HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 06-24 Special Joint Ada County and ACHD
Meridian City Council Special Joint MeetinQ
With Ada County and Ada County HiQhway District
June 24. 2002
The special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 8:37 AM.
on Monday, June 24, 2002 by Ada County Commissioner Judy Peavey-Derr.
Council Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Bill Nary, Tammy de Weerd,
and Cherie McCandless.
ACHD Commissioners Present: David Wynkoop and Judy Peavey-Derr.
Ada County Commissioners Present: Grant Kingsford.
Staff Present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Joe Silva, Tom Kuntz, Will Berg and
Brad Hawkins-Clark.
Others Present: Mike Wardle, Elaine Clegg, Patricia Nilsson and Jon Barrett.
Peavey-Derr: Let's call this meeting to order. This is the regular scheduled time
for presentation by Mr. Wardle for the north Meridian area plan so I'll turn it over
to Mike.
Wardle: Thank you very much. Everybody in this room and actually a lot more
folks, we sent out 110 wrapped plans on the six of June. So, everybody received
that. In addition, we have now received a number of comments and the copy of
information at your place today, is a list of those comments. The first sheet is
simply the agenda. The second sheet tells you whose comments we have
received. I want to refer a little bit to that but, essentially, I want to start with the
conclusion today. We were going to take a step back and do some additional
workshops over the next few weeks. The schedule on that handout today
identifies a schedule that we've already established for two of the three sessions.
We've got a land use session scheduled for this room at 9:00 on Friday of this
week and what would the technical group and, frankly, we will be using the
comments that have been received to date and would ask for any additional
comments to be either faxed to me or to e-mail to me so that we've got a good
starting point because it's clear that we have some additional work to do before
we really put the final recommendation on the table. There's one other session
that we need to have that we have not scheduled yet. That will be with the Parks
Department. We've got to go back and look at that whole issue. Of the
information that came through the Comprehensive Plan and really changed some
of the information and we did not yet receive that. That one we will schedule as
well. I wanted to explain why we need to do this. The draft that we sent out was
based on information that we had received in the process that we'd gone through
up to that point and to a certain extent, the lack of some information but was
really fairly important to a strong conclusion. Part of that was based on, I guess,
the issue of land use particularly and what type of an incentive program that we
could generate that would change the character of what we had been doing thus
far in land development in the region. We had done a search nationally through
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
June 24, 2002
some sources. We did not come up with what we felt was a reasonable
alternative code at that point and we also frankly omitted the step of going back
to the technical committee that we had been working with on these issues. We
gave everybody certainly the opportunity to look at the information that we
drafted and now we've received some lengthy and constructive comments back
and want to take the steps to go through in precise detail. As a result, my belief
is that five weeks from today at this same time and location, we will present the
final plan and an implementation report. That implementation report was what
(inaudible) anticipated that we might be able to present today. It's clear that the
solution to take the land use consideration to a reasonable conclusion is an
alternative code to provide incentives for a different type of development. It
wouldn't take the place of the City's current ordinances. It would simply provide
an alternative for those that want to take a different course in their development.
Proposals. Now, it's my belief, frankly, that the current land development and
community growth structure is not broken. It simply doesn't contain the
incentives for change. I found the detailed and constructive comments that were
received. A great deal from both. Ada County Planning has given us some good
comments. The City still, hopefully, will provide us something by the end of this
week that will help us. Those comments-and then I took the occasion after we
had put out this draft to go to the Congress for the new urbanism gathering in
Miami Beach from the 13th through the 16th of this month. I got back just a week
ago today. I was really interested to attend for two reasons. I wanted to find out
what was happening nationally on the direction of land use and alternate pro-
development. I also wanted to see, is anybody coming up with any different
solutions to deal with transportation issues. Frankly, I found that we're on the
same track that a lot of cities, communities, counties and states, to a certain
extent, are involved with nationally. There are land use alternative codes being
formulated throughout the country. It was kind of ironic. I did make some
contacts that I'm following up with but last week when I got into the taxi, I shared
a taxi with a gentleman who they had just adopted and he gave me copy of what
they call a regulating code for a portion of the community in the San Francisco
Bayarea. I found that there are many others that are in the process of doing that
and so there are some good starting points that we had not been able to put our
hands on before. I attended sessions specifically on the land use codes and
ended up joining a national task force that anticipates having drafts out for review
and comment late this summer. It doesn't mean that we necessarily have to wait
for that but it simply means that during the process-well, actually, the normal
process of refinement of ordinances and comprehensive plans, we're going to
have resources that are going to at least be available to help us assess the
viability of those codes. Transportation issues are much the same. There's a
very dramatic change occurring in the philosophy of the old functional
classification programs that we're all using in our transportation systems and they
are working nationally to change or to find again solutions as alternates to some
of the same techniques that we've been using in the past. Frankly, one of those I
noted in the draft plan. I specifically took the opportunity to chat with one of the
original founders for the congress for the new urbanism, Peter Calthorpe. I sat in
three sessions where he was explaining the direction that they're taking on
transportation related to new urbanism development such that there's a more
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
June 24, 2002
efficient way to handle the traffic and not necessarily lead to pedestrians and the
livability of our communities out. So there are changes in both land use alternate
codes and the transportation system philosophies that are moving forward
nationally. It was interesting that two of the original six founders, Peter Calthorpe
and Andres Duany both participated in these sessions and it's over the ten or
eleven or twelve years of this movement have been in effect. I'm not suggesting
that all of the ideal elements of new urbanism are totally applicable to north
Meridian or the region but there are certainly a lot of great ideas that need to be
considered and implemented through the process of an alternate code. Duany
remains the idealist. Calthorpe has done a lot of regional planning and has also
been doing a lot of very specific development planning and has become
somewhat more of pragmatist and has come up with concepts to deal with the
transportation system that I think are quite unique and need to be considered.
However, the one thing that I did find in those sessions in Mr. Duany's lexicon on
of the new urbanism, which is kind of the Bible of all of the standards that
associates themselves with development under the new urbanism for the
traditional neighborhood development design. He and Calthorpe both came to
the conclusion and this is something that we're going to need sit down and really
work with the staff on but regional intersections are the locations for major
shopping facilities. That provides the opportunity to share. The neighborhoods
share those regional facilities. Anything more than a convenient center is going
to be located at what they call an intersection of regional significance. The thing
that has to happen, though, is we can't do the same standard arterial intersection
design. We've got to find some solutions to avoid putting people across-take
Eagle Road. Eagle Road is almost impossible for people to move back and forth
across. Vehicles have about a mile in order to make the transition. The
solutions that they're coming up with are unique and involve-I know that one of
the comments that, I think, John, you were probably the writer for smart growth
(inaudible). You took exception with the (inaudible) couplet. It was interesting
and I just want to make a comment about this. The concepts that Calthorpe
could come up with showed in the area where they're building the new Microsoft
campus in Issaquah, Washington, where they actually instead of the six lane
arterial that had been anticipated by the transportation plan with another line or
arterial coming into it, they put in one of these couplet systems or proposed
couplet system and did all of the traffic analysis that showed they can reduce the
speed down from 45 miles an hour to 25 miles an hour and they could actually
move traffic on a more efficient basis than they could with the big intersections.
The difference is you don't have a big intersection with four legs for the signals to
hold traffic up. It creates a couplet situation where instead of six lanes or seven
lanes, you end up with two to three lanes on each side of this couplet so that they
are much more manageable. You actually have uses on, literally, all sides of
this. I'm not suggesting that that's the solution. I'm suggesting that that's an
issue that we need to look at to find how we can do a job under alternate
development scenarios to provide both livability and deal with the transportation
system. I was intrigued. I guess I'm encouraged by the fact that we have an
opportunity to do a job here in Meridian, Idaho that will give an option to people.
