HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 5, 2007 P&Z Minutes
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 10 of 64
come forward and speak, now is that time. Okay. Good. Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add. I can see the importance of rezoning both of
these at the same time, so --
Rohm: Seems appropriate. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I agree.
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien? Okay. Good. End of comments.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move to continue file number CPA 07-005 to the hearing date of April 19th, 2007.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items CPA 07-005 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Good. Before we open up any of these additional public hearings tonight,
the thing that we want to get input on tonight from the public -- and we are very
interested in your comments -- is specifically the staff will present each one of these
projects as they see this amendment moving forward and what we would like is we
would like to have comments specific to the staff report, so that we can kind of keep
your comments and their presentation all on the same page. And so that's the way we
would like to work these. And, then, the second thing is there are a lot of people here
tonight and we want to give everybody an opportunity to speak and, typically, that the
way these hearings work is there is a little light meter up here that will come on and
each individual will be given three minutes to make their specific point and if, in fact, it
takes a little bit longer than the three minutes by all means we certainly want to hear
everything that you have to say, but we also want to give everybody that's in the
audience an opportunity to speak their part. So, we would appreciate it if you would do
your very best to keep your comments within that three minute time frame.
Item 4:
Public Hearing: CPA 07-002 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future
land uses designations to include the land east of McDermott Road south
to Lake Hazel Road and 12 mile east of Linder Road south to 12 mile south
of Columbia Road, east to ~ mile west of Cloverdale Road for South
Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 11 of 64
Meridian Planning Department:
~
Item 5:
Public Hearing: CPA 07-009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Map and
include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area
by City of Meridian Planning Department:
Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to at this time open the Public Hearing on CPA
07-002 and CPA 07-009, both items related to the Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan
Amendment -- well, Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan amendment and the South
Meridian Area Plan and begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment for the area south
of the interstate shown on the overhead, highlighted in gray. This amendment will
expand the area of city impact south and west to the boundaries shown and designate
future land uses on property that will eventually be within city limits. The subject area
consists of approximately 17.8 square miles or 11,392 acres. And currently a text
amendment is requested to add four new land use designations to the future land use
map. Very low density residential, medium high density residential, neutraceutical
overlay and mixed use employment. The proposed text changes will insure that
residential uses are included in neighborhood centers and will mandate more diverse
land uses, insure transit support of densities, and create an appropriate number of roof
tops to support commercial businesses and neighborhood centers. The text amendment
coincides with land use designations proposed in the staff response future land use
map and will apply throughout the city and area of city impact. The planning process for
the proposed map amendment began in April 2006 with a public meeting to determine
what community the residents in this area most closely identified with, Meridian or Kuna.
From this meeting the City Council established the study area boundary shown on the
overhead. A second public meeting was held in July 2006 to further refine the vision of
residents and stakeholders for the planning area. Public responses from this meeting
stressed down planning, responsible growth, rural agricultural lifestyle preservation and
adequate infrastructure provisions as the most important elements for the area. Based
on the input received from the first two meetings, the project team developed three
alternative land use maps to present to the public. At a third meeting the public
reviewed these maps and the majority of participants stated a preference for the land
use alternative that emphasized low density residential development patterns. Parks
and open space, smaller scale commercial services, employment areas and adequate
transportation infrastructure throughout the study area were identified as a priority for
many of the area residents. These elements were incorporated into the land use map
shown on the overhead. Subsequent to the creation of this map the city received results
a transportation study that ACHD is currently preparing. Staff also revisited a draft
market study that was prepared with and for the south Meridian planning process. The
market study indicates that the south Meridian area will attract between 5,000 and
50,000 new residents between now and the year 2030. However, the city notes that
only a limited number of potential new residents -~ less than 25 percent -- will be able to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 12 of 64
afford homes built in conventional low density areas of less than three units per acre.
The study stresses the need to promote greater diversity in housing with fewer large lot
homes and more multi-family higher density units. ACHD's transportation study
indicates that based on the future land uses proposed in the subject application, the
road network in the study area will need significant improvements that are not currently
in any ACHD, Compass, or ITD plan. The collective impacts of these improvements do
not align with, number one, the vision of the community conveyed by area residents or,
number two, what staff feels is desirable from a planning perspective. For example,
almost 20 miles of seven lane roadway. Even with these large capacity expansions
portions of the transportation still fail to function at a desirable level of service due to
forecasted increases in population and the traffic volumes. This intensity of
development and resultant congestion is counter to the recommendations and
preferences of area residents. Based on the results of these studies, staff prepared a
revised future land use map entitled staff response shown on the overhead. Matt
Ellsworth will provide a detailed explanation of this map.
Ellsworth: Thank you, Sonya. And from the outset, just for clarification, I will probably
jump back and forth between the two maps referencing one or the other, so for this
revised -- the revised version of the map I will refer to it as staff response and for the
original iteration I'll refer to that as the preferred alternative. So, diving into some of the
designations that are proposed up here. The very light green areas on the future land
use map that is on the overhead at the moment refer to very low density residential
areas. That's a new designation. And staff is considering adding -- well, we are still
toying around with some of the language on this designation, but broadly speaking it
proposes minimum three acre lots and the new addition that staff is considering with this
is in certain areas, specifically down along the southern edge of the study boundary,
allowing increased setbacks, rather than the extremely high acreage there -- or
relatively high acreage I should say for each residential lot. That's one that we hope to
revisit over the course of the next couple of weeks and we will have more to report on
that when we reconvene on April the 19th. The reason that staff is recommending the
inclusion of this very low density residential area is several fold. On the one hand, as
Sonya mentioned, the overall number of households in this area, based on the number
of -- or the land use designations, rather, and the preferred alternative, led to
considerable strains on the transportation system in this area. So, one of the goals
going into these recommended changes was to decrease the overall number of units
across the study area boundary. Another one of the goals was to align more closely with
the preferences that were conveyed by the public throughout the public involvement
process, specifically to preserve the rural character of the area as it is. We felt that with
this designation on these larger acre residential lots that would be a good mechanism to
do so and at the same time potentially set some land aside to allow the opportunity for a
cluster subdivision, long-term preservation of open space, potentially long term
preservation of agricultural land and so forth. Staff is engaged in conversations with Ada
county about potential implementation measures and there will be more to come on that
as well. But for the time being those are some of the -- some of the reasons why staff is
proposing this very low density residential designation. Moving on to low density and
medium density residential, those, of course, are familiar designations, excuse me, and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 13 of 64
primarily throughout the study area here those are included to provide a transition
between some of the higher intensity uses and the lower intensity uses and also to
reinforce the Comprehensive Plan goal of providing diversity in housing stock. The
second of the new future land use designations that is proposed with the
Comprehensive Plan amendments is medium high density residential, which you can
see on the overhead there, that's the orange land use designation. This would allow
residential densities ranging from eight to fifteen units per acre, with a target density of
12 units per acre. Staff made it a point to allowing most of these along major
transportation routes as identified in the regional long range transportation plan
Communities In Motion. So, you can see they are starting on the western edge of the
study boundary. There are some medium high residential designations along Amity
Road and, then, as you get to State Highway 69 they jog south and, then, continue
along Lake Hazel and, in addition, there is some more back on the corner of Amity and
Ten Mile. In conversations with Compass and some other members of the
transportation community, in reviewing the preferred alternative, the first iteration of the
future land use map, we found that in trying to increase the density along these same
corridors -- we didn't quite go high enough. We proposed an abundance of medium
density residential houses along those same corridors. As it turns out, the three to eight
units per acre that would be allowed within medium density residential designations
would not be high enough to support transit in the future. So, we felt it necessary to go
back to get to that same goal, which was another priority mentioned by the public was to
open the door for future transit to make sure that we actually did it right. So, that's the
reason for the inclusion of the medium high density residential designation. Moving on
to the two neighborhood centers, one on the corner of Black Cat and Amity and the
second on the corner of Locust Grove and Lake Hazel. Another thing that we heard
continually throughout the public involvement process was the desire for day-to-day
commercial service to be met somewhere within the study area. People are sick of
having to travel across 1-84 in order to go to the grocery store and so forth. So, we felt
that the neighborhood center, which is a currently recognized component of the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map was the best way to do that. It doesn't open
the door for big box type retail, but it does allow a mechanism through which some of
those day-to-day commercial services can be -- can be offered in the study area. In
addition, within the text amendment, another change that is recommended by staff at
this time is the requirement that 40 percent of land within neighborhood centers be
designated for residential uses. And this kind of gets back to the intent of the
neighborhood center designation within the Comprehensive Plan. It, basically,
reinforces the inclusion of residential in those neighborhood centers, which -- which will
create a better environment for the small scale commercial uses that are also
envisioned within those centers. Another component of the Comprehensive Plan, as is
currently adopted by the city, is that within neighborhood centers all residential areas
will have at least eight units per acre and that's approximately the cut off for transit
supported densities. So, if you link the two together, essentially, 40 percent of these
neighborhood centers go towards residential uses and those residential uses will be
transit supportive. So, again, that's just to reinforce the impact of the neighborhood
centers as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. There is a mixed use employment area.
That's a new -- another new land use designation and that's located on the corner of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 14 of 64
Lake Hazel and Meridian Road. As compared to the other mixed use designations that
are currently recognized by the city, this has -- and has the emphasis on employment
uses and there is language within the text amendments that are proposed that would
limit any new retail specifically to those uses that are there to taylor to the businesses
that locate within that employment center. On the one hand it offsets the job housing
and balance in the valley and on the other hand it just creates some more employment
opportunities in the City of Meridian. On the southwest corner of Amity and State
Highway 69, Meridian Road there, there is a small parcel that is proposed for mixed use
community. As you can see, the other three corners of that same intersection are
currently designated mixed use regional. So, it's, essentially, a step down as far as
intensity of uses within a mixed use category. Staff felt that that would -- that that would
balance well with what's going on on the other three intersections, but at the same time
not necessarily require the same level of access from those major streets coming
through there in order to create a viable site for those commercial uses. The fourth and
final new designation that's proposed with this application is the neutraceutical overlay,
which you can see on the hatched out area on the southwest portion of the study area.
And this area would allow -- would allow research and development type agricultural
oriented uses and the vision there is for seed research, for biomedical research, things
of that nature. The location was chosen for several reasons. On the one hand you can
see it's adjacent to Lake Hazel, which is in the long range transportation plan is slated
for one of the major east-west routes in the valley. In addition, it's right down the road
from the mixed use employment area, which, again, is envisioned for a business park,
office campus type of use. We figure those two could work well together. You grow the
things that are being researched over in the neutraceutical overlay and, then, bring
them to the employment -- mixed use employment area, excuse me, for the research.
The other major transportation route that is planned at least that made that area make
sense is the future State Highway 16 connection to 1-84, which is planned at the
moment for someplace in the vicinity of McDermott Road. The exact alignment of that is
currently being studied by Idaho Transportation Department. We hope to have a more
specific alignment sometime in the next couple of years, but it has stated that
someplace in that vicinity is where that will come down. So, we figured the access to the
major north-south facility, addition to the east-west facility, made that location make
sense. So, as Sonya noted, staff did have several concerns with the preferred
alternative, so it would be staff's recommended responses -- we sought to do several
things. On the one hand, as has already been mentioned, was to more closely align with
public comments that were received throughout the process. The other aim is related
primarily to transportation and housing are, of course, related to the first -- the first
reason for the changes, but on the transportation side, as I said, we wanted to lower the
number of households in the study area, thereby decreasing the demands on the
transportation system. In addition, we wanted to increase the intensities along those
major transportation corridors. As compared to the preferred alternative, the
recommend or the needed impact, based on these proposed future land uses and the
staff response, these land uses would require 18 miles of roadway at three lanes in
order to achieve a level of service E, which general speaking is at capacity, but it's still
moving on the roadways. So, that's reasonable for your peak hour when there will be
most cars on the road. So, like I said, it would be 18 miles of roadway at three lanes, as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 15 of 64
opposed to ten, which would result from the preferred alternative. As far as the seven
mile roadways, Sonya also mentioned that a total of just under 20 would have been
required at seven lanes, based on the preferred alternative. We were able to get that
down to 13 miles of roadway requiring seven lanes with the staff response. The
preferred alternative, in spite of all the transportation system increases that were
recommended, two of the intersections still function as a level of service F at peak hour,
as opposed to the staff response in which all intersections were functioning at an
acceptable level of service. As we already mentioned with these densities, we were able
to increase the densities to transit supportive levels in the staff response and as far as
the housing was concerned, Sonya also mentioned that the market study told us that
based on, essentially, the preferred alternative, a lot of folks that potentially would be
interested in buying homes in the area would be priced out of the market. So, we really
wanted to get that number of homes on those larger lots down. In the shift from the
abundance of low density residential and the preferred alternative to the inclusion of the
very low density and the staff response, we were able to decrease the number of units
on low and very low density residential designated areas by over 5,000 from over
11,000 down to just over 6,000. So, we thought that was going in the right direction as
well. Also on housing and in accordance with the city's Comprehensive Plan, staff was
eager to increase the potential future housing stock within the study area. We feel that
citywide at the moment we seem to have plenty of the single family, low to medium
density areas slated for future homes, so we really wanted to move away from that and
just start providing something a little bit different. The preferred alternative would have
had, like I said, just over 11,000 units in the low density residential -- in the areas
designated as low density residential. There would have been over 14,500 units in
those areas designated medium density residential. High density residential would have
had 940 units. And within the neighborhood center we estimated just over 900 units. As
opposed to the staff response, which staff feels distributes that future housing stock
much more equally. The very low residential would have approximately 1,600 units. Low
density residential about 4,500 units. Medium density residential just over 6,000 units.
Medium high density residential a little bit over 7,000 units. And within the neighborhood
centers a little bit over 1,200 units of residential housing are estimated by staff within
those areas. So, those were the reasons why staff considered the changes and that
was sort of a brief analysis on the success of achieving those goals. So, I will turn it
back over to Sonya at this point.
Watters: Staff is recommending approval of the requested text amendment and map
amendment with the land use designation shown in Exhibit A-11, staff response per the
staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Good job. It's a lot to absorb and I'm sure there are people in the audience that
have specific thoughts on acreages within that area of impact and I'm sure we are going
to hear some of those comments. Before we move to that portion, is there any
questions of staff before we move forward? Commissioner Siddoway?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 16 of 64
Siddoway: I do have one and it's for Matt. And you may have said it and I just may have
missed it while I was writing, but the mixed use employment designation is it intended to
allow or disallow retail uses?
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, the
text that is proposed would allow an extremely limited amount of retail within that area
and the way that it's worded at present is only those retail uses that are specifically
tailoring to the existing employment uses within that area would be permissible. So, that
would be your coffee shops down the street from the office complexes and things of that
nature.
Siddoway: Not the regional or community oriented shopping centers, grocery stores,
things like that?
Ellsworth: Correct.
Siddoway: Okay.
Ellsworth: It wouldn't be destination type retail.
Siddoway: That's all I have.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comments before we
go forward?
Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe?
Moe: Not at this time.
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien?
O'Brien: I have a few.
Rohm: Okay.
O'Brien: Being new to this here, so some of the questions probably have already been
answered, but some of the concerns that I would look at is that you have an industrial
plant -- basically a mine -- a calcium mine just outside of a neighborhood center on Lake
Hazel. What considerations do we have regarding that and the residential use of that
area?
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission and Commissioner O'Brien,
the planning director Anna Canning said that there may have been a pre-applicant
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 17 of 64
meeting last week about that area to change the use. I apologize, Commissioner
O'Brien. Would you mind pointing out where that is.
O'Brien: It's right there -- right outside that line of the NC center. That calcium mine has
been there for upteen years, as long as I have been there. It's 30 years or more. And
they, basically, mine calcium that they use for the body, I guess, and I don't know what
kind of an impact that has, what -- if you start building a -- you know, mixed use there or
a residence area around that, what impact would that have?
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, as it
turns out that -- that operation at the moment is optioned to a developer who controls
some of the land near the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove. So, from the
sound of it it will likely be developing in the near future and will align fairly well with
some of the other uses.
O'Brien: Okay. So, it's going to go away? Is that what you're saying?
Ellsworth: That's the sound of it, yes, sir.
O'Brien: Right above the -- this area right in here there is a -- actually, closer in this area
there is a feedlot and I assume that's going to go away when the McGurdios sell their
land and is there -- is there clean up issues regarding the soil saturation from the feedlot
and does that need to be cleaned up and by who is going to be responsible for it?
Baird: Mr. Chair, I'll jump in on that one. If there are any clean up issues it would be the
responsibility of the landowner and it wouldn't be anything that we would need to
consider with the application that's in front of you. Good question, though.
