HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 10-07 PreMeridian City Pre-Council Meeting October 7, 2003
The Pre-Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 5:34
P.M. on Tuesday, October 7, 2003, by City Council President Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, Bill Nary, and Keith
Bird.
Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Brad Watson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Anna Powell,
Gary Smith, Steve Siddoway, Doug Strong, Diane Stewart, and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
O Mayor Robert Corrie
De Weerd: Okay I would like to welcome you all to the Pre-Council Meeting. It’s
October 7th
. We are starting four minutes late at 5:34 and I will ask the City Clerk
to call roll.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Item Number 2 adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we adopt the agenda as published.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it’s been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as
presented. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 3. Continued from September 23, 2003: Discussion with Lee
Centers on Silvercreek Subdivision (fka Powder River
Subdivision):
De Weerd: Item 3 continued from September 23rd
. Discussion from Lee Centers
on Silvercreek Subdivision and we have Dave McKinnon with us. Hi Dave.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 2 of 26
McKinnon: Howdy.
De Weerd: If you’ll state your name and address and then I should swear you in.
McKinnon: Okay it’s Pre-Council. Dave McKinnon my address is 735 Cross
Timber here in Meridian. I’m here again representing Lee Centers. I know that
we’ve talked about, talked about it, talked about it and we’re talking about it
again tonight. It’s about Silvercreek Subdivision. I have had a chance to talk a
little bit with Brad Watson. I don’t know if you all received a copy of his eight-
page memo that he sent back to me. I think he alluded to it at the last meeting
that he would go ahead and send that to you. I don’t know if you all have a copy
of it but if you do have a copy of it I can just go down the red portions, Brad’s
comments. I didn’t have a chance to prepare a great deal of responses so
they’re actually fairly short responses to everything that Brad had. We’re pretty
much in agreement with most everything that Brad said in regards to everything
starting on Page 2. If you guys have that if, you could turn to Page 2 and go to
the Public Works response. It has to deal with the developer Mr. Centers and
ourselves having to pay for the upgrades to Bear Creek lift station that we should
bare the whole cost of those for all the improvements and we’re in agreement
with that. As far as the Public Works response for modeling, we understand that
we would have to pay for the study to do some additional modeling to make sure
this is something that could happen. Down to the water issues, the Public Works
response is that if you require Public Works to do this study we would be happy
to provide another map showing how this would be laid out. On Page 3, still
dealing with other questions and issues. Brad had mentioned in his Public
Works response that we do not want the city – we would leave the city -- the
Council does not feel that there should be an independent water service provider
in this area and we would agree with that. We would be happy to contract with
the city to have the city take care of the well rather than have an outside source
do that. That would of course take some additional working of the legal issues
with Mr. Nichols and with the Council to see if that’s something that Public Works
would like to do. We’re not – the intent is not to bring United Water in and have a
secondary provider. This is something that we would like to do with the city. As
far as developing, the land outside of the area of impact of Nampa and Brad had
mentioned that he would like to see a copy of those contracts. We would be
happy to provide those to Brad so he could review those. Public Works
responses for the first right or refusal on the well and all the comments that have
to do with the well issue just go ahead and lump those all together. I’ve had a
little bit of an opportunity to talk with Lee and to talk with Mr. Nichols your City
Attorney about what we could do with that well site and how we could come up
with an agreement for the city to purchase the well. The agreement that we
handed to Mr. Nichols previously was the type of agreement where we would
provide an independent appraiser to go out and determine the value of the well
and then we could sell the well based on that. In talking with Lee and talking
with Mr. Nichols it’s been determined that it would probably be better to have a
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 3 of 26
set cost for that well and to have some sort of schedule for an interest rate that
would go with that. We’re happy to do that. I’ve talked with Lee about that and
Lee said that that’s something he can definitely work with. We would be willing
to work with the city on an agreement for a purchase price of the well at this time.
Right now, in fact we would be happy to sell it to the city after it’s approved once
this project gets going. After we’ve received approvals for it to sell it to the city at
that time, for whatever it costs that Lee is into it for. There are some comments
that Brad has that also has to deal with the well system. It would be tied to the
gallons per minute, the fire service that 1,100 gallons per minute and the back up
well. We would have to provide the well system based on DEQ and whatever
the Uniform Fire Code requires so that’s something that we will work with and we
have no problem with Brad’s response to that. Onto I believe it’s his Page 5 he
talks about Public Works response and he says taken in order as follows the city
must review and approve all water and sewer plans. We’re happy to have the
city approve all water and sewer plans for this project if you believe that the 14
additional lots would be beneficial to the city in the long run. There are the
questions of dealing with the city’s authority to operate a distinct and separate
water system. Based on the Nampa Agreement there is a city that’s taken that
on. The City of Nampa is dealing with a distinct and separate system and we
believe that is something that the City of Meridian could agree to as well. I
already handled the issue with the Uniform Fire Code that we would have to
meet that. Brad has said that there are no comments regarding the fact that if
the well fails. We pointed out that if a city well fails then the city is responsible for
providing that water. It would be the same sort of responsibility. If Lee were in
ownership at the time it fails, he would be responsible for providing the additional
water and water source. Brad had no comment for that. Again, we are providing
a pressurized irrigation system. Basically the final comment that Brad had was
from the Public Works side was that if the City Council approves the proposal a
Development Agreement would have to be in place. That there be provisions
with Ada County that they not issue Building Permits until all of the agreements
the City of Meridian have been handled and we would agree with that. This is
something that we want to do with the City of Meridian. We’re coming to you to
ask for the City of Meridian’s utilities for sewer and we’re willing to come forward
to pitch in to pay our part for the parks and to pay our part for water and sewer
hookups right now for something that will come in the future. There will be a
monetary gain for the city for this and we understand that even though we’re not
part of the city this would be something that in the future would balance out with
the city because we would be developing this to city standards rather than to
county standards. We think that that’s a benefit to the city because eventually
when the city does get out there we have to look at how the future development
of that area will blend with what’s there right now. If we are allowed to have the
additional 14 lots rather than the 30 lots we go to 44 lots, it would provide a
better balance in the future. We would have the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, the
fire system, sewer system would have a connection already, and a water system
would be in place for the City of Meridian. There could be a smooth transition
straight from city standards to city standards. I have just a couple of additional
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 4 of 26
comments to add to this week. I don’t know if we brought it up a couple of weeks
ago but we have met with Wendell Bigham from the school district. Wendell has
expressed interest in providing an elementary school in that site. Lee is planning
on working with Wendell on providing that site. In talking with Wendell, Wendell
said that right now he doesn’t foresee it in the first phase the 44 lots but in the
future as the subdivision builds out and water and sewer service gets there that
he does intend on working with Lee to secure an elementary school site. I think
that you may have received a copy of a memo from Wendell at the last hearing
but I know it wasn’t brought up during the Public Hearing. I guess I can stop and
ask for some questions right now and just kind of get your mind set and find out
where you guys are all at with the 44 lots the additional 14 from what the county
would allow us to do in a cluster subdivision. Then after we have that
conversation I would ask that I be given just a few more minutes to talk about
another item that ties somewhat directly to Silvercreek. I’ll ask if you have any
questions at this time, and kind of take your temperature on where things are at
with Silvercreek right now.
