2007 04-05
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
April 5. 2007
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 5, 2007, was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Tom O'Brien, David Moe, Steve Siddoway and
Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Anna Canning, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole,
Sonya Watters, Amanda Hess, Matt Ellsworth, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
RolI..Call Attendance:
Roll..call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We have quite a crowd here tonight.
Welcome. The first thing that we'd like to do is take the roll call of Commissioners.
Rohm: Okay. Before we start tonight's meeting, I'd like to introduce Tom O'Brien. He
is the newest member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and at this time I'd like
to turn the mike over to him for a moment just to introduce himself to the public.
O'Brien: Who would have thunk it. It's really a -- to me a privilege to serve the
community and this opportunity I feel is one that I take very seriously and hope that I
can satisfy the needs of the community. So, thank you very much.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Welcome, Tom. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and
there is a couple of things that I would like to move before we adopt that agenda and
they are Items 9 and 10 on the agenda, both related to the Lynn Thomas property. I'd
like to move them after the Consent Agenda. And, then, the second item would be
Items, 11, 12, and 13, all related to the Jabil property and they will be -- that will be
heard right after the Lynn Thomas property. And with that being said, could I get a
motion to accept the agenda as amended?
Mae: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the adopted agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 2 of 64
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of February 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of March 1, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to present the Consent Agenda, which includes two
items. The minutes from the February 15th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
and the minutes from the March 1 st Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any
changes or adjustments? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Before we open -- tonight's kind of a special night for the Planning and
Zoning Commission and all of the hearings that we have before us are Comprehensive
Plan Amendment adjustments and before we open any public hearings I'd like to turn
the mike over to Anna Canning, our Planning Director, and let her just kind of give you a
-- kind of a 5,000 foot view of what is going to take place tonight.
Canning: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission and, in particular,
members of the public. I wanted to take this opportunity to just explain a little bit about
comprehensive plans and the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In 1975
when the state enabled planning for the state of Idaho, they sent out some specific rules
and responsibilities, and one of those is with regard to the planning and zoning
commission. They said each community should have a comprehensive plan and it
should be brought forward by the planning and zoning commission. And in addition to
listing all the things that they needed to address in those comprehensive plans or
amendments, as the case is tonight, they said these are the things you need to do, but
you can only do it twice a year. So, you only get to make a recommendation on what
should be in the plan once every six months. And the idea, as you can imagine, is so
that you don't have continual shifting in the division for the city. The comprehensive
plan is -- represented the vision for the city and where they want to go and you want
that to be a fairly static kind of document and not subject to change all the time. So, it
may be a little confusing to all of you tonight in that we are specifically asking the
Commission not to make any decisions tonight. They will need to continue all the items
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 3 of 64
for at least a couple weeks, so that we can have the appropriate information to them, so
that they can make one recommendation to the City Council. So, they need to take
action on all the items listed on the agenda at one night and tonight will not be the night.
We know that at the earliest it will be April 19th. So, as these hearings go on you will
get, I'm sure, some feeling from the Commission as to how they stand on these, but
they won't take final action tonight. They may close the public hearing on some of them,
they may leave the public hearing open, so that you have further opportunity to
comment and we will try and make that clear to the best of our ability as we go through
the agenda, but the Planning Commission will not take any formal action on any of
these items tonight. And with that I'd answer any questions that the Commission may
have.
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CPA 07..001 Request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from
Industrial to Commercial for the property located at 600 E. Franklin Road
for Thomas Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Lynn Thomas - north
of E. Franklin Road and east of Meridian Road:
Item 10:
Public Hearing: RZ 07..002 Request for a Rezone of 0.628 of an acre
from I-L to C-G zone for the Lynn Thomas Property by Lynn Thomas -
north of E. Franklin Road and east of Meridian Road:
Rohm: Any questions of Anna before we move forward? Okay. Good. Thank you very
much. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CPA 07-001 and RZ 07-002,
both items related to the Lynn Thomas property and begin with our staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. The application before you is a
request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone for the property located at
600 East Franklin Road, shown on the overhead here. The subject property is generally
located on the north side of East Franklin Road midway between Meridian Road and
North Locust Grove -- or, excuse me, Locust Grove Road. To the north of the site is a
warehouse office building, zoned I-L. To the east are commercial multi-tenant buildings
zoned C-G. To the south is a cemetery zoned RUT in Ada County. And to the west is
Fire Station No.2 zoned L-O. An aerial view of the property. Currently vacant
undeveloped land. The applicant is requesting that the Comprehensive Plan future land
use map be amended to change the current industrial designation to a commercial
designation. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting a rezone from I-L to C-G, which
would comply with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a commercial
land use designation on the property. The applicant did not submit a development plan,
but did submit conceptual elevations for the future buildings on this site. Access to this
property will be provided from an existing access point to Franklin Road along the east
side of this property that this lot and three other lots within Meridian Business Park
share. No other accesses are proposed or approved with this application. Staff is
recommending approval of the requested Comp Plan Amendment and rezone
application per the staff report. And that's all staff has, unless the Commission has
questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 4 of 64
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Okay. Is there an applicant that would like to come forward and speak to this
project? Sonya, would -- not necessarily would the applicant need to be here for this to
move forward or --
Watters: Not necessarily.
Rohm: And I suspected that that might be the case. And there is no applicant here for
this project at this time? Okay. I guess at this time there is nobody that has signed up
to speak to this application, but if someone would like to come up and speak to the
Commission, now is that time. That is going very quick. I think that at this point
probably the best thing to do is to continue this item to the regularly scheduled meeting
of April 19th and we will open the next project. Could I get a motion to that effect,
please?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we close this Public Hearing on --
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, they all need to be specifically
continued to a date certain, so that you can make your group recommendation at that
point. So, when you make your motion, if you don't expect any further testimony, you
can specify that it's being continued to that date for the sole purpose of deliberating and
making a motion -- making a recommendation.
Newton-Huckabay: That's right. But we can't formally close the Public Hearing.
Baird: That's correct. Because the people -- anybody who has received notice and is
here tonight would need to have notice of that date certain that you want to put on the
record tonight and I see Anna reaching for the mike. She might have something to add.
The planning director Anna Canning.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, it would be helpful if there is
someone who is interested -- although you're not making an official decision, you can
certainly deliberate and indicate which way you think you're going to vote once you have
the opportunity to make that recommendation. So, if there is additional information you
want, please, let us know. If you're satisfied and you think you have everything you
need to make a decision of approval or denial, it would be helpful if you'd kind of
mention that in your continuation movement.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Before we move to continue this, maybe the best thing to do
is poll the Commission and ask for any comments that you might have relating to this
specific application. So, with that, Commissioner Mae, do you have comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 5 of 64
Mae: Mr. Chairman, I have read through the report and whatnot and I have no
problems with this application and I would be approving it.
Rohm: Commission Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I concur with Commissioner Moe.
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I have one question for staff, which is do you see any need for a
development agreement to tie the evaluations that we see to it or is staff comfortable
with it going through as just a rezone and a Camp Plan amendment?
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, the Council has expressed an
interest in having the concept plans or conceptual building elevations attached to a DA.
If the Planning Commission wanted to recommend that, then -- if they didn't feel it was
necessary, we can always have it -- it's not that--
Siddoway: That would be the only additional recommendation.
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: I have nothing further to add. It seems like it's pretty well covered.
Rohm: Okay. Good. And I concur with the balance of the Commission that this seems
like an appropriate use for that land and -- and possibly having elevations tied to a
development agreement might be in good order. So, that's probably the way this --
direction of this Commission at such time that we do take votes, so with that being said,
could I get a motion to continue this to -- we are going to hear all of these on the next
meeting on the 19th -- April 19th, 2007.
Mae: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue file number CPA 07-001 and RZ 07-002 to the
hearing date of April 19th, 2007.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CPA 07-001 and RZ 07-002 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11:
Public Hearing: CPA 07..004 Request for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use
designation from Industrial to Commercial for Jabil East Comprehensive
Plan Amendment by the Joint School District No.2 - 1303 E. Central
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 6 of 64
Item 12:
Drive (Lot 1, Block 1, Jabil Subdivision):
Public Hearing: RZ 07-005 Request for a Rezone of 9.21 acres from I-L
to a C-G zone for Jabil East Property by the Joint School District No.2 -
1303 E. Central Drive (Lot 1, Block 1, Jabil Subdivision):
Rohm: Okay. This is good. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CPA 07-
004, RZ 07-005, and CPA 07-005. All projects related to the Jabil property and begin
with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We are going to start
out with the Jabil East Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The subject of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment application proposes to amend the future land use
map of the Comprehensive Plan to change the existing industrial designation to the
commercial designation for one 34 acre parcel. As you can see on the slide show, this
is the parcel. The property is located on the west side of Locust Grove at 1303 East
Central Drive and is currently referenced as Lot 1, Block 1, of the Jabil Subdivision. The
property lies within the City of Meridian limits and is zoned -- is also zoned light
industrial. The property has two previously approved access points to East Central
Drive, which is a commercial collector street and it runs along the north boundary of the
site. Concurrent with this CPA request the applicant has applied for rezoning of 9.21
acres to C-G, which is general retail and service commercial. The rezone is contingent
upon approval of the concurrent map amendment to commercial. The applicant
requests the CPA from the industrial commercial to allow for educational uses. The
property is proposed for a new high school, with associated classroom and office
spaces and may possibly house the university extension. Additionally, the Joint School
District service center will be sited here. Currently educational institutions are prohibited
uses within the I-L district. However, they are principally permitted within the C-G
district. In the past the subject parcel was identified as appropriate for industrial uses.
However, staff believes the increased commercial development within the immediate
area has deemed this site more appropriate for retail, service, and office uses. This will
also contribute to the growing needs of the City of Meridian for additional school
facilities and acceptable higher education. Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and rezone request. Staff believes that commercial -- that the commercial
land use map designation and zoning designation for the subject property would be in
the best interest of the city and, therefore, staff is recommending approval of the CPA
and rezone application.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like
to come forward, please?
Daniels: Good evening. Well, first I'd like to thank Amanda and Sonya, they have done
a great job and --
Rohm: Before you begin could you give your name and address for the record, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5. 2007
Page 7 of 64
Daniels: Ed Daniels. 2785 Bogus Basin Road, Boise, Idaho. Again, I'll continue my
thanks to Sonya and Amanda for helping us out with this process. I really don't have
anything to add. I think they have covered it pretty well, but I can certainly stand for any
questions that the Commission may have.
Rohm: I think the only question that I have is at this time that you -- of the request here,
you only ask for 9.21 acres to be rezoned. What is the intent of the balance of that
parcel?
Daniels: Well, the intent for the balance of the parcel was to have it rezoned and I
believe it's on -- it may be scheduled for a hearing coming up to get the entire parcel of
34 acres to be the same zone.
Rohm: And the only reason why I asked that is because I think the aggregate of that is
it seems best that it all has the same zoning and just for the benefit of the public at large
is good to know that the whole parcel will ultimately be the application for rezoning to
the C-G.
Daniels: Sure.
Rohm: That's alii have. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay.Thank you.
Daniels: Thank you.
Rohm: Again, we have no signatures on the sign-up sheet for additional testimony to
this application, but if, in fact, there is anyone that would like to speak, now is that time.
Good. Thank you. Like the last request, I think probably it would be best to poll the
Commission and get some feedback as to their individual thoughts and I think on this
one I'll start with Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I just have one question for staff. I do agree with the idea of this going to
commercial. I'm just trying to think in the future if this property ever went back to its
original use of high tech manufacturing, would that be allowed in this commercial land
use that's proposed or would it have to go back and be rezoned. And maybe I'll give
them some time to look that up and you can move on to someone else. But that would
be my only question.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add.
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Mae: I don't have anything really to add to the application, other than the fact I'm very
glad to see that that building is going to be utilized and I think the school district going in
there is great, real happy to see that happen.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5. 2007
Page 8 of 64
Rohm: I would concur with Commissioner Mae on that. Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Well, I -- the only question I would have -- I'm not seeing it on the map -- would
be other zoning for heavy industrial in that area at all. Is there going to be any kind of
conflict for even light industrial in and around that area -- is there going to be some kind
of a conflict of anything from traffic to noise to whatever.
Hess: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, this
effectively is the remaining industrial property in this area, so once this is rezoned to
C-G, only those principally permitted allowed uses will be allowed.
O'Brien: Okay. I wasn't as familiar with that area, so I just wanted to know where -- so,
thank you.
Hess: And Commission members, I do have the answer for Commissioner Siddoway.
It looks like light industry is conditionally allowed within the C-G district. So, they would
have to come in for a Conditional Use Permit if they wanted to go back to light
manufacturing.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Good. Any final comments before we move to continue this item?
Siddoway: I have none.
Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to continue Items 11, 12 and 13 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, just to clarify, were we going to get a
separate staff report on the west property? Was that included or did you want to do that
before we continued it? So, we will continue 11 and 12 at this time, then.
Mae: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue file numbers CPA 07-004 and RZ 07-005 to the
hearing date of April 19th, 2007.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items CPA 07-004 and RZ 07-005 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: CPA 07-005 Request for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use
Meridian Planning & zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 9 of 64
designation from Industrial to Commercial for Jabil West Comprehensive
Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department - 915 E.
Central Drive (Lot 2, Block 1, Jabil Subdivision):
Rohm: Okay. At this time could we get a staff report on CPA 07-005.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This subject
Comprehensive Plan Amendment application proposes to amend the future land use
map of the Comprehensive Plan to change the existing industrial designation to
commercial designation for 19 acres. The property is located on the south side of
Central Drive again at 915 East Central Drive and is currently referenced as Lot 2, Block
1, of the Jabil Subdivision and that is the site right here just to the west. The property
lies within Meridian city limits and is also zoned light industrial. There are no other
annexation rezone or plat applications associated with this request. This property has
frontage on East Central Drive as you can see. However, as no -- no development is
proposed at this time. So, therefore, upon rezoning and platting at a future date the
parcel will also have cross-access to Lot 1, Block 1, of the Jabil Subdivision, also
providing additional means of accessing this parcel. The site is bordered on two sides
by properties which are zoned C-G and that is to the north and to the west as you can
see. And the owner of the adjacent subdivision, as we just heard, is requesting a future
land use map amendment to commercial for this site as well. Therefore, this subject
site would potentially be considered an island of industrial within -- within an area that is
developing for commercial, retail, and office uses. Also, the highly visible location of
this property from Interstate 84 and East Central Drive, which is a commercial collector
roadway, with this -- along with this existing commercial zoning to the east and west
makes the property a good candidate for commercial uses, rather than industrial.
Approval of this subject CPA would allow the applicant to potentially obtain any of the
four commercial zoning designations and they include general retail service and
commercial district, which is C-G, which allows the broadest mix of retail, office, and
service uses, as well as C-N, C-C, and L-O. Therefore, staff supports the subject
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and we believe that a commercial land use
designation is more appropriate for the subject property and would be in the best
interest of the city. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward and at least lend support to the staff report or are you fine with -- oh, you're fine.
Okay. I'm sorry. From the audience Brad says they are fine with the staff report as
presented. Okay. Commissioner Mae, do you have some --
Mae: I have no other comments to make.
Siddoway: Should you ask if there is any --
Rohm: Well -- and there is nobody that has signed up for this, but, again, as with the
other projects that have been opened tonight, if there is somebody that would like to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 10 of 64
come forward and speak, now is that time. Okay. Good. Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add. I can see the importance of rezoning both of
these at the same time, so --
Rohm: Seems appropriate. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I agree.
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien? Okay. Good. End of comments.
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Mae: I move to continue file number CPA 07-005 to the hearing date of April 19th,
2007.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items CPA 07-005 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Good. Before we open up any of these additional public hearings
tonight, the thing that we want to get input on tonight from the public -- and we are very
interested in your comments -- is specifically the staff will present each one of these
projects as they see this amendment moving forward and what we would like is we
would like to have comments specific to the staff report, so that we can kind of keep
your comments and their presentation all on the same page. And so that's the way we
would like to work these. And, then, the second thing is there are a lot of people here
tonight and we want to give everybody an opportunity to speak and, typically, that the
way these hearings work is there is a little light meter up here that will come on and
each individual will be given three minutes to make their specific point and if, in fact, it
takes a little bit longer than the three minutes by all means we certainly want to hear
everything that you have to say, but we also want to give everybody that's in the
audience an opportunity to speak their part. So, we would appreciate it if you would do
your very best to keep your comments within that three minute time frame.
Item 4:
Public Hearing: CPA 07-002 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future
land uses designations to include the land east of McDermott Road south
to Lake Hazel Road and % mile east of Linder Road south to % mile south
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 11 of 64
of Columbia Road, east to Xi mile west of Cloverdale Road for South
Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of
Meridian Planning Department:
Item 5:
Public Hearing: CPA 07.009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Map and
include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area
by City of Meridian Planning Department:
Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to at this time open the Public Hearing on CPA
07-002 and CPA 07-009, both items related to the Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan
Amendment -- well, Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the South
Meridian Area Plan and begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment for the area south
of the interstate shown on the overhead, highlighted in gray. This amendment will
expand the area of city impact south and west to the boundaries shown and designate
future land uses on property that will eventually be within city limits. The subject area
consists of approximately 17.8 square miles or 11,392 acres. And currently a text
amendment is requested to add four new land use designations to the future land use
map. Very low density residential, medium high density residential, neutraceutical
overlay and mixed use employment. The proposed text changes will insure that
residential uses are included in neighborhood centers and will mandate more diverse
land uses, insure transit support of densities, and create an appropriate number of roof
tops to support commercial businesses and neighborhood centers. The text
amendment coincides with land use designations proposed in the staff response future
land use map and will apply throughout the city and area of city impact. The planning
process for the proposed map amendment began in April 2006 with a public meeting to
determine what community the residents in this area most closely identified with,
Meridian or Kuna. From this meeting the City Council established the study area
boundary shown on the overhead. A second public meeting was held in July 2006 to
further refine the vision of residents and stakeholders for the planning area. Public
responses from this meeting stressed down planning, responsible growth, rural
agricultural lifestyle preservation and adequate infrastructure provisions as the most
important elements for the area. Based on the input received from the first two
meetings, the project team developed three alternative land use maps to present to the
public. At a third meeting the public reviewed these maps and the majority of
participants stated a preference for the land use alternative that emphasized low density
residential development patterns. Parks and open space, smaller scale commercial
services, employment areas and adequate transportation infrastructure throughout the
study area were identified as a priority for many of the area residents. These elements
were incorporated into the land use map shown on the overhead. Subsequent to the
creation of this map the city received results a transportation study that ACHD is
currently preparing. Staff also revisited a draft market study that was prepared with and
for the south Meridian planning process. The market study indicates that the south
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 12 of 64
Meridian area will attract between 5,000 and 50,000 new residents between now and
the year 2030. However, the city notes that only a limited number of potential new
residents -- less than 25 percent -- will be able to afford homes built in conventional low
density areas of less than three units per acre. The study stresses the need to promote
greater diversity in housing with fewer large lot homes and more multi-family higher
density units. ACHD's transportation study indicates that based on the future land uses
proposed in the subject application, the road network in the study area will need
significant improvements that are not currently in any ACHD, Compass, or ITD plan.
The collective impacts of these improvements do not align with, number one, the vision
of the community conveyed by area residents or, number two, what staff feels is
desirable from a planning perspective. For example, almost 20 miles of seven lane
roadway. Even with these large capacity expansions portions of the transportation still
fail to function at a desirable level of service due to forecasted increases in population
and the traffic volumes. This intensity of development and resultant congestion is
counter to the recommendations and preferences of area residents. Based on the
results of these studies, staff prepared a revised future land use map entitled staff
response shown on the overhead. Matt Ellsworth will provide a detailed explanation of
this map.
Ellsworth: Thank you, Sonya. And from the outset, just for clarification, I will probably
jump back and forth between the two maps referencing one or the other, so for this
revised -- the revised version of the map I will refer to it as staff response and for the
original iteration I'll refer to that as the preferred alternative. So, diving into some of the
designations that are proposed up here. The very light green areas on the future land
use map that is on the overhead at the moment refer to very low density residential
areas. That's a new designation. And staff is considering adding -- well, we are still
toying around with some of the language on this designation, but broadly speaking it
proposes minimum three acre lots and the new addition that staff is considering with this
is in certain areas, specifically down along the southern edge of the study boundary,
allowing increased setbacks, rather than the extremely high acreage there -- or
relatively high acreage I should say for each residential lot. That's one that we hope to
revisit over the course of the next couple of weeks and we will have more to report on
that when we reconvene on April the 19th. The reason that staff is recommending the
inclusion of this very low density residential area is several fold. On the one hand, as
Sonya mentioned, the overall number of households in this area, based on the number
of -- or the land use designations, rather, and the preferred alternative, led to
considerable strains on the transportation system in this area. So, one of the goals
going into these recommended changes was to decrease the overall number of units
across the study area boundary. Another one of the goals was to align more closely
with the preferences that were conveyed by the publiC throughout the public
involvement process, specifically to preserve the rural character of the area as it is. We
felt that with this designation on these larger acre residential lots that would be a good
mechanism to do so and at the same time potentially set some land aside to allow the
opportunity for a cluster subdivision, long-term preservation of open space, potentially
long term preservation of agricultural land and so forth. Staff is engaged in
conversations with Ada County about potential implementation measures and there will
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 13 of 64
be more to come on that as well. But for the time being those are some of the ~- some
of the reasons why staff is proposing this very low density residential designation.
Moving on to low density and medium density residential, those, of course, are familiar
designations, excuse me, and primarily throughout the study area here those are
included to provide a transition between some of the higher intensity uses and the lower
intensity uses and also to reinforce the Comprehensive Plan goal of providing diversity
in housing stock. The second of the new future land use designations that is proposed
with the Comprehensive Plan Amendments is medium high density residential, which
you can see on the overhead there, that's the orange land use designation. This would
allow residential densities ranging from eight to fifteen units per acre, with a target
density of 12 units per acre. Staff made it a point to allowing most of these along major
transportation routes as identified in the regional long range transportation plan
Communities In Motion. So, you can see they are starting on the western edge of the
study boundary. There are some medium high residential designations along Amity
Road and, then, as you get to State Highway 69 they jog south and, then, continue
along Lake Hazel and, in addition, there is some more back on the corner of Amity and
Ten Mile. In conversations with Compass and some other members of the
transportation community, in reviewing the preferred alternative, the first iteration of the
future land use map, we found that in trying to increase the density along these same
corridors -- we didn't quite go high enough. We proposed an abundance of medium
density residential houses along those same corridors. As it turns out, the three to eight
units per acre that would be allowed within medium density residential designations
would not be high enough to support transit in the future. So, we felt it necessary to go
back to get to that same goal, which was another priority mentioned by the public was to
open the door for future transit to make sure that we actually did it right. So, that's the
reason for the inclusion of the medium high density residential designation. Moving on
to the two neighborhood centers, one on the corner of Black Cat and Amity and the
second on the corner of Locust Grove and Lake Hazel. Another thing that we heard
continually throughout the publiC involvement process was the desire for day-to-day
commercial service to be met somewhere within the study area. People are sick of
having to travel across 1-84 in order to go to the grocery store and so forth. So, we felt
that the neighborhood center, which is a currently recognized component of the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map was the best way to do that. It doesn't open
the door for big box type retail, but it does allow a mechanism through which some of
those day-to-day commercial services can be -- can be offered in the study area. In
addition, within the text amendment, another change that is recommended by staff at
this time is the requirement that 40 percent of land within neighborhood centers be
designated for residential uses. And this kind of gets back to the intent of the
neighborhood center designation within the Comprehensive Plan. It, basically,
reinforces the inclusion of residential in those neighborhood centers, which -- which will
create a better environment for the small scale commercial uses that are also
envisioned within those centers. Another component of the Comprehensive Plan, as is
currently adopted by the city, is that within neighborhood centers all residential areas
will have at least eight units per acre and that's approximately the cut off for transit
supported densities. So, if you link the two together, essentially, 40 percent of these
neighborhood centers go towards residential uses and those residential uses will be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5. 2007
Page 14 of 64
transit supportive. So, again, that's just to reinforce the impact of the neighborhood
centers as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. There is a mixed use employment
area. That's a new -- another new land use designation and that's located on the corner
of Lake Hazel and Meridian Road. As compared to the other mixed use designations
that are currently recognized by the city, this has ~- and has the emphasis on
employment uses and there is language within the text amendments that are proposed
that would limit any new retail specifically to those uses that are there to taylor to the
businesses that locate within that employment center. On the one hand it offsets the
job housing and balance in the valley and on the other hand it just creates some more
employment opportunities in the City of Meridian. On the southwest corner of Amity and
State Highway 69, Meridian Road there, there is a small parcel that is proposed for
mixed use community. As you can see, the other three corners of that same
intersection are currently designated mixed use regional. So, it's, essentially, a step
down as far as intensity of uses within a mixed use category. Staff felt that that would --
that that would balance well with what's going on on the other three intersections, but at
the same time not necessarily require the same level of access from those major streets
coming through there in order to create a viable site for those commercial uses. The
fourth and final new designation that's proposed with this application is the
neutraceutical overlay, which you can see on the hatched out area on the southwest
portion of the study area. And this area would allow -- would allow research and
development type agricultural oriented uses and the vision there is for seed research,
for biomedical research, things of that nature. The location was chosen for several
reasons. On the one hand you can see it's adjacent to Lake Hazel, which is in the long
range transportation plan is slated for one of the major east-west routes in the valley. In
addition, it's right down the road from the mixed use employment area, which, again, is
envisioned for a business park, office campus type of use. We figure those two could
work well together. You grow the things that are being researched over in the
neutraceutical overlay and, then, bring them to the employment -- mixed use
employment area, excuse me, for the research. The other major transportation route
that is planned at least that made that area make sense is the future State Highway 16
connection to 1-84, which is planned at the moment for someplace in the vicinity of
McDermott Road. The exact alignment of that is currently being studied by Idaho
Transportation Department. We hope to have a more specific alignment sometime in
the next couple of years, but it has stated that someplace in that vicinity is where that
will come down. So, we figured the access to the major north-south facility, addition to
the east-west facility, made that location make sense. So, as Sonya noted, staff did
have several concerns with the preferred alternative, so it would be staff's
recommended responses -- we sought to do several things. On the one hand, as has
already been mentioned, was to more closely align with public comments that were
received throughout the process. The other aim is related primarily to transportation
and housing are, of course, related to the first -- the first reason for the changes, but on
the transportation side, as I said, we wanted to lower the number of households in the
study area, thereby decreasing the demands on the transportation system. In addition,
we wanted to increase the intensities along those major transportation corridors. As
compared to the preferred alternative, the recommend or the needed impact, based on
these proposed future land uses and the staff response, these land uses would require
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 15 of 64
18 miles of roadway at three lanes in order to achieve a level of service E, which
general speaking is at capacity, but it's still moving on the roadways. So, that's
reasonable for your peak hour when there will be most cars on the road. So, like I said,
it would be 18 miles of roadway at three lanes, as opposed to ten, which would result
from the preferred alternative. As far as the seven mile roadways, Sonya also
mentioned that a total of just under 20 would have been required at seven lanes, based
on the preferred alternative. We were able to get that down to 13 miles of roadway
requiring seven lanes with the staff response. The preferred alternative, in spite of all
the transportation system increases that were recommended, two of the intersections
still function as a level of service F at peak hour, as opposed to the staff response in
which all intersections were functioning at an acceptable level of service. As we already
mentioned with these densities, we were able to increase the densities to transit
supportive levels in the staff response and as far as the housing was concerned, Sonya
also mentioned that the market study told us that based on, essentially, the preferred
alternative, a lot of folks that potentially would be interested in buying homes in the area
would be priced out of the market. So, we really wanted to get that number of homes
on those larger lots down. In the shift from the abundance of low density residential and
the preferred alternative to the inclusion of the very low density and the staff response,
we were able to decrease the number of units on low and very low density residential
designated areas by over 5,000 from over 11,000 down to just over 6,000. So, we
thought that was going in the right direction as well. Also on housing and in accordance
with the city's Comprehensive Plan, staff was eager to increase the potential future
housing stock within the study area. We feel that citywide at the moment we seem to
have plenty of the single family, low to medium density areas slated for future homes,
so we really wanted to move away from that and just start providing something a little bit
different. The preferred alternative would have had, like I said, just over 11,000 units in
the low density residential -- in the areas designated as low density residential. There
would have been over 14,500 units in those areas designated medium density
residential. High density residential would have had 940 units. And within the
neighborhood center we estimated just over 900 units. As opposed to the staff
response, which staff feels distributes that future housing stock much more equally.
The very low residential would have approximately 1,600 units. Low density residential
about 4,500 units. Medium density residential just over 6,000 units. Medium high
density residential a little bit over 7,000 units. And within the neighborhood centers a
little bit over 1,200 units of residential housing are estimated by staff within those areas.
So, those were the reasons why staff considered the changes and that was sort of a
brief analysis on the success of achieving those goals. So, I will turn it back over to
Sonya at this point.
Watters: Staff is recommending approval of the requested text amendment and map
amendment with the land use designation shown in Exhibit A-11, staff response per the
staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Good job. It's a lot to absorb and I'm sure there are people in the audience that
have specific thoughts on acreages within that area of impact and I'm sure we are going
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 16 of 64
to hear some of those comments. Before we move to that portion, is there any
questions of staff before we move forward? Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: I do have one and it's for Matt. And you may have said it and I just may
have missed it while I was writing, but the mixed use employment designation is it
intended to allow or disallow retail uses?
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, the
text that is proposed would allow an extremely limited amount of retail within that area
and the way that it's worded at present is only those retail uses that are specifically
tailoring to the existing employment uses within that area would be permissible. So,
that would be your coffee shops down the street from the office complexes and things of
that nature.
Siddoway: Not the regional or community oriented shopping centers, grocery stores,
things like that?
Ellsworth: Correct.
Siddoway: Okay.
Ellsworth: It wouldn't be destination type retail.
Siddoway: That's all I have.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comments before we
go forward?
Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe?
Moe: Not at this time.
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien?
O'Brien: I have a few.
Rohm: Okay.
O'Brien: Being new to this here, so some of the questions probably have already been
answered, but some of the concerns that I would look at is that you have an industrial
plant -- basically a mine -- a calcium mine just outside of a neighborhood center on Lake
Hazel. What considerations do we have regarding that and the residential use of that
area?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 17 of 64
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission and Commissioner O'Brien,
the planning director Anna Canning said that there may have been a pre-applicant
meeting last week about that area to change the use. I apologize, Commissioner
O'Brien. Would you mind pointing out where that is.
O'Brien: It's right there -- right outside that line of the NC center. That calcium mine
has been there for umpteen years, as long as I have been there. It's 30 years or more.
And they, basically, mine calcium that they use for the body, I guess, and I don't know
what kind of an impact that has, what -- if you start building a -- you know, mixed use
there or a residence area around that, what impact would that have?
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, as it
turns out that -- that operation at the moment is optioned to a developer who controls
some of the land near the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove. So, from the
sound of it it will likely be developing in the near future and will align fairly well with
some of the other uses.
O'Brien: Okay. So, it's going to go away? Is that what you're saying?
Ellsworth: That's the sound of it, yes, sir.
O'Brien: Right above the -- this area right in here there is a -- actually, closer in this
area there is a feedlot and I assume that's going to go away when the McGurdios sell
their land and is there -- is there clean up issues regarding the soil saturation from the
feedlot and does that need to be cleaned up and by who is going to be responsible for
it?
Baird: Mr. Chair, I'll jump in on that one. If there are any clean up issues it would be the
responsibility of the landowner and it wouldn't be anything that we would need to
consider with the application that's in front of you. Good question, though.
O'Brien: Thank you. Okay. The other question I have is the water table levels and we
are going to be adding some wells to support the residential areas and what kind of
studies, if any, have been done to -- to address any current wells that are -- that are
there now in residential areas north of that land -- and probably south as well. Some
wells are only a hundred feet deep and I assume that these big wells would go 300 or
400 feet deep and wouldn't affect that and so I just wanted to make sure that that's what
the case is.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, the city's
water system is predicated on deep wells, up to 350, 400, 450, 500 feet deep. There
has been no study that I'm aware of that those wells take out of the -- it's a different
aquifer that you're taking water out of. We can't -- have no proof that the deep wells
drain the shallower wells. To answer your question of water tables in there, there has
not been a detailed study of that yet. As incoming development comes in and we have
to move infrastructure further south, we would be -- we have retained a hydro geologist
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 18 of 64
that we employed to go out to do the test, determine where the best well sites would be.
We ask the development as they come in to give us the well lots, so that we can drill the
wells and install the infrastructure as we go.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Regarding the irrigation, will the residences use
pressurized systems to water their landscaping and lawns, et cetera?
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, as individual
properties come in and annex and develop within the city, there is an ordinance in place
that requires all subdivisions to provide pressurized irrigation that utilizes surface water,
not the city's water system. So, as they -- as each one comes in they will be required to
install pressurized irrigation systems, either owned by the HOA of the individual
developments or through regional systems through Nampa-Meridian, Settler's. As we
go further south we will be running into Boise Project Board of Control and I believe that
they are getting ready to go into the pressurized irrigation business as well.
O'Brien: Okay. One other thing. There is a canal that runs kind of diagonally around
there. I forget what the name of it is. Is that part of the hundred year flood plane in
case it overflows? What needs to happen there or awareness of that possibility?
Cole: Generally canals are not part of the hundred year flood plane. A canal is a facility
that distributes water. It's placed in at a measured amount, so that when it reaches the
end it's gone.
O'Brien: Okay.
Cole: Your hundred year flood planes would be associated with creeks. I believe the
Nine Mile runs through this property. There are several smaller flood planes with the
creeks and the drains through the subject property that we would -- as they came in and
developed we have a new flood plane permit development application that we just
developed in Public Works that they will have to prove to us that what they are doing
with their development prior to them starting will not cause any addition to the flood
plane.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. So, I have a question for staff. On the perimeter of -- of
this proposal here has there been discussions with the cities of Nampa or Kuna, for
instance, as to what type of developments that they might put in there or is there some
kind of cooperative effort going on there to make sure that things aren't duplicated or
overburden other areas outside of the area of impact?
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, those
areas -- that was one of the things that I forgot to hit on during the presentation there.
Several different things going on there. On the one hand the City of Kuna has annexed
several parcels within the study area. In recognition of that in the staff report it
acknowledges that and states that at some point in the near future it would be prudent
to consider scaling back the study boundaries to recognize those annexations that have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 19 of 64
occurred. Having said that, the city councils of Kuna and Meridian have been in contact
and are trying to set up a joint council meeting date to discuss boundaries between the
two cities. Staff felt that it would be premature at this time to scale back the boundary
just in recognition that that conversation is yet to come. After it occurs we will have a
clearer direction as to how to approach that. The City of Kuna has been invited to and
has attended I believe all three of earlier public meetings. They do have a
representative here tonight as well. And we have done everything that we can. We met
with -- with Kuna staff, planning staff, at one time during the study process just to make
sure that they were aware of everything that was on the table, to solicit comments, so --
so an effort has certainly been made to make sure that everybody is on the same page.
As I understand it -- and I would ask Diana to, please, correct me if I'm wrong, but the
City of Kuna is about to engage in a comprehensive planning process for the area north
of the city to determine future land uses and so forth. So, we hope to continue the
same level of communication and coordination to make sure that things come together
okay as they move forward in that.
Rohm: From the audience she concurs that they are working on --
O'Brien: Thank you.
Rohm: Not at this time. Thank you.
O'Brien: About the only other thing I have a question about is the density levels that are
in and around the Lake Hazel - Locust Grove area. Just in talking with people at the
meetings I attended it seems that the -- it's a little bit outside the rural atmosphere that
they really wanted to see. Knowing that Lake Hazel is going to be a main corridor and
some of these things have to help, but I just wanted to put on the record that that is a
concern and probably will be for some time as to the density causing traffic issues down
the road. And, of course, Ada County Highway District will have to do something, I
guess, when that happens. So, I just wanted to make a note of that, that there seems
like it's higher density than what people wish.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Any other comments from the balance of
the Commission before we move forward? Okay. At this time we are at that point
where we are going to take public testimony. This is a huge matrix. There is so many
different landowners and thought processes and desires for this land and there have
been a number of public meetings that people have had an opportunity for input and
that's how we have got to where we are now. The fact of the matter is that there is
probably some of you that see things a little bit differently than what's been presented
and the only thing that I can tell you tonight is the individual changes that one of -- or
any of you might propose have to be taken in their entirety and it can't -- it's all going to
have to be evaluated as a whole, not as an individual parcel that would like to have
either a higher or a lower density designation than what is in this current proposal. So, I
think that we want to hear what everyone has to say for sure, but it, again, will have to
be fed back in and take another look at the preferred alternatives to the existing plan
that's been very well presented tonight. And so, please, bear with us and I can assure
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 20 of 64
you that it's going to all be taken in and looked at by the Commission and requested
input -- additional input from staff and that's why we are not acting on anything tonight
and it will give everybody a chance to kind of fall back and regroup. So, with that being
said, at this time I would like to ask James Percy if he would like to come forward. State
your name and address.
Percy: My name is James Percy and the property that I am concerned with in this
boundary is 5385 South Meridian Road on both sides. It would be the corridor between
Amity and --
Moe: There should be a pointer there.
Percy: Okay. It would be this area -- this right in here on Meridian Road where the low
density is at and my comment would be that on the transit proposal, one of the things
that they recommended and was in a public input on the first meeting, the two most
important things was the density of the properties, having a little more lower density or
lower impact, plus the transit. And the second most important thing was the transit.
And in proposal three, if we have a graph of it, the transit supportive, it shows that they
want high density on Meridian Road and going across on Lake Hazel and up Ten Mile.
Those, evidently, are the proposed routes for bigger roads to support more traffic and
as you can see from the Comprehensive Plan, the preferred alternative, we have pretty
much stuck with that. But, then, with the new plan, with the staff plan, we have gotten
away from that and I think that still the transportation issues are very important and in
the staff plan -- I don't want to step on any toes, but if you look -- if you had knowledge
of who has these properties that are now in the intensive development or higher
development area, these properties -- Mr. O'Brien mentioned one of them was the
McGurdios. This is all in the hands of developers or under the control of developers
and I hate to see this happen. That's alii have to say.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Siddoway: I have a question.
Rohm: Before you sit down there is a question from the Commission.
Siddoway: Yes, sir. I -- I just have a question to make sure I understand. Are you
saying that you would prefer the low density that's shown on the staff proposal or do you
prefer the higher density shown on the other options?
Percy: I would like to see the higher density be closer to the major thoroughfares, which
was proposed on Lake Hazel to Ten Mile and, then, north on Ten Mile and, then, also
down the Meridian-Kuna corridor -- or the Meridian Road corridor. That makes more
sense to me and that's what was talked about, that we want the high density and to
move the lower density in back of that, so we don't have high density communities going
through low density communities, which just ruins the whole aspect of it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 21 of 64
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Gary Ishalmann. From the audience he says that he's been
covered by the staff presentation. And Alice the same? Same with Alice. Dave
Taysom.
Taysom: I'm Dave Taysom. I live at 175 West Paint Horse Lane, Meridian. lawn the
property just south of the purple block in the yellow -- dark yellow. Twenty-four acres. I
have owned it for 15 years, been very content to be in the country. But in the last
couple of years it's become clear to me that I'm going to be in Kuna or Meridian impact
area. That doesn't mean I will be in the city very soon. And I'm 84 years, so I never will
be in the city. But I'm concerned about the use of the property. And for the last year
and a half I have studied very carefully and tried from time to time at least to have an
open mind and look at what Kuna is doing, what Meridian is doing. My address is
Meridian. My phone number is Meridian. I'm in the Meridian School District. And I
have concluded I'd strongly like to stay in Meridian. The area south of Lake Hazel and
west of the highway has been kind of a contentious area and it's been unclear whether
that would be an overlap or which community would have it. I just want to urge you to
keep it in Meridian. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. And we appreciate your support. Diana Sanders.
Sanders: I'm Diana Sanders from the City of Kuna, The Planning and Zoning Director.
P.O. Box 13, Kuna, Idaho. 83634. Chairman and Commissioners, I'd just like to
address you tonight. The City of Kuna is, basically, neutral on this application, but we
do have some concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to come tonight and to address
those concerns with you. As you were told, the City of Kuna has annexed property up
to Lake Hazel Road, about half a mile from Highway 69 and, then, from Lake Hazel
about a half a mile south along Highway 69 we have also annexed property into that on
the west side of Highway 69. The Kuna School District actually comes at that half mile
from -- it follows Lake Hazel, drops down I believe at Linder at the half mile and, then,
goes straight across. The City of Kuna has always wanted to stay within that area. We
did have some property owners on Linder and Lake Hazel request annexation into the
city, which is not in the Kuna School District. We did ask for a meeting with Meridian to
try to negotiate this area and come to some kind of an agreement. We do have our
area of impact into the county presently. We'd like to address it, so we don't have an
overlap between the City of Meridian and the City of Kuna. We'd like to resolve it before
we get into a situation that Eagle and Star went into with the Committee of Nine and all
of the overlap which they are finding is not working. I would request that you not make
a recommendation until that meeting is held. We requested that meeting about a month
ago and we have not set a date at this point. So, we would like for you to wait until that
is done and, then, adjust or scale back your area of impact. The Kuna City actually
adopted their Comprehensive Plan in 2003, which went a half mile north of Columbia
Road. We have been planning for that area since 2003. We did water, sewer, and
pressurized irrigation study in that area. We also annexed to construct a new sewer
treatment facility. We have purchased that property. We are in design and we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 22 of 64
going to be breaking ground on that. That is located on Ten Mile just south of Lake
Hazel Road. So, we feel that, you know, we would like to negotiate with the City of
Meridian. We don't want to have a conflict in that area. We did have several meetings
with the city council prior and the mayors have been talking about Lake Hazel being the
dividing line. We understand about the school districts and I don't think that the City of
Kuna would have a problem negotiating that. But the proposed area of impact that you
have currently comes down a half a mile south of Columbia Road. That is in our school
district, our fire district, and our library district. So, we would request that city council
meet with the Kuna City Council, meet with the Meridian City Council and resolve this
issue before we move this application forward and I appreciate your time tonight.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this individual before we let her sit
down. Any questions? Thank you. Robert Bevan.
Bevan: Robert Bevan. I currently own property on 2725 South Ten Mile. I'm majorly
impacted by this -- this move today and was enlightened by some of the staff on
information I received. One thing I'd like to -- and I have a question for staff regarding
an area that is currently covered by your chart and that's the 290 acres that is -- they
are putting 1,200 plus homes on it at Overland and Ten Mile Road. I'd like to know what
level of density that's -- what was it's designated.
Rohm: Generally you address the Commission and, then, we will ask staff to respond.
Bevan: Sorry.
Rohm: Did you hear the question, Sonya or Matt?
Ellsworth: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, yes, we did hear the
question and I am --
Newton-Huckabay: Is this the South Ridge development?
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's South Ridge. There is only
one phase, about a 5th of that that's actually been platted right now. There is a bunch
of mega lots, so there is a range on that 297 acres I believe it was, a range between
1,000 and 1,252. So, I haven't done the math, but the details of how many lots exactly
are going to be in South Ridge are yet to come, depending on market demand and by
full build out there will be somewhere in the range of 1,000 and 1,200.
Bevan: I'd like to know what density level that's going to be. According to legend.
What color is it?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm being told that it's medium
density, roughly three to four units per acre.
Siddoway: There is also a neighborhood center on the site.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5. 2007
Page 23 of 64
Bevan: Okay. And yellow, as far as I can tell without my glasses.
Siddoway: Yeah.
Bevan: The yellOW medium density residential. My property being located just across
the street from that red box, which is what -- is that a future firehouse? I don't know. Is
that what it is? Okay. Across the street from the firehouse, what we are calling on this
map very low density residential. I'm not quite sure that you can justify that with your
yellow medium density going kitty-corner across the street from my house and, then,
also, the onset at the freeway on ramp and what's going to be -- which has actually
already become, regardless of the expansion of the Meridian Road expansion, a major
thoroughfare to Kuna, which is Ten Mile Road, and let me tell you the traffic on that road
is terrible now, which it never used to be, and it's definitely going to be impacted by the
1,000 to 1,200 homes that they are adding, plus the freeway on ramp. And I'm not
really too sure you can still count my property right here very low density residential.
Rohm: So, is it your point that you think your property should not be designated as very
low density?
Bevan: That is my point, sir. Yes. I don't know how you can cluster that together and
refer to my property area as being a very low density area. I -- frankly, I used to live in
the country. I don't anymore. A sad realization that I'm not happy with, but I can't stop
progress and if that's the case I would like to be able to split up my property and that's
not going to happen if it stays low -- excuse me -- very low density. So, I'm against that
proposal and I just wanted to voice that today.
Rohm: Thank you for your input.
Bevan: Thank you.
Rohm: Shirley Meyer.
Meyer: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Shirley Meyer. I have a home at
3610 West Lamont, Meridian. My home is located about a mile south of the proposed
Ten Mile interchange off of Ten Mile. I have concerns -- and today I'm neutral. I don't
have any pros or cons, but I do have concerns. My property, I believe -- I have talked to
Matt and we will be zoned eventually medium density, which will be three to four per
acre. And I don't really have a problem with that. My concerns are that we understand
eventually there is a conceptualization that Overland Road will be continued at the back
of my property on the back acreage. So, I'm here to monitor you guys and make sure
that I stay neutral on this. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you for your coming in. Jeff Fulmer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 24 of 64
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, justa second. I just want to clarify -- Mrs. Meyer was
referring to the proposed realignment of Overland Road?
Meyer: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Jeff Fulmer. From the audience he said he's going to wait. Kent Roberts.
Roberts: My name is Kent Roberts. I own a portion of 2370 West Amity Road, which is
right about there, just west of Linder Road. It's zoned in the very low density and the
impact to me, if this was to go through, is that it would significantly reduce my property
value, because it would not allow development. I would anticipate a reduction of
approximately 75 percent. I consider that a taking. It would -- myself and other people
who have -- I don't have a super large parcel, but for larger parcels where you're not
currently living on it -- you know, if you had a five acre parcel you maybe feel like that's
not such a bad thing, but if you have a larger parcel that you're looking for some type of
subdivision, you'd probably have a different attitude about this and it significantly
reduces property value. It doesn't seem equitable that, you know, in eye distance they
are going to give medium density or even low density and then -- and, then, we are
going to get super low density, which is -- which would be financially devastating. The
other concern I have is that Meridian is the middle and so regardless of what we do for
our planning, we are going to get pounded with cars from Kuna and so if you create this
plan and it doesn't jive with Kuna, then, it's not going to work. The other concern I have
is that we can do all the planning we want in the city, but ACHD may not build the roads
and we see that all the time. So, we may have a great plan here and, then, we don't
have the road system that makes it work and, then, we have miserable traffic. But I
have lived in Meridian -- I bought my first house here, my wife grew up in Meridian, love
it. We love Meridian. Kids are in the school. We love it here. But this could -- this
decision could be financially devastating and force me out. That's alii have.
Moe: One question. I want to make I -- you said you were west of Linder?
Roberts: Yes.
Mae: Okay.
Roberts: So, in the light --
Mae: Right. I just wanted to be sure.
Roberts: -- light color. Super low density.
Moe: Right.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Don Roberts.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 25 of 64
Arnold: Actually, my name is Ryan Arnold. I'm -- Don is my brother-in-law and he
elected me to come up and represent our feelings on this. We had a lot of comments.
Most of these we shared with Matt earlier today and we appreciate him taking about a
hour of his time to discuss with us and in no way am I trying to demean the time that
these guys have put in. They have definitely put a lot of thought in, but I think some
things that have been missed are significant.
Rohm: Could we get an address, please
Arnold: What's that?
Rohm: Address, please.
Arnold: An address? Okay. Actually, I live in Teton County, Driggs, Idaho. I lived in
this -- in south Meridian right up until about a year ago.
Siddoway: Your current address is fine.
Arnold: Current address?
Rohm: Current address is --
Arnold: Okay. It's 455 Targee Town Road, Alta, Wyoming.
Rohm: Thank you.
Arnold: Just across the border. We own two pieces of property in the study area. One
of them is up here at the corner of Victory and McDermott, right on the county line. The
other one is right here off of Slack Cat, just south of Amity. One of the concerns that I
have has already been addressed by one of the other individuals, but to me there
appears to be a lack of appropriate transition for density. There are many areas
throughout this map that transition from -- skip over a zone. If you look here we have
got a medium high density going directly to very low. Similarly here. We have got
medium. Particular to our parcel right here, we are just an ear shot from the
neighborhood center and, then, we have got a medium high zone and a medium zone
to both neighbor us, but we are very low residential. And, then, we have got the
neutraceutical overlay that borders on the south and we have about a 20 acre parcel
there. One of the concerns I have is that from a marketability standpoint it will be
impossible for us to sell three acre lots, smashed between medium high density
townhouses or apartment complexes, you know, 15 units per acre and now expected to
sell, you know, three acre lots for, honestly, probably 350 to 400 thousand. Property in
this area is going for, as near as I can tell, about 60,000 per acre. So, if you figure a
three acre lot, a developer will be into their land about 200,000 dollars per lot prior to
infrastructure, interest cost, selling commissions, so we are talking about very pricey
lots that we are proposing across about 50 percent of this area. The other issue that we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 26 of 64
have is we have got the neutraceutical overlay to the south, there, again, we are going
to be smash between an agri-industrial use and, you know, a medium high density. It
just will be impossible for us to market those lots would have a significant financial
impact on us. A couple of other comments that I have. In relation to the minimal three
acre lots is what the implementation plan for that would be. It appears that they are not
providing city services to those, it would be individual wells and septics. Is that going to
happen as soon as the Comprehensive Plan is implemented, is that, then, allowed to be
developed, you know, what exactly is the plan there. The other concern I have is,
normally, within area of impact it seems that the reason to include area of impact is to
receive city services. It seems really odd that we are extending the city over a very
large area that will never provide services to about 50 percent. In relation to three acre
lots, I have a real concern that there is not going to be a market for 1 ,700 three acre lots
out in this area. Three acre lots -- besides being very expensive, three acre lots are
very difficult to maintain. They are much too large to mow and very too small to farm
and as I understand within the city area livestock is not allowed, so you kind of got this
in betweener that I don't think really works that well. I recently just moved to Teton
County and we are currently under a moratorium partly due to the issue that a large
portion of our county was rezoned a few years ago to ag 2.5, so we got tons of two and
a half acre lots and they are not being maintained. We have tons of weeds and issues
that go around. If the Commission and staff is intent on having a very low -- a lower
density residential rural option, I would suggest more of a cluster subdivision design that
might allow acre lots and possibly 30 or 40 percent open space that, then, can be
maintained by the homeowners association, possibly on larger plots would be enough to
still be farmed. You know, three acre lots are not really going to maintain a lot of rural
feel and I don't see a lot of people wanting to buy those lots when they are sandwiched
in between, you know, very large metro area, as well as, you know, traffic coming out of
Nampa -- east Nampa from this direction and up from Kuna. I hope I'm not going over
on my time here, but I have got just a couple more --
Rohm: I think you're approaching --
Arnold: I'm approaching it? Okay. Well, I'll try to conclude. In relation to the comments
about cluster subdivisions, it was noted that there will likely be a lot of cluster
subdivisions that were developed out in this area that will not redevelop. I think if we
actually look at the amount of cluster lots in this area, the 51 -- 5,600 acres, I would
guess is probably not more than two or three hundred acres and most of those
developers only did cluster subdivisions, because Ada County said, well, develop 20
percent now and when services get to you, then, you can develop more densely. Now,
that's somehow supposed to be used against the developers and their option. I guess I
would say that overall that we need to go back to the drawing board on the
transportation options. You know, Meridian is not -- it's not on an island. If this was out
in Fruitland it would be a different story. But we have got, you know, major growth
happening in Kuna, major growth happening in east Nampa. It would be wonderful to
keep this whole area rural out here, but I honestly don't think that's very realistic and I
think we need to really look at that as a real viable option. Thank you for your time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 27 of 64
Rohm: Thank you very much. The next person to have signed up used their signature
and it's -- not a clue. Charles -- it looks like Liz, but I'm sure that's -- I don't know what
to do with it, because I certainly have no idea who it is. I think what I will do is I will go
through the balance of the people that have signed up and at no time do we not allow
someone to come up, so if your name was missed, we will certainly give you a shot at
the end. Dave Morgan. And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Morgan: My name is Dave Morgan. I live at 498 East Shafer View Drive. I'm also the
president of the HOA for the Shafer View Estates, so kind of what I'm representing you
here is our --, we've had a homeowners association meeting and addressed a few of
these issues as far as the impact plan that you guys have. From the different
responses that I have seen, I know a couple of our items have been addressed. I think
probably our biggest thing is we didn't -- where we are all one acre lots in a subdivision,
we didn't want to go from that to, you know, six to eight per acre and have that right
around, because of the -- of course decrease in property values that way. I know that
some of the staff response now to north and to the east we do have that very low
density, which I also sell real estate, too, and I don't really know if the three acres -- you
had to go that low, but I know we would like to see at least some type of a transition, if
you go from an R-1, like ours and, then, to an R-2 and, then, possibly an R-4, if you
break it down, you know, one acre, half, and, then, quarters to get it kind of out,
because, you know, I'd like to keep my property up and I don't want to have to pass that
onto the next guy that he's got a big acreage and a bunch of houses right next to him
that are low density -- or high density, I should say. Of course the other thing we have,
too, is traffic. With that Shafer View is right just before -- basically it's right here. Right
before Lake Hazel Road off of Meridian Road if this were -- this is the first I had heard of
that -- what is it, multi employment area or whatever, which I'm sure is going to cause
quite a bit of traffic and I know the McGurdio's part over there, that's going to end up
being that center over there. So, traffic is a big concern with us, because I know just to
get out in the morning, everybody coming from Kuna, sometimes you will sit there five to
ten minutes just trying to make a right turn, let alone trying to get across three lanes of
traffic. So, that's our biggest concern there is just kind of the light transition, how you
wouldn't necessarily have to go three acre lots, but I know on one of the proposals I saw
it did -- one acre right after us and, then, like half acres and, then, quarter to medium
density right after that, the closer it got to Lake Hazel and Locust Grove.
Rohm: Any questions of this individual? Thank you, sir. Nicholas Crouse.
Crouse: Members of the Commission, my name is Nicholas Crouse. I live at 12279
West Silver King Street, Boise. But, actually, I'm a Civil Engineer with Quadrant
Consulting. I'm here on behalf of two parcels of grounds, two property owners. They
own an aggregate of about 30 acres at the southwest corner of Amity and Linder and
the southeast corner of that intersection. One of them, the Southside Christian Church
and the other one is Broadway Baptist and the concerns that we have with actually both
of the staff response and the original plan, primary center around traffic there. We have
-- right now we are looking at estate lots on those parcels, potentially estate lots and
staff has talked about traffic and that's in the Linder-Amity area. ACHD projections are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5,2007
Page 28 of 64
somewhere between 75 and 130 thousand cars a day -- excuse me -- to that
intersection and to put estate lots on the corners of that intersection seem a little bit
unreasonable and, you know, to be able to market those that close to an intersection
with that kind of volume going through it -- I'm assuming that these -- this lower
residential layout, this very low residential, will probably drop those numbers, but I
haven't been able to get them from ACHD yet.
Moe: Excuse me. Would you say those numbers again for me?
Crouse: Seventy-eight thousand, I believe, the low end, to 128 or 30 thousand, which I
got those from ACHD last week. It was the traffic study that Mr. Ellsworth mentioned
earlier, which also I, too, would like to thank Matt. He answered quite a few questions
for me via e-mail and phone, but I'm assuming those numbers will drop to some extent,
but at the same time we are talking at least a five lane intersection, possibly a seven,
and we think it may be more appropriate to look at doing some sort of mixed use type
development in that area similar to what's on the arterial -- the section line street both to
the west and to the east of theirs, to provide a buffer between residential uses and the
high traffic intersections along that route. We have also responded to this -- the earlier
plan in writing, which I'm assuming the Commission has received that. So, just
something we would like both staff and Commission to consider and I guess I'd answer
any questions that any of you have.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your input. Robin Willowman. Or Allen. From the
audience she said that their issues have been addressed. Pam Zuker. She -- from the
said she waives her right to speak at this time. Charlie Connolly.
Connolly: Charlie Connolly, 2181 West Lake Hazel. I actually just signed in. The thing
I want to understand better is the neutraceutical overlay. I don't really understand what
the limitations are on that use.
Rohm: I think we will get staff to respond to that. Matt, could you elaborate on that a
little bit?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will do my best. Generally
speaking, that is to allow sort of a link between some of the agri businesses that are
growing operations that are currently in operation in the south Meridian and even north
Kuna area to some of the research and development type locations, the employment
centers, and so forth. So, what we envision there on the one hand was growing
operations, on the other hand storage of any of those seeds, any of the products that
are being grown. So, say storage, light manufacturing, things of that nature, would be
permissible as long as they related directly back to those neutraceutical slash
biomedical uses. Anything that doesn't related directly back to that, as far as industrial
storage and so forth, would not be a permissible use.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 29 of 64
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Just as a follow up. As an overlay we are saying that the very low density
residential uses are allowed in that area and, then, the only other use, other than very
low residential, would be those neutraceutical type facilities; is that right?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, I
believe so, yes.
Siddoway: Okay.
Connolly: I'm one of those poor guys that's addicted to farming. It's awfully hard to
make a living growing crops in the Treasure Valley right now and I appreciate you trying
to support the agricultural industry, but I'm -- from what I see right now, all you're doing
is, again, limiting the value of the property that you're putting this overlay on.
Rohm: Thank you for your input. I believe the next name is James Hewett. He -- from
the audience he's not going to speak at this time. Going back to Jeff Fulmer, did you
want to state -- from the audience he's waived his right to speak. That is all the
signatures that we have at this time and if there anyone else that would like to come
forward and speak, we will take them one at a time. Sir, you're welcome. Come on up.
Please say your name and address for the record.
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, my name is John Peterson. 3680 Lamont Road. Our
property is right -- right there. And my question is if this is very low density residential,
what happens if they do extend Overland Road and separate my property and put a
piece of it out of contact with the rest of mine, but it's less than three and a half acres.
What would happen to that piece of property? From what I have seen so far on some
very rough ideas on the extension of Overland Road, they would separate my property
with a very small piece being to the north and the rest of my property being to the south.
Could I get some kind of an exemption and could I sell a piece as small as an acre or
two and a half or up to three acres for a residence? Could I get some kind of an
exemption in your plans -- in your designations, so that if it is separated because of no
fault of mine, that I wouldn't lose it. Right now --
Rohm: Well, I'm sure you wouldn't lose it.
Peterson: Well, I wouldn't -- I'd lose the value. What I'm talking about is would I lose
the value of it. Right now it's agricultural land, but if the road does extend, it would
separate it from the rest of my land and I couldn't use it for agricultural purposes. I
couldn't use it -- I couldn't sell it for a residence, if your three and a half acre designation
holds.
Rohm: Quite honestly, I think that that's a lot specific question and I don't think for this
hearing -- I don't think that we are prepared to answer on a parcel that specific.
Possibly staff could comment on it, but I can't imagine that you would lose the right to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 30 of 64
put a dwelling on a parcel that would be divided off from a road extension, but I'd
certainly give the staff an opportunity to respond. Not with a final answer, but with
maybe a high level answer.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, and Mr. Peterson, we can't -- right now for
one we are not advocating the extension of Overland Road. But if it were to happen
and if ACHD were to enter into negotiations with you, I think what would happen is that
they would buy the remainder of your property. So, they would pay you for both -- the
property that they were splitting off and, then, they would either sell that off later or keep
it for their purposes. But they would -- they would compensate you for the whole thing.
But, again, that's very -- you're asking a very hypothetical question that -- that's probably
not appropriate detail at this point in the conversation, but --
Peterson: Well, I'm just trying to look ahead and I'm wondering if in your designations
and in your determinations some language can be given that would cover situations like
this. I'm sure mine won't be the only kind of a property that would fall in this area, but if
there could be some way that because no fault land is broken down into smaller pieces
then your three and a half acres, could they gain residential status?
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Members of the Commission and Mr. Peterson. Because we don't know exactly
where Overland Road is going to go, if it goes anywhere, if it does happen in the future,
that would be considered, in my opinion, a change of circumstance that would probably
allow you to come in and seek a re-designation. If the circumstances have changed,
you could do like you saw earlier this evening, some smaller lots that were sort of out of
place after changed circumstances, would allow you to come in and make an
application for another -- another change at that time. It's impossible for us to sit here
and think of all the possibilities that could happen in the future and I know that this is
very important to you, because it's your property and you're trying to plan, but we just
can't plan for all those little contingencies. We are sort of looking at the broad brush
here. So, I would suggest that it's something that the property owner should monitor
and probably there is nothing that we can act on at this time. Or recommend no action _
- I'm getting a wave over here from the planning director.
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission, it may be beneficial at
this point to talk about the difference between the Camp Plan and the zoning ordinance.
It always -- it comes in a little handy sometimes. This is the vision document for the city.
We talk about one unit per three acres. That's not -- when we talk about that in the
context of a Comprehensive Plan, we are talking about it as a density, not as a
minimum lot size. To implement that category, we would need to either change the
Unified Development Code to address a zoning category for that and we would have to
come up with specific standards. And the zoning ordinance does have provisions for
when ACHD takes a portion of your property and what rights you have with relationship
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 31 of 64
to that. But I also think that we -- it may be something we address with the county as
well, since we are not having city services out there, these subdivisions may occur in
the county. So, we need to work on an amendment to their code to allow it and,
actually, they have a very similar land use designation that they use with the city of
Eagle. So, those are all things that we can work out the implementation details, but,
again, this is the vision for the city. The one unit per three acres is based on the
general capability of land to support both a septic and a well in the area and there may
be provisions that with central district approval you could have clustered zoning or some
smaller lot size -- probably not smaller than two acres, but it really depends. The key
issue is being able to support both a septic and well on the property.
Rohm: Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? Absolutely. Come forward,
please.
Cross: I'm Gordon Cross. I live at 5220 Howry Lane. How does this thing work? It's
right in this designated area right here. This area right here. My comments would be
that over the last several years we have talked with some developers that are interested
in the future possibly developing our property. This area in here -- now, I'm not sure
whether it's dense or medium designated. Maybe staff could enlighten me on that. I
don't know. That's the Rockhampton Subdivision.
Rohm: Is that in Boise city?
Cross: Yes.
Canning: Sir, if you would like me to answer it.
Rohm: Yeah. Please.
Canning: We just saw the acreages on the outskirts of that yesterday. There is 8,000
square foot lots, generally, in that area, so they would be low density. Low to medium.
Cross: Okay. So, anyway, in our conversations with the developers, they feel that our
property -- and we do have two stub roads that go from Rockhampton -- you know, that
face into our 40 acre parcel there that it would be easier to develop that land if it was
medium density designated, instead of an abrupt -- what seems to be fairly high density
in Rockhampton into a low density designation here. So, that was -- that was our
feeling.
Rohm: So, basically, you're just saying that you'd like a little higher density designation
for your area and that is -- the specific area again is where?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 32 of 64
Cross: Right in here.
Rohm: So, you're a half a mile north of Lake Hazel off of Eagle Road?
Cross: No. This is off of Amity and we are a half -- we are a quarter mile south of Amity
Road. We are on a 40 acre parcel that's surrounded. There is no exit to the south from
there. Howry Lane dead ends on the parcel to the south of us.
Rohm: Okay.
Cross: But -- so --
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify at this time? Please
come forward, sir.
Larsen: Eugene Larsen. I live at 3520 South Black Cat Road. That's between Victory
and Amity, just about halfway down on the east side. I think one of the things that
concerns me and has sort of been alluded to is that very low density -- what borders
that drops sometimes two, probably three in some places, designations just by the
drawing of a line and it does look like that follows those two canals maybe it has
something to do with sewer, I don't know, but it seems like to me that having that whole
area there low density so you don't have to come back and study it for five years before
you make a decision, might be appropriate. It seems like we study it longer than we __
than it exists once we make it exist and this has been going on for quite some time and
I'd like to encourage you to make a decision, too, in the near future about this area.
Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Anyone else? Please come forward, sir.
Ashburn: My name is Jim Ashburn. I represent the two property owners between -- first
of all, my address is 4571 Patton Avenue, Boise, Idaho. 83704. I represent two
property owners on Ten Mile right in this area here, south side of Lake Hazel between
Ten Mile and Black Cat. This is partly to answer your question, Commissioner O'Brien.
You were asking about duplication and conflicts with the City of Kuna. I'd like to point
out, again, that Kuna is planning to put a sewer facility main sewer plant in the region of
Ten Mile and Lake Hazel in that area to handle the sewer for the continued
development of Kuna. I'd like to point out that at some point in time there will be a
sewer trunk installed along the Lake Hazel corridor, which would in this case only be
serving the south side of Lake Hazel, whereas the property owners to the north side of
Lake Hazel, then, the question becomes what do they do, since they'll have two trunk
lines, one serving the south side, one serving the north side. So, I might request or
suggest that you consider taking the line off of a major thoroughfare where you're going
to have trunk lines for sewer in such close proximity to the major Kuna sewer plant. It
just seems rather inefficient that you're trying to serve sewer all the way from Meridian
when they are so close to sewer that's going to be at the corner of Ten Mile and Lake
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5,2007
Page 33 of 64
Hazel. That's my point. And that the two property owners do find a problem with that
inefficiency that would occur.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your input. Any questions of this individual?
O'Brien: No. I think he covered the point that I made earlier.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to testify
to this portion of our agenda? Dave.
Turnbull: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, my name is David Turnbull.
Office address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. As you will recall from the work
session you had, I believe it was last month, we have the property here that centers on
Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, approximately 920 acres in that area. As you recall, we
had a Comprehensive Plan Amendment processed and approved a few months back
and it was the discussion at your work session that some of the designations on our
property has changed in the staff recommendations and staff was directed to go back
and, you know, work with us to see if those changes made sense and since our
Comprehensive Plan was already approved and we had done some significant planning
based on that Comprehensive Plan and we are in the process of doing that. We have
met with staff and we have also met with the transportation planners at Washington
Group and some of our earlier planning was also based on some -- on ACHD access
standards that are in place at the present time. There are some proposals out there to
change those access standards and so that becomes a little bit more difficult process
for us in determining exactly what land uses will work with what access restrictions. So,
we are in the process of doing that. We haven't been able to get through that process
and determine whether some of these higher density designations -- how much of that
will work, how much of the other areas actually make sense from our viewpoint. So, we
are continuing to work on that, but we haven't come to a conclusion yet. So, I just
wanted to state that for the record and we will continue to do that, but in the meantime,
you know, we'd, obviously, prefer that the designation remain -- that a decision be
deferred until we are able to do that. And I will stand for any questions you might have.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chainnan?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Mae: I'm sure you probably won't be able to answer this one, but how soon do you
think you guys will have that figured out?
Canning: Two weeks.
Turnbull: Well, that's a good question. I could -- you know, it's -- it's going to be at least
four. We will work on it diligently, but we do need a little time. That is a fairly significant
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 34 of 64
difference from what our earlier planning was, so -- and we do have other projects that
we are working, so we can't devote full time to this effort. We will be talking about the
Ten Mile specific plan here in a second, so that's another one we will be interested in.
But -- oh, Commissioner O'Brien asked a question about the calcium plant. That is
property that we have and that will be removed from the site when we go into
development. I think you asked about a feedlot and that would be ours, too, so we will
be removing some existing uses in the area.
O'Brien: I have a question for --
Rohm: Absolutely.
O'Brien: So, the calcium mine, how deep does that mine go? How deep does that mind
go in the calcium deposit?
Turnbull: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner O'Brien, I don't know the specifics on that.
wouldn't be able to give you good data.
O'Brien: They don't fill it in or plug it up or whatever. J think it goes straight down.
Turnbull: I don't know the details.
O'Brien: Okay. Just curious.
Rohm: Any other questions? Commissioner Mae?
Moe: No. I have none.
Rohm: Dave, thank you.
Turnbull: Thank you.
Rohm: Absolutely. You may come back one more time briefly. You can't do it from the
floor, you have to come up to the microphone. And very briefly.
Cross: A just wanted to offer the information. There is no mine there, that's a
processing plant. They have hauled -- I'm friends of the people that live there and they
don't have a mine there that I know of, it's -- they have hauled lime rock in from Lime,
Oregon, for years and they have a processing plant there where they crush the rock and
make different calcium products of it, but I don't think there is any mine there at all.
Rohm: Okay.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Yes. Would you state your name and address for the record again, please?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 35 of 64
Cross: Gordon Cross, 5220 Howry Lane, Meridian.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Ashburn: The property owners that I'm representing -. Jim Ashburn again. 4571 North
Patton Avenue. John Roder and Riddles Water on the south side of Lake Hazel. Just
wanted to make sure that that -- that you're aware of that. The property owners.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify at this
time? Please come forward, sir.
Roberts: Don Roberts. 907 Crater Lake in Meridian, Idaho. Just a brief comment on
something -- Ryan was up here earlier. I guess one observation, just from looking at
this, too. I know that staff was trying to consider in their report about then -- about
affordable homes for folk and one thing that I kind of see that could become possibly an
issue is people move up -- and, you know, you start out in something smaller and, then,
you graduate to something bigger, that there is quite a bit of the medium density, high
density, but with this huge amount of very low density, I feel like it's probably going to
push a lot of people that maybe wanted to move to somewhere traditional low density
out of the area, you know, or maybe to north Meridian or down to Kuna or something
that to -- as they transition through their lives, I guess. So, that's one thing I think that
we observe and I thought it should be pointed out.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify at
this time? Okay. Before we close the Public Hearing, possibly -- or continuing it,
excuse me, possibly to poll the Commission to see if they have any thoughts of
wrapping this up from -- and we will just go from there. Commissioner Moe, do you
have some thoughts from testimony we see?
Mae: Yeah. I'd say I have a lot more homework to do. There was quite a few things
that were brought up that -- this evening that through the workshops that we have had
and everything else, with the staff response and whatnot, I would say I had some
definite opinions of how I wanted to see this go and, then, after tonight I think there is a
few things that I need to go back and kind of review. I am a little bit concerned that we
are set up to do a hearing in two weeks and try and make some recommendations here
and we have had an applicant that just told me that they may not have what they really
want go through for four weeks. And so it's going to make it even that much more fun to
kind of work through this process. I'm a little bit concerned on that -- on that one item
there, but for the most part I do appreciate the input from everyone and I've got a lot of
work to do yet before we do act on it.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5,2007
Page 36 of 64
Canning: After my two week comment Matt shut me down on the microphone.
Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Moe, is there any information that staff can provide you
before you can -- the item is continued? Or in an updated staff report?
Moe: I think, basically, I just need to go back through what was discussed in the
workshop as well and kind of walk through that and possibly -- is there any meeting
minutes and whatnot that you guys have of the meetings that you have had with the
applicant?
Canning: Oh, no, we do not keep minutes with that.
Mae: Okay.
Canning: And Mr. Turnbull never informed us that he wanted four weeks. That was
part of my reason for chiding him a little bit, so --
Rohm: And, quite honestly, I don't think that this hearing tonight is site specific, so
that's just an acreage within the area and so it's -- even though all testimony is well
taken, we are still going to move forward one way or the other down the road. So, with
that being said, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have some final thoughts?
Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to make the comment that I am not prepared to
state which way I would lien on this issue this evening. One problem with
Comprehensive Plan Amendments is it's information overload and for people who live in
that area, you're concerned predominately -- you know, that area that is your circle of
influence and it's just overload for me to try to process all this, so I'm looking for just
some extra time to view it and so my -- earlier we indicated that we want to indicate
which way we are leaning with that and I'm not prepared to do that this evening.
Rohm: And thank you. And it wasn't my intent for which way you were leaning, but just
thoughts on the area as a whole, but --
Newton-Huckabay: The very low density is something that I have been struggling with
throughout the -- I have talked to staff a little bit with that, just understanding the spirit of
that. I will spend some more time on that based on testimony this evening and
information that's been given to me. And the neutraceutical is also something I don't
remember at the last information meeting -- I don't remember that being on the map and
I need to have some time to think through that as well.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Thank you. I have got five items. First is I have to express a little shock,
frankly. Having been to all of the south Meridian planning meetings where I heard again
and again lower densities, lower densities, lower densities, and, then, to come tonight
and hear so often higher densities, higher densities, it -- it was unexpected. I, actually,
frankly, expected the opposite, that there was -- to hear that there was too much transit
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 37 of 64
support of high density and make all of it very low. I wasn't sure what I was going to do
with that, but, instead, I heard the opposite. So, still processing that. The second thing
is just a couple items for clarification that I'd like to direct to staff to get cleaned up
before it does come back. One is on the east boundary, the study area boundary
zigzags around the existing development along -- near Cloverdale, but the proposed
land uses end about a quarter mile east of Cloverdale and as we -- as we act on the
study area boundary to propose, I'd just like to have that cleaned up as one or the other,
either propose some land uses over to the red line or bring the red line over to the land
uses. The third thing is that I have also reviewed the Ten Mile plan and I notice that the
area between Black Cat, Ten Mile, 1-84, and this half mile line between Overland and
Victory, they are not yet consistent with one another and I would like to see the staff
response for south Meridian and the Ten Mile proposal to reflect one another. The
fourth item -- fourth and fifth have to do with trying to figure out when to continue this to.
We heard from the City of Kuna a desire to wait until after the City Councils meet. Has
there been any discussion about a date for that? Is that indefinite at this point?
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner 5iddoway, we have been trying for a month -
- yeah, a month to try and schedule a meeting. The City of Kuna asked for a Monday
evening and it's been very difficult to find a Monday evening when all the Council
members are available.
Siddoway: Okay.
Canning: So, we are trying. I will put a reminder into Mr. Berg to -- I think I already did,
actually, earlier today, put a reminder into Mr. Berg to ask how we are doing on
scheduling that.
5iddoway: Yeah. Ideally, I would like to see that meeting happen first. However, if it
cannot, I guess I could also be comfortable with recommending a boundary up to City
Council and, then, having them deal with the political issues of determining where that
final line is drawn. The final item is with Dave Turnbull and I would like to see that the
issues with the prior Comprehensive Plan Amendment that this board's already acted
on worked out with staff, so that there is some agreement and have that done at least in
terms some form of solid recommendation before it comes back. That's all. Thank
you.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, can I address some of those, since they were -- I think they
would be beneficial for the public that's sitting here, particularly the one written
reference to Ten Mile. On the planning boundary, that was, as you know, a defined
planning boundary by City Council. Staff made a mistake in proposing that boundary.
So, we have shown land uses for the area that should have been the proposed
boundary. The other areas are within the city of Boise area of city impact, so we didn't
want to create a duplication there. 50, when the Comprehensive Plan change went
through, it would just show the colored areas.
Siddoway: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5. 2007
Page 38 of 64
Rohm: SO, you're saying the red line will move to the west?
Canning: Yes. The red would --
Rohm: Thank you.
Canning: But the planning area was defined by Council through separate action. So,
we didn't change it. So, it would move just to the colored areas, so to represent those.
With regard to the Ten Mile area, they are inconsistent currently and I believe you heard
presentations earlier that said that that area -- this would be the land use plan that we
would go with and we would remove it from the Ten Mile.
Siddoway: Okay. Thanks for that clarification.
Canning: Oh. That's coming up. So, they didn't tell you that. Sorry. So, this would be
the land use designation in recognition of the small parcelization pattern and the
difficulty of providing service to that in a timely fashion.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some final thoughts?
O'Brien: Well, actually, I didn't -- I didn't attend the workshops earlier, so I'm learning
more and more about this. But I kind of wear two hats here. One, I attended some of
the meetings -- the town meetings we had and heard a lot of concerns and issues of
people that already reside in the area, probably not the large property owners as much
as the smaller homeowners that would like to have seen retain the low densities that
Commissioner Siddoway had mentioned and, then, all of a sudden we are hearing
people who want to see high density getting more bang for their buck in their property
and I can appreciate that as well. So, it's really kind of a -- I'm kind of torn between the
best of both worlds. I don't know how we can achieve that without losing some of one
and some of another. So, this is going to be something I would be working on trying to
come up with some kind of an idea and I will be talking with planning staff I think about
those kind of issues off line, but just to get an idea about what direction that this thing
should go as I learn more about this. So, I don't have anything specific, other than the
low density versus high density, what do people really want.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my final thoughts on this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment discussion is I'm not sure two weeks is enough time to continue these
items. I don't know that we are going to be ready to render a recommendation in two
weeks and I'm apprehensive that I won't be prepared to make a good decision myself. I
don't know, I can't speak for the balance of the Commission, but maybe two weeks isn't
long enough to continue these. I would rather -- I'd rather the continuance be longer
and come up with the right answer, than to continue it for two weeks and come up with
a half baked answer. And that's -- that may not be to the liking of everybody, because
there is some people that want to move forward and at least have a defined answer, but
I'm a little bit concerned that if we try and make a decision in two weeks or a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 39 of 64
recommendation, that I personally may not be as well prepared to vote myself. So,
that's just my thoughts for right now. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you -- were
you concerned of -- had some concerns?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I was -- just wanted to be clear. Your concerns were
with the previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment there around the neighborhood
center on the southeast. And, then, the joint meeting with Kuna and Meridian City
Council?
Rohm: I would say it's the aggregate of all of those things. It's -- at the start of tonight's
meeting it was kind of the thought that we were going to continue each of these through
to the next regular scheduled meeting, which was April 19th, and with the presumption
that we would be ready to call for a vote and/or some sort of recommendation to the
Council and with -- quite honestly, with all the testimony that we have received tonight,
that appears to be somewhat in disagreement with the land use as proposed. It might
take a little bit more digestion than two weeks to come up with the right answer. That's
just my concern.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, you may have noticed that the
planning director has taken some stakeholders out in the hallway, I think she's trying to
twist some arms to get some commitments on dates. She may be coming back in with
a recommendation for a date certain. Just an observation and maybe Mr. Hood has
something to add.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, what we are talking about, if in fact, two
weeks isn't long enough, potentially six months. I mean that's the next time to -- that
you can make a recommendation. So, if two weeks isn't enough time, we already have
other Public Hearing items scheduled in May and in June, so unless you're ready to stay
here until 2:00 or 3:00 o'clock in the morning like we have in the past, the next -- next
few are already booked. So, we were just -- and Anna's back, so I'll let -- you know, it
was -- it was just something to throw out there that maybe we wait on south Meridian for
another six months, tie up some of these things, hopefully, could meet with Kuna,
stakeholders, and maybe come up with some other -- some minor tweaks and come
back to you in six months, but I don't know if that's where we are going or not.
Rohm: I'd like to hear from the -- from Anna, please.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, I did try and gather the three larger
stakeholders in the area out there and, I'm sorry, but I couldn't talk to all of you at the
same time. But there are a few that have plans for the area, but they were comfortable
with spending some time to work this out and moving -- having the others -- allowing the
others to move forward and spending additional time on this. So, it is something you
can think about. Again, I wouldn't encourage you to decide tonight, but you can ask
questions and think about it over the next couple of weeks if you would like to and, then,
take action then on the continuation or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 40 of 64
Rohm: I suppose the right answer from my perspective is we will come back and we
will continue with not a commitment for a resolution at that continuance; is that -- is that
acceptable?
Canning: You will form a study to make a recommend on a study; is that it?
Rohm: This is -- this is a huge issue and it's going to affect a lot of lives and, quite
honestly, I think that it's -- it's our responsibility to do the best job possible to get the
answer that is in the best interest of the community as a whole and I'm not sure that -- I
never want to speak for the -- any other Commissioners, but I'm not sure that I will be
ready to respond in two weeks, but we will certainly give it our best shot. Do you have
anything else you would like to add?
Canning: No. That was all. I had contemplated -- in recognition of the fact that staffs
response came later in the process than the preferred alternative and also in recognition
of trying to get together with Kuna and the ACHD study, I had contemplated moving this
one off, but we had already noticed it and it was on the agenda, so we needed to move
forward. But I think it's certainly a valid concern. It's a huge area and as Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay said, it's information overload. The scale of that amendment is much
grander than anything else you will see tonight and is perhaps worthy of some
additional time.
Rohm: Thank you. With that being said, could we get a motion to--
Siddoway: I would like to make a motion in the interest of moving on. I'd like to make a
motion to continue -- get to my correct Public Hearing. Public Hearing CPA 07-002 and
07-009 -- have we done 009? Okay. Just wanted to make sure. To our next regularly
scheduled meeting on April 19th.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items CPA 07-002 and CPA
07-009, to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: And we are going to take about a ten minute break.
(Recess. )
Item 6:
Public Hearing: CPA 07-007 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map for the future Ten Mile Interchange area to
modify various future land uses designations and to create several new
future land use designations for the Ten Mile Area Comprehensive Plan
Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department - generally
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 41 of 64
bordered by Linder Road to the east, McDermott Road to the west, the
Union Pacific Railroad Line to the north and % mile south of Overland
Road to the south:
Item 7:
Public Hearing: CPA 07-008 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by adding the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan as an
addendum to the Comprehensive Plan for the Ten Mile Specific Area
Plan Text by the City of Meridian Planning Department - generally
bordered by Linder Road to the east, McDermott Road to the west, the
Union Pacific Railroad Line to the north and % mile south of Overland
Road to the south:
Rohm: Okay. We are ready to continue the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin by opening the Public Hearing on
CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008. Both of these items relate to the Ten Mile specific area
plan and begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The subject
Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is proposed to amend both the text and
the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan, much like the south Meridian plan
which we just discussed. The planning department is proposing to amend the map by
creating a Ten Mile interchange specific area plan land use designation. This
designation will appear on the future land use map as a blued out area that will -- that
will cover the entire Ten Mile interchange study area. Just as a point of clarification --
and this was brought up earlier on during the meeting -- there was a significant overlap
area between the Ten Mile interchange specific plan study area and the south Meridian
study area, located south of the freeway and west of Ten Mile. After considering this,
staff decided to, basically, let the south Meridian area plan govern this area. So, staff is
proposing to remove this portion from the proposed Ten Mile area plan, which will make
sure that there is no overlap in designations and, basically, clarify what's happening
there. So, there is only one plan that you refer to when you go to that area. Along with
that, the text within the Ten Mile plan contains specific -- a specific land use map, which
we can go to here. And I want to make that clear that we can, actually, just gray it out,
because that's the area that we are proposing to grayout there. It's kind of interesting
as we can see -- I just want to make this clear -- that this will be what you see on our --
on our physical Comprehensive Plan land use map, one giant blued out area. And so
any properties within that area, they would, basically, refer -- if you have that
designation, it refers you to the Ten Mile area specific area plan, which contains within it
a land use map that looks just like this. Now, something important to realize about this
map is that not all of the designations proposed with this map are available throughout
the entire city. I can give you the specific new designations that are being proposed.
Two of them, actually, overlapped with what was proposed with the south Meridian area
and those are medium high density residential and mixed use employment. But beyond
these, this map also contains the mixed use residential designation, the mixed use
commercial, high density office, low density office, lifestyle center, civic and it also
contains a parkS and greens space element or land use designation. So, all of those
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 42 of 64
designations I just mentioned will be very site specific to this area and the plan contains
very clear definitions of what those designations are. I just wanted to make that clear
up front that this is specific area plan is not -- this doesn't show up on a general land
use map. Beyond that -- let's see here. We can move back to the beginning. This
gives us a good overall outlook of what's -- of what's going on in the Ten Mile area and
in the plan is a lengthy document that contains various details about how this area is
going to be looked at. The three things that the plan touches on mostly is, obviously,
land use, which was shown in the land use map. It also contains a transportation --
proposed transportation network, which is a -- which differs a little bit from our current
Comprehensive Plan, which doesn't propose a new road system, whereas this plan
looked very closely at the transportation network and the plan also contains a large
section that describes -- specifically describes the design of the proposed structures
and streetscapes within this entire area. All of these elements work together to kind of
create a very unique land use designation within the City of Meridian and it was really
brought on by a couple of things and this is some of the things that were contained in
the original letter that was submitted by the planning department to the city to describe
what was going on here. With the passage of the GARVEE bonding law, the Meridian
planning department recognized the urgency to move forward with the planning of the
Ten Mile Road interchange area and proposed project and proposed to fund this in the
2006 fiscal year. The City Council recognized that the area needed a detailed specific
plan to coordinate and maximize the benefits to each individual property owner and
needs of circulation and land use needs of the city and included the plan in the adopted,
as I said, 2006 fiscal year plan. This funding enabled the planning department to
engage a consultant to work on this process and it's been much like the South Meridian
Plan, a lengthy process that has involved numerous public meetings, which included a
large charrette that was held last year where the charrette took place over almost a full
week where stakeholders, affected agencies, and various other -- various other public
entities and just members -- general members of the public were able to come, voice
their opinion, and be involved in this planning process. And staff -- staff feels that it was
a good public process where hundreds of people came and participated in this -- in this
process. I'm a little bit reluctant to go into the numerous details that are contained in the
plan. It was presented to the planning commission and staff is here to respond to
specific questions. But the plan is -- we feel very well thought out and it presents a new
direction for this area of the city. One of the main purposes -- and I can go to the
existing future land use map that is shown on the screen. You can see that much of this
area used to be designated -- or is currently designated as mixed use regional, which is
a land use designation that isn't really that specific. It provides for a wide variety of land
uses that could be retail, housing, all types of things would be allowed in this mixed use
regional designation and with the introduction of the Ten Mile interchange, staff and city
leaders feel it's very important that we really close -- get a more specific definition of
what we want to see in this area and that was the purpose of the Ten Mile interchange
specific area plan. Staff is recommending approval of the plan with the amendment of
removing that area from the -- from the plan study area and also amending that
proposed future land use map to exclude that area. And I will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5. 2007
Page 43 of 64
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? This project is a little easier to get
our arms around than the south Meridian. Thank you. Good presentation. At this time
would Dave Connolly like to come forward, please.
McCarthy: Hi. My name is Kevin McCarthy. Address is 9777 Chinden Boulevard. I'm
here to represent David Connolly and Steve Bainbridge, who are two of the names
listed I think there, so I'll knock both of those out at one time. We have a small project
here, it's 3.3 acres, right there next to the mixed use commercial zone that's designated
right there, which I believe is an application that's already gone through the City of
Meridian. We were planning on submitting an application as well when we were notified
that there is a -- that this planning process was taking place, so we withheld our --
submitting any application until this process was complete. We had made it pretty clear
to staff and other people that we had planned on making this a commercial use there,
however, for whatever reason, we weren't aware of the charrette process taking place,
so we weren't there to express our desire to have that shown as a mixed use
commercial. So, we are here to request an amendment to this land use map to have
that 3.3 acres, which is directly adjacent to a mixed use commercial, be shown as mixed
use commercial, instead of -- I think it's a medium high density residential. Just to give
you an idea how -- we started doing this in May of 2006, with numerous meetings -- we
actually had a site plan all prepared, we withheld, figured it would be -- you know,
because we had already had an application or had preliminary meetings with the city,
that it would be captured in this planning and it was not. So, due to that we would
request that you, you know, make that amendment. Other things to kind of keep in
mind I think through here -- while I understand, you know, the need for residential,
across the street is a transfer station directly across from this property, which is a -- let's
see. SSC, trash transfer station. So, you know, having a residential community right
there would be a tough sell for our property owners, another reason we'd like to have it
be a mixed use commercial zone. So, with that I will stand for any questions that you
may have.
Rohm: And this parcel is right adjacent to --
McCarthy: It is. There is no separation.
Rohm: -- the commercial development that's, basically, taken place -- Hark's Corner.
McCarthy: I don't recall the exact name, but --
Rohm: I'm pretty sure it is. From the audience Dave was saying yes.
McCarthy: Yeah. So, it's directly adjacent to it, it's just going to be a continuation. Just,
basically, another additional three acres of mixed commercial.
Siddoway: To the west?
McCarthy: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 44 of 64
Siddoway: Just immediately to west?
McCarthy: It is. It's very hard to tell from that map. You have to really zoom in there to
figure it out. But it's immediately adjacent to it, so it's not a huge change, we are just
expanding it by three acres, which on the overall scale of things here isn't much. So,
you can see it's kind of a trapezoidal shape.
Rohm: Yeah. All of this land here is part of that --
McCarthy: Right. And what we are talking about is this right here and this -- for
whatever reason the shading didn't go over all the way. The actual property boundary
for that MBC is right here and what we are referring to is this 3.3 acres right here.
Rohm: Oh. Okay. Thank you.
McCarthy: So, there is no separation between the two.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of this individual?
McCarthy: I have one more question. I mean -- so is this something that we could --
you guys can act on tonight or is this something we need to continually come back and
testify on to make sure that this happens? We submitted a letter to -- I believe we
turned that into the city clerk today, so that stuff's been -- with all of our attachments and
everything, illustrating our point, is this something we need to continue to come back
and bring up or is it bringing up once -- right now is that sufficient and it should be
addressed with your Commission when you act?
Rohm: Well, bringing it up tonight is for sure the right timing from that perspective. It
won't be acted on tonight, but it will be incorporated into the discussion that will
ultimately -- our recommendation back to staff will include your comments on changing
the land use designation for your parcel. So, not necessarily is that the
recommendation we would make, but we will certainly take your testimony and
incorporate that in our decision-making process.
McCarthy: So, as you guys continue all these applications tonight, are you continuing
the public hearings or is the Public Hearing closed?
Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could jump in.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Baird: Members of the Commission. As you pointed out at the beginning of the
meeting, you're attempting to take all testimony tonight with continuing the Public
Hearing for the purpose of deliberating and making a recommendation on the 19th. It's
certainly in your discretion to take additional testimony, but the intent was to get all the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 45 of 64
testimony tonight. I do want to remind this applicant -- or this individual that your
recommendation is just that, it's a recommendation, and it would behoove anyone who
is interested to attend the City Council hearings on the matter, because that's when the
final decisions will be made. A recommendation from this body doesn't guarantee
similar actions from the City Council. So, it is something that would need to be followed.
McCarthy: Okay.
Rohm: There we go.
McCarthy: All right.
Rohm: Thank you.
McCarthy: Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Jewett.
Jewett: Jim Jewett. 1560 Carol Street, Meridian, Idaho. As some of you are aware, we
are the developer of the South Ridge Subdivision, which is primarily the area south of
Overland, plus we are the owner of the property that's right at the interchange at
Overland and the freeway. So, I will just keep my comments specific to the south side.
As with a lot of things in life, as we grow we learn a little bit more and through this
process I thought we had covered everything and it's kind of come to my attention that
there is one kind of service that we haven't provided south of the freeway and that is a
service station or a C store, in the south area planning, as well as this Ten Mile area
planning, there isn't provisions, so residents in this general area and in the south
Meridian, would have to go to Meridian Road for services. So, I would ask that the
Commission consider a service station from the Ten Mile interchange to Overland --
new Overland location, somewhere along that corridor an appropriate place for a
service station. And the second thing I'd like to touch on is just an FYI. As part of the
process with ITD and with the construction of the new Ten Mile interchange, the most
likely scenario for this road would probably be relocated along this corridor to tie in Tasa
Street back over to Overland. So, I don't think it necessarily changes any land use, it's
just that because so much effort has gone into showing a transportation corridor, I just
wanted to make it aware to the Commission that my negotiations with ITD now are to
relocate this road down along this corridor, allowing the Tasa residents to come back up
to Tasa at this location on Overland. Oh. And that would be accommodated through an
underpass on this reconstruction of Ten Mile. So, with that I would stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Any questions of Mr. Jewett? Thank you.
Jewett: Thank you.
Rohm: John Peterson.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 46 of 64
Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm John Peterson. 3680 Lamont Road. And I
signed up and you will notice I'm neutral on this issue. I had a question, though. I'm
hoping that Ten Mile will not become another Eagle Road and the debacle that that's
been as far as traffic is concerned. I had a question and I guess it stems from my
ignorance as to what this Commission can do as compared to what the Idaho
Transportation Department does and what the Ada County Highway District does. But I
heard a comment earlier to the effect that McDermott might be made a north-south high
density traffic corridor. I have been wondering for a long time why there wasn't a plan
for a north-south traffic corridor and why most of our traffic problems are solved by
piecemeal Band-Aids. I'm looking at -- at this Ten Mile overpass as sort of piecemeal
project. Now, McDermott is in the future considered and maybe I heard it wrong, if it is,
I'd like to know, but if it isn't I'd like somebody -- and maybe the Commission would be
the place to start to see a limited access, high density traffic corridor, north-south,
somewhere.
Rohm: There has been quite a bit of discussion about that all the way from Highway 16,
which heads over the hill to Emmett from Highway 44 -- that's specifically what you're
talking about here, where that highway would, then, head south from Highway 44 and
jog to McDermott Road or in that vicinity and take it all the way to the freeway and that's
under --
Peterson: It's a little bit in the future.
Rohm: -- the GARVEE bill right now and something that's being discussed and there
has been discussions of preservation -- land preservation, so that there is the possibility
of that very thing taking place and you're sure -- you're sure right that we need that
north~south thoroughfare.
Peterson: And I'm glad to see that the Commission is on top of that. Another comment
about the roads in this Ten Mile area that you have included plans for roads and as I
have talked about earlier tonight, you can see where Overland swings around to the
south there in a big wide bend and comes back. Does the Commission really have this
as part of this Ten Mile plan? Is this part of the road structure?
Rohm: I think in just general response to your question, the Ten Mile interchange itself
is going to take a certain amount of property to develop that and if, in fact, you had
Overland tying into Ten Mile where it currently exists, there is the potential for hazards
associated with that and I think where it drops right down to Ten Mile currently, I think
that it's a safety issue and so the thought is that you were to move Overland up to -- up
onto the bluff, there would -- it would reduce the hazard associated with that issue. And
I may not be saying that exactly right, but I think that that's the thought process.
Peterson: And I'm assuming that the Commission is taking into consideration how
these different road plans for the future will affect what you're planning here for the Ten
Mile interchange and I appreciate what you're doing. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 47 of 64
Rohm: Thank you for coming in. Okay. That is the end of the list of individuals that
have signed up and as with the previous hearing, the podium is still open to additional
testimony and if someone would like to come forward and offer testimony, now is that
time.
Ashburn: Again, Jim Ashburn. I represent Helen and Associates, the land owner, in
this proposed area. If we could bring back the current proposed use. We own this
triangle here, the lower triangle here. When we purchased the property about a year
and a half ago and entered negotiations -- into negotiations prior to that, we were relying
on this map as a guideline for our purchase and pricing the purchase and so forth. As
you can see, that land under the current designation, is designated high density
residential. The immediate plan is for switching that to a medium high density
residential, which, again, we were counting on the high density residential designation
for our purchase. Again, I participated in the charrette. I wanted to compliment the
participants in the charrette. It was a very well thought out process. We came up with
some great ideas. I participated through the entire thing and at the end I did have to
register my objection to, basically, being demoted. Other than that, I think that it's a
very well thought out plan, it's just -- we made the purchase on the assumption that this
would become high density residential as designated in the future use plan. With that I
would stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this individual?
Canning: Commissioner Rohm?
Rohm: Yes.
Canning: Before Mr. Ashburn sits down, I think it -- to say he participated in the
charrette is an understatement. He was there as many hours as most of the staff was.
Very actively participating and drawing and bringing up ideas and it really was a -- quite
a level of participation we had never seen before and it was -- I just wanted to make
sure that Jim got the accolades he should for spending that kind of time and
commitment to the process.
Ashburn: Thank you. Again, we would request that you reconsider the designation.
Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, maybe just a follow up question for staff, just to make sure I
have my definitions straight. Under the current existing future land use map the high
density residential definition is greater than eight dwelling units per acre and the
medium high in the Ten Mile plan allows what density?
Canning: Eight to fifteen.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 49 of 64
commercial, with the understanding -- and we recognize that mixing residential uses in
that mixed use commercial is a critical component of the mixed use commercial. So, we
recognize that there has to be a blend of both, but we don't concur with having all of the
commercial pushed out to this region where we think that the chances of success and
the chances of accommodating a grocer in this area would be limited. So, we can work
within the mixed use concept, but we don't necessarily concur with having those
designations separated that way. Okay. And I'd like to read just for the -- I'm sure you
have read all the -- memorized all these definitions. The purpose statement of the
mixed use commercial -- the purpose of the mixed use commercial designation is to
encourage the development of a mixture of office, retail, recreational, employment, and
other miscellaneous uses with supporting multi-family or single family attached
residential uses. While the focus of these areas is on commercial, employment uses,
the horizontal and vertical integration of residential uses is essential to securing
entitlements. So, I think within that purpose statement you have some -- some good
definitions and some protection for insuring that you have mixed uses. We discussed
this with Anna and Matt earlier this week and told them that that would be our request. I
think that they were somewhat receptive to that, but I don't know if they are prepared to
make a recommendation for the area. So, that's what we will be requesting, that this __
this MUR designation be change to MUC. The second area of concern -- and I don't
think we are going to resolve any of this tonight and probably might not even resolve it
before you come to a point of recommendation of the issue of access control. We are
fully cognizant of land use and transportation planning has to work together, but there
are some -- sometimes they can work against each other, too. And everybody likes to
point out as an example Eagle Road as -- and I think that the Eagle Road example is
probably being used too broadly over the valley. Eagle Road is a unique and special
situation. It's the highway that connects to Eagle, it goes across the river, it continues
on to McCall, and it's a major highway destination. Ten Mile is a little bit different than
that and as pointed out by a previous witness, there is a plan for an expressway at the
McDermott location. Ten Mile is never going to become that, because it's primarily
developed out all the way between, you know, Franklin Road and Chinden. So, to
assume that that's going to become an expressway like -- or a high volume network like
Eagle Road I think is a false analogy. So, what happens when you -- the plan -- the
plan right now calls for this access here, these two connectors, to be right-in, right-out
only. Well, that, basically, creates limited access in this area and we are not sure that
that's justified. We'd like the opportunity take the studies that have been done by the
consultants, analyze them ourselves, and perhaps be able to offer some additional
insight there. I do have one of our project managers on staff is -- does have his
master's degree in transportation and we'd like to be able to analyze that situation a little
bit further. So, we are going to be requesting greater access at this point here. The
other point -- the original plan that came out -- this is our property line right here at the
quarter mile section. The original plan showed an access there. Now, we granted the
city a sewer easement right across our north property line in this location and the
original plan showed that access, with the understanding that that would be a shared
access between our property and this property to the north. The original plan showed
that access there, but with this new revision it shoves it up, oh, I don't know how many
hundred feet that is. And, then, eventually comes down to that alignment. The problem
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5. 2007
Page 50 of 64
we have with that is we have been denied access to Ten Mile Road by this. Now, if
there is some provisions that we can have where maybe there is some land swaps and
we acquire this frontage in here, that's fine, but we have no way of enforcing that with
the existing property owner. So, we will be needing some kind of assistance from the
city or the highway district, whoever is going to make those decisions. We can't agree
to have our only access right here that we currently have taken away without some kind
of replacement.
Rohm: Dave, before you continue, do you mind me asking staff something for just a
moment?
Turnbull: Sure.
Rohm: As each one of these individuals are coming forward and testifying they got their
site specific requests for alteration. Are you capturing these in a fashion that you would
be able to provide us with an alternate map, so this is what we propose and this is
what's coming forward in testimony? Can you provide that to us over the next week or
two?
Canning: Yes. I would prefer you take some additional comments from staff before we
change the map and, then, direct us to change the map at that time.
Rohm: Okay. And thank you. I just wanted to make sure that when this is all done we
can take a look at it in its entirety, as opposed to just individual testimony. But thank
you. And, I'm sorry, Dave, but I thought that that was in your best interest.
Turnbull: No. I appreciate that. Thanks very much. So, I can continue now?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Turnbull: Okay. So, I guess what we are concerned about is -- is that we believe in
some access controls, but we believe that access controls that are placed too
restrictively are detrimental to eventual land use. And so we would like to see some
examples of where similar access restrictions have proven not to be detrimental to the
land use. We'd also like to be able to come up with some examples -- and, you know,
you were probably talking about other areas of the country with similar kind of
intersections and traffic volumes and so forth. But we should look for examples where
less restrictive access management policies have been successful from a land use
standpoint and not unduly hinder the transportation functionality. So, again, we may not
have time to get all that done before you need to make a recommendation to the City
Council, but I assume there is going to be sometime between that point and the City
Council hearing where maybe some of that work can be done. So, I just wanted to go
on the record to say that I think we need some additional time to analyze that and will
conclude my testimony and stand for questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5,2007
Page 51 of 64
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of this individual? Thank you, Dave. Okay.
Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. Good. Thank you very much.
This project is a lot easier to get our arms around it, I believe, than the south area.
Certainly appreciate your comments.
Canning: Chairman, may I make a few comments --
Rohm: Absolutely.
Canning: -- relation to the -- one of the things to highlight about the Ten Mile specific
area plan is that the roads that you see connecting to the arterial roadways, those are
proposed to be the only access points to those arterial roadways. So, you had several
requests for changing to a commercial use. Some of those requests wouldn't have
access to the arterial roadways. So, it's an important thing to consider when you want
to change the map. The reason that this property is shown as residential, instead of
commercial, is that we felt that commercial property just isn't viable without having
access to the arterial roadway and it's imperative to have franklin functioning at a high
level to start reducing the number of direct access points to that facility. So, that's why
commercial was not shown on that property. With regard to Mr. Jewett and his request
for a gas station, there would appear to be a couple different opportunities to
accommodate that. One would be in the mixed employment, if -- if he secures kind of
reasonable access. It doesn't sound like he's going to have access there to Ten Mile.
The other opportunity would be across from the fire station, because he would have
access to a collector roadway there. Overland. Actually, arterial. But he could get --
well, that's another arterial, isn't it. That might be an opportunity there. With regard to
the issues Mr. Turnbull just talked about, the need to shift that intersection north is that
as Lochner prepares the -- the construction plans for the interchange, they needed a
separation distance from the interchange facility to that first intersection and that was
the minimum distance. When we have talked to Lochner we have said, you know, we
need to make sure we maintain access. And they can't land lock a parcel. So, we have
been talking to them about leaving that access open as part of -- and leaving it as part
of their plan to inquire the access all the way down to that first roundabout. Those little
dots are roundabouts, by the way. That's a little roundabout. That's a roundabout.
There is several others in there. Also, with this plan is one of the real implementation
challenges -- and we have a few years, so we feel we can get this all worked out, but
the real implementation challenge is to get those collector roadways built and we have
kind of talked about trying to do some local improvement district or some sort of funding
-- something with ACHD to try and acquire the funds to get those collector road systems
built, because a lot of the properties -- particularly in this center section, don't have
access at all. They are completely landlocked. So, that collector roadway network is
very important to the success of this plan and we know that and those aren't the kind of
details you need to work out at this point. Again, this is the vision for the city and, then,
we work on the implementation tools to accomplish that vision. So, I think those were
the topics. The mixed use residential, mixed use community is -- commercial, sorry, is a
little -- you know, I like the plan the way it is now, so I haven't gone about changing it
when Mr. Turnbull requested it, so just -- but the two designations are really the two
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 52 of 64
sides of the coin. They are so close that in charrette when we talked about them, they
were kind of a blended -- you know, it's kind of a continuum and one side is residential
and one is commercial, but you have commercial in one and residential in both. So, it's
really not that much different, I guess. The important part was to have kind of a main
street feel when you came up to the transit station, quite frankly. And if we can still
achieve that, I'm not sure that it matters too much what's just west of there.
Rohm: Thank you.
Canning: Is there anything else you wanted to know about?
Rohm: No. That -- thank you.
Canning: Oh, I did -- yeah.
Moe: Do you have a comment on that? I'd like to hear that.
Canning: We talked about it and most of the apartment development that's goes in is
still within R-15. Again, that's not a designation that's all that much different than what's
there. It's a triangular piece of property. I doubt you would be able to achieve that kind
of density on a triangular piece of property, because they are just inherently inefficient
trying to develop them. But it's -- that's something certainly that wouldn't change the
nature of the plan drastically.
Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your comments and I appreciate the testimony offered
up by the public. I think that this is at least going to be easier to get our arms around
than the previous amendment request and I think that the testimony offered will have to
incorporate that in our discussion over the next couple of weeks and we will come back
and open it up again on the 19th. With that being said, I -- unless there is additional
public testimony, I think that it's probably in the best interest to request a continuance
for the 19th.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue file numbers CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 to
the hearing date of April 19th, 2007.
O'Brien: I'll second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue item CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of April 1 9th, 2007. All those in favor say aye.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, before you take the vote, could I ask for discussion,
because, otherwise, the folks that are leaving don't know how you're leaning.
Rohm: Yeah. We can do that.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we reverse the vote?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5,2007
Page 53 of 64
Baird: Withdraw the motion. Whoever made the motion, withdraw it.
Mae: I withdraw the motion.
Newton-Huckabay: I second that.
Baird: Second agrees. Okay. The motion has been withdrawn.
Rohm: Okay. The motion has been withdrawn and with that being said, I will poll the
Commission and begin with Commissioner O'Brien and -- do you have some final
thoughts on this CPA?
O'Brien: Not at this time I don't.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: Regarding the mixed use community along Franklin to the west, I don't have
any particular heartburn with it, especially if there is an opportunity for joint access there
or cross-access that may be in place. I'd like to maybe know by the next meeting if
there is an opportunity for joint or cross-access there. That would certainly help me
make up my mind on that one. Regarding the C store and the gas station, I'd prefer not
to change land uses to accommodate it somewhere that it's not already accommodated.
I'd like to see that work within the existing framework somehow. Regarding Jim
Ashburn's comment about the high density, you know, I could go either way. I don't
think the change from medium high to high would be a significant change to the
character. I just question -- we haven't really seen anything that's truly come in higher
than that and, you know, if you were to work out a site plan that you thought you were
interested in that were higher than 15 units per acre, I'd like to see if you could actually
accomplish it, because, if not, I would be inclined to just leave it as it is. The southeast
corner of Ten Mile and Franklin. My gut inclination is to leave it as is. It's mixed use
residential, mixed use commercial -- I'd hate to go away from the main street concept up
to the transit station. I believe that changing it to commercial would increase the
impetus for additional access points and one of the main issues that drove the
development was that the coordination of transportation and land use in a way that
limited the access points along Ten Mile. I'm wondering if that commercial -- that
grocery store couldn't be included into the lifestyle center area in the middle
somewhere. And I'm a pretty strong proponent of the access controls that are
proposed. It would take quite a bit of convincing to get me to change it to more turning
movements, because, boy, if there is a lesson to be learned from Meridian and Eagle
near the freeway, it's that the more accesses and the more turning movements you put
in in close proximity to that interchange, the more difficult it is for traffic to move through.
So, that was one of the things we were trying to address and try and give some thought
to the issue or the challenge from Mr. Turnbull to see if there is some areas where
access control has been implemented and not been detrimental to the commercial
development and give some thought to that between now and the next meeting, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 54 of 64
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I prefer not to follow Commissioner Siddoway with comments
anymore. I have a difficult time just being with myself. Well, I do agree. I -- I will
probably still be on the Commission when we get to see the challenges that will come
with the paradigm shift of limiting access to major collectors as this plan has done it.
There are going to be some people who like it and those are the people who probably
don't stand to make a lot of money off of it. So, it's going to be interesting and I'm
looking forward to it.
Canning: ACHD is -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay, ACHD is currently considering changes to their access management policies
that would be consistent with what's shown here.
Newton-Huckabay: The variation and exception and -- come to mind.
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Moe: Well, I would concur with Mr. Siddoway on pretty much all but of his comments __
I'm still a little bit unclear on how I'm looking at the property on the southeast corner.
That's something I'm going to have to kind of review in my own mind here in the next
couple of weeks. Yeah. Right there. The grocery store. I believe that, you know -- I
think I'll just leave it at that. That's pretty much the area that I'm most concerned with. I
would say that the property that's across from the transfer station when we had the
other project come through, one of my main questions was why would anyone want to
put something residential across the street from a transfer station. So, that for me is -_
I'm glad to see that, so --
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my only comments are that I want to see all of the
recommended changes from the testimony given in their entirety, overlay over what's
been proposed in this and, then, I will digest it on my own. Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, may I?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Mr. Jewett didn't specify an area and there is not a
designation -- I can't meet one of your goals. So, Mr. Jewett didn't specify an area and
none of the current land uses support a gas station, except for perhaps mixed
employment -- or not mixed employment, high density employment. So, if the
Commission can provide a little more --
Rohm: I guess my comment on that would be I agree that there should be some sort of
a C store or gas station on that south side of the freeway and within this area of impact.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 55 of 64
It seems to me it may be where you had pointed out where the rerouted Overland ties
into Ten Mile, maybe that would be appropriate. Is that--
Canning: That helps. Thank you, sir.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Now, could we get a motion?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue file numbers CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008, to
the hearing date of April 19th, 2007.
Rohm: Could I get a second?
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, before you move onto the next item, I would like to
acknowledge that our consultant from HDR is in the audience listening patiently and
Miguel -- want to wave? There we go. And he's here to listen and make those changes
you requested.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: CPA 07-003 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map by adding and amending pathway locations for
the Pathways Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian
Parks and Recreation Department:
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And there are some of us that are on an
e-mail list that -- the sooner you have an opportunity to do that overlay, I don't know -- I
just am very visual, but I'd like to be able to take a look at those in their entirety as soon
as possible. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your input. We have one item left on the
agenda and it is Public Hearing CPA 07-003 related to Pathways Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and I'd like to begin with the staff report. Oh, didn't I open? Excuse me.
I'd like to at this time open CPA 07-003 and begin with the staff report. Is that better?
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. Let me just get
situated with our PowerPoint presentation. Here we are. This application specifically
references a designation we have on our future land use map for pathways. With all the
development in the city and the proposed expansion of our areas of impact, we decided,
both in conjunction with parks department and the City of Meridian planning department,
that it would be a good time also to get an update for that pathway network. And the
pathway network shown on the future land use map has not been updated since 2003
and a major revision to the pathway plan has not been completed since the first master
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 56 of 64
pathway plan was developed in the year 2000. Due to the amount of development that
has occurred in the recent past and the continued growth of the city, as stated, the
planning department and the parks and recreation department had decided it's time to
do that. As development continues to occur in the city, the pathway system will
continue to grow as developers build their portion of the overall pathway system. And
one of the major focus points of this -- of this revision was to identify sections of
pathway that have been installed with development and provide a clear picture of how
the numerous existing portions of pathway could be efficiently and effectively
connected. The proposed pathway never specifically addresses these gaps in the
pathway system and also focuses on connecting significant features, such as schools,
parks, public facilities and major business districts. Much like the existing pathway
network, the updated pathway system focuses on a core system of pathways based on
the existing canal system within the City of Meridian and this core system of pathway is
enhanced by key connectors that will provide connections to and through many
residential areas while creating a larger city wide loop. That's just a brief overview of
what -- of what the goals of this updated pathway plan are. The plan itself -- it contains
what you're seeing in front of you, which is the actual path -- the physical pathway
network and it also is actually a document that contains various things, such as design
elements and a discussion of implementation of these pathways and all those types of
things. But in this situation the -- this body, this Commission, is in a position, really, to
only act on the network itself, the map amendment. The text and the design elements
and all of the other things that have come along with that -- with this network aren't
really being considered tonight. They have been considered by the parks and
recreation commission and that commission recommended approval of the overall -- of
the entire plan to the City Council, but because these designations specifically refer to
the land use map and an amendment to that map, that's why this Commission has
become involved at this time. I just want to make that clear that this -- this discussion
tonight is, really, only about the designation of where these paths are within the city and
not about how this plan will be implemented, because that's something that the City
Council will be deciding at a later date. With that said, there has been quite a bit of
discussion on maybe the location of some of these pathways and how they will be built
out. And I wanted to -- we did receive a petition from a large group of citizens that has
voiced some concern about one specific section of pathway along the Nine Mile Creek
north of Cherry Lane towards Ustick. And I will go ahead and read into the record the
statement that was included in that petition for everyone to hear. It says: We, the
undersigned, strongly oppose the present proposed pathway network along Nine Mile
Creek Canal, with a maintenance road, fence, pathway, landscaped area and another
fence, it would extend not only into our private property, but into our actual homes and
we are strongly opposed to losing 30 to 50 feet of our property. The presence of
pedestrians, joggers, dog walkers, lights along the pathway, et cetera, right next to our
home, will completely take away any privacy we are entitled to and currently enjoy. We
are also very concerned about the noise, possibilities of vandalism and any waste left
behind by humans or animals, contributing to our loss of a safe, private, and sanitary
neighborhood. It would also bring an end to the habitat of the wildlife that lives along
the Nine Mile Creek. It is our request that this proposed phase of the pathway network
along Nine Mile Creek be permanently removed. And there are various undersigned. I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5. 2007
Page 57 of 64
believe it's over 50 people that had signed this petition and maybe more than that. I
didn't count the exact number. I wanted to read that into the -- into the record and give
a response to that -- to that statement. And I want to make it clear that staff recognizes
these concerns, especially when the pathway that's proposed through an established
neighborhood and this isn't something that they have ever really been -- it's been on the
map -- this section of pathway has been on the map for quite some time, but it's never
something that has been pursued and with this revision to the network it became kind of
an issue for this neighborhood and staff recognizes that, but staff's response to that is
that this pathway network is a future pathway network. It's a long-term goal of the city to
have provided these pathway connections and, really, it's not the city's position currently
or the parkS and recreation department's position to go -- I mean in a sense to get the
bulldozers ready and go ahead and put this path through. That's not the purpose of this
plan. It's, really, a long-term vision of the pathway network throughout the city and it's
something that the city in the past and most likely in the future will work with property
owners to make this happen. Currently most pathways go in with new development.
This Commission sees pathways quite often come through as they are on our plan and
a new subdivision comes in we will require pathways all the time. But in a situation
where it's a subdivision that was approved and has been built quite a long time ago and
there is a pathway designation, I just wanted to make it clear that it's not the intention of
this plan or the intention of staff to say that this pathway is going to be built in the next
day or the next year. We don't really know. Really, the plan is that these pathways be
included when these properties redevelop and -- or with significant buy-in from the
landowners to make this happen. If that buy-in doesn't exist, then, it would be difficult to
make these pathways go through, because as the landowners say, it's their property
and the city's really not in the -- doesn't have the habit of going and taking people's
property. It's not something that happens. So, I just -- I just wanted to make that clear.
And if there is any questions, we can certainly respond to those and we have our legal
department here and also a representative from the parks and recreation department to
answer those types of questions. And with that staff is recommending approval of this
proposed pathway network and believes that it really will provide -- it provides a great
vision and a great plan for future pedestrian and multi-use connectivity throughout the
city.
Rohm: Thank you. That was a great presentation. And I'm sure it's helped clarify a lot
of things for a lot of people. Thank you. Any questions of staff before we --
O'Brien: I just have one.
Rohm: Go ahead, Tom.
O'Brien: So, what you're saying is that this is just a proposal that -- there could be one,
two or several missing links that if you don't get it -- I mean it just destroys the whole
thing; right? I mean you can't -- you might be able to walk or run for a mile and, then,
you stop, I guess. I don't know what -- what's the contingency plan there? You say the
city isn't in the business of taking away people's property, of course, but, boy, it seems
like that's a long road to haul.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 58 of 64
Lucas: I'll go ahead and let Mr. Ellsworth respond to that question. He has a little bit
more background with the whole history of this plan and he's worked very closely with
the parks and recreation department and the consultants who created it.
Ellsworth: Thank you, Justin. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, one thing
that's unique about the segment of pathway in particular on which the residents
commented, is unlike all of the other segments of pathway that are proposed and
without getting to far into the narrative of the text, the consultant also proposed a
parallel on street route and in a spreadsheet that describes, for example, a pathway
actually running along the east side of the canal. It actually is termed -- it identified a
short term and a long term for implementation of the segment. In the near term the on-
street route will probably be the way to go. In the longer term the canal pathway is the
direction that it should go. Without speaking directly to the consultants about that, I
have a feeling what happened is they took a look at this corridor, recognized the impact
it would have to the property owners and understanding that it's likely that it will take
redevelopment before this is a viable pathway, they proposed the near term option, in
addition to ~- but I think it's worth noting -- because, like I said, this is the only pathway
segment in the whole proposed network where that was the case.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Matt, do you know if -- and I could -- maybe I ought to wait -- hold this
question for the property owners. I'll go ahead and ask it and, then, maybe they can
respond, too. But the -- what I'm wondering is -- is the easement for the Nine Mile
Creek through that area already fenced off from their backyards or not? I will just throw
that out as a question and I'll let the public respond to it.
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, the
residents are indicating that, no, there is not a fence and I do know that property lines in
this instance do run to the center of the creek. So, it appears that it's an easement. It is
not fenced. One point of clarification is a bit of confusion on staffs part. The GIS
system that we operate on labeled the Nine Mile Creek as a creek. One of the
residents of this neighborhood actually contacted the irrigation district and as it turns out
it's, in fact, a drain, which -- which winds up changing the design standards that the
irrigation district require on it. The long and short of it is -- and this gets back into the
text of the plan, so I don't go too far in depth, but it's a bit more constrained what the
recommendations are as far as the amount of land needed, rather than maintenance
road, fence, pathway, property line, it would, essentially, be multiple use between the
maintenance road and the pathway in the case of a drain.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 59 of 64
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I think at this time we will take some public
testimony. Kevin Barkel!.
Barkell: Kevin Barkel!. 2181 North Maxie Place. We had a meeting with Matt awhile
back here about this proposed pathway plan. If you will look at this it shows an 18 foot
easement from the edge of the bank, not the center of the creek, for the irrigation
district. It shows another 14 feet for this pathway. I overhung a tape measure a foot
and a half to two foot over the edge of the bank, it wipes out a seven foot hedge that I
have hiding -- hiding that irrigation right of way. It takes up about two foot of my
neighbor's fence into -- and leaves their pathway within about three foot of her garage.
There is other homes along the way. It takes up even more other yards. We have
contacted John Anderson of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and where us as the
homeowners do own that property to the center of the creek, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
does have access in there. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation isn't about to give it up either.
The 18 foot isn't enough for them. By overhanging the tape measure and allowing their
18 feet, that doesn't give them near enough room. They actually need to set that in
three feet from the edge of the bank before they can do their 18 foot of easement. So,
here we go again. We are losing even more. I lose over 3,000 square foot of property,
not -- and that's just in this pathway. That's not measuring it from the center of the
creek to -- and, here again, back to this gentleman up on Overland. Are you -- what
happens to my property from the edge of that pathway to the center of the creek? Here,
again, I have talked with -- we got 65 signatures. Of the 65 signatures we went to 83
homes. Sixty-five were opposed. Fifteen were not home. One was for the pathway.
And three -- or two didn't want to sign. That says a lot right there. There is a lot of
people that do not want this in their backyards. I fought for years to keep people from
going through there. We finally got Nampa -- well -- and it didn't -- you know, getting
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation out there to put a cable up and get a sign posted so our
liability was at a nil if somebody drowned in that creek. We had trouble with people
racing up and down through there on motorcycles and four wheelers. Cars running
through there at night. I talked to a gal down the road from me. She's finding
hypodermic needles back there. You cannot tell me that if you put a pathway through
something like that, that crime's going to go down. It's going to skyrocket. I don't care
what you say, it's going to skyrocket through there.
Rohm: And thank you for your testimony. I think that the staff report pretty much says
that this a -- the vision of a pathway. It's not that the pathway is going to be made
encumbering on you to put it in, it would only occur with redevelopment type--
Barkell: Well, this -- this is not -- they are saying, though, that eventually they will want
try to push it through these existing homes in order to connect --
Rohm: I think, actually, the staff was actually talking about the alternate pathway
around, because it's obvious that the current development as it is doesn't support the
pathway going along the -- the drain. I think that you're really on the same page,
honestly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 60 of 64
Barkell: Well, I just want it on public record that we as the homeowners are -- if
somebody comes knocking at the door, we are going to fight it tooth and nail.
Rohm: And I think everybody understands that.
Barkell: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: You bet. Thank you. John Sessel.
Sessel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is John
Sessel and I reside at 1445 West Greenhedge Drive in Meridian, Idaho. And I'm just
here tonight to express my support for the pathways plan as presented and as prepared
based on recommendations by staff. I had an opportunity to talk very briefly this
morning with Justin about the Camp Plan amendment and appreciate his -- his
information. I did prepare some comments on the plan itself that I submitted to the
Parks and Recreation Department. I -- you know, as a relatively recent newcomer to
Meridian, I think we need to expand our opportunities for pathways, parks, greenspace,
in the community and I think this plan concept, vision, is a great start and I applaud you
for taking this initiative. So, just would like to be on record in support of it. Thank you.
Rohm: All right. Thank you. I guess along the lines of his comments, basically, as any
development comes before this planning commission that is adjacent to a waterway,
there is typically a pathway associated with that redevelopment proposal and that's
pretty much how the pathway system is going to expand throughout our community and
-- and it's only through the redevelopment process. So, for those properties that don't
redevelop, the pathway's probably not going to get there. And I certainly can't make a
quantitative statement. But, typically, that's the way--
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Matt address that without a -- then, detour into the
street, around the --
Rohm: Exactly.
Newton-Huckabay: -- which is common all over the city.
Rohm: Just so the pathway can't continue to the next place, but it does take off. With
that being said, we have one more person that has signed up. Terry Renninger.
Renninger: Hi. I'm Terry Renninger. I live at 2111 Leann Way, Meridian. And I'm with
Kevin here. I live just down the road from him or -- down the -- where ever the
pathways mayor may not go. And I'm one of the property owners that tends to lose
more property than him. And, you know, like he's saying, it's not a for sure thing or
nothing and I just want everybody to know that I'm against it. I like my privacy. I like the
ducks in the morning and the morning doves and whatnot. And I'd like to keep it that
way.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 61 of 64
Rohm: Don't blame you a bit. Thank you. Boy. That's just about everybody. But at
this point that's the end of the people that have signed up to testify. If there is anyone
else that would like to come fOlWard now is that time. Okay. Thank you. Discussion?
Let's see. We are going to start with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add.
Mae: I find that hard to believe.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess the only thing I would mention is maybe some way of
putting in some wording or reference that makes it a little more clear and communicates
a little better to address particularly the neighbors' concern. The intent of the city is not
to blaze through the back of their property and put in a pathway and -- because it's
going to be misunderstood by more people not familiar with the process and it appears
that that is the only section of the plan that's confusing and I live near you folks. I ride
my bike down your road and I can see where --
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission and Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay, what you have before you is just a map tonight. This is a little unusual, as
they mentioned at the beginning. The parks commission heard the text, the plan itself,
and they -- that's skipping to you and going directly to the Council. So, your comments
are germane to the fact that these individuals will probably want to show up to the City
Council and express what you just stated, that, you know, it is an issue for the City
Council to decide. What's before you are lines on a map and adopting that map in your
Comprehensive Plan. So, this may not be the forum, but I wanted to let these
individuals know that they can express those concerns to City Council. And, once
again, Anna wants to correct whatever misstatements I just made.
Canning: Of course not. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, it's true that
there is nothing that you have been given specific authority to recommend that we could
change to accommodate that. But you could certainly just send a letter from the
Commission, if that's what you want to do, recommending that when the City Council
hears the parks plan that they consider including some language to that effect.
Newton-Huckabay: One good thing -- I mean highlighting it in some way, it is a unique
section of the plan -- of the map.
Canning: And the parks director is in the audience and I'm sure he will take that fOlWard
with him, if you so choose.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I agree with Newton-Huckabay. No. First I give a comment of the plan
overall and, then, I'll speak specifically to Nine Mile. I think these lines have been a long
time coming. You know, we have -- we have on our current camp plan some
conceptual lines that were in desperate need of some refinement and a harder look in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 62 of 64
the field of whether these pathways could actually go and that's -- that's what's
happened through this process and I am quite pleased that it's happened. So, I am
quite favorable the idea of adding the -- these revised lines to the pathway -- to the
Comprehensive Plan map to replace the ones that are currently shown. The current
map also shows the same alignment along the Nine Mile. So, there really is no change
for this area in that sense. It's going to be particularly challenging to get through with
property owners having ownership through the center line. That is not typical through
the city, but it does happen in a couple of instances, especially in some of the older
subdivisions -- older is not the right word, because they were platted in the '90s -- early
'90s, I think. But those that were --
Newton-Huckabay: Established.
Siddoway: Established. This same issue is going to occur more than here. But
generally that's not the case and I would -- I think I would prefer to show an eventual
connection along the Nine Mile Creek, but I do acknowledge it's going to be difficult at
best and would require a lot of coordination with the existing homeowners and, you
know, it's conceivable that it may never, but I would prefer that it -- it's shown for the
continuity of the system and that's my feeling.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: They really covered it. The other Commissioners covered things pretty well. I
couldn't add to that. I think the traffic system is something that's been a long coming
and needed for quite awhile, especially with the growth that we have experienced. So,
you know, I think, you know, I think it's great that there is going to be some issues and
problems, especially when you hit final canals, there is going to be a lot of hard work
and to keep little kids from falling in, so I imagine there is fence-ways and something
that's going to go up on canals. But it's quite an endeavor and I will support it.
Rohm: Thank you. Mr. Mae.
Moe: I would probably just go with the same comments that were made, but the one
point I would make is I am -- I'm very happy to see this. I was on the park and rec many
years ago and when there were no pathways or when there was just discussions of
having pathways and from, then, to now it's -- there is a lot of change and there has
been a lot of work to make this happen and, you know, they are constantly working on it
and I commend, you know, the parks department, as well as the Commission, they have
done a great job continuing this on and I think it's great for the City of Meridian.
Rohm: Thank you. And I guess my only final comments on all that is even with all of
the progress we are making on the pathway, it certainly never takes away the
individual's right as the property owners. So, with that being said, I would like to have a
motion to continue this to the 19th of April.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5, 2007
Page 63 of 64
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? So, this particular hearing, though, will we just hear it on
the 19th and recommend before the City Council to all the other amendments if you
have anymore discussion on it.
Rohm: This one probably we won't need any additional discussion, so maybe we could
actually close the Public Hearing on this one and not necessarily -- Mr. Baird, do you
have --
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I -- for technical purposes you do
need to continue it to a date certain. However, the maker of the motion could indicated
continuing for the sole purpose of making a recommendation at that time.
Rohm: And I think that's perfect.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that for the homeowners, for them to
show up for another long meeting on the 19th, because, then, they will always want to
come to the City Council meeting. So, we are only --
Rohm: You have got the mike. You can make your motion and -- just that way.
Newton-Huckabay: Is there no motion -- I haven't had to make an ad hoc motion
forever. Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton~Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing for CPA 07 --
Rohm: We are going to -- okay.
Newton-Huckabay: We will continue the Public Hearing for CPA 07-003, the request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map by adding and amending the path
locations for the pathways Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian
Parks and recreation department to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 17th -- April
19th for the sole purpose of deliberation and recommendation to City Council.
Rohm: Very good.
Newton-Huckabay: End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CPA 07-003 to the
regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 5.2007
Page 64 of 64
Rohm: We need one more motion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. David, you want to second that?
Newton~Huckabay: I will. Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:57 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF T
ATTESTE