O'Brien: Thank you. Okay. The other question I have is the water table levels and we
are going to be adding some wells to support the residential areas and what kind of
studies, if any, have been done to -- to address any current wells that are -- that are
there now in residential areas north of that land -- and probably south as well. Some
wells are only a hundred feet deep and I assume that these big wells would go 300 or
400 feet deep and wouldn't affect that and so I just wanted to make sure that that's what
the case is.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, the city's
water system is predicated on deep wells, up to 350, 400, 450, 500 feet deep. There
has been no study that I'm aware of that those wells take out of the -- it's a different
aquifer that you're taking water out of. We can't -- have no proof that the deep wells
drain the shallower wells. To answer your question of water tables in there, there has
not been a detailed study of that yet. As incoming development comes in and we have
to move infrastructure further south, we would be -- we have retained a hydro geologist
that we employed to go out to do the test, determine where the best well sites would be.
We ask the development as they come in to give us the well lots, so that we can drill the
wells and install the infrastructure as we go.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
AprilS, 2007
Page 18 of 64
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Regarding the irrigation, will the residences use pressurized
systems to water their landscaping and lawns, et cetera?
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, as individual
properties come in and annex and develop within the city, there is an ordinance in place
that requires all subdivisions to provide pressurized irrigation that utilizes surface water,
not the city's water system. So, as they -- as each one comes in they will be required to
install pressurized irrigation systems, either owned by the HOA of the individual
developments or through regional systems through Nampa-Meridian, Settler's. As we go
further south we will be running into Boise Project Board of Control and I believe that
they are getting ready to go into the pressurized irrigation business as well.
O'Brien: Okay. One other thing. There is a canal that runs kind of diagonally around
there. I forget what the name of it is. Is that part of the hundred year flood plane in case
it overflows? What needs to happen there or awareness of that possibility?
Cole: Generally canals are not part of the hundred year flood plane. A canal is a facility
that distributes water. It's placed in at a measured amount, so that when it reaches the
end it's gone.
O'Brien: Okay.
Cole: Your hundred year flood planes would be associated with creeks. I believe the
Nine Mile runs through this property. There are several smaller flood planes with the
creeks and the drains through the subject property that we would -- as they came in and
developed we have a new flood plane permit development application that we just
developed in Public Works that they will have to prove to us that what they are doing
with their development prior to them starting will not cause any addition to the flood
plane.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. So, I have a question for staff. On the perimeter of -- of this
proposal here has there been discussions with the cities of Nampa or Kuna, for
instance, as to what type of developments that they might put in there or is there some
kind of cooperative effort going on there to make sure that things aren't duplicated or
overburden other areas outside of the area of impact?
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, those
areas -- that was one of the things that I forgot to hit on during the presentation there.
Several different things going on there. On the one hand the city of Kuna has annexed
several parcels within the study area. In recognition of that in the staff report it
acknowledges that and states that at some point in the near future it would be prudent
to consider scaling back the study boundaries to recognize those annexations that have
occurred. Having said that, the city councils of Kuna and Meridian have been in contact
and are trying to set up a joint council meeting date to discuss boundaries between the
two cities. Staff felt that it would be premature at this time to scale back the boundary
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 19 of 64
just in recognition that that conversation is yet to come. After it occurs we will have a
clearer direction as to how to approach that. The city of Kuna has been invited to and
has attended I believe all three of earlier public meetings. They do have a
representative here tonight as well. And we have done everything that we can. We met
with -- with Kuna staff, planning staff, at one time during the study process just to make
sure that they were aware of everything that was on the table, to solicit comments, so --
so an effort has certainly been made to make sure that everybody is on the same page.
As I understand it -- and I would ask Diana to, please, correct me if I'm wrong, but the
city of Kuna is about to engage in a comprehensive planning process for the area north
of the city to determine future land uses and so forth. So, we hope to continue the same
level of communication and coordination to make sure that things come together okay
as they move forward in that.
Rohm: From the audience she concurs that they are working on --
O'Brien: Thank you.
Rohm: Not at this time. Thank you.
O'Brien: About the only other thing I have a question about is the density levels that are
in and around the Lake Hazel - Locust Grove area. Just in talking with people at the
meetings I attended it seems that the -- it's a little bit outside the rural atmosphere that
they really wanted to see. Knowing that Lake Hazel is going to be a main corridor and
some of these things have to help, but I just wanted to put on the record that that is a
concern and probably will be for some time as to the density causing traffic issues down
the road. And, of course, Ada County Highway District will have to do something, I
guess, when that happens. So, I just wanted to make a note of that, that there seems
like it's higher density than what people wish.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Any other comments from the balance of the
Commission before we move forward? Okay. At this time we are at that point where we
are going to take public testimony. This is a huge matrix. There is so many different
landowners and thought processes and desires for this land and there have been a
number of public meetings that people have had an opportunity for input and that's how
we have got to where we are now. The fact of the matter is that there is probably some
of you that see things a little bit differently than what's been presented and the only
thing that I can tell you tonight is the individual changes that one of -- or any of you
might propose have to be taken in their entirety and it can't -- it's all going to have to be
evaluated as a whole, not as an individual parcel that would like to have either a higher
or a lower density designation than what is in this current proposal. So, I think that we
want to hear what everyone has to say for sure, but it, again, will have to be fed back in
and take another look at the preferred alternatives to the existing plan that's been very
well presented tonight. And so, please, bear with us and I can assure you that it's going
to all be taken in and looked at by the Commission and requested input -- additional
input from staff and that's why we are not acting on anything tonight and it will give
everybody a chance to kind of fall back and regroup. So, with that being said, at this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 20 of 64
time I would like to ask James Percy if he would like to come forward. State your name
and address.
Percy: My name is James Percy and the property that I am concerned with in this
boundary is 5385 South Meridian Road on both sides. It would be the corridor between
Amity and --
Moe: There should be a pointer there.
Percy: Okay. It would be this area -- this right in here on Meridian Road where the low
density is at and my comment would be that on the transit proposal, one of the things
that they recommended and was in a public input on the first meeting, the two most
important things was the density of the properties, having a little more lower density or
lower impact, plus the transit. And the second most important thing was the transit. And
in proposal three, if we have a graph of it, the transit supportive, it shows that they want
high density on Meridian Road and going across on Lake Hazel and up Ten Mile.
Those, evidently, are the proposed routes for bigger roads to support more traffic and
as you can see from the Comprehensive Plan, the preferred alternative, we have pretty
much stuck with that. But, then, with the new plan, with the staff plan, we have gotten
away from that and I think that still the transportation issues are very important and in
the staff plan -- I don't want to step on any toes, but if you look -- if you had knowledge
of who has these properties that are now in the intensive development or higher
development area, these properties -- Mr. O'Brien mentioned one of them was the
McGurdios. This is all in the hands of developers or under the control of developers and
I hate to see this happen. That's alii have to say.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Siddoway: I have a question.
Rohm: Before you sit down there is a question from the Commission.
Siddoway: Yes, sir. I -- I just have a question to make sure I understand. Are you saying
that you would prefer the low density that's shown on the staff proposal or do you prefer
the higher density shown on the other options?
Percy: I would like to see the higher density be closer to the major thoroughfares, which
was proposed on Lake Hazel to Ten Mile and, then, north on Ten Mile and, then, also
down the Meridian-Kuna corridor -- or the Meridian Road corridor. That makes more
sense to me and that's what was talked about, that we want the high density and to
move the lower density in back of that, so we don't have high density communities going
through low density communities, which just ruins the whole aspect of it.
Siddoway: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 21 of 64
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Gary Ishalmann. From the audience he says that he's been
covered by the staff presentation. And Alice the same? Same with Alice. Dave Taysom.
Taysom: I'm Dave Taysom. I live at 175 West Paint Horse Lane, Meridian. I own the
property just south of the purple block in the yellow -- dark yellow. Twenty-four acres. I
have owned it for 15 years, been very content to be in the country. But in the last couple
of years it's become clear to me that I'm going to be in Kuna or Meridian impact area.
That doesn't mean I will be in the city very soon. And I'm 84 years, so I never will be in
the city. But I'm concerned about the use of the property. And for the last year and a half
I have studied very carefully and tried from time to time at least to have an open mind
and look at what Kuna is doing, what Meridian is doing. My address is Meridian. My
phone number is Meridian. I'm in the Meridian school district. And I have concluded I'd
strongly like to stay in Meridian. The area south of Lake Hazel and west of the highway
has been kind of a contentious area and it's been unclear whether that would be an
overlap or which community would have it. I just want to urge you to keep it in Meridian.
Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. And we appreciate your support. Diana Sanders.
Sanders: I'm Diana Sanders from the city of Kuna, the planning and zoning director.
P.O. Box 13, Kuna, Idaho. 83634. Chairman and Commissioners, I'd just like to address
you tonight. The city of Kuna is, basically, neutral on this application, but we do have
some concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to come tonight and to address those
concerns with you. As you were told, the city of Kuna has annexed property up to Lake
Hazel Road, about half a mile from Highway 69 and, then, from Lake Hazel about a half
a mile south along Highway 69 we have also annexed property into that on the west
side of Highway 69. The Kuna School District actually comes at that half mile from -- it
follows Lake Hazel, drops down I believe at Linder at the half mile and, then, goes
straight across. The city of Kuna has always wanted to stay within that area. We did
have some property owners on Linder and Lake Hazel request annexation into the city,
which is not in the Kuna School District. We did ask for a meeting with Meridian to try to
negotiate this area and come to some kind of an agreement. We do have our area of
impact into the county presently. We'd like to address it, so we don't have an overlap
between the City of Meridian and the city of Kuna. We'd like to resolve it before we get
into a situation that Eagle and Star went into with the Committee of Nine and all of the
overlap which they are finding is not working. I would request that you not make a
recommendation until that meeting is held. We requested that meeting about a month
ago and we have not set a date at this point. So, we would like for you to wait until that
is done and, then, adjust or scale back your area of impact. The Kuna city actually
adopted their Comprehensive Plan in 2003, which went a half mile north of Columbia
Road. We have been planning for that area since 2003. We did water, sewer, and
pressurized irrigation study in that area. We also annexed to construct a new sewer
treatment facility. We have purchased that property. We are in design and we are going
to be breaking ground on that. That is located on Ten Mile just south of Lake Hazel
Road. So, we feel that, you know, we would like to negotiate with the City of Meridian.
We don't want to have a conflict in that area. We did have several meetings with the city
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 22 of 64
council prior and the mayors have been talking about Lake Hazel being the dividing line.
We understand about the school districts and I don't think that the city of Kuna would
have a problem negotiating that. But the proposed area of impact that you have
currently comes down a half a mile south of Columbia Road. That is in our school
district, our fire district, and our library district. So, we would request that city council
meet with the Kuna city council, meet with the Meridian City Council and resolve this
issue before we move this application forward and I appreciate your time tonight.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this individual before we let her sit down.
Any questions? Thank you. Robert Bevan.
Bevan: Robert Bevan. I currently own property on 2725 South Ten Mile. I'm majorly
impacted by this -- this move today and was enlightened by some of the staff on
information I received. One thing I'd like to -- and I have a question for staff regarding an
area that is currently covered by your chart and that's the 290 acres that is -- they are
putting 1,200 plus homes on it at Overland and Ten Mile Road. I'd like to know what
level of density that's -- what was it's designated.
Rohm: Generally you address the Commission and, then, we will ask staff to respond.
Bevan: Sorry.
Rohm: Did you hear the question, Sonya or Matt?
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, yes, we did hear the question
and I am --
Newton-Huckabay: Is this the South Ridge development?
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's South Ridge. There is only
one phase, about a 5th of that that's actually been platted right now. There is a bunch of
mega lots, so there is a range on that 297 acres I believe it was, a range between 1,000
and 1,252. So, I haven't done the math, but the details of how many lots exactly are
going to be in South Ridge are yet to come, depending on market demand and by full
build out there will be somewhere in the range of 1,000 and 1,200.
Bevan: I'd like to know what density level that's going to be. According to legend.
What color is it?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm being told that it's medium
density, roughly three to four units per acre.
Siddoway: There is also a neighborhood center on the site.
Bevan: Okay. And yellow, as far as I can tell without my glasses.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 23 of 64
Siddoway: Yeah.
Bevan: The yellow medium density residential. My property being located just across
the street from that red box, which is what -- is that a future firehouse? I don't know. Is
that what it is? Okay. Across the street from the firehouse, what we are calling on this
map very low density residential. I'm not quite sure that you can justify that with your
yellow medium density going kitty-corner across the street from my house and, then,
also, the onset at the freeway on ramp and what's going to be -- which has actually
already become, regardless of the expansion of the Meridian Road expansion, a major
thoroughfare to Kuna, which is Ten Mile Road, and let me tell you the traffic on that road
is terrible now, which it never used to be, and it's definitely going to be impacted by the
1,000 to 1,200 homes that they are adding, plus the freeway on ramp. And I'm not really
too sure you can still count my property right here very low density residential.
Rohm: So, is it your point that you think your property should not be designated as very
low density?
Bevan: That is my point, sir. Yes. I don't know how you can cluster that together and
refer to my property area as being a very low density area. I -- frankly, I used to live in
the country. I don't anymore. A sad realization that I'm not happy with, but I can't stop
progress and if that's the case I would like to be able to split up my property and that's
not going to happen if it stays low -- excuse me -- very low density. So, I'm against that
proposal and I just wanted to voice that today.
Rohm: Thank you for your input.
Bevan: Thank you.
Rohm: Shirley Meyer.
Meyer: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Shirley Meyer. I have a home at
3610 West Lamont, Meridian. My home is located about a mile south of the proposed
Ten Mile interchange off of Ten Mile. I have concerns -- and today I'm neutral. I don't
have any pros or cons, but I do have concerns. my property, I believe -- I have talked to
Matt and we will be zoned eventually medium density, which will be three to four per
acre. And I don't really have a problem with that. My concerns are that we understand
eventually there is a conceptualization that Overland Road will be continued at the back
of my property on the back acreage. So, I'm here to monitor you guys and make sure
that I stay neutral on this. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you for your coming in. Jeff Fulmer.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, just a second. I just want to clarify -- Mrs. Meyer was
referring to the proposed realignment of Overland Road?
Meyer: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 24 of 64
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Jeff Fulmer. From the audience he said he's going to wait. Kent Roberts.
Roberts: My name is Kent Roberts. I own a portion of 2370 West Amity Road, which is
right about there, just west of Linder Road. It's zoned in the very low density and the
impact to me, if this was to go through, is that it would significantly reduce my property
value, because it would not allow development. I would anticipate a reduction of
approximately 75 percent. I consider that a taking. It would -- myself and other people
who have -- I don't have a super large parcel, but for larger parcels where you're not
currently living on it -- you know, if you had a five acre parcel you maybe feel like that's
not such a bad thing, but if you have a larger parcel that you're looking for some type of
subdivision, you'd probably have a different attitude about this and it significantly
reduces property value. It doesn't seem equitable that, you know, in eye distance they
are going to give medium density or even low density and then -- and, then, we are
going to get super low density, which is -- which would be financially devastating. The
other concern I have is that Meridian is the middle and so regardless of what we do for
our planning, we are going to get pounded with cars from Kuna and so if you create this
plan and it doesn't jive with Kuna, then, it's not going to work. The other concern I have
is that we can do all the planning we want in the city, but ACHD may not build the roads
and we see that all the time. So, we may have a great plan here and, then, we don't
have the road system that makes it work and, then, we have miserable traffic. But I
have lived in Meridian -- I bought my first house here, my wife grew up in Meridian, love
it. We love Meridian. Kids are in the school. We love it here. But this could -- this
decision could be financially devastating and force me out. That's all I have.
Moe: One question. I want to make I -- you said you were west of Linder?
Roberts: Yes.
Moe: Okay.
Roberts: So, in the light --
Moe: Right. I just wanted to be sure.
Roberts: -- light color. Super low density.
Moe: Right.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Don Roberts.
Arnold: Actually, my name is Ryan Arnold. I'm -- Don is my brother-in-law and he
elected me to come up and represent our feelings on this. We had a lot of comments.
Most of these we shared with Matt earlier today and we appreciate him taking about a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 25 of 64
hour of his time to discuss with us and in no way am I trying to demean the time that
these guys have put in. They have definitely put a lot of thought in, but I think some
things that have been missed are significant.
Rohm: Could we get an address, please
Arnold: What's that?
Rohm: Address, please.
Arnold: An address? Okay. Actually, I live in Teton county, Driggs, Idaho. I lived in this --
in south Meridian right up until about a year ago.
Siddoway: Your current address is fine.
Arnold: Current address?
Rohm: Current address is --
Arnold: Okay. It's 455 Targee Town Road, Alta, Wyoming.
Rohm: Thank you.
Arnold: Just across the border. We own two pieces of property in the study area. One of
them is up here at the corner of Victory and McDermott, right on the county line. The
other one is right here off of Black Cat, just south of Amity. One of the concerns that I
have has already been addressed by one of the other individuals, but to me there
appears to be a lack of appropriate transition for density. There are many areas
throughout this map that transition from -- skip over a zone. If you look here we have got
a medium high density going directly to very low. Similarly here. We have got medium.
Particular to our parcel right here, we are just an ear shot from the neighborhood center
and, then, we have got a medium high zone and a medium zone to both neighbor us,
but we are very low residential. And, then, we have got the neutraceutical overlay that
borders on the south and we have about a 20 acre parcel there. One of the concerns I
have is that from a marketability standpoint it will be impossible for us to sell three acre
lots, smashed between medium high density townhouses or apartment complexes, you
know, 15 units per acre and now expected to sell, you know, three acre lots for,
honestly, probably 350 to 400 thousand. Property in this area is going for, as near as I
can tell, about 60,000 per acre. So, if you figure a three acre lot, a developer will be into
their land about 200,000 dollars per lot prior to infrastructure, interest cost, selling
commissions, so we are talking about very pricey lots that we are proposing across
about 50 percent of this area. The other issue that we have is we have got the
neutraceutical overlay to the south, there, again, we are going to be smash between an
agri-industrial use and, you know, a medium high density. It just will be impossible for us
to market those lots would have a significant financial impact on us. A couple of other
comments that I have. In relation to the minimal three acre lots is what the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 26 of 64
implementation plan for that would be. It appears that they are not providing city
services to those, it would be individual wells and septics. Is that going to happen as
soon as the Comprehensive Plan is implemented, is that, then, allowed to be
developed, you know, what exactly is the plan there. The other concern I have is,
normally, within area of impact it seems that the reason to include area of impact is to
receive city services. It seems really odd that we are extending the city over a very large
area that will never provide services to about 50 percent. In relation to three acre lots, I
have a real concern that there is not going to be a market for 1,700 three acre lots out in
this area. Three acre lots -- besides being very expensive, three acre lots are very
difficult to maintain. They are much too large to mow and very too small to farm and as I
understand within the city area livestock is not allowed, so you kind of got this in
betweener that I don't think really works that well. I recently just moved to Teton county
and we are currently under a moratorium partly due to the issue that a large portion of
our county was rezoned a few years ago to ag 2.5, so we got tons of two and a half acre
lots and they are not being maintained. We have tons of weeds and issues that go
around. If the Commission and staff is intent on having a very low -- a lower density
residential rural option, I would suggest more of a cluster subdivision design that might
allow acre lots and possibly 30 or 40 percent open space that, then, can be maintained
by the homeowners association, possibly on larger plots would be enough to still be
farmed. You know, three acre lots are not really going to maintain a lot of rural feel and I
don't see a lot of people wanting to buy those lots when they are sandwiched in
between, you know, very large metro area, as well as, you know, traffic coming out of
Nampa -- east Nampa from this direction and up from Kuna. I hope I'm not going over
on my time here, but I have got just a couple more --
Rohm: I think you're approaching --
Arnold: I'm approaching it? Okay. Well, I'll try to conclude. In relation to the comments
about cluster subdivisions, it was noted that there will likely be a lot of cluster
subdivisions that were developed out in this area that will not redevelop. I think if we
actually look at the amount of cluster lots in this area, the 51 -- 5,600 acres, I would
guess is probably not more than two or three hundred acres and most of those
developers only did cluster subdivisions, because Ada county said, well, develop 20
percent now and when services get to you, then, you can develop more densely. Now,
that's somehow supposed to be used against the developers and their option. I guess I
would say that overall that we need to go back to the drawing board on the
transportation options. You know, Meridian is not -- it's not on an island. If this was out
in Fruitland it would be a different story. But we have got, you know, major growth
happening in Kuna, major growth happening in east Nampa. It would be wonderful to
keep this whole area rural out here, but I honestly don't think that's very realistic and I
think we need to really look at that as a real viable option. Thank you for your time.
Rohm: Thank you very much. The next person to have signed up used their signature
and it's -- not a clue. Charles -- it looks like Liz, but I'm sure that's -- I don't know what to
do with it, because I certainly have no idea who it is. I think what I will do is I will go
through the balance of the people that have signed up and at no time do we not allow
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 27 of 64
someone to come up, so if your name was missed, we will certainly give you a shot at
the end. Dave Morgan. And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Morgan: My name is Dave Morgan. I live at 498 East Shafer View Drive. I'm also the
president of the HOA for the Shafer View Estates, so kind of what I'm representing you
here is our -- we've had a homeowners association meeting and addressed a few of
these issues as far as the impact plan that you guys have. From the different responses
that I have seen, I know a couple of our items have been addressed. I think probably
our biggest thing is we didn't -- where we are all one acre lots in a subdivision, we didn't
want to go from that to, you know, six to eight per acre and have that right around,
because of the -- of course decrease in property values that way. I know that some of
the staff response now to north and to the east we do have that very low density, which
I also sell real estate, too, and I don't really know if the three acres -- you had to go that
low, but I know we would like to see at least some type of a transition, if you go from an
R-1, like ours and, then, to an R-2 and, then, possibly an R-4, if you break it down, you
know, one acre, half, and, then, quarters to get it kind of out, because, you know, I'd like
to keep my property up and I don't want to have to pass that onto the next guy that he's
got a big acreage and a bunch of houses right next to him that are low density -- or high
density, I should say. Of course the other thing we have, too, is traffic. With that Shafer
View is right just before -- basically it's right here. Right before Lake Hazel Road off of
Meridian Road if this were -- this is the first I had heard of that -- what is it, multi
employment area or whatever, which I'm sure is going to cause quite a bit of traffic and I
know the McGurdio's part over there, that's going to end up being that center over there.
So, traffic is a big concern with us, because I know just to get out in the morning,
everybOdy coming from Kuna, sometimes you will sit there five to ten minutes just trying
to make a right turn, let alone trying to get across three lanes of traffic. So, that's our
biggest concern there is just kind of the light transition, how you wouldn't necessarily
have to go three acre lots, but I know on one of the proposals I saw it did -- one acre
right after us and, then, like half acres and, then, quarter to medium density right after
that, the closer it got to Lake Hazel and Locust Grove.
Rohm: Any questions of this individual? Thank you, sir. Nicholas Crouse.
Crouse: Members of the Commission, my name is Nicholas Crouse. I live at 12279
West Silver King Street, Boise. But, actually, I'm a civil engineer with Quadrant
Consulting. I'm here on behalf of two parcels of grounds, two property owners. They
own an aggregate of about 30 acres at the southwest corner of Amity and Linder and
the southeast corner of that intersection. One of them, the Souths ide Christian Church
and the other one is Broadway Baptist and the concerns that we have with actually both
of the staff response and the original plan, primary center around traffic there. We have
-- right now we are looking at estate lots on those parcels, potentially estate lots and
staff has talked about traffic and that's in the Linder-Amity area. ACHD projections are
somewhere between 75 and 130 thousand cars a day -- excuse me -- to that
intersection and to put estate lots on the corners of that intersection seem a little bit
unreasonable and, you know, to be able to market those that close to an intersection
with that kind of volume going through it -- I'm assuming that these -- this lower
Meridian Planning & Zoning
AprilS. 2007
Page 28 of 64
residential layout, this very low residential, will probably drop those numbers, but I
haven't been able to get them from ACHD yet.
Moe: Excuse me. Would you say those numbers again for me?
Crouse: Seventy-eight thousand, I believe, the low end, to 128 or 30 thousand, which I
got those from ACHD last week. It was the traffic study that Mr. Ellsworth mentioned
earlier, which also I, too, would like to thank Matt. He answered quite a few questions
for me via e-mail and phone, but I'm assuming those numbers will drop to some extent,
but at the same time we are talking at least a five lane intersection, possibly a seven,
and we think it may be more appropriate to look at doing some sort of mixed use type
development in that area similar to what's on the arterial -- the section line street both to
the west and to the east of theirs, to provide a buffer between residential uses and the
high traffic intersections along that route. We have also responded to this -- the earlier
plan in writing, which I'm assuming the Commission has received that. So, just
something we would like both staff and Commission to consider and I guess I'd answer
any questions that any of you have.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your input. Robin Willowman. Or Allen. From the
audience she said that their issues have been addressed. Pam Zuker. She -- from the
said she waives her right to speak at this time. Charlie Connolly.
Connolly: Charlie Connolly, 2181 West Lake Hazel. I actually just signed in. The thing I
want to understand better is the neutraceutical overlay. I don't really understand what
the limitations are on that use.
Rohm: I think we will get staff to respond to that. Matt, could you elaborate on that a
little bit?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will do my best. Generally
speaking, that is to allow sort of a link between some of the agri businesses that are
growing operations that are currently in operation in the south Meridian and even north
Kuna area to some of the research and development type locations, the employment
centers, and so forth. So, what we envision there on the one hand was growing
operations, on the other hand storage of any of those seeds, any of the products that
are being grown. So, say storage, light manufacturing, things of that nature, would be
permissible as long as they related directly back to those neutraceutical slash
biomedical uses. Anything that doesn't related directly back to that, as far as industrial
storage and so forth, would not be a permissible use.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 29 of 64
Siddoway: Just as a follow up. As an overlay we are saying that the very low density
residential uses are allowed in that area and, then, the only other use, other than very
low residential, would be those neutraceutical type facilities; is that right?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, I
believe so, yes.
Siddoway: Okay.
Connolly: I'm one of those poor guys that's addicted to farming. It's awfully hard to make
a living growing crops in the Treasure Valley right now and I appreciate you trying to
support the agricultural industry, but I'm -- from what I see right now, all you're doing is,
again, limiting the value of the property that you're putting this overlay on.
Rohm: Thank you for your input. I believe the next name is James Hewett. He -- from
the audience he's not going to speak at this time. Going back to Jeff Fulmer, did you
want to state -- from the audience he's waived his right to speak. That is all the
signatures that we have at this time and if there anyone else that would like to come
forward and speak, we will take them one at a time. Sir, you're welcome. Come on up.
Please say your name and address for the record.
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, my name is John Peterson. 3680 Lamont Road. Our property
is right -- right there. And my question is if this is very low density residential, what
happens if they do extend Overland Road and separate my property and put a piece of
it out of contact with the rest of mine, but it's less than three and a half acres. What
would happen to that piece of property? From what I have seen so far on some very
rough ideas on the extension of Overland Road, they would separate my property with a
very small piece being to the north and the rest of my property being to the south. Could
I get some kind of an exemption and could I sell a piece as small as an acre or two and
a half or up to three acres for a residence? Could I get some kind of an exemption in
your plans -- in your designations, so that if it is separated because of no fault of mine,
that I wouldn't lose it. Right now --
Rohm: Well, I'm sure you wouldn't lose it.
Peterson: Well, I wouldn't -- I'd lose the value. What I'm talking about is would I lose the
value of it. Right now it's agricultural land, but if the road does extend, it would separate
it from the rest of my land and I couldn't use it for agricultural purposes. I couldn't use it
-- I couldn't sell it for a residence, if your three and a half acre designation holds.
Rohm: Quite honestly, I think that that's a lot specific question and I don't think for this
hearing -- I don't think that we are prepared to answer on a parcel that specific. Possibly
staff could comment on it, but I can't imagine that you would lose the right to put a
dwelling on a parcel that would be divided off from a road extension, but I'd certainly
give the staff an opportunity to respond. Not with a final answer, but with maybe a high
level answer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 30 of 64
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, and Mr. Peterson, we can't -- right now for
one we are not advocating the extension of Overland Road. But if it were to happen and
if ACHD were to enter into negotiations with you, I think what would happen is that they
would buy the remainder of your property. So, they would pay you for both -- the
property that they were splitting off and, then, they would either sell that off later or keep
it for their purposes. But they would -- they would compensate you for the whole thing.
But, again, that's very -- you're asking a very hypothetical question that -- that's probably
not appropriate detail at this point in the conversation, but --
Peterson: Well, I'm just trying to look ahead and I'm wondering if in your designations
and in your determinations some language can be given that would cover situations like
this. I'm sure mine won't be the only kind of a property that would fall in this area, but if
there could be some way that because no fault land is broken down into smaller pieces
then your three and a half acres, could they gain residential status?
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Members of the Commission and Mr. Peterson. Because we don't know exactly
where Overland Road is going to go, if it goes anywhere, if it does happen in the future,
that would be considered, in my opinion, a change of circumstance that would probably
allow you to come in and seek a redesignation. If the circumstances have changed, you
could do like you saw earlier this evening, some smaller lots that were sort of out of
place after changed circumstances, would allow you to come in and make an
application for another -- another change at that time. It's impossible for us to sit here
and think of all the possibilities that could happen in the future and I know that this is
very important to you, because it's your property and you're trying to plan, but we just
can't plan for all those little contingencies. We are sort of looking at the broad brush
here. So, I would suggest that it's something that the property owner should monitor and
probably there is nothing that we can act on at this time. Or recommend no action -- I'm
getting a wave over here from the planning director.
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission, it may be beneficial at this
point to talk about the difference between the Comp Plan and the zoning ordinance. It
always -- it comes in a little handy sometimes. This is the vision document for the city.
We talk about one unit per three acres. That's not -- when we talk about that in the
context of a Comprehensive Plan, we are talking about it as a density, not as a
minimum lot size. To implement that category, we would need to either change the
Unified Development Code to address a zoning category for that and we would have to
come up with specific standards. And the zoning ordinance does have provisions for
when ACHD takes a portion of your property and what rights you have with relationship
to that. But I also think that we -- it may be something we address with the county as
well, since we are not having city services out there, these subdivisions may occur in
the county. So, we need to work on an amendment to their code to allow it and, actually,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 31 of 64
they have a very similar land use designation that they use with the city of Eagle. So,
those are all things that we can work out the implementation details, but, again, this is
the vision for the city. The one unit per three acres is based on the general capability of
land to support both a septic and a well in the area and there may be provisions that
with central district approval you could have clustered zoning or some smaller lot size --
probably not smaller than two acres, but it really depends. The key issue is being able
to support both a septic and well on the property.
Rohm: Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? Absolutely. Come forward, please.
Cross: I'm Gordon Cross. I live at 5220 Howry Lane. How does this thing work? It's right
in this designated area right here. This area right here. My comments would be that
over the last several years we have talked with some developers that are interested in
the future possibly developing our property. This area in here -- now, I'm not sure
whether it's dense or medium designated. Maybe staff could enlighten me on that. I
don't know. That's the Rockhampton Subdivision.
Rohm: Is that in Boise city?
Cross: Yes.
Canning: Sir, if you would like me to answer it.
Rohm: Yeah. Please.
Canning: We just saw the acreages on the outskirts of that yesterday. There is 8,000
square foot lots, generally, in that area, so they would be low density. Low to medium.
Cross: Okay. So, anyway, in our conversations with the developers, they feel that our
property -- and we do have two stub roads that go from Rockhampton -- you know, that
face into our 40 acre parcel there that it would be easier to develop that land if it was
medium density designated, instead of an abrupt -- what seems to be fairly high density
in Rockhampton into a low density designation here. So, that was -- that was our
feeling.
Rohm: So, basically, you're just saying that you'd like a little higher density designation
for your area and that is -- the specific area again is where?
Cross: Right in here.
Rohm: So, you're a half a mile north of Lake Hazel off of Eagle Road?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5. 2007
Page 32 of 64
Cross: No. This is off of Amity and we are a half -- we are a quarter mile south of Amity
Road. We are on a 40 acre parcel that's surrounded. There is no exit to the south from
there. Howry Lane dead ends on the parcel to the south of us.
Rohm: Okay.
Cross: But -- so --
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify at this time? Please
come forward, sir.
Larsen: Eugene Larsen. I live at 3520 South Black Cat Road. That's between Victory
and Amity, just about halfway down on the east side. I think one of the things that
concerns me and has sort of been alluded to is that very low density -- what borders
that drops sometimes two, probably three in some places, designations just by the
drawing of a line and it does look like that follows those two canals maybe it has
something to do with sewer, I don't know, but it seems like to me that having that whole
area there low density so you don't have to come back and study it for five years before
you make a decision, might be appropriate. It seems like we study it longer than we --
than it exists once we make it exist and this has been going on for quite some time and
I'd like to encourage you to make a decision, too, in the near future about this area.
Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Anyone else? Please come forward, sir.
Ashburn: My name is Jim Ashburn. I represent the two property owners between -- first
of all, my address is 4571 Patton Avenue, Boise, Idaho. 83704. I represent two property
owners on Ten Mile right in this area here, south side of Lake Hazel between Ten Mile
and Black Cat. This is partly to answer your question, Commissioner O'Brien. You were
asking about duplication and conflicts with the city of Kuna. I'd like to point out, again,
that Kuna is planning to put a sewer facility main sewer plant in the region of Ten Mile
and Lake Hazel in that area to handle the sewer for the continued development of Kuna.
I'd like to point out that at some point in time there will be a sewer trunk installed along
the Lake Hazel corridor, which would in this case only be serving the south side of Lake
Hazel, whereas the property owners to the north side of Lake Hazel, then, the question
becomes what do they do, since they'll have two trunk lines, one serving the south side,
one serving the north side. So, I might request or suggest that you consider taking the
line off of a major thoroughfare where you're going to have trunk lines for sewer in such
close proximity to the major Kuna sewer plant. It just seems rather inefficient that you're
trying to serve sewer all the way from Meridian when they are so close to sewer that's
going to be at the corner of Ten Mile and Lake Hazel. That's my point. And that the two
property owners do find a problem with that inefficiency that would occur.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your input. Any questions of this individual?
O'Brien: No. I think he covered the point that I made earlier.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 33 of 64
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to
this portion of our agenda? Dave.
Turnbull: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, my name is David Turnbull.
Office address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. As you will recall from the work
session you had, I believe it was last month, we have the property here that centers on
Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, approximately 920 acres in that area. As you recall, we
had a Comprehensive Plan amendment processed and approved a few months back
and it was the discussion at your work session that some of the designations on our
property has changed in the staff recommendations and staff was directed to go back
and, you know, work with us to see if those changes made sense and since our
Comprehensive Plan was already approved and we had done some significant planning
based on that Comprehensive Plan and we are in the process of doing that. We have
met with staff and we have also met with the transportation planners at Washington
Group and some of our earlier planning was also based on some -- on ACHD access
standards that are in place at the present time. There are some proposals out there to
change those access standards and so that becomes a little bit more difficult process
for us in determining exactly what land uses will work with what access restrictions. So,
we are in the process of doing that. We haven't been able to get through that process
and determine whether some of these higher density designations -- how much of that
will work, how much of the other areas actually make sense from our viewpoint. So, we
are continuing to work on that, but we haven't come to a conclusion yet. So, I just
wanted to state that for the record and we will continue to do that, but in the meantime,
you know, we'd, obviously, prefer that the designation remain -- that a decision be
deferred until we are able to do that. And I will stand for any questions you might have.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I'm sure you probably won't be able to answer this one, but how soon do you think
you guys will have that figured out?
Canning: Two weeks.
Turnbull: Well, that's a good question. I could -- you know, it's -- it's going to be at least
four. We will work on it diligently, but we do need a little time. That is a fairly significant
difference from what our earlier planning was, so -- and we do have other projects that
we are working, so we can't devote full time to this effort. We will be talking about the
Ten Mile specific plan here in a second, so that's another one we will be interested in.
But -- oh, Commissioner O'Brien asked a question about the calcium plant. That is
property that we have and that will be removed from the site when we go into
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 34 of 64
development. I think you asked about a feedlot and that would be ours, too, so we will
be removing some existing uses in the area.
O'Brien: I have a question for --
Rohm: Absolutely.
O'Brien: So, the calcium mine, how deep does that mine go? How deep does that mind
go in the calcium deposit?
Turnbull: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner O'Brien, I don't know the specifics on that. I
wouldn't be able to give you good data.
O'Brien: They don't fill it in or plug it up or whatever. I think it goes straight down.
Turnbull: I don't know the details.
O'Brien: Okay. Just curious.
Rohm: Any other questions? Commissioner Moe?
Moe: No. I have none.
Rohm: Dave, thank you.
Turnbull: Thank you.
Rohm: Absolutely. You may come back one more time briefly. You can't do it from the
floor, you have to come up to the microphone. And very briefly.
Cross: A just wanted to offer the information. There is no mine there, that's a processing
plant. They have hauled -- I'm friends of the people that live there and they don't have a
mine there that I know of, it's -- they have hauled lime rock in from Lime, Oregon, for
years and they have a processing plant there where they crush the rock and make
different calcium products of it, but I don't think there is any mine there at all.
Rohm: Okay.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Yes. Would you state your name and address for the record again, please?
Cross: Gordon Cross, 5220 Howry Lane, Meridian.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 35 of 64
Ashburn: The property owners that I'm representing -- Jim Ashburn again. 4571 North
Patton Avenue. John Roder and Riddles Water on the south side of Lake Hazel. Just
wanted to make sure that that -- that you're aware of that. The property owners.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify at this time.
Please come forward, sir.
Roberts: Don Roberts. 907 Crater Lake in Meridian, Idaho. Just a brief comment on
something -- Ryan was up here earlier. I guess one observation, just from looking at
this, too. I know that staff was trying to consider in their report about then -- about
affordable homes for folk and one thing that I kind of see that could become possibly an
issue is people move up -- and, you know, you start out in something smaller and, then,
you graduate to something bigger, that there is quite a bit of the medium density, high
density, but with this huge amount of very low density, I feel like it's probably going to
push a lot of people that maybe wanted to move to somewhere traditional low density
out of the area, you know, or maybe to north Meridian or down to Kuna or something
that to -- as they transition through their lives, I guess. So, that's one thing I think that
we observe and I thought it should be pointed out.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify at this
time? Okay. Before we close the Public Hearing, possibly -- or continuing it, excuse me,
possibly to poll the Commission to see if they have any thoughts of wrapping this up
from -- and we will just go from there. Commissioner Moe, do you have some thoughts
from testimony we see?
Moe: Yeah. I'd say I have a lot more homework to do. There was quite a few things that
were brought up that -- this evening that through the workshops that we have had and
everything else, with the staff response and whatnot, I would say I had some definite
opinions of how I wanted to see this go and, then, after tonight I think there is a few
things that I need to go back and kind of review. I am a little bit concerned that we are
set up to do a hearing in two weeks and try and make some recommendations here and
we have had an applicant that just told me that they may not have what they really want
go through for four weeks. And so it's going to make it even that much more fun to kind
of work through this process. I'm a little bit concerned on that -- on that one item there,
but for the most part I do appreciate the input from everyone and I've got a lot of work to
do yet before we do act on it.
Rohm: Thank you.
Canning: After my two week comment Matt shut me down on the microphone.
Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Moe, is there any information that staff can provide you
before you can -- the item is continued? Or in an updated staff report?
Moe: I think, basically, I just need to go back through what was discussed in the
workshop as well and kind of walk through that and possibly -- is there any meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 36 of 64
minutes and whatnot that you guys have of the meetings that you have had with the
applicant?
Canning: Oh, no, we do not keep minutes with that.
Moe: Okay.
Canning: And Mr. Turnbull never informed us that he wanted four weeks. That was part
of my reason for chiding him a little bit, so --
Rohm: And, quite honestly, I don't think that this hearing tonight is site specific, so that's
just an acreage within the area and so it's -- even though all testimony is well taken, we
are still going to move forward one way or the other down the road. So, with that being
said, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have some final thoughts?
Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to make the comment that I am not prepared to
state which way I would lien on this issue this evening. One problem with
Comprehensive Plan amendments is it's information overload and for people who live in
that area, you're concerned predominately -- you know, that area that is your circle of
influence and it's just overload for me to try to process all this, so I'm looking for just
some extra time to view it and so my -- earlier we indicated that we want to indicate
which way we are leaning with that and I'm not prepared to do that this evening.
Rohm: And thank you. And it wasn't my intent for which way you were leaning, but just
thoughts on the area as a whole, but --
Newton-Huckabay: The very low density is something that I have been struggling with
throughout the -- I have talked to staff a little bit with that, just understanding the spirit of
that. I will spend some more time on that based on testimony this evening and
information that's been given to me. And the neutraceutical is also something I don't
remember at the last information meeting -- I don't remember that being on the map and
I need to have some time to think through that as well.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Thank you. I have got five items. First is I have to express a little shock,
frankly. Having been to all of the south Meridian planning meetings where I heard again
and again lower densities, lower densities, lower densities, and, then, to come tonight
and hear so otten higher densities, higher densities, it -- it was unexpected. I, actually,
frankly, expected the opposite, that there was -- to hear that there was too much transit
support of high density and make all of it very low. I wasn't sure what I was going to do
with that, but, instead, I heard the opposite. So, still processing that. The second thing is
just a couple items for clarification that I'd like to direct to staff to get cleaned up before it
does come back. One is on the east boundary, the study area boundary zigzags around
the existing development along -- near Cloverdale, but the proposed land uses end
about a quarter mile east of Cloverdale and as we -- as we act on the study area
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 37 of 64
boundary to propose, I'd just like to have that cleaned up as one or the other, either
propose some land uses over to the red line or bring the red line over to the land uses.
The third thing is that I have also reviewed the Ten Mile plan and I notice that the area
between Black Cat, Ten Mile, 1-84, and this half mile line between Overland and Victory,
they are not yet consistent with one another and I would like to see the staff response
for south Meridian and the Ten Mile proposal to reflect one another. The fourth item --
fourth and fifth have to do with trying to figure out when to continue this to. We heard
from the city of Kuna a desire to wait until after the City Councils meet. Has there been
any discussion about a date for that? Is that indefinite at this point?
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, we have been trying for a month --
yeah, a month to try and schedule a meeting. The city of Kuna asked for a Monday
evening and it's been very difficult to find a Monday evening when all the Council
members are available.
Siddoway: Okay.
Canning: So, we are trying. I will put a reminder into Mr. Berg to -- I think I already did,
actually, earlier today, put a reminder into Mr. Berg to ask how we are doing on
scheduling that.
Siddoway: Yeah. Ideally, I would like to see that meeting happen first. However, if it
cannot, I guess I could also be comfortable with recommending a boundary up to City
Council and, then, having them deal with the political issues of determining where that
final line is drawn. The final item is with Dave Turnbull and I would like to see that the
issues with the prior Comprehensive Plan amendment that this board's already acted on
worked out with staff, so that there is some agreement and have that done at least in
terms some form of solid recommendation before it comes back. That's all. Thank you.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, can I address some of those, since they were -- I think they
would be beneficial for the public that's sitting here, particularly the one written
reference to Ten Mile. On the planning boundary, that was, as you know, a defined
planning boundary by City Council. Staff made a mistake in proposing that boundary.
So, we have shown land uses for the area that should have been the proposed
boundary. The other areas are within the city of Boise area of city impact, so we didn't
want to create a duplication there. So, when the Comprehensive Plan change went
through, it would just show the colored areas.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: So, you're saying the red line will move to the west?
Canning: Yes. The red would --
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
AprilS, 2007
Page 38 of 64
Canning: But the planning area was defined by Council through separate action. So, we
didn't change it. So, it would move just to the colored areas, so to represent those. With
regard to the Ten Mile area, they are inconsistent currently and I believe you heard
presentations earlier that said that that area -- this would be the land use plan that we
would go with and we would remove it from the Ten Mile.
Siddoway: Okay. Thanks for that clarification.
Canning: Oh. That's coming up. So, they didn't tell you that. Sorry. So, this would be the
land use designation in recognition of the small parcelization pattern and the difficulty of
providing service to that in a timely fashion.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some final thoughts?
O'Brien: Well, actually, I didn't -- I didn't attend the workshops earlier, so I'm learning
more and more about this. But I kind of wear two hats here. One, I attended some of the
meetings -- the town meetings we had and heard a lot of concerns and issues of people
that already reside in the area, probably not the large property owners as much as the
smaller homeowners that would like to have seen retain the low densities that
Commissioner Siddoway had mentioned and, then, all of a sudden we are hearing
people who want to see high density getting more bang for their buck in their property
and I can appreciate that as well. So, it's really kind of a -- I'm kind of torn between the
best of both worlds. I don't know how we can achieve that without losing some of one
and some of another. So, this is going to be something I would be working on trying to
come up with some kind of an idea and I will be talking with planning staff I think about
those kind of issues off line, but just to get an idea about what direction that this thing
should go as I learn more about this. So, I don't have anything specific, other than the
low density versus high density, what do people really want.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my final thoughts on this Comprehensive Plan
amendment discussion is I'm not sure two weeks is enough time to continue these
items. I don't know that we are going to be ready to render a recommendation in two
weeks and I'm apprehensive that I won't be prepared to make a good decision myself. I
don't know, I can't speak for the balance of the Commission, but maybe two weeks isn't
long enough to continue these. I would rather -- I'd rather the continuance be longer and
come up with the right answer, than to continue it for two weeks and come up with a half
baked answer. And that's -- that may not be to the liking of everybody, because there is
some people that want to move forward and at least have a defined answer, but I'm a
little bit concerned that if we try and make a decision in two weeks or a
recommendation, that I personally may not be as well prepared to vote myself. So,
that's just my thoughts for right now. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you -- were
you concerned of -- had some concerns?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I was -- just wanted to be clear. Your concerns were
with the previous Comprehensive Plan amendment there around the neighborhood
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 39 of 64
center on the southeast. And, then, the joint meeting with Kuna and Meridian City
Council?
Rohm: I would say it's the aggregate of all of those things. It's -- at the start of tonight's
meeting it was kind of the thought that we were going to continue each of these through
to the next regular scheduled meeting, which was April 19th, and with the presumption
that we would be ready to call for a vote and/or some sort of recommendation to the
Council and with -- quite honestly, with all the testimony that we have received tonight,
that appears to be somewhat in disagreement with the land use as proposed. It might
take a little bit more digestion than two weeks to come up with the right answer. That's
just my concern.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, you may have noticed that the
planning director has taken some stakeholders out in the hallway, I think she's trying to
twist some arms to get some commitments on dates. She may be coming back in with a
recommendation for a date certain. Just an observation and maybe Mr. Hood has
something to add.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, what we are talking about, if in fact, two
weeks isn't long enough, potentially six months. I mean that's the next time to -- that you
can make a recommendation. So, if two weeks isn't enough time, we already have other
Public Hearing items scheduled in May and in June, so unless you're ready to stay here
until 2:00 or 3:00 o'clock in the morning like we have in the past, the next -- next few are
already booked. So, we were just -- and Anna's back, so I'll let -- you know, it was -- it
was just something to throw out there that maybe we wait on south Meridian for another
six months, tie up some of these things, hopefully, could meet with Kuna, stakeholders,
and maybe come up with some other -- some minor tweaks and come back to you in six
months, but I don't know if that's where we are going or not.
Rohm: I'd like to hear from the -- from Anna, please.
Canning: Chairman ROhm, Commissioners, I did try and gather the three larger
stakeholders in the area out there and, I'm sorry, but I couldn't talk to all of you at the
same time. But there are a few that have plans for the area, but they were comfortable
with spending some time to work this out and moving -- having the others -- allowing the
others to move forward and spending additional time on this. So, it is something you can
think about. Again, I wouldn't encourage you to decide tonight, but you can ask
questions and think about it over the next couple of weeks if you would like to and, then,
take action then on the continuation or --
Rohm: I suppose the right answer from my perspective is we will come back and we will
continue with not a commitment for a resolution at that continuance; is that -- is that
acceptable?
Canning: You will form a study to make a recommend on a study; is that it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 40 of 64
Rohm: This is -- this is a huge issue and it's going to affect a lot of lives and, quite
honestly, I think that it's -- it's our responsibility to do the best job possible to get the
answer that is in the best interest of the community as a whole and I'm not sure that -- I
never want to speak for the -- any other Commissioners, but I'm not sure that I will be
ready to respond in two weeks, but we will certainly give it our best shot. Do you have
anything else you would like to add?
Canning: No. That was all. I had contemplated -- in recognition of the fact that staffs
response came later in the process than the preferred alternative and also in recognition
of trying to get together with Kuna and the ACHD study, I had contemplated moving this
one off, but we had already noticed it and it was on the agenda, so we needed to move
forward. But I think it's certainly a valid concern. It's a huge area and as Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay said, it's information overload. The scale of that amendment is much
grander than anything else you will see tonight and is perhaps worthy of some
additional time.
Rohm: Thank you. With that being said, could we get a motion to--
Siddoway: I would like to make a motion in the interest of moving on. I'd like to make a
motion to continue -- get to my correct Public Hearing. Public Hearing CPA 07-002 and
07-009 -- have we done 009? Okay. Just wanted to make sure. To our next regularly
scheduled meeting on April 19th.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items CPA 07-002 and CPA
07-009, to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: And we are going to take about a ten minute break.
(Recess. )
Item 6:
Public Hearing: CPA 07-007 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map for the future Ten Mile Interchange area to
modify various future land uses designations and to create several new
future land use designations for the Ten Mile Area Comprehensive Plan
Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department - generally
bordered by Linder Road to the east, McDermott Road to the west, the
Union Pacific Railroad Line to the north and % mile south of Overland
Road to the south:
Item 7:
Public Hearing: CPA 07-008 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by adding the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan as an