2007 02-08 Special
Meridian PlanninQ and ZoninQ Special MeetinQ
February 8. 2007
The Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 8,
2007 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Steve Siddoway, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David Moe, Michael
Rohm and Keith Borup.
Staff Present: Anna Canning, Pete Friedman, Matt Ellsworth, Caleb Hood, Justin
Lucas, Sonya Waters, Mike Cole, Ted Baird, Sharon Smith and Sheree Finch.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: I didn't really realize that this was going to be a formal meeting so when Anna
asked me that it was probably time to start I was in the middle of feeding my face so I
apologize for getting this thing going a little bit late. The first item after the roll call is the
adopt of the agenda. Could I get a motion to accept the agenda?
Siddoway: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It has been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say
aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Item 3.
Discussion of the South Meridian Area Plan:
Canning: Thank you, sir, Chairman Rohm. I am going to start off just a little bit and we
weren't ready for you to start and that is why I didn't ask you to start sooner. So, you
weren't late, we weren't quite ready. First of all thank you to the Commissioners for
taking yet another Thursday night out of your life. I know you are busy individuals and
spend many long Thursdays with staff, but we do appreciate you scheduling this special
meeting. So, why are we here? We are here because even though we have draft plans
out for both South Meridian Area and the Ten Mile, we received a transportation plan or
a draft South Meridian Transportation Plan from ACHD and we feel that it is important
that we have some response for the Commission as you go into the public hearing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 2 of 39
processes. So, tonight we are not asking you to make any decisions. We are not
asking you to change the public draft that will go forward. Tonight, we just want to be
able to - we want to be prepared to respond to this document that we received and to
do that we wanted to run a few things by you. So, tonight is just - I suppose it is just a -
if staff is anticipating needing to make some changes and wanting to have some time to
do that so we are running a few things by you tonight. Some of the things are a real
paradigm ship for the City of Meridian. So, they are kind of out there and we want to
make sure that before we head down this road that we have got the Commission's
blessing to do so at least conceptually. So, again note for the public that is here tonight
this is information only for the Planning Commission or they're relaying information to
us. They are not making any decisions nor or are they drawing any conclusions on the
draft plan that is out for public comment. So, with that I am going to turn it over to Pete
and he is going to give you a status update and then he will turn it over to Matt who
actually is doing the presentation.
Friedman: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. It is a pleasure to be here
with you. Actually it is my very first time in my official capacity. I have been looking
forward to this and I am glad to be here. What I wanted to do is just build a little bit
upon what Anna said regarding the status of the two comprehensive plan amendments-
that we currently have in the works. One is the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan
and the other is the South Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment and you will see
as Matt gets into his presentation that we actually have some overlap in a couple of
places and we will be talking about them. I just wanted to give you a little update of
where we are at in the process and what you can expect to see in the not to distant
future. Both of the plans staff has submitted applications for map amendments to our
office by the December 15th deadline. So, have now or in the process or have
transmitted out the map amendments. We will be following those up with text
amendments and at least for Ten Mile once we get - we are just in the process of
awaiting the final draft from the consultant. We received a preliminary draft and we
went through it in great detail with them. That is anticipated to be back (inaudible--).
Matt has been diligently reworking and massaging the text of the South Meridian plan
based on a lot of on the information that we received as partly the transportation study.
So, these can be putting some of the final touches on that and then updating the
amendment applications for that too in anticipation of coming to you with public hearings
in April. So, you are going to be reviewing - these are going to be four of six
comprehensive plan amendment applications that we will be reviewing in April. So, that
is what is on the agenda in the future for you and once Matt concludes his discussion of
South Meridian then I also have some exhibits from the Ten Mile Plan that I can hand
out. So, I think if you don't have any questions I am going to turn it over to Matt.
Rohm: Very good. Any questions Commissioners?
Siddoway: Just to be clear - so some recent land use changes have been made or are
being made in response to their transportation plan information? Or should we just
leave that for Matt?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 3 of 39
Friedman: Yeah.
Siddoway: Okay.
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission thank you again for the
opportunity to come before you this evening. Today's workshop, Mr. Friedman is
already on (inaudible--) before we got there -- like he said the staff's update on the
South Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment. What we would like to do today is
discuss the future land use map as proposed and submitted as a CPA on December
15th, so you have once again some background on that and then also to twine in some
of the findings based on public participation process, the (inaudible--) conducted in
conjunction with this plan and also the ACHD transportation study. I-guess of the three
planned components we will go into the findings of each of those and how they are
linked to the future land use map, some potential (inaudible) that they present as we
move forward. So, what we have here on the easel is the draft future land use map
submitted as an application on December 15th and some of the key features, mostly in
response to the public participation process. (Inaudible--) low density residential
designation. It also includes higher densities and (inaudible) along transportation
corridors and that is to allow the possibility of future transit services somewhere down
the line. We heard from a lot of folks that they would like some more employment
opportunities somewhere in the area, just to try and offset the jobs and housing
balance. They also requested some day to day services available south of the freeway
to avoid the initial cost of process whenever they could. You all are familiar with the
designations and the low densities (inaudible--) density is (inaudible), high density is 8+
-- regional there is a small corner on Meridian and Amity there that carried over the
designation from the current future land use map and rather than trying to revisit any of
those we have got (inaudible) consistent with what was already on the future land use
map between (inaudible--). There is one new designation on the future land use map
as proposed and we will go into more detail on that with the text amendment and
familiarize with that. This is -- envision, bolster and encourage business campuses,
research and development, living wage type employers to come into this area is the
vision on those, but like I said we will provide greater detail with text amendment.
(Inaudible) of proposed land uses, low density residential is just over 70 percent. The
medium density residential has been over a quarter. High density residential, there is
just one small corner there, the corner of Ten Mile and Amity (inaudible) southeast and
the northwest corners we did propose designation of high density residential. Mixed
use (inaudible) just over 1.5 percent - employment sanctuaries just under 140 acres
(inaudible--) - (inaudible--) the plan that sort of led us to point that we are at this
evening. The public presentation, market study and the ACHD transportation plan
(inaudible--). The public presentation process, of course, was to develop a plan that is
desired and supported by the residents of the area. You guys are all familiar with the
planning process - the first meeting was (inaudible--) was to identify boundary
(inaudible--) where residents of the area came in and placed dots on the map indicating
on one hand where they resided and on the other hand whether they relate more to the
City of Meridian, City of Kuna or some other entity - (inaudible) boundary which
(inaudible) ended up doing based on results of that first meeting. Meeting number two
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 4 of 39
was more of a dialogue with residents to determine what they saw as appropriate
development patterns in the area. Based on what we heard at the second public
meeting, we (inaudible--) with consultants and move forward developing three different
land use alternatives, which we got back to the public one more time on September
20th. The land use alternatives were transit supportive, employment pensive and low
density residential as sort of the emphasis of each of those. (Inaudible--) what we
learned with public participation process - the top three responses from participants
during that process were land (inaudible--), preserving the rural agricultural feel of the
area and (inaudible) better traffic network or at least for infrastructure to support the
network as it grows. People also mentioned a desire to preserve parks and open space
to place commercial services within close proximity of residential and again that goes
back to the desire to not have to cross the interstate unless it is absolutely necessary
and there was suggestions as to having those city service provision (inaudible) as well.
At the meeting where they considered three alternatives to be presented,
overwhelmingly the participants indicated preference for the low density residential
(inaudible) alternative, followed by the employment and the transit supportive, which
combined still didn't quite get much favor as the low density residential. The point of
that meeting in addition to having folks indicate which of three that they prefer, though,
is to identify their own components of each preferred alternative and say what they liked
about it, what might make sense in one area, what might make sense in another area.
We really wanted them to bring things together to give us an idea on how to move
forward and like I said a lot of that feedback is what I done resulting in the future land
use map as proposed to what is on the easel over there. Market study was conducted
to make sure that whatever land uses we propose are actually realistic within today's
market and the future market as the city develops down into this area. According to
Johnson Gardner who was the consultant on the population of the area and could be
anywhere between 5,000 and 50,000 residents between now and 2030. The consultant
outlined double different growth scenarios. One was a low growth, which near
essentially Communities in Motion, which is the regional outreach transportation plans
communities choices scenario, which essentially indicated minimal if any new
development in the area south of the existing area of impact boundary - (inaudible) was
somewhat of an accelerated growth pattern based on market shares that the city has
been bringing in in the last five to ten years and the land uses that have been proposed
again on future land use map and the consultant concluded that the residential market
will support either development pattern (inaudible). Interestingly between now and 2030
they also found out that demand for build-able land in this area will be anywhere
between 2,500 and 5,600 acres. In the developable lands analysis the consultant
identified a little more than (inaudible) total acres within the study area that are
developable and a broader study area as a whole is right around 11,000 acres
(inaudible--). Moving onto the ACHD Transportation Plan the plan has several
purposes; one is to identify future roadway intersection and corridor needs in the area.
(Inaudible--) framework for future roadway improvements based on proposed land use
designations. (Inaudible--) in front of this part of the county, meaning rather than
waiting until the use of the networks surpasses the capacity they would like to have a
handle on what to expect coming into plan for those needed improvements and move
forward accordingly and also along with the South Meridian Transportation Plan they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 5 of 39
conducted or in the process of drafting, certain access management requirements for
the major roadways throughout the area. There has been a lot of coordination between
the city and ACHD as these two plans have moved forward. We worked together in
identifying their boundary and made a couple of adjustments based on our requests to
make the southern portion coincide with the area the Council identified for consideration
in the CPA. One difference that's worth noting, if you take a look at the future land use
map, the northern boundary on the eastern edge of the study area continues on Amity
Road and that basically coincides with the boundary of our current areas of impact in
the south area. ACHD's boundary on the other hand follows 1-84 the whole way across,
which makes sense, of course because they are looking at the roads in the area that
didn't want to just verbatim follow what we have because there are a lot of needed
improvements in that area that otherwise would have been left out. Before the
Transportation Study it is going to consider three different land use scenarios or
alternatives if you will, but the three are Communities in Motion for Community Choices
(inaudible--) trend, which is essentially the reason is historical development patterns
continuing south of the Interstate there and also the proposed South Meridian land
uses, which are (inaudible--). Public meetings - we have been able to coordinate with
them as well. The most recent was the third of the public meetings that the city
conducted on September 20th; ACHD was present and had booths set up with their
findings today and it was more the preliminary research (inaudible), traffic counts,
forecasted volumes and so forth. On January 25th had a second public meeting in
which they took some forecasted numbers based on the proposed land uses - they
worked with COMPASS to come up with population numbers and apply those to the
roadway network to identify different needs and so forth that would be needed
throughout the area. As (inaudible) on the ACHD staff has been great to work with
throughout this whole process and it has been a high level of communication and I think
that has (inaudible) really well as a result. The Transportation Plan identified as the
minimal level of service, somewhat targeted level of service need, which is not ideal, but
it certainly allows traffic to flow during peak hours. To get an idea of where you are
looking at - the traffic on the right there is from Cal- Trans, but to put it in more local
context, level service "A" is essentially your 1-84 west bound between Meridian and
Eagle at two or three in the morning. There is more than enough room to move,
everything is flowing. You basically set your speed at that point. When you get down to
the level of service "B" you are looking at 1-84 (inaudible) Meridian to Eagle Road at
roughly 3:30 in the afternoon. The level of service (inaudible) same (inaudible) at
roughly 4:00 in the afternoon and at that point that is where traffic begins to slow down
and you will hit your occasional backup and have to dip down to the 40 mph on
occasion, but as a whole it is still doable, especially considering peak hour volumes.
When you get an "E" then you run into some problems (inaudible--). Level service "F" is
peak hour 1-84 Meridian to Eagle Road that is when it is well over capacity, there is no
room to move and you are moving 1 0 to 30 mph depending on the day and the
conditions and so forth. So, with (inaudible) forecasting numbers that came out of
COMPASS and ACHD witness analysis are showing the table here below. Community
Choices gross scenario population of this area was forecasted to just over 30,000
residents. (Inaudible--) had over 60,000 residents. The Meridian draft future land use
map was over 100,000 residents, which is a very considerable increase over the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8. 2007
Page 6 of 39
currently approved regional arm reach transportation plan is an eye opener for staff.
(Inaudible--) comparisons there as well. As a side note, the growth numbers used by
Johnson Gardner who was the market consultant began - per household a little bit
smaller than the estimates used by COMPASS. COMPASS has tend to come in right
around 3 (inaudible) per household, where Johnson Gardner's is using the assumption
of roughly 2.4 and that was based on new household sizes moving into Meridian since
2000 when they generated that. So, implications of increased population on traffic?
With a trans-scenario of 65 one mile roadway segments, but by one mile roadway
segment you (inaudible) let's say Black Cat between Victory and Amity is considered
(inaudible) 65 roadway segments that they analyzed. Of those, 30 percent experience
between 25 and 100 percent increases of average daily traffic over the Community
Choices scenario - just under 14 percent experience greater than 100 percent increase
in traffic. The most effective roadways were McDermott, Ten Mile, Linder and Locust
Grove and then in preparing the proposed amend uses according to the draft future land
use map with Community Choices over 45 percent segments (inaudible) experience
between 25 and 100 percent increase (inaudible--) and again just under 14 percent
experience more than 100 percent increase in traffic. Most effected this go around were
McDermott, Black Cat, Ten Mile, Linder, Locust Grove, Amity and Columbia. So the
number of roads that were considerably (inaudible---) increased to some degree as well.
This table it shows some of the comparisons and these are needed roadways to
achieve that level of service "D" and as you can see between the Meridian land use
scenario and Community Choices land use scenario at peak of course (inaudible)
consistent with more people in the area, more cars on the roads, which means more
lanes to increase capacity. As a roadway specific example here is Lake Hazel Road as
proposed in Community Choices land use scenario, it would function (inaudible) at the
level service "D" with (inaudible) lanes throughout the course of the duration of the study
area. When you look at the (inaudible) scenario (inaudible) east of Locust Grove - at
the top it says three lanes, it should say five or seven lanes, rather, excuse me. The
(inaudible) indicates a need for seven lanes rather than five as Community Choices
suggests and then a need for both Meridian land uses and additional one mile roadway
segment there from Linder to Meridian, again needs seven lanes in order to function at
the level of service "D". So, some indications of increased traffic on intersection is very
similar to that in the roadways, just need additional capacity - they need more turn
lanes, more of the intersections need improvements and so forth and as with the
roadway improvements, there is an abundance of unfunded improvements as outlined
in ACHD's plans and also in other regional (inaudible) transportation plan. So, to bring
things together - on one hand, like I said it was a bit of an eye opener when we finally
did sit down and run population numbers for the proposed land uses - it was more
people than we initially expected to be in this area, which (inaudible--) traffic
infrastructure and so forth; coming back to the public participation process at the third
public meeting, people did overwhelmingly did indicate a preference for the low density
land use alternative, but in some of the remarks that they made at that last (inaudible--).
We noticed that there may have been a disconnect between what they said and in low
density residential and what they envisioned for low density residential - they really
seem to prefer keeping the area as close to the way that it is right now as possible.
They like the agricultural field. They like things being spread out. They essentially like
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 7 of 39
it the way that it is - the closest thing they have to equate that to was low density
residential, but I do not think that they envisioned urban level low density residential
developments. According to the market study, another finding that they had was that do
to the cost of land and several other factors, many of the potential buyers of new homes
in this area would be fresh out of a market with this amount of low density residential
lands - people wouldn't be able to afford the quarter acre lots and larger - they thought
that more choices in housing stock would definitely be a lot more suitable for the
realities of the market (inaudible--) 75 percent of potential buyers would be unable to
afford homes in those areas as proposed. As far as the transportation plan, once again,
it is just too many cars on the roadway that was for what currently is planned in this
area. On the other hand, another thing we did throughout the public participation
process was the desire to increase the intensity of uses along the major transportation
corridors again to open up the door for transit, supportive type densities somewhere in
the future, again the major transportation routes in the area would be Lake Hazel,
Meridian, Ten Mile and Amity west of State Highway 69 (inaudible) Meridian, which as
you see is what we were going for there; unfortunately in conversations with COMPASS
when we released the draft future land use map it was brought to our attention that the
proposed densities along those corridors is not enough to support transit. We assume
5.5 households per acre and they said it really needs to be up around 8 in order to be in
the realm that will support transit. So market study again, more diversity in housing
would be a lot more conducive to the realities of the market and from the transportation
perspective, again we know there is going to be growth in this area and we know that
improvements will be necessary, but whereas the proposed future land use map kind of
spreads it out over the whole entire area, if we could bring these intensities more in line
with some of the roadways that are slated for improvements that is going to make
funding these projects a lot easier and it is going to make the prioritization process a lot
easier down the road. So, this evening as Pete and I indicated for consideration is just
that; trying to decrease the overall population of the area and at the same time,
whatever degree possible increasing the densities intensities along the major
transportation routes and with that I suppose I would open it up to the Commission for
any questions that you have and also just to review some of the responses of staff to
findings of these three components of the future land use CPA and study (inaudible). If
you turn to the handouts here that I gave you at the January meeting, this again the
same as the map - up on Eagle over here, the only difference is several months ago
City Council did approve the South East Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
You guys saw that prior to Council's consideration. The areas that were impacted by
that amendment in our outline and the purple dash line on the screen and also in the
hand out here. The main difference is between what was approved and what we
proposed formally with a draft CPA here are switching some of the low density areas to
a medium density. The designation on the neighborhood center on the corner of Locust
Grove and Lake Hazel changed from a mixed use community to a mixed use
neighborhood, which is essentially lower intensity, it is meant to meet more day to day
type needs. Also the employment sanctuary, the southeast corner there at Lake Hazel
and State Highway 69, was (inaudible) mixed use regional designation and this changes
it over to the employment sanctuary as (inaudible) touched on and the presentation
there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 8 of 39
Canning: It is still mixed use. It is just - employment would come first.
Ellsworth: And reworking some of these proposed land uses - this is again a response
to the (inaudible) transportation study and market analysis and trying to (inaudible) more
closely to the remarks made by the public while going through the public participation
process. The next map in your packet there and is up on the screen right now
(inaudible--). As you can see, we (inaudible--) employment sanctuary (inaudible--)
medium density residential along those transportation corridors. The number in
intensity of the neighborhood centers did not change. The major (inaudible) here is the
inclusion of what is called the medium high density residential designation and that is
one of the designations that came forward through the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan.
The proposed densities in those areas is 8 to 16 units per acre with an ideal target of
approximately 12. So, the thought is that by bringing the densities up again along the
transportation corridors that will meet the initial objective that we were shooting for
there. Some of the numbers there when we sat down and did the persons per
household and so forth - total acres that are considered are just under 11,000 here.
The estimated number of households upon build out was just over 22,000 and that is
down from just under 28,000 under the proposed future land use map. A population low
end based on Johnson Gardner's estimated 2.4 persons per household came out to just
over 52,000 (inaudible) 53,000 residents and the higher end, which is more in line with
the COMPASS estimate of 3 persons per household (inaudible) just about 66,000 new
residents in the area, even scaling it back as much as we did there still a fair number of
new residents potentially in this area. So, again with that I would like to turn it over to
the Commission to hear your thoughts, questions or concerns.
Canning: Let me talk a little bit about the very low also.
Ellsworth: Oh, yeah, I apologize.
Canning: That is okay. As part of Blue Print for Good Growth, which I know you have
all heard it in the papers and we haven't talked too much about what is going on, but as
part of that one of the things that I really have been advocating for with that is some
tools in the county so that we could get this kind of an idea of an urban separator.
Some place where when you are going from Kuna to Meridian and you stop and it
doesn't look like you are in either city, it is just kind of still looks rural, it wouldn't be
heavily agricultural because it is probably not big enough to support a lot of intense
agricultural activities, but it has some rural or pastoral feel to it perhaps and I have been
beating the drum for that Blue Print for Good Growth and we sit on the steering
committee for the Ada County Comprehensive Plan, which is going through a huge
amendment right now and we have beat that same drum with Ada County because it is
time we go there. So, in response to this transportation, I thought well maybe this is our
opportunity to try and get (inaudible) the idea of this urban separator. So that is what
you see as the very low density residential. The (inaudible) is based on a couple of
things. One is we drag Mr. Cole in for input and this is all one sewer shed right now.
We currently are coming down to bringing a line down to feed this sewer shed, but this
is a separate sewer shed and it has got a lot of constraints. The parcelization pattern in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 9 of 39
that area is (inaudible). There is not a lot of big parcels. There is a lot of topography, a
lot of very stripped out, very narrow, very long parcels there that don't facilitate re-
development very well or development. So, we thought that would be an opportunity
currently that the sewer master plan had that as a last priority, so we are just kind of
acknowledging that same - you know within the timeframe of this plan, we really don't
plan on getting sewer there. This is what I mean by this is a paradigm shift for the City
of Meridian. To have an area within the Comprehensive Plan or a large area within the
Comprehensive Plan that we really don't plan on sewering this because it is different.
There are some plans, some areas that currently have been outside the urban service
planning area and we kind of acknowledged those too - these areas were always very
difficult to serve as well because of the same reason, the parcelization pattern and the
topography. So, we included those in the very low density residential as well. We
thought this was an opportunity since it is kind of the extent of this sewer shed that
would allow us to pull in our pump station and keep it closer to where the interim pump
station is going if these properties also went very low density residential. Then that
provides a buffer from Nampa going to Meridian and then south of Columbia, same idea
you are getting near the Hubbard Reservoir here. This portion is in this drainage base
for sewers, so rather than coming through and trying to serve this small area, we called
it very low density residential. Then finally over on this side, this is the furthest extent of
the sewer shed that is kind of generally in this area. It is a good thing I am just drawing
broad circles from a laser point because I can't get precise. So, the idea was to call
those very low density residential to encourage the county to develop a transfer of
development right's programs so that we can hopefully like - for example, if someone is
doing a planned community and they are planning on increasing that density out in the
rural areas of the county's from one dwelling unit for 40 acres to 8 dwelling units per
acre that they would be required to purchase some of these development rights in this
area. There were four other identified ones throughout the county and to shift that
developing potential to those areas where they cluster it and provide transits and all
those things. That would be our greatest hope. If that doesn't (inaudible) - short of that
we would go with some type of designation where they could continue on septic and
well - it would have to be clustered development likely because otherwise you are
talking one unit per five acres probably to get a septic these days, but if they clustered
them they may be able to get a little density increase as long as the septic is on the
larger parcel and it is flowing the right way and things like that. It is all very dependent
on what they can achieve with their septic system. Those are our thoughts right now.
We haven't articulated them in any greater detail than that. But, those areas - the
advantage would be that we are saying they could develop right away perhaps in the
county rather than under the city, but they wouldn't have urban densities; they would be
far less than that and we haven't really played around with what kind of numbers we are
talking about. But, that is kind of the idea of where we are going on those urban
separators. I suppose the first question you may ask is then why don't you have one
between Kuna and Meridian in this area - you know you would actually come into it for
a little while and then you would have to go out. City Council approved a lift station, a
sewer lift station and they are forcing it back up to - (inaudible) we back up to the sewer
treatment plant. That pump station or that lift station that has already been designed
and funded and it is ready to go under construction - it is designed for a certain number
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8. 2007
Page 10 of 39
of dwelling units. We are trying to maintain that number of dwelling units that we are
anticipating in that area. This was done in anticipation of perhaps our first land use map
or trend scenario, I suppose, just the average households and the acres that we
generally have in developments - we are trying to maintain that just for the solvency of
- I don't know how you want to call it - to make sure we are getting enough people
paying into that system to be able to recoup the costs of that pump station. Okay, I am
getting a nod, so I spoke correctly according to Mike. So those are the ideas and that is
a big change. We know it. That is one of the big things that we want to talk about, we
do understand - the reason this map is in your packet is because this was approved
under a separate application. We do understand that those developers, the land
(inaudible) they hold that they are anticipating that those are going to be
Comprehensive Plan designations and that is why we have shown them on here and on
our staff response map as well. We know that we need to work with them in particular
to make sure that there is some buy off on this. It is not fair to approve one thing and
then kind of pull the rug out underneath them eight months later and we realize that.
We just wanted to articulate kind of an alternative vision of how we could accommodate
some of this traffic and present that to you tonight. Now is where you provide
(inaudible) words of wisdom or ask a whole bunch of questions so you understand what
we are saying.
Moe: I guess I would just be curious of one thing. Have the developers - have you
guys had any meetings yet?
Canning: No. We wanted to talk to you first. If you guys aren't interested in going
down this path at all, we just won't go there. It is really up to you. But, the numbers
were kind of staggering on the traffic impact and we thought, you know, if you got into
the public hearing process and said give us some alternatives, it would take us months
to do and we didn't want to be behind five months, so we thought we would ask you
now and then we can have something prepared for when it enters into the public
hearing process. I briefly mentioned to Mr. Turnbull that we were considering this and I
have gotten a few panicked phone calls today.
Rohm: Mr. Siddoway did you have a comment?
Siddoway: I do, but I am willing to let others go first.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Sure a couple. I think the staff response enters some concerns or questions
that I had and now (inaudible) neighborhood center where it had low density right up
against a neighborhood center. I assume neighborhood centers still has the same
designations (inaudible) for where - you know commercial, high density and graduate
out and then it looked like (inaudible) allows for that graduation density (inaudible--) staff
response (inaudible). (Inaudible--). Other than that one little area, I assume there is
some reason for that at the (inaudible). I am looking Locust Grove, Lake Hazel in there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 11 of 39
Canning: We were following parcel lines more than anything else, but we can certainly
split that parcel line.
Borup: Well and maybe the owners prefer to leave it that way, I don't know if there is a
reason for that or not.
Canning: I am sure they will let us know.
Borup: The growth projections, was that based on - those numbers was that based on
presence? Present growth numbers or --?
Canning: Well, the Communities in Motion and the trend scenario were based on a
population projection done quite a while ago now at this point in 2001 in 2002, but that
is what Communities in Motion took forward. As we went into Communities in Motion
and Blue Print for Good Growth we realized that those numbers given the development
rates of the last couple of years could be way off. The Johnson Gardner numbers,
though, I think were based more on recent five year history - so it would have included
some of those real boom times that we have been having.
Borup: Well, that was my concern. I think the last two or three years, we probably
waited - probably the wrong direction. Based on what we are seeing the last 16 months
it is not (inaudible--). So, these older ones are probably more accurate? That is what I
was wondering if it was previous figures or something more recent.
Ellsworth: Commission Borup that could very well be the case. The other thing to keep
in mind with these is the way that COMPASS sort of sets their benchmark on their
population estimates is they take the existing member of persons per household within
a given traffic analysis zone it is just a smaller regional breakdown of any given area.
Then they wind up applying to the number of households, which the city ended up
generating based on assumed densities coming from the post designations, for example
we guessed - well, we didn't guess, it was based on consultant advice and so forth -
1.5 units per acre in the low density areas that are the level low densities; 5.5 units per
acre in the medium densities; 10 units per acre on the medium high density areas. So,
depending on which person per household estimate you used you come with a varying
numbers of total populations.
Borup: That is assuming you build out (inaudible--).
Canning: This is an unusual plan and that we are not really planning for a specific
timeframe. This is the ultimate boundary.
Borup: I thought I saw something (inaudible). Where was that?
Siddoway: For trend and community choices.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 12 of 39
Ellsworth: Another interesting finding on the market study - the market consultants had
an initial (inaudible) assumed that it would take even longer than the 30 years to build
out this entire area based on several factors. But, after some more on the ground
conversations with some people if you went back and re-evaluated some things with the
higher accelerated growth projections, which is the one that in there earlier (inaudible--)
50,000 new residents in the area within the 30 year mark - the 2030 time horizon.
Borup: I guess this is more of a comment than a question. That was on which of those
people live in the area and I assume that is what most of the comments were from was
those living there and they want to keep it like it is, so , don't think that is surprise to
anybody - they want to keep their acreage and their farms - those are totally good
comments, but , am assuming those aren't things can be weighted too heavy in
planning or nothing would ever happen.
Friedman: Mr. Chair, Commissioner a couple of weeks ago when ACHD had their open
house on the South Meridian Transportation Plan we were there with this map and had
an opportunity to spend a couple of hours talking to people who are there; many of
whom participated in our process and while there were some people that had those
concerns about really not wanting to see any changes and so forth, overall the tone of
the (inaudible) was pretty positive; people did sort of recognize that some change is
afoot; some want some places sooner than others. If you just look at the map it is kind
of the season because it looks like oh there is a whole lot of that yellow out there, but
when you actually map it as Matt has done through GIS it still comes out a
preponderance of the area and still low density residential.
Borup: Well, that is what I like about the staff responses. It does have a lot of low
density, but looking at (inaudible) those are a lot of small parcels anyway. They would
be very hard to put any decent sized development in there as it is so it makes sense to
do that.
Canning: Commission Borup having worked for the county' sat through a lot of those
hearings before. You do usually hear that -I want it to stay the way that it is now, but
usually it is followed up by until (inaudible). We did not hear that this time. We didn't
hear that second statement, it was just I want it to stay the way that it is forever. I
mean, there wasn't until I want to sell and maybe those folks recognized intuitively or
somehow that their properties aren't going to re-subdivide. You know when they are
150 feet wide by 1,300 feet long there is just not much you can do. Maybe they know
that, but it wasn't that I want to keep it the way it is until' want to leave; it was just I want
it to stay the way it is.
Borup: And that is probably true for that area, but that is happening in my
neighborhood.
Canning: You want five acres?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8. 2007
Page 13 of 39
Borup: I want one acre, but across the street is five acres and so (inaudible--) or in the
process, but it is closer to him.
Rohm: From a development standpoint does the south area going to be higher cost to
develop than it is for the same acreage on the north side of the freeway? With the cost
of the sewer is that passed onto the development community that is coming off of
Franklin Road and crossing under the freeway to the south - is there going to be a
significant impact fee that will slowly grow on that south side?
Canning: I will let Mike answer part of that question, but let me answer the first part.
Most of it still (inaudible) sewer. The only portion that wouldn't be is kind of this area
kind of right here. That is what would be in the (inaudible--) and Mike can explain a little
bit.
Cole: You are asking from Franklin across the street - you are talking about the Black
Cat Trunk?
Rohm: Right.
Cole: Well, it seems like that trunk that is coming across from this area is to service
this. It is really not. The sewer (inaudible) run in diagonal patterns so that trunk main is
that is running in front of your house is actually meant for this large area down here.
That is where that flows. It doesn't get this due to (inaudible--) that you couldn't get
through that. It would just be (inaudible---). So that expenditure that we have made for
the Black Cat Trunk is still for this down here, which is run for the same what we
planned it for with the sort of the master plan. We figured about 3.5 units to the acre
and you are going to have some lows, some highs and some medium and it works out
to about 3.5.
(Tape turned over)
Rohm: -- it is going to be a flood development on the south side of the freeway whether
it is one parcel or the adjacent like we see on the north side of the freeway. That is
really (inaudible--).
Cole: That is back to (inaudible--). But if that flood was to come down through here - I
mean if you wanted the more (inaudible--) then it would be a lift station right here.
Rohm: Seriously, I wasn't concerned about what acreage was going to develop, it is
more is there going to be a flood of development on the south side once that trunk gets
Canning: You already actually have approved most of them. There is the Southridge
right? Right next to that there is Bear Creek West and then it picks up and it goes
through and then you will start seeing some of the applications in this that are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 14 of 39
designated by the purple lines here. Yes, you will start to see similar to north Meridian
that those paths are going to go pretty quickly.
Rohm: They are going to -
Canning: And then this one - this area - I mean this whole area as Mike pointed out.
This area we are getting a lift station down there to serve a development that is in the
county. It will be a while before we have an annexation path for those folks. So, to me
it is a little unclear how quickly that one will develop because there is no annexation
path. So unless we let them hook onto city sewer and water without annexation there is
not going to be a flood there. But, the city has not been inclined to do that in the past
(inaudible ).
Rohm: Thank you.
Canning: I thought you were asking is the lift station more expensive and I think there
are other areas that we are going to need to serve by lift stations, but I don't know that
they are significantly more expensive - Mike says no.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: What is the definition of very low density for this?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission the rough estimates that were
used on the population forecast were roughly three acre lots. We assumed .3 units per
acre in those calculations. So it sounds like without services being available it would be
roughly the three to five ranges.
Canning: We really need to talk to Mike Reno. If this is something that the Commission
is interested in (inaudible) those back. We need to kind of talk with Mike Reno and
figure out what would be likely - I am not sure we want five acre lots out there.
Normally that is what you would see in the county on the septic system. If we want to
provide some incentive for folks to cluster so that we can keep some of that is kind of
permanent (inaudible--) we need to give them some depth or some other incentive. So
we need to talk with Mike and see if there is any way to do that. So, I think that is why
we are thinking of the one per three acres; it gives them a little density bonus. If they
are selling off the property for the development rights, maybe it is some other equation -
one acre is equal to three, who knows. I think we can structure that through text
though.
Siddoway: The idea would be to keep lots in those areas that are shown as very low
density that are at least an acre or two in size as the minimum - sorry - well, yeah,
minimum lot size?
Canning: Whatever it took. I mean, I am not sure we are convinced yet. You might
want them to be half acre lots with a common septic system so that the septic gulf
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 15 of 39
drains out over a common field because then you could get it to work a little better. You
can get the new (inaudible) to drop off by the time it hits the edge of the property. That
would reduce like the road frontage that you needed and things like that in the water - if
they are watering off of the well then you don't really want more than half an acre. We
haven't finally articulated (inaudible) all.
Siddoway: Okay that is fine. The open space and I think I understand this so bear with
me for a second. You mentioned that there was a desire expressed for parks and open
space, yet on one of the very first slides where all of the land uses are broken down, it
was less than one percent of the land area was in that public lands and open space
designation. If I understand correctly all of this, the stars and the trees that are
associated with - I counted five community parks that are probably 25 acres in size and
eight neighborhood parks that are seven plus acres in size. That doesn't show up in
those land use calculations. Is that right?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway for a
population analysis I didn't factor in parks and open space with the acreage (inaudible--)
more specifically at the number of residents. The number and the acreage of parks and
open space that are shown on the proposed land use map are based on level of service
standards from Parks and Recreation and the number of people proposing in the area.
In all honesty with the staff response these maps are still (inaudible--).
Siddoway: Yeah and I wasn't referring to this one. It was the earlier one that was
based on the preferred or proposed -
Friedman: As the (inaudible) transfer over, ultimately with whatever the Commission
recommends to the Council and the Council adopts then our level of service standards
will obviously apply to (inaudible--).
Siddoway: The only point is I think there is more public open space on the plan than
that land use chart would have you believe.
Canning: Commissioner Rohm and Commissioner Siddoway as you know on our
current land use map we show existing parks and schools and public quasi/public and
we calculate those, but the future ones are always shown as symbols. The reason
being you can't designate somebody's piece of property as a park unless you want to
go buy it - (inaudible--) ready to go buy it at that moment. So there are (inaudible--).
We could give you an estimate just based on average size, but it wouldn't have
meaning until they actually purchased or had the park (inaudible) dedicated.
Siddoway: Yeah, I agree, but I just wanted to make that point because I think it is an
important one and I think it is a positive point. It is not criticism, so please don't take it
that way. My point was that even though it looks like when you look at the percentages
that there is a very low percentage of parks and open space is because those symbols
aren't able to show up in that calculation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 16 of 39
Canning: Exactly.
Siddoway: Eventually the parks layer would be added to this staff response map? Is
that right? Would that be the intent?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman yes that is the intent; in addition to that on the preferred
alternative here it shows the most recent iteration of proposed pathway network
(inaudible--) obviously working its way through the pipeline here shortly and one of the
things that we really tried to do was to coincide the location of parks along that network
to the (inaudible) as much as possible we would try (inaudible--). But again those aren't
showing the staff response just yet. (Inaudible--) recommendation from the
Commission.
Siddoway: Next question. Medium high came from the Ten Mile - is it medium high
that is shown there along Amity and Lake Hazel or is that high? I was trying to match
my colors. It looks like medium high.
Canning: It is the orange on this one.
Siddoway: Yeah, but that is not this color?
Canning: No, it is this color.
Ellsworth: If I may on this staff response here there isn't any high density proposed _
everything that looks like it might be high density is medium high.
Siddoway: Okay that was my next question. There is no high on the staff response.
Canning: Not in the red box. It is up here.
Ellsworth: In addition Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway
there is also some allowance for the high density in these neighborhood centers and in
fact there has been some staff level discussion of strengthening the language along
with the forthcoming text amendment - (inaudible) their minimums to basically try to
ensure that more housing will actually come into those neighborhood centers - mixed
use areas in general.
Siddoway: I am sorry can you say that again?
Ellsworth: There is allowance for high density residential within the neighborhood
centers in mixed use designations and it has -
Canning: Under the current (inaudible--).
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 17 of 39
Ellsworth: There is some staff level discussion at this paint of actually strengthening the
language of those land use designations rather than having an allowance for it and
having a requirement for it just to ensure that it gets to the intent of designation initially.
Siddoway: So you will eventually have the NC's on there as well for neighborhood
centers?
Ellsworth: Correct.
Siddoway: My next question and I almost hate to ask but I feel I need to. Do we know if
Kuna has annexed more of this land that is shown within the boundary of our study
area?
Canning: I have not heard that Kuna has annexed anything beyond that piece of
property right there.
Siddoway: Okay.
Friedman: We have for not as much as annexations go, but we have had some staff
level contact that they may be requesting an area of impact expansion northward to Ada
County. I haven't seen it come up on the Commissioner's Agenda yet, but as an
expression of our prerogatives, we did draft a letter for the Mayor to review and she
approved it and we submitted it to the county asking them to recognize our south
Meridian planning area in any future discussions they might have with the City of Kuna
about expansion of the areas of impact.
Canning: And the City of Kuna's proposal was Lake Hazel straight across.
Ellsworth: Having said that and I don't know if this is the appropriate time to bring it up
or not, but the boundaries is shown on the preferred alternative and also the staff
response aren't necessarily set in stone. One of the possible recommendations may be
making some adjustments to those to not include some of the areas that have already
been annexed by Kuna, but again that will be a decision for the Commission and
Council down the road.
Canning: This was a planning area boundary so that boundary is still up to your
recommendation and Council's ultimate approval as to what they want to go forward
with.
Siddoway: Okay if I took my notes correctly the study said that there was about 2,000
to 5,000 acres of demand and about 11,000 for the study area. Is that right? And that
is over the next - about 2030 for low density?
Canning: I think that was - or was that the whole thing?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 18 of 39
Ellsworth: No, that wasn't the whole thing. The (inaudible--) Commissioner Siddoway
just identified that - it was 5,200 to something like 5,600 I think - I can put up that slide
if you like.
Newton-Huckabay: Could we please?
Ellsworth: Sure. In addition, the Commission is welcome to the full market study
(inaudible--). 5,200 acre estimate came from the extreme low pace of growth scenario.
I apologize this is probably pretty hard to read. On the accelerated growth scenario,
you have total (inaudible--)-
Newton-Huckabay: Matt, could you use the pointer so I could follow along with you?
Ellsworth: Sure. I apologize. (Inaudible--) break down by year, the number of acres. It
will be (inaudible--) scenarios. The one up top is (inaudible) to mix. That is the in
between densities or in between (inaudible--) growth. The one in the middle here is the
accelerated. It is the high rate of growth. Down here is the rural density (inaudible-)
scenarios; so that is obviously the slowest of growth. (Inaudible--) on the far right
corner here is (inaudible--) so under the slow growth assumption, Johnson Gardner
found that just over 2,800 acres would be needed between now and 2030 and the
accelerated growth, 5586.6 acres would be needed between now and 2030. Again that
is (inaudible--). They assumed to do topographic constraints and so forth, but not all of
the land in the area would be developable. But, like I said if the Commission has an
interest in reviewing that full document I would be happy to forward that along.
