Loading...
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