a development agreement, which if it wasn't on the development agreement it would come before this body and a decision would be made and I -- I grew up on South Eagle Road just below where Mr. Aldridge lives and so I can understand what you homeowners are talking about. I remember that and I can imagine that you are ready to get on. So, I think I will vote in favor, with the hold up to get the proper -- so that you -- that the developer is doing what they say they are going to do, which I have no doubt they will, but -- 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 an opportunity 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. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 86 of 88 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. Newton-Huckabay: We are mixed use community; right? Or mixed commercial? Borup: Community. Zaremba: Let's ask staff if they have a specific on that. Newton-Huckabay: I need a glossary of these new -- Zaremba: I think they are offering mixed-use community. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, that was news to me tonight. So, whatever you think. I believe that's what they stated. Zaremba: Okay. Then let me ask a question of Mr. Nary, legal counsel, as well. If our recommendation is to modify to a less intense use, then, we don't have a problem with the notice that's already been given. Only if we wanted to go up. So, we could, actually -- without having to start the whole application process over, we can recommend a step down in use from what they applied for, without having to go through notice again? Nary: Mr. Chairman, at 12:30 I think that would be certainly appropriate, but also, yeah, you're correct. You don't have to re-notice if you're going -- if you're going to recommend a lesser intense use of the property than was originally applied for and noticed. Zaremba: So, we would have the ability to recommend mixed-use community and ask that the City Council not discuss this until at least an annexation application has caught up to it. Nary: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just to make clear, obviously, that is just a recommendation. The Council doesn't have to follow that. I mean they can certainly notice this matter up prior to that, but I mean I think you want that included in your recommendation and maybe part of what staff can do in that recommendation is indicate your reasons for that, all the different things that have been stated by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 87 of 88 applicant about the application that they are bringing forward, what they are going to tie to it, how that's going to relate to the neighborhood, those kinds of things. You know, you certainly can recommend that they have, like you have suggested, a neighborhood meeting and maybe beyond just the 300 foot noticing requirement, but that's certainly voluntarily on their part, they don't need to -- they don't have to do that, but those are all things that would certainly make their application, once it came back to you, something that might be -- make it more palatable for what they are wanting. But all of those things the staff can certainly include in the recommendation. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, are we ready for a motion? It sounds like we have a consensus. Borup: Yeah. I think so. It's been an interesting turnaround. I came into this meeting thinking denial was appropriate. Zaremba: And I will agree, I was considering denial. It was not that far of a leap for me, though. I could have gone either way. Newton-Huckabay: Have we closed the Public Hearing? Borup: We haven't yet. Zaremba: We have closed the Public Hearing. Borup: Oh, we have. Did we? Zaremba: I believe we did already close the Public Hearing. Borup: Okay. Oh, yeah. I did it. Zaremba: Thank you. But that was yesterday. It was yesterday, so that's easy to forget. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Do I -- do we need to mention -- we need to mention the change to mixed-use community. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, we need to make the suggestion that City Council delay a decision -- Zaremba: I would say hold taking any action. Newton-Huckabay: Hold action until an annexation request -- Zaremba: Application. , Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005 Page 88 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: -- application catches up with it. Zaremba: The likelihood is that a preliminary plat and CUP would also come along with it, but I think it's the annexation request that has the hammer in it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And we are suggesting that Mr. Forrey and the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance host another neighborhood meeting to discuss more specifically what their plans are with the property. Anything else? Now, there were no -- because this was an amendment -- I just recommend denial -- or recommend approval and make these statements and J don't have to -- staff doesn't have to do anything else on this one; right? Zaremba: I don't think so. 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 applicants can make an annexation application and it will catch up with this, which would, then, bind them to the development guideline principles that they put forth in their presentation and we are also asking them to organize 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. Zaremba: That's everything I can think of. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Thank you all very much. As Mr. Nary pointed out, if the City Council decides not to take our recommendation and either goes ahead with discussing it, there will be a notice of their Public Hearing or if they do take our recommendation, there will eventually be a notice of a Public Hearing here about the annexation.