De Weerd: Council any comments.
McCandless: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: Dave I don’t know whether this is a questions or just a comment.
Even though you’re not in the city you’re out in the county, you’re going to be
using our rather stretched public safety like police and fire. I do know that that
would be the sheriff’s but the people aren’t going to call the sheriff they’re going
to call the Meridian Police for instance or the Meridian Fire because they’re
closer. I’m just wondering what you think.
McKinnon: You bring up a good point. I have talked with Joe Silva about the
additional impact out there. Joe felt that the additional 44 houses would not be
an undo burden onto the Meridian Rural Fire District. I know Kenny is here
tonight and Kenny could probably add to that. He felt that if there was the
redundant fire system out there for 44 homes rather than just individual well and
septic that could be developed in the county that he felt that that would be better
for those 44 homes. He felt that it would not have to go back to his commission
the Fire Department’s Commission. He felt that it wouldn’t be a burden for the
Rural Fire District. As far as Ada County Sheriff’s Department, I haven’t
contacted the Ada County Sheriff’s Department. There are a number of other
subdivisions in that area that deal with Ada County and I believe that there is a
memorandum of understanding of some sort where the two agencies do work
with each other. It may not be a memorandum of understanding and Bill could
probably help me out with the actual legal term for that or this Bill. I was looking
at you and I was thinking this Bill – for that but there is an understanding for them
to work together and it’s basically an agency wide. Boise City works with
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 5 of 26
Meridian, Meridian works with Garden City and so forth and Ada County. It is
stretched but one of the nice things and one of the beneficial things about
Meridian is we don’t see this as a high crime area. We’re looking at a
subdivision that’s not high density. It’s going to be a small subdivision for the
time being 44 additional units is not typically -- provide an additional heavy
burden. We’ll provide a burden but not a heavy burden.
McCandless: Okay thanks.
De Weerd: Well I guess I’ll throw my two cents in worth. My concern is we’re
growing before we have the services out there. It’s being proposed in an area
that is on a separate trunk line. There is some capacity that was created by Bear
Creek and I’m concerned about the Pandora’s boxes will open. If we do it for
this and what actually Lee is gaining are 14 houses by doing it. We would gain
44 houses at city subdivision standards, which is always nice. Twenty nine of
those are going to be built regardless so really we’re looking at this over 14
houses to assure them being built to our current Subdivision Ordinance. What
do we risk by doing that? We open it up to other property owners who say well
you do it for them. We’re on a different trunk line as well but we have similar
investments and circumstances but we would like to do this as well. Where does
it stop? Where does the city say our services are not there yet? I believe that
we had asked Public Works to try and put together a timeline of when services
can be out there which most likely would be in line with the road improvements
we hope with the Ten Mile Interchange that we could really accommodate some
of the impacts that growth in that area will add to our community. I guess that’s
how I’m weighing this is what do we gain and what potentially do we lose. We do
have a letter here of four other property owners that are looking to do something
of the same type of development and I think we would just be stretching our
services way too thin. We’re not ready to grow there. We cannot limit what they
would have available to them in the county which is great. They went into it like
that. I don’t see even if we take them out of our area of impact and I know we’ve
had the conversation. If we take them out of the area of impact, they still could
do 29 houses. There is no benefit gained in that either. It’s just an area of our
community that we don’t have services out to yet and I think it would be worth
our staff time to spend some evaluation to find out when those services will be
available. At least when we will get – in 2005 we’ll have the sewer to Ten Mile
and from there it’s been determined that it can be developer driven. Then it’s in
the development community’s hands at that point. That is fair that is fair market.
At this point, I think we’re pushing something way before it’s time to get 44
houses into our Subdivision Ordinance that potentially had huge potential of
growing into more than 44 houses. If we don’t have good solid rational for what
we’re trying to do. I guess that’s the comments that I have.
Bird: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 6 of 26
Bird: On the fire and safety I have no problem with that David because the 20.21
that you’re going to pay to the rural district in your mill levy every house is going
to pay is more than sufficient. I believe if you look at their agreement and the
city’s Joint Power Agreement with them that we have to – we take care of that
that’s no problem. The Sheriff’s Department takes care of the police work at this
point. The way all the – evidently we haven’t got some problems solved on that
that I have questions on. I have a real concern with the sewer. As far as I’m
concerned, that sewer Bear Creek or nobody else is going to get anymore on
that because we’ve got people down the line from there that’s been in the city for
years that haven’t got sewer hooked up. I mean we have a whole industrial park
out there on Franklin that needs to come back and be sewered in that trunk line
there. I’m like Councilwoman de Weerd on that I think Lee’s got a great deal out
there. I think he’s worked on everything but that sewer is a real stopper as far as
I’m concerned. I just don’t – I’m not for putting anything in that trunk line that
isn’t on that trunk line. We made an exception on Bear Creek and whether that’s
right, wrong or indifferent we have some people down the line that if they brake
loose and get going they’re going – and they should demand it you know. That’s
the one hold up on my part. Other than that, I have no problem with your deal.
It’s just that sewer and we certainly don’t want to Kentucky Ridge sewer system
out there. That’s the one – that’s my one hang up is the sewer system out there.
I’m not for dumping anything into that other line that isn’t on that line and 44
houses I realize isn’t the real big massive dump but it is. You get 44 pretty soon
then you’re going to want another 15 another 20 here and pretty soon it’s a full
blown subdivision. I would be in favor of it if we could work something out on the
sewer but I’m not for putting it in the existing trunk line.
Nary: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Centers had called me last week I guess to tell me something about
this. When I called him back, it said error his mailboxes were full so I wasn’t then
able to try to call it back but I couldn’t leave him a message that I returned his
call. You know it sure sounds good. You’ve done a very good job Mr. McKinnon.
It sounds good. I mean even today not only do we have all these questions
answered and everything but also even, we have a school. Wow, that’s great.
How many times have we said well, we’re not sure? Someone says I want a
school and then there’s frosting so let’s have that. I guess I am concerned but
I’m really trying to I guess like everyone else weigh the balance of saying okay to
this development and what Council President de Weerd has raised on the issue
of other developers with similar concerns. I think that Council Member Bird has
raised a valid point as well on the issues of the sewer and how we deal with that.
I don’t know whether it’s better to have this or to essentially end up with 29
houses like Kentucky Ridge. That’s what I think is also the other potential if we
just said we’re not interested in this at this time. I think you’ve really done your
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 7 of 26
homework here and I think you’ve really answered a lot of the questions. I guess
I don’t have an answer to that anymore than I did the last few weeks. I just don’t
know. It certainly has some very positive attributes that you’re asking to do and
what concessions you’re asking to have them. I think there are some pluses that
we’re looking at here that are some benefit for the city. I guess the one thing that
keeps coming back in my mind and I think Council Member McCandless sort of
said that as well is you know we spend a lot of time talking about growth and we
talk about growth from the inside out. We talk about trying to make sure we don’t
stretch our services too far all at once and we certainly have – I don’t know if
people would look around and say oh the growth to the north is growing inside
out but it is. We are certainly pushing the envelope on our services as well. This
is just – this one is a tougher one because it really is trying to develop this whole
island out there that makes it a little harder to really justify the sayings we have
with some of the other growth. Probably the one thing that really sticks for me is
that the potential for annexing this property into the city is still pretty tenuous.
That’s what I guess concerns me is that for it to really just be – if you guys
bought Kentucky Ridge and then made it adjacent then we’re pretty good. That’s
what makes it tough is just getting there to get this in the city on our system
without it being some agreement that’s out there in the wind for years to come
and again trying to deal with all of these other issues of growth surrounding this
little island. That just makes me nervous. I guess I’m not saying that that’s a
reason to say no it just makes me nervous. I’m not sure – we tried to make sure
we kept this in the forefront of our discussion but I’m not sure what answer we
can give you tonight anymore than we could two weeks ago.
McCandless: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: That’s the other thing that I was thinking Dave is that it’s max of
growing from the outside in rather than from the inside out, which we have
always said, that’s what we wanted to do. It’s establishing precedent is what it’s
doing.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Oh I just basically was going to say what Councilwoman McCandless said
is we’re jumping over a lot of people. I happen to know some people that live
there that would love to be brought into the city their own little houses and stuff.
Until we get the trunk line out there to hook up to the sewer the right sewer trunk
line I have a real problem. I’m like Mr. Nary right now. I think you guys have got
a great plan there but that sewer system is just a hang up. The water – I think
we’ve got the well problem solved. The sewer I don’t know. To me it isn’t solved.
As I stated earlier, I’m not for putting anymore sewer in that trunk that we haven’t
got because that isn’t the proper place for that sewer to go.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 8 of 26
McKinnon: Can I throw you guys all a curve real quick? In Ada County under
the cluster development, they will allow one to 1.25 acre parcels in the RUT zone
that’s the 29 houses that we talked about. Once you take out right of way, open
space, and well type requirements you’re basically looking at 37 of those acres
would be tied up if we could go with one acre and 1.25-acre parcels of land. On
those 1.25 acre parcels of land they could go individual septic per county
ordinances as long as there is dry line sewers out to the street for future
connection to the sewer system when the sewer system comes in. If we were to
develop that with one acre to 1.25 acre parcels and the reason why we would
stick to 1.25 is because that’s the maximum size you can go in an RUT zone for
a cluster lot on an individual septic and still provide a well for that. It would
require that the remainder of that subdivision the remaining 100 and some odd
acres of the subdivision remain undeveloped so that in the future it could come in
as urban densities once the services come there. Would that be something that
you would be wiling to entertain if we take the sewer out of the equation?
De Weerd: Anyone care to comment? I guess I don’t think it changes anything.
It’s still growing from the outside in. It’s still opening up other similar requests. I
don’t think that the infrastructure is prepared to accommodate that growth at this
time. I think it needs to have further direction on staff on what services are going
to be out there, when they’re going to be out there or available to extend.
McKinnon: Are you the only one. Does anybody else have comments?
Nary: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary and then we need to move on.
Nary: Yes. I understand what you’re saying Dave I don’t know that would make
it better. I guess what makes it difficult for me is that I think I was the one that
earlier said maybe we need to reconsider having this in our area of impact.
Because I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to Mr. Centers to have this property that
is being made more difficult all the time to be able to do something with it. I
certainly don’t want us to be in the road of that either. I do appreciate both
though as I said in you asking and Mr. Centers being really pretty
accommodating in trying to say look basically anything you guys want I’ll try to
make it work. We’ll figure it out and we’ll make it happen I just don’t want you to
oppose it is what he’s asking. The alternatives that can be done there aren’t
necessarily better. I guess that’s the one thing that sort of sticks in my mind
although I don’t like supporting development from the outside in. I don’t like
necessarily pushing our services to the limit that this I think kind of does. I don’t
necessarily think it’s better to what the alternatives that can be done without our
approval. I don’t see the county really caring that much about our approvals. I
see the alternatives to being not as good. I guess I don’t know. I guess I’m not
as adversed to it maybe as my colleagues up here because I don’t think we’re
going to get a lot more cooperation or the like from the other property owners
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 9 of 26
that we’re asking for. If we get that level of cooperation, I’m not that concerned
about that Pandora’s box. I think if people were going to be that accommodating
for the needs that we have I guess I’m just like I said concerned about Mr. Bird’s
concern as well on the sewer. I don’t think the alternatives are better so I think
what you’re trying to do is pretty worthwhile I just don’t know how we get there.
Bird: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would echo those words that Mr. Nary just said. I don’t – I think the
alternatives are worse to be truthful in my personal opinion. I just – Dave and
Lee – you know he’s got every right to develop that as he sees fit because it is
that. It’s his own property and stuff like that. I’m like Mr. Nary I don’t believe that
Ada County really gives a hoot of what we think. They’re going to do it how they
feel right. As I said earlier my one real big hang up is that sewer is the sewer out
there. Other than that, you know I would have very little problems.
De Weerd: Well Dave this went on longer than anticipated so I hate to cut it off
but we do need to get onto these other items. You can continue working with
staff or you can put in your application and do what you need to do.
McKinnon: Understood thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Item 4. Revitalization Area Marketing Strategy Discussion:
De Weerd: Okay Item Number 4 is the revitalization area marketing strategy
discussion and we’ll start that off with Steve.
Siddoway: Thank you Madam President de Weerd and Members of the Council.
We are here tonight to talk about the market strategy that is currently under way
for the Urban Renewal Area. I’m going to give just a brief background to refresh
your memory. Where we have been, where we are now, and where we think
we’re headed. I’m going to turn the bulk of the time over to Mr. Tom Hudson our
consultant who’s working on the project. Our hope tonight is to gather input from
the City Council Members on key issues facing the downtown, ideas,
opportunities, and things that you feel we need to be sure to address as we
undertake this effort. First of all, you’ll recall that in December of last year we’ve
finalized and had adopted by the State Tax Commission our Urban Renewal
Area and the Urban Renewal Plan. That Urban Renewal Area is outlined in the
black line on the screen basically running from the freeway interchange at
Meridian Road on south up to Fairview on the north and what was once a
straight 4th
to 4th
description now meanders around but follows that basic pattern.
In the spring of this year, we pulled together several MDC folks, community
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 10 of 26
leaders, and others and set some priorities for what needed to happen next. The
top priority next step was a market strategy for this area. You can figure out how
our Urban Renewal Area as a city can compete with local and regional markets.
What role it should fill, and what are the nitches that we should be pursuing et
cetera. That in a nutshell is the goal of the process that we are undertaking. To
that end, the MDC put together an RFP, went through an interview selection
process, and hired the Hudson Company as the selected consultant to take this
process on. I would like to give you just a brief overview of that process on if you
could put the other sign up. We anticipate that this process will be approximately
six months. We are in the very first phase the initial data collection, research and
interviews. We have finalized the contract. We had the kick off meeting on
Monday of this week with a steering committee of about seven met folks who are
active in downtown issues. They have been doing on site market research over
the past couple of weeks. Since Monday, yesterday and today they have been in
hourly interviews with different property owners, business owners, and different
people. We have about 30 of them set up over the three days between
yesterday, today, and tomorrow. They are in town until Friday collecting data.
Not that I need to go through every line but they have over the life of the project
planned five visits to Meridian. Just as a forewarning we will want to get the
consultant in front of the Council when they come to town to update the Council
on the process, check in and just make sure that we continue to stay on the right
track. I guess with that, I will stand now for any questions you might have and
turn some time over to Tom Hudson.
De Weerd: Okay thank you Steve. Any questions?
Hudson: Madam President and Members of the Council it is truly a pleasure to
get now finally the opportunity to come and speak with you. Although briefly
tonight I want to emphasize that our approach is one very much of being
collaborative. As you have heard from Steve, we have started this week formally
with a series of interviews with people from a wide range of backgrounds. We’ve
heard from our steering committee and from members of the MDC that we do
indeed have quite a range of views representing the people that we’re talking to
so far. We can bare that out so far today. We’re enthusiastic about that partly
because that’s – we’re trying to be grounded. We want to know what the range
of views are in the community and partly because we’ve been so impressed with
the variety of ideas most of which are highly complimentary to each other. In
terms of ends, I think most of the citizens that we’ve been speaking with are of
similar mind. I think the differences tend to be more on means how do we get
there. On that we can help I think make the process much more objective. I
think in many ways we’re in the same business and that is minimizing the
emotion behind issues and maximizing the good facts and insides that can help
make a decision best for the community. We’re starting off well. I would like to
introduce our other principal of the firm Jerry Wallace who is with me today.
Jerry was with you a little over a week ago as was another member of our firm.
We’ve been hitting the ground running. I think you may have heard that
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 11 of 26
message from us in this sense that we’ve done a great deal of research already
here in your community. We’ve also been out visiting in Nampa, Caldwell, Kuna,
Eagle, Boise and getting a sense of what kinds of competition there is out there.
What kind of complimentary opportunities there are and also looking within your
own community at everything from circulation to things like sense of place. I feel
like we’re well on our way to getting grounded. Tomorrow we will continue with
interviews and then Thursday follow up with more targeted conversations with
city staff and other people in the community and elsewhere in the Treasure
Valley who have insights that can help us be let’s say a most focused
strategically on what are our issues and what are our alternatives. There are a
few words that I think are most important to think about in what we’re trying to
accomplish. One of those is we want to do this in a collaborative manner so that
we’re building a system that a broad cross section of your leadership in the
community both public sector and private sector can embrace. Whatever we
may be doing in the public sector ultimately, the vast majority of implementation
over time in a downtown revitalization process has got to be with a private sector.
We have to make a great deal of sense out of the vast variety of information
that’s out there some thick, some thin, and be economically rational. Economic
rationality isn’t’ just saying highest and best use we’re talking about community
here. You know you are truly one of the nations high growth communities and at
the same time that offers I think a substantial challenge about how do you
sustain connection with the people who are new here and the people who have
been here for some time. That connection is as much about this society as it is
about the economy. Yet, I don’t know as an economic development specialist
how to take those two apart. I would advise that maybe we shouldn’t do that. I
think it’s very important for us to think about citizens not just as markets or
customers but also as co-owners of the place. We take that particular issue very
seriously. How do we work with you Members of the Council and city staff in
moving this process forward in a way that continues to build a stronger and
stronger sense of connection between the people in this community, the
business members of the community, our non-profit organizations or other
institutions, the schools, the churches that are here and city government. That’s
a priority that we bring as I hope you don’t see it as a bias but as a good
inclination and we stand let’s say ready to be accountable and also to be guided.
Our primary reason in fact for being here tonight and expressing some of these
kinds of perspectives is to ask for your guidance precisely. Are there issues that
you think that are very important for us to address as we work on the downtown?
Are there other issues that you think we need to make sure we don’t do at this
time or certain things that we don’t do you see what I mean. We want to
understand your priorities as we move forward because in effect we are
representing you as we move toward a marketing system and strategy that
makes the most sense for the community. One other thing I would say about
marketing and then I would like to turn this to you is that marketing isn’t about
demand it’s about the right match between supply and demand. In marketing we
need to look at the price and the contents of the place as well as what you have
as priorities for that place. They may be social priorities, cultural priorities, or
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 12 of 26
civic priorities that are not necessarily economic but they’re still about place and
the product that is the supply of the things that we have. Then understand the
various potential markets that are out there for the range of things that you might
be able to do. Since we’re talking about futures to a great extent we’re talking
about creating, building things that aren’t here and enhancing those things that
have the opportunity to match well. Both your values and the demand that’s out
there so that ultimately you’ve got something that’s highly sustainable in the
downtown in serving both your local and your regional priorities. Are we on track
so far? Any concerns about kind of our general sense of where we’re going.
De Weerd: No but I would have a question. Our next agenda item is discussion
of design standards and I think that there’s a lot of overlap there. How is that
going to work within what you’re doing, what they have been working on, and
where they’re at right now.
Hudson: Madam Chairman I don’t want to be too presumptuous because I’m not
entirely familiar with all the elements of the design standards planning process.
I’ll give you my perspective and this is what I’ve shared with the steering
committee. Design standards are about creating a framework for future
development. As a framework in affect, it builds capacity to do certain things and
limits capacity to do others. Consequently, design standards are highly strategic.
I think many, many communities have made the mistake of creating design
standards out of the context of understanding what they really want to
accomplish and also out of the context of understanding the implication the
various implications of those design standards. To give you an example, I’ve
worked for the City of Seattle and also for King County which is the county in
which Seattle is home on design standards and found that what they intended to
do with their design standards was far from what was actually being
implemented. In the City of Redmond which I think has many, many things in
common with you in terms of where you are today versus where they were in
about 1985 Redmond, Washington on the east side of Lake Washington. I’ve
worked with that city for about three and a half years on building the strategic
design program to turn it in to the community that it’s become. When we first
started there the design guidelines in the four downtown zones were such that in
three of the four downtown zones you could not develop any property with any
kind of profit potentially. In fact, through our very detailed calculations we found
that a property owner would have to pay somebody to take his or her property in
order for that person to make a profit on it. It was so constraining. For example,
four area ratios, building heights, setbacks, and that could be front and side
setbacks. They had parking per thousand square feet that was out of sync with
reasonable expectations in a downtown. Each of those and many other factors
had a strong impact on the economic capacity to succeed. They had not ever
been interpreted. Consequently, the fastest growing town in the entire pacific
northwest Redmond home of Microsoft and Nintendo for eight years running had
one Building Permit in the downtown a very large downtown. It was for a bank
that had more presence need that it did economic need if you see what I mean.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 13 of 26
They wanted that more presence in that particular core. There wasn’t one
economically rational business in eight years that built a new building in the
downtown. Why because of design guidelines. I think that there are two facets
to the question. The first is what do you want the downtown to be and make
sure that your design guidelines are highly complimentary to that in strategic
ways. That’s everything like I said from building heights to massing to setbacks
you know what I mean by setback. For example, if you want a town that doesn’t
have a major shadow impact on the street it doesn’t feel like it’s overwhelming
more of a rural feel you may still able to accomplish that by let’s say going two or
three stories. Then stepping back the fourth story so it’s not even visible from
the street but you still give the developer the capacity to let’s say pay for the land
that’s underneath the place and make it more developable. Ends versus means
kinds of issues are very important in this and if the design guidelines are not
conceived in, a manner that’s consistent with both of the overall strategy and
also economic reality I think it can be let’s say unsuccessful. What we have
suggested is that we proceed with this marketing strategic development planning
and in quick order provide as much insight as possible on the kinds of issues that
could influence design then let them proceed, as they will. We’re not proposing
to create obstacles but rather to create let’s say more insight in the process.
De Weerd: Good thank you.
Hudson: You’re welcome.
Bird: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom what percent of the interviewees that you’re doing down here on for
the economic development are actual business round owners?
Hudson: We have so far about 30 and we haven’t finished all the interviews.
Some of the people I’m not totally familiar with so I can’t give you an exact
estimate. So far I interviewed yesterday and today my impression is that either
business owner or property owner or resident which is they could be a property
owner as a resident including that. Certainly over 50 percent. I can’t say
precisely it could be 80 percent.
Bird: (Inaudible) list I had on my – they must have changed the list big time that I
got on my email because I don’t think there was 10 percent of actual property
owners on that. My concern is that we get to the people that we’re going to ask
to spend the money to do. I like your explanation on design things like economic
feasibility. You brought up a very, very good point that we want to make sure we
don’t design our downtown out of the market which like you said Redmond did.
We want to make sure we don’t do that so I’m glad you brought that up.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 14 of 26
De Weerd: Keith when the names list came out Steve asked for input and he did
get some comments back with some names suggested and those names were
filled in.
Siddoway: That’s true Madam President and Council Member Bird there were
changes to the interview list. We agree that the need to talk directly to property
owners, business owners, and downtown residents is paramount. We’ve
modified that list to I could get an exact count but I would bet that it’s at least 70
or 80 percent property owners.
Hudson: Madam President.
De Weerd: Yes.
Hudson: Councilman Bird I would also offer that I am in full agreement with your
position on this. I would like to offer a precise example of how to fail in
something like this. This past year our firm which is very consistently community
oriented in its approach in planning and highly engaging spent – has spent a lot
of time engaging the individual property and business owners found that our firm
was the only let me start that again. There are only two communities in the state
that got downtown community development block grants this year. Both of them
were towns that we have worked in. As it happened I’m a little uncomfortable
saying this but one town that didn’t get it was Moscow where I’m from. While I
hadn’t worked, there I was still disappointed, I spoke to two members of the
Idaho Economic Development Board, and they said that one of the primary
reasons that –
***End Of Side One***
Hudson: -- success was that they did not actively engage the downtown
property owners in their planning for downtown improvements. It’s astonishing
that that actually happened so it won’t be effective here locally because you
won’t get people to come out and support ultimate planning. It also won’t be
effective in attracting outside resources. I would urge all of us to think in terms of
engagement and make sure that we understand the priorities of the downtown
property and business owners.
Bird: Great Tom thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions or comments? I don’t think you have gotten a
whole lot from us on what we envision but – and was that what you wanted
tonight? Share your vision Council.
Nary: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 15 of 26
Nary: I guess I thought that was our vision that you involve the people who are
going to spend the money in the discussion. I guess I’m not a marketing person
but I think that’s – I guess that’s what I would envision what you’re doing is
exactly what we would want is involving those property owners, business owners
and the like. What particular types of things I guess I don’t know. I’m thinking
part of what we’re getting is ideas, options and alternatives and then we’ll have
that opportunity to discuss those types of things. I think what you’re doing right
now is exactly what should be done. Asking the people who are going to be the
most effected first hand initially to have their input.
Bird: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Mr. Nary on that deal Tom. I think you guys what you are
doing is the first step that we need to find out. I think you’re economic
development survey is going to even help the standards on the design. I can
see that you know after – I believe what you said about Redmond. I believe we
can take ourselves completely out of the picture if we don’t use some common
sense. You are doing that and evidently, we have got the guys that we’re going
to ask to put the money out the business owners or the landowners. I feel what
you’re doing right now is what we have to have done first to find out which route
we’re going to go and how we go. It’s not which route we go its how we go
what’s the best way to go. What do we need to do to attract businesses down
here? We don’t need to have a 1964 to 1992 or three Boise that says vacant
and that’s what we don’t want here. We have enough vacancy just by normal
aspects as to go down there and cause vacancies. I think this that we have,
Councilwoman de Weerd, and I have a little advantage because we are on the
MDC Board too. We felt that this kind of a study that you’re putting this has got
to be the first thing done. I believe what you come back with is going to tell us a
lot of the ways how we’re going to go do the redevelopment.
De Weerd: I guess I would just add a couple of things in. In past forums parking
has always been an issue. The railroad certainly the railroad right of way is a
major part of our redevelopment area. Its markability because of the situation in
leasing property from the railroad entity probably creates a lot of doubt on what
we can affect in that area. I don’t know if you’re analysis is going to give us
some further insight to that or what options are. I see that we have somewhat of
an action plan and work plan, which is great because we will need a step-by-step
type of plan in place to start implementing some change. Certainly, don’t want to
ignore what has already started, is underway, and was started with Generations
Plaza and the two buildings surrounding that. What is being proposed I think
that’s coming up on Planning and Zoning’s Agendas with the bank proposal with
the gray field study with the EPA grant that we received on the old creamery?
There are some activities that are currently underway that certainly need to be a
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 16 of 26
part of it and I’m sure they will be. I guess finally an issue that continues to come
up because there isn’t’ anything yet – because there was no solid solution years
ago when they decided no to one way streets. That is going to be a primary
issue in what work you will be doing. Certainly probably what you hear from the
people that you’re talking with. Parking and traffic circulation is our key.
Hudson: Madam President I can say that already we’re seeing that especially
the circulation issue is a very hot topic. If you would like we could spend just a
few minutes on that tonight but I know you have an agenda for other things. We
have heard about parking. I would like to just address your point directly about
your hope to have these things incorporated. We will certainly be addressing at
the general level needs with regard to circulation and connection in the
community. We will identify priorities for parking but because this is let’s say a
bramble so to speak to a master plan that is coming up we will not be getting in
to things like parking counts and precise locations and design issues. Where
should they be how should they look, on street off street et cetera and parking
per thousand or parking densities in different parts of town including parking
garages. We’ll speak to those fairly generally at this time though it’s our
inclination to be more detailed as you can probably guess. With regard to the
railroad, we will certainly be talking about opportunities to integrate the railroad
as an asset into the community’s future as a set of goods and services in places.
Very exciting to be thinking about what can it be. Especially in the context of
what has it been in your past. It would be impossible not really to think of it as a
strategic part of our future marketing development planning. Would you like to
hear a couple of comments about circulation and the one way at this time?
De Weerd: You bet. If you dare.
Hudson: Well no one will accuse me later on of ducking issues will they? We
know that this is a complication and we’ve seen it many times before. One of the
good things that I can say to is that we are highly familiar with highway oriented
circulation through downtowns around the US west. We’ve worked in over 100
communities in all of the US west states except Utah. As a result, we have quite
a bit of experience in dealing with things like couplets or not couplets, alternative
methods of moving transportation in and around the community. I would be – I
should be fire immediately if I was to come to you tonight with a pat answer on
what you ought to do. This is a highly complicated issue and we respect the
variety of views that are out there. Nevertheless, I do think that we have a
perspective that could be helpful as you contemplate your alternative. First and
foremost is that we would ask you and all people engaged in this process what is
the primary role of the downtown. What is its purpose in your future? Now of
course we’re being asked to deal with that from a marketing point of view but
let’s just step back then and say in general what is the role of the great
downtowns in the world. In small places, large places alike. If you look at the
grand history of downtowns or let’s say city centers you, go back thousands of
years and you find that in general, they are the civic or social, cultural, civic,
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 17 of 26
religious, commercial, residential and in some places, people say even the
spiritual center of community. Center is the key and when you think about
centeredness and roles of the center think about what do you need to do to
make those ideal places the best downtowns you’ve ever thought of that exist
today or existed in history. What makes them great and I think primarily they are
great places to be. By that, I mean your presence there tends to be pedestrian
oriented. It tends to be a place where at least in current times you get out of
your car, you walk around, and you engage in a variety of different activities. You
engage in them safely, comfortably. There’s an issue of magnetism. In many
places, the downtown is definitional about the overall welfare and health of the
community. We often use it as a witness test ourselves. If the downtown is
doing very well probably, the town is doing very well. Alternatively, if the
downtown is not there may be problems coming or already arrived. In your own
community how many of your citizens are from here originally versus how many
are relative newcomers and what do they hold in common. Where do your
citizens enact their citizenship? Where do they congregate where do they get
together today and in the future? How do you make your future and current
newcomers feel like they’re a part of the community. The answer in the great
communities of the world the great downtowns in history because that’s where
people bond. That’s where people do all of those things the social, cultural, civic,
religious and entertainment as part of social. All those things are going on in
some way. Then what’s the best way to make that happen? As a result of that
kind of contemplation, circulation becomes a critical item. It’s no wander that
your citizens are thinking about this. I would offer that some citizens are
probably thinking about this at the macro level. That is the whole community.
How do we get around the community and they may be having circulation
priorities. I can say to you that you’ve hired me to have downtown priorities do
you see what I mean. That I ought to be thinking on your behalf about how do
we do our best possible job of making the downtown a highly viable place in
those areas of centeredness that you think are appropriate and that are viable
within the market place. In that context, it’s difficult for me to avoid even at this
early stage saying that you need to contemplate how do you make it a great
place to get to. In our conversations with the steering committee, we’ve said that
you know there are really two types of roads. There are roads that get you
through places and there are roads that get you to places. A through road is
engineering a transportation engineering solution to a circulation conduit flow
volume of traffic problem or set of problems. To orientation is about connection
to place. Those are different priorities that ought to have different people in
charge in general. I work with many engineers one of whom is one of my closest
friends on the planet and he would be the first to say don’t put a transportation
engineer in charge of your traffic flows in your downtown. Put them on the team.
Have them – be close in advice. We’re not talking about transportation efficiency
here we’re talking about centeredness here. We’re talking about the vitality and
the viability of a core. In short, what I would recommend is that you contemplate
as Council and as a community what are your top priorities for moving forward
with a downtown that is what you vision for. We’re here in part to help with that
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 18 of 26
vision but part of it’s going to be you telling us what do you think is your vision of
the future. What are your priorities there? Then let us look with those kinds of
ends in mind at the various alternative methods of moving traffic around the
community and to certain places then measure those alternatives against your
priorities in objective ways. It’s everything from costs to flows to issues of
pedestrian safety and so on. What we found in many other communities is you
minimize the emotion and you maximize the objective debate. I think then
people can disagree on the issue of ends rather than getting lost on the issues of
means and not knowing whether or not other alternative means may have
accomplished the same kind of mission. In the case of Colville, Washington, two
quick examples and then I’ll conclude. Colville, Washington was the town that
we were told debated their future of their highway and a possibility of couplet for
two and a half decades. There’s a social bloodletting. We went through this kind
of a process there and at the end we were at 95 percent agreement on the
alternative that we with the community collaboratively developed. That
alternative was not something that was raw and up on the surface on the first
day of investigation. It also allowed for transition of the economy because as
you know circulation impacts the economy so over time different types of
businesses get used to certain types of circulation patters. If you make changes,
you need to accommodate those changes in a hopefully transitional way. That’s
pretty dramatic. Everybody was looking around the room the night that they
voted on this wandering how they could have possibly been in such agreement
after so many years of contesting the subject. In the case of Chewelah,
Washington we had a much more debatable issue. There were six different
alternatives that had been debated to the point where people were no longer
talking to each other. Put it through their residential area, put it along the railroad
track, do it all the way around the town. You know circumvent all of the
businesses that are here. There were many different alternatives. Again, this
kind of process led to a 98 percent agreement on the night that there was voting
in the public in a public meeting. It was absolutely remarkable. I can’t promise
you that kind of unanimity but I can say that by objectifying the process you’ll
minimize the emotion and make this much more comfortable as a decision that
benefits the most of the people giving your expressed priorities. In short, I think
there are processes out there that can help you through this very difficult process
of making a decision.
De Weerd: Thank you. That was a great answer. One that will not be easy to
answer or get to but we need to. Council any further questions or comments?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. We enjoy your enthusiasm and we think that you
certainly will be able to pull out some great insight from the people that are
invested in this area and be able to tie that to a lot of the creative and energetic
ideas that are out there. There has been some real exciting things that have
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 19 of 26
already happened it’s just a matter of tying them all together and seeing how
marketable and practical they are. Thank you very much for coming.
Hudson: Thank you. Madam Chairman and Members of the Council we’ll work
hard for you I promise. We will be accountable. Let us know if you have
concerns along the way. We want to try to adjust and accommodate all of your
thoughts, guidance, and good ideas. We’re saying that to every person that
we’re working with. We’re leaving our cards. We’re saying please get to us tell
us what you’re thinking so that this is a collaboration that ultimately ends up with
what Councilman Bird shared with us earlier and that is people in the know who
have an understanding and a sense of ownership for the ultimate
recommendations that are to be made. That will be the difference between
another plan on the shelf and implementation. Thank you very much for your
time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you Tom and Jerry we appreciate – Tom and
Jerry isn’t that fun. We appreciate you joining us.
Item 5. Discussion of Design Standards in Downtown Core:
De Weerd: Now Council we do have other agenda items. Steve I guess I would
ask you. We wanted to take advantage of having the consultants and extending
that conversation. Is this something that we can do next week? Is it a timely
issue can we put this on our Regular Agenda or the Park’s discussion?
Siddoway: We certainly could do it next week. I also feel like why don’t we let
them go first and see what time they take. I had down 20 to 30 minutes or
something but given the discussion that we just had, I think we can pair that
down to about 10 minutes. We may be able to get through everything yet. Let’s
go ahead and let’s Park’s go first.
De Weerd: Is that okay with the rest of the Council?
Bird: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move then that we take Agenda Item Number 6 and move it in front
of Item Number 5.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it’s been moved and seconded to hear 6 before 5. All those in
favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 20 of 26
Item 6. Presentation of New Park Impact Fees – Doug Strong:
De Weerd: Okay Doug you’re up. Presentation of new park impact fees.
Strong: Thank you Madam President Members of the Council. Actually, this
item shouldn’t take very long. This is information that when you passed the
recent Park Action Plan the Comprehensive Plan update there’s information
about impact fees in that in that chapter. What we’re looking for is just your basic
understanding of what we’re asking for in the impact fees and the changes to the
impact fees so that we can move it to a public meeting date so it can become
effective.
De Weerd: Doug this went through the commission I believe a number of times
is that correct? Have they looked at this and acted on it?
Strong: Yes it’s been through the Park Commission it’s also -- we had an impact
fee committee that’s had a final meeting on it and it’s passed out of that
committee. We have one letter of support from the Builder’s Association I
believe. I don’t have that letter with me. It looks like we have general consensus
that this is where it needs to go. I guess the place to start is that the impact fee
hasn’t been changed since 1996, which it was first, put into effect of April – I
think April 1, 1996. Did all of you get the same PowerPoint presentation with this
week’s agenda? It mentioned the current impact fees were passed. They were
established in 1996. They have not changed since that time. Those fees by the
way but they’re not shown here for single-family dwelling were $481.65 and for
multi-family $370.50, that’s what we’re currently collecting. The proposed
changes to the fees we’ve changed those amounts to $667 for single-family and
$607 for multi-family. That’s the important information. That change or that
difference for single-family is an additional $185 more or less and for multi-family
$236 change in the amount collected from previous. The calculations are shown
here how we go through calculating the amounts for community parks. I’m not
going to spend time on that. Then the neighborhood park share and then
proportionate share is calculated. Then less a general fund share to come up
with the $667 and the $607. We’ve also added an administrative fee of $20,
which will be collected and used to update the Park Comprehensive Plan and the
capital improvement portion of that plan into the basic impact fee. That’s how we
arrived at it without a lot of discussion about all the parts that go into that. That’s
what we would like to move forward with so that we can begin collecting those
fees.
De Weerd: Well I think we just need to get this on the agenda and move
forward. It’s been long time coming. I know there’s been a lot of work and sure
appreciate the committee that was put together and all the users that – the
partners that came to the table and helped make sure that this was realistic,
defendable and someone they could all buy into.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 21 of 26
Strong: I’ve been involved in this process a relatively short period of time and
understand there has been quite a lot of discussion in the past. The last Impact
Fee Committee that we had lasted and Bill Nichols was there and can confirm
this it lasted and I think you even left early. It lasted less than an hour and there
was general consensus when we completed the meeting. It looks like an
acceptable amount and something that we should be able to move forward on.
De Weerd: Thank you Doug.
Strong: Thank you.
De Weerd: Just work with Will and get that on the agenda.
Strong: Thank you.
Bird: Notice for a Public Hearing and let’s get her going.
Item 5. Discussion of Design Standards in Downtown Core:
De Weerd: Steve we’ll go ahead and go to Item 5 the discussion of design
standards in the downtown core.
Siddoway: Thank you. The (inaudible) of where I was going with this discussion
was just discussed with the market strategy and how those two processes
overlap. How the market strategy can really provide some validity, background,
and rationale for the types of design standards that we would do to implement
the vision and the strategy that this process does. I would like to just use a
couple of minutes to report back to the Council on where we are with the design
standards process and then make a proposal related to the current effort. First,
a reminder to us all as to why we even jumped into design standards in the first
place. We identified a couple of years ago that a real barrier to development in
Old Town when it’s competing with the fringe is the fact that everything in Old
Town has a Conditional Use Permit. Where if they were to go out in the fringe
and get commercial zoning they could be a permitted use and be through P&Z in
a week versus a four month Conditional Use Permit. That said, we decided that
we did not – we weren’t ready to just jump in and make everything permitted
uses in downtown because we didn’t have any guidelines to say how those
buildings would look. At staff level, we’re doing staff level reviews we have to
have some criteria to apply. Therefore, we went ahead with the design
standards and we started this process a year ago. We hired Sherry McKibben
as the consultant, worked up a set of draft design standards. That draft was
brought before the MDC Board and they said well have you taken this to the
developers, to the property owners who are going to be affected by this. Have
you tested it with the architects that have to design buildings? Have you done
these things? We said no, but we will and we did. We set up a meeting in
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 22 of 26
February of this year. We emailed out the draft standards that we had come up
with to over 50 different people from all different walks of life that might have an
invested interest in how these turn out. We pulled them together for the design
standards workshop that was held at the police station in February and we
received a lot of good feedback. As follow up to that we then gave the results of
that meeting to our consultant who then took an initial stab at rolling those ideas
into the standards. Then we took that revised draft and formed a committee that
still had different representations on it and walked through that line by line by
line. We were able to engage this group for over eight hours over several
different meetings. The result is a series of design standards for the core area,
which I need to clarify in just a moment. Those design standards have very good
widespread agreement. Those revisions were then sent back out to the group of
50 that got the original one and asked them to review and comment. I haven’t
had much feedback but I certainly have had no negative feedback. If you think
of the Urban Renewal Area, we originally had that Urban Renewal Area divided
up into different sub-districts. What Anna is putting up was the original thought
on the sub-districts of the Urban Renewal Area. In the center, this blue area is
what we were calling the core. That’s where we started our design standards
effort. The design standards that we’ve done to date do not address the entire
Urban Renewal Area they really only address this small area and the shape of
that small area has been tweaked as well. Fortunately, Mr. Hudson was up here
talked about the need for understanding the ends first before getting into the
means. Design standards are a means. We did have a clear idea of what the
ends want – what we wanted the ends to be in this core area. That facilitated us
moving through the means, which are the design standard for that area. We
have what we feel like is a final draft that we’re pleased with for this area. Now
the intent was to not come forth with the standards until we had design standards
for every sub-district in the Urban Renewal Area. We moved from the core to
what we’re calling the growth area but that proved to be a much larger problem.
We don’t have a clear vision of the ends. We don’t know if there is really more
sub-districts within this or whether the lines are exactly right or even the exact
type of development we’re trying to attract so we have stumbled on this one.
Nary: Is that rail corridor there is that why –
Siddoway: This is the rail corridor yes. This would be the creamery and this
would be the lumberman’s property.
Nary: (Inaudible).
Siddoway: The market strategy process that is under way today can do much for
giving us direction as to the ends of this area and what the type of development
is that we’re trying to attract which will then lead us down the path of what design
standards make sense for those types of businesses. Our proposal tonight and I
have run this by the Design Standards Committee that I’ve been working with.
We want to cease working on the design standards for now and get some further
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 23 of 26
direction from the market strategy first. We’re also sensitive to the fact that we
have a group of people that have been working on this for a year and didn’t want
to lose the work on the core that has been done that has pretty good widespread
agreement. Our proposal then would be to, if the Council agrees, we would stop
working on the other sub-districts for now. We would direct our consultant to
move forward with refining those core area standards. Not that the text is done
but adding in the illustrations and things that need to go with it. Then bringing it
back as a Comp Plan Amendment for this special area, which is our historic core
of the downtown and using them as a guideline that we can begin using to the
standards that have been done. We can even ground truth those first with Mr.
Hudson and see what he thinks of them. They’re not very lengthy. They’re only
you know four pages or so. That’s my proposal would be to use those core area
standards now as a Comp Plan Amendment so that they’re not shelved and
forgotten and hold work on the other areas until we get a more solid vision
through the market strategy process.
De Weerd: I think that sounds reasonable Steve. Maybe the easiest way to do it
is kind of bite it off one piece at a time. I guess you went out I think prior to the
design standards workshop with a Public Hearing or a public workshop on
rezoning --
Siddoway: Yes.
De Weerd: -- this area and that had a great deal of feedback on it. The rezoning
issue and the issue of trying to lift those CUP requirements down there what kind
of timeframe are you working with on those issues? Will those coincide with the
design standards and that will be also put on the back burner?
Siddoway: Yes. Early this summer we started to move forward with the effort to
rezone Old Town as defined by the new Comprehensive Plan. We sent out
postcard information to every property owner that would be affected by that
rezone and invited them to an open house that was held at the Nazarene Church
across the street. We received a great deal of opposition to the idea of rezoning
them for two reasons. The commercial business owners did not like the idea of
being rezoned to old town because it made them a Conditional Use Permit.
Where they currently have zoning that makes them permitted uses. Our
response to that was well we’re looking on the design standards and our full
intent is to do away with that. The response was well do the design standards
first and then rezone us. Change your schedule of use control, do the design
standards, change the schedule of use control, and then rezone us. The other
opposition was from the residential – the residents who were concerned that a
rezoned Old Town opened up the opportunity for businesses to go in next door
through the Conditional Use process. Our response to that was well through this
design standards process we would intend that some of these sub-districts would
be kept primarily residential and not everything would now allow commercial.
They said, well then do the design standards first and then talk to us about
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 24 of 26
rezoning. I don’t think we should try the rezone until we do the design standards.
I don’t think we can complete the design standards until we have the market
strategy. That’s kind of how things are laying out right now.
De Weerd: Then when you get to the rezone will you do it bit by bit as those
design standards are firmed in those different sub-districts?
Siddoway: If the sub-districts are piecemealed – I would still hope that we could
come up with them together after this. If we did piecemeal the design standards
after the market strategy, we could piecemeal the rezone. We do already have a
legal description prepared and ready to go of the entire boundary. We can do
whatever seems appropriate at the time.
De Weerd: Well it seems like what you’re recommending would be the best way
to do it. Any comment from Council.
Nary: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes, I think Council President de Weerd is right. I mean you know really is
how do you eat this elephant well you have to start somewhere. I think what
you’re proposing is probably the best way to go. I think part of maybe your job is
going to be – is as we get through all of that – I mean because we’re sort of
almost in a vacuum when we start because you’re starting with a very small
piece of this thing. As we go through the rest of it, we may have to revisit that
again to say well now that we’ve got through the end of it does the beginning
make sense anymore. I guess that’s going to probably more your job at keeping
the focus on that. I mean you may not be able to (inaudible) people sitting up
here at that point too so it may be an issue of really having to re-educate the
group saying here’s why we did that. Here’s how we got here and now we need
to go revisit that over.
Siddoway: You’re talking about the standards that we’ve come up with revisiting
those later and making sure –
Nary: Right we’re going to start with a small little piece that may make a lot of
sense in that little vacuum when we’re not really revisiting (inaudible) rest of it.
Later on, we may come back and say well that doesn’t make as much sense
anymore as we thought it did a year ago when we did it. Otherwise, I think you
have to start somewhere and I think that’s probably the best. It sounds like
strategy wise is the best to take the consensus work you’ve accomplished and at
least apply that.
Powell: Madam President and Members of the Council also to add to that what
we had envisioned was when we bring forward the Comprehensive Plan
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 25 of 26
Amendment is to actually adopt them as an addendum. That if we do need to go
back and change or add to them we’re not monkeying with the whole
Comprehensive Plan just with a section of them. Then the other issue I wanted
to raise was the one of the – the Zoning Ordinance particularly the schedule of
use control. That would be the other part of this and I have made that one of the
department priorities is to go ahead and redo the Zoning Ordinance and that use
table would be a large part of that.
De Weerd: Boy, those priorities just seem to expand every time we meet huh?
Powell: I keep on hauling him back to the few.
De Weerd: Well thank you Steve.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Wallace: I just would add one little –
De Weerd: If you can join us up in front of the mic.
Wallace: Madam President Members of the Council just to facilitate this kind of
collaboration with Sherry McKibben. Tom and I will be connecting with her
Thursday morning of this week so that these are not each done independently
and that we have to reconcile them later. We’re going to work with Sherry to
figure out a way that both for the design standard perspective and the work that
we’re doing that we could come back with those – with some kind of a planned
reconciliation when we represent them.
De Weerd: That’s great.
Wallace: Just want to let you know that we’re trying to get that collaborative
development that I put into the process.
De Weerd: You must be more of the design side of this equation.
Wallace: Well we share a number of partnerships.
De Weerd: And for the record, you’re Jerry Wallace.
Wallace: Jerry Wallace. Right. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay well I just wanted to take one last comment Diane
thank you for the presentation on the Park impact fees I’m sure you probably had
something to do with that. You made that formula it’s complex into something
that was understandable. Again, Doug appreciate all the work your department
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
October 7, 2003
Page 26 of 26
did. If you wouldn’t mind, we’ll take a five-minute break before we call the next
meeting to order. I would entertain a motion for adjournment.
Nary: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it’s been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor
say aye. Thanks.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:03 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK