Loading...
2005 10-03 Special Meridian Planning and Zonina Special ~na OctQ.ber 3. 2005 Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 3, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Wendy-Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway and Dean Willis. Item 1: Ro"~Ca" Attendance: Ro"~ca" X Keith Borup X X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X Chairman David Zaremba David Moe Michael Rohm Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. And welcome to this special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Monday, October 3rd, 2005. It's a pleasure to see all of you here and as you look around you can understand why the city is interested in having a larger city hall, so we can continue to have more meetings like this and include everybody. So, this is good. We will begin our meeting with a roll call of attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: The second item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and those of you who have picked up tonight's agenda will see that we have two items on it. This meeting was postponed from a meeting that was scheduled on September 22nd and there were four items on that agenda, but let me just confirm that we will only be hearing 05-004 and 05-003 tonight. So, hopefully, you're all here for those two items. That being said, we will adopt the agenda in the order it is, unless I hear any objection from Commissioners. No? So, we will do three and, then, we will do four. Let me just discuss procedure for a minute. In both of these applications the city is, actually, the applicant. So, we will begin with a presentation from our professional staff about the why and the wherefore and what of each Comprehensive Plan as they come up and, then, we will immediately open it for public testimony. There is no other applicant that needs to speak. We will ask that you, please, think through your testimony. You can see that there are many people that wish to speak and we do want to hear you all, but, please, limit your remarks to about three minutes. Try and get all your thoughts gathered and into about three minutes per person. We have a light system here that the light is green when you have time to talk and, then, it goes to yellow and you should begin to conclude and when it's red we do ask that you discontinue speaking. The one exception to that is if there is a spokesman for a group of you, typically that's the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 2 of 67 president of a homeowners association, but there are other groups that have spokesmen as well. We will allow that person ten minutes if we identify other people in the audience who are not going to speak as that person is speaking for them. Then, again, we, typically, would end with an applicant responding to issues that have been brought up, but we will end probably with comments again from staff and, then, we will deliberate and the objective is to make a recommendation to the City Council about how we feel they should act and there will be a Public Hearing there as well. Item 3: Public Hearing: CPA 05~004 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text and future land use map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the North Meridian Area and to expand the area of city impact boundary: Zaremba: So, with that said, I will open the Public Hearing for CPA, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 05-004. This is the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend the text and future land use map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the north Meridian area and to expand the area of city impact boundary and we will begin with comments from staff, please. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. I hope this is okay. I know that some people won't be able to see the staff table over here, but we will -- we actually like it better that way. Just as a point of clarification -- forgive me if you stated this, but we will need to -- since you have those other Comprehensive Plan amendment applications in two weeks, not actually make a formal recommendation tonight, under the assumption that all the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications should probably go at once to the City Council. So, just to clarify that. Zaremba: So, we would take testimony and discuss and, then continue until the other meeting for the other two items to catch up and, then make a recommendation on-- Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I don't know that you can't close the Public Hearing. I think the statute is pretty specific that it's you actually making a recommendation. So, I think you probably will have the authority under the Land Use Planning Act to make a -- to close the Public Hearing and just hold, you know, any formal recommendation until the 17th when you hear the other applications, but -- Zaremba: Okay. I see nodding of head from our city attorney. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, certainly that is probably the preferred way to go. If you do choose to conclude testimony tonight, to close the hearing, you can deliberate and, then, merely set it over for a final decision on the 17th. Zaremba: For anybody in the audience who doesn't know why we have to go through a little bit of gyration there, according to Idaho state law you can only make a change to your Comprehensive Plan map once every six months and if we have four items that have individual different changes, if they get separated, then, the second two would Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 3 of 67 have to wait until six months. So, what we are trying to do is keep all four together without hearing all four in the same night, I guess. So, we will make the decision about what is going to happen, but we will not, in fact, forward it to the City Council until two weeks from now. Hawkins-Clark: Good. Thank you. Given the size of the audience, I will try to keep -- try to keep my comments to mainly the highlights, since the application has been available to you and to the public for over a month and, hopefully, anyone who has expressed interest has been able to receive that and had a chance to look it over, so -- particularly when it comes to the detail policies, I don't think I will go into that, but what I was planning to do is take a few minutes to hit the background and where we have been and, then, kind of summarize your last two workshops where the Commission had reviewed some of these items. This first slide is just kind of letting you know we have -- this is -- the genesis of this is really coming out of a private application for the north Meridian area plan clear back in 2001. That application was generated largely at the request and at the funding of several large land holders in the north Meridian area and just to clarify when we are talking north Meridian, generally, we are talking north of Ustick, west of Locust Grove, and in this case tonight we will be proposing over to Can- Ada, but a lot of it is over to McDermott there, so -- but, anyway, we did -- this is largely coming out of an initial application back in '01. There was a -- Washington Group International did a traffic study also at the same time. We have had fires and schools and parks that have been constructed. The White Trunk sewer project was the summer of '02, that has instigated a large amount of development in north Meridian area and, then, the north Chinden master sewer plan was just done last year and that is for the area north of Chinden Boulevard between Linder and McDermott. This is just showing you a brief comparison of the north Meridian area plan, the private plan, and, then, this Comprehensive Plan amendment, the CPA. The first one was about ten square miles done by Wardle and Associates. This one is about 16. The one four years ago did not propose any changes to our impact boundary and this application does. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments, this application does not do that. As you're well aware, we have just completed that process. And, then, is transportation funding a part of the application and this was not, although it was a charge of the first plan. To clarify, this Commission did direct staff, when that plan was withdrawn, to incorporate a number of the policies. You were in large support of many of the changes that Wardle and Associates proposed. Excuse me. And we have incorporated, we feel, a majority of those policies. So, what's happening now? Studies are underway. The Public Works Department has a sewer study for Sections 29 to 32, which is the four square miles west of McDermott, between Ustick and Chinden. The Blueprint for Good Growth and Communities in Motion, are regional plans which we feel are very important and the City of Meridian has invested a lot of time and money in both of those efforts and this should compliment those. There is also a Parametrics and ITD are about -- I think about two months into a study of the Chinden corridor to identify the amount of right of way that they feel is necessary to accommodate future traffic projections. That's -- the scope of that study is far greater than this. I think it extends from Eagle clear over to -- through Caldwell to 1-84. But it's noted here, because, certainly, the north Meridian area has -- Chinden has a huge effect on planning up there. Some of the public construction Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 4 of 67 projects are listed there. The Committee of Nine process, which has now completed, which did grant the city of Eagle right now their area of impact to Chinden Boulevard, although an ordinance has not been actually adopted, but the Committee of Nine did recommend that Eagle receive their planning area as to what they had originally proposed, which does go up to Chinden Boulevard. And, then, another big item for -- that we are watching is the ITD state transportation improvement program. That is the multi-year budget, essentially, for the Idaho Transportation Department, which includes prioritization and funding and I can't give you an exact update as to where that is. I believe the board is very close to making a decision on that and I put it in here mainly because the State Highway 16 extension does have approximately two million dollars allocated in that stip. This slide is just showing the basic summary of where we have been. We had a public open house in May at Sawtooth Middle School. You held two workshops in July and August. We are currently holding the first Public Hearing and, then, should you choose to move it on, November, maybe early December, there would be another meeting, City Council would have a Public Hearing on the same application, incorporating your changes and recommendations. And, then, in December we would anticipate submitting a Comprehensive Plan to Ada county for approval and, then, renegotiating the area of city impact. There is really a three-fold purpose to this application. The first is to expand the area of city impact in two areas, north of Chinden to the Phyllis Canal, which is essentially the rim. And, then, west of McDermott to Can- Ada Road. That's the four square miles. So, those two together would add about six and a half square miles to Meridian's planning area. Four square miles west of McDermott, about two and a half square miles north of Chinden. The second main purpose is to designate new land uses and policies in those areas, as well as to amend our existing land uses to reflect a lot of the approvals that have happened over the last several years. And, then, last is a transportation component, which we will talk a little bit more about. So, let me pull up our map here. We will talk from that. Just a moment. Okay. So, in terms of the main areas that the open house in May and your workshops and other public comments that we have received, this is just the big scale view here, so you're, obviously, not expected to pick out too much, but this is Linder Road here, basically, in the middle of the screen and, then, Chinden across the top quarter here. And, then, of course, we have our main mile arterial grid breaking it up. The yellow is medium density residential. This lighter green color is low density residential. Most of the reddish type colors are either mixed use or commercial. The purple is office. So, most of this area from Ten Mile Road -- this is Ten Mile -- over to Locust Grove, there really were not any real substantive changes to the future land use map. We reflected several planned developments which the city has approved in there. Two areas I would point out are the -- the neighborhood center that is on the existing map that is here between Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road, has been shown just large -- basically, instead of a half noon, it's following parcel lines there. It reflects about the same area as the existing neighborhood center does, but it's only going to the east. And, then, there is a small mixed-use area here. All -- of course, all of this from Chinden up to the rim -- this is, again, the Phyllis Canal that runs across here. All of this area is proposed as new area of city impact and the land uses that we have designated in there are a small mixed use community -- I'm sorry, neighborhood area right on the corner, a mixed use community area about 12 to 15 acres. At the half mile between Ten Mile Road and Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 5 of 67 Black Cat, this area immediately south of that little mixed use box is a development -- about 350 acres, I believe it was, that Brighton Corporation brought through. I don't remember the name off the top of my head. But, anyway, they also proposed some mixed use. So, this is reflecting that at the half mile. Estate type housing would be along the rim. We envision -- even though this shows quite a bit of medium, we would envision, you know, more sort of mid size residential lots, if you will, with some of the -- maybe acre to three-quarter acre lots along the rim. The key up here and our key area, of course, is the -- the Spur Wing golf course, this residential area is part of Spur Wing and their golf course does weave through the project and a little bit down over the rim. So, these uses try to honor that. There is a coalition of property owners that initiated some conversations with the city in this area and we understand -- staff understands that what's shown here is reflective of what -- largely of what they would like to do. There is one main exception to that and that's a collector road, which I can talk about in just a minute. So, again, most of that remains the same. Now, in terms of -- probably what a lot of the public is here to speak about tonight -- this State Highway 16 preservation corridor is what's reflected in the cross-hatched purple area. It is shown with centered on McDermott Road one half mile to the west and one half mile to the east for two miles. So, from Chinden to Ustick it is a full mile wide. As you go north of Chinden it does extend to the Phyllis Canal. As you go south of Ustick this application does propose to extend that to 1-84 and, of course, that's just one half mile wide south of Ustick. This is Canyon county to the west. Our understanding is that Canyon county at this point in time does not have any plans or policies underway that would match this, although we have spoke with them about the McDermott alignment as a potential extension of State Highway 16 and they -- they being public works and planning staff at Nampa, have supported that, they just don't have any policies that would actually preserve that portion from Ustick to 1-84 on their side of the county line. The other key areas on this -- there are a couple of interchanges -- three interchanges, one at Franklin Road, one at Ustick, and one at Chinden, that we are showing on this plan. Around each of those interchanges is a new category that would be added to our future land use map called mixed-use interchange and we do envision that if you move this on, they would function differently in some way in terms of land use themes around those interchanges with more of your heavier retail, commercial, vehicular type uses on Chinden, less so at Ustick, which would reflect more of an educational and high density housing and office and, then, Franklin having more industrial type uses. And the policies did go into a little bit more explanation on those. These were placed on the map through some conversations with the Idaho Transportation Department. I do want to point out that this is -- this process that we are going through here does not in any way, shape, or form actually designate where the Idaho Transportation Department will ultimately put, if at all, the State Highway 16 extension. That is their process. It's a separate process that will have separate public hearings and public input. As I mentioned, they have approximately two million dollars that, if approved, would be used to study that entire corridor from 1-84 all the way up to State Highway 44. So, in terms of the actual specific alignment, the right of way, the parcels that would be impacted by that, that's -- that's what that process would be for. This is the City of Meridian's attempt to designate where we feel, in terms of how Meridian will grow, if there is going to be a state highway on our western boundary, generally within this corridor is where we think Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 6 of 67 it would go, so -- and at the workshops we talked quite a bit about that. I'm trying to think if there are any other changes. I think at one of your workshops you had requested that we add a little bit more mixed-use commercial area on the south side of Chinden, that is currently shown, Star Road over to about the half mile between Black Cat and McDermott. So, I think I will go back to the -- the Thornton Oliver Keller study. You should have received a copy of. That was completed. The goal of that study -- I apologize to the public, it's not actually in here. We have copies that are available. But this was about a month and a half study, which the goal was to try to identify in this north Meridian area the amount of retail and office land that would be designated for those uses that would help to accommodate absorption in the marketplace over the next 25 to 30 years. This is, of course, just one firm's opinion about what the market will do and the goal of this was not to adopt it outright, it was to basically provide you and the City Council with some specific numbers from people that specialize in market analysis. Bottom line is on the retail side of things they estimate approximately 1 .4 million square feet would be necessary to accommodate the population of between 40 and 50 thousand people in this area. They do differentiate between anchored and unanchored retail centers. Anchored being like Meridian Crossroads, of course, usually with a big box and, then, unanchored being smaller neighborhood oriented service type retail. The bottom line of what they are -- their study came back to us with is that -- is that unanchored retail would be about 50 acres and anchored retail would be about 76 acres of land set aside, zoned, designated, if you will, for those uses. So, between 130 and 150 acres to accommodate and that's based, again, on the spending -- discretionary spending that is estimated for Meridian households. Today we do have -- if you assume that all of our mixed-use areas will go retail, we do exceed that by -- by quite a bit and one aspect on that is to cut back. Another aspect is to see, well, Meridian's centrally located, maybe there are some affects, for example, of a future state highway that would actually skew those numbers and would be just maybe potentially justified what we have today in the plan or maybe increasing it even. So, again, this is a very crystal ball kind of activity, but we just -- we wanted to provide you this study for that. On the office side of things Thornton Oliver Keller projected approximately 550,000 square feet of office area, which would equate to about 55 or 60 acres of designated office land and we are already about 30 percent over that, in terms of the area designated for office on our future land use map. I think that's all I'll highlight on the Thornton Oliver Keller study. Again, I wanted to include in here, too, the key land use policies. We are proposing that the one step policy, which allows people -- if the land is designated low density residential, that they could request a median density use without changing the Comprehensive Plan, that that policy would actually not apply to the area that is adjacent to Canyon county. That is in part because Canyon county remains committed and currently is more built out in that McDermott-Ustick area than Ada county is and they are between 30,000 square feet lots and, you know, two and three acre lots. So, we felt the need to allow people to go to a meeting with density residential in the county boundary, may cause some potential conflicts in those corridors and it would, essentially, help to create that silent effect, so you have more of our density closer to downtown Meridian than feathering it out as you get closer to the boundary. And, then, I think already mentioned the mixed-use interchange policies. A couple of last slides. The auto circulation map is a new map that is being proposed with this plan. Our Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 7 of 67 current plan does, as you know, have a collector map in it. The goal of this map was to go to one level of specificity more. The blue lines represent the potential new collectors. There are some green lines on here as well that represent frontage or backage roads. I don't think I'll go into all the areas in detail, but suffice it to say that this map is a part of this application. It does -- it does, actually, require if -- on some of these areas that have the solid blue lines, which are the collector type -- urban collectors, that if somebody comes in and develops in that area, that they would be required to construct it, for the most part, in that area to help create a network that is predictable and that moves traffic. There are some areas that are dashed and we anticipate those to be more flexible and not as critical to moving -- to creating a circulation plan within a mile -- within a given mile. At this point I wanted to have Keith Haiar, who is the engineer who is with Washington Group International, who did the update to the traffic study for north Meridian, just to spend a few minutes highlighting for you the results of their study. As I mentioned, there was a very detailed study in '01. The goal of this study was really to focus more on our intersections and projecting out for us when our key intersections in north Meridian -- as we all know, many of them feel over capacity today, but we wanted to get the hard numbers, which ones are at very poor level of service today and in 010 and the year 15 year, in the year 20, in the year 25, when are these intersections going to basically require signalization. And there were some other elements to their study, but, Keith, if you wouldn't mind kind of giving us a summary of that study. Haiar: Good evening. Is this on? All right. Good evening. Keith Haiar with Washington Group. I have got two things against me. One, I have a cold, and as an engineer, you know, we don't usually speak in public a lot, so forgive me if I'm nervous. Brad came in and talked to us mid summer about looking at doing traffic projections and intersection capacity analysis for the north Meridian area. So, we were looking at the area north of Ustick to Chinden and, then, from Locust Grove to Black Cat Road. Essentially, this study has two major parts. One was obtaining some traffic projections between now and 2030 and, then, looking at those traffic projections at each individual - - each individual intersection and coming up with the level of service which is an indication of the capacity or the function of the intersection. So, for the first part of the study the traffic projections, we coordinated with the community planning association, Compass, and they have a 2030 traffic model that we took and, essentially, how that model works is they have the north Meridian area broken into what they call T AZ's, which are transportation zones, where they have generators and attractors of traffic and we worked with the City of Meridian staff looking at the population and employment that they have for each of these T AZ's and customized it according to the current feelings on the Comprehensive Plan. They, then, input those updated numbers and gave us, then, 2030 traffic projections for all the intersections. We, then, took those projections, we had ACHD counts at the -- from 2004 and, then, we lineally projected the traffic volumes between the two points and so we could analyze what the anticipated volumes will be at five year increments between now and 2030. Then, we took those numbers and ran them through highway capacity software. Well, I guess, first of all, talking about the traffic growth, as one would expect, there is substantial traffic growth in the north Meridian area. The range of traffic growth overall was between about the 130 and a thousand percent increase between now and 2030. So, some pretty significant -- some Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 8 of 67 of the major ones were along, actually, McMillan Road, especial McMillan and Black Cat, but also on McMillan and Ten Mile. Let's see. Ustick and Black Cat. That had a 300 percent projected growth. Chinden and Ten Mile, 300 percent also. So, what we came up with, then, were where the intersections were going to be as far whether they'd need signalization and, then, what sort of lane configurations they would need, how many through lanes, how many left turns and right turns and let's see if I can go to my summary here. Essentially, we are projecting that by 2020 all the intersections in the north Meridian area would need to be signalized to provide adequate service for the traffic volumes. You know, I could get into specifics on any particular intersection, but, big picture, what we looked at were as the traffic volumes grew we saw fairly consistent lane configurations and needs as they progressed west, as we go from Locust Grove to Black Cat and, then, north from Ustick. So, if there are any specific questions? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Do you have a timeline on that capacity -- I meaning going from 2005 to 2030. You know, which ones are hitting that substantially over capacity first? Haiar: Okay. Sure. Let me flip through -- as part of the study that we did, we went through and -- I don't have those -- we looked at each individual intersection and, then, gave you a snap shot from existing to 2030 and then -- so you had a timeline of what sort of improvements would need to be made. Offhand I don't remember as far as which intersections need to be signalized -- you know, the -- immediately or what the different timeline was. I would have to just kind of flip through them real quick if you want me to summarize the intersection. Newton-Huckabay: I guess my question is part of that study, since it will be used as a tool for planning? I think prioritization of which intersections are the most over capacity would be a key piece, the way I would think. So, it's a -- that's my question as to -- Haiar: Well, we didn't, essentially, rate the intersections as far as that. As far as the over capacity, we looked at -- essentially, what we did was once the intersection went over the threshold, over capacity, that's when we stepped -- took a step back and, then, looked at what sort of improvements needed to be made for that intersection. We didn't look at, you know, how much over capacity a particular intersection was. If it was slightly over or extremely over, that warranted improvements regardless. So, that particular -- that particular analysis, as far as summarizing that information, isn't in the report. One can go back in the actual specific output from the capacity analysis of any given year and you can look at the -- essentially, the out generated there and that will give you an idea of how much over capacity any intersection is related to any other intersection. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 9 of 67 Haiar: SO, I guess what I'm saying is the information is summarized and packaged in that particular format. available, it just wasn't Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Zaremba: I was going to comment on the same subject. As you mentioned, the executive summary that we have has each intersection and a year when you think its need signalization or extra lanes or stuff like that and I think what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is asking could be interpreted out of that if you reassembled all of the same information to give a priority, but you can tell by looking at this that the base information is there, it just isn't quite put in the order that makes the priority apparent. Haiar: Yeah. It's just packaging, which can be done. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. I guess the question I would have -- has ACHD, as far as input on this, have they reviewed the plan and have they had any discussions as to whether or not they are in favor of and -- I would anticipate we are going to have to have their blessing before. We are going to see a lot of this done anyway, so -- Haiar: Yeah. I'm not -- we didn't coordinate with ACHD as far as, you know, that was -- we were working just with the planning group. ACHD has its own process for evaluating intersections as far as the CIP, Capital Improvements Program, and, you know, that's independent of what we did and they have a different matrix for evaluating where they feel the needs on different intersections are. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Commissioner Moe, just a little on that. They have reviewed it. Gary Inselman at ACHD has reviewed the study and pretty thoroughly. We are actually meeting in a week, but his comment to me was that they would feel their -- that their current budget and Capital Improvement Program, largely reflects the intersection improvements that are notated in the study. I mean they feel it pretty much aligns right up there. I mean your Ustick-Meridian intersection, the Ustick-Linder intersection, obviously, are high and that will be there. Ustick-Linder is 2009. Currently for a signal -- I believe it might have been moved up to '08, but that right now I think is the only actual construction project, but just so you know, yeah, they have reviewed it. Haiar: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Brad, back to you. Hawkins-Clark: The last slide here is just to let the Commission know what kind of conversations we have had at the Planning and Zoning department over the last couple of months. The phone calls at our front desk, inquiries, have -- we have had a few Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 10 of67 people at the Locust Grove McMillan intersection expressed interest in changing from residential to commercial. We have had a couple of the property owners around the mixed use -- well, in the mixed use wastewater treatment plant area request that new residential be allowed. Right now no new residential is allowed, as you know, in and around the wastewater treatment plant. And, then, the State Highway 16 preservation corridor, both property owners within the north Meridian area, as well as those south to 1-84 -- we did send notices to all of those property owners that have -- that own property within that corridor and let them know that this application is being proposed and so we did receive several inquiries, many just wondering what is the impact on the property. We have received a written letter from Compass, from ITD, from O'Neill Enterprises, as well as Ada County Development Services. I didn't verify with the clerk if you received these letters as well. If not, we can certainly get those. They are part of the public record. But we have received comments from all of these groups. So, 1 think that kind of hits the highlights. Happy to answer any questions now or after public testimony. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions at this point? Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I have just got one that I'm just kind of curious. In our last meeting, Brad, you know, we discussed that we were going to move forward with this plan here, but we had discussions in regards the properties that were north of the Phyllis Canal to the river and at that time I know we discussed that we wanted to move this application forward, but we started in -- on a pre-application or -- of that or are we -- do we have to deal with the issue prior to that? I guess I'm just curious where we are at with that. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Commissioner Moe, we have not taken any further steps for that area. On your desk tonight we did receive a letter from the Aldape family, who owns several hundred acres in that area between the river and the rim, but they continue to express an interest in being in our planning area. But, no, we have not taken any specific steps to actually create that application. The city of Eagle, I believe, has completed a sewer study for that area. We have requested a copy. I have not seen it yet. So, certainly, any direction you want to provide to staff, we will take forward. Zaremba: My recollection would be we -- at the time we expressed an interest to include it. Is that -- is there any drawback should we end up suggesting that this be recommended? Could that be among our changes to it, to say that instead stopping at the Phyllis Canal, it should be recommended to the City Council that it go all the way to the river or is there some preventative study that hasn't been done? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, what I would recommend is -- if the Commission wants to make it clear that they are interested in that, which it is obvious from the other hearings that it was, but since this is -- the other meetings that it was. But since this is your official hearing, I would not recommend to change the boundary of the application that's before you, because that will affect noticing and other things. But I would recommend that you make an official statement and you can vote on it if you want, that you say -- that you're not including it at this time, but you look favorably upon the city Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 11 of 67 doing another Comprehensive Plan amendment at such time includes that area. Something like that. Does that make sense? that we can -- that Zaremba: It does. If we recommended including it and, then, the Public Hearing before this City Council actually had that as part of the recommendation, would that solve the legal issue of notice? Because their meeting would be noticed, including our recommendation, I would assume. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, that particular circumstance is, in fact, contemplated by the statute. The statute that you are meeting under, Idaho Code 67-6509, which reads if the Commission recommends a material change to the proposed amendment to the plan, you shall give notice of that proposed recommendation and if there is no further hearing in front of the City Council, it requires you to hold another one, but there will, in fact, be one before the City Council. So, you could do it. I think what planning staff is saying is it's such a change over what's been noticed, that -- and the City Council has a desire to have all matters thoroughly discussed and resolved at this level before recommendations are made, that they would prefer that you not proceed in that direction. However, if you choose to do so, we can cover you in the statute. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, if I could, I think the biggest issue, frankly, in terms of time frame is that Ada county would require the City of Meridian to demonstrate that we can provide sewer to that area. And we have not -- our public works department has not studied anything north of the rim. That's just a huge piece of what Ada county requires before they even consider expanding the city's area of impact is that serviceability question. And so I think in terms of the amount of time frame it would take for the Public Works Department to hire a consultant -- I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying time frame wise it would extend it easily six months, so -- Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Baird: And Members of the Commission, I think what planning staff is saying is the reason it was left out was because of that delay, if you choose to recommend it, this would be delayed by that amount of time before the City Council could fully consider it. So, it makes just as much sense to proceed with what's before you and give that direction that you want to see it the next time. If it's going to take six months to do that study, then, you will have your opportunity to make another map change recommendation in six months. So, it sounds like it could happen according to that plan. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any other -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, just a question of clarification from Brad. You referred to the Committee of Nine recommendation for the Eagle city limits to go to Chinden. Was that Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 12 of 67 area east of Linder? I didn't hear a boundary line that way, so -- but I'm assuming it was east of Linder? Is that correct or not? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, no, that's not correct. Their existing area of city impact is already to Chinden east of Linder. This recommendation was west of Linder. Borup: Okay. So, the same area we are considering? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Let us begin with all of you. I will call names from the list, but let me first ask if there is anybody who is a spokesman representing a group of people. If you would step forward, sir, and identify yourself, name and address. I should mention that everybody needs to do that, please. When you come forward to the microphone start with your name and address for the record. Before you start, may I ask for a show of hands, who is he representing? Are there people here who will -- okay. If you signed up, I will call your names and we'd appreciate it if you would just, from where you are, raise your hand and say I have been spoken for. We will know what you mean. Appreciate that. Sir, go ahead. Richards: Thank you. My name is Darrell Richards. I live at 6237 Serenity Lane, which is the Peregrine Heights Subdivision, located just east of McDermott off of Chinden. On this map, if I may, my house -- Zaremba: Sir, take the movable microphone with you, if you would, so that you're on the record. It comes loose from the stand, if you want. . Richards: I like the stand. Our subdivision consist of these 15 lots. They are existing homes. My home and my living room is right where that backage road is shown going through. I finished construction on my home the end of August. I started in April. I was not aware of this process. We had a community, a neighborhood meeting immediately prior to this one and just despite what the city planner had said, none of us had received notification of this process. We heard about this process through Ray Roark, one of our neighbors, who I'm not sure how he was informed of the process, but, for the record, we were not notified in any way, shape, or form of this process. That's -- I want to make sure that's clear. That being said, going on, we also understand as a community that traffic is going to continue to be an issue in our area and in the Treasure Valley in total. And we understand that there is an absolute desire and requirement to connect the Emmett highway with 1-84. I believe that the city planner kind of soft sold that. I believe that that is almost a foregone conclusion. I had a lunch meeting with a gentleman who is actually competing for the contract to manage the GARVEE bonds against the Washington Group, who happened to do the traffic study for this presentation. We are a neighborhood of 15 homes, with our wife's and our children, about 50 people. Currently, the proposed plan would rezone our neighborhood of existing homes from Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 13 of 67 acre lots -- acre estates, to mixed use interchange. Obviously, that is of grave concern to us, as that would absolutely profoundly affect our property values. And if that is to occur, our question would be how do we get compensated for our investments? And me personally, this is part of our life savings that we have put forth into our home and we no more than get our certificate of occupancy on August 29th and we find out that we are going to get rezoned to mixed use interchange or plan to be. There was mentioned during the presentation that there is a policy within the planning and zoning or the city of a one step policy. If I understand that policy correctly, that means that your zoning would only be changed but one step incrementally. Is that correct? And if that's correct, how could this even be possible that our zoning be changed from acre lots, R-1, to mixed use interchange? Also, during the presentation there was mentioned that there is a desire to do a staggered effect in that if you're -- again, if I understand that correctly, if you're R-1, the optimum zoning change would go maybe from R-1 to R-2 and, then, our R-4 or R-5, providing a buffer and preserving property values. And, in fact, I believe that that conversation was even associated with the golf course homes on the north side of Chinden and also that courtesy was afforded in that presentation to the Canyon county homes of 30,000 square feet to two or more acre estates. Why does this plan not afford us that same courtesy and that same protection? It's -- I was going to discuss a little bit of the alignment of State Highway 16, but it seemed as though the state planner has soft sold that to where it mayor may not happen. The corridor -- the two mile wide corridor, if I understand that correctly, preserves the real estate for that state route -- State Highway 16 to happen anywhere in that two mile width, thereby giving you some latitude and understandably so. We would like -- as a community we would like to be a part of that problem solution, so that we can effect and protect our investments and our families. A question for the planner. What is the time line for determining the alignment of State Route 16? And if -- and with the proposed rezoning of our homes, when will we know for sure if that's going to take into effect? And, again, what is our compensation for losing or having our home values profoundly affected to the negative? We do believe that it would be -- it would cause an undue hardship for this process to carry on for any length of time and not know definitively how it's going to affect our homes, our families, and our financial well being. We all -- we all purchased our homes -- I believe our development started in 1999 and I built on the last available lot, finishing getting my certificate of occupancy on August 26th or 29th, somewhere in there, of this year. We all purchased, built, or repurchased our homes, understanding that they were acre lots and the surrounding area was also either R-1 or R-2. For our area and for the area around us to be rezoned so drastically, obviously, has a profound affect on us. There was a statement that -- and this goes to listening to the presentation this evening. There was a statement made or several statements or discussion made about notice and what it would do to the process, stepping the process back. In listening to the dialogue tonight, I can't help but- think that the planners and/or the Commission is trying to push this through expeditiously at the expense of input from the community. I hope I am wrong. But that's the impression that I got tonight. The attorney Ted Baird had mentioned that the preference is to discuss these types of issues thoroughly at this level and in order to have complete discussions, everybody in the impacted area must be involved. I would strongly suggest that you take a step Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 14 of 67 back, do the proper notification, get everybody that's in the notified, so that we can all have a voice. Thanks for your time. impact zone properly Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions. Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I have one question. Mr. Richards, did you or any of the people that you speak for attend the open houses that were held earlier in the year at Sawtooth Middle School? Richards: I am not aware of anybody attending. I don't -- Ray, did you attend that? Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think he raised probably some very good points, but -- and maybe a little bit of clarification may be in order. I don't know if I'm the best one to do that or not. But maybe just for piece of mind for you and some of your neighbors, this is not proposing zoning your subdivision. You happen to be in a mile wide area that's included in that -- in that area. I think part of what staff's anticipation was, assuming that some day an interchange does go in there, then, the other type of uses would be appropriate around an interchange. The city has not gone in and rezoned property from individuals who do not wish to be rezoned. At least that large of an area. There may be some enclaves that -- of a smaller area that could be included. So, your area is not being zoned. In fact, this is just a Comprehensive Plan map. None of it is even zoned until it's annexed into the city. So, this just is what the city would envision for that area. So, I mean you can rest assured that area would not be zoned and get the right information -- I understand that, to your subdivision. Richards: The key on that shows that being zoned -- Borup: It shows a land use plan. A land use for that area. Richards: We are under a misunderstanding on that, then. So, I guess can you go into anymore detail on that? Because I'm not sure what the difference between a land use plan is and zoning. If you're intending for -- through the land use plan for it to be mixed use interchange, how does that interrelate to zoning. Obviously, mixed-use interchange is not residential. Borup: Well, that's a new -- that's a new term to me, the mixed-use interchange. We have not seen anything specifically on that before. Mixed-use does have residential opportunities, though. Is that -- Brad, is that the same mixed-use definition? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Commission, Mr. Richards, I mean maybe the simplest way to state it is that the language plan is precursor to annexation. Zoning happens at the time that annexation occurs. Right now this plan does not address a plan for annexation at all, it just -- the goal of this plan is to think out long term and once the city continues to grow out that way, should property owners choose to annex or should the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 15 of67 City of Meridian choose to annex some properties less than five acres, then, this map is the blueprint for what that annexation would be. It does not change the zoning, as Commissioner Borup stated. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, If I may make a statement. One thing that it gives the potential to do is give you an option on your land if you chose to redevelop it. Richards: What exactly does that mean? Newton-Huckabay: Well, if you were -- when you're annexed into the city -- I'm going to stick my foot in my mouth on this one, Brad, I have a feeling. That's not your zoning, that's what the city envisions, because -- in the future as a potential use of your property and when you become as -- become eligible to be annexed into the city, that is one of the options that you could be annexed in at. Richards: So, let me use this as an example, because, obviously, as anybody would be concerned, we are concerned not only for our property, but the use of the property on the surrounding vacant land. The property immediately to the east of us is currently a farm. If the owner of that farm so desired to develop a business park, because it's no longer -- or that the land use allows mixed-use interchange, which is a business park, according to the report, is an appropriate use or consistent use within that definition, we could have a business park immediately adjacent to our acre estates. Is that a correct statement? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. With that buffer -- I mean you have buffers and that type of thing, but, yes, that could happen. Richard: We, obviously, take strong exception to that and if it's about semantics, because it's not a zoning map, it's a land use map. I think it's accomplishing the same thing. It's opening us up as landowners to land uses adjacent to us that do not support the original intended use of our property and the adjacent properties. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Borup: Mr. Richards, you also understand this is long-term planning. I mean some of the -- it was mentioned earlier 2030, 25 years in the future. I think we would be derelict if we didn't try to plan ahead that far, especially with what's happening. And we don't know entirely, but Chinden is a state highway, anticipated to be a very well traveled state highway. And the use, as that increases, you know, looking into the future, there is probably going to be some change in appropriate uses in that area. Richards: When we purchased our lot, I understood that Chinden was a state highway. I even anticipated that some day it would be five lanes with stop lights and look forward to a slower speed limit on Chinden. That doesn't -- Borup: But you did not anticipate an interchange there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 16 of67 Richards: I did not anticipate an interchange and I did not anticipate the redefinition of land use on the property adjacent to ours. We always anticipated R-1 or R-2 at the worst immediately adjacent to -- Borup: So, you didn't think that would ever be annexed into the city limits of -- Richards: I don't know how that's -- how that has any bearing on my anticipating of land use. Annexation still needs to take into consideration the existing land uses and is, as you guys have developed, if it's a one step zoning change ordinance or policy, that seems to be a healthy policy. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about taking it from acre estates to a business park. Canning: Chairman Zaremba? I might remind you -- I might remind you that you have a long sign up sheet and many people in here and that we probably need to get moving on them. Borup: Hopefully, we have clarified some of that. Zaremba: We have another question, though, from a Commissioner. Rohm: Mr. Richards, I just wanted to bring up one thing that I think that is very paramount in this total discussion. This is a mile wide corridor that's being looked at inclusively. That interchange or any interchange isn't cast in concrete. This hearing tonight and the hearing in the future will take your comments into consideration and it's not to say that anything is settled but this is your opportunity to be heard tonight and many times into the future. So, I don't want -- I wouldn't want you to walk away from this with the idea that the decision has already been made to the adverse effect of your property and I think that that's the fairest thing that can be said at this point in time for any and all of this, that no final location of anything has been established. So, your testimony tonight and into the future will be given its due consideration. And I think that that's the best response that we can give you tonight at this juncture. Richards: So, in saying that, are you saying that the plan as drawn will be approved and become a public document? Because that's our concern. If the plan is approved and becomes a matter of record and a matter of what the city planners worked to do smart growth, then, as we go through the years, however long that time line is, and we decide to sell our homes and move up or move out -- Canning: Commissioners, I'm sorry, but we are getting testimony again. You need to ask yes or no -- shorter questions, but we need to move on. Zaremba: All right. Canning: To be fair to everyone in the audience. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 17 of 67 Zaremba: We do try and let people answer questions, but, you're right, we have gone well beyond the ten minutes, but -- I think just to clarify part of the process -- and we are trying to deal with the issue that you're raising and the group that you represent has a right to be concerned about this. The one thing that has not been said is that the City of Meridian does not have a history of forcibly annexing anybody. Your zoning does not change unless you're annexed. And, yes, this is a thought of future planning. If it is thought 'in the City of Meridian that this is probably -- that McDermott is a better place to locate a future Highway 16 than anyplace else, we don't even make that decision. That's the Idaho Transportation Department. So, there is some things, even though as Commissioner Borup says, we are trying to plan out into the future and some of these decisions have to be sent in a certain direction, it doesn't even happen the way we plan it sometimes. And even if it does, it's a long way off before anybody would be talking about physically putting an interchange or even a business park next to you. But what we are considering -- and the reason I appreciate your testimony, is should we preserve this area for a future regional transportation corridor and that's a difficult decision, because it affects people's lives. Richards: And I think you can do that and take into -- appreciate and take into account the existing land uses. Again, my fear is that this plan be approved and when we go to sell our homes, our homes are no longer marketable because anybody that does any type of due diligence prior to purchasing a home, sees the future land use, will not want to purchase our homes. So, just as you have said, you can have -- predict the future -- and I'm paraphrasing -- don't put us in harm's way while this story is coming to unfold. I'm asking that the plan be -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think we really -- we understand Mr. Richard's position. Zaremba: That is an excellent point. Thank you. Okay. I will proceed with the list. Was there anybody also that was a representative of a group? We have one coming from the back. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. Moe: Mr. Chairman, before he begins, can we get a show of hands on who he is representing, please? Zaremba: Are there people he's speaking for? We see some hands out in the foyer. Okay. Thank you, Nickel: And two other -- two other property owners that are here. Zaremba: Who could not make it tonight? Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you again. Shawn Nickel. I'm here tonight representing several developers and property owners on property within this Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 18 of67 proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The majority of the property owners are -- and developers are in favor of the designations as submitted by staff and recommended by staff. There are a few specific pieces of property that I'd like to very briefly discuss with you, if I may. Is staff able to zoom in on any particular property? Commissioners, while we are waiting to get in there, I will go ahead and begin, so we don't take anymore time. One of the properties that I'd like to talk about is the northwest corner of Linder and Highway 20-26. There is approximately 55 acres spanning approximately half-acre frontage on the north side of 20-26 at the corner of Linder. The area right in here. The staff and workshop recommended Comprehensive Plan designation for this is neighbor mixed use with medium density residential. We have been in discussions with your staff and have actually had pre-application meetings and are designing that area right now. And what we'd like to propose this evening is given the fact that this is Highway 20-26 and the high uses that are associated with that traffic-wise, we would request to have the corner be redesignated as mixed-use community, with the area probably from that line come in that configuration. The rest of that being -- or staying in the same neighborhood, mixed use to help with the transition to the existing residential and, then, they have the remainder of the frontage along this quarter right here, to also be mixed use neighborhood, to help with the transition from Highway 20-26 to mixed use to medium density and lower density as we get to the north of the property. That is a -- that is a colored map showing that. This is a proposed development that we are working with staff on. So, again, that -- just that immediate corner, a little bit more higher or more intense use with that neighborhood -- or, excuse me, that community's next use and, then, put the buffering of the neighborhood, mixed use, along this portion right there. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I also represent the developer on the southwest corner and we do support that recommendation for that as -- or a -- yeah. Community mixed use. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, in addition, the -- I have been in discussions with the property owner to the southeast and you do have a designation of mixed use community and I would like to speak in favor of that as well. I also believe the property owner is here and will speak later on to that. I hate to do this to you, but if you could zoom out. Again -- and I can just explain this a little without going into the map. The southwest corner of Meridian Road and McMillan, you currently -- or the proposed designation on that property is for low density residential and we'd like to recommend that that be to a medium density residential. We are also in the process of designing that property with a subdivision and have met with your staff on pre-app and I don't know if know staff gave us a good indication of why it was low density. Newton-Huckabay: Where is it again? Nickel: I'm sorry, southwest corner of McMillan and Meridian Road. Borup: Shawn, do you have a map that you have marked up with these recommended adjustments? Nickel: I have presented staff with a map of the -- the most specific, which is that northwest corner. This one I'm speaking of now about how -- that's the corner of Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 19 of 67 McMillan and Meridian. That's this piece right here. And I don't know if we -- if we really know why this was recommended as low density, with the medium density surrounding it, but we'd just like many to be changed to medium density. And, then, again, the other property owners that I represent, the designations that you have submitted to you. So, I'll stand for any questions you have. Zaremba: Commissioner, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: Thank you. Nickel: Thank you all very much. Have a good evening. Zaremba: Okay. Assuming that we have heard from all the spokesmen, let me start with the list. Steve Clayborne. Thank you. Spoken for. Charles Franks. You are a spokesman? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I had all the spokesmen. Please come forward. And is there a show of hands of people that Mr. Franks is speaking for? I see several out in the foyer raising their hands. Kartchner: My name is Richard Kartchner. I don't think I got on the list. Zaremba: Say your name again, please. Kartchner: Richard Kartchner. Zaremba: Okay. Kartchner: I live at 4325 North Ten Mile and I represent a group of landowners near that wastewater treatment plant area and I believe in your packet you have a letter that Brent Rasmussen sent to you in regards to an area adjacent to that. It looks like this. It was an e-mail that was sent. Maybe you don't have a copy of that. Newton-Huckabay: I don't have a copy. Moe: Can you reference that date on the e-mail, sir? Kartchner: It was today. Borup: That might be the reason. Kartchner: Anyway, I'll make this as short as I can. The salient points of Brent's letter, in regards to our property, which is -- Brad, do you know where that is? Next -- it's on -- the wastewater treatment area. Right on the fringes of it. Canning: Sir, there is a laser pointer up at the podium that you can use. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 20 of 67 Kartchner: Oh. We are talking about this piece of property right here, right on the fringe of this wastewater treatment area. Presently this is in the area and we would request -- and in this e-mail have requested that that be zoned similar to the adjacent property. This property is an R-3, I believe. R-2 or R-3 and we would like to have the frontage similar to this, a commercial land use, about 250 feet back and, then, the rest zoned residential, primarily because all of the neighbors in the surrounding area are in agreement that residential would be more appropriate for the use. All of our -- this adjacent property is also residential. Another factor that is not in the e-mail that I'd like to talk about is the only access to this zoned area here is through -- is on our property and so it would be a simple matter of adjacent use of road into this area. Zaremba: Thank you, Commissioners, any questions? Moe: Yeah. I'm sorry. You mentioned that the property owners to the south of that property are also in favor of a change? Kartchner: Yes. They would prefer to see residential, rather than a mixed-use office in this area. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Kartchner: And I do have a proposed layout, but I don't know that that would be of any use. It's just a make believe thing. Okay. Rohm: I'd like to see it. Zaremba: Thank you. Kartchner: Any other questions? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Kartchner: Thanks. Zaremba: Okay. I did call the name Charles Franks and that was not who came forward. Is Charles Franks here? Thank you. Franks: Good evening. My name is Charles Franks. I live at 6096 West Becky Drive, which if we could zoom out, please. Canning: We don't know exactly where that street is, sir. Could you help us out -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page210f67 Franks: Actually, this street, but more to the left. Zaremba: Say it again. Franks: West Becky Drive. And this lot is my lot. Right here. Which borders McDermott. So, I'd like to have my comments directed to the State Highway 16 corridor preservation area, since I'm pretty much right in the middle of it. It was stated in here that this corridor does not actually determine the location of the highway. However, in retrospect it will. It will be the only space left within the time frame that's been determined here, which is three to five years, before the location of the highway is even determined. I think this is a disservice to the people in the area, mainly because it could be, you know, a longer period of time. The placement of this zone will immediately limit the property owners' ability to sell and/or get full price for their properties, should they want to sell or should they need to sell. Also, it stated in this document people within this zone cannot expand existing structures, nor can they build new permanent structures, which I'd like permanent structures defined. I believe it was stated here tonight that the state is actually starting from Eagle to Caldwell for the location of the highway, so I think that's rather ambiguous to come in and determine a one mile corridor within that range. And based on that, I think that the area should not be determined, simply because what the state is studying is much more ambiguous than what the City of Meridian is proposing. If it must be determined, I would say it should be expanded, thus, the footprint being much larger, possibly from Ten Mile, which was in the original proposal, all the way to Can-Ada. This will automatically reduce the impact on property values, because it makes it ambiguous and, thus, doesn't determine that anybody with property right in the middle of the zone as currently proposed now, will, in fact, have a highway running through their front yard. So, I think the proposed State Highway 16 corridor preservation area should actually be postponed until the alignment is actually known. What this corridor effectively does is put a serious limitation to the rights and freedoms of the people within that area with no obvious gain. And I believe that the current document should not proceed in its current form. Any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions? Okay. Thank you. Drew Eggers. Eggers: Good evening. My name is Drew Eggers. I live at 2256 North Waggle Place in Meridian, Idaho. My family owns and farms 140 acres north of Chinden Boulevard on -- directly west of the Carnahan property on both sides of Black Cat Road. I would first like to -- I would first like to commend to the Meridian Planning and Zoning staff for the developing of a solid Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal that is a very positive step for the community of Meridian. Regarding the proposal -- proposed circulation plan, one of the issues raised is provide access to approximately 1,400 acres between the Phyllis Canal and the Boise River. Your initial proposal is to access this via a collector on a private lane, private road called Basco Road, through the proposed Tree Farm planned community. I am glad to see that the city is thinking about the need of a - - thinking about the needs of the majority of the property owners below the rim, as well as other growing communities. I believe the area below the rim could be best accessed Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 22 of 67 via proposed Highway 16 extension, which would possibly connect McDermott. Highway 16 access would provide a central collection of this 1,400 acres, rather than Basco Lane's location on the far edge of these properties, which could be a challenge for a long-term development. In addition, a supplemental collector to this entire area could easily be gained over an existing public right of way via Black Cat Road. Black Cat is a central access point, which also connects directly to a major north-south public road and as a collector would be much more useful than a private road through a residential -- excuse me -- residential development with no north-south collector -- collection access. To Chinden. I know that Highway 16 will have a very limited access, but I believe that providing controlled access through this particular area is critical to the best use of the property. If Black Cat is located -- Black Cat location is selected, it will -- it will necessarily change the nature of my property's potential use. I would, then, ask that commercial zoning be provided on the north side of Chinden adjacent to Black Cat Road and I would also ask that R-4 and R-8 residential zoning options be allowed in limited areas along the bluff. Finally, regarding the placements of the out -- in summary, I would like to conclude that there is placement of an elementary school on our property and it's unclear the land plan of that school to what our plans are, so we would like to have options on placement of that with our future land. We'd ask that Meridian -- we ask that Meridian consider these issues and discuss possible alternatives with us before finalizing the placement of the school. Sorry about being nervous. I have a copy of my presentation I will give for you to get later. Any questions? Zaremba: Give it to the clerk. It will be distributed to us. . Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Eggers: Thank you very much. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Okay. Dean Meyers. You have been spoken for. Okay. Marilyn Meyers. Thank you. John Ewing. Okay. Sherry Ewing is also signed up. She will speak and John will agree with her. Ewing: Well, I'm Sherry Ewing and I live at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and I'm representing my mom and dad and my sister, the Aldape residents, and I understand that just a few minutes ago we talked of us not being included in the impact area and, of course, I have got all the reasons why we should, but I guess I'm confused in the fact that we attended the open house on -- in May, on May 16th. I spoke directly to the staff in July about being included. I met with the city of Eagle and talked to them and told them that we did not want to be included in their impact area. When you had the workshop in -- at that time you asked for a sewer study and I guess that did not get done. And I have sent a letter to Planning and Zoning and now I guess I'm confused as to what we really need to do to get the things going so in six months we will be done or we can be included. I thought we had everything lined up already, but I guess we haven't. Rohm: I'm on the same page with you. I agree with everything you have said. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 23 of 67 Ewing: All right. Well-- Zaremba: Some of us expected it to come up that way as well. Ewing: In six months I will be back with all my reasons why, then. But I do have a concern about Basco Lane and being a collector road and I would like to see that be the collector road. First of all, we are -- the Aldape property is the only property below the Phyllis Canal that does not have direct access from a public road. Our neighbors to the west of us have access -- oops. The east of us have access through Duck Alley and neighbors to the west of us have access through Pollard Lane and Joplin. And so we are, basically, the only ones that do not have access and so I would like to see Basco Lane be a collector road. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? The Basco Lane makes sense to me. That being your only access -- have there been any discussions or applications on property that might somehow prevent that access? People can't take away an access, can they? If we had an application for development on what Basco Lane crosses we'd still have to preserve it; right? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I do not know the legal details of the easements on that lane. That's really what we are talking about. What are the -- what are the parameters on the ingress-egress easements, who is the -- who has rights to that and who doesn't. I mean I don't have information here, so I couldn't answer that. but I mean in principle, clearly we are looking for providing some good connection to the area north of the rim and Basco Lane is one. Another gentleman tonight mentioned Black Cat. Certainly that's a good idea. Zaremba: Okay. I don't think you're going to lose your access one way or the other. Ewing: I know that. I am going to speak for the neighbor that actually falls down to the west of us from Black Cat and he does not want that to go that way. And he's, actually, in the audience tonight, if you wanted to get comment from him. The access through Basco Lane was actually obtained by my grandfather in 1912 when he bought the place. So, that's how that happened, so -- other questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions? Moe: No. Zaremba: Peggy Everest. Been spoken for. Thank you. Carma McFadden. McFadden: My name is Carma McFadden. I live on 6750 West Lazy Diamond Z Lane. It's right off of McDermott Road. It's in the preservation corridor. And the only way I was ever notified is because my father owns 40 acres and it appears the large landowners are the ones that have been getting the notification. So, we did go to the Sawtooth meeting. My question is what is the definition that you have of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 24 of 67 preservation corridor? I mean I don't understand what you have done to our land. I would have to agree with the people that have spoke before. I don't want my land marked as a preservation corridor for three or five years or something and I can't do anything with my land. I mean if my father wants to sell, he cannot sell this. I mean people don't know what you're going to zone this for, where you're putting the highway through. And I know you said you don't really know, but why are you marking our land and making us preserve it in some way? Then, also, I know there is the question of access. You know, willi have access to even get out of my land? So, those are kind of the questions -- what I'm basically saying is don't mark my land as a preservation corridor. You basically have limited me on what I can do. And, then, also please notify us. I mean we are landowners. I was not aware of any workshops that maybe would have been through these questions. I have had to call Planning and Zoning to get on the list. And, then, we have been calling to find out about the meeting, because you canceled it and we have no idea -- you know, I have got children, I have to find baby- sitters for -- so I can attend these meetings, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Moe: Can we get the map up? I'd like to know -- see where your property is. McFadden: Sure. It's off of McDermott Road between Ustick and McMillan. I own this land right here. My father is right behind me. So, right here. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. McFadden: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Bob McFadden. B. McFadden: I live on the same lane as Carma does. And I just wondered -- Zaremba: Would you state your name and address, please, for the record. B. McFadden: Bob McFadden. 6830 West Lazy Diamond Z Lane. Now, you talk about 20 to 25 years down the road. That's past me. So, you're taking my retirement. I can't even -- Zaremba: Thank you. Initials. The last name is Rice, I believe. Could be RS. Rice. You need to come to the microphone, sir. Oh. Okay. You have been spoken for. All right. Thank you. R Spraggle. Spraggle: My name is Robert Spragg Ie. I live at 4005 North McDermott Road. I should be right about there. I guess I would have to just agree with some of what has been said about McDermott Road, in the fact that this plan seems to take away the right that we should have as citizens as to how we deal with our property. It would be different, in my estimation, if this was imminent, to happen soon, but we don't have any time line for Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 25 of 67 . this. This being set aside -- and if I wanted to sell now or two years from now or five years from now, you're selling apiece of property that isn't worth what it should be. Already we have seen property values, because of the -- because of the development moving that direction, we have seen property values fold, because of this news. So, I'd like to go on record, as others have said, that this is not done in this manner and that there is another manner found out how to do this. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Bill Waterfield. Been spoken for. Thank you. Angela Boden. Been spoken for. And Jeff Boden. Also spoken for. Okay. Chuck Pond. Pond: My wife and I own the property -- Zaremba: Please start with your name and address, sir. Pond: Chuck Pond. I actually live at 4162 North Jones, but the property I'm talking about is our farm property at 5595 North McDermott. The thing with the corridor is that you guys are -- it's three to five years. Well, the state highway district -- state of Idaho it's seven to ten years. Our land is going to be studied and studied and studied and in the meantime we lose our property rights. If you're going to have that corridor -- I don't know any highway in this country that's a mile wide. Why a whole mile? I'll tell you why. Because of the fiasco that happened on Eagle Road. We are being punished for that. What we'd like to see, if you are going to have a corridor, make it big enough for what's needed, compensate us for the property that we have, and move on. But what we are afraid of -- and we know what's going to happen, is that you -- the reason for this whole corridor is Governor Kempthorne's program. Well, what happens in two years when he's gone and it dies, the support in the legislature? We can't sit on that property that long. We have already lost two sales. The other people around here have already said they are losing property value. We are losing our property rights - that's what we are losing. That's what I have to say. Any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Pretty clear. Thank you. Janelle Bingaman. Been spoken for. Thank you. Cynthia Ross. She's been spoken as well. AI Lutz? Been spoken for. Okay. And Nan Lutz. Been spoken for. It could be Vern Strickland. Last name starts --looks like an S-T-R. Anybody with a name similar to that? We will go on. If I haven't called your name, we will ask you to come up. Lois Sweezor. Sweezor? Okay. Been spoken for. Jerry Sweezor. If you have a question, this would be the time. We will make a list of questions and try to get some of them answered. Start with your name and address, please. Sweezor: My name is Lois Sweezor. I live at 4725 North McDermott Road, Meridian. I take it that what we -- where we should really be is at the ACHD; right? Instead of here tonight. Zaremba: Possibly ITD, if you're talking about the McDermott corridor. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 26 of 67 Sweezor: Okay. Idaho Transportation. That's where we need to go, isn't it? Zaremba: They will be the eventual decider. Sweezor: Well, I'm surprised nobody is here to represent them, because I thought they would be here. I will do things different next time. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: I think the reason they are not here is because, from what I understand, they have no idea what they are doing yet; is that correct? Zaremba: Well, that's true, too. Joan R -- could be Rath. Something similar. Been spoken for. Thank you. Warren Watson. Spoken for. Thank you. Wayne Forrey. Forrey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Forrey, 1952 South Wild Creek Way in Boise. And I'm here tonight -- well, I'm the owner of Pathway Development Company. We are planning consultants. And I have six clients that own 14 different large land parcels in this area, plus my wife and I are Co-owners of an 80 acre farm in the corridor. I have practiced urban planning in this community for over 25 years. In fact, ten years ago I helped write the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. So, I think I'm pretty good at recognizing good planning when we see it and also inadequate planning when we see it, but, quite frankly, this is very good planning and I congratulate you for being bold and taking a leadership position to think about future transportation. And your staff has done a good job putting a bold plan forward and we -- as a community, we really need to think about the next 20, 25 years in this community and moving traffic and connecting to Gem county and parts north and regional movement and the way this metropolitan area is growing. Now, other states have been growing equally as fast as Idaho and in the last four or five years two new state highways have been built in Utah. Four new state highways in the state of Texas. And they used a very collaborative process in the corridor preservation, the very thing we are talking about tonight. They learned from mistakes in Texas particularly, where the local government, the regional, the metropolitan governments and the state kind all did separate things and I have heard a little of that tonight -- say, well, the state's doing it different and Compass is doing it different and ACHD is doing it different. And maybe Canyon county is doing it different and Meridian is doing it different and, boy, on this kind of an issue we all need to be on the same page. And Utah and Texas provide a very good model for us to look at for corridor preservation and new state highway and the model that they have utilized is very inclusive of getting property owners involved at the early stage and throughout the whole process. And so you don't have the folks here tonight -- and I'm one of them -- own property out here, that are questioning and in a state of confusion, well, what do I do for three to five years. Or as one gentleman said, what if the legislature wakes up with a headache and said, well, GARVEE is on hold for a year. And, then, it's five to seven years or eight to nine years. Well, in Texas and Utah, they had a time line, working partnership, they had a very formalized procedure. So, I looked at your staff report and I would agree with everything, but I would ask you Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 27 of 67 to add one thing and that one thing I would add would be that the City of Meridian supports a collaborative public-private partnership process. That state and all entities work with landowners. In Utah -- let me digress just for a minute. Both in the state of Texas and Utah it's been demonstrated that their projects got built faster. So, instead of a three to five year process or five to seven, we might be looking at a 24 to 36 month process, when the property owners sit down with the state and all the players and work this through. And so if you add a policy in the staff report that ultimately gets passed on to the City Council, that the city encourages this collaborative process, and, then, you say if it doesn't happen, then, it might be three to five years or five to seven. So, if there is an incentive to get property owners to sit down and talk about the impacts, the relationship of their future planning on state planning as well. That speeds up the process. It will avoid some conflicts at the initial stages we are starting to see tonight. I know that the red light is on, but I'm representing 14 different parcels, if you could give me another minute. So, I think that's a way to kind of break up this log jam and get some confidence to property owners that are making investments based on these plans, that they are going to be included in the process and that your staff report would bring that policy forward and you move that onto the City Council. You're looking for an alliance here of property owners. I know just among my clients right now they control 900 acres in just that two-mile area from Ustick to Chinden in that one mile wide. And so -- I mean the property owners got together to help define this on a faster track and avoid some problems. And that would be the end of my testimony. Congratulations. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Mr. Forrey, one of my frustrations is the length of time that these studies take. And I realize when the federal government gets involved, maybe that's the way it's always going to be. Any suggestion or recommendation that can speed that up? Forrey: Both Texas and Utah received national awards from the American Planning Association and the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for taking this collaborative more, inclusive more process. So, I think, you know, Meridian should look at that. I mean those other states have plowed that ground and put some -- put a calendar in place that people can kind of bank on. Borup: Right. I understood. So, that was part of the actual alignment study that -- Forrey: Yes. The model that they used -- because they had had so many failures in decades prior, especially in Texas, so they went back-- Borup: It seems like the frustration -- I mean maybe not so much that it's going to happen, is exactly where it's going to be and I don't know how we can take that long to decide something that seems pretty logical from -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 28 of 67 Forrey: If you're a property owner and work with them and say in the next 22 months they will happen, they can make good decisions. But to say to someone it could be seven years, you can't make good decisions on that. Borup: I agree with that. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Ken Robsky. Okay. Thank you. Doug Carnahan. Carnahan: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Doug Carnahan and my address is 4410 West Chinden Boulevard, Meridian. My wife and I own approximately 220 acres that's located north of Chinden, south of the Phyllis Canal and between Ten Mile and Black Cat. We own and operate Jayker Wholesale Nursery on that property. First of all, I applaud your efforts to amend the Comprehensive Plan. There is a tremendous amount of growth in this community and we need to all work closely to plan together for the future that's coming on us very fast. Our vision for our property is to develop a true mixed use community with a variety of residential densities, significant open space, and a small retail environment. The name of this project will be called the Tree Farm. It's based on the history of the wholesale nursery. We have opted to partner with O'Neill Enterprises, because of their experience and track record on a number of very high quality developments in a number of communities. We reviewed the Comprehensive Plan documents that were distributed and, for the most part, we find that they are very compatible with our plans. We would like to comment, however, on an item relative to access. Specifically with access relative to properties below the bench. One specific change I would propose, which is in contrast with the proposal you heard earlier, is to eliminate the proposal with of a collector road at Basco. We do plan in our development to continue to provide access to the Aldape property, but there are better alternatives if you think about serving that 1,400 acre parcel down there, specifically Highway 16 as it connects to McDermott or Black Cat to better access that 1,400 acres below the bench. These roads were already public and they are in a much better position to serve that aggregate community. We agree that this issue needs to be addressed. However, it involves a number of other communities, specifically Star and Eagle. It requires some fairly careful study and should not be addressed as part of this amendment. If I could take a minute or two more, I would like to just answer some comments relative to Basco Road, so I put that in context, because you have heard some comments about that. Zaremba: That is a hanging question, yes, please. Carnahan: Okay. Borup: Is your property adjoining that or -- Carnahan: It is my property adjoining it on both sides of Basco Lane. Borup: Okay. So, it goes through the middle. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 29 of 67 Carnahan: Well, no Basco Lane is our property. We own it. Borup: Okay. Carnahan: So, just a couple of facts about it. First of all, it's a private road that we own totally. The access to property below the bench, the Aldape property, which the access has been provided for many years, has no written easement of record. It's only proscriptive easement. It's just because it's been used for a number of years. We have no conflict with that use. That's not the issue. We would retain a connection down there, but we are going to put estate lots up there and we would provide for some continuity of a road down there. But in terms of thinking about that 1,400 acre block of properties that needs to be addressed, the -- this is a private road that would conflict very much with our proposed use. There is several -- and if you take this 1,400 acre block, it's to the very far end of the 1,400 acre block is the location of -- where Basco connection would be. If you took the other alternatives, a Highway 16 connection, or a Black Cat, they are very central into that access and could provide much more distribution. The other point is there is no connection to the south on that road, but there are on Black Cat and, then, there would be on Highway 16 if it didn't connect to McDermott. So, we think there is some good options. We encourage you to pursue that as a later plan. We have no conflicts with that at all, but we think the access could be -- if you develop this collector road at that location, it could put a huge amount of traffic through our properties and we think that would do us a great disservice. And I thank you very much and I'm open to questions. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Rohm: Are we done? Zaremba: We are about, except for the one name that I couldn't interpret. It looked to me like Vern Strickland or something like that. But we have gone through the list of those that have signed up, but if there is somebody that has something to add that didn't sign up, this would be your opportunity. Or if you think you might be Vern Strickland or I'm reading that wrong. Come right up to the microphone, please. Maxwell: Yes, sir. I'm not Vern Strickland. Zaremba: Okay. Maxwell: My name is Melynda Maxwell. M-e-I-y-n-d-a. And I live at 4455 North McDermott. You have heard from several of the neighbors. I'm not sure -- this is north of Chinden; correct? Okay. I will probably break it if it's computerized. Told you. What do I need to be pointing at? Canning: Ma'am, are you further south? What's the nearest cross street? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 30 of 67 Maxwell: McMillan and McDermott. Canning: He's got the -- it's just on McMillan right there. Zaremba: It should be pretty close to that intersection. Maxwell: Okay. And right there is Five Mile Creek. That's our property right there. To echo some of our neighbors, you know, we are in limbo and, you know, they have larger properties that the impact for them is very different than for us, but still an impact. One of the things, listening to some of the people talk and briefing earlier, who established this one mile corridor? Was that the City of Meridian? Ada county? The state? Federal government? Zaremba: That's a good question. It's probably the City of Meridian. If I'm interpreting it -- and maybe I'll get a correction from staff. ITD will not make a commitment about where they are going to put it. Maxwell: Okay. Zaremba: And the difficulty of saying it should be somewhere in this area, they have to pick an eventual route that misses wetlands, that misses all sorts of environmental stuff. Maxwell: Right. I understand. Zaremba: And I agree with the thought that there ought to be a way to make this much narrower than a whole mile -- a half mile on either side of it. Maxwell: My gripe is not even that. It's who decided? You know, if Idaho State Transportation Board hasn't decided where to put it, why would Ada county or, for that matter, Meridian, say, oh, this is where we are going to decide to do it, because that's kind of what it sounds like. Zaremba: Well, at this point it's Meridian trying to give ITD an option. Maxwell: And that option, then, toasts -- Zaremba: And that's why we are discussing it. It's not set yet. Maxwell: Well, except that having this corridor -- I know a number of people that have had offers made on their property, found out, backed out, been really low balled price, you know, penny on the dollar for property, because who is going to want to buy it? They don't know how long, as far as when that seven lane connector goes in, we have heard everything from two years to 12 years. In addition, on the McDermott part, we are also under restraints because of the sewer. And, again, five, six year time frame, variances, depending on whether you're talking to Planning and Zoning, whether you're talking to developers, you know, you can't get a straight answer. At least not a Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 31 of 67 consistent one. When you talk -- had the traffic study and the percentages of volume, the largest one was McMillan and Black Cat. The second was McMillan and Ten Mile. And until recently, basically, McDermott to Can-Ada north of Ustick, has been the red headed stepchild, we are not even sure we are part of Ada county. At least that's how it's been feeling. Well, if you stopped your traffic study at Black Cat, that's your highest one at Black Cat and McMillan and Ten Mile and McMillan, what do you think's going on at McDermott and McMillan? And we don't even have a stop sign there. That's an incredibly dangerous intersection. We just had three people killed there this spring, you know, and so that's not even looked at? And we have got -- you know, is that because we are in this corridor freeze? On our property and surrounding, got the yellow. Well, we have seen it marked medium density and medium high density and different R-3, four -- you know, okay, what are we? In your -- in your long range plan what -- you know, if don't sell, but our neighbors do, how many people are we going to have sitting around us? And as far as public notices, as a number of people have said, not happening. We didn't know anything about the open house in May. Found out by accident about the last meeting that we were told was a public meeting, came to it, and, no, it's a briefing -- it's open to the public, but you can't ask questions. Well, Planning and Zoning is the one that told me that it was a public meeting, not a briefing, you know. Okay. Right hand, left hand, let's talk, let the public know. Same story. Stay on the same page. And got a letter said all notices to the public will be in Valley Times. I must have asked 30 people what's Valley Times. Oh, it's Meridian's newspaper. I grew up in this valley. I have never heard of it. Found out -- Canning: Mr. Chair-- Zaremba: I do need to ask you to conclude. Maxwell: You know. This is -- we are not getting notified of meetings. Even checking on the internet for tonight's meeting, it was listed at 7: 00 o'clock last week. Today it was listed at 6: 00 o'clock. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Maybe just a clarification. I think the workshop was not a Public Hearing, but it was open to the public. Maxwell: But what I was told was that it was-- Borup: Public hearing or that it was open to the public? Maxwell: It was a public meeting. Borup: Right. It's open to the public. It's not a closed door meeting. And there is a difference between that and a Public Hearing. So, that's what you're here for tonight, for the Public Hearing, so that's good. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 32 of 67 Maxwell: But I would assume that if it was a briefing, it would have been phrased that way. So, misunderstanding words, but, you know, still, you finding out when and where and -- Borup: Well, it looks like it's been successful. We are more than capacity in here, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. There was somebody else. You will be next. Coleman: I apologize. I did sign up, but, apparently, I signed the wrong thing, so -- I don't know what I signed up for, but -- Commissioners, Thomas Coleman. I live at 715 Bruce Lane in Boise. I'm here on behalf of Coleman communities, we are a developer of approximately 320 acres on both sides of McMillan, north and south, between Black Cat and McDermott. I have some maps here that will detail that. All right. Our company has been in real estate development and home building for about 30 years now. We operate in southern and central California and Nevada and here in the Treasure Valley. As a developer of what we believe to be quality projects and quality communities, we have always seen ourselves as a partner in the cities in which we operate. This will be our first project in Meridian. We are extremely excited to be working here. We think this is a great city. We hope to be a part of it as it continues to grow and develop. However, as a developer we have to oppose what's currently being proposed in the comp plan amendment. We feel that the Highway 16 preservation corridor, as detailed in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, is an extreme over-extension on behalf of the city, especially in light of the fact that there is no specific time frame from the state. I understand there is a time frame for the environmental study, but, then, beyond that I think it gets a little bit gray. But I think that's been stated before. The over extension is going to cause substantial undue financial harm to property owners in the area. We believe it's unnecessary and unfair. That said, we are not opposed to planning for future transportation corridors, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the city in doing so. We are not trying to bend planning for the Highway 16 corridor, we welcome it, we think it's a good idea, we just think it's just a huge overreaching. We also feel that the city lacks the legal authority to impose the Highway 16 preservation corridor, but I really won't get into that. I was actually -- when I signed up, I was hoping that Gary Allen with Givens Pursley, who has been advising us in the matter, could follow me on that. Borup: We have received a letter from him, I believe. Coleman: Okay. Yeah. I think he'd also like to testify and that's fine. And I'm open for questions if you have any. Zaremba: Thank you. The lady in the back is next. Paul: My name is Peggy Paul. I live at 16429 McDermott Road, Nampa. We are on the Canyon county side of McDermott. But I did not get a chance to sign up, because there were way too many people and it's too crowded tonight. But I'm not -- we are on the Nampa side and we are not in your jurisdiction and Nampa says there is no Meridian Plalming & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 33 of 67 moratorium on Canyon county, but I, as a realtor, I do represent some farmers in the area that have land on the Ada county side and it's not fair to them, that they are getting, you know, pushed by the growth, the farmers, everybody else, the traffic on the road, they can't get the product out or get the price that they need to for the crops anymore. There are a lot of farmers out there that would love to sell. But since you have slapped this so-called moratorium on the half-mile corridor east of McDermott, these farmers are missing some very top dollar offers. There have been a few who have already that have turned down 100,000 dollars an acre. When you're looking at a farmer who has slaved hard for many years, 11 million dollars flying out the window isn't really the best thing. As long as this moratorium in on, the developers that have came to town with some money in their pocket, are backing away and it's not fair. It's not fair to these farmers and these landowners who have tried for years to hopefully make some good money and they should be given the opportunity make some good money right now. You should get along with ITD and figure this out. And, oh, by the way, I did speak with ITD two weeks ago and I asked them about the railroad overpass on McDermott. Are they going to put one in? They said, oh, sure, we are. It's going between Black Cat and Robinson Road off of Greenhurst, connecting Kuna Mora. Sorry, folks, that's south of the freeway. What about north of the freeway? They forgot. They overlooked it. So, I think is a little -- you know, a lot of matters that they need to represent and bring, you know, to the public's eye, because there is a lot more cost going here than just a little connection and a corridor. But 1 do think you guys should consider dropping this so-called moratorium. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Gary Allen. My address is 601 West Bannock in Boise, Idaho. As Thomas mentioned, I'm counsel for Norpack and the Coleman communities. We have submitted written testimony earlier today and I'd just like to hit some of the highlights. As Thomas mentioned, we have significant legal concerns with the creation of a State Highway 16 corridor or preservation area. As you have heard, there is a great deal of uncertainty about whether this project is -- when and how this project will occur. I just add that we have talked with some people that are very familiar with this and one of the things that hasn't been mentioned is the likelihood that you will compete for the dollars for this project with the widening of 1-84 from Gowen Road to Orchard. Those projects cost about the same thing. And one or the other of them is going to go in the short time frame, but not both. So, if that Gowen Road project gets preference, you may be waiting quite awhile for this project to happen. On the legal issues, the first point is that you cannot use this corridor to reduce the acquisition costs of this right of way, as the staff report suggests the purpose of it is. Courts all across the country have rejected attempts to reduce property values by freezing development. The value that will be paid for the right of way is based on its highest and best use, not based on an artificial Comprehensive Plan designation. And the value of this land has little or nothing to do with whether or not Highway 16 goes in. Now, as stated in our letter, you have got an additional issue that this isn't just a matter of saving or not saving ITD money, if you designate this property in this way and that results in a loss to property owners when it's acquired by ITD, the city has Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 34 of 67 potential takings liability to those property owners. I don't see why you would want to get yourself in that position. As you can see, there are a whole lot of people interested in this and I think you put yourself at some risk by taking that on. And I also see this as a very clear case of violating the legal principles that would lead to takings liability. This is an abrupt change from your current policy. All of these properties have been designated for urban density development since at least 2002 and some since 1993. So, it's created reliance and investment backed expectations for the property owners. And the city has been very clear about the purpose of this, to save ITD money. So, we think that that's an area that you ought to take a close look, consult closely with your counsel, before you decide that this is a good idea. The second thing is, as the lady before me said, this is -- looks an awful lot like a moratorium, without following Idaho law about limits on the length or a finding of emergency that's necessary to pass a moratorium. My final point is if the city is not willing to serve this property for some indeterminate period of time, why is this land in the area of impact at all? That's the purpose -- the purpose of an area of impact is to designate land that you're willing to serve. And you're apparently not here until that Highway 16 issue is resolved. So, in conclusion, we would ask you to table the preservation corridor portion of this amendment, so that all affected parties can sit down with the city, with ITD, and figure out a solution that works for everyone. We have heard some promising ideas tonight. We think that there needs to be a much more collaborative process. So, with that I would stand for any questions. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: You mentioned table -- table this Comprehensive Plan. Would you also recommend, then, tabling any annexations or rezones or anything else in the same area, too, then? Allen: Well, I think until something is worked out, so -- Borup: Until something is worked out, you know, either this would go in or there would - - the same result, not taking a look at any development in that area, would be the other option from what I understand you're saying. Allen: We are looking for the imposition of this corridor preservation overlay to be tabled until it can be worked out. Borup: Right. Allen: But that doesn't necessarily mean that-- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 35 of 67 Borup: So, in the meantime, you're saying still go ahead and do development in that area, then? Allen: I think that with good planning, that it is possible to do development in this area. For example, some of my clients' property is adjacent to Black Cat and could be served by the Black Cat trunk up there and that's been limited more than necessary and we think that, you know, there ought to be at least a significant amount of our property on that side that could be developed. You know, one of the problems is you're preserving this mile on either side of the -- or half mile on either side of the section line. Well, 90 percent of the land -- and maybe a hundred percent -- you know the road is going to follow a section line. It's not going to go in between, so -- Borup: I guess I agree with that. Allen: You're preserving -- Borup: So, what happens to that -- I know one of my concerns and reasons that I feel preservation is essential is -- as has been brought out earlier, is to avoid some of the fiascoes of Eagle Road. And this is the time to avoid that, not 20 years from now, 25 years from now, but -- and I think part of the -- in my mind and maybe staff had different things in mind, but when we are talking about reducing costs when you're buying highway right of way as bare land or you're going in there and tearing out hundreds of homes, there is a big difference. And if this is a limited access highway, you know, we are talking -- we are talking some other transportation issues in there -- Allen: Right. Borup: -- that needs to be designed within whatever development is going to happen. I mean that's all the things that we are taking into consideration. Allen: Well -- and I think you're right to take them into consideration, but I don't think you need to go nearly as far as you have. There are definitely parts of this land that can be -- can be developed. We haven't seen any -- the only reasoning that's articulated in the proposal that's before you today is fiscally responsible acquisition of right of way. Now, we are -- Borup: Well, when I read that I envisioned it saying that, again, bare land acquisition, rather than tearing down existing homes and -- Allen: There is at most going to have one place where this road crosses that half mile stretch and very likely that could occur north of your area of impact, depending upon how the environmental studies go. So, I don't see why -- you know, we'd have no problem with a few hundred feet. So, you know, a hundred feet or 200 feet, whatever you would really need for a right of way along the section line. Whatever access restrictions you think you need. That makes sense. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 36 of 67 Borup: Well, the city is not the one to determine that and, unfortunately, we have got frustrations dealing with the federal government on these studies. Allen: And you can figure out what the most you would need for a four lane highway. Borup: Thank you. Allen: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: Thanks. Commissioners, discussion? Newton-Huckabay: Are we done with public testimony? Zaremba: That was everybody, yes. Borup: Do we have some comments from the staff? Canning: You had told Mr. Ewing, I believe, that he could talk. He had raised his hand earlier. Zaremba: He was signed up and didn't speak. Come on up. J. Ewing: I changed my mind. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm John Ewing, I live at 2934 East Lake Hazel in Meridian, Idaho. There was a couple of comments that was made that I -- and I'm going to the piece of property that my wife talked about that is north of the Phyllis Canal, down Basco Lane, and the testimonies after that talked about Basco Lane not being a main connector and there was comments about 1 ,400 acres down in there. I think that it's important -- and I know that this has been said, but to say it again, property that is the Aldape property, is landlocked, does not have Black Cat hitting it. Has no roads from the east or west hitting it. The only access they have right now is Basco Lane. There was the issue of the easement, who owns the easement and everything. One of the things that concerned me when that was brought up -- I saw your attorney here smile and shake his head yes, you know, the land isn't owned by that. I think that the thing is -- and I can speak for the Aldape family, that maybe Aldape -- maybe Basco Lane is an important access down there as a main connector. It does surprise me -- and I -- on some of my other projects that I have been involved, staff has been pretty adamant that there will not be any land locked. We have had situations where we have actually had to give more than one access -- two, three accesses. That's what the city prefers. Or has in the past. So, I think that I can speak for the Aldape family on this, that the project that is south of the canal, they are in favor of. They think that they are doing a good job putting it together. They want to be good neighbors. I think, though, as far as the access goes, I think that they don't care if it's Basco Lane. I don't know that they are looking for this super highway going down there. Any two spots going down there would be fine with them, if that would be a better thing for the developer. So, with that being said, I want you to know that we are not talking Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 37 of67 about 1,400 acres that this road -- or that they are asking for. acres down there. So, that's alii have. They have less than 300 Zaremba: You're saying the landlocked portion would be 300 acres? J. Ewing: Yes. To the east they have access off of Duck Alley. Black Cat hits the neighbors to the west and, again, I think earlier my wife testified that, you know, they are not in favor of Black Cat coming down through their land. And it would not do the Aldapes any good if it did. It doesn't touch until -- well, Black Cat will cross this property clear back by the river, so there is, I don't know, I'm going to tell you 40 or 80 acres between it -- you know, maybe a half a mile. So, I think that, again, I believe that the Aldape piece of property is the one that's landlocked. And the project to the south is going to be the first one that comes in and that could give access to that property. So, I guess -- I understood on the testimony why maybe they don't want to straight shot down Basco Lane and -- or that would be all right with them, too. I mean we are not trying to say -- I think that it's just important that they get access. Borup: Access. J. Ewing: Thank you. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Let's see. We have gone through the list. Are you people that have signed up previously? You didn't speak? Borup: Something new? Zaremba: Please come forward, sir. State your name for the record, if you would. Sindon: My name is Wilfred Sindon and I live on 1515 West Ustick Road. And it is the southeast corner of Ustick Road and Linder. And I have lived there since 1969 and as most of us can attest to, my quality of life has gone down from a plus ten down to about a three and I understand there is going to be a traffic light put right on the corner and that will give me something to look at from my bedroom. And, anyway, my main purpose for being here is since the 1960s or 70s, the planning, if I understand the planning and zoning -- and this is the first meeting I have ever been to. But the planning and zoning is a long-term plan, 25 years -- 20, 25 years. Is that what you were talking about earlier? Zoning? Planning? Borup: Part of it. Sindon: And, then, annexation kind of cements it; is that -- am I correct there? Okay. Anyway, that little piece of property has been on the planning maps identified as commercial -- future commercial forever. So, when I had a real estate person come by the other day and say you have a nice piece of property, I'll give you X amount for it and I says, well, on the planning map it's identified as commercial and it always has been. And he says, no, that's not true, I got a new map. So, I'm just wondering -- I would just Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 38 of 67 like the Commissioners to reconsider. I think that corner is an extremely busy corner, there is going to be a traffic light, my quality of life will go to zero and I think the best use of it is commercial. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. All right. Comments from the staff? Canning: Yes, sir. I think I had some comments on the corridor area and, then, Brad has some on the access to the Aldape. I can't understate how unlikely it is to have sewer in that preservation area before the corridor actual -- the actual area for the highway alignment will probably be determined. So, I think the planning commission -- a lot of things that they could do and the public has asked you to come up with an alternative and I think we have one for you that may work for all concerned. Because I do want everybody in this room to understand there is not sewer available in that area. I can't understate that. Now that I have said it twice, I'll stop. But I think Mr. Forrey had a good idea in that if we kept the boundaries and took off the word preservation and had just one statement that talked about that the landowners would work together with ITD, the city, and Ada county to determine a proper placement for the Highway 16 corridor, I thought that was a really good suggestion and I think that that is something that the planning commission could consider. Because the availability of sewer will dictate most of the development in that area, you could take out the restrictive policies that have been proposed currently. So, it would just be an area identifying that this is an area where these landowners need to all work together with ITD to come up with some alignment for this future highway extension. But in conjunction with that, I would also recommend that as part of the area of city impact agreement with Ada county, when we take this amendment forward to them, that we ask them to adopt the standards in our zoning ordinance regarding development along state highways. And for the benefit of the public, what that would do is currently we list McDermott as the likely location for Highway 16 extension and we limit access to that facility. So, no new access points to that. So, those of you who are still along McDermott, I don't want to mislead you, you would still be impacted, but it would be through the implementation of the standards that we currently have for any development along state highways. So, it would be similar to what we do along Chinden, what we do along Meridian Road. And so with a combination of those three things, putting in a statement about working together, taking out the restrictive policies and working toward getting Ada county to adopt the standards for development along state highways, it seems to meet a lot of the concerns of the folks that have been expressed tonight. Zaremba: It sounds like that would also eliminate many of the unknowns. Canning: Yes. Yes. It takes out that timing issue. Our code for the development along state highways, it says the current McDermott alignment or an ITD determined alignment at some later date. So, it leaves that switch -- assume that ITD determines an exact alignment, then, those standards switch over to where ever that exact alignment is. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 39 of 67 Zaremba: Is that something that the city could facilitate or actually drive or would we be at the mercy of wait until ITD felt like talking about it, to gather all the neighbors together and -- Canning: Well, if it's in our Comprehensive Plan, you can certainly -- they have taken a much more pro-active approach to their road designs. The one they did on Eagle Road, they held numerous open houses, I think in three different communities, so that they could get everyone involved. I think Chinden they are doing a similar thing. And I would think once -- well, I would think they would anticipate they would do the same things along McDermott. I guess I agree with Gary Allen in that it's hard for me to imagine that ITD is going to put that road anywhere except on top of McDermott. But if for whatever reason they need to, that's all we were trying to identify was -- they said it could move a half mile either way and, actually, it was published in the paper one time, there being a half mile off of McDermott. And that's when the city got involved and said, geez, we'd really like it just to be on McDermott to provide that easement of two mile spaces for the access to 1-84. Thank you. And so that's what kind of peaked our interest, because we didn't want it a half mile off, separating all those folks. That would just be in that half mile between Highway 16 extension and the county line. We wanted those people to feel like they were part of our community and not the ugly redheaded stepchild. So, it's a suggestion that staff offers you that is something to contemplate -- that seems to address a lot of their concerns but still meets the city's concerns as well. Zaremba: Any questions on that subject? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chair. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: As far as the -- the-alignment is what I'm -- what would happen if say there was a 300 foot corridor? Is ITD going to -- I mean, then, we would be pretty much forcing them to use McDermott. That would allow for -- that would allow for the highway, it would allow for controlled access, allow for frontage roads, you know, whatever would need to be in there. If it was too difficult for them, would they take a whole alternate route or -- I mean I guess they can do anything they want. But I mean it definitely seems like a logical place and the Highway 16 is not anything knew. I mean the city was looking at that three years ago. At that time it was Ten Mile and they realized that, you know -- I mean Ten Mile is developed all the way down it now almost and that's why it's logical to move to McDermott. Again, with the freeway interchange makes a lot of sense, too. So, I spent a lot of time asking -- does anyone have any idea what ITD's attitude would be if it was a narrower corridor? Canning: They have generally -- I think the idea is that if we can't get it -- if there is too much development along that street, that's when they go to a half mile and that's why when it was first talked about, they talked about it at the half mile, because they felt there would be less -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 40 of67 Borup: Less development. Canning: Less development along there. But, really, there is such limited development currently along McDermott, that it probably wouldn't matter whether you went a half mile in or along the actual alignment as we have looked at it. So, it doesn't seem to -- like I said, I just can't imagine why it would go away from the McDermott alignment at this point. Regarding the 300 foot corridor, if you want to recommend as part pf the Comprehensive Plan that they adopt the standards from the zoning ordinance in the area of city impact, that will have more of an effect than the 300 foot, because a lot of properties will go beyond the 300 foot. And we are really only concerned about the area immediately adjacent to the existing right of way, the planned and in the future right of way. So, it will have about the same effect. Borup: Okay. Now, I don't know if 300 foot was the magic number. It is something that would definitely preserve enough to do at a control access highway, plus whatever other road needs on that would be. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm wondering that if we put on our recommendation to City Council and that -- and, it's, obvious, we are making recommendation that -- that we go to, you know, the collaborative, Anna's suggestion, is that putting a width if necessary, because that would be the result of a collaborative effort with the community on making that decision on the width of that corridor; is that correct? Would that be -- Canning: Yes. And-- Borup: The state highway standards would probably take care of that. Newton-Huckabay: And that's true, too. Canning: I'm sorry, Commissioner Huckabay, I don't understand exactly the question. I don't understand exactly the question. Do you not want to put any width to it? Is that what your question is? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm wondering if it's really necessary. I think if we are attaching a recommendation that, you know, a comprehensive collaborative effort with the community and city is going to take place, I don't know that -- that putting a width on is really going to -- I mean if it's going to be a state highway, that would be the only width I would think that would be -- Canning: That's a good point, too. Are you saying we would work with the people that it's appropriate to work with and we don't need to show it on the map? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page4lof67 Newton-Huckabay: Right. That would be my preference. And, you know, get -- I think that gives -- one, it's less convoluted language, which I think has come out tonight that to a lot of public it's very confusing what all this means. As a planning and zoning commissioner, they are confusing what all of this means, and so, hopefully, an effort like this would simplify that and make it easier for everyone to understand and clear what the intentions are. That's my -- that's my comment. Zaremba: At some point would you want to suggest wording that would replace what's in there that -- I mean I'm all in favor of helping ITD steer towards using McDermott. I agree with the others that the half mile on either side of it seems a little excessive and I'm not so sure we need to even set the space on it. I like the idea of the collaborative effort, but I guess my question is is there a specific wording that would get that in? Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Wayne -- Mr. Forrey's language wasn't bad. Is he still here? Zaremba: He did leave. Canning: He's gone. Did he leave written testimony? Zaremba: I did see him leave. Newton-Huckabay: We could take it off the record. Zaremba: Well, in fact, we aren't actually going to make this motion until two weeks from now, so perhaps staff could supply us with some wording by then. It doesn't have to be tonight. Borup: Well, I think it -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I guess there are a couple of other things I want to kind of just address as well. Number one, that this -- this corridor issue is big time, that's what everyone is here for. But we have the other issues as well and I realize we are not going to make any decisions, you know, for two weeks, but am I assuming that staff is going to review meeting minutes or is that we take care of ourselves on these other issues as well? Because I think I've counted there is six different items that we have actually somewhat addressed this evening and will we be getting an overview of that prior to the 17th or are we going to just review our meeting minutes and take each that way? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Commissioners, no, we will certainly take all of this input and all of this information off of the record and consolidate it and give you what we heard and a concise summary and include this wording that Mr. Forrey proposed and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 42 of 67 but, certainly, I mean if there is one you want to talk about tonight, maybe give us more direction on, please, do. But I mean in terms of this particular issue, what -- I think what staff is hearing is we are removing all of the current language that is in this plan and trying to replace it with a collaborative public-private partnership kind of language. Zaremba: Just my personal instinct is that we need to preserve the idea focusing ITD towards McDermott as their State Highway 16 connection. I'm agreeing with the public testimony that what was selected was maybe a little excessive and if we can reduce with the size or the impact of what we are asking to preserve, it would still focus ITD on it and I'm agreeing that if we can find the wording that Mr. Forrey used, that seemed to be pretty satisfactory. Is that kind of a consensus? Moe: Yes, it is. Borup: Yes. And I think that's something that could have a positive influence on land values. If you know there is going to be a direct access -- I mean it may be a long way down the road, but a direct access to a freeway interchange, is a lot -- I mean there is some positive benefits to that, as opposed to driving four or five miles through the traffic in Meridian trying to hit -- trying to hit the interchange. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I think one of the key things to bear in mind from now and as we move forward is we are not just talking about the thoroughfare of the future highway, but the parallel road system. We need a parallel road system on a state highway. Zaremba: Well, that's on a state highway -- Hawkins-Clark: It is, but in terms of width, you know, I mean that's not sufficient to accommodate the highway itself and, then, east and west of that getting a parallel with having feeder roads. I mean it's just not adequate. So, I mean that's another aspect of the width I think I just wanted to clarify. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: So, maybe there needs to be some concept plans and that needs to be part of -- part of working with future developments to make sure that's included, is that what you're saying also? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, one more question. Zaremba: Sure. Newton-Huckabay: Under the umbrella of this collaborative plan are we covering this -- does that include this mixed use interchange suggestion? I know that was a question of a group of homeowners. Because that would only be mixed use interchange if there is Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 43 of 67 an interchange, so would we put that under -- that would be part of the wider access to your -- Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Commissioner, you're saying not just to add -- the language be about the transportation corridor alone, but also the land use -- the land use policies that go with the -- Newton-Huckabay: I think it's kind of symbiotic. They are going to be -- you can't have one without the other. So, I think we should include that and that would -- that would hopefully at the end of the day be good planning. Zaremba: Okay. Do we want to -- I think a consensus is clear on that one. Do we want to discuss other issues? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Zaremba: Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel was -- had the piece of property that was the piece of property at Meridian and McMillan -- southeast corner Meridian and McMillan. Borup: Southwest. Newton-Huckabay: Was it southwest? Borup: That's what I wrote. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Zoned as low density in a sea of medium density. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, there was a reason for that, but the reason doesn't seem to exist anymore and I will briefly describe it. The idea concept that the current Comprehensive Plan was based on was neighborhood centers at the half-mile and, then, lessening densities as you get away from that. So, what happened was that the arterial intersections, those were the low-density corners and this was one of those low density corners, but when the Paramount neighborhood center shifted -- Paramount? Yeah. Paramount neighborhood center shifted, the logic should have shifted this to medium density as well. Borup: So, that makes sense, then. Zaremba: Works for me. Newton-Huckabay: So, we are going to recommend that designation change on that one? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 44 of67 Borup: That would be up to us. That's what you're asking. me, either medium density or commercial. No. That makes sense to Newton-Huckabay: And, then, the other piece -- Zaremba: Well -- and, actually, across the street from it is going to be commercial. Newton-Huckabay: Plus the middle school. Zaremba: Across McMillan. Well, across McMillan. And, then, caddy-corner is the school, so do we want that to be residential or do we want to continue the commercial? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think given the Thornton Oliver Keller, it we appear to have somewhat of a surplus of commercial acreages, if I read that properly. I would -- I would recommend -- Zaremba: That was the conclusion that they drew, but as with all statistics, there are ways to -- the choices you make in determining what pieces you're going to use to develop your statistics are difficult for me to agree with sometimes. If we look at the actual Comprehensive Plan change text on page seven, paragraph A, we mention that more than 8,000 new building lots have already received a preliminary plat in the last three years. If those are residential, then, that -- if you use 2.9 people per residence, we are talking about almost, what, 22, 23 thousand new residents and Thornton Oliver Keller used a total of 14,500 for 25 years from now. Even if we stopped taking applications, we would exceed that by the time the currently approved plat's built out. Am I interpreting that correctly? I think they are way underestimating -- Borup: I think they are talking about daytime population. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Daytime population. Borup: Which that was a new term to me, but that's people at work; is that correct? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: People that leave the area to go work somewhere else. Borup: No. No. That's people working within the area. So, that would be business and offices within that boundary that are working there during the daytime. Is that correct? That was a new term to me, but that's my interpretation. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. As well as I think, you know, any stay-at-home parents, you know, during the day. I mean it's the population that is estimated to be there during all - - you know, the day hours during the week. Borup: I didn't know that included them, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 45 of 67 Zaremba: Well, all I'm saying it seemed to me like their population estimate was lower than what I think we have alr~ady approved and a greater population would support more commercial. Hawkins-Clark: Just to clarify, Chairman, I think the current number is more like about 84 or 85 hundred dwelling units, not 14,000. In terms of approved preliminary plats. Zaremba: Yeah. No. I was using the 8,000 dwelling units, but they were using the 1,400 population. Hawkins-Clark: It was households. Zaremba: I'm sorry. I got that -- okay. But, still, that's only adding 6,000 -- Hawkins-Clark: It is probably low. Zaremba: -- in the next 25 years. We will probably do that this month. I guess what worries me is that along with the transportation estimates being low, that the commercial need is low and my feeling is -- as you mentioned yourself, Brad, that we have to look at more shoppers than just the Meridian shoppers, since we are in the center of this valley, we should be able to have all the people that are passing through stop and shop here. You know, if you're coming through anyhow, leave some money. Just a personal opinion. Newton-Huckabay: My opinion is that should be zoned residential, so why don't we -- that particular piece of property. Zaremba: You're talking about the one Mr. Nickel mentioned? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Borup: Well, there may be a time in the future time where that's appropriate. I mean I still think the individuals that have the most at stake are the ones that maybe need to have some input. I mean I'm for the marketplace determining how much -- how much commercial and office property we need. I think we need to make sure that's available, that they can do it, but, you know, if we reach a point where there is too much, then, that may need to be zoned down to residential, if that's what it needs. I mean that's always a problem we face, too. It's hard to -- I mean there is no way of knowing exactly what, but -- and the marketplace -- no matter what we do, the marketplace is going to determine it anyway. Zaremba: I guess I only ask the question, because it isn't all residential across the street from them, but I'm happy either way. They asked for residential, so -- just a greater density. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 46 of 67 Newton-Huckabay: And there was the other property on Chinden. I didn't really think that -- I didn't really follow that that was -- couldn't they just apply for a step up on that? The neighborhood commercial. Hawkins-Clark: No. Actually, the step up policy applies to the R -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Hawkins-Clark: -- the R designations. Borup: Their layout seemed logical to me. Staff, any concern with what they were proposing? Hawkins-Clark: No. Borup: It didn't have any access from Chinden or from the other -- the access was all internal. More of a buffer, so -- so what does that leave, just the Kartchner property? Newton-Huckabay: The Basco Lane. Moe: Well -- and also the property off of Ten Mile Road on the change for the wastewater treatment area and going to commercial -- or I mean to residential. Canning: Chairman Zaremba? Zaremba: I sympathize, but the City Council has been pretty firm that there shouldn't be any new residential and their issue is -- as well as they try and operate the sewage treatment plant and it's going to get bigger and bigger, there are days when smells escape and the result of that thinking is they said no new residential. We have discussed that with them several times and the answer has always been no new residential. It hasn't seemed to be open to discussion. Commissioner Rohm, you appear to be mulling that one over. Rohm: Not just that one, I -- Mr. Chairman, what I think that we have got here is there has been so many items of discussion brought up tonight, that I think that staff will be able to encapsulate those and to a more concise order for us to consider at the next time we hear this and be able to kind of digest the testimony we have heard tonight and I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay brought up some things that we have heard testimony from and all of those things need to be addressed. But staff is probably best suited to categorize those, so that we don't miss something when we hear this -- or when we discuss this in two weeks from now. Newton-Huckabay: I didn't think we were discussing it in two weeks, I thought we were just making our recommendation that we decided on tonight. Rohm: I don't think -- well, I'm not ready to decide on anything tonight. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 47 of67 Borup: I don't think we -- I don't know we necessarily need to vote tonight, but I think out of respect for the audience, that it's probably appropriate to let them know the direction we are going. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: And in that line, I don't disagree with you, there are a couple I would still discuss. I think the idea is to let the audience know we have listened to them and how we would want to incorporate their testimony and the other is to be able to give some firm direction to staff to what we need to see two weeks from now. Borup: Well, I think the hot issue was McDermott Road and if we are having, so -- and maybe that's probably why a lot of them left, I think they could see that the Commission felt maybe that the mile wide corridor was not necessary and we were looking at adopting the state highway standards and working at a collaborative effort among all agencies and homeowners -- landowners. Is that the consensus of the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. At least -- Rohm: No. I think so. Borup: I mean I think that's -- we owe that to those that had come to know that that's -- at least on that one issue that that's the direction. Zaremba: I'd like to have a little discussion on how far north to put the area of impact. I think as we discussed at our workshop, we don't need a full engineering decision about how well it can be served, but if public works can give us the nickel -- you know, give us a ten minute study of it -- Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I would be strongly in favor of asking for the impact area to go all the way to the river. Borup: Well, anything can be done. It's how much money do you want to spend. Zaremba: Well -- and the actual answer doesn't have to be made until we make the application to the county. So, there is time to think about it. Borup: You're saying just a consensus on whether we would be in favor of that eventually you mean, rather than moving the boundary at the same time? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 48 of 67 Zaremba: What I'm looking for is a consensus of whether we want to move the boundary now. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And the mechanics of how we would accomplish that. Or do we want to suggest to the people north of the canal that they reapply six months from now? Newton-Huckabay: I thought Brad made it perfectly clear that they didn't think that could be done. Rohm: It would put the whole change to the Comprehensive Plan on hold for an additional six months while that study is conducted, so that they can make appropriate application to Ada county. Zaremba: What I took away was that the Ada county application couldn't be made until that was done. Maybe I missed something. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Commissioners, I think the -- well, two things. One, while the Ewings and representative of the Aldapes have had a lot of discussions with us and we do support them, I think what we have tried to make clear all along that we don't believe that just -- just that 300 acres is appropriate to extend the area of impact around that. I mean we really are -- that's where the 1,400 acre figure came from, because it's everything west of Linder to the Boise River, so that whole area. But we haven't looked at land use designations either and, you know, to just add it to the area of city impact boundary is one thing, but, then, to actually say, well, where does the low density go, you know, generally speaking I think we can safely assume that being the majority of that land is flood plane, clearly low density residential is probably likely. So, I don't know that it would be too difficult. But, yeah, I think our point was just -- it will put a delay and if your recommendation is to do that and we take that to the City Council, you know, that's fine. I think with the sewer analysis and the land use and putting land use designations on that property and getting more research on this Basco Lane issue, those three will, you know, take some time. That's my main point. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Well -- sorry. Let me ask a question the other way. Should we not go north of Chinden until the Basco Lane issue is resolved? Hawkins-Clark: I mean so much analysis has already been done there. You know, we have received communication from Eagle city council that says that they would support that area being in Meridian. More conversation needs to happen between Meridian and Eagle since the Committee of Nine decision was made, but I guess there is just -- you're right, I mean as to how many access points do you need to get over the rim to serve whatever population is going to be down there is key, but I think I heard tonight that they were willing to work with them to provide a local street connection. Their main concern Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 49 of 67 was to have a major collector dividing their project. So, it seems like whether or not there can be access as a local street isn't an issue. It's just the type of street and number of them. Zaremba: Well, I sense our consensus is not to do anything that would hold up the current issues. Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think in our last meeting that's exactly where we got to as well, is we were somewhat instructed that if we wanted to do something with that, then, it would hold up the rest of this process and we also didn't want to see that either. My biggest concern on this whole thing is, number one, we did have a consensus at that last meeting that we were all -- we are in favor of going to the river with this property and I'm concerned on how this is all working timelines. Realize we have got -- we have to research some of the things, but in the interim where we have Eagle and Star fighting on properties and whatnot, where does it sit with us in regards to making sure ACHD is well aware that we are looking to want to go to area of impact to the river on the north as well and is there something that can be done now to make them aware of that or do we have to wait until we are fully ready to go and put an application together for that? My biggest concern is that I want it somewhat known now that we want that done. Zaremba: But the decision will be made before we have voiced our opinion. I agree with that concern. The question was is there a way we can notify the county that we are looking at that area, too? Hawkins-Clark: You bet. We can -- maybe part of your recommendation could be to have staff work with City Council, even, to write a letter to the board of county commissioners to state that. Moe: Well, does that have to be a recommendation in two weeks or, hey, can I say can you, please, start working on that letter and let us look at that in two weeks? Is that agreeable to the Commission? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: What we would do is to identify the public hearing date at Ada County Board of County Commissioners for adoption of Eagle's area of impact, because that's really a critical piece there and have that letter from Meridian be a part of the public record at Ada county. Zaremba: Yes. Rohm: Personally, I think that it would carry more weight if it was included in this application myself and if that area was included in this application and if this application has to be delayed for enough time to dot the l's and cross the T's, then, it would carry a lot more weight than just submitting a letter that said we'd like to also encumber that north of the canal, but we are not ready to make application. I don't think that that Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 50 of 67 carries as much weight as actually having it part of the application itself. position. That's my Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't want to belabor the point, but I think it needs to be reiterated that the way that these four items that you will be making recommendations on on the 17th, they were intended to go together. If this isn't ready on the 17th, it doesn't go for another six months. So, everything that you're considering tonight gets unnecessarily delayed if you tack on this additional request. It hasn't been properly noticed, the studies haven't been done, and, like I say, the intent is to make a package recommendation on the 17th. So, you certainly are able to make that motion if you want to, but the way they have been packaged, it means that this misses the train, really. This entire matter before your hearing -- I think that would be the practical effect of that. Rohm: You're saying that if, in fact, we make recommendations to change the proposed area of impact, that the whole package has to be withdrawn for six months? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, not necessarily withdrawn, but it doesn't -- we are only allowed to make map changes every six months and the desire is to have this package go through to Council on the 17th, all of your recommendations together. I think it would be unfair to the other matters to delay them for this one particular item. So, therefore, the practical result would be if the other three would go forward to the Council and this one would lag behind and the next opportunity to make that recommendation, according to the statute, is after six months. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: There is some more information I just realized I think I'd like to have. We know what the Aldape property -- we know what their wishes are, but apparently there is another close to 1,100 acres. I would like to know the feelings of those property owners. If we are going to include them in this, I think that might be somewhat pertinent. If we could get that in writing, I think that would make -- be some nice information and, then, if we could have that at our next meeting. Zaremba: And anecdotal comments also from a workshop with the other property owners would be -- Borup: And I think it makes sense, but we haven't got the written -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 51 of67 Zaremba: Yeah. Well -- and you're saying that's another reason to get all those ducks in a row and consider that piece in six months from now. Borup: I think we are in agreement on everything and this is something, again, is going to be long term just getting the sewer there alone, but -- but that would -- I think that would just be one more piece that would help it. And I think -- I don't know. It should be some pertinent information for the county, too, if they see that all the property owners want to go to Meridian. That should have some influence on them. Maybe it won't, but it should. Canning: Chairman Zaremba? Zaremba: Director Canning. Canning: Part of the reason that staff has counseled you toward not adding it at this point is that it's likely going to be contested by Eagle and the question is do you want to have the whole north Meridian area plan contested, held up until that issue is resolved? Or would you rather we move forward with that as a separate application? Because it's not just holding up this proceedings, it's holding up the eventual adoption of the area of city impact agreement as well. Borup: I guess if there was any question, I think it makes sense that it's a separate application. Rohm: I guess my question would be of staff, then, is if the city of Eagle makes an application for that area to be included in their area of impact, is there going to be -- is there a process for the City of Meridian to object to that based upon what we are hearing tonight, that the Commission wants to see that within the City of Meridian? Canning: They already have and it's been approved. That's a big part of the issue, is that this -- that area has been approved by the Committee of Nine that that be part of Eagle's area of city impact. That's why staff has always cautioned against including this with the north Meridian, because it's never been agreed -- we didn't comment on the time that they made the application. Borup: So, the Committee of Nine says go to the rim or to the Phyllis Canal? Canning: The Committee of Nine says go to Chinden, but the city of Eagle has said that they are in agreement with the areas that we want to put in. So, we are not anticipating any legal battle there, but there may be, but -- Borup: The Committee of Nine was made up of people from Eagle, Star and Ada county? Canning: The Committee of Nine -- yes, sir. Those three entities. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 52 of 67 Borup: Well, no wonder that's what they want. Zaremba: Well, the consensus is that for the 17th, two weeks from now, we want to see the boundary at the Phyllis Canal -- Borup: That's my feeling. Zaremba: But some side letter to the county saying this is coming down the pipeline, but Eagle needs to know we are working on going to the river. Borup: Yeah. But that would be not part of the applications. It would be a separate communication. Zaremba: And that would have to come up six months from now. Does that make sense? Newton-Huckabay: I would be in favor of that. I would like a final comment on this, if I could, and I think that -- and I may be over -- what's the word I'm looking for? I think that the opportunity for Meridian here to move forward and -- on this -- the highway corridor within the plan that they have put forth to get the community involved and really take the lead in where this highway -- and where the city would like this highway to go and, you know, with the least impact on the property owners, I'd like to see that move forward as quickly as possible, so that rather than having a situation where, you know, you have all these people making decisions in a vacuum, you have got the city going to the transportation department saying this is what we want to see, this is what our community wants to see, and, you know, what do you guys think? And I think this is kind of laying the foundation to have -- to see that type of opportunity take place and I think that's -- in my experience with the city is -- appears to be a rather unique situation and I don't want to hold up that for all of these unknowns. I agree that we need to resolve this issue to the river, but I don't think -- we have been messing around with this Comprehensive Plan amendment for quite awhile. I know that people have been -- you know, they have had meetings cancelled and rescheduled and et cetera and et cetera and I think that we need to be very clear to people where we are going with this and move this forward and make our recommendations to City Council and, then, deal with the -- with the area north of the rim after -- when it comes through again. I don't think we can hold it up with all the unknowns on there at this point. And that's my -- so I would be in favor of making a recommendation to City Council on the 17th. Zaremba: Okay. Our next official act would be to continue this until the 17th, but does staff have anything they want to discuss before we do that or have we talked everything out? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I didn't hear any discussion or recommendations to staff on the mixed use wastewater treatment area, that -- there was that one five acre parcel just south of the one low density residential, or did I miss that? Meridian Plaru1Îng & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 53 of 67 Borup: We talked about it, but we didn't come to a conclusion. Moe: Basically, the Chairman did point out that City Council has been pretty much in favor to leave it as it is at the present time without any change to go ahead and do any residential. Quite frankly, I would rather just see it stay as is as well. Zaremba: I think the City Council has kicked against changing that often enough that I'm not sure that's a winner. Hawkins-Clark: And I think the only other comment that I wrote down that was made was on the north side of Chinden on Black Cat, I think the gentleman had suggested that -- well, there was two or three folks that suggested Black Cat extending to the north and this gentleman was asking for both sides of Black Cat there to go to commercial, so I just -- Zaremba: I personally have no problem with that. I see that as very reasonable. Any other -- Newton-Huckabay: That was north of Chinden? Hawkins-Clark: North. Zaremba: The property on Chinden, both sides of Black Cat. Again, this is going to be a major east-west between Canyon county and Ada county and I think the more commercial -- I mean they will have to do their own marketing study to see of that's justified, but the more commercial we can allow there, the more benefit that is to the city. Borup: And that's Mr. Eggers -- Mr. Eggers' property? Is that the one? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, sir. Drew Eggers. Yes. Borup: And I agree with the Chairman, with the stipulation that it has to meet all the other setback standards, the state highway standards, you know -- you know, maybe some frontage roads -- there is a lot of things that -- you know, if his property is big enough to do that, then, it makes sense, you know, and there may be some -- some restrictions, but -- Zaremba: And I don't -- I'm not sure the size and shape of his property, but we are not talking about all the way from Chinden to the Phyllis Canal, we are just talking about some corridor along Chinden and, then, behind that, between there and the Phyllis Canal would be residential again? Hawkins-Clark: I certainly would recommend that. I don't know if that was his point, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 54 of 67 Zaremba: Yeah. No, I'm not thinking commercial all the way from Chinden to the Phyllis Canal, but anything fronting Chinden -- I support commercial on anything fronting Chinden. Borup: Okay. Someone from the audience said that was Mr. Eggers' intention, just the property fronting Chinden, apparently. Zaremba: So, we would have a consensus on that I think as well. Moe: Just so I can get -- just so I'm understanding, we are -- in regard to the property to the north, we are recommending that staff does at least draft a letter to go to ACHD; is that correct? Borup: No. To Ada county -- Moe: I'm sorry. Ada county. Excuse me. Zaremba: Ada County Development Services, I think it is, that decides the area of impact boundaries. Just to signal them that we are looking at that area. Moe: Yes. Zaremba: And by request. Moe: Well, I think it's very important that we do -- I'm in agreement that I want to see this stuff go forward, but, at the same point, without us making intentions now, I'm very concerned that basically the city of Eagle or whoever is just going to figure, well, they didn't argue the point, they just wanted to go to the Phyllis Canal and, gee, now they are wanting to do it now. I just want to make sure that everyone is on notice that we are, indeed, wanting to go to the river. Zaremba: With supportable logic. The zip code goes there, the fire district goes there, you know -- Borup: School district. Moe: Yes. Exactly. It is part of Meridian as far as I'm concerned. Zaremba: People access their property heading towards Chinden. Other issues? Hawkins-Clark: The last one that I had, Chairman, was the last -- the last -- I think it was the last gentlemen to speak at the Ustick-Linder intersection. Did you talk about that? Newton-Huckabay: Oh, no. I'm sorry. That was zoned residential and he thought it should be commercial. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 55 of 67 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. That a signal being in his living room or -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. And I fully agree with him that it should be commercial. Borup: But our 2002 comp plan calls -- shows medium density there, I believe. So, is he saying the '93 comp plan shows residential there? Hawkins-Clark: I believe that was his point, yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Tell me again. Ustick and Linder, is that what you said? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Well, that's going to be a major crossroads. I don't have any problem with commercial there either. Borup: I don't know if we know exactly which property was his. He never really -- Newton-Huckabay: He's the one right on the corner that backs up to the canal. Zaremba: Are you sure he's on the corner? Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: He said it was on the corner. Zaremba: I'm pretty sure he said corner. Hawkins-Clark: Was that -- I'm sorry, was that the southwest? Newton-Huckabay: Southeast. Rohm: Southeast. Hawkins-Clark: Southeast. I don't know if legal can maybe help us with that. I mean the noticing for this application is generally -- I mean it's all stated north of Ustick. Newton-Huckabay: Good point. Zaremba: I'm sure we weren't discussing south of Ustick, were we? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 56 of 67 Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think you have answered your question. It's not under consideration -- for the same reasons that we didn't want to go any further north of what you're considering, you probably don't want to go -- Newton-Huckabay: Further south. Yeah. Baird: Mr. Chair, you might want to direct staff to follow up with him and make sure we understand exactly where his property is and it sounds like with that direction like it is, within the plan that's before you, you had direction to go to commercial, but it sounds like it's not. Zaremba: Or suggesting that he ask for-- Baird: And, Mr. Chair, while I have the-- Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: -- floor, when you are done with your deliberations, I'd suggest that you actually close the Public Hearing to give public notice that when the matter comes back before you there will be no further testimony. You have heard the testimony, you have deliberated, you have given staff direction, so the matter I would suggest be tabled to the 17th for your motion. Zaremba: Close it first and, then, table it? Baird: Correct. Zaremba: That makes sense. Baird: Close the Public Hearing portion, yeah. And you can certainly continue the matter and the language that you use is not as important as the fact that the public had notice that when it does come back you wouldn't be expecting to take any further testimony. Zaremba: Works for me. Are we ready to do that, staff? Hawkins-Clark: I believe so, Chairman. I think the only -- there was several comments tonight about public notice and not getting notice and -- Borup: I have that in my notes. Hawkins-Clark: If we could just clarify that this is something that planners often -- I mean these are not the best situations to do planning in, let's all admit that. You know, much more collaborative. That's why we tried to have the open house and get as many people as we could. But as far as what we are required to do, we are actually not required to send anyone to their home a notice of a Comprehensive Plan amendment Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 57 of 67 when it affects this large of an area. The legislature and the state statue -- I mean it has made it pretty clear, if you're over, you know, X number -- I think it's 200 property owners that are affected, you know, they recommend -- it gets a little bit cumbersome to have to track all of these addresses and all the current property owners and things like that. So, what we had attempted to do is to work with as many people who have -- if they have expressed interest to our department, we have put them on the list. And we have tried to make a website, we try to use the Valley Times, because that is Meridian's paper and the -- Zaremba: The actual legal requirements are that it be published -- Hawkins-Clark: -- is that it be published in the paper. Correct. And through other public service announcements, I believe is what it is. So, I just -- you know, we are doing our best, we want to include people on the list, but as far as sort of intentionally trying to leave people out, I mean that's certainly not the goal. But we feel that we have gone beyond what the law actually requires, it's just that it's such a large area it is -- it is a challenge to get the -- Borup: And I think we understood that -- at least I did and the Commission and, of course, there was a lot of people here didn't realize that, but I still think the system worked, I mean just by the turnout. And that's really one of the big intentions, hopefully, when something comes up, neighbors are going to talk to their neighbors and, you know, that's one of the methods that's intended. Zaremba: Well -- and I think we had the opportunity to hear -- I'm assuming every point of view -- I'm not sure of any opinion anybody could have had that we didn't hear. We at least had every idea represented, I'm pretty sure. And we have considered them. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on CPA 05-004, request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend the text and future land use map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the north Meridian area and to expand the area of city impact boundary. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: The chair would entertain a motion to table a recommendation until the meeting of the 17th. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 58 of 67 Rohm: So moved. Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you all very much for your patience and your input and we have heard and tried to consider and it has had an impact. We traditionally take a break about 9: 00 o'clock, which we have considerably past and we will now take about a 15 minute break and, then, come back and deal with Item 4. Thank you all very much. (Recess.) Item 4: Public Hearing: CPA 05~003 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to add design guidelines for the Urban Renewal District: Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene and let the record show that all Commissioners are here again. And I will open the Public Hearing for CPA 05-003, request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan, add design guidelines for the Urban Renewal District and we will begin with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I decided to come and address you from the pulpit, so I could see you front and center. It's good to be before you tonight. This is -- Canning: Podium, Steve, not pulpit. Moe: Did he state his name? Siddoway: My name is Steve Siddoway, with Planning and Zoning for Meridian. Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: We are digressing. Let's move on. Siddoway: Okay. Some quick background. First of all, why -- why are we proposing the design guidelines at this time. We noticed several years ago that as we were trying to redevelop downtown that we had a disincentive built into the process by requiring a CUP for pretty much all uses in the downtown area. For example, if I wanted to build a Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 59 of 67 retail project and I came downtown and it was zoned Old Town, it was automatically a conditional use. If I found vacant commercial land out on the fringe, I could be a permitted use and just go through a one week certificate of zoning compliance, instead of a four month conditional use process. So, there was an inherent disincentive that we wanted to try and get rid of and level the playing field, so that people were at least as equally likely to come downtown as somewhere out on the fringe. But at the same time there was this acknowledgment that we did not want, quote, anything goes architecture. There were some buildings that went up about that same time and we kept saying, you know, we wouldn't want that downtown, we don't want just blank facade buildings that are, you know, CMU block or something like that downtown. So, at the same time that we get rid of the conditional use process, we need to make sure that we have some standards in place for the design that we do want in downtown. We wanted that design to respect our history. We do have quite a bit of history downtown. You can see the historic photo on the right and, then, the current photo of that same area along Idaho Street. There was also discussion that, you know, do we enact a design review committee? Boise has one. Other communities in the area have one. But we decided, no, we don't want to go that route. Either way we don't want to add another layer of government. We are looking to streamline the process. So, the intent of the process is to establish guidelines that are, then, reviewed and enacted at staff level. We now have the new Unified Development Code that has answers to a lot of the questions or -- and brought clarity to one of the issues surrounding the guidelines that we were waiting now that the new UDC has gone through the hearing process and was just recently adopted. We need to adopt these guidelines on its heels and the new UDC does refer to these guidelines in them and as requirements for downtown development. Next. Okay. The process that these were developed under -- it's been about a three-year process, not active that entire time. There was a major design workshop that you ought to know about in February of -- I believe of '03. There was a large number of people that were invited to that at the police department. We had a great turnout. We had a lot of feedback on a very rough draft set at that time. From that big workshop there was a subcommittee that was formed. They did meet regularly throughout that year and refined it. Those refinements were, then, sent out to the entire group for review. At that time the process was put on hold, because we were just at that time beginning the marketing strategy for downtown and we wanted to make sure that we were doing the right things to fit in with that vision that was being created and the UDC was also mentioned. Next. I won't read these all to you. We have several guiding principles that guided all of the design principles that we were working with. Next. Here are some of the highlights. Setbacks are dealt with by having build-to lines. Plazas are optional. It requires that parking be in the rear and on the street. Down at the bottom left you see the yes, that's building up to the street, sidewalk, and on-street parking. The off-street parking is behind the building. What we don't want is on the right where the building is setback and the parking is in the front. The building orientation -- we do want -- the primary entrance is on the street side. We don't want primary entrances on the alley side. Secondary entrances certainly can be, but we want everything to be accessed -- able to be accessed from the front. The service areas would be in the rear. We want mechanical equipment screened. You can see examples of these. On the left the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 60 of 67 primary entrance in the front. Believe it or not, that building is here in the Treasure Valley. Borup: I was going to say where did you find that? Siddoway: Well, I don't know where it is. Sharon McKibben took that picture and it's a great little -- this one is a picture from the street side. It's just a blank facade from that side and the primary entrance is on the rear. On the top photograph you can see the mechanical equipment on the roof of this structure. That's not what we want. We do want the mechanical equipment to be screened. Next. One of the things that we did quite a bit of work through the UDC and the committee that was working on that was to defiñe these building heights. For a long time we were talking about restricting downtown to one and two story buildings only, nothing taller than. What we allowed for -- and are going to require now is a minimum of two stories and that's straight out of the UDC and your maximum at the street side would be one, two, three stories and, then, you have the ability to step back ten feet and do a fourth story. As we went through the marketing strategy and the vision for downtown, we really became convinced that buildings up to four stories, especially with that step back on the fourth story, can really coexist quite nicely together and have -- and still maintain that pedestrian feel. So, we also did some ground truthing of projects to see what it would cost and found that you really do have to allow people to go more than two stories to get a project to pencil with the property values the way they are downtown. Next. Building form. We are putting parapets on the top of the buildings, are required. You can see these two buildings downtown -- side by side in downtown, one with a parapet, one without. Corner elements are encouraged. That's right downtown Meridian next door to us. Corner chamfers are allowed. What a chamfer is -- is the corner is cut off. This is a picture of a chamfered corner. It's not required to be chamfered, but we have allowed for it in the design guidelines. And, then, projecting balconies, bay windows, et cetera, are allowed on the upper stories. Zaremba: Do you actually overhang the sidewalk? Siddoway: Yes, they can. I believe the maximum allowable is six feet from the face of the building. Now, the facade treatment also got quite a bit of discussion, to have the store fronts set at the ground level, generally means a lot of glass. Now, this project here probably has 80 to 85 percent glass. What we have put into our minimum is a minimum of 50 percent glass at the street level and 20 percent minimum above that. We want frequent active doors. One thing you find is that buildings that are designed to accommodate a variety of different uses over time are the variety -- the buildings that really hold their value and are reused over time. And by allowing for a design that would have flexible frequent active doors, you maintain that. It does get into the types of building materials that are allowed, brick, stone, tile, stucco, all allowed. Concrete, masonry, specifically prohibited. The alley facades can be of other materials than these, but it asks that it be painted in a compatible way. So, here are some examples. This example here has active doors roughly every 25 feet. And you can see the glass on the second story, it's less than on the first level. But even -- this is probably 50 Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 61 of67 percent on the top and 85 percent on the bottom. What we are requiring as a minimum is just 50 percent on the bottom and 20 percent on the top. What we wouldn't want would be a blank store front with few windows, not much glass, infrequently active doors. This one got the ground plane right. It has, actually, quite a bit of glass at the ground plane, but ignored the upper stories. So, talking about building materials, brick, stone, the required parapet -- you can see all those elements here. Metal siding. No parapet. That's an example of what we don't want. Okay. Mid block pathways. Not required, but we have allowed for them in the code. They should be at the center of a block. If this is a block, the building can be built up to the edge. If they wish to put in a mid block pathway to get to the parking in the rear, they have the ability to do that, but there are requirements for lighting and visibility and things built in. The streetscape. The details of the streetscape are not in the design guidelines. They are being determined through a process that the MDC just sent out an RFP for to do the overall master plan. But what it says is until that master plan is adopted, you must match the streetscape improvements along Main that were done in '91 and '93. That's exactly how we dealt with Farmers and Merchants Bank, so the streetscape that you see Farmers and Merchants Bank had done is what is in place until the master plan defines exactly what that is. Parking gets a lot of discussion. Now, okay, this first bullet is how it's currently written. No off-street requirement specified. That matches the way the UDC is currently written. We have since determined that that is an error, that Council intended the requirement to have one space per 500 square feet throughout the city, including downtown. That gave MDC the future ability to do a fee in lieu of parking in downtown area. So, one change I would request from you, as you make the recommendation, that you change the no off-street parking requirement to be the one space per 500 feet that's required elsewhere in the city. Where off-street parking is provided, it needs to be in the rear. I guess you could also say it could be in the structure underneath, but we also want on-street parking throughout downtown. Now, structured parking is something that MDC is certainly contemplating for the future. Structured parking -- or when anyone builds structured parking, we ask that tenant space be on the ground level. This building here is a parking structure, but the bottom floors accommodate active retail and similar uses. So, you have to have tenant space on that ground level, a minimum of 30 feet deep. Can be deeper. The upper floors need to be screened to a level of 32 inches. These are open areas, but they are screened. What we don't want is just cars out and visible in the open. And blank ground floors that are really just deadening a block in the downtown area. If you have to walk passed a whole block of this, it's a lot less enticing to downtown customers than walking along -- that would be a good question. Zaremba: Sorry to interrupt. I absolutely agree with that, but I would wonder whether the police department has any surveillance issues or should we require that they have their own security camera system or is that an issue? Siddoway: It's probably outside the purview of the review design, but what we were trying to see is how the buildings address the street. Zaremba: Uh-huh. And I agree with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 62 of 67 Siddoway: I don't disagree with you that they need to think about security of these facilities and structures, it's just outside of what we were looking at. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Moe: On parking, just one more time, that was one off-street parking spot for every 500? Siddoway: Correct. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: It seems to -- this is just a comment and for my own edification. Are we just limiting the architectural type in that downtown core? We seem to be biased to get say more modern style architecture? Siddoway: This isn't limited to a certain time period, the way some do. It just says that you have to accommodate a certain amount of glass, you have to come up and address the street. It doesn't say what period the architecture has to be in. So, there are modern styles that could fit into this. Newton-Huckabay: Most of the examples you're showing I see the brick -- Siddoway: And that's because they -- Newton-Huckabay: I was thinking of that, because heritage is kind of the work that comes to mind, I guess. Siddoway: Active heritage? Newton-Huckabay: Just like the heritage style building. So, no, you know, it's just a word that -- Siddoway: Yeah. It will blend in well with the structures that we have. Newton-Huckabay: That we have now. Borup: But it looks like the projects that have been approved up to date have -- staff must have worked with them pretty closely, because they have been right along those lines. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 63 of 67 Siddoway: Yes. Borup: I'm thinking of -- I can't remember the project. Siddoway: Heritage Plaza. Farmers and Merchants. Borup: Well -- and, then, the new ones right across the street here. The old Shell station. Yeah. Siddoway: Yes. We did send all of -- well, the Generations Plaza one was previous, but with the Motions and the Buich project, we did give them both copies of the design guidelines up front and they tried to work with them as they did their designs. Borup: So, the added benefit to the developers now would be not needing to go through -- Siddoway: A conditional use. Borup: -- a conditional use. Siddoway: Yeah. I might add that -- Borup: -- a lot more efficiently than -- which really makes sense. Siddoway: -- they are now allowed by right through this process to go up to four stories. There is also a provision in there that along the rail on either side you can go taller than four stories through the conditional use process. If it's taller than four stories City Council and Planning and Zoning would like to see that. It becomes a very -- a quite significant project once it's taller than four stories, but up to four stories would be permitted outright at staff level through this. Zaremba: Well, I think some of the discussion on that was that St. Luke's has some taller buildings and if you go to their upper floors and look out, there is some very attractive -- the views from up there, we can see people wanting to build taller things. But the issue was it also will be visible from a great distance and we don't want it to stick out like a sore thumb. So, there would be a more thorough design review for anything taller than four stories. Siddoway: Correct. And with future rail or transit along the rail lines, we want to be friendly to the transit-oriented developments that would come downtown to be along the rail in the future. Borup: Has there been any response from the development community? Are we -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3, 2005 Page 64 of 67 Siddoway: I only -- I sent it to several. I had a positive discussion with Gary Benoitt. I had a congratulatory e-mail from Oliver Thornton Keller. I didn't receive any negative feedback. Borup: But no immediate projects in the works or anything that would be looking at -- Siddoway: Not commercial ones. There is the -- Zaremba: Well, the one on the old Shell station was in this line. Siddoway: Right. But not that's in the hopper to go through a staff level review at this point. Borup: Yeah. I think that's exciting. That's-- Newton-Huckabay: I think we should put a state highway through there. Siddoway: We used to have one. Newton-Huckabay: I know. Zaremba: Yeah. It used to be a state highway, wasn't it? Siddoway: Yeah. Highway 55. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Borup, there actually is one in the hopper. It's residential, though, and they are just coming for building permits. But it does highlight the point that you will likely see two more sets of design guidelines very quickly, as quickly as we can get them to you, because these really are structured for the downtown core and they function extremely well for that. We will struggle a little bit to implement them in the rest of Old Town, but we felt it imperative to get them in place, to get something in place for the rest of Old Town and we will work at adopting them for the areas outside the downtown core and get that to you -- actually, I think we have already kind of got half the work done partly through the UDC process improvement group, but we should have those to you as quickly as we can. Newton-Huckabay: I think it's cool. I look forward to seeing some new buildings downtown. Siddoway: I do, too. Borup: Me, too. I hope I'm still around when it happens. Zaremba: All right. Well, we do have a Public Hearing sign-up sheet. The two people who did sign up, Steve Sindon and Tye Sindon I do not see in the audience, so I will assume that they intended to be on Item 3, not Item 4, which we are hearing. That Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 65 of 67 leaves only wondering whether Mr. McKinnon cares to testify. He's shaking his head no. In that case, everybody who cares to testify has had the opportunity and, Commissioners, discussion? Borup: If we would have done this first we might have had more testimony. Zaremba: Yeah. Well, I have two things that are actually typos and I can show them to staff offline. They are not substantive. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 05-003. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I would say table it to -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, we have to make that 500-- Zaremba: Direct staff to make that change. Borup: Page 17. Zaremba: We are not going to actually make the recommendation tonight, we are going to table it to the 17th. Actually, let's do it and, then, we don't need to have the meeting on the 17th, because all the rest of them have to wait six months. Baird: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: This is not a map amendment, it's just a text amendment; correct? Are you in any hurry to move forward? Because you could certainly make the recommendation tonight. Your choice. Siddoway: This does not amend the map, so it could go forward tonight. It just depends on whether you think Council would want it lumped with the other comp plan amendments. ....... Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 66 of 67 Newton-Huckabay: You know, I wonder if they would rather have it -- that's going to be a busy night. Canning: Yes, indeed. Newton-Huckabay: Especially if they have all four. Zaremba: Well, the only reason I didn't ask that same question was that the description calls it a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and I was wondering what in the map changes. So, I guess-- Siddoway: Nothing changes on the map. Zaremba: Okay. In that case we certainly can do it tonight. Borup: That was the other typo you missed. Zaremba: Another typo. Yeah. Rohm: On page 17, add this -- Zaremba: I think it was -- Borup: Yeah. It was page 17, second paragraph. Is that correct or am I looking -- is it another spot to -- that was it. Siddoway: That is where it is. Page 17, second paragraph, it's titled number of spaces required. That's where the change would be made. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 05- 003, to include all staff comments for the hearing date October 3rd, 2005. Borup: Or a transmittal date of August 30th. Moe: Yeah. An August 30th transmittal date. Rohm: And make changes on page 17, second paragraph, of the staff transmittals and the change would be to direct staff to make it a requirement to have one parking space per 500 square feet. Zaremba: Of off-street parking spaces. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting October 3,2005 Page 67 of 67 Rohm: Off street parking. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you and good night. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED DAV~~~N I I DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK