Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 5, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning 8 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'/2 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 41 of 64 addendum to the Comprehensive Plan for the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan Text 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: Rohm: Okay. We are ready to continue the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin by opening the Public Hearing on CPA 07- 007 and CPA 07-008. Both of these items relate to the Ten Mile specific area plan and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The subject Comprehensive Plan amendment application is proposed to amend bath the text and the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan, much like the south Meridian plan which we just discussed. The planning department is proposing to amend the map by creating a Ten Mile interchange specific area plan land use designation. This designation will appear on the future land use map as a blued out area that will -- that will cover the entire Ten Mile interchange study area. Just as a paint of clarification -- and this was brought up earlier on during the meeting -- there was a significant overlap area between the Ten Mile interchange specific plan study area and the south Meridian study area, located south of the freeway and west of Ten Mile. After considering this, staff decided to, basically, let the south Meridian area plan govern this area. 50, staff is proposing to remove this portion from the proposed Ten Mile area plan, which will make sure that there is no overlap in designations and, basically, clarify what's happening there. So, there is only one plan that you refer to when you ga to that area. Along with that, the text within the Ten Mile plan contains specific -- a specific land use map, which we can go to here. And I want to make that clear that we can, actually, just gray it out, because that's the area that we are proposing to gray out there. It's kind of interesting as we can see -- I just want to make this clear -- that this will be what you see on our -- on our physical Comprehensive Plan land use map, one giant blued out area. And so any properties within that area, they would, basically, refer -- if you have that designation, it refers you to the Ten Mile area specific area plan, which contains within it a land use map that looks just like this. Now, something important to realize about this map is that not all of the designations proposed with this map are available throughout the entire city. I can give you the specific new designations that are being proposed. Twa of them, actually, overlapped with what was proposed with the south Meridian area and those are medium high density residential and mixed use employment. But beyond these, this map also contains the mixed use residential designation, the mixed use commercial, high density office, low density office, lifestyle center, civic and it also contains a parks and greens space element or land use designation. So, all of those designations I just mentioned will be very site specific to this area and the plan contains very clear definitions of what those designations are. I just wanted to make that clear up front that this is specific area plan is not -- this doesn't show up on a general land use map. Beyond that -- let's see here. We can move back to the beginning. This gives us a good overall outlook of what's -- of what's going on in the Ten Mile area and in the plan is a lengthy document that contains various details about how this area is going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 42 of 64 looked at. The three things that the plan touches on mostly is, obviously, land use, which was shown in the land use map. It also contains atransportation -- proposed transportation network, which is a -- which differs a little bit from our current Comprehensive Plan, which doesn't propose a new road system, whereas this plan looked very closely at the transportation network and the plan also contains a large section that describes -- specifically describes the design of the proposed structures and streetscapes within this entire area. All of these elements work together to kind of create a very unique land use designation within the City of Meridian and it was really brought on by a couple of things and this is some of the things that were contained in the original letter that was submitted by the planning department to the city to describe what was going on here. With the passage of the GARVEE bonding law, the Meridian planning department recognized the urgency to move forward with the planning of the Ten Mile Road interchange area and proposed project and proposed to fund this in the 2006 fiscal year. The City Council recognized that the area needed a detailed specific plan to coordinate and maximize the benefits to each individual property owner and needs of circulation and land use needs of the city and included the plan in the adopted, as I said, 2006 fiscal year plan. This funding enabled the planning department to engage a consultant to work on this process and it's been much like the south Meridian plan, a lengthy process that has involved numerous public meetings, which included a large charrette that was held last year where the charrette took place over almost a full week where stakeholders, affected agencies, and various other -- various other public entities and just members -- general members of the public were able to come, voice their opinion, and be involved in this planning process. And staff -- staff feels that it was a good public process where hundreds of people came and participated in this -- in this process. I'm a little bit reluctant to go into the numerous details that are contained in the plan. It was presented to the planning commission and staff is here to respond to specific questions. But the plan is -- we feel very well thought out and it presents a new direction for this area of the city. One of the main purposes -- and I can go to the existing future land use map that is shown on the screen. You can see that much of this area used to be designated -- or is currently designated as mixed use regional, which is a land use designation that isn't really that specific. It provides for a wide variety of land uses that could be retail, housing, all types of things would be allowed in this mixed use regional designation and with the introduction of the Ten Mile interchange, staff and city leaders feel it's very important that we really close -- get a more specific definition of what we want to see in this area and that was the purpose of the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. Staff is recommending approval of the plan with the amendment of removing that area from the -- from the plan study area and also amending that proposed future land use map to exclude that area. And I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? This project is a little easier to get our arms around than the south Meridian. Thank you. Good presentation. At this time would Dave Connolly like to come forward, please. McCarthy: Hi. My name is Kevin McCarthy. Address is 9777 Chinden Boulevard. I'm here to represent David Connolly and Steve Bainbridge, who are two of the names listed I think there, so I'll knock both of those out at one time. We have a small project Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 43 of 64 here, it's 3.3 acres, right there next to the mixed use commercial zone that's designated right there, which I believe is an application that's already gone through the City of Meridian. We were planning on submitting an application as well when we were notified that there is a -- that this planning process was taking place, sa we withheld our -- submitting any applicatian until this process was complete. We had made it pretty clear to staff and other people that we had planned on making this a commercial use there, however, for whatever reason, we weren't aware of the charrette process taking place, so we weren't there to express our desire to have that shown as a mixed use commercial. So, we are here to request an amendment to this land use map to have that 3.3 acres, which is directly adjacent to a mixed use commercial, be shown as mixed use commercial, instead of -- I think it's a medium high density residential. Just to give you an idea haw -- we started doing this in May of 2006, with numerous meetings -- we actually had a site plan all prepared, we withheld, figured it would be -- you know, because we had already had an applicatian or had preliminary meetings with the city, that it would be captured in this planning and it was not. So, due to that we would request that you, you know, make that amendment. Other things to kind of keep in mind I think through here -- while I understand, you know, the need for residential, across the street is a transfer station directly acrass from this property, which is a -- let's see. SEC, trash transfer station. So, you know, having a residential community right there would be a tough sell far our property owners, another reason we'd like to have it be a mixed use commercial zone. So, with that I will stand far any questions that you may have. Rohm: And this parcel is right adjacent to -- McCarthy: It is. There is no separation. Rohm: -- the commercial development that's, basically, taken place -- Hark's Corner. McCarthy: I don't recall the exact name, but -- Rohm: I'm pretty sure it is. From the audience Dave was saying yes. McCarthy: Yeah. So, it's directly adjacent to it, it's just going to be a continuation. Just, basically, another additional three acres of mixed commercial. Siddoway: To the west? McCarthy: Yeah. Siddoway: Just immediately to west? McCarthy: It is. It's very hard to tell from that map. You have to really zoom in there to figure it out. But it's immediately adjacent to it, sa it's not a huge change, we are just expanding it by three acres, which on the overall scale of things here isn't much. So, you can see it's kind of a trapezoidal shape. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 44 of 64 Rohm: Yeah. All of this land here is part of that -- McCarthy: Right. And what we are talking about is this right here and this -- far whatever reason the shading didn't go aver all the way. The actual property boundary for that MBC is right here and what we are referring to is this 3.3 acres right here. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Thank you. McCarthy: So, there is no separation between the two. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of this individual? McCarthy: I have one more question. Imean -- so is this something that we could -- you guys can act on tonight or is this something we need to continually came back and testify on to make sure that this happens? We submitted aletter to -- I believe we turned that into the city clerk today, so that stuffs been -- with all of our attachments and everything, illustrating our point, is this something we need to continue to come back and bring up ar is it bringing up once -- right now is that sufficient and it should be addressed with your Commission when you act? Rohm: Well, bringing it up tonight is for sure the right timing from that perspective. It won't be acted on tonight, but it will be incorporated into the discussion that will ultimately -- our recommendation back to staff will include your comments an changing the land use designation for your parcel. So, not necessarily is that the recommendation we would make, but we will certainly take your testimony and incorporate that in our decision-making process. McCarthy: So, as you guys continue all these applications tonight, are you continuing the public hearings or is the Public Hearing closed? Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could jump in. Rohm: Absolutely. Baird: Members of the Commission. As you painted out at the beginning of the meeting, you're attempting to take all testimony tonight with continuing the Public Hearing for the purpose of deliberating and making a recommendation on the 19th. It's certainly in your discretion to take additional testimony, but the intent was to get all the testimony tonight. I do want to remind this applicant -- or this individual that your recommendation is just that, it's a recommendation, and it would behoove anyone who is interested to attend the City Council hearings on the matter, because that's when the final decisions will be made. A recommendation from this body doesn't guarantee similar actions from the City Council. So, it is something that would need to be followed. McCarthy: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 45 of 64 Rohm: There we go. McCarthy: All right. Rohm: Thank you. McCarthy: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Jewett. Jewett: Jim Jewett. 1560 Carol Street, Meridian, Idaho. As some of you are aware, we are the developer of the South Ridge Subdivision, which is primarily the area south of Overland, plus we are the owner of the property that's right at the interchange at Overland and the freeway. So, I will just keep my comments specific to the south side. As with a lot of things in life, as we grow we learn a little bit more and through this process I thought we had covered everything and it's kind of come to my attention that there is one kind of service that we haven't provided south of the freeway and that is a service station or a C store, in the south area planning, as well as this Ten Mile area planning, there isn't provisions, so residents in this general area and in the south Meridian, would have to go to Meridian Road for services. So, I would ask that the Commission consider a service station from the Ten Mile interchange to Overland -- new Overland location, somewhere along that corridor an appropriate place for a service station. And the second thing I'd like to touch on is just an FYI. As part of the process with ITD and with the construction of the new Ten Mile interchange, the most likely scenario for this road would probably be relocated along this corridor to tie in Tasa Street back aver to Overland. So, I don't think it necessarily changes any land use, it's just that because so much effort has gone into showing a transportation corridor, I just wanted to make it aware to the Commission that my negotiations with ITD now are to relocate this road down along this corridor, allowing the Tasa residents to come back up to Tasa at this location on Overland. Oh. And that would be accommodated through an underpass on this reconstruction of Ten Mile. So, with that I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Any questions of Mr. Jewett? Thank you. Jewett: Thank you. Rohm: John Peterson. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm John Peterson. 3680 Lamont Road. And I signed up and you will notice I'm neutral on this issue. I had a question, though. I'm hoping that Ten Mile will not become another Eagle Road and the debacle that that's been as far as traffic is concerned. I had a question and I guess it stems from my ignorance as to what this Commission can do as compared to what the Idaho Transportation Department does and what the Ada County Highway District does. But I heard a comment earlier to the effect that McDermott might be made anorth-south high Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 46 of 64 density traffic corridor. I have been wondering for a long time why there wasn't a plan far a north-south traffic corridor and why most of our traffic problems are solved by piecemeal Band-Aids. I'm looking at -- at this Ten Mile overpass as sort of piecemeal project. Now, McDermott is in the future considered and maybe I heard it wrong, if it is, I'd like to know, but if it isn't I'd like somebody -- and maybe the Commission would be the place to start to see a limited access, high density traffic corridor, north-south, somewhere. Rohm: There has been quite a bit of discussion about that all the way from Highway 16, which heads aver the hill to Emmett from Highway 44 -- that's specifically what you're talking about here, where that highway would, then, head south from Highway 44 and jag to McDermott Road or in that vicinity and take it all the way to the freeway and that's under -- Peterson: It's a little bit in the future. Rohm: -- the GARVEE bill right now and something that's being discussed and there has been discussions of preservation -- land preservation, so that there is the possibility of that very thing taking place and you're sure -- you're sure right that we need that north-south thoroughfare. Peterson: And I'm glad to see that the Commission is on top of that. Another comment about the roads in this Ten Mile area that you have included plans for roads and as I have talked about earlier tonight, you can see where Overland swings around to the south there in a big wide bend and comes back. Does the Commission really have this as part of this Ten Mile plan? Is this part of the road structure? Rohm: I think in just general response to your question, the Ten Mile interchange itself is going to take a certain amount of property to develop that and if, in fact, you had Overland tying into Ten Mile where it currently exists, there is the potential for hazards associated with that and I think where it drops right dawn to Ten Mile currently, I think that it's a safety issue and so the thought is that you were to move Overland up to -- up onto the bluff, there would -- it would reduce the hazard associated with that issue. And I may not be saying that exactly right, but I think that that's the thought process. Peterson: And I'm assuming that the Commission is taking into consideration how these different road plans for the future will affect what you're planning here for the Ten Mile interchange and I appreciate what you're doing. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you far coming in. Okay. That is the end of the list of individuals that have signed up and as with the previous hearing, the podium is still open to additional testimony and if someone would like to come forward and offer testimony, now is that time. Ashburn: Again, Jim Ashburn. I represent Helen and Associates, the land owner, in this proposed area. If we could bring back the current proposed use. We own this triangle Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 47 of 64 here, the lower triangle here. When we purchased the property about a year and a half ago and entered negotiations -- into negotiations prior to that, we were relying on this map as a guideline far our purchase and pricing the purchase and so forth. As you can see, that land under the current designation, is designated high density residential. The immediate plan is for switching that to a medium high density residential, which, again, we were counting on the high density residential designation for our purchase. Again, I participated in the charrette. I wanted to compliment the participants in the charrette. It was a very well thought out process. We came up with some great ideas. I participated through the entire thing and at the end I did have to register my objection to, basically, being demoted. Other than that, I think that it's a very well thought out plan, it's just -- we made the purchase on the assumption that this would become high density residential as designated in the future use plan. With that I would stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this individual? Canning: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Yes. Canning: Before Mr. Ashburn sits down, I think it -- to say he participated in the charrette is an understatement. He was there as many hours as most of the staff was. Very actively participating and drawing and bringing up ideas and it really was a --quite a level of participation we had never seen before and it was -- I just wanted to make sure that Jim got the accolades he should for spending that kind of time and commitment to the process. Ashburn: Thank you. Again, we would request that you reconsider the designation. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, maybe just a follow up question for staff, just to make sure I have my definitions straight. Under the current existing future land use map the high density residential definition is greater than eight dwelling units per acre and the medium high in the Ten Mile plan allows what density? Canning: Eight to fifteen. Siddoway: Eight to fifteen. So, it's still greater than eight? Canning: Yes. Siddoway: But less than 40. Okay. That's all I have. Thanks. Rohm: Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this application at this time? Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 48 of 64 Turnbull: Chairman Rohm and Members of the Commission, we were involved in the charrette process as well and appreciate -- I'd like to give our kudos to the staff for all their hard work for pushing this along. And as I was reading the Mayor's message in the statement, I think there is some things that stood out to me that we can -- we obviously support. One says that to insure the land use and transportation planning are integrated, I think that's important. It talks about the planning challenges agencies, property owners, and developers to work together forming partnerships and think nontraditionally and I think that's important. Also, establishing new businesses that offer upscale regional and other unique shopping and entertainment venues and we think that's important, taa. We do think that is a unique opportunity and a unique piece of property and so planning this well and getting it as -- you know, you never get it totally right and there will still probably be modifications to any plan as it goes along, but we think this is a good beginning. I want to point the property that we own is the acreage right on the corner of Ten Mile and the interchange and, then, we own -- that's an 80 acre parcel, approximately. And, then, a 40 acre parcel at the corner of Franklin and Ten Mile. Like the gentleman referred to in the previous map, this area that we awn was all designated for mixed use regional at the time we purchases the property and some of the designations have changed. Currently we have a high density office of component right here and I think that's in response to some of the city leaders' desires to see, you know, some really nice, upscale development in this area. And we certainly can support that and we will give our best efforts to make that happen. We do a range of development from office to industrial to retail to residential and so we are excited about the concepts and the mixed use and so -- and, then, we have the lifestyle center designation here. Up in this area here -- I'll talk about that a little bit in a minute. We concur with the mixed use concept and we just want to make sure we have the right blend in the right places in this plan. So, I really have only two requests at this point. One is to look at the land use designation on the southeast corner of Franklin and Ten Mile. A trade area this size will require a grocery store and we have actually, over the past several months been able to introduce this area to a couple of the major grocers that -- nationwide grocers that are in the market and without exception they look at this corner right here as a preferred site. Now, this designation here is for mixed use residential, which wouldn't allow that kind of a use. Mixed use commercial is along this collector road and I can appreciate some of the rationale that went into this, but this is not going -- pushing the residential out to the corner in a high volume traffic area is not going to be particularly pedestrian friendly, does not make a lot of sense to us. And so what we are going to be asking for this entire area be designated mixed use commercial, with the understanding -- and we recognize that mixing residential uses in that mixed use commercial is a critical component of the mixed use commercial. So, we recognize that there has to be a blend of both, but we don't concur with having all of the commercial pushed out to this region where we think that the chances of success and the chances of accommodating a grocer in this area would be limited. So, we can work within the mixed use concept, but we don't necessarily concur with having those designations separated that way. Okay. And I'd like to read just for the -- I'm sure you have read all the -- memorized all these definitions. The purpose statement of the mixed use commercial -- the purpose of the mixed use commercial designation is to Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 49 of 64 encourage the development of a mixture of office, retail, recreational, employment, and other miscellaneous uses with supporting multi-family or single family attached residential uses. While the focus of these areas is on commercial, employment uses, the horizontal and vertical integration of residential uses is essential to securing entitlements. So, I think within that purpose statement you have some -- some good definitions and some protection for insuring that you have mixed uses. We discussed this with Anna and Matt earlier this week and told them that that would be our request. I think that they were somewhat receptive to that, but I don't know if they are prepared to make a recommendation for the area. So, that's what we will be requesting, that this -- this MUR designation be change to MUC. The second area of concern -- and I don't think we are going to resolve any of this tonight and probably might not even resolve it before you come to a point of recommendation of the issue of access control. We are fully cognizant of land use and transportation planning has to work together, but there are some -- sometimes they can work against each other, too. And everybody likes to point out as an example Eagle Road as -- and I think that the Eagle Road example is probably being used too broadly over the valley. Eagle Road is a unique and special situation. It's the highway that connects to Eagle, it goes across the river, it continues on to McCall, and it's a major highway destination. Ten Mile is a little bit different than that and as pointed out by a previous witness, there is a plan for an expressway at the McDermott location. Ten Mile is never going to become that, because it's primarily developed out all the way between, you know, Franklin Road and Chinden. Sa, to assume that that's going to became an expressway like -- or a high volume network like Eagle Road I think is a false analogy. So, what happens when you -- the plan -- the plan right now calls for this access here, these two connectors, to be right-in, right-out only. Well, that, basically, creates limited access in this area and we are not sure that that's justified. We'd like the opportunity take the studies that have been done by the consultants, analyze them ourselves, and perhaps be able to offer some additional insight there. I do have one of our project managers on staff is -- does have his master's degree in transportation and we'd like to be able to analyze that situation a little bit further. So, we are going to be requesting greater access at this point here. The other point -- the original plan that came out -- this is our property line right here at the quarter mile section. The original plan showed an access there. Now, we granted the city a sewer easement right across our north property line in this location and' the original plan showed that access, with the understanding that that would be a shared access between our property and this property to the north. The original plan showed that access there, but with this new revision it shoves it up, oh, I don't know haw many hundred feet that is. And, then, eventually comes down to that alignment. The problem we have with that is we have been denied access to Ten Mile Road by this. Now, if there is some provisions that we can have where maybe there is some land swaps and we acquire this frontage in here, that's fine, but we have no way of enforcing that with the existing property owner. So, we will be needing some kind of assistance from the city or the highway district, whoever is going to make those decisions. We can't agree to have our only access right here that we currently have taken away without some kind of replacement. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2D07 Page 50 of 64 Rohm: Dave, before you continue, da you mind me asking staff something for just a moment? Turnbull: Sure. Rohm: As each one of these individuals are coming forward and testifying they got their site specific requests for alteration. Are you capturing these in a fashion that you would be able to provide us with an alternate map, so this is what we propose and this is what's coming forward in testimony? Can you provide that to us over the next week or two? Canning: Yes. I would prefer you take some additional comments from staff before we change the map and, then, direct us to change the map at that time. Rohm: Okay. And thank you. I just wanted to make sure that when this is all done we can take a look at it in its entirety, as opposed to just individual testimony. But thank you. And, I'm sorry, Dave, but I thought that that was in your best interest. Turnbull: No. I appreciate that. Thanks very much. So, I can continue now? Rohm: Absolutely. Turnbull: Okay. So, I guess what we are concerned about is -- is that we believe in some access controls, but we believe that access controls that are placed too restrictively are detrimental to eventual land use. And so we would like to see some examples of where similar access restrictions have proven not to be detrimental to the land use. We'd also like to be able to come up with some examples -- and, you know, you were probably talking about other areas of the country with similar kind of intersections and traffic volumes and so forth. But we should look for examples where less restrictive access management policies have been successful from a land use standpoint and not unduly hinder the transportation functionality. So, again, we may not have time to get all that done before you need to make a recommendation to the City Council, but I assume there is going to be sometime between that point and the City Council hearing where maybe some of that work can be done. So, I just wanted to go on the record to say that I think we need same additional time to analyze that and will conclude my testimony and stand for questions. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of this individual? Thank you, Dave. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. Good. Thank you very much. This project is a lot easier to get our arms around it, I believe, than the south area. Certainly appreciate your comments. Canning: Chairman, may I make a few comments -- Rohm: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 51 of 64 Canning: -- relation to the -- one of the things to highlight about the Ten Mile specific area plan is that the roads that you see connecting to the arterial roadways, those are proposed to be the only access points to those arterial roadways. So, you had several requests for changing to a commercial use. Some of those requests wouldn't have access to the arterial roadways. So, it's an important thing to consider when you want to change the map. The reason that this property is shown as residential, instead of commercial, is that we felt that commercial property just isn't viable without having access to the arterial roadway and it's imperative to have Franklin functioning at a high level to start reducing the number of direct access points to that facility. So, that's why commercial was not shown on that property. With regard to Mr. Jewett and his request for a gas station, there would appear to be a couple different opportunities to accommodate that. One would be in the mixed employment, if -- if he secures kind of reasonable access. It doesn't sound like he's going to have access there to Ten Mile. The other opportunity would be across from the fire station, because he would have access to a collector roadway there. Overland. Actually, arterial. But he could get -- well, that's another arterial, isn't it. That might be an opportunity there. With regard to the issues Mr. Turnbull just talked about, the need to shift that intersection north is that as Lochner prepares the -- the construction plans for the interchange, they needed a separation distance from the interchange facility to that first intersection and that was the minimum distance. When we have talked to Lochner we have said, you know, we need to make sure we maintain access. And they can't landlock a parcel. So, we have been talking to them about leaving that access open as part of -- and leaving it as part of their plan to inquire the access all the way down to that first roundabout. Those little dots are roundabouts, by the way. That's a little roundabout. That's a roundabout. There is several others in there. Also, with this plan is one of the real implementation challenges -- and we have a few years, so we feel we can get this all worked out, but the real implementation challenge is to get those collector roadways built and we have kind of talked about trying to do some local improvement district or some sort of funding -- something with ACRD to try and acquire the funds to get those collector road systems built, because a lot of the properties -- particularly in this center section, don't have access at all. They are completely landlocked. So, that collector roadway network is very important to the success of this plan and we know that and those aren't the kind of details you need to work out at this point. Again, this is the vision for the city and, then, we work on the implementation tools to accomplish that vision. So, I think those were the topics. The mixed use residential, mixed use community is -- commercial, carry, is a little -- you know, I like the plan the way it is now, so I haven't gone about changing it when Mr. Turnbull requested it, so just -- but the two designations are really the two sides of the coin. They are so close that in charrette when we talked about them, they were kind of a blended -- you know, it's kind of a continuum and one side is residential and one is commercial, but you have commercial in one and residential in bath. So, it's really not that much different, I guess. The important part was to have kind of a main street feel when you came up to the transit station, quite frankly. And if we can still achieve that, I'm not sure that it matters too much what's just west of there. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 52 of 64 Canning: Is there anything else you wanted to know about? Rohm: No. That -- thank you. Canning: Oh, I did -- yeah. Moe: Do you have a comment on that? I'd like to hear that. Canning: We talked about it and most of the apartment development that's goes in is still within R-15. Again, that's not a designation that's all that much different than what's there. It's a triangular piece of property. I doubt you would be able to achieve that kind of density on a triangular piece of property, because they are just inherently inefficient trying to develop them. But it's -- that's something certainly that wouldn't change the nature of the plan drastically. Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your comments and I appreciate the testimony offered up by the public. I think that this is at least going to be easier to get our arms around than the previous amendment request and I think that the testimony offered will have to incorporate that in our discussion over the next couple of weeks and we will come back and open it up again on the 19th. With that being said, I -- unless there is additional public testimony, I think that it's probably in the best interest to request a continuance for the 19th. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue file numbers CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 to the hearing date of April 19th, 2007. O'Brien: I'll second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue item CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Canning: Chairman Rohm, before you take the vote, could I ask for discussion, because, otherwise, the folks that are leaving don't know how you're leaning. Rohm: Yeah. We can do that. Newton-Huckabay: Do we reverse the vote? Baird: Withdraw the motion. Whoever made the motion, withdraw it. Moe: I withdraw the motion. Newton-Huckabay: I second that. Baird: Second agrees. Okay. The motion has been withdrawn. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 53 of 64 Rohm: Okay. The motion has been withdrawn and with that being said, I will poll the Commission and begin with Commissioner O'Brien and -- do you have some final thoughts on this CPA? O'Brien: Not at this time I don't. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway? Siddoway: Regarding the mixed use community along Franklin to the west, I don't have any particular heartburn with it, especially if there is an opportunity for joint access there or cross-access that may be in place. I'd like to maybe know by the next meeting if there is an opportunity far joint or cross-access there. That would certainly help me make up my mind on that one. Regarding the C store and the gas station, I'd prefer not to change land uses to accommodate it somewhere that it's not already accommodated. I'd like to see that work within the existing framework somehow. Regarding Jim Ashburn's comment about the high density, you know, I could go either way. I don't think the change from medium high to high would be a significant change to the character. I just question -- we haven't really seen anything that's truly come in higher than that and, you know, if you were to work out a site plan that you thought you were interested in that were higher than 15 units per acre, I'd like to see if you could actually accomplish it, because, if not, I would be inclined to just leave it as it is. The southeast corner of Ten Mile and Franklin. My gut inclination is to leave it as is. It's mixed use residential, mixed use commercial -- I'd hate to go away from the main street concept up to the transit station. I believe that changing it to commercial would increase the impetus for additional access points and one of the main issues that drove the development was that the coordination of transportation and land use in a way that limited the access paints along Ten Mile. I'm wandering if that commercial -- that grocery store couldn't be included into the lifestyle center area in the middle somewhere. And I'm a pretty strong proponent of the access controls that are proposed. It would take quite a bit of convincing to get me to change it to more turning movements, because, boy, if there is a lesson to be learned from Meridian and Eagle near the freeway, it's that the more accesses and the more turning movements you put in in close proximity to that interchange, the more difficult it is for traffic to move through. Sa, that was one of the things we were trying to address and try and give some thought to the issue or the challenge from Mr. Turnbull to see if there is some areas where access control has been implemented and not been detrimental to the commercial development and give some thought to that between now and the next meeting, so -- Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I prefer not to follow Commissioner Siddoway with comments anymore. I have a difficult time just being with myself. Well, I do agree. I -- I will probably still be on the Commission when we get to see the challenges that will come with the paradigm shift of limiting access to major collectors as this plan has done it. There are going to be some people who like it and those are the people who probably Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 54 of 64 don't stand to make a lot of money off of it. So, it's going to be interesting and I'm looking forward to it. Canning: ACHD is -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, ACHD is currently considering changes to their access management policies that would be consistent with what's shown here. Newton-Huckabay: The variation and exception and -- come to mind. Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Moe: Well, I would concur with Mr. Siddaway on pretty much all but of his comments -- I'm still a little bit unclear on how I'm looking at the property on the southeast corner. That's something I'm going to have to kind of review in my own mind here in the next couple of weeks. Yeah. Right there. The grocery store. I believe that, you know -- I think I'll just leave it at that. That's pretty much the area that I'm most concerned with. I would say that the property that's across from the transfer station when we had the other project come through, one of my main questions was why would anyone want to put something residential across the street from a transfer station. So, that for me is -- I'm glad to see that, so -- Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my only comments are that I want to see all of the recommended changes from the testimony given in their entirety, overlay aver what's been proposed in this and, then, I will digest it on my own. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, may I? Rohm: Absolutely. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Mr. Jewett didn't specify an area and there is not a designation -- I can't meet one of your goals. So, Mr. Jewett didn't specify an area and none of the current land uses support a gas station, except for perhaps mixed employment -- or not mixed employment, high density employment. So, if the Commission can provide a little more -- Rohm: I guess my comment on that would be I agree that there should be some sort of a C store or gas station on that south side of the freeway and within this area of impact. It seems to me it may be where you had pointed out where the rerouted Overland ties into Ten Mile, maybe that would be appropriate. Is that -- Canning: That helps. Thank yau, sir. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Now, could we get a motion? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue file numbers CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008, to the hearing date of April 19th, 2007. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 55 of 64 Rohm: Could I get a second? Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Canning: Chairman Rohm, before you move onto the next item, I would like to acknowledge that our consultant from HDR is in the audience listening patiently and Miguel -- want to wave? There we go. And he's here to listen and make those changes you requested. Item 8: Public Hearing: CPA 07-003 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map by adding and amending pathway locations for the Pathways Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department: Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And there are some of us that are on an e- mail list that -- the sooner you have an opportunity to do that overlay, I don't know -- I just am very visual, but I'd like to be able to take a look at those in their entirety as soon as possible. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your input. We have one item left on the agenda and it is Public Hearing CPA 07-003 related to Pathways Comprehensive Plan amendment and I'd like to begin with the staff report. Oh, didn't I open? Excuse me. I'd like to at this time open CPA 07-003 and begin with the stafF report. Is that better? Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. Let me just get situated with our Powerpoint presentation. Here we are. This application specifically references a designation we have an our future land use map for pathways. With all the development in the city and the proposed expansion of our areas of impact, we decided, both in conjunction with parks department and the City of Meridian planning department, that it would be a goad time also to get an update for that pathway network. And the pathway network shown on the future land use map has not been updated since 2003 and a major revision to the pathway plan has not been completed since the first master pathway plan was developed in the year 2000. Due to the amount of development that has occurred in the recent past and the continued growth of the city, as stated, the planning department and the parks and recreation department had decided it's time to do that. As development continues to occur in the city, the pathway system will continue to grow as developers build their portion of the overall pathway system. And one of the major focus points of this -- of this revision was to identify sections of pathway that have been installed with development and provide a clear picture of how the numerous existing portions of pathway could be efficiently and effectively connected. The proposed pathway never specifically addresses these gaps in the pathway system and