Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUrban Services Polices 2002August 23, 2002 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUgUSt 27, 2002 APPLICANT Planning & Zoning Department-- Brad Hawkins-Clark ITEM NO. g' REQUEST Discussion of Urban Services Policies in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS ~~ P-' I S ~~~ ~ ~ I~ Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meegnga ahall become property of the City of Meridian. CIT Y O F ME RI DI AN Pla nnin g 8r Zo ni ng Memo To: Mayor Come and Cilr CouncY From Brad Hawkins-Clark, Planner /~ °t~ .DECEIVE ~': - ~ z 3 2GG2 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFIGF CC: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Brad Watson, City Clerk's Office, Mike Wardle, Larry Durkin, Mark Estes, John Eaton Dates August 23, 2002 Ree 2002 Comprehensive Plan Urban Services Policies Per City Council's request at your August 6'" Comprehensive Plan hearing, staff (Gary Smith, Brad Watson and I) met with Mayor Come and four representatives of the development community (listed above) on August 20'" to discuss the urban services policies of the new Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this. memo is th summarize the bacl~ground and outcome of this meeting and to provide Council with some "talking points" on this topic for your August 27"' meeting. Background During their public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the PiiZ Commission committed considerable time to discussing and listening to public concerns about the proposed shift of the Urban Service Planning Area (USPA) boundary. On the June 2000 Land Use Map, staff had proposed designating the USPA for only the current city limits, the White Trunk sewer area, the South Slough sewer area, and a few other areas we knew to be moderately serviceable. The intent was to clearly designate those areas where the City planned to provide essential services within the next five (5) years or so. While we proposed this boundary could be expanded through an application process,. it would be a disincentive to develop outside the boundary because of the additional time it would take to amend the USPA boundary, thereby enrrouraging development "From the center out." All public testimony on this topic opposed the concept and the P&Z Commission agreed. Subsequently, the USPA boundary was returned to its 1993 Comp Plan location, which essentially overlies the Area of Impact boundary and the text was mod~ed to what is currently in the Plan. In May, responding to Council's request during the Comp Plan Amendment hearings, P&Z Department staff proposed a possible modification to the Urban Services Planning Area section of the text (see the proposed modification attached). Additionally, Gary Smith and Brad Watson prepared a 5-21-02 memo presenting three policy options regarding urban development in the Area of Impact. While Council adopted the P&Z Commission's language regarding the Urban Service Planning Area (Chapter VII, pg. 92), concern was raised by Councilwoman deWeerd thaf the language offered too much latitude with regard to urban development outside the city limits. Of particular concern was the City's ability to justify aCity-recommended denial of any Ada County-proposed developments in the Area of Impact based solely on adopted policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff was directed to look more specifically at this paragraph and discuss the larger issue with those development representatives that were involved throughout the public hearing process on the Comp Plan Amendment. Meeting Outcome At this week's meeting, we discussed both the P&Z Department's proposed changes and the three options presented in the Public Works 5-21-02 memo. Mr. Durkin reiterated his public testimony during the hearing process that questioned whether the USPA boundary was even a legal and legitimate form of land use regulation (which was also the testimony of Ms. JoAnn Butler and other attorneys during the hearings). The development community representatives had concerns about including libraries as a "primary" urban service and felt this should be dropped. They also had serious concerns about the last paragraph of the memo and felt referenang "uncompensated services" would only enr~urage litigation problems. In discussing the three options in Public Works' 5-21-02 rrremo, the representatives did agree that it is good policy to make annexation a condition of hooking up to Ciiy sewer and water. The primary difference comes down to when the annexation requirement is enforced -whether at the time of development or later, when services become available. Then: was general agreement at the meeting that Option B, with mod cations, was a good direction to go with the policy. The modifications we discussed were: • An irrevocable consent to annexation is made a condition of hook-up and is made a deed restriction; • An agreement is made with Ada County that City Park impact fees would be collected for all development receiving City services; While it didn't get speck discussion, references were made to the loss of building permit fees and other Public Works inspection fees and how this was a negative aspect which would need to be further discussed. Generally, the development community is looking for flexibility in the City's policies and is opposed to any hard and fast policy which does not allow any provision of urban services in the county. Talking Poinffi for City Council's 8-27A2 Meeting Does the City want to use the Comprehensive Plan urban service policies primarily as a tool for directing growth to certain geographic areas? controlling the pace of growth? controlling the quality and design of development? other purposes? As adopted, the USPA policy is geared primarily to sewer and water services and simpty says the Ciiy "may consideY' applications for development outside the city limits. • Page 2 2. What does the City deem to be "essential services"? If sewer and water services are the only urban services considered, the Public Works Department is comfortable with Option B discussed above. Assuming the modfications discussed coukt be implemented, the matter could be largely resolved. However, iF police, fire and park services are taken into consideration, the issue becomes more complex. If the only revenue source to fund police and fire continues to be the General Fund, these departments will likely be providing some services to Ada County residents and property that are not compensating for the services received. 3. What are the benefis and drawbacks of allowing commercial or industrial development in the Area of Impact, outside city IimiGs? 4. What are the benefits and drawbacks of allowing residential development in the Area of Impact, outside the city limits? 5. Have there been any °lessons teamed" through Vienna Woods Subdivision, Summers Funeral Home, and other single parcels that have received City services without annexation that may help to form this USPA policy? 6. What level of emphasis should roadway capacity and transportation infrastructure play in determining urban services and expansion of urban density development into the Area of Impact? Ordinance 11-15-11, the Zoning Amendment chapter, requires a finding be made that new development is adequatety served by essential public facilities, including highways and streets. Depending on the scab, size and vehicle trips per day generated by county developments, certain types of development outside the aty limits will have varying degrees of impact on the system. A possible °con° of development outside the city limits is development design standards. Unless Ada Courrty adopts the City's subdivision and zoning ordinances, there will be drfferences in landscaping, sign sizes, lot sizes, and other standards between City developments and County developments. (Note: This is not likely to happen as Ada County is currently removing such language in its Area of Impact agreement with Boise City.) 8. It is likely that administrative and personnel costs will increase with Option B due to the need to track un-annexed properties and ensure they are annexed when services are extended. On the other hand, revenue generated by County development in the City's Area of Impact could help compensate for these increased costs iF park impact fees, inspection fees, etc. are required under Option B. 9. R should be noted that there are other 2002 Comp Plan policies which deal with urban service policies and development within the Area of Impact. For example, Policy I.D.1 on page 103 allows development on minimum 5-acre lot sizes where services cannot be provided, if dry line sewers are constructed. Also, Policy II.A.3 on page 104 says the City will coordinate with Ada County to require Meridian land use ordinances be applied for all county deveopment within the Area of Impact but outside the city limits. • Page 3 If the Council decides to proceed with a text amendment to the July 2002 Comprehensive Plan, the matter must first go before the P&Z Commission for a public hearing and to make a formal recommendation. According to Idaho Statute, after receiving a recommendation, the Council may conduct a public hearing or simply adopt the Commission's recommendation. Again, this memo is intended to simply provide talking points for the City Council's consideration of the USPA policy in the Comprehensive Plan. As the nine points above reveal, however, the discussion could be broadened to include many other aspects of the City's philosophy and standards for how urban services are viewed. The discussion couk be focused on the USPA policy alone or could be greatly expanded. There are many models around the country of so-called "concurrency" or °adequate public facilities" ordinances that could also be referenced in this discussion. • Page4 ATTACHMENT Staff Proposed Modifications of "Urban Service Planning Area" Paragraph (March 2002 version, pg. 83) For Consideration at 6-02 City Council Continued Public Hearing on Ore Comprehensive Plan Amendment "Urban Service Planning Area. The City of Meridian desires all dev~opmeM within i[s Area of Impact to be served with city services. Prtnnarily, such services include sanitary sewer, water, fire, police, parks and Ibraries. Secondarily, ttre Cily will consider the availability and capacity of the school system, transportation faciliges and stomwvater facilities in any review of development within the Area of Impact. ldeweveF It is recognized that some development may precede the ability of the City, on its own, to extend services for such development. • [Insert new urban services statement here as decided by the Cily Council, eg. Option A, B or C from the 5-21-02 memo from Gary Smith and Brad Watson] • Page 5 sennses: upon review of such develoomeM aoolications the following urban service guidelines will cooly to any Cdv of Meridian comments: