HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 02-16 Comp PlanMeridian City Council Comprehensive Plan Meeting February 6, 2002
The special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on
Wednesday February 6, 2002 by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members Present: Keith Bird, Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Bill Nary, and
Cherie McCandless.
Others Present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, Brad Watson, Bill Nichols, and
Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: Gentlemen I will open the City Council special meeting on Wednesday February
6, 2002 at 6:30 P.M. Roll call attendance please Mr. Clerk.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Council, item No 2 is adoption of the agenda. The agenda is a Public Hearing
as proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the City Council to hear. This
is continued from January 29,2002 accepting written testimony only. No verbal
testimony in this meeting.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we adopt the agenda as noted.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion been made and second to adopt the agenda as noted. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Public Hearing: Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
for the City of Meridian: Continued from January 29, 2002 accepting
written testimony only:
Corrie: Is there anybody here, other than what we have received already, any written
testimony they want to submit at this time? We did get a lot today, on the fourth excuse
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 2 of 51
me. Okay. Hearing that, staff I hope your prepared to give us some guidance tonight in
where we’re going and what we’re going to be looking at.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: With that, Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Mayor, Members of the Council. At your last meeting you
essentially got introduced to some of the background and history to this Comprehensive
Plan process to date and were given quite a bit of material to review and digest. One of
the main items that we handed out at that meeting was the January 25 memo from
staff, which was five pages. Our attempt with that was to try to piece together a lot of
the outstanding and kind of separated items that you had received. The reason that was
a draft report in part was on page one we had not completed item B which was the
proposed modifications to the future land use map. I went over some of the text policies
and other items that are in here that staff had proposed changes to. The work that we
have done in preparation for this meeting then is to prepare the map, which you should
have, each had at your tables. Then we do have that same map posted in the back for
review as well as here on the screen. I guess just one thing to point out; this is just a
piece of the Comprehensive Plan. Certainly this is a critical part but there are numerous
policies and text that accompany that would reference back. Now this particular one,
summary of requested changes to the future land use map is the following. It includes
all written comments that the City has received, which we believe from day one as well
as verbal testimony that was received at the Planning and Zoning Commission from
specific citizens. We also have in the purple color the staff initiated changes, which
were for the most part outlined in the January 25th
memo. There are a few new ones.
What this map does not include is land use changes, land use designations that the
Planning and Zoning Commission received in writing but that they agreed with. If a
property owner submitted a proposed change to the Commission during the
Commission’s hearings and the Commission agreed to this, which I believe there were
four, five of them. Those are not shown on here. This is strictly the outstanding items
related to the map that number one either have not, the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not incorporate. Then number two is our staff initiated ones. The three
colors then in the legend are the citizen-initiated requests, which is the green that staff
agrees with. The red is the citizen-initiated request that staff is disagreeing with. The
purple that has the blue highlights is the staff initiated recommendations that are for the
most part, items that have come up since the Planning and Zoning Commission made
their formal recommendation to you on December 6th
. There are various inputs and
reasons behind each of these. I guess we stand ready to respond or give you
background on any of those that you would like. Of course the main area that was the
topic at your previous meeting was that section 36, that northwest corner of Ustick and
Ten Mile Roads, the proposed Utility Subdivision amongst other things. As you can see
there are several changes there. What we did try to include there to call out the specific
properties that we got written testimony on, the entire buffer around the wastewater
treatment plant. We did call out as being basically open for, to reconsider the buffer
uses around the wastewater treatment plant. Frankly we would like Council’s input on a
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 3 of 51
lot of this. We did include in the January 25th
the recommendation that possibly another
option that’s not reflected on this map is to just simply leave the section 36 more or less
as it is in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan and have an action item that we work with
property owners and possibly have a type of charette or other sort of focus
neighborhood area that within six months to a year there’s more detailed work that
could go on. That’s certainly an option as well. At this point for the corner, staff is
supporting a mixed-use designation. We felt that given the input at the last meeting that
it would accommodate probably the greatest potential for whatever goes there. That
would essentially allow anything. It just would require a Conditional Use Permit for
whatever would go there in the future.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just for clarification Brad. To be able to read this summary request of changes
map, I need to have the other, this one, the one that’s up there? These are just changes
only so some of the things that are on this map are still existing. These are just the
particular smaller –
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Nary: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. The majority of those call outs reference change. High density
for example to industrial. That’s usually the first designation is what is already on the
map that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of. The second
one would be the proposed change.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, I guess I’m curious a little bit and maybe you can explain. On this one that
we’re looking at right now, what was the thought on the residential use for the buffer
when it appears that at least some of the discussion had been on mixed-use and you’ve
got mixed-use for the corner but residential, low density immediately adjacent as well as
the northern piece there and then the rest to sort of figure out what to do? What was the
thought as to why residential would be a better use than mixed-use?
Siddoway: I might answer that Mayor and Mr. Nary. I assume you’re referring to this
one where my pointer is kind of --
Nary: Right.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 4 of 51
Siddoway: --pointing now. The issue there is that there are existing, the box is basically
covering up the parcel line but if you look at the existing parcel, it goes al the way out to
Ustick and back. The issue is that the designation was splitting an existing lot with an
existing house out on --. The house is out towards Ustick. Then designating the rear
part of that single property as industrial. So, basically you would be driving past an
existing single family house to get to an industrial area, which doesn’t make a lot of
sense. The other area in green up in this location, we did receive a specific letter from
property owner here requesting that this area be taken a look at. It also has and we can
bring up an air photo if you want to see what the aerial photo of this area looks like.
There are existing homes that are not likely to redevelop in the near term, in fact there’s
one on this property which is just now being built that is a very large home and he was
concerned about the industrial designation. Given the existing land uses and the
unlikelihood for redevelopment in the life of this plan, we decided to go with the existing
land use, which is very low density residential. The remaining buffer was simply called
out to, it just needs some more thought. This is an existing sewer treatment plant.
You’re right it doesn’t make a lot of sense to stick a lot of homes right up against an
existing sewer treatment plant. The question is what goes there?
Nary: Steve, I guess my thought is, I understand from what you’re saying now. This
makes sense. This is Mr. Crane’s property right here isn't it? Or, you’re over here?
Siddoway: Mr. Crane’s property is –
Nary: Right there.
Siddoway: -- in here.
Nary: That makes sense in here. Obviously splitting one parcel doesn’t make much
sense. But this part, I mean if we were to leave this as low density residential and then
wait for a project or something and whether or not to rezone it but we leave this sort of
open for discussion, well it would be awfully hard to make this into a mixed-use type of
use there with this commercial piece right next to it. It almost begs the question if we
choose to leave this as low density that we’re really going to have to probably do the
same thing there which puts it right up against the treatment plant which either it's
compatible as a use for residential or it's not.
Siddoway: The property just north that you were pointing to here is Ten Mile Mini-
Storage –
Nary: Okay.
Siddoway: -- already. The property just north of it has an existing house on it but also is
an existing business. Conversations we’ve had with that property owner is he is more
likely to go for business use there than the residential use.
Nary: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 5 of 51
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Another question Steve, and I know we had a lot of testimony and maybe when
we do, if we have another public hearing we can have some testimony about it. On the
other piece basically the Montvue sub, just for a change of pace --. Talk about
something else. The Montvue sub area, now I have to go back and look at the minutes,
but I guess my recollection of the discussion about that is the reason the commercial
was chosen is because there was a designation or use that we could put on that
property of commercial that would still allow for Conditional Uses but wouldn’t require to
mix uses, the two uses have to be on the site. That was the reason for the choice of
commercial versus mixed-use and that’s what the residents had requested because
they were attempting at least or looking to try to sell to one use for that property. The
concern from the commission was at least there be conditional use requirement. Was
that then the nature of the discussion?
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: So, it might be beneficial to have some, I guess maybe some thought as to why
the staff would still like to go back to the commercial again. Then maybe we would invite
some, again, either the Montvue folks or somebody to come and talk about their version
of it. What was the reason that staff would like to go back to the mixed-use?
Siddoway: Mayor, Mr. Nary. The reason there was staff thought that would be the only
commercially designated property on this entire map that had a clause attached to it
that says Conditional Use Permits are required. We had concerns about the ability of
our department to track that into the future. I think that was the main --.
Nary: Didn’t you tell us you could? Isn't that why we choose that? (inaudible)
Siddoway: That’s not what I recollect.
Nary: Okay.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Siddoway: But, we could, yes. The mixed-use would essentially guarantee that a
Conditional Use Permit is there. It's a requirement of that designation. Yes the
requirement for two uses in the mixed use was removed by the Commission.
Nary: Okay.
Siddoway: That was one of the only ones that we had some disagreement with but
that was our feeling was that concern about how to track that a Conditional Use Permit
is required other than somebody remembering oh, yes the Planning and Zoning
Commission required that.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 6 of 51
Nary: I think Mr. Siddoway is right because I think the decision to take the two use
requirement out of mixed-use was a decision that was made after this was done.
Siddoway: Right.
Nary: Maybe that’s another good reason to do it too.
Corrie: Brad, on Overland and Eagle. On the east side of Eagle, is that mixed-use now
where that Silverstone --? Is that mixed-use?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor that is correct. That’s the proposed El Dorado Subdivision.
Corrie: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, we received a letter I believe in October from the attorney of the
current property owner, Mr. Griffin. That letter requested the commercial.
Corrie: You would rather see it mixed-use as far as the Planning and Zoning
Commission is concerned?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Corrie: Or the Planning and Zoning department?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Corrie: It makes better sense if both sides are mixed-use rather than one commercial,
one mixed-use. Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: The designation of mixed-use is there so it implies a Conditional Use Permit
has to be done on that piece of property. Is that why there’s such a broad brush of
mixed-use around here?
Hawkins-Clark: Mrs. de Weerd that’s correct. The reason –
De Weerd: At one time we kind of talked about several designations of mixed-use. I
think we’re almost over using this mixed-use designation now. We don’t know really
what the appropriate or the anticipated use was. So, I guess I go back --. I’m going to
revert back to what was a conversation during this two year process. That would be
getting into more of a residential and light office, light use, neighborhood uses mixed-
use and then a mixed-use of industrial, office and commercial and high-density type of
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 7 of 51
housing. Is that something that has been total --? Was it discussed at Planning and
Zoning? I don’t know. I’m starting to see a lot more of these mixed-uses and we don’t
know what is intended. That’s going to cause a lot of confusion when neighbors move in
and they see the mixed-use. Well, what is mixed-use? It can be anything. I don’t know.
That concerns me. What are your thoughts on that? What was the thinking --?
Hawkins-Clark: (inaudible) and see if Steve has anything to add. My recollection is that
those specific designations of three different types of mixed-use was actually never
formally discussed in a Public Hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was
the steering committee, did throw that out there at a couple of meetings but there was
not complete buy in. to go back to one of the main reasons for that designation there
are certainly areas that are in fill parcels that we anticipate most likely seeing planned
development applications on where a property owner or developer would propose that
mix of uses anyway because they might have single family residential surrounding the
in fill piece but it's got the potential for office or commercial as well. There are a couple
of parcels on Fairview that have that. So, that was one of the --. You know some of the
parcels had the mixed-use because they were in fill, they had the potential to be
planned developments. Some of the other locations that were mixed-use were because
of the transitional nature of that particular area. Maybe there was an application that’s
being developed that we’re aware of in the community that hasn’t been formally
submitted that we knew had a mix of uses. In terms of the integrity of the idea, at least I
think that it's still got viability. It would certainly take more work and it would cause some
restrictions but in some places it would be obvious where you would not have
commercial or industrial. Those could easily be another type of mixed-use. I think that’s
--.
De Weerd: But, who is it obvious to? I mean, --
Hawkins-Clark: If you have single family residential on three sides for example.
De Weerd: I guess, my point is made. Who is it obvious to? You know to a developer
might have a different thing in mind than the neighbors. I know in our north planning or
north Meridian area there are some suggested mixed-uses language. It makes sense
that if that’s kind of some designations that we’re interested in looking at it's worth
considering for the whole plan so that you’re consistent with your language throughout.
It's different for an overlay where you can get more specific. It would also be conducive
I think to the rest of the plan if that is indeed a direction that this Council and Mayor
want to explore. I actually like that kind of --. I’m not a black and white person but I do
like a little bit more than it could anything.
Siddoway: Mrs. de Weerd. The only thing that I would add --. I remember what you’re
describing and the conversation. In fact I think we even mapped out like a planned
development A and a planned development B and came up with proposed uses for
each of those. I don’t remember why anymore but it was, the idea was put out there and
then it was killed by the steering committee. So, it hasn’t had any discussion at the
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 8 of 51
Planning and Zoning Commission level. If the Council likes that level of specificity we
can resurrect it.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I don’t know about the other Council Members but I do. There’s
one vote. So, shall we talk about what kind of process we want to utilize at this
workshop tonight so we’re not going all over the City on this map and kind of try and
focus a little bit and get through some work here?
Corrie: Where would you like to focus?
De Weerd: Well, lets just focus from the northwest and travel down to the northsouth
and then kind of go –
Bird: What's the northsouth?
De Weerd: The southwest. You don’t know?
Bird: Never heard that (inaudible) before. I’ve heard most sayings but that one just got
by me.
De Weerd: I’ll blame it on my cold medicine.
Bird: Okay kid.
Corrie: Don’t take the drug test today. Okay. Fire away.
De Weerd: Okay, well we had started talking about that area around the sewer
treatment plant so lets just start up in those sections. Section 34, 35, and north and
west of that, those six sections and then work down the next six and the next six, and
then move over. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?
Corrie: It's the only we’ve got here so far. Let’s go for it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: So, we’re talking about 33, 34, 35, 28, 27, and 26, correct?
De Weerd: Yes.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 9 of 51
Nary: Isn't that part of the north Meridian planning area that we’re going to get a
presentation on in a couple weeks? Are we going to spend a lot of time on that now
when we’re maybe going to look at it differently in two weeks anyway? If you want to
talk about the map I don’t have a problem with that. But I’m just thinking do we want to
spend a lot of time on that particular area tonight? Or look at the rest of the map tonight
and lets leave that particular discussion over until at least we’ve talked about the plan
with the presentation we’re going to get.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Go ahead.
De Weerd: You do raise a good question. I guess that’s a question I had of our legal
counsel. What kind of detail are --? We have to plan this north area as if we don’t have
an overlay coming up because this will be the plan that you’re adopting until the next
one comes through or until you consider an overlay. So, we do want to spend some
attention to it. But what is the process? We can't --. We start the timing from the
Planning and Zoning action to recommend on any changes to the land use map. Six
months is the minimum you can probably consider the overlay but you can start your
public process before that six month time period. They just cannot rule on it any less --.
You need to explain this. So, December 6th
they made a recommendation so you can't
have another recommendation from them until May 6th
?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilwoman de Weerd. The statute
says that the Planning and Zoning Commission can only recommend map changes
every six months. There has to be at least six months between the recommended
changes to the land use map. The commission can recommend changes in the text of
the Comprehensive Plan more often than that. So, with the recommended changes that
came out of the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 6th
, they cannot pass
on a recommendation to the Council with regard to the land use map until May 6, 2002.
That does not mean that they cannot begin discussion or receive a request to change
the land use map and begin working on that but they cannot make a recommendation,
as I understand it. Mr. Siddoway has --.
Siddoway: I think six months would be June not May, June 6th
.
Nichols: Well, if it's December 6th
, --. Okay.
Corrie: Six months.
Siddoway: Okay, if you include December, okay.
Nichols: I’ve already made on accounting mistake today. I feel like I work for Arthur
Anderson.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 10 of 51
Nichols: I’m the first to admit my mistakes.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nary: I guess to follow up then, I agree with what Mr. Nichols said. Yes, we probably
do need to discuss the north. I’m just thinking tonight, if we’re going to have a
presentation by the North Meridian Planning Group and we have some idea of timetable
of what they are proposing. I mean, I recognize that we may have to make decision on
this map prior to June 6th
for the north area. But I’m just thinking tonight best use of
time, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to discuss on what this map looks like now,
when in two weeks we’re going to have a proposal of saying what a group of people
would like us to see the map come June 6th
.
De Weerd: Okay, then lets –
Nary: Let’s wait at least for them. Maybe do the rest.
De Weerd: Let’s start down six then.
Nichols: Mr.
De Weerd: Two, three, four, nine, ten, and eleven.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Just a suggestion, if you needed to plan
to adopt the Comprehensive, some sort of Comprehensive Plan amendment before the
North Meridian Planning area is finished, you would have the option of simply taking
that area and leaving all of the designations the same as they exist today and just work
on the rest of it knowing that you’re going to come back in and change the north area
later.
Corrie: Okay. Let’s take a look at two, three, four, --
De Weerd: (inaudible)
Corrie: --nine, ten, and eleven. It doesn’t have a whole lot of changes in it.
De Weerd: Okay. Do you want to discuss section eleven?
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 11 of 51
De Weerd: There's a couple of changes from quasi-public to office, quasi-public to
mixed-use.
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor and Mrs. de Weerd. I can cover those. The first is right on the
corner of Ten Mile and Cherry Lane. It says change the quasi-public to office. The one
right below it also, well it says change quasi-public to mixed-use. This area was shown
on the draft land use map as quasi-public. After the St. Alphonsus project had been
approved and that hospital as a quasi-public use. However not the entire site is used for
that hospital. They actually got that corner zoned L-O for office. This simply reflects that
approval. Also, the area below that that we’re showing for mixed-use is an undeveloped
parcel and it includes a church on the center one but undeveloped in either side. Putting
the mixed-use basically gives that maximum flexibility for redevelopment. That’s the
reason for those two. Any questions on those before I move on?
De Weerd: No.
Siddoway: Okay. Just below that there was a request on the Valeri Heights site. That’s
the corner of Pine and Ten Mile to change their mixed-use designation to medium
density residential. This is an example of a request that did not come from the actual
property owner. It came from a neighbor wanting to see that developed medium density
residential. We disagree. We think the mixed-use as currently proposed actually makes
sense there. I guess that’s typically it for eleven. I can continue down if you want. Oh,
okay, going down to the other side of the railroad tracks. Right at the intersection of
Franklin Road and Ten Mile, there was a request there from the property owner to
change from the mixed-use designation that’s currently proposed to commercial. We
would like to see the mixed-use stay. It's next to a future transit center. We want to see
commercial uses there but we’d like to keep, we’d like to have it as a Conditional Use
and we’d also like to see the opportunity for more than just commercial there to include
high density residential and other uses that could support that. The property just east of
it in the green says change high density residential to industrial. The draft map did show
high density residential. It was put there basically to support the future transit. However
it does have current zoning of industrial. So after reviewing that request it made sense
to match the existing zoning.
De Weerd: How about the square mile to the west of that piece?
Siddoway: Okay. On the north side of the tracks, you see one that says change from
mixed-use to industrial, actually the one below it is the same request. Again, we like the
mixed-use designation there to give it the flexibility, to require Conditional Use Permits
but to allow for a mix of uses, transit oriented development hopefully. But it gives it the
flexibility to do commercial or industrial or high density residential or a combination of all
of those. So, we would like the mixed-use to stay on both of those parcels. Let me
move down just a bit. The little box won't make sense until we talk about what's on the
other side of the street. The current draft of the land use map shows a neighborhood
center on the south side of Franklin. In all locations on the future land use map where
there is a neighborhood center, across the street we show office or high density
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 12 of 51
residential. We are agreeing that this center should likely go away, given all of the
commercial competition that will be generated by the commercial uses along the future
I-84 interchange at Ten Mile. There have been two requests adjacent to it. One in the
green for changing the neighborhood center and medium density residential uses to
mixed-use. We would concur with that. The one below it in the red is similar but instead
of mixed-use they specifically requested commercial. It's red because we would just
rather see mixed-use there as well. Given that the neighborhood center would be
deleted. The remaining portion in the blue would be replaced with medium density
residential and the associated office or high-density residential use across the street,
across Franklin Road would also go away. The land uses would simply revert back to
what the remainder of those parcels are. The right half of it, the rest of that parcel is
high density residential. The left portion, the west portion is shown as industrial and it
would revert back to what the rest of that lot is shown as.
