HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 17, 2006 P&Z Minutes
~
"
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 21 of 88
'-
Newton-Huckabay: My apologies. Okay.
Borup: End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4:
Public Hearing: CPA 05-002 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to change approximately 11.79 acres from Office to Mixed-
Use Community by Conger Management Group - 675 and 715 South
Wells Street:
Zaremba: All right. That one is being forwarded onto City Council. Thank you all very
much. And at this time I will open the Public Hearing for CPA 05-002, request for a
Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change approximately 11.79 acres from office
to mixed use community by Conger Management Group at 675 and 715 South Wells
Street and we will begin with the staff report, please.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is by Conger Management Group to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation on two parcels, which total approximately 12 acres located on South Wells
Street in Meridian, which is West Eagle Road and north of 1-84. Some of other uses in
the area include a residential subdivision to the west, Woodbridge Subdivision, which
was platted in 2000 on approximately 80 acres in the R-4 zone and contains
approximately 260 homes at a density of 3.28 dwelling units to the acre. To the south of
the subject properties -- my mouse is not showing up here. We are dealing with the
wireless technology here. Okay. The properties to the south of the property that we are
proposing, the change on here, are currently rural residences still in Ada County. The
area surrounding these properties is a mix of properties which are annexed into the City
of Meridian as residential properties and also that remain in the county and were
developed within the county. There is a county subdivision down on the freeway, I
believe it's Locust Grove Heights, and there is also a county subdivision up on Franklin
Road that remains in the county. The area in the vicinity of Magic View Drive and Eagle
Road is a mix of recently developed commercial, recently developed office, and also
lands that are proposed to develop as commercial or office. The L-shaped parcel here
has received annexation approval as Cottonwood Lane, it was called. The portion of
the project on Wells Street was approved as office uses and the portion of the project --
I will have to look at the name of that street here.
Zaremba: Something like Freeway Road, I think.
,
..
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 22 of 88
Wilson: Okay. Freeway Drive. Was approved as commercial. So, there will be a mix
of uses on that parcel. The proposal submitted by the Conger Management Group
would change the subject properties designated currently as office to a mixed-use
community designation. In the Comp Plan the mixed use community designation does
allow for up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential buildings, a residential density of
three to five -- three to 15 dwelling units per acre, as well as office uses and some other
uses specified as clothing stores, hardware centers, restaurants, and banks. I will touch
on this some more later, but Conger Management Group has specifically proposed to
develop this property as residential and staff would not actually support the full mixed
used community designation on this property, as it would open up the property to uses
that would be detrimental, we feel, to the neighborhood. And I will touch on that a little
bit further. The applicant's proposal is to develop the property in a residential manner
that the city would define as medium high residential. The Comp Plan designates --
has, essentially, three categories of residential, low, medium, and high. Low being
three units to the acre and below. Medium being three to 15 units to the acre. And,
then, the high being above the 15 units per acre, to 40. At the current proposal there
are 108 dwelling units proposed on the 12 acres, for approximately -- the property's a
little bit shy of 12 acres. It's, I believe, 11.79. But approximately nine dwelling units per
acre. So, it kind of puts it in the middle of that medium range, up towards the upper
end. So, it would be called medium high. The applicant has proposed a mix of housing
types on the project, with, along Magic View drive, a townhouse product and also along
Wells, designated with the numeral one. The numeral two would be single-family
detached housing, which single family detached meaning your standard single family
home. The numeral three would be what are called big block units. They have the
appearance of one large home, but there are actually several units within these. I
believe they are shown three units within those big block units. Four would also be
some single family detached housing, but it would have a garage -- a rear loaded
garage on the alley and, then, frontage on the street out here. Five is, essentially, the
same product, but with the front of the homes facing -- the new Unified Development
Code, addresses it as a MEW. M-E-W. It's an open space with pedestrian walkways
that the homes face out onto and, then, vehicular access is from the rear on the alley.
They identified a central common area, a landscaped area, in the middle of these, as
item six here. And, then, seven is some other common landscape areas. They have
identified an entrance off of Magic View and also an entrance off of Wells. Where the
applicant is proposing a change to the Comprehensive Plan, you as a Commission
cannot condition a Comprehensive Plan amendment, or require that a development
agreement be attached to it. I did mention before that staff is not supportive of the free
range of the mixed use community designation and we recommend that the
Commission in their recommendation to City Council ask that concurrently at City
Council a development application package, consisting of the annexation and an
associated plat be submitted at the City Council level to insure that -- essentially, that's
the only mechanism that you have to insure that this development proposed tonight
happens. The other option, of course, is asking them to come back for the
Comprehensive Plan map amendment at a later date, with concurrent applications that
could be considered together. I guess it depends on the Commission's comfort level
with those two -- with those two options. They, ideally, would serve -- would end up in
"
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 23 of 88
the same product. In terms of compatibility, 1 think that will probably be discussed
tonight both by the Commission and the audience. As staff, we generally view
compatibility -- the ordinance doesn't define it and this has been mentioned at previous
Planning and Zoning meetings, but the ordinance does not define compatibility. As staff
we generally view it as residential to residential being a compatible use and residential
to uses which are not noxious or nuisance I think was the term we found. Staff does
recognize, as one of the concerns of the neighboring subdivisions -- we do recognize
that office uses are a less intense buffer to the residential uses than what the applicant
is proposing. It is true that while they are both going to generate traffic and impacts to
the neighborhood, the office use would be the more limited in the hours of the
disturbance and also not likely on the weekends. So, we do recognize that the office is
a better buffer to the residences, but we also recognize that some Comprehensive Plan
policies do support the location of medium to high density development near major
transportation corridors and employment centers and that residential to residential is an
acceptable buffer to the commercial use there, the intended commercial use anticipated
along Eagle Road and, then, closer to the freeway. I was going to have Brad speak
specifically to some comments made by Woodbridge residents at the time of the
Comprehensive Plan approval and -- okay. And I may ask Commissioner Zaremba to
speak to that as well. Apparently, there was some very strong participation from the
Woodbridge Subdivision and requesting this office designation. So, I think it's relevant
to keep that in mind that as this Comprehensive Plan was being developed in 2002, the
citizens did participate and specifically asked for this office designation. So, the
Commission should take that, as well as public testimony heard tonight, into
consideration as to whether the residents do feel this proposal by Conger Management
is an appropriate buffer and is a land use that they feel like they can live with. The
applicant in their application does reference some problems with the office designation
and from their perspective the argument is that office designation -- this distance off of a
major transportation corridor has been difficult to market, maybe it isn't as desirable,
and also we are experiencing high office vacancy rates in Meridian right now. In the
report I have referenced, from nine to 25 percent. So, there is some argument made by
the applicant that there is some difficulty marketing the property. I think that's accurate,
but I also would like to make sure that it's out there that the responsibility of the
Comprehensive Plan is -- the Comprehensive Plan is not meant to move with market
demand or marketability of properties, it's a long-term planning document that envisions
what the citizens and leadership of the community would like to see in this area of town
in the long run. So, I think that is a valid discussion point that the Comprehensive Plan
isn't necessarily to move with market demands in Meridian. Traffic on Eagle Road and
through Woodbury Subdivision is, obviously, of great concern. There is -- I don't think
it's news to anybody that there is congestion at the Eagle Road and 1-84 area. At the
intersections of both Magic View and I believe it's Allen Drive at the stop light there, I
guess staffs comments on that is that there are improvements planned for Eagle Road.
Uses -- any uses of these properties in this area as they develop are going to intensify
the traffic situation and ITD and ACHD do take those into consideration as they are
looking for solutions for Eagle Road. I think that any development in this area will have
-- will have, obviously, negative impacts on the traffic situation. So, that staff has
recommended approval of the application. We do recognize that there are a number of
'"
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 24 of 88
issues with the property. We are in support of the proposal brought forward by the
applicant. We do feel like it's a good location and a good use for the area. But,
obviously, the task of the Commission and later the Council is to weigh the needs and
views of the community and determine if it's an appropriate change for the
Comprehensive Plan. I think with that I will end my presentation and ask Chairman
Zaremba if he has anything to add on comments about this office designation during the
Comprehensive Plan development.
Zaremba: I think the only thing I would add is that I participated in some of the
Comprehensive Plan meetings and discussions and Commissioner Borup was on the
Commission when it came through the Commission for discussion and he got heavily
involved and I think we are both aware that the existing residential subdivisions that
surround this property and the whole project all the way to Eagle Road, did participate in
those meetings very thoroughly and the current Comprehensive Plan in this area is a
result of their very thorough thinking and participation. So, we are aware that the office
designation was not just plunked down here as a, oh, well, let's put some office there, it
had some pretty thorough thinking before it got to this. Am I correct; Commissioner
Borup?
Borup: Well, I think so. My recollection -- I don't remember a lot of testimony from the
neighboring subdivision. Maybe Greenhill to the north. But Woodbridge really wasn't
fully developed. My recollection this designation came -- at least the -- to me the
biggest influence was the owners of the property around this area, that's what they
asked for.
Zaremba: For their own property.
Borup: For their own property. Yes. Maybe I'm not remembering a hundred percent,
but that's my recollection that they were the ones that really -- I think in most of their
testimony this is what they asked for.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Borup: So--
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: -- maybe they were shortsighted. I don't know. But that's -- they were the
property owners at the time.
Zaremba: Any questions for staff at this point? Okay. We are ready for the applicant to
come forward, please.
Beecham: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Scott Beecham.
My address is 405 South 8th Street in Boise. As indicated by staff, the application
before you tonight is for a Comprehensive Plan land use map revision for designation
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 25 of 88
from -- of office -- from office to mixed-use community. Further development
applications for annexation, rezone to R-15, a Conditional Use Permit, and a preliminary
plat will follow on approval of this request. I might follow up on that with a clarification of
staff's earlier comments towards the end of my testimony. But I would like to begin by
thanking staff for their time on this application. We have had a number of meetings with
them in developing this concept plan and housing types identified before you tonight
and, Josh, if I could, could I ask you to put the rendered site plan up. This provides a
little better graphic representation of our intent for the project. This plan and the
associated housing product is based our understanding of the type of higher density
development being sought by the City of Meridian. It is also the development pattern
endorsed by a consultant from the Urban Land Institute that recently met with the City of
Meridian to discuss quality in-fill development and appropriate high density design. I
would like to reiterate a number of highlights from the staff report that I think
appropriately frame the issues around this application. First, the mixed-use designation
is appropriate as it is intended to identify areas which are in-fill in nature or situated in
highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and flexible design
opportunities are encouraged. Next staff states that medium high density residential
housing can be an appropriate buffer between medium density -- excuse me -- between
the medium density subdivision to the west and the intense commercial development to
the east, as long as it is in substantial compliance with the concept plan that's before
you tonight. This is our intent and the city has the ultimate authority to control this. As I
indicated before, we will be required to submit additional applications for the proposed
development, including a request for annexation that allows the city ultimate discretion.
The subject properties -- or, lastly, the subject properties are in the appropriate location
for diversity of high-density housing types, as they are in close proximity to employment
services and major thoroughfares. I'd like to focus the majority of my testimony on
some of the issues we have heard from the neighbors in the meeting -- in the meetings
we have held with them. There is, obviously, many of them in the room tonight, so you
will hear -- you will hear a lot about that, but the issues included three basic areas. One
appropriateness of use. Two, the proposed housing types and compatibility, and,
finally, the traffic issue. As I understand it -- we have already had a little bit of
discussion on it, but the propose of the office designation on the land use map for the
properties adjacent to Woodbridge, Greenhill Estates, and Locust View Heights, was to
create a transition from the residential uses -- residential neighborhoods to be intense
commercial uses along the interstate and Eagle Road. In speaking with marketing
professionals, it is clear that there is not a demand for office tucked so far back off the
roadway. That lack of marketability, as staff indicated, does not necessarily make this
proposal appropriate, but it does show that it is not a viable use and would suggest that
there may be a better transitional use. Again, per Commissioner Borup's comments,
this may be a hindsight issue and there may be a more appropriate use for the property
owners who, by the way, were the property owners at the time the Comp Plan was
adopted. We believe our proposal not only brings a diversity of housing product to the
City of Meridian, but it also provides for a thoughtful transition from the existing
residential uses to the intense commercial uses in Magic View Subdivision. In fact, we
have prepared a plan that transitions the intensity of residential uses through a variety
of housing product on our site. In terms product, although this land plan is simply
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 26 of 88
conceptual at this point, it does represent the intent of the proposed development and it
is helpful to describe the intended housing product to help give the Commission a full
understanding of what will follow the approval of the land use map change. The plan
identifies a variety of housing types. They are geared mostly to nontraditional family
types, including young professionals, singles, single parents, and empty nesters. The
plan identifies 108 units, including the following housing types. First, we have front
loaded single-family detached homes adjacent to Woodbridge on the west side of our
property. Next we have attached town homes at the perimeter of the site adjacent to
Magic View and Wells Street. The alley-loaded detached homes that Josh referenced
are at the interior of the site and, as he pointed out, some of them open up onto the
common green, some of them onto the public streets, local streets. Finally, the multi-
unit triplex buildings or the big block development pattern at the south end of the
property is for individual condominiums. These are geared to, again, an affordability, I
guess, market, trying to get the square footage down and, therefore, the price point
down, so we can accommodate some of the young professionals living and working in
the area. Traffic is clearly the primary concern of the neighborhood and it is a concern
that we share. The property owners of this proposal have lived with a tremendous
amount of traffic since the development of Woodbridge and the connection of Magic
View on the west side of this property and north of this property. In doing our due
diligence on this project, we looked at a number of different issues and options relating
to the transportation network in and around the site. As we all know, Eagle Road has
become the major north-south artery in the valley. The transportation corridor has
brought employment and shopping opportunities to take advantage of the access to 1-84
that is to the central location in the valley that Meridian enjoys. Of course, along with
that we have seen a lot of increased traffic. Recent construction on Locust Grove Road
and Franklin Road has compounded this issue for the last couple of years, but that
situation should improve as construction winds up. It is clear, however, that some
additional changes will need to be made to accommodate the continued growth north
and south of 1-84 and this Eagle Road corridor. With respect to this proposed
development, the area bounded by 1-84, Locust Grove, Eagle Road, and Franklin
present some additional issues. First and foremost, there is only one connection
between any of the major roadways and it runs directly through Woodbridge and Magic
View. And, Josh, if 1 could, could you put up the other site plan that I have brought.
This is a little bit difficult to make out, but it will identify in the bold dark lines some of the
alternative options that I will talk about in terms of improving transportation network. So
-- excuse me. I have lost my place. So, first and foremost, there is only one connection
between Eagle and Locust Grove. You can see that running through. It's a bit of a
circuitous route, but runs from Locust Grove down Woodbridge Drive, up and around
Bow String, out Magic View, all the way to Eagle Road. The design for Woodbridge
was intentional to make it a circuitous route to try and discourage cut-through traffic.
Clearly, according to our discussions with the neighbors, this has not been effective. At
least not entirely effective. I think it's probably worked to a certain extent. You know,
we recognize this situation, we share their concerns. As I pointed out, you can see our
properties at the center of this site right in here. The property owners see all of the
traffic that -- not only the cut-through, but also the traffic generated from Woodbridge.
This has been a dramatic change to their lifestyle, obviously, and I think they may testify
~
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 27 of 88
to that effect and you might hear a little bit more about that. The question is -- I got a
little bit ahead of myself. I mean, really, the question comes down to -- with the traffic
issue, what do we do to solve this situation? We can see what the issue is clearly with
what's happening at Locust Grove and Franklin and all along the Eagle Road -- excuse
me, Eagle Road and Franklin and all along that corridor, but here we have identified a
couple of alternatives to potentially address some of those and in doing that we are
looking for options for interconnectivity, creating somewhat of a grid out of a suburban
street pattern. So, here are some options we looked at. First, restrict turning -- left
turning movements onto and off of Eagle Road at Magic View Drive. This, I believe, is
in the works. I think when this is completed, that will have a dramatic effect on the cut-
through traffic. Next we want to look at the possibility of a frontage road south of Locust
View Heights. I have heard discussion of this option from time to time. I think it's been
batted about a little bit in the neighborhoods. I have yet to see it on a plan and not sure
it's a viable option, but I think it's something worth exploring. Next I think it's worth
looking at making a connection from Magic View to Locust View Heights. This would
require buying a portion of property and that's this connection right through here --
would require buying a portion of property, but there is, actually, a right of way that
exists here that lines up very nicely over to Mustang that is an option, I think, that
maybe should be on the table. Next we looked at making connections to Greenhill
Estates. This is from both Woodbridge at this location and Magic View at this location.
Realize, these were not popular alternatives when Woodbridge went through, but when
we are looking at the overall transportation network, I think it's looking at all of the
options available to us. It's important to note that I think this property just changed
hands and there is some discussion of developing both of those properties and that may
be an opportunity to get additional right of way. Lastly, we looked at our own site plan
and how it might change to encourage traffic or direct traffic away from Woodbridge.
We feel that the elimination of the access point onto Magic View Drive, which is in this
location right here, again, on the concept plan, if you eliminated that and to orient you,
speaking of this one, is Woodbridge at the bottom of the page. If you were to eliminate
that and force traffic this direction, it's counter-intuitive to double back. It will not -- it
certainly will not solve all of the problems, but it may just help just for that cut-through
traffic. None of these are silver bullets to fix the problem, but combined I think they
could create the connectivity that allows traffic to be more evenly distributed. In
addition, I think -- back to Eagle Road, if that is, indeed, the source of the major cut-
through traffic, I think simply continuing with the plan to restrict that left turning
movement will be a dramatic change to that if people have to go up to the light at Allen
and make a left and, then, circle back through Woodbridge. At this time, if I could go
back to staff's earlier comment about the options in terms of timing. Before I ask that,
though, I just -- I want to make it clear to the Commission our intent with bringing the
Comp Plan amendment in advance of a preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and so
forth, would simple be to get good positive direction from the city. We think this is a
great project. We look forward to the opportunity to bring this back to you. Our intent is
to run all of these applications concurrently with the approval of a Comprehensive Plan
amendment, but we need that direction. We are hearing a lot of discussion about
higher density development and quality design. We think we have proposed that here.
We have got a good start on a concept plan and we look forward to bringing that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 28 of 88
forward to you, we simple want to get a little direction from the Commission and the city.
We have gotten positive feedback from staff and we are just taking it that next step. So,
with that, if I could get clarification on -- Josh, on what our options are there.
Wilson: As far as timing of the application? The -- and Director Canning and legal staff
may want some input here. It's my understanding that the Planning and Zoning
Commission can make a recommendation to change the future land use map once
every six months. Once the application comes out of the Commission, then, the City
Council hearing could be tabled in order for your annexation and preliminary plat
applications to be heard at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan amendment at
City Council, I think is your option. The other option would be that the Commission
would want you to come back for another -- they would deny your request tonight and
want you to come back in six months when they could make another recommendation
and have those development proposals that they could see at the same time as the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, I think is another option. I'm not sure of any further
options.
Zaremba: Just to make sure I understand what you just said, it is only this Commission
that has the once every six-month restriction? The City Council is not bound by that?
Canning: Yes, sir. That's correct. And to clarify, the cut off for the next Comprehensive
Plan amendment is actually December 15th, I believe.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: Instead of six months.
Zaremba: Was that an answer to your question or do we need to go farther?
Beecham: Yes. And I'll wind up quickly as a matter of time, but I think out of respect to
the property owners who have been there a number of years and I think are ready to
move on, they will testify to that effect, I think, as to how their lifestyle has changed. We
would certainly like to move this forward as quickly as possible. We are requesting
approval -- a recommendation of approval from this body. We would certainly like to
move forward as quickly as possible if that makes sense to condition, in effect, a Comp
Plan Amendment, to wait until we have the other applications ready and get everything
approved by City Council. That would be great. Logistically, I'm not quite sure how that
works. So, maybe we can get a little help on that. But with that I'll stand for questions
on the proposal.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have --
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 29 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: I have comments on the development in general, but I think they
could probably wait until after public testimony.
Zaremba: My question would be kind of a general one. The -- in sorting through many
of the petitions that we got, which I appreciate, it's always helpful when we have things
we can think about ahead of time, you know. We appreciate that. You have touched on
some of the issues that they raised, of course. Transportation being one of the big ones
and always, no matter what happens here, if the use is going to change, there is a
transportation impact no matter how it changes and they have made some thorough
suggestions. One of the others you also touched on, but I'm still uncomfortable with,
and that's the mixed-use designation. The office use is pretty specific and everybody
anticipates that would be low impact. Medium to medium high density residential is
within the purview of the things the city is asking for in areas like this. But that being
said, I think there is discomfort in the staff report, there is discomfort in the petitions, and
there is discomfort with me. We have gone with a mixed use designation, because
should you sell this property to somebody else, it's in the Comprehensive Plan as mixed
use without -- I mean this -- I appreciate what you have presented to us, but that is not
linked to it in any way and there is no way we can force that to be linked to it. But I
guess the question I'm going to is since your project is entirely residential -- and I don't
think that's out of the realm of consideration at least, why wouldn't you ask for an R-15
zoning, because that's, essentially, what you have proposed and there is no need to
have all these other options available and I don't know -- help me with that a little bit, if
you would, please.
Beecham: Mr. Chairman, the easy answer to that is it's really a recommendation of staff
based on discussions with them. They thought it allowed the flexibility and I think we
agree -- it allowed the flexibility in the density range we wanted. It allowed for the
possibility of some of the new designations that came out, which are traditional
neighborhood oriented developments in the new development code. So, I think that's
where we -- how we ended up there. Also, I think if this were to go forward, but a plat
be denied or a Conditional Use Permit be denied, they didn't want to -- we didn't want to
take away any of the property rights that the property owners currently have with the
office designation, so that is to say if for some reason we got the go ahead for
residential and a Comp Plan and, then, came forward with a development plan that
didn't work for the city, then, it wouldn't take away any of the existing development rights
that the -- property rights that the owners feel they have and the land use map would, I
guess, suggest they have. Does that answer your question?
Zaremba: Well -- and, actually, you reminded me that the new Unified Development
Code does have the traditional neighborhoods, which I haven't totally switched over yet,
it's only been in effect for less than a month, but wouldn't that be a more appropriate
application, a traditional neighborhood would still allow some flexibility for --
Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I would defer to staff on this, because it really was their
recommendation that in terms of a compatibility -- their compatibility matrix, they thought
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 30 of 88
this was a good zoning designation to allow for that -- for that zoning as we went
forward.
Zaremba: Okay.
Beecham: However, our earlier discussions were prior to adoption of that new code.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Who spoke? Oh. Go ahead.
Wilson: If I could just clarify. You did mention that the current application was for -- why
is it not for an R-15 zone. I just wanted to clarify, as a Comprehensive Plan
designation, they would either ask for the mixed-use community that they are currently
asking for or the alternative is to ask for high density residential. The high density
residential opens it up to up to 40 units per acre, which has the same pitfalls as the
mixed use community designation in allowing uses that would be detrimental, we felt, to
the surrounding neighborhood. So, when you ask, you know, why is this not being
brought forward as R-15, I think it's important to say that when the annexation and
preliminary plat applications that we have requested catch up to this at City Council,
they would request an R-15 zone, is the zoning they would request, that being separate
from the Comprehensive Plan designation we are discussing tonight.
Zaremba: You are absolutely right and I stand corrected. I actually did mean to say
medium or high density, but I short-handed it to R-15. All right. Thank you. Any other
questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: Not at this point.
Zaremba: All right.
Beecham: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. At this point we will be open for public testimony and I will go
through the sign-up sheet, but let me ask first if there is a person who -- or one or more,
but we will start with the first one, is there somebody who is a spokesman for a group,
homeowners association president, or something like that? Sir, come forward. Either
one. And I forgot to mention earlier, when you do come forward, everybody, would you,
please, state your name and address for the record. Thank you. And may I ask just a
quick show of hands for whom is he speaking? A good portion of the crowd. Good.
Thank you.
Flecker: Mr. Chairman, my name is -- and fellow Commissioners, my name is Jim
Flecker. I live at 538 South Thornwood Way in Woodbridge Subdivision here in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17. 2005
Page 31 of 88
Meridian. And I need to ask a question of clarification before you start my clock. Okay.
Obviously, there is a lot of people here. We have put together a presentation of all the
concerns, we have put a lot of effort into this. I have personally timed myself on this
thing at about nine minutes, but a live thing and with laser pointers and a few things, I'm
not -- you know, experience tells me it could be 12 or 15. I have no intention of being
cut off in mid sentence. Consequently, I'm either going to have to -- I don't know how
hard your rule is, but I'm going to have to ask to be given a little more time or I'm going
to have to hit you with a fire hose, so it's your decision, you want rain coats or do you
want me to do this thing right?
Zaremba: Well, let's begin and see how close you can come and we sometimes flex for
a minute or two, but to be fair to everybody we do try and stay fairly close.
Flecker: Well, that's what I want to make sure. I don't want to violate any rules.
Zaremba: And we will try and hold our questions until your time is up.
Flecker: Okay. Fair enough. Well, first of all, I'd like to say that those of us at
Woodbridge Subdivision are very concerned with any development that might occur,
that it impacts us, naturally. Everybody knows that. Our residents have all the most
usual concerns, you know, property values, appearance, deterioration of quality of life,
et cetera. All of those are valid. But I'm going to address the one concern that is
paramount, traffic and safety. That affects all the other questions anyway. Or
concerns. Woodbridge is a quiet residential neighborhood that is not designed for a lot
of traffic. Nor can it be adapted to handle traffic. Its design eliminates that possibility.
Also, the City of Meridian has a good, up-to-date Comprehensive Plan and office use is
generally acceptable to all our residents. As was often the case in days gone by, a lot
of this area was developed more by default than plan, I suppose. Woodbridge was
planned, but they were denied access to exits that would have been helpful. Anyway, I
don't think anyone could have foreseen the awful mess that Eagle Road was allowed to
become. You're now being asked to amend this plan to effectively -- call it medium,
high, high density housing, change it to that. Due to insufficient access, this has
become a rather unique area, creating a situation that makes this type of development
unacceptable. As things now stand, we must recommend disapproval. Let me explain
a little bit. The total -- oops, we are going to have to get a map up here I can work with.
Yeah. We will try that. The total area that needs to be considered here is between
Locust Grove, Eagle Road, and up to Franklin and the interstate. It's about 180 acres.
Woodbridge Subdivision is approximately 80 acres and contains 279 houses. The
balance, approximately ten percent over in here, is currently done and about 30 percent
is currently under development or committed. The rest, about 60 acres in here, is our
concern. Woodbridge is 279 residents on 80 acres. I'm repeating myself. Okay. We
are really being asked to go to high density, as you guys pointed out. The current
Conger plan calls for 108 residents on 12 acres. That's about triple. Or nine per acre. I
don't know why they wouldn't go for R-8. This alone almost doubles the potential traffic
in the area. And if this change is allowed, how do you justify stopping the other
requests that are sure to follow? Now, there is a huge problem with this. As we are all
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 32 of 88
aware, Eagle Road and 1-84 is the busiest intersection in the state of Idaho. Eagle
Road between 1-84 and Franklin, even to Fairview, is an absolute nightmare. And for all
practical purposes, there is no solution. Right now there is only one logical exit point for
the hundred acres in question and that's right onto the busiest intersection in the state.
Right there. We are all aware of ITD's plans for Eagle Road. Adding berms, lower
speed limits, et cetera. Well, that might improve safety on Eagle, we think it's likely to
make the traffic situation and backups worse. Certainly it's not going to solve this
access problem. I've already arranged and contacted ITD about this and I will be
involved with that in the future. We are already having problems with traffic in the area
trying to exit there, including from Woodbridge. The Chevron McDonald's alone creates
almost constant in and out traffic. It's located right there. So, if only a small part of this
area's development is currently completed and operational, we are yet to experience the
impact from the 30 acres currently in process, let alone the future development on the
60 acres in question. Ninety acres is a significantly large amount of ground. Any
current traffic figures or study? Really invalid. Traffic's going to soon increase
significantly. And the access problem would probably invalidate normal traffic studies.
It doesn't take a lot of foresight to see what's going to happen here. Drivers, frustrated
with attempting to get out onto Eagle Road here, are going to be forced to find
alternatives. They are going to shoot right through Woodbridge Subdivision -- what I'll
call a race track right through there, down the straightaway, boom, right to Locust
Grove. It's a great shortcut, too. We saw that when Franklin was being expanded.
Many of us in Woodbridge, myself included, currently use Locust Grove because of the
Eagle congestion. What do you suppose is going to happen when the Locust Grove
overpass is complete? Then drivers will have the additional option of coming back
through here, up and around, down, over to Overland Road and now we can get to 1-84,
Meridian Road, from there. More traffic through Woodbridge. By the way, that road is
not very clear here. There is a road right -- right there where that line is. Right now.
That's Magic View. In short, drivers will find alternatives to the only access they got and
none currently exist, except through Woodbridge. This is a huge safety issue. We can't
allow this kind of traffic through our neighborhood like this with children playing. To
allow these changes now, as things now stand, would be irresponsible at best, create
some liability issues, and worse cost the life of a child. Frankly, we are surprised that
hasn't happened already. This is absolutely unacceptable and must not be allowed.
We are aware that the Eagle Road problem was not created by the City of Meridian.
But the city did allow the Woodbridge design that is now a problem. In any event, there
is a problem and we, as responsible citizens, have an obligation to not make things
worse. It needs to be pointed out we are not opposed to development, as long as it's
good development and appropriate. Many of our residents bought their homes knowing
that offices would be built there and that's generally acceptable to them. And this begs
the question. Why change a good plan that is acceptable to the area's residents?
There does not appear to be anything wrong with Conger's plan, it's just not right for this
area. Primarily because of the unacceptable traffic situation and the lack of exits.
Please note that traffic counts aren't everything and the presenter pointed that out.
There is a big difference in traffic patterns of residents, as opposed to office workers
and visitors. But, therefore, this plan in this area would not be smart growth. Also, we
didn't just say no to this plan, we took the time to carefully look at this, trying to see if we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 33 of 88
could determine any way the traffic situation could be improved to make the plan
acceptable. That's a rather tough order. In fact, I notice that some of the things we
mentioned we hadn't seen before tonight that the presenter Scott there had mentioned.
And we'd like to have thought about it, too. But, first of all, we can forget about any real
improvements to accessing Eagle Road. That's just not going to happen. It would be
great if an access road to Locust Grove could be constructed and that's what Scott
mentioned. But where? Land would likely have to be acquired to go along through
there and that's a rather difficult options, but it's an option. There are a couple of
possibilities that also have merit. A merge lane on the entrance of -- the ramp at
westbound 1-84, you could come out on the frontage road there and just merge right into
it and that would take a lot of traffic out. That would be an ITD thing and I intend to talk
to them about that real soon. But that's just one possibility. There are two public right
of way accesses, as Scott also pointed out, right there going up to Autumn Way and
right there going up to Autumn Way into Greenhill Estates. That would help disperse
the traffic by allowing some of it to divert to Franklin Road. It helps. It may not be the
whole answer, but that's a help. We recognize that it's doubtful that the residents in
Greenhill Estates would be real excited about doing that, but that's why the accesses
were put there in the first place, since they were there from the beginning, this should
not come as any surprise to any of them. And maybe they are needed now to balance
the traffic flow. Why should Woodbridge have to bear it all? However, I would point out
that any traffic fixes must be settled before approval of this project, not on a -- oh, it will
be done later basis. We all kind of know how that works. To summarize, we clearly
have a unique situation here and we don't intend to blame anyone for it. It just is what it
is. Our challenge now is to make the best of a not good situation. First of all, a good
plan for high density residential should have services within walking distance to reduce
the need to exit onto major arteries out of the area. These services do not exist now
and are not likely to happen. Secondly, this area just naturally lends itself to a nice little
sport area for St. Luke's growing hospital complex for its medical offices, clinics, hotels
appropriately located by the interstate, et cetera. This is the kind of development that is
progressive and appropriate for this particular area. Thirdly, this proposal is
inconsistent with the current goals of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. That will be
addressed later. Fourth, please, be reminded that the Treasure Valley has a long and
sad history of paying for expensive comprehensive plans only to ignore them a little
piece at a time as development progresses. This little bit at a time soon adds up and
that is the biggest reason why our traffic problems are so severe and becoming worse.
Eagle Road is a classic example of a good plan that has been allowed to deteriorate
into a mess. Fifth, what the Treasure Valley desperately needs is a valley-wide traffic
plan with oversight that has some teeth. The Statesman has recently been focusing on
this problem. Right now we have got ITD, Ada County, ACHD, national and many local
communities, and who knows who else, all pointing fingers at each other with this traffic
situation. We are not going to solve that problem here, but it needs to start somewhere
and this is our community. In the meantime, let's work responsibly for what we have.
Let's not join the willy-nilly crowd and piece ourselves into a worse, perhaps impossible
situation, one that we may later come to regret. In conclusion, I believe there is more
than ample evidence why at this time this amendment change request must be denied.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 34 of 88
Therefore, we are asking you Commissioners, Planning and Zoning, to recommend
denial of the proposed amendment. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? We have to ask that you not either cheer or
boo, we do listen to the -- each person and we know they are supported by a lot of other
people, but, please, don't demonstrate. Sir, are you another spokesman?
Birch: Yes, I am.
Zaremba: Oh, good. Please state your name.
Birch: Steve Birch. 757 South Thornwood Way.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I missed it. Say your name again, sir.
Birch: Steve Birch.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Birch: B-i-r-c-h. And I'm also representing the neighborhood.
Zaremba: Can I see a show of hands who he is representing? I see a whole bunch out
in the lobby and some in here. Thank you.
Birch: Let me know when you're ready.
Zaremba: Go ahead. Thank you.
Birch: Okay. Thanks for allowing us to talk tonight and what I have to say is according
to Meridian's Unified Development Code to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan the City Council is required to make the following findings: One, the proposed
amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Two, the
proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of
the city. Three, the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan land
use map. Four, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development
Code. And, five, the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
We feel it would be improper for Planning and Zoning to recommend approval of the
amendment where the situation reveals that the City Council cannot make one or more
of the necessary findings. First one, that the proposed amendment is not consistent
with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan and it is internally inconsistent with
the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map. These are findings one and three. The proposed development is
approximately -- is for approximately 12 acres. This parcel is not what the mixed-use
community designation envisions. The stated purpose of these mixed-use community,
according to Meridian's Unified Development Code, is to create a centralized,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 35 of 88
pedestrian-oriented, identifiable and day-to-day service oriented focal point for
neighborhood districts. Mixed use Community envisions upwards of 25 acres for
nonresidential use, such as clothing stores, restaurants, drive-thru facilities, et cetera.
None of these uses are possible on the parcel in question based on Conger's current
residential plan. This inconsistency aside, the Comprehensive Plan includes a number
of provisions encouraging high-density residential development in locations such as
those near Old Town Meridian. It is these areas that are best suited for high-density
housing. It is these areas that provide the urban services that make high-density
developments work. An amendment that allows for a high-density residential
development in a location remote from urban services would be inconsistent with
Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Further, a specific goal set out in the Comprehensive
Plan is to support in-fill of random vacant lots and substantially develop single-family
areas at densities similar to surrounding developments. The proposed development is
three times as dense as -- at nine units per acre as Woodbridge is at just over three
units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan's inclusion of the mixed-use neighborhood
designation further emphasizes the inconsistency of Conger's proposed plan. The
mixed-use neighborhood designation limits residential density up to eight units per acre,
a density that is closer to the surrounding community. The mixed use neighborhood
designation allows -- also envisions upward of ten acres for nonresidential. Examples
of those nonresidential uses are listed as grocery stores, drug stores, coffee-sandwich
shops, drycleaners, salons, day care, professional offices, medical-dental offices,
clinics, retail gifts, et cetera. That's what's currently there. As compared to the
nonresidential use specified for mixed use community, the nonresidential use as
specified for the mixed use neighborhood designation are more consistent with the
current office designation in the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. The next one is the
proposed amendment does not provide an improved guide to future growth and
development of the city, is finding number two. In view of Conger's specific plan for the
land in question, re-designating the 12 acres to mixed-use community does not improve
-- does not provide an improved guide to future growth and development of Meridian.
Conger's specific plan calls for more than a hundred units on 12 acres in a location that
is remote, promotes urban services, such as grocery stores and shopping. Further
residents of the more than 100 units would be required to access Eagle Road at the
busiest intersection in the state to reach those urban services. The specific location of
the proposed development prevents the amendment from providing an improved guide
to future growth when compared with the current office designation. The current office
designation allows for construction, referral facilities such as doctors offices and the like
for St. Luke's and more jobs for Meridian. In view of the current land use designation,
the proximity of St. Luke's and the nature of the 1-84 road interchange, the proposed
amendment in high-density residential development does not provide an improved
guide to the future growth and development of the city. The last one is the proposed
amendment is in the best of the City of Meridian. That's finding number five. For the
reasons stated above, the proposed amendment clearly is not in the best interest of
Meridian. So, in conclusion, it would be improper for Planning and Zoning to
recommend approval of the amendment where the situation reveals that the City
Council cannot make the necessary findings to approve the plan. Four out of five of the
findings they must make are simply not met by Conger's proposed change. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 36 of 88
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Birch: I don't know if I -- this is a sign-up sheet from the neighborhood with everybody's
opinions yea or nay. Give that to you guys?
Borup: Is that the same as has already been presented?
Birch: These are independent of tonight.
Borup: Oh.
Zaremba: If that's new and you'd care to give it to the clerk, it will be entered into the
record. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other spokespersons? Anyone acting as a
spokesman? All right. Thank you. I will read the list and if you have already been
spoken for, if you would just, right where you are, raise your hand and say spoken for.
Again, if you do have something to add that you think has been missed, please, don't
hesitate to come forward. Peggy Slayton. Spoken for. Thank you. Rita Exline.
Spoken for. Thank you. Gloria Flecker. Spoken for. Thank you. Dave Pearcey or
Pairsey? Come on forward, please. Thank you.
Pearcey: Mr. Chairman and staff, my name is David pearcey and I live at 675 Wells
Street in the Magic View Subdivision, Lot No.7, and I don't have a fire hose. Sorry.
Thank you. Okay. My property joins the east side of Woodbridge Subdivision. I have
lived there for almost 32 years. For the first two years I was living there I was out in the
country and there was no other houses -- there was a couple other houses, maybe mine
and two others, and there was no road, there was no traffic going by my house, by the
north side of my property, and on that property I raised quarter-horses, which I think all
the people in Woodbridge probably have found that out and I have seen a lot of
changes and a lot of growth in the area, both commercial in the east and both in
residential to the west and I have attended all the public meetings concerning this -- my
area and I have never been opposed of any -- I have never been against any
commercial or residential projects in the area and the record will show that. I have
always went along with everything. I went along with Woodbridge. I never fought them,
even though they were right up on the west side of me. I feel that the city needs to
grow. They were doing it and why should one guy stop somebody else, his quality of
life, even though I lost my -- you know, I gave that up so others could go ahead and
have their quality of life and they could enjoy it and, in turn, it sounds like I'm kind of
doomed here. Maybe. But the good Lord knows that, I don't. But in the Magic View --
the north side of my property, the traffic has grown so bad that I get probably over a
hundred cars maybe a day or hundreds of cars a day. There may be two or three
thousand. I don't know. But it's a lot. And they complain about the traffic, but I'm the
guy that should complain about it, because it comes right within just feet of my bedroom
window at all hours of the day, all hours of the night, I can't get any sleep at times, the
cars come racing through there, they make noise, but I've never once complained. My
time is about up? Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 37 of 88
Zaremba: If you're concluding, go ahead and conclude.
Pearcey: So, all I want to say is that I'm in support of all the changes as the mixed use
development Conger Management has proposed to this assigned area and I want to
thank everybody, I want to thank all of you for listening to me, and, especially, the
Woodbridge people, I never knew they were so strongly against it, but I wish them all to
have a very good life and I'm sure it's going to work out for the best. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir.
Borup: Mr. Pearcey?
Zaremba: Yeah. Mr. Pearcey.
Borup: Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Just had a question. Were you involved with the Comprehensive Plan change
for your property back in --
Pearcey: I was -- I didn't get on -- nobody notified me when they -- when they did the
final deal that was drawn up, like Woodbridge said. No, I was not notified. I didn't get to
go to all that --
Borup: No. I mean for your property when -- back in the early '90s when that was
designated on the comp plan. Were you involved with any of that with some of your
other neighbors that were --
Pearcey: Alii did -- I never got a chance to say whether I was for it or against it. All I
got was a copy of the map showing after it was all decided.
Borup: Okay.
Pearcey: I never had no opportunity to voice my opinion on whether I liked it or whether
I didn't like it.
Borup: Well, there were about a half a dozen meetings where we had public testimony.
Pearcey: I know, but I never was notified of any of the meetings. All I got later was a
map --
Borup: Okay.
Pearcey: -- showing that the changes were made.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17. 2005
Page 38 of 88
Borup: Thank you.
Pearcey: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you. Lori Zeiner or Lonnie Zeiner. She's been spoken for. Joan
Harry.
Harry: My name is Joan Harry and I live at 2340 East Clifton Drive in Woodbridge and
for my occupation I teach school and I'm very concerned about the impact on the
schools in this area if the proposal were to go through. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Bonnie Robinson.
Robinson: I'm Bonnie Robinson. I live at 715 Wells Street. I'm one of the property
owners. My residence backs up against the east side of Woodbridge. In the '80s to
'90s it was a very rural, peaceful place to live. Deer roamed the creek. Fox raised their
cubs every year in my gated pipe. Mom and poppa goose paraded their goslings up
and down Wells Street. Hundreds of quail and their babies scooted through unlimited
ground cover and about four dozen cows, protected by their own snorting bull, grazed
the 80 acres to my west. Then Peter O'Neil came to Meridian and created the beautiful
community of Woodbridge. All of the reasons cited now in opposition to the Wells
Street properties I feared then. Two story houses would block my view of the beautiful
sunsets. Two hundred seventy-nine homes would dramatically increase traffic. Dogs
just feet away from my house would bark all night and keep me awake. Kids and adults
would speed through the streets and run the stop signs. I would never again be able to
sit in my back lawn and watch the Fourth of July fireworks at the Meridian Speedway.
At the time of those public meetings and hearings I attended every one. Not once did I
stand in opposition to Pete's Woodbridge project or make all of the objections listed
above, which has now come true. Recognizing that growth and change is inevitable in
a vibrant community, I was as cooperative as possible. Woodbridge is a unique
development, highly desirable community, and undoubtedly a reason that Meridian was
chosen one of the best places to live in the nation. Now, there are people in my
backyard opposing the Wells Street properties by saying not in my backyard. There is
no doubt that 279 homes in Woodbridge create more traffic cutting through the Magic
View route than the proposed 108 homes could ever create cutting through
Woodbridge. It's going to require cooperation and compliance with existing speed limits
and stop signs to help manage the traffic. However, that's certainly not unique to
Woodbridge and Wells Street. It's a fact of life all over the Treasure Valley. I owned the
property at the time that the Comprehensive Plans were being proposed. I think I
attended all of the meetings. We specifically requested a mixed-use zoning in that area
and were told that that would not be an option. I have the correspondence relative to
that. I think that's it for me. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 39 of 88
Borup: Yes, ma'am, to -- were you -- same questions previously. Were you -- did you
give any input on the Comp Plan?
Robinson: I have correspondence -- I attended the meetings and requested a mixed-
use zoning and they told us that they -- that was not an option that they were going to
consider, that they wanted to zone it as office and we were just cooperative and
supportive.
Borup: Okay. Mixed use was your --
Robinson: We did.
Borup: -- desired --
Robinson: In fact, yes, we had an entire neighborhood that signed that request.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Amy Hepworth. I don't see any action. The handwriting is clear
enough. I'm pretty sure I'm saying that correctly. Anybody with the last name
Hepworth? Okay. Perhaps she was here and she departed. She's marked in the
against column. Joan Hines. Okay. Had to go. Okay. There are people that thought
they were signing up for Item 3 that used this list, so we will assume that she has no
comment on this one. That is everybody that signed up on this subject, if anybody who
didn't sign up feels there is something they need to add, this is your opportunity for us.
Seeing none, I will ask the applicant to come back and respond again, please. Mr.
Beecham.
Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On -- I think it's
appropriate to note -- we did have a number of meetings with the Woodbridge neighbors
and the Magic View and Greenhill folks were also invited to those meetings. I think this
is a pretty rare occasion. I attend a lot of these meetings. I think this shows the class of
the Woodbridge folks. They have come, they are very prepared, they are, obviously,
very passionate about their concerns and the -- I guess to help their neighborhood and
we very much appreciate that and I guess I appreciate them being very civil to me
tonight. It makes it a lot easier to do my job. I think also appreciate the property owners
getting up here and giving you guys a little bit of a perspective of what their life has
been like since Woodbridge. Even a good quality development brings some bad
circumstances sometimes. So, I think that's important to note. We did not receive the
petition, however, so I'm not sure of everything that was included in that. I'd, actually,
appreciate a copy of that, if I could get that. But I'll start off with trip generation. Here
are the numbers I have from ACHD and these are rough numbers based on a concept
plan. Townhouses and condominiums, which is how they would designate this type of
development, a non-traditional family type of home, generates about 5.86 units -- or
trips per unit per day. That would equate to about 635 vehicle trips per day generated
from this site going in a variety of directions. Today it's got two. It's got -- you can
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 40 of 88
either go east or you can go west through Woodbridge. Office generates about 11.42
trips per thousand square feet. Using for a ratio of 25 percent, which I think is
appropriate for this type of office development, if it did go that route, would be about 117
-- close to 119,000 square feet of office that could potentially be developed on these 12
acres. That would equate to about 1,345 vehicle trips per day generated on this site.
Again, the neighbors are absolutely correct, they do have a different pattern. There
may not be weekend use. There may be weekend use, though. We are seeing a lot of
the developments going in in Silverstone and EI Dorado that are running three shifts a
day. That's more of a call center and I think we can all trust the city would -- would
protect them from that type of intensive use, but there are some situations where you
might get activity at all hours and during the weekends. On Woodbridge at 279 units --
I, actually, had 283, but in that 280 range would generate about 2,700 trips per day out
of Woodbridge. That's about four times what the proposed development would be and
about twice of what the office development would be. Mr. Flecker -- I believe I have got
that name right -- is correct, that is just on 12 acres. There is more property to look at.
We need to look at the entire picture. But what this says to me -- I guess what his
testimony says to me is, City of Meridian, you can no longer grow in this area east of
Woodbridge or west of Woodbridge, for that matter, because we have got a situation
here that -- a unique situation that shouldn't allow the traffic to go back and forth. I don't
think that's right. I think the city should be encouraging smart growth and I think our
proposal is smart growth. Putting roof-tops near employment centers and services is
important. There is more to it than just shopping centers, I think, and grocery stores, we
have got to look at all the services and all the employment that's around this area. I
don't think the City of Meridian wants to take a stance and we are no longer going to
allow growth, because Woodbridge has a traffic problem. I do think that the City of
Meridian will look at this and say we have got an applicant with a development proposal
in a neighborhood that both want solutions to a bigger traffic problem. This project in
itself is not the problem, but we would be happy to be part of the solution and I think I
hear the Woodbridge folks saying the same thing. Mr. Birch testified as to required
findings. I am a planner by profession, I know a little bit about it, but I will certainly defer
to staff on this. I think your staff's done a wonderful job. I think we have got a good
staff report that suggests you can make the findings to approve this project and their
recommendation for approval suggests that, really, you ought to make the findings to
approve this project, because it is what the City of Meridian, through their
Comprehensive Plan and some of our recent discussions with them, is encouraging.
Again, the smart growth, higher density, in the appropriate locations. Steve's comments
-- actually, are more appropriate to a suburban type development. If we don't increase
density in certain appropriate areas, we will never have walkable communities. We
have currently some medium and low-density developments very close to employment
cores. Every trip out of Woodbridge in the morning -- not every trip. Many trips out of
Woodbridge in the morning cut right through Magic View and let's not forget they are
neighbors, too. Those trips cut through Magic View going to the major employment
centers, which largely lie east of Woodbridge and not west. Our hope is that the City of
Meridian -- that the downtown core grows to be a more significant player in the
employment center, but currently we have 240 acres just south of the interstate slated
for employment, office park. We have got the downtown Boise core. We have got
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 41 of 88
Boise Town Square. All of these are major draws for employment and that's where our
traffic study suggests most of the traffic will go. Joan testified regarding school impact.
I just want to touch on that, because I know that is a significant issue right now and,
fortunately, a bond was just passed, but this proposal is for nontraditional family. It is
not expected to generate a lot of school age children. There will be some and we
understand capacity issues. We would certainly be more than willing to work with the
school district in making sure that they can accommodate potential students or add
growth in that area. With that I guess I'd like to close my comments in saying we are
comfortable -- we are comfortable with the recommendation for approval and the fact
that we need to bring further plans to you to further insure the city that what we have
presented here today is what we will, indeed, do. We would certainly appreciate and
would -- and are requesting a recommendation to the City Council for approval on the
Comp Plan amendment, independent if we need to wait for the additional applications to
come forward or not. Thank you, again, for your time and I'll stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Not at this point.
Zaremba: Okay. Staff, any questions that come to mind?
Guenther: No.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you very much.
Beecham: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I want to say before we start comment on this, this is the most well
organized homeowners group and property owners to come before us in more than a
year and I want to thank everybody. It makes our job difficult, but I do want to thank all
of you for putting in the effort, because this is probably the most well organized group
that we have seen and I appreciate also the property owners coming out testifying. We
do not always have that luxury here to get the story from both sides of the argument and
I appreciate that as well.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, I would add to that incredibly well articulated tonight.
Zaremba: Yes.
Canning: It has been nice. Thank you all.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 42 of 88
Zaremba: A great deal of clarity added and we appreciate that. As you observed, that
doesn't make our job any easier. Opinions?
Newton-Huckabay: I, myself, have driven through Woodbridge several times. One just
to see the development when it was completed. And, two, I grew up in this area as well.
We had a property there on Mustang most of the time I was growing up and this is not
an easy solution. There is not good connectivity here. I don't know -- myself, when I
drive by this, I think we need a frontage road, somehow, to connect to Locust Grove. I
think the Locust Grove overpass is going to -- I'm not sure what it's going to do for the
capacity, but I think it's going to change the dynamic of traffic in that area and I think
that because you have -- you have got, you know, a theater to the south now, you have
got the high school -- I wish 1 had a -- do you have a laser pointer? And we have got
the -- this one here -- isn't this the one that's going to be all -- it's going to be the hotel,
restaurant, retail -- about six or seven restaurants in there. These haven't come through
yet. Is this the theater here? No. No. This is -- okay. Of course -- and, then, EI
Dorado and Silverstone. So, that's my question and that's the conundrum, where do
you send people? But I also tend to agree with Mr. Beecham, this office use may not be
the best solution for this area. But I certainly also -- I want to make a point, just
suggesting that this one piece be --
Zaremba: The two pieces together.
Newton-Huckabay: The two pieces. I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Be re-designated. What does that do for this down here? I mean
you're kind of making an island and I don't think that that would be good. I would think if
we are going to recommend changing the Comprehensive Plan, we need to look at
changing, you know, this whole section here to some extent.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, if I could comment.
Huckabay, you have approved an office use --
Commissioner Newton-
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's right.
Canning: -- to that property.
Newton-Huckabay: My mistake. You're right. I forgot.
Canning: And we have heard that these two properties, as was stated earlier by the
applicant, that they have been sold and purchased for development purposes, not un-
similar to what the applicant is actually proposing tonight. And, then, these properties
have developed already as office.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 43 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I knew these had, but I didn't -- these haven't developed yet,
though? The last time I was out there --
Canning: No. These two have been purchased. I have not heard anything on this one.
I have not heard anything on these two, but this one is approved for office.
Newton-Huckabay: And this is coming forth as high density residential, too?
Canning: Not yet. We have had discussions with potential applicants, but there is no
application in the process. And I believe it qualifies as medium density, just technically.
The ones they are proposing.
Newton-Huckabay: There is nowhere for everybody to go.
Zaremba: Well, I guess the question on that is if it remains unchanged, then, office
uses would go in there and there is still a traffic issue with those. I guess the question is
if you were in favor of this change, how much does that change the traffic? There is
going to be -- no matter what happens there, it's not a good situation for traffic either
direction. And unless ACHD is going to buy a bunch of houses right next to the
interstate right of way, which I don't think is in their budget, I don't know that there is a
solution for this area. Certainly, the development to the north with the stub streets
envisions that there is going to be more traffic and connectivity. I think the question
before us is -- nobody has to come to us if they propose an office. If we make this
change, how big of an impact is that?
Newton-Huckabay: Office is an allowed use.
Zaremba: And is that go or a no go for you? I didn't help, did I?
Newton-Huckabay: Have you ever driven through Woodbridge?
Zaremba: Yes. Yes. I have driven through both sides of that area.
Newton-Huckabay:
Borup?
It's a very narrow street.
I perceive, anyway. Commissioner
Borup: Well, you're right about this not being easy. I think Joan -- I believe her name
was Joan Harry, a lot of her comments were some of the same things I was wondering
and I'm sure the Magic View people had some of the same concerns when Woodbridge
went in, as far as the traffic and interrupting their lifestyle, and I guess we have heard
testimony to that -- that actually has happened. I see some aspects of this area with
this proposal probably incorporates some of the designs of the neighborhood center
design, where -- with the commercial close in and as it goes out, you know, higher
density and, then, at a lower density residential. Even though we don't have all the
aspects of the neighborhood center, we have some of the progressive aspects of it.
The only thoughts I had, if the whole area would have developed as all residential and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 44 of 88
no office, which would to -- to the same density as Woodbridge, the traffic would be
much greater than anything we are talking about now. And that's something that -- you
know, I don't know how anybody could object to having a neighborhood built next to you
the same as what you are. I mean that's always what everybody wants, normally.
There is a traffic light -- I mean I agree, I try to avoid Eagle Road when possible. And
there is not very many hours of the day where it's comfortably drive-able. There are a
few. But there is a traffic light on Eagle coming from this subdivision. It seems to be a
very long light, but it is there. I mean I guess all that in my mind is maybe in the favor of
this. The other thing that bothers me somewhat is that there was a Comp Plan
designation here and, you know, buying property next to something, you have that
expectation that that is what's going to go in, whether it was the proper designation,
whether there was enough input, I don't know. It may have been over-optimistic to think
that that whole property could develop to those standards. So, that's my dilemma. I
have got conflicting thoughts.
Zaremba: I could be very comfortable with this developing as offices, if that were ever
to happen, and the current Comprehensive Plan envisions that. I also can see the
aspect that if you consider this whole block, shall we say, almost three quarters of a
square mile from the interstate to Franklin and from Eagle to Locust Grove, that whole
area, if this -- if this property and even the two just north of it, were to develop to a
higher density residential, then, that whole area truly meets the definition of mixed use.
You know, I was focusing on this one piece of property is not a mixed use, it's just
residential, but if you look at that whole three-quarters of a square mile -- I think it was
Commissioner Borup that mentioned the neighborhood centers of intensity and, then,
reduced intensity, then reduced intensity, this was a good example of that. I'm not the
economist, I don't know which sells better, offices or residential, although I have been
hearing that we have got enough office -- empty office space. That being said and my
knowledge that whatever happens there is going to add to the traffic, it seems to me an
appropriate place to put a little higher density residential, again, as a transition from the
higher commercial use to the east and I guess I'm making up my mind as I sit here. I
could support staff's recommendation that our recommendation to the City Council be to
hold this until they see what the project is and if the project complies, to go ahead with
it.
Borup: Well, this density is not as great as if it -- as an apartment complex would be.
You know, they are usually 15 to 20 or more per unit. So, it's, you know, half or less
than what that would be. So, we are talking about strictly traffic and I -- you know,
relying on Mr. Beecham's and several of those are, obviously, familiar numbers that we
have heard in other reports. This is the least amount of traffic. It's hard to determine
which direction they are going to go, maybe, and what time of day, but this is the least
of all the traffic generators, if the traffic is the only -- is a big concern. I mean it depends
on where the people are coming from. For the offices, if they come from Boise, they are
going to come down Eagle. If they are Meridian residents, coming through Woodbridge
would be very tempting, if you're living in Meridian. That's the way I would go if I was
living in Meridian and wanting to go to office to work in here. Also, most of the -- most
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 45 of 88
of the shopping and entertainment and that kind of stuff, you would be heading east, so
Newton-Huckabay: South.
Borup: South and east.
Zaremba: East and south.
Borup: Or north, too, if you're going to Crossroads Subdivision -- I mean if you're
heading for shopping and entertainment and, you know, even into Boise, you're going to
be heading east out of here. Whatever that meant. I don't know.
Zaremba: Are we ready to close the Public Hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: You're waiting for my decision?
Zaremba: Do you have an opinion?
Newton-Huckabay: I just can't at this point, in good faith, go with a Comp Plan
amendment. I just -- I think it's to -- I don't like Comp Plan amendments anyway,
because I'm just about, you know, fatigued with those this month. But I just -- I can't -- I
can't vote in favor of the Comp Plan amendment on this piece -- on this area right now.
I think there has just got to be some more work done on what is an impossible way to
get traffic circulating through there. I like this development, I think it's very nice, and I
think it would be -- it would provide some choices that we don't have enough of in this
city for people, but I just -- I can't -- I can't, in good faith, vote for a Comp Plan
amendment -- or vote for recommending one on this particular piece of property.
Zaremba: That would force the traffic issue.
Borup: What do you mean?
Zaremba: My question there is if, for some reason, offices were proposed on these
properties, we wouldn't even see it.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: And there would still be a traffic issue.
Borup: Well, a bigger traffic issue.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, call me a coward, but in that case I wouldn't have to sleep at
night knowing that I voted for it. You know, I guess I just don't -- I think we are going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 46 of 88
perpetuate a problem. Is there a solution? Do I know what the solution is? No, I don't.
I think I said, everybody's argued very compellingly and I --
Borup: Well, I think a Comp Plan has to be somewhat fluid. I mean you're not going to
-- you're not going to put something down that's going to stay permanent for -- forever.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Borup: I don't know that it needs to be changed in three years. And I don't know that
it's intended that an area that you visualize for future growth has to be built out in three
years. I mean it's supposed to be a long-term plan and develop over the years. A lot of
areas in Meridian are not extending out very long term lately, but -- I mean that was my
visualization. You know, I don't -- I don't remember testimony at the meeting if that was
even discussed, but, you know -- you know, five to ten years to me wouldn't have been
an unreasonable time period for this to fully develop. Maybe we haven't given it a
chance to --
Zaremba: If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying give the current Comprehensive
Plan a chance to work.
Borup: Well, I don't know, I was just expounding on what Commissioner Huckabay
said.
Newton-Huckabay: There is no easy -- very tough question.
Borup: I like the project. I mean it's not -- it's not high density like an apartment
complex, you don't -- you don't attract the same type of individuals. I mean just
because it's more of a single -- single lot development. And I -- maybe we -- maybe
there should have been some more clarification. I don't know if I heard specifically. Are
these all -- he had mentioned condos and townhouses, so I assume those are all of the
individual deeded properties that's not -- it's not rental properties. I mean, you know,
obviously, it could be, but it's -- it's not like apartment buildings, each -- each unit would
be individually owned. Not a lot different than some of the small little lots in
Woodbridge. They have got some sections in there that have fairly small lots.
Zaremba: Well, my opinion is with the access to Magic View closed, a project like this
could actually add value to the neighborhood in adding another option. That's why I still
lean towards accepting what the staff suggested. I would still recommend that the city
sit on it until they have the other application with it. As the chairman I cannot make the
motion, so I will let you two lead.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, did you close the Public Hearing?
Zaremba: Not yet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 47 of 88
Canning: Okay.
Zaremba: Just in case we had questions to ask of anybody. I think we heard
everybody and understood everybody. That didn't leave any questions.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on CPA 05-002, request
for a Comprehensive Plan amend map amendment to change approximately 11.79
acres from office to mixed-use community by Conger Management Group, 675 and 716
South Wells Street.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion to close the Public Hearing carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: If I make the motion and it's -- I said I can't at this time -- I just don't
feel comfortable recommending approval personally.
Borup: Well, there is two motions you can make.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure. If you two are voting in favor,
maybe it would be more appropriate to have you make the motion. I'd like to take a
moment and --
Borup: I haven't decided which way I'm voting yet.
Newton-Huckabay: -- at the two missing Commissioners --
Borup: That's what I was going to say, I wish we had a few more Commissioner input.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend that -- oh, shoot. Denial of --
Borup: Page six.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 48 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: -- CPA -- I'm going to recommend denial to the City Council of file
number CPA 05-002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September
-- oh. Was it today's hearing date? October 17th, 2005, for the following reasons: I
personally think it's premature to change the Comprehensive Plan at this time. I think
there are too many uncertainties surrounding the use of this property and traffic. Did
you have anything else we needed to add? Is that sufficient, Mr. Nary?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there are no specific standards you
have to find. So, if you don't feel it is appropriate to amend the Comprehensive Plan at
this time, that is sufficient.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Would you strike that statement, since I was just reading
from the script? I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Your motion is simpler, just to deny it, I believe. And I would ask for
clarification from counsel Mr. Nary. If a person makes a second, it does not
automatically signal that they approve, they merely agree to bring it to a vote?
Nary: Mr. Chairman that is correct. A second is merely just an opportunity for further
discussion and vote on the motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Okay.
That has one in favor and two opposed. That motion does not carry.
MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: So, do we have to make another motion?
Zaremba: Yes, we do.
Newton-Huckabay: Do I need to make that motion?
Zaremba: Not necessarily. There are a couple of choices. We -- staff has
recommended that we forward this onto City Council recommending approval, but that
they hold it until other applications catch up with it. We would also have the opportunity
not to --
Borup: Of approving or -- yeah.
Zaremba: -- but say that we want to see those applications before we make the
recommendation. It just wouldn't be in this six months cycle.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 49 of 88
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba? If they bring forward an application, you still need
to make a recommendation on that to City Council. So, you would, of course, be
included in that -- in that review before it gets up to City Council.
Zaremba: All right.
Canning: And I did want to clarify that the staff report dated September 22nd is correct.
Sorry. It's not today's date. It was the 22nd.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Canning: I apologize for nodding inappropriately.
Newton-Huckabay: I just bungled it from the beginning.
Borup: No. You're fine. I'm not sure if I understood what Director Canning was saying
about the two applications -- about the applications going to City Council.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Commissioner Borup, if you decide to recommend
approval, but have Council wait until accompanying development applications catch up
with it, those applications would go through normal review process and they would first
come to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation and you would
conduct a public hearing, just --
Borup: All right. I understood that part. Clarification on the December 15th date.
We're saying that's when another application can be submitted?
Canning: Yes, sir. Although I did confer with the City Attorney just after I said that. The
cutoff as specified in the Unified Development Code is June 15th and December 15th.
Borup: All right. So, were these turned in at June 15th?
Canning: Yes, they were. But the standard further goes on to say that the Commission
can only make a recommendation every six months. So, regardless of what the cutoff
date is, you're still held to the six months and that's what I was questioning the attorney
about.
Borup: That's what I was wondering. That's why I asked that.
Canning: And, Commissioner Zaremba, if I might just add one other clarification for the
record, in case this ever comes up.
Zaremba: Please do.
Canning: There was questions about whether there was findings and, no, there are not
any findings in your packet. The findings that you heard testified to earlier in a very
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 50 of 88
articulate statement, were actually based on the Unified Development Code, which was
not in effect when this application was turned in. So, although the points were still very
valid, that's why you don't have any findings, so -- is because it came in before the
UDC.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, back to my original question. Am I supposed to make a
motion recommending approval with those stipulations that you were discussing and,
then, vote against my own motion?
Zaremba: You certainly can do that.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Or someone else can make a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay,
you're never required to make a motion. If you don't feel compelled to, you're certainly
not obligated to. Commissioner Borup certainly can make a motion of he chooses,
instead. But you're not obligated to make a motion in the reverse of your prior motion,
unless that's your desire.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I'd prefer not to contradict myself.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: That seems perfectly rational to me.
Zaremba: And it's been clarified that I was incorrect, we do not have the option of sitting
on it ourselves. We must make a recommendation one way or the other tonight.
Borup: Then City Council can sit on it. And the other applications mayor may not be
approved.
Zaremba: That's true as well. Which the City Council would need to consider when
they consider this, if we couple them.
Borup: Well, I probably ought to make a motion, then.
Newton-Huckabay: Could I make one more comment? I think it would be appropriate
for the City Council, one, for the developer -- and, of course, all the property owners
involved, I mean what is the -- what would work for them in this area? Because I --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 51 of 88
Zaremba: Clearly, fixing the transportation problem.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, without stating a pink elephant in the area.
Zaremba: And there may be some time for people to put their heads together and
maybe make some suggestions. There were a number of suggestions made. I don't
know how economically viable some of them are, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I'm just trying to say that this came back before us
again looking very much like it does today, with the same arguments that have been put
forth today and -- from both sides. We are in the same position, then, as we are now,
we are just six months later.
Zaremba: That's very true.
Newton-Huckabay: I know for one, the developer probably would not like to see that
happen again. And I'm sure that the property owners would like to have resolution. But
that's the end of my comment.
Zaremba: In the meantime, the developer -- the applicant discovers that maybe office is
more viable here or the situation changes between now and then that there isn't as
much vacant office space before it goes to City Council, they certainly can withdraw it.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Proceed.
Borup: All right. I'm ready for a motion. I just try to make decisions on, first of all,
what's best for the city as a whole. Also, how I would feel if I was living in the
neighborhood. Well, I guess I'm -- some of the things I'm basing it on is, for one, this is
going to go towards -- we only make recommendations. This is going to City Council.
They are the ones that really have to make the decision. That's always the out we
have.
Zaremba: And to be honest, they don't always agree with us, so --
Borup: Yes. So, two of the things I thought was a concern -- I mean traffic was a
concern. It looks to me like of all the traffic scenarios, this one is the least detrimental
effect. I know everyone's always worried about the worst case and what's going to
happen. Over the last eight years since I have seen this so many times and I have
never seen the scenarios happen that people present at these meetings. Not saying it
won't some day, it just hasn't happened yet. And with a lot more intensity developments
than this. It's never come about. The other thing I think is in an influence to me is that
they are single ownership, individual lot ownership, it's not like an apartment complex.
So, that being said, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA
05-002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date -- that still would change;
right?
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. Any opposed? 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