Moe: I would like to get a copy of this.
Ellsworth: Okay.
Canning: Again this is unusual in that it is not a 20 year plan or 30 year plan - we are
really trying to establish an ultimate boundary.
Siddoway: If we would expect it somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 percent on the
low end to I guess 50 percent on the high end to be built out by 2030?
Ellsworth: The market study indicated that level of demand for land to be developed.
Siddoway: Okay.
Canning: When you have a developer that has 1,000 acres under their control that you
know is submitting shortly, I have to say that 2,000 seems a bit short sighted.
Ellsworth: And again the 2,000 estimate came from a Community's Choices, Growth
Scenario which essentially is (inaudible--).
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 19 of 39
Siddoway: Okay so that is based not on low growth for the whole area. It is based on
Community Choices assumptions.
Ellsworth: (Inaudible) Mr. Siddoway it goes into greater detail about methodology and
the full study -
Siddoway: I am sorry; I don't mean to get too convoluted.
Ellsworth: Oh, not at all. The slow growth scenario factored in several different
considerations. One of which was Community Choice's Growth Scenario and in
addition to that they (inaudible) the market shares and so forth and they essentially
worked their way out to the accelerated growth scenario. So those are the book ends
within which they were working for the market analysis.
Siddoway: My last clarification question is from the staff response, the revised
population was in the 53 to 66,000 population. What were the low and high projections
based on this scenario - the proposed scenario?
Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway it kind
of gets a little bit dicey there with several factors. On the one hand is the difference and
boundaries between the ACHD study and the South Meridian land use study. Again,
the ACHD study incorporates the entire area north of the eastern part of this boundary
up to 84 because they were looking at the intersections as well. (Inaudible--). It was
just over 100,000 for the entire ACHD study area. For the South Meridian study area it
was approximately 80,000.
Canning: Matt that 80,000 was based on your acreage calculations and average
densities, correct?
Ellsworth: It was. I provided COMPASS with acreages, projected household numbers
(inaudible-- ).
Siddoway: Okay so these populations are not - the boundaries for these population
numbers don't coincide with our South Meridian Area Plan, it is bigger.
Ellsworth: That is correct and that is an important distinction to make. The numbers
that I equated to the study area are for the study area. I didn't break down the traffic
analysis zones outside of that area for our purposes here - that is what I took a look at.
So (inaudible) the COMPASS methodology specifically to this area within the effected
traffic analysis zones, total number of households under the proposed land uses was
just under 28,000 and then for the same area with the staff response, it was down to
just above 22,000 households. So it is a difference of roughly 6,000 households from
what is proposed to the staff's response.
Siddoway: For the study area?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 20 of 39
Ellsworth: Correct.
Siddoway: Okay. Well that was the basis for my question. I was trying to figure out-
you know we have some areas that were going lower in density on the staff response
and some areas are going higher. So I was trying to figure out if it was maintaining
similar population or it sounds like it is actually reducing.
Friedman: Which is harder to count.
Canning: Well and the other intent and I don't know if Matt was able to find out, but the
other intent was obviously to go more transit supportive, but that doesn't drop the
numbers at all, but it does help with the transportation and we were trying to get some
feel of - you know, if 30 percent of the households are transit supportive, what does that
mean to the road network instead of the five percent that are transit supportive? But, I
am not sure that we were able to get anything.
Ellsworth: Well in a very informal conversation with ACHD's consultant, he indicated
that without looking at the staff response - I told him verbally what it entailed and he
said that without running any traffic models his guess was that it would considerably
decrease the strain on east west corridors. While the specific intersections that he
mentioned is Meridian, Amity, which under the trend as well as the proposed South
Meridian land use scenarios the intersection functions at level of service liD" or 'IF"
rather and that is upon full maximum build out capabilities. Now without running those
numbers it is tough to say how much impacts the staff response would hypothetically
have on that intersection? Although with the increase densities further south on State
Highway 69 what one could speculate it may not help (inaudible) without running those
numbers it is hard to say for sure.
Siddoway: Yeah, because we are increasing the density on a portion of that corridor
and reducing it on another portion of the corridor so it is hard to say. Okay that is all I
had.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I am fine.
Hood: Can I ask a question and I may make that transition into the next item on the
agenda, but just looking at the map and I noticed for some reason (inaudible)
designations that we don't currently have on the map (inaudible--) Commissioner
Siddoway's question about some of the park designations. We talked about the
(inaudible--) I don't see areas though (inaudible--) are these based on what you are
going to get into with Ten Mile and some of those designations or are they - or
something else (inaudible--) part of your map amendment proposing some legend
changes and I don't see some of those on here (inaudible--) on response or maybe
some of those (inaudible--) just to confirm that the trails and those things will make it
onto their response as part of their map amendment?
Meridian Planning & Zonin9 Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 21 of 39
Ellsworth: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and Mr. Hood what the
consultant had in mind in including those with the preferred alternative here was just to
mirror the proposed Ten Mile future land uses, which is what ties into the transit center
which ties into the mixed appointment and some of the other designations that are
currently on the existing future land use map. They tried to the best of their capability to
mirror that in the areas that overlapped in the immediate vicinity. Greater detail on
those is outlined within the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan and if it would be appropriate,
we could leave those off of this map and let that run its course as soon as -
Canning: They are there because they are up here. They are on the map they are just
not in the study boundary.
Hood: (Inaudible--) look at designations and there is the existing land use designations
and I thought -
Friedman: Yeah, those are outside the study area.
Canning: They are up here.
Ellsworth: There are two different categories of those. On one hand you had the
existing designations, below that is the residential medium density residential and mixed
use regional and those apply more to the stretch immediately north of Amity and then
on the left column of the legend it did (inaudible) the mixed use employment, mixed use
residential and so forth.
Canning: Which are proposed on Ten Mile, but not on this one.
Hood: And that is what - legend is really some other things that we are about to hear
about in the second part of this meeting, right?
Canning: Right.
Ellsworth: Correct and also since you bring it up, my first inclination would be that
maybe it would be appropriate to remove these, but I suppose that would be a question
more for the Commission.
Hood: I mean, ultimately they will be on the same map. They are sharing the same
map.
Ellsworth: It was confusing me a little bit because I was trying to find those areas
(inaudible--) is there mixed use areas somewhere in south Meridian (inaudible)?
Canning: Commissioner Rohm may I ask if we can poll the Commission generally on
what they would like us to do in going forward or not to do or do you have thoughts or
do you want us to get back to you? We need guidance on -
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 22 of 39
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Can we just bullet point the highlights of what
exactly your questions are, your expectations so that I am clear - (inaudible--)?
Canning: I was just headed into that. I think we need three things. One do you feel
there is a need to provide and be prepared with an alternative to what is before the
public in the (inaudible) as it is shown on there? The one that is out for public comment;
if so do you - what do you think about staffs response and just what are your general
thoughts and then we will run from there? We could use some more specific thoughts
on how would you like us to coordinate with the purple outlined areas and communicate
with those folks or what are your thoughts about changing anything from the existing
Comp Plan within that purple boundary and I think those are the three specific things
under the category of what do you think about staffs response, I suppose a
subcategory would be you know how do you feel about this very low residential in that it
is an area where we are not proposing to provide sewer to within the area of city
impact? And I think that covers the questions that we need answered. I don't see Matt
or Pete jumping up and down so I think that summarizes it.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I guess two comments and I think the one concern I still have and you already
alluded to it and that is changing the designation or designation within the purple
outline. There are some expectations of land owners in that area, I think, so I am
wondering about that. There are - well, I don't know how many acres that is medium to
low density within that area, but looks like a substantial amount. So my only concern is
does that change? I like the idea (inaudible). I think that makes a lot of sense for the
boundaries that you are talking about. I would like to see some of it go towards half
acre, one acre if that is - that seems to be what you are talking about in these very early
stages, but I don't know how much information is available on soil conditions, but that
would have a lot to do with septic tank, septic capabilities - I mean years ago acre lots
all had septic tanks and I know at least one subdivision is kind of (inaudible) for 30
years. I am sure others are a lot longer than that.
Canning: Commissioner Rohm if I can respond? So on the purple outline areas, if we
can lead them into submission would you be in favor of changing it or if you want us just
to not touch them at all?
Borup: Do what - oh, the regional?
Canning: The purple outline there is? Yeah, if we come up to some mutually agreeable
compromise is that sufficient or do you just not want us to touch them?
Borup: Oh, no I thought - I mean I thought some of the original purple area needed to
changed too so I don't know the answer there, but how much (inaudible--) and some
higher density in there, so - how much did the density change overall within the purple
area (inaudible-~)?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 23 of 39
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Borup for the sake of Mr. Ellsworth's
sanity, we didn't have time to calculate that.
Borup: It is possible it could come out to (inaudible--), so from my standpoint, I would
think it would make sense to look at the landowners in that area that was expecting the
medium density and -
Canning: -- work with them.
Borup: And now it has changed to low density, maybe that is fine for them _
Friedman: I think we have time between now and the hearings -
Borup: I am sure you will be hearing from them anyway.
Canning: Well, yeah, but what I was trying to get at was do you want us to work with
them or do just want us to keep it the way it was and not change it? I mean some
people might feel we just changed this in October, November or whenever it was, we
don't want to revisit it again. I just was trying to gage your feelings that way.
Borup: My feeling is it may be - this is a better time to change it rather than set it in
stone and have to have all kinds of problems two or three years from now.
Canning: Okay.
Hood: I don't know the exact language. I don't know who is an (inaudible), but there
was some understanding that they were setting the tone essentially for South Meridian
in that we basically would be vesting them in to whatever came about on South
Meridian. Maybe now some minor tweaks if they are okay with that, but I definitely think
we need to involve them in whatever those tweaks may be because those are the
conversations I remember having was hey we have got South Meridian coming, but you
are in that and you are setting that tone and something to that effect.
Borup: Well the tone is pretty much the same between the two.
Hood: There is not a lot of difference. I mean it is still essentially-
Siddoway: The main difference is the medium high (inaudible) if I am reading it right?
Canning: Yeah. There are differences. There is no doubt about it, but we will - and I
never was suggesting we not work them and that - when we started this hearing I
wanted you all to know that. I was just more curious if you didn't want to touch it all over
what was approved before. But, I am not hearing that. So that is alii wanted know.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Speclal Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 24 of 39
Borup: I think we have all seen Comp Plans and such that were done and about two
years later they both had changes in them and have to go through the whole process
(inaudible--) that is almost a better time to change it than later on.
Canning: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I happen to like the staff response quite a bit; especially after the presentation
tonight in regards to transportation and whatnot. I am very concerned about the
(inaudible--). Again, I like the staff's response, but I, too, definitely think we need to get
with the developers and kind of work with them in the purple area.
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman I do like the direction of the staff response. I believe that the
very low density will be well received by the public having been to a couple of the public
meetings. I think that the higher density transit corridors will probably-receive the most
discussion. As for direction with the southeast Meridian, I think it is worth having the
conversations to see if they are amenable to it. Back to the very low density for just a
moment; one thing I am trying to gage is the impacts to public works. If this would
essentially adopt the policy that you can annex to the city and not hook up to city water
and sewer, that is something new where we haven't gone before.
Borup: Is water eliminated from that scenario or just sewer?
Canning: Well, again, we need to work on this. That is a big question. Do they annex
and get water? Do they stay in the county and be on well and septic and a lot of that we
will deal with. I will make sure we talk to Mike Reno as we figure these things out and
he has a wonderful idea - you know you can plop a map in front of him anywhere in the
county and he has a pretty good idea of where septic will work and kind of how much
land you need. So, we will use him as a resource and find out - are we talking that we
need to have water here or will they be able to work off of a well?
Borup: Well there is a lot more flexibility on lot size if there is water.
Canning: If folks have to wait for annexation then does that concept of being in that
very low would be much less appealing to me as a property owner. So I have got ten
acres and somebody says okay tomorrow you can go divide up four of them and you
can still farm 20 acres or you can sell the 20 acres so somebody wants a farm or
whatever verses no you have wait until your neighbors all want to annex and maybe
subdivide and maybe it will be there in 15 or 20 years. I mean that to me is the real big
difference. I think that we are talking septic and well on those areas to make it
Meridian Plannin9 & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8. 2007
Page 25 of 39
anywhere powerful because otherwise they are waiting a long time for about much of
anything.
Borup: Does the city have the option of bringing the water out to unincorporated areas
or does the policy change?
Canning: Sure. Sure. It is just a question of do we just give it to county residents or do
we force them to annex or to take advantage of that? Those are all the big questions.
Borup: Well at five acres maybe that is fine, but if they are talking about one acre lots
then maybe they need the water -if that could be controlled.
Canning: Well if there (inaudible) septic on a larger lot then they can put the individual
wells on their half acre lot as long as the septic field is away from their half acre. That is
exactly the questions that we need to run and -
Siddoway: My final comments - it's almost a legal question, but it seems to me that
assuming we are coming out with some form of a staff response that is separate or
different than what was originally submitted. It seems like it would be nice to get this or
a future version of it out to the public prior to the public hearings so they are not
receiving it for the first time at the hearing. Having said that this is what was submitted
with the original application as of December 15th can there be an amended map
submitted with it that goes along so the public has a chance to see it before the hearing.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission I am seeing nodding heads from
over here. I think they have already thought about that question probably more than I
have.
Canning: Commissioner Siddoway, Members of the Commission we have really
struggled with that, but in trying to keep the timeline going on these Comp Plan
amendments knowing that they will be - that you need to make a recommendation on
all six at the same time - at first we thought perhaps we could get this done and get it
out there. The problem is that you really shouldn't have two proposals out there. You
should have one. So officially this is the proposal. The whole point of the hearing
process and we went through all of these through a series of thoughts, but the whole
part of the hearing process is take input and have the Planning Commission respond to
that and to provide a recommendation. Part of the input we received was a doozey. It
was this transportation and so we want to take that input and be able to provide that to
you. There may be a lot of other inputs that come to you. It is a difficult question but to
put this back out for public comment, we probably really should do a public meeting
before we do that so that they understand why this is out there all of a sudden because
it does take some explanation. It would put the timeline way back there on the others
and we just thought we could proceed this way, but ultimately it is your guys' call. If you
want to hold it up once it gets to you and say no we want you to do that and we want
you to hold another public meeting, but right now this one is in the loop. It is scheduled;
it is noticed and it is in the loop so we need to move forward with that, but once it gets to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 26 of 39
you if you feel uncomfortable with the approach we have taken then we will do what the
Commission desires. But, it was a tough question.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners Matt just reminded me because this whole
process has been so dynamic both with the (inaudible) plan, the South Meridian
Transportation Plan, ACHD is thinking about having another public meeting as part of
their South Meridian Transportation Planning process based largely on kind of what we
come through with tonight. So, we might be able to explore having at least the
presence of that meeting. (Inaudible--). I don't know if that is possibly (inaudible--).
Canning: I am not sure it would be appropriate for them to act on this map until it is
their map. It has to be somebody's map. It can't just be staff's map.
Siddoway: The public has been having public open houses on this map before it was
an official map. I guess your point is now we have an official map that has been
submitted.
Canning: This is the public's map.
Siddoway: Yeah.
Canning: And this one is only staff's map at this point.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, too, when we did converse about knowing what we know now
in the past two and half months from what was submitted in December and (inaudible)
and if we can submit now, we would really like to spin some version of this rather than
that. What I anticipate - Sonya is going to be working in concert with the long range
staff quite a bit, but she will be writing the staff report. I fully envision, although - we are
just getting started with our analysis, I believe our first recommendation is going to be
do not act on this the first hearing out. We have got some pretty significant changes
that need to be adjusted not only by the Commission, but by the general public. Take
this map of a subversion thereof, sleep on it, and come back in two weeks and hopefully
that is enough time. If you say, (inaudible--) and have a separate public hearing that is
fine too. But, I imagine that is how our staff report will come out to you will be we
(inaudible) this original one, it is out of date now and we propose something like this.
We realize this is going to be new to the public. But, with that being said this will be
available a week or so before the hearings. So there is some opportunity for those that
are a little more in tune to the Planning Department (inaudible) at least that Friday
before your hearing, so we can start to get it out there at least two or three weeks
before we hope you feel comfortable (inaudible) with a recommendation onto City
Council, but that is -
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway to use a more familiar
example perhaps that this is the 1,000 unit project that came in, staff reviews it, and
does their staff report and they say you know that is fine but in this northeast corner
here, or this northwest corner, you have got to drop 300 units. You know, they are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 27 of 39
pretty drastic changes, we know, but that is kind of how we are treating this that this will
come out probably in the staff report as a recommended alternative based on additional
information.
Baird: Mr. Chairman, if J could add in hearing all of this as I recall on the notice
provisions that if there is a material change between what is submitted to you and what
is recommended to the Council you just put up another notice. So J think it anticipates
that this going to be a (inaudible) process - if you put this out and went forward with all
of the comments and didn't take any of them into consideration, why bother having the
hearings at all. So I think the process and the procedure anticipates exactly what is
happening right now and those who are interested will have proper notice. Do you feel
comfortable making the changes that you want to make?
Rohm: Well that is a lot to think about.
Newton-Huckabay: I have just one question. I don't really understand the why the
buffer area - you called the (inaudible) low density a buffer area between Meridian and
Kuna?
Canning: Urban (inaudible--).
Newton-Huckabay: I don't really get it; it isn't separating any - it looks to me like well if
we could have done it and had we not gone down this road and done some
development in here we would have preferred to go a little further south and -
Canning: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay how do I put this in delicate terms? Kuna
has been very public in the fact that they plan on establishing their area of city and
boundary not through negotiations through the county, not through negotiations with the
City of Meridian, but via annexations and they stated that in the joint hearing with
Council and with the County Commissioners. So the challenge we have is to some how
establish our ultimate boundary and provide the kind of incentive that those land owners
need to ensure that they don't annex into the City of Meridian because it would be very
confusing if one of those property owners north of Lake Hazel were to annex into the
City of Kuna, but it was surrounded completely by the City of Meridian eventually. It is
not perfect. We understand that. It would have been better had we had tools in the
county currently that we could provide some density transferring and take care of that
now. We don't have all of those tools. We are still hopeful that we can get some of
those tools in this area and make use of them, but this was our best attempt at providing
some sort of urban separation or buffer or whatever we want to call it that would still
meet the expectations of those landowners in that area. Kuna is very interested in
annexing into this shed right here.
Newton-Huckabay: So, when you say those landowners you are referring to -
Canning: Yeah, primarily. For other topographic insertions, city sewer shed very easily.
For other reasons these folks aren't - the pressure to develop is not as intense there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 28 of 39
The real pressure to - and it is not really to develop in the City of Kuna, it is to annex
and to pay into the sewer systems so that they get a guaranteed number of units in the
future. It is a very odd thing that is going on. But, it is a reality.
Newton-Huckabay: So wrapping this upper area around this south part is in an attempt
to meet the needs and expectations of these land owners?
Canning: Wrapping it on all but these land owners was an attempt. We did not put it on
those land owners because we felt that it wouldn't meet that need that we have for that
goal that we are trying to achieve to have that be part of the City of Meridian eventually.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess I still don't really understand the rationale to switch it down
to the very low density residential -
(Tape turned over)
Newton-Huckabay: -- people that have background and education in what you do, but
to people who look at these maps just when it affects them - to me this is an enormous
change visually and your audience or our audience is going to be looking at this with a
lot different eye and it just is not really clear - I don't feel that it is really clear the intent
or the (inaudible).
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is it specifically with
regard to the very low or the whole thing?
Newton-Huckabay: No, just the very low. I actually really prefer down in the southeast
corner the look of the very different designations. I just think it looks like its going to -_
could possibly develop a little more user friendly if you will. But this if you look at it, I
just don't really completely understand it. (Inaudible--).
Canning: Okay we can do some things. We can show some topography of where
those drains are; where sewer would drain naturally where you would pick it up naturally
and move it and where the parcelization is and where we are putting the pump station
and what area that is anticipated to serve and that may help.
Newton-Huckabay: I think it would help.
Canning: Thank you for that advice.
Newton-Huckabay: That is alii have.
Rohm: I don't have anything.
Canning: Nothing that has been said before or nothing?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 29 of 39
Rohm: I don't have anything to add. Thank you. We need a short break. Could we
take five?
Canning: Certainly.
Newton-Huckabay: We are done with this one, right?
Break at 7:50 P.M.
Reconvene at 7:55 P.M.
Rohm: At this time we would like to reconvene the Special Session of the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with giving Mr. Siddoway the floor.
Siddoway: I just wanted to make one request based on the South Meridian staff
response. Since it was the traffic demand model that came out of the transportation
plan that initiated this response, I think it is worthwhile to take this or some version of it
back to ACHD and see if they will run the traffic model based on these land uses so that
we would have the information whether these changes have any impact on the traffic
demand, the number of lanes for the roads.
Rohm: That makes sense. Thank you, sir. Okay any other discussion on this South
Meridian Area Plan?
Borup: Was that a motion or was that just everybody in agreement with?
Siddoway: If you would like it to be a motion, I will make it a motion. I didn't know if it
needed to be.
Borup: As long as that will pass on -
Baird: Mr. Chair in keeping with your workshop format, let's just use that as direction.
Rohm: Any other comments on the South Meridian Area Plan before we move onto the
next item on the agenda? No? Okay.
Item 4.
Discussion of the Ten Mile Intersection Specific Area Plan:
Rohm: Okay, I would like to open the discussion on the Ten Mile Intersection Specific
Area Plan and begin with our director or whoever is going to talk. Here we go.
Friedman: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commissioners I will make this fairly brief. What I
handed out to you is the draft land use map for the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area
Plan and it has a legend that is fairly self explanatory and as Mr. Hood pointed out
earlier, you probably are going to see a couple of different designations that currently
exist on our Comprehensive Land Use Map that will be further articulated as we go
through the process. But, one thing that we imagined earlier is there is one area that is
Meridian Planning & Zonin9 Special Meetin9
February 8, 2007
Page 30 of 39
south of the freeway and west of Ten Mile Road that is part of an overlap and if you will
note on the Ten Mile Area Plan, we show it as being low density residential with a little
area of medium high density residential and medium density residential in there. Now
based on the revised staff response for the South Meridian Plan, you have you will see
at least conceptually we have looked at changing that entire area to the very low density
residential designation. So that is the one area where these two plans are going to
overlap and fortunately we will be considering these about the same time. So we will be
able to address that. Initially what we have done is look at the Ten Mile Specific Plan is
really focused the higher intensity uses of all varieties - residential, commercial,
employment and so forth north of the freeway and then to some degree we have them
on the east side of Ten Mile Road, but that really isn't too much of a departure from
what we currently have in our Comprehensive Plan, as well as the fact that we now
have a development that has been approved in that area that was designed while taking
this into account. I sense a question.
Moe: Yes. I wonder how he sensed that. I am not sure, what is the life style center?
Friedman: I am glad you asked that question. A life style center is a newer, well it is
not a new concept, but it is new to this area. It is a concept in retailing the commercial
development. Some of the detractors just refer to them as outdoor malls, but really
what is happening is the retail industry and the development industry is there starting to
aggregate different uses around sort of the intensive retail so you have more a
component of both pliant retail shopping, entertainment, work on some employment and
possibly housing. So it truly is a mixed use type of development where they have a real
significant retail anchor base to it. I have some literature that I would be happy to run a
couple of articles off on for the Commission. We have a definition of it in our plan.
Canning: That text that will accompany the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan is rich with
graphics, illustrations and a diagram showing the mixed uses. It will be a much different
type of document than you are used to seeing. We just are having a hard time beating
it out of our consultants at this point, but we will get there. That is forthcoming and I
think that that will give you a picture immediately of some of these new designations
and what they entail.
Moe: Well, in just reviewing it, I think I was just a little bit concerned with that with your
high density right across Ten Mile Road to the west right there and as far as access to
get over into that area for any shopping purposes and whatnot.
Friedman: If I might, Mr. Chair, Commissioners as you look on the west side of Ten
Mile Road you will notice there is a high density residential designation and then behind
that we have mixed use commercial. The intent there is that mixed use commercial
would provide for more of the services that the residents would demand the life style
center more of a regional attraction that would (inaudible) the whole area. I was just
pointed out that I grabbed the wrong land use map, part of the problem we have been
having so many iterations from our consultants, but needless to say the life style center
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 31 of 39
is still correct and the residential densities that we anticipated on the south side of the
freeway are correct. You can find the correct map on our website. I apologize for that.
Newton-Huckabay: Where is this one (inaudible)?
Friedman: On the west side of Ten Mile Road. Essentially what we have done is we
flipped that so that now it is more horizontal, upper organization of the mixed use
commercial and the high density residential.
Canning: We could bring it up because I saw this at an internet connection.
Siddoway: Well, we would have to be able to connect to the wireless network, which is
not yet -
Friedman: Nonetheless we have contemplated serving the high density residential with
commercial services for their everyday use and that kind of thing. But where we do that
again, where we do have the overlap we have gone from low density and some limited
medium density (inaudible) with contemplated very low density.
Rohm: Was this low density - was that with the assumption that it is going to redevelop
to that or is that what it is currently --?
Friedman: It was generally with the keeping with the current kind of land uses they are
in that area.
Rohm: So not for redevelopment to low density, but to just leave it just as it is and _
Friedman: Kind of recognizing that it would be just a residential area. Their initial
rationalization for having that area of medium density up there was that we showed the
gravel pit now as being an open space and the intent was to shift some potential density
from that open space area elsewhere onto their property so it is not penalized too much,
but again looking at the numbers and so forth -
Rohm: So the map that would ultimately be submitted wouldn't be this? It would be
more (inaudible)?
Friedman: Well, that is - again, following what we discussed tonight, yeah, we have got
a map out that we have applied for and that shows the mix of the low with a little bit of
the medium and so we will have to approach that the same way that we are
approaching the South Meridian one with staff recommendation at that one area where
we have the overlap and change from what was initially proposed by staff.
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Quick question. The area in the southwest corner of the interchange - the
area of the overlap if you will between the two studies - am I correct that the preferred
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 32 of 39
alternative land use map for South Meridian reflects the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan
land uses? It appears that they are close.
Friedman: Yeah, the attempt was that you bring them the other, but that now will
subsequently could potentially change.
Siddoway: Okay, let me just suggest that as you work on your staff response to South
Meridian, use it as an opportunity to bridge the gap and bring whatever you are
proposing to be in harmony with both plans on your staff response.
Friedman: that is alii have unless you have other questions.
Rohm: Get a balance of the Commission. Commissioner Borup do you have any
questions on this?
Borup: Just one and it kind of came up at a recent hearing and that is how closely are
these boundary lines? I know we had a previous application that I think it is going to
make sense to some of the Commission because the topography drainage ditches and
such that if you vision in the zoning maybe it made sense a little bit different than what
this designated and I assume there is still that flexibility at taking a closer look at
topography and maybe other natural revisions that it would affect those boundaries?
Baird: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners again these as you know general land use
designations with comprehensive planning purposes tend to be -
Borup: Well, I understand that but staff was getting pretty specific that this map show it
this way and that is where they wanted to go.
Hood: If I may without being too specific about that project, it is still a pending
application, but the roadway network system has also shown on this map and that is
different from our Comprehensive Plan, so I think that is why staff will sometimes push
for those being (inaudible) of the street really provides that separation between your
medium and your medium high or your low to medium or whatever that is. In some
instances, although often times you look at things on a flat piece of paper and that is not
how it turns out in the real world, but I think that is - when we are looking at this and if it
gets adopted the roadway network is important to having a land use designations
develop as shown on the map. It is a guide. You use that generally to say (inaudible--).
(Inaudible discussion)
Hood: And that is what we are looking for is to say that roadway network is pretty
consistent with this plan, however, this aspect of that density up here or down there or
wherever the case may be -
Friedman: That is one of the reasons why we are trying to at least layout the collector
system is you will see when you get the Ten Mile plan. We are trying to lay it out in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 33 of 39
advance so development so that we can then start getting things between the spaces
where they need to be.
Borup: That is what I really like about the long-term planning. (Inaudible--) with some
expectation and can't say they weren't warned.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, before you guys do your polling thing if that is the way you
choose - I did want to take this opportunity, the mixed use employment and the life style
center was brought up - the office designations are going to change as well. You can
kind of see here and I am not all that familiar with how these are fully defined from the
shades of blue the low density office mixed use employment and high density office,
particular the low density office and high density office, right now we just have the office
designation on the Comprehensive Plan. It was brought up here I think it was about
three meetings ago Commissioner Siddoway asked for some follow up regarding - I am
not trying to derail the bigger Ten Mile picture but I just thought maybe we could kill
another (inaudible) while we are all together. The question came up about properties
designated office on the map, how staff wasn't making that correlation, which the UDC
would allow that with a Conditional Use Permit. We are going to be changing the text of
the Comp Plan to no longer leave any doubt. But, if it is office we are looking for office,
we aren't looking for multi-family in these office areas. So that will be clarified not only
in the Ten Mile area, but throughout the rest of the city in the area of impact. These two
designations, I believe, (inaudible--). There no longer just be an office designation. You
are either going to be a low or high density office and within maybe one of those, maybe
there is a residential component. I don't know how that is going to be defined; but that
will clean up if you will that disconnect between the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC,
which again allows non office uses with a Conditional Use Permit. I don't know if you
recall that conversation or not, but that is kind of the follow up conversation. We looked
at it - similar to that Resolution 04-454, which allowed parcels along arterials that are
less than three acres the residential Comp Plan asks for office uses. That is the text of
the Comp Plan. They can ask for office uses. Not necessarily an office zone to get
residential, but they can ask for office uses. So the text of the Comp Plan isn't worded
how it should be worded, I don't (inaudible--) basically stricken through that and started
over with two new designations.
Friedman: I think building upon that at least for the purposes of the Ten Mile Area Plan
we have an opportunity to address some of the interests that you had in allowing that
mix of uses where we have the mixed use commercial and the mixed use residential
because the plan is very focused on a couple of those areas about starting to generate
and build upon from (inaudible) vertically and otherwise from office use and residentially
(inaudible) same area.
Newton-Huckabay: So what goes in a low density office zoning verses a high density
office zoning?
Friedman: Low density office is pretty much your standard one, maybe two story office
kind of a office partition that you are familiar with.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 34 of 39
Newton-Huckabay: Like all over town.
Friedman: Yeah.
Canning: Then the high density office would be the best similarity would be where you
get off of Vista off the freeway where you are starting to see a couple of new three story
buildings - it would be a minimum of three stories, such as you see there going up to six
stories. So it would look kind of like that probably to begin with and then it would go a
little bit higher. This is intense. There is no doubt about it. This Ten Mile area is _
Newton-Huckabay: It occurs to me that you have maybe the potential and maybe this is
the intention of shifting, if you will, your city center focus, so to speak.
Canning: The vision was not to detract from Old Town Meridian, which has a very kind
of local emphasis on local businesses, on entertainment, on civic uses, on restaurants
and things like that; and to have that be one center, there may be a medical kind of
emphasis in some other part of the city. This would be the office employment emphasis
and the regional shopping mall.
Rohm: Kind of like the Black Stone or Black Hawk on Overland and what is it, Five Mile
or Maple Grove?
Canning: Even (inaudible--). Yeah, Overland and Eagle -
Rohm: But along that line it is more of a business park rather than like Eagle and
Franklin and that is kind of a medical part that area in there and this will be more of a
business center where you go and have your smaller ones on the south side and your
multi-story on the north side of the freeway or something like that.
Canning: Where people from Nampa instead of having commute all the way to Boise
they will be able to get off in Meridian to their place of employment. I mean it really is
intended to be a large employment base for the county.
Newton-Huckabay: Tell me why I want a life style center. What makes it different than
a Crossroads Plaza type element?
Friedman: The use - a number of things will make it different, probably just the physical
layout of it. I have actually visited a few of them. What a number of them do is lay them
out physically so they are kind of more like a main street focus, but you still have some
national retailers and major retailers in there. They are not covered all per se. They
combine kind of plaza uses and gathering places; they have entertainment venues and
just pure shopping. You might have offices associated with it and possibly some
residential, so it is not just retail like a mall where you open during business hours and
then they close it down and you get a big empty building sitting there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 35 of 39
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay have you been to the
Gateway in Salt Lake City? Have you seen that one?
Newton-Huckabay: The Gateway? Is that down by Trolley Square?
Canning: No it is down by the old railroad station.
Newton-Huckabay: No, probably not, but it sounds like Main Street in Disneyland or
something.
Canning: The text of the document will provide you some visuals. Some of them _
some of them have been accused of that. If you go to one like at Universal Studios it is
very much like that and Disneyland is very much like that. But, these are more real.
They provide nice community gathering spots; if you have a chance to get to the
Gateway it is our closest example. There is a wonderful public mountain there that is
just a joy to be around when it is a little warmer. It might be a little cold right now. Then
there is a variety of shopping experiences from local to out of state and they are a little
off the beat -
Newton-Huckabay: So is your target market then in a place like that - are you targeting
the people that live in that area too or is it a destination for the regional __?
Canning: It would be a regional mall and in this case the region would be larger than
Ada and Canyon Counties. This is the only one there would be between Portland and
Salt Lake City.
Newton-Huckabay: So how many stores would be in something like this?
Friedman: I think technically they say the minimum for retails or retail area allowed is
between 75,000 and 150,000 square feet just pure retail.
(Inaudible discussion)
Newton-Huckabay: Okay since so for sense of reference how many square feet is
Kohl's Department store going to be?
(Speaker unknown): 68,000.
Newton-Huckabay: 68,000? Which is substantially larger than a type of store you
would be putting in life style center?
Friedman: You would also find typically one or two kind of major well known (inaudible),
but you would also have some of your other kind of well known retailers. You could
have some of your naturally known clothing lines, many of the businesses that you are
familiar with you might see in many of the malls that are just (inaudible) differently and
adding a few other mixes, entertainment -
Meridian Planning & Zonin9 Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 36 of 39
Borup: Did you say 100,000 to 175,000 total?
Friedman: That is just the major retailers. There is more on top of that.
Borup: You are talking probably 200,000 to 300,000?
Canning: I think it was between 200,000 and 500,000 is what the text says.
Borup: Okay that sounds more like what I would expect on -
Canning: It is a type of higher end clothing - it is the Nordstrom type folks that go into
those ones. It is not a Target.
Newton-Huckabay: (Inaudible--).
Siddoway: I think it would be good to include in the presentation, you know a segment
on what is the life style segment along with the other land uses, too, including the high
density office.
Rohm: I guess my question on this is presumptive that you have got a lot of input from
the area residents and they have all kind of chimed in and have lent their support to the
conclusions drawn here and with that assumption is this something that will work for
Ada County Highway District in making their ultimate decisions on the placement of
roadways that seem to have been missing in the applications that we had for properties
on the south side of Overland Road in recent months?
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners as you know part of the Charrette process
that we went through in developing this plan was we were working very closely with
both the Highway District and the Transportation Department and we are in continual
communications as recently as yesterday about how some of this is going to work and
the design of some of the roads and so forth and again when you get the plan you will
also see that there is a recommended collector system that we want to get into place so
that there is some certainty there for the developers as well as some certainty for the
community as to where access is going to occur and how it is going to be managed.
Rohm: Well, let me just say this first. If I remember correctly Ada County didn't want to
weigh in on conclusive roadway locations until the City of Meridian gave them some
land use proposals that would direct traffic in a fashion similar to this. Is Ada County -
is this enough information for them to move forward and say this is in fact the roadway
system that we are going to propose or recommend or adopt, I guess would be a better
word.
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission two things. One is the
most difficult thing for ACHD to grabble with has been every location of Overland Road.
So that was by far the most difficult aspect of this Ten Mile Plan. As the hearings
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 37 of 39
progressed through to the City Council we were able to get a little more clarification
from ACHD on what they needed to proceed with the relocated Overland. So to answer
that question, they have said that with Council acting on it now and with their South
Meridian Land Use Transportation Plan, which did consider the relocated Overland and
actually recommended it as a preferable alternative, they will go forward now with more
public hearings and consider that relocation of Overland Road. They have been - it is
really the only relocated road in the whole thing. The other ones are arterials that they
were already looking at and we have been closely tying our recommendations with
theirs. We are (inaudible) over now things like landscape medians, who is going to take
care of them; what exactly the intersection improvements look like. I mean we are down
to those kinds of details, not is this the right location for the road on the rest of the Ten
Mile project. So that really was the most difficult portion for them to grapple with and
they are moving forward.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Correct me if I am wrong. Pete, one of the things that ACHD will be able up
to specifically respond to is the number and location of accesses to Ten Mile and
specifically the collector road network, maybe not so much the individual local road
network beyond that, but at least the collector road network and those main intersection
points at Ten Mile Road.
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Members of the Commission
the access points you see to the arterial road system here is what is proposed. You are
not going to have one every 100 feet. So ACHD has been very supportive in trying to
get that collector road network so that we could limit the access points on those facilities
and keep traffic moving. So that is a big component. It is not immediately apparent by
the map and it is a real shift for them as well, but I think they are looking at making that
shift county wide to really have much more stringent access management to the
arterials than (inaudible) might have.
Friedman: Well we have a better map for you that takes away all of the land use
designation and just shows the collection (inaudible) and kind of pops out so you are
just able to see that the collector roads -
Rohm: Actually I like the two in concert myself. You can see more of how the roadway
is going to interact with the development. Matt?
Ellsworth: Well somewhat of a side note, going back to the collector system out of the
starting gate. It is different issues. On the one hand the relocation of a major arterial is
very, very different. I guess as far as magnitude a close second to a new interchange
on 1-84 in this area, but as far as the un-built collector network is concerned, ACHD at
the staff level anyway has been extremely complimentary of the level of circulation that
the transportation plan provides. There have been other somewhat ongoing
discussions with some of the access questions, but we are working through those
issues as well. But, in general they have been extremely supportive network that is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 38 of 39
proposed; the level of connectivity between different areas, different land uses and so
forth.
Rohm: Okay, any more comments from the Commission?
Moe: I don't know that I have a comment I think it is more of a question than anything
as far as the interchange? Where does that sit in design and how it ties in?
Friedman: I am glad you asked that question.
Moe: That is two now that you are happy that I asked.
Friedman: That is right. I was just at a meeting yesterday talking about the interchange
design and where they are currently at is the design team for the Department of
Transportation has had what they call a project advisory (inaudible) which is some of
the stakeholders and landowners and so forth out there. The first meeting that they had
and that was the most recent one was at the end of November and at that time what
they do is they presented six different alternatives for interchange design and asked
everybody to rate them and now that seeing that a couple fell out and one was the
single point urban interchange the (inaudible) was one and then the second one I
believe was the standard diamond. Factors included in that was the amount of land that
was needed to (inaudible-), what in cost and things like that. So they are assessing that
and they are beginning to get you to preliminary design, but they still have to work
through their federal environmental review process and part of that process still needs
to generate a couple of different alternatives now that that would fall out in the third
alternative. In anticipation of that future design we have started having some
discussions with the design team about incorporating some of the provisions with the
Ten Mile Plan. As Anna indicated we are kind of getting down to sidewalk width
location, medium width, landscaping, maintenance and things like that. They are
beginning to get into sort of the nitty-gritty of the design. It still sounds like based on
everything we have heard that 2009 is probably going to be the earliest we will see the
beginning of construction. We had hoped that there would have been some
acceleration in the environmental review process, but through some other federal
processes the Federal Highway Department and (inaudible) waiting to hear what they
say. But, it is moving.
Siddoway: Moving fast by federal standards.
Friedman: Again there is a fair amount of communication at all levels that we are trying
to maintain.
Rohm: Okay thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions of staff from the
Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: Only that it looks like the happiest place on earth.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
February 8, 2007
Page 39 of 39
Canning: Man where is something to throw when you need it?
Rohm: Could we get a motion to adjourn?
Mae: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
~I If I 01
DATE APPROVED
MI
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK