The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 11-01:; MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ' City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. 'Y. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected ' to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tom O'Brien O Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~:~: X David Moe X Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm -chairman }-, 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve 3. Consent Agenda: "~.~~ 4. Public Hearing: CPA 07-013 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change four nodes with land use designations of Light Industrial to Commercial, two nodes from Commercial to Light Industrial and one node from Light Industrial to Public /Quasi Public for a future school site. The amendments are intended to bring the City's Future Land Use Map into conformance with ~~ the City's Zoning Map. An additional request is to remove the Urban .;"` Service Planning Area (USPA) designation from the map legend and °'~s replace it with the Area of City Impact (AOCI) Boundary by the City of Meridian Planning Department -two parcels north of NW 10t" Place and west of Taylor Street; north of E. Franklin Road and east of Taylor Street; two parcels north of E. Overland Road and east of S. Teare Avenue; east of S. Locust Grove and north of E. Overland Road; two parcels northwest _ corner of N. Eagle Road and E. Lanark Street; six parcels west of N. Eagle Road and north of E. Florence Street; three parcels west of N. ~.: . Eagle Road and south of E. Florence Street; Paddington and Elliott Park ., ..~ Subdivisions south of E. Wilson Lane and east of N. Locust Grove Road: -- >; Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-002 Request to , ,; amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south , ~` ~ ' Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land `~~ east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and '/2 mile east of ~'~'~~' , f~ Linder Road south to'/z mile south of Columbia Road, east to ~/4 mile west ;,;; ; Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - November 1, 2007 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ,. , _ ~~ . . ,t ti , ":a- f ='~< ,:, y r'f~ , ,+ ',.~ y. - ~ ~' ,~ ,~ ~' L 1, h, 1 - y t z _ • • + ti of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan j Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: Recommend Approval to City Council --~~ 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-009 Request .`~'~~ for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to ~~ the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood °'~'~" centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: Continue Public Hearing to December 6, 2007 - ~` 7. Public Hearing: CPA 07-010 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the north Meridian area to include 645 ~`~~'` acres north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River from Linder ' Road to approximately'/4 mile west of Black Cat for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sherrie Ewing: Recommend Approval to City Council ~: ~; 8. Public Hearing: CPA 07-015 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to create a new land use designation that would include open `.,': area, low-density, residential, medium low-density residential and ,_ `., medium-density residential uses with an anticipated average of density of °' ~ 3 dwelling units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sherrie Ewing: Recommend Denial to City Council ~.;_`~ 9. Public Hearing: CPA 07-012 Request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use " "I designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial for Strada ~:<>~'.,~ Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC -NWC of ~kY, Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots ~t"~r~ 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): Recommend ~..;:+id~ Approval to City Council 10. Public Hearing: RZ 07-013 Request for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC -NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: CPA 07-011 Request fora Comprehensive Plan ~; =r Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change the land use `"" designation on 38.7 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use `t, Community to include Office /Retail, Private School and Patio Homes for - Dean Property by David J. Dean - 6380 N. Locust Grove Road (NEC of `x N. Locust Grove and E. Chinden): Recommend Approval to City Council ~~"'A 12. Public Hearing: CPA 07-014 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land ;~ ~ ;: Use Map Amendment of 7.43 acres from Medium Density Residential to ~§' ~ Mixed Use -Community for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development, - ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - November 1, 2007 Page 2 of 3 ` ~~. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~~ ~~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, ublic meeting rior to the t 48 h t l 33 ° '~ ~ . p ours p eas a s Office at 888-44 please contact the City Clerk .- r ~ r,.. . . s-,. c p.~ } ~'.~-- ]~Stx~ 4~ a~,'~j~~ (~ yi .;..~Y Yoi. a„ ,. tide • • :.~ ~~:;; Inc. - 1630 & 1720 E. McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ~~' ~ ' 13. Public Hearing: AZ 07-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 ~~ acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C zone for Woodland Springs by Morgan I<; Development - NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: ~_ " Recommend Approval to City Council r" °'~ 14. Public Hearing: PP 07-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 4 ~, .;s ~_: ~ commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for ~~z Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ;~ ~; ~?.`,`' >; ~~F, ~+ i . l P !r' i ~!~~ R,_ ~•K 'i ', ~~ F s Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - November 1, 2007 Page 3 of 3 • All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, ~s ' please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. . ~,~,~ ~z ~.~i ~C ? _ }M l M . ~ y n t i ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ i.:r~ ! W 3 ~ ~~j • ! a y ~N~f?~~f2~ ~~i~ ~ F' ~ S~ _ ` ~ ..;,.¢ ,e. ~5,~' ~. ~~ k ~ '.~~ Yaa. ^ ~, tv f a ' ~ ~ " ~ ~,, 3 x ~r ~ ' 'i C f+5 i' ~,. -~, S ~ 4 xt r' p i ~ ~cSi\ 3 + - t~ c ~ _ x ~v kt !' r~~~? ~ ~ ~ ~~4 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~?(ti 7~. x ~.._ = i ~ i t ~ 6('. ~P':~i. -~ `~k ~ s ~x~.'~s GJi'4 p¢ur.. o - ~" ;. ~ ( J h ~ ,~ J ' ' Si~ ' G f ''..n{~t ^Y ~ ~ ~r' q , t r ,a- ~.~ r - . a ~ 4p ~ ~ ~ r , ~~ ti+ ~,.~,: ~ ~ _ `~ ~ i ~ 3i~N ~ J~ai .~ s i+ ~ ~~•.~ kr~e h _. ~ ~r.i 1 e`~ ~~~ Y~~~- ~ ~' ~ :~d i t~F~C'~;' ,~~ e~ N~ .~ {'~1(.~ r~~~~t ~'-l Q ~ ~ ~ ' S 4~, o-, ~` 11 ~ .~ ~~ ~ 1 , yea fi ~t; r 8~+~~Ft_ + ~ ! ~ r' ~ m ~ ~.? ~ t~ ~ F"' * G ~ a . 1~ .~~'? f r ~, ~ ~ ,.7~, ,£,~. ~` Q hf~ ~Y"' '~ ~9..,'~~^ tt~4 E IDIAN~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING s ~, A ~ REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, ~;:a all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected }:,} to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. 1. Roll-call Attendance: F, Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm -chairman ~~ '~"''~~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: -~1~'~~"® ~~ ~3~~ ~~ 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Public Hearing: CPA 07-013 Request for a Comprehensive Plan '~ Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change four nodes ~`(~h with land use designations of Light Industrial to Commercial, two nodes from Commercial to Light Industrial and one node from Light Industrial to Public /Quasi Public for a future school site. The amendments are intended to bring the City's Future Land Use Map into conformance with the City's Zoning Map. An additional request is to remove the Urban ,.'.;, Service Planning Area (USPA) designation from the map legend and replace it with the Area of City Impact (AOCI) Boundary by the City of Meridian Planning Department -two parcels north of NW 10~" Place and ~~` ' west of Taylor Street; north of E. Franklin Road and east of Taylor Street; two parcels north of E. Overland Road and east of S. Teare Avenue; east Yl , ~ of S. Locust Grove and north of E. Overland Road; two parcels northwest ~- ~ comer of N. Eagle Road and E. Lanark Street; six parcels west of N. l .`~ Eagle Road and north of E. Florence Street; three parcels west of N. ~;~`'~":''~ Eagle Road and south of E. Florence Street; Paddington and Elliott Park S bdivisions south of .Wilson Lane and east of N. Locust Grove Road: f:j F~.t l~C~~`°r~~,r,,~ /~j~~v~seLL ~ Ci ~ ~.~,~1~~.. tY ~`~~a `I 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-002 Request to y' ~' amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south 't°,'~"" Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land ' ` ` east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and 'h mile east of } ., +I Linder Road south to'/a mile south of Columbia Road, east to '/ mile west Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - November 1, 2007 Page 1 of 3 fF:~.r All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, '? please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. z'' ', T, ~~ ",yr va -=; or, ~- ;rZr~a. ~~$~ orb ~j'o Y 3~-` . -, .:_ ~ +~ [ C~3 Y s ~ h 7; ~:~' Y ~:~ ;.,~t~ ~; .; f ~r!a~+rr~E ' a :,:~e h ; 3 f ~ ~1F~r4 +~. ~€ ~ a y ,~ e'r~ ' r ~Sh~eS'S`~"~ '. ~ 7 ~~j~ 3~i; 4~ ~ 9fry ey_~ ~ ~' '~ r ~~ ~i'P 'b^,5.~ ~ ~~ ~~ S?~ q a tY~ z _, 6. >' _ 7. ~d ,; ~~ :: };", s. ;t~. ~, ,; ~n : £ i` ~ ` 5p .~ 9. ~~=;;;~ 12. ;;; , 4'~.r "dam ~.. ~; ';::= ,J .. ~;F • • of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: ,~? ~ Qr~,~r-~~,n ~°~'rvv~ -fry ~°~ C1~`~ Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian Planning r~p~~-~'hl~ ~~~Li`C ~~c:E2,l^o`~'1Gi ~ ~~ ~v, ~-8® ~ Public Hearing: CPA 07-010 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the north Meridian area to include 645 acres north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River from Linder Road to approximately '/ mile west of Black Cat for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sheme Ewing: I Public Hearing: CPA 07-015 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to create a new land use designation that would include open area, low-density, residential, medium low-density residential and medium-density residential uses with an anticipated average of density of 3 dwelling units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sherrie Ewing:~.~l~~t~ lZ~i'~ `~ r~ ~ C~-u~~'~ Public Hearing: CPA 07-012 Request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial for Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC - NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): `~ Public Hearing: RZ 07-013 Request fora ezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC -NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): Public Hearing: CPA 07-011 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 38.7 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community to include Office /Retail, Private School and Patio Homes for Dean Property by David J. Dean - 6380 N. Locust Grove Road (NEC of N. Locust Grove and E. Chinden): ~,n , Public Hearing: CPA 07-014 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 7.43 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development, Inc. -1630 & 1720 E. McMillan Road: //,, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - November 1, 2007 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~~~ ,. N~ ~k• ~ i 5 t~ ~:~ o- ~ ~ Y. iS` ~- .- ..-. ~:,I~' pis it <'• c ~~~ ~. A.~ ':.t . Y. -: f _, v K'.-~ 1'- s"~'. l' ' ~ ' ~ r .c ' `a,r u w rr-, 13. Public Hearing: AZ 07-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C zone for Woodland Springs by Morgan `~;. Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: ~~~ V~'~ s7~1.~,~~ .~~ Y ~ v~ ~ Vi'i` ~~ ~-e~.ti6'~ l~~.Q- 14. Public Hearing: PP 07-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 4 commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: 1 ~•~: ~.r ': F~ ' ry~ry~#~_` ~. Ct'.~~~' ';f fi',9 ~: !'~ ~:; C, S. °~y F~c' -. ~ .;. ~' -.~i 1° 4~.i ~z ~+,,. ?. `: ` ~'' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - November 1, 2007 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. "~'' ` ~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, ., ~'~`''~' ~; please contact the City Clerk's Office at 13138-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ,.~,~, ~:~~: ~ e. r:.: 4 C"h ~ ~~ ~c :' 1".' ~. ,~~,. ~~~a ~+ ,,. e. ,s.;? ~ ~'' ;>~; ~_r xF~r> _;. C,, •~' ~'r, ~{ . 5-' s''# .f ~~' ~- ~,- ~;~~ ~: `F }F :~ ,. -;, I ~- F ~. ~~ s ~~ .; +..~ ._ r ~ ,, l ~~ },. ~~_ . ~~ ,; ,,, Il/a~e ~OS-~ ~uI~UC ~c.~ -~l,~C E IDIAN~-'- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~ ~ REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Public Hearing: CPA 07-013 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change four nodes with land use designations of Light Industrial to Commercial, two nodes from Commercial to Light Industrial and one node from Light Industrial to Public /Quasi Public for a future school site. The amendments are intended to bring the City's Future Land Use Map into conformance with the City's Zoning Map. An additional request is to remove the Urban Service Planning Area (USPA) designation from the map legend and replace it with the Area of City Impact (AOCI) Boundary by the City of Meridian Planning Department -two parcels north of NW 10~' Place and west of Taylor Street; north of E. Franklin Road and east of Taylor Street; two parcels north of E. Overland Road and east of S. Teare Avenue; east of S. Locust Grove and north of E. Overland Road; two parcels northwest comer of N. Eagle Road and E. Lanark Street; six parcels west of N. Eagle Road and north of E. Florence Street; three parcels west of N. Eagle Road and south of E. Florence Street; Paddington and Elliott Park Subdivisions south of E. Wilson Lane and east of N. Locust Grove Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-002 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and °h mile east of Linder Road south to'/2 mile south of Columbia Road, east to '/ mile west Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - November 1, 2007 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. •~ .z ti } ~c ~~~' ~ a~ _ ~ ~~~~„ .~ ~. ~~ f ~f'~ ,~~z' ~5 ~ ~a # a -'; r` i y ~ ~. ~ ~ ,.. 4C +fi ~,_ !: S.xcr :X-~+t sir.:: ~ ~r, ,,...: i-~2i-. rte +E ' ~+a~ ~.c -~ k •X; ti..~:;...._ ;'~ rs ~~ ~: ~''_': ,- ~F ~~z ~F.- .3'' ~~~i. p~• ra 5 ?, i . ' x"„ n!1. ~x ~~ ' ~:_ ~ _ ~~ 'ai~ -• ,i .~ jwT"'s ~~ ~ `. ' , ~r . . r ' , ~ i iF ~ ? } r ~ ~ r . . i ~~t . 3. ~~ , w~~` _ i. ~'` S I,fyr ~` tr + 7.-. y t S ~~[ pf5~r • of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: ``'' 7. Public Hearing: CPA 07-010 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the north Meridian area to include 645 acres north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River from Linder Road to approximately '/ mile west of Black Cat for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sheme Ewing: '' ' 8. Public Hearing: CPA 07-015 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to create a new land use designation that would include open area, low-density, residential, medium low-density residential and y;";; medium-density residential uses with an anticipated average of density of 3 dwelling units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sherrie Ewing: <,,: 9. Public Hearing: CPA 07-012 Request for an amendment to the ~_ ; Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use >r., designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial for Strada ~,, Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC -NWC of q=:,i Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots .<, 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): ~`~~" 10. Public Hearing: RZ 07-013 Request for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima - Commercial, LLC -NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and - 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 ,_ Subdivision): `'' ` 11. Public Hearing: CPA 07-011 Request fora Comprehensive Plan ~~., ~ Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change the land use -::~~ designation on 38.7 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community to include Office /Retail, Private School and Patio Homes for `=`I Dean Property by David J. Dean - 6380 N. Locust Grove Road (NEC of ~~''~ N. Locust Grove and E. Chinden): 12. Public Hearing: CPA 07-014 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 7.43 acres from Medium Density Residential to i '~~~ Mixed Use -Community for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development, ,`. Inc. -1630 & 1720 E. McMillan Road: ~w ~:.-~, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - November 1, 2007 Page 2 of 3 P`L` ° All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r;~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~: F. ^:.:; t _, ~,~ K: ~ F } r ~-; s: 4 ~fS~ .ar y'~y ~f~ j~ o. ~~ti `~ ~ ~. ~: i' ~~~~ .~; 1 t F-- - ~. v - '/ `' ar~ >. ,_ , ,. ~,. z .'~ ., .~ ~' _ .y, ! ,1. T ~ x r .-? nr. S • ~ E+ ; {~..: 13. Public Hearing: AZ 07-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C zone for Woodland Springs by Morgan s,; , ;': Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: ~:`>~ 14. Public Hearing: PP 07-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 4 commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for ~4.~ Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: l~: . ``~ ._ ~.r,~ . r;;; ~ ti, ~ ~. 3 ~ ~ y }:' ' ~.. I !!: J r,: i ~' . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - November 1, 2007 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~;'~: Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, >: ``~ please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. k ;K; ~~ .,~!,t ~~~ : F~ ~a ~ ~~;~~ p~h l~:~ ~'q'~ YA R t% j~?E a; ~,~4r ; t I)~ ~!y t ~ ~,Vi, i~ iS 0. . f ; ,,yys~~~ c,. sal:; _ ~~ ct~ir Sgt qtr ¢L. yy,F . 1%~ k Imo: i i'vF 7 X" Y~ h~~~~ t ~ ,. K i ri .~.~ t7 u ~"'~ ~,yw~ '~a ,~ r x .~.~ee ~~4 ~~ 1.~~ ~i~~ t y ~ ~ '+~ _ ~~, ~ t" G~x_ , r ,B r S" ). ~ ~ r ~3f1 i. 3 ~ ti«~, <-ak'. { h ? ~: r t F~ i ~•.-: t,, . -: ~ t` S i . ~ ~r." r, ~ ~ t 0 ~'~ r' Y~ a; ~~, 5 ~ Broadcast Report ~! S ,.~ -:' ~i - Date/Time 10-29-2007 01:32:00 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 r- Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 ~ ~ ~.' ~ `'' This document :Failed } ~'„ (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11 " ~, ~Ieasc ~o~ ~ufol~'c lVo-~ce -~ ~ \~E IDIAN MERiOtAN PLARINING ANb ZONING } i D At H 4 REGULAR RAEETING AGENDA s Glty launch Chambers r 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, idaha ,, Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 7:00 pin. "., , ~~x ~' "Aiffiough the Ci[y of Meridian no /ongerrequires s>.vom testimony, ;: all presentefJons before the Mayor and CHy Goun~I are expactetf `~:> to be truihfuf and honest to beat of tfie abilKy of the presenter.' ;r 1. Roll~all Attendance: Tam OBrien Werssy Nawtar~-tiuckabay David Moe Steve S~daway ~` Mic~aei Rohm - chalmtan A I&~~ , "~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 'a a;_:; ; 3. Consent Agenda: ~~' 4. Public hearing: CPA OT-01S Request for a Comprehensive Plan ~s Amendment to modify the Future Lard Use Map to change four nodes with land use de~grrations of Light Indusfria! to Commercial, two Hades '' from Commercial to Light Irtdustrlal and ane node from Light Industrial to Public 1 Quasi PubUc for a future school site. The amertdmenta are ~a+ - intended to bring the Citys Future Land Use MaP into conformance with ~':<~'. the Cltys Zoning Map. An addit~nal request Is to remavo the Urban ` Service Planning Area (USDA) designation from the map legend and replace It with the Area of City impact (AOCt} Boundary by the City of ~'` ~ Meridian Planning Department -two parcels north of NW 10~' Place and west of Taylor Street; north of E. FranWin Road and east of Taylor Street• 5 ;:; j tuvo parcels north of E. Overland Road and east of S. Tears Avenue; east ' of S. Locust Grove and north of E. Overland Road; two panels northwest ~ comer of N. Eiagle Road and E. Lanark Street; six paresis west of N, ~ ` ' I' Eagle Road and nortlt of E, Fkuence Street; tt-ree parcels west of N. ~` Eagle Road and south of E:. Florence Street; Paddington arttl Elliott Park r~ ~ I Subdivisions sou8t of E Wilson lane and east of N. Locust Grove Road: s,` i b. Continued Public heating from ApNI 19.2007: CPA OT•OOZ Request to ' amend the Canprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south ` ; ~ Meridian area to expand future land uses desigr-atfons to include the land east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and 'h mile east of Linder Road south to ~ mite south of Columbia Road, east to'/. mile west ~" ~±i Medt9an pierirMng erM Comml~ori t~tttli~g AgenAe - t~vemt~er i. 2U0T f~a T of s ~i M materiaM presente3ld pW~llc mea5nge elmU M~ame properly oohs CAyo1(~Adtan. + Anyone d~rG~g eocomrnodetbn for dfsabilittes tslehid to documents endlor hea~8• please oonted the City Clsdfs Oltfee at 8A8-443;1 of ~as19& bouts PTlor W the pvhflc rt~eetlng. ~; .,_ T..a..l o.,....r r....i1..nn.J • AQ ~~~ai ra No. yw ~~a Job nnc~ ..r Remote Station . _-... -a -- --'--"---- - - Start Tlme - Duration Pages Une Mode Job Type Results 001 292 3810160 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:03:22 3/3 1 EC HS CP9600 002 292 8989551 12:26:03 p•m•10-29-2007 00:00:50 3l3 1 EC HS CP21600 003 292 20848723 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:41 3/3 1 EC HS CP2880D 004 292 8886854 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:39 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 005 292 2088985501 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:04 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 006 292 8467366 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:41 313 1 EC HS CP28800 007 292 8950390 12:26:03 p.m.90-29-2007 00:00:47 313 1 EC HS CP31200 sg ~d ~ ~~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ a ~~~~ 3 K .M4q - E ,s1.. ,~s :., F k ~. r ~. 9§ 4 i "~ a ~y~ t ~~J i ~~~RJ~? 7 d iii _ ~ .,, ~. < y~- ~I S y a ~ .~:. ~~- S f~I 4~ Y ~ p' ~9 ~~' ~ r' is r _~?, a ~, ~ ~ ~ 2 r Y r,, . , r, A ~ c 32 F ~ ~.,~, 4 ~ ~~~k~ a~~ ~~ ~~ t ~ ~ ~r ,SY ~ll~ ~~ ,, ~,y', CCr yYyi L* l ! ~ ~i AA ~ it ~1 y ~ `. } pFi„r .~ 8 z ~, ~ w ~` ~i"~~5~y. ~,tj~ 1~y y9'~ , ~- ~ Pr -et i r fTi"`~ 4'C~ r'. i 35 ? [_ .C: c , n ..v+rc ~'/..~', ~;~~' yip.-~~ ~,3~ ~I F ~' ' ~~~ t ~ ~ Ct ~: •~ ~F}f' ~ l ~ ~ c . ;. My; # . ~ :, R~t~ ; _~~~ fir ~ ~. ~~~~,~~~~~'y '~, ~ a ~'~ X{} C.>k ~~I ~ ~ 3 ~£ J Y '#~ ~ , I '~ ~~h ~~~- If it - j. ~~. y c~ &&& IR i irr ~~ I~~ ~ ~ r L{_ e - I~'. i r 4 y. ~~ , -i~ .. - e .~{ Broadcast Report - ~ Date/Time 10-29-2007 01:32:09 p.m. Transmit Header Text Clty of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 s Abbreviations: HS: Host send `'' {, HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send 's '' _; ~ _ <:t_. 's , ~, a_. ~` PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 MS: Mailboxsave FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct r.,~.z,n i _l~r Qli.! + Y Kit ~~{~ t~.~. ~f~~~ ~Q~:.,>: F~ ~;: ~ '~ k:. ~~~-,~:, k*;l is ~~~}'~e rya '\•;'l~I .'' ~~~~V', 'L~`i b~0~-,~. ~~ :.; ~~~~'; ,~ _, r~~.,;. :r ~,:<; ~: f~, ~, No. Job Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 008 292 208 888 2682 12:26:03 p.m. 10-29-2007 00:00:39 3J3 1 EC HS CP33600 009 292 2083876393 12:26:03 p.m. 10-29-2007 00:01:23 3J3 1 EC HS CP14400 010 292 2877909 12:26:03 p.m. 10-29-2007 00:00:39 3J3 1 EC HS CP33600 011 292 2088885052 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:40 313 1 EC HS CP31200 012 292 8881983 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:47 3J3 1 EC HS CP24000 013 292 2083776449 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:18 313 1 EC HS CP14400 014 292 4679562 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:00 013 1 -- HS FA 015 292 8886700 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:00 0!3 1 -- HS FA 016 292 8884022 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:49 O/3 1 G3 HS FA14400 017 292 3886924 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:49 313 1 EC HS CP24000 018 292 8841159 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:42 313 1 EC HS CP28800 019 292 8840744 12:26:03 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:44 3J3 1 EC HS CP26400 .~ '~~ ,~ i',.~ ~ , dh.~'' t~~? {. .; ~~ ,~q~.~,. ,: } ~y r~--a ].4 Dr~r-:.~: ~~ - t': -. ~~ ;~- ~~~;~ - ~{ t` ~~: ;~ .,1 ~~ ~;~:: ~::., -~< 1~ Y ,~,. 'Pr .1~ <' • 8Y t~ D Y a!t?~ CITY OF ~~~~-` I ~ ~~§~~,w~i ~l ~Y'1~11"YI~ ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO ~~` PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT ~ti'`~~, ~'"rfu~T„~,~„HEv,.ur'~ PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT /NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the SINCE 1903 Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning MAYOR Tammy de weera and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS xeith Bird November 1, 2007, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the continued public Joseph W. Borton hearing application CPA 07-002 of City of Meridian Planning Department to amend Charles M. Rountree David zaremba the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land east of McDermott Road south to Lake CITY DEPARTMENTS Hazel Road and % mile east of Linder Road, south to '/a mile south of Columbia Road, city Attorney/HR east to '/a mile west of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan 703 Main Street 898-5506 (City Attorney) Amendment; and 898-5503 (HR) CPA 07-009 of City of Meridian Planning Department to amend the Fax 884-8723 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Fire 540 E. Franklin Road Map and include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area. 888-1234 /fax 895-0390 Furthermore, the applicant requests the application CPA 07-012 of Strada Parks & Recreation Belissima Commercial, LLC for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 /fax 898-5501 Use Map to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Planning Commercial for Strada Bellissima Commercial; and 660 E. Watertower Lane ~ 07-013 for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Suite 202 884-5533 /fax 888-6854 Bellissima Commercial generally located NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at Police 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 1401 E. Watertower Lane Subdivision); and 888-6678/fax 846-7366 CPA 07-011 of David J. Dean for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane the Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 38.7 acres from Medium Suite 200 Density Residential to Mixed Use Community to include Office /Retail, Private School 898-5500/fax 898-9551 - Building and Patio Homes for Dean Property located 6380 N. Locust Grove Road (NEC of N. 660 E. Watertower Lane Locust Grove Road and E. Chinden); and Suite 150 887-2211 /fax 887-1297 CPA 07-013 of City of Meridian Planning Department for a Comprehensive - Wastewater Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change four (4) nodes with land 3401 N. Ten Mile Road use designations of Light Industrial to Commercial, two (2) nodes from Commercial to 888-2191/fax 884-0744 - Water Light Industrial and one (1) node from Light Industrial to Public /Quasi Public for a future 2235 N.w. sth Street school site. The amendments are intended to bring the City's Future Land Use Map into 888-5242/fax 884-1159 conformance with the City's Zoning Map. An additional request is to remove the Urban Service Planning Area (USPA) designation from the map legend and replace it with the Page 1 of 2 CITY HALL. 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK -FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING -FAX 887-48] 3 MAYOR'S OFFICE -FAX 884-8] 19 Printed on recycled paper ;~; • ~' ~ ~ Area of City Impact (AOCI) Boundary -generally located two (2) parcels north of NW 10~' Place and west of Taylor Street; north of E. Franklin Road and east of Taylor Street; two 4 ~i (2) parcels north of E. Overland Road and east of S. Teare Avenue; east of S. Locust Grove and north of E. Overland Road; two (2) parcels northwest corner of N. Eagle Road ~;.' and E. Lanark Street; six (6) parcels west of N. Eagle Road and north of E. Florence r=:~ ~;_; : Street; three (3) parcels west of N. Eagle Road and south of E. Florence Street; ~ ~, "- ~`~ Paddington and Elliott Park Subdivisions south of E. Wilson Lane and east of N. Locust "'" Grove; and ~i";:.:; ~; CPA 07-014 of Morgan Development, Inc. for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use ~. Map Amendment of 7.43 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use - ~~ ' Community for Woodland Springs located 1630 8~ 1720 E. McMillan Road; and ~; ." ~, AZ 07-014 for Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C 3~:. >-t' zone for Woodland Springs and PP 07-019 for Preliminary Plat approval for 4 ~~': ' commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for Woodland Springs ~'"~`' generally located NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road; and ~~ CPA 07-010 of Sherrie Ewing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land yak Sc { '. Use Map for the north Meridian area to include 645 acres north of the Phyllis Canal and i, .- south of the Boise River from Linder Road to approximately'/4 mile west of Black Cat. A ~'~t3 Com rehensive Plan Text Amendment is also requested to create a new land use p ~V; designation for the subject area that would include open area, low-density residential, `" medium low-density residential and medium-density residential uses with an anticipated average density of 3 dwelling units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Project. ~, ~~ ,"~ fie„ ~ . More particular descriptions of the above information are on file in the Planning `; ' ~`` "' Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian, Idaho and are available for ~' thTl' inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 ~ ~ P.m. r ' ~ , Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all ~~`'" interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is welcome and "-~ invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per ~~r `~=` person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior to the above hearing ~ date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. All materials ~_, ~: presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone $;_:, ~ desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's OfFce at 888-4433 at least 72 hours prior to the p~~l~`i~l~°~~,~~'~!lP,,. DATED this 5~' day of October, 2007 L z ~ :`\\CC~~ ~~~ ~``°~`"~~';~, ~.;; :. ~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., cll°Y cl_~RK ~,.` „ ~ .~ - ! `~~ Page 2 of 2 _ .~, cJ a ~ ~~ ~~ ; ~ ~ "'CidF~~ 6 1.. !. ~~'/,'/PP/P! N 11111\\\l\\~,~\ f ~ ~~' S t ,w !~ qg ,c Y # r r~'- 3 ,~ ~, _`~ ~,~ "~ ~ i'F. - ~~$Ia t~ ~ ~ "'~~a ~ ~ i~ ~, 4 +k r 3y5qt~ p i ,. M~~ ~i -'N~ ~~a ~ 1 ~~ i ~~ ~ '.~ ~Y~ ~ ~ r{..,: r K; N7^i S~s€ i~,~ ~ ~a~~ d k~~~ ~~'''c1F9~"^"""~'.'~ Sy f~; f ~ 1~.; fi i[ i~ ~ ~ F~~~ a} . ~~ ~ 1~~~ ~ ?~~~ ~`~ ','_Z- t a Gr! ._ ~,j~t ~' ~' J .:cli ti. Crt ~' r+s J.. Y•~ ~~~ i" N.4 t ~~~ a l ~~ ~: ~~ a.~ ~~ t W' y. {~ ~ `~.. ~'~.. _ ii . ~" F: \ ~ ' _ I`ti (t ~ +~ r 'L ~s ~~ ,y; Broadcast Report Date/T(me 10-05-2007 03:01:28 p.m. Transmit Header Tent s-=;, Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 ;'" `. Local ID 2 Local Name 2 I . ': F:'. "s r - This document :Failed 5' . ~`~~~' (reduced sample and details below} R'" Document size : 8.5"x11" E<, :~:H ;: 4 rt !- ~., 4: 's' i.< } ~# ~;i?!A R~' ,._ "i ''t _ ~:, . ": f', ~a;`: x'. r: , INAYOR Tummy de Weard Crrr Couxcu. MReRSQRs Ketch Hird ]osepfi W. Aarlvn t~artea M. itountn'e David Z,ammba CCrY USPARThnaa3T5 City AttomoylfiR 709 Main 52reet lp98-5506 tcity Aaomayy 896.55aStk3R) pax589-87zi pine 5t0 F PrankHn Aced 868-1294 J fax X5.0390 Parks bt Recmatlon 11 W. Hower Street 866-3374 /fax t198-550] t'larmin8 660 Tr. Waiartower Lane Suite 202 864-55331 fax 8880859 Police 14A31w Waterhswer Lane 8819.6ti78 /tax 84b-79611 ('ublic works 660 F Watettower [.pate Suite 20D 698•a'SQ0 t tax 848-9551 • Building 660 8. Watcrtowctt Tine Suite 150 887'-2211 / fax 887-9297 • w®stewnter 3401 N- Tk+t A4fle Road 668.21811 fax 884-0x41. • Water 2295 Jv!. W. Sn+ Stceet 88852A2 /tax 8tic1-t I99 City of Meridian Idaho Line 1 Line 2 CITY OF MERiD1AN PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT t NOTtC~ IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant iQ the itt City of Meridian and the Lavre of the State of Idaho, that 8re Piannirag and ,Zoning Comndssion of tip CNy of lvlaatdian w!p Imld a puDttc hearing at the Meridian Cily Hsti, 33 Easf Idaho Avenu®, Meridian, Idaho. at the Ixxu of 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 1, 2007, tar ~ puapo,~ of reviewing and consider}ng Ute continued public hperiat8 application CPA 07.2 of City of CNEea9dGtn Planning 1>Bpaatmerat bn emend the Comprehensive Pin Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future land uses des{gruttlons to tnclude the brad east ad McDermott Roed south to take Hazel Road and Ya mite east d Linder Road, saath tb'h mite south of Cokrmbla Road, east to'/. mt~ wit of Cloverdale Road far tioattt9 Meridlata Area Compreheatslve Plan Amendment; and CPA 07-000 of City of 14Aeaidtan Ptansttng t)epartment to amend the Gomprehartaive Pfau Text Ameasdritent ifl add Q new dealgnadoaas to the Future LarM Use Map and htcluda resldentlal ust~ in neighborhood Dentate for South AGartdlan Area. Furthemwre, tl9e applicant requests the applit:at~n CPA OT-t}92 of Shade BeitasMta Commercial, LLC for an amendment tp the Canprehera~ve Ptsm FtaDare Land Usa Map to change the land use designa0on from taw Density ReNdential W Commendal for Spada Helilasltna Commercial; and RZ 07+093 for a Rezone of 9.78 acres from L-0 to C-N mne for Spada 8alltaetma Commercial generelry located NtRIC of Meridian Road and VhOoty Road at 114 and 1fi8 tNe.9l V1a~ry Road (Cote 2 & 3, i3bck 2, Slade 8elliarsime Ida. 1 3ubdhdalon); and CPA 07-09 9 of David J. Dean tar a Comprehenalve Plan Amendment to modify Ore Palate Land Use Map to change the tend rasa designation on 3:8.7 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Uae CommuNiy to Include Olrace 1 Retail, Private School and Pala Homes for Din Property looted 8380 N. Lorxast Grove Road (NEC a>f N. toaast Grove Road and E Chirxien}; and CPA 07-013 of City of tiAertdfan Planning DspaAmant far a Oomprehensh~a Dian Amendment to ma#ty the Fulure Land Use Map to change four (4) nodes with land use deslgnaffons of Light lradusirial to Commercial, two (2) nodes from Caxrurierdat to Lighl Industrial and one (1) node from Light Industrial to Public ! Qarasi Pubic for a feature erfiaoi site. The amendments are intended to Drlrag the CFtys Future Land Use Map into anfotmance with the Cily'a Zonlrtg Atop. An additions! request is to aernave the Urban Servitv3 Planning Area (U3PA) des4grtatton from the map Mend and replace tt with ciao Papa 1 art Ctrr HALL. 33 )vA31• Inaxo AtxNUa MaralatAN, IuAxa 83642 (208} 886-4433 mvcasRat-rnxeae-ms nranwcee,erRSnana.oee-raxe~~+sJS n~+ams~sarvux-rAxsstuas I'Mtd an rary,aed pd(M ~r..a..a o._...e~ c.~....e.4 . ~ Tn+~I Pnnac fnnflrtntad ~ 57 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Une Mode Job Type Results 001 154 3810160 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:02:57 2/2 1 EC HS CP9600 002 154 8989551 01:57:35 p.m. 10-OS-2007 00:00:47 2/2 9 EC HS CP21600 003 154 2088848723 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:53 2i2 1 EC HS CP24000 004 154 8886854 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:36 212 1 EC HS CP31200 005 154 2088985501 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:39 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 006 154 8467366 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:39 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 154 8950390 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:38 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 M r ,,,.- T J ,:4: ~~ ~y ~g~~~~ ' E CA r _- r"~5' _ -.cp m ti, 3 11 t »T'~ ~fP`ii+ I.rt ~. '~. -. - f~ k' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ r •. Date/Time ~~'` Local ID 1 Loca11D 2 '.~::~ ~, ~: f:' =~ ~a~' . > .:~ .- Abbreviations: 6,- s a H5: Host send HR: Host receive ~~' ~' W5: Waiting send g , - ` , ~: " :': I ,:i.._.. S. _.. ~ ,r, r- R :Fj .'i S.-. ~') i 3~: ': Fw ~; PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR. Polled remote CP: Completed T5: Terminated by system G3: Group3 MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct (" ', ',~. H 4``-~ ~, r f 'tj ~~_. ~ .4t~r :,~A~„ r' ~~z ~ ~ `. ~~~-~ ,,~ ~~" H f'r s :: k, rr ~i~ ~ ~,ya ~ '~ C F i ~~a ~ k " 3~~ y1, 9' t M1~ "',6 RR ~ c~:~~t4• ~r^w9. ~~ ~ < n ~r~ k S ~laF ~r T..~~,'', 1i 1~5t4 r~k; =r tls~, ~~y3q~S -fix e ~ ; - r { ~- 3 .i? ~ t~ , .._. ._ .. , ,~;: iE~ ~, -. q. fix c ~u 3' ~r - u tj ~ i~x t' r 4,. r~, t + +~T,R3 I '~K iC~ r ~ ~y ;~ „ ' _. ; ~Sta x + w Yfa „~c. ~ ~.~ ~' Broadcast Report - ~ 10-05-2007 03:01:36 p.m. Transmit Header Text Clty of Meridian Idaho 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Llne 2 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 008 154 208888 2682 01:57:35 p.m. 10-05-2007 00:00:36 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 009 154 208 387 6393 01:57:35 p.m. 10-05-2007 00:01:18 2/2 1 EC HS CP94400 010 154 287 7909 01:57:35 p.m. 10-05-2007 00:00:38 212 1 EC HS CP31200 011 154 2088885052 01:57:35 p.m.10-OS-2007 00:00:38 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 012 154 8881983 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:44 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 013 154 2083776449 01:57:35p.m.10-05-2007 00:01:93 212 1 EC HS CP14400 014 154 4679562 01:57:35 p.m.10-OS-2007 00:00:41 212 1 EC HS CP26400 015 154 8886700 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:01 O/2 1 -- HS FA 016 154 8884022 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:02:07 2/2 1 EC HS CP94400 017 154 3886924 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:01:14 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 018 154 8841159 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:37 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 019 154 8840744 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:39 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 020 154 2083363736 01:57:35p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:35 212 1 EC HS CP33600 021 154 208-947-9736 01:57:35 p.m. 10-05-2007 00:01:33 212 1 G3 HS CP74400 022 154 3759248 01:57:35 p.m. 10-05-2007 00:00:00 0!2 1 -- HS FA 023 154 3344080 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:00 0/2 1 G3 HS FA 024 154 2084722211 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:40 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 025 154 2083737245 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:39 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 026 154 2083816681 01:57:35p.m.10-OS-2007 00:00:50 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 027 154 208375 7770 01:57:35 p.m. 10-05-2007 00:01:47 2/2 1 G3 HS CP14400 028 154 2084676958 01:57:35 p.m.10-05-2007 00:00:42 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 029 954 5773319 01:57:35 p.m. 10-05-2007 00:00:49 2l2 1 EC HS CP21600 ~., ~F t; r {y t qq C~2 f ~ a '~i '+ ', ~~' ~ i Date/T(me LocaIID 1 LocaIID 2 :,.;; ~::, r ~~:.;~}~ C[1Y !/11CA1iTM'B.V71i 4ty attomey113R 703 Main Sheet 698.5306 (city Attorney) fii~-5~i {H.Ep Fax 8343723 Pita 540'8. Franklin Rand tpl3-t234! fax ti&"r~90 Parks Rc Reaeadon ri W. Hower Smaet R86-35791 fax 8~-5501 Planning fi60 E VYstetWwer I.atue Suite 202 R&1.5533! fa~c J~-&656 Police 1401 E. bVatertower Lena 838-G6931 tax 646.7366 Public Works 660 E. WatarBUVrer Lane Suite 200 898.5500! fax 898-9551 - Hut]ding . 660 E. WatrrT(nverLane Suite 150 867-32311 Eox867-1297 - wastewater 3401 rV. Ten'Mile Road 888-2t91 t fax 66407'44 - Wetex zees ]..w. aa, street 866.5242 J fax 364-] 199 ~ "" Broadcast Report _ ~ 10-29-2007 02:35:39 p.m. Transmit Header Text 2088884218 Local Name 1 Local Name 2 MAVae Tammy de Weerd Gtr Cour.~(~rr.lVIsaea9es Ke]th Bird Joseph W. Eortcul Qvtrlea Pit. Raont(ee Ftrvtd Zatemba This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5 "x11 " City of Meridian Idaho Line 1 Line 2 ~ CITY of MERMAN ' PUBIJC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT .~° PUBL]C ANNOUNCE1v1EPJT /NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meddiatt aril the Lava of ilia Stale of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian wlil hold a pubUc hearing at the Merktian Criy kta9, 33 East Idaho Aventre, Meridian, Idaho, at d]s hour Of 7:00 p.m. an Thursday, Novemt~r 1, 2007, for the purpose of ravfewlrtg and t~ltsldering the eonUnued pubOc hparlrtg applkawticn CPA 07.002 of Cfly of Meridian Planning impartment to amend the Comprehensive Plan Ftitttre Land Use Nlep toT the south Meridian area to es~and future Land uses des~tlatiatts La Inoturle the land east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and %a cilia east Of l.tnder Road, south to'h mile south of Cplumbia Road, east to '/.mite west of Clovardaie Road for Smtt1t Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment; acrd CPA 07909 of City of McNdian P~nning pepatrtment to amend the CamprehsnaWe Ptah 7e1d Amendment to add 4 new dea~natiorts to the Future Land Use Map and hiclude resident6af uses in nsighbwhoad centers for Sotttfi Meridian Area. Furthermore, the apptr~nt requea~ th application CPA A7-012 of Strada Bel~afma Commercial, LLC for an amendment to the Comprehanshre Plan Fuure Lartd Use Map to change the land use designation from Low Dar~riy Restdentlai to Ccmmerdai for SUada BetUsaima Commarclal; and RZ 07-013 for a Rezone of 1.78 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada BsUtt6sima Cartmtirdat generally kit~ted NWC of Meridian Road and vldoty Road at 194 and 1t~ West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 27 Strada Bepisslma No. 1 Subdiviston}: and CPA 97-094 0} 1>BVJd J. Goan tar a Cctttprette]]sive Plan Amendment to modifit ths Future Land ilea Map th olrarigs the land use destgntatian on 38.7 ewes from Medium Density Restaendai to Mfxed Use Commurlty t4 include Office i t2e~i, Private 3ctiooi and Path Homes for oean Property io(~ted 6380 N. t.oc4st Greve Road (NEC ~ N. Loeusl Grove tioad and E. CtUrtden); and CPA OT-013 of Ctty of McAllen Planning Departrttent for a Comprehensive Plan Amat]dtnent to modity the Future tared Use PRap to Mtge tour (4) nodes with ~ use designations of Light Industrial to Camm~ai, Iwo (2} nodes from Comrrlerclat to Light Industrial and one (1) Wads from Ligh4 Indtisttfai 1b Public / Ouseb Public for a future school aRe. Tice amendments are intended to bring ths City's Future Land Use Map into carlonttartca wHh ths City's Zoning Map. An additional regltast La to remove the Urban Servloa Planning Area (USPA} de9lghatiotl from the map lagemf and rapiers it with the i's9a ~ ors Crnr IiA1.].. 33 Easr Inatto AvR;vaF McRluiax, Iuaxn 83642 (2tT8) 8>~-9.433 C?NC1 ERA-F.41f T8&i21a F7WANCE&UT11.nY an1UJG-PA7C 887-0916 .1,LlY0R'S(7FFKK1~-C+4?f 6969it9 PeinMd m mc7dad Paget ~r~~..t e......, c...........t . z Tn+~I Donee f nnfirmod • 77 No. Job Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Line Mode lob Type Results 001 293 3810160 12:58:59 p.m.10-29-2007 00:04:13 3/3 1 EC HS CP9600 002 293 8989551 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:11 313 1 EC HS CP21600 003 293 2088848723 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:00 313 1 EC HS CP28800 004 293 8886854 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:56 313 1 EC HS CP31200 005 293 2088985501 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:03 313 1 EC HS CP28800 006 293 8467366 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:58 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 007 293 8950390 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:58 313 1 EC HS CP31200 w~ >., ~` ~~ ~ ~ ` Y~~;,, a~ F~;~ ~. s ;. ~ ~:rt;t r ~~~,~; ~: t ~ R~ - ~. r '~ Y 114 ~~'-`{~ 5,. ~ ~' y` ~ ~~ 4 r a`# i` ~+jrj ~ ' ~, :~ ti~a ~ .~ S 1 , ~`.,' ~ ~ 'T ~ t 1. Eck 4i~ ;~~,~~':"~ b W r; v fir 1 t . ~ ' i ~ ~ .~sp'~d® ~.~rg ,i~ iL ~ rt'~t ~ ~t i 4 3 ~'Y' ~ a'+t i , ~a'+aa ++ttt r -i ~ v " ` 3 ~~ ~ '_:~- ~ yt r' F fi 5~ -N L .f+~.. ~F r1 L ~ Dtl~y L 1 ~ Z' ~ I~ ,ptR t-~ r ~- t ~~.n t .f u~~? x ,(r T~ 1;~ ~ ~ k 1 ~ r 4K~ ~ 1 3 ~_.e ~ 9: - t_. 5 ' F y r..: .~ h i t~~ Broadcast Report ~ Date/Time 10-29-2007 02:35:48 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Llne 2 ~~ Abbreviations: H5: Host send HR: Hostrecelve ~~':~ WS: Waiting send `~ f~ L. ~ ;. ,e,, ".~,' ~; L ''~Y~ PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct ~ : y ~ ,~, ~ ~ ~ r ? <a~- ~~ ' 1 # S µ , ~ ~ u 1 ~~.. ? ~ ~ak~ ws~"~'~`'~~b~ ~ 1. f ~~` ~ ~~ a ~?-~l~ i Y~I., it F 1,~~y~~ v~ ~' ~ Y.'L- ~~j4'F~'A' 1 ~4i h ~ _ ~~ ~~. Y7. i ~ r ~ ~h ~ k ~ ~ ~' ~.Y ~l by rj L t ~ ~ {{ fi~rr,, ~(yL~y34 ~GS~~tt? + ~C / f. - . iN .~~; .~ ~ Y U }~ am ~. ~. ~ + ~ . ~~ .y t ~ 5 '1 1~ > ifi _ ~ / ~ X ti ` 7 ~ ~~3~r r ,S `~ a y,>~~ F= ^x x y ~" ~ `F r ~ , ~ J, ~ ~ K G ~ Sa .5 r r, .IC ~ .; ~ m i _ c ~~ - a ~ i ~#,; k _ 1 ~K ~1x ~'~ ~~~ _~ ~~ r iii , ~ Z ~~ 1 r`'h ~ .~4Y `. a f-h }.~ f~ y 7 y / f ~' a t .y ~ w ~ ~ ~ ?r ~'~t~3 ~GM~ _ ' V1t5 " t T: ~. x Na. Jab Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 008 293 2088882682 12:58:51 p.m. 10-29-2007 00:00:54 3/3 1 EC HS CP33600 009 293 208 387 6393 12:58:51 p.m. 10-29-2007 00:01:48 313 1 EC HS CP14400 010 293 287 7909 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:55 3/3 1 EC HS CP33600 011 293 2088885052 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:56 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 012 293 8881983 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:06 313 1 EC HS CP24000 013 293 2083776449 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:48 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 014 293 4679562 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:01 313 1 EC HS CP26400 015 293 8886700 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:00 013 1 -- HS FA 016 293 8884022 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:56 013 1 G3 HS FA14400 017 293 3886924 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:08 3/3 1 EC HS CP24000 018 293 8849159 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:58 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 019 293 8840744 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:02 3/3 1 EC HS CP26400 020 293 2083363736 12:58:51 p.m. 10-29-2007 00:00:53 313 1 EC HS CP33600 021 293 208-947-9736 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:02:17 3i3 1 G3 HS CP14400 022 293 3759248 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:00 0!3 1 -- HS FA 023 293 3344080 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:00 0/3 1 G3 HS FA 024 293 2084722211 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:02 3/3 1 EC HS CP26400 025 293 2083737245 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:00 313 1 EC HS CP28800 026 293 208381 6681 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:10 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 027 293 2083757770 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:02:37 313 1 G3 HS CP14400 028 293 2084676958 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:01:04 313 1 EC HS CP26400 029 293 5773319 12:58:51 p.m.10-29-2007 00:00:00 013 1 -- HS FA ~s '~ -. 41.:' ~'~ ~::: s'~ a :i'~ _,:, rl l`, Notice of Hearing PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT /NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 1, 2007, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the continued public hearing application CPA 07-002 of City of Meridian Planning Department to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and '/2 mile east of Linder Road, south to %Z mile south of Columbia Road, east to '/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and CPA 07-009 of City of Meridian Planning Department to amend the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area. Furthermore, the applicant requests the application CPA 07-012 of Strada Belissima Commercial, LLC for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial for Strada Bellissima Commercial; and RZ 07-013 for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial generally located NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision); and CPA 07-011 of David J. Dean for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 38.7 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community to include Office /Retail, Private School and Patio Homes for Dean Properly located 6380 N. Locust Grove Road (NEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Chinden); and CPA 07-013 of City of Meridian Planning Department for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change four (4) nodes with land use designations of Light Industrial to Commercial, two (2) nodes from Commercial to Light Industrial and one (1) node from Light Industrial to Public / Quasi Public for a future school site. The amendments are intended to bring the City's Future Land Use Map into conformance with the City's Zoning Map. An additional request is to remove the Urban Service Planning Area (USPA) designation from the map legend and replace it with the Area of City Impact (AOCI) Boundary - generally located two (2) parcels north of NW 10th Place and west of Taylor Street; north of E. Franklin Road and east of Taylor Street; two (2) parcels north of E. Overland Road and east of S. Teare Avenue; east of S. Locust Grove and north of E. Overland Road; two (2) parcels northwest corner of N. Eagle Road and E. Lanark Street; six (6) parcels west of N. Eagle Road and north of E. Florence Street; three (3) parcels west of N. Eagle Road and south of E. Florence Street; Paddington and Elliott Park Subdivisions south of E. Wilson Lane and east of N. Locust Grove; and Page 1 of 2 z ~ ~ ~~ t, ~~~3, r ~~Sc~r• ~~ ~ ~ 3'~*r~r~- ~ ~ ~~~~ ~i ,~ s ~ i ~ ~ ~'~ ~+s ~-~ _ - i ~ t f ~..~ ~ '`~ ;;~, r~' ~.~~. Lr ~. 5, , ,~ { t t ,~ j a _ ~. gi ~ ; r ~ y. ~in~d n ;h~ Y,?,,t~ p~~ 4a ~„n~ ~ ~ eh~.r~t~~%~ 1~~ p( 3 L ~.Y# ; ~ fit ~ ~ ~ . ~ '1 Jr ~ FS~3 p$r~I ~ r~t~~.~ s F ~ ~ ~~ M~ w„p~ s5'7.i i ~'! 'd e. 9'.5 f '4 ry M F 'v ' '1 IS ~ ,{' ~x ~rk~° ~tj} ~r } ~F ~ ~ ~h 1 i 3,,1 y 'Ln3°l.~M~ ~ l' f [[IE rya 2 ~~~ !' F_. -_ F n. r s ~' a ca ~'} ~ '`z ,~ ~~#~~; r~5 ~, ~„ ,y,u~o,+e„ f`. .~ -~~ ~r ~: ;has s,a;C;; ' i ~•: , ~ ¢ ~+~s ,. k f~ ~~_~ D:.-. - ~ji r. `T a': ~: 'C' ' 4 ~~ Y N~~ .. 4:;, CPA 07-014 of Morgan Development, Inc. for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of .,, ?` ;, ~; ~: 7.43 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Woodland Springs located 1630 & 1720 E. McMillan Road; and ~`" AZ 07-014 for Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C zone for Woodland "' S rm sand PP 07-019 for Prelimina Plata royal for 4 commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C ~; , p ~ 9 rY pp ~` `°` zoning district for Woodland Springs generally located NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road; and ~__:~. ``~' CPA 07-010 of Sherrie Ewing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the north r ';, Meridian area to include 645 acres north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River from Linder Road to ~ - approximately'/4 mile west of Black Cat. A Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment is also requested to create a ~< ~.y new land use designation for the subject area that would include open area, low-density residential, medium r,, 'r ~~_ low-density residential and medium-density residential uses with an anticipated average density of 3 dwelling ~' ~° ~ units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Project. ?, ` More particular descriptions of the above information are on file in the Planning Department, 660 East ~`~ Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian, Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, ,=~ = Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3; =~ Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be a;.;;< heard at said public hearing, and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be ` limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior to the above hearing date so that all. interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. All materials presented at z -` public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 72 hours prior ~,;.~ to the public meeting. ;,., ,. "' PUBLISH 15~' and 29~' of October, 2007 WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK ~:. '_ ^ Y '- Page 2 of 2 s~ ~~~ ~• ~'. `. ~ ': ,~- ,: ~, t1,;h t• ~~ • ;~ f ~ """ ~~~ it ••~e ~Y'y'.:r M ~~~'4 ' K i~ C ~G :`•P ~' 1 ~ j 3 ~ h~~ f.i{~~<r~r !.y f ~:- ;.si ~ ~ 1 ':- ~~ Y ry iY r }:^-~ I~ Y ¢;~ F ~~~~ ~` i p ~i ~:, ; ~i 4.{ ~~ ~ N' h i S~ s ( UF't I ~i I Y~~i~Q~ r~4}!'y~~~l~ ~~ >Nk ~t ~~~• 7 R!~•i~ hW i... - L~ ~I `~ Broadcast Report .r7 s Date/Time 11-02-2007 09:26:57 a.m. Transmit HeaderTe3R Cltyof Meridian Idaho '"~`' Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Llne 2 ';' . ~'~ ;. This document :Failed e : _; (reduced sample and details below) Document size : $.5 "x11 " (~~,`,~ l' Y E T~ll3~~- MERIDIAN PLANNINC3 AAFD ZONIN© f D A H o REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Counct! Cham(xere 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho s~:,f',~ ,~ ~;~. i ~ y. •~,'•r i ;{ ~. '~ i~ .. r ,ay.: s';`;` Thursday, Novem6ar 1,x001 at 7:00 p.rn. Although the City of Meridian no longer requess sworn testimony, aU presantaHons before the Mayor and City Council are expecfied to be truthful and honest to best of the ebtttty of the presenter. i. Roil-tail Attendance: Tom O'BrienWendy NawtorrHuckabay David Moe Steve Stddovvay ~, Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoptton of the Agenda: .l~ ppi'"f~tlE. 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Put3llc tfearinig: CPA 07075 Request fir a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to ohange four nodes with land use designations of L~hY industrial to Commercial, two nodes from Comrrarrcial to Light industrial and one node from LIgM Industrial to Public i Quasi Public far a future school site. The amendmerrts are intended to bring the Gay's Future Land Use Map into conformance wide the Cfty`s Zoning Map. An addfttonat request is to remove the Urban Service Planning Area (USPA} deslgnatton from the map legend and replace is with the Area of City Impact (AOCI} Boundary by the GHy of Meridian Plerming Dapartrnent -two parcels north of tVVii 10a' Place and west of Taylor Street; north of E. Franklin Road aM east of Taylor St7eet: two parcels north of E. Overtarrd Road and east of S. Teary Avenue; east of S. Loa3st Grove and norOr of E. Overlari.d Road; two part~is northwest comer of N. Eagle Road and E t~nark Sfreet; six parcels west of N. Eagle Rcad and north of E. Florence Street; flues parcels west of N. EJag~le Road and south of E. Florence Street; Paddington and Elliott Park IC~C omn~f~-of ~. W~Itson~t~an~ r-d~east aft Grove Road: 5. Contlnu~t Public Hearing from April 18,007: CPA 07.002 Request to amend the Gompreher~ive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian eras to expand future land uses designa0ons to include the land east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and Y mNe east of Linder Road south Yo :4 cotta south of Columbia Road, east to °/. mile avast Meddler Pienntrtg erW Zmi3ng Commissbn Adaet~g Agenda- November' 7.24137 Pegs 1 of 3 All rmteriate p et public meetings shall b~ama pmperty otthe Cdy ar Meridian, Anyone desNirg eccommadation tar dlssbtiHles mated to document ertdfor hearlR9. Please ~ntect die City t2arKe Qilice et$88~4433 et least 48 hove prior m pie putdb maefinQ. Total Panes Scanned : 3 Total Pages Confirmed : 54 ::~ 't, - ~r.'. °` No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 332 3810160 08:54:23a.m.11-02-2007 00:03:39 313 1 EC HS CP9600 002 332 8989551 08:54:23a.m.11-02-2007 00:01:00 313 1 EC HS CP19200 003 332 20848723 08:54:23 a.m.11-02-2007 00:00:45 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 004 332 8886854 08:54:23 a.m. 19-02-2007 00:00:43 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 005 332 2088985501 08:54:23 a.m. 11-02-2007 00:00:50 313 1 EC HS CP31200 006 332 8467366 08:54:23 a.m.11-02-2007 00:00:45 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 007 332 8950390 08:54:23 a.m. 11-02-2007 00:00:56 313 1 EC HS CP28800 -L f 2~ ~ y in 4r ~ 1 ~~'3RA: 3) f ~ ~t, at 5 ;~ r. ~ ~-+Ni Mk !M. - ~~. ~ s ~ ~* e wY 4~` '` ~ k t r,,%x 1~ } ~i ``~ "t ~ ~ i~ i {~; ~~ ~ ~~~ C~~:,- i' it 'F y 'l ~ Y. a. f: F ~ ~~ .:I ~y~ ~7''.. r ~ ~5`F.:.~~' ~~ 3~ 4=Tr ~ sf,~ '~? F Z u ~. ~! ~~ '`~`y~~'~'ti2'~a ~.,., ~ ~. ,Q~: ~~ ~~~ 4R~tti ~;v"~ < `Y i, F3~4'rK 'tif, Its r ~ ti" ^,~g ~ L. Y_ ~ r # ~r ~ ~ r ~ r~ t'Y ..''~':~ ~' .f .. ~ .. K.~ F , `i r t~ k ti ~> ~~ x k ' . t, ~ ~ s~, > ~~~~:. {;;; Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 1, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 1, 2007, was ;~:r: called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. ,,. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, Commissioner k:, Tom O'Brien, and Commissioner Steve Siddoway. °_ -.~; Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Anna Canning, Caleb Hood, Matt Ellsworth, ~r,+ .Pete Friedman, Bruce Freckleton, Scott Steckline, Sonya Wafters and Dean Willis. ~~ r' 4 ~~ ; Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: ;~ Roll-call ~~``' 0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien ` ~ X David Moe -Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm -Chairman '' `.III Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regularly t'~`-:`- scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. °`~'`' ` Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: b ~G Rohm: We have got a very full agenda tonight and I suppose before we start into it we ,~;, ~', ~ should have a motion to accept the agenda. ;, Moe: So moved. i ~~ O'Brien: Second. ,. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept tonight's agenda. All those in favor ~~~~ say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. G .~. ;~.~.; MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Item 4: Public Hearing: CPA 07-013 Request for a Comprehensive Plan _:a~~ Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change four nodes ~'s with land use designations of Light Industrial to Commercial, two nodes from Commercial to Light Industrial and one node from Light Industrial to ~; ~f. Public /Quasi Public for a future school site. The amendments are intended to bring the City's Future Land Use Map into conformance with ~.S,f' 3 '~'.~ Jj'i ,~"~~ n r't {e: ~ a ~~ti ~r a z ~ n ~: ~ ~ is r t ~ `:, w ~ - ,v .-l~r 41 --~ ff~ ~:cF~ .Fi- ~ rum: d, s ~' - t r ^ ?{` 14 j i ~ q4.f `.1 "£N $~V~ 1 iy~p~p~~ ~k. ~ 413 ~2, k ~' ? `9~' 4{ ~' { f" `y{ i3 y S-~ ti ' .~ ~: ~ i'I h. ~ FM 3 i,~ ."L_ t ~` _ ..l l~ .rig-: r o.{ J r~ !. ~~ r d w~ ;:j. t r .. ~~ Vic:- kih 3i G ~~~' 1.r °~e..:;. r...N: ~~; ::; 1; ~~. .1 .}:. ~' S ~a.. - ?~ i I ~, : Y: ® Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 '° Page 2 of 98 a' ~< the City's Zoning Map. An additional request is to remove the Urban `' Service Planning Area (USPA} designation from the map legend and E' replace it with the Area of City Impact (AOCI) Boundary by the City of Meridian Planning Department -two parcels north of NW 10~" Place and :~ ` west of Taylor Street; north of E. Franklin Road and east of Taylor Street; two parcels north of E. Overland Road and east of S. Teare Avenue; east ~ of S. Locust Grove and north of E. Overland Road; two parcels northwest ~ . comer of N. Eagle Road and E. Lanark Street; six parcels west of N. ^= Eagle Road and north of E. Florence Street; three parcels west of N. ~~~' Eagle Road and south of E. Florence Street; Paddington and Elliott Park Subdivisions south of E. Wilson Lane and east of N. Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Tonight's hearings are a little bit different, for the most part, than the standard <~ - hearings that we hear on a bi-weekly basis. All of them have a component to them that °` ~~ require that they all be either addressed, as far as our decision-making process, the ~.. ,, same night and so as we hear each one of the proposals, we will take testimony and we flk `' will listen to the staff and listen to each of you, but we won't make any decision on any ~ ., of them until we have heard all of them. And so there is a lot more to that and I'm going to ask Anna to speak to that a little bit more, because she's a lot better versed than L ,: p~' ' So, Anna, please. ,4, ~ Canning: Thank you, Chairman Rohm. Yes. I did want to let the public know that it '-• g .f, ~~ ~~ may seem a little odd to you that the Planning Commission will hear testimony from you ~~ all, they will hear the staff, they will hear testimony from you all and they will probably ~'~ ~ have a fairly lengthy discussion about each of these items, but, then, they will not make a decision, they will continue it to the end of the agenda, just in the case they need to continue all of them, because state law says the Planning and Zoning Commission can i ~ only make a recommendation to City Council once every six months. So, if we get to the end of the agenda and there is something that they feel they need to continue for a ~~ ~`>'' week or two weeks, then, they will have to continue all of them. But in the past when ~', ~ we have done this, I think you will have found that the Planning Commission will give you a pretty good idea on how they feel about the issues and you will probably know ''' 1 . ~ what's going on and what you could expect as far as a vote. Now, they won't be voting, `'.'~ again, until the end of the night, where they will either make a motion to continue them ` all or they will make a motion on each of them separately. And I hope that makes sense. It's a little confusing. It's not normal. Usually they hear an item and make a but toni ht is unusual because the are all Comprehensive Plan amendments declslon, g Y c:_._> ~~=~ on the agenda. Chairman Rohm, does that -- do you think that addresses the s ~., concerns? n~ .~~''~ Rohm: No. I think that's fine. Thank you very much. With that being said, we will open the first Public Hearing, CPA 07-013 and begin with the staff report. Friedman: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. For the record, Pete Friedman, City of Meridian planning department. The application you have before ~'~~' you are for ten amendments to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map and these v ~ ;N r.: ~,; ~_,~~ ~ t;? '". ~ ~,, ~- I , ~`c:~ ..~-, ~~'~~` ~ ,~,. ~-..L y f b ~; ~ Y .;F ?. ~. n . h,r, ' 1 ~~ ~~ r k k F ~T, 3! ,~. J ~-i~ C tr ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 3 of 98 are, essentially, housekeeping measures. These have been items that we have been ~ kind of keeping track of over the year and decided that it was time to go in and try to -; ;.. ~f`~'' bring our Comprehensive Plan land use map and our zoning map into greater ~~~ conformity with each other. There are a couple of other minor changes we want to ~~~ . make and, then, there is one removal of the urban service planning area that we wanted ~, a to address. But seven of the changes are to the actual land use designations on the map. Two are the -- to identify the specific locations of new schools and one, again, is the removal of that urban service planning area. The detailed discussion of the proposed changes is contained in your staff report, but I'll run through them briefly, if that would help you. Let's see if I can get this to work. Number one and number two ¢~'"~ are changing the land use map from commercial to industrial. Currently on our land use ~~` ~ map those are designated as commercial. The actual zoning and the use of the ~~;:: property is, in fact, industrial. So, we are proposing to change that from commercial ' ~ Number three is a redesignation from industrial to high density designation to industrial t. . residential. This is currently zoned R-40, high density residential, and that's the _` "''' Paddington development. So, we feel that in order to be consistent with existing land use and the zoning map it should be reflected as high density residential on the land ~~~~- use plan. Number four is the Treasure Valley Business Center in Gemstone <~~ s, development at the comer of Fairview and Eagle. I guess the best way to orient you is where Krispy Kreme is. It's currently designated industrial on the land use map. ' ~' ' However, through a development agreement with a planned development, it does allow , ~ retail and commercial development in there. So, we feel that the land use map should ~ ~, , reflect the actual uses that are occurring there in that area bordering Eagle Road. So, ~' ` we are recommending that that be changed to commercial, rather than left as industrial. ~:_ ~``~ Rohm: Before you go any further on that specific one, does changing it from the ~~, : industrial to a commercial -- does that change the way that the existing structures can ~- sr, be occupied or uses from what's there now? `, Friedman: No, it doesn't, Mr. Chairman. Again, the Comprehensive Plan land use map ~~ ~:° is a guideline and it's, actually, the development agreement that has spelled out the =~~ specifics on the use of the property and the structures thereon. ~< ~'~'' Rohm: Thank you. `~~ ~ Canning: Chairman Rohm, if I could add briefly that that development agreement is one of the broadest ones that the city has. It, basically, says you can do anything. So, it has been developed as commercial uses and it just seemed appropriate to give that designation. ~~ Rohm: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Pete, just for the record, the map we are looking at "`„ ' reflects the changes you're proposing, not the existing conditions. ,_:~ I >~. ~! `.:~ (k pt it i J" r. S_G;~' ~. 4 y r 4 ''r]] b A~L~ h~'."Fa 1 ~ JuJ 5` ~ "c `.I~4 ~ yl ~a r~ s f ` e~..K , a ,7M .[:: _; .: ~ } _~.~t, ~F ~ i y ~^ ~ '~ '', S_ ~ ~ ~~ » - ~: . r j r ~M ~ r"~~sc~8~. .:~ ~. Y ~~~r7 7 f 4 . 1. .r Y ' >. ~ i ~~ ~ • ' ~ ~,i~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~;= November 1, 2007 - Page 4 of 98 `'"`' Friedman: That's correct, Commissioner Siddoway. The existing conditions are found s'``~ on Exhibit 1. This was to focus orient the Commission on the changes proposed and, then, Exhibit 3 would be the -- our recommendation if the Commission were to find `f ` favorably with all these proposed changes. "`;~, Siddoway: Thank you. "~'' ~ 7 i Friedman: Getting back to the map. Number five is a reflection of an area that was '` .. designated industrial. However, it was rezoned to C-G about a year, year and a half ~~~ ` ago. So, again, we are bringing the land use map into greater conformity with the f zoning map. Area six is currently designated as industrial. However, it's owned by an institution. It's owned by a church. So, consistent with our other church properties, we are recommending that it be redesignated to public/quasi-public and there is just a little i,-; s=-F~4. tiny area down there in the comer -- in the southeast comer of the area that was t. designated industrial, but it's, actually, zoned commercial So, again, this is one more of Y ,~; ;; , those -- actually, number six and number seven are both amendments that are `;~:'.,~ proposed to bring those industrial designations more into conformity with existing zoning. And, then, finally, number eight and number nine are the locations of two rj ` ~~ schools. They were shown as proposed schools in other locations in the general vicinity, but now that the schools have actually been constructed, we are just changing ~;~ i the designations to make them existing. And, then, finally, if you look at our map, we '~~ ~' ~ have an area in red that really surrounds the existing city area of impact and referral area and it's known as our urban service planning area and that's an area that was tr''~ ~ supposed to be receiving priority attention and planning for utilities and so forth. The - city has, actually, been pro-active in looking at its future needs, both for sewer and ` water, and has, actually, looked beyond those areas and so that -- that line is really '` irrelevant right now and it doesn't reflect our true utility planning. We also have some I be and other ongoing activities. The Bluepnnt For Good Growth and they are looking y i~+~~ ' that, so -- and it's outdated and we can't just take it off the map. Since it is a land use map, every time we wanted to change it we would have to go through this process. So, }` ~~ we feel at this point that it's an in-elevant line and that it should just be taken off the map. 'fF' So, that's just a brief run through on the ten amendments that are proposed to you `~° ` tonight and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. ~~ Rohm: Thank you very much. Commissioner O'Brien? xr O'Brien: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. To staff. The school -- number nine, you say that has already been constructed or is that going to be constructed? Friedman: I believe that's the Sienna -- I'm not sure what middle school -- elementary school. It's an elementary? Moe: Is that in the Tuscany Subdivision? Friedman: Yeah. t~ry° r ~f ~ ~~, - si"~ ~~ .i ( I~~ 4 ~~ 'f+s ~ a f~r,7 ~ ~ ~ H ~~.T ~~' y . . , -1 ; ~ ;~ ` rt~0 ~ a: = ~Ir~E'~~.~ •1 frvt'' .~` ~ ~a `~~ i u' ~~ a, A r ~ ~1{~4~.~.~'~ '!I~ - ~-fir 'mod r Q ~ ~ ~ nn i ~~e ~ ,. ~-~ ~- ~k e t~ „ , w, r ;t «, ? ENI55t ,~ -~,t -e ~t ~~ ~ #' ~ , E ' ~~~1~ ..ci r,~ ~' ..t. r k } ao -r~ ~~' ~ ~Y~ t r ~ 4~~ ~ Y i€l it ~ ~t ~`~~ ~~~r _ I i~~~ C F fi ~ti t' ~ _ ~ '~ 4 * /u~ jr_ ~r~ 7_ Iyi3r~V ~F~rr ~ c E ~ *- : c ti 4<a' l~. $ 1t f ~ ~ '~~a` r ' T'~4 c;~~ t ~~~t ,~ ,~ i ~:;~ ;i~°~~ ~ t{ ~r ! ~E ,x rx~r~t~Fr,~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 5 of 98 Moe: That would be Sienna and that's just under construction starting now. O'Brien: Oh. Thank you. That's all the questions. ,, Rohm: No additional questions? Due to the nature of these amendments, I think that they are so broad in scope that it's not specific to any one area that might have a -- oh, a spokesman like for a homeowners association, but I believe that there may be people that have something to say about these specific amendments that may take a bit more F f time than what we typically have given in the past and with counsel's permission, I think '` that I'd like to -- as opposed to have a three minute time limit, I think that we could move it to five and give everybody an opportunity to speak to their concerns effectively. What '° ~ do you think about that? Baird: Mr. Chair, that's certainly within your discretion. However, because of the lengthy agenda tonight you might want to take it on a case-by-case basis. If somebody wants more than the three, they might just ask you up front and you can grant it. I would -- and most comments can be made in less than three minutes. Let's see if we can stick to that, but you do have the discretion to extend that if you so desire. j Rohm: And maybe that's the proper way to do it. If we get through the three minutes and an individual has a few more things to -- bullets to hit on, then, we will give them a few more minutes. But the thing that I want each of you to know is -- is it's very important to us that we hear what you have to say. And so with that being said, I'd like to start by asking the first person on the list to come forward and -- Ray Hunt. From the .`4 "" audience he said that he declines at this time. The next name on the list is Shirley Meyer. This is going to go pretty quick. There is not anybody else that has signed up to a '' speak to this, but at this time we will take them one at a time. So, if someone wants to come forward, they are certainly more than welcome. And it appears that we have someone from the back preparing to come forward. -,. Commish: Hi. My name is Angela Commish and I own property at 6740 South Eagle ,_ Road. Friedman: Yeah. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Ms. Commish. We are ~~-~ still on -- we are not in the south Meridian area yet, but we will get there shortly. So, _. ` -;~ think there may have been some confusion also by people who may have mistakeningly {. signed the wrong sign-up sheets. } ~ Rohm: Well, is there anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? You Ir~ =~' know, really, for the most part, thls particular plan amendment is just a Itt e 3 housekeeping. So, it s not -- I guess we didn t anticipate a lot of comments on this one, ~_ but before we close this and move on to the next one, I'd like to poll the Commission `' ~' and just get their input. Commissioner O'Brien, did you hear anything that you were uncomfortable with? ~: r.-; ~, I ,~`~I ~. , ='I k '~ ~ ~% .x , N i t y~:~ . ~ x , . 3 ~ ' h. ~~': 3w iii ~~~ r ~ ~ ~~' fir; ~~ s }LT.;' F ~ i ry *Y~ ~. t ~~ !~ ,. J{ s .~ ._. f ~. 1 ~w ~r :: c 1~ F Y ~. q~, } ~ :': ~: ,,T 4Y! Y.: , i v { Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 6 of 98 O'Brien: No, I have not. I thought they did a pretty thorough job with this and I agree ~ ', - with it. -~` Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I favor all the proposed changes. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe? Moe: Same. Rohm: Good job, Cliff -- Pete. Excuse me. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Siddoway: I move we close the Public Hearing. Rohm: It's been moved -- Moe: Second, please. Rohm: And seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 07-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. - MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA -- Baird: Mr. Chair. 3= ~. Siddoway: Oh. Sorry. ~'~ I Baird: The appropriate motion may have been to continue the matter to the end of the - -the agenda. So, at this point I guess that you reopen and, then, continue to the end of ~`~~~°'I the agenda. ;~:- '- Rohm: Under the advice of counsel, at this time I'd like to reopen the Public Hearing ~ ~~ _ to the end of the re ular agenda. ,,...:~I CPA 07 013 for the sole purpose of continuing 9 ;~ Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. _ ,~- I Jt`, rr `~F u~ ;~ L Zvi.., f" i]~fY~ 3~~~ 4 A~, ,~ ~ T l Y. .. , ,l T;t l%~ ~~ 1 pe@~ ~ : i H 1 ~ ~ F l: `® 1, ~ } `i 4 ~S~.r `~t ~ ~ Hf ~ -:.' :1 ~ Y ~j ~~9 x~~~~k~ N l ti! M'. - 'f' ,i K%e j - l C !~ry~ ~R~ ~~ ~.i~~ ~~' ~~ f~ 3 4'~ ll. ! wt: €" F ~:_. t i, t ~' ~' r ~~ ,. N k „r a fi b T p ,. ~ ~ ~;{. x. . ~ y ~ ~,.F i.2: r~ ~~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 7 of 98 I`~~° Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing CPA 07-013. All r:: those in favor say aye. ~A ' MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-002 Request ^' ~ to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land -_~; east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and '/2 mile east of a'> Linder Road south to'/2 mile south of Columbia Road, east to '/ mile west }'~ ~,-~ of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan _' Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: c. E ;~ Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to ~~-~ ~~°' the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: r° ~{ Rohm: All right. We are moving right along. At this time I'd like to open the public ~. -~: ~.,;-., . hearings CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009 and begin with the staff report. ~~' Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'd like to make a brief ,~ ~ s~~` introduction on this. This is a continuation of the hearing that you had on April 19th on ; the south Meridian plan. The original hearing in April, it's interesting to note, was almost ~, ~~ exactly a year from our kick off of the south Meridian planning process and that process ~ eventually comprised four public meetings with participation with over 400 people, many 7 ~' ' of whom are here tonight to be recognized. I think it's important to note that when the f th t h t ' ~3 ~ a come o e ou city initiated that process it was about any conceived ideas of what t - . process might be. There have been some discussions about whether it would be in our ~` ~ area of impact or not in our area of impact and those were all -- all issues or all ~~~~"` discussions that were to be on the table and still are on the table for consideration. The ~ revised recommendation before you tonight is just that, it's a revision from the staff ~' ~' response which was presented in April, which was in response to the preferred alternative that came out of our first three public meetings. The revised d ' recommendation that you have before you incorporates a lot of factors. It incorporates ';,;'. comments and opinions that have been expressed throughout this public process. It ' ` takes into account transportation modeling that we did as a result of the two alternatives ~~,~ that were developed previously. It also takes into effect some of the factors that -- and ~° `' direction that the Commission gave us in April to pursue, one of which was to have a-~.<;, another workshop with the public and as well as another list of factors that Matt will t~r> cover. In addition, the revised recommendation includes our consideration of the City ~` '' Council's strategic planning that occurred in the interim period between the hearing and z, tonight where they identified their priorities for the utilization and expenditure of city ~'~ '~ resources and where they feel the focus of future development and growth in the city . _ should be. It takes into account the city's master planning for sewer and water and it is ~. E ~z~ '~< ., `o- ~~ ,~~y F NI ~~ T _~ L !. ~~~...L'.'n Yt 1:'. Q ~~~11M> 5:; ~: i Y ~ ~ _ T1~ Y ; ''~ T. n~ ~ - K~ ~G r; ~~ ! Ya ~u ;~....; ~ U,~St t i+ v s "y ,;: .v ...:.tip .~ 1 ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~' November 1, 2007 '~' fK Page 8 of 98 also incorporates some of the current discussions that are going on in the regional ~< `~' planning process, Blueprint For Good Growth, where the cities and the coun are reement on the ultimate planning boundaries for each of ome to some a t ti .~ g o c ng attemp the jurisdictions in Ada County. So, there are a number of factors and those factors ''~ were included -- and I hope they were included clearly in the staff report and they, after ~ consideration of those factors, have resulted in us preparing this revised ~'. ~: recommendation for you. So, I'm going to tum it over to Matt Ellsworth. He's been carrying the water on this project, and he will address both our recommendation and the ~~ ; factors that went into our coming up with that recommendation. ^:: Rohm: Thanks, Pete. ~,;;~ ~- Ellsworth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Thank you, Pete. _ •: To elaborate briefly, backing up here on some of the comments that we received throughout the process, up on the screen over there throughout this process the public i~ established certain guiding principles that they requested that we keep in mind as we , F~:~,, ° are developing a plan for the future of this area. Those principles include priority number one, to plan for responsible growth. Priority number two, which was to preserve the rural farming and agricultural character of the area. And priority number three, ~``~~'` which was to provide better traffic infrastructure relative to other parts of the community ;. ~` ° here. Based on these guiding principles and information provided at the second ~'x--' workshop, the project team developed three altemative land use maps, which were ~' '' intended to spark conversation and to continue receiving direction from the public as to - - as to what will be best in the future of this area. The underlying theme throughout this ~~~"` process was to develop a plan that is supported and beneficial by landowners `"~~`` throughout the study area. Again, as you see on the screen up there, the three ~~ f~;" alternatives that were on the table for discussion at that second public meeting were ~~ one future land use map, emphasizing low density residential, another one that focused ~'~' ~~ on employment opportunity and a third that highlighted transit supportive land ,u y +. development patterns. And those, again, were all -- were all devised based comments we received earlier in the process. Those were elements that people asked that we -- that we incorporate in one degree or another. As you can see on the screen, a majority I of respondents at that public meeting expressed preference for the low density T ' s some su ort for the other two as well and so wa 'v s but there residential altemati e , pP ~" t from there it sort of became a question of where the best locations are to incorporate ~~: ~ some of these elements, which brings us to the preferred altemative. Now, this was the _ -.. ~:~ ~ project team's first crack at integrating all the comments that folks expressed as ~~ ~ priorities to them. This was the -- the original map that was the subject of the CPA submitted to the department back in December of 2006. As you can see, it entails a ~' majority of low density residential uses, although it does propose some higher density `~ ,:~ residential along some major transportation corridors as identified by regional ~`' transportation planning entities. The gray box over there in the comer of Lake Hazel ~`', and Meridian Road is intended to support future employment uses. In addition, there -; ; are two neighborhood centers proposed, one at the comer of Locust Grove and Lake ~~ -~ Hazel and the other one over on the comer of Black Cat and Amity and the intent of ~' ~ those was to make sure that day-to-day services were provided in the study area, which ~. ~: ;::_;~.- >: y. f ~ 4~ Y `f { j ~~ k~~~ ~~; { .-. - ~ r 4 r ,` #, t ~t; t t i ~~' ~~ ;fir . ~~;-.,.. r ~ - -~: ., r Yx ~. r 5c,"~ ~ s' ~ r s~ { Fi, I ~ ~ ! 1 ~'. ~'~. Y ~ ~ ~ Y`~~ III ,F. ~ • • Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 ~~~ < Page 9 of 98 ~: ~, was another frequently received comment from -- participants in the process. yt4 ;; Concurrently while we were -- while we were coming up with that preferred altemative ~`' land use map, Ada County Highway District was developing a south Meridian transportation study, which considered alternating future development patterns, two of `~ `` which were based on the regional long range transportation plan Communities In ~. Motion. And the third one that they were looking at was the land uses that Meridian was considering. We wanted it to be a --aback and forth process between the two organizations, the city and ACRD, to determine what impact these land use decisions p'` were going to have on the transportation system. So, it was -- it was -- it was a good ~`'~ process working with ACHD. What we ended up teaming after some of those traffic model runs came forward through the transportation study process, is that the land uses proposed and preferred altemative had extensive implications for the area transportation network. In short, it did result in all sorts of capacity expansions, road " . widenings, and so forth that aren't currently planned, they are not on anybody's radar, ', s and due to the current state of ACHD's budget, based on cost escalations and so forth, " there is no money for these. In other words, in the foreseeable future, if investments '' were to be made in the south part of town here, presumably that money would have to "`~ come from other projects, where it's reasonable to assume, anyway, that there is existing congestion and current residents are sitting in traffic. Again, we -- with that, ~ ?- look back on those -- those guiding principles that people outlined for us, planning for responsible growth, providing better traffic infrastructure and preserving the character of the area. When we started seeing things like miles on miles of seven lane roadways ~',~; throughout the study area, we asked ourselves how close did that coincide with the direction we had received and we decided that we -- we ought to take a step back and =: '`. ask to revisit some of these proposed land uses. With that, at the December 5th, 2007, 4 g~;; hearings, the staff came forward with the staff recommendation -- or the staff response, excuse me -- future land use map and the two main goals of staff when we were ~; revisiting these land uses were to decrease the total number of households in the area, which, of course, has an impact on the traffic in the area, the needed roadway ~~~:f infrastructure, trips generated per household and so forth and also to increase the °~ ~ ~ density along major transportation routes. In conversation with area transportation ~~~ , planners, staff learned that medium density as it's typically unfolded in the City of ~ ~:~~' !, Meridian is not enough units to -- to support transit services, at which point we sort of ~`' missed the mark on this first one, but, again, it's the planning process and -- and we ~:. appreciate the input that we received from those transit agencies and -- and revisiting 'F ~`` ` these land uses. So, the -- the staff response, as I'm sure you recall, received some ' _ I mixed response at the hearing on April 5th. There were a lot of unanswered questions. `~~.~~ I Some of the respondents in the study area were very much in favor of it, others thought `~~" there should be more density, others thought there should be less density. It was, ~~ ~~`I really, a whole spectrum of feedback received. With the number of unanswered ,ta ~~. questions at that hearing on the 5th, the Planning and Zoning Commission ended up n~_:: ;. continuing that hearing until April 19th and, then, again, due to the volume of ~ . unanswered questions, Commission felt it was wise to continue it out for the minimum x" ~~ six months allowable under state law, which brings us to tonight. In addition, the ~b~' - Commission gave staff certain directions, some follow-up steps to try to get to the root >,_ ~~:'~ of some of these unanswered questions between then and now. That direction entailed ::F~, }, Y; ~4~ .r_ 1'~ s~ f _ .~: i1~ e~- W ~ r i ~~ 4t~~ Y ~j ~ r ~^ y~ ~ 1 ~~+h~. f l ? ~M .tw ~C ~ ~ ~, ~~~~ •~ ! F ~y M: ~ ~'1 <~ x a ', `" ~r~ ~w ~ u~ fx' y "~ ~: ~r ~,i { ~ _ Y ' T ;~.! -~S 4. .~. J~ ',: { ~ Fy 5 ~ r:i ~ Y r~~ ? y lt«~ ~h~~ t .• f t watt ~' is .1~• ' N $ X .' ~~-s ~~ N~ cif K t'~~ ~ ' _ I ~ ~ A - 1k 5{ ~f, ~ "~ ~~L; ~~«~- lW`; 913~~ 1 .. _F._,~ V - l ~' ' .'r ~. `~ ,`r; ~~~ • ridian Plannin & Zonin Me 9 9 November 1, 2007 Page 10 of 98 ~. `` to convene another public meeting in order to gather additional response on the staff , '° `" response from the public. Number two up there is to await the outcome of a joint City ,, Council meeting between the cities of Meridian and Kuna and that was to discuss the ~'=, eventual planning areas and/or build to lines, if you will. As of April 19th a meeting was - scheduled between the two city councils. That meeting ended up being canceled and, .; unfortunately, afollow-up date was not rescheduled for that. We were also interested in awaiting the outcome of the transportation study that ACHD had in process. The concrete recommendations from that plan were not in place at the time that this was last ~~~~~ considered and the Commission felt it was wise to await the outcome of those as well. "`~-`` The staff response future land use proposed a new land use designation and also new - overlays that aren't currently recognized anywhere in the city's future land use map. There was -- there were a lot of questions surrounding those, exactly how they would play out, how they would look on the ground, and that's another thing the Commission asked the staff to go back and take another look at. And, finally, in October of 2006 the Commission and subsequently Council ended up adopting the southeast ` Comprehensive Plan amendment, which is the currently adopted future land use map T 3~_ ~~~;, and the focal point of that application is the comer of Locust Grove and Lake Hazel. There were certain changes proposed to that and the Commission directed staff to :f ; discussion those changes with the owners of land affected by the southeast CPA to -- to ~ - `'~ attempt to reconcile those differences and figure out how we can bring the two together. So, to work through these one at a time, we did convene a public meeting on May 31st :;, -~ of this year. The topic of that meeting was primarily the staff response future land use map and, again, the main intent of that meeting was to field area residents input on that t proposal, so the results of the comments that we received both in writing, before and ^~ °~~~~~ within a month thereafter, are -- and the comments received at the meeting itself, are up :';~ ~ on the screen up there. It's a little bit tough to see if you're in the audience, so I'll go ~~~.~>~:~~ through the legend here. The dark blue dots indicate support for the staff response future land use map. The yellow dots request decreased density. The red dots request `~ increased density. And the black dots request -- or, basically, make no request. They f, .:: 1, are, essentially, neutral comments. So, as you can see up there on the board, there " ~ was a strong amount of support for -- for some of the uses to the east of the mid mile Rr: ~:' between Linder and Meridian Road. To the west it was a bit more of a -- more of a _., fi`g' mixed bag. Seven of the respondents either favor the staff response or requested `f '' , decreased density. Interestingly, the requests for decreased density were all located ~'~"~` within the areas in close proximity to Black Cat and Amity and that focal point of high intensity in that area, six respondents requested increased density, of which five were located in the very low density area. So, returning to the other items that the fir' ~' Commission requested additional follow up from staff on, as I just indicated, the joint ;.: City Council meeting did not occur. They were not able to reschedule a date for that. <~ ~ We are anticipating that through the Blueprint For Good Growth, which Pete alluded to, }.µ ~" ~ and I'll get back to here momentarily, that some of those questions may be answered as ~'-~' well. South Meridian transportation study -- ACRD is in the process of finalizing the last 4~p-1~ draft on that and they are awaiting the -- the finalization, the final component prior to ~;` adopting that. They anticipate that to happen in the near future, although I haven't I' '' E~ ' heard a specific date that they targeted just yet. Staff did consider the preliminary . ;. recommendations that are coming out of that in both the text and the map amendment, I ~jy i ~A;^: q' 4 9 '~a t ~ ' ~ ~~x '~ ~s 1, ry 7 ~ f c ~~r~ 'z 1, r ~~ ~ _• ~ - ~ `~ a s `~ ~ tt r ~^ 7 3 r ~~~~~ •~ fi~Y 11 ~~ ~ ?~. r' }, . ~~ t ~- ... r« ~;: ~.: ~~ "' . i5 ~, ~~_; ~~ .. ~yF~- ~, ~;r _~ ;~ . -~ =,,. ,: k. ~' :f id .~, Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 11 of 98 put it before you this evening and we can go into greater detail on that if the Commission would like. As far as better defining the proposed designation and overlay, I'll touch on that when we get to the staff-recommended map. I have a couple slides here. And discussions with the southeast CPA, your staff report on Exhibit D-5 has a letter submitted to staff by the applicant of the southeast CPA or the owners of those parcels. They had some suggestions for us, which we very much appreciated. Staff did what -- what we could to incorporate some of those suggestions into the recommendation and, again, we will go into greater detail on that in just a few minutes. A couple of additional factors that staff took into account when we were formulating this revised staff response, future land use map, were city services and priority areas of the city. Like Pete said, back last April the City Council had a work session, during which they identified different areas that are of a high priority and a hierarchical priority order, if you will, for different areas around the city. So, along with that staff wanted to take a look at service provisions and make sure that the two matched together, that we proposed expanding into areas that City Council had identified as higher priorities for expenditure of city resources. Exhibits A-10 and A-11 in the staff report show the public works departments master water and master sewer plans and as you can see in those exhibits they do encompass the entire study area for this north Meridian CPA. However, once again, staff asked itself where the most appropriate areas are for expenditure of city resources. You can't do everything everywhere, so where should we start? Another thing that we took into account is the current market slowdown. Currently there are 2,900 platted lots in the city, on which homes have not been built. There are also vacancies all over the Treasure Valley. It's -- that market seems to have taken a bit of a downturn, so we asked ourselves whether it was appropriate to open the whole area up for development, further saturating the market or if it makes sense to try to channel growth into areas that seem more logical today and put some other areas into a back burner that can be considered at a later date. In addition, the Blueprint For Good Growth, which -- which is in the second phase. The first phase of the Blueprint, basically, set the direction for future land use and transportation integrated planning in the Treasure Valley. Phase two now they are moving into is implementation. Part of that is to identify different planning area boundaries for each municipality and those planning boundaries will, essentially, be the ultimate city limits of each. The Blueprint consortium, which is the council of elected officials that have been involved in these negotiations, has a meeting set for November 8th, during which they will engage further in those discussions. In the meantime, without any specifics coming out of that process just yet, staff did everything that we could to make sure that the recommendations that we put before you today do not conflict with the direction that's been set by the consortium thus far. Finally, public input, once again, like I said, these guiding principles and planning for responsible growth, preserving the agriculture heritage or character of the area and insuring that adequate transportation infrastructure is present, along with the developments proposed in this area, were all some of the factors that staff considered in developing the revised future land use map and this is stafFs recommendation that is before you with the CPA 07-002 this evening. As you can see, most of that area west of the mid mile between Linder and Meridian Road is proposed for that back burner that I mentioned a moment ago. Staff, the more we looked at it, decided that the reality of city limits expanding into that area in the near future are Y ~ Y,ti~ ~,» . s~ r .C;2,1 al~rY ,~ c ~ fem. 1'~~$4:~ t.. y ~b~ ~ L !~ A.~ h~ F ~ *- ~ w- ,~~ ~ 3aYY3 ff + 1 ~ && ~n ~ r. ~ '. 7 ? 9"t Ri~Ttl ~.`~~ ~~~' a~ r ~ , i F `~ r i r, ~~ '~ ~ ;.r : ~~ ,~, '. .c.y,. ~'~ 1 l ywr 1, ~~1' ~ 4 D E L rT ?4r ~ ''~v~~. ~ ~ ~ y y~, ~ ~ ~ " 'R~ ~U}A c,. -.~-; -~^r~t. 4,,.f"~ f ;!:' ~~ ~~ ~ ~1 3 ?j ~ 4 ~ ~t ~ r ~ ~ ~~ F ~ ' f ~` ti~ ~ ~ci Sewn ...~ E' t ~~~~ ~Z a-, ~ -; ! ~. ~ ~ ~, Y7k [ _ 7 l n• ~1~6 c:~ a n •~r,~ S ,~. ~. _ r N ~_ ,i _, F; s;, x'. t_t: ~ . SF~ ~ 6:~~,y: ~~ :;; Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 1, 2007 Page 12 of 98 somewhat slim and another question that we asked ourselves is whether it was appropriate to make promises that we didn't see coming to fruition within a reasonable time table to folks in that area. In addition, like I said, there are certain funding constraints limiting the ability of ACHD to widen roadways across the county at the moment. They have a backlog of projects that are needed today on the ground and there are a very, very minimal number of projects proposed in the study area. The position that would be created by designating future land uses and opening the door to development in that area, it would, basically, create another area that would compete with ACHD's other existing needs. Rather than pursuing the very low density residential designation that was under consideration with the staff response future land use map, staff decided that we can meet the same intent that that designation attempted to achieve by simply leaving areas -- areas previously proposed for very low density residential as future planning areas or referral areas. They would remain in unincorporated Ada County for the moment and at a future date when that area is ready to develop, another Comprehensive Plan amendment can be created that would be based on current information, rather than having one based on 2007 assumptions when it's however many years out before that's realistic. The other component of the staff response future land use map that we were taking a look at is the nutricutical overlay, which was previously located at the southwest comer of the study area and that's since been removed. It was -- there was a lukewarm reception from some of the folks that live in the area. For that reason, in addition to the fact that due to the proposed uses within that overlay it could feasibly come into contact with -- or conflict, rather, with the employment sanctuary or mixed employment areas at the comer of Lake Hazel and Meridian Road, we decided that that was appropriate to remove. Now, a couple of changes that are noteworthy on the -- on the revised staff response number one is up here at the comer of Ten Mile Road and I-84, the city's adopted future land use map shows just that corner to the southwest of the intersection designated for commercial uses. Staff felt that it was appropriate to change that to low density residential for several reasons, first of which was consistency with adjacent parcels. There is no transition between those uses. Another reason was that lessons teamed in the past right next to an interchange in some of those locations might not be the best place for commercial uses. We figure there might be better ways to allow that visibility and also - - also preserve the mobility of the corridors running in and out of I-84. There is also a great deal of commercial uses proposed further up north that the Commission saw with the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. So, again, for competition reasons we didn't feel it was necessary to -- to keep those commercial designations proposed in the southwest comer there. Another change from the staff response relates to the comer of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove there and it's somewhat of a minor change. It was previously a neighborhood center with a mixed use neighborhood designation, which is the most restrictive of the three mixed use designations the city recognizes and that was, to be perfectly honest, a mapping error on staffs part. It was -- in the previous iterations, it was shown as this mixed use community and they symbolically displayed it differently in the map that was in front of you prior to tonight. So, that's another change that I wanted to highlight there was a change in designation from mixed use neighborhood to mixed use community at that intersection. One additional change is to continue the designation surrounding the comer of Lake Hazel and Meridian Road to ~ ap ~~ , r N ~' g i ~ ~. b ~ s{tr W ~{- ~r ~3~ ~,k ~t r =v ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k, 4 _ . ~~< .~q~i' ~r ~~' ~ w f ~ ~ ~1~ i3`f` ~C'~~ ~fi ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~F T " t 4x ~~ ~_~~ Y; rj k h ~ ~ 1 i,; 7 " t. r, ~ , .z.. ~` e YTS }_ , F ~~ ~ ~~?+; 7' ~2 Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 13 of 98 +,; :, _, ~, R= ~_ F,'S encompass further to the south there. Previously on the staff response future land use map the bottom segment of this rectangle was shown as medium high density residential at the recommendation of the folks who were involved in the southeast CPA. We decided to take another look at that to allow those designations to remain consistent all the way down. Now, there is -- we can go further into that designation itself here in a moment, but those were the relevant changes that I wanted to bring to your attention. Turning briefly over to the text amendment -- and this is another one where based on the direction we received from the Commission and the other factors that we have already run over, a lot of the information that was previously contained in the text amendments that came before you back in April, we needed to revisit those to make sure that the map and the related text amendments worked together. So, included in the staff report as Section 4-H-1 through 4-H-3, are some rewritten text amendments that staff recommends for your consideration this evening. And, in general, the three are posted on the board there. The first one relates to the medium high density residential designation, which is the product of the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. What this amendment proposes is to recognize this designation in areas outside of that study area that was -- that was subject to the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. Change number two is the mixed employment designation. This is somewhat similar. That's another one that came out of the Ten Mile interchange planning process. What's proposed in front of you this evening is to recognize that designation throughout the future land use map and an additional change that came with the recommendation of the -- the team involved in the southeast CPA is to allow limited residential uses within that mixed employment designation and only in areas outside of the Ten Mile interchange specific area. The third -- third change proposed in the text amendment that's before you this evening relates to neighborhood centers and it would be to require at least 40 percent of the land within the -- within neighborhood centers as residential. Additional language in the text amendment relates to the ACRD transportation study and, in particular, the access management component thereof. Again, that plan is not adopted, but staff is confident on -- based on preliminary recommendations coming forward with that plan that they won't come in conflict with one another. It basically references it, it acknowledges it. Staffs confident that nothing that is adopted will work to the detriment of or be poorly received by the city and the Comprehensive Plan and so we were confident in recommending the reference between the two. With that -- with that text amendment. So, with that, Anna and Pete, unless I'm missing anything that you guys would like to jump in on. Canning: Chairman Rohm, if you want to ask Matt questions, now would be the appropriate time, or I can go through some of the written comments you have received. Some of the folks are here to testify, but there is one, perhaps two that are not. So, I just wanted to briefly summarize those for you. Rohm: Before we get to that, I have a couple of -- I don't know, observations that I'd like to ask Matt about. When you first started your testimony you mentioned that Ada County Highway District did not have funds to upgrade the infrastructure road work based upon higher density and that was kind of part of the reason for this proposal being a lower density. What my question is, as it's currently being proposed, are there .: _~. 4, ~ r r vs x u, cis. ~ i r~;~a { k i ; ~ 1i ~~~i }r~~~~~ ~ F~ i ~~ +1^. .a~l~ ~ ~. S ~ ~ ~ .:,-;pz :~ + ~ ~ y: iRi~ ~ ., 'f ~~ t< t - a ,~~;~. ,; v ~it~ '. ', w:': _; t 'a:j idkt ~; L b _,, »~~~f r '~~ a~~ ~ t~k -1 ++.r` hy 7 #~'~'-~ h fv~ T ice,:; ~'. j.e:5' C ::~?, +"k" `, h. ~' ~ ~ ~~_ ' # 1 .i ~~ ~,t~~~-~ ~+ .c- ICY", 1xl ! • ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 ~; ' Page 14 of 98 ~ , not still Ada County Highway District road improvements that will be necessary to bring t ~~ this all to fruition? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there will be. I guess the ~' reason why we decided to channel the growth from the transportation prospective is just due to the lineal nature of the way the development has occurred in the valley and subsequently the way that ACHD has been planning most of their roadway improvements is to start on the east and work their way west and as I mentioned before, in the western part of the study area very minimal improvements -- I believe there was :; T one intersection in that study area that was slated within their five year work plan. If you '" look over toward the areas in color on the map over there, I know that Eagle Road from Victory to Ridenbaugh is on their radar. The intersection of Columbia and 69 is another ~, '~ ~` one that they are looking at. So, they have turned some attention to this area in anticipation of future growth. You're absolutely right, though, with more households come more trips and with more trips you need additional capacity. ,,~.~`~~ Rohm: Well, I guess the exception I took more than anything else is that Ada County Highway District has limited funds and if all of their funds are already being designated ~' ~~ for road improvements, as you just said from the east flowing to the west on a mile-to- ,, s ` ~ mile basis, whether low density or medium density or high density, it doesn't look like it's ~F.-: k~.., ~ going to get the attention of the highway district until the balance of the roads further to ' ` the east have been improved and it seems to me maybe the focus should be on getting ~., Ada County Highway District's ear and getting more funds to west Ada County, just from my own perspective. ~';> ;~s,;> Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can't speak for A ut m diving into a lot of their related literature, I think there is -- there is a general shortage of funds for roadway projects, construction cost increases and so forth that put them in an extremely challenging situation wherein they have a back log of badly needed projects ' - mmin these ro'ects for five ears rior to the roposed construction and in ro ra p p 9 9 P J Y p q, ~..!': dates, it gets extremely tough to identify how far your budget's going to go. They have :` an extremely lengthy equation based on a lot of technical factors and, then, some I programming factors. It's average delay times. It's congestion, accident rates, and so s~ l .~~~` forth. And, then, also the priorities of cities, residents and the like, in identifying a ,; priority list of projects that steers the commission in the direction that they wind up ~t,,:;~~ i taking when adopting these plans. The city certainly takes every opportunity that's ~'~- ~' available to us to provide our input to ACHD and the Commission, to the best of their =~` ability integrates those comments into the final decision. But that's a good point and we ~ -'~ will continue to work with ACHD to address some of these challenges. 4;1,~ Rohm: Well, I just personally think that -- that not only in just this south area of impact, ~~~~~ but the community as a whole should get more consideration for ACRD dollars and €'' ,7: that's enough said on that. The balance of the Commission, do you have any questions ~'~' ' before we move forward with Anna's -- s :. y ~~~^ ~. s ., t :,k ~ ~rF °` r .r f~I ~ ~~ n { ~~ I! 4 ~.k2 ~~G yryw 7 , i ~~* ~ti z ~'a _ ` ~ ~ ~?'~ ~r~', i~~ ~ ~ `~`~ e i:f cii ?~ .~ ~, ; ~ ~ +` o~ 7' ~R rt':~ iB.3Ad.) X r~ e ,~ ' ~ ~~~ ~ y -t~-`~ti q r ~ ' c +ir: L a ~ e {. 1 l ~; 3 ~ :: f 9_ti Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~~ November 1, 2007 ~'' ~ ~` Page 15 of 98 ~;':' ; ~..~` O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I think you hit the nail on the head. I have the exact `~:`~ same concems and I have written notes on that. It just seems like the -- Ada County `{ Highway District don't respond until there is a need and it's difficult to develop an area without knowing if the needs for -- especially transit, is going to happen. So, it's a Catch -~ '` 22 that's very difficult to solve and those are my concems -- basically all over the place, k~; t } it just seems like there is such a slow response time for things to get done to reapon to "~`~' the needs, especially any kind of expansion in the south Comprehensive Plan. So, it's -` very difficult and I don't know how it's going to be addressed or how we can do that. `4``` You build it and, then, end up having to address, but it's many years down the pipe. Canning: Chairman Rohm, can I add a comment on that, because I'm not -- I'm not sure what the point of the ACHD comments is at this point, so I just want to head it off a little bit and say I think ACHD recognizes they have a funding problem and they -- I think f=-' they are committed to working on the funding problem. It's become acutely -- I think everyone's become acutely aware of it the last year or so. However, what staff was _' saying was, basically, ACRD has limited funds. If we limit the area that they are going to need to provide those services, it is a benefit. Rather than having 13 square miles, there are six square miles that they can focus on and it is easier for them. It's always going to be easier to serve a little less area than -- than putting a lot of homes in widely disparate areas, because, then, they have to get the connections there. So, we were r; trying to focus on those areas that they seem -- the direction they seem to be moving. ~ Rohm: I will accept that. Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway, do you have any comments? Siddoway: I have two questions for staff. The first -- Matt, the proposed boundary as ~ L ` revised alon here does that coincide with the sewer district boundaries? And the 9 . ~ < ~ reason I ask is as we are establishing where that line is drawn, I just want to make sure - ~.;= ~~' ~_ rw : we are not creating a situation where just a silver of the area is -- has to be sewered by S J ''-?~j anew trunk that would be planned for a larger area. Does that make sense? _=,'' ~ Ellsworth: It does, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway. And the short answer is, no, not all of the -- not all of what's on the screen over there to the west of Linder Road coincides with the sewer shed. What it does `' `"~_'~ coincide with is the adopted future land use map and that's the exact boundary that the ~ current future land use map recognizes. Again, it shows low density residential uses F'3...` throu hout this area, with the exception, again, of this comer of 84 and Ten Mile. Staff g -:~ felt that it would be inappropriate to, essentially, pull the rug out from under the folks in that area who have been operating under that adopted future land use map since 2002 "'~~ and I'm making the revisions that are on the table today. Siddoway: So, all of that, including this area, is just based on the existing area of impact? ,~ b~~- .. ~.. ~~ ~ ~ 6 t- ~_ ,~ t li v k F Mtn ~) ~, ~~ ~ yr 'nit-~,~?~3 i~ ~~ s: c ~ k z" ~ w ~- SY4 7~:tr, w ~i~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 3. '' ~ ~~ .~r~f y ~~ ~~ a ~,~ '~n 5 r. ~ • Y . ,P,.3~: fF~ ~ rte. ~~ i t ~ xt ~~' - ~"~ ,, ~.: ~ . 1- wa,~3¢rt~;. ~. «3y"~tk ~ bs`` a,7..n ~} r j `:r r L ~~ ': E s~ ~~ IIJ~~ y ''yy f t ~ ~ ~ 3 f+•~µ _'v fl.t t ~ I?~ .•~ri Eet Y4 ' ~y5 J~ ~~, fife I .t~fT ?~~:. yNrT~"ii F^ 2r ~ ~:r ,~ ~ t ~ ' { F`t.: i r::~e '~~ q,~ ~ i s ~, ~, ,,~ ~" 1 ` 4 Y ., , ~~- ~; ::, Meridian Planning 8i Zoning ~ • ~~ November 1, 2007 Page 16 of 98 ~`-.T Ellsworth: North of Amity, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner "~'' Siddoway, the areas north of there are -- the strange squiggly line here does coincide with the sewer district. ~~ Siddoway: Okay. ,. . ~~ Ellsworth: The sewer shed. Excuse me. ~~,°,T Siddoway: Thank you. And, then, on the -- question on the text amendment for the 40 F `` percent of the area within the neighborhood center at a minimum that must be ~' ~ residential, the existing language that talks about, you know, up to ten acres or up to 25 acres, may be nonresidential. Does that language go away in this revision or is this in j' ~ addition to that? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, that's a good question. The language as proposed in the text amendments relates to ''' ` neighborhood centers and there is a difference outlined in the Comp Plan between the =x,> neighborhood centers and the mixed use designations and, please, correct me if I'm a. e~~.=?~ wrong, but I think that the language that you referred to is built into some of those mixed use categories. t Siddoway: It is. ~ _~ ~ Ellsworth: Also in your staff report, per the recommendations of the folks involved in the :'~~^~`'~ southeast CPA, staff acknowledges the need to revisit some of those mixed use .;~,. - ~ designations as they are worded in the Comp Plan. That's another undertaking that we ~, ~; hope to pursue in the near future, to clean up a lot of those questions that are related to ~~•:>- that, allowable uses, and distinct character of each mixed use designation. I -~ ~ Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just to follow up on that. I think the question °' ' ~ - that Commissioner Siddoway raised is that the way that the mixed uses are described in ":I our Comprehensive Plan right now don't really -- I mean they give some direction, but ~.~f _' ~``'` it's pretty vague and so it is -- we see the implementation, we see mixed use, but we '_'~ ~ don't necessarily see residential being folded into a lot of that mixed use and this is -- ~'''`'' that language is intended to focus the direction a little more, at least in those ~,, ' neighborhood centers, so that as implementation occurs we start seeing or getting ~`` ~ ' residential development to some degree in those neighborhood centers. ` ~ Siddoway: And just to clarify, then, so as proposed, then, the language for the mixed use definitions would stay as proposed, with the addition of the 40 percent specific to the neighborhood centers; is that correct? "`'u~'" ~: , , Friedman: Yes. That's correct. Just going to digress for a minute. But it is related, Mr. ' Chairman, Commissioners. The city's also in the process of developing design _ ~ guidelines for the whole city and as a result of that process, we have been looking at :.., ; both our Comprehensive Plan and our -- and the Unified Development Code and we ~~_' =~~ x V ~ t,• i 4 1 R ~ ~ y ~ ` ~~ a ~t ' ; ' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~f• i .~ . p ,sue 11 t.t . ..ro,. ~. r ~ .•, . ........ ... ,~ ~. ~.n :': ~ ' { A , S . i ~ '` ' ;. + a a L. .~' e ~ ~ .a l' l a . [ l j~yy ' ~ . . ,}, C.,, . , ., ~~;~, IR 7 ~ :,'.... rv . A < ~, .r ,~ A± ya : k~. ~'.~. F 5,. . ~:.~ ~ ~ ~" ~O ~ L .. ~ f a~ te t° aim d . ~ . n y. ~'d•. M ~ ?' ` ~ Ip~i L ~l Y g a f : ~~ j.~p ~yyau)4: ~ ~• I ~ ~ n kk ! { , i.. ~: rya`~~ ~ A .I ..: ,~ ~~T F 4 JJ ja"' 'i~ y ~' ' {" ~ ~ ~: ~ pp :~i~ ~':~. , ih~,~, y4f .~ 8 ~if r~ j Z} x , : ~ ~ _ ~: ~ . ~k i ; t d , } e t J _ •~E'' :".; " -', ~ , f '' ~ . " = y ~ ~ I i-~s .h '.c., cn ~•~:,i ~~z, .~} 4x .,~~.;,i "?' ~ is •d' :, i.~ _" : .C . -tt ::'~ ,.w .; {~ ~• k I `~ ~ d'3~ • ~ .a I ~G:..~, ~t . ; 6;aa 4s..,` st ,'. ~,,, • s T > ~ r 1r h/„ ~~ Ss 3,• y'~~ :, It ; 1 'rig .,.'~3,S tiA :.~t~ ;_~ r ~''~~~w !e s`~'. ',l ',4 ~~ 3' ," ~~Y' t 5 ~ 1:;. .~~ ~ `~;3 yam. ': f~a.e y` r ~ . ' ~ " } ~ y , , ~,, _. ~ ; k Y: ® Yk Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 '. Page 17 of 98 I ;~- sort of had this epiphany on how these are going to come together now and out of that `~~ came the realization that we are starting to see a natural progression that's going to help us go back and re-examine our mixed use designations in the Comp Plan and, hopefully, condense them and yet get them further clarified and you received, I believe, some testimony from Brighton Corporation about that. We have been discussing -- and it's been recognized also by the private sector that maybe it's time to go in and cooperatively take a look at those mixed use designations. So, this is sort of the first step in a broader exercise. r-. i; _; ,; ~:'', t. ~~ ;. ~~ Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Moe? Moe: I have no comment right now. Rohm: Anna, did you have some additional comments that you wanted to add? Canning: No, sir. I just would -- I can go over some of the written testimony you have just for the benefit of the public and in case they are not here to testify tonight. The first one I think that I will go over is from Mr. Eric Exline and Mr. Exline lives -- let's see if I can keep my hand steady enough to do this. Tum it around the right way. That would help. He lives just to the west of the -- the dot right there, so he just lives just to the west of the purple and he -- he has been a participant of every planning meeting we have had. He's been generally supportive of whatever has gone on. He was disappointed to find himself outside of the colored areas on the map. The question of where to draw the line in that area, particularly as you get to Lake Hazel, there was no exact science involved and it would be no less appropriate to include him in the mixed employment area or to -- to remove him. But he is asking that he be included in the city's future planning -- or he's requesting that he have a -- a designation on his property at this time. And Matt wants to add to that. Ellsworth: And also in that area, a point that I -- that I didn't mention in the -- in the presentation there, another adjustment from the staff response and the revised staff response was the removal of the adjustment of the study area boundary, which previously held the (inaudible) mile between Linder and Meridian straight down to the half mile beyond Columbia and, then, continued east to the existing area of city impact line further to the north there. The reason that staff recommended scaling that back a bit is because the city of Kuna has annexed as far north as this parcel over here, which is adjacent to State Highway 69 and, in addition, the parcel on the southeast comer of Lake Hazel and Linder Road, has also annexed into Kuna -- excuse me -- so, we felt that -- that making that adjustment would make this more of a realistic boundary, as Anna stated, there was not an intentional removal of Mr. Exline's property from the study boundary. Canning: The next testimony I'm going to briefly go over is from Gordon and Ann Croft and I don't know if they are here tonight. If they are I won't go over it in detail. I didn't ~-~ ~<<~ ~-~: ,< ~,,., I <: - S~ ~4 { ~ ' , Y ~ ~~ r:i ~E~~~ - K[ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ 4 ~T~ ~ : ~ ~~ I `~' f~~q~r '~~ -F ~r~ 4 4 ~ X`~" M 7'r1 7` S+iJ~!~ I~ C '~~~ tlC. ~ } a 3' i Y 4 'G1 j b t ~ Wi a ,~ ~ r'^k -r~ .px r - you .}a ~r~ ' ; ~ ~~i f ~ ~ #y~wt~ y 'i'!, r r r ,Rf` ' ~r fi 4 . FJ ~F ,t ~! ~ ~ ~t ~ y it .~ ~ ~'iZ ~~ ~f~> ~;i ~~ s~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~"~t'~" ~~~ 3 ry r c fiQ ~~ ~+~ s~ X11 zz. Y ~~ , f ~ ~ n ri ; .~ ..~~ w .~~ ;~i tag"~~' ~ ~5_ ~'~ '~, `~ a r' `, ~' L, ( ' _ ~ 'c. L a ~} ~t. ,i 4~ t t , i s~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 18 of 98 L~ see any hand raised. They border Rockhampton. Could you point it out for me? And currently they are designated low density residential. They are requesting medium density residential. And, finally, you have a lengthy written testimony from Brighton Corporation, but they are here tonight to testify, so I won't go over that in detail. And that's the written testimony we have received since the staff report was placed in your packet. Y~ Rohm: Thank you very much. Mike Wardle? =r,` Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission. members, my name is Mike Wardle. I'm with Brighton Corporation. We office at 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. We are handing out this evening just a -- a one page summary of our testimony and comments. A second page that I will get to in a moment is a combination of the existing Comprehensive Plan map and the proposed staff response map. And, then, another '~-~r copy of the letter that we submitted on the 22nd of October that was attached, I believe, as the last few pages of this staff report for the south Meridian plan. We just note that we worked with staff over the last few months, meetings in July, September, October and, then, finally, a letter to them and, essentially, we -- we support the recommendations that have come forth for the Comprehensive Plan changes as proposed. Staff did work with us, they took many of the comments that we made into account, made changes in some of the text elements, and so the five bullet points -- or the five points that we have made there simply show support -- or qualified support for `~?: the actions taken by staff, but we did note one exception and that's an issue that remains and that I would ask you to pull to the second page, which is a combination of the maps of the current Comprehensive Plan that does illustrate the changes that were made last year in the south Meridian area, so that map is on the north and I pulled these directly from the city's website and made these extractions. The south -- or, excuse me, ``' ` it is the south on the page as well, but the -- the bottom portion of that page, the -- well , then, shows the proposed land use amendments and designations that staff has ~ presented this evening. We note that the area now proposed for mixed use ,, .;r employment or mixed employment, I believe, is an 80 acre parcel that is currently designated as mixed use regional and the acquisitions that were made in that area for '~ ` that parcel, of course, were based on that -- that land use designation. So, just for the sake of the public that's here, we are talking about this 80 acre portion at the southeast comer of Meridian Road and Lake Hazel and we are simply asking that the existing _ Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use regional that was approved just a year or so ago, be retained for that 80 acres, among the reasoning, of course -- just about ~`~' Mr. Chairman. That we believe that there is greater need for commercial finished ,-, , flexibility in that area, that there will be such in the future, but we also need to ~`'' acknowledge the fact that because of the high traffic volumes on both Meridian Road and Lake Hazel Road, that those four quadrants will not ever really function as an integrated employment area. So, we would request that that exception to the staff recommendation be factored in and that your recommendation, when it is made to the City council, support retaining the existing mixed use regional designation for that comer. Be happy to answer questions and Mr. Turnbull is here as well. ~ i ~ s `C" ' ~ `^ ' ,~' ,. ~1 ' A ""• >J ~~'1:• ~ a `~~~ ' 'i -' kt=a ~ +y. I , ~ „:.. ~ ~ ~ ~-r.?., .. ;,tom' ~ ~' '+.`p¢`aw~ ' ,F ";R !• 6~: ,~, •V •~ ;. Ai 7 ~ p ~ . _y: .- t•:.tY i. • yy : ..{s;v- ~:;+,'{•"d,~l Ir ` A : Y t 3~ JiKS T~:! . J... .. yY Y.3' .F"..+fi 1..-. ~ 'N' . . . jFa~ pp y . rI ;,, :yX „`G'; t< .{•• 4 qty:" b y,~ •xF' ~' i ~ ~ ~ 1' ~:. .7 :1' ~ •.ti',. .1 .'~ ~` ' t ~~ i ~ ' • . ^ . ` y.f l , . t 1 . a + `~~ ~ ! ~ y F~ r 3 q- , ~ 1' ~'. " " y. k,t G k k"- J a r . t ~r.- " •u ' ` ` i-: "t YC r'~4•^. , ~.... y S : I r: ,i.: r i:.,r: I;Rr, r:.' ,t 'y. ~? ~k ~~ yr.. ' . : ` ? ~ - ~ , ' ' : • ~`~ :4 I ~ I 1 1 l ~ ~ t µ . .. ~L :l, t y ~~ " A Y. ak. ;1 I•tl. Sr y }. } 7 ~ V ' - .{, .~;. ; ..ti:c .~'.~>~D. ~f.'~.~ - SS gd'rY ~".,. It i t ii~ ~ .i k ~,.< • ~"'~ , :~~' : t,, r {,~1 y . } l ~ ''~~„ ~ . t: .~ , ^ :~ f .~; R I { r ~~ ~t' ~~'' :~ t a : , . . ~~ ~ . .~ 'C". f _ J~. Y,' s • ~ ~- - i' : sJ i ~ I ~ ~i s I ~ .U~: 1 i ~~- ~ r ~~ 'w •s ! .t • ~ ' • , ti , - ...~ 1 .L~ qq .• ~ i a . ., :S• • f• ee[[ !. t '. ~ R ~' {{ , . 1 • rri ?,< k Y yu3S,~r, !k x >K•~c . ~. t . y t S •. r ir; py .. ,e , , ' ~ . f w ~ •... •,ti B'' :. s iP ' ; r ~i •' I ,q.s 1.« '%.1Px:u;~yl : ;r: • 1 i> .. .~ s r :u , 2: .. 37 ny, '.Y =i."~ ~i. r 'r. ^ ; ~ ~'r ,,:. .~,.i.: ~I i ~~_ - ~.... ' jp ~ '~!,'. ~, II s. ,:1 ~ .Y` mac., ~~:,.~;~ .. , ;k > f - pp ' • t. n .) : . •=FJ . 1~ ..5. p i d Y~~ i I" 7 } ;f ~ is `; yL• t iYrk ' i ' ~ B f° { yy ~ r, , ~• ~ r ' . ,. ' :k , ,. :w 'a. , " ; .., :. 5 i ~~ 'taa. ~-~ , . - i ! ( ., b r • ~ 5 ~ . , { i . , {~ .~• ::~' " k ~. .4 ; .1 i.~ a. ter; } 4 t ~ s.. `~ ^ l ~ ,. ~: _ •.,i: ; ~'1 a { ~ f" 1 ~I ~ } ~,~ ~: R ~ lj .y f ,v I -~ ,~V ~ } 4 ` 1 ~ it . <•:..~ ;, ,. ~ If k ,)1 1 ~i-Ri., t Z~ r ~ Y'. s ~;i _ t `~~` f: M Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 1, 2007 Page 19 of 98 Rohm: Any questions of Mr. Wardle? Siddoway: I do, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wardle, your letter states that Brighton supports the proposed text amendment for the mixed employment land use designation and that it `' does incorporate Brighton's suggestions for greater flexibility of uses, yet what I'm hearing is it's not flexible enough for your property. So, can you expand on that a little bit? Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Siddoway, we don't have any difficulty with a land use designation for mixed use employment being incorporated into the plan and while staff did incorporate some of the elements, that still does not necessarily equate with the reason that we -- the acquisition of that property with the more flexible uses provided in the mixed regional, which does allow for, you know, some very significant employment opportunities as well, but it has greater flexibility than what even would be proposed with the changes that staff has proposed. So, we don't have any problem bringing that designation of the Comprehensive Plan and applying it in certain areas, we are simply saying for that 80 acres we would prefer that the mixed use regional be retained. Siddoway: And what does the mixed use regional allow that the employment -- mixed employment does not that you would be interested in? ', Wardle: Mr. Chairman the original text -- and let's -- I think we probably need to go to ''' `` that in the staff report. This would be on -- it's -- the pages aren't numbered, but it's the fourth page of the staff report, near the bottom where it has that text amendment. The >~ elements that were incorporated that we had suggested are down near the bottom ~'r`~ ~ where the sentence begins: Retail and consumer services that primarily serve re lt th f bi a` e e t more -- employment-oriented uses are also appropriate. We were even a was more flexibility required than even that. And, then, the last phrase of that particular ' paragraph, talking about higher density residential uses may be appropriate, was also ~ ecific than that II been a bit mores , n ua a had -- had rea p but our actual la Y eluded rn , 9 9 _ . where we had -- and thls rs the very last page of the handout that I have given to you I this evening where it shows the strike out changes and new additions, but we -- we ~~ acknowledge that, you know, there may be, under this particular scenario, retail and -~ ~~ I consumer services serving the wider community and not just the employment elements ~'I that would be proposed there. And, then, of course, without qualification a higher , residential uses proposing that -- that that be the minimum of 12 units per acre, densit y so that you really do get a mass and an intensity of use that would support services and provide employment housing. So, it's -- again, we support the concept, but we also believe that the regional designation is appropriate. We would like to retain that for that x 80 acres, as it was recently approved in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Siddoway: So, just to clarify as to insure that you have the ability to do the higher ~t~~*, density residential uses and the retail uses as part of that site. Wardle: Correct. ~ ~ ` ~ u 'sk;=, ;. ~'~+,~~; £ ~~ ,,?? ~4 ~ C,? '~ ~ t .{. _~~ ~h F _. i ~ '7. qy"'2 1~ ~ ~C~ f"S~PG YYji ~~~2 ~~ ~' ~ _ .f.-r ?7P~.-. ~~ ~ a,^ ~~ r: d a'; r II~ r~ _ i ~ n B."'=~ ~ r~ ~ 6p r 3r, ,;~ _*~. ~ `> -f 'R y: S {r~' y_~j 'ry~~' T L ~i' ~ ~.~ lam; ~: ~'` ~Y:: C.vm ~ S E, a w a>, r- ie i .,• T {~~~ ~ ~ ti e # 3 k .~i, I '; ~L }r,- F • ~.. s Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning r ~° ,` November 1, 2007 `~'~' Page 20 of 98 a ~ Siddoway: Okay. '_ Wardle: Mr. Chair, I would be happy to answer any additional question. Appreciate the ~ u' < `: "NN...~ ...... y ... , ~-` ~ Rohm: Thank you. Before we go on down the list, I have a question for counsel. Is it ~'~'~' all right if I go ahead and have Mr. Tumbull speak next, just because he's part of the ~'`~~~ a same corporation and it just kind of keeps things all together, as opposed to splitting the ~, ; : ~. testimony? . r Baird: Mr. Chair, that's another one of those matters that's in your discretion, so -- E 4 Rr':~ 9~:~ \.. ~. . ohm: Dave Tumbull, would you like to come up, please? ~; `'` ~ Tumbull: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. David Tumbull, 12601 ~' ` West Explorer Drive in Boise. I appreciate the opportunity to speak and follow up with ~' ' Mike. As you recall when we had a work session on -- or the Commission had a work session on this Comprehensive Plan -- I think it was back in April, but I don't remember for sure. This was a subject of some discussion among the Commission members, that ~ ;' we had recently gone through this Comprehensive Plan process on the property that we have an interest in at least and had a Comprehensive Plan approved and made ' '~ acquisitions in that area based on that Comprehensive Plan and so Commission directed staff to get together with us and work through some of those issues, which we have done. And I think we have -- I don't know, we may have a hundred percent nd the onl issue we ma have 90 ercent a reement, we are very close. A y agreement, y p g I that Mike touched on that I think is still under discussion is this parcel right here. I want ~ ~, ., , I nd have ro osed -- we reco nize that there is a to just point out that we recognize a p p 9 ~`s ~~ ' deficiency in the text for the mixed use areas in the Comprehensive Plan and I think E ~~ ~ what staff is concerned about is that the text is so weak that they are probably not ~:: getting the mix of uses that they'd like to see in those areas. And so we proposed that a text amendment be prepared that further defines what truly constitutes a mixed use, "~ both the regional, community, and neighborhood. And that could include things like a s- % certain percentage needs to be residential, a certain percentage needs to be office or nonretail uses and a certain percentage can be retail. So, we are in favor of that kind of ~~~' approach. But at the same time we purchased this property with the mixed use regional ~~~~ designation, we think it's still appropriate and having some experience in developing probably the largest business park in the state, that we have been working on for 17 ~ F ~ years, that's about two-thirds of the size of this area, you know, it's -- whether all of that `'"- area is feasible for employment base without the pending retail that we think is probably appropriate in that area, is a question mark for us. So, mixed use regional I think would ?'` accomplish the goals both of the city and the premise under which we purchased the ~' " property and we would request -- request that that designation remain. And we would g~:>~ commit to working further with the staff come back with a text amendment that gives ~~'"` further clarification for mixed use designations, so -- Rohm: Thank you, Dave. Any questions of Mr. Turnbull? Thank you. Dave Taysom. _~ ~`~jppp 5 ~. k 41._ ~F3 ~ ~.~~wf }~' .r3~ _) ~~^,1 tt' ~' pfd F ~~~ , °`, ' I~~ ~k p~a~ r a~~.~, ~ Y r ~ ~, ,r~ ~t "Si~ +~ s~ S ~ 73 w6 ~ r5~'~F=~~ i n ~4Y~ y ; ~~T~t'. } ;i~ ~ 1 x~. ~. .F , ~, ~w i .i <'r''~~' ~> +,~ ,~ t ~ ,r, _ s~ ~ s ~s3, fd t ~~i 'a' ..Sr. p~kP9~ a ~-~' t; ~ ~ 11 Ku, {; H ~~ F rk :' ~' ,~ ,'~ ~, f} ~~ s + _ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~iM '• w ~{~jj~ ~ ~ i ~~i ~}~~ ~{€ {t r±; xyya jk ~ ,r r ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 '' "' Page 21 of 98 Taysom: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Dave Taysom. 175 Paint Horse ~~ Lane, Meridian. My property is in the southwest comer of the purposed rectangle. I'm a neighbor of Mr. Exline. And I think his request is very reasonable and I think it might be ~:' important, because the traffic on Lake Hazel is going to cause limitation of access to his property in that comer and half a mile from Meridian Road provides probably the best way to access south from Lake Hazel. Mr. Exline's property adjoining that would be an appropriate designation. So, I would encourage you to include him. As far as myself, I don't expect to see development occur there for many years and it doesn't really matter to me how it's designated, because I think there will be changes between now and then. My concern today is that I be included in Meridian, because I'd kind of like to have them guide what happens. With that I'll yield the balance of my time to whoever wants it. ~~ ,E. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Lori Den Hartog. ~ ~`~~ Den Hartog: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Lori Den Hartog. I live at `~ ~ 5864 West Quido Lane. I am on a ten acre parcel and I'm here representing myself and °~ my father, who wasn't able to be here this evening. We are in the area that was `~ previously -- is there a pointer up here? That was previously designated in the ;: nutricutical overlay and subsequently as low density residential. My father owns and controls a little over 100 acres over in that area. My brother operates an active dairy, --'T~~~ but they are anticipating to move, just because the current development pressures they ;~~`'I are anticipating to move further south in the county. I'm here in support of the staff recommendation and the staff response this evening. I want to commend your staff. They have been extremely responsive. I think it was an appropriate move after the public hearing in April to come back and hold a public input meeting in May, which they I did, and I think a lot of appropriate comments were received from the public and I think k ~ ~_"~ ' ~ ff was ve res onsive in inco oratin that and I think one of the things that that the sta ry p rP 9 .: -- I think Pete said early on was that the city didn't come into this with any -- with any ~:-}y; preconceived notions and I think that's been -- I think that's -- we have seen that product 1 and the results of the staffs recommendation evolving throughout this and I think the ' city has done an excellent job. What I'd like to say is it is appropriate, I think, from our perspective at this point to leave it as a future planning and referral area. The gentleman who spoke before, I think long-term ultimately when my dad retires and moves far far away from me, he does believe that the low density residential in the long term, 20 or 30 years from now, is appropriate. So, I think what we are saying is similar to what the staff was saying is, you know, ten or 15 years from now we might know ~~' more information to have it most appropriately be developed in the future. So, I think it's ` appropriate to leave it as it is as the staff has recommended. So, we are in full support of the staff recommendation in relationship to our area. So, I would be happy to stand .h; l~. for any questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this individual? Den Hartog: Thank you. f. ~ ' ~ r'. y x '4 2'an Y~~ a7_ r,!`., t~+ ' ~ l~_.., 4 ?. '~ ~ria l~ Y' 2~ 'Nl ~t '` wf..~[[wff .:> ~ ~~ a ~ ~ s ~ ~ ', ?~n ~ i ~ °ys ~~,ForF~4~.;rr 3~~`" ~ ~ ' ~' ~'~7`~ _~~~ ,. MM.s rK 4 ~~TIT..f~.6 _ ~_yi 4 ~r~ 7 ~ {.~ 5 ~1~: ~M:. f iC ~ .1 _ t ~ 1~`i~ ~[{' ~ ' ~ if r Ca.~Y ~ ~ f~ k rr~- '~ ,~ k: y,Y~ - - > J`t ~~ Y ~ ~ r;3 (~+ . ~ ii t. ~ ~ ~~ A isQ ~ i :?~ ~5 ; f~' ~F~ t y ah{l:.. - ~ i ~ . t ,}4 a,. ~ y ~~ •, ,F 5r r ' s ~3~a _ r f~ ~ ~ k ~ ~Yyl+, - ~ 1 vTi`~ - ty'~. ~; *{ ~ e.j ~:j:]e _ ~ ~ j r j~';~~ _ ~l '..L+ Ali \ ~`t ' i> . .!%,I1 s ~~S 2, tW~,.. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 22 of 98 • Rohm: Thank you. Don Roberts. From the audience he says he has no additional comments. Justin Lucas. Y.'-.~ 1.., ' `~ ..5 ~$t ~'? Lucas: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm here tonight -- my name is Justin Lucas, I'm -- we have our offices at 701 South Allen Street here in Meridian and I'm representing Providence Development Group, which is the development arm of Hubble Homes. I just wanted to clarify, I had submitted a letter earlier this week to the City of Meridian staff and city clerk and Anna did not mention -- I wanted to clarify and make sure that you guys did receive that -- that correspondence. If not, I probably should read it into the record. Baird: Mr. Chair, I can help clarify. Those items are alt in your packet on the laser fiche. They were received in a timely manner and disseminated to the Commission and available to the public. Anna only referred to the letters that were received after those deadlines. So, it is in the record. Lucas: Good. Well, then, that's good that it is in the record. Thank you very much. I can quickly go through what -- what our concern is with the overall -- overall plan. Overall, we are in support of the staff response map and think it's wise the direction that staff has gone to exclude much of the area in the southwestern part of Meridian. The parcel that we are most specifically concerned about is located on South Eagle Road right here. It's approximately 224 acres and much like the Brighton Corporation, we were also involved in the southeast Meridian comprehensive plan that was approved approximately a year ago. With that, that approval, the medium density designation that we received was much greater than is shown on the staff response map and our request is very simple, which is to maintain the larger medium density residential that we had received just one year ago. It would -- you could see the staff, like they had done before, would put up that kind of what the existing plan shows. That would be -- that would be very helpful. As you can see, the medium density residential as located on the existing plan is much larger than -- than is shown here. We have gone to great lengths to meet the existing Comprehensive Plan all the way to submitting an application on that property that you will be hearing next month and so we think it's -- only to be fair and consistent, would be to keep that designation on that property that we recently received. And we think it's consistent with staffs goals, which is to provide higher density along the transportation corridors. We really don't see a detriment to providing a little bit higher density in this area along Eagle Road, which is, obviously, a major transportation corridor. And with that I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Moe: Mr. Chairman, not a question of the applicant here, but of staff. Can you give me an explanation as to why we did change that? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, that, again, went back to the rationale or the goal in the transition between preferred alternative to staff response to decrease the overall number of units in the area, with the exception of ~, ~ ..~~ i ~ g ' s i ~ ~ ~ S . r. f ,. ~,~ .y.g~,k4nC}~,. ~~: r .~ i ~' r~~~ ~ a 'i a. ap~k I*L~ r L I~g$,, f. ~ } ~7 e `, i h' ~ .{ ~.1 i~ce.. it F,..` ~~La ~ fie` e,. "' is ~r ~ .~ .~ S ~ ' f i Ya ~~ ,~~ ~ r „ y~~r 4 ry, s s'~%' '.Y'IN ~ ! ~f lie ti.. {tt~E;o ` },. C tl .. pk F.~ #~+~ p~ ) {~ i~ F ~ rT 5~~ d~~~y ~,~~. ~ ~ h ~fi~ z2 y h Y,.r 74f' d rso .• ; • ~ J~. ~ J~; ,* s ~, Meridian Planning & Zoning • ~' November 1, 2007 - °`k Page 23 of 98 Y. along those major transportation corridors on which we proposed higher than medium density residential in order to facilitate future transit corridors. Moe: Okay. a Ellsworth: So, to change from the medium density to the low density -- a minor one in ~:_ meeting that goal, but it was -- it was one of many. Moe: Thank you. F; Rohm: Thank you. John Greenfeld. From the audience he said he declines right now. And maybe Vickie? And she declines as well at this time. Carrie Ballard. She declines ~`~'' at this time. Mark and/or Vickie Russell °~_ Russell: Good evening, Commissioners, Chairman. My name is Mark Russell and my wife and I own 77 acres right here and I'd just like to -- '`~ '~ Rohm: Can you give the address? ~ Russell: I live at 2999 West Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho, 83642. Rohm: Thank you. ~: -..` Russell: I would just like to point out some things from maybe a different perspective ~' ' from some of the other people, too. You notice that the developers are trying to protect ~`-< ~~ their interest with the zoning for higher density. I don't think we have heard anybody say they want their property lower density. One of the things that I want to bring out -- our lace falls in two cate ones, this area here and this area here. We have all the way ;; p g to there. I just thought that one of the things I'd like to bring out is when the Overland Road is aligned with Ten Mile and the interchange comes through, we are going to have ~"~s,_ more traffic there than anyone ever thought possible. I notice that I talked to one engineer and he thought that in 2020 there would be 25,000 cars a day coming down ,4 ;;~ Ten Mile once the interchange is going. I think once the interchange is open you will {; ~` have 15,000 cars a day coming down Ten Mile because of all of Nampa and Kuna i ,-, wanting to use that and I think it's really unfortunate that as planning we can't go to Ada F,,,. =_~~I County Highway District and say this is whats coming down the pike with these -- with these projects. And I'll stand for any questions that you folks have. Y ~, `~? I Rohm: I guess just to expand on what you just said, that was kind of my point when asked them about the roadway infrastructure changes as this total area developed, but -~'' ~ your comments are very well taken that as that Ten Mile interchange does open up, whether it's low density development south of that or not, there is going to be increased traffic just from Kuna and other areas feeding into the interstate region. So, absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more. x, s'1 va; ~~ s~ ~n K } ~r '" H n' ~ a 2~` ~' ~ ~ ~ , Y`w$ ~ t1r 1 ~ i ~f Y~y~ ~ ~. ~ { ~i~ r- € ~, ,, ~ r ~~.. i ~1 "' - ^' r.. g ~ ~ s 1 ~1 x x t`, 1F 4' r~+- M '' a ,..> _ 4 i ~~'_: f ........ _.r,__„. _ ,. ~.. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 24 of 98 Russell: I have one other point that I want to make, just as the other two corporations of the developers, I would certainly hope that as city services became available that we come in front of you guys with the proposal for a planned unit development, something similar to those folks. As you can see, they are quite a bit further south than we are and, you know, at least have the opportunity to come back and ask for a rezone for a project once the city services were there. ,`~ ;~ ': `: _.~ ..I Rohm: And I'm certain that you have that option available. Russell: Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you for your testimony. Becky McKay. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just a couple of brief statements. I have read through the staff report and looked at the maps, the old ones, and, then, the revised ones and I guess one thing -- one question that -- that I had is concerning the Ten Mile interchange. Obviously, a lot of money -- millions and millions of dollars are going to be spent to build this interchange. We are going to create a major arterial going, obviously, both north and south. You have got the city of Kuna with very explosive growth, just like Meridian has seen, and that whole Ten Mile corridor is going to just be ignored as a future planning or referral area. So, I'm kind of wondering, you know, the logic in that. Secondly, I -- you know, there are still a lot of studies going on, Communities In Motion, Blueprint For Good Growth. I wonder if this amendment should be coming forward at this time prior to those studies being completed. Is there really an urgency that -- that we just lop off this western portion and go with the southeast planning area that you have designated through here? We have got to look long range. Obviously, our industry is seeing a slow down at this time, but we need -- you know, from a planning perspective when we draw these maps we are looking out into the future. We are anticipating that this interchange is going to be built within the next two to three years, that ACHD will start allocating funding out in this south area. I have been doing planning in the City of Meridian for 15 years now and we have always been told, as far as south Meridian, that, you know, we need to limit the amount of residential growth, commercial growth out there until we, one, got the Locust Grove overpass; two, built the Ten Mile interchange; three, got another large trunk -- sewer trunk line under the interstate. So, all of these things are, obviously, either taken place, in the works, or on the verge of starting construction, like the interchange, which they are saying '08, '09. So, I don't know, I just kind of think that it would be a mistake to just lop this area out. That's kind of what happened with the southwest Boise area. It was a low priority area and there were still acre lots going on, three acres, five acre lots, with septics, wells, and it has been a struggle ever since to try to rectify mistakes that were made and they were planning mistakes. So, I just want the Commission to kind of try to look at the big picture. Thank you. ., ~. :~ ~~ , ., 4~ ~ rj tt`.; ~~ .~: ~ ~ r _. Z 4~ L~:a '~. ,t R'~ ,~, .x't~r <4a ~ ~ f `^ ~~ E ~ ~ 1 "t" '';.C $ 6 1-. MFi .: ))) ~ -. A ~. I ~4 J y ~, ~ ~'', 4 ~ ,.,t m Y.^# s~ d.k-ar ~ ~ d~ ~ `y ~y ; ;~,t ,.~,r o k1' ^ `~ ~ 1 i G ti z ; e ~ 1 h a b. F j {r "~~,. ~, - F ~ ~ ,' Meridian Planning & Zoning Y November 1, 2007 Page 25 of 98 ve -- so are ou su estin that the south area of impact be left • Before ou lea g Rohm. 99 Y Y just as it is currently or go back to what -- that it included that southwest six miles or whatever that's been lopped off by this adjustment? McKay: Well, Ithink -- I think either you wait for the studies and don't expand it at all at this juncture, leave it alone, or -- or, two, you look at the big picture, don't -- don't just ignore this southwest area and I think this three acre lot development that is talked about in the report is flawed. I mean that was tried before in the southwest Boise area unsuccessfully. I mean they are trying to retrofit those areas with central services now. So, I guess that's kind of my concern. f. Rohm: Thank you. ,J~, Canning: Chairman Rohm, I think Mrs. McKay perhaps has the staff response, instead of the staff recommendation at this point. We are no longer recommending the three acre lots and, actually, Mrs. McKay brought up a good analogy. The southwest Boise was put into the Boise area of city impact, was given land use designation, but was a low priority area for sewer provisions and they had a lot of difficulties and that's what we are trying to do is just kind of pull back and keep what areas you have already identified as future parts of the city. ~''' Rohm: Thank you. There is not anybody else that has signed up -- oh. Oh. Let's -- because on a different sign up sheet, we will just take Ray Hunt at this time. Shirley Meyer, would you like to come forward now? Oh. Okay. The lady that came up earlier, would you like to come forward, ma'am? '~ Commish: I'm Angela Commish, 6740 South Eagle Road. I handed a couple of you people maps. I have a couple more I'll give to the rest of you and I will try and use this f; pointer. So, you can look and see as well, I own 9.2 acres just south of Lake Hazel, ''~ about 300, 400 feet south of Lake Hazel on South Eagle Road and Ihave arequest -- it's currently in this zoning as medium high density and according to what I found it '~'=` sounds like medium high density allows for development of a mix of relatively dense -~~ residential housing types, including townhouses, row houses, condominiums and apartments. Density ranging from eight to 15 dwelling units per acre with a target of 12 units. That's a 160 acre block right there, that equates to about 2,000 homes. If you look to the block to the west at Lake Hazel and Meridian, that's also zoned that same ~_r~:~ medium to high density, so that's going to be a fairly dense area right there and it has a , , neighborhood center in the middle of it and if you look at the descriptions for those ;~ neighborhood centers, they are intended to be -- provide ahigh -- a blend of high density residential small scale commercial entertainment ofFces, open spaces, geared to serve residents. These three types of neighborhood centers vary in size, scale, and market area and a range of commercial uses. Neighborhood oriented centers are II area and in terms of the size of the overa Intended to be relatively small In scale ~, individual buildings primarily serving the immediate surrounding neighborhoods, ~krv:'I community oriented centers are large in scale. I guess my request is that my little 9.2 <~ .{ ~, acres in this medium high density be changed to mixed use neighborhood. This area ,{ `:.~ ,{ '~ ,~ ~ . ~ <~ ~ ~ ~~ a f~` 1S~ ,5 ,i ~t ~i t ,y .;fj p' j { j ,'~~~~ L~ ~~~ ~ ri y~~~ ~~ E1~~ i~. ~F1.~: ~ ';'V 8~ ~ ~ j' ~' E 7:~ ti ~ ~ : ~. ~~ , ~~ .~ 1 i - ,x _7,~.,~ . ~ ~+rf' r ; , r~~ ~~ Y ~' i ~ - MK ~. ¢+ ppF c ~ ~ ~ ~ ttfi'? ~ Y ~tY~. a ' ~~ t,,. 1 °`, ~.yp q i ~' nr. ^` ~ i c i c;v.' ~ -~i . ,~s-,a= x ~.,~u~y ~ '. ~~; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~~ ~ r ~ ~' ~.h Y:` 9~~,~ J Ibt-'iA i ~ 1; k' ~` f ~ ~ 4 , i ~ !' ~ a ~' arc., ~sc , <~. ,~r: Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 1, 2007 Page 26 of 98 .„ :: r~+ ~; _, '< ;!= ~, ~:, _;.:. '~`c: >Y~; ;:~ ::~,~ -: >:° ,, ~~.,:.:, • right in here will not be able to be served by connected pathways and things like that directly to this area over here. If I had a kid I wouldn't want him riding his bike down Lake Hazel to get to a place over there to go to a market or something or to a school or something. So, I'd like that -- my 9.2 acres to be changed to that mixed use neighborhood and I guess reasons are, one, obviously, selfishly I think it would be nice to have the flexibility to do something different with that. Two, I think it's a good location for this. If you look at it -- the uses for the mixed use neighborhood, example uses are grocery store, drug store, coffee shop, dry cleaner, Laundromat, salon, day care, professional offices and medical dental, schools, parks, and churches. Directly across from my 9.2 acres there is a little block right there, there is a church going in right now that's being constructed. Directly to the south of it there is a little star. That star is for a park. Also, that little flag right there is a school. So, that 9.2 acres is positioned right in the middle of those exact same uses. I would say day care or a coffee shop or that sort of thing would be perfectly suited for that 9.2 acres, as it's right in the middle of it. And it's also connected to the rest of this medium high density area. Penny Lane is directly south of my piece of property, so access to my property could be off of Eagle Road or off of Penny Lane, which would be much less congested. Also, just from a topographic standpoint -- I'm a civil engineer -- my piece of property is rather steep. It's not conducive to medium to high density residential. It would be much more suited to smaller buildings, like a day care or coffee shops or small commercial buildings, medical buildings, things like that. So, there you have it. Any questions? Rohm: Just one. Commish: Okay. Rohm: Did you participate in any of the workshops? Commish: I did. Yes, I did. Yes. Rohm: Okay. Commish: And they were very well done and I appreciate very much your staffs work and I think overall the plan is wonderful. Rohm: Okay. Commish: Very well done. Rohm: Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions of this individual? Okay. Thank you. Commish: Thank you for your time. Rohm: A lot to digest. Any questions of staff -- Baird: Well, Mr. Chair -- 4 aaf ; y 's ~F 'x$"{..17 t ~ T: 4 x : > , ~~r ~,r_. i~~.F3 {~~'r~itk`., r ? ~ a ~ z ~k ~ '~ ' ~s ,,;~,. ~~ S~ ~.i; 7 "t7~a~~ ~ „@F,~l-1± ~ ~y^~ ~ r w ~ ~~ fr ~ ~~ 1 ~ Y r / F~ ip air ~ ~ ; ff ~ .. ~. .` ~ yt~trr~- _ t. id yk~a': ~ a~ ~ ~ 2@. J k ~ L _ f fj~ ~~ ~~ r~ ~~:' ~~ u s erc ~ ~-~ 3t I~ ~' Y~ ~ ~ ,~~ s r ~` S i L,. Y~~ y~~.. 7 ~.. ':) ^+3 ~T. { T; ~ h F nt ti~t:.~:: i s k ~ 1 l i{~ ,ef i i- ~ I ~ ~ nP~ ~ ,',~ ~~~~ m~~~ ifs >„ V~ { ... t~ 4:'' 1 4 ~~ ` ~ -., ~:>~ .,. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 '`~` Page 27 of 98 Rohm: That's all that there was signed up. Are there others that would like to testify? Mr. Jewett. ~`='+~~ Jewett: Jim Jewett, 1560 Carol Street here in Meridian. I come here tonight real torn on how I'd like to see this go forward. Obviously, I have emotional reasons, financial _~,: reasons, and professional reasons that tear me on this. We started this process some time ago -- I'm just going to give you my brief history in the three minutes I'm allotted. I think that your staff was thrust into this, as a lot of us were, because of an economic growth that was outpacing anything we could do and that precipitated -- the city of Kuna wanted to move north at a more rapid pace than anybody anticipated, so the City of , Meridian was forced to look south quicker than maybe they wanted to look at it and staff ~`'` went through the public process of workshops and letting the impact to the people -- and where they wanted to go and what they wanted to see and it was transformed 3$_°`= several times with a lot of empty questions yet unanswered and I still think those are - unanswered. I still think we have a ways to go. And I guess the question I have today is what is this Comprehensive Plan really giving us today? Is it giving us anything that '. isn't already there and I guess for this area in the southwest it, obviously, is giving nothing but a referral area, which, I guess, the referral area attempt is to block Kuna f t from any further annexation, even though there haven't been any joint meetings '`` agreed that they are not going to you know I think everybody has between both cities ° ~ , , , go -- one not go north of Lake Hazel, one is not going to go south of Lake Hazel. So, I : would encourage the city to continue its process. I think they have done a wonderful job - now of trying to get through all the issues. I still think there are a lot more issues to get through. I say you have some other comp plans that are very needy tonight. I think those should go forward, and I think this one needs to have some continued work done chan in some that ou are rea nd unless there is a s ecific need in the a y 9 9 on it. A P . _'' designations, I guess I would offer the question of why. Why do we need to go forward? So, I would ask that the Commission consider that question of why the need for this one r ~' to go forward today? Is it really providing a need to the city and the residents out there that isn't already there? Those areas that are in those light colored greens and browns l and different tones are all already there. They are already serviceable by some level of '; i an existin desi nation. Let's let the master plan within the city. They all have g g transportation corridor work itself out. I mean there are issues there. I would say to you µ' that from atransportation -- from an infrastructure in general point of view, we are F~.r '~`` {' backwards in the way we fund things. We fund things based on we will build it and it will come. Not we will bring it and, then, it will build. It's backwards. That's just the way we i= :- are. It's the way the funding is done here. I think the only reason -- and I appreciate you letting me go beyond my time. The only reason we have the Ten Mile interchange even in our remote vision here in the upcoming future is because of innovative financing by the state. The only reason that we have Overland being relocated to a much safer and better location for the public in general is because innovative work between the city, planning staff, ACHD, and a developer. So, you're not having normal protocol fund ```'` those projects. We need to work on that. We need to find out a mechanism to make sure infrastructure is ahead of us and maybe we should just wait and let those r x~ F ~ 9 tl f {; ~Y~ y ~r G } 17`a. *~'~~ s S~ ~-, .=. }y,~ ~'_ = ~' ~ - 1 ~ n~i 'c n: ~ t° i ~^~ ~ v~ r ;, ,rb- ~'- C s. ~~'. ~? 4 °~ ~? ~g. Y 4 . ~y 1 ~ M L ~ 4 LCD }t a~ ~ ~. ~~ ti ~ 1 k Y~ r~ { ,,. ~~,~ ~. ~~ '`, ~' F~ 4~;' o~ ~ ~ ~•;~~' ~~ F htf ~ _~ i f } ~ k ~~.'... t, r -. ~P •..;t t r y I~ ~ . ~ ~~'~ ti ~~ ri ~ ~ ~. _e !~ ~ `~ ~.~ ~R ® '~ . !~' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ® o~ November 1, 2007 ~ :; Page 28 of 98 processes run its course and, then, look how those processes can help this -- this plan ~ work in the long term. With that I'd stand for any questions. ~~ Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Jewett. Jewett: Thank you. Haws: Commissioners, gentlemen, good evening. My name is Joshua Haws. I live in the southeast comer. My address is 3700 East Columbia Road. I have been a ~``'` participant in all the open houses and the meetings that we have had. I appreciate the staffs response and the timeliness and the communication that's been there. I stand +`~ here tonight in support of the plan that is proposed. I appreciate being included in Meridian's area of impact expansion. I consider myself to be from Meridian and I identify with Meridian and I think that this -- this plan has been well thought out. It has z," not been precipitous, obviously, it's been going on for quite awhile and it's -- I believe that it's sound and I support the plan going forward. I'd stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Mann: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Terrence Mann ,: and I live at 5200 Black Cat Road -- South Black Cat Road. And I just wanted to kind of side in on the folks with regard to the southwest being left out on this -- I think it's the ' ' Comprehensive Plan and I think it should be comprehensive, everything that Meridian's going to be looking at over the next five to ten years. We do have a slow down right `~:_ now in building and things of that nature, so I think it would be wise to take the time and ? really plan this out. Wait for the reports, like the transportation report, which is not done ~; yet, so that we do have the infrastructures that are there are to meet the growth, because if this thing turns on again next spring or whatever, excuse me, you're going to have the same thing of a lot of people wanting to develop properties and there won't be ~~' any plan to address that. So, it's going to be, again, kind of a mishmash. But I think we are still in the same situation where we don't have a final transportation plan, which was r-3;; the reason to put it off last year in April. We don't have the meeting of the minds of the ,;. ``'`' I cities, between Kuna and Meridian, so we still have those two issues that haven't been resolved and that was the reason why we put this off back in April, so -- and with that, }¢;.'~ I like I said, again, the Comprehensive Plan should take in everything, I think, that's on the board, so to speak. So, that's -- those are my comments and I'd stand for any ~`i questions. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. "ilk ~~~` Groves: Craig Groves. 6223 North Discovery Way in Boise. Commissioner, Members of the Commission, I'd encourage you to slow down just a little bit on adopting this plan. ~`~'~ I'm concerned about the thought process around the Ten Mile interchange. If you look at what's happened around the Eagle interchange or the Meridian interchange and the growth -- particularly south of both of those interchanges, and the traffic that flows south of those interchanges, just go down Eagle Road to Victory and go from -- go down a F.. ~~ 13 ~ ~' I> ~ a ;:; ~° r 'Gr`-' r. ~, J +~,r.~ t .: r. ^ N ,;.(~, ~L .. r Yy,F y ~"3+ jY~~ V1): ~~. s, 'r ~~' ,' ` ~aa •~ T ~~~ ,~ -. -~, t., 4 r. ^! ICS i`~.,r'~. tiH ' r+'i~ ~,~~'; .F=~ C ib ~~. t,~ 4 L ~`-.~r~v ~ ~~ ~{~ Y3, ~~ y: ~ c`, 4 ~- ~,; k - ~. ~~~: Me~t1' ~r S~~ ~ Y i 1 a... ~ ( ~~~ 9 +. '1 } ~ r~ ~~ 1 ~~ ., ~ ~,~-Y.. ,y ~' ij..t: 1 3 ~hk nd.;. r, l xx: v ~ ;;; t +«~ ~ w'~ y :.r F '. ~ No- s t Meridian Planning & Zoning S ~ ,;`~ November 1, 2007 ' Page 29 of 98 Eagle Road from Victory to Amity and you look at the traffic at Victory and Eagle Road, you're getting yourself in the same scenario here, the growth is going to explode around this Ten Mile interchange. Traffic from Nampa, traffic particularly from Kuna is going to be going up and down here. I think it's a mistake to leave this out of your Comprehensive Plan. I think you need to take time, really understand what you want to have happen in this area. I can't even imagine this area right here staying like that in the next five years. It won't even be the same. Just take a look at what's happening around St. Luke's hospital, I mean there used to be acre lots sitting there, they are gone. I just -- I don't think you're looking forward and I would encourage you to pull back, take a look at that and come forward with a plan that takes that into consideration. `1Ne have an opportunity to do that right now while this market has slowed down. It would be important to -- to take that time. That's all I have to say. ~'~ Rohm: The question I have for you -- Groves: Yes. Rohm: Are you in support of the Ten Mile interchange zone? ~~ E_ Groves: Oh, absolutely. Uh-huh. Absolutely. 1~~';t Rohm: All right. Thank you. Any other questions of this individual? Thank you, sir. ~r , Percy: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Jim Percy. I reside at 2385 Stegerman and I would like to address the area on Meridian Road, if I can get this to g function. It would be on Meridian Road where these two areas are in low density. ~~' `; have participated in all the comment periods and submitted a letter to try and get this area -- this designation as lower -- its low density now and it is adjacent -- both sides of ~,~ these properties are on Meridian Road and they fulfill what the Ada County `''~` commissioners wanted -- or the ACRD wanted as far as high density next to major ,- thoroughfares that exist and also another problem that exists for me is Meridian Road f'r°~` creates so much noise and it will become worse to try and make this as a low density it will be almost impossible. They will not be desirable for large lots, big houses. And that ~~ problem will become worse and I feel that the Commission -- or the Council has -- the `~'`'~ staff. Excuse me. I'm very nervous. I can't even hardly remember where I live. But -- f,~~ Rohm: I get that way myself. Percy: Well, I feel that myself as a farmer have suffered in the areas that they have t,.- designated where there is no major thoroughfare and the areas that we are higher density, which has no -- no borderline, other than the fact that this is in the hands of develo ers now and that has been designated as high development areas and I'm sure p that the reason is why is because who owns it and how it's been brought together. I feel this area ri ht in here would be better served as a higher density area, simply because 9 '''~"`~ the thoroughfare exists. The preferred plan suggested it and it would work better. That ~~~: area is south of Amity, they made a cut in the road, so the property is lower than the . , ,~ „~ d: `, ~; t} t M -: .~- ~11Yyyi~ BIZ ~~ ~) , t{ i•'~{~ l~fi ~ { ~# , : , ~~y a?!~ i~ ue ~~ 3 ~ I ~ 4 ~k ~ h ~; ~ ~,d~ jyjy I{I } Y i~ ~~[F Y I X11 ~'. ~ ~ ~ ,r? si ;~± ~+~ ~6~ 7iq` il~~ ~ ;~ t- S S#' is ~ ,s s ~ ~l n ¢ H ~~~ '-. y'~ 1 1t w„ ~ ~ ~ `t~+ ~ der ~' +~'~' ,~~ P ,;i~;~ IE : ,' a 'u~ry-~~~ t ~r ~~ } ..:y ~~ , ~- • '~ ~ ' ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning '~` ` ~ November 1, 2007 Page 30 of 98 N " highway. There is no way to create a barrier to protect from the sound, that's just the ' Ott :. way it is. I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to testify at this time? ~- Before we go forward, I would like staff to give us a little definition differential between ~~ `, the mixed use regional and the mixed use employment. Maybe if no one else, just for ~..,; ' s` myself. Matt? r Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the mixed use regional is -- if you want to look at it on a hierarchy, allows the most intensity development of the currently recognized mixed designations, ranging from mixed regional on the high end "'" to mixed use community in the middle, to mixed use neighborhood on the lower end, which is intended to serve just the immediate day-to-day needs of adjacent residents. ~~ -- The mixed regional, the way that it's unfolded on the ground, has been fairly ' ~ unrestrictive as far as what developments occur there. It's allowed some big box type '~`~~~ uses which certain) would not meet the intent of a mixed use community or a mixed Y use neighborhood designation, even as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Now, ~F~" looking to the mixed employment, the mixed employment that's on the table this evening ` allows a lot of similar uses, but it, really, emphasizes those employment uses. That's ~~ ~ the focal point of areas so designated. There is some built-in flexibility for those higher '' , " density residential components and for service and commercial uses as worded in the ` proposed text amendments, primarily to serve the related employment uses within the ~`tF~`' mixed employment areas, as opposed to the mixed use regional, which -- which serves tY ~~t~ . `~ more a regional function, people would be seeking out some of the uses within that : ~`;" designation as a destination, traveling from other areas to -- to enjoy those services. Rohm: I guess what I was looking for is maybe something a little bit more specific as in ,,. ' these items are principally permitted in this designation and these items are principally s'>,, .~ permitted in this one and the overlay is the top ten and the second one has four or five ~~ ~ items that are not permitted in the other and (just -- I assimilate things better if can I see ~;~,5'~ it that -- presented that way. ?_ F.z :c, Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission. I'll try to make this brief in response to that. The mixed employment, the new designation, if you will, evolved from the Ten .= Mile specific area plan and because it's a guideline and not a zoning regulation, we ~~.;. s_.; ve rinci all and conditional) ermitted uses but the intent of it was -- was to ,_:_~ don t ha p p Y Y p provide areas that were high employment corporate office, research park, research ~~~;.~ campuses, office campuses, and so forth. It wasn't intended to be more of the regional `'~~'~ mixed use type, it was more to be a mix of employment type uses with supportive retail a°:~ I and service uses as subordinate, small restaurants and personal service type uses within that and specifically did not address residential, as opposed to the mixed use ~`~~`' regional, which the way it's written in the Comprehensive Plan does support, as Matt r ~;' said, a very high intense level of both retail and commercial uses, as well as i~`'.;. contemplating office and residential uses. So, the two are really kind of dissimilar and think because of the way that the chairman indicated that he organizes things, it really A~:~~ does point out -- which I think we have found through this process -- is that while the ='';: }' ~, ~~~ ,:,:~ .~ ~-. ~ ~ a~ } C - ~-. I` ~ ~ r~ e ~ ,~. ~V 7 7 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~, ~,~~~ ~ r .I~n FLy ~'- ~th~~r 3 r„ ip 1 ~ r 3 eM~~S'f" ~ ~, ~~~"t,,y. ' rr a.,~n: Y ~~i} 4 y. ]. t ~ aa ~'~ II r ~' ~~ ~ ~ IL 4 ~~~'^T1 '~.. J] ~ v i Y !' o ~~ , yon ~°.: ~~ ~ ~ ~-~ 1 ~ ,~ ~ X -,; ~y ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ u +. }~ k' i! l - :. = .y r ~~~t ~+r '~' ~ ~`~ ~ ° q. '~ .c5. t ~ .2,, ~. -s ~ k t fic; •F ~ ~t:, iz , . > .,, .. ~sur=i_. - Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 31 of 98 mixed use designations in our Comprehensive Plan give us some direction, it doesn't __,; give us the direction that we need to actually put it on the ground and achieve the types of -- or the mix of uses that we have anticipated in those areas. So, it's one of those ;, challenges that we need to come back and revisit. But for the purposes of our discussion here today, comparison of both the Brighton Corporation representatives drew up, the mixed employment really is more focused on employment type uses, as opposed to the wide range of commercial, retail, and residential. I don't know if that helps you or confuses you. Rohm: Well, no, I think it addresses the specific point, is if, in fact, the mixed use employment is intended on corporate offices and the like and the mixed use regional supports more of a retail slash business park slash any number of things, the two really aren't even the same animal. Friedman: That's correct. .~.~~ `'~~`~ Rohm: They are quite a bit dissimilar. _'' Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, perhaps I can help. We have two areas on Eagle Road that have had mixed use designations -- mixed use regional 1 ~ = designations that developed very differently. And each of them was accommodated f'`"~ under the mixed use regional. If you think about Silverstone, which has a lot of employment uses and some accessory retail development going in there, some 5_~~ restaurants, some shops, that would be more akin to the mixed employment that we are talking about. If you go up the street to the Winston Moore project, that also had a k<: ~~ " mixed use regional and, yet, that has gone much more retail oriented, perhaps limited "`"'°`' ofFce, but largely retail. So, what we were trying to do was put the focus on the employment uses to have a development similar to Silverstone and to some extent EI ~_ Dorado also where you have those employment areas, with some support retailing and ``~'`~`~ other services. Does that help your vision of it? i ,,w~ Rohm: No. I understand where you're going with this. I guess I'm just trying to F ',i" ~~ envision how it actually unfolds at such time as the -- the concrete starts getting poured and do you anticipate applications coming in for a Conditional Use Permit that says this a?:,'.; is what we expect to build on this acreage within this mixed use employment, each ;;~ application accompanied by a CUP? . Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, no, what we would anticipate is that when folks requested annexation, we would have a concept plan that designated ty g y p p rty, similar to what we have seen. F~~' the pe of uses and the eneral la out of the ro e ~:~:_ Rohm: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, follow up. So, am I correct in thinking that if someone in that mixed employment area were to propose a high density residential or retail use, it would be considered, but it would be analyzed under -- with the questions of whether they are 1 ' ~* it IF u ~~~ n d r it 7i ^ ~~ I ~ ~ a k ~~ ~~~~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ si ,~ law ,~~ ~: E,~ 1 ~' ~N ~~ ~. ~ ~ . ~~-~ ~a r , ,: c~k~ ,~ ~~ A]. ' 1" ~ y ~l +J ( ~_~ ~ ~ ~~ Y b ~~ ~t "'!!IEEE ?, y' I II~`(~ ~~ z e F ~ ~v~ ~~.:~Y ie ~ ~'~ r phi ,S ~a~ 'ti ~R is ~ ?( I ~ T Yi . f. `~T~ • J Y~~ { S ~ ~~ ~ ,.: ii. :~a i~ ~ ~~z Er ~~ ~ ,~. ~: ,a ~. i 9~ t ~ ~, f ~~ ~ ~ ;`~_ h _ - ~4 ~" ~ • '_.a}6 Meridian Planning & Zoning '~ November 1, 2007 } Page 32 of 98 '' *; _ , :` supporting an overall employment use, as opposed to turning it into a major retail center ""~ or just high density residential? ~; ~' Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, the current language does not <;.,". address residential. The proposed text amendment would, in fact, lead staff to make zf' , r_. that kind of analysis you just spoke of. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Anymore questions? Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some final thoughts? s-c Canning: Chairman Rohm, before you do that, might I comment just briefly on the -- the folks that wanted to wait. There was a question of what benefit do we receive by doing _- , this now versus waiting and it's a very good question and I think we are closer than we would seem. I mean, basically, what staff is saying is wait on some of these areas, but we'd like to move forward with the other areas. The area where we are asking you to s'°' move forward are, for one they are already -- a large portion of the property is already in the Comprehensive Plan, as you can see there. We do pick up some additional areas. This area here, as we have shown, is a referral area that's been a referral area of the city for a number of years. Similarly, there is a referral area to the southwest. There is a big difference between the two referral areas. We have had sewer planned for this '~`~ area for many many years and until there was a request to serve a particular project in this area, we did not have sewer plans for this area. So, we have been planning on this ~ being part of the city. We have said that more development was appropriate down here and ewa th f d i ~~" y e re er s now un when we could get that trunk line going down here. It ~` progressing toward this area to serve that area and that was a big hold up for a number '' `y~= of years for the future development of this. But it is proceeding. So, the areas we are _ I asking you to consider including kind of finish out this eastern edge and also finish out "'`'~ the area where that sewer line can serve to the west of Meridian Road and, then, the ~'~'~` ` employment center. So, by acting on this now, rather than deferring the whole thing, we ' `,; ; can at least give some certainty to this area and we can always go back and address ~ the others later, just -- this is a large land area. Every time we -- we have a Public Hearing there are a number of folks that live in this area that are concerned and : interested and I think we have really worked out a lot of the issues in this area. Did } , u ma recall Yo ne other thin about the area near Overland and Ten Mile. y t to sa o wan 9 Y 4 :' . this was an overlap with the Ten Mile specific area plan and it was, actua y, a ~``'E` discussion -- a great deal of work went into looking at the appropriate uses as part of ~' the charrette and intense commercial uses were never deemed appropriate on this side of the freeway, because of the topographic constraints, the Ridenbaugh Canal, and the '_"~ access to the properties at the interchange. I mean these properties right next to the interchange need to gain -- need to go under the interchange to the east and, then, they are going to have to loop around back out onto Ten Mile. So, it's not going to be a ~~; ~`~ similar situation to what you see on Eagle or Meridian Road, where those nearby properties will have direct access. The access is very constrained because of topography in this area. So, you know, we did look at this and -- in detail many times, along with the planning commission. So, with that most of the suggestions that are ~ t s f 4' _. €~€ ~ ~ ~ !7p 8. y tart f ~,+ 4 i~ i C t-" ~ i 4 yy aS ~ i~~~~ i4 7 `°' ~~~.~r4; r~ i~ ~4 rR - r s Y s~F ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~_ *ij v + q +(~ T~ td _e. f'A4 b ~~P f J il'- ~ .. ~~~ ~ ~~ s ~~ Pa s P '-~,) 7~ !~ c 4 I 5~c `y c "ul^ i 1 yy< ,-. i r r Y 1'.ts ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ ry r d,, ~+~' - R $i~ I ~ x $ Er 1 ~ ~ `3, I~ 1 '^ "' ~~'it. ~~ r~ +I ~"ti a ' ~~ ~~~ 4 ~i~~ i ` ~" '~+~ AP ~ i ( J n ~x ~~ IQ ~t ~ ~ E W~~' ;~ g ,k 4 ~;`: ;; ,:;,; ~_ "-`' tFp,? 5i i'. .... i t~:~5 s ~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning t;~ November 1, 2007 Page 33 of 98 before you tonight are certainly a judgment call for the planning commission, but I did want to comment on those two things. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I propose we take a five minute break. Rohm: I 'd go for that, but I think ten is more appropriate. At this time we will take a ten minute break. Thank you. (Recess.) Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and I guess this -- this is such a big project it's hard to just get your arm around it all at one time, so I apologize if we seem like we are a little bit disjointed up here and, quite honestly, probably are a little bit. It's -- it's a huge project and it impacts so many people and we want to get it right and so I will tell you that I don't think we are going to get through all of these tonight. If we have anywhere close to the amount of testimony or discussion for the balance of them that we had so far, I don't think we are going to get to a point where we will be able to make any motion. But that's just my opinion based upon the time of evening where we are right now. So, with that being said, I think that what I'm going to do is just poll the Commission and kind of get some thoughts that -- that they'd like to share with you on where we are on this particular project now and, then, if there are questions of staff or staff has additional comments, we'd certainly incorporate that as well. So, with that being said, Commissioner Moe, do you have some -- do you have comments that you'd like to share? Moe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Well, you worked that just right, didn't you? Well, I guess the first thing that I want to make apoint -- I know you guys have done one heck of a lot of work and I do appreciate that immensely. Right off the bat, though, I still have the same problem that I did six months ago and that is we haven't talked to the city of Kuna to understand exactly what's going on there totally. You know, some -- and, again, just like some of the testimony this evening, there are still studies being done that aren't complete and so I'm not sure that I'm comfortable moving forward until I get a little bit more information on that as well. In regards to the Brighton Corporation properties, my biggest concern there is we are discussing that work needs to be done in regards to the mixed use designations, if, in fact, we have a little bit more time and we, in fact, could, then, make the changes and get that resolved, I think the Commission would be much better off trying to make a decision on those type of properties as well. At the present time, because of the fact that Brighton Corp and probably others had to move forward on purchase of the properties or making possible acquisitions of properties, you know, ~~ i ~ F ,t { u Y *,. { , b .mr I. I ~ ktii„ ` 4~ a '^~iF i~ 3.f" S ~~ 1~ F ~' .SSl c r ~ "~ ~~ ~ ~t ° `~r .~ I~G ~ n~ 45' ~ ~ t, . F l ~ J '-0 F ` ~ f £~ ~d~ ~ a r.: ~ > ~° ~ ~' ~z ~ ~~r ~ t i *,! + F ~~ I~ ] x ~~' 5 i ~~ a ~ti, _ ~.' ~ ~~; °~ ~, 4 ~ 'c~'~~`= 4' i° ~_s, [E. J rN~ ~, y •; ~~ ~ 2 ~fl 1 k Ij 2 y ~ ~~ ~{ a t I ~ F ~ i a ~ ~~ , 1 r~-~ IS ~y sFt J M ~d~' i Y ~y .73 r~( `t ~1. { K .,r ~. r ~s ~ ~ ~~~" ink' ~`, ~~~~; '~ Yh Ly J t i; 9 FY~(w ~;; ~~> ~~;` '_ r ; ~~.: F , ~~ ~ a~ c '' ~ ,$: ':yk ~r ~. LL_:,:. . ~_: , Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 34 of 98 CJ with the intent to the existing Comp Plan in place, you know, now we are wanting to make changes again -- I think that there is probably some merit in the fact that on that same property I think that they could co-exist between the mixed use employment and the other, so -- and, again, all the way through here I think there was the tone that people would like to see some things decided upon before we just go forward and so at the present time I'm not so sure that Ican -- that I see moving this thing forward at the present time. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I could move it on tonight. I think that we need to get some -- some lines drawn to help facilitate that discussion with -- with Kuna that needs to happen and I'm comfortable with these -- the Blueprint For Good Growth -- the Communities In Motion study is done. We have a lot of the analysis from the south Meridian transportation plan. Blueprint For Good Growth is ongoing, but is -- I'm not sure it's in the end going to give us a lot of direction on what to do here. So, with that as background, I'll run through what I saw as some of the specific issues and I do have some clarification questions for staff as I work through. Regarding the inclusion of the Eric Exline property in this comer, I do support that, but I'm not comfortable with just bringing our line around one lot of a subdivision. I'd much rather extend this line straight down and across and bring in that subdivision, so there is a cleaner boundary and I'd just like to get thoughts from staff or -- I don't know if there has been any discussion from other property owners in that area pro and con -- or con as to why the existing line is where it is. Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, we have brushed on it earlier there. The main rationale behind scaling back the study area boundary the way that we did were -- were somewhat recent annexations by the city of Kuna. This piece immediately south of where the mixed employment begins has been annexed into Kuna, as has the southeast comer of Linder and Lake Hazel. Not to say that it -- well, I guess the reason that we -- we just straight lined with this designation down in the manner that we have is because that was the break to the north of Lake Hazel. As we have indicated, it's not necessarily a line that staff had its heart set on and we are certainly open to the suggestions that the Commission has. I think it would be reasonable to move it over to continue down what's currently proposed here and work its way back toward the boundary as shown on the screen, with the recommended staff response. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Steve, before we leave that, would you restate the city of Kuna's annexation in that specific area again forme? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't have specific parcel numbers in front of me at the moment, but the piece immediately south of where the mixed employment designation ends, that is west of Meridian Road and immediately ~i~ ~ ` ~-~ I~ ~ ~` "_ 'r; ~~ix3 ;~ N. ~i €{~ ~ ~ -. ~: ~ =~ ~~ _, ~'~ 5 r: ~~; ~ 't r I~~~ ~, ii ~~ Kt~ i I t. 91: / i. ~i A ~{ 4 Y 'M`_ ~~~ 'j Fa ~ K-. ~e~.r) I#~M~ a= ~~ai '~~ ; `. ~~: r ~- 'I~5"~ a~i tE r r! pi " ~ {s,~ ~~1 fl~~'A ~" r~~~ ..R is , ~ _. t_: ;"~:e'Mi . , aa~€ ' ' ~;~8 yy t l.i~ 4S~'; S ~h Y Y Y a ;. ~I liu ~:.. _ ~. '.. ~~ a Y. 4 11SS ~LLr` ~I *'f 4 ,g,.~T F: ~, h ?u~ e ~; ~M3 ~ ~ i Jy{P e gp ~ ~-:~ -rcfpp:,< c +'. ti i ~ i r. ? i~ ~~ Sµs ~ ry ~..c~ak~, ~^s ~ ,.. ., :~.~: -~ -' ~I ~s' t Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 1, 2007 Page 35 of 98 south of that mixed employment designation, has annexed into Kuna, as has the parcel on the southeast comer of Linder and Lake Hazel. Rohm: So, all the way to Lake Hazel has been annexed by the city of Kuna? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. And that's not a straight line all the way across Lake Hazel, but there are several parcels immediately south of Lake Hazel that have ';s' annexed into the -- the one -- the furthest east of their annexations that abut Lake Hazel is that southeast comer of Linder. Rohm: Thank you. Go ahead, Steve. I'm song. ,;,~ :~ ,.. ~E[ E.7.' ~- r {~,' ~:<_ : . Siddoway: My thought is to -- if we take in the one parcel, then, we'd want to take in others as well, rather than split those up. And I think it would favor something along the lines of medium density residential to match what's going on across the road in this area. Moving onto -- regarding Brighton's request, I could favor the proposal as long as it was clear that proposals for high density residential or retail would be considered in that language as proposed, lines up being included. I do think there is going to need -- it's such a large area, there does need to be some flexibility with what goes in there, but I also -- you know, I -- if -- if we change this one, I think they all ought to be able to be changed and I like the direction that it's going for encouraging employment, which is a high priority for Mayor de Weerd and trying to get more of an employment base in the city, but we also need to make sure that we can have enough flexibility in that designation to accommodate retail and high density residential uses as part of that -- that mix, with the emphasis on employment. Regarding the request for -- to change this area from low density to medium density -- boy, I don't have particularly strong feelings either way. I know that I -- part -- I imagine part of why it was made low, as I believe was stated, was because overall through the area we were trying to reduce the number of units and the impact to the overall transportation system. Based on that, I can support the low density designation and -- but I also realize that they have been through their own comp plan amendment in -- within the last year that had some medium density in here. Based on that I could support the change and I encourage some more input from the other Commissioners on that. Regarding the -- the change from medium high density residential to mixed use neighborhood, I'd like some input from staff as to whether you see -- if you believe that there are adequate services by what's shown here for the neighborhood center and the employment, it is, you know, roughly a mile away or if you -- and I understand the need -- the desire for the medium high density residential is to support, you know, future transit along Lake Hazel, but could you just comment on the -- the mixed use designation and whether you see a need for additional services in that area? Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Ms. Commish raised an interesting question. It probably could support limited -- given the number of residential units there, it probably could support some retail. I think our concern would be that that retail would be the first thing to develop in that it would be rather suburban in nature, rather than a more urban one to -- to integrate with the medium high density. You're ~~; ~, r~ G ,. ~y 4 Ik} n + 4 ~~ r f ~ ~.Y 1 ~ .. ? 3 Trj ..~r. y `t` t} ~.:~. 1~~ ~ ~~ . ~, .. f( "3 .~. .;. Ci31 ~x~~ i~ e ~' t ~~~'P ~ ~ ~ ~'c F ~-$.%v~~r~ } C "" y~ X ff 1f l1 } ~ .Ya# I t ,~~~; ~ 2 ~ ,7 ~: ~~ ~ s '~`~ ~.~- I ~ ~ ~. "~ ; I~ •„ ~ ~F a ~ . ~ L ~ ~ ~ ,s~ ~~' ~ ,'. ~~1 ~ .~ ~° ~ < `,~` e ~ ~~;': i ~ f kl ~ ^. 5 1 CA t•, ~1, Q , L ~. ~.1 Y~3, ' a~ ~~ ~~ • ~~ ' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ~';' November 1, 2007 _ Page 36 of 98 ~ going to have to have some -- some height to the -- that medium high density residential ~ and some denseness and -- goes with the term, doesn't it, so -- I mean it's going to be a ~r 5° very compact development there and I would be concerned that the commercial might go first in a more suburban style office pattern or neighborhood center commercial like 'y=`': we currently see. There may be an opportunity to discuss some vertically integrated ~' residential within the R -- within that medium density residential designation and that ~' ma be a more a ro riate wa to o, so that ou could have that hi h densit with -- ~~; Y pp p Y 9 Y 9 Y ~' above those of other uses where -- whether it be offices or small retail, it might match fi''' the intended look of that development more than putting a mixed use designation there. ~, j. '` Siddoway: Does the medium high density residential designation currently allow for vertically integrated retail or office type uses? `=' r~ Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, the R-15 designation, which E, . ~~~ would be the corresponding zoning district for the medium high density residential, does allow vertical) Inte rated residential as a condition of use. ~ Y ~ 9 ~; _; Siddoway: Oh. With that understanding, my -- I could support some supportive uses in ,~. , ; there, but if -- I share the concern about the suburban style -- just pods coming in, as " opposed to something that's integrated. So, if you can integrate those, you know, retail k;,:, -, or office type uses as a conditional use, I guess I would favor leaving it as is with that .~ , . Y understanding. I'm going to -- it looks like they are looking something up, but -- did you have anything to add or can I move on to -- go ahead. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. We weren't looking it up so ~~ «n~-~ much as we were trying to recall, because the real text of the medium high density is i contained in the Ten Mile area specific plan, it's not in our existing plan. But I'm trying ¢L., to recall what that said. But I think as Anna had indicated, with an implementing zone of R-15 there still is an opportunity as a conditional use to do that vertically integrated ,.S I development that also contemplates some of the uses that I believe were proposed to ~r-~~~ you in the testimony. 55 '`` Siddoway: There was a lot of discussion about the southwest area and whether it y.. ~.k.: "'"~~~ should -- whether the whole thing should wait for it to catch up or whether we should r5 move forward with this. You know, I could really force -- I don't know that this area will - ~~s ~ -will stay low density residential. I also know that -- that Ten Mile corridor is going to become just a major thoroughfare with the opening of the interchange, but knowing that ~:f ,~ the opening of the interchange is, you know, three years away, I do see an opportunity i>~"~- to -- to plan for it and I believe that what's happening here is exactly that, we are -- we -- ' are setting the line by asking for the referral area and saying that we will plan that area ~; ~ out and I would expect within the next three years, by the time that interchange opens, "~ i that we would see some detailed planning work for that. So, I'm comfortable with the -- ~.~ ,~ ~" ~~ the line as drawn, with the understanding of this area is -- is to receive quite a bit more ,:- attention -- planning attention over the -- the coming years with the anticipated opening of that Ten Mile interchange. The last one I wanted to speak to was the -- the property ~= ` along Meridian Road here as low density. It is right along Meridian Road. I could see ~. {,t~ I R K/ y. 'bk ~Sy 9,. ~r~ k { ~ !~ rf 1 /' IMF ~ '. Ch, l~• s G [ a 'w ~~~~s. ~' .r r t r ~ _ ~r*.:~ ~~~: , ' t: ~ S i~~ .,: . ~ ~ 7' ~~ '. ~*~+ a~ ~ ~ ~ ..~.a_r ~~ ~t ~ ~ ~~ r ~cw ~~ ,~ ~ ~ a ~~ Y > ~ ~y~,.- ~~ x~. ~. "' ~~ ~,.°. r 'i r ~' ,,. ~i ~ ~ ; .~ ~~~ ~ . ~ ~ z l i °y~y< ~~ ~" ~ / r.. i ~ - ~~{ ~~ ~ ~ "' tl 'I r ~' r ` i r~ *~ ~~ v.; i wee-dam ¢~ } r~ ~ 4: ~ IN : ~ - .Z hlf 1 A.J" ~ - - 9~ t ~rJ !, 1 ~ ~ Tf} .' } ~ h ~! ~ J'M~ ~ `` dl k; ~ ~ ~, 3~~~ E ~~ a ~, T ~ ~ «, ~} iy C~ 4' -71n ~~ .. • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 37 of 98 that going to, you know, medium to connect that area on both sides. I guess you specifically talk about the east side, but I was looking at the west. So, this is the -- the current Comp Plan, same lot here, shown as low density residential. That -- that one's not a deal killer for me either way, so I would be open to some input from the other Commissioners on that one. That's all I have at this time. ;; :> +F:;. ;;. '~ <- ~:; .. E~+ ,., Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: A lot said and I concur with my fellow Commissioners on many of the items. I don't know how many more I can cover without duplicating things, but a long story short -- let's just stay on this current one. The property on Meridian Road -- hope you can hear me. This area here south, I don't know -- I've kind of got mixed feelings on whether we can change that to medium or high density. I'm concerned about any kind of residence there right now because of the American Paving sand and gravel pit right there that's a very very noisy thing that I can hear it every morning when I get up. I don't know. It's -- that's another issue, I guess. But I don't know how that would change anything or how that can be used any differently. Personally I think that should be an industrial area, instead of a residential area, because of the current use of that particular area just north of it. That's my comments on that. The area Lake Hazel and Eagle Road, I -- I'm in favor of somehow changing that to accommodate or integrate small businesses of some nature to service that particular area. I don't think it's going to impact anything between the other two areas. That -- there is a -- the fourth bench runs right across here and the lady that has the 9.2 acres I guess it is, she's right, it's on a -- it's on a hill, it's on an embankment and in some cases pretty steep and I think that would be a good use, being able to change that to a residential -- to some small businesses, et cetera. The area at Eagle and Amity, right in here, one and two, change that to medium density from low density and I -- I don't concur with that. I don't want to see that changed. I think that the area -- any denser would definitely impact not only Amity Road, but Eagle Road itself, especially when this here gets built up over time, I think it would -- in attending the town meetings, talking to several of the neighbors around this area, they recommend low density and for those particular reasons and I think that's -- that's a good designation right now and I recommend we leave it as it is. The Brighton question, I've had mixed feelings on that. I'd like to see us get some big stores in there in that area, because it would serve not only Meridian, but Kuna as well and going to a mixed use employment would address employment, but I'd like to see it addressed more than just Silverstone's type development, if there is a way we could do both, I wish we could. But that's my take on that. I think we should just leave it as is for now and I agree with Commissioners Siddoway and Moe about somehow getting all the information we can and slow down a little bit and see what -- what we are going to see in the future. It's really difficult to -- to pull this magic wand out there and see what's going to happen, you know, a year from now or two or three years from now. I don't know how we are going to respond to that. I don't want to make a mistake. We have an opportunity here to do the right thing and, again, yeah, I don't want to see us rush into anything that would cause great grief in the future. As far as annexation, we are changing this zone -- I forget the gentleman's name -- on Meridian over here next to that, I don't know how we are going to be able to address that particular problem, I ~. ll~~^~, „r~st ~"~' ~I~. t r,~ s, _ _ ~ °~w . « t~~ y f 1 L~; =' T, ~, i P ~ ~' f ..'. 4 .~ rr: !ii s~ h t'~:< r~r h.,K I o ~ -r, , ~ ,.~~ i ~~ , - ~ ~~ G ~ ~ ~M~~~~M~MM***I { u -, ~;~,r = `.,ar iE '_ ~ a " ~~j4 t r ~ ~ ~x ,, ,~~;:. +r f t 1 1 u' _ ~( ~ ~!~ CI e '' ~ ~ 1Y 3 1 ~Y ~ ~ rE E~P { ~ !~~ ~~, '~ I J ~t~ ~T ti ~r f ~ ' ~ ~~ o~~ r ~% ~~~ ~ r'x "~`~i~e ~. ~L~ q 4 ~ ~ h ~~f 1F~~S ~S r ~~'' i ~ ..~ F #k, „~ w. ~i `, ~/ S Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 38 of 98 C~ changing the annexation is certainly -- I think we need to talk with Kuna about that ourselves and those meetings haven't taken place yet and I'd like to see us do that first before we address being able to do one thing or the other. I think I have just about covered all of my concerns and my take on things. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Moe. ;~ %~i ,, ,. '~~. y ,. ~: ~.;,, Moe: Yeah. I just want to follow up on Commissioner Siddoway's comments a little bit. In regard to this property, this portion here, Iwould -- I tend to agree with him, I would like to see that that whole portion there would be included within the area. In regard to this area right in here, most of that's already in low density at the present time. Iwould just --Iwould like to see that stay as it's noted right there. In regards to the change here, I would very much be in favor of that as well. And in regards to the Hubble property down here, I actually could probably go either way, depending upon my mood, probably, that night, I guess. I don't know. I realize it was -- there was medium density in that area prior and it has changed to this one here, so -- but I do like the fact that they are -- the low density is there and so I would probably like to see that stay as well. I think I got to my areas there. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Just to further the discussion on that, the -- I, too, like the low density there. What makes me really consider making the change back to the medium density is knowing that they have already submitted an application to the city using that designation and it's -- you know, it's already -- it's been -- it's been accepted and is on our agenda for November -- December, so -- as medium density. O'Brien: Oh, for medium density. Siddoway: Yeah. If it was low, I wouldn't have a question. Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: One that we didn't talk about was this -- in the Croft -- the letter from Crofts, requested that this one be changed from low to medium, but I -- I do favor that one staying as low, although if anyone felt particularly strongly -- it is adjacent to medium on the Boise side. So, I'd throw that out there for some discussion, but it is a large contiguous block of proposed low density. So, I would be fine with it staying as is. Rohm: Any additional comments from other Commissioners? Moe: Not at this time. I j ~~ ~, it ~,~ ,r ~~ j7 ~ ~ 5 ~~ i , e 4+ Y ~ ~~~ r 4 r 51 ay. ~~~-i 1 Y 4.l ~ ~' ,~.. `~.'r '~ ~~, w~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~1 ;. .cz F. ~ k, r ~>: yy( a~ ~ Iz t35 _ F V ~~ t i ~. ~~~ ~~ x~ 1€N F ~ '~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~'S' ```'`' If~f u~~±±±~~~~a?a,,, - y7.4~5. ~Q i pit F ~ ~^I~ Toil r ~ i l~ s >~ v ~ ~~ x., ~~ . ~: ~; ~ s . k .~ . .>. ,,~ r ~~~ I ~i S t ~~'. S j _~~1 kk F ~' Z~ ~; ' ~~~~ ~f IA ~ ~, i C - # 7C! r ~ -- I ~ ~ ~ ,~~ y ,~r_Z? 4 ~ S ~~~ l~ .ti ~'. ~` - . • ,;. ~~'`'` Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 5'; Page 39 of 98 rs Rohm: Thank you. I guess as a whole my thoughts on this are that -- thank you, staff, for doing an excellent job putting this together and, you know, nobody has a crystal ball i' and you have certainly done a good job of addressing the concerns of the public at large and I think you have done a great job of putting this -- the response out. My _ concerns probably have more to do with the future from a roadway perspective than -- },.>,.,. ~~"' than your proposed land use and -- and I think that the Ten Mile interchange and the north-south roadway being Ten Mile is going to influence future development and -- and ~< I think that there may be some other proposals that will hit the ground that won't necessarily match up with this very closely, but I guess we will address those at the time they come forward. So, I guess the conclusions -- my conclusions are thank you for a job well done and, as a whole, I would support comments from the balance of the Commission. Anna, do you have some final words that you would like to share on this particular project? ~~ _: Canning: Chairman Moe, no other than your -- Chairman Moe. Chairman Rohm. I'm L ; song. ;. Moe: Looking right at me. ;`~ .~;~ i;. S `` . I ~-~ ~!` ~' ,, Canning: Your last statement was that you agree with the Commissioners as a whole on their comments, but there were some very different perceptions on some of those pieces of property. So, if -- if there is something you would like us to look at, then, let us know. I'm unsure where the Commission is going at this point, so if you have any inclination where you're going, I can provide a little more information. If you're thinking about continuing it, I would like the opportunity to talk about some dates and some information that we need. If you're talking about moving forward -- Rohm: Well, to start off with, I think that all of these are going to get continued. I don't think we are going to get through the balance of the projects tonight and so I don't personally think we are going to act on any of them, but we were looking at the agenda for the next three meetings and it doesn't look like we can take these and put them ahead of what's already on the agenda for November 15th or the December 6th meeting. Is that what you're -- is that where you're going with this? Canning: No. I was -- Chairman Rohm, no, I was -- that continuation date is certainly one set of dates and what has been suggested by some folks is a larger continuation, which -- Rohm: Continue this one to -- for six months is -- Canning: Or nine months is -- and that -- and that's what I wanted to discuss with you, if you're going that route. So, just let me know and Iwill -- Baird: Mr. Chair? If I may, I have got a question for the planning director and it has to do with the issue that's been mentioned by a couple of Commissioners about the proposed meeting between Kuna and Meridian. I think we have tiptoed around it, but I £: ~ r ~ 1,~ ~,~ ~~ li F << , ' .,~; i ~ $: f r ':. ~~~~ <ay~ la~,.t'.; ,i» stiff IIlf}y x 4 ~ 5 xh ~- t 99 e~ '~~ I~ ~ ` i~ +q,u. ~` fiJ' ~~ ~ ~ ;~ ~+~ [~ ~ _ B~ ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~~ ~ ~~y S ~ ~ ~ It ". LL _ <} ~+ ,Y;9" , kl L i Y..,, F~ r l ~ A Js~ Y ~^' ~ a'. N:. { 11~ 4 i 11 C1 ~ `~~ Y ~~~~- Y~ ~ .Nt .~y. i~: ~ y S ~ IfM N~ W ~ 1 tf - , ~i ii 7` Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 40 of 98 C~ want to ask Anna -- do you think there is the will on one -- it takes two people to have a meeting, two entities? I think there is a will for those entities to ever get together and have that meeting. Is it something that we should even be waiting for? Canning: Chairman Rohm -- put on the spot. We have tried to -- we haven't given you much information about our attempts to schedule that meeting -- or the clerk's attempts and the Mayor's attempts. There was one scheduled and it was canceled at the last moment. This was with the previous mayor, who is no longer the mayor of Kuna. A second meeting was proposed -- I think the Council president was supposed to attend that one, because the Mayor was unable to and that one got canceled at the last moment. The third attempt to even schedule a meeting failed. There does not seem to be a desire to meet with the City of Meridian, but I do -- it was encouraging that with the Blueprint For Good Growth discussions, Kuna specifically asked for the -- this exercise that we have mentioned about designating planning areas as part of Blueprint For Good growth. They specifically asked that it be continued, because they were unable to ~~ participate November 8th. So, they have asked that they be allowed to -- that accommodations be made, so that they can participate in that exercise. So, that's an encouraging part. But we did try. It's not -- you know, we did as much as we could as staff to initiate that and the Mayor's office did what they could, but it didn't happen. ~: Rohm: May lask afollow-up question to that, then? It appears to me that this south ;r area of impact is in direct response to aggression, if you will, by the city of Kuna and it seems to me that maybe this is an answer to legal counsel's question in itself. If we r; move forward without the joint meeting between city councils of the two cities, it's -- it's kind of drawing a line in the sand from the City of Meridian's perspective and addressing the issues as what would benefit the City of Meridian best. Would you -- could you respond to that? ~`s Canning: Certainly, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The state enables you, and only you, for the City of Meridian, to move forward a Comprehensive Plan - ' amendment. Staff proposed this study to address the current issues of the time and ,~ those current issues of the time did involve Kuna and their need to annex folks to '. ,l participate in a local improvement district to fund their sewer expansions. They found the participants they needed to fund that and they are moving forward with that. It's -- it's still a question as to north of Lake Hazel who will -- those developers that have and -- from Kuna will the seek annexation could be Conti uous to Kuna ~;~ ;;1 properties that g Y '; sl'=, and there is nothing we can do to stop it either way. Putting it in a Comp Plan won't ~:: stop it either. It needs to be a commitment on the part of those folks to want to }d ,. I artici ate in the City of Meridian and the growth of the City of Meridian. So, your job is P p and will always just be to act in the best interest of the city and not worry about that aspect of it and that's all we are asking you to do tonight. I think that by drawing a line it gives the discussion point going forward. What you have done throughout this process is listen to the folks that live there and we have tried to draw that line with that in mind ~' and I think that's been our concern is to make sure that we didn't force people into the ~`~ City of Meridian if they didn't want to be there and that's how we have always approached this. It was a long answer, but -- ;? I { ~~ ~ _~ ~ fi~~yl~'~i f~ :Y c i ~ I d aL~. F L,s ~ ° x :a~. ~ i r 'i K~ ~ ~r Ei ~ ~` . ~~.. . 5 .i~ yyM t t l~f J ;S~I• '~1~ I i 1 "F i .. ~t ~~ f.t [ ~ ~ "' t F~3.~ I~ ~ yy ~` ~ ~ ~ ~~.s i~ ~ Al~ !~ 1~ ' ~. ~~~ I r ~ ~~ ~¢ ~~ cy.i ~, K M._ ~~. ~~~i~ r s ~ ~~~~ ~~ y.,. ~ h.1 y'r I~~ ~~~ t ~$~~".. Fri ~ ~ ~ :. ~ ~ F %_ k, l C t ~, ~ ~~ r Fi t I~ ~ ~~- 1~zT ~ ~,:'. Shy i~ ,.~~ t ~~ ~ ~ r'. u~ ~ ~- x, ~~, i pt~ ~: ,r-. ~,'.~~ j~q 1i• ,~ Rr '1 ,~~ rq I ri t ~u~ Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 1, 2007 Page 41 of 98 • 3 L Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you thank you very much. That's all I have been wanting to know. ,, , Rohm: That helps me quite a bit, too. Thank you. Just to try and encapsulate this -- and I'm not sure that I can in its entirety, but I think that the general support for this ~~ CPA, but with modification based upon testimony provided and the Brighton Corporation has made comments, as have other landowners that have a vested interest in this area and I'm not the one that will be making the motion, but I believe that many of those testimonies that have been provided will be addressed in the motion made and -- but, generally, I think that we will be able to move forward with this project -- or this CPA `~ ~'- when we act on the balance of it. Do you e is there concurrence from the balance of t,. ~`~`~ the Commission of that assessment? '`''' Siddoway: That we will move it forward? Rohm: We will move it forward with some modifications. Siddoway: That's where I'm at. -,. ,`~ Moe: I agree. ~, ~. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: I agree. °;~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe? Moe: I'm working towards that. . ~ Rohm: Well, that's the best answer that I can give you. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify my stance on that property that the individual I wanted to be part of Meridian. If there is a way to do it, like Mr. Siddoway said, I m all ~''x:~j for that. I'm just really confused as how that process works. I think you answered some ,,~ ,,. ~~;°' of that with your response about the relationship between Meridian and Kuna and so I'd like to see us go forward with something like that, if it's possible, but as long as it "?' doesn't create some kind of a bi ua mire between two cities. 94 9 Canning: Chairman Rohm, if I might answer Mr. O'Brien's question there. I think it was a question. This is the first time that those properties have not been shown with a land use designation. It was just -- we scaled it back for this hearing. It's still part of the r study area. It's still part of what you can consider and put back in surely and we can ~~~ talk to Mr. Exline and -- we didn't have a chance to talk to him before he sent this a-mail, '~~ so we can talk to him and get a little more idea of what he's thinking about. ~Ji €j T ~~}-°rk#~Si ~ r }c ..~, i •i 1 ~ ! t r'1~.. - ~ 'L,~,,~:,,~, k ^r ~ ~y iE i ~~. s ~ r ~~ j ~~ f 'ti 5- !~'~ ~ ~~~~ Fa ~- ~~~~~y. ', . €, ~ ~ ~~' F i = 1 p S,~~ iy- I1 k tP! f LL ' 4v tie r f,F ~~ `` ,ice ~ ,, !~ V ~ ~,. f a t ~ ~~ ~t i~ ~ ' ~ , ~~ ~< ~',~ t + k k~. . t r rM ~ ~ a a ~"'~`.4~. r ~ .; .~ F ~/ ~. - ~~ ~-`~ i 9l1~ . ~ 'i#~~t, ya~~, ~ ~E,: G ~Y d 1 - A. ... ~ `T313~ ,~ - .r tC 4.I ~ ,i~ ~. • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 42 of 98 O'Brien: Appreciate that. Thanks. Rohm: At this time I think it's appropriate to get a motion to continue this to the end of the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting. Moe: So moved. ~. _; O'Brien: Second. ~~ : Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009 to the end of our regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for further action. All ~: °: those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. ^:: ~~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: CPA 07-010 Request to amend the Comprehensive ~~'= Plan Future Land Use Map for the north Meridian area to include 645 acres north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River from Linder Road to approximately'/ mile west of Black Cat for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sherrie Ewing: Item 8: Public Hearing: CPA 07-015 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text ~~`~ Amendment to create a new land use designation that would include open area, low-density, residential, medium low-density residential and medium-density residential uses with an anticipated average of density of 3 dwelling units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sheme Ewing: Rohm: And, really, thank you all for coming in and I'm -- this is an arduous task at best. =`s So, at this time I'd like to open the public hearings on CPA 07-010 and CPA 07-015 and begin with the staff report. ;;: Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are a request for a Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment for the 1 Phyllis Canal project. The property consists of 645 acres and is currently zoned RUT, rural urban transition, Ada County. The vicinity map here shows that the property is generally located north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River and extends ~,~,w~ l from Linder Road to approximately a quarter mile west of Black Cat Road. This is an <. ~ aerial view of the property. This property is largely surrounded by rural residential and ~~~;: agricultural properties, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south up on the rim is Spur .... Wing Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8 and the approved, but not yet constructed Jayker ':;::~1 Subdivision, zoned R -- or, excuse me, zoned R-2 and R-8. The subject property '' consists of rural residential, agricultural properties, and golf course property. This is a map showing the FEMA flood plain. A large portion of the property, approximately 149 acres, is located within the floodway of the Boise River in flood zone AE. That's the ~`~ darkest area you can see here along the north and along the eastern boundaries there. ,, `^`^ P [ } Y h '.+: j 4 1 ti ~Y ,~ ~,, t ~1 _ r . ~,~ ,~ ,~{ c ~ : ~ ~ x z- '~~ _'_. Ir F '~ 2 a-~.-2~' (2( r ( 4' s` ~ c ~~ ~ ~: ~ I~p~ ..- i ,L , ~_ ~ ti ~~yry~'~~. ~ PAS ' ~r - ~~~ ^~~ ~~ ~D ~ ` w }~~' ~ ',~ ;+s ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ,~ . ~.. ~' fi~ ~~ I~ ~ ii ~,y ..F. ~ dt 3`~K: ~~ ~~ xc ~~ ~,~, .~ 2': ~: r~ ~' e~' P4 t ' r~ ~~ ~ nary ! ~ t ~: ~y _ Meridian Plannin & Zoning 9 November 1, 2007 Page 43 of 98 The central portion of the property, the lighter blue color, is also within the AE flood <`~~` but is not in the floodway. In the southern portion along the Phyllis Canal is in zone , flood zone X5, but is not in the floodway. This property is currently located within Eagle's area of city impact. The city of Eagle's mayor and city council members submitted a letter to the city, which is included in the staff report as Exhibit C, requesting that the city deny this application. They believe that the property should remain in Ada County until annexed and developed in the city of Eagle. This property is currently designated on the city of Eagle's future land use map as shown here on the overhead. ';iy~ As floodway, the blue area. Residential two. And transitional residential. These designations are located within the river plain planning area. The overall density for this area under the Eagle comp plan is calculated at 1.6 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting to amend the future land use map for the north Meridian area with a new future land use designation called river residential, in order to include the subject property within the area of city impact. The concept plan was submitted with `°"' this application as shown on the overhead here that shows the applicant's vision for this - area. However, an annexation and/or development project is not proposed at this time. .w~. The river residential designation is proposed to consist of common area open space, low density -- the common area is the darkest green area here. Low density, the lighter ~~ green. Medium low density. And medium density residential uses, with an anticipated average density of three dwelling units per acre. Open space areas are proposed to -- well, they consist of 265 acres and could include walking and bicycle paths, public ,~,~~~; parks, public access to the Boise River, sports complex, picnic areas, et cetera. This - . area would primarily be located along the river and be within the floodway. Low density ' residential areas consist of 293 acres and are proposed to contain maximum of two r~~.,~. ;'=s~ l homes per acre. These homes could be clustered and could include ponds an open o space. This area would meet the city's R-2 zoning standards. Medium low density ~~ residential areas consist of 48 acres and are proposed to contain a maximum of four homes per acre. These homes would primarily be located north of the Phyllis Canal and would transition into the low density residential homes. Again, these homes may r a would meet the be arranged in clusters and ponds would also be visible. This a e city's R-4 zoning standards. Medium density residential areas consist of 39 acres and ~; `~~:~j are proposed to contain a maximum of eight homes per acre and may consist of '`'~~"' townhomes located along the golf course, depending on the market at the time of ..R development. This area would also -- would meet the city's R-8 zoning standards. The '~`_ applicant is also requesting to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to include the afore-mentioned land uses. This is a map showing the current future land use map for Meridian. It designates the land that abuts the subject property at the south boundary for low density residential uses. Access to this area can be provided from the east from Duck Alley, connecting to Linder Road. From the south, Basco Lane, connecting to ,.~-a =f Chinden. Black Cat connecting to Chinden and possibly Highway 16. And from the : ' . ; west possibly Palmer Road. Staff believes that the subject area could be serviced by ,, ; ~.'; the city and all associated service providers, schools, parks, police, fire, et cetera. However, because this area is currently within Eagle's area of city impact on the Comprehensive Plan, the primary issue to consider is whether the city should assign > future land use designations and plan to provide services to land that is currently within ~ , another municipality's area of city impact, especially when they are not in agreement ~,~> ~~~~ ~~ri t ~ ~~ ~ ~;2 ~~ - vet i r {' ~ a t ;~ Gib J = ~~`. 3f~ ~ ~ yy~ ~ _ ~. si~p~ Lr: ~ ~ '. ~II bf W F,N ~, ~(~+, ,. w ,~ ~~ ~~~4.. ~ .t; la r ~ ~. ~. _ t ~,„Wy r~~: ~il V3 _ Za ,. l 9' ~ ~ ~. ~ a 11 f~ r' k ~ [~~ 9r~1 r' a.:. 'it:r G:,. ~~~ - y ~~ L' E,h{ A~ `~ ..fib ~~; ~~ ~~_~~ ~ ~ri~ <:~: b,3~,~~~ is a < ~ ;~ l~ -~ ~ ~~+`1 -~%py~ l~' ~b ~ a~~~na~ '3~ 5 : 5 ~riS~~~ 4 1 ' V l~({~3J~ 4 ~ } KFY ~~ T ~~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 44 of 98 ~~'' with the applicant's request to be removed from Eagle's planning area. The '' : Commission should carefully weigh all factors involved in this request to determine if it JC,4 ~' ~ is in the best interest of the City of Meridian to amend the Comp Plan to include this , ~;~ area and proposed open space and residential land use designations in the city's a' Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission and Council deem that it is in the city's best interest to amend the plan and ultimately include this area within the area of city impact ' for future expansion of the city, they should consider staffs comments as follows: Staff i '~`~: has included the applicant's request and supports the land use concepts proposed for the subject area. However, staff is recommending that a different path be taken to achieve this outcome. Rather than approving a new land use designation, river ~; residential, with residential sub categories and amending the text of the Comp Plan and t map to reflect this designation, staff recommends that an existing land use map ~~~~ designation be used for this area to accomplish essentially the same results. Because ~:,.: the city's Unified Development Code already includes the residential designations low j density, medium low density and medium density residential, requested by the ' applicant, staff recommends that the future land use map be amended to designate this ,:, entire area as low density residential, except for the area that is in the floodway, which ask, ~ should be designated for public/quasi-public uses as shown. This is the proposed -- staff's proposed future land use map with those changes noted. The low density ~` ' nation would allow for the annexation of properties within this area with R-2 and/or desi g R-4 zones, with densities of three dwelling units per acre or less. This would be ~~' ` consistent with the applicant's request. Additionally, requests for one step upon density ~Y` may be requested without a Comprehensive Plan amendment to achieve higher `~~~~ densities in certain areas. For example, a step up to medium density would allow ~'~ densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. If the Commission and Council '" ~ ~ approve the applicant's request to be added to the future land use map, with staffs ''' ~ recommendation of a designation of low density residential and public/quasi-public for this area. A text amendment would not be necessary, as the current text already ~`' includes these designations and, therefore, should be denied. The staff recognizes the ~``~ careful thought and consideration that the applicant has put into the proposed text , 4?I amendment at the advice of staff. However, after evaluating the applicant's request and ,~ l proposed future uses for this area, staffs determined that it make more sense to simply "l Y use existing land use designations to achieve the results envisioned by the applicant. ~ ~' ~ Further, staff is of the opinion that the level of detail proposed is more appropriate for a ~" ~° future development agreement or zoning regulation, rather than as guiding rior to the hearin li t ith th `_ ` g can p e app Comprehensive Plan policies. Staff has met w ~ a ~:: tonight to discuss the changes suggested by staff and the applicant seemed to be in agreement with staffs recommendation. That's all staff has, unless the Commission =;~F has questions. Rohm: I don't have any. Any questions of staff? Moe: I have none. Rohm: Would the applicant -- Ic- t J i_~fi~~ Is'~,° ~r w~t.'.- ~.. ~9 ~ yei'. i 1 a ~ ~ r .;:;: f41~rS` i f; ~~~ '~~~ ~. a ~~ y ', ~r: N i ~ ~~ ~~ fi ~. ,.~ ~~ ~~ z _= x.~ ~~ `" +A~ yf ~s C +rv ~ i; ~n y 1~~~ -., z~~5~ `~ i t ~ 1 ,~. ~; ~'`~> a h ~~, A gq~..r tk~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ t ~$ I' 1. ti yd. i .; Sry~' ; ~~ ~~~" ~;. ;._ ~t ~ ;.x .~*.~?. ~: a a t a~` fir; ! ~ 3 ~ y a+. i ,,~,s ~ iu I C ;~ ~ rz ~ :.:, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 45 of 98 Canning: Chairman Rohm, may I also add some staff comments? These -- these aren't related to items you normally hear or see in your staff reports. What I would like to take a brief moment to talk about is some of the state enabling legislation regarding ''~~ comprehensive plan amendments and it's to address this -- this overlap with the city of Eagle issue. You might have noticed Sonya did not -- or Ms. Allen did not -- Mrs. 'k'' Wafters did not give you a recommendation from staff and it has been very difficult for staff to give a recommendation on this, because of the -- the overlap nature with this property being in the existing Eagle comprehensive plan and I feel that that's a commitment that the Commission and Council could make, but that the staff should not make a strong recommendation on and that's why you don't have one before you ~_-' tonight. But there is some other information I wanted to provide you and what the state says with regard to this issue when there is an overlap, what it says is that -- . Let me back up a little bit more. Sony. Once it leaves you all, your recommendation for a ~:~` Comprehensive Plan amendment -- we take it up to Council and Council acts on that and makes any changes they feel appropriate and, then, we adopt it into our Comprehensive Plan and, then, staff bundles that information up and we take it to Ada County and we say, Ada County, we would like you to expand our area of city impact to include this new area that we have in our Comprehensive Plan and Ada County looks at ``t;, . it and they take it to their Planning Commission. There is a joint hearing. They take it to their planning commission and, then, they take it to their county commissioners and the county commissioners act on it. And they adopt our Comprehensive Plan as their own within the area of city impact. A number of years ago there was an overlap between the city of Eagle and the city of Star and Ada County approved those overlaps and, then, they did what the state recommends to resolve those overlaps. They weren't happy with that process and the way it turned out, so they are unwilling to accommodate ;; '~ overlaps at this time. They just aren't considering area of city impact amendments that ,:~: ;,,~;, have an overlap until the cities negotiate that. But what is interesting is that if you look at what the state code says with regard to overlaps, it says, one, the county should ~ a prove the two overlap areas. They shouldn't just hold off on the decision. Their job is p -~ . i to -- to acknowledge that area of city impact and approve what would be the City of Meridian's request in this chart and create the overlap. Once there is an overlap, the `_ ?F! county's job is to try and bring the two cities together and come up with a solution that they can both agree to. In the event they can't come up with a solution, there is ,<':<1 supposed to be an election, so that the affected people in the overlap can vote. And , `.ray:; what's really interesting about this project is you have an interested group of landowners that -- that comprise several -- several families that have all gotten together and have all '~`~~~ gone to Eagle and said we don't want to be in Eagle, we want to be in Meridian and `~ Eagle said no. And so they have all come to us and said they have voted with their pocket book and they have come and they have said we are going to -- we -- we are serious about wanting to be in Meridian. We want to be here, we are going to request this Comprehensive Plan amendment, we are going to request this text amendment, ~A;; this is where they want to be. So, if you think about the whole process and where it `'`` ends up when there is a disagreement, it ends up in a vote and I think that what these folks have demonstrated is what the vote would be. There is a hundred percent °`~'° concurrency in these affected property owners, they want to be in the City of Meridian. ' They have all come together to provide this and they worked hard with their neighbors 1., .~ ~' " s{`'~ ~, G~ ~~ ~ ~i~ { f H ~ ~y# ~~~ y ~~ f!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ IE ~x~t ~z l~ ~ ~ ~ pi ` j,: id p 7 .-= 1` H ! ~~ E~ pqq ~'. V t~-^ k ~ ~~ { r ;~ y@P, 'I~ Z. ~L4 ~ 1 'f~r ' ~~~ ~~ ~!~ ~`s ~;. l~ , z ~- ~~ 5 ~ 3}k~ l~ ~ 3 f ,~, ~Gg ~ ~t4 «Y *~ . ~~~ ~s ~ ~~ as , ~ . x.~ ~E ~°: i - s •~~ 4 t ~, iEi ~ x~, r ~ ;: j ~ ', ~24 ~. 3; J ~~ jx y{4~ 1 Y~ s T~MI~ . t5~ l~ Y11 ~~,. ~ ' t ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,, ~4 a~`a 6~ d I '4 F 7 i e -'. ~ ~ n a~~ a . ~ ^+ ~ a Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 ` Page 46 of 98 ,k :- to get a unified group, rather than just coming in with individual properties. So, these -- it's an interesting issue you have before you tonight and I wanted to give you a little bit of that history on what the state code says about these comprehensive plans overlapping once it leaves you. And I also wanted to share a little bit on -- I've had the great fortune of sitting in as an ad hoc member on a bipartisan land use and annexation committee for the legislature the past few months and these are the kinds of issues that .f;; they have been largely concerned with, you know, the annexation without consent, the ability to determine what's appropriate for your land and your land uses, your rights as a - citizen and they have been very concerned about the fairness of things and we have heard a lot of testimony about the fairness that the taxing, the fairness of the whole process, and I think that that's something to think about in this issue as well. The ~' ` fairness of the request and how they have been met by the city of Eagle. So, having said that, I think that the applicant can give you more information. But these were not -- they are not really city of Meridian issues per se. This is the state code behind what you '>,t, do and some of the feelings of the legislature's moving into this new legislative season. ;- - Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. It may be inappropriate, but at this time I'm going to say I would welcome you. I think you're a great group of people and you lend a great deal of ''`' support to the City of Meridian for a good number of years and I'm ready to take testimony, so, please, come forward. ,~.. s Ewing: Commissioners, I'm Sherrie Ewing and I reside at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and I am actually representing 645 acres down on the river bottom. First of all, Iwas -- as anovice to this whole process, I would like to commend staff for holding my hand and helping me through this awesome process. They at first asked me to do the text amendment and I did that and, then, they changed their mind and wanted to do the other and I'm okay with that. The new text, the way that they have proposed it now, is -- actually, turns out exactly the same as the way that they had me do it the first time, so it doesn't matter to me which way they go on that. I do want to say that we actually -- in May of '05 we actually testified that we wanted to be part of Meridian and that was prior to Eagle getting us into that -- into their comprehensive plan, so -- and we testified not only at Eagle when they were talking about their comprehensive plan, but we also went to Ada County when Ada County approved them into their comprehensive plan, so -- or approved us into their comprehensive plan. So, we have told everybody and their dog that we did not want to be in Eagle and we wanted to be in Meridian and -- and so now here we are trying to do that. One of the main reasons -- well, not one of the main reasons, but one of the reasons we want to be in Meridian is we are contiguous with Meridian right now and so we have got sewer services right next door to us and Eagle's sewer services are at Linder and State Street and the difference in cost is a fourth. The sewer for Eagle was going to cost two thousand -- or two million seven hundred and thirty-three thousand dollars and to Meridian it's over -- just a little over five thousand dollars -- five hundred thousand dollars. There we go. And so you will have seen the letter that Eagle sent to the Commission stating that they did not want us in Meridian. Well, they indicated in that letter that they have sewer services within four thousand feet of this area. Well, that was a typo and I sent a letter to indicate that and the reason that ~. .r. ;~ i ~~ p€a ~ ~ ~ :_.~... i ~. w ~ ffEEfEfE llll~ ~ l f .A~+. y .. !!~ {~fq~ ~'i El~~ ~ rk4fl rte:. e r ~ `"~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ y i. .~a [.~ a~~ suf. a~$ ~, - ~ ~~$ ~ : ~~ ~ a ~,~ ~s ~~ ' ~~ `~f~ ~ ~4~~~i z ~ °" ~~ i~~~ ~ ~~ yr, ~~' A4 ~ Jr f I u ~ ~, ~~~~a^~. H ;~ ~. ~~ s; f 4.: ~' ~a, s~:.; t Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 47 of 98 I know it's a typo is I actually went to the Eagle sewer district and talked to them regarding how they would get sewer to us and the cost and the distance and everything. They have no plans to get to that area. We are too remote out there. And so they have actually sent me slides that show how far it is for us to -- for them to get sewer to us and it's, actually -- instead of 4,000 square -- or 4,000 linear feet, it's 14,900 linear feet to get sewer to us. So, their numbers aren't right in their letter and I just wanted to make a note of that. And the City of Meridian does have planned capacity for us. So, we are ready to go if you guys would let us. Ada County development services said that the most common approach for us to -- would be to be in Meridian, rather than Eagle, and if we couldn't get into Meridian to have a planned community down there. So, that's, I guess, another option for us. Our vision -- our vision is we would like to see this area developed into a showplace for the City of Meridian. As you know, we already have the Spur Wing golf course. We would like floodways -- it's a perfect place for a park and walkways and public sports fields, et cetera. Ponds. And it would be a showplace for Meridian. This is probably the only place that Meridian will ever have river property, so we are hoping that you will let us in for that. And I've got lots of other things to say, but I know you have got a long agenda tonight, so if you have any questions. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. „~ Moe: I guess the only one that I would definitely want to know is you are in agreement that the lift stations that would be required, you guys have no problems for that for the sewer? Ewing: Yes, sir. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions for this application? Seriously, I think that you have done a wonderful 'ob workin with the ci and it's ve much appreciated. Thank you. 9 tY rY nj J ,~;{_ ~''` Ewing: Thank you. Rohm: Because each of you have signed up, I will call and if you choose to speak, you're certainly welcome to come up one at a time. John Ewing. He -- from the audience he said that he has nothing to say at this time. Thank you. Peggy Everest. ~'' From the audience she said she agrees with previous testimony. Jon Yorgason. t; Yorgason: Mr. Commissioner and Members of the Commission, I thank you for your °"` time to speak tonight. I'll keep my comments brief. r; :~,, '~'~~ Rohm: Could give your name and address for the record? R~ t -Y~ ' ~~ i 'p; r ~ h* b~~. X ~ ~: 3~ti ~~ s r .t ~N z ` IE~ ~~" ~~ J ~s r ~ , .:, ~ a 4 ~ r ~` ~~1; fjy ~ fl ~ ( ~},.~ ~ ~E .i~ ~}~ , µ ~~ ~ 7. ~ Y' tG+~ ,.r ~c~;~ ~~ a~~~ ,~ ~ ~'~' ~, r c ~ i ~' ~~~ ~ 1~ ~`~' r: ~ ~ t~~ } I i M {~ S L ~ it ~.~ ~~~ )~ i 3i huh{ 9 {{~~~ ~~ S i '"J' ~'QI`j~! i ~ ~t ~ 4: E ~ ~ ~ a ~j .r L~~ '. • e ~: Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 48 of 98 Yorgason: Yes. My name is John Yorgason. I live at 6078 North Stafford in Boise. I do own property, actually, though, right next to the subject property to the south at 7385 ~~ Linder. Partners with a couple other gentlemen, one of which is here in the audience. We, actually, have no concerns, but we wanted to speak in favor of this. We like to see what's going on here and I am a home builder, I have built lots of homes in the City of s Meridian. In fact, I have kind of gone exclusively to the City of Meridian the last several years, because of its ease to work with the city and the building department. The ~ location of which I live, I'm a little bit familiar with this issue of these overlaps. I live in ~'' Bristol Heights Phase No. 21, which approximately four years ago used to be in the City of Meridian's impact area and as a result of the sewer issue, where the sewer was provided by Boise through the subdivision Bristol Heights, this extra phase could not be serviced by Meridian at the time and it was changed over to the city of Boise. I'm familiar with that, because my father was the developer and, like I said, I do live there ~~~} also. We would love to see the same thing. In fact, the property that we live in, which is just right on the comer there of Linder, just immediately south of the property, south of the Phyllis Canal, we would like to be considered as being included in this Comprehensive Plan and pretty much the same designation of low residential zone area and we'd hope that we would be considered for that. I stand for questions. Rohm: Could you use the pointer and show me exactly where your property is? :,., '`` Yorgason: Yes. We have this piece right here. It's approximately 11 acres. Rohm: Is any of that adjacent -- currently annexed into the city of Eagle? ;~ `; Yorgason: I'm not aware that it is annexed. My understanding is that the annexation stops down below the Phyllis Canal. And so -- one of the reasons I guess we do ask for it is similar situation with the sewer. We have talked with the Eagle sewer and he's told ~` us that they are not going to bring sewer across the rivers and we think that if Eagle ``~~~ can't provide sewer, then, it's kind of difficult to leave land as just a no man's land with ' no opportunities. ,, Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this -- O'Brien: Oh, just one question, Mr. Chairman. Have you talked with any other . ~: homeowners in that area surrounding your property west of Linder? Yorgason: I am personally familiar with some homeowners that live there. Igo to '~"~ church with some of them. I wish I could actually testify on exactly their stance of what r ;: ,,; . they want to do and I can't tell you for sure, other than I know that they would like to see along Linder -- actually at Linder and Chinden they are concerned about traffic, but I ,:~° think those areas are being addressed by ITD. O'Brien: So, none of them have suggested that they wanted to be annexed or -- into Meridian? ~; ~~: ~~: ,; ~ ;: .t: ~~y pFp 7 , FIFA „ N '~a 5 ~ ~ ~~n to r t+., gy k` °~ - ~~~ ~w ~ ~ i~ ~, ~~~ + ~ r~ i~~~; ~~4 ~` ~,~ ,~tt~``~ ,; PK G ~,~ I ; i5 a r~ . ;~ i .#",{. i, i ~ t°~ ~' R E ~~ 1 r,, ,~•. Fr 7 C ~ r,c ~t ~i 5 h~h:~ Id~M ~ '' k ~, ~~P f _ X1, ~ + ~ r ~ ~~~ 7 7L ,r:: ~~?~ } ~ k ~~ °, ~v~ ~~ c t ~' ~ M h f i~~ k.ti t rtti~ a ~. 1. ~ ~ ~•, iN 7 r ~c~v~t ~ i ? t„~ % ~ ~'7v.~ ~plxY i r f ~{~F FU Y, • ~ .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~: November 1, 2007 Page 49 of 98 Yorgason: They haven't said either way. O'Brien: Okay. Yorgason: Hasn't necessarily come up in that regard O'Brien: I was just curious about it. Thank you. Moe: I have a number of questions of the -- here. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a question for him, but I do have a question of staff. I am curious when this application ' came before us in '05 I thought there were comments at one time that there were landowners along the Linder Road area that were not in favor of annexation into Meridian. Do we know how far that went to the north or whatever? Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, or Commissioner Rohm -- Moe -- the -- I'll never get you two straightened out over there. Moe: I'll answer to anything. Canning: What I remember the discussion being -- if I can get this to work. The properties that I recall not being in favor of that -- were the ones that were actually in the subdivisions and I believe that's these areas here. I'm not clear on these properties, but think it was this -- this subdivision, these more regular lots, kind of, that bound the -'~~ current designation and perhaps the individual giving testimony knows as well. There li.;, we go. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: John, do you have a feel for that question, the parcel to your -- I guess it would be your west and south as -- have you talked with any of them about their feelings or -- °~ Yorgason: Mr. Commissioner and Members of the Commission, as I mentioned before, " I haven't talked to them specifically about annexation, so I -- I would like to make a ''" comment and I would hope that they would be favor of it, but I can't state for sure what their beliefs are. Rohm: Well, quite honestly, I don't know that it makes a lot of difference. If you're interested in being part of the City of Meridian, Ithink -- just personally I think we should do what we can to help you out there. ~ Yorgason: Thank you. ~` ~ ~ Rohm: Ramon Omano or -- . Tim Gibson. From the audience I believe both of those individuals have left. Is there anyone else that would like to provide testimony on this application? Seeing none, any final comments from the Commission before we move forward? Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any thoughts on this? ;Y ;.~,;,, F '~: <,~ . ~~ ,3C{~4 ~ S~[ ~'} d:; E~ N ~ ~~ s ~ t~ ; ~~ ~ y { , ~ r~ ~ r ~' ~t1 _ IE f ti ~ X ~FJ; S ~ a ~~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ,~ , ~ ~~ I~1 ~" r. j saY" S+'~7 IFa ~Ir r~ ~++ a = a t ~ ~ ~~s , [2. 'i~~ 5r~ g'~ ~~~•'~ ~ , ~` ~ ~ ~~, ' f ~ ,.,~- ~ }~~ If ~ ~ , ,~ A ,. .., ,.- .,~ ~ ~ ~_> ~~~ l 4~~~ ~ j F . Slx~ ' .7 .` _ ~ HY y,. . ~i~(kxx ~. ~ v~y k ~_ ! 47 .iM1. ..e5f~ aw, ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ y p~, ~: r r Ei~~ 'fi~~,}~`` ~ ~~iA ,-:. .1 z' Y 1:,, %` ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~: I~~~ki ? .F ,~ ~~i s~~ e ~ qI ' ~I ,~ ~~ y``. ~ h i • • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 50 of 98 ~;' :: O'Brien: My first impression is I think it's pretty good use of land, especially with the open spaces as much as they -- 265 acres is a lot of open space and the use for them -- the designated use for them is really good. Of course I'm concemed about the flood plains, et cetera. I'm sure they adjust that and I think that's a -- it's a great addition to ~~`' the City of Meridian. I'm all for it. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I'm struggling and I'm probably going to end up being the lone -- ~~; Moe: Dissenter. -~~~ 3~ s ~~'' ~I ;4. . ,~ Siddoway: -- dissenter, but I need to -- I think it's a fantastic property and I would love to see, you know, the City of Meridian have some river front property and it's -- I see and totally agree with the fact that that property would be an asset to the City of Meridian if it were not in someone else's area of impact. I was at the meeting -- still staff at that time, but the meeting of the two city councils where the north Meridian area plan was discussed that the city of Eagle references in their letter and there were discussions at that time that Eagle would not oppose Meridian moving north of Chinden into the area of impact up to the Phyllis Canal, as long as we didn't go north of the Phyllis Canal. And that discussion is fresh enough in my mind that I feel an obligation to it. I think that moving into their area of impact against their will is something that will put us at odds, in an adversarial relationship with the city. I don't know that -- I think that if another city, whether it was Eagle or Kuna or Nampa or Boise, if they were proposing to overlap our existing area of impact that we have today, that we would -- I don't -- I wouldn't be very happy with that and so with that -- that one issue to me trumps the benefits of bringing it in, because I -- I do think it's a fantastic property and if it were just in Ada County and not in an existing area of impact, I would have no problem annexing it to -- or I guess we are not annexing -- adding a Comp Plan amendment to -- to make it part of our Comprehensive Plan. But, again, with that discussion with the city of Eagle and -- my feeling is that I need to honor that, so that's where I'm at. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Boy, am I glad I wasn't at that meeting. Well, I tell you, this -- this application came before us a year ago and at that time Iwas -- I was pretty excited about it then. Quite frankly, I -- I'm looking forward to this. This is -- I think they have done a great job in how you have planned it. As far as I'm concemed -- and I'm not trying to be competitive, but along with the other gentleman's property, I'd say if they want to be in Meridian I want them in Meridian and I think that because of the fact that that property has been designated by mail and everything else as in the City of Meridian for forever, I'd like to know why the city of Eagle seems to think they can have it, in my opinion. So, therefore, I would definitely support this, along with city staff recommendation of denial of the other, so, therefore, that's what I would be supportive of. It's a great project. Great area. I love it. And you were right, you are the only one. lea ~. 4. _ ~ ~~ _r:'~; z, , ~~ ~ : ~~ `;:. ~fs~ - Y°~~~~ gi ~' ?~' - ~~~ l l~'~~~~cc~? ~ ' i ~ ~ 2': ,~ ~~;' _ ...vY. 2~* ~(~ ~Q ~~i ~ ~' ~~ .. ak f i'4{r y t,i- a ~}~'+~C7: si ~ - x'~it t~.' 14 I 4F~ ,• I !J ~ ~-+~' i ~ 'g ~. i ~ a ~~~~4 J t~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ h) ~~~ ~ ti~ ~., ~~ y rs, ~,~ . ~ ; ~,~~~ `. . s,~~ r~ f~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ .: .M~.y~{gK~ ~~~! k.i ~, lSy ~Y~ ~ b~ ,r ~~ 7 (~L,: ` ,~ ` x, 3i(3 5 ' * ~fi~`*"'1` gg~ rik d~ ~~ ~ d F ~~~i ~. tr y~ •, 9~ 1~~ ap F Kh ,,~.~ n ¢~ k _w ~,}y ? t I I~~ r ~ ~h ~,~ ~y y~Y~ i Ct ~ ~'21l ff ~q :i }31'~?~~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 51 of 98 Siddoway: That's okay. Rohm: We haven't closed the Public Hearing. Did you want to speak? You need to come up to the microphone. Colson: My name is Ryan Colson. I am a resident of Meridian. My address is 551 East '~'° Red Rock, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. I am also a partner in that piece of property that John was up here talking about and I was at the meeting that Mr. Steve was at -- ~~ : Commissioner Steve, and they were talking about the boundaries, but I know that Mosier was there and after speaking to him afterwards, he had discussed that they were not sure on how they were going to serve their sewer going underneath both -- those ki., rivers there and to me if they are not sure they are going to be able to service that piece of property, but yet you can't have -- in my opinion you shouldn't be able to have both -- .::; have the property, but yet still not be able to sewer it. So, in my opinion -- and not ''`~~' putting words in Mosier's mouth or anything, but he thinks that it could be a better -- y E' being served -- like our property, our piece, he feels that our piece, being up on the hill, ``=`k- would be better off being served by Meridian and thus it would -- like she says, the cheaper cost of not going underneath the rivers, would -- would be beneficial to everybody that could be passed onto the future homeowners of those -- of the `~'~~,~ properties. That's about all I have. Any questions? ~ Rohm: Thank you, sir. r~_ ` ' ~ Colson: Thank you. t] r Canning: Chairman Rohm, could I make one quick comment? I have -- with regard to I nnin ma of a -- talked about this this drawin the south Mendian area plan, we had 9 p 9 P " `' ~ boundaries and this overlap area should -- should be an interesting line that gets drawn and Imean -- I think that there would be a lot of discussion when it goes on with that ~~~-~~~{~ and also mentioned previously that the meeting on the 8th of November got canceled, >;: ' but we do anticipate a meeting in November. So, if the Commission is leaning toward ~, continuing these until toward the end of November, we may have something with regard to that planning exercise. I can't promise anything, but we may have something at that ~ time. I don't know. Not that it -- I think it's going to influence your decision, it just might ;. ~ ~ti~ be an interesting piece of information for you at that point. p. , Rohm: Yes. Please come forward. I want to speak so bad I can't stand it. ~~,> ,: << _~~ ~ T.Ewing: Tuck Ewing. I reside at 7200 Basco Lane. I actually live right up the hill from f= . this subject property. And I just wanted to make a few comments regarding some of the concerns that Commissioner Siddoway had. I guess the biggest concern that it sounds f: , like that -- that you have is overlapping into the city of Eagle's area of impact already. '' guess that my only comment to that is the city of Eagle was well aware that we didn't ~~ and had that did draw that line t before the art of their area of im ac want to be a y p P s~~ agreement, which was made with the City of Meridian and I wasn't privy to that 1 ~ iiP'I~~~``i h~ Ci r t+'~ J~tC"n ~' ~ ''~} 7~1 ~ 3 . `~~~ ~ - ~~J~"" ~~~ • t ' _- ~~,, r ~~S j ~' s ?~' ~~~ a ~ ~ ~ . ~~~ ; ~ ~ .~ i~,r+ ~~' ~~~4='~ '~~ m~ i~~, ti ~~~ ' ~ r ,~ ~_;.: I~ ~l n t I ~ `~ .~ ,~. r ~_ ;~ ~~ r ~: ~. ~s ~~`' ~, ., ,~ ~a,.< l y f ~~u ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~.h, ~r:. ,;~ ~Y t f ~ ~,~± ~~ ~ ~ r" s , .. IEEEE ~ ' ~"_` ; ~?d~ F~ 1 `i g, ~ ~ ~~{~py:. i ® ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 it Page 52 of 98 ~,'` agreement or that meeting when that was said, so I don't know if that was a closed door meeting or how that agreement was made at that time. But I guess I just wanted to reiterate the fact that -- that I think this would be a great addition to the City of Meridian and by giving it the approval -- I mean going through the process, at least we have got the opportunity to go to a vote if that's the way it happens and, as staff indicated, I think that we can all see which direction that would go. So, by pushing this forward at least you give us the opportunity for the landowners to speak and so I just wanted to make that point clear. If it's denied, obviously, the landowners don't get what they desire to do and we have no options. So, I just wanted to reiterate that point and thank you guys for ~,x~~. your consideration. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions? My tum. I think we made a mistake in 2005 or whenever it was considered originally and I think it should have been part of the area of impact even back then and I'm proud to be part of this Commission where it's `'~~' now before us and I'm in full support of this being part of our area of impact and l also think that the city of Eagle was not responsive to the owner of record's desires at the ~~ time that they included it in their area of impact and should not have done so. That's my `" ~ opinion. So, that's where I'm at on this. Thank you. Any last discussion before we continue this to the end of the meeting? At this time I'd like to propose there be a motion to continue CPA 07-010 and CPA 07-015 to the end of the regularly scheduled meeting for further deliberations. O'Brien: So moved. ~: ~:'` Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. ti ,, ' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue item CPA 07-010 and CPA 07-015 to ~ ~ the end of the meeting for further action. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same k sign? Motion carried. r ~`.~;~~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. .; ~, , ~ ,.~ I Item 9: Public Hearing: CPA 07-012 Request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial for Strada ` ~'i Bellissima Commercial b Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC -NWC of y Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots ~~ . 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): 4~ ~,,, ~~' Item 10: Public Hearing: RZ 07-013 Request for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L- ~~~- O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC -NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and i,. `~ 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 4'. -' ~~~~~'~` Subdivision): :,; 3: ~r , fyy~ I// >U y t ~~ a~~ 3 y TA ~ t T t: ~ Id Y~. t~ e 1 EI~ a"; ~~ i ~ ~ ~~tF d ~ r ri~~; i~ic ~ S '.: ag 1k F~ " ~. ~~ e e~ ~ •, !~ ,.: i ,~ ~i ~-. ti ~ yr: ~ !Ile r''` ~~..,`". ~s ~ ~ 4~,~ ~~ .. h vr'` ~~. ~ ~Y 3ih~r~ '. w5'~ z'r~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ u ~ { ^~~ ~~ l ~ ~"~:4 ~iq~;,era 3.~ ~+!~ l~. ,~ ~ si~ ,e' P~~T~, ~ yr~Y Y `.. ~ f I~N,,Y ~ ', 4 ~ k :F; ~ ~ E ~j a ii ~ E Y ~ ~2 ~l~~ln.~..l...e. .L.. -., ~ C ... .,?CIK. - Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 53 of 98 Rohm: Thank you, folks. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on CPA 07- 012and RZ 07-013 and begin with the staff report. ' : Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next two items on your ; °"s agenda are a little bit different than the ones you have had before you to start off this evening. There is a development application associated with your Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Strada Bellissima commercial project. It is a 1.78 acre site. As you can see on the screen there are three parcels currently. They are going through the platting and lot line adjustment process and will be reducing that down from the current 'F'~' three parcels. One of those was an outparcel that was brought in to the city after the - bigger Strada Bellissima was approved. Sometime after the fact they acquired this ;~ outparcel and that was later annexed into the city. Two with the L-O zoning and I'll talk /~~' about that in just one second. It is located on the north side of Victory Road, just west '" of Meridian Road, and it is currently zoned L-O and designated low density residential ;~ ;; on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. To the north are -- and this aerial is a '`` ` little bit old. There are some homes today here on Strada, but those are single family i ~ lots up to here and, then, these ones are -- are office lots. There are some offices that are currently under construction, I think probably a couple were even operating right ' _ now within there, but that's -- and, then, on the other side is your Double D and Victory !E~ , Greens Nursery. To the south is vacant right now. There are some homes and when you get to Kentucky Ridge Subdivision and, again, you have got Strada Bellissima to ~`'" the west of this site. Back to the applications. There is a Comprehensive Plan :~ :;~ amendment to amend the future land use map from low density residential to `,1 ~ commercial and rezone to rezone the property again from L-O to C-N. The intent of this application is to not only change the future land use map designation, but to obtain the ` I zoning district, so that a restaurant and other retail users may be constructed on that a.` , site. As I mentioned before, the Strada Bellissima project was originally annexed in ;zr=,; -_=>~ ~ 2004 and the City Council approved the annexation of 44 acres. Was the original area to R-4 for a majority of it? There are 90 lots in that subdivision. And, then, 14 office lots } zoned L-O. Those 14 office lots were approved under that previous provision that we -- u to the 20 ercent use exce tion. had in our development ordinance allowing the 20 p p P Just to note on the subject application, the applicant is not requesting, nor has any r1 F 4 direct lot access been approved before for this particular area. You can see they have , street frontage on two public streets -- actually, three public streets on three sides. So, ,t :_ ~. `~ ` they aren't asking for any additional access points to Victory Road. Staff is supportive . '` ~' of the applicant's request. The justification for this change in zoning and future land use ~y ~ map is based on the -- the minimal step that is being requested. L-O to C-N is the next less intense commercial district that the city has. The main reason for it is restaurants aren't allowed in the L-O zone. Retail would be principally permitted in either zone. There is quite an extensive -- I should mention that I'm presenting this tonight for Bill ''' Parsons, who is out of the office, but Bill did a pretty good job in the staff report of analyzing the differences in land uses between the L-O zone and the C-N zone and which ones are principally permitted in each and which one would be conditionally ~~ ~ allowed or prohibited in each. So, kind of after he did that exercise he decided that he does think that this is appropriate. As a side note, if that restaurant were to have a a, ~ ~,- ~ , ,,,'~ 1 rr~ ~ ;'' ~ ~' .~ ~~,, ~ - ... ~~ r~s ~ r 5 ~ _xl? dF ~, `f L j',~ '~, '_ S 4 J ~,1 fIr w r 4' ' ~ ~ ~ dlF y ~ ~~ "~'+f ~f~, .n fi ~pi1 '1 i.~' r, A `'Y~i ~ ~. z.. F ~ ~~ , ~ ,+~• may; ' ,h'~,r r' ~,Y ~ ~ ~ .A(L; sic ',BjK, a F i_~.~K~ F * ~ ht,;.n5, ~'~, ,..-r- ~Av 'r~ Z - tw t'~ yy ~ i Mr, 3 ~~ ,~'7~ 1 ~i z - ryw ~~. ,~x~ _ ~ ? '~'~& , lty F~7 r~? 7 a ~" fir. ~ .~ ~ ~ a r .. f n t-^` '8 .Y:. P•. i ® • ~;: Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 54 of 98 t•. ,~ ~ `s~ drive-thru say, it would require a Conditional Use Permit just because of the proximity to F these residential uses around it. So, it could be a sitdown restaurant, but if they have a ,. ta' ~ drive-thrta or other -- there are some other things in the our zoning ordinance that if they are, in fact, present would require a CU or it would be prohibited on this site. Again, just ~~ due to the nature of the location to the existing residential properties around it. Again, ~` ` ~" staff is supportive -- supportive of both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the "" . rezone to C-N for this property and I will stand for any questions you may have. .,S ~" Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? ~'~ Siddoway: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Caleb, so the southern-most lot does not have direct access to Victory; is that correct? Hood: Correct. Siddoway: So, they are required to take access from the cross-access agreement? Hood: Yes, sir. Siddoway: That's all I have right now. Thanks. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, just one real quick question. I would assume that notice to the neighbors was given as per all requirements? Hood: I will defer that to the clerk, but I believe so. I don't know -- I wouldn't have been -- Hill: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, yes. Moe: Thank you very much. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Crawford: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Michael Crawford with Pinnacle Engineers representing the property owners. 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise. We have read through the staff report and are in concurrence with it. It looks good to us. I'd stand for questions. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: What kind of restaurant? 1 ~w a ~~ x 3~ ~~'~=~ 4 ,~.., ~S ~ ry, Q~k ~ n; Yt ~ ~1 a {Y~1.~."~' ~~, _ ~~ +r ~~~'A p..r .ik~ ~I 4 Y ~ t hl yi= ~ r ~ hj pW ; ': •~ L ~v r L' 'tyyr+j: L s~ ~ ~~ M ~ A~ jCa... a t4 i ~~ y ~ ~C i '7tk ;': ): ~ ~~ ~ ' 2 } F ~ .~W' tx i~~ ~&~ ~.4 ~ !s}~Yaf-.. ~~,, ~j ~~ ~~ llx 7...rr,.N' 731~g.. s } ~, R~-P`1177~~~111 .k~{1 ~ '~w ~4a;~~x' "~ Sr; ~' ~';:~ b* .,.f. ~ ~ +..-. ~~~ y G ~,~ " K, ~ ' i ~ ~Y `~ ~l ~,. r n?! 3' ~~_~. • • '` Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 55 of 98 fix' 3 Crawford: We have no current clients in line. We just were wanting to be able to offer '' that as a possible marketing tool for those lots. ~;: ~ Moe: Okay. ~~_-' . ~- ~, = Crawford: We are developing the ones directly along Meridian Road first and looking ,_ : ~~; , for clients. ~'~~ ' Moe: I'm just curious, because I will just go on record this evening, that I would definitely not support any drive-thru restaurant in that location. ~~~~` Crawford: We understand the restriction on that. ~r~. ~~j.`; Moe: Thank you. ~~` Crawford: There may be a little bit of misunderstanding there. The third lot in the lower ~° ~ section there was an outparcel that was owned by a different firm that didn't want to sell ff;;, , ~~ at the time. We have purchased it since and it will actually become two lots in total. o, `' that third lot is actually going to be incorporated into the two. That's where the property 5 Y`'' ad'ustments were currently going through also. ~ ~- `._~ actually, think that that's a great location for something like that. That whole Rohm: I _ ~~ , area is very attractive. Commissioner Siddoway, did you have some comments? '~ ..~ Siddoway: I do. I have -- I'm not against it necessarily, but I do have some concerns the homes th t l -, . ~ e -- oser o about potentially putting some more intense uses, you know, c ;p ~'' that are going to be located on these sides of it. Restaurant uses can be higher traffic ' m glad in there. So those are -- that said, I than the types of office uses that are going , F, ~~ ~' : to see that the proposed zone is C-N and not C-C or C-G, because that does limit the _ I intensity of commercial use, so -- . _ `' Crawford: As I said, we currently do not have a customer looking at it, but it would just , i be able to open up those possibilities for a small retail, mom and pop shop, something G `I like that, close to the subdivision. u ,} ~ 1~~, ~ ~ Siddoway: Yeah. Well, I can envision a small restaurant of some type working, but I ~ '~ would not favor adrive-thru either, so -- Crawford: Understood. _ Siddoway: Okay. z~;, `~` Rohm: Thank you, sir. There is not anybody that has signed up to testify to this application, but if there is anyone that would like to come forward and offer testimony, ~" now is that time. Seeing none, Commissioner Moe, do you have any final comments? 4 i2 t G,~ ~a[r I ~ '1; ~ s' ~i~I r l,. j . !~ ~% K ,~ ' ; ~4 " ,~ yy 3 5 ~~ ~ Try ~n~qp."~A'iyq:: F ~ Sy +;,f i F ' ~` ~+ a't k ~~ kk ~- ~ ~ f'S ~ . _ r + ~ s tr ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ D~ z ~ ~' ` !. 7 F !1 'i fin( ~.G ~ c~ d t„. S ~ ~ : t ;., ~~~~ 1~~. ,:> ~ &.. r 33 3, ~:. ~7fiu~G~~'- I :. ,~~ ~ P a ~h 3' ) ~Ix L i ~ "~ ~~T~'~i -ci tiL :.~ ~f~:Ji cif 4 `YE r'~!!~~'4 ~, b fy ~ ~ ~- s h~ `~~,. 1 s } ; r ~ ~'~t sy~ ~ 41' 41 1 ~ ~H 'i~ ~'1fi ~ ~, ~ ]: ~ ~ c (P f 4 ~ ' ^I ^' 1 , ii b1 ~x ~,. r T ~;j ~~ ~ q) Y `'R~ ~~ + ` .~1~~ '~ 4 1:' !' ~]]~~, C J _ ~ .qf SY i1-~ ® • ._. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 56 of 98 Moe: Well, actually, yes, I do. When I first started to review this Iwas -- I was not much in favor of it at all, quite frankly, based upon the staff report in regard to restaurants and whatnot. I'm actually feeling much better about that now and, quite frankly, other properties near this subdivision have had lots of discussion with the neighbors over the last couple years on the -- and with no one in the audience here that is having any problem with this, I find that the neighborhood evidently must be in favor of it as well, so, therefore, I have no problem with it. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Nothing further to add. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. `'~F~ O'Brien: I think it's a good use. I agree with the change. Right next to it on the comer there is already existing -- I think it's a dental office or some other offices that are there a, and I think this is a good mix for that, especially if it's a small restaurant. I mean being businesses nearby that would be able to utilize that facility. I'm in agreement with it. ~> ~ Rohm: Good. Thank you. As I am. End of comment. Could I get a motion to continue these two items? ;.;;w ~'~ ~~i :,~;. O'Brien: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: I think we need to actually list them, so I'll -- could we get a motion to continue Items CPA 07-012 and RZ 07-013 to the end of the regularly scheduled meeting of the - O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I move to -- make a motion to continue to the end of the agenda CPA 07-012 and RZ 07-01. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 07-012 and RZ 07-013 to the end of our regularly scheduled meeting for further action. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: CPA 07-011 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 38.7 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community to include Office /Retail, Private School and Patio Homes for { , ti ~~-, SFr ~; ;; ,~ k ~ T; ;~ ,Q 7.: a ~? = "~~, ~~k ~ ~ ``: ~?~ t N e:y N Oft Y& ti Q ~ Y~ ~~1 3 k ~; „ ~ ~~~ 1 ~ C ~~ a~ ~ ~ p~Fic i rnM~ ~~ T1 3 ~r n P { i~ }, ~~ ~ J ~~ r }y .~ ti~~l ~' ~' iii ~~ an~u i ~~ u ~ r f f ~~ t k kil ;i z yf5 '' I ~ ' ~ `~~ a. Vii. r` n y 5 5'; ~1 1!~ .1YS_ ..6 c ~ .. Wi ;~'. .k:;;,.. ~' ~: t f:. ~~ _ ~/ w Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 57 of 98 Dean Property by David J. Dean - 6380 N. Locust Grove Road (NEC of N. Locust Grove and E. Chinden): Rohm: At this time I'd like to open Public Hearing CPA 07-011 and take the staff report. ~~ Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application on r'';` your agenda tonight is fora 38.7 acre site located on the southeast comer of Chinden and Locust Grove. The mailing address is 6380 North Locust Grove Road. The property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is designated medium density , ~ residential on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. You can see here ~ the subject 40 acres that we are talking about is right here. To the north of the subject site -- wrong way. To the north of the subject site is Banbury Subdivision. It's -- within `~~~~, the city of Eagle and is R-1 P, if that means anything to you. To the south are some single family homes in Dunwoody Subdivision. That, too, is a county subdivision zoned ~; RUT. To the west is a church and the Central Academy High School, zoned RUT, and a portion zoned R-4 -- the school zoned R-4. To the east are single family residential, the Fuller ranchettes, and those are R-1 zoned lots in Ada County. The applications "~< tonight are, again, just a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land use designation from the medium density residential to mixed use community. There are no other annexation, conditional use, or plat applications concurrent with the CPA request. However, the applicant has applied for annexation and zoning, preliminary r d f l h d i :. or you u e e tems are sc plat, and alternative compliance for the subject site. These '~`~'` next hearing on November 15th. Prior to that -- prior to the City Council hearing date '' ~' staff is confident the above-mentioned applications will catch up to the subject CPA application and they will all be heard concurrently by the City Council. We will work with ~ the city clerk if you do forward on a favorable recommendation to make sure that these applications are -- don't lag one behind the other for two weeks and they are heard on .,~;:~,. he CI Counal. The a Ilcant does intend to the same agenda when they get tot ty pp ~';""'~ develop the site with a mix of retail and office uses and I do have -- the scan didn't turn out very well here, so I'll walk through it with you a little bit. It is proposing retail and "' ~ office uses, which would be along Chinden and this portion. There is the dividing line '` `"" '~ there and there for your retail office users. Here is the private school site. We have got some patio homes that are in here, feathering to some larger density residential to kind " ,°' of transition from Dunwood Subdivision and the R-1 subdivision in the county. Again, Y ;~ ='', you will -- we will get into more of that here in two weeks of the exact. dimensions of _ '{:~F ,~~ ~. ~.. those lots and layouts and streets and things. The requested mixed use community ,, , a designation allows up to 25 acres of nonresidential uses, up to 200,000 square feet of "`' ~ , <~ non-residential building area, and residential densities of three to fifteen dwelling units { per acre. You briefly talked about some of those earlier tonight in your -- the south Meridian Comprehensive Plan amendment, but just thought I would state that's the ~:,~; current text of the Comprehensive Plan and what the application is applying for for this property. As stated in the applicant's narrative, the subject site is expected to develop -~ with a private school, commercial uses, and the patio homes and estate lots, which I ~~_ ~.~;a already pointed out. Staff believes that the proposed mixed use community land use designation for the property will be compatible with the surrounding property adjacent to f the site. The proposed residential portion of the development will transition from the P~ "y ~1 H~~ s ,q q`: ~:` ,.~~~ ~~ ~y ~ .~; ~~~ ,`- i ' ~ ~ f}a k~'' ~ ~' te.p's'~ ''ZZ$$ 1 A ~.. F.4,- y~~?F f~ ~~T~ ;^''.~I~ ~ ti ~~~ ~~ I ~~ I. :~~. ~ ~ ,. ,: ~~ ~ ' ~ 3~t 4t i ~f~ ~~. h ~: ~A`. ~ ~ Y" ~I .. .rT r I .:Pry ~ ~; u~ 1 ~ ~, ,, a' ~ ~n ~,s .~ ~, 4 n ilE ~ ,, a w~q i.a f# `. ~. ~~ ; {( -`` _~-_ [}*r ~i~ ih ,~ ~~ ~~~ S, ,;1t' 1 I f ~~ Y :1 I tih I~~ y~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 58 of 98 r- ~~ ;: ~: ;u. ''~. ~_~~~ higher density residential patio homes located internally to the three-quarter acre estate lots adjacent to the existing county and city subdivisions. Staff has not received any written correspondence from any neighbors. I did receive a letter from Mark Bottles, who is the applicant's representative and he states he has no concerns with the project. I also sent the staff report earlier this week to Toothman-Orton. They had some comments, but I don't know that they had any changes for the staff report, just wanted some more information about any other comments we got from any other public service providers. Those are all pretty standard conditions. ACHD and ITD both sent comments on this project. Again, pretty standard comments from those jurisdictions. Staff has provided detailed analysis in the staff report and is recommending approval of the mixed use community land use designation for the subject property. And with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Just one, sir. Mr. Chairman and Caleb, we are not able to tie the concept that we are seeing to the Comp Plan amendment itself to -- in order to prevent say, you know, I don't why this area would be an area that would become commercial, but if we make the whole thing mixed use community, then, they -- they have that possibility when they come in for a project. And I guess we will get to review it then. Hood: Yeah. And I wanted to clarify. The CPA is just for this 38 -- well, roughly 40 acre site. This is under similar ownership, although they don't need a CPA for this, because it's currently designated low density residential and they are proposing to develop that consistent, so -- Siddoway: So, it's only for that piece? Hood: Tonight is only for the 40 acres. Correct. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Mokwa: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Tim Mokwa with Toothman-Orton Engineering on behalf of the applicant Dave and Luanne Dean. We reviewed the staff report in detail and don't -- don't have any issues with any of the recommended conditions of approval. I would just kind of like to highlight a couple of items that were mentioned in the -- in the staff report. This change is just for the 38 acres at the southeast comer of Locust Grove and Chinden and we feel that this -- this Comprehensive Plan designation is the first step that would allow us to submit these applications and what we think -- what we are proposing we think is a high quality innovative design and I know you must not have been able to look at that yet, but it is on your November 15th agenda and I'd like to reiterate what staff said. We'd like to request that, you know, we can catch up, I guess, with those other items, which are our ~~~ x~ ~, , _ _ ~,~ , . nth ,:-~- v apt ff ~ ,~~;.-,~.. i x ~~ t~ i ~ e,~ ~~.f~~,.7..r~. , ~ ~ r ,~ ~, f..r ~ ~~ r „~ tx r - ~ iy~~~y~n'y'-xx~ r ~ y,~~5~ ~ t- ry ril'~ -~ f '. Yti g 4 2 T r~ t l '~ - .~~I 'E~~~., F r i I~ N 7 t ~' ~~ LIIo-~ ~ ~ ~, i. ~~' Y~ ~ i~ ~ ~~ S..~~ L' 4~ i ~f I , i z ~4 SS c ~ ~ t;,f`~.. ~ ~ ~r ~~ ~'~ Ki ~~t .~-- ~~. ~~; i~. ~s ~~ .~ ~ 'r ~~r ~'~'~ 3 4 ~,. c ~ #:'f~ . ~. ~~ ~ ~.'v~"n ~ r fn r, z .w ,. r ~Yy f :3F ~ ~ r 4 Y~~ ~ ~'FiE • ~~ Meridian Planning ~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 59 of 98 rezone and annexation. And pre-plat. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I don't have anything to add beyond what staffs already mentioned. ~~ ~ Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of the applicant? _::~ Siddoway: I have none. Rohm: Thank you, sir. +` ~ Mokwa: Mr. Chair, one question for you. Just for clarification, I'm assuming you're s;-~ going to defer this -- or continue this as you did the others. You mean continuing to the ~`''` end of the regular agenda, does that mean you're voting tonight after -- Rohm: It looks like we might get there. Mokwa: Okay. ;M F , ~,, ;~-I <~I t:: Rohm: Right now it does, but we have got one more to hear. Mokwa: I just wasn't quite clear on that. Rohm: There is not anybody else that has signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward, now is that time. Seeing none, any discussion before we continue this? Siddoway: Just one question for staff. I think I know the answer, but I was just trying to figure out if this area is one that needs -- that is anticipated to have a collector backage road for Chinden in the future and I think there are -- or, sorry, east of Locust Grove that there aren't, because of the discontinuous nature of this development, but -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, we will definitely give you the detailed analysis on that map in the Comprehensive Plan. I think you're right, though, I think because of the county subdivisions there it's not real feasible to have that backage road. However, I'll kind of spoil some of the surprise now. The applicant does have a commercial road coming into the project and, then, dipping down to the south in the future. So, there will be some sort of a makeshift collector, you know, in the future you would be able to get say through Bristol Heights and out to Eagle Road without having to get onto Chinden, but that is sometime in the future, but we will double-check that map and the Comprehensive Plan. I don't think we looked at that with this application, but we will make sure that that dashed line isn't on this property when we -- Siddoway: Nothing further. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue CPA 07-011 to the end of our regular agenda. Moe: Second. s ~, '}~ . ~ ~- #,~ ._. : ~ ~ . ;e~ ~ ~* ti `~ i "~ yr« ~ -hl. ~ 4 ~ ~ ti ' ~~S s ~g ~ . i.. i~,,..cC,i•i~. ~* zS ~ ~ , $r ~ A~r~, 4 !p'r . r 1. I _ _.t C ~ t` F Z ~{ `X w ~~' ~~, .3 :. "' y~rnt~~ Y ~'..k LL. ~i 1 H `. a -;f 2 ff ~ ~~, ~~ ya, C ~ ~. ~ : '~,~' '. , ,,~~~~ IU"t ~'1 4 1 ~' r y~~ ~1 l ~~ ;X~. F . . ~ t ;k ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~}' ~ a ~ , t Y~~k~: ~'-t x ~~f " i~ ~ ~ ~ 3n r ~- 7 ~~~ ~~. ~ Y n{l _ `~ ~f, J ~ i' ~ {` ~~t 4 ~ ~ 1• } ;}~ i ~ ~~ S A~Ui Y r:.~ -~ ~{~4~S ~q F l . 4 n f ', i ~ f_y '~'.~/. i -i~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` £~ ~ -~ . . G. . SiLAi}.~ • Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 >~ Page 60 of 98 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue item CPA 07-011 to the end of the ~' ` regular agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: CPA 07-014 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 7.43 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development, ~'' Inc. -1630 & 1720 E. McMillan Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 07-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C zone for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: F,~~,- .~,,t; Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 07-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 4 commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for =z ~, Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CPA 07-014, AZ 07-014 and PP 07-019 and begin with the staff report. `~'` Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you just read, there are three applications associated with this project tonight. You have your Comprehensive Plan amendment, your annexation, and your preliminary plat. The subject site is 7.5 acres and is located on the northeast comer of McMillan and Victory. Excuse me. McMillan and Locust Grove. The property is currently zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County and is designated for medium density residential land uses on the future land use map right now. The adjacent land use you can see to the north is a single family - . residence that has not been annexed in the city. It is currently zoned RUT. To the _ , south is the Idaho Power substation. That is annexed to the R-8 district. To the east :' ~ ~ are future single family homes in Portico Place Subdivision and I'll talk about that here in ~''' `'~ just another second. To the west are single family homes, existing and planned in the future. This has not been annexed, but this in Tustin I think is the name of that subdivision, are planned for right there. We talked about the three applications and that I it being -- it's 7.55 acres. The requested zoning district for the site is C-C, which is our ':,~ :`~ nd the relimina lat includes four commercial lots. I'll community business distnct a p ry p ~:-;fir: i ~;,~,.. show you that plat real quick, although the plat is kind of hard to make out. There are two lots that kind of are over here. I think that says four right there, so there is a lot °~='.' that's right here, a lot that's right here and, then, a lot right on the comer and, then, your "~ remainder -- what's Lot 1 on the preliminary plat. The concept plan probably does a ';_~ little bit better job of telling the story and how those fit -- buildings fit on those lots. ,~, ~~' There is a convenience store and gas station planned for Lot 2, so there is a C store _, , and there are some pumps. Amedical-dental professional office building is proposed fi right here. This is amulti-tenant building. I anticipate they will probably resubdivide this ~~~t~ Lot 3 into maybe two or three additional lots, depending on what the users need there. . , ..,,,~ ~~ ,,;~ ~~ F t SAT Nay S k ~~;~ •T ~ J 5°.~ .,. ,f 1 i~ ~ ~ ~r ~,c r v~j ~f t 4 Y~,J F J .{ .~ r 5-~ 4 ~~ ~ ~y '~ 1 Y )ry P ~ i. H ~ } , 4 a`!t ~fNf p -f ~~9 pgp V~( ~ ~~ 1 a ri 4 ?! ~ ., TM i ~.~ ~ _ ~. N A ~ - ~: ~ ~~~ ~ f '3 F~ ~ i~ Fri Ca ~~ ~~ ~i~ L J fti~-,s~J;~-b~ y.a fi y~~ ygy aJ~' ~, ,~fiv i. / ~ 12 j ~~ ~ ~ ~ A , ~F~ • F! I.'~ ;';~~ t, , ~'i ~: ;~;> y~~~:_~ i ~~`~:x ;;~ s~ ,~ -.: ~ .. i- i, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 61 of 98 On the submitted plan they also show amulti-tenant commercial building on the north side. So, this L-shaped multi-tenant commercial building. The applicant has depicted, as you can see here, one full access driveway to Locust Grove. No direct lot access is proposed to McMillan. That is a change. ACHD wasn't too supportive of the original concept that had a driveway here. The applicant has gone back to the drawing board and is now taking their driveway that indirectly accesses McMillan off of a local street that is shared with Portico Place Subdivision. So, that's the one that on the aerial doesn't show up as being much of anything today, but that road is right here and shared between the two properties. And that's Beethoven Avenue. So, the applicant will be finishing their -- their portion of that curb, gutter, sidewalk, and matching in some of that asphalt there. In Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use designation is defined -- the mixed use designation is defined in part as an area that is situated and highly visible or transitioning parts of the city or innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The mixed use community designation allows residential density between three and 15 dwelling units per acre, up to 200,000 square feet of non- residential building area, and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. I'm going to stop right there for just a second or take a break from the rest of my presentation and just mention that some of those concepts are one of the reasons that staff recommended that the future land use designation of the zoning for this property be ~~` stepped back one to the neighborhood designation, both on the future land use map, as well as the zoning district to C-N, rather than the requested C-C. There are, as I mentioned in the presentation, residential uses that are right there and we just think the scope of this seven acres and the intent of what they are trying to do here really fits more in with the neighborhood concept than a community commercial, which is geared for a little larger area and a little bit larger service area, too, and I'll talk about that here in just -- just a little bit more in just a second. Let me jump to the landscape plan here. The applicant is proposing to landscape approximately 25 percent of this site. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Locust Grove, which is an arterial. McMillan is also an arterial, but is designated as an entryway comdor, which means a 35 foot wide buffer is required there. I will make note real quick, too, that ACHD has plans to improve this intersection. Part of their intersection improvements -- I'm going to jump back to the aerial here real quick -- is to take the Settler's Canal and relocate it to the north side. So, it currently exists in this location. They are proposing somewhere right in here to jump it across -- across McMillan, have it be an open lateral that flows somewhere in here within the 30 foot wide easement. So, just wanted to make you aware of that. We are -- I did talk with Settler's about that. They would prefer that it ~ stay open. It's a fairly large facility, they do want it to stay open. What the applicant is doing -- and I'm going to jump back to their landscape plan. They are anticipating this and that's why you can kind of see that they haven't allowed this area here -- there aren't any trees proposed, that's because that's where the water is going to be flowing, so they have added -- outside of that 30 foot easement they have added another eight foot easement to make it a 30 foot -- 38 foot wide easement for landscaping where, basically, the back eight feet will be heavily landscaped and the remaining 30 will be, again, your bank -- top of bank and, then, it slopes down to bottom of the lateral. Staff had recommended some low-lying shrubs, if they are able to put those within the easement, also be added to the landscape plan and kind of work with Settler's on r ~ 34 ~+~~± r ~ yr ~~~~ `` ~ ~ f t ~_ 1 m '1 ~C ~ "3 tl, .} 41 ik ~~ ~ h S~ H L~ f ~ y ti ~~C( ~ id j ~ ~ S h'J i~~ 1~: `"~9 ~ - o q 1 a f f ' r. .4p, ~ )) S S .~ F t ~ ~ y: ; t ~~e T ji r~' ,~+~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ,:,F ~~' ~y ~. ' '~ t .~~p r ~~ ~~~ . a r' Y ~i. aN ~ _ 1' ':1 .wNl~ ~k l~:.. k tv5 i''• -... s~.:. s' Fb~ `t ~. ~_,~ r 4~ ~ i4~'~ s k u~ ~ t ,~.- i <;p LF ~ ~P, a~~.. ~, H ~ a'it,93 "t.' 1 ~: {. -1 ;~ RIt1A y''..- ~~~ ~ -f fr.F _ ~ q _ ~ ~ ~~., • • 1 ~.; _::. ~:" ,, ~° =; .- .._ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 62 of 98 dressing that up a little bit, just so it's not just trees and grass in there. I think the applicant's willing to do that, it's just a timing thing. So, as soon as that canal can be relocated by the highway district and water flowing and it's all good to go, then, they can come back in and plant some low-lying shrubs and kind of dress that up and that is the intent of the staff report, that it be, of course, after the canal is relocated. I'll touch real quick, too, on the land use buffers. The difference in their requested zoning of C-C would require a 25 foot wide landscape buffer to residential uses. StafFs proposed zoning of C-N requires a 20 foot wide land use buffer, so they actually pick up five feet. That landscape buffer still has to be dense materials to create a full touching screen at the time of maturity, but that is a change based on staffs recommendation. I'll also let the applicant here talk about fencing ,which is something in the staff report we asked them to do tonight. A little bit of history. You may recall that in late 2006 an annexation was applied for on about 2.4 acres, so, basically, right here. That application was denied by the City Council. The applicant subsequently acquired the five acre parcel around it and, then, with the current applications tonight. Again, staff has provided detailed analysis in the staff report. We haven't received any negative comments or any letters for that matter from any adjacent neighbors or neighbors in the -- in the area. Staff finds that the subject 7.5 acres has frontage on two arterial streets and is highly visible. Again, however, staff believes that the requested Comp Plan designation to mixed use community and the C-C zoning designations for the entire site are too intense for the properly. Staff believes that this site relates better to the neighborhood concepts of the Comprehensive Plan and should be designated accordingly. Staff is recommending the mixed use neighborhood and C-N zoning designation for the site. We believe this provides a better transitional zone and land use designation to the adjacent residential uses. Staff is also recommending a development agreement for this site with the annexation. I'm just going to quickly touch on a few of those DA provisions. I'm not going to mention all of them. One of them is for -- I don't know if it shows up on this side. Yeah, you can see it. There is a trellis structure, a picnic table and landscaping within this kind of central common area and the applicant's done a really good job with their -- their pedestrian connections to and throughout the development. There is a connection there. Sidewalks here, there, tying into the sidewalk here on Beethoven Place and they had one here we just talked about in the staff report with that canal. We think it may be better to move that like something in this alignment, so we can get people off of the -- that adjacent arterial. But we are holding them to the -- the -- some type of a central common plaza open space and, then, they have got some benches shown right here on Lot 4, some amenities there that we liked. Another point to mention -- and this is something that the applicant rebutted or had a question about in their response to staff report. The business hours of operation are restricted currently in the proposed development agreement for the professional office and the multi-tenant retail building to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. They stated they didn't have a problem with that. It was this lot we weren't -- staff isn't proposing any restrictions right now, because this lot -- this use would be subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and we thought that would be an appropriate time, people could be noticed, we could talk about hours of operation at that point. So, as currently written, there is no restriction on hours here, but that use isn't principally permitted anyways. And -- let's see. And it talks about all buildings being subject to administrative design .~z ~~~{ y 7 1 ~: ~ . ~F~ wg~+fy~.. ~i '~ ,f ]} k1t ~~~ _ ~~Y 'y ~ ~~' l ;f;k 4 ' }.. .~ 1 e ti' 3 .% t',S ~{{t+3 x +li~~-. s" ~ c x ~ ~ ~k ~" r ., ° `', 3 ' ~~ a~ ,: = ~ Y i ~ ~- L ~?_ ~ X {' ~ ~ t F n}. ~ { [ r , { ~Lr .~~ f ` ~~`` 3e ~F ~ r ~ Z .,1 1 r r ~~ y'P, . _ ~ ~"-~'A. t ~ r 'Y ~ N ti. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~SlV ~~ ' ~ ~ ~` ~ 't 9 ~ s}~ 'J ` ~~ '' ! * ~t }',~ y_ yt T Fk' s ~ .,f. ~ yc t+ • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 63 of 98 .' r ;~ f...i review and substantially complying with the elevations. So, I think that's where I'll leave it. I'll briefly show you the elevations for the retail building anal the professional office building as well and we have tied not only the elevations, but the construction materials, which include cultured stone, faux timber and beams, stucco and stucco accents and metal standings seam roofing. So, those are -- kind of give you an idea of what the elevations will look like in the development and for the two buildings on this site. Again, staff is recommending approval of a Comprehensive Plan map change and annexation with the afore-mentioned changes to that map and the zoning district and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair. The gas station that's proposed there is -- it seems like the trend is going -- do you know if they are proposing to have within the walls of the gas station a fast food restaurant like a Taco Bell or something like that, that many units have? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, I do not know that. I have not seen the floor plan for that. I can tell you I don't think it's privileged information, because they submitted an elevation that showed Maverick, so there probably will be -- like that convenience store typically bakes their breads and has that type of thing, but not a fast food restaurant necessarily. O'Brien: Thank you. Siddoway: A quick follow up. Is a gas station allowed in C-N? Hood: With a Conditional Use Permit. So, any convenience store, the fueling station, would require a Conditional Use Permit. So, those things we can -- can be talked about. If by chance they -- they add on a wing where there is a drive-thru Taco Bell or something, that will be, you know, discussed at that future hearing. Siddoway: Yeah. Rohm: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Meyers: Todd Meyers. 645 Hickory Lane in Idaho Falls, with Morgan Construction. Could we go to the aerial photo? I just want to point out real quick -- you see the small rectangular lot that is right at the intersection? About a year ago we brought that property before Planning Commission -- it was recommended for approval for a couple of office buildings. Under the O-L zone. That went onto City Council. It was denied at City Council. In the findings and the facts it said because it was not in the best interest of the city. So, from there we had to kind of interpret, okay, what does that mean -- what would the city love to have and we identified two things. First of all, maybe the property is too small to really implement all of the Comp Plan requirements. As you think about your 35 foot landscape requirement along a corridor entryway. Now, that's a ~ - r F-:~, , , ~ , K ~~ ti,f ,. '~ ~ ~ , ~.. J ~. r Fi ~~, a ~ '~F~~'``3 rr ~ ~~ 1 t I j F ~ ~ ~ l ~ ,,y, is ~ ~:~. 1r sv.t~-, ~~ 3. `.. N) ~~ ~~ `~r„ 3~f t ~ M .~Y p r ~ ~ 3 } it C w4 ~i 1 ix~ ~~w`'^y~-~'' '~'~4~~,'~`~ _ ` C - r~. • 1 r 6f 1 ~ : .i ~ A ry ~~~ `; p E c.~-. 1 555 y. J~ ~ t ~`y ..:i t~ ~ .+ , rfp~ r r ~ ~' ~ :"~ ~ ~ tr '~ ,z ~l'} ' yy ~~ ~~ , 55 L ~ ~ j ~4 } ~~ A ~~ ~ 5; ~~~~ ~~4 ~+~ , a '~ ~ S`~, '_ ~ 2 ~. S f f 't 3' „~' ~ ~ % 'CI ~ r F Q '- ;':f ~F~~ /q 2M_ ~• ~ s. ~ ~ . yF :: 1.. , ~- ~; ~~: ~. ~.; r: ,. ~f>- ,.:~ ,< '. -;: ; ~. t, '' s ~'°:i iti' '. ;. :; .T~ ,.: x :, ~,; ';~ • • Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 64 of 98 little bit small to take out 35 feet. And probably the biggest thing was this little piece of land right here, because as Caleb indicated, there is already an approved preliminary plat here, we had ours here, and, then, you get this 65 feet of what do you do with piece of property. So, we started off with -- we went and we acquired that property, which meant that we had to get all of this property here, because it's the same property owner. So, now if I could -- I hope you can see the Comp Plan down below. Our very next step is we went to city staff to talk to them and we presented a new plan that was for the entire seven acres and it was -- we do office, we do a lot of offices across the state and that's what we had there. And as we talked with the city planners, they pointed out a couple things to us and if you look at the city Comp Plan, you can see down by the interstate -- and rightfully so, there are a lot of commercial uses. As you get up into this area of town there are not a whole lot of commercial services. You do have over on Eagle a lot of your -- more of your destination or regional commercial, but you don't really have any of the -- the smaller neighborhood community -- maybe a mom and pop deli or something along that line. And so they indicated to us that maybe we ought to be thinking a little bit broader from our normal base and look into community services, commercial, retail services. And so with that we made our application for Comprehensive Plan amendment about six months ago, which in hindsight was great, because it gave us a lot of time to do some revisions to our comp -- or our concept plan, which we spent a lot of time with the neighboring developer -- if we can go back to the aerial photo. With Portico right here, we thought that there was a little bit of a waste of property in there, that it might be wise for us to look to them to see if they'd like to expand into a portion of ours. What we thought was waste they thought was a great amenity to their project and so they told us no. The other thing that we heard during this time is that the Ada County Highway District needed a retention pond and they were looking at our property, so we laid out a concept plan for a retention pond that would have been in the northeast comer. They had already moved on with other plans for their stormwater retention. And so, then, we started moving into an entire seven acre commercial property and if we could go ahead and put that up. After several different revisions and meeting with the staff -- just up on that ledge. Yeah. Can everybody -- maybe that works out better. When we talked to staff, they emphasized a couple of things beyond just the services. They needed to have a plan that was well connected together. Our original concept divided everything off into its own little area. This has good vehicle pedestrian traffic with the -- inside the property. We thought we did a pretty good job with that and getting a mixed use. Another thing that staff really emphasized was pedestrian walkways. And so, you know, they -- they told us some things that they wanted to see. For example, you can see coming off of the picnic area they had us put in this little walkway going through there. Well, we wanted to make sure it was a good walkway, a safe walkway, so we moved all of our islands so that our landscape islands line up with that. We think that's important for vehicles, because they will know where those trees are. That's -- we can kind of learn where that pedestrian line is, but also because of your curb and gutter, your pedestrians, when they are on those islands, are going to be six inches up. They are going to be able to see those vehicles and, hopefully, the vehicles are going to be able to see them. And we have done that -- I don't want to take up too much time, but you can see we have done that really all over through the plan, trying to use those landscape islands to be able to .~ r.: ~d z~ a tt y~.+ k Z T 1~ r ~ a ~: 'S'+~ sa 4 ~ -~~I `- , ~_ ~ ~. ~ s~~ µ~. ~, ': ~r ~'~ `' z ~ s,,~ ,~ ~r~~;.~. -ti> ~Y ~ 'i/ ~ ~, ~_ r ~ K;,L .' ;p t ~4t~y yak ~~ x a ~ ~~i ~.',r, TT r / K .~~, QF~ 3`Y , ~p S ~ , ~~F ~.Ga~ ry r.y ~_ }' (kf J Y AM '~'~t, a ~;~s^xa'"'~' '~ ~"~,3,~~' ~ ~.~; ~~ ~~~ ~' r ~, J a~'~`~ ~, t< 5 - ~rw ~. ~bj ~~.: ~u ff v a?T ~'S~' ~. ''~ • ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 65 of 98 elevate it up. As Caleb mentioned, the gateway corridor has a 30 foot requirement -- or, excuse me, a 35 foot landscape requirement. The easement for the canal is 30 feet. We wanted to make sure that we could protect those roots to those trees, so we have added a little additional landscaping. We figured, you know, the trees are going to need to be planted early, we would like to hold off on planting anything else within that canal easement, because, obviously, they will be just wasted landscape within a few years. The amount of trees that you see on the border is probably about three times what's required by the city's ordinances, and the reason why is because we have to make up for some of the trees that we are removing. There are some silver maples that have 24 inch calipers on them and so that really adds to the amount of trees. We are definitely more than happy to, you know, maybe move some of those trees that are butting up against the residential on the north and on the east to give them more of a buffer. Land use wise -- you know, Portico is a residential area and so we have put more of an office `''y5' area here at this entrance office typically, you know, 5:00 quite often people go home and so we feel that that makes a pretty good neighbor. We are going to put our storm °~ - water up along the north and the east areas and we have put the back of the building in that area. So, basically, all of your parking would be kind of buffered off from the residential and that would be, you know, your parking headlights, your noise from your '''~ vehicles and so forth. And so that's why we went to an L-shaped building on that is ',:~ trying to confine that noise within this area. We do feel that -- you know, of course, it's our opinion -- but we do feel that we have done a pretty good job of buffering the C `~'' `~' store from the residential, especially when you take into consideration down below is that substation and so there is not a whole lot of residential that would be affected if °' they did want to go to a 24 hour operation. I don't know what their plans are on that. Most likely it's going to be Maverick, but at this point we are still working on details with them. What we have done, as you look at this building elevations -- and realize that will have to go through design review, but we are trying implement -- well, like you -- the k at this L-sha ed buildin we s ou take a loo 9, Well a icnic areas have a little trellis. p Y p ~ f s; kind of show that sidewalk out in here, but we are, actually, going to have each of those a~~ stores that you see over here on the side, they will pop in and out. Sometimes you will I have solid roof over the top of you. We have got a couple areas where we have just "'''~ ` picked up that trellis to kind of tie that flavor in to the big building to kind of overall look ^ like it goes together. And, then, there are some areas where you have canopies on the , f , ~;: ~~ buildings, too -- I have one here. It looks like I don t have that elevation on there. But that's to pick up the canopy that you would see on the map and so we are trying to make it -- we don't want it to look like our development and theirs over there, but one -s: «:} development. Changes in the area -- I did want to mention that Locust Grove, of course, has that overpass that is being built now, we think that could change the traffic 3`~ within the area and, you know, people will try to jump off of Eagle and use this more of a commuter route. We also think that it's good for the neighborhood as it develops out residentially that they would be able to get services nearby without having to go over on Eagle and add to the traffic that is over there and, hopefully, you know, being able to use bikes and so forth, because as you can see on your comp plan over there, there is ~ a bike path that ends up going -- my understanding it will be just on the opposite side of ; ~~~~~ the street on both sides of our comer lot there and so people will be able to use those ., bike paths, you know, come over to Maverick, get an ice cream cone with the family or ~;:;. ~ ~;~ s~ . i t, N ~M 3 T ~{ ..l ~~ 4ti .f! x+ F~ w sY t~ `7 a~'rtFk'i S Xl .!:..~: jj Y1: p d~~ L'f! 'it^~j'~ k y .y.. /:, , y ~ c-; ~~~ ~ ~ Af]~ ' ~ ~ ~~. -' i ~ ~ s .ter ry, Iv 1..: ~k. .. ~ } ~. r / K.y _ Y f t, x' ~ ,`: , <<- r ,a~ ;` ~ "~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ra ~, ~ = ~ ~, ~~; ~~ t ~r~, s :.:~4 ,~ ~~ ~ _:„ ,~,°..~, K D ~~. ~~ '~ -k.., ~ • <;: ,.: x:; Y. C~ Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 66 of 98 whatever and there is a traffic light that is being planned for that intersection in about five years, I believe. I'd love to answer any questions. O'Brien: I had one, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure this isn't a final architectural thing, but I notice that in your picnic area there there are no disabled parking stalls that I can see. Is that something that isn't required by law or code or is it just an oversight or what? Meyer: Your ADA requirements, you have a -- first of all, a total .number of requirements off of the total number of parking stalls that is available on site and so many of them have to be car and so many have to be van and how the building code is written is that they have to be the closest accessible route to the building and so when you look at it, here is your entryway to the Maverick over here, this one gets over in here good, and, you know, basically, that's -- kind of would spread them out to get to as many building entrances, because the accessible requirements are part of the building code. O'Brien: I'd just make the suggestion that you may want to consider putting one there -- Meyer: Yeah, we could do that. O'Brien: Put one up in the -- where the green section is. Meyer: Yeah. We could -- that's easy to do. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: A couple things. Number one, you didn't speak to the fencing. `; 4 _ Meyer: Oh. Yes. And that was just an oversight on our boards. We are definitely `k going to have fencing. What we were planning on is a vinyl eight foot fence, unless there is a different recommendation. ~' ~'~ Moe: You want to put block? No. Just kidding. I'm going to ask you a question and don't even know why I'm asking, but I'm going to anyway. Your standing C metal roof, _ what color are you looking at putting on this -- on this facility? Would it be an earth tone type color or -- Meyer: You know, we haven't finalized that. We understand we have to go through the design review process. Our agreement is -- with Maverick is that we are going to work together on all of our colors and we haven't finalized our purchase agreement at this point, but, you know, we will definitely be working together on that. Moe: Then, on the L-shaped building, are those dumpsters behind it? ~ri~~ ~: ~ ~~~ ,- ~, [ ~ ~: yy ~ ~^( "i~~ Js ~1E?S~ 3s, 3 _ ~~R~_k~~ 5 i" aj ',~ ' ~~~~ S ,~ ., ~~ + rys r y ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ JI. _. rii ~~I~~j1SSS y C ,~.K µ ~ ~ ` ' ~ ~ _. .LG r .9 i • 'r *,~ ° ~4~ ~, J ~L~~~.. ~.. ~ [ ~ /~~ at 4 'Y.- ~. .. c f. 4'. ~1. ~.: ~~S~ ~`/. ryyS - ~ ~ht~"~,R~: ,~. v ,~ 1 ~ _ s ~ ~ ~ ~' ` fi.;.'' ~ ~ w~ ~ 1 '- '~~ ~• a ,; ;. -~ ~ ~ x~,, 2~~,. ~? R, t~ mF !~ ;`~~~_ f_ _. i ~ q ~+~ t t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < , f S,r~ f-r ~ ~~ '{ `_ 4 ,.,~. ~~: s ,', :'~ .~ ~~ :. ~;: ~~ ::~~' L~.,t :ii!i'~ '_' , ;,~> i Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 67 of 98 Meyer: Those are dumpsters, yes. U Moe: Deliveries will be taken into the building how? To the back? Meyer: Yeah. Moe: On the landscaping at the back there, is that elevated at all? Is it bermed or is it just straight through the eight foot high vinyl fence? On the back of the building there. Meyer: The back you can kind of see the purplish trees there. That would be just at level where the -- the fence would be. Up in front of that where you don't see many trees, that would actually be storm water and so it would be a swale. Moe: That's right. You did say that. All right. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Siddoway, any questions? Siddoway: Brief comment. I remember -- my memory must be too good tonight. I need some amnesia. But the -- that comer was discussed a lot through the 2002 Comp Plan process and they had requested commercial or like a C-N type designation, then, and it was denied, but to me the addition of the surrounding property into a full proposal makes a difference, so -- so that's all I want to say about that. The -- for the pedestrian areas, did you say they were -- are they actually raised where they crossed through the parking area? Meyer: Well, are you talking about through the drive aisle? Siddoway: Yeah. Through the drive aisle. Meyer: No. Siddoway: You were just talking about the -- Meyer: I'm talking about the land -- Siddoway: The islands. Meyer: Yeah. With use as -- pretty much all the way across with those. Siddoway: Those dumpsters, are those drawn as if they are in enclosures or are they just dumpsters sitting behind the building? Meyer: It would depend on the city's requirement. Siddoway: They are going to be required to be in enclosures; correct, Caleb? ~ ` `~" , ~~ ~:: . k x ~ ~~ s~ ~~ ~~~ ,,,~~ ~~ ~- ~ [ f' c~ ~ }h F t r 's r F ~~f~ 3i ;'~~ i N ~~ !~~. { r ~F lt~~ a ~~. i ~. ~^ w ,, t - c' n ~ ~ 4 ~ j j~- ~: k b~~,h ~ ~ 1:,~ lpa~ f~F ! ~. ' ~~~~:~~~ ~ ~::, u.~r .y ~... 4 ~~h J ~ r~ S~5' . ~~~ ~~rY~tr ~ µ [ 3~~ ~ f ~ , r.,t.. 3. ~ ~ ~ WM ~~ s. ~ ` ! ~ti ditr i 4 y y pp'~ ~. i i :1 ~ ~3 :=r. -_. Meridian Planning & Zoning ` November 1, 2007 Page 68 of 98 Hood: Screened on three sides. Correct. Siddoway: I have some concerns about the deliveries and things being adjacent to the subdivision that's backed up there. Could you go up to the landscape plan for just a minute? Well, actually, those do look like they touch on that one. I was noticing on a °`"' couple of the plans we were talking about a solid screen, like the board we were looking =;s. at. It is a lot of trees and at the same time if those are drawn at mature size on the ~~ : board that we were looking at, they weren't touching. So, I was just concerned about whether there would, actually, be a solid screen -- I think it will be important -- all the more important given that that's a loading area, to make sure that that is a heavy solid ~~~ screen. <;~ Hood: And Commissioner Siddoway -- ~.s Siddoway: Yes. y'~ Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, if I may just real quick, because typically staff would have closed loading docks and things that back up to residential, too. We F;`;' typically try to limit those trash compacting activities and things like that or have them move them somewhere else, but there is really nowhere else to move them. So, we 5.,~ thought the best way to do this was -- would be to limit the hours of operation and we `'``'' can't control when SSC comes and dumps the garbage and typically they come early in P :~. `I' commercial stuff, but we can guarantee that they won't be -- the employees there won't be entering the trash or slamming down the lids and things like that. So, with the hours of operation being limited between 6:00 and 11:00, we thought that was a pretty good i.. way to almost -- the handle that without directly talking about, you know, no deliveries, you know, between those hours when most people are sleeping. So, that was kind of -- hat hel s at all or not. if t t 'ust our train of though , j p ~ Siddoway: Along that line -- I guess this is actually a question for staff, but the -- on the hours of operation, I have heard Wendy Newton-Huckabay talk a lot about the need for .r ,~;' III ~ consistency on our -- when we limited hours of operation, we have -- and I can t remember if it's 6:00 to 11:00. I had thought it was like 6:00 to 10:00 -- well, whatever it - is, I think we ought to be consistent with other limited hours of operation that we approve across the city. Do you remember what it is? Moe: I do believe it is 6:00 to 11:00. ~ Siddoway: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, Mr. Siddoway, I did check into that, too, and that seems to be at least -`~: about half a dozen anyways that we have done 6:00 to 11:00. Just as a side note as well, this came up at Council last Tuesday -- a couple Tuesdays ago. We are looking to r,' do a -- apply for aComprehensive -- a text amendment to the UDC and we are, ~~`~~ actually, going to propose hours of operation limitations for the L-O and C-N district with . ~' our next amendment, just because we end up doing it with all L-O and C-N zones as '1. , i~~ ~ ~ r ~a ~: 1~ ~ ~'; ~ ~ ~ ,~~_ s ~,.~ ~ 4 - z Y,~~jV~ 11:h ~h :. ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~1 1:: ~~ ~~' ~ ~ i i t k Y 7 i Ks t~ ~ rah 1 CG' ~1g~~ ~ , ~ r w ~;~ ~~ 151 ~ x ~ , t;` ~ ~~ ~'~ ~° t .i rt !~i s r >y Y ~~ ~a ~ ~s. .t~~~ i~ t~ t ~~r iv iy ~~ t~t'Y ~ 3~ ~ 4 {~ ~ ~ , 'tiff ~(. r''hr av 'ac. r~ ~- uaL F,.r 5,.., ~U 1j ~'. ~ ~ t y ,~ ~ ~.~ i~~ql 4 ~ ~ ~' 1 ?9 r!I~~ t ~ r ~ ~~ Yf '- ~~~ 1~ rr, :?' ~F r ~. <<, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 69 of 98 they come in anyway, so we are just going to make it code, set it at -- propose to set it at 6:00 to 11:00 and go from there, but we are going to make it -- we are going to codify that, so we don't have to talk about this every time. Siddoway: And could you go to -- there is another -- I can't remember if it was the aerial photo, but it shows the -- the stub street. Yeah. Was there -- was there any thought given to a connection -- a stub from this commercial property to the north? I'm ~.~_` wondering as these properties redevelop, rather than forcing them out and in, if they couldn't just connect directly. We do already have a stub here and I was just curious about that. Hood: I did play with that a little bit. I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I guess when I `G`' kind of looked at if you had a stub from this property coming out, obviously, they are going to have to extend this one over -- it kind of seemed like they were building this street along this property line. I don't know how it would come up and be something like ~`~~~' that and tie back in. It just kind of made for some funky lots all the way around. So, my ` thinking was -- and I wish that -- like you can see some of these other subdivisions got _'~ their preliminary plats -- I mean I wish Portico did, too, because you could kind of see . how that continues on the edge of Portico Place. But, basically, I could see this -- this ~ ~~ terminate -- having aterminus, a cul-de-sac, or something like that and not going all the way out to Locust Grove and, then, there is still some connectivity, they don't have to jump on the arterial to get to these neighborhood services, they are just right -- they are ; ;~ right there with this road and, then, Portico Place's road kind of comes up like this. So, , '`"'~tt` I there will be interconnectivity. Yeah, that stub street probably isn't the best location for these guys. I don't -- I don't know, it's tough, it's pretty narrow, so I don't think you're `a !~ ! going to get lots on either side anyways and another stub street didn't seem to do -- it didn't help, so -- even a driveway didn't really seem to help anything, because, then, once your land use, if you give it a driveway, are we going to look for more commercial ~ kind of left it alone. there . So, we just ~ Meyer: Our very first concept -- we did a -- excuse me. Last spring we had a street ~`t h here that really divided things up and so that's why we have moved to this throu i g n o 9 g plan here, so everything's connected. '~ ~ Siddoway: Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Thank you. Bud Brinegar had signed up. And Clyde Brinegar. I guess they have both gone home. Surprise surprise. Is there anyone else that would like to testify ~;~ to this application? Are you part of the development team? Morgan: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Morgan: My name is Matt Morgan. I'm president of Morgan Development and Construction -- of my vice-president of developing. This project's been somewhat .>` ~~++ r i ~ ~ `1 ~ _,~ ~Y~~ M ~. y. 4~{, F ~ ~l k ~ ' 1 ~ A~ ., SL ..i ~yG;~ ~; A ~ ~ 1 4r ~ F• JJ{{ 1. J .r. , kW ~ ~. k„ . V 1} r~.~ M`~` gg F°1 F: ~~t~~ L~. fJ, {. ~r x~y r~~ ~ ~ 7 x ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~G` , i ' ~ ` ~• ~ ~N ;~ 1 ( ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ri ~ u i- .~}f'1# !~; ~' afk ~ ~. r ~, , ~ ~ SM~ # r5 k ; ~ ~.~ a~~~ S 5 ,. 1 ~ f w~~ ;i ~t < ~~ ':- ~, "5° ~~ _ ~. t ~ ~;r ~ ' r{ c ~' a - ~~ ~ r ~~ 1 '4 i ' '~ ~~ee . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~' c ~. ~ Z ~ '~~. a ~ ~ 1 a ~ . <C?; M~1 i .. ~ {11i1dPfw ~ i Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 70 of 98 frustrating for us in the sense that the comer piece, after I had obtained that, with the ? ~ intent to do some -- some medical and dental type of development that we do a lot of in southern Idaho, when I bought that, that 85 foot strip, I never did care for that much and really understood that the -- Anna at the time had voiced, you know, a little concern with that piece. I had spent quite a bit of time trying to work with the gal that owned the property and with just one attempt and contact and she said if I did it again she's put a restraining order on me. So, I didn't go back, needless to say. So, as we went through and tried to work on the comer parcel that we had and make something work with just that in mind, you know, we went through and ultimately at City Council they didn't feel it was in the best interest of the city and we understood those concerns and kind of tried : to -- tried to assume, I guess, would be the best word, maybe why it was kicked out. `~'' Ironically, in going back and making a few changes in getting -- in preparing for our -- for ;V some new submittals to try something different at the comer, in advertising for the ~~ ~~ neighborhood meetings the elderly gal that owned the property showed up at that neighborhood meeting and had been in a car wreck and was now wanting to talk and wasn't going to have me arrested anymore at that point. So, we ended up being able to successfully put together something to incorporate it into the project. Since then, like Todd has said, we have tried -- we have dealt with Portico, Mr. Ron Sargent and tried to ~'~ figure out what was the best approach and tried to work real close with Anna and Caleb in working closely with them and trying to honor what they would like to see, with some different connect -- with the connectivity issues and whatnot. And, ultimately, we had °'' done about -- I think we did ten land plans all together. We do our own land plans in our office and Todd and I and my architect partner, we worked on it pretty heavy. We feel like we have got what would be a great contribution to your community. All of our construction in the buildings that we do is upper scale. We would really like to put something -- this building in -- the small one up front, I have it dedicated to some dental ;'.`f~ ; ;.} people here in the community that are established dental people that are on McMillan ~, ; up closer to Eagle. The larger property I would intend to keep for myself for along-term r,;. annuity, the property is what the intent is. So, I want to -- I want to make it of an ~`''~ upscale nature and something that I think that I'd hope the City of Meridian could be proud of. So, I guess I'd just -- that's -- it's late and I don't want to take any more of your time, but I appreciate your consideration and would love your support, gentlemen. It's been a Ion haul on this one. g ,~ ~;,~ `'~'~~ ~ Rohm: Yes. And thank you for coming in. Sir. Lillyquist: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good morning -- well, almost there. My name r _ ' I is Don Lillyquist. My address is 880 West Center Street, North Salt Lake, Utah. I am -: ~, with Maverick stores and I just wanted to say that the Maverick supports this ~~ "•! amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. We have been in contact with the developer and we are the convenience store that would like to go in on the comer there. We feel ~ ,,, ,~` that it's a good location for the proposed use, not only for a convenience store, for also :~~~'r' for the remainder of the development. We feel like they have done a good deal in 5, master planning the entire parcel and we are excited to be involved with them and to ~`; have our store fit in not only with the use, but also with the looks of the development. ,;. z ~:~ z~ (t J ~~S ~; ~~.' ~ ~~}} ~ PR fem. ~; i,~I'' X ~ ~:. a RRt ... >. ~.. ~ f r~ ~~.0 '~n~~it ~ ~ 1~ fi~ ~~~~ ~ G~~ r ~ ~.y, '~`ta S~f ~;'~. ~E ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~;- ~ x ~ =~`, ~~ , ~ ti g Y; ~ A of 72.k S C ~+ ~ S ~R ~. y~!. + yy d ¢ ~~ 3 ~~ ViM^~. ,A ~r < ~. ,'S L t ~ ~ ~ _ y t.t (yA ~~ ~ ti± i ~ „ r'~i a,Y~,tJ L ~C .~.1 'Syr Y~~f~,~G' jK .t i.'R A ~~'~.yp ~ ~. L~. f. ;: ~ ~. p I K ~ ; ~ N ~ i ~~{{ 5 . S~ 1 ~y,~ Z. r F x- h ~'~ "S~ ~. ~ ~Fp Y ~ . k, ', _ Z., ' ~. Fr .. • • ~;,;t` Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 f; ~ Page 71 of 98 r, -., tyk As he said, we are working together to try to make the buildings coincide and look well - with one another. That's all I have. I would be happy to answer any questions. i ~k~'. , Rohm: Thank you, sir. Thanks for coming in. i~~~ Lillyquist: Thank you very much. 3~:, F;.s, Rohm: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this application? Didn't think so. °" There was nobody else left. Thank you. Could I get a motion to continue this? ~, :-~ O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to continue to hearing CPA 07-014, AZ 07-014, <;a. PP 07-019 to the end of our regularly scheduled meeting today. ~^{; Moe: Second. - Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CPA 07-014, AZ 07-014 and PP F 07-019 to the end of our regularly scheduled meeting for further deliberation. All those ~:' ~ in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. a'= ',. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Now, kind of back to the beginning. I'm -- do you think that we are going to be able to get through each one of these? Have you got your motions prepared or -- Siddoway: We do need to talk to the south Meridian area one first to make sure we are at a place where we can -- we are ready to -- ^, Rohm: And that really seems to be the crux of this whole deal, if we can get through ~~~ that to a point that we are prepared to make a motion, then, the rest of them seem to =~au_ kind of fall in line. So, I guess we will start by re -- well, what do you do, reopen it now? j, ., Canning: Yes. . Anna said es. Moe. Yes y :,:.t -:; :_. Rohm: Yeah. Baird: Mr. Chair, yes. ~'~'` ~ Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-002 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south ;;;-~ Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and '/2 mile east of Linder Road south to'/2 mile south of Columbia Road, east to '/ mile west `;`~ of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: Y~ ^ Y ~~~ N I~ x 'CSAw i ~~~~ i fri r ,r,., r If ~j ~ ' •~ W .t .~* 7~ ~`a ~ 1 NNSs y ~v ~S ~ ~'' ~: ,~ C ty' ''~9ut ~~ ~~ ¢ ~ J ~ ~~ ~'~ f e ~~ ~ _ ~ aS•'' I.; ~L .. R', ~4 W ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ G'~~ • 1 ~Y. t~ P '.1 'GI~~' ; ~_ . ! 1 f ~ ~ ~~ ~ ¢ I 3 .v 4 ,.1 : fY'Y~, ~ ~ I j ~~ f ~ L ~ S y ~ 1 y ~ ~ C . f+ ~if l ; ~~ ~~~ C IC.u e, ,. ,. rt..W~; s ~z ~ ~ ~ Y ~- .~ n I ~ ,~ 1 ~ ~ ~` r' y ~~r~. S.' ~ i ( ~ ~ k S r ^ '~ } Y k t ~ I ~ I ' ' r F E 1'~n F~1 q ~ j ! a I k y~~ ~'~.` . _ ® • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 72 of 98 Rohm: All right. Well, then, at this time I'd like to reopen CPA 07-002 for further discussion. Yeah. We are going to do that further discussion and if we can get to a point that we are in agreement, then, we can move forward with action on the balance. So, Mr. Siddoway, I think you had aligned most of your thoughts pretty well, so let's -- Siddoway: I'll try. Rohm: We'll start with you. Siddoway: I think the first big picture question is can we get to -- is there agreement on r;: ~' moving this forward, as opposed to having it wait six months or nine months? Moe: I -- as far as my -- as far as my comments in regards to -- to the city of Kuna and whatnot, I think that Anna has done a very good job of explaining what the situation has '' been and whatnot and although there will be a meeting, hopefully, to discuss, you know, "- the issues as far as the planning out of the boundaries and whatnot, I have no -- I T, ' would not have a problem going forward without having that issue resolved. `''~ Siddoway: Okay. Moe: I guess the question is -- I mean we have to go through each one of the individual ' items that we -- that came before us tonight to make decisions there. I think that in our earlier discussions I think that we were fairly close to the same in regard to those "'~'~~~ issues, so I think we probably could move it forward. 'dtk , >~:` Siddoway: One option would be to postpone until this meeting happens, if that was -0;~.. worthwhile, or if we are ready to talk through the items, we can spend the time and go s : through them item by item. O'Brien: I guess I have one question for staff. What are the consequences of us not -- -~`; or postponing or continuing this for six to nine months? Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, there is -- I mean it's certainly `~`~ a possibility to wait six months. It has been -- we submitted this application quite some time ago. It has been difficult for Mr. Ellsworth to keep everyone informed, because it is - ~" such a large area. My only concern is that you seem very close on many of the issues. Continuing it for six to nine months just to discuss the issues that were raised today doesn't seem necessary. Now, if you're waiting to put designations on the area that we have kind of referred to as the future planning area, that's a much bigger issue. But, ~'' again, I think we are -- there has been a lot of involvement, I think that folks will feel a `~~t~ little -- as if they haven't been heard on those where you do have consensus on what ~_.,; should go forward and I think we potentially lose their interest in the process and lose their support in the process as well. O'Brien: That's the answer I was looking for as well. Thank you. ~ ~ N~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .:n 1 f~ [ ~~~ F t ~M1~ Ffi7 ,~„~~ F ,C 1 `~ ~. v ~ ~~ ~ -, ~ ~y ~!~ ~^' r' S ;- wM„t ~' ~rv ~ ~w,~ x ~, H. ~M t ~ ~`Yla t ~ 1 4 ~:~i h'e~* "` t ~- A 4 L ~C t Y KS ,~' f .' 2~:.: - .~-1~'~ ~ '. u1~ ~t ~- 4 fR ~~ "~ ~ ~`' iti k F a/.1 :, a~ljj ~f C L: I ~ ..~ , ~ 1 ~~ v 4 { .`~'. S~ti x ? ~ ~'' g ..y .~ 7 y; r. ~.~, . >~c {. ., ,5, . ' .~~~~ ~: ~j: Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 i ~: Page 73 of 98 i ;;;; ~.ry ,_. „r ;, , Canning: Pardon, sir? O'Brien: That was the answer I was looking for. Thank you. Canning: Okay. Siddoway: So, Mr. Chairman, do you want to move forward with trying to get to a motion tonight? Rohm: Well, let's -- from my perspective I'd like to kick around some of the specific land use items and see if we have some concurrence, because if we make a motion that doesn't have general support, then, we are not any closer to fruition than we are at this point. So, let's -- you did a good job of itemizing items before, so let's just -- Moe: You're on. Siddoway: I'll bring them up for discussion. The first one is bringing Mr. Exline into the - - orback into the proposed area of impact and -- O'Brien: That is the neighbor of the person that here tonight was a neighbor of Mr Exline; right? Canning: Yes. O'Brien: And so didn't he also want to be -- Moe: He's already in there. Siddoway: He's already in. ,,,; O'Brien: He's already in there. . Siddoway: But I guess where I'm at is, basically, this -- is that a quarter mile -- by a quarter mile? Bringing that quarter mile area into -- into the area of impact -- proposed :> :~~ area of impact. ';~ Moe: And with a designation of -- -,~ Siddoway: Medium density. ~' Moe: -- medium density. And that would be -- that would be it right there. Right there. :~ ~ Right? Siddoway: Yes. That line right there. ,,. .~a ~ f~= ~~ a~~ ,~ . `~ __ ', ~ ~f~. ~ ~. _ ~~,v ~ " ,~ ~~ ~[~ .. '. fib, ~ n'. a~ ~` ay ~ lei? r.: '~lif'~.q %~~~. ~ ~. d1 ~ '~r.y ~~~~ .. Y~~: .4 e f ~~. :~ ~. r t~ ggg }. r ~ ' ~, 2~ ~ ~ ~` i .: J. +4 ~~ _F~~ g{~ . .. 3 y, -«1 1 'Y ~ ~ ~H ~ n~ } ~ ~1 t~~ ~ h ~ ~r~ . ~ Z: ~ ~ .. ~LH~s S~ - ~. c ~„ ~, s ~~~ ~~, F y ~ r t ~ { J ~ hQ ~ , S 3 k~. ~~ ~ ~ kj1 • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 74 of 98 _:~ Moe: Okay. ,+ ; Siddoway: And just in line with that one right there. Moe: I would be in agreement with that. O'Brien: Ditto. ,~ ~ Siddoway: The next one I have is Gordon and Ann Croft, which was this property here. ~'~ It requested it go to medium density residential and I voiced that I was fine with it `~' staying low. Moe: And I concur. O'Brien: I do also. ;;~ ~`'' Siddoway: The third one I have is Brighton's request to make this property change from mixed employment to mixed use regional and I was leaning towards leaving it mixed employment, with the language that allows -- that clarifies that retail and high density residential uses would be considered, but I don't know. O'Brien: Question. Would that eliminate being able to put the large box grocery stores in? ~, . `, I;,, Friedman: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, even with the mixed employment with ,.. the addition of the high density residential, it still doesn't elevate the level of retail and ;T, commercial services within that to the level that Brighton would like to see or currently are contemplated in the mixed use regional. The mixed use employment truly is more employment, rather than aretail-oriented designation. ~, Rohm: Does Brighton have an application before the city right now? ~ ;r~ Canning: Chairman Rohm, no, sir, he does not. I did have an opportunity to speak with .~ Mr. Tumbull and Mr. Wardle a little bit after they -- after the Public Hearing was continued. I mean there are clearly two options. We all agree that the mixed -- the text amendment, which, actually, you didn't open yet, but we will need to discuss that next, r to the mixed use t ~ ' but the text amendment needs changes either to the mixed use o regional -- or mixed employment or the mixed use regional. Either way. And I guess ~,;~ just so you know what Tumbull would say if he hadn't left, it would be that they would '~f?`' prefer the mixed use regional designation. I'm sure they will fight for it still at City Council, but they would want to work with staff to hammer it out, so that there are better }x ~' ~' sideboards, so that we feel more comfortable we are not going to get just all retail in that. Rohm: Thank you. `r t ~, F;.~ ~ 41 ~~ ~ 7~ ~ I, ~~ ~n I~ ~ t t.~ 7 k:~. ' ~ cxt ab ~ ~': 'f~~ 1~J ~ +,~ ~. - - j Y.n <F ... , J $$ ~r~w> ~ ~~ {~. y 4 ~d'r yyq 4)~ ~ 4 Y. *3'. .y~ g 1~ ,p Ya s'f E~i~ ttr« r ~~}:sff~, ~.. ~. a ~j ~~ ~` ~!' 4 v ~~ ~r ~ r ~, ~~ >~ €.,;.~ E , ~~ 4 ~.. , of ~ t 5:-'r,~• ~ ' ~' - .. . ~ b i h ~' ~ 3~q +~,~/ ;~; ; r ~ ~ x *~ t r'~ ~ iw 4 i4 r. »t" ~ ~: ~ ~•q . ~ .. ~ ~ _ .Gnh ~y ? tt Eb -: r~`. P y ~ ~ ) i~ w: r: $~T~ _r ,. f ,.: 4~ ,`=~1;,; .. ~ G 1! ~ ' i^ ~ 4 ~i'k j „3 K L# ~ ~~' J ~ S~ _ ~ ~ 4 y~~,p EY- ]Y i A~ ~~~t, Meridian Planning 8 Zoning `~'~ November 1, 2007 Page 75 of 98 Siddoway: Is working out that language something that, you know, if we were to continue this for just acouple -- well, I guess the couple weeks we have got full agendas, but -- Moe: Well, December the 20th I think would be the first open -- ,.: Canning: Or, sirs, November 29th would be a 5th Thursday that you could meet t a night. It's also something we could -- I mean, really, your choices tonight are perhaps the 29th, because that's a free night, or continue those items or just as in other P~~` applications you can request staff to work stuff out before it gets to City Council if you feel that that's something that we can achieve to your satisfaction. And, then, always ~;F: six to nine months is the other option. So, you kind of have three options before you tonight. ;. .., . O'Brien: I'm really tom between both regional and mixed used employment. We need them both. You know, there is -- there is not a good retail center out in that area anywhere close within four or five miles. I know I have -- talking to people at town meetings that live out in that area, have been looking forward to seeing a grocery store, ,: for instance, come in there for many, many years and this would eliminate that `~~``° possibility, so I think they would be disappointed. I don't know how we could duplicate mixed use employment and something like Silverstone or EI Dorado in that particular `,e„~" area. I don't know. It may be a good fit, maybe not. But it's a guessing game as far as I'm concerned, because I don't know what the marketing research has shown. But I'm kind of caught between both -- I like them both. I like both areas or designations, but I ~~ don't know all the areas that -- unless the neighborhood center would accommodate grocery stores, I'm not sure. I don't think so. ~~~'~~'`' Rohm: I guess weighing in on this subject as a whole, Brighton bought that property _ with its existing commercial designation and I'm curious how you come down on the -- - the residential medium density application of the Corey Barton Group, so I'm curious if to take the Core also willin ou ri hton are ke this awa from B Y to to willin 9 u re , 0 .. 9 Y 9 Y Y ,. from them. . Barton develo ment awa Y p Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could caution you against buying into their language that they T.~;Y` bought something with an entitlement. They bought something with a designation on a map. There is no entitlement on either of those properties, so the language about taking away, it's a little misleading. x- ,. r Rohm: And lappreciate -- and that's why you're here. Thank you. ~,, ~~-,I=, `~ Baird: I guess all I can say is don't be worried about them suing you for making your decision. Rohm: I'm not worried about that at all. Baird: Okay. k - ^ua-,>r~ ..i: •'~~ ~rj ~~ ~ ~ ~ Y I; I ~ i r ~' ~ ~ r i f I iF ~ { a '`i': :~~'>rt • ~ r } .~ ,Y~~ , X• ~ {~ adrr.M I' - ~ k kkkk Ir yp I '. , 4 L'`s.} ~•'~.'~ ^'f I r ! ., l r'.{ I - L ~ 3, . ~ f .. 1 : I ~ '~{ri .'.,4 "ti ~ I 'rr 'fyl I ~ '~; 1j1 I ~ ~ ' ~' ~s'. ~.{I "`t,~' , : s:y ~~-~~~{}k~'"~ : ak:.~v~v w r;, t'~`~ . a r '' I _ I I 'tom,. > ^ - "` _ ' , r - c gy~ ~ ~ 'v. Fr ~~ rt••,F^ _i; : .r I ^tl ?1 k•~s k } } ~ ' ~ ~ i ~ l ry, ~'~ ~ ~ ~ Vi Wp""; 11 ' , ` {~r. ,,.{ i~_ ~t 1~i -`~[~.*:, :+b `t'F '~;Y ~ ~ ,• .. . , ^4~~:~'r ~~;,r ~,~~., 1. ,y{ '' ~ ' ~ f Q t .,, .r.•i .~ ~ Jwn ~c. ,~ jb '~F .x. 5s i r I, fl f~l ` r {,' 't ~ I . i Ir i . L 1 :: ,~'.,ir s 1; _ :1.~'I '~~r` , s. f .i• ~. ::' ` .~.` 44 .,~, ',.I % SP ~ ,- jjt~ X T. `yi:l: .'{ „ :&.,. 1f { '. ..`•k ~;{: r,„ fi i F I I gr y) I $ t T ~ a ' i I ~ II I 'I`. r, ~' AI'I. ,: 'rr"-*; ~ I:, ;., I ~{ i ~ y> i } } q.. } 1 y. _ f I ~L r r'il3 r,J' J f:'' i' I } ~ ~ : I i1 ~ ~;{~. „i -i~, .r". s" ~'. P•. y~. :~ _ `-.r. ,sra'ry , .~; 1 ~ I ~.•~~ , 1 J. t 4 :.y LA ,~1 .1, II +I ~ i I; I, 1 ^ . ~r p 'I ) l I ..I~...v,.l . .. .f•' * ' i , .,. I I ~. , 1 I ~ {,. ..:.~ . s ~ • '1a ' °,A. ~ - tt ~, ~..wj i ~ 4 7c 3 ~~ 3 ~ ~ it r "Y ,~~ :;1~ ~~ ~ Y `' y ~ ~ . CA , hi ~ r { ~ , .:[, <ks t t t, . , FG /tr..r.a.~x se v ~ ~ ,A:. ' ` ' 7 ~ I ~ ~ I , II , r a „ 4 ,, ' ..Y ~ _ :~~ Pi. "<^J",`i. "~. •} ~ 7G y: ,~ i' - E : :. ,•.1. J M~+,Y.Y ~. iI I • I I r . 3 I • a .~.rr .s'S`2 I :t ` =111' I f {, '}.~~ r , r 'll r.t 'i I ~ ~ c ~ } -f j.. ':`$:.' E' I.e• 44 4 .'#l t( i 4 ~ f~ Y ~ ~ ~ . ~ } {~ I •#~' . ~.. :JI ., : y ~ e . ~: ti ~r '::A~ i i • •~ ~ ' ~' 1 ` Y' ' i l.y}"'^: ,~ : 'w>~ ',•' : . . S 1 :k~ eF i ":4 34 ..~' 11 . ~ i i r , ,. , Y.TI . : S: ; j • i ,*. r l•, ,,.~ . £ r e i t"' ^ ~~ • 1 I = ,, Ir i 'IS t: Ix .art I Ni avi.,. ~Y.. ~I '~~~~ , { q~ {i': i~W,iR 1~ ' :i" k .'z .t r ~~a' ' s.i;~' 1 ' r , I :It:'~ J'f::vs I ~ .~ , I . r . '~ ' I;._ „rr!' ~ :' i #.•j .1, 1 , .l ~# ' t ~ 7 1: i ' r'`~i ~r ~`1t§. '~,`',,, ! ~ -{ yq~ ~ " ' i } 't^"~"x r~~~ `.1r. ~ Y~° L( '~}lq ~ . +~ : F,~T . : ~: ' I• I. ,. ~;~,' ~' y x~ ! 2II' l I{ ry .:~+i s.. s}: ! i'y fil. j" • 'r ~k EE~~ ,I. uA { \ J ~ i # ' ' ~' k a ~$ I 5 I~ , l ! I I s~ri:lZ ~, i; .<ii II I 1 s Y r 'ka I ~ ~ ~ [{ I, u ". Ye l .{. +~ ~ 4i ~ ~ n i.. Ji •~ ll: " I ~ ?' y (( t ~ ~ ' .;rfii~ ",~ I I. ! r ' • 4 i. I. ! : ' ~ ;j. t• L•~r.: I~ sir." . • ~ ~ ' ' ' $ I . s ,~ . . ~. > I• • l '1 .~' I 1 . I 1 , 7 ~, „~ .. .+ i 1 :.S r t.4 1 t .Ir.e ~..: ~1`y}:tip;; '?-~„' Ny , ` ~1t °s*.,:~.s x~V R r~ - ,,; ,, ';~ "~~'~ ~7 "fir >>~• -~ ~ V ~ 4 S i ~ ~.. ~ r, -:~ ~ y,3 ~: kj`f.4.. -t T ~'` = _ % r: ~~. 7 I , I ~ I y ~'} i{Ig ~l r'• :1 ` 'G'4} 'S t 1.~ S ~ s -. , ~~?"~i;'''" , Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 76 of 98 '` Rohm: I just think that where I was going with that is as we go through this I think it's important that we have an element of consistency in our assessment. Go ahead, Mr. Siddoway, you're still -- you're still -- Siddoway: Well, where I'm leaning right now is to allow it to go back to the mixed use regional and direct staff to work with Mr. Turnbull on some proposed language for the mixed use regional definition as part of a text amendment to go forward with this, so that staff is comfortable that they are not going to get what they don't want. Moe: And is staff comfortable doing that before it just goes onto Council or do we need a little bit more time? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, following up on Commissioner Siddoway's idea, now is that only on the parcel that Brighton had requested that the mixed use regional be retained, so, then, that almost gets to the kind of best of both worlds, because you would have the mixed use regional on the Brighton piece and, then, you would have the mixed employment on the remaining pieces of is the intention of the Commission to apply the mixed use regional to the whole comer? Rohm: I think it should be the whole -- I think it should be the whole property. I think that if, in fact, you excluded Brighton's and gave them the privilege of mixed use and, then, required the balance to be mixed use employment, then, it may give them a ,Y. competitive advantage over the balance of that area and I think that it all should be given the same designation. That's my personal opinion. Siddoway: So, you're saying that whole purple area -- Rohm: Yes. The whole purple area, work with staff to make sure that the intent of staffs desire to not see it be just another retail development, that it actually had that ' component to it, be addressed to their working with staff. E£'; Moe: Well, if that's -- if that would be the desire, then, we surely would have to continue it at least long enough for staff to at least let us know what's been worked out. Rohm: Well, I'm not opposed to that, I'm just -- if we need to know what staff and the development community work out, then, by all means, but if you entrust that staff and the developers can come up with something that -- the intent of the staffs desires, while "' at the same time works for the developers, then, it could move on without coming back, :~ don't you think? `~ ~' Canning: Chairman Rohm, may I ask you to open the text amendment Public Hearing? ~!~~, Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood ~ {fi! - kk..~, rte. i °{ ~ .'. ~ J, F !~~:. S ~~ N ,c ~ r ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ` _ ~~ FF__ ' 4 S Y ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ S ~~ ^p i;; ~'A ~' i!r~ k t_ - {, i1r~ r L~ ~ }~ ~ • ~.C (~V', Jai n4 j I * ~ t ~ 4 - Yy~. _ ~1 "" 00 I } 4: ~ !• ~W~ R ~ _ f ~, i ~. ~ S ~~ ' ,fad - `,~~„ r~`r~P r;.'. r ~ ~ ~h~~.{~y ~. ~ qy 3r '- f C < '+L ~ ~ ~ y y Cep :;~ 3~~~` i ~ 7 w - ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~~ t Y Tc~ ~ t -~ wp.;~f _ ~F,~}', '~+ +~tfE'.ti p1. r 1 ri,_ ~ ~ "'F'(.1 ~ ~ f,~ '. fYjNA . ) ( ~` 3' i. f ~ + • ~ ~~~41F~$~K13~ •, t Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 77 of 98 ~ ~ centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: Rohm: Absolutely. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing CPA 07- 009. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, excuse me for interrupting, but one thing you could do is if you want to make that map change, you could forward the map -- that's the only time limit you have is on the map and please remember that Council does not have to hear these all the same night, they don't have the same restrictions you do. You could continue the text amendment for us to work on that mixed use regional definition or mixed employment definition, which ever one, and to bring that -- work with you all until you're satisfied with that language before you recommend that up to Council and, then, we will just have them all meet together at Council. Does that make sense? Rohm: I think so. Canning: Okay. Siddoway: Anna, are there any other spots on the map that are designated mixed use, mixed employment? Canning: Only -- Commissioner Siddoway, only the Ten Mile specific area plan. Siddoway: I'm not sure where I'm at on the all or nothing discussion. I was leaning towards just changing Tumbull's piece, leaving the rest in mixed employment. You could -- you can do an employment -- you could do -- if we -- you could do an employment-based development in the mixed use regional, you just can't do the heavy retail in the mixed employment; correct? Friedman: Correct. Rohm: So, that's back to giving them the best of both worlds then. Siddoway: It does. The mixed use regional has the greatest flexibility and almost an anything goes designation with -- in terms of its intensity of uses. Rohm: I don't -- I don't like that idea myself. I think that it should all -- all have the same designation and have the staff come up with something that is acceptable to them that -- anyway, that's where I come down on that. O'Brien: Can you -- song, Mr. Chairman. Can you explain to me your thought process on that and why you feel it's better one way than mixed use regional combination? _ ~_1 ~ ~~ t7 a ~ . ,} •, ~~ ,y Y ~. ~~( `~ '~' ~~ ~ '' ' k s Sti'y'?.~ Vii.? ~'.~?? x ~ ~ ': '7 ~ ~ ~ ~ r r~ .Y:~'. .r~ if ~ ~ a ~ ~' 1~+4b ~i ~a ~~~ t tY x k _: ~ti~us5i~~.P~. ~r'' 4r ;,Fi 4~ L'~ K y" k ,F y f Y r ~. F '!i: M ar t y~,a ;. ~. '3. i J ~~~ ~~ 'F ~; rx ~~~i ~~~ " .. 8 ' ,x. o r ~ti '~~ 15. ,, a,, .. i t ~ ~ ~ ~,, ~' A t ~ ~ _ ,' ~, • `~ ```! 1 ~~~ ~~y >_, i <~ ;~ Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 78 of 98 Rohm: I think that from a -- from competitive advantage you -- you give Brighton the opportunity to develop in a more conventional fashion and you put the requirement of a mixed use employment on the balance of the property, which is conceptually something that the city desires, but we don't have a developer that's just jumping up to develop an employment center and the balance of that property may sit idle waiting for a community college or something -- or I don't know what would fit there, but it just -- it gives them an opportunity to move forward, while at the same time holding the balance of that property to a higher standard and it just -- it doesn't seem like it's -- it's fair to the balance of that acreage to allow two different designations when it was all as one as part of this comp amendment. O'Brien: Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Appreciate that. Moe: Well, again, I don't think I'd have a problem moving it along, as long as we are -- °`~ as long as we would be continuing the text amendment -- continuing that, so that can get resolved that way. :~:,. Rohm: Well -- and I don't have any problem with that either, just have the text amendment address it, but address it as a -- the whole purple area, not just -- _~~ Moe: I understand and I -- I agree with you. Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: So, you're saying you would be in favor of making the whole thing mixed use regional and, then, holding back the text amendment to have that worked out and come back to us? Moe: No. The other way around. Is that not what I understood, it would be mixed use - {~' - s 1 >ti: F ly -F .. ~;,~;' ~~-.-- ~: ~: ~. ,',.~2 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the purple is, actually, the mixed employment. Moe: Right. Hood: So, if you go to mixed use regional it actually changes to a more red color. Moe: That's what I mean. Hood: So -- and, then, the text. So, either way -- I don't know, you guys are talking both ways, so -- yeah. Moe: Leaving it purple, as in the mixed use employment, then, working with the developer that has the property that is now -- right now zoned mixed use regional. Siddoway: Oh. You're saying leave it -- ~'~; r. ,. f ~ ~~ 4 ~, ~i r: titiS~ 1 t~F ~' ' I~ ~ c s ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;. ( ~ Gfi~ ~~f ~J r ~ ~ ~ E '~ p: '.f d ~ 3~: 5~ S `:' ~r ~ V ~ t " ~~, '^~ . 3r%' r ~ ~ ¢ i i '' ~ y ~ ~ ! i ~ } `y A ~ , ~F 2 ~'< C :, ~AN ~ y y rr rf ` ~~ d y I~ kr, - ,,}.~~ i ~~ ~ 4, ~c ~ ~~ Y . ~ { i i'. J r~r ~ ` + '~ '~~ l~ ~~ ~ ~ l ~ , L ~ ~~ 3~_~.. o~ d ~; -~~ ~hM1 6 p p i ~/t~i ti ~` ~~ ~, ra r .'`d ~ ' ~j. r ~ l ~ {~ ~~ , ~~ ~ ~' ~y., ~. t~' b ~..o.; ~^ f " ~ f~~~~ r~ g6 S~ ~:~. ~FI ~ `d ~d ,i { { f y{ ~ 6 ~ ~,~:: ~ ! ]~ ~ i ~Q ~ .. r I 1 _.+ ~.KI ~'h'. • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 79 of 98 Moe: You have already had conversations that that could be worked out. Is that a fair statement to make? Rohm: Is that what you said, Anna? That you can work it out leaving it mixed use employment and work out the text with Brighton at a later date? Is that what -- Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, I do think we can work it out. He will not be happy with that decision, but that's not your concern or something you need to wont' about, but I think we can resolve a lot of the issues he had with the mixed use employment through a modification to the text that would allow him to achieve the vision he has for that, but not move it solely into the mixed use regional. Rohm: That's fair enough. That's -- I think that's what we are looking for. Well, that's what I look for. '~_?~ Siddoway: And so that would have it staying mixed use -- mixed employment in our recommendation and -- I'm just -- and holding back the text amendment to be worked ~~ ~ out with staff and come back to us. '~ Moe: That is correct. Rohm: Correct. "~'~ Siddoway: The next one I had down was Hubble's near -- along Eagle Road. This location. Currently shown as low density. They did have a previous approval for '; ,' medium density and the current application that's submitted is based on that. Rohm: Just to kind of help you out there, maybe it might be worthwhile to ask Anna it reversed the Zonin Commission's decision based upon, what it was that City Counc g because we had moved it forward recommending approval and City Council denied it. `i~ l~ Could you elaborate on why they -- what reason they gave for denial? ~..~~: ~ ,7" Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, the primary one was the lack _,"'}.,,` I of ability to address the transportation problems generated by the development. I think a lot of it was also based on -- on a prior vision that was expressed for the property for larger estate-type homes of a higher quality and they were having difficulty reconciling "`'' that with the -- the application that was before them that night. The -- Hubble has submitted an application. It will be processed under medium density residential, so ~;r there is no need for you to feel as if you have to make this consistent. That project may t or may not get approved. So, that's not your concern tonight. If it does get approved, ~. it's approved under a medium density designation and if it shows up green on the map, `~' ' it's not a concern of yours at that point either. If it doesn't get approved, if it's sold to another developer, then, maybe low density residential is the appropriate designation, if ~~ ~ that helps. ~ " v AA r 0. 4}-v, dip *t ': V m (f~ y, a ~'~ ~i'rr~i+.'. i ` . a[ i ~~ ~ ~y :~~ .v a ~}.,, ~.: ~i~ k z r t~~ .;-~ t~' r' ~ ~' ~s ~ ~ ~,~ } ..#r ~ ~~~ ~:`. H ~ ~. ~~ ti h ~ ~~ ,'T_, ~~ ~~ ~- 1 t i ~y ~ ~~ ~~ df ~ Y t ~~4-y. s i+s _l: ryr k ,"' ~` -~ "~~, .~ 'K ~ {' r f~ ;,3 I~ ~'i "i~~ +~~I •.~} '; ~ °~ `~ t ~ ~:. a - ~~ ~ , ?. Meridian Planning & Zoning "` November 1, 2007 Page 80 of 98 Rohm: I think that helps immensely. Okay. -.~: ''~-'~~ Siddoway: So, if -- if the application that they have currently submitted gets -- is in process and we send forward a recommendation on this for low density and it gets '`'" approved by Council before this medium density application hits us, are they subject to this -- or they submitted under the medium density, so that's what their -- '` ~ Canning: The UDC specifically states that you're vested with the laws and the -- the plans in place at the time of application. ~,,, Siddoway: So, they have -- they are now -- they are vested under that existing Comp Plan designation for this application. .~ O'Brien: Can you point out the plot of land there as what areas specifically that they are looking at on that? Canning: It goes all the way from Eagle Road all the way up and it actually includes the _~~_~ one acre lots as well. _~ ~ O'Brien: A mix of one acre lots and -- ~=`: ~*y .. ~:`:n :> :~,~ •~ ^{~ A{',:N t .: Canning: And it will -- the annexation includes the one acre lots and they are actually replatting a few of those one acre lots to extend a stub street. O'Brien: Okay. Siddoway: The future -- the previous approval didn't have the whole thing as medium, just like straight up from that point; correct? Canning: I think we still have it to show you. So, from that point right there straight up, it's not all the way over. Canning: And the -- they have designed to this Comp Plan designation. Siddoway: Moving on. The -- Ms. Commish -- what's that? Moe: Did we get a consensus on that -- that part. We want to keep it as is? Siddoway: I believe the -- Moe: As planned now. Siddoway: Show as low density residential. Moe: Yes. r ~ ~M1{i ^N r { 44 V ~ r ~aa `~sr F k~F ~ r~~~ ~c ~' ~- T ~ ~ ~~~L"k.R,' ~ i 1~ ' ,,fn _ 1~ ~ ~:klb ~ " 'F_ ~ ~ ~ (~. ~I.'~ ' It r{ , _ "a'~~- ...' _ YS~. ~ I~ ~ 1p ~~ A '~~ f ~~ '.~f Y ~ w ~~ ~ F ~. l ~~ 1 ~. }^~ aN ~+Rik , > ~Y'~4,'' x ~ ~~° ~ `S `4'' u~:~,. ~ ~ ~ ~ } .+ s ~: rcX F [ ~ ~ . r ~ ~~~_, 7 ~ yy G X~ 1 j }~ ~ '4 ~ ~ r` c~ I f y ~/ 3 ~ I'if ~' ~. ~ ~ ,: I1 h ~-(~ .:'~~ ~ ~ ~; i.Y~ ~ ~,, ~4 ~. - Fi1M i~r ~ ~ I ~ ~* .~ -,a +~~ ~'9 ~~ ~ '~ x ~l ~ .~ :. " <~~~ ~ a `~ ,~} • ~ ~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 81 of 98 ;.,, Siddoway: Yes? Yes. Low density residential. . O'Brien: Even though we know it's not going to happen that way? Rohm: Well, the application that we will be hearing is medium density, but as far as this ':~~~~ CPA, we can leave it just as it's written. '- O'Brien: Okay. Siddoway: Ms. Commish, I believe it was, talked about the desire to make the parcel over here change from medium high density residential to mixed use neighborhood. a. A; ~~ Moe: Yes. ~: - ck== Siddoway: And I heard support -- 3 .:;. `''' 1 Moe: I'm in favor of it. i" ~ O'Brien: Yeah. Me, too. 4 Siddoway: And I was leaning toward leaving it as is, knowing that the services could be integrated into a mixed use structure. There is no other way, is there, Pete, to tie -- to `~'' just approve the designation, along with some of those neighborhood center designee -- ,,-:. "~ you know, requirements that would keep it from becoming the sprawling suburban style development, is there? ;: Friedman: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, again, this being a Comprehensive Plan and a guideline, you know, we are kind of going in the i~, same direction that we want to move away from with our mixed used designations. So, I mean, really, it's -- you know, either you designate it, you know, the neighborhood -- ;~ ~~ mixed use neighborhood and, then, they proceed to develop that or we leave it as is r~ and, then, at such time as they come in for an annexation and development approval, they can look at the -- they can look, you know, at the zoning requirements that foster that for a mixed use. Or the other thing is we have talked about before, planning these - -the Comp Plan being an integral process -- I mean just because they don't get the designation now, a year from now, hopefully, if we have worked out revisions to our '`'~ mixed use designations, then, there is a chance to revisit them then and suggest their own Comp Plan map amendment. s , ~,. . '~ Siddoway: Yeah. Or we approve the change now and make that part of the discussion as we work through the changes to the definitions of what mixed use neighborhood and 1'"'`'~ 1 commercial or community are. My fellow Commissioners are leaning towards approving - it and -- ;a:' I~ ` h~Yl~t '~i~ ~ ~ i 3 ~ p+, .'S. ~ a ~ « ; ~ 1 ~( T ~ ~ I. Iy ~c I I~ ~ T .r5 - [rn YS 4~ ~gr y ., ~~4i r4 ~ ,{ i.h ~. 'kt~i'7~. ;ro ~ - `s. : y, , 7n}~ ~,q„ I c ~ ~k. ~ _ y ,~; u~ E~ f 1~« ~ ~_ ' I i „ ~ - ~ ~ ~x F ~ ~ v~~ F. t~r~y rk~ ~ r j C t~~t++fi~R;:. F ~ ~ F Y _ y -' ~~1~ ~ ~~ ~ "`~ ~~ .t~ iu ~ ~'~ I~h3~ « ~ sy~ 4'+;~, a`ye' ,~~~, ~i r M ~[ I ~ f~~ ~s ~ M ~ ~ ~2-Gi a:_r.. ~kk ~I k ~~~i ~ u. ~~ . r.- S # j ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ,~ 4 ~ ~. ~~. y '~~ ~~ .~{ i+y~~j ~ +3~€ •~ ~~ 'y ~t 6,~ P .'~' ~ . r f~ r ~ h~~ '.~, ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 82 of 98 Rohm: Well, Ithink -- I don't. I think we should leave it the way it is and when they °~'' choose to develop it, that they come in and ask for some sort of rezone at that time that they -- ~r Siddoway: Or Comp Plan amendment. Rohm: -- make application and address it -- address it at that time, rather than address it now. i;,: .,,. Siddoway: When they have a project to bring to us? Rohm: When they have a project to bring to us. Siddoway: Yeah. I -- O'Brien: How does the Commission get back to the applicant or the person that has 'a`~:` that concem? ~::: Rohm: What's that? O'Brien: How will that information get back to the individual that has that concem or suggestion to rezone it now? She can come back later. She may not know that. Rohm: As it's -- the motion's forwarded onto City Council will -- it will be part of public -~'. record. Siddoway: Yeah. O'Brien: Okay. Siddoway: So -- ``' Moe: I would agree with that. °'~ Siddoway: I agree with that, too. Let's leave it as, have it changed in the future when there is an actual proposed project that she can bring forward. `' ~ Moe: I can live with that. ;~ Siddoway: Let's see. Jim Percy, if I wrote the name down right. Meridian Road. ts` Moe: Yes. Siddoway: This area here. He requested that it be a higher density, I think was all he said. And did you -- you expressed you'd like to keep it as is? >;, ~~ sy y ~ `° ~ . ,~ ~p t ti r h Fir r'~~` ~ - ~ ; ~`~, ~, 4 ,l~p+ -~ ` ~ " ~~ y <<~ Si . ~~ ~t ~ - ~~ sic ~~~~ ~ } +n YYY u~ 1 ~ ' '. ~4b 1 ~~ N ~n 'Y~ ~ ,~ 1 . +1 ~~. 5 c'F'~ 7~~. t4 ': .~ MI'~ {ti y~ y ~ ~~ Ir j ~ a C ) ti. ~ ~~.~ G v i ~f ~~ ;r h . p t ~' ,pill ' i i I t i Ra '~f yy ~l7 ~.. ~41M ~. r4 1 'ti~Y 4 ~' ^~' ~ j ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 4 p ~~ t Y ~ .. ~S ~ k ~~ c ~ ~M~ w ~~~ ~ ' k ~~ ~. ~ Ift 7~~ '~.t c Y ~ W~.E ~1~dS lr, '~ F T y 'r ~~~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ Y r ~M - ~ ~Y ° ~ + .~ : ' 7i ~1~ K~ r : - y ~ '' ~4 Meridian Planning & Zoning '.'. November 1, 2007 Page 83 of 98 :. Vii: ` Moe: I wanted to keep it as is. I mean if it's -- it's that designation at the present time, at least on the -- ~`3 i; :, , Siddoway: I can go with that. So, keep that one as low density residentia . Moe: Right. ~~~ "=" Siddoway: Did anyone else have -- the general discussion about south -- the southwest =~::: ~`"=' comer, I -- I favor what's shown, so that we do show afuture -- a planning area an '`. referral area for the county that puts our line saying that we are going to actively plan for ~,;., _ this area and with the intent of making it area of impact in the future as we are able to plan for it and I'd probably expect to see that done in the next two to three years. ~~` :; `~ _ Moe: Yes. I am in agreement with that as well. Siddoway: I think we have a motion. ~'. ~; Rohm: I think we are ready for one. ~ ~~ Siddoway: Does anyone else have -- are there any other specific issues that anyone ~:'.~~„ took note of that I didn't address? -:-~ Moe: I think that's -- ;:._ ~~ ~' I '~ ` Rohm: No. I think you did a good job. I think that we need to discuss the Ewing proposal just a little bit before we move forward. Siddoway: Think we know where that one's going. _~ ~~'$~'``` Rohm: Well, I think so, too, but I'm not sure that we are in -- all in agreement, so I don't s-'-i `I' want to -- I don't want to move forward with this one until I have a good feeling that we are going to be able to act on the other one. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Okay. 4~~.>R Rohm: So, can -- do we have to close this or continue this one again? `''`~' Baird: Mr. Chair, you continue it again and, then, reopen the Ewing and discuss that. F-: Rohm: I don't want to -- I'd feel much better about that. , ;: ~ Baird: You're keeping track. f: ' . ~' '~ ~ r i 3 , '~~~ i '~ ~ ~~~ ~ 4 t ~ ~~ ., ~ ~°_ #;i ' fr z y , ~~~ r i ~~ ~ ~ { ~~ i f~. .~*~ t ~1f~ ~ ~~~ r Kf j ~'. ~`t ~~' I W} ~' r ~ r. ~§~ S~ ~ ' h ~r ~ u r { ' , ~~~ ~ „ ; F tl~' ' ' ~l '~ •Y' 1 ,f ~i ~ L 5' yF- t i h- ~~ C ~ ryry H~' t¢ ~ *' '~~ r 1 ~. ~F. H} : " . t ' .~~ .r $i~.~ w; , ~~~ ~~,-. ~• is :; ~, ,•x.71 ~.:. ~~ ,,k ~;; < ~~~;. ~~ ry'. ~,:.~:_ '•~h ,j= ,ti C~ . ~,..... 1 r '; 3"~-.' ... Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 84 of 98 Rohm: At this time I'd like to have a motion to again continue CPA 07-002 and CPA 07- 009 to the latter part of this meeting this evening. Siddoway: So moved. O'Brien: Second it. Moe: Second it. It's morning right now. Rohm: Well, that's right, it is. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009 to a later point on tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I have no -- no problem with moving this one forward. Baird: Mr. Chair, I'd suggest that you reopen those two items before you discuss them. Item 7: Public Hearing: CPA 07-010 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the north Meridian area to include 645 acres north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River from Linder Road to approximately'/4 mile west of Black Cat for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sherrie Ewing: Item 8: Public Hearing: CPA 07-015 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to create a new land use designation that would include open area, low-density, residential, medium low-density residential and medium-density residential uses with an anticipated average of density of 3 dwelling units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Project by Sherrie Ewing: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen CPA 07-010 and CPA 07-015 for discussion. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: In regard to CPA 07-010, I have no problems moving that forward and in regard to CPA 07-015, I have no problem denying that. Rohm: That being denial? Moe: That is correct. Rohm: How about adding to CPA 07-010 the nine acres that the -- John -- lry, ~ ~~ ~ -+~' 'E ~.~ .~E ~' Jar- It k .-f ~i x 's ;~ ~' ~,~ ~~ ~~ 7 `~ ~;~ ~ } ,~ S nr .'Jy~fJ t .,S Xis ~~~ ~ ~'~ ~~~ ~r ~f~i f _ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ i .. 4 F i ~~~>.~ N ~ ;r r~ ~47 t ~ ~ ~ ~Y. ~ti' i i Z r,. ~~k ~ - "~' ~S' ~7 N s r ~;~~ as ~ ~ # ~s ~~fk ~_ ~ 3 ~t ~' y ri 4~ >< ~ ~~ r ? ~l, t` +~e ~y~ ar ..~:~. ~ t ~k 1~~ ~. ~ r ~. .. ~ • ~`'>:~~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 ~~, Page 85 of 98 r+t--:'. Canning: Can't do that. } ~' Baird: Mr. Chair, the question that I wrote down is how do you do that? I mean it hasn't -. been planned, you don't know if you can serve it with sewer, it's up above the canal, he °'~ came in at the last minute trying to -- on the coat tails. It's a great idea, but I think he z , ; needs to work with the planning department and I'm seeing some shaking of heads. ~__ :~ Rohm: If -- if that's --then, that's why we do these. So, we will just not include that. g%` Baird: And the whole issue of notice to everyone there who -- there was a whole bunch of hearsay about what we thought people wanted, but you need to get those people '" `^ here -- ~~_~~,~: Rohm: Okay. i'`~ ~ Baird: -- at a future date. S ,.. `"` ~ Rohm: Okay. , gg,;_. ``'' Moe: Thank you, sir. S• _,_ 1~" "' '~~ Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. So, even though, Commissioner Siddoway, you ~:i". are a little bit less than supportive of this -- I Siddoway: Yeah. I can do it, but -- that's okay. E ~;j Rohm: All right. So, Commissioner O'Brien -- ,~~ ,. ~ :}n ~~~ ~ O'Brien: I'm for it. .,. !' Rohm: All right, then. I don't think there is any need for additional discussion, so at this F: time I'd like to have a motion to continue items 07 -- t,. ,- Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could suggest -- if you're thinking that you're going to send all these °~~ on, why don't you start with this one, since you have got it open. Rohm: Well, I thought we had to start from the -- R ``3 Baird: No. And, then, I would suggest that since we have some folks in the audience who are waiting on a particular matter, you might want to take that one up next and, then, just in whatever order the chair desires, because you are at the end of the meeting - where they have all been punched up. .~, `~' Rohm: All bight. Well, good enough, then. We sure don't -- I was just kind of getting all f the way back to square one. All right. With that being said, then, could I get a motion to ~~flC r",'~ ~~~4T,.. t~ 5 5 Q F ~ 1 ~ _ ~~ ~y. ~ •. _ ~ yi i A M~ ~ . ~t q ~ ~~ ~ ~ 7 ~ • ~ 2 ~, ,~,. a%, f: (l~~t i.,?~ t ~C~~~ r~ ~ s $'~{ ~ 1+ y a ~' j 4 ` 11 r y ~ ' - 1 ~~~} . ~S f J ~} ( ,~. _ , . .h. ~ •. ~~ly I: `,~ '~,~ ~ i ~ K V ~ ~ ~ Vh f ~ v~5 ~f~ +~ ~~ ~ ~ = ' ~ ". T~~v.. 1. ~Y l 7` I~ } ~ ~ 1r G 7 > >_ P i a ~ ~t ~r ~~ ~ ~ Ji ' f1LL m 1~ S Sri .~ 4 /~'. ! ~.y~. f .' ~ Gr 1 1 ~ h ~ ~~~r r~ t, -d' 1 .«~~~ ~~. yk ~~ ~'4 h ~~ ~ ~ ~~' ~~` r ~; ~~ ~ ~ ~~ „~f ~~ ~ ~S ~~ ~'a~r {a' 4I~ F~. _ .~, X Meridian Planning 8k Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 86 of 98 take action on Items 7 and 8? Those are the ones that are currently open. Moe: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA 07-010 and denial of CPA 07-015 as presented during the hearing of November 1st, 2007. Siddoway: Got to get them one at a time or -- do we need them one at a time? ~~' Hood: Mr. Chair, maker of the motion, I'd prefer that you do them one at a time, because we may have people voting different ways on the different applications is the only concern that I have. Moe: I just read it. In that case, Mr. Chairman, let me amend my motion to move to recommend approval of City Council of file number CPA 07-010 as presented during the hearing of November 1st, 2007. .: ;; ..L, O'Brien: Second. jz:~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 07-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Siddoway: Aye. ~` Rohm: Motion carried. Oh, excuse me, there is one dissenter. Still pass. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. ;;: ~,.~: ;~ ~~ Moe: Mr. Chairman? Yes. Mr. Chairman? I move to recommend denial of CPA 07- 015during the hearing date of November 1st, 2007. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It been moved and seconded to recommend denial of CPA 07-015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: So, just to kind of help you out, Item 10, there is -- the applicant's still here for Item No. 10 and the applicants are still here for 12, 13 and 14. Rohm: Nine and ten now? Hood: Nine and ten. Item 9: Public Hearing: CPA 07-012 Request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use +a~~ ~ _ ~• ~ ."~.~~ ~yy 1 1~~ L S A =bk `~~~ $"7 ]~Z ~ ; k,S ~.. {., I 4 ~~~ ti '„ IE ~ t ~~ ~ ~;~~-.; 't ~ g ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rv-. i ¢ ~ i ~ #~ ~ r ~~ } ~ ~ y iG i i f~(i~ 4 k ': ll' l L E £:~ ~ k l i I ] ~i ti ~~1~LY~i p P 1 ~ h~2o a; :~ .. .. r: kt ~ ~f~u~~x~. ~~~'4 ~ y fK~; ti. t ~l K ~~.+t~, ~ H '~I" F u ~ t t z ~ . ~Y J I ~~ • •A 45 G i ~ k 3 ~: 1~3 y4~ k~ Li t~ yy ~F.~~'' ~ /'fxca~ ~v ~, G R~Y ~ ~'~ ~ ~~~~~~~ h ~e~F ~ ~~'' t i ~ ~~. ., - ~ ~ -~ ~~~~-. ~ y~ ~ ` ' h i ~ R^ ~~..~G ;~Y C ~ ' ({I {^ ~Si ~ tics r _ r f k ~ w '' ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ , __ ~E».. ~ $ ~, ~ y ~~ k r ~µ s i Ci~ h - 6 y ~.:r. k ~ ` ° w ~ ~~ } ~ , ~ ~ A t~ ~ t y~ , ~ ~ " . ,~ ; ~~st ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 87 of 98 designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial for Strada '~ ~ Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC - NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots ._ 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): <<' y~ ,~ ;. Item 10: Public Hearing: RZ 07-013 Request for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L- O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC -NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Public Hearing on CPA 07-012 and RZ 07-013 for continued deliberation and a motion. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: We are reopened, so -- -'' Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, application, and public testimony, move to recommend approval of -- let's see. CPA 07-012, changing the -- well, it's °'` already in the staff report this way, but to reaffirm that we are changing the requested C- ''' C designation to C-N per the staff report. And as prepared for the hearing date of ;, November 1st, 2007. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending - approval CPA 07-012 to include the afore-mentioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Siddoway: I believe I said C-N. Did I say C-N? So, the Comp Plan amendment is mixed use neighborhood. C-N is the zone, so -- e~ ~ Moe: Mixed use neighborhood. - Siddoway: For clarification, the -- it's still in conformance with the staff report, but it's for the mixed use neighborhood designation on the Comp Plan amendment, so -- j~ Moe: Okay. i ~T- r s 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ d`' ~~ ~ Cj ~i K Y ~ , u~~5 ~ g - rFY~w~~l.~. ~ .. ... ~:5 ~~u t~9; r j 3..~C i, S ~'~ F 'tn ~~~ a'fi SM a ''v' e ~ ~ ~~~ ~.}„ -0i e. c ~ .~~ ~~ ~' ~ ~~~i ~ ~ 4 F' S i} ~I~ K ` 1 h 3 n~~g~v ~ ` ,~ Y ~,N~~c~- - ~zat _ r , ~ s ~~~;`;' ia~~i ~ S K' E~ ° :.~ 7 5 ~~ua W - . !; ~~' ' ~ ~~~ ~ ' rid ~ ~ ~ i ~` w' ~ ~ ~_ ~ Et k~~ ~ , ~ t~ , s ~ -. ~ a,.:~ {~ ~ .:~- ~Z~4 ~'~~ ~~ F 4 G ; t ] , - , j ~ 1 S ~ P r ~ ,ai ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ 1,~ ~~~ ~ r _ y~ x . ~'~ r ~ ' ~ ~ s , yy q ~ "+~ ,~ _ ~ y ~~ ~~~ ~ .5 tl Yd:.:a _ .. ._: ,,. .., i, ' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 88 of 98 ~~'~ Hood: And just for clarification, we didn't really talk about that in the staffs presentation, so that would be something that's different. Mixed use community was something that we did -- that's what the applicant proposed and what staff was recommending approval of. '` Siddoway: Sony, say that again. Hood: Mixed use community for the Comp Plan designation. f;' Siddoway: You weren't changing that? Hood: No. Siddoway: You were just changing the -- ?'>~~~ Hood: The C-N zoning. Correct. And that wasn't even a change. That's what they -- asked for was the C-N zone. Siddoway: What am I thinking of? Hood: There is another one where we -- Siddoway: I'm sorry. It's late. ::r Rohm: Want to start over? Siddoway: Let me start over. Rohm: Okay. ~~ Siddoway: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to ~.>: recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 07-012, as presented in the ` ~ staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2007. ~~;:, Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval to the City Council of CPA 07-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ``' Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? rr, Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. i'jt~ ~ f Y'"~ k~;~ ~uhA ~: ~. 3 ~ypkw ~=~~i a ~~ ~ ~ F~ y t 3c j ~ ~ ~ A! FF+ e'- ~ ~ . ~ ~, S F ' i n tR f ~ h ~ }^.f ~ r~ ~ ~ ~t.,rr.. ~t~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ?, ~ n ~~ ~ [ ~. ~ ~ `~ ~ t ~~ f+ t ~ ~, . r U~I ." ~~t ~ t i~ f~:. ~r _ z ~~ i ~;{ 3 ~ I j F ~ ~ ~ _6 jf ~~~ ,T cr ~ Mf ~ 7 u'-K ~ ~ #^ ~n~ ' C ~ ~ .1 r k~ ~ ~`~ a9 r'' t7'' ~ ( !~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 1 x 3 ~ ~ " ~~~_ "". i SF ,~ va_~.~ ~,~ ., ,r , ,'. r ~du ~ 5 a .,-, ' i~~ ,.~ e ~ ; 3 kt r ~ Y << u~ ~~` ~ ~ ~~~_. ~_ Cr ~ , ~.. 4 . _ ,_ ai~i..~lS,'~ .. - ~rdk'.J's • i ;; 1. ,. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 89 of 98 Siddoway: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 07-013 as presented in the staff report for the Public Hearing of November 1st, 2007. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval to City Council of RZ 07-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: CPA 07-011 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 38.7 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community to include Office /Retail, Private School and Patio Homes for Dean Property by David J. Dean - 6380 N. Locust Grove Road (NEC of N. Locust Grove and E. Chinden): Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to reopen CPA 07-011 for further deliberation and a motion. O'Brien: So moved. Moe: Second. 011? Siddoway: They're not here, but we can do that. Rohm: 07-011 -- isn't that the property that -- oh, excuse me. Well, this one won't take long. Bear with me. Is there any discussion before we get a motion on this? Moe: Well, I have none, Mr. Chairman. Ready to make a motion, then? Rohm: Please. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA 07-011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2007. O'Brien: So moved. Moe: That's -- E` Rohm: A second. O'Brien: A second. Sorry. ~` Rohm: Second. ,~.~ ~~~~ ~,~ ~ z ~ ~~~ I ~, ~ _ ~, ~ F A { k ~ i 1t f~ k ~ ~~'tF-.~ ~~~~ + 4~~'1ltvav i y~ .: 4Sy it', .. } ~ ~ r4k 7~ t -: ; ~ 3 . A 7~ ~ ~ :. ti ° ~' ~l~ a z ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~~~~ f t~ ~~w ~~ j ~ ~ ~ f t ~7''Yi ~:K^;ti .~.. r. i~i A ~ ~ '' qp f jf~ " ~ ,~, ,.. 111 1 ~~ ~ {~:f p~ ky ~~ ~~ S ?~ R`, ~~ S z`w ~ ~ 'fin ati 'a1+1~1,4~'t ~~ y y . y yt ~ ',..Lt_ ~5 F y~' {IFS of ~ti I . ~~~# _ k` ?~., ~ I Ff i ` i ~',?4~ ~ ~~ F41 t -3534 .~j ~~'~t E:: k ti~ ~~ ~4r ~ r r{ ,ty' ~ ~,i5 '~'''f aa- E ~T a+k,7: st t f ,~~; ~~ ~~ ~ Ff ~W ?~~f ~ F ;,: ,. .i; E . F;. ~'. :ry~ ri, ]_ ' J • • Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 90 of 98 O'Brien: Oh, boy. Is it 1:00 yet? Rohm: Well, we are getting a little rummy now. Baird: Mr. Chair. Rohm: It's been moved and -- Baird: Mr. Chair, it is late and we are kind of letting things slide, but I would just remind you we need to actually close the hearing and, then, make a motion. Rohm: Yeah. You're right. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing on 07-011. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-011. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Now a motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number 07-011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2007. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of 07-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: I'm not sure that we closed the other two public hearings. Baird: Mr. Chair, I would say that for the purposes of the record you can presume that they were closed before you made your motions, so you don't have to back up. Rohm: Okay. Baird: We will make it so. I don't think that would be a procedural defect that would derail any of this and keep us from moving forward. -~~ d;_ ~ -~ .~a~s -~ u ~ ~ s~ ~",p,a. ~~~'f fi}, ~ 1N J 'ra_ $~~ _ _ } S ~ ~~ - nK ~~pf}}6x~ _ d ~- wW ~~'j }~f l ~ ~{y..~ 1~Hi ~ t. fir~4 f f ~} 4~ S ~. c y , i ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ a~~~~ ~~i, ~~ k 1~ ,~ v ~" ' ~ r, ~ ~ ~ :; f k ~-~ ~ s 7 1 ~p 1 ~ ~t ? x a'- '' '~ , r Yt y~•- ~~I - v e `/C ~r -_ ~iM -" _. 11 qq ~ ~5i1'~}vh ~ ~ r' 2 ~ d£'' rte, „~ ~,~ r •, ~ i ~ .~ , ~~ ' ,: t~' x ~~M` ,`. 2' ~ ' ~ n m+ s tl; } , ~. i -0 >> ;a ~ .. ~..~ ~- • • Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 91 of 98 Item 12: Public Hearing: CPA 07-014 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land fE Use Map Amendment of 7.43 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development, Inc. -1630 & 1720 E. McMillan Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 07-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C zone for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 07-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 4 commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: Rohm: All right. Well, we are going to move right forward to opening -- reopening the Public Hearing on CPA 07-014 and AZ 07-014 and PP 07-019 for the sole purpose of F~. ~`~~~' further discussion and a motion. ~~ O'Brien: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen 07 -- CPA 07-014, AZ 07-014 and PP 07-019. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ,S !+ ~.°,. ,:G4. ~., . I ,1':~ ~_ ~ ,:,:, Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: Last item for discussion. Eight foot -- are eight foot fences allowed in C-N? Yes? You meant six -- oh. Moe: I did hear the applicant say an eight foot fence and I'm very much in favor of an eight foot fence, simply because we have these subdivisions there and that's what I'd love to see. O'Brien: I agree. Siddoway: I agree. Moe: And that would be the only item that I could see on the -- and that would be on the preliminary plat that it would go on; right? Or -- Siddoway: Right. That wouldn't be on the CPA. Moe: Right. Yeah. No, I know that. I'm just saying -- so, anyway -- .k 3 PPI~k!s~ ~`7 ~ '-'Ir~~ ~~ - s ~ S _. ~lwF~.$'. - r1 Elp~i t ~ 47 r~l~l~. - - - 3iTh.: ~ ~ Y ~ ~~ iX~r. ~fi~ J~ t ~ItT 'Q~ P ~ ~~ .. ~. '~ t~ ~ ~ a;~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ !i FI '~ ;i~ ~~'. ''i 1 . r ° , C ~1f'C ~ 1 ~ ~~` ' 4n ~ ~ y . ,~~.j r~~ _ ~ 1 ~1!(~ ~S[ Y t i 3~~ ~ A M 4 I 1 ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ 4 ~nn p ~~°', y~~-. i~ ~~> ~~n fi 'y. F " ~: .~ ~5. ~yGM h f' ~' } 3~1 M'~ 4 W +~ 5~ ~ ~ t ~ i !~~ . , r ~ ~ f ..~ F~ t ~ ~„ - :,~, 9. +c ,.1 ;~ { ve ;. ~ 4: ~~ `~ P ;i t ~ 4~y~ ~i~~ ~ ,~ 1 ~ ~~~s+~ C~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 92 of 98 Siddoway: Did we open all three or just the one? s Rohm: All three. Baird: All three. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman -- I lost my spot here. ~`r' Rohm: Are we going to close them before we -- Moe: Oh. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-014, AZ 07- *' 014, and PP 07-019. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-014, AZ ;~:~ 07-014 and PP 07-019. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve to City Council file number CPA 07-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2007. ~=J~~ Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending "~'} approval of CPA 07-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. ~,; i MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. E ` Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move ~~` to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 07-014 as presented in the ``"~ staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2007. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending ~~; ~ ~~;~;.', approval of file number AZ 07-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign . Motion carved. f~,:,,. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. i~. T t^~ 5[ ~ (~ ~ k~=a- ~ ~ .itr. y f ~ ~I l d ~ r ; u~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l y ~ . I 11~. ,~ ,,yy- i'~~~~'.,5,. ~r ~ r r1 4 ~~ S ~Yf ~ . t '. $~ n ~rr ~/V ~ I J Yt yy k.l P.y.~ ~ ~1 - 1t ~ ~ ~ ~ {~ ~' - r~ i ~ w r x,oa:r'_ ~ ~I pq pL, r~ t~f :-i>,. 4"F oft i ~s~, r~" h. k ~¢w u ~1 J `t ;'~ w~y , ~ :r ie l~ ~, a' 3 ~ ~ ~r , ~r ~~ ' ~ ., s a ~ ' Y' y `~~ SIN`F i f ; ~~f '~ ~f r;'; ~il ~ 4 y13~ w~Y., C 3~p 1 ~ ~~ ~1 `` ~ L i : . i h~,~ CMt ' s 4~, z ~~ ~~: t ~' . . 1 F. ` ~ [ ~ LIB-~ _.., - __. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 93 of 98 • Siddoway: Mr. Chairman -- and just for clarification, Caleb, the DA requirements that are in the item we got tonight are in the staff report; correct? Hood: Correct. Those are just a small sample, but all of those are currently in the DA. Siddoway: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 07-019 as "' ' presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2007, with the modification to provide an eight foot high vinyl fence at the perimeter of the property. "'~ ~~ O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of file number PP 07-019, to include the staff report with the afore-mentioned modification to the fence -- Siddoway: Just a quick discussion for clarification. That perimeter fence is on the two sides, not unnecessarily required on the -- Moe: I'm sorry. That would be north and east property lines. `' ~ Rohm: North and east. Siddoway: Thank you. ~~; Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. ' MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~ ; Item 4: Public Hearing: CPA 07-013 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to change four nodes with land use designations of Light Industrial to Commercial, two nodes from Commercial to Light Industrial and one node from Light Industrial to <;~. Public /Quasi Public for a future school site. The amendments are intended to bring the City's Future Land Use Map into conformance with `~' the City's Zoning Map. An additional request is to remove the Urban Service Planning Area (USPA) designation from the map legend and ~; . replace it with the Area of City Impact (AOCI) Boundary by the City of Meridian Planning Department -two parcels north of NW 10~" Place and '~' -~ west of Taylor Street; north of E. Franklin Road and east of Taylor Street; ,' two parcels north of E. Overland Road and east of S. Teare Avenue; east :_~~; of S. Locust Grove and north of E. Overland Road; two parcels northwest comer of N. Eagle Road and E. Lanark Street; six parcels west of N. ;- ~~~~~ tB~I; '~ " ~4 ~ ~'~: r ~>~ . ~ x t € 3 ik ~~~5 s.t~',. ~~~, i ~ ~,,~ Ae~+~p .~.: 7 i1 fi 4~_~`~~{~~ ~'~ - ; r '~i ~~ Y ~ 7.Y~ ~ L `~y~ 5f. J ~ i 1~1`7+f`'i' car. ~~~ ~.. ww 1~~iI ~: ~-' A ~.1' k'~~n , ~ ~I` ~ ~ ' I 7 y {~'I6 } ~~ ?W. ~ =I R f I r~l~ -~ J t s > ~' ~I ' ` It . a s ~x .v ~ y. i¢ ~ .~~~t~ i ' r~4:~r ~ ~ 4i , " ~ '.~ 3 ,~ ' ~ ,~ ~ { Fr yy,. %zi i zh a * ~~., , ~~ ~ ;~-, v _ r- ' S; ~: ~ ..;. . it ~ • ' ~ 1 i ' ~ ~~. ~ C 7l d~3 ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ Via' i4~Ry~1~~' ~ . tin ~:~ 1 ~5Y ~4 j y. !'` r A,. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 94 of 98 • Eagle Road and north of E. Florence Street; three parcels west of N. Eagle Road and south of E. Florence Street; Paddington and Elliott Park Subdivisions south of E. Wilson Lane and east of N. Locust Grove Road: t.-. ~- Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of CPA 07-013 for further discussion prior to a motion. Moe: I have no -- Siddoway: So moved. Moe: -- additional comments. I think it was fairly spelled out completely and I am in agreement with staffs recommendations. Siddoway: I believe we still have to open it. Moe: Oh. But we are going to open it first. Rohm: Didn't I -- Baird: Mr. Chair, the reopening is just like an agenda item. The formality of taking a - motion and a vote to open it is not really necessary, although you have been doing it, ±~'' you may as well continue. ~'`'' Rohm: It's getting late, isn't it? Baird: That's okay. I would just say that the chair can say I'm going to reopen Item CPA 07-013. ~,,; Rohm: Good enough. That's perfect. Moe: So, we are now open. ~,. . ~.: Y ;,.. ,~! Siddoway: So, we need to close it. Rohm: Why do we have to open it if we are just going to make a motion? Baird: Oh, geez. Well, that's a good question. To acknowledge that you're done discussing it, I suppose, and you have pretty much done that, but it wasn't open for you to do it. These technicalities seem odd at this point, but let's go ahead and open it and acknowledge that you are done discussing it and close it and, then, make a motion. Rohm: Is there any further discussion on CPA 07-013? O'Brien: No. ,i~ ~t~•.t~~. ~Yrr ~ ~z~a :~: ~. 13~h ~~ ,, ~ ~ `. i e I r.. ~wG~4it:~ ~~ ~y~p ]~~ ~ ~ ` h akp~~SW1~~yy;~~~4~rt t d 1~ ~ ~ ~ iF`µY~ r fK~~ <~ ~ t..'+~, 1 ~ ~ t ~ f/ i '~ ~~ q I S i ~~ rf, ~ v t r„ ~ 799 ~ ~: ~~+.~~.. ~!~ ~. ~ A wt„ at{ ~L, / ~ .~ i ~~t t~gi^~`~`„~j ~. ~{ n ~' :,c. Ic;S i~, F ' ~ psi ~ ~~;E _ ~~ r ~,. € t ~" .9ys.,~ ~~ i f ... i.-,t GbI^a ~aw ~f y. ~, ;YNS yy R~ { th Ip~ s.~ ~ ti~+~~~~ ~`~ ~ +; =~~f iy- c j^a ~ 3a tvi v 4 3 N i ~~ ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 95 of 98 :_.~ t,: , ~; Siddoway: I have none. Moe: I have none. Rohm: Could I get a motion to close CPA 07-013? Siddoway: So moved. ~. O'Brien: Second. ~; Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close CPA 07-013. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Now may I? Rohm: You may. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 07-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2007. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 07-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: What else do we have? Moe: South -- Siddoway: South Meridian. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-002 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and '/2 mile east of Linder Road south to'/2 mile south of Columbia Road, east to '/ mile west of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2007: CPA 07-009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to ~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ gl q( { t 4 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~° ~ . ~ -'.~ws;. a~~i a~ ~" ~t~ 5y, i=~... k ~'~ ~ ~ ~^I i:'~.. ~~ti y c ~~,.i 9 ~"~f 7 ". a; ~~ f, ~[ t a~~ °~ ti a} = '~~ is . o- ~1 ti ~ 4 ull ~~ ~ ~ d a~~ s ,~ K ~~. rs„ qq ,{ ~~ y i~~ 3x .. ~ ~ Y x S -Y~ ~ Q ~ f Q 7+1 f ( r t N . . ~~L~ r}~. . 3 ~ VV r J - S ~ ~~ 1 y ~ I k_~,.~ KCT~ ~ j ~ T ~S ~ , k (~j . ea ~ Y ~~. ~u, ..~T.',g ~ '~ y ~ y ~ ~ ],M~c}. •~ .~, ~ :_~ ui ~.'k ~ ~. k a~~u . ,*[ [ ~~i~ r_ ~: n',. < < 7.: 1 I ~ ~ {i S . ~ i; ~';~; ~~ , ~_:, :; ~.. i. ¢~'.:' r= ~; I```, ,~,~: ,....;, *, Y ~ ~,. €~..` s, ~:~. ~~>., ~: ,~ • Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 96 of 98 the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: Rohm: Oh. Do we want to do anything with that tonight? At this time I'd like to reopen CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009 for further discussion and a motion. O'Brien: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Baird: Again, it's open. Moe: It's open. Siddoway: I have no further discussion and I move to close said public hearings. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings of CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009. Canning: We were going to leave the text amendment open. Siddoway: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I wish to amend my motion. I would like to take these -- I would like to leave the hearing open on the text amendment, CPA 07-009. Rohm: Fair enough. Let's leave it open. Siddoway: So, I am only moving to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-002. Rohm: It's been moved to close the Public Hearing CPA 07-002. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 07-002 with the following modifications: To add an area to the proposed area of impact -- I don't have parcel numbers, so I'll do my best describing it. Near the intersection of Lake Hazel and Meridian Road in the southwest comer, approximately one quarter mile west of the proposed boundary on the revised staff response and to extend approximately one ~`~` s 4 r Z ri RS :~., ~ ~ ~'~ } l+ e .' ~h7 ~ 7 i ~~~ ~I'~ f r ~ -'~i M yy i h.(. ~~ i. ! ~k '~ i~ 3 ~ ~ ;; ,~~} ~ ; ~°~, ~ ~,y a'~,~ z r ,~. ~;, ~, ~,t ~ ~,~i c~i ' :~ v ,_ ~~~14 aw ; Yjx ~~11 ~, 7 ~~1~ iy r i ti ti ~ ~.. ~i?3 ~~~{ l ~I yyti z y u' di~i ~ a .~ ~I n a~ ¢ ~ Y, i ~~~(r ~ M li `'~I~4 I~ ~' ~ ~j a":h ~~ r F ~~ ~~ 1 • Meridian Planning & Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 97 of 98 quarter mile south and to have that area designated as medium density residential. In addition to that -- no change. No change. No change. No change. Is that it? Moe: Unbelievable. Hood: Just to confirm, that's the only change we had, too, so you're on track. Siddoway: That's the only -- after all the discussion I think there were no changes on any of the other items. So, with that -- that change I recommend approval as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2007. O'Brien: Second. 7~; `- Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending ~`°'` approval of CPA 07-002, to include the staff report with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Is December the 20th going to be enough time? Siddoway: Anna, is December 20th enough time to be able to come back with proposed language for the text amendment? ~, Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, we actually talked about that. I think we can squeeze it on December 6th. She thinks that we can meet with the -- with Brighton and come up with some text to propose for the 6th and that agenda is fairly light at this point. You will have some more projects on the 20th that just haven't all been transmitted to the clerk yet, so they don't show up on your draft agenda tonight, but the `_~~" 6th would probably work, too. t ;;, Moe: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue CPA 07-009 to our next -- well, not our next meeting, our meeting to be held on December 6, 2007, and direct staff to work with the -- with Brighton ''- Corporation on text specific to the mixed employment area definition and bring it back :,~;' '~~ as part of that text amendment discussion. End of motion. ~;;+ Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward on -- to continue CPA 07-009 to the `'~``'~ regularly scheduled meeting of December 6th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. i t, ,a, i `' MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~ }.`1_ -..:. u 9~ 3:~ `- c :'~ 1 E ~ ,F ~,, r k F =.F ''~' ` N )))iii r 1!14 YC .~~. ~ - ~~77y YY~~ , ~W t - ~ ~ ~ '' '~ ~, u ~ 1~ • •~ ~~~ s~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~i ~~ } fit. ~ ~~, .. i .: ' ~N i = ~5 ~~ ~ r'~j ; _ '~ ~ !~ ;1~. !~ 1 `~ ~ i ~'.1. F.z , ~ a '' ~ ,~ ~ (y y ~ i,, 1 ~ ?~ r ~~M~ p~ ~ ~~5~,~, - ,- ppk K„ x. f ~ b ~ i~ I' f .1 k y K4 J1-`µ _4' ~Ki~ y '~ { ~ y:~ ~~rs~~~ .~ ~jf ti A~6 C «`~~~ } ' ~ ; 1 Y ~( rQ( ~,¢~i., ;l- Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning November 1, 2007 Page 98 of 98 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. O'Brien: Second. Siddoway: Aye. L Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Good night. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:37 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) ~~~~ APP OVED MIC AEL OHM - CHA MAN :~ ~~ ~~ :;, ` ~~~ x'c R,_, y. ~- ~' ~i{ I it~» 1Y! ~:.. ~. '; (l .. lSn . _.'t,...._ a~P! E! YY~ ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, ~il5i©~ DATE APPROVED r~y~ s CLERK ~1 $~~L = ry .T~ \ ti, v ~• ~ r~V~llli~.,olil N1~~~`` ;~: tr ,~ ~ H ~ ,5 r r~ f n' r ~~ M' ~~ ~~~ ~ 5 .. }$ y~i ~ Y Y ~ ~~~~"~~' ~ C ' ~ ~f If 0, _ ~ci~t r.l . k 1 Ky " t ~ ~ i, ~~j~ ~< ~ M ~ ~ ~~ k ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ t it 1~ ~4 .: ,tly ~ `* l!~ ,tlw.ti t I.~ k ,, _. ~ h, y+j E i.~1..; M C ni r' G 7~r~ 2 ~ ~ ~. ~~; 4 r ~~yr ~~~ ; x~~ ~^ ~ i1 Y k ~df~2 ~ 4 r~,Y ~, ~ •, i~ ^ ~"* .Y L F t ht _ rt r ~ ~ ~ f._* ~~}q~ \ ~ •~ !y 2 ~ ~ '~f , i 4 ~ s c ~ ~ < ~ ~ k r e ~6 Y }~ aY~ .. a t [ F ~; f ,~~' .r, -, r _~ i ; ~.;~ ~' S e~~ sa y Z a~r~ '. I_ [ ~~ ~{ L. ~ 4 ~ ~~~ ~ ~' ~ 1 : . ~6 h~Z a t r S i Y ~ q~~ • ~;,' October 29, 2007 CPA 07-013 MERIDIAN PLANNING S~ ZONING MEETING November l , 2007 F ',. APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST PubUc Healtng -Comp Plan Amndt to modify- the Future Land Use Map to change 4 nodes w/ land use designations of Light Industrial to Gommerclal, 2 nodes from Commercial to Light Industrial 81 node from Light Industrial to Public /Quasi Public for a future school '' site. The amndts are intended to bring the Cityrs Future Land Use Map Into conformance w/the Citys Zoning Map. An add~ional request -;` is to remove the Urban Service Planning Any (USPA) designation from the map Fend & replace it w/the Area of Clty Im{~ct (AOCI) Boundary - 2 parcels No NVII 10th Place & w/o Taylor St.; No E. Franldin Rd. & No Taylor St.; 2 parcels No E. Overland Rd & eJo S. Tears ~`` Ave.• e/o S. Locust Grove Rd 8 No E. Overland Rd.; 2 parcels NWC of N. Eagle Rd 8 E. Lanark St.; 6 parcels wrlo N. Eagle Rd 8 No E. Fk-rer>ce St.; 3 parcels w/o N. Eagle Rd 8 s/o E. Florence St.; Paddington & Elliott Park Subs s/o E. VYilso I,n & e% N. Locust Grove AGENCY COMMENTS z "; CITY CLERK: F: ~. CITY ENGINEER: ~,. CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: w>:~. °~_; ;- CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~, CITY WATER DEPT: ~: ' CITY SEWER DEPT: PIo Comment E ~~=-~~'•~ OITY PARKS DEPT: }, MERIDIAN SCWOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ~! ` ~~,,; ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment S; v F ~~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments '~~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: i ... IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ^~ OTHER: L ~~ z ~ ~ i p~ t c S i f~; 351~,t~~`~~'~~~ .. ~r~€ ~ ~~ - s z~~,yy,, ;~ii3~r~ $~r'R ~t. '= Mt°ylti ti l~~ ~ ~ ` 5~ ~ ~~*t~,.{n. N i s ,u ~. C~ r. ;S a ,. ~ a '-ti r i ~ ~ Cp e y ,. ` ~' i M ~ _ I 'k ! S Ali ~ 4{ r .l:. ~ f x ~)., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~(.. - a"~7i 5 5 3 I~ f1-' r .~1y~ ti'e':. ~~4i w~ ~ a ~~ $ ~,y S ~": i(s ,1~ '` ~~~ ~ . ,~ I ~ - -_-~~=;a ~; x~~ C ~t~ ~ ' ~ '~ ~. ~~ ,~~ ~ ~ r3 r ti. n5' ~ ~~f ~ k :. t ~~ ~F~. ~ ^~ ~. `a ~ SYh t,ll~4~.:`4 .i1= 1£hf t. n6~r~ ~{. ~i jF~ , P ~ 1 :~.i-:,. ~ A r ~YL~, . k~~ F~ r ~h~ '.4+, 1$ '. 1 ;hj J~ ~:..: ,. ...., ~~ -,iii E. October 29, 2007 CPA 07-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 1, X007 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Pubic Hearing from 4/19/07-Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land east of McDermott Rd, south to Lake Hazel Rd & 1 /2 mile e/o Under Rd south to 1 /2 mile s1o Columbia Rd, east to 1 /4 mile w!o Cloverdale Rd for South Meridian Area CPA AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: ,~`I CITY WATER DEPT: `~ CITY SEWER DEPT: r ~' CITY PARKS DEPT: .., :z~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: {k SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: °`'"` NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: >-~¢° - SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: -'`a IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Email by Wenden Waite /Attached Email by Kevin Yagues y Contacted• Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: : ;;_ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ?s '; :,':, ~ ` ~:r~~~ ~;r,4; RF ~ k" ;?~ l{ f ~~ ~' ~ may'. ~ ~K ~~ ] qIk ~}11~1{ ~;! '. {fit -~ I: 11h ((j tt~ ~[ ~- -h ~.~ d 3112 ~~"~_ ~~~~ #~~~'Cia7 ~:'u4 I i ~ -k,' '-33,,r~~ ~ - ' I it[[ i ~C~ T~ ~ 1~ tp'~ I..i ~T` ~~~ ~ ~ ~ f _ 4,~ f r~ t } r .a P ~}~~ d = z 53 E r - ~, a i~ t ~~ ~ r ~ r, ~i~ ~' ~fr~ r s a ~ . ` ~~~` :' s> ~ R~ z ~ ,~, ~ 4 Y F u~i . ~ti .~ ~ ~f„ ~ ~Py L. ~S ~ i !7 f~ ~ ~ , ~~} ~' f ~~''F Lg ' ;~' ~~~ ~ tt - w: ~ t s ~ 5F _ ~ (ttf 4.: 'h~f~ ~ J! e` - t~.. N ~ ~ #; ~ ~ e i S~'.~~y r ~ ~ lyah Y t ss ~: '~ 1 f gl ~ 1~ ~ t r.- ~4. C., - r~s11 >19 .. ~,~3 ' ' 4 * ~ K a r }4 ~ l n October 29, 2007 CPA 07-009 ''" MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING November 1, 2007 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 6 A ` REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 4/19/07-Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area - Y : AGENCY COMMENTS - CITY CLERK: See CPA 07-002 Packet ,: CITY ENGINEER: ~~~'+ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~'%` CITY WATER DEPT: jx~:. CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ;; t r,#,~ SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ='` i CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: I';. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: :,~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~ 5~`.y '~ !s`" IDAHO POWER: ~: a'~ ~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: .,:,;. OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the Cfty of Meridian. ~`i,~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~i ~, ~ '~' ,; ACC. {.'. ~' a~~ ~~~~W i M ~ ~I ~ ti' _ G,'~ J.~~• ~'' ' ~~~ 1Yry,j.„~((]]]]]] ~~ ~ S"y f, l~ >,4~ ~ ~ }~ 1 ni.r _ {'..bi _ I i ~ 1 ft`.% L k !~G~, ~ ~ ;iq~.~~ C ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ '1' ` q ~ k ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ s- ; lY~f y, 4 ~ I IF~~~ ~' - I~ ~ ,~ ~ _ 14~ ~ 5 w p ~~. L i f ~~I~ (£ 5 Iq '~~' ~b ~ •~~4'.. r ~~~~ ~ r ~ d i .. ~! ~ # .iii '. 4 t ~ r ,. y+l. h ~~ ~ i ~ ~'( ~ +s ~ r ~n ~ ~ ~ ,~ .. x ' > 1 - e `I~ t ~ ~~~ ' , r ~ ' " a ~"~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ t ~ i ~ H r •, C: F , • ~% S ~j rrl 4 ;. ~ :~~,, _ 1~ Iv 3 ~ ~~~ '` _ ~ ~ 4k *• h. i ~~~ ~s-~ _ ~ t' ~ ~ ' ~3,f i i ~. ~I~' ~ ~~ ~ ; ~~S~v h .q 4 +~ ~ F ~ i~~ ,~ I <; r- >>-, ~:__;, ~, .. ::~ ,~~ .+ ~~ October 29, 2007 CPA 07-0i 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING November 1, 2007 APPLICANT Sherrie Ewing ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing -Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the north Meridian area to include 645 acres north of the Phyllis canal and south of the Boise River from Linder Road to approximately 1 /4 mile west of Black Cat for North Phyllis Canat Projec# AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~, C{TY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GA$: OTHER: See Attached letter from City Of Eagle /Sign Posting Contacted• ~ Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: ~ R~ f ~; _'~ pt ~Y ! h '- ~# ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~~ r ti + ~' .~ i` ~~`~ 1r '.!. ~~ ~ ~ 7~ ~ y~~ ~N ~ 1~4it ~'_~ ~C Wit' n' ,~ ~~~ ~~~ y ~1 ~~ 4 t ,~' ~; ~ ~ 1'.~i , ~ a C i F ~, r- ,u ~ r ?.t c, ~~ ~~ ,, ~' -, t l~ ;~, ~~"3i~ s i~i - ~~ t ~ ! aY ~; 6H ~~ h rbh~~ 134 ~ i ££ N[Sj ~ ~ 1 P t.~ p iRr E.. : r3~'Y~{ +y ~~ ~ ' ~ r' ~~~ y•~ c ' ~ ~a f't*s~ 1~~ ~ ja ~,:._ j ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~i cF ~ ~p ~~ 7 . ~_ ' Y W ~ ~~ TiYI ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~r~F r .B ,. ..~ yy n P? n~--•. I ` •.- s p d ~ ~ - t ;: _. ?i _.:~:.~ • October 29, 2007 CPA 07-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 1,2007 APPLICANT Sherrie Ewing ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to create a new land use designation tha~ would include open area, low-density, residential, medium low-density residential and medium-density residential uses w/ an anticipated average of density of 3 dwelling units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Project AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubflc meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ti~ ~~ y ~ _ , . ~ ~; r 4i ~~ :; y ~ 6 y k ry ; .~ i ~ ? ~l y ~ ~ l.: l{ •' H ~ ~ F ~~ #~ ` ' t t 1 ~ ~ , , K eft by ~ f T;C, ~ ~ i k ,,ts , 47r .f ~-. ~&~ ~5~^ -~ i ~~ . ,5 ~y ~ ~ r s ,~ 4 d ~L ~ S.' .~ ~ .. -t ri~± V I; 1 ,~ G r V Cis ~~~ ~. ~' K j~ ~ ~ n`' R~N~=, R~; 2 ` T K 1 1 t J, ~~ , T 8 'ftt lf' ~ u~~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~~ - y ~ P~Y ~ ~,~ i ~ ~ ~} i ~~~~ 3(Y F a ~ r ~ ~ w - Y ~ 'y: ~ ',"' 1 .#.Jy :Yni~, S p ~~ ` S ~~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~ ' ' ?J ~ ~ . ~~ ~~ t Iz~ SA ~~ ~~~ }~'~ I.` ~ ~~ r , ~ ~ ~ ~~ i - ~ - . See CPA Oy-010 Packet ~, °~;, ,~,. ~~~ ~,;;. ~? ~`,; f ,yF ~'~ aA; ~~. '~ ;i _: ~~, !; ': 3. . '4 ~`,~ ,~, ~', ;~ ;<;. a, 5' ;, ~; j, ~:::- ., ., '. i ::_ October 29, 2007 CPA 07-012 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONfNG MEETING November 1,2007 APPLICANT Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing- Amendment to the Comp Plan Future land Use Map to change the land use designation from land use designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial for Strada Bellissima Commercial - NWC of Meridian Rd & Victory Rd at 114 8~ 156 W. Victory Rd ILots 283, Block 2, Strada Bellissima Subdivision No.1 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Attached Staff Report No Comment No Comment See Attached Comments QTHER: See Attached ITD Comments /See Intermountain Gas Comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pros®nted at public meetings shag become properly of the City of Meridian. li .,. ~ 5 , '~~f~ f; i~~tt y _ 7G.i t41 ,: Y~~: ~._ q~~ e Fn ~ r 4 1 f ~~ ,„ ~~ ~ ~ R c"< F nt ,.~. ~ ~ d ~a i~~ yL A 7FF "'~~ `'~ 4 t a 'J': ~~~ ~ ~i~} AA ~ ~ 7,F _' ~iT ~~ Y t~+s ~~`t `' - ~ 1:1s. [a~ Q'ts7 .~~_ ~~ r ~, :. ~-. ~~ji y., 1 a f ~ h ` ~ ~ - . -ci~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ 3 iE x;; Y~ R~'ki Lr. 1. =1 ~~. y q f ~ '~ C ,~ ,_ ~ i ~ ~~ } ~~~t !~ r. )~ /. t U ~ u!( y '4 ~ d x ~ ~ ~ . ' Y Y ..1x„:. ';'~! ~j r~Fk..'.. 1N J« ~ ?-~ y ~~t 1' Jh i~~rJr~~~y}~~ ~ 1 q, d ~ ~ ~ i ~ L.,. ~ ~ ~ ~ . h~~fi 1~ ' ~ ; ,:.! ~~3~r - ~ . ~ ~ 1 J ? fi ~~~ ..~..r °,i .} ;;, .~tia r. • October 29, 2007 RZ 07-013 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING November 1, 2007 APPLICANT Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC ITEM NO. ~ O REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial - NWC of Meridian Rd 8~ Victory Rd at 114 8~ 156 W. Victory Rd (Lots 2 8~ 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima Subdivision No. 1) AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See CPA 07-012 Packet nTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ * sr. f ~ a, ~ t ~ ~ f ~ ~~' ~~~ _,~. P r ~, n ~,v s ~'~~ ~ r H} f r ~~ t~; i; ~ .~ i ~ ~,~ c .1 4 ~ ~ ~~. a ~ ~~~~ ~ . z~ ~~ ~ ~1G ~ a ,~ C~ c -~ ~~ ~~ ' 3 r. ~ .? ~ ~~~~~ e. ~~ S yy 2 ~19 ~ ~.; i ~ `~~ ~ ~~N~ ~ ]h t I`S ; ~nn ~1 ~ ~~ ~+Ld.M1'1~1'f1 ~. ~. IMF , k '- ~: 7F r ,~:, ~ c~ ~~. ~{ K a S ,,~ ya ~ ~ ~ -a y~ ~ , ~ ktk~ ,ti ~~ «9f ,y ~' (1 t s ~2 S h{ ~ -, ~'~`~ ~,~, y3 i ~ iJy )/, [y `I ~ ,'~ ra ~ L h }' ~~~ ~~ L 'i FF d., "' 1, S , r * IK,~ w$ 1 ~ °P L r~~~l 5 ~~ff~ 1 - ~3~~M1" _ f' Qctober 29, 2007 CPA 07-011 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING November 1,2007 • APPLICANT David J. Dean ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing-Comp Plan Amndt to modify the Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation ;~ on 38.7 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community to include Office /Retail, Private School and Patio Homes for Dean Property -6380 N. Locust Grove Road (NEC of N. Locust Grove & E. Chinden) F... 4; AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: as,:' CITY ENGINEER: 4:,~.;; `~ ~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report c, CITY ATTORNEY f,_ , CITY POLICE DEPT: ~,-: ,; CITY FIRE DEPT: ~`w4?~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ;. CITY WATER DEPT: `~ : • ~ I CITY SEWER DEPT: NO Comment ~ ~ qF ' CITY PARKS DEPT: 1 == MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 4 ,~;::a "''''`'' SANITARY SERVICES: r °J ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments -.,~,, CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments } i ~;I~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments '` SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~-~;€ IDAHO POWER: ~~3''~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Comments by ITD /Sign Posflng Contacted: Date: Phone: °~ • Emailed• Staff Initials: sx; ~;:I, Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ! ~ l _ r ""C L y ~, , i s ~ .. ~~ ~ § ' , ~ ~ i ~, ,1 } tT k r~ jF ~ -?- 3a~ ' J t 1 ; ~i ~f a t ',7 .'+ rl ail ,t~C ry , r . ~... r~ a ° F~~ , S y5; _ P ; 1~~~ f -' ~ ~.~ ~ t t:{ i R ~" ~ ~~ ~'~ r ~ i l.7 L~~ f - ~& } • I.~a ~~~F, , h ~ ~ ~ fi ~~ i H ~¢* y, I, ~ ~; l~ ~ k 1~ ~] : tl '; ' ii a i. ~` i~~ ~~jj I' R ~~ : /jl~ ~ j r z n e +~ ~~~ ~ ' ~~ i~ ~ ., i ~. , e '~; ~h ~4~ : ft F ~ , { ~f~ 'C a - ~°~~' h , S ~~ L ~ , _ }}l 71R F I 1 ~ b~ ~' LM~~ h,; ;j ~~ ' Yf j 5.7 'f Y 'r rY ~ t~ 3 ~ ~~ 1 ~• 1 r" 1 { ~•'+ p I pip ~t ~'. ~ 'L 1 4iJ ~J 5:? ~ ffV~x _ri ~ October 29, 2007 CPA 07-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING $~ ZONING MEETING November 1, 2007 APPLICANT Morgan Development, Ine. ITEM NO. ~ Z REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 7.43 acres Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Woodland Springs - 1630 & 1720 E. McMillan Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ,A ,,, E,,~ 3. ~. .- ._,.; ~` ~' ~:; ' ,,::a ;` ;; -s CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CrIY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Applicant Response to Staff Report / Slgn Posting ~, Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. i i s ~, ti.~ 3 i ~~ rl i~ j y f,,~3 . y~ ~4 { .G } ~~~~ k~. '~ 5 ~ '~ i~ ~r.~ ~€ ~~{{ =h N!~ ; ~ 1, ~11~ ~1 yyt tfS c t {CIE ~, ~; '. 7 i r~ ~i-g' t '~'~ ~ - ~ d `y`£~ r F'I s ~ 5a}~ ~ ', ~ ~~ r Ji `J ~~ ~~~ 1 } 4~ 4.f . ~ :Z.: .:S I ~ t 4~ k u~l .~.: ~ r $ Ifs, ,= ~ ~'~'~ a~ ~ ;~ ~ ~y' ' ~ ~~ t rr: s ~ {# ~~~' ~ i `~ ~~s~~~-~, 5 ~ . +~~ k' ~~~t ~ - .y~~ it ~~~6 `tic k ; ~ CSI f FCa y~ 1_ i ~ p r' ~I~ ~ 1 [I ~ ~' lbw ~~ v~. Y> s ~, ,~ ' ` a ,s~ ~~~ ~• ~ { t 1. F f ~Y ~6'.- • i~.~` October 29, 2007 AZ 07-014 '~~~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING November 1,2007 APPLICANT Morgan Development ITEM NO. ~ 3 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C zoning district for Woodland Springs -NEC of McMillan Road 8~ Locust Grove Road `.i~ r `; AGENCY COMMENTS ,~ -; CITY CLERK: See REVISED Plat CITY ENGINEER: ';r; CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See CPA for Staff Report . CITY ATTORNEY ,( CITY POLICE DEPT: ..',T CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: I SANITARY SERVICES: ' `: '~i ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See CPA for Comments ~,t,4,° ~.', ; CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments ' NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments i.. II SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments ~ : r`~ ,,~.:,~ IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ' ~~ `' OTHER: No Comment by ITD ~~ ° ;~ Contacted• Phone: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: si " Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 'r;?~ ^` Ye`; ~~ ~ ~ ~~ (=t~r~ ~ ~ ~ ' Pi~~ i tEL r ` ~ ~ ,: c ~3 * ~ * z ~ rJL, ' k , . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4 4 ~ . . - i b ~ t e~ ~K ` ~ u f 7 '~~~~ ~i r nta ~ h~jS f ~~ F ~ry~~`e ,,. jk~i y rv t '4irlt}tk. . Est'' ~ ~~ ~Y ~~ ~~} E t ~ ~. ,~s~ i ~ N,~I~ . . ~~ ~ I ~~fy ~~~ k111 I fl~~~ ~. ~FF~~~ ` .~ 3!! b s ~~ `t ~ P UF'f i ~' 3Y 4.4 x'' y h .. T~ T ~ Ih~t W l t Yj=.. ~~ ~.,. 1 ffaV,j~ M ?~ ' ~~ J'iE 3 ~ ~t~ r S t~ 19 'ah~ 11?I~ k, ~ ~ v R r ? 3 ~_ l ~ M A~ 4 ~ .:~s X { • • `l'' PP 07-019 Oct®ber 29, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING November i, 2007 APPLICANT Morgan Development ITEM NO. ~ 4 }.: _: REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 4 commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for Woodland Springs -NEC of McMillan Road and Locust Grave Road AGENCY COMMENTS i:l ;~ ~_ ~~ CITY CLERK: Set' CPA and AZ P~1Ck@1' CITY ENGINEER: ,~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY '~' CITY POLICE DEPT: ~~~. CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: F.. CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CCTY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: <: ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: {~`,- ., IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: '~ OTHER: Contacted; ,; Ernailed: ~., Ie~C:. Date: Phone: S#aff Initials: Materials present®d at public meetings shall b®come properly of the Cfiy of Meridian. µ ..~~ ~1$ R yy1: ~ ;i~ ~X~ Y '. {. 1 T.J+ ~~, Y ! 1 ~ I ~ S i n 71 e q~ Tr 1 i ~~ p i~l q`ti ~ ~ ~I ~g K a y y ~ i,, v~ ~ 1 ,e H Q C.l. 1 i '` x r 1 S S f ~13 ~ H ~ ~ t:~ti t Yz +s i~ 4 -~ t)5 7~ ~,~ at`i r ~ `` ~~~ ~ , ~.~.fs;t~ ~ ZZ~ ~ ~ +> { ~ ~„; a,: v k~~,k ~ !!~ fi ' ~' s xr~.e r t I , 11 it ~ .~w'a' ~ wt~ ~} P ,,{ q `~ ,~i~ ~ ~ `~ r ~~1~ ~ - r ~~ ~~~. n a 'r ~+ ~~ 4ri ~ `i ~'^ ~~ x$ } , ~ i t r ~. 1•-s 1~ ~~ N ;; R~ f ~-~y4'~ . 9 ~ ~ ~~ ~ n n yi ,1l '~lM. i~A h r ~ / ,~+,, ,~, ti ~ , ~ ~ T f - ~ } ~{'X ~ ,tY..i ~ t ~E'tM1i e ~ 7t ,;.