The development community, particularly, as well as to the City. It's not purely a
development issue. It's the community character that we've been concerned with
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
June 24, 2002
all along but also the question of how our infrastructure comes into play. The
experience that others are having, and some are not ahead of us, some are
somewhat behind and there are communities that are ahead, show there really is
an opportunity to create an incentive program. I had noted in the original draft,
the draft that we sent out, on page 13 of that draft, I made a statement that we
needed a follow on process anticipating that we probably weren't going to get to
a point at this time where we would have standards in place and in the City
Code. I indicated we continue to monitor alternate codes on the top of page 13
of that draft to monitor all alternative codes for applicability to north Meridian, to
find ways to streamline the approval process for projects that include innovative
diverse of mixed-use developments, including fast track and (inaudible)
applications and the adoption and enforcement of fixed processing timelines and
then to develop specific design guidelines for traditional neighborhood
development projects and incorporate them into the plan development ordinance.
Now, it was that last item that when I went to the taskforce on the final day of the
session, this was where people interested in specific areas and it was the land
use alternate code that I was really concerned with. I told them that we had
taken a small project through Meridian recently, The Heritage Commons, and
had at least took a step but that we had used a plan development process and
felt that was not an unreasonable way to go. They pointed out to me that
certainly can be done and as we noted in the draft where even the state of
Wisconsin mandated communities with 12,500 or more to have a TND or
alternate code in place by the first of this year. It isn't happening. To a great
extent, it isn't happening across the country because we have a tendency to use
the types of formats that we're best comfortable with and that we know so we use
the plan development process. It was pointed out by those that have been down
the road further than we have that when you use the plan development's
process, that it really doesn't create any kind of an expedited means of getting a
project through. Hence, you're taking the same steps that everybody else is
taking. There's no incentive in doing that. So, you are also then more vulnerable
to additional conditions and requirements. A little bit more subjectivity than if you
had an alternate code and you can fly with that code and found that you had a
process that would take that through on a much more expedited way. I am
encouraged and I'm committed to making sure that the final recommendation that
we present to the elected officials and to the developers really is an improvement
to the process not just a co-existent kind of a procedure. Based on what we've
provided to you today, we are going to go through these workshops sessions
(inaudible) and ask you to come back and we will have out before that time the
final recommendation. Not that it won't be subject to some change through the
process but, nevertheless, we need to take that step and I propose to do so. We
have received those specific comments, again, I ask for more and we will
certainly take any direction that the group would like to provide to us today.
Wynkoop: First, I'm greatly encouraged at comments that you're willing to take
into account further considerations. I know you've received a memo from our
staff and we need to look at some things a little bit more thoroughly on how we
pay for transportation. So, I'm pleased at that comment. The other comment
that you made, I would like to take issue with and that is you took kind of the
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
June 24, 2002
collective input from the group and put that into this plan to some extent and at
least, from my point of view that (inaudible) are meeting, that said well, how are
we going to pay for this. We need some mechanism to pay for this. I guess I
feel that those comments were not reflected in your plan. I realize that you didn't
have a copy of this WGI draft report. I didn't realize that earlier or we would have
gotten to you earlier if I had known that.
Wardle: What's the date on that, by the way?
Wynkoop: There's a couple. The one on cost I think is November 5th.
Wardle: Of last year? I haven't seen-is there an update on that, however?
Because I know that-
Wynkoop: Our staff can get you whatever the latest is on that. Of course, it
hasn't been finalized so it's still in draft form but we need to consider it. The draft
shows there'll be about $90 million worth of road construction dollars needed and
about $15 million worth of revenues, impact fee revenues to pay for that. What
we need to do is get you that information and figure out a way to bridge that fairly
sizeable gap.
Wardle: I appreciate that and I attend the session when that information was
presented and I know that there was input at that time that the factor for right-of-
way acquisitions was perhaps eight to ten times higher than it really would be in
that particular region given the base land cost. However, I guess I would really
like to see the numbers on the projected impact fee generation because I've
done just some initial calculations that show it from (inaudible) residential that
there would anywhere from $35 to $45 to $50 million dollars generated. Of
course, it depends on where your impact fee goes but under the current
ordinance that you've got, it would be in that depending whether we're 16,000 or
21,000 units closer to the $40 to $45,000-should be $45 million. That's just
from purely the residential.
Wynkoop: We need to take a good look at that. Currently our fees, you know, if
you account (inaudible) and that kind of stuff because there's some of that in
there for 15,000 residential units. If it's about $1,000 unit, we're at about $15
million dollars. We need to take a hard look at what is the financing mechanism.
Currently, there's going to be some gas back revenues and property tax revenue
and I'm not saying an impact fee needs to be the only consideration but as I read
through the WGI study, there's a sizeable gap maybe as much as $15 million to
$90 million. Maybe it's not large but it's still a very sizeable gap no matter what
numbers that you use. We just need to take a hard look at that. I felt that the
report was like just business as usual, that there's not a problem. We have lots
of revenue to pay for the roads (inaudible). I just felt that the message-I kept
asking for consideration was how are we going to pay for all of this and I just
didn't see that in this report.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
June 24, 2002
Wardle: I candidly admit that because I guess (inaudible) really comes down to,
if we find that gap in north Meridian, we find that gap everywhere. I think the
difference is that if we end up in a relationship and that's where the structural
changes that we did propose, call for the ability to bring that system and it's
typically not in your five-year plan. Those arterial typically are not but to find a
way to get those into the process so that if developers step up and do the major
infrastructure improvements, they get reimbursement so that-frankly, the cost of
building those roadways is quite different if it's done by the developer. The
private sector versus ACHD. I guess that's one of the things that we can do and
maybe there'll be two sets of (inaudible). One to deal with questions of financing
to go through those numbers and then deal with specific standards.
Peavey-Derr: Elaine.
Clegg: Did the WGI study take the position of the roadways (inaudible) would be
a normal flat (inaudible) arterial? I'm wondering if there is the opportunity to also
at least look at alternative design standards and what affect those are going to
have on our cost (inaudible).
Wynkoop: That's correct. It is a (inaudible) historic way of building roads and
now its-and at this point, that's just a draft. That's one reason the timing of the
circulation and everything. So I asked our staff to go ahead and leave it. You're
reluctant to hand out a copy of a draft, as long as everybody understands this is
just a draft form. Maybe there are some opportunities to change the design
standard and some of those may save money. Some of those may cost some
more money.
Wardle: Staff did provide us with an updated matrix on the-this is in the
handout today and it's the ACHD-I didn't number those. I apologize. It's the
ACHD comments and it's the last page of their comments. It's up toward the
front about a third of the way back. This matrix does at least identify a reduced
number of lanes on some of those arterial segments. I guess, to a certain extent,
that's one of the reasons that I wanted to deal with the land-use workshops
before we came back to the question of the transportation system. So, we
scheduled those first. At least, the first one. I think that land-use decisions are
going to have the impact on what the transportation system would be. I
acknowledge the fact that we have to take a step back in order to come to those
conclusions. We will look at that. That's the best that I can say.
Peavey-Derr: Okay. Further comments? Questions? Yes.
Nilsson: (inaudible) comments, I'm a little concerned we don't have the
development community. I think that I'll pick on-I'll bet he just walked in.
David's here. Are developers attending on Friday to kind of work through this? I
mean, the public agency comments (inaudible).
Wardle: I'm going to ask them to be direct participants on that as well so that
they could then ask to, so we'll jab everybody (inaudible).
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
June 24, 2002
Peavey-Derr: Okay. Further questions? Mayor, did you have something?
Corrie: No. I'm just thinking out loud with my eyes.
Peavey-Derr: Okay.
Wardle: This meeting can be as short as you want. I didn't really feel like it
much benefited getting into a lot of detail (inaudible) specific direction. I
appreciate the Commissioners direction on that regard. We've got some work
that we still need to do.
Barrett: Thank you. I appreciate the information you've brought back from
Congress for the new urbanism. In the draft plan that we commented on, there
was writing that suggested that using the current plan development process
might be the way to go to encourage alternate development but today, some of
your comments were more along the lines of an actual alternate code. I'm
wondering, am I reading you right that-are you-does your thinking kind of-
has your thinking changed at all since you went to CMU?
Wardle: It has, only from this perspective. I expected and encouraged that we
would work to work an alternative code scenario at some point. I haven't really
seen anything yet. We made some initial contacts through some national
resources, not just seeing you, frankly, and really had not come back with
anything other than plan development type ordinances that have been
implemented in places like Fort Collins, Colorado and so forth. I guess I'm of the
opinion that if we find a way to do this in this process now, that we ought to go
ahead and get there even if it's not perfect but give us really the alternate code
as an incentive. Again, people would have the choice. They would be able to
come forward with a development that basically follows the same format and the
plan that's currently in place or they could look at this alternate as the means to
get through the process in an expedited way and create a much more, at least
what the (inaudible) suggest, a more liveable kind of a community. I don't think
that it's forcing anybody to do anything different if they choose not to but we have
to find an incentive for them to do it.
Barrett: I guess I'm wondering, do you think that the best way to do this through
an alternate code or through a planned development project.
Wardle: Well, that's what we need to talk about. I do appreciate the fact that
your comments, you know, you did come up with some suggestions and frankly,
alternate codes don't have to be long and cumbersome. They basically set
standards. I have a couple of other additional resources that are providing
information to us that hopefully, we'll have by Friday. I'm going to start with the
comments that have been received by the County and by Smart Growth and
hopefully, some that the City will be able to provide to us. I want all of these
parties-I want all of the technical-
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
June 24, 2002
Peavey-Derr: NIC.
Wardle: Well, yes. We're going to get (inaudible). Yes, Jon.
Barrett: Just one quick one. You said you need-you're going to have a meeting
with the Parks Department. Is that the meeting under Item 2 of the Agenda that
says Session to be determined?
Wardle: No. That's actually going to be a land-use workshop.
Barrett: Okay.
Wardle: I was working last Friday to try and get a location. The County seems to
have their conference rooms tied up for Equalization Boards and Compass was
tied up.
Nilsson: We have one in our department.
Wardle: I talked to Jeff and he wasn't sure.
Nilsson: Just give me a date.
Wardle: (inaudible) took last Friday off and I couldn't talk to anybody that could
give me (inaudible).
(inaudible)
Wardle: Is Jeff here?
Peavey-Derr: No, so he can't defend himself. Okay. I'm encouraged by what
you have said today because it does reflect, in my opinion, the change of attitude
or at least some innovative possibilities for solutions. I'm excited about that.
Thank you for attending this conference.
Wardle: I apologize for not being there right now but I'm hoping that in five
weeks, with some pretty intense effort, that we can. I appreciate your indulgence
and feel free to feedback to me.
Peavey-Derr: Okay. If there's no further-
Clegg: I'd just like to make an announcement if I could.
Peavey-Derr: Yes.
Clegg: (inaudible) flyer. We just found out that there's going to be an opportunity
to go to a public presentation by Randall Arndt. If you don't know who he is, he's
a conservation design subdivision design guy. Randy's a planner from
Pennsylvania. He is known worldwide for his excellent design in saving
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
June 24, 2002
(inaudible). He's going to be working specifically with the developers in Kuna.
As part of that, those developers who are paying to bring him here, has offered to
have him do a public workshop Monday night at 5:30. Please tell everybody that
you know that might be interested or come yourself.
(inaudible)
Peavey-Derr: Okay. Thank you once again one and all for being here. We
appreciate it. Know that we're on the leading edge (inaudible). Okay. We're
adjourned. Thank you so much.
MEETING ADJOURNED 9:14 AM.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
/ /
DATE APPROVED
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK