2005 10-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting October 17, 2005
Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 17, 2005,
was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, and
Commissioner Wendy-Newton-Huckabay.
Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm and Commissioner David Moe.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Josh
Wilson and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
___X __ Keith Borup ______ David Moe
___X___ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ______ Michael Rohm
___X___Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. I'd like to welcome you to this special meeting of
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Monday, October 17th, to discuss
several issues related to Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Thrilled to have all of this
citizen participation. This is wonderful. You can see how quickly we have outgrown this
City Hall. So, if that issue ever comes up, please, keep this in mind. We will begin with
a roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Three of us constitute a quorum, so we can conduct business. Next item on
the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we will take these in the order that they
are. Let me describe our procedure a little bit. Some of you have heard this, but I see
some new faces out there, so I will go through it again. And, actually, it will be a little bit
different. On Item 3, the city is actually the applicant and we did have a full hearing on
that a couple of weeks ago. We closed that Public Hearing. We had a little confusion
about whether it had been closed and tabled or continued and, in fact, it was closed.
But we did take a lot of testimony. The Commission, then, directed staff to propose
some changes based on the public testimony that we heard and the presentation
tonight will only be staff to the Commission about those changes and the Commission
will discuss those and make our recommendation to the City Council, where there will
be again a new Public Hearing based on what we recommend -- what we forward to
them recommending. The other two items will be open public hearings for your
testimony, so let me run through that procedure. They are applications that have been
made by individuals or groups and in all cases the applicant and our professional staff
have spent some time together going over their subject. We begin with a presentation
by our staff to explain to us where the project is, what the project is, or the reasoning
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 2 of 88
why -- how it complies with the law. In this case we are -- for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment we are actually trying to change the law, but we have to do that in a legal
way. So, staff is not actually advocating a project, but they are explaining to us, if it is
going to go forward, what are the requirements. Then, following that the applicant will
have time to either respond to issues that the staff has raised or make their points to
convince us -- they are the advocate for why it should happen and they will be given ten
-- 15 minutes, I'm sorry, to do that and that includes any supporting staff that they may
have that has been a party to putting the application together. Following that we open it
for public testimony and we ask that each of you try and confine your remarks to three
minutes. You can see we have a large group of people who want us to hear what you
have to say and if it was important enough for you to come down, we want to make sure
we do hear it. So, we do ask that each of you be concise and keep it within three
minutes if you can. We also ask that you only speak when you're up at the microphone.
From a sign-up sheet I will call names. We have an exception to that and this is if there
is a spokesman for a group and a typical example of that is a president of a
homeowner's association, who, in fact, is going to speak for a number of people who --
whether you signed up or not, are not going to speak, because you're giving your time
to the spokesman. We allow the spokesman ten minutes. And, then, as I go down
through the roll call sheet of people that have signed up, if that person spoke for you, if
you would indicate that you have been spoken for. Of course, if you have some great
new point that the spokesman didn't include, please, do come forward and add it. But it
will help us if you don't repeat things that have already been said. That way everybody
gets a chance and, hopefully, we hear it while we are still alert enough to absorb it and
understand it. In the cases where there was an applicant, then, the applicant takes
notes through the time that the public testimony is coming on and is actually given a
final ten minutes to again try and support their application to respond to any issues that
have been raised by the general public and to explain to us how it can be resolved.
Then, the pattern normally is we close the Public Hearing, we deliberate amongst
ourselves and professional staff and, then, make a recommendation to City Council,
where, as I said before, again, there will be another Public Hearing, which will be
noticed the same way this was. We do have a handy light system over here. When the
green light is on you have time to speak. When the yellow one comes on that's a
warning that you should begin to conclude if you would, please. And when the red one
goes up your time is up and we appreciate your cooperation in not going over your time.
Item 3: Tabled from October 3, 2005: CPA 05-004 Request for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text and future land use
map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the North Meridian Area and to
expand the area of city impact boundary:
Zaremba: That being said, we are not opening the Public Hearing on CPA 05-004, we
are -- we are un-tabling it, is that -- let me ask for a legal opinion on how we discuss the
tabled action.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, you can certainly open the discussion of that, although, again, we
are not -- as you stated, it's not for public testimony, it's just for discussion, so you can
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 3 of 88
just start that item on the agenda. If you have questions of staff or if staff was supposed
to provide you some follow-up information, they can certainly do that.
Zaremba: Okay. So, we will open the tabled Item CPA 05-004 and staff does have
some updates for us. We will begin with the staff.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just as a point of
clarification, my understanding was that the item at the last October 3 meeting was
continued. I think there was a couple people that called our office and were told that
they may have a chance to testify. I understand now that I was probably misinformed
with that, but I just -- I guess I just wanted to make sure that both you and if the people
that called are in the audience, that they know that they have another chance at City
Council should you not accept any new testimony.
Zaremba: Well, I would comment that I think I have answered the same question the
same way you did, but I was reminded tonight that we did not continue the hearing, that
we actually closed it and tabled it, so --
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: -- we are both letting everybody know you will get another opportunity and,
hopefully, we are only discussing the points that you brought up last time anyhow.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, may I ask a quick question?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: But the letters that we received are entered as public testimony on
this issue?
Zaremba: They are --
Newton-Huckabay: And they count as testimony, even though they were late, so to
speak, by our self-imposed deadline? So, they are okay?
Zaremba: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. And, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think the ones -- the
letters that I have received, anyway, are items that will be addressed as part of the
clarification of your motion or what you anticipate a motion was.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 4 of 88
Hawkins-Clark: So, I don't think they were brand new information. What I have placed
on the screen is a summary of the key issues of your discussion at the October 3 Public
Hearing and what the Commission was instructing staff to basically look at and so this is
just a summary, essentially, of what the Commissioners discussed amongst yourselves
after you closed the hearing and were kind of moving towards a possible motion. There
were six specific areas of the future land use map. The first one, the southwest corner
of McMillan and Meridian agreed to change to medium density residential. Northwest
corner of Chinden and Linder, Commissioners agreed to change to mixed use
community. The east and west sides of Black Cat north of Chinden, change to mixed
use community. And I will stop on that third bullet just briefly and note that that was Mr.
Egger's testimony, who owns property on the north side of Chinden on both sides of
Black Cat and he -- that was his request. The Commission generally supported the
idea of changing the land use map in that area to something other than medium density
residential. We did not discuss, however, on October 3 if it was commercial, mixed use
regional, mixed use community, mixed-use neighborhood. Staff's recommendation is
mixed use community, in part because we also have a mixed-use community
designation about a mile to the east on the north side of Black Cat. In addition, it
probably, in terms of just the development potential, it's going to be better served to be
small square footages, if you're going with retail, as compared to big box. So, staff
doesn't support the mixed use regional. A commercial may work. Mixed-use
community is what we place there. So, do you want me to just go ahead and hit all
these or do you want to discuss them one by one as we go through them and --
Zaremba: Commissioners, do you want to hear them all or do we want to discuss each
one?
Newton-Huckabay: I have no preference.
Zaremba: Okay. Why don't we comment on them while we are doing them?
Hawkins-Clark: I could go to the map easier.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Was this all of them or were there some more on the next page?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, the ones that were just on that slide were the only items
that the Commission discussed at the last hearing. There were a couple of new items,
but -- so, again, here is the -- the old map, which, again, we will touch on this in a
minute, but this is State Highway 16 preservation corridor with -- is going to be either
removed or reduced and we will talk about that in a minute, but here is Chinden Road
and -- let's see. Where am I? Here is McDermott and, then, Black Cat Road. So,
Black Cat here on the north side. So, as you can see, we currently have a mixed use
regional here at the southwest corner of Black Cat and Chinden and the discussion was
to extend some commercial here to the north side on either side of Black Cat. Here is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 5 of 88
the mixed-use community that we already have on the map and so what staff would
propose is to add approximately 15 to 20 acres of that mixed-use community on both
sides of Black Cat here on the north side. So, you could go with mixed use regional,
which would match the south side of Chinden or you could go with mixed-use
community, which would match the north side of Chinden there. We would -- staff
would recommend not extending that much further north than 500 to 600 feet in terms
of how it's designated on the map, recognizing that that's a guide, but -- so I will stop
there and take any of your direction at this time on that item.
Zaremba: My comment would be that I'm supportive of one of the mixed-use choices
there. Mixed-use community would work. But I also agree with you that regardless of
the depth of -- and shape of current properties, we probably do want to state that -- that
that designation only goes -- 500 feet would be satisfactory to me, but that doesn't
mean that it's commercial all the way to the bench or the Phyllis Canal or whatever the
end of that is, that there is some distance close to Chinden that it is. I don't really have
an opinion on whether it would be regional. We have had quite a bit of discussion
around all of Meridian that we are getting a little bit over-balanced with commercial, as
opposed to residential, and we risk having vacancies, so if it's regional on the south
side, I can certainly understand staff's recommendation that it be a step down from that
on the north side. That's not a problem for me. Commissioner Borup, you appear to be
pondering a statement.
Borup: Well, no, I think I generally agree. I think that the vacancy concern was more in
office at this point. The commercial has a tendency not to be built until they have
tenants and what I was thinking about, how viable that is to have regional on one side
of the road and not have it on the other side, if it makes more sense to -- if it's a more
viable project if it's on both sides. I don't know. I mean, again, that's a little bit of a
marketplace decision, but --
Zaremba: You're on board with it being one of the mixed use choices for commercial
and --
Borup: Oh, I think so and restricting the distance from Chinden makes sense, too. Yes,
I --
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: This request was driven by the property owner? Is that -- I don't
remember -- okay. Mixed-use community would be okay. I think regional -- that's just
so hard to call, until you have development out that far.
Zaremba: Well, there is good reason to go either way. I agree that having regional
across the street from it makes sense to have the whole area regional and even if --
even if we designate it as regional, there isn't any reason why they couldn't put in
something with less impact, is there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 6 of 88
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd rather go the other way on that.
Zaremba: You mean -- specify --
Newton-Huckabay: It's more likely that somebody is going to want to step up, rather
than step down.
Zaremba: Well, that's what I'm saying, so if we designate it as regional --
Newton-Huckabay: Err on the side of caution. Regional or community?
Zaremba: Regional is a bigger impact than community.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Zaremba: And you're wanting to stay --
Newton-Huckabay: I'm more in favor of mixed-use community.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Then would they need a Comp Plan change if they wanted to go regional?
Zaremba: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they would.
Borup: That's probably far enough out that that may be the best way to do it.
Zaremba: Community?
Borup: Yeah. And if they want to do a change, then, do a request the years down the
road whenever that would be.
Zaremba: Well, we would all be -- already be on record with a concept with it going to
some commercial development, as opposed to residential in the first X hundred feet.
Borup: And it could be determined at that time if that's feasible.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: I'm okay with that.
Zaremba: Okay. So, we are supporting the staff's recommendation that it be --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 7 of 88
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: -- mixed use community for about 500 feet from Chinden.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. We will do that, assuming that's what you include in your motion.
So, that takes care of the third bullet, then. So, as I have stated here, then, with
approximately 500 feet added would be what you agree to. The fourth bullet, southeast
corner of Ustick and Linder. The Commission chose not to recommend this for a
change to commercial, since it's outside of the area of the public notice. We noticed
this application as north of Ustick. So, there really was not much discussion, but since it
was a specific request from a property owner, we wanted to include it here.
Zaremba: Well -- and the comment would mean that -- that doesn't mean we wouldn't
consider it and discuss it at another application, but legally we can't discuss things that
are outside area that was noticed.
Hawkins-Clark: As part of this one. Correct.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And, then, you also at your October 3 meeting talked about
North Ten Mile Road, a quarter mile south of McMillan, there is some property that's in
the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant area and the Commission chose not to
recommend that for a change to office on Ten Mile frontage, with residential behind.
That was the request. But you chose to keep that Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment
Plant intact. And, then, the last specific item you discussed was the area of city impact
expansion north of the Phyllis Canal and you had directed staff to prepare a letter to the
Board of County Commissioners. There is not specific hearing date set for that Eagle
area of city impact ordinance at this time, but we will proceed with the direction you
gave us last time to the City Council hearing on this application. We can make that very
clear that the Commission's full intent is to support an expansion of the area of impact
at sometime in the future and we want to make sure that the Ada County
commissioners are aware of that. So, if you want to participate in terms of drafting that
letter or if you want to see that, we can talk about that I guess maybe at a subsequent
meeting, but that's -- we understand that that's your direction.
Zaremba: And, once again, the final -- and, actually, the last two bullets -- City Council
has been pretty clear that they don't want to change the Mixed Use Wastewater
Treatment Plant. That does not mean that the people who spoke on that can't bring it
up again at the City Council hearing and see if they have changed their mind. And on
the last bullet, clearly the City Council will be the final decider on whether the city is
going to send a letter or not, but we would like to -- guess the direction to staff is to
prepare one that the City Council can look at and recommend to the City Council that
they do it. So, it's, actually, not our final decision to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 8 of 88
Hawkins-Clark: Understood. Okay. So, those are the specific items on October 3.
Since that meeting there have been some discussions with staff and as Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay notes, was some written comments submitted to the city. The first
one that I have listed here is the Peregrine Heights Subdivision, which is approximately
15 lots on the south side of Chinden between McDermott and Black Cat and I will just
go back to the map here. Currently this crosshatched area -- again, here is McDermott
and Black Cat and Chinden. So, this crosshatched area is currently proposed as
mixed-use interchange. The testimony from Mr. Richards -- he was the first to testify at
your last meeting -- was that given the high valuation of the houses in Peregrine
Heights and that subdivision has been there since approximately 1996, as well as some
agreements that their homeowners association has come to with the abutting property
owners, they would prefer not have mixed use interchange. Again, there is a potential
interchange shown here at McDermott and Chinden. Staff met with -- with both
property owners, as well as Mr. Richards, and you should have received their -- a copy
of their letter in your packets there for tonight. We understand their position and
concern and, as I stated to them in our meeting, there are several Comprehensive Plan
policies that support transitioning away from existing uses, recognizing that those
property owners do need to be protected in terms of what's going to happen next to
them. So, we would support their proposal, which they currently have medium density I
believe designated on both sides of Peregrine. Their intent is to provide low density on
the east side and one of our reasonings for this is to think that if this is an interchange
here, that, really, you have kind of created a separate -- four separate quadrants that
are separated by a state -- two state highways and that, really, those could be looked at
as a quadrant that is residential in nature and you could see your other heavier intense
uses happening either on the north here or over here in the southwest quadrant. The
northwest, of course, is Star's area, which at this point in time I can't tell you what they
have designated that, but the west I think is open for that designation to have happen.
So, in short, staff would support, if the Commission directs us to change this area over
here to the -- to reflect the letter that you received today from -- from the Peregrine
Heights property owners.
Zaremba: Well, both the letter and your comments about your discussion with them are
not a surprise, since I -- they did make that point at the Public Hearing. This is not new
information, I want to make that clear to everybody. And I agree that's something we
should discuss and that was raised during the public testimony at the last one.
Borup: I think the thing that is new is the adjoining property owners and --
Zaremba: And I agree with that.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: Yeah. My personal -- there is several elements that go on here. One -- and
I'm not sure how clear this gets across. In our long range planning that doesn't mean
that this property is going to change tomorrow or even 20 years from now, it could very
well be 30 years from now before anything happens to that. We are all hoping that ITD
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 9 of 88
will get their study done quickly and within the next year or so we know what's projected
to happen there. But the physical actual happening of it could be 20, 30 years away.
That being said, as long as it's understood that there is very likely to be an interchange,
I'm not -- I'm not sure we need to hang onto the interchange overlay district, if the
people who currently live there don't have a problem -- if they still live there 40 years
from now and there is an interchange and they don't have a problem with that, I don't
have a problem with it.
Borup: Yeah. Makes sense.
Zaremba: But, like I say, I do hope that ITD gets their study done real quick, because
it's uncomfortable for the city and the current residents to have things in limbo.
Newton-Huckabay: And the uncertainty.
Zaremba: Yeah. The uncertainty is uncomfortable for everybody.
Newton-Huckabay: I just have a clarification. So, the west side of McDermott we are
proposing to stay -- I'm sorry, now the designation is just --
Hawkins-Clark: A mixed-use interchange?
Newton-Huckabay: Mixed-use Interchange.
Hawkins-Clark: This cross-hatched here? Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. And, then, the southeast we are going to suggest R-4 and R -
-
Borup: No. Just a comp plan designation, not a zoning --
Newton-Huckabay: Also low density and medium density?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. That's their proposal in their letter to you on page three. They
have provided two different designations, a low density on the east side of Peregrine
and, then, medium continuing beyond that and, then, medium on the west side of
Peregrine. So, I think if -- for simplicity, if you just wanted to reference their map, if
you're in agreement with that, we will take their map and make the changes accordingly,
but -- and I think the other reason that we supported it is just as you said, Chairman, as
an interim measure. It could be that the market pressures become so great in a few
years that they just decide they don't want the residential anyway and maybe they want
to come back. But I think to honor their request now -- and since there is such an
unknown factor, that residential makes good sense and is the -- always easier to bump
up instead of bring back down in intensity of uses.
Zaremba: I can support that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 10 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: Me, too.
Zaremba: Okay. Next.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Just a couple more items on this. So, that was the Peregrine
Heights No. 1. Another item of discussion at your October 3 meeting was a designation
of Basco Lane and whether or not that is designated as a collector or not. There was
testimony from both the Aldape family, represented by the Ewings, and as well as the
property owners on the -- that are below the rim, as well as the property owners on the
north side. Or, I'm sorry, on the south side represented by Mr. Carnahan and, again, we
are talking about this collector right here. Here is West Jenna Boulevard. The way we
have currently shown it is that a collector actually stubs to the -- the rim and, again, as
with most of these, this is a preferred collector, since it's hashed -- or, I'm sorry, dashed.
And we would -- we would -- in discussions with both parties since the October 3
meeting, staff has tried to make it clear that we believe that a public connection that is
stubbed to the rim is of vital importance to provide access from people on the north side
to Chinden. We are not necessarily married to the idea that this is designated as a
collector and would support showing it as a collector only, you know, midway, for
example, between Chinden and the Phyllis. And, then, at that point the local street
system could be planned at the time of annexation and the development application.
So, to -- we think that it helps to resolve the concern between both properties that there
will not be a collector that would bisect the project here, if that's done by the Carnahans
and O'Neils, and also shows -- if we -- that there is commitment to provide public street
access to the north, that would be dealt with at the time of application. So, that would
be one other change that we would support.
Zaremba: And I don't remember whether the Commissioners discussed that our last
time, but that was the sense that I got, that the objective, whether it was called a
collector or not, was that it would at least be public road all the way to the property north
of it and, you know, whether it goes in a straight line or doesn't go in a straight line
where Basco Road is right at least it would be a public road all the way from Chinden to
the property north of it and may or may not be called a collector. So, the point to me on
number two would be to make sure that Basco Lane was designated a public road. I'm
comfortable with that it being a collector. I think it probably should be, but --
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And maybe since we are not showing public streets per se -- all
the public streets on our map, if you would like, we could just handle it as a text -- we
could be specific in the text, if you want to provide that assurance to the Aldape family
that that's going to be there or not, but --
Zaremba: To call it a collector would be a map change. To call it a public road would
just be a text change.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Of course, at this point we don't really -- we don't have a section
in our text that just addresses locations of public streets.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 11 of 88
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: But since this was such an item of discussion, we could do that in this
area, if you want. But, yeah, our recommendation would be to actually shorten that
collector and only show it part way up and, then, maybe add a next policy that states
local street access was expected.
Zaremba: Well -- and I'm sure ACHD would say that as well. I mean in almost every
project they want a stub street to a project that hasn't presented yet, even though if the
people say they are going to live there forever.
Hawkins-Clark: There will be some challenges given the crossing of the Phyllis Canal
in terms of future bridges and whatnot.
Zaremba: Is that a consensus?
Borup: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Number three there is the auto circulation map and an addition
of a preferred collector between Star and McDermott and Josh is just going to switch
this over. At this point in time this was an item that staff actually discussed after your
last meeting, so if you're uncomfortable making this a part of your motion, since it is
new material, then, I guess don't listen to me, but -- but what we were talking about at
staff level is extending this collector -- this is Can-Ada and Star and, actually, maybe
bringing this collector down more to approximately the half mile point to better reflect
these other collectors and expecting that this is medium density residential and show it
as a dashed preferred collector. So, is there any discussion yea or nay on that item?
Borup: I thought I heard you say the proposal between McDermott and Star, but you're
saying between Star and Can-Ada?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Star and Can-Ada.
Borup: What does your text say? Did I read that wrong? No. The text that you had up
on the previous --
Zaremba: Go back to the previous slide that you were showing.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh. Yes. Correct. I see. That should be Can-Ada. I'm sorry.
Borup: That's why I was confused.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 12 of 88
Zaremba: Well, I agree with the one between Star and McDermott, which is shown.
Okay. Any discussion on whether there should be one west of there?
Borup: It's got the same logic as the other one.
Zaremba: In long range planning, it may not look like it it's necessary today, but --
Newton-Huckabay: I support that.
Zaremba: Is there --
Newton-Huckabay: We built it originally as five lanes.
Zaremba: I think that's a reasonable recommendation.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. And, then, the last item was the big one from last time and that's
the State Highway 16 preservation corridor and we got three revised items here that are
open for your discussion and this wording -- I'll go ahead and read it, this Item A, and,
again, this is the general direction that staff thought you were going with removing most
of the more restrictive policies in this area and replacing it with this -- a statement
something like this. The City of Meridian supports a collaborative public-private
partnership with property owners, Idaho Transportation Department, Ada County,
Canyon County, and other affected parties, to identify a preferred alignment for the
future State Highway 16 extension. And as a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, this
would show up and would become an action item, essentially. Chapter 8 of our
Comprehensive Plan has a list of implementation policies and this would really probably
fold into becoming an implementation policy that we would begin much more focused
efforts with the property owners along McDermott and the other agencies listed there to
become more pro-active about identifying that. And as Mr. Forrey testified, he gave
some examples from Utah and Texas, I believe were the main ones, where there have
been successful state highway projects that have been expedited with these kinds of
programs and so we didn't go into a lot of detail here, but I think if you want to add more
detail, we certainly can at this point. I think the record reflects the intent of this policy
and it would just -- it would replace -- or be a new policy in Chapter 6 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Zaremba: Well, I think we clearly got the message that today trying to preserve a half
mile on either side of McDermott was not acceptable and if I'm interpreting what A is
saying, that the suggestion was made during public testimony that that still exists, but
reduced to 300 feet either side. If I'm interpreting A, we are saying that we would not
make that designation, but that would be a product of this collaboration.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. There was some discussion about that, whether 300-foot
would actually still be graphically shown and I believe Commissioner Newton-Huckabay
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 13 of 88
and Commissioner Moe both felt that that probably isn't necessary, let's leave that up to
this collaborative effort instead.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: That's the direction that I took.
Zaremba: Well, if it's really going to be a collaborative effort, we probably don't want to
tie their hands, so I suspect that may be a good solution.
Hawkins-Clark: So, we would take that -- B is a little bit more specific. This would,
basically, be a request to Ada County to adopt the access management policies of
Article H of Meridian's Unified Development Code as they pertain to the future State
Highway 16 corridor. And, again, that would likely -- that would be incorporated into the
area of city impact agreement between the two agencies and should this be adopted
Meridian would promote with Ada County that our Article H, which deals with all state
highways, but in particular with this alignment, be adopted to help preserve and not
allow any additional access points to McDermott Road. They would -- any new
development that would happen before a state highway is constructed, they would have
to find alternate means of access.
Zaremba: I agree with what's there. I think my question would be since the state
Highway 20-26, Chinden Boulevard, is also within the area that we are currently talking
about, wouldn't we ask them to honor our Article H on both of those highways? It would
make sense to --
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. That's a good point. We could change that to reflect all state
highways.
Zaremba: I think it should include Highway 69, Meridian Road south, but that's part of
the map amendment that we are talking about tonight. But it certainly could include that
portion of Chinden. That may be a consensus from the other Commissioners. I would
just add that. I would not subtract from what you have.
Newton-Huckabay: Is that changing the substance of what we are doing?
Zaremba: No. But when we were talking about it two weeks ago, I know I was using
the term state highways in the area, I wasn't thinking of 16 for a request of the county,
so I don't think it's changing from what we discussed during open hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: Is that a consensus or would you rather have it just to 16?
Borup: No. I agree. It should be to all state highways. That's already in there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 14 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Then, item C is remove the restrictive policies regarding down
zoning -- I probably would not include the word down zoning. That's not the correct
term there, but -- in your motion, but, essentially, what we are talking about is in the
application on page nine of section E -- and the footers at the bottom reflect the section,
as well as the page, so section E, page nine. That's where we talk about the
implementation policies for this corridor and what I gathered from your October 3
meeting was that we were going to omit and delete three of the policies that are
currently in that section. The first one is that -- for limiting residential densities to one
dwelling unit per 40 acres. That's item number four. That would be deleted. Number
five, if any parcel is divided by the corridor boundary, no permanent structure being
placed there. There is more language there, but, to summarize, that's what it says and
we would delete that, talking about new structures in this area. And, then, item number
six talks about the City of Meridian considering additional standards for a future land
use map and that would, essentially, be replaced by our Article H. So, I guess that one
wouldn't be necessary to be deleted, but replaced. It does, however, still leave in there
the statement that the City of Meridian services will not be extended for new
development proposed under Ada County. So, while we might -- we are removing the
State Highway 16 designation, it doesn't change the existing policy which has always
been in our Comprehensive Plan since 2002, that we are not extending urban services,
specifically water, sewer, into this area until a State Highway 16 corridor is designated.
So, that is still in there, unless you tell us to take it out.
Zaremba: And let me just clarify, that is designated, as opposed to existing; right? If
the collaborative effort with ITD within the next year or two designates where that's
going to go, then, would the city move ahead with plans for making service -- urban
services available there or does it have to be built before we do that?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I think the question of whether or not public funds are going to be
designated for sending -- I mean for new sewer projects and water projects are,
obviously, a policy decision between City Council and the Public Works Department,
largely.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Hawkins-Clark: So, I think -- does that answer your question? I mean I think that
whether or not we would extend it or not is probably going to be at -- that decision
would have to be made at that point in terms of budgeting.
Zaremba: Okay. Once it was designated, not necessarily waiting until it's built. The
decision would be made at --
Hawkins-Clark: The decision would be made.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 15 of 88
Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Zaremba: And as far as number C, I think our discussion -- the sense of it was that with
A and B combined, the three items that you mentioned are going to be the product of A
and B and can be removed and just leave the one statement about -- and that's really a
warning statement. It's not really a policy statement, it's a warning statement that it's
not going to happen until we know where the corridor is going to be.
Hawkins-Clark: The other -- the first policy under that page nine of these
implementation policies says that the desired effect of the corridor is to prohibit the
construction or expansion of permanent structures and that one I assume you would
also want us to remove, since you're largely wanting to leave the decision up to a
separate effort.
Zaremba: Up to the group in A.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. I mean --
Zaremba: They may very well include that in their discussion, but I think that should be
not prejudged and open for their discussion. That's a personal opinion.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Since our suggestion is going to be to take off that corridor
designation, do we -- can we not just strike this whole section from the -- our motion,
rather than parse it?
Borup: I think we still want a corridor, don't we? We are just not looking a mile wide
corridor.
Newton-Huckabay: I think the fact that a collaborative effort is going to make a decision
on the details of that and we are front loading -- we are taking out some restrictions, but
-- I don't know. It's almost like comments -- I don't think they apply anymore.
Borup: What happens if this collaborative effort doesn't result in a decision? Then, is
that whole area open to development? It still -- I mean my assumption would be that
they need to reach a decision and have a -- have a designated right of way determined
before it would be available for development. If that decision is never made, then, it
would revert back to the non-development.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 16 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: I guess I'm just thinking of clarification for the property owners out
there. You already have to -- it's already difficult to understand what all this means for
the average property owner and I think these -- in my mind once we take our four or
five, six, one -- they are basically just arbitrary statements at that point. If you feel
strong about leaving them in, that's -- that was my question or my concern with that.
Zaremba: I would say the Comprehensive Plan does need to have some kind of a
marker, however it's worded, that the intent is to have a corridor for State Highway 16 in
this area. We have backed off from us making the decision, we want this collaborative
group to make the decision about exactly the alignment what needs to be protected and
what can develop around it, but I think the idea is instead of us listing the restrictions,
we are saying, yes, it's going to happen, but the group will decide the restrictions.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Borup: And the alignment. If they never decide that, then --
Zaremba: Then, I'm comfortable with the additional statement that there won't be any
development there until that is completed.
Borup: Did Mr. Hawkins-Clark have a comment?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I guess what staff was just discussing is there is currently in
Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan a section called Urban Services Area and it --
that's where it has language about the city's policies on extending urban service outside
the city limits, but within the area of impact, and for clarity's sake maybe we just -- as
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay suggested, strike the implementation policies header
and just include in that section, that urban services section, a very specific statement
about the City of Meridian's preference is that State Highway 16 be along the
McDermott corridor and no urban services are expected to be extended until that
alignment is known. And, then, it takes away all the language in the text referring to
some corridor, but it still makes clear that that is where we are going. Does that make
sense?
Borup: So, we delete which?
Hawkins-Clark: On the bottom of page nine, section E.
Borup: Okay. So, all of section E?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, implementation policies is the sub-header.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: That's at the bottom of that page. So, we would still leave in there the
support for the McDermott Road alignment section, but you would take out the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 17 of 88
implementation policies and replace it with kind of a combined statement which reflects
what I just said a minute ago.
Zaremba: Okay. In thinking of the most clear, but short way to make this motion -- and
maybe I will ask both you, Brad, and Mr. Nary to comment on this. There is -- all of this,
of course, was in the minutes of both nights' meetings, but would be able to make the
motion to recommend this to City Council, including a list of items that staff has
prepared, modified by the October 14th letter from the Peregrine. Does that cover all
the stuff that we have -- or do we need to identify everything we have just discussed?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, your record is all of the minutes,
all of the hearings, all the letters, all the testimony you have received. You don't have to
go back and identify each one as part of your motion while you're making it. You have
synthesized all that material, you have asked the staff to capsulize that in these different
points that have been raised to you tonight and that has been your discussion points
that you have had. You're free to make the motion based upon all the information that
you have gathered to this point. The letter that is included in your public record is
simply just another document that's part of the record and it's certainly not a problem to
include that as part of your discussion, because, again, it relates to all the testimony
you have previously listened to and all the testimony that's already part of the record.
So, you can go ahead and do that if you wish.
Zaremba: A good shorthand motion. Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman --
Zaremba: I don't know if I'm jumping the gun. Are we at that point or were there more
issues?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes, we are.
Hawkins-Clark: Staff is. If I could just make one other comment that you did -- before
your last October 3 meeting there were two letters submitted into the record, one from
Tricia Nelson of Compass, a planner, as well as Sue Sullivan of Idaho Transportation
Department. These letters are both dated September 15th to myself and have specific
recommended changes in their letters. So, didn't know if you had a chance to review
these or not, but if you want those included, those changes, then --
Zaremba: I do remember reading those and, unfortunately, I don't think I agree with
everything they asked for. Where did I put that? Well, let ask you, are you comfortable
with what they have asked -- modified by what we have already discussed tonight, is
there anything that's contradictory to what we have just discussed?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would say that Sue Sullivan's
letter dated September 15th from Idaho Transportation Department, if you wanted to
recommend that we include her changes -- several of these are just very specific and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 18 of 88
almost cleanup in nature. She does talk about the State Highway 16 preservation area,
which, of course, we would not include and -- but other than that, I think we are
comfortable.
Zaremba: Okay. Including those?
Hawkins-Clark: Including those, yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Regarding the September 15 letter from Compass, there is a couple of
very good inclusions that I think, you know, we would support. Some of them get -- that
mixed-use interchange policies -- probably in some ways warrant more discussion. I
don't know if you want to spend that time here tonight or not or -- we could raise these
as issues with the City Council at their hearing in November. Either way. I would --
given the crowd here tonight and the other items on the agenda, I guess I'm just
sensitive to the fact that it might take us another 15, 20 minutes to kind of hash through
those and I'd rather not just include her entire letter.
Zaremba: Well -- and my thinking on that is that if there is or is not a mixed-use
interchange in this area, that's up to the committee in paragraph A here. So, I probably
would not include the Compass comments on that, although make them available to the
committee to see if they want to incorporate them. I guess my opinion is regardless of
who it comes from, I don't want to pre-judge the output of that committee, except that
there will be an alignment for State Highway 16.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Whatever your preference is on that.
Zaremba: Yeah. I -- yeah, I probably would not add their interchange comments.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, you're recommending just adding them as additional testimony,
per se? Is that --
Zaremba: Say that again.
Newton-Huckabay: Those two letters.
Zaremba: They are in the public record. We had them before the last --
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I mean rather than incorporating them into our motion --
Zaremba: Just reference the letters.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 19 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: -- just reference them. Okay.
Borup: Both of them or just the Compass letter? You're saying the ITD letter just --
Zaremba: Well, ITD was about the State Highway 16 corridor.
Borup: Yeah. So, the same thing.
Zaremba: The Compass one, I would incorporate, except for, again, the parts that
relate to the State Highway 16 --
Borup: So, they don't even need to be referenced in the motion, then?
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, staff would ask -- I mean we do support the specific changes to
the text that ITD is recommending, so I think it might be helpful for us to know -- if you
want us to make these changes, then, include that in your motion.
Zaremba: Yeah. There were a couple of wordings that were just clarity kind of things
and those are fine with me.
Borup: Okay. So, are we ready for a motion?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any further discussion or are we ready for a
recommendation on this one?
Borup: No. Let's move it on.
Zaremba: I think it's been discussed.
Borup: Do you want me to try it? You got the notes or do you want me to try it?
Newton-Huckabay: I made some notes, but as I understand it we don't need to include
the notes, we just include the comments.
Borup: I think we can. This may be a long motion. You want me to try it?
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval of CPA 05-004, to include all
previous staff report and comments and to specifically include comments from the staff
report this evening, particularly, bullet points one, two, and three on the presentation,
the proposed medium density on the map on page three proposed by Jeff Hohn -- I
notice the letter -- excuse me, I'm interrupting my motion, but was he the one that wrote
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 20 of 88
the letter, Brad? There was no address or anything. That was the last name on the
letter. So, was that who that came from?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Borup, the letter was actually from I
believe about 12 different people. He just happened to be the last one on the list. But it
was actually drafted by I believe Mr. Richards. Darrell Richards.
Borup: Because it started out saying I am writing. So, there was some individual that
wrote this.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Which I believe --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Richards and he stated that he was the author.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: And, then, Barbara Waterfield also had --
Borup: He didn't sign his name to it, just stated that.
Hawkins-Clark: -- a lot of input there.
Borup: All right. Okay. Then, leave it at that, as designated on their map on page
three of that letter, that there also be a public road designated basically in the Basco
Road area to the north and that would be included in the text. That also includes a
designation of a collector between Star and Can-Ada. That we delete the section on
page nine, E on the implementation policies on the state highway preservation, that that
section be deleted and add or replace that. I'm not sure you want to add it in the same
section or somewhere else, but the statement that -- pertaining to the urban service
area, which is already our policy, that that would apply to that area. And also include
the text changes as recommended in the letter from ITD. Anything else that I needed to
add?
Zaremba: It sounded like it to me.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Did you do the mixed use community?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: Just references bullet points.
Borup: Right. Yeah. I referenced the first three bullet points, so we didn't have to read
all of those.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 21 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: My apologies. Okay.
Borup: End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Public Hearing: CPA 05-002 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to change approximately 11.79 acres from Office to Mixed-
Use Community by Conger Management Group – 675 and 715 South
Wells Street:
Zaremba: All right. That one is being forwarded onto City Council. Thank you all very
much. And at this time I will open the Public Hearing for CPA 05-002, request for a
Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change approximately 11.79 acres from office
to mixed use community by Conger Management Group at 675 and 715 South Wells
Street and we will begin with the staff report, please.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is by Conger Management Group to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation on two parcels, which total approximately 12 acres located on South Wells
Street in Meridian, which is West Eagle Road and north of I-84. Some of other uses in
the area include a residential subdivision to the west, Woodbridge Subdivision, which
was platted in 2000 on approximately 80 acres in the R-4 zone and contains
approximately 260 homes at a density of 3.28 dwelling units to the acre. To the south of
the subject properties -- my mouse is not showing up here. We are dealing with the
wireless technology here. Okay. The properties to the south of the property that we are
proposing, the change on here, are currently rural residences still in Ada County. The
area surrounding these properties is a mix of properties which are annexed into the City
of Meridian as residential properties and also that remain in the county and were
developed within the county. There is a county subdivision down on the freeway, I
believe it's Locust Grove Heights, and there is also a county subdivision up on Franklin
Road that remains in the county. The area in the vicinity of Magic View Drive and Eagle
Road is a mix of recently developed commercial, recently developed office, and also
lands that are proposed to develop as commercial or office. The L-shaped parcel here
has received annexation approval as Cottonwood Lane, it was called. The portion of
the project on Wells Street was approved as office uses and the portion of the project --
I will have to look at the name of that street here.
Zaremba: Something like Freeway Road, I think.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 22 of 88
Wilson: Okay. Freeway Drive. Was approved as commercial. So, there will be a mix
of uses on that parcel. The proposal submitted by the Conger Management Group
would change the subject properties designated currently as office to a mixed-use
community designation. In the Comp Plan the mixed use community designation does
allow for up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential buildings, a residential density of
three to five -- three to 15 dwelling units per acre, as well as office uses and some
other uses specified as clothing stores, hardware centers, restaurants, and banks. I will
touch on this some more later, but Conger Management Group has specifically
proposed to develop this property as residential and staff would not actually support the
full mixed used community designation on this property, as it would open up the
property to uses that would be detrimental, we feel, to the neighborhood. And I will
touch on that a little bit further. The applicant's proposal is to develop the property in a
residential manner that the city would define as medium high residential. The Comp
Plan designates -- has, essentially, three categories of residential, low, medium, and
high. Low being three units to the acre and below. Medium being three to 15 units to
the acre. And, then, the high being above the 15 units per acre, to 40. At the current
proposal there are 108 dwelling units proposed on the 12 acres, for approximately -- the
property's a little bit shy of 12 acres. It's, I believe, 11.79. But approximately nine
dwelling units per acre. So, it kind of puts it in the middle of that medium range, up
towards the upper end. So, it would be called medium high. The applicant has
proposed a mix of housing types on the project, with, along Magic View drive, a
townhouse product and also along Wells, designated with the numeral one. The
numeral two would be single-family detached housing, which single family detached
meaning your standard single family home. The numeral three would be what are
called big block units. They have the appearance of one large home, but there are
actually several units within these. I believe they are shown three units within those big
block units. Four would also be some single family detached housing, but it would have
a garage -- a rear loaded garage on the alley and, then, frontage on the street out here.
Five is, essentially, the same product, but with the front of the homes facing -- the new
Unified Development Code, addresses it as a MEW. M-E-W. It's an open space with
pedestrian walkways that the homes face out onto and, then, vehicular access is from
the rear on the alley. They identified a central common area, a landscaped area, in the
middle of these, as item six here. And, then, seven is some other common landscape
areas. They have identified an entrance off of Magic View and also an entrance off of
Wells. Where the applicant is proposing a change to the Comprehensive Plan, you as a
Commission cannot condition a Comprehensive Plan amendment, or require that a
development agreement be attached to it. I did mention before that staff is not
supportive of the free range of the mixed use community designation and we
recommend that the Commission in their recommendation to City Council ask that
concurrently at City Council a development application package, consisting of the
annexation and an associated plat be submitted at the City Council level to insure that -
- essentially, that's the only mechanism that you have to insure that this development
proposed tonight happens. The other option, of course, is asking them to come back
for the Comprehensive Plan map amendment at a later date, with concurrent
applications that could be considered together. I guess it depends on the Commission's
comfort level with those two -- with those two options. They, ideally, would serve --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 23 of 88
would end up in the same product. In terms of compatibility, I think that will probably be
discussed tonight both by the Commission and the audience. As staff, we generally
view compatibility -- the ordinance doesn't define it and this has been mentioned at
previous Planning and Zoning meetings, but the ordinance does not define
compatibility. As staff we generally view it as residential to residential being a
compatible use and residential to uses which are not noxious or nuisance I think was
the term we found. Staff does recognize, as one of the concerns of the neighboring
subdivisions -- we do recognize that office uses are a less intense buffer to the
residential uses than what the applicant is proposing. It is true that while they are both
going to generate traffic and impacts to the neighborhood, the office use would be the
more limited in the hours of the disturbance and also not likely on the weekends. So,
we do recognize that the office is a better buffer to the residences, but we also
recognize that some Comprehensive Plan policies do support the location of medium to
high density development near major transportation corridors and employment centers
and that residential to residential is an acceptable buffer to the commercial use there,
the intended commercial use anticipated along Eagle Road and, then, closer to the
freeway. I was going to have Brad speak specifically to some comments made by
Woodbridge residents at the time of the Comprehensive Plan approval and -- okay.
And I may ask Commissioner Zaremba to speak to that as well. Apparently, there was
some very strong participation from the Woodbridge Subdivision and requesting this
office designation. So, I think it's relevant to keep that in mind that as this
Comprehensive Plan was being developed in 2002, the citizens did participate and
specifically asked for this office designation. So, the Commission should take that, as
well as public testimony heard tonight, into consideration as to whether the residents do
feel this proposal by Conger Management is an appropriate buffer and is a land use
that they feel like they can live with. The applicant in their application does reference
some problems with the office designation and from their perspective the argument is
that office designation -- this distance off of a major transportation corridor has been
difficult to market, maybe it isn't as desirable, and also we are experiencing high office
vacancy rates in Meridian right now. In the report I have referenced, from nine to 25
percent. So, there is some argument made by the applicant that there is some difficulty
marketing the property. I think that's accurate, but I also would like to make sure that
it's out there that the responsibility of the Comprehensive Plan is -- the Comprehensive
Plan is not meant to move with market demand or marketability of properties, it's a long-
term planning document that envisions what the citizens and leadership of the
community would like to see in this area of town in the long run. So, I think that is a
valid discussion point that the Comprehensive Plan isn't necessarily to move with
market demands in Meridian. Traffic on Eagle Road and through Woodbury Subdivision
is, obviously, of great concern. There is -- I don't think it's news to anybody that there is
congestion at the Eagle Road and I-84 area. At the intersections of both Magic View
and I believe it's Allen Drive at the stop light there, I guess staff's comments on that is
that there are improvements planned for Eagle Road. Uses -- any uses of these
properties in this area as they develop are going to intensify the traffic situation and ITD
and ACHD do take those into consideration as they are looking for solutions for Eagle
Road. I think that any development in this area will have -- will have, obviously,
negative impacts on the traffic situation. So, that staff has recommended approval of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 24 of 88
the application. We do recognize that there are a number of issues with the property.
We are in support of the proposal brought forward by the applicant. We do feel like it's
a good location and a good use for the area. But, obviously, the task of the
Commission and later the Council is to weigh the needs and views of the community
and determine if it's an appropriate change for the Comprehensive Plan. I think with
that I will end my presentation and ask Chairman Zaremba if he has anything to add on
comments about this office designation during the Comprehensive Plan development.
Zaremba: I think the only thing I would add is that I participated in some of the
Comprehensive Plan meetings and discussions and Commissioner Borup was on the
Commission when it came through the Commission for discussion and he got heavily
involved and I think we are both aware that the existing residential subdivisions that
surround this property and the whole project all the way to Eagle Road, did participate
in those meetings very thoroughly and the current Comprehensive Plan in this area is a
result of their very thorough thinking and participation. So, we are aware that the office
designation was not just plunked down here as a, oh, well, let's put some office there, it
had some pretty thorough thinking before it got to this. Am I correct; Commissioner
Borup?
Borup: Well, I think so. My recollection -- I don't remember a lot of testimony from the
neighboring subdivision. Maybe Greenhill to the north. But Woodbridge really wasn't
fully developed. My recollection this designation came -- at least the -- to me the
biggest influence was the owners of the property around this area, that's what they
asked for.
Zaremba: For their own property.
Borup: For their own property. Yes. Maybe I'm not remembering a hundred percent,
but that's my recollection that they were the ones that really -- I think in most of their
testimony this is what they asked for.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Borup: So --
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: -- maybe they were shortsighted. I don't know. But that's -- they were the
property owners at the time.
Zaremba: Any questions for staff at this point? Okay. We are ready for the applicant to
come forward, please.
Beecham: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Scott Beecham.
My address is 405 South 8th Street in Boise. As indicated by staff, the application
before you tonight is for a Comprehensive Plan land use map revision for designation
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 25 of 88
from -- of office -- from office to mixed-use community. Further development
applications for annexation, rezone to R-15, a Conditional Use Permit, and a
preliminary plat will follow on approval of this request. I might follow up on that with a
clarification of staff's earlier comments towards the end of my testimony. But I would
like to begin by thanking staff for their time on this application. We have had a number
of meetings with them in developing this concept plan and housing types identified
before you tonight and, Josh, if I could, could I ask you to put the rendered site plan up.
This provides a little better graphic representation of our intent for the project. This plan
and the associated housing product is based our understanding of the type of higher
density development being sought by the City of Meridian. It is also the development
pattern endorsed by a consultant from the Urban Land Institute that recently met with
the City of Meridian to discuss quality in-fill development and appropriate high density
design. I would like to reiterate a number of highlights from the staff report that I think
appropriately frame the issues around this application. First, the mixed-use designation
is appropriate as it is intended to identify areas which are in-fill in nature or situated in
highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and flexible design
opportunities are encouraged. Next staff states that medium high density residential
housing can be an appropriate buffer between medium density -- excuse me -- between
the medium density subdivision to the west and the intense commercial development to
the east, as long as it is in substantial compliance with the concept plan that's before
you tonight. This is our intent and the city has the ultimate authority to control this. As I
indicated before, we will be required to submit additional applications for the proposed
development, including a request for annexation that allows the city ultimate discretion.
The subject properties -- or, lastly, the subject properties are in the appropriate location
for diversity of high-density housing types, as they are in close proximity to employment
services and major thoroughfares. I'd like to focus the majority of my testimony on
some of the issues we have heard from the neighbors in the meeting -- in the meetings
we have held with them. There is, obviously, many of them in the room tonight, so you
will hear -- you will hear a lot about that, but the issues included three basic areas. One
appropriateness of use. Two, the proposed housing types and compatibility, and, finally,
the traffic issue. As I understand it -- we have already had a little bit of discussion on it,
but the propose of the office designation on the land use map for the properties
adjacent to Woodbridge, Greenhill Estates, and Locust View Heights, was to create a
transition from the residential uses -- residential neighborhoods to be intense
commercial uses along the interstate and Eagle Road. In speaking with marketing
professionals, it is clear that there is not a demand for office tucked so far back off the
roadway. That lack of marketability, as staff indicated, does not necessarily make this
proposal appropriate, but it does show that it is not a viable use and would suggest that
there may be a better transitional use. Again, per Commissioner Borup's comments,
this may be a hindsight issue and there may be a more appropriate use for the property
owners who, by the way, were the property owners at the time the Comp Plan was
adopted. We believe our proposal not only brings a diversity of housing product to the
City of Meridian, but it also provides for a thoughtful transition from the existing
residential uses to the intense commercial uses in Magic View Subdivision. In fact, we
have prepared a plan that transitions the intensity of residential uses through a variety
of housing product on our site. In terms product, although this land plan is simply
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 26 of 88
conceptual at this point, it does represent the intent of the proposed development and it
is helpful to describe the intended housing product to help give the Commission a full
understanding of what will follow the approval of the land use map change. The plan
identifies a variety of housing types. They are geared mostly to nontraditional family
types, including young professionals, singles, single parents, and empty nesters. The
plan identifies 108 units, including the following housing types. First, we have front
loaded single-family detached homes adjacent to Woodbridge on the west side of our
property. Next we have attached town homes at the perimeter of the site adjacent to
Magic View and Wells Street. The alley-loaded detached homes that Josh referenced
are at the interior of the site and, as he pointed out, some of them open up onto the
common green, some of them onto the public streets, local streets. Finally, the multi-
unit triplex buildings or the big block development pattern at the south end of the
property is for individual condominiums. These are geared to, again, an affordability, I
guess, market, trying to get the square footage down and, therefore, the price point
down, so we can accommodate some of the young professionals living and working in
the area. Traffic is clearly the primary concern of the neighborhood and it is a concern
that we share. The property owners of this proposal have lived with a tremendous
amount of traffic since the development of Woodbridge and the connection of Magic
View on the west side of this property and north of this property. In doing our due
diligence on this project, we looked at a number of different issues and options relating
to the transportation network in and around the site. As we all know, Eagle Road has
become the major north-south artery in the valley. The transportation corridor has
brought employment and shopping opportunities to take advantage of the access to I-
84 that is to the central location in the valley that Meridian enjoys. Of course, along with
that we have seen a lot of increased traffic. Recent construction on Locust Grove Road
and Franklin Road has compounded this issue for the last couple of years, but that
situation should improve as construction winds up. It is clear, however, that some
additional changes will need to be made to accommodate the continued growth north
and south of I-84 and this Eagle Road corridor. With respect to this proposed
development, the area bounded by I-84, Locust Grove, Eagle Road, and Franklin
present some additional issues. First and foremost, there is only one connection
between any of the major roadways and it runs directly through Woodbridge and Magic
View. And, Josh, if I could, could you put up the other site plan that I have brought.
This is a little bit difficult to make out, but it will identify in the bold dark lines some of the
alternative options that I will talk about in terms of improving transportation network. So
-- excuse me. I have lost my place. So, first and foremost, there is only one connection
between Eagle and Locust Grove. You can see that running through. It's a bit of a
circuitous route, but runs from Locust Grove down Woodbridge Drive, up and around
Bow String, out Magic View, all the way to Eagle Road. The design for Woodbridge
was intentional to make it a circuitous route to try and discourage cut-through traffic.
Clearly, according to our discussions with the neighbors, this has not been effective. At
least not entirely effective. I think it's probably worked to a certain extent. You know,
we recognize this situation, we share their concerns. As I pointed out, you can see our
properties at the center of this site right in here. The property owners see all of the
traffic that -- not only the cut-through, but also the traffic generated from Woodbridge.
This has been a dramatic change to their lifestyle, obviously, and I think they may testify
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 27 of 88
to that effect and you might hear a little bit more about that. The question is -- I got a
little bit ahead of myself. I mean, really, the question comes down to -- with the traffic
issue, what do we do to solve this situation? We can see what the issue is clearly with
what's happening at Locust Grove and Franklin and all along the Eagle Road -- excuse
me, Eagle Road and Franklin and all along that corridor, but here we have identified a
couple of alternatives to potentially address some of those and in doing that we are
looking for options for interconnectivity, creating somewhat of a grid out of a suburban
street pattern. So, here are some options we looked at. First, restrict turning -- left
turning movements onto and off of Eagle Road at Magic View Drive. This, I believe, is
in the works. I think when this is completed, that will have a dramatic effect on the cut-
through traffic. Next we want to look at the possibility of a frontage road south of Locust
View Heights. I have heard discussion of this option from time to time. I think it's been
batted about a little bit in the neighborhoods. I have yet to see it on a plan and not sure
it's a viable option, but I think it's something worth exploring. Next I think it's worth
looking at making a connection from Magic View to Locust View Heights. This would
require buying a portion of property and that's this connection right through here --
would require buying a portion of property, but there is, actually, a right of way that
exists here that lines up very nicely over to Mustang that is an option, I think, that
maybe should be on the table. Next we looked at making connections to Greenhill
Estates. This is from both Woodbridge at this location and Magic View at this location.
Realize, these were not popular alternatives when Woodbridge went through, but when
we are looking at the overall transportation network, I think it's looking at all of the
options available to us. It's important to note that I think this property just changed
hands and there is some discussion of developing both of those properties and that
may be an opportunity to get additional right of way. Lastly, we looked at our own site
plan and how it might change to encourage traffic or direct traffic away from
Woodbridge. We feel that the elimination of the access point onto Magic View Drive,
which is in this location right here, again, on the concept plan, if you eliminated that and
to orient you, speaking of this one, is Woodbridge at the bottom of the page. If you
were to eliminate that and force traffic this direction, it's counter-intuitive to double back.
It will not -- it certainly will not solve all of the problems, but it may just help just for that
cut-through traffic. None of these are silver bullets to fix the problem, but combined I
think they could create the connectivity that allows traffic to be more evenly distributed.
In addition, I think -- back to Eagle Road, if that is, indeed, the source of the major cut-
through traffic, I think simply continuing with the plan to restrict that left turning
movement will be a dramatic change to that if people have to go up to the light at Allen
and make a left and, then, circle back through Woodbridge. At this time, if I could go
back to staff's earlier comment about the options in terms of timing. Before I ask that,
though, I just -- I want to make it clear to the Commission our intent with bringing the
Comp Plan amendment in advance of a preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and
so forth, would simple be to get good positive direction from the city. We think this is a
great project. We look forward to the opportunity to bring this back to you. Our intent is
to run all of these applications concurrently with the approval of a Comprehensive Plan
amendment, but we need that direction. We are hearing a lot of discussion about
higher density development and quality design. We think we have proposed that here.
We have got a good start on a concept plan and we look forward to bringing that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 28 of 88
forward to you, we simple want to get a little direction from the Commission and the city.
We have gotten positive feedback from staff and we are just taking it that next step. So,
with that, if I could get clarification on -- Josh, on what our options are there.
Wilson: As far as timing of the application? The -- and Director Canning and legal staff
may want some input here. It's my understanding that the Planning and Zoning
Commission can make a recommendation to change the future land use map once
every six months. Once the application comes out of the Commission, then, the City
Council hearing could be tabled in order for your annexation and preliminary plat
applications to be heard at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan amendment at
City Council, I think is your option. The other option would be that the Commission
would want you to come back for another -- they would deny your request tonight and
want you to come back in six months when they could make another recommendation
and have those development proposals that they could see at the same time as the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, I think is another option. I'm not sure of any further
options.
Zaremba: Just to make sure I understand what you just said, it is only this Commission
that has the once every six-month restriction? The City Council is not bound by that?
Canning: Yes, sir. That's correct. And to clarify, the cut off for the next Comprehensive
Plan amendment is actually December 15th, I believe.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: Instead of six months.
Zaremba: Was that an answer to your question or do we need to go farther?
Beecham: Yes. And I'll wind up quickly as a matter of time, but I think out of respect to
the property owners who have been there a number of years and I think are ready to
move on, they will testify to that effect, I think, as to how their lifestyle has changed. We
would certainly like to move this forward as quickly as possible. We are requesting
approval -- a recommendation of approval from this body. We would certainly like to
move forward as quickly as possible if that makes sense to condition, in effect, a Comp
Plan Amendment, to wait until we have the other applications ready and get everything
approved by City Council. That would be great. Logistically, I'm not quite sure how that
works. So, maybe we can get a little help on that. But with that I'll stand for questions
on the proposal.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have --
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 29 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: I have comments on the development in general, but I think they
could probably wait until after public testimony.
Zaremba: My question would be kind of a general one. The -- in sorting through many
of the petitions that we got, which I appreciate, it's always helpful when we have things
we can think about ahead of time, you know. We appreciate that. You have touched on
some of the issues that they raised, of course. Transportation being one of the big ones
and always, no matter what happens here, if the use is going to change, there is a
transportation impact no matter how it changes and they have made some thorough
suggestions. One of the others you also touched on, but I'm still uncomfortable with,
and that's the mixed-use designation. The office use is pretty specific and everybody
anticipates that would be low impact. Medium to medium high density residential is
within the purview of the things the city is asking for in areas like this. But that being
said, I think there is discomfort in the staff report, there is discomfort in the petitions,
and there is discomfort with me. We have gone with a mixed use designation, because
should you sell this property to somebody else, it's in the Comprehensive Plan as mixed
use without -- I mean this -- I appreciate what you have presented to us, but that is not
linked to it in any way and there is no way we can force that to be linked to it. But I
guess the question I'm going to is since your project is entirely residential -- and I don't
think that's out of the realm of consideration at least, why wouldn't you ask for an R-15
zoning, because that's, essentially, what you have proposed and there is no need to
have all these other options available and I don't know -- help me with that a little bit, if
you would, please.
Beecham: Mr. Chairman, the easy answer to that is it's really a recommendation of
staff based on discussions with them. They thought it allowed the flexibility and I think
we agree -- it allowed the flexibility in the density range we wanted. It allowed for the
possibility of some of the new designations that came out, which are traditional
neighborhood oriented developments in the new development code. So, I think that's
where we -- how we ended up there. Also, I think if this were to go forward, but a plat
be denied or a Conditional Use Permit be denied, they didn't want to -- we didn't want to
take away any of the property rights that the property owners currently have with the
office designation, so that is to say if for some reason we got the go ahead for
residential and a Comp Plan and, then, came forward with a development plan that
didn't work for the city, then, it wouldn't take away any of the existing development rights
that the -- property rights that the owners feel they have and the land use map would, I
guess, suggest they have. Does that answer your question?
Zaremba: Well -- and, actually, you reminded me that the new Unified Development
Code does have the traditional neighborhoods, which I haven't totally switched over yet,
it's only been in effect for less than a month, but wouldn't that be a more appropriate
application, a traditional neighborhood would still allow some flexibility for --
Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I would defer to staff on this, because it really was their
recommendation that in terms of a compatibility -- their compatibility matrix, they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 30 of 88
thought this was a good zoning designation to allow for that -- for that zoning as we
went forward.
Zaremba: Okay.
Beecham: However, our earlier discussions were prior to adoption of that new code.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Who spoke? Oh. Go ahead.
Wilson: If I could just clarify. You did mention that the current application was for -- why
is it not for an R-15 zone. I just wanted to clarify, as a Comprehensive Plan
designation, they would either ask for the mixed-use community that they are currently
asking for or the alternative is to ask for high density residential. The high density
residential opens it up to up to 40 units per acre, which has the same pitfalls as the
mixed use community designation in allowing uses that would be detrimental, we felt, to
the surrounding neighborhood. So, when you ask, you know, why is this not being
brought forward as R-15, I think it's important to say that when the annexation and
preliminary plat applications that we have requested catch up to this at City Council,
they would request an R-15 zone, is the zoning they would request, that being separate
from the Comprehensive Plan designation we are discussing tonight.
Zaremba: You are absolutely right and I stand corrected. I actually did mean to say
medium or high density, but I short-handed it to R-15. All right. Thank you. Any other
questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: Not at this point.
Zaremba: All right.
Beecham: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. At this point we will be open for public testimony and I will go
through the sign-up sheet, but let me ask first if there is a person who -- or one or more,
but we will start with the first one, is there somebody who is a spokesman for a group,
homeowners association president, or something like that? Sir, come forward. Either
one. And I forgot to mention earlier, when you do come forward, everybody, would you,
please, state your name and address for the record. Thank you. And may I ask just a
quick show of hands for whom is he speaking? A good portion of the crowd. Good.
Thank you.
Flecker: Mr. Chairman, my name is -- and fellow Commissioners, my name is Jim
Flecker. I live at 538 South Thornwood Way in Woodbridge Subdivision here in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 31 of 88
Meridian. And I need to ask a question of clarification before you start my clock. Okay.
Obviously, there is a lot of people here. We have put together a presentation of all the
concerns, we have put a lot of effort into this. I have personally timed myself on this
thing at about nine minutes, but a live thing and with laser pointers and a few things, I'm
not -- you know, experience tells me it could be 12 or 15. I have no intention of being
cut off in mid sentence. Consequently, I'm either going to have to -- I don't know how
hard your rule is, but I'm going to have to ask to be given a little more time or I'm going
to have to hit you with a fire hose, so it's your decision, you want rain coats or do you
want me to do this thing right?
Zaremba: Well, let's begin and see how close you can come and we sometimes flex for
a minute or two, but to be fair to everybody we do try and stay fairly close.
Flecker: Well, that's what I want to make sure. I don't want to violate any rules.
Zaremba: And we will try and hold our questions until your time is up.
Flecker: Okay. Fair enough. Well, first of all, I'd like to say that those of us at
Woodbridge Subdivision are very concerned with any development that might occur,
that it impacts us, naturally. Everybody knows that. Our residents have all the most
usual concerns, you know, property values, appearance, deterioration of quality of life,
et cetera. All of those are valid. But I'm going to address the one concern that is
paramount, traffic and safety. That affects all the other questions anyway. Or concerns.
Woodbridge is a quiet residential neighborhood that is not designed for a lot of traffic.
Nor can it be adapted to handle traffic. Its design eliminates that possibility. Also, the
City of Meridian has a good, up-to-date Comprehensive Plan and office use is generally
acceptable to all our residents. As was often the case in days gone by, a lot of this area
was developed more by default than plan, I suppose. Woodbridge was planned, but
they were denied access to exits that would have been helpful. Anyway, I don't think
anyone could have foreseen the awful mess that Eagle Road was allowed to become.
You're now being asked to amend this plan to effectively -- call it medium, high, high
density housing, change it to that. Due to insufficient access, this has become a rather
unique area, creating a situation that makes this type of development unacceptable. As
things now stand, we must recommend disapproval. Let me explain a little bit. The
total -- oops, we are going to have to get a map up here I can work with. Yeah. We will
try that. The total area that needs to be considered here is between Locust Grove,
Eagle Road, and up to Franklin and the interstate. It's about 180 acres. Woodbridge
Subdivision is approximately 80 acres and contains 279 houses. The balance,
approximately ten percent over in here, is currently done and about 30 percent is
currently under development or committed. The rest, about 60 acres in here, is our
concern. Woodbridge is 279 residents on 80 acres. I'm repeating myself. Okay. We
are really being asked to go to high density, as you guys pointed out. The current
Conger plan calls for 108 residents on 12 acres. That's about triple. Or nine per acre. I
don't know why they wouldn't go for R-8. This alone almost doubles the potential traffic
in the area. And if this change is allowed, how do you justify stopping the other
requests that are sure to follow? Now, there is a huge problem with this. As we are all
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 32 of 88
aware, Eagle Road and I-84 is the busiest intersection in the state of Idaho. Eagle
Road between I-84 and Franklin, even to Fairview, is an absolute nightmare. And for all
practical purposes, there is no solution. Right now there is only one logical exit point for
the hundred acres in question and that's right onto the busiest intersection in the state.
Right there. We are all aware of ITD’s plans for Eagle Road. Adding berms, lower
speed limits, et cetera. Well, that might improve safety on Eagle, we think it's likely to
make the traffic situation and backups worse. Certainly it's not going to solve this
access problem. I've already arranged and contacted ITD about this and I will be
involved with that in the future. We are already having problems with traffic in the area
trying to exit there, including from Woodbridge. The Chevron McDonald's alone creates
almost constant in and out traffic. It's located right there. So, if only a small part of this
area's development is currently completed and operational, we are yet to experience
the impact from the 30 acres currently in process, let alone the future development on
the 60 acres in question. Ninety acres is a significantly large amount of ground. Any
current traffic figures or study? Really invalid. Traffic's going to soon increase
significantly. And the access problem would probably invalidate normal traffic studies.
It doesn't take a lot of foresight to see what's going to happen here. Drivers, frustrated
with attempting to get out onto Eagle Road here, are going to be forced to find
alternatives. They are going to shoot right through Woodbridge Subdivision -- what I'll
call a race track right through there, down the straightaway, boom, right to Locust
Grove. It's a great shortcut, too. We saw that when Franklin was being expanded.
Many of us in Woodbridge, myself included, currently use Locust Grove because of the
Eagle congestion. What do you suppose is going to happen when the Locust Grove
overpass is complete? Then drivers will have the additional option of coming back
through here, up and around, down, over to Overland Road and now we can get to I-84,
Meridian Road, from there. More traffic through Woodbridge. By the way, that road is
not very clear here. There is a road right -- right there where that line is. Right now.
That's Magic View. In short, drivers will find alternatives to the only access they got and
none currently exist, except through Woodbridge. This is a huge safety issue. We can't
allow this kind of traffic through our neighborhood like this with children playing. To
allow these changes now, as things now stand, would be irresponsible at best, create
some liability issues, and worse cost the life of a child. Frankly, we are surprised that
hasn't happened already. This is absolutely unacceptable and must not be allowed.
We are aware that the Eagle Road problem was not created by the City of Meridian.
But the city did allow the Woodbridge design that is now a problem. In any event, there
is a problem and we, as responsible citizens, have an obligation to not make things
worse. It needs to be pointed out we are not opposed to development, as long as it's
good development and appropriate. Many of our residents bought their homes knowing
that offices would be built there and that's generally acceptable to them. And this begs
the question. Why change a good plan that is acceptable to the area's residents?
There does not appear to be anything wrong with Conger's plan, it's just not right for
this area. Primarily because of the unacceptable traffic situation and the lack of exits.
Please note that traffic counts aren't everything and the presenter pointed that out.
There is a big difference in traffic patterns of residents, as opposed to office workers
and visitors. But, therefore, this plan in this area would not be smart growth. Also, we
didn't just say no to this plan, we took the time to carefully look at this, trying to see if we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 33 of 88
could determine any way the traffic situation could be improved to make the plan
acceptable. That's a rather tough order. In fact, I notice that some of the things we
mentioned we hadn't seen before tonight that the presenter Scott there had mentioned.
And we'd like to have thought about it, too. But, first of all, we can forget about any real
improvements to accessing Eagle Road. That's just not going to happen. It would be
great if an access road to Locust Grove could be constructed and that's what Scott
mentioned. But where? Land would likely have to be acquired to go along through
there and that's a rather difficult options, but it's an option. There are a couple of
possibilities that also have merit. A merge lane on the entrance of -- the ramp at
westbound I-84, you could come out on the frontage road there and just merge right
into it and that would take a lot of traffic out. That would be an ITD thing and I intend to
talk to them about that real soon. But that's just one possibility. There are two public
right of way accesses, as Scott also pointed out, right there going up to Autumn Way
and right there going up to Autumn Way into Greenhill Estates. That would help
disperse the traffic by allowing some of it to divert to Franklin Road. It helps. It may not
be the whole answer, but that's a help. We recognize that it's doubtful that the residents
in Greenhill Estates would be real excited about doing that, but that's why the accesses
were put there in the first place, since they were there from the beginning, this should
not come as any surprise to any of them. And maybe they are needed now to balance
the traffic flow. Why should Woodbridge have to bear it all? However, I would point out
that any traffic fixes must be settled before approval of this project, not on a -- oh, it will
be done later basis. We all kind of know how that works. To summarize, we clearly
have a unique situation here and we don't intend to blame anyone for it. It just is what it
is. Our challenge now is to make the best of a not good situation. First of all, a good
plan for high density residential should have services within walking distance to reduce
the need to exit onto major arteries out of the area. These services do not exist now
and are not likely to happen. Secondly, this area just naturally lends itself to a nice little
sport area for St. Luke's growing hospital complex for its medical offices, clinics, hotels
appropriately located by the interstate, et cetera. This is the kind of development that is
progressive and appropriate for this particular area. Thirdly, this proposal is
inconsistent with the current goals of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. That will be
addressed later. Fourth, please, be reminded that the Treasure Valley has a long and
sad history of paying for expensive comprehensive plans only to ignore them a little
piece at a time as development progresses. This little bit at a time soon adds up and
that is the biggest reason why our traffic problems are so severe and becoming worse.
Eagle Road is a classic example of a good plan that has been allowed to deteriorate
into a mess. Fifth, what the Treasure Valley desperately needs is a valley-wide traffic
plan with oversight that has some teeth. The Statesman has recently been focusing on
this problem. Right now we have got ITD, Ada County, ACHD, national and many local
communities, and who knows who else, all pointing fingers at each other with this traffic
situation. We are not going to solve that problem here, but it needs to start somewhere
and this is our community. In the meantime, let's work responsibly for what we have.
Let's not join the willy-nilly crowd and piece ourselves into a worse, perhaps impossible
situation, one that we may later come to regret. In conclusion, I believe there is more
than ample evidence why at this time this amendment change request must be denied.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 34 of 88
Therefore, we are asking you Commissioners, Planning and Zoning, to recommend
denial of the proposed amendment. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? We have to ask that you not either cheer or
boo, we do listen to the -- each person and we know they are supported by a lot of
other people, but, please, don't demonstrate. Sir, are you another spokesman?
Birch: Yes, I am.
Zaremba: Oh, good. Please state your name.
Birch: Steve Birch. 757 South Thornwood Way.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I missed it. Say your name again, sir.
Birch: Steve Birch.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Birch: B-i-r-c-h. And I'm also representing the neighborhood.
Zaremba: Can I see a show of hands who he is representing? I see a whole bunch out
in the lobby and some in here. Thank you.
Birch: Let me know when you're ready.
Zaremba: Go ahead. Thank you.
Birch: Okay. Thanks for allowing us to talk tonight and what I have to say is according
to Meridian's Unified Development Code to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan the City Council is required to make the following findings: One, the proposed
amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Two, the
proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of
the city. Three, the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan land
use map. Four, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development
Code. And, five, the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
We feel it would be improper for Planning and Zoning to recommend approval of the
amendment where the situation reveals that the City Council cannot make one or more
of the necessary findings. First one, that the proposed amendment is not consistent
with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan and it is internally inconsistent with
the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map. These are findings one and three. The proposed development is
approximately -- is for approximately 12 acres. This parcel is not what the mixed-use
community designation envisions. The stated purpose of these mixed-use community,
according to Meridian's Unified Development Code, is to create a centralized,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 35 of 88
pedestrian-oriented, identifiable and day-to-day service oriented focal point for
neighborhood districts. Mixed use Community envisions upwards of 25 acres for
nonresidential use, such as clothing stores, restaurants, drive-thru facilities, et cetera.
None of these uses are possible on the parcel in question based on Conger's current
residential plan. This inconsistency aside, the Comprehensive Plan includes a number
of provisions encouraging high-density residential development in locations such as
those near Old Town Meridian. It is these areas that are best suited for high-density
housing. It is these areas that provide the urban services that make high-density
developments work. An amendment that allows for a high-density residential
development in a location remote from urban services would be inconsistent with
Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Further, a specific goal set out in the Comprehensive
Plan is to support in-fill of random vacant lots and substantially develop single-family
areas at densities similar to surrounding developments. The proposed development is
three times as dense as -- at nine units per acre as Woodbridge is at just over three
units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan's inclusion of the mixed-use neighborhood
designation further emphasizes the inconsistency of Conger's proposed plan. The
mixed-use neighborhood designation limits residential density up to eight units per acre,
a density that is closer to the surrounding community. The mixed use neighborhood
designation allows -- also envisions upward of ten acres for nonresidential. Examples
of those nonresidential uses are listed as grocery stores, drug stores, coffee-sandwich
shops, drycleaners, salons, day care, professional offices, medical-dental offices,
clinics, retail gifts, et cetera. That's what's currently there. As compared to the
nonresidential use specified for mixed use community, the nonresidential use as
specified for the mixed use neighborhood designation are more consistent with the
current office designation in the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. The next one is the
proposed amendment does not provide an improved guide to future growth and
development of the city, is finding number two. In view of Conger's specific plan for the
land in question, re-designating the 12 acres to mixed-use community does not improve
-- does not provide an improved guide to future growth and development of Meridian.
Conger's specific plan calls for more than a hundred units on 12 acres in a location that
is remote, promotes urban services, such as grocery stores and shopping. Further
residents of the more than 100 units would be required to access Eagle Road at the
busiest intersection in the state to reach those urban services. The specific location of
the proposed development prevents the amendment from providing an improved guide
to future growth when compared with the current office designation. The current office
designation allows for construction, referral facilities such as doctors offices and the like
for St. Luke's and more jobs for Meridian. In view of the current land use designation,
the proximity of St. Luke's and the nature of the I-84 road interchange, the proposed
amendment in high-density residential development does not provide an improved
guide to the future growth and development of the city. The last one is the proposed
amendment is in the best of the City of Meridian. That's finding number five. For the
reasons stated above, the proposed amendment clearly is not in the best interest of
Meridian. So, in conclusion, it would be improper for Planning and Zoning to
recommend approval of the amendment where the situation reveals that the City
Council cannot make the necessary findings to approve the plan. Four out of five of the
findings they must make are simply not met by Conger's proposed change. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 36 of 88
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Birch: I don't know if I -- this is a sign-up sheet from the neighborhood with everybody's
opinions yea or nay. Give that to you guys?
Borup: Is that the same as has already been presented?
Birch: These are independent of tonight.
Borup: Oh.
Zaremba: If that's new and you'd care to give it to the clerk, it will be entered into the
record. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other spokespersons? Anyone acting as a
spokesman? All right. Thank you. I will read the list and if you have already been
spoken for, if you would just, right where you are, raise your hand and say spoken for.
Again, if you do have something to add that you think has been missed, please, don't
hesitate to come forward. Peggy Slayton. Spoken for. Thank you. Rita Exline.
Spoken for. Thank you. Gloria Flecker. Spoken for. Thank you. Dave Pearcey or
Pairsey? Come on forward, please. Thank you.
Pearcey: Mr. Chairman and staff, my name is David Pearcey and I live at 675 Wells
Street in the Magic View Subdivision, Lot No. 7, and I don't have a fire hose. Sorry.
Thank you. Okay. My property joins the east side of Woodbridge Subdivision. I have
lived there for almost 32 years. For the first two years I was living there I was out in the
country and there was no other houses -- there was a couple other houses, maybe
mine and two others, and there was no road, there was no traffic going by my house, by
the north side of my property, and on that property I raised quarter-horses, which I think
all the people in Woodbridge probably have found that out and I have seen a lot of
changes and a lot of growth in the area, both commercial in the east and both in
residential to the west and I have attended all the public meetings concerning this -- my
area and I have never been opposed of any -- I have never been against any
commercial or residential projects in the area and the record will show that. I have
always went along with everything. I went along with Woodbridge. I never fought them,
even though they were right up on the west side of me. I feel that the city needs to
grow. They were doing it and why should one guy stop somebody else, his quality of
life, even though I lost my -- you know, I gave that up so others could go ahead and
have their quality of life and they could enjoy it and, in turn, it sounds like I'm kind of
doomed here. Maybe. But the good Lord knows that, I don't. But in the Magic View --
the north side of my property, the traffic has grown so bad that I get probably over a
hundred cars maybe a day or hundreds of cars a day. There may be two or three
thousand. I don't know. But it's a lot. And they complain about the traffic, but I'm the
guy that should complain about it, because it comes right within just feet of my bedroom
window at all hours of the day, all hours of the night, I can't get any sleep at times, the
cars come racing through there, they make noise, but I've never once complained. My
time is about up? Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 37 of 88
Zaremba: If you're concluding, go ahead and conclude.
Pearcey: So, all I want to say is that I'm in support of all the changes as the mixed use
development Conger Management has proposed to this assigned area and I want to
thank everybody, I want to thank all of you for listening to me, and, especially, the
Woodbridge people, I never knew they were so strongly against it, but I wish them all to
have a very good life and I'm sure it's going to work out for the best. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir.
Borup: Mr. Pearcey?
Zaremba: Yeah. Mr. Pearcey.
Borup: Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Just had a question. Were you involved with the Comprehensive Plan change
for your property back in --
Pearcey: I was -- I didn't get on -- nobody notified me when they -- when they did the
final deal that was drawn up, like Woodbridge said. No, I was not notified. I didn't get
to go to all that --
Borup: No. I mean for your property when -- back in the early '90s when that was
designated on the comp plan. Were you involved with any of that with some of your
other neighbors that were --
Pearcey: All I did -- I never got a chance to say whether I was for it or against it. All I
got was a copy of the map showing after it was all decided.
Borup: Okay.
Pearcey: I never had no opportunity to voice my opinion on whether I liked it or whether
I didn't like it.
Borup: Well, there were about a half a dozen meetings where we had public testimony.
Pearcey: I know, but I never was notified of any of the meetings. All I got later was a
map --
Borup: Okay.
Pearcey: -- showing that the changes were made.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 38 of 88
Borup: Thank you.
Pearcey: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you. Lori Zelner or Lonnie Zelner. She's been spoken for. Joan
Harry.
Harry: My name is Joan Harry and I live at 2340 East Clifton Drive in Woodbridge and
for my occupation I teach school and I'm very concerned about the impact on the
schools in this area if the proposal were to go through. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Bonnie Robinson.
Robinson: I'm Bonnie Robinson. I live at 715 Wells Street. I'm one of the property
owners. My residence backs up against the east side of Woodbridge. In the '80s to
'90s it was a very rural, peaceful place to live. Deer roamed the creek. Fox raised their
cubs every year in my gated pipe. Mom and poppa goose paraded their goslings up
and down Wells Street. Hundreds of quail and their babies scooted through unlimited
ground cover and about four dozen cows, protected by their own snorting bull, grazed
the 80 acres to my west. Then Peter O'Neil came to Meridian and created the beautiful
community of Woodbridge. All of the reasons cited now in opposition to the Wells
Street properties I feared then. Two story houses would block my view of the beautiful
sunsets. Two hundred seventy-nine homes would dramatically increase traffic. Dogs
just feet away from my house would bark all night and keep me awake. Kids and adults
would speed through the streets and run the stop signs. I would never again be able to
sit in my back lawn and watch the Fourth of July fireworks at the Meridian Speedway.
At the time of those public meetings and hearings I attended every one. Not once did I
stand in opposition to Pete's Woodbridge project or make all of the objections listed
above, which has now come true. Recognizing that growth and change is inevitable in
a vibrant community, I was as cooperative as possible. Woodbridge is a unique
development, highly desirable community, and undoubtedly a reason that Meridian was
chosen one of the best places to live in the nation. Now, there are people in my
backyard opposing the Wells Street properties by saying not in my backyard. There is
no doubt that 279 homes in Woodbridge create more traffic cutting through the Magic
View route than the proposed 108 homes could ever create cutting through
Woodbridge. It's going to require cooperation and compliance with existing speed limits
and stop signs to help manage the traffic. However, that's certainly not unique to
Woodbridge and Wells Street. It's a fact of life all over the Treasure Valley. I owned the
property at the time that the Comprehensive Plans were being proposed. I think I
attended all of the meetings. We specifically requested a mixed-use zoning in that area
and were told that that would not be an option. I have the correspondence relative to
that. I think that's it for me. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 39 of 88
Borup: Yes, ma'am, to -- were you -- same questions previously. Were you -- did you
give any input on the Comp Plan?
Robinson: I have correspondence -- I attended the meetings and requested a mixed-
use zoning and they told us that they -- that was not an option that they were going to
consider, that they wanted to zone it as office and we were just cooperative and
supportive.
Borup: Okay. Mixed use was your --
Robinson: We did.
Borup: -- desired --
Robinson: In fact, yes, we had an entire neighborhood that signed that request.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Amy Hepworth. I don't see any action. The handwriting is clear
enough. I'm pretty sure I'm saying that correctly. Anybody with the last name
Hepworth? Okay. Perhaps she was here and she departed . She's marked in the
against column. Joan Hines. Okay. Had to go. Okay. There are people that thought
they were signing up for Item 3 that used this list, so we will assume that she has no
comment on this one. That is everybody that signed up on this subject, if anybody who
didn't sign up feels there is something they need to add, this is your opportunity for us.
Seeing none, I will ask the applicant to come back and respond again, please. Mr.
Beecham.
Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On -- I think it's
appropriate to note -- we did have a number of meetings with the Woodbridge
neighbors and the Magic View and Greenhill folks were also invited to those meetings.
I think this is a pretty rare occasion. I attend a lot of these meetings. I think this shows
the class of the Woodbridge folks. They have come, they are very prepared, they are,
obviously, very passionate about their concerns and the -- I guess to help their
neighborhood and we very much appreciate that and I guess I appreciate them being
very civil to me tonight. It makes it a lot easier to do my job. I think also appreciate the
property owners getting up here and giving you guys a little bit of a perspective of what
their life has been like since Woodbridge. Even a good quality development brings
some bad circumstances sometimes. So, I think that's important to note. We did not
receive the petition, however, so I'm not sure of everything that was included in that.
I'd, actually, appreciate a copy of that, if I could get that. But I'll start off with trip
generation. Here are the numbers I have from ACHD and these are rough numbers
based on a concept plan. Townhouses and condominiums, which is how they would
designate this type of development, a non-traditional family type of home, generates
about 5.86 units -- or trips per unit per day. That would equate to about 635 vehicle
trips per day generated from this site going in a variety of directions. Today it's got two.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 40 of 88
It's got -- you can either go east or you can go west through Woodbridge. Office
generates about 11.42 trips per thousand square feet. Using for a ratio of 25 percent,
which I think is appropriate for this type of office development, if it did go that route,
would be about 117 -- close to 119,000 square feet of office that could potentially be
developed on these 12 acres. That would equate to about 1,345 vehicle trips per day
generated on this site. Again, the neighbors are absolutely correct, they do have a
different pattern. There may not be weekend use. There may be weekend use,
though. We are seeing a lot of the developments going in in Silverstone and El Dorado
that are running three shifts a day. That's more of a call center and I think we can all
trust the city would -- would protect them from that type of intensive use, but there are
some situations where you might get activity at all hours and during the weekends. On
Woodbridge at 279 units -- I, actually, had 283, but in that 280 range would generate
about 2,700 trips per day out of Woodbridge. That's about four times what the
proposed development would be and about twice of what the office development would
be. Mr. Flecker -- I believe I have got that name right -- is correct, that is just on 12
acres. There is more property to look at. We need to look at the entire picture. But
what this says to me -- I guess what his testimony says to me is, City of Meridian, you
can no longer grow in this area east of Woodbridge or west of Woodbridge, for that
matter, because we have got a situation here that -- a unique situation that shouldn't
allow the traffic to go back and forth. I don't think that's right. I think the city should be
encouraging smart growth and I think our proposal is smart growth. Putting roof-tops
near employment centers and services is important. There is more to it than just
shopping centers, I think, and grocery stores, we have got to look at all the services and
all the employment that's around this area. I don't think the City of Meridian wants to
take a stance and we are no longer going to allow growth, because Woodbridge has a
traffic problem. I do think that the City of Meridian will look at this and say we have got
an applicant with a development proposal in a neighborhood that both want solutions to
a bigger traffic problem. This project in itself is not the problem, but we would be happy
to be part of the solution and I think I hear the Woodbridge folks saying the same thing.
Mr. Birch testified as to required findings. I am a planner by profession, I know a little
bit about it, but I will certainly defer to staff on this. I think your staff's done a wonderful
job. I think we have got a good staff report that suggests you can make the findings to
approve this project and their recommendation for approval suggests that, really, you
ought to make the findings to approve this project, because it is what the City of
Meridian, through their Comprehensive Plan and some of our recent discussions with
them, is encouraging. Again, the smart growth, higher density, in the appropriate
locations. Steve's comments -- actually, are more appropriate to a suburban type
development. If we don't increase density in certain appropriate areas, we will never
have walkable communities. We have currently some medium and low-density
developments very close to employment cores. Every trip out of Woodbridge in the
morning -- not every trip. Many trips out of Woodbridge in the morning cut right through
Magic View and let's not forget they are neighbors, too. Those trips cut through Magic
View going to the major employment centers, which largely lie east of Woodbridge and
not west. Our hope is that the City of Meridian -- that the downtown core grows to be a
more significant player in the employment center, but currently we have 240 acres just
south of the interstate slated for employment, office park. We have got the downtown
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 41 of 88
Boise core. We have got Boise Town Square. All of these are major draws for
employment and that's where our traffic study suggests most of the traffic will go. Joan
testified regarding school impact. I just want to touch on that, because I know that is a
significant issue right now and, fortunately, a bond was just passed, but this proposal is
for nontraditional family. It is not expected to generate a lot of school age children.
There will be some and we understand capacity issues. We would certainly be more
than willing to work with the school district in making sure that they can accommodate
potential students or add growth in that area. With that I guess I'd like to close my
comments in saying we are comfortable -- we are comfortable with the recommendation
for approval and the fact that we need to bring further plans to you to further insure the
city that what we have presented here today is what we will, indeed, do. We would
certainly appreciate and would -- and are requesting a recommendation to the City
Council for approval on the Comp Plan amendment, independent if we need to wait for
the additional applications to come forward or not. Thank you, again, for your time and
I'll stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Not at this point.
Zaremba: Okay. Staff, any questions that come to mind?
Guenther: No.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you very much.
Beecham: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I want to say before we start comment on this, this is the most well
organized homeowners group and property owners to come before us in more than a
year and I want to thank everybody. It makes our job difficult, but I do want to thank all
of you for putting in the effort, because this is probably the most well organized group
that we have seen and I appreciate also the property owners coming out testifying. We
do not always have that luxury here to get the story from both sides of the argument
and I appreciate that as well.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, I would add to that incredibly well articulated tonight.
Zaremba: Yes.
Canning: It has been nice. Thank you all.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 42 of 88
Zaremba: A great deal of clarity added and we appreciate that. As you observed, that
doesn't make our job any easier. Opinions?
Newton-Huckabay: I, myself, have driven through Woodbridge several times. One just
to see the development when it was completed. And, two, I grew up in this area as
well. We had a property there on Mustang most of the time I was growing up and this is
not an easy solution. There is not good connectivity here. I don't know -- myself, when
I drive by this, I think we need a frontage road, somehow, to connect to Locust Grove. I
think the Locust Grove overpass is going to -- I'm not sure what it's going to do for the
capacity, but I think it's going to change the dynamic of traffic in that area and I think
that because you have -- you have got, you know, a theater to the south now, you have
got the high school -- I wish I had a -- do you have a laser pointer? And we have got
the -- this one here -- isn't this the one that's going to be all -- it's going to be the hotel,
restaurant, retail -- about six or seven restaurants in there. These haven't come
through yet. Is this the theater here? No. No. This is -- okay. Of course -- and, then,
El Dorado and Silverstone. So, that's my question and that's the conundrum, where do
you send people? But I also tend to agree with Mr. Beecham, this office use may not
be the best solution for this area. But I certainly also -- I want to make a point, just
suggesting that this one piece be --
Zaremba: The two pieces together.
Newton-Huckabay: The two pieces. I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Be re-designated. What does that do for this down here? I mean
you're kind of making an island and I don't think that that would be good. I would think if
we are going to recommend changing the Comprehensive Plan, we need to look at
changing, you know, this whole section here to some extent.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, if I could comment. Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay, you have approved an office use --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's right.
Canning: -- to that property.
Newton-Huckabay: My mistake. You're right. I forgot.
Canning: And we have heard that these two properties, as was stated earlier by the
applicant, that they have been sold and purchased for development purposes, not un-
similar to what the applicant is actually proposing tonight. And, then, these properties
have developed already as office.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 43 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I knew these had, but I didn't -- these haven't developed yet,
though? The last time I was out there --
Canning: No. These two have been purchased. I have not heard anything on this one.
I have not heard anything on these two, but this one is approved for office.
Newton-Huckabay: And this is coming forth as high density residential, too?
Canning: Not yet. We have had discussions with potential applicants, but there is no
application in the process. And I believe it qualifies as medium density, just technically.
The ones they are proposing.
Newton-Huckabay: There is nowhere for everybody to go.
Zaremba: Well, I guess the question on that is if it remains unchanged, then, office
uses would go in there and there is still a traffic issue with those. I guess the question
is if you were in favor of this change, how much does that change the traffic? There is
going to be -- no matter what happens there, it's not a good situation for traffic either
direction. And unless ACHD is going to buy a bunch of houses right next to the
interstate right of way, which I don't think is in their budget, I don't know that there is a
solution for this area. Certainly, the development to the north with the stub streets
envisions that there is going to be more traffic and connectivity. I think the question
before us is -- nobody has to come to us if they propose an office. If we make this
change, how big of an impact is that?
Newton-Huckabay: Office is an allowed use.
Zaremba: And is that go or a no go for you? I didn't help, did I?
Newton-Huckabay: Have you ever driven through Woodbridge?
Zaremba: Yes. Yes. I have driven through both sides of that area.
Newton-Huckabay: It's a very narrow street. I perceive, anyway. Commissioner
Borup?
Borup: Well, you're right about this not being easy. I think Joan -- I believe her name
was Joan Harry, a lot of her comments were some of the same things I was wondering
and I'm sure the Magic View people had some of the same concerns when Woodbridge
went in, as far as the traffic and interrupting their lifestyle, and I guess we have heard
testimony to that -- that actually has happened. I see some aspects of this area with
this proposal probably incorporates some of the designs of the neighborhood center
design, where -- with the commercial close in and as it goes out, you know, higher
density and, then, at a lower density residential. Even though we don't have all the
aspects of the neighborhood center, we have some of the progressive aspects of it.
The only thoughts I had, if the whole area would have developed as all residential and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 44 of 88
no office, which would to -- to the same density as Woodbridge, the traffic would be
much greater than anything we are talking about now. And that's something that -- you
know, I don't know how anybody could object to having a neighborhood built next to you
the same as what you are. I mean that's always what everybody wants, normally.
There is a traffic light -- I mean I agree, I try to avoid Eagle Road when possible. And
there is not very many hours of the day where it's comfortably drive-able. There are a
few. But there is a traffic light on Eagle coming from this subdivision. It seems to be a
very long light, but it is there. I mean I guess all that in my mind is maybe in the favor of
this. The other thing that bothers me somewhat is that there was a Comp Plan
designation here and, you know, buying property next to something, you have that
expectation that that is what's going to go in, whether it was the proper designation,
whether there was enough input, I don't know. It may have been over-optimistic to think
that that whole property could develop to those standards. So, that's my dilemma. I
have got conflicting thoughts.
Zaremba: I could be very comfortable with this developing as offices, if that were ever
to happen, and the current Comprehensive Plan envisions that. I also can see the
aspect that if you consider this whole block, shall we say, almost three quarters of a
square mile from the interstate to Franklin and from Eagle to Locust Grove, that whole
area, if this -- if this property and even the two just north of it, were to develop to a
higher density residential, then, that whole area truly meets the definition of mixed use.
You know, I was focusing on this one piece of property is not a mixed use, it's just
residential, but if you look at that whole three-quarters of a square mile -- I think it was
Commissioner Borup that mentioned the neighborhood centers of intensity and, then,
reduced intensity, then reduced intensity, this was a good example of that. I'm not the
economist, I don't know which sells better, offices or residential, although I have been
hearing that we have got enough office -- empty office space. That being said and my
knowledge that whatever happens there is going to add to the traffic, it seems to me an
appropriate place to put a little higher density residential, again, as a transition from the
higher commercial use to the east and I guess I'm making up my mind as I sit here. I
could support staff's recommendation that our recommendation to the City Council be to
hold this until they see what the project is and if the project complies, to go ahead with
it.
Borup: Well, this density is not as great as if it -- as an apartment complex would be.
You know, they are usually 15 to 20 or more per unit. So, it's, you know, half or less
than what that would be. So, we are talking about strictly traffic and I -- you know,
relying on Mr. Beecham's and several of those are, obviously, familiar numbers that we
have heard in other reports. This is the least amount of traffic. It's hard to determine
which direction they are going to go, maybe, and what time of day, but this is the least
of all the traffic generators, if the traffic is the only -- is a big concern. I mean it depends
on where the people are coming from. For the offices, if they come from Boise, they are
going to come down Eagle. If they are Meridian residents, coming through Woodbridge
would be very tempting, if you're living in Meridian. That's the way I would go if I was
living in Meridian and wanting to go to office to work in here. Also, most of the -- most
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 45 of 88
of the shopping and entertainment and that kind of stuff, you would be heading east, so
--
Newton-Huckabay: South.
Borup: South and east.
Zaremba: East and south.
Borup: Or north, too, if you're going to Crossroads Subdivision -- I mean if you're
heading for shopping and entertainment and, you know, even into Boise, you're going to
be heading east out of here. Whatever that meant. I don't know.
Zaremba: Are we ready to close the Public Hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: You're waiting for my decision?
Zaremba: Do you have an opinion?
Newton-Huckabay: I just can't at this point, in good faith, go with a Comp Plan
amendment. I just -- I think it's to -- I don't like Comp Plan amendments anyway,
because I'm just about, you know, fatigued with those this month. But I just -- I can't -- I
can't vote in favor of the Comp Plan amendment on this piece -- on this area right now.
I think there has just got to be some more work done on what is an impossible way to
get traffic circulating through there. I like this development, I think it's very nice, and I
think it would be -- it would provide some choices that we don't have enough of in this
city for people, but I just -- I can't -- I can't, in good faith, vote for a Comp Plan
amendment -- or vote for recommending one on this particular piece of property.
Zaremba: That would force the traffic issue.
Borup: What do you mean?
Zaremba: My question there is if, for some reason, offices were proposed on these
properties, we wouldn't even see it.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: And there would still be a traffic issue.
Borup: Well, a bigger traffic issue.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, call me a coward, but in that case I wouldn't have to sleep at
night knowing that I voted for it. You know, I guess I just don't -- I think we are going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 46 of 88
perpetuate a problem. Is there a solution? Do I know what the solution is? No, I don't.
I think I said, everybody's argued very compellingly and I --
Borup: Well, I think a Comp Plan has to be somewhat fluid. I mean you're not going to
-- you're not going to put something down that's going to stay permanent for -- forever.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Borup: I don't know that it needs to be changed in three years. And I don't know that
it's intended that an area that you visualize for future growth has to be built out in three
years. I mean it's supposed to be a long-term plan and develop over the years. A lot of
areas in Meridian are not extending out very long term lately, but -- I mean that was my
visualization. You know, I don't -- I don't remember testimony at the meeting if that was
even discussed, but, you know -- you know, five to ten years to me wouldn't have been
an unreasonable time period for this to fully develop. Maybe we haven't given it a
chance to --
Zaremba: If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying give the current Comprehensive
Plan a chance to work.
Borup: Well, I don't know, I was just expounding on what Commissioner Huckabay
said.
Newton-Huckabay: There is no easy -- very tough question.
Borup: I like the project. I mean it's not -- it's not high density like an apartment
complex, you don't -- you don't attract the same type of individuals. I mean just
because it's more of a single -- single lot development. And I -- maybe we -- maybe
there should have been some more clarification. I don't know if I heard specifically. Are
these all -- he had mentioned condos and townhouses, so I assume those are all of the
individual deeded properties that's not -- it's not rental properties. I mean, you know,
obviously, it could be, but it's -- it's not like apartment buildings, each -- each unit would
be individually owned. Not a lot different than some of the small little lots in
Woodbridge. They have got some sections in there that have fairly small lots.
Zaremba: Well, my opinion is with the access to Magic View closed, a project like this
could actually add value to the neighborhood in adding another option. That's why I still
lean towards accepting what the staff suggested. I would still recommend that the city
sit on it until they have the other application with it. As the chairman I cannot make the
motion, so I will let you two lead.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, did you close the Public Hearing?
Zaremba: Not yet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 47 of 88
Canning: Okay.
Zaremba: Just in case we had questions to ask of anybody. I think we heard
everybody and understood everybody. That didn't leave any questions.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on CPA 05-002, request
for a Comprehensive Plan amend map amendment to change approximately 11.79
acres from office to mixed-use community by Conger Management Group, 675 and 716
South Wells Street.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion to close the Public Hearing carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: If I make the motion and it's -- I said I can't at this time -- I just don't
feel comfortable recommending approval personally.
Borup: Well, there is two motions you can make.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure. If you two are voting in favor,
maybe it would be more appropriate to have you make the motion. I'd like to take a
moment and --
Borup: I haven't decided which way I'm voting yet.
Newton-Huckabay: -- at the two missing Commissioners --
Borup: That's what I was going to say, I wish we had a few more Commissioner input.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend that -- oh, shoot. Denial of --
Borup: Page six.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 48 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: -- CPA -- I'm going to recommend denial to the City Council of file
number CPA 05-002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September
-- oh. Was it today's hearing date? October 17th, 2005, for the following reasons: I
personally think it's premature to change the Comprehensive Plan at this time. I think
there are too many uncertainties surrounding the use of this property and traffic. Did
you have anything else we needed to add? Is that sufficient, Mr. Nary?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there are no specific standards you
have to find. So, if you don't feel it is appropriate to amend the Comprehensive Plan at
this time, that is sufficient.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Would you strike that statement, since I was just reading
from the script? I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Your motion is simpler, just to deny it, I believe. And I would ask for
clarification from counsel Mr. Nary. If a person makes a second, it does not
automatically signal that they approve, they merely agree to bring it to a vote?
Nary: Mr. Chairman that is correct. A second is merely just an opportunity for further
discussion and vote on the motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay.
That has one in favor and two opposed. That motion does not carry.
MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: So, do we have to make another motion?
Zaremba: Yes, we do.
Newton-Huckabay: Do I need to make that motion?
Zaremba: Not necessarily. There are a couple of choices. We -- staff has
recommended that we forward this onto City Council recommending approval, but that
they hold it until other applications catch up with it. We would also have the opportunity
not to --
Borup: Of approving or -- yeah.
Zaremba: -- but say that we want to see those applications before we make the
recommendation. It just wouldn't be in this six months cycle.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 49 of 88
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba? If they bring forward an application, you still need
to make a recommendation on that to City Council. So, you would, of course, be
included in that -- in that review before it gets up to City Council.
Zaremba: All right.
Canning: And I did want to clarify that the staff report dated September 22nd is correct.
Sorry. It's not today's date. It was the 22nd.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Canning: I apologize for nodding inappropriately.
Newton-Huckabay: I just bungled it from the beginning.
Borup: No. You're fine. I'm not sure if I understood what Director Canning was saying
about the two applications -- about the applications going to City Council.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Commissioner Borup, if you decide to recommend
approval, but have Council wait until accompanying development applications catch up
with it, those applications would go through normal review process and they would first
come to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation and you would
conduct a public hearing, just --
Borup: All right. I understood that part. Clarification on the December 15th date.
We're saying that's when another application can be submitted?
Canning: Yes, sir. Although I did confer with the City Attorney just after I said that. The
cutoff as specified in the Unified Development Code is June 15th and December 15th.
Borup: All right. So, were these turned in at June 15th?
Canning: Yes, they were. But the standard further goes on to say that the Commission
can only make a recommendation every six months. So, regardless of what the cutoff
date is, you're still held to the six months and that's what I was questioning the attorney
about.
Borup: That's what I was wondering. That's why I asked that.
Canning: And, Commissioner Zaremba, if I might just add one other clarification for the
record, in case this ever comes up.
Zaremba: Please do.
Canning: There was questions about whether there was findings and, no, there are not
any findings in your packet. The findings that you heard testified to earlier in a very
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 50 of 88
articulate statement, were actually based on the Unified Development Code, which was
not in effect when this application was turned in. So, although the points were still very
valid, that's why you don't have any findings, so -- is because it came in before the
UDC.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, back to my original question. Am I supposed to make a
motion recommending approval with those stipulations that you were discussing and,
then, vote against my own motion?
Zaremba: You certainly can do that.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Or someone else can make a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay,
you're never required to make a motion. If you don't feel compelled to, you're certainly
not obligated to. Commissioner Borup certainly can make a motion of he chooses,
instead. But you're not obligated to make a motion in the reverse of your prior motion,
unless that's your desire.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I'd prefer not to contradict myself.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: That seems perfectly rational to me.
Zaremba: And it's been clarified that I was incorrect, we do not have the option of
sitting on it ourselves. We must make a recommendation one way or the other tonight.
Borup: Then City Council can sit on it. And the other applications may or may not be
approved.
Zaremba: That's true as well. Which the City Council would need to consider when
they consider this, if we couple them.
Borup: Well, I probably ought to make a motion, then.
Newton-Huckabay: Could I make one more comment? I think it would be appropriate
for the City Council, one, for the developer -- and, of course, all the property owners
involved, I mean what is the -- what would work for them in this area? Because I --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 51 of 88
Zaremba: Clearly, fixing the transportation problem.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, without stating a pink elephant in the area.
Zaremba: And there may be some time for people to put their heads together and
maybe make some suggestions. There were a number of suggestions made. I don't
know how economically viable some of them are, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I'm just trying to say that this came back before us
again looking very much like it does today, with the same arguments that have been put
forth today and -- from both sides. We are in the same position, then, as we are now,
we are just six months later.
Zaremba: That's very true.
Newton-Huckabay: I know for one, the developer probably would not like to see that
happen again. And I'm sure that the property owners would like to have resolution. But
that's the end of my comment.
Zaremba: In the meantime, the developer -- the applicant discovers that maybe office is
more viable here or the situation changes between now and then that there isn't as
much vacant office space before it goes to City Council, they certainly can withdraw it.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Proceed.
Borup: All right. I'm ready for a motion. I just try to make decisions on, first of all,
what's best for the city as a whole. Also, how I would feel if I was living in the
neighborhood. Well, I guess I'm -- some of the things I'm basing it on is, for one, this is
going to go towards -- we only make recommendations. This is going to City Council.
They are the ones that really have to make the decision. That's always the out we
have.
Zaremba: And to be honest, they don't always agree with us, so --
Borup: Yes. So, two of the things I thought was a concern -- I mean traffic was a
concern. It looks to me like of all the traffic scenarios, this one is the least detrimental
effect. I know everyone's always worried about the worst case and what's going to
happen. Over the last eight years since I have seen this so many times and I have
never seen the scenarios happen that people present at these meetings. Not saying it
won't some day, it just hasn't happened yet. And with a lot more intensity developments
than this. It's never come about. The other thing I think is in an influence to me is that
they are single ownership, individual lot ownership, it's not like an apartment complex.
So, that being said, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA
05-002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date -- that still would change;
right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 52 of 88
Canning: It's just a staff report for the hearing date and there has only been one staff
report prepared for use, so --
Borup: All right. Okay. The staff report prepared for the hearing date of September
22nd. It was changed to October 17th. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? We
have two in favor and one opposed. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
Borup: That should also tell City Council something, that it wasn't unanimous and that
they usually take those type of things in their consideration, too.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you all for coming and participating and this will go onto City Council.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Typically we take a short break around 9:00 o'clock and we have gone well
beyond that, so we are going to take a break. We will reconvene in about ten minutes.
(Recess.)
Item 5: Public Hearing: CPA 05-001 Request to Amend the Future Land Use
Map of the Comprehensive Plan for Approximately 50 acres from Medium
and Low Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional, by the South Eagle
Road and Victory Road Property Owner’s Alliance – Land at or near the
northeast and southeast corners of South Eagle Road and Victory Road:
Zaremba: Welcome back, everybody, and thank you for your patience through the
other hearings. Let the record show that the three Commissioners that were here
before the break are again here. And let's proceed. I will open the Public Hearing for
CPA 05-001, and this, again, is a request to amend the future land use map of the
Comprehensive Plan and we will begin with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. This area should
look somewhat familiar to you. We are talking in this application just south of the area
on the previous application. This vicinity map shows just south of Overland Road. If we
need to, we can certainly go back to a larger view, but this vicinity map is cut off a little
short of Overland. Copperpoint Way is the road shown here at the top of the screen.
South Eagle Road. Easy Jet. Victory Road. This is the area, the general vicinity.
Thousand Springs Subdivision is on the west side of Eagle Road. Sutherland Farms
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 53 of 88
Subdivision is shown platted here, as well as this un-platted area to the east.
Southstone Subdivision is the L-O, limited office zone, in the purple. And this area here
is also Sutherland Farms Subdivision that was approved as a planned development and
this area was approved with a use exception to allow nonresidential uses, although
none have been submitted to the city at this point, but that is what their planned
development allowed. So, that's the general area. The request before you is to amend
the Comprehensive Plan from medium and low density residential to mixed use
regional. So, here is a shot of the Comprehensive Plan as currently adopted and the
yellow reflects medium density residential. The green represents low density
residential. So, green is generally south of Eagle -- of Victory Road, as well as these
county lots here on the northwest corner of Eagle and Victory, also low density, and,
then, medium density for both Thousand Springs and Sutherland Farms. The mixed
use regional designation is shown in brown and that is what they are proposing to
extend to the south of the Ridenbaugh Canal, which is generally shown here in this
cross-hatched area. There is a fire station -- fire substation number four is under
construction, which is shown here as a symbol, just right at the Ridenbaugh. This slide
shows the applicant's proposal as submitted in their application. The outlined area --
again, here is Eagle Road along the left side of the screen. They are proposing this
area to be amended to mixed use regional. The applicant is the south Eagle Road and
Victory Road Property Owners Alliance, who is represented by Mr. Wayne Forrey and
they have -- they comprise ten tax parcels and five owners. The properties -- the
property here right at the southeast corner of Victory and Eagle and, then, as you head
north, that includes four more property owners to this parcel here. So, it includes all of
that. Now, they have in their application, which is allowed, proposed to change the
Comprehensive Plan for a greater area than we actually have received application -- or,
I'm sorry, notarized consent from the other owners, but we have asked that the
applicant address that in a little bit more deal in our staff report. So, I just wanted to
clarify that while this -- the applicants are not all of the property owners that are shown
here, they are just representing this area down at the south end. There are
approximately -- acres owned by the applicant and about another 30 acres north to the
Ridenbaugh Canal. The depth of their proposal is about 800 feet and it's, essentially,
from Eagle Road to the west boundary of Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Just go back
here. The existing zoning is shown on our first slide here and, as you can see, most of
the property that they are proposing to amend in white here is -- represents
unincorporated land. All of the color represents the annexed land. So, some of this --
these properties on the north end are existing city limits and -- but they are just -- they
are proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan. So, just to clarify there that the
majority of this -- it would not affect, per se, the uses on this approved annexed and
zoned land, but it would have a bigger affect on these areas down here on the south.
The application, unlike the previous Public Hearing, does not include a specific proposal
or a concept plan at this point. They are just proposing to change the future land use
map. They have stated in their application that their intention, if approved, is to develop
a mixed-use business campus, not unlike some of the product that you see in the
Silverstone-El Dorado. Just a few other points to kind of familiarize you with the area.
There is approximately three and a half -- 3.2 to four dwelling units per acre. If you take
-- about approximately a three-quarter mile radius that's overlooking that, you can see
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 54 of 88
here in Sutherland Farms, this is a little bit higher density product for them up here and,
then, they do have some larger lots as they go east. Thousand Springs Subdivision
has generally the 8,000 square foot lot averages. If you take the average lot size of all
the lots in Sutherland Farms that abut the unincorporated area, the average lot size is
9,100 square feet. There is about two million square feet of warehousing, retail,
entertainment, hospitality type uses approved for the Silverstone-El Dorado combined.
Let's see. There is -- as you know, there has been approval on this parcel that is right
at the very end of the slide here for a senior assisted living facility. So, I wanted to point
that out, that while it's shown as unincorporated, it has, indeed, been annexed and
approved for, as you well know. There is also a pending application before the city for
the property here at the southwest corner of Victory and Eagle for residential, some
attached multi-family products, as well as single family product. And, then, Kingsbridge
Subdivision, which is just off the screen down here, was also another recent approval in
the area for a subdivision that has approximately -- I think it was about 2.3, 2.4 dwelling
units per acre, so -- the McDonald Lateral doesn't show on here, but it's a fairly sizeable
irrigation canal that does kind of run from southeast to northwest here across -- I
believe it's the Carpenter's property. And I will just touch on a couple of the highlights
from the staff report. Starting on page six, we list kind of four main topic areas that we
feel are important for the Commission to review as part of this application. The first is
over-supply of mixed use and commercial land. Staff really does not find that there is --
that there is good evidence presented in the application to warrant the change in terms
of just needing more mixed use or commercial land in the area. There have been real
estate studies, as well as the Chamber of Commerce reflecting high office vacancy
rates. We have some concern about that, as well as over-designating commercial land.
The Southstone Subdivision, as I mentioned, has about eight lots, already designated
for limited office, as well as about, let's see, five acres there on Sutherland Farms that's
got potential. So, there is already land designated for nonresidential in this area, just to
point that out. And so we just don't see that it warrants any additional land down there
for that use. There is 250 acres of vacant or significantly undeveloped land within a
mile and a half of this that's designated already for mixed uses or commercial and that
does not include El Dorado or the Silverstone. Excuse me. That's primarily the land
along -- between the freeway and Overland Road, as well as we have neighborhood
centers that are designated along Victory to the west. The second major area I wanted
to point out is the transportation issues. This got quite a bit of discussion on your last
hearing, so I won't talk about that too much. Suffice it to say that Ada County Highway
District did not submit any detailed report for this application, since there was no exact
development proposed. They didn't have, really, the ability to generate traffic numbers.
Generally speaking, they did state that the Eagle Road north of Easy Jet has 13,838
vehicle trips per day. I would qualify that to say that's a number that is a year old. So,
given some of the recent approvals, certainly that's going to be upwards of probably
15,000. Victory east of Eagle has 6,000 and Victory west of Eagle has 4,600, which,
again, are older numbers. They do have programmed 2007 to complete the widening
of Eagle Road from Ridenbaugh to Victory with a signal. It's a 2007 project that is
budgeted and planned for. Compatibility and design issues. I think two major points
there that staff wants to point out is that there is really 800 feet of depth, essentially, is
forcing a strip type development. You could get a road, potentially, down the center
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 55 of 88
there, but in terms of -- the city's general policies have been to discourage any kind of
strip type development. We think that having a node and developing in the center is a
preferred style of development pattern. Obviously, the big issue here is the
compatibility with both of the residential subdivisions, as well as the lower density type
county projects on the south side of Victory. Now, I wouldn't -- it would not behoove
staff to say that never do you have nonresidential next to residential, because that's the
very nature of mixed use and there is allowances in the code that help to buffer those
kind of noise and lights and mitigate those kind of issues, so -- but I think from a
compatibility standpoint, we think that -- good planning needs to take in both sides of
the street and, obviously, the west side of Eagle Road, for the most part, is built out.
Thousand Springs Subdivision is there. And so you're really talking about one-sided
commercial development and we would argue that the Ridenbaugh Canal probably
makes a very clean, very nice distinguishing marker in this area for residential to mixed
use. One last point is the -- on the market and assessed value issues. We did contact -
- the applicant did address the several points in their application. We did call the Ada
County assessor's office and they did confirm that clearly from their standpoint they are
looking at highest and best use and it could be argued that some of this property,
particularly at the intersection, could be appraised and assessed at the highest and best
use being something other than residential. Secondarily, on that point, the -- whether or
not residential is appropriate in this area, just out of curiosity, I asked them what the
ownership changes were in Thousand Springs, since Thousand Springs has the longer
history here, I just choose to ask them about Thousand Springs and of the -- of eight
residential lots that actually back up to Eagle here, only one has had a change in
ownership since the houses were occupied in about 2000. So, I guess one
interpretation of that is that residential seems to be an acceptable and a use that people
find acceptable in this area, even given Eagle Road. I won't go into anymore on the
staff report. I did want to point out that we -- for the record, that there have been letters
received from Turner, Dr. Roberts, Bonner, Krusinsky, and Simpson. And there is also a
petition with 107 signatures in opposition to the project. Our recommendation is to deny
the application. We do support a change to the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the
existing uses that are already approved for the two areas that I discussed earlier along
Easy Jet. We also think that the corner property, given that the other three corners
have mixed -- have medium density residential already designated, that to have all four
corners have the same designation probably makes some sense. So, we would
support a change from low density residential there to a medium. And I think I'll end
staff's comments with that.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay?
Newton-Huckabay: I was just curious on the two commercial pieces already in this area
that we are considering. Were those previous Comp Plan amendments or were they -- I
don't think those came -- those came through before I was on the Commission. I was
just -- they seem out of place.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 56 of 88
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe they were approved
before you came on, Commissioner, and they were both approved as planned
developments, which, you know, up to 20 percent of the land area could be
nonresidential. So, for Sutherland Farms, that's how they -- that's how they were
approved as office for that, was because they had enough area that 20 percent of their
project could be office.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: The Southstone project was not a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
either, but was approved through the exception that our Comp Plan allows for
properties that -- sorry. We were just discussing how that was -- because our current
Comp Plan policy says if you have a lot that's three acres or less and you front an
arterial and it's designated residential, you can actually request an office without filing
for an amendment. In this case they have filed for Southstone at the exact same time
that we were running that Comprehensive Plan amendment through and Council chose
to allow the larger than three acres, which in this case I believe it's about five or six, so -
-
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant.
Forrey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Forrey. My address is
1952 South Wild Creek in Boise. 83709. And I'm the owner of Pathway Development
Company, where we are an urban planning consulting firm and I'm here tonight
representing the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance and if I
could ask my assistant over here and your staff to load -- I have got a presentation with
some maps and text I'd like to put up on the screen and, then, I can click through this
pretty efficiently. I know I'm under a time limit.
Zaremba: Okay.
Forrey: Give them a moment to load that. Those are supposed to be fast technology
chips.
Zaremba: Electronics are wonderful, aren't they?
Forrey: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: That's why we call you Mr. E-mail, Dave.
Zaremba: Yeah. Thanks.
Newton-Huckabay: He doesn't have e-mail.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 57 of 88
Forrey: Well, I can say this, that the five families that compose the ownership of the
alliance are here tonight. The Thomason family, the Bauman family, the Sharp family,
the Carpenter family, and the Axlerod is in California, but they have a family member
that's here representing them as well tonight. So, I would be happy to -- I have got --
my first map is to show you where their properties are. Get that loaded up. Okay. You
see the green bar there and there you see the Thomason family at the top and, then, all
the way down to the bottom is the Axlerod family here on the south side of Victory
Road. So, here -- this is what composes the property owners alliance. And the reason
that we made the application clear to the canal is because we wanted to have a
regional approach, to be contiguous. You know, as an urban planner, I don't feel it's
appropriate, sometimes, to just do spot kind of analysis or spot zoning or spot --
especially in a comprehensive plan amendment. So, our approach was to go up to
here and come clear to the south side in a bubble concept to show a Comprehensive
Plan designation that took a regional approach. Okay. If we could go next. Let me go
through some of the city staff report elements out of the staff report. In the staff report it
mentions that the immediate vicinity is transitioning rapidly to urban scale development
and that's correct. Three years ago when your Comprehensive Plan was adopted --
and it started a year and a half before that. So, four and a half years ago this area was
not in this type of transition, but now we have this I-84 Eagle Road interchange less
than a mile away and it has significant influence on the area. And that's noted in your
staff report. The Silverstone project, the El Dorado project, have really accelerated the
demand for office and business use because of proximity to I-84 and Eagle Road. In
the staff report it also says the purpose of the mixed-use designation is to look at highly
visible transitioning areas and, then, the city encourages flexible design and we feel we
meet that. We are definitely in a transition area. Your staff report says that you can
bump up from medium density to high density residential, that it's possible to do that.
The staff report also says that 18.7 percent of your impact area is commercial and
mixed use and they make a point that maybe we have enough already. But I'm going to
give you some information tonight that I think will show you that we need yet even more
in the impact area here in Meridian. And, then, your staff report says it's possible to
design mixed use projects to compliment adjoining residential and we do adjoin
residential and you do that through landscaping buffers, restricted hours, lighting and
noise restrictions. That comes out of your ordinances. And so we are going to talk
about that tonight, too. Right now the Communities in Motion and Blueprint for Good
Growth is going forward and here are three things that are really driving -- here we are
in this area. Of course, I-84 is a major corridor for business and commerce in this
Valley. There is a proposed commuter rail from downtown Nampa out here to the
Micron Area and downtown Boise, and, then, the proposed bus rapid transit here that
goes from Middleton back to Boise. But Eagle Road is right in the center of all that. So,
there is tremendous emphasis by Boise businesses and Meridian businesses to get
close to the center of the valley. Now, here is a project in Caldwell, it's called Sky
Ranch, and it's -- if you could hit the back space button there. It's right in this area here
and it's right next to the freeway in Caldwell and 40 percent of the lots were sold before
they even paved the streets, because there has been a backlog of unavailable space
next to the freeway in Meridian and so businesses have been pushing west. So, it's in
our best interest as a community here in Meridian to capture that growth. I mean that is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 58 of 88
an economic development opportunity for Meridian, because you're in the center of the
valley. I mean we -- obviously, we want jobs in Canyon County as well, but our
Comprehensive Plan needs to reflect the central position of Meridian in the whole valley
for commerce. Okay. Next. Here is an article recently in the Statesman in late
September and it shows the new hospital going up in Eagle next to Eagle Road, State
Street there in Eagle, and the article goes on to make some very key points. We are
not building office space fast enough to keep up with demand and that is at these
primary corridors, like Eagle Road, like State Street, Highway 44. But, you know, in
Meridian I have heard the Planning and Zoning and even some Council members and
staff say, well, we are getting rumblings that we may be overbuilt with office. That might
be true in secondary sites, sites that are not on major high traffic corridors. And
oftentimes when we get kind of stuck on land use, the implication is, well, let's just put
office there and it will work. But those are usually secondary sites and I was here about
a month ago when you had an application at Meridian and Ustick Road that shows on
the Comprehensive Plan neighborhood commercial and the applicant chose to do
single family detached residential, because they said that it was a secondary site for
commercial uses, it was not on a primary corridor. And so they chose to do
subdivisions on areas that you have designated for a neighborhood commercial center,
again, because that's secondary. We have a strong housing market, so there is an
increase for office and services and the office park, out of this article -- this was a group
of experts that came into Boise and talked about the real estate and commercial market
-- they said the majority is going to continue to be on I-84 and Eagle Road corridors.
Those are the primary commerce corridors and these other secondary arterials are not
seeing that kind of demand for commercial and office. Okay. Let's look at your
Comprehensive Plan and the mixed use that you have. Right now 36 percent of the
land you have designated for future regional mixed use is in this area. Here is the Ten
Mile interchange. The Federal Highway Administration has been talking about funding
cuts on this highway bill, because of Katrina. This thing is probably eight, maybe nine
years out, unfortunately. I mean we need Ten Mile interchange today. But it's out there.
Years away. The next spot you have is an area that doesn't have sewer and it won't
have for several years. So, 46 percent of the mixed use regional that's in your
Comprehensive Plan is not developable today. Up here we have 27 percent and here is
North Eagle Road and, then, here we have 27 percent. So, this is really balanced along
Eagle Road. And this is south of I-84 here, but there is zero mixed-use community land
use in your current Comprehensive Plan. It's all regional right here. And so I want to
talk about mixed-use community here in a few minutes. Here is some land use and
some acquisition issues that are facing the alliance property owners every day. These
are things they have to live with. Realtors almost every day come to them and say I
have got buyers for your property for commercial for use and they want to be on Eagle
Road, they don't want to be on a minor arterial. ACHD has been working for months
and months with each of the alliance property owners to acquire land for this new five
lane arterial and the appraisers and the appraisal report that ACHD has prepared all
say that the highest and best land use is commercial. Every one of those appraisals
come to them and say it's commercial land. They have investors, developers, and
realtors and even appraisers working for public agencies that want to acquire this land,
because of its proximity to I-84 for business-park and the Ada County appraisers even
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 59 of 88
say commercial use. Your staff is correct when they contacted -- call the Ada County
Assessors office and they will say, yes, we envision that commercial value. In terms of
future uses, we took a long look at would this area be appropriate for housing. The
alliance members have attempted to sell their land and developers have said we cannot
buy it for R-8 or R-15 subdivisions, we just don't feel there is enough buyers that would
live on that high traffic corridor for a standard straight subdivision. But we think we'd
like to build apartments. That's the kind of input they have been getting lately. It's an R-
15, which is your medium density residential, that's 345 units of apartment housing and
that's minimum. And when you take an apartment developer with the land values that
are in those appraisals, it gets up to about 630 units and that is achievable and your
staff pointed that out in your staff report, that these property owners would not have to
amend the Comprehensive Plan, they could come to the City of Meridian and say we
want to put medium to high density housing and the staff has a procedure where you
can bump up to the next zone up and so you could get R-40 zoning here, high density
zoning, and get at least 600 units and that would be a mega apartment development in
this area. And we sat down and thought about that and as owners and in talking to
neighbors, we came to the conclusion that these mega apartments could negatively
change the character of the neighborhood and that's, really, what's at issue here. If you
have an apartment development versus a nice office business park, those are the
fundamental things we have been talking about. So, we developed some -- a guiding
principle and -- we developed seven guiding principles that we handed out to the
neighbors at a neighborhood meeting, which we had in mid September and I'd like to
hand out a copy of that to each of the Commission members. Let me quickly read that
into the record. This is a copy of the document we handed out to various neighbors and
guiding principle number one: The alliance property owners have joined together for a
unified development that is coordinated with good master planning, rather than
individual site development without coordination. And I know many times the city has
lamented the fact that they wished a group of owners would get together, rather than
onesy, twosy or cherry pick, you know, an area. So, right from the get go we said that's
a guiding principle. Number two. The development approach will be to feather land
use intensity from residential to professional office and business uses. The most
intensive land uses will occur along Eagle Road and Victory Road, with less intensive
land use farther away from the arterials. Number three. The alliance properties located
next to the residential portion of Sutherland Farms Subdivision, to provide either a
residential buffer with same size lots or a 40 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to
Sutherland Farms. If the landscape buffer is selected, then, the Sutherland Farms
homeowners association will be invited to assist with landscape design and selection of
vegetation plantings. You know, we recognize that we have residential neighbors and,
so, again, a guiding principle here is to respect that fact and try and work with the land
use around us. Guiding principal number four. Alliance Properties desire to construct a
landscape buffer along the east side of Eagle Road, similar to the landscape buffer on
the west side of Eagle Road. Landscape buffers will also be constructed along Victory
Road. Number five. Alliance Properties desire to construct an internal roadway system
that runs north and south to minimize curb cuts to Eagle Road. This internal roadway
will connect Easy Jet Drive with Victory Road and provide good internal access. If you
recall -- maybe we will have another map up here in a bit -- the Easy Jet has a stub
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 60 of 88
street to the south that goes through their commercial site and so there is already
thinking by the city and ACHD that there would be an internal roadway system there.
Number six. The intent of the Alliance is to facilitate a well planned neighborhood
compatible office and business-park. The Alliance will evaluate proposals from like-
minded developers. They have had many proposals from realtors to investors to
developers, but they are saying on record here that they want to work with someone
that agrees with these guiding principles. And, No. 7, the Alliance believes there are
advantages in selling their properties to one development entity, to insure a coordinated
development plan consistent with these guiding principles. And, then, the second page
is a copy of a letter from Kowallis and Mackey and one of the property owners -- this is
just a sample letter that they received from Commercial brokers and developers stating
that this is an area they would envision for something other than residential
development. Okay. Then we had this neighborhood meeting and we had a lot of good
input and that was on I think September 21 -- or not -- excuse me. The 19th. And,
then, we met on the 20th of September, the next night, and we sat down as a group of
Alliance and we said given the input we got from the neighbors, let's make some
changes to our guiding principles and so here is what we came up with. As an Alliance
we want to reduce from the regional -- mixed use regional to mixed-use community
designation, because that gives the city and the neighbors a less intense land use and
more conditional use permit control. So, that's something we feel, hopefully, the
neighbors would agree with. This came as a result of that neighborhood meeting. They
talked about heights and how that's bothered them in other areas of the city and so we
are agreeing to a height restriction to be the same as the homes in that area. No big
box, no big retail or any 24-hour operation. That's to be a quiet business park. And no
glare. Internal roadways to minimize curb cuts on Eagle Road. No development until
after Eagle Road five lane completion. That was an important point the neighbors
brought up, that it would be devastating to have the road turn up in about a year from
now, plus all the construction traffic, so, again, here is a way to solve that. We are
proposing larger landscape buffer to the neighbors and especially Sutherland Farms.
Large setbacks and a design review commitment for this entire area. And we would
hope that the city would see the need for a very specific development agreement with
teeth, so that these guiding principles can be monitored. So, we spoke to the
neighbors. A lot of them said, well, I can see that this might be a good project, but I
have had experience where a developer gets up and says all these nice flowery things
and, then, a year or two later it doesn't seem like it was carried through. And so we
talked about a development agreement and how that works and so the alliance it totally
in favor and thinks it's appropriate to have a very strong development agreement in this
case. So, let me give you a summary here quickly. The Alliance -- they have the ability
to achieve unified development in this very high traffic corridor for a common benefit.
So, it's a unified approach, not individual owners, but they are all coming together like-
minded. They want to do a well-planned business park to enhance this neighborhood,
generate taxes without adding school children, and we really feel that a mega
apartment complex could tend to be negative to this neighborhood. We are willing to
reduce the intensity from a mixed use regional to a mixed-use community designation
and that gives more Conditional Use Permit control to the city and to the neighborhood
through a hearing process. And these guiding principles could be incorporated into a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 61 of 88
specific annexation development agreement in accordance with Idaho code and it could
be recorded to run with the land and so it would go to the subsequent land owners.
And so we would respectfully request that you recommend approval of that procedure
for a development agreement at the annexation process and thank you. Be happy to
answer any questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none right now.
Borup: Maybe just a short one. That's on Eagle Road access. You talk about internal
roadway to reduce that. Do you visualize any conceptual visualization of how many
access points there would be? You have mentioned Easy Jet and, then, an access to
Victory. Anything else in there? Is there one more in between?
Forrey: I would imagine there would be one -- there are several streets on the west
side of Eagle Road that come out of the Thousand Springs, so the highway district
would probably want one additional -- maybe between Easy Jet and Victory probably
one additional.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Forrey: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. We do have a number of people signed up -- both sides. Okay. Let
me first ask is there a spokesman for a group? Anybody representing a group of
people? Sir, come forward. And let me ask are there others here in the audience for
whom he is speaking? If you would just -- okay. Thank you very much.
Hines: Thank you. We were larger, but we shrunk through the late hour. We don't
have an organized homeowners organization yet, because we are still under
development, so the developer holds that. At any rate --
Zaremba: For the record would you start with your name and address, please.
Hines: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Darrell Hines and I live at 3471
East Publisher Street and that is in the Sutherland Farms Subdivision. We have studied
both the application to amend, as well as the staff report prepared by Mr. Brad Hawkins-
Clark and, first, let me just say that Brad's written report seems at least to us as lay
people to be thorough, certainly addressing all of the assertions made by the applicant.
The Sutherland Farms Subdivision is new development that is hardly even half
completed, so we are not an older subdivision that would reasonably expect these kind
of changes to take place around us as the one proposed here tonight. At the time of
our purchase we were aware of the business campus just to the north of us that's been
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 62 of 88
addressed tonight and we were also aware of the undeveloped properties to the west.
However, those undeveloped properties were planned residential. This proposed
amendment to change this undeveloped area's designation to mixed use regional -- and
I understand there is some compromise on that, but I wasn't aware of that until tonight.
But that doesn't really change a lot. It causes us great concern. We are new
homeowners there. It's a new subdivision. We are fully aware of the possible
development that could result from this change in designation. Provisions like no upper
limit of nonresidential and residential up to 30 to 40 units per acre, this is not what we
envisioned when we purchased just months ago. If adopted, this change has the
potential to permit zoning in commercial and/or residential development that would
seriously erode the integrity if our new residences. In spite of the well-intentioned
efforts of Mr. Forrey and the Alliance, we see scary potential under mixed use regional.
The Alliance's application makes numerous assertions in support of their argument to
amend. However, the very thorough staff report refutes virtually all their arguments and
recommends denial of the proposed amendment. During a neighborhood meeting Mr.
Forrey strongly implied to us that the best way to protect our residential integrity would
be a joint -- to join with the Alliance's efforts, that if we would simply provide him a list of
desired developmental restrictions, the Alliance could make those restrictions binding
on any potential buyer, that the Alliance just would not sell to the developer who would
not accept those limitations. Also strongly implied that if the current plan designation
remained, which is medium residential that's adjacent to us, that at the time of
development a bump up from R-8 to R-16 would likely be requested and allowed,
resulting, of course, in multi-level apartments appearing over our backyard fences.
However, after consulting with planning and zoning staff, we learned that trying to
impose restrictions on a buyer-developer would be difficult at best to follow through
with. There is no plan at this point. It would first require finding a buyer who is willing to
accept those limitations and restrictions. And, secondly, it would also require that the
city accept that. So, both of those steps, unfortunately, would have to occur after you
make a decision to recommend the proposed amendment. We don't feel at ease with
that. We feel that that's very risky. We have the greatest respect for the property
owners that have formed this alliance and we acknowledge their absolute right to
organize and attempt to bring about changes that serve them best. Most are long-term
residents and seem to have genuine concern that their properties be developed in a
residential friendly manner. However, they, obviously, have financial concerns and
goals as well, as do we, we who will remain behind after they exit. We are, quite
frankly, very skeptical of Mr. Forrey and the Alliance's ability to successfully impose
restrictions on a commercial developer. They seem confident of that and we just are
not. Based on the staff findings, there is no shortage of mixed-use regional designated
area. The Comprehensive Plan is working and does not need to be fixed. As stated in
the staff report, the future land use map, which was created as recently as 2002, which
has been discussed here earlier tonight, was the result of months of public workshops
and hearings. This is what residents and prospective buyers have used to make
purchase decisions. Based on our study and research and investigation of the facts,
we believe the community interests are best served by denying this proposed
amendment. If during the development process there is, in fact, a request to bump up
the zoning to one level, R-15, we will most assuredly be there to oppose that. So,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 63 of 88
respectfully, we would request that you vote to deny this proposed amendment as
recommended by the staff report. So, I thank you and thank you for your attention and
just want to acknowledge once again, as Brad had already pointed out, there has been
a petition submitted with a little more representation on than we were able to maintain
here tonight at this late hour with over a hundred signatures on it that are from our
subdivision that are in opposition to this proposed amendment. If you have any
questions I would be glad to --
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Just a couple to get a clarification from my mind. It sounds like you are
opposed to the commercial development and you would be opposed to apartment --
Hines: Absolutely. Absolutely. Apartments are scary and I know --
Borup: I didn't get a feel for if you had a preference one for the other.
Hines: Commercial or -- my preference would be R-8, which the most it would allow is -
- are duplexes, two residents per --
Borup: Which is the same zoning as your subdivision.
Hines: No. We are R-4.
Borup: Under a planned unit development. You have got some 40-foot wide lots in
there.
Hines: I know through the planned development there has been some exceptions
allowed. You're talking about the office area?
Borup: No. I'm talking about the residential area.
Hines: Well, I'm not a subdivision expert.
Borup: Okay.
Hines: So, I know that when you submit a considerable size subdivision, you can have
some exceptions there, as I understand, but we are basically R-4, low density, and the
properties that we are talking about -- the ones that are adjacent to us are medium,
which normally carries an R-8 and I understand the request can be made for a bump up
to R-15, which we would definitely be in opposition to, because they can do a lot more
with that. But, then, the other -- the one that's not adjacent to us on south of Victory is
actually low density and I think Brad addressed his thoughts on that. But, you know, the
way that it is right now, again, you know, you have heard a lot of conversation tonight
about changing the plan and all that's gone into putting that plan together and you're not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 64 of 88
that far down the road and if it's working, why does it constantly have to be changed?
You know, staff has --
Borup: If it didn't have to be changed, we would have stuck with the same plan we had
20 years ago.
Hines: But we are not 20 years. It was only 2002.
Borup: Right.
Hines: And a lot of community input -- and I wasn't here to do it --
Borup: But your question was why does it have to be changed. Because times
change. Maybe not this soon, but --
Hines: Well, it has to be changed 20 years down the road, I understand that, but it's a
very short time down the road and based on staff recommendations and their
observations, which, obviously, are a little bit different than Mr. Forrey's about need,
staff recommendations are is that the need is not there as they have described it and --
Borup: Just one final thing. Can you see where some of these homeowners may have
had the same concerns later on, you know, five to twenty acre parcels and a residential
neighborhood went in right next to them.
Hines: Well, they have been there for a long long period of time.
Borup: Exactly. Exactly.
Hines: You know, I can't -- it's a different -- I can't identify with that, you know. I can't
address that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Do we have anybody else that is a spokesman? Seeing nobody
moving, I will go down the list and, again, please, if you have been spoken for, just raise
your hand and I'll comment on that and if you do have something to add, please, feel
free to come forward and do that. Thomas Fecino. Okay. Spoken for. First name is
Dolly, last name I think is Baugh. B-a-u-g-h. Spoken for. Thank you. Dan Baughman.
Baughman: Good evening, Council. Thank you for this time. My name is Dan
Baughman, B-a-u-g-h-m-a-n.
Zaremba: Sorry.
Baughman: Quite all right. I reside at 1215 South Eagle Road in Kuna. My wife Dolly
and I own the property at 2990 South Eagle Road. I will make a long story short, it was
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 65 of 88
a nice country road when we moved there 30 years ago in the late '70s. Times change,
but there is four reasons I think you ought to consider our proposal. Number one, to
maximize our investment. We have been there for like 30 years. Allow us, as private
property owners, to maximize the potential of our investments. We have been told and
we believe that we have marketable commercial properties. Number two, precedence.
You have already allowed two commercial ventures south of the Ridenbaugh Canal. All
we are asking is that you extend those considerations to our properties. Number three,
a higher value to the community. We believe that a commercial development,
according to our plan, would have much higher returns to the community than the
current R-8 designation. Lower impact. We believe that a commercial development,
according to our plan, would have a much lower impact on the community's
infrastructures, its roads, schools, fire, police, et cetera, than the current R-8
designation and especially if it were allowed to be bumped to an R-15 or even higher.
Thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Thank you. No questions? Okay. Sybil Duece? Is that correct? I see
nobody moving. We have had some people that were here earlier that have left. I
guess she's one of them. John Sharp.
Sharp: Good evening. My name is John Sharp. My wife and I live at 3020 South
Eagle Road and I'm one of the Alliance members. We have been there since 1978 and
at the time we moved in there -- excuse me. 1986. And when we moved in there the
Eagle interchange hadn't been built yet and, unfortunately, I was part of the problem,
because I was a traffic engineer for the Idaho State Transportation Department.
Newton-Huckabay: And you're very brave.
Sharp: And at that time it was a blessing. Since then it's become a curse. At the time
we moved there we were able to walk or ride our bicycles on Eagle Road and Victory
Road. Now it's difficult just to turn right onto Eagle Road to go north to the interstate.
ACHD has now a project to add some lanes to it, rebuild it to a five lane section with a
signalized intersection at Eagle and Victory, which will be a help, and what we would
like to do with our Alliance is try to take advantage of that, plus the fact that there is a
commercial area north of there and after watching that development and, plus, the stuff
that Sutherland Farms has put in there, it seems like a very good idea to us to try to
extend that through our properties and become the same type of situation as theirs.
Since, then, we have found out that the zoning that they have is -- allows a lot higher
intensity use than what we would like to see and we are no different than the property
owners that are surrounding this that are opposing this. At the time they went in we had
the same concerns and so now the roles are reversed a little bit and we would like to
maximize what we can through the -- getting the rezone on this, but we would like to
lower the intensity of the use down to something more useful, like the commercial --
mixed use commercial that Wayne Forrey talked about. The Alliance has joined
together intentionally to try to develop this and put together a package that would be
attractive to a developer, but that the restrictions and whatever things that we could
impose on him would be enforced and he would walk into the situation knowing full well
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 66 of 88
what he was getting into. He could either take it or leave it. And there isn't any of the
Alliance that's particularly ready to move today, but if something comes along I guess
we would be willing to do that. We have lived there for quite sometime and we figured
we would stay there quite awhile, but it's got to the point now where at least for
someone that was born and raised in the country, it's not country anymore. And I'd like
to try to get someplace where I have a little more elbow room, personally. And that's
really -- I have a lot more to say, but that's my main points and I thank you for the
opportunity to voice my opinion on this and I really support the zoning change and I
guess the staff report is -- whether good or bad is in the eye of the beholder and we are
certainly not on the strong end of that, but I think we make a case to change that. If you
have any questions, I'd certainly like to try to answer them.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Thank you. Juanita Sharp.
J.Sharp: My name is Juanita Sharp and I reside at 3020 South Eagle Road, but almost
20 years ago when we moved there, like my husband said, and at that time it was really
agricultural country and it was so enjoyable and we thought we had found the perfect
place to live, because I could be outside in the garden or anything and I could hear
morning doves, I could hear birds singing and everything like that. There wasn't the
traffic at that time. We could walk, like John said, on Eagle Road, take walks in the
evening and that and it didn't bother things. And also I could hear cattle, you know, that
were in the fields behind us where Thousand Springs is now, and I would hear hay
balers in the summertime and I could identify with all these things. And now there has
been such a complete change. We are surrounded by subdivisions and, like John, I
would like to be able to get as much as we possibly can out of that to enable us to
locate in a place that would be more suitable to ourselves and to what we need. Thank
you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Thank you. Sandy Thompson. Been spoken for.
Thank you. Fred Thompson.
Thompson: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Dr. Fred Thompson, I reside at 2853
Nephrite Way. Have for several months now, having acquired the home that we live in
and love, with the clear understanding that the Comprehensive Plan use plan precluded
the very kind of development that's being proposed here tonight in this application. I
would like to just make clear a little bit of unsettledness I have. While I appreciate and
honor the people wanting to maximize their investment, the implication that Mr. Forrey's
remarks carried with it was that there was a thorough screening and opportunity for
people to respond to this proposal back in September. Such is not the case. It
appeared to be somewhat selective. I wasn't even notified of a meeting and had no
opportunity to listen and hear what they were doing. All of which says that that implies
to me that some of the due diligence was everything but and there was a degree of
disingenuous to that -- to that effort and I feel very -- I'm very upset about that and I
really would like not to see the commercial development go into the property behind
me. My property abuts the property that's being requested to change and I just do not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 67 of 88
want that kind of stuff beyond my backyard and I urge you strongly to deny this request.
Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. The last name is Jenkins and the
first name starts with a D. Donna? Okay. And you have been spoken for? Thank you.
Al Someroff is it? If you care to speak, you need to do it on the microphone. Thank
you.
Someroff: I'm Al Someroff, I live at 2839 Nephrite, and I wasn't going to speak tonight,
but after hearing Juanita speak I just had to say something, because we feel exactly the
same way she does. Our property backs up to Kibby's Kennels and we have horses
and llamas behind us and we love that. So, my proposal is that you just take a few
million out of petty cash and buy the land and make it a Meridian park.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Take that in consideration.
Zaremba: Ruel Barnes.
Barrus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I am probably the most recent -
-
Zaremba: Please start with your name and address.
Barrus: I'm sorry. My name is Ruel Barrus and I reside at 2879 South Nephrite. I'm
going to try your pointer out. I believe that's me right there. I have been in that house --
I actually got here last Saturday. Our house closed on August 5th. The applicant --
when we made the offer on our home was the day that Mr. Forrey filed his application
with this body. Now, I am not yet licensed in Idaho. I'm a licensed attorney in Arizona,
so, please, excuse me if I use legal terminology, but legally we consulted with our real
estate professional and made reference to the plan. We relied on the fact that what is
to be behind us was not to be commercial. One have one of the -- I believe there are
four two story homes along those properties. I challenge Mr. Forrey to actually come up
with a landscape plan that is going to shield my two-story home from this property. I
don't believe that's possible. Also, Mr. Borup, you asked a question of one of the prior
people about what our expectation was regarding the property. Legal reliance. I expect
that the town of Meridian -- or the City of Meridian is going to follow that and let me one
say thing -- I'm sorry. Though I'm from out of state, I'm an Idaho native, a grew up here.
The Idaho I remember was one where we followed -- when your word meant
something. Part of the reason we came back. We did have some reliance -- and with
all due respect to the property owners, I also may use another legal term and that's
unjust enrichment. I have no problem with people going to the highest and best use of
their property, but this land is zoned something different. They have the right to receive
remuneration that's appropriate for their property within the guidelines of what that
property is. It's not commercial property. It's not zoned commercial property and for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 68 of 88
them to say we want to go -- what they want to do is go buy residential property
somewhere else after they have had the chance to received commercial property rates
for this property. I don't begrudge that, that's okay, except for the fact that it will have
negative impact on my home and I don't think that's fair. I certainly would be open to
any type of request that -- or questions that you would have of me.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions. Thank you. Kaylene Barrus. Okay. She's spoken
for, I assume, anyhow, by you. Okay. Thank you. Robert Carpenter.
Carpenter: Robert Carpenter, 3250 East Victory Road, Meridian. We own the ten acres
on the corner, 10.3 acres, three houses on four lots there. When we first moved to our
property 15 years ago in the fall of 1990, the Eagle Road interchange had just been
completed and the area was very rural, as expressed before. None of the development
along Eagle Road had started. And it stayed relatively unchanged during the next five
years, until about 1995. As you are aware, since 1995 development has increased
significantly and has exploded since 2001. We have seen the area north of our
property to the freeway develop from rural farmland to commercial mixed-use
development. The area to our west has developed from a dairy farm to Thousand
Springs Subdivision. The area to the east, the Sutherland farm horse ranch has been
developed into a large subdivision with commercial uses approved along Eagle Road,
both north and south of Southstone. Since 2003 the area south of Victory Road has
been developed by Tuscany development into large subdivisions. To our south within a
one mile corridor of Eagle Road approximately 3,800 acres, six square miles, bounded
by Victory Road on the north, Columbia Road on the south, Cloverdale Road to the east
and Locust Grove to the west, there have been approximately 2,500 housing units
approved since 2001. If growth continues, which fully -- is fully expected and is being
planned for by both developers and local governments, this area will support
approximately 9,600 homes and 24,000 people. This projection is conservatively based
on only two and a half housing units per acre and currently proposed development is
higher than this. Our purpose in requesting the change to the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan is to provide us the option to develop our land immediately adjacent to Eagle Road
as office and light retail uses, which are consistent with the way the rest of Eagle Road
to the north of us has been developed. When looking at Eagle Road corridor between
Victory north to Chinden, remember the pattern that existed on every intersecting corner
just ten years ago, all those corners were residential or agriculture, every one of them.
Today not one of those corners exists as residential, they have all been converted to
office and commercial. The Victory-Eagle Road corner and north will logically follow the
same pattern, it's just a matter of time. The Eagle-Victory corner has become so noisy
that it will not be reasonable to put a residential subdivision immediately bordering this
intersection or immediately adjacent to Eagle Road to the north. When Ada County
Highway District completes the reconstruction of the intersection and Eagle Road to five
lanes with bike lane and seven foot sidewalks next year, traffic will sky rocket to support
the continued residential development to the south of Victory Road. Over the last five
years we have been respectful of our neighboring property owners, Sutherland Farm, in
particular, their desire to develop their lands, and now we are expecting the same
respect from them and the people that have moved in as a result of that development.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 69 of 88
In conclusion, while housing and residential development for the Eagle-Victory
intersection may have seemed logical at the time of the last Comprehensive Plan
change, it is not logical to plan housing immediately adjacent to a five lane intersection
on Eagle Road and, therefore, we are requesting this Comprehensive Plan change to
allow a mixed use office, light retail development, be approved. Thank you.
Questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Carpenter, I assume your property is 15 acres, give or take?
Carpenter: 10.3.
Borup: 10.3. What was your feelings at the time Sutherland Farms went in? Here you
were a ten acre property and --
Carpenter: Well, we were -- you know, anytime -- you know, you have heard them say
we don't want ten houses per acre adjacent to ours, where we got a third of an acre.
Well, how would they like it -- I mean we got -- we had five -- two five acre parcels
adjoining theirs -- I mean it's kind of reversed. It's kind of reversed, it's kind of -- kind of
not in our backyard. We knew development was coming. They had been proposing
that and tried to get that development for a number of years and had been blocked by
people down east of us on Victory and, finally, were able to get it through. So, we knew
it was coming sooner or later. So, we backed off and our main concern was fences, the
irrigation ditch that ran back -- or those types of things be protected. We realized that
the plan for the residential area incorporated two story houses, which blocks our view. I
mean we had a beautiful view of the foothills and we have got a beautiful view of Bogus
Basin and so, you know, it's -- it's always not in my backyard. However, on this corridor
-- you folks have been here long enough to know exactly what's going to happen with
that chunk of property there. We have got 800 feet, which is not that small in depth,
you have got a bigger proposal over here on the corner of Overland and Meridian Road
that has been approved for a higher density type commercial development that is a lot
less wide than that and --
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Carpenter: -- so I didn't mean to ramble.
Zaremba: Thank you. Nedra Carpenter.
N.Carpenter: My name is Nedra Carpenter. Robert's my husband. And I live at 3250
South Eagle Road. And I have got several points I want to make, just little comments.
We have llamas there and when Bob and I moved out there we -- we were out in the
country and it was wonderful and we have lived in our house for 15 years. Like Bob
said, we knew that sooner or late development would come. We did not oppose that,
because things are going to grow and things are going to change and I think that one of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 70 of 88
the things I want to say is, like Bob said, people say not in my backyard, but what they
don't realize is they had to get in somebody else's backyard to have what they have and
we went along with that. We said, okay, this is fine. The second point I want to make is
the road development that's going in there. Because we live on the corner, we are
going to be affected by South Eagle Road and Victory, five lanes on both sides of us.
That is going to put our house in noncompliance. We don't have a choice here. This is
my home. If I had a choice, I wouldn't sell my 10.3 acres. I would stay there. I love my
home. But the city -- but the highway department has made other plans for me and I'm
going to have to move. Now, is it not right for me not to be able to maximize on my
property when I have been there a long time before they came and we have done
everything we can to try to accommodate our neighbors. And to verify that, I want to tell
you this: Bob and I had a gentleman come to us in June. He wanted to put large
apartment buildings on our 10.3 acres. He wanted to pay us -- he wanted to pay us a
million four for that property. That's a lot of money, guys. You know what we told him?
No. Because it wasn't right for that area. Bob and I want to see that area developed
really well, because we love that area. We love where we live. We are not moving
because we have to, because we don't have to move, we are moving because we have
to. And our neighbors and I, we all feel the same, we are trying to do the best we can
for the neighbors and not leave them, like they are saying, with a mess on their hands.
That's about it.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Mark Hattenstein? Hartenstein.
Hartenstein: So, I'm representing the Axlerods, who have the southern most parcel and
we are situated at the intersection of Victory and Eagle Road. Wayne Forrey submitted
at the beginning of his presentation a letter from Kwallis & Mackey, an agent for them,
who is an individual who I contacted and asked him about the area of South Eagle
Road and I'd like to rapidly read through the four points, because I think he's an
outsider and, in fact, he is not someone that we have engaged to represent us
commercially. The only person that I have talked to commercially is Mark Bottles and
he and his crew came out to our corner and told me that it should be retail on the corner
and office pads on the perimeter. That was the logical place for that property to be. Not
residential. Not high density residential. With five lanes in both directions it can't be
much else. Two and a half years ago I took an option from a client of mine to buy that
parcel. I planned to put a home office where the corner house sits right now. I
attempted -- subsequent to that we exercised our option and I attempted to transition
into that and that corner is too noisy now and, as Bob indicates, will become so much
noisier with five lanes, that operating a home office out of that corner just makes
absolutely no sense. So, Ray Freshette of Kwallis and Mackey says --
Borup: We do have the letter here with us.
Hartenstein: Okay. Is it in the record?
Borup: Yes, it is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 71 of 88
Hartenstein: Okay. So, I need not go through that.
Borup: Yeah. I didn't know if you wanted to take your time to do that or not.
Hartenstein: I appreciate that. I just wanted to make sure that it got in the record. We
have also had appraisals conducted by ACHD on the property and the appraiser say
this property should be commercial and office, supported by Ray's letter, supported by
Mark Bottles, supported by the best use of the property. The noise level at the corner is
such that residential makes absolutely no sense. I put a sign on the house to see if I
could rent it. One third of the people who came wanted to set up offices and
commerce, one third of the people, until they saw the size of it, though they might move
there, no one wanted to move there when they found that it was going to be five lanes.
The point that Ray makes is that whole corridor, the demand for commercial and office
along that whole Eagle Road corridor, is going to be equivalent what it is north of I-84.
Where are all the homes and those people going to go, they are going to jam up the
roads going north on Eagle Road, creating more traffic and congestion, start the
commercial down south, so the people who live around where I have my office will have
access to places without having to travel that gantlet of congestion. My time is up, so I
will stop here. Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, I don't believe we got Mr. Hartenstein's address on the
record.
Hartenstein: It's 3210 South Eagle.
Zaremba: 3210 South Eagle he said.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Dawn Williamson.
Williamson: Good evening -- or is it morning yet? Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, my name is Dawn Williamson. My family's residence is located at 3466
East Beamer Court, which is within the Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Our home is
directly adjacent to Alliance parcels on the northeast corner of Eagle and Victory. We
are adamantly opposed to the proposal to amend Meridian's Comprehensive Plan for
the following reasons: One. The proposed mixed-use regional designation is in direct
contrast to the immediate surrounding property owners and neighborhoods. Two.
Increased traffic and noise concerns. Three. Impact on quality of life and the possible
negative impact on property values. Within one mile of our subdivision there are two
existing mixed use regional developments totaling over 300 acres, with Silverstone and
El Dorado. Two key observations should be made regarding both of these
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 72 of 88
developments. First, neither development is directly adjacent to an existing residential
neighborhood. Second. Both developments currently have a substantial amount of
undeveloped land. It would seem that these two combined business centers more than
meet the need of currently mixed-use regional development in our immediate area.
Additional commercial development appear to be on the drawing board on the
northwest corner of Overland and Eagle Road, as well as further west on Overland. We
believe that the Ridenbaugh Canal is an appropriate border between heavy commercial
development and residential neighborhoods. We bought our home a year and a half
ago. Given the growth in Meridian, we anticipated that the adjacent pasture to our west
would be developed at some point in the future. So, prior to purchasing our home we
did do some research. What we discovered was that the land in question was
designated residential for future development. We took comfort from the fact that if and
when developed, our neighbors would certainly be residential, definitely not
commercial. The future land use map clearly designates the Alliance parcels as either
low or medium density residential. This designation is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood and should remain as it is. As members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, we are hopeful that you will assist current homeowners to maintain the
integrity of existing area to preserve the values and ambience of those areas, to
encourage similar uses to minimize conflicts and maximize uses of land and to protect
existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels. Once again, my family's adamantly opposed to the -- or adamantly against,
rather, the proposed amendment before you tonight. It would certainly have an adverse
impact on our property in particular and to the integrity of our subdivision and
surrounding subdivisions in general. We respectfully request that the proposal before
you tonight be denied. Thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Bob Aldridge.
Aldridge: Commissioners, I come before you again. My address is 3300 Falcon Drive.
I'm immediately at the south end of the map there. I was here a week and a half ago on
Medford Place and we discussed, then, some of the issues that are coming back today.
In 1893 Boise had less than 3,500 people. The edge of town was 14th Street. Way out
in the country, about halfway out to a little tiny number of maybe 200 people that lived in
a place called Meridian, was a dirt intersection called Cole and Fairview and some
people at that time donated some property to be a country school and in the deed
restricted it to the school in perpetuity. We now have the Cole School in the midst of the
biggest commercial development area in the entire state of Idaho. That is why
comprehensive plans change, because reality changes. Developers know reality, often
before city councils and boards and often before comprehensive plans. The whole idea
of comprehensive plans is that they can reflect reality, they can try to direct reality, but
they can't change reality. And the reality is that Eagle Road has become a commercial
road. I have seen what's happened in my area where I have lived now more than 20
years, when roads go from two to five lanes and from 55 miles and hour down to 45
and, then, 35 and the residential uses go away. Maybe now there is not much change
along Eagle Road in the residential areas, but when that goes to five lanes that will
change. I spoke last time about the need to look at Eagle Road from Victory South.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 73 of 88
The current plan doesn't even start until 2011. That's not going to happen, because the
county and city are allowing huge amounts of residential development to the south and
it has to go someplace. I think that what happened last time with Medford Place shows
what can be done. As the other neighbors have stated, I didn't come here in opposition
to that, I came here to try and make it so it was a good buffer, so it would work, and we
moved the road and it did work. That's what needs to be done here. I'm not part of the
Alliance, but I'm going to be tremendously affected by what happens to the north of me.
I want to live there. I can in another ten years. But kind of like the Carpenters, I may
not have that option. The developer of Sutherland Farms has bought up almost all the
surrounding acreage in my subdivision. He's going to turn it into high density
residential. That's going to dump even more traffic on -- Kingsbridge has broken
ground now in its first phase. It will be dumping directly off Tuscany. When all these
projects came forth I did not come here in opposition, because reality does change.
And even though I bought my property as rural agricultural, I had a great view. I can't
freeze that into park land. I can't make other people with my dream and that's what's
happening now. And so what I see as the use of this, exactly what developers say, the
best use, number one, is that commercial, if you do it right. If you feather it out and you
buffer it and you use frontage roads and do those sorts of things. Number two, the
usage that comes -- my direct conflict with traffic doesn't come from Silverstone. It
doesn't come from El Dorado. It came from Tuscany. It comes from Thousand Springs.
And if we allow that kind of continued high-density residential development along Eagle
Road, you're going to have tremendous problems in the future.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions?
Borup: No. But very well said.
Zaremba: John Ashby. Spoken for. Thank you. Wendell Jefferies.
Jefferies: My name is Wendell Jefferies. I live at 3130 East Beamer Court. One of the
few people that I have seen tonight that actually lives on the west side of Eagle Road. I
don't know if that's due to the way notices were sent out. Looking at the map that was
in ours, only a few houses on the west side of Eagle Road received notice, if that's what
this shaded area indicates. Talking about the traffic, our house borders on the corner of
Moon Dipper and Eagle Road. At night we can't open our windows, because of the
traffic noise. And every morning I spend five to ten minutes trying to get out onto Eagle
Road. On weekends we spend the same five to ten minutes trying to get out at noon.
People going south on Eagle Road for other developments. Those types of traffic are
not going to go away by putting in commercial. If anything, as one of the speakers
spoke earlier, as you put in commercial, those commercial developments tend to
generate more traffic per square foot than the residential does. And even though you
limit some of the access off of Eagle Road, you push it down closer to Victory, which is
where we are at, and it's just going to get worse at the intersection, even if you extend it
to a five lane road. There is -- also some of the people were talking about they weren't
opposed to some of these other developments that developed along Eagle and Victory.
Those developments have all been residential. We are not opposed to a residential
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 74 of 88
development along there. We have seen all the commercial developments develop
north of the canal. The canal seems to be a very definite dividing line between the
residential and commercial. You go up the hill, you cross the canal. It seems to be a
reasonable area to designate. One of the things that we were surprised was when they
built the commercial development there at the corner -- northeast corner of Easy Jet
and Eagle. We have lived in our house for four years. We never received any notice or
anything that any commercial development was going in there. I don't know if that was
part of the plan at the time it was developed before we moved in -- again, we never had
any opportunity to speak on that. I think everybody gets impacted when there is
development, but I think a residential development is more in line with all of the
surrounding area than a commercial development would be and speaking for some of
the people on the west side, we would oppose that commercial development also.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, Mr. Jefferies, I haven't driven out there recently to see the
development there at Easy Jet, but has -- is that where you turn out onto Eagle Road?
Jefferies: No. We are in the last cul-de-sac on the southeast -- or the -- I guess it
would be the northwest side.
Zaremba: Somewhere in there?
Jefferies: Right in there. And we come out Moon Dipper. Every night when I come
home, if it weren't for the fact there is a turn lane from Easy Jet all the way to Moon
Dipper, it would probably take me 10, 15 minutes to get into my subdivision. The only
street that I have to turn in on is Mackey, which is the one with the little divider there and
Moon Dipper. Easy Jet, actually, goes -- is farther to the north and, as you can see, you
go all the way around before you can even come back into our area. So, there is no
other alternative for us to get in.
Newton-Huckabay: How do you feel that the commercial development that's currently
in place on the east side has negatively impacted your property?
Jefferies: The part that's there?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Jefferies: Right now I think they are still under development. I haven't seen a whole lot
of activity in there. If a business opened -- it's just opened in -- within the last month or
so. The building's just been finished. They are planning another foundation for
something else in there. I'm not sure what that is. So, it's -- they have only got one
building and as far as I know one tenant in there.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 75 of 88
Jefferies: It's to be seen how much traffic that's going to generate. I know some of the
widening of that intersection -- we have seen near accidents, people pulling out of Easy
Jet trying to get onto Eagle Road, even though there is a de facto turn lane, they are --
people pull out in there and try to use that to try and get into the Eagle Road.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Tammy Syler. She may have escaped due to the late hour.
Ruby Stubble. I don't see any activity. Perhaps gone as well. And Jeff -- is it Brower?
Brower: My name is Jeff Brower. I live at 3117 East Beamer. This is my first meeting,
so, first of all, I'd like to say you guys -- I wouldn't want your job for nobody. Just being
here tonight, just no way. I also appreciate the landowners that are here tonight. I
guess I opposed the whole plan -- the whole thing about changing the plan. My feelings
are -- is that we built a plan, it was built in 2002, and I know that times change, but three
years -- I even heard you tonight say, geez, I'm getting tired of changing these -- you
know, making these amendments. I believe that our people that work in our
government have spent thousands of hours building this plan. And all we are doing --
all I'm seeing here is we are just tearing it apart. Why did we even build it? You know,
we have this plan. One of the things that I have seen here is that if a subdivision is built
first, then, we should not be building businesses by it. People building -- buying
property, putting their life savings into these homes, and next thing you know
somebody's trying to build a home. If they go out there, as I found out down the road --
down Victory is a neighborhood center where they potentially could build an Albertson's.
Okay. If they were to build an Albertson's there and a homeowner decides that they will
buy that place, so be it. They know it's there, they are planned for it, they can live with
it. But when you build a home and, then, you have somebody come in and potentially
put whatever in there, who knows, as far as I know it could be a Chinese place and they
have their garbage dumped once a week and it's going to smell in the back alley next to
the Sutherland homes, who knows what's going to happen there. You know, I do not
know the laws of the -- what could go in there, I just know that potentially it could be
bad. And I just wanted to say to Keith, I did go to their meeting and I did think about,
you know, these people, they lived here for 30 years and over across the street was hay
fields or whatever was in there. Now they have homes, you know. But I think if they
didn't build homes and they wanted to build a complex there, I think they would have
complained. Also, this -- even though we have two commercial places there, I guess
two wrongs don't make a right that we should just continue on going down that -- down
Eagle Road. You know, I guess one -- I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission is
here to help the common person make sure that things are done right and not done
wrong, you know. Like everybody else is saying, the canal seems like it's a good place
to cut things off. I guess I have listened to your staff report. They say no. I believe that
the homeowners association alliance, I believe that they were trying to use scare tactics
with us in that they were trying to take us way up here to the worst possible scenario to
get us to agree to something less and I still believe it should still be a residential
neighborhood. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 76 of 88
Zaremba: Thank you. That is everybody signed up, but, again, if there is somebody
that would like to add something, please, come forward.
Jones: My name is Loretta Jones and I live at 2810 East Sheep Creek, which in the
Thousand Springs side. I wasn't going to say anything and I don't have my glasses, but
after listening to a lot of what was said, it occurs to me that there is some
misinformation and so, then, I thought, you know, I'm going to give my thoughts and,
then, maybe give some rebuttal comments. First of all, I'd like to sell your land. I'm a
realtor. I'll sell it to a commercial developer or residential, whatever. So, having said
that, I have sold property up and down this corridor and all over the Treasure Valley.
One of the comments that was made, of course, by Mark Bottles, would be in Mark
Bottles' best interest, because he is a commercial real estate representative and mostly
deal in commercial property. But to say that that property should be commercial is from
his point of view. I deal in commercial real estate, investment real estate, single family
real estate, and I can tell you that in the neighborhood's best interest, not only because
I live there, but because I would see the area, I would say, no, don't put commercial
development there. As far as approvals and things of that nature, I can understand why
the homeowner, you know, would want to get the best value for their property. I would,
too, if I was there. And I guess, you know, I wasn't invited either and I have lived in
Thousand Springs for four years and I had no knowledge of this until someone put a
little pink notice in my mailbox a couple weeks ago and I showed up and it was
changed. You know, I sympathize with these people. When I bought my first home in
Idaho in 1977 at Five Mile and Victory, there was no such thing as Overland Road,
hardly. Things happen. Things change. I expected that. But when I bought my home
here, knowing what the zoning was, I wouldn't expect it to change in three years. So, I
would say if it changes in 20 years, that I vote for commercial on that little spot. But ask
me 30 years from now or 20, not three years or four after I bought my property. R-15 I
would definitely oppose as well, like the other people said, if that comes up -- and I'll tell
you I would have a chance to speak, because I, too, wouldn't want apartment buildings
across the street and I was really PO'd, to put it politely, when I saw that little purple
section go up with commercial and you asked if it would have impacts yet on that
property just south of the Ridenbaugh Canal. It's still being built out, it's not occupied.
But I thought how does that happen? And nobody notified anybody. And I'm not sure
that that wasn't a change that just sort of went through without a Public Hearing. The
subdivisions south on Eagle -- north on Eagle Road are very desirable. Bristol Heights
and those subdivisions, the property values area going up, people are still turning their
homes, people do okay with living on five lane intersections. They just do. I mean
some people don't mind that. What they do mind is commercial right next door, so I
would -- but, as I say, I don't think you're going to have a problem filling that out. Real
quickly, I think it's unfortunate, if I was these people, I would feel like they do. But, you
know, over years things change. I don't know why or if they were approached by
Sutherland Farms at the time to -- you know, to sell their property or not or what their
choices were. But to ask now -- when this was built out there was five property owners
that were impacted. Now for five property owners they are asking thousands of people
to be impacted. So, it's a little bit different and, naturally, that's why we have
governments, you know, to make decisions and boards like this to help sort these out,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 77 of 88
because there has to be some balance. And, lastly, I would just say when Fairview and
Overland -- when we moved here Overland was two lanes. When Overland got
developed they didn't bulldoze all the residential. When Fairview became more and
more commercial, they didn't bulldoze all the residential. It's still there. Okay? What
we don't need is more, especially with Silverstone and El Dorado. So, lastly, I would
just say -- I'm going to admit to something here that I don't know what you -- but I'm
from California. When I came there were bumper stickers that said hunting season is
open, shoot a Californian. And I survived that. And I came to love Idaho and I know it
grows and those kinds of things are going to happen, but what's been so disheartening
to me, as an ex-Californian and a current Idahoan, is to have that mentality when we
came and, then, watch Idaho become California. The bumper stickers said don't
Californianate Idaho. And guess what? We saw this happening. So, at some point I'm
like stop, you know, don't do this anymore. So, my comment is don't take the Eagle
Road mistake any further south, because that was a mistake, it was meant to be an
expressway and it didn't turn out that way and it's a nightmare. So, please, don't take it
any further south. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Borup: Just a comment. I think they did bulldoze all the houses on Overland. From
Eagle to Locust Grove.
Zaremba: I think I would clarify two things that were brought up and one of them is who
gets noticed for a meeting. There are actually three notices. Of course, it's published in
the paper, but not everybody is looking for that. There are now required by the city big
wooden signs put up along the rights of way on the affected property and, in addition to
that, a letter is mailed to everybody that's within 300 feet. Now, you may be outside of
that 300 feet, would explain why you were not given a message, but the theory is that --
for instance, in a homeowners association, somebody got that letter and, hopefully, they
would take it to their homeowners association. Anybody that was in 300 feet should
have gotten that. The other is how did the little office or commercial -- the purple area
next to Easy jet happen? There was a Public Hearing for -- was it Sutherland Farms?
The whole Sutherland Farms Subdivision was a noticed Public Hearing and we did
have quite a few people come to it and as staff pointed out earlier, within the ordinance
there is a possibility of making up to a 20 percent use exception for your land and even
though that was in the Comprehensive Plan to be all residential, they exercised their
ability under a planned development to have an exception for a small portion of it and
that is how it happened, so -- and just to comment on those people, there was nothing
that happened in secret or behind closed doors on it. It was all done in public and
complied with the ordinances at the time. Anybody -- let's see. We went through the
list. And, again, is there anybody that needs to add something that didn't come before?
Go ahead, sir.
Thomason: My name is Marty Thomason. I live at 2910 South Eagle Road. I own two
of the properties, 2910 and 2960, right in the middle of this alliance group. I moved
there in 1986, September. We had a horse ranch behind us and hay fields cross from
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 78 of 88
us and that's what everybody has said more eloquently than I can how that has
changed and I have opposed it all the way. These folks said they didn't oppose it, but
every opportunity I had I had opposed it. I want to live in a rural area and I will
ultimately. Our property right now is not what we want and so we will sell it. That's what
everybody around me needs to understand, that we will sell it. And if I can get it
bumped up to 15 units and I get more money for that, that's the approach I will take. I
didn't want to have two story houses behind me and they won't want to have four story
apartment complexes in front of them and I understand that and I to a degree
sympathize with that. But I'm going to live in a rural area. I'm only going to be there
until my daughter graduates from high school at Mountain View, because it's close, and,
then, I'll sell it. So, it's going to change. The people that back up to my property, it will
change for them. And if we don't get a better plan in place than what I'm going to be
allowed to do in two years, they will have those four story buildings of apartment
complexes if I'm allowed to bump up to that. What we are proposing here is something
that is unique and I think fits better with that area and that is that we join together as
property owners and do something that is more esthetically pleasing for this area.
When we first moved into our area I saw a plan -- Comprehensive Plan with a date of
1986 on it and I'm wondering why that plan hasn't stuck around. That's what I'd like to
know. But, then, later I saw one with '88 on it and, then, I saw one with '92 on it. I saw
another comprehensive plan with '93 or '94, '97 -- I have seen a lot of comprehensive
plans with different dates on them that it's the evolution of that plan that brought all
these people opposing this to the place where they can oppose it and we are not asking
for anything different than that, we are actually taking a better approach, I believe, than
sticking our heads in the sand and we are taking the approach where we will join
together as a group of property owners and we will do something that, if possible, is
more esthetically pleasing and more fitting for this community. This area is going to
change. It's as simple as that. Because my five acres will sell to somebody who won't
have horses back there. And so I will end my comments with that. Any questions and -
-
Zaremba: Questions? Thank you. Okay. I believe we are ready for Mr. Forrey. For
those of you that don't know, this is the applicant's opportunity to respond to all the
notes that he's been making.
Forrey: Thank you, Members of the Commission. Let me comment a little bit on each -
- some of the folks that asked for some comment and information. To Mr. Hines, we are
proposing a very solid development agreement approach at the time of annexation and
that's an extremely solid tool to address these issues and this is something that the
Alliance is volunteering. This is not something the city has required or the staff didn't
say subject to development agreement, we put together guiding principles and are
volunteering that there be a very strong development agreement approach and that
these restrictions can, then, be placed through the Conditional Use Permit process on
subsequent owners. Mr. Hines questioned about what would happen if there was a
denial of this. Well, I don't know exactly how each Alliance member would respond to
that, but what it does, it sets the stage for them to say, well, I guess I'll just go ahead
and sell my piece separately and the offers they have been getting have been for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 79 of 88
apartment or office or commercial development. And so they may sell and then, this
neighborhood would be bombarded, then, with separate people coming before the city
for their various reasons to do different things. And we feel it's better to be a unified
approach here, one development entity, rather than a separate situation. So, we are
proposing an office park development here with a lot of restrictions and there is need
along Eagle Road for this type of development. Mr. Thompson asked about not being
notified. I sent 147 letters out to the neighborhood meeting and I used the same
mailing list that the city used for the Public Hearing notice. So, I think if he didn't get
notified, it could be a postal problem, perhaps, but maybe he's outside the 300 feet.
And, then, Mr. Barrus talked about transition on the -- in this area and what we are
proposing is a land use transition within the Alliance properties. In other words, if you
look at the guiding principles, we said we would put a row of home lots, the same size
as in Sutherland Farms on the Alliance property and so they would back up to a home
just like theirs. Now, how many developers have come to the city and done that? Very
few. So, there needs to be a transition and the Alliance is willing to do that on their
property, their side of the fence, to make that concession and so that it's more
compatible with the folks on the other side of the fence. And there has been
documentation, Mr. Barrus, about the highest and best use and it comes through
government agencies and government agency sponsored appraisals and analysis. And
the current zoning is rural-urban transition in Ada County. And, then, to address Dawn
Williamson's comments. We recognize that the mixed use regional has a really high
intense level of uses and so we reduced that after the neighborhood meeting, sat
together the next evening and said mixed use would probably be better at the
commercial scale, not the regional scale. And I have checked with the marketing
agents in both Silverstone and El Dorado and they are ahead of absorption. When
those projects were approved by the city they had a certain absorption schedule and
they are way ahead of that. And, also, when your last Comprehensive Plan update, the
widening of Eagle Road to five lanes was not in the plan of ACHD at the time you
completed your Comprehensive Plan and it's because of the development of the I-84,
Eagle Road area and because of El Dorado and Silverstone that ACHD said, boy, we
have got to widen Eagle Road. So, there has been a significant change in that
neighborhood that wasn't there when the Comprehensive Plan was updated. That is a
major change. To Mr. Jefferies' comments about traffic and, yes, traffic is a challenge
in that corridor and that's why ACHD is going to five lanes. But we firmly believe that
office use is a better transitional use than apartments or multi-family. You know, the city
has a fire station now on the west side -- or I guess it's not built yet, but proposed --
Borup: It's under construction.
Forrey: Under construction. Okay. Fire station. Yes. Thank you. And, then, I
understand that this area right here -- and I'd like Planning Director Anna Canning to
verify, but I believe this is part of a nonresidential use in the Sutherland Farms project;
is that correct?
Zaremba: Commissioner Canning -- I mean Director Canning.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 80 of 88
Canning: I disband you and you promote me. That is the planned developed that's
been referred to all night long, Mr. Forrey. The part that's in purple was done later and
that was not, actually, part of the planned development.
Forrey: And this right here is not part of the planned unit development for a
nonresidential use?
Canning: It is also.
Forrey: See. So, from the canal clear to -- and this is Kibby's Kennels, which is a
business, so all the way from the canal clear to here starts the Alliance properties, is all
nonresidential use. It's all business use.
Canning: It's limited to office, though.
Forrey: But it's a non-residental use. And that's the point I'd like to make, that all of this
right here -- this entire area is nonresidential use, already approved or in existence and
so we would like to just continue that opportunity in a very well planned development.
These people didn't have to go through that effort of transitional uses, but we recognize
that's different here and we are willing to talk about that. And there is also going to be a
traffic signal here at Easy Jet and Eagle Road. That's in the works as part of this five
lane widening. And here is the stub street right here for an internal roadway that comes
through here and, then, ACHD has also anticipated a connection either here or this way.
To Mr. Bowers' comments, he asked about government planning. It's ironic, but it's
government planning that's taking away my clients' homes. ACHD is taking away their
homes to widen this road and so they have to do something with their property. Their
homes are going to be taken away in order to widen the road to accommodate traffic.
But, fortunately, the neighbors that are in the property owners alliance are very sensitive
people to the neighborhood. They recognize that there has to be a buffer here and nice
buffers of landscaping on the arterials, because they live there and they know the area.
To Mrs. Jones -- oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. To Ms. Jones, you offered to sell the
property. Boy, line up. There has been -- there has been about 50 realtors approach
my clients and they have strong feelings and they have buyers and that's what my
clients are dealing with. They have buyers that just want to take that property and chop
it up. Any one of the Alliance members could individually sell this in just a few days if
they get return phone called. But we have decided to stick together and I'm trying to
keep a group approach to this and they are very willing to do that. But there might
come a time when they say, you know, ACHD's taking my house in a couple months, I
got to make a decision, I'm going to have to sell. And we are coming up to that. And so
we are hopeful that this Alliance approach, working with the city, your planning staff and
your Comprehensive Plan, have encouraged people to do this, to work together unified,
so we are trying to take it to the next level. We came to you with some problems, but
we offered a solution. ACHD is acquiring those homes and they have no choice in that
matter. If they don't, it just gets condemned and taken. We have provided a set of
principles that we think are good for the neighborhood, good for the city. This bump up
to multi-family and high density is a reality. In fact, in the staff report at the very end it
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 81 of 88
says the city supports -- they recommend denial based upon what we applied for was
mixed use regional, but in that same paragraph you will see that the city supports
neighborhood commercial for this area and also supports multi-family. Most people we
have talked to have said, please, don't put apartments there. And so we are trying to
avoid that. We feel office is a better use. It's a much softer transitional-type use.
Better management. Especially with the guiding principles that we have proposed. And
the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to reflect economic conditions and economic
conditions change. So, the fact that this area is in transition, that the highway district
recently now has announced construction of a five lane and these folks are losing their
home, this creates an environment where the Comprehensive Plan should be looked at
and so we hope you will agree with this approach and let us keep moving forward with
this Alliance. Be happy to answer anymore questions.
Zaremba: Any questions?
Borup: Mr. Forrey, I -- yes, Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: You had mentioned on placing restrictions -- I think it's been commented that --
and I -- my understanding, the only restriction that can be placed is time of annexation.
Forrey: Yes. In a development agreement.
Borup: So, how so -- how is there any assurance, other than that statement, that with a
Comp Plan change that those will be the restrictions in place?
Forrey: I think you could treat this application like you did the one prior, where you
directed the applicant to take some next steps and get to the City Council and they
would hold it until they saw some site plans. My clients are prepared to apply for
annexation. We could do that very quickly. And, then, the City Council would have a
physical annexation application and you would have it as well and you could drop the
hammer at that point on a very strong development agreement with an annexation
request.
Borup: Okay. You are proposing -- again, I guess, I'm repeating myself, but internal
roadways -- with probably only three access points, two to Eagle and one to Victory,
with the residential on your east side.
Forrey: Correct. Although you would have to --
Borup: Well, right. I'm thinking of the property north of --
Forrey: The property north. That is correct.
Borup: North of Victory.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 82 of 88
Forrey: Yes.
Borup: Right.
Forrey: Yes. When we spoke to the highway district, they anticipated one connection
here to either of these two streets, a connection here, and coming down. So, you would
have an internal north-south and you would have an internal east-west.
Borup: Okay.
Forrey: And we are prepared to do either landscaping or a row of home sites to match,
so that we have a one-to-one --
Borup: Oh, that's right. Yeah. You -- landscaping is the other option, whichever the
subdivision prefers.
Forrey: Correct.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Forrey: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to close the Public Hearing or --
Zaremba: Discussion? Are we ready for that? If we feel we have had most of our
questions answered, then, we can close it and just deliberate among ourselves instead.
I'm not anticipating I would have any other questions, but would --
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think I will.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close CPA 05-002.
Zaremba: This one, actually, is 01.
Borup: Oh. What am I looking at?
Zaremba: We did them in a different order.
Borup: I'm sorry. I grabbed the wrong paper. Change that to 001.
Zaremba: CPA 05-001. Is there a second?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 83 of 88
Borup: Yes. 001.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on CPA
05-001. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Zaremba: Discussion?
Borup: Maybe comment. I really appreciate that the -- these property owners got
together. We have looked at other projects in the past that -- I think we have
recommended denial every time, because there was -- there was no planning between
-- between the different parcels. We really haven't seen a plan, but we have got a
commitment and, you know, a little bit of a verbal idea on what the layout would be. So,
I -- I mean I really feel that's much better than a piecemeal development doing one
parcel at a time.
Zaremba: Well, I have spoken that exact point myself several times. It's very helpful to
have the opportunity to discuss a larger group of properties than piecemeal. Many of
the difficulties we get into are single properties that have come in individually and I first
say that I appreciate that they got together.
Borup: I also feel -- and based on what we have seen everywhere else in the city, that
this is not going to develop as a medium density residential development. I don't know
that anybody in this neighborhood would like -- or anybody in this room would live in
that location with, you know, single family residential. So, it looks to me like the
choices, if it's going to be -- it's going to be high density or it's going to be commercial or
office. I mean that's the way Eagle Road is to the north, that's the way Meridian Road is
developing from the freeway south. I think that's one of the realities. I really thought
Mr. Aldridge's comments made a lot of sense. We can all have wonderful ideas how we
think the city out to develop and it can be controlled and moved to a certain extent, but
reality is what's probably the biggest thing that dictates that. And maybe we are staring
reality here in the face. Again, it's much sooner than I anticipated. When the last Comp
Plan was discussed, I don't believe we realized Eagle Road was going to become what
it is today. I would like to see all this slow down a little bit, but we have got what we
have got.
Zaremba: We have commented about how recently the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted, in 2002 --
Borup: The previous one was --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 84 of 88
Zaremba: And we started on that 18 months before that and to put that in perspective,
when the planning was being done for the Comprehensive Plan Meridian was a city of
32, 34 thousand people.
Borup: And the plan before that was from '93 when it was closer to --
Zaremba: Closer to 10,000.
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: And there are elements of the anticipation that went into that planning
document that I think they got right. There are other places where I just don't think they
anticipated the fact we are pushing 60,000.
Borup: I don't think there is anybody that anticipated that.
Zaremba: Yeah. And it's one of the reasons it needs to be a fluid document is to be
able to adjust to the fact that we just don't have the same situation we had three years
ago, four years ago. I have said many times I don't have any problems with as much
commercial as we can get in this city. We are the central city in this valley, we are going
to have everybody's traffic coming through here. They are coming through here
anyhow, we might as well have places where they can stop and spend money. And I --
you can't stop them from coming through here, but let's figure out a way to take
advantage of it and I don't think every inch of South Eagle Road needs to develop the
way North Eagle Road is developing, but I certainly can see the sense of it in this area.
I think we have a verbal commitment to provide a plan that does provide buffers and I
like Mr. Forrey's suggestion that, one, we down grade this from mixed use regional to
something less than that in our recommendation and, two, that we suggest a similar
thing that we did with the one we talked about before this, we make the
recommendation that City Council sit on this until the other applications catch up to it.
Because, in fact, the conditions that they are offering, as welcome as they are, cannot
be attached to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, they can only be attached to
annexation by way of a development agreement. I think they are offering protections
that have not been offered in other places before. I like the idea of having residential
along their east property line and I hope that's the way the plan comes in, but I have no
problem with commercial along Eagle. I think that's the logical progression of a city that
is now at about 60,000 and soon going to be 80,000. It's sad to be moving that fast, but
I have seen it happen other places, that it accelerates, it doesn't slow down.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I will make my comments. When I got here yesterday, after
reading the staff report, I felt very compelled coming in that I -- you know, again, and it's
been no secret tonight, I have been very clear that I'm not a big fan of Comprehensive
Plan amendments and we have had a whole bunch of them, because of the time
window coming through over the last few weeks or the last month. I think that the
property owners have made a very compelling argument and I was thinking about the
situations that we have had in northern -- you know, in the northern Meridian area
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 85 of 88
where had those property owners come together and put forth a plan, we wouldn't have
some of the problems that we have in north Meridian now. For example, we had one
two weeks ago on Linder where you have about a 60 foot wide piece of property trying
to figure out how to -- how to make sure that property can develop in the future and all
you can put in there are, you know, 14 row houses. I don't remember what their
proposal was on that.
Zaremba: More than that, to begin with.
Newton-Huckabay: But that's the type of thing that keeps coming forward on these
small pieces of property and this is not a huge amount of land here comparatively and I
think seeing all those -- all those individual parcels coming in separately and I see --
you know, those developers that come before us with -- you know, I want to put eight
four-plexes on here, I want to put five -- you know, that type of thing. And given what's
happened in the northern part of the city, that's exactly what I see coming in on this.
But with the possibility of putting in a plan with CUPs, so nothing -- you know, most
things don't go in without everybody knowing what's going in and getting a chance to
have public comment on that, the fact that, you know, they are proposing houses along
the eastern perimeter, so you have houses backing up to houses, I think -- I think that
that is -- I think that's a reasonable -- a reasonable compromise on that. I mean,
obviously, none of this would be set in stone until it comes in with an annexation and it's
put on a development agreement, which if it wasn't on the development agreement it
would come before this body and a decision would be made and I -- I grew up on South
Eagle Road just below where Mr. Aldridge lives and so I can understand what you
homeowners are talking about. I remember that and I can imagine that you are ready
to get on. So, I think I will vote in favor, with the hold up to get the proper -- so that you
-- that the developer is doing what they say they are going to do, which I have no doubt
they will, but --
Zaremba: Well, again, the only way to really make that happen is to attach it to an
annexation request and if we take the suggestion and do the same thing we did
previous, move it forward to City Council, but ask them to hold it until the other
applications have come through --
Newton-Huckabay: And I might recommend, maybe, that the developer get together
with the neighborhood again, show them, you know, what you're planning on doing, and
meeting with them and listen to those folks who didn't get an opportunity to get a
notification, because they were outside of that, maybe you can come to some
compromises that works for -- you know, that works for everybody. Because, obviously,
for you to -- we have seen it time and time again and I have not been a Planning and
Zoning Commissioner for very many years, thank goodness, but a lot of time these
pieces of property like this can come in and you see these small little pieces and it's
very very hard to make good planning decisions, because you're making decisions
independent of what could be a big picture for folks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 86 of 88
Zaremba: I would make a comment that I think that's probably a good idea. Once the
applicant and the owners of the properties involved have an idea that this might be
possible, then, I'm sure they are more willing to spend the money it costs to make the
drawing that they can show to people. I mean why would you do that if you don't know
you can do that with your property and if we are signaling to them that we would be
open to the things that they have described, then, I think it's probably worth their while
to put it on paper and have another neighborhood meeting and show it around. I would
suggest to those who felt they did not get notified, if you give your name and address to
Mr. Forrey, even if you're outside of the legal notice zone, I think he probably would
invite you to such a meeting. I see him nodding his head. And I think that would be
helpful. My personal feeling is I would be willing to see this kind of a project move
forward, as has been described.
Newton-Huckabay: We are mixed use community; right? Or mixed commercial?
Borup: Community.
Zaremba: Let's ask staff if they have a specific on that.
Newton-Huckabay: I need a glossary of these new --
Zaremba: I think they are offering mixed-use community.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, that was news to me tonight. So, whatever you think. I
believe that's what they stated.
Zaremba: Okay. Then let me ask a question of Mr. Nary, legal counsel, as well. If our
recommendation is to modify to a less intense use, then, we don't have a problem with
the notice that's already been given. Only if we wanted to go up. So, we could, actually
-- without having to start the whole application process over, we can recommend a step
down in use from what they applied for, without having to go through notice again?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, at 12:30 I think that would be certainly appropriate, but also, yeah,
you're correct. You don't have to re-notice if you're going -- if you're going to
recommend a lesser intense use of the property than was originally applied for and
noticed.
Zaremba: So, we would have the ability to recommend mixed-use community and ask
that the City Council not discuss this until at least an annexation application has caught
up to it.
Nary: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just to make clear, obviously,
that is just a recommendation. The Council doesn't have to follow that. I mean they
can certainly notice this matter up prior to that, but I mean I think you want that included
in your recommendation and maybe part of what staff can do in that recommendation is
indicate your reasons for that, all the different things that have been stated by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 87 of 88
applicant about the application that they are bringing forward, what they are going to tie
to it, how that's going to relate to the neighborhood, those kinds of things. You know,
you certainly can recommend that they have, like you have suggested, a neighborhood
meeting and maybe beyond just the 300 foot noticing requirement, but that's certainly
voluntarily on their part, they don't need to -- they don't have to do that, but those are all
things that would certainly make their application, once it came back to you, something
that might be -- make it more palatable for what they are wanting. But all of those
things the staff can certainly include in the recommendation.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, are we ready for a motion? It sounds like we have a
consensus.
Borup: Yeah. I think so. It's been an interesting turnaround. I came into this meeting
thinking denial was appropriate.
Zaremba: And I will agree, I was considering denial. It was not that far of a leap for
me, though. I could have gone either way.
Newton-Huckabay: Have we closed the Public Hearing?
Borup: We haven't yet.
Zaremba: We have closed the Public Hearing.
Borup: Oh, we have. Did we?
Zaremba: I believe we did already close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Okay. Oh, yeah. I did it.
Zaremba: Thank you. But that was yesterday. It was yesterday, so that's easy to
forget.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Do I -- do we need to mention -- we need to mention the
change to mixed-use community.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, we need to make the suggestion that City Council delay
a decision --
Zaremba: I would say hold taking any action.
Newton-Huckabay: Hold action until an annexation request --
Zaremba: Application.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 88 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: -- application catches up with it.
Zaremba: The likelihood is that a preliminary plat and CUP would also come along with
it, but I think it's the annexation request that has the hammer in it.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And we are suggesting that Mr. Forrey and the South Eagle
Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance host another neighborhood meeting
to discuss more specifically what their plans are with the property. Anything else? Now,
there were no -- because this was an amendment -- I just recommend denial -- or
recommend approval and make these statements and I don't have to -- staff doesn't
have to do anything else on this one; right?
Zaremba: I don't think so.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of CPA 05-001, request to
amend the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan for approximately 50 acres
from medium and low density residential to mixed use community by the South Eagle
Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance land at or near the northeast and
southeast corners of South Eagle Road and Victory Road and we would like to request
that City Council hold action on this CPA until the applicants can make an annexation
application and it will catch up with this, which would, then, bind them to the
development guideline principles that they put forth in their presentation and we are
also asking them to organize another neighborhood meeting with the folks to the west in
Thousand Springs --
Borup: Sutherland Farms.
Zaremba: The surrounding area.
Newton-Huckabay: And east at Sutherland Farms and the surrounding areas.
Anything else? End of motion.
Zaremba: That's everything I can think of.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. As Mr. Nary pointed out, if the City Council
decides not to take our recommendation and either goes ahead with discussing it, there
will be a notice of their Public Hearing or if they do take our recommendation, there will
eventually be a notice of a Public Hearing here about the annexation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
October 17, 2005
Page 89 of 88
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Can we get a second?
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries. Thank you all very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:35 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
______________________________ _____|_____|_____
DAVID ZAREMBA - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:_____________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK