Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 5, 2007 P&Z Minutes 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 on 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 good 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 56 of 64 also focuses on connecting significant features, such as schools, parks, public facilities and major business districts. Much like the existing pathway network, the updated pathway system focuses on a core system of pathways based on the existing canal system within the City of Meridian and this core system of pathway is enhanced by key connectors that will provide connections to and through many residential areas while creating a larger city wide loop. That's just a brief overview of what -- of what the goals of this updated pathway plan are. The plan itself -- it contains what you're seeing in front of you, which is the actual path -- the physical pathway network and it also is actually a document that contains various things, such as design elements and a discussion of implementation of these pathways and all those types of things. But in this situation the -- this body, this Commission, is in a position, really, to only act on the network itself, the map amendment. The text and the design elements and all of the other things that have come along with that -- with this network aren't really being considered tonight. They have been considered by the parks and recreation commission and that commission recommended approval of the overall -- of the entire plan to the City Council, but because these designations specifically refer to the land use map and an amendment to that map, that's why this Commission has become involved at this time. I just want to make that clear that this -- this discussion tonight is, really, only about the designation of where these paths are within the city and not about how this plan will be implemented, because that's something that the City Council will be deciding at a later date. With that said, there has been quite a bit of discussion on maybe the location of some of these pathways and how they will be built out. And I wanted to -- we did receive a petition from a large group of citizens that has voiced some concern about one specific section of pathway along the Nine Mile Creek north of Cherry Lane towards Ustick. And I will go ahead and read into the record the statement that was included in that petition for everyone to hear. It says: We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the present proposed pathway network along Nine Mile Creek Canal, with a maintenance road, fence, pathway, landscaped area and another fence, it would extend not only into our private property, but into our actual homes and we are strongly opposed to losing 30 to 50 feet of our property. The presence of pedestrians, joggers, dog walkers, lights along the pathway, et cetera, right next to our home, will completely take away any privacy we are entitled to and currently enjoy. We are also very concerned about the noise, possibilities of vandalism and any waste left behind by humans or animals, contributing to our loss of a safe, private, and sanitary neighborhood. It would also bring an end to the habitat of the wildlife that lives along the Nine Mile Creek. It is our request that this proposed phase of the pathway network along Nine Mile Creek be permanently removed. And there are various undersigned. I believe it's over 50 people that had signed this petition and maybe more than that. I didn't count the exact number. I wanted to read that into the -- into the record and give a response to that -- to that statement. And I want to make it clear that staff recognizes these concerns, especially when the pathway that's proposed through an established neighborhood and this isn't something that they have ever really been -- it's been on the map -- this section of pathway has been on the map for quite some time, but it's never something that has been pursued and with this revision to the network it became kind of an issue for this neighborhood and staff recognizes that, but staff's response to that is that this pathway network is a future pathway network. It's a long-term goal of the city to have provided these pathway Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 57 of 64 connections and, really, it's not the city's position currently or the parks and recreation department's position to go -- I mean in a sense to get the bulldozers ready and go ahead and put this path through. That's not the purpose of this plan. It's, really, a long- term vision of the pathway network throughout the city and it's something that the city in the past and most likely in the future will work with property owners to make this happen. Currently most pathways go in with new development. This Commission sees pathways quite often come through as they are on our plan and a new subdivision comes in we will require pathways all the time. But in a situation where it's a subdivision that was approved and has been built quite a long time ago and there is a pathway designation, I just wanted to make it clear that it's not the intention of this plan or the intention of staff to say that this pathway is going to be built in the next day or the next year. We don't really know. Really, the plan is that these pathways be included when these properties redevelop and -- or with significant buy-in from the landowners to make this happen. If that buy-in doesn't exist, then, it would be difficult to make these pathways go through, because as the landowners say, it's their property and the city's really not in the -- doesn't have the habit of going and taking people's property. It's not something that happens. So, I just -- I just wanted to make that clear. And if there is any questions, we can certainly respond to those and we have our legal department here and also a representative from the parks and recreation department to answer those types of questions. And with that staff is recommending approval of this proposed pathway network and believes that it really will provide -- it provides a great vision and a great plan for future pedestrian and multi-use connectivity throughout the city. Rohm: Thank you. That was a great presentation. And I'm sure it's helped clarify a lot of things for a lot of people. Thank you. Any questions of staff before we -- O'Brien: I just have one. Rohm: Go ahead, Tom. O'Brien: So, what you're saying is that this is just a proposal that -- there could be one, two or several missing links that if you don't get it -- I mean it just destroys the whole thing; right? I mean you can't -- you might be able to walk or run for a mile and, then, you stop, I guess. I don't know what -- what's the contingency plan there? You say the city isn't in the business of taking away people's property, of course, but, boy, it seems like that's a long road to haul. Lucas: I'll go ahead and let Mr. Ellsworth respond to that question. He has a little bit more background with the whole history of this plan and he's worked very closely with the parks and recreation department and the consultants who created it. Ellsworth: Thank you, Justin. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, one thing that's unique about the segment of pathway in particular on which the residents commented, is unlike all of the other segments of pathway that are proposed and without getting to far into the narrative of the text, the consultant also proposed a parallel on street route and in a spreadsheet that describes, for example, a pathway Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 58 of 64 actually running along the east side of the canal. It actually is termed -- it identified a short term and a long term for implementation of the segment. In the near term the on- street route will probably be the way to go. In the longer term the canal pathway is the direction that it should go. Without speaking directly to the consultants about that, I have a feeling what happened is they took a look at this corridor, recognized the impact it would have to the property owners and understanding that it's likely that it will take redevelopment before this is a viable pathway, they proposed the near term option, in addition to -- but I think it's worth noting -- because, like I said, this is the only pathway segment in the whole proposed network where that was the case. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Matt, do you know if -- and I could -- maybe I ought to wait -- hold this question for the property owners. I'll go ahead and ask it and, then, maybe they can respond, too. But the -- what I'm wondering is -- is the easement for the Nine Mile Creek through that area already fenced off from their backyards or not? I will just throw that out as a question and I'll let the public respond to it. Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, the residents are indicating that, no, there is not a fence and I do know that property lines in this instance do run to the center of the creek. So, it appears that it's an easement. It is not fenced. One point of clarification is a bit of confusion on staffs part. The GIS system that we operate on labeled the Nine Mile Creek as a creek. One of the residents of this neighborhood actually contacted the irrigation district and as it turns out it's, in fact, a drain, which -- which winds up changing the design standards that the irrigation district require on it. The long and short of it is -- and this gets back into the text of the plan, so I don't go too far in depth, but it's a bit more constrained what the recommendations are as far as the amount of land needed, rather than maintenance road, fence, pathway, property line, it would, essentially, be multiple use between the maintenance road and the pathway in the case of a drain. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I think at this time we will take some public testimony. Kevin Barkell. Barkell: Kevin Barkell. 2181 North Maxie Place. We had a meeting with Matt awhile back here about this proposed pathway plan. If you will look at this it shows an 18 foot easement from the edge of the bank, not the center of the creek, for the irrigation district. It shows another 14 feet for this pathway. I overhung a tape measure a foot and a half to two foot over the edge of the bank, it wipes out a seven foot hedge that I have hiding -- hiding that irrigation right of way. It takes up about two foot of my neighbor's fence into -- and leaves their pathway within about three foot of her garage. There is other homes along the way. It takes up even more other yards. We have contacted Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 59 of 64 John Anderson of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and where us as the homeowners do own that property to the center of the creek, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation does have access in there. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation isn't about to give it up either. The 18 foot isn't enough for them. By overhanging the tape measure and allowing their 18 feet, that doesn't give them near enough room. They actually need to set that in three feet from the edge of the bank before they can do their 18 foot of easement. So, here we go again. We are losing even more. I lose over 3,000 square foot of property, not -- and that's just in this pathway. That's not measuring it from the center of the creek to -- and, here again, back to this gentleman up on Overland. Are you -- what happens to my property from the edge of that pathway to the center of the creek? Here, again, I have talked with -- we got 65 signatures. Of the 65 signatures we went to 83 homes. Sixty- five were opposed. Fifteen were not home. One was for the pathway. And three -- or two didn't want to sign. That says a lot right there. There is a lot of people that do not want this in their backyards. I fought for years to keep people from going through there. We finally got Nampa -- well -- and it didn't -- you know, getting Nampa-Meridian Irrigation out there to put a cable up and get a sign posted so our liability was at a nil if somebody drowned in that creek. We had trouble with people racing up and down through there on motorcycles and four wheelers. Cars running through there at night. I talked to a gal down the road from me. She's finding hypodermic needles back there. You cannot tell me that if you put a pathway through something like that, that crime's going to go down. It's going to skyrocket. I don't care what you say, it's going to skyrocket through there. Rohm: And thank you for your testimony. I think that the staff report pretty much says that this a -- the vision of a pathway. It's not that the pathway is going to be made encumbering on you to put it in, it would only occur with redevelopment type -- Barkell: Well, this -- this is not -- they are saying, though, that eventually they will want try to push it through these existing homes in order to connect -- Rohm: I think, actually, the staff was actually talking about the alternate pathway around, because it's obvious that the current development as it is doesn't support the pathway going along the -- the drain. I think that you're really on the same page, honestly. Barkell: Well, I just want it on public record that we as the homeowners are -- if somebody comes knocking at the door, we are going to fight it tooth and nail. Rohm: And I think everybody understands that. Barkell: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: You bet. Thank you. John Sessel. Sessel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is John Sessel and I reside at 1445 West Greenhedge Drive in Meridian, Idaho. And I'm just Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 60 of 64 here tonight to express my support for the pathways plan as presented and as prepared based on recommendations by staff. I had an opportunity to talk very briefly this morning with Justin about the Comp Plan amendment and appreciate his -- his information. I did prepare some comments on the plan itself that I submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department. I -- you know, as a relatively recent newcomer to Meridian, I think we need to expand our opportunities for pathways, parks, greenspace, in the community and I think this plan concept, vision, is a great start and I applaud you for taking this initiative. So, just would like to be on record in support of it. Thank you. Rohm: All right. Thank you. I guess along the lines of his comments, basically, as any development comes before this planning commission that is adjacent to a waterway, there is typically a pathway associated with that redevelopment proposal and that's pretty much how the pathway system is going to expand throughout our community and -- and it's only through the redevelopment process. So, for those properties that don't redevelop, the pathway's probably not going to get there. And I certainly can't make a quantitative statement. But, typically, that's the way -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Matt address that without a -- then, detour into the street, around the -- Rohm: Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: -- which is common all over the city. Rohm: Just so the pathway can't continue to the next place, but it does take off. With that being said, we have one more person that has signed up. Terry Renninger. Renninger: Hi. I'm Terry Renninger. I live at 2111 Leann Way, Meridian. And I'm with Kevin here. I live just down the road from him or -- down the -- where ever the pathways mayor may not go. And I'm one of the property owners that tends to lose more property than him. And, you know, like he's saying, it's not a for sure thing or nothing and I just want everybody to know that I'm against it. I like my privacy. I like the ducks in the morning and the morning doves and whatnot. And I'd like to keep it that way. Mr. Rohm: Don't blame you a bit. Thank you. Boy. That's just about everybody. But at this pOint that's the end of the people that have signed up to testify. If there is anyone else that would like to come forward now is that time. Okay. Thank you. Discussion? Let's see. We are going to start with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add. Moe: I find that hard to believe. Newton-Huckabay: I guess the only thing I would mention is maybe some way of putting in some wording or reference that makes it a little more clear and communicates a little better to address particularly the neighbors' concern. The intent of the city is not to blaze Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 61 of 64 through the back of their property and put in a pathway and -- because it's going to be misunderstood by more people not familiar with the process and it appears that that is the only section of the plan that's confusing and I live near you folks. I ride my bike down your road and I can see where -- Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission and Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, what you have before you is just a map tonight. This is a little unusual, as they mentioned at the beginning. The parks commission heard the text, the plan itself, and they -- that's skipping to you and going directly to the Council. So, your comments are germane to the fact that these individuals will probably want to show up to the City Council and express what you just stated, that, you know, it is an issue for the City Council to decide. What's before you are lines on a map and adopting that map in your Comprehensive Plan. So, this may not be the forum, but I wanted to let these individuals know that they can express those concerns to City Council. And, once again, Anna wants to correct whatever misstatements I just made. Canning: Of course not. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, it's true that there is nothing that you have been given specific authority to recommend that we could change to accommodate that. But you could certainly just send a letter from the Commission, if that's what you want to do, recommending that when the City Council hears the parks plan that they consider including some language to that effect. Newton-Huckabay: One good thing -- I mean highlighting it in some way, it is a unique section of the plan -- of the map. Canning: And the parks director is in the audience and I'm sure he will take that forward with him, if you so choose. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I agree with Newton-Huckabay. No. First I give a comment of the plan overall and, then, I'll speak specifically to Nine Mile. I think these lines have been a long time coming. You know, we have -- we have on our current comp plan some conceptual lines that were in desperate need of some refinement and a harder look in the field of whether these pathways could actually go and that's -- that's what's happened through this process and I am quite pleased that it's happened. So, I am quite favorable the idea of adding the -- these revised lines to the pathway -- to the Comprehensive Plan map to replace the ones that are currently shown. The current map also shows the same alignment along the Nine Mile. So, there really is no change for this area in that sense. It's going to be particularly challenging to get through with property owners having ownership through the center line. That is not typical through the city, but it does happen in a couple of instances, especially in some of the older subdivisions -- older is not the right word, because they were platted in the '90s -- early '90s, I think. But those that were -- Newton-Huckabay: Established. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 62 of 64 Siddoway: Established. This same issue is going to occur more than here. But generally that's not the case and I would -- I think I would prefer to show an eventual connection along the Nine Mile Creek, but I do acknowledge it's going to be difficult at best and would require a lot of coordination with the existing homeowners and, you know, it's conceivable that it may never, but I would prefer that it -- it's shown for the continuity of the system and that's my feeling. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: They really covered it. The other Commissioners covered things pretty well. I couldn't add to that. I think the traffic system is something that's been a long coming and needed for quite awhile, especially with the growth that we have experienced. So, you know, I think, you know, I think it's great that there is going to be some issues and problems, especially when you hit final canals, there is going to be a lot of hard work and to keep little kids from falling in, so I imagine there is fenceways and something that's going to go up on canals. But it's quite an endeavor and I will support it. Rohm: Thank you. Mr. Moe. Moe: I would probably just go with the same comments that were made, but the one point I would make is I am -- I'm very happy to see this. I was on the park and rec many years ago and when there were no pathways or when there was just discussions of having pathways and from, then, to now it's -- there is a lot of change and there has been a lot of work to make this happen and, you know, they are constantly working on it and I commend, you know, the parks department, as well as the Commission, they have done a great job continuing this on and I think it's great for the City of Meridian. Rohm: Thank you. And I guess my only final comments on all that is even with all of the progress we are making on the pathway, it certainly never takes away the individual's right as the property owners. So, with that being said, I would like to have a motion to continue this to the 19th of April. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? So, this particular hearing, though, will we just hear it on the 19th and recommend before the City Council to all the other amendments if you have anymore discussion on it. Rohm: This one probably we won't need any additional discussion, so maybe we could actually close the Public Hearing on this one and not necessarily -- Mr. Baird, do you have -- Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I -- for technical purposes you do need to continue it to a date certain. However, the maker of the motion could indicated continuing for the sole purpose of making a recommendation at that time. Rohm: And I think that's perfect. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 63 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that for the homeowners, for them to show up for another long meeting on the 19th, because, then, they will always want to come to the City Council meeting. So, we are only -- Rohm: You have got the mike. You can make your motion and -- just that way. Newton-Huckabay: Is there no motion -- I haven't had to make an ad hoc motion forever. Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing for CPA 07 -- Rohm: We are going to -- okay. Newton-Huckabay: We will continue the Public Hearing for CPA 07-003, the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map by adding and amending the path locations for the pathways Comprehensive Plan amendment by the City of Meridian Parks and recreation department to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 17th -- April 19th for the sole purpose of deliberation and recommendation to City Council. Rohm: Very good. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CPA 07-003 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We need one more motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. David, you want to second that? Newton-Huckabay: I will. Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:57 P.M.