Loading...
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