De Weerd: That whole area will be mixed-use?
Siddoway: Off of the interchange, yes. Basically along, between I-84 and Franklin
Road along Ten Mile would be a mixed-use designation under that scenario.
Hawkins-Clark: If I could add one thing while we’re in this particular area. The Planning
and Zoning Commission actually gave very little discussion to this but the designated
transit symbols there. There are three of them. As you know COMPASS is in the
process of looking at, as well as VIATRANS, both are in the process of looking at the
potential for the Union Pacific Railroad corridor to have some form of multi modal
alternative transit use. The feasibility studies as I understand it are still just very much in
the conceptual stages of being put together. I’m not even sure they have funding for
those feasibility studies. For a long time now that corridor has been discussed as going
to some form of alternative use whether it be a bus way which would potentially just be
paving one side of their 200 foot right-of-way, UPRR, Union Pacific has 200 feet. They
would just maybe pave one side, be an express bus way for years until some other form
is designed. But, now is the time, particularly for this section. If the Council, COMPASS,
VIATrans, and other jurisdictions in the valley get to the point that they’re serious about
this, the mixed-use essentially we feel gives the greatest opportunity for the City to have
some input there. Certainly it's unlikely to be all four. I mean, hopefully a feasibility study
that’s done in the future would look at crossings, would look at rail and maybe give
some idea as to whether it's the north or the south. At this point, those are undeveloped
and if we’re looking at preservation certainly cheaper to do it now than to wait. So, that’s
pretty important, particularly on the south there with those two larger parcels. As the
sewer comes down, I believe there’s a study, JUB is doing right now on that Ten Mile
area there. Certainly that would encourage some development pressure. We felt that
was one way to help preserve some input into what we want to see there.
De Weerd: Now, we’ll be having VIATrans and the sewer study in that area at a
workshop next week. So, we can make sure to consider that information in with this. Mr.
Mayor.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 13 of 51
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess in looking at this as we consider the sewer in that area and the
public transportation, we also need to be considering our land use policies along Black
Cat and how we’re going to connect Black Cat to the Ten Mile area for that interchange.
I know we’ve had some sporadic discussions about how to connect those up but we
really do need to look at that as we look at our sewer and this Comprehensive Plan
because we need to preserve those right-of-ways too. Has there been any thoughts in
planning the sewer or in looking at this comp plan of a possible route to connect the
Black Cat Road into that interchange area?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
De Weerd: I guess that’s no.
Nary: I was going to say, just to add some fuel to that. I mean, with the and again
maybe that’s part of the discussion with the North Meridian Planning Area because
clearly and with good reason this plan supposes with an interchange at Ten Mile being
a widened roadway. That that’s going to be a mixed-use commercial type of
development area if that connects with Black Cat is really what eventually occurs it may
not be. There may not be much development of mixed-use as heavy or significant as
what's proposed here. It may be the other way, which right now shows industrial and
low density residential. I guess when we get to that plan to discuss how that may fold
into this, we’re going to need to at least keep that in mind that this doesn’t really match
up with that type of connection, at least at this point. So, we’ll have to at least consider
that.
Corrie: Any other questions in that square section?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. If we go on down to section 16, 15, and 14, 22, 23, 27, and 26, which is
down by the area of impact. We don’t have much of a change there. Other than the Ten
Mile interchange. Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I also believe that you know we know the interchange in Ten Mile but where is 16
going to come across at? Do you have any idea Mayor?
Corrie: Well, what they’re looking at is the possibility of coming, 16 would connect at
Black Cat, come down and either cross the section 10 or come down and make the turn
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 14 of 51
and go back in. they’re thinking Ten Mile is probably not a very good interchange route
after you get it passed Franklin. They’re thinking it's closer to Black Cat.
Bird: So, they’re looking at coming down Black Cat and then swinging it to the west one
mile and then coming down?
De Weerd: No, to the east.
Corrie: Swing it to the east.
Bird: East I mean, I’m sorry.
De Weerd: Who’s giving who (inaudible) now? I’m sorry.
Bird: I’m not northsouth.
Corrie: Is that recorder turned on? Okay. Now, you two, I’m going to separate you.
Okay. But Mr. Bird, right now that’s the way it looks. That can change but it's a lot easier
to come down Black Cat than it is Ten Mile with the population that’s going to be on Ten
Mile with the school and everything else.
Bird: I think that needs to go into our judgement a little bit because I believe that, that
probably will happen a lot faster than the interchange and will happen a lot faster than
our public transportation. I think we need to look over --. I’m like Councilwoman de
Weerd. I would like to see our mixed-use and stuff set so that people aren’t in here
getting CUPs for everything they want to build. I know it's nice to be able to control
everything you have come in but there’s certain items that you don’t need to. CUPs take
up about 50 percent of our time here. I thought with the new Comprehensive Plan we
could, by having different mixed-use designated, mixed-use we wouldn’t have to be
having a bunch of CUPs. But I guess it's going to the point that they want to have more
CUPs. I would sure for one like to get rid of it.
Corrie: Brad or Steve, around the Ten Mile interchange being mixed-use, lets take for
instance, they wanted to put a center, shopping center. Would it be better to have it be
mixed-use or –
*** End of Side One ***
Corrie: --down the road if that happens. Because you know with that interchange at Ten
Mile you know it's going to be commercial.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Mr. Mayor the schedule of use control in our ordinance has retail
primarily in the C-G. We only have the one commercial designation on this map. If
somebody came in with a piece of property that fell under the commercial designation
here. If they proposed annexation with the C-N, C-C, or C-G any three, they would jus
potentially come in with an annexation and that’s it. If it was a mixed-use they would
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 15 of 51
come in with annexation and a Conditional Use. Certainly some of the areas like that on
the east side of Ten Mile where you have 200 to 300 acres, the feasibility is going to be
a combination of uses. If it was commercial, you could potentially still do the residential
under the planned development, which allows 20 percent of the gross area to be
excepted out of that for residential use. It really is. We can certainly come back to you if
you’re looking for us to have some more specific designations on this map that would
alleviate, or if we just –
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor. I have a couple of thoughts on that. One, these are existing, the
existing lots here are very large. To make them commercial only is a lot of commercial.
The second issue on my mind, it really boils down, to me, to whether or not this body
would want to see the shopping center you describe or whether you as a Council are
comfortable with staff reviewing that based on just what's in the ordinance book without
the opportunity to add additional conditions. The Conditional Use Permit process gives
the City the ability to review those projects and add conditions to them to make them
blend better with the adjacent land uses if there's neighboring residential or whatever. If
it's a Conditional Use it comes before this body with the opportunity for the Council to
review it and the opportunity to add additional requirements. If it's a permitted use,
that’s fine, it would go to staff and we would simply apply the ordinances and not
anything else.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know, I’m not saying get away from the Conditional Use Permit but what
I am saying is we need to have better mixed-use designations. If we’re going to ask for
a little bit more innovative or creative thinking and if we’re going to ask them to work
with their neighbors we need to also give some kind of incentive to doing that. The CUP,
the way it has currently been used has almost been a penalty because it takes that
much longer and you almost are encouraging the uncreative way of thinking just to get
it through faster. So, there's got to be thought to how we can --. You know I believe in
pre-neighborhood meetings which I think would expedite the process but we have to
think of incentives so that yes we have an opportunity to place more conditions to help
transition it into the existing uses but also to encourage the development community to
be thinking out of the box instead of thinking what will meet the least resistance so they
can get it through quickly. I guess that’s our biggest challenge here. Certainly are going
to welcome some input from the neighbors in the development community on how we
can achieve those kind of things.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess, further comment on that too. I’m not adverse to the Conditional Use
process. I do like it because I do like the input that it allows neighbors to have and
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 16 of 51
without having that there's a lot of projects around town that I can think of in the last
couple years that wouldn’t look like they do now without the neighbors input. So, I don’t
have a problem with that. What we maybe need to do too is looking at some of the
issues at the Planning and Zoning level to be able to give them the flexibility to deal with
some of those things. I do agree with Council Member de Weerd that the incentive
system is at least what it was attempted in the neighborhood center deal. That was the
whole idea. If we want to pick, if we want to narrow down on certain areas as to what
specific types of development that we would like to see then that’s fine. Those are the
areas that we as a Council would want to say this is what we want on that site and
we’re going to give you the incentive to do that. Now, if you don’t want to do that and
you want to do something else well, it's not meant as a penalty but it's meant to say
fine, then there's going to be a little more discussion about it. We’re going to have to
talk about it. We’re going to work with our neighbors. We’re going to talk about how this
is going to look. That’s why we tried to create this sort of alternative process. So that
the narrower view was real specific, real narrowly construed but there were a lot more
incentives --. There would be incentives to be able to accomplish that. Then the broader
view would then be allow the neighbors some input and allow --. It might take a little
longer but we’ve at least had some input as to how it looks and the neighbors would like
that as well. I think on a lot of these mixed-use --. I’ve looked back at the minutes while
we were talking and it's not maybe as broadly open as it sounds like in a lot of these.
The designation of taking the second use off is only for parcels over five acres. A lot of
these developments aren’t five acres. They’re less than five acres. They still require the
mixed-uses on them. It was just the bigger ones that we thought that at least we could
look at them that way. I mean, I guess to kind of move the discussion along, I mean, I
think we need to figure out as a group philosophically how to do that. I think we do need
to look at this map and some of these issues and then maybe figure out how do we get
more input and what areas of input and how do we want to frame that. So that folks can
come to meetings to hear or to participate in the issues that really matter to them and
maybe not have to come to every meeting if it wasn’t something that was of some major
importance to them. Then knowing that we’re going to have some ultimate meeting at
the end of that to discuss it and move on. Then they would at least have some way to
map out their lives a little better. We don’t get that choice.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussions on that particular area?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay. The south corner, southwest corner.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nary: Mr. Mayor it looks like I guess the one discussion point there is where the staff
disagrees with the citizen initiated request on Meridian Road. I guess I’m not sure what
the reasoning was on that Steve or Brad as to the --. There is a variety of uses along
Meridian Road there both residential and some commercial. Was it to designate all of
that as a commercial sort of strip? IS that what was requested?
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 17 of 51
Hawkins-Clark: The request was no more specific than what's written there. They
wanted to allow commercial uses along Meridian Road from Overland to victory. It
sounded to us like strip commercial and we just basically didn’t support that. It is
something that needs to be thought about. Does Council envision Meridian Road as a
commercial corridor or is it not? Right now in the proposed land use map it is not.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I hate to keep going back to transportation but we have Kodiak
Subdivision that’s going to be, that ITD and ACHD as well as the church going to the
south of that is limiting access to Meridian-Kuna Road. If we turn this into commercial
we’re going to have some kind of frontage road requirement here so that we have a
way to move people on. I think as people buy into Bear Creek Subdivision they really
don’t realize, as ACHD and ITD would like it right now they want to dump anything that
develops between Meridian-Kuna Road and Bear Creek into Bear Creek. I think that’s
very poor planning. If we’re going to think about any kind of use along this road, we also
have to be putting in some text supporting thing that says we have to have a frontage
road along there as a way to get people out at certain points that is going to be
acceptable to ITD and ACHD. Right now we have a stalemate and no way to get
anyone out onto that road.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Hawkins-Clark: If I could Mr. Mayor. Councilwoman de Weerd, very good point, well
taken. I think the one issue there, essentially it's too late on the west side south of the
Nazarene church site. I mean, you’ve got existing built out development on that side
that you’re really going to achieve with a frontage road other than the southern quarter
mile south of the church site. The east side of –there may be a little more opportunity
given that we have no existing development applications before us. There are certainly
some existing developments so it's not like it couldn’t happen. The other challenge with
that is I don’t believe that Ada County Highway District or ITD have any experience in
this valley with frontage roads, ie how much right-of-way do they acquire in order to get
the frontage road. So we’re struggling with them on design issues and where do you put
the stormwater. I mean, do the uses come right up to the frontage road. We presented
that question and haven't gotten a whole lot of good technical feedback from the
transportation planners. That’s not to say it shouldn’t happen. In that same discussion
probably needs to take place along Chinden, that is a part of the north Meridian plan
discussion. Certainly the access control issues, my understanding through the police
department I believe the request has been made to ITD to change the speed on State
Highway 69, which, to lower it from the 55. I don’t believe they’ve gotten any positive
feedback. If the assumption is that that’s going to remain 55 miles an hour, the types of
uses that you put along there, there is some validity to changing the residential. A lot of
this, I believe and Steve is going back to comes back to the neighborhood center
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 18 of 51
concept. If we’re going to support that where we have them located, the more of these
strip commercial areas you put on the more diffused these neighborhood centers are in
terms of their viability for economics.
De Weerd: Is that something that you can get feedback from ACHD, request --? How
we are going to --. What is going to be acceptable access out onto this road? I
understand we need to move traffic in that area. I don’t want to see what's happening in
Eagle with their high end residential you know and darting to get out onto the road and
just hoping you don’t get hit. You know that’s not the kind of community we want to
create. We have an opportunity right now to consider those with our land use planning.
Is there a chance that we can request that they give us some ideas of how to plan in
this area so that we have access onto that road at some point?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We can do that. The Idaho Transportation Department in June I
believe adopted a policy of half mile signals only. In this stretch it's not going to be in
effect because the signal is going to Calderwood which is essentially north of the half
mile between Overland and Victory. So, it's not going to happen there but any other
state highway facilities in terms of signalized intersections they’re only allowing it at the
half mile.
De Weerd: Now where is that on this one?
Hawkins-Clark: Calderwood is the Elk Run principal entrance.
De Weerd: Oh. That’s going to be the only light allowed on that stretch?
Hawkins-Clark: That is my understanding, yes. Now, of course Elk Run was constructed
prior to ITD adopting their policy but if there was another one it seems like the only
logical place would be at the quarter mile.
De Weerd: So, all that property to the south of it, we don’t know how we’re going to get
it out of their property?
Hawkins-Clark: There will be joint accesses required where possible. Obviously they
can't take away a deeded access point that somebody has right now. But, if they
change uses they can come back and say we’re going to ask you to combine your
access point with your neighbor to the south or neighbor to the north to get as many
combined joint access points as possible. At this point that’s all they can do. They can
take away direct access.
De Weerd: Oh.
Hawkins-Clark: We’d be happy to approach them for some ideas. I don’t foresee getting
a lot of detailed feedback from ITD on land use per say. They would probably offer
some mitigation measures like a ten foot high berm and retaining walls or sound walls.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 19 of 51
Those are the kind of measures that they recommend for residential adjacent to their
highways.
De Weerd: Those are the kind of things we need to start hearing about. I think we just
recently heard about some changes up along the Chinden area. We’re trying to plan our
community here but they’re not sharing all these new requirements or easements or
setbacks. We need to learn these so we can hopefully incorporate them in. okay. Well, I
don’t think we can get anywhere with that particular section at this point.
Hawkins-Clark: could I just for clarification before you leave that --? The reason for us
recommending, or not supporting that again, as Steve mentioned was the access
control and the potential for strip there and diffusing the neighborhood centers.
Certainly a frontage road on that east side, those kinds of policies are what we need to
get into our comp plan. If you would like we could do a little more research and come
back with some proposed language or get some feedback from ITD on how those could
be designed and maybe get some of that into our text as a policy about a frontage road
where ever there's the potential to get it. Particularly in this case on the east side of
State Highway 69 from about a quarter mile south of Overland all the way down to
Amity.
De Weerd: That would be great.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussions on that particular section?
Nary: I’ll just add this to the other point on the commercial. I am real concerned about
the traffic in that area and trying not to use that but secondarily and I’ve said it before.
You know I guess I would rather see somebody have a project that we can look at and
evaluate and not just simply change for the sake of change because somebody thinks
they might want to do something some day in the future. I think the way it was planned
and the way it was discussed in the Public Hearings previously I think what’s proposed
here is adequate. I don’t see any reason to change it just because somebody thinks
that some day we might have a better opportunity. Bring a plan. We can always rezone
if we think it's appropriate. I think having the text to support what type of conditions that
we would look at in rezoning something that makes the most sense to support what the
City wants. Just to sort of create some sort of blanket commercial strip along that
highway doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Corrie: Okay. Lets move north, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Part of Old Town and east of
Meridian Road, or west of Meridian Road.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 20 of 51
Nary: On the parcels there in the Old Town area, especially the one that says add
these parcels on Meridian Road to the proposed Old Town designation. Where does
Old Town end now? Does it end just to the east of that is that why?
Siddoway: Today, Old Town ends at Meridian Road. On the proposed land use map --.
I’ll just bring it up here. Just a second. In the proposed future land use map the Old
Town designation is much larger than the Old Town zoning of today. It actually follows
the original plat boundaries. I met with Lila Hill and gone over these, excuse me,
boundaries with her. She has agreed and also agreed to that addition that I was
showing that that was part of the original town plat. So, if you look at this, it's roughly in
a cross shape here. This is what we are proposing become the Old Town designation.
The addition that’s on that summary of requested changes is right here. The majority of
that is the Meridian Elementary School site but there are existing small lot properties
surrounding it that could more easily be developed and redeveloped under the Old
Town designation than the R-4 designation that they’re currently under.
Nary: So, the Old Town designation, if we were to include this piece which is Meridian
Elementary, the Old Town designation on the proposed map, the one from December
2001follows the original town plat. It's better than what is currently?
Siddoway: Better than what's currently and we just need to add on that one little corner
–
Nary: Okay.
Siddoway: -- to correct it.
Nary: so, there is a few more that maybe are added by this as well, just this purple one
was added after the other map?
Siddoway: That’s correct.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Then the other piece, is that down by the senior center? Is that along
Broadway?
Siddoway: Okay, yes. The one that says change quasi-public, industrial, and medium
density residential to mixed-use. That is the south side of Broadway. Basically the south
side of Broadway over to West Fourth would become part of the Old Town designation
under the proposed map. This area received a lot of discussion at least from phone
calls to our office lately. It's use is mostly residential but it's zoning is industrial. There
are people that would like to develop it as higher density residential and different uses.
It's not possible under the existing zoning and it's not possible for people to sell their
homes as a home.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 21 of 51
De Weerd: As a home.
Siddoway: The draft map as it stands today basically pulls out the industrial, the
existing churches as quasi-public and the rest of it as medium density residential but
there are actually people who have called wanting to do fourplexes that end being more
in the neighborhood of ten units per acre. So a medium density doesn’t work for them.
The mixed-use designation which is what we’re recommending here would actually
allow people to rezone their industrial property that they want to use as residential to a
residential zone and allow the existing businesses that have already located there
under the premise that it is industrial to stay.
De Weerd: Steve, so what does that mean? If someone, they’re currently industrial –
Siddoway: Yes.
De Weerd: -- before the 93 or before they were changed to industrial it was
residential. If they want to sell their house and get the loan and all of that, they have to
come in to rezone?
Siddoway: They can get --. You’re talking about as it stands today?
De Weerd: Yes.
Siddoway: Yes. They can't get a conventional loan on it. They can find banks that will
loan on their property but it's generally with a higher interest rate because they won't do
conventional mortgages on property that’s zoned industrial.
De Weerd: Right.
Siddoway: So, they end up having to find people who are willing to pay for a higher
loan. But if they could rezone to residential that issue would be taken care of.
De Weerd: Okay. Now when you say rezone, we’re just talking a map designation
because that’s what –
Siddoway: They would still have to rezone.
De Weerd: (inaudible) rezone that whole area then?
Siddoway: Yes. That area is zoned; not just designated on the land use map it is
zoned light industrial.
De Weerd: Who did that?
Siddoway: It was before any of us.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 22 of 51
Corrie: I’m hearing a lot down there is if they have a home and they sell it as a home
and then the people buy it as a home it burns down, they can't rebuild.
Siddoway: That is the other big issue. We will not issue rebuild letters because it’s a
non-conforming use technically based on the zoning.
Corrie: It's crazy.
De Weerd: Yes. Now, one other question before we move on. So, they would have to
come in and rezone but they can't just rezone their one house lot? That whole
neighborhood would have to come in and rezone?
Siddoway: You could.
De Weerd: You could?
Siddoway: Yes you could.
De Weerd: Okay.
Siddoway: It's just up to the Council. The issue would become whether it's spot zoning
but actually have a lot of residential zoning on the other side of the street, which would -
-. It's all either R-8 or R-15 across the street. That would support their rezone without
being technically a spot zone. It would certainly be nice if they got together and did it as
one. I don’t know if I can bring this out. We could take it on as a City and approach
them, much like we did the Crossroads Subdivision. The City actually rezoned the
Crossroads Subdivision to a residential zone and we could take the same approach
here.
De Weerd: Thank you. I don’t have anything else (inaudible).
Corrie: Does anyone else have anything? Okay, one and two. As we move north it
gets smaller but it stops right there at the northwest section. So, one and two which is
Cherry Lane up to Ustick and from Meridian Road to Ten Mile.
De Weerd: So, what is that little yellow or purple square there?
Siddoway: The one that says change medium density residential to office. That is at
the intersection of Leisure Lane and Cherry Lane. It includes the property that Mike
Gamblin got rezoned to limited office already. It also includes the existing, there's a
clinic, and there’s a counseling center there.
Bird: Yes.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 23 of 51
Siddoway: The draft future land use map still shows those lots as residential. We’re
just trying to respond to those approved uses and showing them as office on the land
use map.
Corrie: Okay, any other questions on that box? Okay. Let’s go to six, five, and four. It
looks like we need to change the park sites but no major changes there.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Is the shift in park sites because of the park Comprehensive Plan? Is that what
these couple of shifts are?
Siddoway: That is correct.
Nary: Okay.
Siddoway: There's three shifts of the parks on the plan. They’re all in response to the
park master plan as it currently stands.
Nary: Okay. Now, are we going to have an issue --? I mean, my understanding was
with these sites that we’re not still talking about a specific location on the map. Now, if I
have a concern in the future and we move this thing one inch on this map, then I would
say that maybe we really meant it was a specific site. Since we felt it was supposed to
be a radius area or incorporated in that square or whatever the text language we have
to support what it is. Why would we need to move it an inch?
Siddoway: My only response would be, is one while they do float, they’re intended to
be in the ideal location. Second, it just makes sense to have the comp plan match the
park plan.
Nary: I don’t disagree. Maybe just we want to sure as we work through this that the
text is very supportive that no one hopefully in the future will say that dot is a park that I
want for the rest of my life. That really is just meant that we were looking for parks in
those areas and are supportive of the idea of parks. So, as long as the text reflects that
then it's fine. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions on that section?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Lets, seven, eight, nine, --. Let me take a look at it. It's hard to read.
Seven, eight, and nine, and I’ve got two eights it looks like. Eight?
De Weerd: 18.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 24 of 51
Corrie: Oh, is that 18?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Okay, 16, 17, and 18. I’m sorry.
Nary: Seven, eight, nine appears to be no proposed changes since this other map. It's
the only section I think that is.
Corrie: Okay. You do have, in 18, 16 you have a change in the commercial designation
recommended by P&Z back to mixed-use. That’s over off of Franklin Road, talking
about by the hospital.
De Weerd: That’s what you discussed earlier that it could be a commercial use but by
changing it to mixed-use it only implies it needs a Conditional Use Permit?
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just so the Council is aware as I said before there was a lot of public testimony
about it. Just something to keep in mind as we move forward that if we do want to
change and that’s fine, there was a lot of testimony and those folks may at least want
some opportunity to come back and make their pitch on commercial.
Corrie: The red section down there, it says change low density residential to
commercial, right there?
De Weerd: Yes.
Corrie: That’s right on Locust Grove, correct?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: So, that’s where (inaudible)
Bird: The overpass is going to go.
Corrie: -- the overpass is going to be. Okay.
Bird: That’s probably not a bad idea.
De Weerd: Considered low density?
Corrie: Residential to commercial. Any other comments?
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 25 of 51
Nary: So why is it red?
Bird: Who generated the change on that, on putting that little piece of commercial in
there?
Siddoway: That was requested by at least one, if not more than one --. I don’t know
how many people had signed that letter –
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Siddoway: They were asking that because if the overpass going in that they would be
allowed to do commercial frontage along Locust Grove.
Bird: I disagree with it because the overpass is going to come down and take a lot of
that off. I would say it's going to have to be residential and going to have to back up and
come out of one of the other, out through the other subdivisions. You’re not going to be
able to get out onto Locust Grove at that location, I don’t believe from the preliminary
plans I’ve seen.
Siddoway: Right. I believe the reason --. We could check the minutes. One of the
reasons the Planning and Zoning Commission said was that if you’ve got it designated
commercial now and they come through and have to purchase right-of-way and those
that are purchasing right-of-way see a commercial designation on the comp plan it
could potentially jack up the cost of that land prematurely.
Bird: I have to agree with you.
Corrie: We’re trying to spend less than 1.8 million anyway.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Nay other discussion in that section?
De Weerd: Just in the, right there at Franklin and Locust Grove. Wasn’t that an
apartment complex?
Bird: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, the very corner was approved as an apartment complex. What
was the name? Anyway, yes it was approved, Cobblestone Village.
Bird: Cobblestone Village.
Hawkins-Clark: The property just below it is actually the one that requested this.
They’re below the approved Cobblestone Village. They back up to existing industrial.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 26 of 51
Woodbridge is already zoned an office just south of them. The property across the
street was approved initially by the Planning and Zoning Commission to go to mixed-
use. The north side of Franklin is adjacent to Sparrowhawk Subdivision. That’s over a
little bit. Yes. It backs up to Medimont, the existing industrial. There are older existing
single-family homes here. They are, the proper owner in this one house wanted the
opportunity to convert to an office. By making it mixed-use, we just thought that the
apartments can go in under that as already approved and these other properties can
redevelop to something other than residential as conditions warrant it because they’re
surrounded by everything but residential currently.
De Weerd: Did the Planning and Zoning Commission talk about that?
Hawkins-Clark: They did not. That has come up within the last month.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think from Mr. Bird said earlier, I mean, if people were looking at some sort of
commercial opportunity based on that overpass that’s where they would have it would
be more there than where the other folks asked for it closer to the overpass. But is that
of the same concern about the cost of that property if we change it to mixed-use at this
point?
Hawkins-Clark: I guess potentially. They wouldn’t be purchasing as much for the
overpass specifically the way they would down right at the interstate. That requires
much more right-of-way purchase for the actual interchange in width. But, yes I guess it
potentially could have that same effect.
De Weerd: But your goal of the transit and utilizing that rail corridor, I don’t see a whole
lot of housing being encouraged in that area. You do need to have some people down
there that live there if we want mass transit.
Nary: We have Woodbridge.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Woodbridge is there yes.
Nary: You already have Woodbridge. I mean, you do have residential (inaudible).
De Weerd: Well, we do have (inaudible).
Corrie: Your higher density should be along the railroad area there anyway.
Bird: Yes.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 27 of 51
Corrie: Because if they buy that or --. That could be an ideal place for your apartments
and that.
Bird: That’s right.
De Weerd: And with Jabil right there it's a great --.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Okay. I guess there's one more section there Steve or Brad. Has that green
change office to mixed-use? Just on Overland and Locust Grove? That was designated
to be office and now it's recommended change by citizens that that be mixed-use?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Mr. Mayor that was a discussion held with, I believe Shari. Right
at the northeast corner of that green area is the existing Northwest Pipeline. Then there
were some concerns about that much office designation being right there. You know
right near the overpass, the mixed-use again you know would allow for some residential
in there. If you recall there was an apartment complex proposed there about two years
ago at that very area? The Council did deny that at that point in time. The high density
there that probably wouldn’t work but the mixed might allow for the existing industrial to
remain. You know maybe some commercial right at the corner and possibly some
alternative uses back.
Corrie: Okay. What’s that little office space on this map? Down there –
Bird: The little southwest corner?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: That’s right there on the southwest corner of Overland and Locust Grove?
Hawkins-Clark Yes if you recall that property owner testified at your previous meeting.
She’s from Cascade.
Corrie: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: That was her request. We agreed that that is just a remnant parcel,
quite unlikely to go single family.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That corner there Brad is too small for anything but pad isn't it? I mean, you
couldn’t put a sub in there or anything like that. It’s basically got to be --.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 28 of 51
Hawkins-Clark: We were thinking maybe it's around one and a half two acres.
Bird: Yes. I was going to say it's not very big. That ditch goes right down in the back of
it.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor were you asking about the office that we were just discussing
or the one on the P&Z recommended to the map?
Corrie: On this map, --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Corrie: --it's not on there but on the other one it's a little tiny dot of purple –
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Corrie: -- on Ustick Road, or Locust Grove down there by the high school just west of
the high school. What is that?
De Weerd: Those are just arrows to move the park.
Hawkins-Clark: No. There is office shown.
Bird: Yes, what is that?
Hawkins-Clark: Right here. That was a request early, early on that was granted and put
on by the committee before this even started through hearings. I’m trying to remember
–
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nary: Is that the office that’s located, like right by Sportsman Pointe on Locust Grove
across from the church?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nary: There's an office for (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Stiles: Apparently that is currently being used as a contractor’s yard. It's zoned R-4
and it's being used as a contractor’s yard. I guess that’s just one that we didn’t catch as
we were going through the Public Hearing process with P&Z. we wouldn’t necessarily
have a problem with the office but it is still an on-going enforcement issue that we’ve
been working on for a while.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 29 of 51
Corrie: Is that the one that we’ve been talking about down there?
Stiles: It's being used as a contractor’s yard. All their employees are coming there,
sales lot. They also have the, they’re using the old petals and stems facility on Fairview
as a sales lot.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Anything else in that other section? Okay, lets look at the –
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Stiles: We did get a request today from Van Auker, Mr. Brad Miller one of Ron Van
Auker’s employees for --. I’m not sure which five acres it is. He’s talking about a five-
acre piece --. Is it right next to the Meridian Academy?
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Bird: Yes. Where the road was going in? Where the back road –
Stiles: In the letter we received it said five acres north of Franklin Road, west of Eagle
Road.
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Bird: Oh, okay.
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Stiles: It's shown now as medium density residential. This one?
(inaudible discussion from staff)
Corrie: Can you get the arrow going where that was (inaudible)?
Stiles: Sorry.
Bird: I don’t think it's shown as medium.
(inaudible discussion from staff)
Bird: Franklin Road is shown as mixed-use.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 30 of 51
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: There's a –
Bird: It's shown as mixed-use to me on it.
Corrie: Yes, it's a little strip there but it sure does look like medium density. No, that’s
(inaudible)
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Bird: Don’t it look like mixed-use though right in there?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: He said it was just north of Franklin –
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: -- across from where Touchmark was coming out.
Corrie: It's mixed-use all right.
Bird: Isn't that a mixed-use right there?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: See, this is general industrial down by RC Willey’s.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Bird: Is that the little property up next to Franklin Road, the north side of Franklin
Road?
Unidentified Speaker: Yes. You’ve got RC Willey’s then you’ve got 40 acres –
Bird: Yes.
Unidentified Speaker: -- next to that (inaudible) and another one right there.
Bird: Okay. Isn't that being shown as mixed-use now?
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Stiles: It is shown as –
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 31 of 51
Bird: Okay. It gets into the yellow.
Stiles: It is shown as medium density.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: on the other map. But on the regular map it's –
Bird: On the regular map it's shown as medium density residential.
De Weerd: So, it's across the street from Touchmark.
Stiles: I guess we feel that we have to designate some high density or some kind of
residential along the railroad corridor or it's never going to work.
Corrie: That’s right.
Bird: There's –
*** End of Side Two ***
Corrie: On the back of the --. RC Willey is right there. Then –
Stiles: All those pieces there.
Corrie: The back part next to the east side right in there. No.
Bird: Back over.
Stiles: Those are the five acres they’re referring to. Those five acres.
Corrie: This right here?
Bird: No.
Stiles: No.
Bird: Those long ones right there.
Stiles: To the east. Yes all of those.
Corrie: Oh.
Bird: Do they start at the Ellis place or the one before Ellis?
Stiles: Pat nations.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 32 of 51
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Unidentified Speaker: -- one further east of Ellis (inaudible)
Bird: Okay. Yes.
Unidentified Speaker: (inaudible) Ellis, somebody else.
Bird: (inaudible)
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Bird: Then the moving company.
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Bird: They’re the further to the east.
Corrie: It's requested to be what?
Stiles: The request we received today was mixed-use or general industrial. This is
probably one of the hard subjects, is trying to get some area designated as high density
because it's one of the few areas that would be acceptable because there aren’t
surrounding land uses that would necessarily oppose it and we have all those transit
stations proposed. I guess we’re not willing to give up the idea that we might be able to
use that corridor someday. If the density is not there it's not feasible.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: So, it shows high density residential against the commercial or general
industrial. That’s what they’re talking about.
Bird: Is that high or medium?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: High density and then the other side is general industrial and a school.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: They want to make this either mixed-use or industrial.
De Weerd: If we put it mixed-use, it gives you an opportunity to sell them on the ideas.
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 33 of 51
Corrie: You could make some big apartments in there right next to the railroad, mass
transit. Okay?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Problem area.
Bird: That whole corridor is pretty commercial all the way down starting at Five Mile.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Okay, we’ve got 19, 20, 21, 30, 29, and 28. The last four down below.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: I guess I have a question. It says remove this area from the area of impact. Is
that because the fire department and everything is trying to get in from the Boise side?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. I’m not sure if it's happened yet but I think Boise already
accepted, already changed it into their area of impact. I think the County has already
approved it. It was one that, it was more than 300 feet that was in our area of impact.
So they split off the back part of it and included that 300 feet in their plat from
(inaudible). Then they had no use for the little strip that was left. So, then they went
back and wanted to change the area of impact. At this point it really doesn’t make any
sense to leave it in our area of impact.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Stiles: Yes. It's been subdivided already I think and included with the (inaudible). They
extended those. That was their plan.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari I don’t believe, and Brad can answer this. I don’t believe that is sewerable
out there is it Brad? Out there at that --?
Stiles: (inaudible) yes.
Nary: South of Victory?
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 34 of 51
Bird: It's south of Overland on the east side of Cloverdale there. That little piece
between those two, or just south of that canal as it comes around. Just south of the old
Crawford place over there.
Stiles: It is already connected to Boise sewer.
Bird: That’s what I mean.
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: That’s where they brought in the lift station and come down and covered all that
area down there.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Would be my assumption, would it be correct that the reason for the red for
those low-density residential changes, one to mixed-use and listed as a neighborhood
center. There's two neighborhood centers in this area?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I can walk you through the remainder ones. There are only three or
four that we haven't discussed yet. Right at that intersection, there was a --. This is the
intersection of Victory and Locust Grove. There are three highlighted in red. One is to
change low density residential to office. One is to change low density residential to
medium density residential. One is to change medium density residential to mixed-use.
The reason for not agreeing with the office or mixed-use designation is frankly that the
neighborhood center that shows up on Victory right adjacent to it. It is a policy decision
that Council is going to have to wrestle with and make a decision. That is whether, --. If
we want these neighborhood centers on the map and we want them to be viable the
corners cannot go commercial or else they will kill those areas. That’s the reason for
that. The one that’s right on the corner is changing low density to medium density. The
only reason for not going with that is it just creates a tiny little pocket of medium density
that if you look at the proposed map would be surrounded by low density. That’s what's
going on in that corner.
Corrie: You’re going to have to make a decision.
De Weerd: In the 93 plan that was just designated mixed-use. So, it's not like you’re
changing any designation. Mixed-use was pretty undefined at that time wasn’t it?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It's also unzoned. So, we’re not taking away any zoning that’s been
granted. It's still in the county. The only other one I think we haven't talked about would
be the neighborhood center down on Amity Road. The Planning and Zoning
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 35 of 51
Commission, if you look on the future land use map --. Let me, I’ll change maps so that
I can talk you through it. If you go to the land use map recommended by the Planning
and Zoning Commission, and look down at that corner of the intersection of Amity and
Meridian Road. That area in the original draft was shown as all residential. The property
owners got together and came before the Commission and testified that they wanted
that to be able to be a commercial corner and got the recommendation approved to
change those parcels that I’m pointing to on the screen, right at that intersection from
the residential designation that was originally there to mixed-use to allow for commercial
at that intersection. If this becomes a commercial intersection, a neighborhood center a
half a mile away won't work. So, we’re just simply deleting that one in response to the
motion that was done by the Planning and Zoning Commission to make that corner
commercial, or mixed-use.
Corrie: So that neighborhood center would be residential then?
Hawkins-Clark: What's that?
Corrie: Low density residential there wouldn’t it?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes it was a mixture of low density and medium, I think it was mostly
medium density residential that was shown there. So, it was originally medium density.
It was changed by the commission to mixed-use to allow for commercial, which would
negate the neighborhood center from being a half mile from it.
Siddoway: I believe the other reason the commission supported that was American
Paving. I believe they’re at that southeast corner. That brought existing use into
conformance rather than the proposed residential.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The northeast corner is the chicken coops on, I believe is it
Albertson’s?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. They’re storage units now.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Bird: They use to raise a lot of chickens. I’ve been on top of every one of those suckers
as a kid.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
De Weerd: On top of the chickens?
Bird: No, on top of the roof. (inaudible)
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 36 of 51
De Weerd: I just wanted clarification.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: This isn't one of your proposals but I noticed by those other two neighborhood
centers on Victory, there is a mixed-use on that corner, is that problematic? There's a
mixed-use on Meridian and Victory and then there's a neighborhood center right
adjacent to it as well as another a mile away. Is that problematic?
Hawkins-Clark: What are you talking about?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Hawkins-Clark: Councilman Nary, you’re referring to the northeast corner of Victory and
Meridian Road?
Nary: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: That is not mixed-use. That’s commercial. That’s the Victory Greens –
Nary: Oh, okay.
Hawkins-Clark: garden, Nursery.
Nary: Okay, so that’s (inaudible)?
Hawkins-Clark: that’s existing.
Nary: Okay great. Thank you.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: -- find Wally. Okay. Any further questions on the area that we’ve covered?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay. We will be discussing the northwest corridor section, the overlay on that
one.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 37 of 51
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that we need to have a couple more Public Hearings and I think we need
to, on the first one, or until the end we need to eliminate the utility subdivision. I think
our Public Hearing on the 29th
probably ran off a lot of people because all that was
being discussed was something that comes before us the 19th
. I for one, and I hope the
other Councilmen feel the same way. I want to hear from all over the City not just one
northwest corner of one intersection. I would like to schedule a Public Hearing and have
a real Public Hearing and put the ground rules down that at this next one we don’t talk
about Utility Sub or the corner of Ustick and Ten Mile, the northwest corner of Ustick or
Ten Mile. I think that’s been hammered out enough and I for one would like to hear
about what people think about the rest of the planned use within the impact area.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would hate to say we’re not going to accept testimony on anything. We
could structure it to the point where if anyone is to testify in that area we can designate
a time that that testimony will be heard. You can't just ask them not to testify any more.
They need to be heard too.
Bird: I didn’t say not to testify. I said at the next hearing. We basically at the first
hearing went that and heard nothing else. The Planning and Zoning Commission, they
put down rules and did their things. That is exactly what we need to do because if you
don’t you’re going to have 500 people in here on that one corner and the rest of the
people are going to leave. Yes they’re welcome to come back at the end and have it.
I’m not taking testimony from anybody away but we need to hear about some of the rest
of the concerns within the impact area.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: When would you like to have the next Public Hearing, Council? We can state
what you want to hear at that point, I think.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Because the Utility Subdivision in a
specific proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment will be up for hearing on
February 19th
I believe that’s when it's up for hearing is on the 19th
. You can take that
testimony that night, consider it with regard to this particular plan as well. I think then
you can limit Utility Subdivision type testimony in the next one. You can structure it
some. It's not that you’re saying that you won't hear them. You will hear them and you
will hear them specifically with regard to this specific site on the 19th
. They can speak to
all of the issues pertaining to that site including the plan that’s up in the back of the
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 38 of 51
room tonight, the text change, all of the stuff pertaining to that one on that evening. I
expect that they’ll be here again like they were the last time.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: What was helpful at the Planning and Zoning Commission level was identifying
the areas that we wanted to hear specifically.
Bird: True.
Nary: If only three, you know if we picked a subject matter that maybe only had five
people then we could hear those five people and move onto the next area. It was
cumbersome for some of the folks to offer testimony because they had to get up two
and three and four times. But, it did allow some structure and it didn’t end up as a free
for all whereas you get to the other end of it trying to figure out how do we make final
decisions on what to do? It won't all seem like a big jumbo soup. So, it was helpful. If we
want to do that that certainly helped in the past. We could identify which areas we’d
want to hear and then as Mr. Bird just said, we’re not limiting people on Utility Sub.
They’ll have the 19th
. If we want to have at some juncture at the end a general
comment, somebody that didn’t fit in those categories but still has a comment that they
want to make they’ll have that opportunity. I’m assuming we’ll have some testimony on
the land use map in general. That certainly is an opportunity for people on the Utility
Sub if they still feel that they haven't made their point and they would like to have some
more testimony, they’ll have an opportunity then. I agree with Mr. Bird. I don’t want the
folks that have a lot of interest in this plan in a different area to feel like you’re never
going to get to mine. I can't guess when that’s going to happen so I don’t know if I can
stay here for five hours and hope that that happens. Maybe we need to figure out which
area specifically we would like to have testimony, explain that in the public notice that
we will be taking testimony in sections. They’re still going to need to come to see when
that section is going to be heard. That way we would have a little structure to it and
make it a little bit more manageable.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Councilman Nary. But I would like to see if we’re going to do that,
Council. We’re waiting for really to get the overlay on the north area. I would like to see
us take from the railroads tracks south and kind of go through that area as the focus
point. Not that we wouldn’t take testimony on other ones but that would kind of be the
focus point on the next one.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 39 of 51
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I know I can look through all this. Steve you probably have information. I don’t
remember what the specific categories that we broke them up into.
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: That might be helpful –
Siddoway: I can elaborate on that a little bit. It did work fairly well with the Commission.
What they did was directed us, staff, what topics they wanted to take testimony on.
They included neighborhood centers as a topic. The urban services planning area was
a big one then. Transportation was one. Schools, recreation, and public services was
another. Public safety, fire and police was one. Then just a general land use category.
We then made up sign up sheets for each of those topics, had people sign up for any or
all that they wished to testify. Then they invited testimony, topic by topic. Frankly the first
night they didn’t get through all the topics but they said okay we did not get through
these topics so these will be first next time and handled it that way. Did you have
specific ideas of categories whether they be topics like this or geographical like you’re
suggesting? You can let us know. We can make up sign up sheets to that effect.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, or Steve, do you think that by area it would work? Do you think we need to
go the subject matter like, --? I like your subject matter like that but I was kind of
thinking about areas too. I mean, if we—can we concentrate on areas.
Siddoway: If I may, I think the subject matter gets people to focus on more than just
the map for one thing. It does bring in some of these other policy issues that we’re
trying to get input on like –
Bird: Yes.
Siddoway: -- public services and et cetera. If you want to split the map into geographic
areas it might work. We would just have to try it and see. I wouldn’t divide it into too
many. Maybe in quadrants or something.
Bird: no.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 40 of 51
Nary: What I think --. I guess the follow up on what Steve just said, I think what would
be helpful is at least some of the (inaudible) so that people who want to talk about the
broader perspective of the plan in those real general areas, recreation. I recognize
there's a park plan coming down. Neighborhood centers, that was hashed out pretty
significantly. They may not have the same level of interest at this point that it did. But I
do think the difference maybe in our hearings is --. My recollection is that when we did
the land use map, we did that as one subject. Then we ended up with a lot of interest
but all over the map. That might be the best opportunity to do just like you’re saying Mr.
Bird is divide it. Whether it's in quadrants or halves or whatever we want to do. But then
too focus on one section at a time. Like I said, whether it's just in quadrants or halves it
doesn’t matter to me. Then we allow people to obviously that want to focus on those
individual areas we could do that a little bit more concentrated. But those that want to
focus on the bigger picture issues to have that same opportunity. So, we can kind of do
both.
De Weerd: So, we should do it an order that works with each other. So, if we do text or
subject type first and the changes that we incorporate in those are going to effect your
land use map.
Bird: That’s right.
De Weerd: So, now, we’ve taken written testimony and individual testimony on
individual parcels. Maybe now we can just delve into the text of it and then see how that
falls into your land use map.
Bird: That’s great.
De Weerd: I like your idea to kind of dissect or section out the community so that when
we get to the land use map we can concentrate on area by area.
Nary: What we were able to do in that is when we got to that, we were able to--. The
planning staff was able to put together a map saying okay based on all of the textual big
picture issues we’ve done how do these requests to change (inaudible). Do they work
or not? So, we had some baseline for these folks to discuss and they said now I would
like my property to be A and not B. then you say, well our text that we’ve already got
says we’re not going to change those things because of these reasons or we are and
that supports that. Either way and that way we had some frame to work around.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think that absolutely sounds great. I don’t want to come across as I don’t want --.
Everybody is entitled to come and testify you know but I think by taking it in halves or
quarters or however you want to do it. Get the text and stuff in there. I think it will be
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 41 of 51
more fulfilling for us plus the people that are doing the --. You know each person;
certain people have got interest in certain sections. You know if you live in a certain
section. I think by breaking that up and taking the text, I think we’ll work a lot better. It
would be a lot clearer for me.
Corrie: Good. Staff, can you work that out? (inaudible) everything in sections then and
the text? We need to set a date for it.
Hawkins-Clark: You’re asking if we can divide them into some topics –
Corrie: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: -- and geographic boundaries? Yes.
De Weerd: Does Council have any suggestions? I mean areas –
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, if you have topics that you know you want we would like to hear
that to make sure we don’t skip those.
Corrie: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: If you want to divide it up geographically, one idea that just came to
mind was south of the freeway, between the freeway and Ustick and north of Ustick.
Bird: That sounds like a winner.
Corrie: That sounds like three sections we can do it Brad?
Bird: That isn't too much is it? I mean, you guys went through –
Corrie: That’s less than from the railroad down and the railroad up.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: I just said south of cherry and north cherry.
Nary: I think if we do those three sections then we’ve certainly --. Some of those areas
aren’t going to change –
Bird: No, that’s right.
Nary: So, it may look like a fairly dense area but there's not a lot of change to it. I
mean, that seems at least the least cumbersome method.
Bird: Lets go for it.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 42 of 51
Hawkins-Clark: It's easier for the public to understand in terms, rather than north of the
railroad tracks and west of Meridian Road and whatever. They might go well I’m not
sure if that’s my area or not.
Nary: (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nary: One suggestion that maybe we’ve talked about tonight a little bit. We may want
to have as a topic that may have a lot of interest is the policies regarding mixed-use, the
definitions of mixed-use. Whether neighborhood centers needs to be a separate
discussion point or that’s part of that doesn’t --. I don’t have a feel for that. Designating
what those things are and what kind of support language you’re looking for to make
those thing is probably an additional topic. We didn’t get a tremendous amount of
people that wanted to talk about concerns with recreation or public uses of that type or
public safety. But, you know if there's only three people there's only three people. At
least it gives that opportunity if they want to do that, to talk about those specific things
and the very general things but they mean a lot to folks. They may have interests in
things that we maybe haven't thought of or talked about yet. So that might be another
area.
Siddoway: For example, it pulled out the one gentleman that wanted to talk about bike
lanes.
Nary: Right.
Siddoway: While he wouldn’t have if we hadn’t brought that up as an issue.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nary: of the topics that we used before I mean, mixed-use policy or you know or
whether or not needs to be a part of that too I don’t know. I think commercial, most
people are comfortable with that designation. I think mixed-use has a little bit different
flavor to it.
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, Councilmen are you asking for us to come back with proposed
break down of all the, what we currently show as mixed-use? Do you want to see that
broken down into two different types of mixed-use with policies? Is that what we’re
hearing?
Bird: I would prefer that if it's not too much.
Nary: I guess my thought is if you think that that’s something that is a viable thing that
you want o present, sure. I don’t know. I guess I am willing to just see what the
testimony is as to whether or not we need to specific or general. I guess some of the
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 43 of 51
Council is saying you know maybe we’d like to see some specific stuff about certain
areas at least.
Siddoway: One thing comes to my mind. There are 16 red notations on this map that
are areas that citizens have asked for that essentially the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not grant. A lot of those were received early in the process. To date, as
far as direct communication to our department, I mean I don’t think we’ve received a lot
of other new things. We had four people at your last hearing that talked about
something other than Ustick and Meridian Road, out of I think we had 22 people testify.
I think there was four. We certainly had the opportunity for them to testify. I guess I’m
wondering the level, it maybe sounds like the level of feedback that you’re expecting
may be greater than what we actually have out there based on what we have received
phone calls to our office. These 16 people that are here, we didn’t hear of them last
week, except for I think two of them. It's a difficult type of thing to publish. We can do
that. The Planning and Zoning Commission did ask us to send a press release to try to
get the word out a little bit more effectively than just the legal ads. If we don’t do that,
based on other things, I’m not sure how much we’re going to receive.
Nary: I don’t know what motivates folks to come. I know it motivates them if it's over
their fence. I don’t know that it motivates them if it's not. I don’t know if the folks that
have requested these changes think it happened. I don’t know. I can't imagine they
think it happened just because they asked for it but maybe they do. I have no idea. All
we can do is make it as public as we can. Some of the folks may come. They may not.
They may be surprised at some point in the future that they think their property is
commercial and it's still residential. I don’t know. There's not a whole lot we can do
about it other than make it as public as we can an invite people to come. Some folks
will, some won't.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: We had created a huge mailing list throughout this process. Have they been
notified that this is at Public Hearing? I mean, that this is in the Public Hearing process?
Siddoway: Not individually through a mailing. Not other than just the standard notices
that are available to everyone in the City.
De Weerd: I don’t know. It may not be a bad idea to send a postcard. They participated.
It's important to get good public comment. I do have a couple of other areas. One is
transportation. That can talk about frontage roads, collector roads and I know one of the
topics with P&Z was cul de sacs and language in the neighborhood centers and that
sort of thing. That could be a category. I had one other one.
Nary: I don’t know a way to frame that any better. I do think transportation is a key
issue. I’m always afraid that we’re going to get a lot of people that our answer to them is
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 44 of 51
going to be we’re not the Highway District. I don’t know that we could help you but I
don’t how to frame that any other way to at least allow kind of opportunity. I would also
say that the Statesman has been very helpful in getting the information out and had a
lot of articles about it. At least people have talked about it. They don’t all come to
meetings and again I don’t know whether or not they’re satisfied with the information
they received. There has been a lot of information publicly in the Statesman and Valley
Times to give people information. They seem to have read it because I get people that
are giving feedback about it.
Corrie: Keith, did you have something?
Borup: I think some of this has been handled. Just maybe some clarification,
information how we did handle it. The topics that choose wasn’t real inventive. We took
the current comp plan and looked at the chapters that’s in it. That’s how the different
categories came about. You know the transportation, schools, rec, public service, fire
and police. Those didn’t get a lot of testimony. But we kind of lumped all those together
and we got through those fairly fast. The first two public hearings took place at the high
school in their auditorium. We needed that much space to handle everything. We got
through all of the public testimony at those first two but it was felt that we wanted one
more chance to get some more people. The third public testimony was held here in
these chambers and it accommodated all of them. Besides the things that were
handled, the chapters that are mentioned in the comp plan, the areas that we knew
would have a lot of input and maybe some were controversial. One was the urban
service planning area so we spent a lot of testimony on that. Our recommendation
came back to eliminate that boundary. I don’t know --. You probably wouldn’t have
anymore testimony on that unless you want to resurrect that. The other two was the
neighborhood centers with a lot of test and then the land use map. One thing I did
maybe want to mention on the land use map. We ended up with only five recommended
changes from what the original map the staff came up with. It looks like we may have
overlooked one, perhaps one on the west side of Five Mile, or Ten Mile. Most of those
other 16 or whoever many there were we just felt that those were almost
micromanaging too much and that maybe the time to look at zoning changes on those
was when they came before the City with and annexation request. We felt that a good
number of those were appropriate changes really but that this is maybe not the time to
look at a specific zoning for those areas. That the time would be when they were
coming forth with an annexation and a specific project in mind as long as the comp plan
didn’t prohibit maybe some of those that looked viable. That’s why we chose not to do
all the little smaller ones. I don’t know if there's any other questions from any Council.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I do have another topic area. Since Mr. Borup reminded me. That would be
growth priority areas and urban services. I guess the recommendation on not
encouraging municipal services or there was some question as to what that
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 45 of 51
recommendation was. I don’t know if it put fear into some of our staff’s heart. It did
mine. That’s definitely and area to discuss.
Borup: I’m not sure if that got in the text but we strongly supported that. The priority
was the White Trunk and the South Slough extension. That those would be the first
ones the City would work on but I think we went beyond that stating that anything else
would have to be developer driven but the City already designated those as their priority
areas.
De Weerd: One last one would be the incentives.
Borup: For the neighborhood centers?
De Weerd: Well, not just for neighborhood centers, you know addressing the mixed-use
areas. I guess that could be built into the conversation with mixed-use neighborhood
centers and incentives. Trying to figure out the conditional use process and how we
could start encouraging something other than what we’ve traditionally received.
Corrie: I guess what we need to do know is when do we want to have these?
Bird: how about the 27th
?
Corrie: The 27th
?
Nary: When does the parks commission meet?
Corrie: Is the parks on the --?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: They’re on Wednesday now?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: So, the 27th
?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: There's the 20th
or the 27th
? (inaudible)
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Bird: Mr. Mayor. We’ve got to give the staff time to –
Corrie: Yes, I would say the 27th
would be better. Staff is that better for you, the 27th
?
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 46 of 51
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: -- bottom third?
Siddoway: That would be fine.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: What the 27th
?
Siddoway: Wednesday the 27th
.
Nary: Mr. Berg went to check that nothing is supposed to be here that night.
Corrie: Okay.
Siddoway: If I may summarize what you want from staff by then. Just to make sure we
understand. We need to come up with sign in sheets for the different topical areas. I
have identified nine. So, let me see if I got this right. Mixed-use policies and their
incentives, neighborhood centers and their incentives. I probably would separate those.
Transportation which would include frontage roads and collector roads. Public safety
issues. Parks and schools, growth priority areas is six. Then three land use categories.
One based on geography, south of the freeway, freeway to Ustick and Ustick to
Chinden.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: (inaudible)
Siddoway: So we can do that. You also would like some proposed language about the
mixed-use areas and how they might be designated with some more specificity for
larger and smaller and –
Bird: Give us some idea Steve what would be workable.
Siddoway: We can do that.
De Weerd: In the transportation, if you will include landscape buffers or requirements.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
De Weerd: Like along Chinden and the major corridors.
Siddoway: Okay. Yes that could be in transportation. It could also be with schools
parks, open space and landscaping.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 47 of 51
De Weerd: I think the thing that has recently come up is just mainly along the state, the
Idaho state highways and what the setbacks are.
Siddoway: Okay.
Corrie: (inaudible)
Siddoway: Landscape buffers, got it.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Bird: I was going to say we’re closed today.
Corrie: Yes.
De Weerd: Can I get together with both of them?
Corrie: The 20th
and the –
Bird: We’re going to have to have another one too.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: The 27th
and the 6th
?
Bird: Yes lets do that.
Corrie: Then when was the --?
Bird: When are you going to have the –
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Bird: Jon, when are you going to have the overlay out on the, was it April?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Bird: Something that we could kind of –
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Bird: AN overlay for the north end.
Corrie: The north section.
Bird: That needs to really be kind of –
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 48 of 51
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: We can have it the 6th
and then maybe the 20th
.
Bird: Yes that would be –
Corrie: That gives you three of them.
Bird: You bet Mayor.
Corrie: People can know what we’re doing, what sections then --. The 27th
, the 6th
and
the 20th
.
Nary: When is spring break?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
De Weerd: Well, we can do a lot of praying maybe we’ll get through it.
(inaudible discussion from staff)
Corrie: You’re going to need a lot.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: If we do that Mr. Mayor we can at least get the press release information out so
the public is aware of the dates and times and those things.
Corrie: Okay. Does that mean, right now, the Council on the 27th
of February, the 6th
of
March and the 20th
of March? And we’ll do the three sections that way? Okay. Hearing
nobody objecting to that.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Okay. Anything else staff, Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 49 of 51
Bird: I would like to go into a short executive session per Idaho code 67-2345 --. I’m
trying to figure out which one is the proper --.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Bird: Lets go with E, section E.
Corrie: Section E? What is that?
Bird: That’s to consider preliminary (inaudible) to trade or commerce (inaudible).
Corrie: Okay. We have a motion to go into executive session subsection E. do I hear a
second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Roll call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Nary, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Corrie: Okay I’ll entertain a motion to come out of executive session.
Nary: I so move.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I believe a motion is in order to pick the dates and times for continued public
hearing on the Planning and Zoning.
Nary: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I was going to move that we continue the Public Hearing on the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan to February 27th
at 6:30 and also that we would include in the
notice that we would continue it also to March 6th
and March 20th
also at 6:30 for public
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 50 of 51
testimony on topics as discussed previously that will be more defined by the Planning
and Zoning staff but public testimony in various topic areas.
Bird: Second it. But I need a question. That is 2002?
Nary: 2002, sorry.
Corrie: stretch this one out?
Nary: Thank you Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, started in 99 didn’t we Steve?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Now, do we do the March (inaudible).
Nary: March 20th
?
De Weerd: Yes march 20th
.
Nary: If nothing else honestly if it's a continued hearing that we decide to, that we’ve
taken all the testimony and we want to simply close the Public Hearing at that time and
discuss it.
Bird: Yes.
Nary: I just want to make sure that our notices reflect that we’ve got three dates that
we’ve talked about. We did have a room full of people that heard that. At least what
public information that we hand out says that we’re going to meet those three days.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Nary: That would be great.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye.
Meridian City Council Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting
February 6,2002
Page 51 of 51
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Anything else to come before the Council? If not, (inaudible).
Bird: I would move we adjourn.
Corrie: Adjourn.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE APPROVED
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK