Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP & Z Item PacketC \ ~ ~2~1 October 14, 2002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING OClober 17, 2002 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Text Amendments regardir~Urban Services Policies c 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: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Cohtacted: COMMENTS See attached Notice of Hearing See attached Comments See attached Memo `~eCnn~r~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~~TG~irZ ~ JY~~Y~~~ a~ ~A~-k~L r", Zoo2 r~la~ ~~ Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. NOTICE OF HEARING C1T'Y OF MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, to accept public comments and testimony on the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment in regards to Urban Services Policies in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan (August 2002) and proposed changes to the Plan aze available for public inspection and review, at the following location: Meridian City Hall City Clerk's Office 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 The public is encouraged to review the proposed changes, attend the public hearing and offer comments and testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written comments are welcome. Please send written comments to the Meridian City Clerk, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 by October 10, 2002. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. The hearing will be held in a facility that is accessible to persons with disabilities. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 72 hours prior to the public hearing. DATED this 25th day of September, 2002. WILLIAM G. BERG., Publish 30a` day of September and 14a' day of October, 2002 \`ttt~~niinu~+~,~ °\\G~~~ pPPORq'~92 ~~'L ~~' FO EAL ~~ ~Tiss. ZO: 9 P ~` Memo Ta Mayor Cowie and Cily Council Fray Bred Hawkins-Clark, Planner lf~~ j~ECEIryryVEj~ r,., .j L J t~~4 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE Cc: Shari StJes, Gary Smdh, Brad Watson, Cily Clerk's Office, Mike Wardle, Larry Duridn, Mark Esters, John Eaton Dates August 23, 2002 Re: 2002 Comprehensive Plan Urban Servk:es Policies Per City Council's request at your August 6'" Comprehensive Plan hearing, staff (Gary Smith, Bred 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 to summarize the background 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 P&Z 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 encouraging 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 modfication 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 that the language offered too much latitude with regard th urban development outside the city limits. Of particular concern was the City's ability to justify aCity-recommended denial of any Ada Couniy-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 referencing "uncompensated services" would only encourage litigation problems. In discussing the three options in Public Works' 5-21-02 memo, the representatives did agree that it is good policy to make annexation a condition of hooking up to City 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. There was general agreement at the meeting that Option B, with modifications, 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 specific 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. Tacking Poinfs for City Council's 8-27-02 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 simply says the Ciiy "may consider' 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 mod cations discussed could 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 benefits and drawbacks of allowing commercial or industrial development in the Area of Impact, outside city limits? 4. What are the benefts and drawbacks of allowing residential development in the Area of Impact, outside the city limits? 5. Have there been any "lessons learned" 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 infrastnacture 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 adequately served by essential public facilities, including highways and streets. Depending on the scale, size and vehiGe trips per day generated by county developments, certain types of development outside the city limits will have varying degrees of impact on the system. 7. A possible "con" of development outside the city limits is development design standards. Unless Ada County adopts the City's subdivision and zoning ordinances, there will be di[ferences 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. It 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 Sacre lot sizes where services cannot be provided, if dry line sewers are constructed. Also, Policy 11.A.3 on page 104 says the City will coordinate with Ada County to require Meridian land use ordinances be applied for all county development 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 could be focused on the USPA policy alone or could be greatry 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 Modfications of "Urban Service Planning Area" Paragraph (March 2002 version, pg. 83] For Consideration at bat-02 City Council Continued Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendrr>ent "Urban Service Planning Area. The City of Meridian desires all development within its Area of Impact to be served with city services. Primarily, such services include sanitary sewer, water, fire, police, parks and libraries. Secondarily, the City will tbnsider the availability and capacity of the school system, transportation factlities and stomrmraterfacfiFies in any review of development within the Area of Impact. HevveveF tt is recognized that some development may precede the ablily of the City, on its own, to e>~end servk:es for such development _ • [Insert new urban services slatemerd here as Beaded by the Cily Council, e.g. Option A, B or C from the 5-27-02 memo from Gary Smkh and Brad Wasson] • Page 5 RUG 19 '02 09:22 FR PUBLIC WORKS 208BB71297 TO CITY CLERK r„k~ a sk,ll~. rE CITY OF MCRIDIAN ~'""" wI,KKS t~H2F1 ""' PUBLIC WORKS /BUILDING DEPARTMENT off III R w.,.„~.. rl: ('~~. FwIdNHI< TO: Mayor Come and City Council FROM: Gary Smith, PE and Brad Watson, PE CC: Planning & Zoning Department, City Clerk DATE: 5/21!2002 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan -Urban Service Planning Area Mayor Corrie and Council Members, P.02i06 Mn K Rut,r.Kr D ('nwnlr CUON( 11 M ~M12F4 ' Ktrtn DIKn TAMMY UH wEF.KD CHraKIF M('CANUI,F.<K Wu-I.IAM L M NAKY We have reviewed the language in the proposed Comprehensive Plan regarding the Urban Service Planning Area that was adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2001. This section of the proposed Comprehensive Plan (p. 83 of the March 2002 draft) causes the Public Works Department great concern as currently drafted. It is significantly changetl from the original language in the June 2000 draft. We offer the following comments regarding past development applications within the Area of Impact but non-contiguous to existing City limits: • When Powder River and Westborough Subdivisions were proposed in 2001, Public Works staff was directed to submit written comments and provide in- person testimony against both projects. We spent at least a total of 100 hours researching their proposed utility systems, meeting wfth the applicant, DEO, calling [he Montana DEQ where these wastewater systems had been installed, preparing for testimony and providing That testimony before the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commissioners and Board of Commissioners, • While Public Works cited numerous technical and master planning reasons why the two projects should be denied, we believe from listening to the Ada County Board of Commissioners that the primary reason it was denied was that it conflicted with the City's Comprehensive Plan. We asserted the Following technical reasons for denial of the proposed Powder River and Westborough projegs: • ConFlict with master plans. It is very difficult to set sewer elevations given mmlmum grades; no ability to collect assessment or hookup fees: may prevent upstream property owners who want to connect to City system from doing so. h;Vn141comprehensive plan-uspa.council memo.doc GGU C. wal~~rluwcr Ln., Suitc 2fH1 Meridian, Idaho R.1G42 1°u),n~ works f?I)8) R98-SSlxl Fax (2n8) 687.1297 LiuildinF f3(18) 887-?21 I RUG 19 '02 09 22 FR PUBLIC IJORK9 2088871297 TO CITY CLERK P.03~06 • Financial reliabili of small-scale wastewaters stem. Private systems provide no long-term financial plan with their development applications. If HOA is unable to operate, maintain and repair system, City of Meridian may be forced [o accept sub-standard system by DEO/COHO at high costs. • Anti-regionalization. While area governmental entities seem to be cooperating regarding inter-agency agreements (transportation, water quality, storm water, dust abatement), proliferation of community-scale wastewater systems is a step backwafd. • Land-aoalication required of effluent. Each community-state wastewater treatment system would have to have a land application site for their effluent. • Additionally, no coordination would exist between Meridian Public Works and Meridian Fire Department regarding fire hydrant placemenVstreet widths, turning radii or emergency access. Public Works personnel do not have the resources to evaluate every single privately built water and/or wastewater system for conformance with our master plans that is proposed outside City limits. We will not be able to rnllert revie~w~o, r inspection fees from base nr^ nT,~, If the Ciry intends to someday take over these systems, however, we MUST review and inspect each one. The City's ratepayers and annexed developers will subsidize these tasks. Taking these comments into account, we offer the following two revised statements to replace the 3i° through 516 sentences of the March 2002 paragraph pertaining to the USPA. Also included in the table is the option of leaving the paragraph as it is. Pro's and con's, in the opinion of the Public Works Department, are listed for each of the three alternatives. Thank you for your consideration, /~ h~Vn141comprehensive plan-uspa.council memo.doc RUG 19 '02 09 22 FR PUBLIC WORKS 2088871297 TO CITY CLERK P.04/06 Comprehensive Plan -Urban Service Planning Area Option A Urban density development outside City limits will only be considered with an annexation app!rcation and if connected to City of Meridian wafer and sanitary sewer systems where the extensions to and through those developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans. Pro Con • Conforms to current Council policy • Would not allow provision of water No flexibility for considering urban density development that cannot be and sewer services without annexed annexation. . Restricts land development to • Ensures new development within areas contiguous to present city Area of Impact contribute Park boundaries. impact fees. • Brings new development into City tax base. • Allows City to receive building permit inspection fees. 0 tion B Urban density development oufside City limits will only be considered if connected to City of Meridian wafer and sanitary sewer systems where the extensions to and through those developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans. Pro Con • Provides flexibility to topsider non- Could lead to providing water and annexable applications as long as sewer services without connected W City water and sewer accompanying annexation unless • Ensure City's ability to impose agreement to annex provision is in conditions upon development as a deed restriction. condition of providing water and Potential lost Park impact fees sewer service. Loss of buildin • g permit inspection fees. Page 1 of 2 RUG 19 '02 09:23 FR PUBLIC WORKS 2088871297 TO CITY CLERK P.05i06 Option C Leave language as currently proposed, Pro Con • Will lead to patchwork development • Provides ul[imate flexibility to without regard to water and sewer private development master plans. • Will albw other private water and sewer utilities to establish service areas within City impact area. Sewer service may be in the form of a sewer district that is diffiwlt to dissolve when Ciry services are able to connect to it. • 11 development is approved without consideration of City master plans, may prevent upstream property owner's ability to develop with Ciry water and sewer service. • Leaves control of approving urban density development in our impact area to Ada County with only recommendations from City_ Our Impact Area Agreement states ... °Such input from Meridian shall not be binding or controlling on the County, but shall be treated as documentary evidence." • City loses ability to collect building ermit ins ection Fees. Page 2 of 2 RUG 19 '02 6923 FR PUBLIC WORKS 2688871297 TO CITY CLERK P. 06/06 Stall Proposed Modifications of °Urban Serviee Planning Area" Paragraph (March 2002 version, pg. 83) For Consideration at 64.02 City Counu7 Continued Public Nearing on the Comprehensive Ptan Amendment "Urban Service planning Area. The City of Meridian desires all development within it. Arm of Impact to be served ovith dty services. Pri ari such services indude sanitary sewer, water, fire, police, parks and Ybraries. Se~ndanly, the City will consider the availability and capacity of the school system, ~t~- transportation faaTrties and stormwater faaTities in any review of deveopment within the Area ~~~ of Impact I'IeweveF; It is n:oogn¢ed that some development may precede the ability of the City, on its own, to extend services torsuch devekrpment ~~~ • ]Insert new urban services stammem here as decided by the City Counco, e.g. Option q B or C from the 521-02 memo from Gary Smith and Brad 1Natson] • Page 2 ~* 70TRL PRGE.06 *~ Robert Corrie From: Brad Hawkins-Clark [hawkinsbQci.meridian.id.us] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:54 AM To: johneaton32Qhotmail.com;'Mike Wardle'; IdurkinQljdholdingsinc.com; mestess@adacounty- realtors.com; corrieb(~ci.meridian.id.us;'Gary Smith'; 'Shari Stiles; Keith Borup;'Brad Watson' Subject: Merdian Urban Services Meeting Hello all, This e-mail is to confirm the location of our 10:OOam meeting on 8-20-02 to discuss the urban services policies of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. I trust you were all contacted by phone to confirm the day and time. The meeting will be held at City Hall in the Mayor's Conference Room (tum left once in the main entrance of the building). I'm attaching a copy of the May 30u' memo from P&Z staff to City Council, which you should have received back in ith and Brad Watson to Ci Cou land in the Area of Impact, it may be helpful to Thank you, 2 Brad Hawkins-Clark hawkinsbCa~ meridiancity.org 8/16/02 ~~ Z Co~~,~n. v~~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR A Good Place to Live R°ber[D. Cmtie CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COLTICIL MEMBERS W;11;8,,, yM, Nay 33 EAST IDAHO xeith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • FAX(208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 Cherie McCandless MEMORANDUM: To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council From: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Interim Planning Directotr$1~C-- Oc-E . 1~ i 2(io2 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • FAX 888-6854 °`~IVED OCT 152001 Re: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT -URBAN SERVICES POLICIES City Of Meridian City Clerk O1lice The following comments are offered for the Commission and City Council to consider daring the public hearings on this amendment: APPLICATION SUMMARY & BACKGROUND The applicaltt, the City of Meridian, is proposing to potentially amend a portion of the July 2002 Comprehensive Plan in Section C.1 of Chapter VII (pg. 92), entitled "Urban Service Planning Area (USPA)." The amendment also includes several Action items in Section D.I of the same chapter, specifically Objective D, numbers 1, 2, and 5 (pg. 103). The purpose of the application is to provide, in accordance with Idaho Code 67-6509, an opportunity for public testimony and further discourse before the P&Z Commission regarding the implications and procedures for carrying out the USPA policy as adopted in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. This application is the result of a City Council directive to staff during the 2002 Comprehensive Plan adoption process that the USPA policies receive additional review. Specifically, the City Council felt there was additional information to consider between the time of the Commission recommendation for Plan approval in December 2001 and final Plan adoption. The Council requested the Commission conduct formal hearings to discuss just the urban service-related policies, and particularly the ones sited above. Central to the discussion is whether or not the City of Meridian will provide public services or allow private water or wastewater systems or other private services within its Area of Impact prior to annexation. The USPA section of Chapter VII does allow a developer to make formal requests for such services on property "not immediately serviceable with urban services." The City may consider such applications. This is the policy in effect at this time. While the City Council did adopt the Plan with this policy, they did so with the caveat that the P&Z Commission and Council conduct additional public hearings based on more detailed information than was available to the Commission in mid-to-late 2001. Comp Wen AmeW-USPA Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council October 15, 2002 Page 2 Attached to this memorandum are two staff memorandums (one from Brad Hawkins-Clark dated 8-23-02 and another from Gary Smith and Brad Watson dated 5-21-02) that are intended to provide the framework for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment hearing process. These memos give additional background information, offer specific discussion points for the Commission and Council and propose several options to modify the Plan teat. [NOTE TO THE P&Z COMttiffSSION.• According to Idaho Code 67-6509(d), the Commission may recommend amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan at any time. However, arty amendment to the land use man component of the Plan is limited to a recommendation no more frequently than once every six (6) months) SEE AT'1'ACHMENl'S Comp Plan Amend-USPA CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, October 15, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Roll-call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Bill Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Executive Session per Idaho Code 6T-2345 (1}(c): Meridian City Council Agenda - October 15, 2002 Page 1 of 1 All roatariels presented a[ public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acconmtodation for disabilities related to documems and/or hearings please comet[ the City Clerk's 09ice at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE October 17; 2002 PROJECT NUMBER CPA 02-001 -- Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments for Urban Services Policies NAME FOR AGAINST 1~cE~D o c r > > zoo2 CITY OF MEItIlyIAt~;