Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 19, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 16 of 47 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that I did take the comments from the last meeting seriously and have done some research into the issues of pathways and crime statistics. I actually have several pieces. I would just like to read one short piece into the record that summarizes what I found. It says: Available literature and statistics indicate no discernible rising in crime along newly designated trails. In fact, studies indicated a reduction of crime and vandalism on official designated trails, because trail users serve as eyes and ears for urban, as well as rural trails. Designating a trail officially brings increased use of the trail by lawful trail enthusiasts, often reducing the amount of vandalism and crime that occurred when the trail was unofficial or underutilized for recreational purposes. So, I would -- with that and others that I have found similar to that, I just state my support for the pathways plan and with that I would move to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-003. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we table CPA 07-003 until after Item 15 on our agenda. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to table Item No. CPA 07-003 until after Item 15 on the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: 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'/2 mile east of Linder Road south to'/z 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 Department: Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: 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: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 17 of 47 Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open Items No. CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009 for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 1st, 2007. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items No. CPA 07-002 and CPA 07- 009 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 1st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Wow, we are doing pretty good tonight. Moe: Don't speak too soon. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: 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 15: Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-008 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by adding the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan as an 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'/2 mile south of Overland Road to the south: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. This -- these Items deal with the Ten Mile Area Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment that was discussed at length at the last meeting. I think it would be a good idea to go directly into the -- some of the direction that we received -- staff received both from the public and from the Commission at the last hearing. I have an exhibit here that kind of summarizes the -- the recommended changes that came from some of the public testimony and the Commission specifically asked for an exhibit that described those changes and how the new map would look if those changes were made. I'd like to go through them one by 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 %2 mile east of Linder Road south to'/2 mile south Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 11 of 64 of Columbia Road, east to'/ mile west of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of 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. Wafters: 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 Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 12 of 64 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 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 ACRD, 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 13 of 64 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 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 I-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 wil! 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 14 of 64 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 anew -- another new land use designation and that's located on the corner of 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 staffs 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 15 of 64 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 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 tum it back over to Sonya at this point. Wafters: 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 16 of 64 to hear some of those comments. Before we move to that portion, is there any questions of staff before we move forward? Commissioner Siddoway? 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 amine -- 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? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 17 of 64 Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission and Commissioner O'Brien, the planning director Anna Canning said that there may have been apre-applicant 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 umpteen 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 18 of 64 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. 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 19 of 64 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 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 20 of 64 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 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 all I 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 -- !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. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 21 of 64 Siddoway: Okay. 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 22 of 64 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 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. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 23 of 64 Bevan: Okay. And yellow, as far as I can tell without my glasses. 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, (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. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 24 of 64 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. 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. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 25 of 64 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 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 26 of 64 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 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. tt 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: f 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. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 27 of 64 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 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 1 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 Southside 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 28 of 64 somewhere between 75 and 130 thousand cars aday -- 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 residential layout, this very low residential, will probably drop those numbers, but haven't been able to get them from ACRD 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 a-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? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 29 of 64 Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. 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, (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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 30 of 64 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 {evel answer. 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 re-designation. 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 31 of 64 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, 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? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 32 of 64 Cross: Right in here. Rohm: So, you're a half a mile north of Lake Hazel off of Eagle Road? Cross: No. This is off of Amity and we are ahalf -- 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 33 of 64 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. 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 ACRD 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 34 of 64 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 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? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 35 of 64 Cross: Gordon Cross, 5220 Howry Lane, Meridian. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. 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. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 36 of 64 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 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 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 often 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 37 of 64 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 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, I-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 amonth - - 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. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 38 of 64 Rohm: So, you're saying the red line will move to the west? Canning: Yes. The red would -- Rohm: Thank you. 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, Ididn'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 tom 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 39 of 64 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, Iwas -- just wanted to be clear. Your concerns were with the previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment there around the neighborhood 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 -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 5, 2007 Page 40 of 64 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? 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