Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 1, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 7 of 98 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing CPA 07-013.. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 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'/2 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 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 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: Rohm: All right. We are moving right along. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009 and begin with the staff report. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'd like to make a brief introduction on this. This is a continuation of the hearing that you had on April 19th on the south Meridian plan. The original hearing in April, it's interesting to note, was almost exactly a year from our kick off of the south Meridian planning process and that process eventually comprised four public meetings with participation with over 400 people, many of whom are here tonight to be recognized. I think it's important to note that when the city initiated that process it was about any conceived ideas of what the outcome of that process might be. There have been some discussions about whether it would be in our area of impact or not in our area of impact and those were all -- all issues or all discussions that were to be on the table and still are on the table for consideration. The revised recommendation before you tonight is just that, it's a revision from the staff response which was presented in April, which was in response to the preferred alternative that came out of our first three public meetings. The revised recommendation that you have before you incorporates a lot of factors. It incorporates comments and opinions that have been expressed throughout this public process. It takes into account transportation modeling that we did as a result of the two alternatives that were developed previously. It also takes into effect some of the factors that -- and direction that the Commission gave us in April to pursue, one of which was to have another workshop with. the public and as well as another list of factors that Matt will cover. In addition, the revised recommendation includes our consideration of the City Council's strategic planning that occurred in the interim period between the hearing and tonight where they identified their priorities for the utilization and expenditure of city resources and where they feel the focus of future development and growth in the city should be. It takes into account the city's master planning for sewer and water and it Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 8 of 98 also incorporates some of the current discussions that are going on in the regional planning process, Blueprint For Good Growth, where the cities and the county are attempting to come to some agreement on the ultimate planning boundaries for each of the jurisdictions in Ada County. So, there are a number of factors and those factors were included -- and I hope they were included clearly in the staff report and they, after consideration of those factors, have resulted in us preparing this revised recommendation for you. So, I'm going to turn it over to Matt Ellsworth. He's been carrying the water on this project, and he will address both our recommendation and the factors that went into our coming up with that recommendation. Rohm: Thanks, Pete. Ellsworth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Thank you, Pete. To elaborate briefly, backing up here on some of the comments that we received throughout the process, up on the screen over there throughout this process the public established certain guiding principles that they requested that we keep in mind as we are developing a plan for the future of this area. Those principles include priority number one, to plan for responsible growth. Priority number two, which was to preserve the rural farming and agricultural character of the area. And priority number three, which was to provide better traffic infrastructure relative to other parts of the community here. Based on these guiding principles and information provided at the second workshop, the project team developed three alternative land use maps, which were intended to spark conversation and to continue receiving direction from the public as to - - as to what will be best in the future of this area. The underlying theme throughout this process was to develop a plan that is supported and beneficial by landowners throughout the study area. Again, as you see on the screen up there, the three alternatives that were on the table for discussion at that second public meeting were one future land use map., emphasizing low density residential, another one that focused on employment opportunity and a third that highlighted transit supportive land development patterns. And those, again, were all -- were all devised based comments we received earlier in the process. Those were elements that people asked that we -- that we incorporate in one degree or another. As you can see on the screen, a majority of respondents at that public meeting expressed preference for the low density residential alternatives, but there was some support for the other two as well and so from there it sort of became a question of where the best locations are to incorporate some of these elements, which brings us to the preferred alternative. Now, this was the project team's first crack at integrating all the comments that folks expressed as priorities to them. This was the -- the original map that was the subject of the CPA submitted to the department back in December of 2006. As you can see, it entails a majority of low density residential uses, although it does propose some higher density residential along some major transportation corridors as identified by regional transportation planning entities. The gray box over there in the corner of Lake Hazel and Meridian Road is intended to support future employment uses. In addition, there are two neighborhood centers proposed., one at the corner of Locust Grove and Lake Hazel and the other one over on the corner of Black Cat and Amity and the intent of those was to make sure that day-to-day services were provided in the study area, which Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 9 of 98 was another frequently received comment from -- participants in the process. Concurrently while we were -- while we were coming up with that preferred alternative land use map, Ada County Highway District was developing a south Meridian transportation study, which considered alternating future development patterns, two of which were based on the regional long range transportation plan Communities In Motion. And the third one that they were looking at was the land uses that Meridian was considering. We wanted it to be a --aback and forth process between the two organizations, the city and ACHD, to determine what impact these land use decisions were going to have on the transportation system. So, it was -- it was -- it was a good process working with ACHD. What we ended up learning after some of those traffic model runs came forward through the transportation study process, is that the land uses proposed and preferred alternative had extensive implications for the area transportation network. In short, it did result in all sorts of capacity expansions, road widenings, and so forth that aren't currently planned, they are not on anybody's radar, and due to the current state of ACHD's budget, based on cost escalations and so forth, there is no money for these. In other words, in the foreseeable future, if investments were to be made in the south part of town here, presumably that money would have to come from other projects, where it's reasonable to assume, anyway, that there is existing congestion and current residents are sitting in traffic. Again, we -- with that, look back on those -- those guiding principles that people outlined for us, planning for responsible growth, providing better traffic infrastructure and preserving the character of the area. When we started seeing things like miles on miles of seven lane roadways throughout the study area, we asked ourselves how close did that coincide with the direction we had received and we decided that we -- we ought to take a step back and ask to revisit some of these proposed land uses. With that, at the December 5th, 2007, hearings, the staff came forward with the staff recommendation -- or the staff response, excuse me -- future land use map and the two main goals of staff when we were revisiting these land uses were to decrease the total number of households in the area, which, of course, has an impact on the traffic in the area, the needed roadway infrastructure, trips generated per household and so forth and also to increase the density along major transportation routes. In conversation with area transportation planners, staff learned that medium density as it's typically unfolded in the City of Meridian is not enough units to -- to support transit services, at which point we sort of missed the mark on this first one, but, again, it's the planning process and -- and we appreciate the input that we received from those transit agencies and -- and revisiting these land uses. So, the -- the staff response, as I'm sure you recall, received some mixed response at the hearing on April 5th. There were a lot of unanswered questions. Some of the respondents in the study area were very much in favor of it, others thought there should be more density, others thought there should be less density. It was, really, a whole spectrum of feedback received. With the number of unanswered questions at that hearing on the 5th, the Planning and Zoning Commission ended up continuing that hearing until April 19th and, then., again, due to the volume of unanswered questions, Commission felt it was wise to continue it out for the minimum six months allowable under state law, which brings us to tonight. In addition, the Commission gave staff certain directions, some follow-up steps to try 'to get to the root of some of these unanswered questions between then and now. That direction entailed Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 10 of 98 to convene another public meeting in order to gather additional response on the staff response from the .public. Number two up there is to await the outcome of a joint City Council meeting between the cities of Meridian and Kuna and that was to discuss the eventual planning areas and/or build to lines, if you will. As of April 19th a meeting was scheduled between the two city councils. That meeting ended up being canceled and, unfortunately, afollow-up date was not rescheduled for that. We were also interested in awaiting the outcome of the transportation study that ACRD had in process. The concrete recommendations from that plan were not in place at the time that this was last considered and the Commission felt it was wise to await the outcome of those as well. The staff response future land use proposed a new land use designation and also new overlays that aren't currently recognized anywhere in the city's future land use map. There was -- there were a lot of questions surrounding those, exactly how they would play out, how they would look on the ground, and that's another thing the Commission asked the staff to go back and take another look at. And., finally, in October of 2006 the Commission and subsequently Council ended up adopting the southeast Comprehensive Plan amendment, which is the currently adopted future land use map and the focal point of that application is the corner of Locust Grove and Lake Hazel. There were certain changes proposed to that and the Commission directed staff to discussion those changes with the owners of land affected by the southeast CPA to -- to attempt to reconcile those differences and figure out how we can bring the two together. So, to work through these one at a time, we did convene a public meeting on May 31st of this year. The topic of that meeting was primarily the staff response future land use map and, again, the main intent of that meeting was to field area residents input on that proposal, so the results of the comments that we received both in writing, before and within a month thereafter, are -- and the comments received at the meeting itself, are up on the screen up there. It's a little bit tough to see if you're in the audience, so I'll go through the legend here. The dark blue dots indicate support for the staff response future land use map. The yellow dots request decreased density. The red dots request increased density. And the black dots request -- or, basically, make no request. They are, essentially, neutral comments. So, as you can see up there on the board., there was a strong amount of support for -- for some of the uses to the east of the mid mile between Linder and Meridian Road.. To the west it was a bit more of a -- more of a mixed bag. Seven of the respondents either favor the staff response or requested decreased density. Interestingly, the requests for decreased density were all located within the areas in close proximity to Black Cat and Amity and that focal point of high intensity in that area, six respondents requested increased density, of which five were located in the very low density area. So, returning to the other items that the Commission requested additional follow up from staff on, as I just indicated., the joint City Council meeting did not occur. They were not able to reschedule a date for that. We are anticipating that through the Blueprint For Good Growth, which Pete alluded to, and I'll get back to here momentarily, that some of those questions may be answered as well. South Meridian transportation study -- ACRD is in the process of finalizing the last draft on that and they are awaiting the -- the finalization, the final component prior to adopting that. They anticipate that to happen in the near future., although I haven't heard a specific date that they targeted just yet. Staff did consider the preliminary recommendations that are coming out of that in both the text and the map amendment, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 11 of 98 put it before you this evening and we can go into greater detail on that if the Commission would like. As far as better defining the proposed designation and overlay, I'll touch on that when we get to the staff-recommended map. I have a couple slides here.. And discussions with the southeast CPA, your staff report on Exhibit D-5 has a letter submitted to staff by the applicant of the southeast CPA or the owners of those parcels. They had some suggestions for us, which we very much appreciated. Staff did what -- what we could to incorporate some of those suggestions into the recommendation and, again, we will go into greater detail on that in just a few minutes. A couple of additional factors that staff took into account when we were formulating this revised staff response, future land use map, were city services and priority areas of the city. Like Pete said., back last April the City Council had a work session, during which they identified different areas that are of a high priority and a hierarchical priority order, if you will, for different areas around the city. So, along with that staff wanted to take a look at service provisions and make sure that the two matched together, that we proposed expanding into areas that City Council had identified as higher priorities for expenditure of city resources. Exhibits A-10 and A-11 in the staff report show the public works departments master water and master sewer plans and as you can see in those exhibits they do encompass the entire study area for this north Meridian CPA. However, once again, staff asked itself where the most appropriate areas are for expenditure of city resources. You can't do everything everywhere, so where should we start? Another thing that we took into account is the current market slowdown. Currently there are 2,900 platted lots in the city, on which homes have not been built. There are also vacancies all over the Treasure Valley. It's -- that market seems to have taken a bit of a downturn, so we asked ourselves whether it was appropriate to open the whole area up for development, further saturating the market or if it makes sense to try to channel growth into areas that seem more logical today and put some other areas into a back burner that can be considered at a later date. In addition, the Blueprint For Good Growth, which -- which is in the second phase. The first phase of the Blueprint, basically, set the direction for future land use and transportation integrated planning in the Treasure Valley. Phase two now they are moving into is implementation. Part of that is to identify different planning area boundaries for each municipality and those planning boundaries will, essentially, be the ultimate city limits of each. The Blueprint consortium, which is the council of elected officials that have been involved in these negotiations, has a meeting set for November 8th, during which they will engage further in those discussions. In the meantime, without any specifics coming out of that process just yet, staff did everything that we could to make sure that the recommendations that we put before you today do not conflict with the direction that's been set by the consortium thus far. Finally, public input, once again, like I said, these guiding principles and planning for responsible growth, preserving the agriculture heritage or character of the area and insuring that adequate transportation infrastructure is present, along with the developments proposed in this area, were all some of the factors that staff considered in developing the revised future land use map and this is staffs recommendation that is before you with the CPA 07-002 this evening. As you can see, most of that area west of the mid mile between Linder and Meridian Road is proposed for that back burner that I mentioned a moment ago. Staff, the more we looked at it, decided that the reality of city limits expanding into that area in the near future are Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 12 of 98 somewhat slim and another question that we asked ourselves is whether it was appropriate to make promises that we didn't see coming to fruition within a reasonable time table to folks in that area. In addition, like I said, there are certain funding constraints limiting the ability of ACRD to widen roadways across the county at the moment. They have a backlog of projects that are needed today on the ground and there are a very, very minimal number of projects proposed in the study area. The position that would be created by designating future land uses and opening the door to development in that area, it would, basically, create another area that would compete with ACHD's other existing needs. Rather than pursuing the very low density residential designation that was under consideration with the staff response future land use map, staff decided that we can meet the same intent that that designation attempted to achieve by simply leaving areas -- areas previously proposed for very low density residential as future planning areas or referral areas. They would remain in unincorporated Ada County for the moment and at a future date when that area is ready to develop, another Comprehensive Plan amendment can be created that would be based on current information, rather than having one based on 2007 assumptions when it's however many years out before that's realistic. The other component of the staff response future land use map that we were taking a look at is the nutricutical overlay, which was previously located at the southwest corner of the study area and that's since been removed. It was -- there was a lukewarm reception from some of the folks that live in the area. For that reason, in addition to the fact that due to the proposed uses within that overlay it could feasibly come into contact with -- or conflict, rather, with the employment sanctuary or mixed employment areas at the corner of Lake Hazel and Meridian Road, we decided that that was appropriate to remove. Now, a couple of changes that are noteworthy on the -- on the revised staff response number one is up here at the corner of Ten Mile Road and I-84, the city's adopted future land use map shows just that corner to the southwest of the intersection designated for commercial uses. Staff felt that it was appropriate to change that to low density residential for several reasons, first of which was consistency with adjacent parcels. There is no transition between those uses. Another reason was that lessons learned in the past right next to an interchange in some of those locations might not be the best place for commercial uses. We figure there might be better ways to allow that visibility and also - - also preserve the mobility of the corridors running in and out of I-84. There is also a great deal of commercial uses proposed further up north that the Commission saw with the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. So, again, for competition reasons we didn't feel it was necessary to -- to keep those commercial designations proposed in the southwest corner there. Another change from the staff response relates to the corner of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove there and it's somewhat of a minor change. It was previously a neighborhood. center with a mixed use neighborhood designation, which is the most restrictive of the three mixed use designations the city recognizes and that was, to be perfectly honest, a mapping error on staffs part. It was -- in the previous iterations, it was shown as this mixed use community and they symbolically displayed it differently in the map that was in front of you prior to tonight. So, that's another change that I wanted to highlight there was a change in designation from mixed use neighborhood to mixed use community at that intersection. One additional change is to continue the designation surrounding the corner of Lake Hazel and Meridian Road to Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 13 of 98 encompass further to the south there. Previously on the staff response future land use map the bottom segment of this rectangle was shown as medium high density residential at the recommendation of the folks who were involved in the southeast CPA. We decided to take anofiher look at that to allow those designations to remain consistent all the way down. Now, there is -- we can go further into that designation itself here in a moment, but those were the relevant changes that I wanted to bring to your attention. Turning briefly over to the text amendment -- and this is another one where based on the direction we received from the Commission and the other factors that we have already run over, a lot of the information that was previously contained in the text amendments that came before you back in April, we needed to revisit those to make sure that the map and the related text amendments worked together. So, included in the staff report as Section 4-H-1 through 4-H-3, are some rewritten text amendments that staff recommends for your consideration this evening. And, in general, the three are posted on the board there. The first one relates to the medium high density residential designation, which is the product of the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. What this amendment proposes is to recognize this designation in areas outside of that study area that was -- that was subject to the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. Change number two is the mixed employment designation. This is somewhat similar. That's another one that came out of the Ten Mile interchange planning process. What's proposed in front of you this evening is to recognize that designation throughout the future land use map and an additional change that came with the recommendation of the -- the team involved in the southeast CPA is to allow limited residential uses within that mixed employment designation and only in areas outside of the Ten Mile interchange specific area. The third -- third change proposed in the text amendment that's before you this evening relates to neighborhood centers and it would be to require at least 40 percent of the land within the -- within neighborhood centers as residential. Additional language in the text amendment relates to the ACRD transportation study and, in particular, the access management component thereof. Again, that plan is not adopted, but staff is confident on -- based on preliminary recommendations coming forward with that plan that they won't come in conflict with one another. It basically references it, it acknowledges it. Staffs confident that nothing that is adopted will work to the detriment of or be poorly received by the city and the Comprehensive Plan and so we were confident in recommending the reference between the two. With that -- with that text amendment. So, with that, Anna and Pete, unless I'm missing anything that you guys would like to jump in on. Canning: Chairman Rohm, if you want to ask Matt questions, now would be the appropriate time, or I can go through some of the written comments you have received. Some of the folks are here to testify, but there is one, perhaps two that are not. So, I just wanted to briefly summarize those for you. Rohm: Before we get to that, I have a couple of -- I don't know, observations that I'd like to ask Matt about. When you first started your testimony you mentioned that Ada County Highway District did not have funds to upgrade the infrastructure road work based upon higher density and that was kind of part of the reason for this proposal being a lower density. What my question is, as it's currently being proposed, are there Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 14 of 98 not still Ada County Highway District road improvements that will be necessary to bring this all to fruition? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there will be. I guess the reason why we decided to channel the growth from the transportation prospective is just due to the lineal nature of the way the development has occurred in the valley and subsequently the way that ACRD has been planning most of their roadway improvements is to start on the east and work their way west and as I mentioned before, in the western part of the study area very minimal improvements -- I believe there was one intersection in that study area that was slated within their five year work plan. If you look over toward the areas in color on the map over there, I know that Eagle Road from Victory to Ridenbaugh is on their radar. The intersection of Columbia and 69 is another one that they are looking at. So, they have turned some attention to this area in anticipation of future growth: You're absolutely right, though, with more households come more trips and with more trips you need additional capacity. Rohm: Well, I guess the exception I took more than anything else is that Ada County Highway District has limited funds and if all of their funds are already being designated for road improvements, as you just said from the east flowing to the west on a mile-to- mile basis, whether low density or medium density or high density, it doesn't look like it's going to get the attention of the highway district until the balance of the roads further to the east have been improved and it seems to me maybe the focus should be on getting Ada County Highway District's ear and getting more funds to west Ada County, just from my own perspective. Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can't speak for ACHD, but in diving into a lot of their related literature, I think there is -- there is a general shortage of funds for roadway projects, construction cost increases and so forth that put them in an extremely challenging situation wherein they have a back log of badly needed projects and in programming these projects for five years prior to the proposed construction dates, it gets extremely tough to identify how far your budget's going to go. They have an extremely lengthy equation based on a lot of technical factors and, then, some programming factors. It's average delay times. It's congestion, accident rates, and so forth. And, then, also the priorities of cities, residents and the like, in identifying a priority list of projects that steers the commission in the direction that they wind up taking when adopting these plans. The city certainly takes every opportunity that's available to us to provide our input to ACHD and the Commission, to the best of their ability integrates those comments into the final decision. But that's a good point and we will continue to work with ACHD to address some of these challenges. Rohm: Well, I just personally think that -- that not only in just this south area of impact, but the community as a whole should get more consideration for ACHD dollars and that's enough said on that. The balance of the Commission, do you have any questions before we move forward with Anna's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page Y5 of 98 O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I think you hit the nail on the head. I have the exact same concerns and I have written notes on that. It just seems like the -- Ada County Highway District don't respond until there is a need and it's difficult to develop an area without knowing if the needs for -- especially transit, is going to happen. So, it's a Catch 22 that's very difficult to solve and those are my concerns -- basically all over the place, it just seems like there is such a slow response time for things to get done to respond to the needs, especially any kind of expansion in the south Comprehensive Plan. So, it's very difficult and I don't know how it's going to be addressed or how we can do that. You build it and, then, end up having to address, but it's many years down the pipe. Canning: Chairman Rohm, can I add a comment on that, because I'm not -- I'm not sure what the point of the ACHD comments is at this point, so I just want to head it off a little bit and say I think ACRD recognizes they have a funding problem and they -- I think they are committed to working on the funding problem. It's become acutely -- I think everyone's become acutely aware of it the last year or so. However, what staff was saying was, basically, ACHD has limited funds. If we limit the area that they are going to need to provide those services, it is a benefit. Rather than having 13 square miles, there are six square miles that they can focus on and it is easier for them. It's always going to be easier to serve a little less area than -- than putting a lot of homes in widely disparate areas, because, then, they have to get the connections there. So, we were trying to focus on those areas that they seem -- the direction they seem to be moving. Rohm: I will accept that. Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway, do you have any comments? Siddoway: I have two questions for staff. The first -- Matt, the proposed boundary as revised along here, does that coincide with the sewer district boundaries? And the reason I ask is as we are establishing where that line is drawn, I just want to make sure we are not creating a situation where just a sliver of the area is -- has to be sewered by anew trunk that would be planned for a larger area. Does that make sense? Ellsworth: It does, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway. And the short answer is, no, not all of the -- not all of what's on the screen over there to the west of Linder Road coincides with the sewer shed. What it does coincide with is the adopted future land use map and that's the exact boundary that the current future land use map recognizes. Again, it shows low density residential uses throughout this area, with the exception., again, of this corner of 84 and Ten Mile. Staff felt that it would be inappropriate to, essentially, pull the rug out from under the folks in that area who have been operating under that adopted future land use map since 2002 and I'm making the revisions that are on the table today. Siddoway: So, all of that., including this area, is just based on the existing area of impact? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 16 of 98 Ellsworth: North of Amity, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, the areas north of there are -- the strange squiggly line here does coincide with the sewer district. Siddoway: Okay. Ellsworth: The sewer shed. Excuse me. Siddoway: Thank you. And, then, on the -- question on the text amendment for the 40 percent of the area within the neighborhood center at a minimum that must be residential., the existing language that talks about, you know, up to ten acres or up to 25 acres, may be nonresidential. Does that language go away in this revision or is this in addition to that? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, that's a good question. The language as proposed in the text amendments relates to neighborhood centers and there is a difference outlined in the Comp Plan between the neighborhood centers and the mixed use designations and, please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the language that you referred to is built into some of those mixed use categories. Siddoway: It is. Ellsworth: Also in your staff report, per the recommendations of the folks involved in the southeast CPA, staff acknowledges the need to revisit some of those mixed use designations as they are worded in the Comp Plan. That's another undertaking that we hope to pursue in the near future, to clean up a lot of those questions that are related to that, allowable uses, and distinct character of each mixed use designation.. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just to follow up on that. I think the question that Commissioner Siddoway raised is that the way that the mixed uses are described in our Comprehensive Plan right now don't really -- I mean they give some direction, but it's pretty vague and so it is -- we see the implementation, we see mixed use, but we don't necessarily see residential being folded into a lot of that mixed use and this is -- that language is intended to focus the direction a little more, at least in those neighborhood centers, so that as implementation occurs we start seeing or getting residential development to some degree in those neighborhood centers. Siddoway: And just to clarify, then, so as proposed, then, the language for the mixed use definitions would stay as proposed, with the addition of the 40 percent specific to the neighborhood centers; is that correct? Friedman: Yes. That's correct. Just going to digress for a minute. But it is related, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The city's also in the process of developing design guidelines for the whole city and as a result of that process, we have been looking at both our Comprehensive Plan and our -- and the Unified Development Code and we Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 17 of 98 sort of had this epiphany on how these are going to come together now and out of that came the realization that we are starting to see a natural progression that's going to help us go back and re-examine our mixed use designations in the Comp Plan and, hopefully, condense them and yet get them further clarified and you received, I believe, some testimony from Brighton Corporation about that. We have been discussing -- and it's been recognized also by the private sector that maybe it's time to go in and cooperatively take a look at those mixed use designations. So, this is sort of the first step in a broader exercise. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Moe? Moe: I have no comment right now. Rohm: Anna, did you have some additional comments that you wanted to add? Canning: No, sir. I just would -- I can go over some of the written testimony you have just for the benefit of the public and in case they are not here to testify tonight. The first one I think that I will go over is from Mr. Eric Exline and Mr. Exline lives -- let's see if can keep my hand steady enough to do this. Turn it around the right way. That would help. He lives just to the west of the -- the dot right there, so he just lives just to the west of the purple and he -- he has been a participant of every planning meeting we have had. He's been generally supportive of whatever has gone on. He was disappointed to find himself outside of the colored areas on the map. The question of where to draw the line in that area, particularly as you get to Lake Hazel, there was no exact science involved and it would be no less appropriate to include him in the mixed employment area or to -- to remove him. But he is asking that he be included in the city's future planning -- or he's requesting that he have a -- a designation on his property at this time. And Matt wants to add to that. Ellsworth: And also in that area, a point that I -- that I didn't mention in the -- in the presentation there, another adjustment from the staff response and the revised staff response was the removal of the adjustment of the study area boundary, which previously held the (inaudible) mile between Linder and Meridian straight down to the half mile beyond Columbia and, then, continued east to the existing area of city impact line further to the north there. The reason that staff recommended scaling that back a bit is because the city of Kuna has annexed as far north as this parcel over here, which is adjacent to State Highway 69 and, in addition, the parcel on the southeast corner of Lake Hazel and Linder Road, has also annexed into Kuna -- excuse me -- so, we felt that -- that making that adjustment would make this more of a realistic boundary, as Anna stated, there was not an intentional removal of Mr. Exline's property from the study boundary. Canning: The next testimony I'm going to briefly go over is from Gordon and Ann Croft and I don't know if they are here tonight. If they are I won't go over it in detail. I didn't Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 18 of 98 see any hand raised. They border Rockhampton. Could you point it out for me? And currently they are designated low density residential. They are requesting medium density residential. And., finally, you have a lengthy written testimony from Brighton Corporation, but they are here tonight to testify, so I won't go over that in detail. And that's the written testimony we have received since the staff report was placed in your packet. Rohm: Thank you very much. Mike Wardle? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, my name is Mike Wardle. I'm with Brighton Corporation. We office at 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. We are handing out this evening just a -- a one page summary of our testimony and comments. A second page that I will get to in a moment is a combination of the existing Comprehensive Plan map and the proposed staff response map. And, then, another copy of the letter that we submitted on the 22nd of October that was attached, I believe, as the last few pages of this staff report for the south Meridian plan. We just note that we worked with staff over the last few months, meetings in July, September, October and, then., finally, a letter to them and, essentially, we -- we support the recommendations that have come forth for the Comprehensive Plan changes as proposed. Staff d'id work with us, they took many of the comments that we made into account, made changes in some of the text elements, and so the five bullet points -- or the five points that we have made there simply show support -- or qualified support for the actions taken by staff, but we did note one exception and that's an issue that remains and that I would ask you to pull to the second page, which is a combination of the maps of the current Comprehensive Plan that does illustrate the changes that were made last year in the south Meridian area., so that map is on the north and I pulled these directly from the city's website and made these extractions. The south -- or, excuse me, the -- well, it is the south on the page as well, but the -- the bottom portion of that page, then, shows the proposed land use amendments and designations that staff has presented this evening. We note that the area now proposed for mixed use employment or mixed employment, I believe, is an 80 acre parcel that is currently designated as mixed use regional and the acquisitions that were made in that area for that parcel., of course, were based on that -- that land use designation. So, just for the sake of the public that's here, we are talking about this 80 acre portion at the southeast corner of Meridian Road and Lake Hazel and we are simply asking that the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use regional that was approved just a year or so ago, be retained for that 80 acres, among the reasoning, of course -- just about finished, Mr. Chairman. That we believe that there is greater need for commercial flexibility in that area, that there will be such in the future, but we also need to acknowledge the fact that because of the high traffic volumes on both Meridian Road and Lake Hazel Road., that those four quadrants will not ever really function as an integrated employment area. So, we would request that that exception to the staff recommendation be factored in and that your recommendation, when it is made to the City council, support retaining the existing mixed use regional designation for that corner. Be happy to answer questions and Mr. Turnbull is here as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 19 of 98 Rohm: Any questions of Mr. Wardle? Siddoway: I do, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wardle, your letter states that Brighton supports the proposed text amendment for the mixed employment land use designation and that it does incorporate Brighton's suggestions for greater flexibility of uses, yet what I'm hearing is it's not flexible enough for your property. So, can you expand on that a little bit? Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Siddoway, we don't have any difficulty with a land use designation for mixed use employment being incorporated into the plan and while staff did incorporate some of the elements, that still does not necessarily equate with the reason that we -- the acquisition of that property with the more flexible uses provided in the mixed regional, which does allow for, you know, some very significant employment opportunities as well, but it has greater flexibility than what even would be proposed with the changes that staff has proposed.. So, we don't have any problem bringing that designation of the Comprehensive Plan and applying it in certain areas, we are simply saying for that 80 acres we would prefer that the mixed use regional be retained. Siddoway: And what does the mixed use regional allow that the employment -- mixed employment does not that you would be interested in? Wardle: Mr. Chairman the original text -- and let's -- I think we probably need to go to that in the staff report. This would be on -- it's -- the pages aren't numbered, but it's the fourth page of the staff report, near the bottom where it has that text amendment. The elements that were incorporated that we had suggested are down near the bottom where the sentence begins: Retail and consumer services that primarily serve employment-oriented uses are also appropriate. We were even a bit more -- felt there was more flexibility required than even that. And, then, the last phrase of that particular paragraph, talking about higher density residential uses may be appropriate, was also included, but our actual language had -- had really been a bit more specific than that, where we had -- and this is the very .last page of the handout that I have given to you this evening where it shows the strike out changes and new additions, but we -- we acknowledge that, you know, there may be, under this particular scenario, retail and consumer services serving the wider community and not just the employment elements that would be proposed there. And, then, of course, without qualification a higher density residential uses proposing that -- that that be the minimum of 12 units per acre, so that you really do get a mass and an intensity of use that would support services and provide employment housing. So, it's -- again., we support the concept, but we also believe that the regional designation is appropriate. We would like to retain that for that 80 acres, as it was recently approved in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Siddoway: So, just to clarify as to insure that you have the ability to do the higher density residential uses and the retail uses as part of that site. Wardle: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 20 of 98 Siddoway: Okay. Wardle: Mr. Chair, I would be happy to answer any additional question. Appreciate the opportunity to -- Rohm: Thank you. Before we go on down the list, I have a question for counsel. Is it all right if I go ahead and have. Mr. Turnbull speak next, just because he's part of the same corporation and it just kind of keeps things all together, as opposed to splitting the testimony? Baird.: Mr. Chair, that's another one of those matters that's in your discretion, so -- Rohm: Dave Turnbull, would you like to come up, please? Turnbull: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I appreciate the opportunity to speak and follow up with Mike. As you recall when we had a work session on -- or the Commission had a work session on this Comprehensive Plan -- I think it was back in April, but I don't remember for sure. This was a subject of some discussion among the Commission members, that we had recently gone through this Comprehensive Plan process on the property that we have an interest in at least and had a Comprehensive Plan approved and made acquisitions in that area based on that Comprehensive Plan and so Commission directed staff to get together with us and work through some of those issues, which we have done. And I think we have -- I don't know, we may have a hundred percent agreement, we may have 90 percent agreement, we are very close. And the only issue that Mike touched on that I think is still under discussion is this parcel right here. I want to just point out that we recognize and have proposed -- we recognize that there is a deficiency in the text for the mixed use areas in the Comprehensive Plan and I think what staff is concerned about is that the text is so weak that they are probably not getting the mix of uses that they'd like to see in those areas. And so we proposed that a text amendment be prepared that further defines what truly constitutes a mixed use, both the regional, community, and neighborhood.. And that could include things like a certain percentage needs to be residential, a certain percentage needs to be office or nonretail uses and a certain percentage can be retail. So, we are in favor of that kind of approach. But at the same time we purchased this property with the mixed use regional designation, we think it's still appropriate and having some experience in developing probably the largest business park in the state, that we have been working on for 17 years, that's about two-thirds of the size of this area, you know, it's -- whether all of that area is feasible for employment base without the pending retail that we think is probably appropriate in that area, is a question mark for us. So, mixed use regional I think would accomplish the goals both of the city and the premise under which we purchased the property and we would request -- request that that designation remain. And we would commit to working further with the staff come back with a text amendment that gives further clarification for mixed use designations, so -- Rohm: Thank you, Dave. Any questions of Mr. Turnbull? Thank you. Dave Taysom. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 21 of 98 Taysom: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Dave Taysom. 175 Paint Horse Lane, Meridian. My property is in the southwest corner of the purposed rectangle. I'm a neighbor of Mr. Exline. And I think his request is very reasonable and I think it might be important, because the traffic on Lake Hazel is going to cause limitation of access to his property in that corner and half a mile from Meridian Road provides probably the best way to access south from Lake Hazel. Mr. Exline's property adjoining that would be an appropriate designation. So, I would encourage you to include him. As far as myself, I don't expect to see development occur there for many years and it doesn't really matter to me how it's designated, because I think there will be changes between now and then. My concern today is that I be included in Meridian, because I'd kind of like to have them guide what happens.. With that I'll yield the balance of my time to whoever wants it. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Lori Den Hartog. Den Hartog: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Lori Den Hartog. I live at 5864 West Quido Lane. I am on a ten acre parcel and I'm here representing myself and my father, who wasn't able to be here this evening. We are in the area that was previously -- is there a pointer up here? That was previously designated in the nutricutical overlay and subsequently as low density residential. My father owns and controls a little over 100 acres over in that area. My brother operates an active dairy, but they are anticipating to move, just because the current development pressures they are anticipating to move further south in the county. I'm here in support of the staff recommendation and the staff response this evening. I want to commend your staff. They have been extremely responsive. I think it was an appropriate move after the public hearing in April to come back and hold a public input meeting in May, which they did, and I think a lot of appropriate comments were received from the public and I think the staff was very responsive in incorporating that and I think one of the things that that -- I think Pete said early on was that the city didn't come into this with any -- with any preconceived notions and I think that's been -- I think that's -- we have seen that product and the results of the staffs recommendation evolving throughout this and I think the city has done an excellent job. What I'd like to say is it is appropriate, I think, from our perspective at this point to leave it as a future planning and referral area. The gentleman who spoke before, I think long-term ultimately when my dad retires and moves far far away from me, he does believe that the low density residential in the long term, 20 or 30 years from now, is appropriate. So, I think what we are saying is similar to what the staff was saying is, you know, ten or 15 years from now we might know more information to have it most appropriately be developed in the future. So, I think it's appropriate to leave it as it is as the staff has recommended. So, we are in full support of the staff recommendation in relationship to our area. So, I would be happy to stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this individual? Den Hartog: Thank you. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 22 of 98 Rohm: Thank you. Don Roberts. From the audience he says he has no additional comments. Justin Lucas. Lucas: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm here tonight -- my name is Justin Lucas, I'm -- we have our offices at 701 South Allen Street here in Meridian and I'm representing Providence Development Group, which is the development arm of Hubble Homes. I just wanted to clarify, I had submitted a letter earlier this week to the City of Meridian staff and city clerk and Anna'did not mention -- wanted to clarify and make sure that you guys did receive that -- that correspondence. If not, I probably should read it into the record. Baird: Mr. Chair, I can help clarify. Those items are all in your packet on the laser fiche. They were received in a timely manner and disseminated to the Commission and available to the public. Anna only referred to the letters that were received after those deadlines. So, it is in the record.. Lucas: Good.. Well, then, that's good that it is in the record. Thank you very much. I can quickly go through what -- what our concern is with the overall -- overall plan. Overall, we are in support of the staff response map and think it's wise the direction that staff has gone to exclude much of the area in the southwestern part of Meridian. The parcel that we are most specifically concerned about is located on South Eagle Road right here. It's approximately 224 acres and much like the Brighton Corporation, we were also involved in the southeast Meridian comprehensive plan that was approved approximately a year ago. With that, that approval, the medium density designation that we received was much greater than is shown on the staff response map and our request is very simple, which is to maintain the larger medium density residential that we had received just one year ago. It would -- you could see the staff, like they had done before, would put up that kind of what the existing plan shows. That would be -- that would be very helpful. As you can see, the medium density residential as located on the existing plan is much larger than -- than is shown here. We have gone to great lengths to meet the existing Comprehensive Plan all the way to submitting an application on that property that you will be hearing next month and so we think it's -- only to be fair and consistent, would be to keep that designation on that property that we recently received.. And we think it's consistent with staffs goals, which is to provide higher density along the transportation corridors. We really don't see a detriment to providing a little bit higher density in this area along Eagle Road, which is, obviously, a major transportation corridor. And with that I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Moe: Mr. Chairman, not a question of the applicant here, but of staff. Can you give me an explanation as to why we did change that? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, that, again, went back to the rationale or the goal in the transition between preferred alternative to staff response to decrease the overall number of units in the area, with the exception of Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 23 of 98 along those major transportation corridors on which we proposed higher than medium density residential in order to facilitate future transit corridors. Moe: Okay. Ellsworth: So, to change from the medium density to the low density -- a minor one in meeting that goal., but it was -- it was one of many. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. John Greenfeld. From the audience he said he declines right now. And maybe Vickie? And she declines as well at this time. Carrie Ballard. She declines at this time. Mark and/or Vickie Russell. Russell: Good evening, Commissioners, Chairman. My name is Mark Russell and my wife and I own 77 acres right here and I'd just like to -- Rohm: Can you give the address? Russell: I live at 2999 West Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho, 83642. Rohm: Thank you. Russell: I would just like to point out some things from maybe a different perspective from some of the other people, too. You notice that the developers are trying to protect their interest with the zoning for higher density. I don't think we have heard anybody say they want their property lower density. One of the things that I want to bring out -- our place falls in two categories, this area here and this area here. We have all the way to there. I just thought that one of the things I'd like to bring out is when the Overland Road is aligned with Ten Mile and the interchange comes through, we are going to have more traffic there than anyone ever thought possible. I notice that I talked to one engineer and he thought that in 2020 there would be 25,000 cars a day coming down Ten Mile once the interchange is going. I think once the interchange is open you will have 15,000 cars a day coming down Ten Mile because of all of Nampa and Kuna wanting to use that and I think it's really unfortunate that as planning we can't go to Ada County Highway District and say this is what's coming down the pike with these -- with these projects. And I'll stand for any questions that you folks have. Rohm: I guess just to expand on what you just said, that was kind of my point when I asked them about the roadway infrastructure changes as this total area developed, but your comments are very well taken that as that Ten Mile interchange does open up, whether it's low density development south of that or not, there is going to be increased traffic just from Kuna and other areas feeding into the interstate region. So, absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 24 of 98 Russell: I have one other point that I want to make, just as the other two corporations of the developers, I would certainly hope that as city services became available that we come in front of you guys with the proposal for a planned unit development, something similar to those folks. As you can see, they are quite a bit further south than we are and., you know, at least have the opportunity to come back and ask for a rezone for a project once the city services were there. Rohm: And I'm certain that you have that option available. Russell: Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you for your testimony. Becky McKay. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just a couple of brief statements. have read through the staff report and looked at the maps, the old ones, and, then, the revised ones and I guess one thing -- one question that -- that I had is concerning the Ten Mile interchange. Obviously, a lot of money -- millions and millions of dollars are going to be spent to build this interchange.. We are going to create a major arterial going., obviously, both north and south.. You have got the city of Kuna with very explosive growth, just like Meridian has seen, and that whole Ten Mile corridor is going to just be ignored as a future planning or referral area. So, I'm kind of wondering, you know, the logic in that. Secondly, I -- you know, there are still a lot of studies going on, Communities In Motion, Blueprint For Good Growth. I wonder if this amendment should be coming forward at this time prior to those studies being completed. Is there really an urgency that -- that we just lop off this western portion and go with the southeast planning area that you have designated through here? We have got to look long range. Obviously, our industry is seeing a slow down at this time, but we need -- you know, from a planning perspective when we draw these maps we are looking out into the future. We are anticipating that this interchange is going to be built within the next two to three years, that ACRD will start allocating funding out in this south area. I have been doing planning in the City of Meridian for 15 years now and we have always been told, as far as south Meridian, that, you know, we need to limit the amount of residential growth, commercial growth out there until we, one, got the Locust Grove overpass; two, built the Ten Mile interchange; three, got another large trunk -- sewer trunk line under the interstate. So, all of these things are, obviously, either taken place, in the works, or on the verge of starting construction., like the interchange, which they are saying '08, '09. So, I don't know, I just kind of think that it would be a mistake to just lop this area out. That's kind of what happened with the southwest Boise area. It was a low priority area and there were still acre lots going on, three acres, five acre lots, with septics, wells, and it has been a struggle ever since to try to rectify mistakes that were made and they were planning mistakes. So, I just want the Commission to kind of try to look at the big picture. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 25 of 98 Rohm: Before you leave -- so, are you suggesting that the south area of impact be left just as it is currently or go back to what -- that it included that southwest six miles or whatever that's been lopped off by this adjustment? McKay: Well, Ithink -- I think either you wait for the studies and don't expand it at all at this juncture, leave it alone, or -- or, two, you look at the big picture, don't -- don't just ignore this southwest area and I think this three acre lot development that is talked about in the report is flawed. I mean that was tried before in the southwest Boise area unsuccessfully. I mean they are trying to retrofit those areas with central services now. So, I guess that's kind of my concern. Rohm: Thank you. Canning: Chairman Rohm, I think Mrs. McKay perhaps has the staff response, instead of the staff recommendation at this point. We are no longer recommending the three acre lots and, actually, Mrs. McKay brought up a good analogy. The southwest Boise was put into the Boise area of city impact, was given land use designation, but was a low priority area for sewer provisions and they had a lot of difficulties and that's what we are trying to do is just kind of pull back and keep what areas you have already identified as future parts of the city. Rohm: Thank you. There is not anybody else that has signed up -- oh. Oh. Let's -- because on a different sign up sheet, we will just take Ray Hunt at this time. Shirley Meyer, would you like to come forward now? Oh. Okay. The lady that came up earlier, would you like to come forward, ma'am? Commish: I'm Angela Commish, 6740 South Eagle Road. I handed a couple of you people maps. I have a couple more I'll give to the rest of you and I will try and use this pointer. So, you can look and see as well, I own 9.2 acres just south of Lake Hazel, about 300, 400 feet south of Lake Hazel on South Eagle Road and Ihave arequest -- it's currently in this zoning as medium high density and according to what I found it sounds like medium high density allows for development of a mix of relatively dense residential housing types, including townhouses, row houses, condominiums and apartments. Density ranging from eight to 15 dwelling units per acre with a target of 12 units. That's a 160 acre block right there, that equates to about 2,000 homes. If you look to the block to the west at Lake Hazel and Meridian, that's also zoned that same medium to high density, so that's going to be a fairly dense area right there and it has a neighborhood center in the middle of it and if you look at the descriptions for those neighborhood centers, they are intended to be -- provide ahigh -- a blend of high density residential small scale commercial entertainment offices, open spaces, geared to serve residents. These three types of neighborhood centers vary in size, scale, and market area and a range of commercial uses. Neighborhood oriented centers are intended to be relatively small in scale in terms of the size of the overall area and individual buildings primarily serving the immediate surrounding neighborhoods, community oriented centers are large in scale. I guess my request is that my little 9.2 acres in this medium high density be changed to mixed use neighborhood. This area Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 26 of 98 right in here will not be able to be served by connected pathways and things like that directly to this area over here. If I had a kid I wouldn't want him riding his bike down Lake Hazel to get to a place over there to go to a market or something or to a school or something. So, I'd like that -- my 9.2 acres to be changed to that mixed use neighborhood and I guess reasons are, one, obviously, selfishly I think it would be nice to have the flexibility to do something different with that. Two, I think it's a good location for this. If you look at it -- the uses for the mixed use neighborhood, example uses are grocery store, drug store, coffee shop, dry cleaner, laundromat, salon, day care, professional offices and medical dental, schools, parks, and churches. Directly across from my 9.2 acres there is a little block right there, there is a church going in right now that's being constructed.. Directly to the south of it there is a little star. That star is for a park. Also, that little flag right there is a school. So, that 9.2 acres is positioned right in the middle of those exact same uses. I would say day care or a coffee shop or that sort of thing would be perfectly suited for that 9.2 acres, as it's right in the middle of it. And it's also connected to the rest of this medium high density area. Penny Lane is directly south of my piece of property, so access to my property could be off of Eagle Road or off of Penny Lane, which would be much less congested. Also, just from a topographic standpoint -- I'm a civil engineer -- my piece of property is rather steep. It's not conducive to medium to high density residential. It would be much more suited to smaller buildings, like a day care or coffee shops or small commercial buildings, medical buildings, things like that. So, there you have it. Any questions? Rohm: Just one. Commish: Okay. Rohm: Did you participate in any of the workshops? Commish: I did.. Yes, I did. Yes. Rohm: Okay. Commish: And they were very well done and I appreciate very much your staffs work and I think overall the plan is wonderful. Rohm: Okay. Commish: Very well done. Rohm: Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions of this individual? Okay. Thank you. Commish: Thank you for your time. Rohm: A lot to digest. Any questions of staff -- Baird: Well, Mr. Chair -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 27 of 98 Rohm: That's all that there was signed up. Are there others that would like to testify? Mr. Jewett. Jewett: Jim Jewett, 1560 Carol Street here in Meridian. I come here tonight real torn on how I'd like to see this go forward. Obviously, I have emotional reasons, financial reasons, and professional reasons that tear me on this. We started this process some time ago -- I'm just going to give you my brief history in the three minutes I'm allotted. think that your staff was thrust into this, as a lot of us were, because of an economic growth that was outpacing anything we could do and that precipitated -- the city of Kuna wanted to move north at a more rapid pace than anybody anticipated, so the City of Meridian was forced to look south quicker than maybe they wanted to look at it and staff went through the public process of workshops and letting the impact to the people -- and where they wanted to go and what they wanted to see and it was transformed several times with a lot of empty questions yet unanswered and I still think those are unanswered. I still think we have a ways to go. And I guess the question I have today is what is this Comprehensive Plan really giving us today? Is it giving us anything that isn't already there and I guess for this area in the southwest it, obviously, is giving nothing but a referral area, which, I guess, the referral area attempt is to block Kuna from any further annexation, even though there haven't been any joint meetings between both cities, I think everybody has, you know, agreed that they are not going to go -- one not go north of Lake Hazel, one is not going to go south of Lake Hazel. So, I would encourage the city to continue its process. I think they have done a wonderful job now of trying to get through all the issues. I still think there are a lot more issues to get through. I say you have some other comp plans that are very needy tonight. I think those should go forward., and I think this one needs to have some continued work done on it. And unless there is a specific need in the area that you are changing some designations, I guess I would offer the question of why. Why do we need to go forward? So, I would ask that the Commission consider that question of why the need for this one to go forward today? Is it really providing a need to the city and the residents out there that isn't already there? Those areas that are in those light colored greens and browns and different tones are all already there. They are already serviceable by some level of master plan within the city. They all have an existing designation. Let's let the transportation corridor work itself out. I mean there are issues there. I would say to you that from atransportation -- from an infrastructure in general point of view, we are backwards in the way we fund things. We fund things based on we will build it and it will come. Not we will bring it and, then, it will .build. It's backwards. That's just the way we are. It's the way the funding is done here. I think the only reason -- and I appreciate you letting me go beyond my time. The only reason we have the Ten Mile interchange even in our remote vision here in the upcoming future is because of innovative financing by the state. The only reason that we have Overland being relocated to a much safer and better location for the public in general is because innovative work between the city, planning staff, ACHD, and a developer. So, you're not having normal protocol fund those projects. We need to work on that. We need to find out a mechanism to make sure infrastructure is ahead of us and maybe we should just wait and let those Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 28 of 98 processes run its course and, then, look how those processes can help this -- this plan work in the long term. With that I'd stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Jewett. Jewett: Thank you. Haws: Commissioners, gentlemen, good evening. My name is Joshua Haws. I live in the southeast corner. My address is 3700 East Columbia Road.. I have been a participant in all the open houses and the meetings that we have had.. I appreciate the staffs response and the timeliness and the communicafion that's been there. I stand here tonight in support of the plan that is proposed. I appreciate being included in Meridian's area of impact expansion. I consider myself to be from Meridian and I identify with Meridian and I think that this -- this plan has been well thought out. It has not been precipitous, obviously, it's been going on for quite awhile and it's -- I believe that it's sound and I support the plan going forward. I'd stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Mann: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Terrence Mann and I live at 5200 Black Cat Road -- South Black Cat Road. And I just wanted to kind of side in on the folks with regard to the southwest being left out on this -- I think it's the Comprehensive Plan and I think it should be comprehensive, everything that Meridian's going to be looking at over the next five to ten years. We do have a slow down right now in building and things of that nature, so I think it would be wise to take the time and really plan this out. Wait for the reports, like the transportation report, which is not done yet, so that we do have the infrastructures that are there are to meet the growth, because if this thing turns on again next spring or whatever, excuse me, you're going to have the same thing of a lot of people wanting to develop properties and there won't be any plan to address that. So, it's going to be, again, kind of a mishmash. But I think we are still in the same situation where we don't have a final transportation plan, which was the reason to put it off last year in April. We don't have the meeting of the minds of the cities, between Kuna and Meridian, so we still have those two issues that haven't been resolved and that was the reason why we put this off back in April, so -- and with that, like I said, again, the Comprehensive Plan should take in everything, I think, that's on the board, so to speak. So, that's -- those are my comments and I'd stand for any questions. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Groves: Craig Groves. 6223 North Discovery Way in Boise. Commissioner, Members of the Commission, I'd encourage you to slow down just a little bit on adopting this plan. I'm concerned about the thought process around the Ten Mile interchange. If you look at what's happened around the Eagle interchange or the Meridian interchange and the growth -- particularly south of both of those interchanges, and the traffic that flows south of those interchanges, just go down Eagle Road to Victory and go from -- go down Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 29 of 98 Eagle Road from Victory to Amity and you look at the traffic at Victory and Eagle Road, you're getting yourself in the same scenario here, the growth is going to explode around this Ten Mile interchange. Traffic from Nampa, traffic particularly from Kuna is going to be going up and down here. I think it's a mistake to leave this out of your Comprehensive Plan. I think you need to take time, really understand what you want to have happen in this area. I can't even imagine this area right here staying like that in the next five years.. It won't even be the same. Just take a look at what's happening around St. Luke's hospital, I mean there used to be acre lots sitting there, they are gone. I just -- I don't think you're looking forward and I would encourage you to pull back, take a look at that and come forward with a plan that takes that into consideration. We have an opportunity to do that right now while this market has slowed down. It would be important to -- to take that time. That's all I have to say. Rohm: The question I have for you -- Groves: Yes. Rohm: Are you in support of the Ten Mile interchange zone? Groves: Oh, absolutely. Uh-huh. Absolutely. Rohm: All right. Thank you. Any other questions of this individual? Thank you, sir. Percy: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Jim Percy. I reside at 2385 Stegerman and I would like to address the area on Meridian Road., if I can get this to function. It would be on Meridian Road where these two areas are in low density. I have participated in all the comment periods and submitted a letter to try and get this area -- this designation as lower -- its low density now and it is adjacent -- both sides of these properties are on Meridian Road and they fulfill what the Ada County commissioners wanted -- or the ACRD wanted as far as high density next to major thoroughfares that exist and also another problem that exists for me is Meridian Road creates so much noise and it will become worse to try and make this as a low density it will be almost impossible. They will not be desirable for large lots, big houses. And that problem will become worse and I feel that the Commission -- or the Council has -- the staff. Excuse me. I`m very nervous. I can't even hardly remember where I live. But -- Rohm: I get that way myself. Percy: Well, I feel that myself as a farmer have suffered in the areas that they have designated where there is no major thoroughfare and the areas that we are higher density, which has no -- no borderline, other than the fact that this is in the hands of developers now and that has been designated as high development areas and I'm sure that the reason is why is because who owns it and how it's been brought together. I feel this area right in here would be better served as a higher density area, simply because the thoroughfare exists. The preferred plan suggested it and it would work better. That area is south of Amity, they made a cut in the road., so the property is lower than the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 30 of 98 highway. There is no way to create a barrier to protect from the sound, that's just the way it is. I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to testify at this time? Before we go forward, I would like staff to give us a little definition differential between the mixed use regional and the mixed use employment. Maybe if no one else, just for myself. Matt? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the mixed use regional is -- if you want to look at it on a hierarchy, allows the most intensity development of the currently recognized mixed designations, ranging from mixed regional on the high end to mixed use community in the middle, to mixed use neighborhood on the lower end, which is intended to serve just the immediate day-to-day needs of adjacent residents. The mixed regional., the way that it's unfolded on the ground, has been fairly unrestrictive as far as what developments occur there. It's allowed some big box type uses, which certainly would not meet the intent of a mixed use community or a mixed use neighborhood designation, even as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Now, looking to the mixed employment, the mixed employment that's on the table this evening allows a lot of similar uses, but it, really, emphasizes those employment uses. That's the focal point of areas so designated. There is some built-in flexibility for those higher density residential components and for service and commercial uses as worded in the proposed text amendments, primarily to serve the related employment uses within the mixed employment areas, as opposed to the mixed use regional, which -- which serves more a regional function, people would be seeking out some of the uses within that designation as a destination, traveling from other areas to -- to enjoy those services. Rohm: I guess what I was looking for is maybe something a little bit more specific as in these items are principally permitted in this designation and these items are principally permitted in this one and the overlay is the top ten and the second one has four or five items that are not permitted in the other and Ijust -- I assimilate things better if can I see it that -- presented that way. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman., Commission. I'll try to make this brief in response to that. The mixed employment, the new designation, if you will, evolved from the Ten Mile specific area plan and because it's a guideline and not a zoning regulation, we don't have principally and conditionally permitted uses, but the intent of it was -- was to provide areas that were high employment corporate office, research park, research campuses, office campuses, and so forth. It wasn't intended to be more of the regional mixed use type, it was more to be a mix of employment type uses with supportive retail and service uses as subordinate, small restaurants and personal service type uses within that and specifically did not address residential, as opposed to the mixed use regional, which the way it's written in the Comprehensive Plan does support, as Matt said.., a very high intense level of both retail and commercial uses, as well as contemplating office and residential uses. So, the two are really kind of dissimilar and I think because of the way that the chairman indicated that he organizes things, it really does point out -- which I think we have found through this process -- is that while the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 31 of 98 mixed use designations in our Comprehensive Plan give us some direction, it doesn't give us the direction that we need to actually put it on the ground and achieve the types of -- or the mix of uses that we have anticipated in those areas. So, it's one of those challenges that we need to come back and revisit. But for the purposes of our discussion here today, comparison of both the Brighton Corporation representatives drew up, the mixed employment really is more focused on employment type uses, as opposed to the wide range of commercial, retail, and residential. I don't know if that helps you or confuses you.. Rohm: Well, no, I think it addresses the specific point, is if, in fact, the mixed use employment is intended on corporate offices and the like and the mixed use regional supports more of a retail slash business park slash any number of things, the two really aren't even the same animal. Friedman: That's correct. Rohm: They are quite a bit dissimilar. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, perhaps I can help. We have two areas on Eagle Road that have had mixed use designations -- mixed use regional designations that developed very differently. And each of them was accommodated under the mixed use regional. If you think about Silverstone, which has a lot of employment uses and some accessory retail development going in there, some restaurants, some shops, that would be more akin to the mixed employment that we are talking about. If you go up the street to the Winston Moore project, that also had a mixed use regional and, yet, that has gone much more retail oriented, perhaps limited office, but largely retail. So, what we were trying to do was put the focus on the employment uses to have a development similar to Silverstone and to some extent EI Dorado also where you have those employment areas, with some support retailing and other services. Does that help your vision of it? Rohm: No. I understand where you're going wifih this. I guess I'm just trying to envision how it actually unfolds at such time as the -- the concrete starts getting poured and do you anticipate applications coming in for a Conditional Use Permit that says this is what we expect to build on this acreage within this mixed use employment, each application accompanied by a CUP? Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission., no, what we would anticipate is that when folks requested annexation, we would have a concept plan that designated the type of uses and the general layout of the property, similar to what we have seen. Rohm: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, follow up. So, am I correct in thinking that if someone in that mixed employment area were to propose a high density residential or retail use, it would be considered, but it would be analyzed under -- with the questions of whether they are Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 32 of 98 supporting an overall employment use, as opposed to turning it into a major retail center or just high density residential? Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, the current language does not address residential. The proposed text amendment would, in fact, lead staff to make that kind of analysis you just spoke of. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Anymore questions? Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some final thoughts? Canning: Chairman Rohm, before you do that, might I comment just briefly on the -- the folks that wanted to wait. There was a question of what benefit do we receive by doing this now versus waiting and it's a very good question and I think we are closer than we would seem. I mean, basically, what staff is saying is wait on some of these areas, but we'd like to move forward with the other areas. The area where we are asking you to move forward are, for one they are already -- a large portion of the property is already in the Comprehensive Plan, as you can see there. We do pick up some additional areas. This area here, as we have shown, is a referral area that's been a referral area of the city for a number of years. Similarly, there is a referral area to the southwest. There is a big difference between the two referral areas. We have had sewer planned for this area for many many years and until there was a request to serve a particular project in this area, we did not have sewer plans for this area. So, we have been planning on this being part of the city. We have said that more development was appropriate down here when we could get that trunk line going down here. It is now under the freeway and progressing toward this area to serve that area and that was a big hold up for a number of years for the future development of this. But it is proceeding. So, the areas we are asking you to consider including kind of finish out this eastern edge and also finish out the area where that sewer line can serve to the west of Meridian Road and, then, the employment center. So, by acting on this now, rather than deferring the whole thing, we can at least give some certainty to this area and we can always go back and address the others later, just -- this is a large land area. Every time we -- we have a Public Hearing there are a number of folks that live in this area that are concerned and interested and I think we have really worked out a lot of the issues in this area. Did want to say one other thing about the area near Overland and Ten Mile. You may recall this was an overlap with the Ten Mile specific area plan and it was, actually, a discussion -- a great deal of work went into looking at the appropriate uses as part of the charrette and intense commercial uses were never deemed appropriate on this side of the freeway, because of the topographic constraints, the Ridenbaugh Canal, and the access to the properties at the interchange. I mean these properties right next to the interchange need to gain -- need to go under the interchange to the east and, then, the are going to have to loop around back out onto Ten Mile. So, it's not going to be a similar situation to what you see on Eagle or Meridian Road, where those nearby properties will have direct access. The access is very constrained because of topography in this area. So, you know, we did look at this and -- in detail many times, along with the planning commission. So, with that most of the suggestions that are Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 33 of 98 before you tonight are certainly a judgment call for the planning commission, but I did want to comment on those two things. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you.. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O`Brien: I propose we take a five minute break. Rohm: I 'd go for that, but I think ten is more appropriate. At this time we will take a ten minute break. Thank you. (Recess.) Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and I guess this -- this is such a big project it's hard to just get your arm around it all at one time, so I apologize if we seem like we are a little bit disjointed up here and, quite honestly, probably are a little bit. It's -- it's a huge project and it impacts so many people and we want to get it right and so I will tell you that I don't think we are going to get through all of these tonight. If we have anywhere close to the amount of testimony or discussion for the balance of them that we had so far, I don't think we are going to get to a point where we will be able to make any motion. But that's just my opinion based upon the time of evening where we are right now. So, with that being said, I think that what I'm going to do is just poll the Commission and kind of get some thoughts that -- that they'd like to share with you on where we are on this particular project now and, then, if there are questions of staff or staff has additional comments, we'd certainly incorporate that as well. So, with that being said, Commissioner Moe, do you have some -- do you have comments that you'd like to share? Moe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Well, you worked that just right, didn't you? Well, I guess the first thing that I want to make apoint -- I know you guys have done one heck of a lot of work and I do appreciate that immensely. Right off the bat, though, I still have the same problem that I did six months ago and that is we haven't talked to the city of Kuna to understand exactly what's going on there totally. You know, some -- and., again, just like some of the testimony this evening., there are still studies being done that aren't complete and so I'm not sure that I'm comfortable moving forward until I get a little bit more information on that as well. In regards to the Brighton Corporation properties, my biggest concern there is we are discussing that work needs to be done in regards to the mixed use designations, if, in fact, we have a little bit more time and we, in fact, could, then, make the changes and get that resolved, I think the Commission would be much better off trying to make a decision on those type of properties as well. At the present time, because of the fact that Brighton Corp and probably others had to move forward on purchase of the properties or making possible acquisitions of properties, you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 34 of 98 wifih the intent to the existing Comp Plan in place, you know, now we are wanting to make changes again -- I think that there is probably some merit in the fact that on that same property I think that they could co-exist between the mixed use employment and the other, so -- and., again, all the way through here I think there was the tone that people would like to see some things decided upon before we just go forward and so at the present time I'm not so sure that Ican -- that I see moving this thing forward at the present time. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I could move it on tonight. I think that we need to get some -- some lines drawn to help facilitate that discussion with -- with Kuna that needs to happen and I'm comfortable with these -- the Blueprint For Good Growth -- the Communities In Motion study is done. We have a lot of the analysis from the south Meridian transportation plan. Blueprint For Good Growth is ongoing., but is -- I'm not sure it's in the end going to give us a lot of direction on what to do here. So, with that as background, I'll run through what I saw as some of the specific issues and I do have some clarification questions for staff as I work through. Regarding the inclusion of the Eric Exline property in this corner, I do support that, but I'm not comfortable with just bringing our line around one lot of a subdivision. I'd much rather extend this line straight down and across and bring in that subdivision, so there is a cleaner boundary and I'd just like to get thoughts from staff or -- I don't know if there has been any discussion from other property owners in that area pro and con -- or con as to why the existing line is where it is. Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, we have brushed on it earlier there. The main rationale behind scaling back the study area boundary the way that we did were -- were somewhat recent annexations by the city of Kuna. This piece immediately south of where the mixed employment begins has been annexed into Kuna, as has the southeast corner of Linder and Lake Hazel. Not to say that it -- well, I guess the reason that we -- we just straight lined with this designation down in the manner that we have is because that was the break to the north of Lake Hazel. As we have indicated, it's not necessarily a line that staff had its heart set on and we are certainly open to the suggestions that the Commission has. I think it would be reasonable to move it over to continue down what's currently proposed here and work its way back toward the boundary as shown on the screen, with the recommended staff response. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Steve, before we leave that, would you restate the city of Kuna's annexation in that specific area again for me? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't have specific parcel numbers in front of me at the moment, but the piece immediately south of where the mixed employment designation ends, that is west of Meridian Road and immediately Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 35 of 98 south of that mixed employment designation, has annexed into Kuna, as has the parcel on the southeast corner of Linder and Lake Hazel. Rohm: So, all the way to Lake Hazel has been annexed by the city of Kuna? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. And that's not a straight line all the way across Lake Hazel, but there are several parcels immediately south of Lake Hazel that have annexed into the -- the one -- the furthest east of their annexations that abut Lake Hazel is that southeast corner of Linder. Rohm: Thank you. Go ahead, Steve. I'm sorry. Siddoway: My thought is to -- if we take in the one parcel, then, we'd want to take in others as well, rather than split those up. And I think it would favor something along the lines of medium density residential to match what's going on across the road in this area. Moving on to -- regarding Brighton's request, I could favor the proposal as long as it was clear that proposals for high density residential or retail would be considered in that language as proposed, lines up being included. I do think there is going to need -- it's such a large area, there does need to be some flexibility with what goes in there, but I also -- you know, I -- if -- if we change this one, I think they all ought to be able to be changed and I like the direction that it's going for encouraging employment, which is a high priority for Mayor de Weerd and trying to get more of an employment base in the city, but we also need to make sure that we can have enough flexibility in that designation to accommodate retail and high density residential uses as part of that -- that mix, with the emphasis on employment. Regarding the request for -- to change this area from low density to medium density -- boy, I don't have particularly strong feelings either way. I know that I -- part -- I imagine part of why it was made low, as I believe was stated, was because overall through the area we were trying to reduce the number of units and the impact to the overall transportation system. Based on that, I can support the low density designation and -- but I also realize that they have been through their own comp plan amendment in -- within the last year that had some medium density in here. Based on that I could support the change and I encourage some more input from the other Commissioners on that. Regarding the -- the change from medium high density residential to mixed use neighborhood, I'd like some input from staff as to whether you see -- if you believe that there are adequate services by what's shown here for the neighborhood center and the employment, it is, you know, roughly a mile away or if you -- and I understand the need -- the desire for the medium high density residential is to support, you know, future transit along Lake Hazel, but could you just comment on the -- the mixed use designation and whether you see a need for additional services in that area? Canning:: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Ms. Commish raised an interesting question. It probably could support limited -- given the number of residential units there, it probably could support some retail. I think our concern would be that that retail would be the first thing to develop in that it would be rather suburban in nature, rather than a more urban one to -- to integrate with the medium high density. You're Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 36 of 98 going to have to have some -- some height to the -- that medium high density residential and some denseness and -- goes with the term, doesn't it, so -- I mean it's going to be a very compact development there and I would be concerned that the commercial might go first in a more suburban style office pattern or neighborhood center commercial like we currently see. There may be an opportunity to discuss some vertically integrated residential within the R -- within that medium density residential designation and that may be a more appropriate way to go, so that you could have that high density with -- above those of other uses where -- whether it be offices or small retail, it might match the intended look of that development more than putting a mixed use designation there. Siddoway: Does the medium high density residential designation currently allow for vertically integrated retail or office type uses? Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, the R-15 designation, which would be the corresponding zoning district for the medium high density residential, does allow vertically integrated residential as a condition of use. Siddoway: Oh. With that understanding, my -- I could support some supportive uses in there, but if -- I share the concern about the suburban style -- just pods coming in, as opposed to something that's integrated. So, if you can integrate those, you know, retail or office type uses as a conditional use, I guess I would favor leaving it as is with that understanding. I'm going to -- it looks like they are looking something up, but -- did you have anything to add or can I move on to -- go ahead. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. We weren't looking it up so much as we were trying to recall, because the real text of the medium high density is contained in the Ten Mile area specific plan, it's not in our existing plan. But I'm trying to recall what that said. But I think as Anna had indicated, with an implementing zone of R-15 there still is an opportunity as a conditional use to do that vertically integrated development that also contemplates some of the uses that I believe were proposed to you in the testimony. Siddoway: There was a lot of discussion about the southwest area and whether it should -- whether the whole thing should wait for it to catch up or whether we should move forward with this. You know, I could really force -- I don't know that this area will - - will stay low density residential. I also know that -- that Ten Mile corridor is going to become just a major thoroughfare with the opening of the interchange, but knowing that the opening of the interchange is, you know, three years away, I do see an opportunity to -- to plan for it and I believe that what's happening here is exactly that, we are -- we are setting the line by asking for the referral area and saying that we will plan that area out and I would expect within the next three years, by the time that interchange opens, that we would see some detailed planning work for that. So, I'm comfortable with the -- the line as drawn., with the understanding of this area is -- is to receive quite a bit more attention -- planning attention over the -- the coming years with the anticipated opening of that Ten Mile interchange. The last one I wanted to speak to was the -- the property along Meridian Road here as low density. It is right along Meridian Road. I could see Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 37 of 98 that going to, you know, medium to connect that area on both sides. I guess you specifically talk about the east side, but I was looking at the west. So, this is the -- the current Comp Plan, same lot here, shown as low density residential. That -- that one's not a deal killer for me either way, so I would be open to some input from the other Commissioners on that one. That's all I have at this time. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: A lot said and I concur with my fellow Commissioners on many of the items. I don't know how many more I can cover without duplicating things, but a long story short -- let's just stay on this current one. The property on Meridian Road -- hope you can hear me. This area here south, I don't know -- I've kind of got mixed feelings on whether we can change that to medium or high density. I'm concerned about any kind of residence there right now because of the American Paving sand and gravel pit right there that's a very very noisy thing that I can hear it every morning when I get up. don't know. It's -- that's another issue, I guess. But I don't know how that would change anything or how that can be used any differently. Personally I think that should be an industrial area, instead of a residential area, because of the current use of that particular area just north of it. That's my comments on that. The area Lake Hazel and Eagle Road., I -- I'm in favor of somehow changing that to accommodate or integrate small businesses of some nature to service that particular area. I don't think it's going to impact anything between the other two areas. That -- there is a -- the fourth bench runs right across here and the lady that has the 9.2 acres I guess it is, she's right, it's on a -- it's on a hill, it's on an embankment and in some cases pretty steep and I think that would be a good use, being able to change that to a residential -- to some small businesses, et cetera. The area at Eagle and Amity, right in here, one and two, change that to medium density from low density and I -- I don't concur with that. I don't want to see that changed. I think that the area -- any denser would definitely impact not only Amity Road, but Eagle Road itself, especially when this here gets built up over time, I think it would -- in attending the town meetings, talking to several of the neighbors around this area, they recommend low density and for those particular reasons and I think that's -- that's a good designation right now and I recommend we leave it as it is. The Brighton question, I've had mixed feelings on that. I'd like to see us get some big stores in there in that area, because it would serve not only Meridian, but Kuna as well and going to a mixed use employment would address employment, but I'd like to see it addressed more than just Silverstone's type development, if there is a way we could do both, I wish we could. But that's my take on that. I think we should just leave it as is for now and I agree with Commissioners Siddoway and Moe about somehow getting all the information we can and slow down a little bit and see what -- what we are going to see in the future. It's really difficult to -- to pull this magic wand out there and see what's going to happen, you know, a year from now or two or three years from now. I don't know how we are going to respond to that. I don't want to make a mistake. We have an opportunity here to do the right thing and, again, yeah, I don't want to see us rush into anything that would cause great grief in the future. As far as annexation, we are changing this zone -- I forget the gentleman's name -- on Meridian over here next tc that, I don't know how we are going to be able to address that particular problem, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 38 of 98 changing the annexation is certainly -- I think we need to talk with Kuna about that ourselves and those meetings haven't taken place yet and I'd like to see us do that first before we address being able to do one thing or the other. I think I have just about covered all of my concerns and my take on things. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. I just want to follow up on Commissioner Siddoway's comments a little bit. In regard to this property, this portion here, Iwould -- I tend to agree with him, I would like to see that that whole portion there would be included within the area. In regard to this area right in here, most of that's already in low density at the present time. Iwould just --Iwould like to see that stay as it's noted right there. In regards to the change here, I would very much be in favor of that as well. And in regards to the Hubble property down here, I actually could probably go either way, depending upon my mood, probably, that night, I guess. I don't know. I realize it was -- there was medium density in that area prior and it has changed to this one here, so -- but I do like the fact that they are -- the low density is there and so I would probably like to see that stay as well. I think I got to my areas there. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Just to further the discussion on that, the -- I, too, like the low density there. What makes me really consider making the change back to the medium density is knowing that they have already submitted an application to the city using that designation and it's -- you know, it's already -- it's been -- it's been accepted and is on our agenda for November -- December, so -- as medium density. O'Brien: Oh, for medium density. Siddoway: Yeah. If it was low, I wouldn't have a question. Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: One that we didn't talk about was this -- in the Croft -- the letter from Crofts, requested that this one be changed from low to medium, but I -- I do favor that one staying as low, although if anyone felt particularly strongly -- it is adjacent to medium on the Boise side. So, I'd throw that out there for some discussion, but it is a large contiguous block of proposed low density. So, I would be fine with it staying as is. Rohm: Any additional comments from other Commissioners? Moe: Not at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 39 of 98 Rohm: Thank you. I guess as a whole my thoughts on this are that -- thank you, staff, for doing an excellent job putting this together and, you know, nobody has a crystal ball and you have certainly done a good job of addressing the concerns of the public at large and I think you have done a great job of putting this -- the response out. My concerns probably have more to do with the future from a roadway perspective than -- than your proposed land use and -- and I think that the Ten Mile interchange and the north-south roadway being Ten Mile is going to influence future development and -- and I think that there may be some other proposals that will hit the ground that won't necessarily match up with this very closely, but I guess we will address those at the time they come forward. So, I guess the conclusions -- my conclusions are thank you for a job well done and., as a whole, I would support comments from the balance of the Commission. Anna, do you have some final words that you would like to share on this particular project? Canning: Chairman Moe, no other than your -- Chairman Moe. Chairman Rohm. I'm sorry. Moe: Looking right at me. Canning: Your last statement was that you agree with the Commissioners as a whole on their comments, but there were some very different perceptions on some of those pieces of property. So, if -- if there is something you would like us to look at, then, let us know. I'm unsure where the Commission is going at this point, so if you have any inclination where you're going, I can provide a little more information. If you're thinking about continuing it, I would like the opportunity to talk about some dates and some information that we need.. If you're talking about moving forward -- Rohm: Well, to start off with, I think that all of these are going to get continued. I don't think we are going to get through the balance of the projects tonight and so I don't personally think we are going to act on any of them, but we were looking at the agenda for the next three meetings and it doesn't look like we can take these and put them ahead of what's already on the agenda for November 15th or the December 6th meeting. Is that what you're -- is that where you're going with this? Canning: No. I was -- Chairman Rohm, no, I was -- that continuation date is certainly one set of dates and what has been suggested by some folks is a larger continuation, which -- Rohm: Continue this one to -- for six months is -- Canning: Or nine months is -- and that -- and that's what I wanted to discuss with you, if you're going that route. So, just let me know and Iwill -- Baird: Mr. Chair? If I may, I have got a question for the planning director and it has to do with the issue that's been mentioned by a couple of Commissioners about the proposed meeting between Kuna and Meridian. I think we have tiptoed around it, but I Meridian Planning 8 zoning November 1, 2007 Page 40 of 98 want to ask Anna -- do you think there is the will on one -- it takes two people to have a meeting, two entities? I think there is a will for those entities to ever get together and have that meeting. Is it something that we should even be waiting for? Canning: Chairman Rohm -- put on the spot. We have tried to -- we haven't given you much information about our attempts to schedule that meeting -- or the clerk's attempts and the Mayor's attempts. There was one scheduled and it was canceled at the last moment. This was with the previous mayor, who is no longer the mayor of Kuna. A second meeting was proposed -- I think the Council president was supposed to attend that one, because the Mayor was unable to and that one got canceled at the last moment. The third attempt to even schedule a meeting failed. There does not seem to be a desire to meet with the City of Meridian, but I do -- it was encouraging that with the Blueprint For Good Growth discussions, Kuna specifically asked for the -- this exercise that we have mentioned about designating planning areas as part of Blueprint For Good growth. They specifically asked that it be continued.., because they were unable to participate November 8th. So, they have asked that they be allowed to -- that accommodations be made, so that they can participate in that exercise. So, that's an encouraging part. But we did try. It's not -- you know, we did as much as we could as staff to initiate that and the Mayor's office did what they could, but it didn't happen. Rohm: May lask afollow-up question to that, then? It appears to me that this south area of impact is in direct response to aggression, if you will, by the city of Kuna and it seems to me that maybe this is an answer to legal counsel's question in itself. If we move forward without the joint meeting between city councils of the two cities, it's -- it's kind of drawing a line in the sand from the City of Meridian's perspective and addressing the issues as what would benefit the City of Meridian best. Would you -- could you respond to that? Canning: Certainly, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The state enables you, and only you, for the City of Meridian, to move forward a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Staff proposed this study to address the current issues of the time and those current issues of the time did involve Kuna and their need to annex folks to participate in a local improvement district to fund their sewer expansions. They found the participants they needed to fund that and they are moving forward with that. It's -- it's still a question as to north of Lake Hazel who will -- those developers that have properties that could be contiguous to Kuna, will they seek annexation from Kuna and -- and there is nothing we can do to stop it either way. Putting it in a Comp Plan won't stop it either. It needs to be a commitment on the part of those folks to want to participate in the City of Meridian and the growth of the City of Meridian. So, your job is and will always just be to act in the best interest of the city and not worry about that aspect of it and that's all we are asking you to do tonight. I think that by drawing a line it gives the discussion point going forward.. What you have done throughout this process is listen to the folks that live there and we have tried to draw that line with that in mind and I think that's been our concern is to make sure that we didn't force people into the City of Meridian if they didn't want to be there and that's how we have always approached this. It was a long answer, but -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 41 of 98 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you thank you very much. That's all I have been wanting to know. Rohm: That helps me quite a bit, too. Thank you. Just to try and encapsulate this -- and I'm not sure that I can in its entirety, but I think that the general support for this CPA, but with modification based upon testimony provided and the Brighton Corporation has made comments, as have other landowners that have a vested interest in this area and I'm not the one that will be making the motion, but I believe that many of those testimonies that have been provided will be addressed in the motion made and -- but, generally, I think that we will be able to move forward with this project -- or this CPA when we act on the balance of it. Do you -- is there concurrence from the balance of the Commission of that assessment? Siddoway: That we will move it forward? Rohm: We will move it forward with some modifications. Siddoway: That's where I'm at. Moe: I agree. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: I agree. Rohm: Commissioner Moe? Moe: I'm working towards that. Rohm: Well., that's the best answer that I can give you. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify my stance on that property that the individual wanted to be part of Meridian. If there is a way to do it, like Mr. Siddoway said, I'm all for that. I'm just really confused as how that process works. I think you answered some of that with your response about the relationship between Meridian and Kuna and so I'd like to see us go forward with something like that, if it's possible, but as long as it doesn't create some kind of a big quagmire between two cities. Canning: Chairman Rohm, if I might answer Mr. O'Brien's question there. I think it was a question. This is the first time that those properties have not been shown with a land use designation. It was just -- we scaled it back for this hearing. It's still part of the study area. It's still part of what you can consider and put back in surely and we can talk to Mr. Exline and -- we didn't have a chance to talk to him before he sent this a-mail, so we can talk to him and get a little more idea of what he's thinking about. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 42 of 98 O'Brien: Appreciate that. Thanks. Rohm: At this time I think it's appropriate to get a motion to continue this to the end of the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting. Moe: So moved.. O'Brien: Second.. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009 to the end of our regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for further action. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: CPA 07-010 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the north Meridian area to include 645 acres north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River from Linder Road to approximately '/4 mile west of Black Cat for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sherrie Ewing: Item 8: Public Hearing: CPA 07-015 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to create a new land use designation that would include open area, low-density, residential, medium low-density residential and medium-density residential uses with an anticipated average of density of 3 dwelling units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sherrie Ewing: Rohm: And, really, thank you all for coming in and I'm -- this is an arduous task at best. So, at this time I'd like to open the public hearings on CPA 07-010 and CPA 07-015 and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are a request for a Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment for the Phyllis Canal project. The property consists of 645 acres and is currently zoned RUT, rural urban transition, Ada County. The vicinity map here shows that the property is generally located north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River and extends from Linder Road to approximately a quarter mile west of Black Cat Road. This is an aerial view of the property. This property is largely surrounded by rural residential and agricultural properties, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south up on the rim is Spur Wing Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8 and the approved, but not yet constructed Jayker Subdivision, zoned R -- or, excuse me, zoned R-2 and R-8. The subject property consists of rural residential, agricultural properties, and golf course property. This is a map showing the FEMA flood plain. A large portion of the property, approximately 149 acres, is located within the floodon y thetno Boand along thel easte~n boundariestthehe. darkest area you can see here a g