Loading...
2005 04-25 Special Meridian Plannin and Zonin S ecial Meetin A ril 25 2005. The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 25, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm. Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, and Dean Willis. Item 1: RolI~Call Attendance: RolI~call X Keith Borup X David Moe X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm X Chairman David Zaremba Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. We will reconvene this continued Public Hearing, continued from April 18th, 2005, of an application for an ordinance for a new Title 11, Unified Development Code. This is a special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: Next item is adoption of the agenda, which consists of one item, so let's considerate it adopted. Item 3: Continued Public Hearing from April 18, 2005: Application for an Ordinance for a New Title 11 Unified Development Code replacing / repealing Title 11 Zoning Regulations and Title 12 Subdivision Development of the Meridian City Code: Zaremba: And No.3 is the Public Hearing, which I believe r just opened. We will open the continued Public Hearing and I believe staff has some comments to add from last week. Canning: Yes, sir, I do. I have before you -- and I will make a copy for the clerk, so this can be in there, but this is a memo I was going to give you and forgot to make copies of. The first item I wanted to briefly touch on was not one of the three that was mentioned for the hearing tonight, so, hopefully, that's okay. I don1 think the public will complain today. Zaremba: No. - ----.....- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 2 of 64 Canning: The question was --I did raise the question of/he Old Town With you and with regard to the difference in the height allowances between the code and the design guidelines- In looking at that further, we did discover that, as you may recall, we allowed for taller buildings in all the districts with a Conditional Use Permi!. We forgot to add that to the traditional district, so if you want to make that an option, then, I need to know that and I can go ahead and include it. And Wendy is - Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is looking at me like she has no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll try and go back and explain. Newton-Huckabay: No. I remember. Canning: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I was debating whether or not I thought that you should have the building over 60 feet tall in the traditional neighborhood center, visualizing the -- Canning: And currently -- currently, it's 75 feet, so that is -- that is something for you to consider. Zaremba: I may be thinking the same thing as Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, but I - - my personal opinion is , would like to encourage much taller buildings in Old Town, as high as they want to go, but I'm questioning whether the traditional neighborhood should be included in that as well. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: I would see a limit -- is that kind of what you were thinking? Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, but, then, she said it was with a Conditional Use Penni! you can get a taller building, so I would think that would be okay, because I could see -- Zaremba: In any and all zones is what you're saying? Newton-Huckabay: In a traditional neighborhood. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: It's just to 75 feet, isn't it? Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: I have asked this before and I'm not sure if r have gotten an answer. How tall is the hospital? Canning: The hospital is like 110, , think. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 3 of 64 Zaremba: It's five stories, I think. Canning: J believe it's 110 or 115 feet. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: More than five stories, isn't it? Zaremba: Frankly, the future of Meridian is going to need to include some of those, I think. Maybe nobody is trying to do it today, but we hope this code is going to last awhile. Canning: Okay. The maximum building height in Old Town is 75 feet. Currently the maximum building height in the Traditional Neighborhood Center District is 45 feet. Neither district allows for an increase in height with the conditional use approval. Currently. Zaremba: My personal opinion would be to enable a conditional use height exception in Old Town and leave the other two the way the are. But that's one person's opinion. Others? Newton-Huckabay: Well, within -- wasn't part of the idea in the traditional neighborhood to encourage multi-family housing, which could be three or four stories tall. Borup: Three, usually. You very seldom get -- see too many apartments over three. Newton-Huckabay: Over three? How many -- Borup: I don't know why that -- is that a five? Newton-Huckabay: That's going to be under 45 feet. Moe: That's going to be around 45 feet. Borup: It depends on the pitch of the roof. Mae: Right. Well, in regard to your comment about Old Town, I would happen to agree with you. I would definitely like to see that be able to go higher than 75 feet as well, because I think there are going to be additional buildings that are going to be built that are going to go higher. With the last few that we have had in here that have been the three story multi -- or, you know, mixed use, I think you're going to see a little bit more of that and it's going to be encouraged to do some of that in downtown and I got a feeling some of those are going to want to go a little higher as well. So, I'd like see that definitely be able to be changed by conditional use to go higher. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 4 of 64 Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission -- and, I'm sorry, we do have that you can go an additional 20 percent with a CU process. The reason this one became different than the other commercial ones is on the other commercial ones we allowed an increase in the administrative review for the increase of 20 percent, if they provided some open space to offset it. Well, we didn't want, necessarily, to have open space in the Old Town. I think that that's how this was gone ~- kind of got to be different from the rest. So, if the Commission is inclined, I would recommend taking out the 20 percent maximum height restriction for the conditional use, if that's the way you want to go. Zaremba: In Old Town, yes. Canning: Just in Old Town? Zaremba: Yeah. Canning: Okay. Do we want to allow a 20 percent increase in the TNC the way it's currently written? Zaremba: With the addition of open space? Canning: No. It currently does not read with the addition of open space. And, again, I think the idea was to not have that be an offsetting thing, because open space necessarily wasn't a good thing in those districts. Mae: I agree. , wouldn't want to see it with the open space included in that. I don't know that that's a benefit at all. Zaremba: So, we are saying in traditional neighborhoods they could get a Conditional Use Permit to allow 20 percent additional height. In Old Town, a conditional Use -- there is no limit on the height they could ask for. Canning: That's what I'm hearing from you all, yes. Zaremba: That's works for me. Newton-Huckabay: And that allows four stories. Borup: Yeah. Twenty percent would get you an additional story. Moe: I'm not opposed for them to go to 60 feet myself. Newton-Huckabay: I just can't imagine in a traditional neighborhood center that you're going to get somebody that wants to put a five story building. Borup: Yeah. It would be a pretty rare -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 5 of 64 Zaremba: Well, but certainly not in the near future, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Unless somebody was going to put something like a school -- you know, like a technical school or something like that. Borup: Does everybody in the audience agree with that? Zaremba: We are going to take public testimony in a minute. Just so you are all warned, we are going to hold everybody to three minutes. Newton-Huckabay: We are going to be debating this subject until 7:30, I see that coming already, so -- Canning: Okay. Shall I move onto the next one? Zaremba: Yes. Canning: Okay. Moe: Well, before we do that, though, I don't mean to -- I don't want to delay this issue here, but -- so, we are looking at 20 percent -- yeah. And, then, as far as Old Town -- Borup: No limit. Mae: -- no limit. To the -- okay. Borup: But that's with a conditional use -- Mae: Right. Borup: And no limit to -- okay. No limit with conditional use. Mae: With conditional use. Zaremba: Whatever they ask for above 75 is a conditional use. Newton-Huckabay: Now, when we are looking at the neighborhood center maps, are we going to limit someplace where we would like to actually see a tall building? None of those are -- Zaremba: I could certainly see tall buildings along Chinden. But I don't know -- the person who might have an opinion about that, who was also a valued member of the Process Improvement Group, is not here tonight. We do have a letter from him, but it's on a different subject. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 6 of 64 Canning: Which leads us to our next item. Zaremba: I think my take on what Commissioner Mae just asked is there are some elements of this that can't foresee all of the future and I think we have left enough wiggle room in that people can make applications for variances and conditional uses with the permission of the director, even in places where we haven't specifically stated it; is that correct? Canning: They can always ask for a variance, Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission. The TNC is a real unknown at this time as to how it will get used, so -- I mean I wouldn't worry about getting it perfect right now. I think there is an opportunity to wait and see how people want to use it and if it's clear that it's -- the standards aren't appropriate, I'm sure someone will let us know. Zaremba: And it's a one-paragraph change, as opposed to going through the whole ordinance. Canning: Right. Exactly. We can always -- this isn't in stone tablets. They are -- Moe: I understand that, but the only thing I would question and that is we are doing this rework for one major purpose and that is to somewhat get away from all these variances that we have had over years. So, when we use the word variance, I would hope we use it very sparingly anymore. Canning: Yes. And the 45-foot height limitation is significantly more than they get right now. They have the 35-foot in all the residential districts, so -- and 45 in the commercial. So, we did up -- in general, we up'd the height limits throughout town. Moe: I can live with the 20 percent. That would be great. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: I think that works for me. With the knowledge that if somebody had a good project, we would be able to listen to it if we had to. Newton-Huckabay: We all concur and move on to the next item. Canning: Okay. Sounds good. The next item is the development adjacent to highways and freeways and just to give you an update as to where this is in the process, this was not included as part of the Process Improvement Group discussion. This came up in a conversation with ITD staff after -- after you all had reviewed your draft -- after we had gone through the workshops and we had been coordinating with ITD staff on every application and trying to support their policy of no new streets, except at -- or no new access points or no access points, unless it's at the half mile, and we have found that they are not able to implement very effectively, because of commitments they have Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 7 of 64 made or -- I'm not sure exactly. But for whatever reason they seem to be backing away from that standard at -- not at the staff level, but at the upper review level. So, we thought this was an opportunity to work with their staff to come up with Some language. I did work with Sue Sullivan. She has forwarded to their legal department and her supervisors and they will have comments the 27th. I think -- I wasn't anticipating you meeting just a week after the first one, so I had told her that she had a little more time than she actually did and I apologize for not raising that last week. I was -- it didn't click when you set the date today. So, they won't have comments until the 27th. So, the question is do you want to wait until you hear from them -- oh. And so -- David Turnbull owns quite a bit of property along -- or has optioned quite a bit of property along Chinden, so he definitely has an interest in this. He was not able to be here tonight. They are very concerned that this will limit the city to residential along Chinden. Well, our Comprehensive Plan currently show residential, except at the half mile. So, it's consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. We are in -- kind of in the middle of looking at that north Meridian area and we are not sure where it's going to go, but I don't think that the Comprehensive Plan is going to be changed to have commercial along the entire Chinden frontage, but -- but these are the issues that -- these are the process issues related to that tonight. David has asked that you not include this -- or that you table this out further, so that he has an opportunity to come and talk to you all. Actually, he asked us to take it back to the PIG group. I forwarded it to all the other members of the PIG group and I have not heard back from any of them, so -- Zaremba: I'm prepared for you to hear back from me. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: I was a member of the PIG group. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Well -- and in the memo that we have received from David Turnbull, who, as you say, was a member of the PIG group, he raises two issues. One is that he thinks it will only develop as residential and you have already identified that that's what the Comprehensive Plan pretty much anticipates. The other is that -- that setting aside that much space may end up being considered a takings, which is the scary word to all of us, but wouldn't the solution to that be the similar thing that we do where rights of way are not developed yet, ask them to put it in a common lot and, eventually, ITD will have to buy it from them, so it isn't really a taking. Canning: Yes, sir. And it's already written that way. It says that they either put it in a common -- a separate common lot is what they say. Zaremba: And eventually it will be bought when ITD wants the right of way. So, they are not just giving that space away. I have read through that and I didn't remember seeing that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 8 of 64 Canning: This is the wrong one, isn't it? Zaremba: Well, I think there is a -- somewhere in the -- in the body of the rest of the code there is a statement about how to set up -- set aside right of way. I don't think it's in this one that we are looking at, but I think there is a general statement to that somewhere. So, I do think it's covered, it just isn't covered in this document. Canning: My recollection is that it says dedicate and otherwise reserve, but -- Zaremba: Yeah. Canning: In D-2 it says future right of way dedications and/or reservations shall be set forth below or as required by the ITD, whichever setback is greater. So, it doesn't say they have to dedicate it, it just says they have to reserve it. Zaremba: So, the word reservation covers the process of putting it in a common lot. Canning: That is the intent, yes. Zaremba: Okay. I did see that. Canning: He also talked to me about the ten foot multi-use pathway and the only reason we used ten foot was because that's what the Eagle Road corridor study came up with. But I can see his point that ten feet isn't necessary, that five feet might be more appropriate, since we don't really intend to have a lot of people walking along the state highways, it was just kind of to have that there if it were needed, so -- Zaremba: The only thing I would do than ten -- or maybe compromise on eight, would be the state highways are likely to be future transit routes and a wide sidewalk to accumulate passengers embarking or debarking or waiting, at least anyplace where we could identify where there might be a transit stop, would certainly be helpful. But that was going to be one of my future questions, did we want to incorporate into this paragraph on development along highways and freeways, anything about future transit stops or bulb outs? Canning: I talked with ITD staff about that and they couldn't identify them yet, but they felt that the additional room, as it's written -- as it's written as you get closer to those major intersections, they asked for additional right of way, and that would accommodate the turning movements, as well as a pull out for Valley-Ride, was my understanding. Zaremba: Okay. That works for me. Well, okay, the -- the first question is whether we, as a group, want to address this tonight, the end result being that we would include it in the ordinance and there would still be an opportunity for input from the PIG group, including Mr. Turnbull, before this actually goes to the City Council, which isn't going to be in the next week or two, I'm Sure. So, my question to the Commissioners would be Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 9 of 64 do we want to push ahead or do we want to set this aside and just leave an earmark in the ordinance for it? Newton-Huckabay: I would like to push ahead. Moe: When will there be another opportunity to bring it before us, if we were to go ahead? Zaremba: We would have to, actually, continue the whole process to another date certain. Borup: And I don't know if -- if we go to a point that that would be included tonight, but I'd certainly like to discuss it and, then, maybe I'd feel that that would be appropriate to include it tonight, but I think I would like to talk about it tonight. Zaremba: My feeling is is the objections that I see raised can be addressed, probably, at a future time and that we could move ahead and earmark a place for it in the -- in the ordinance. I think that sounds like a consensus among us to go ahead and talk about it. Okay. The first thing I would ask is -- you had mentioned that this would become another part in 3-A and I was wondering whether it ought to be its own separate paragraph 3-H, since there is an A through G. Canning: That is a possibility. We could do it as its own article, if you would like. Zaremba: Well, considering that there may be some further discussion of it and an objection to it, perhaps, that might be a safer way to allow that to Occur. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: Make it Article 3-H. Newton-Huckabay: So, it will read 11-3-A-H? Canning: H for highway. Zaremba: A, alpha, out and put an H in place of it. Newton-Huckabay: Today's Planning and Zoning meeting is brought to you by the letter H. Rohm: H stands for highway. Canning: I didn't -- I didn't organize it on this one, but J'm -- well, a sideline, on the Ada county one, the Chapter 3 districts were B and that was for burn for the wildlife urban interface overlay district. C was for the southwest area, which is known for its septic Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 10 of 64 problems, so I'll let you figure out what C was. D was for development -- PUDs. Planned unit developments. E was another effluent one. And F was for flood plane. And G was for the greenbelt. So, we were able to see it. So, now you have got H is for highway on this one. Zaremba: Oh, very good. That works. Let's see. We can either take each sentence in order or each of us can go through and make our comments. I have a comment on the very first paragraph. Canning: I would recommend deleting either two or three, one or the other, but -- yes, sir. Zaremba: It has the sentence: The following standards shall also apply to development along Meridian Road. Canning: That should be deleted. That was -- Borup: That was my question. Zaremba: Well, " actually, would add to that, that there is a reason for that and that would be -- I would make the whole sentence read: The following standards shall also apply to development along McDermott Road to preserve its viability as a future extension of State Highway 16. In further discussion with Steve Siddoway, who is our transportation planner, he said that is the current thinking that McDermott may be the extension to Highway 16 -- I mean this is years away -- have an interchange and -- but I would think we need to preserve the same -- I was assuming that's why McDermott was mentioned and I was just adding an explanation for why it was -- Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, we originally had it -- a whole section in there that we were trying to incorporate, Sue Sullivan and 1 -- this was a leftover sentence from that. As we got it done, she felt very uncomfortable and she was pretty much completely sure that it would never pass through ITD, that there -- she cannot presume that it would go somewhere or ITD cannot presume that it will go somewhere until they do additional studies. Now, that doesn't keep you all from doing it, but you won't have the support of ITD as you move forward with it, would be the only thing I want to let you know about, because isn't it the staff level -- she felt that they could not do that yet. Now, maybe perhaps we can on -- there is no sewer out there currently, so you're not going to see any development applications going on. Or not a great number of them. Probably by the time the sewer starts to get built out there, which will be after the Ten Mile interchange goes in, 50 we are talking 2009, 2010, they probably will, by that time, have an idea of the corridor and we can go back and add it in there. But the concern was at this point that she's just felt that they couldn't presuppose that that's where it was going to end up, even though that's what the staffs are currently thinking. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 11 of 64 Zaremba: The only -- and I had a similar discussion with Steve and my first instinct was to say, well, why McDermott, it makes more sense Ten Mile or even Black Cat, and his point was there is already quite a bit of building along both of those and we would be going backwards to create these standards. McDermott's the only remaining road that's even close to Highway 16 where we could do this and I'm just -- if, in the future, we can steer ITD into that being the only choice, or do we want to be that bold? You're suggesting that we shouldn't be that bold. Canning: Well, if -- if I thought that development were going to break loose on McDermott, I would be concerned at this point. But I really do believe that the trunk line that needs to exist doesn't, to seNe that area, so I really don't believe you will be seeing any encroachment into the right of way beyond what's there now. Zaremba: I guess my concern is that if five or six years from now an application finally happens, who is going to remember that we -- Borup: Things can change pretty fast. There was an application two years ago that the developer proposed to put that trunk line in at their expense. City Council turned that application down, but, you know, someone else could step up and propose the same thing, so -- and if that project would have been approved, the trunk line would be there now. Canning: If you'd like to, we can do that. What we need to do is you need to state that McDermott would be reseNed as a possible freeway, because that will be a freeway. They are looking for, basically, freeway standards. They are not highway standards. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Well -- Canning: So, no access at the half mile. They are only looking for access at Ustick and at Chinden would be the only two places that they would be looking at access, is my understanding. Zaremba: That's extreme enough that I would say we definitely need to protect that now. I mean that could get away from us real fast. Newton-Huckabay: I kind of tend to agree with Commissioner Zaremba on that. Especially with the overchange, you know, a certainty at Ten Mile. That's going to move the spotlight to that part of town a lot faster. Borup: So, that would be Highway 16, Emmett Highway; is that correct? Canning: Yes, sir. Borup: And we are talking about having a freeway to Emmett? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 12 of64 Canning: Yes, sir. Newton-Huckabay: That thriving metropolis that it is. Zaremba: But 20 years from now I can see the use for it. I have lived places where you just simply wouldn't have believed that you would need a freeway 20 years from now and if you haven't prepared for it, it's too late. Borup: And would we anticipate that once the Ten Mile is finally designed that they would be able to determine the route for that? Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, my understanding is that they are moving forward on it fairly quickly, actually. I think they -- with the GARVEE funding, I think they look at that as one of their priorities, so that -- Zaremba: Well -- and I know it's one of Mayor de Weerd's priorities. She'd far rather see the Highway 16 river crossing before the three river -- three cities river crossing. I mean her priorities are Locust Grove overpass, which is happening, Ten Mile interchange next, and Highway 16 river crossing next. Borup: Well, that is the only undeveloped -- that's the only undeveloped road through Meridian; isn't it? Zaremba: And that's why I'm repeating what Steve Siddoway said to me, it's really too late to preserve Ten Mile or Black Cat for that purpose. Newton-Huckabay: I think we are in agreement. I think we should include that in there. Zaremba: Okay. So -- Newton-Huckabay: At least give it a go. Zaremba: -- what we are pushing back on is to leave the sentence in there that says that the standards will apply to McDermott, but we need to explain why, to preserve its viability, and you're saying as a future freeway, not just State Highway 16. Canning: That's the only place they are looking for intersections, my understanding, at Chinden and, then, Ustick. Borup: Wow. Zaremba: Okay. Then, we need to call it a freeway. At least preserve its viability as a future freeway. Canning: And if you did that -- I think B is okay, it says no access shall be allowed to exist on the future freeway right of way, except at specific interchange locations Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 13 of 64 established by lTD. So, right now there would be none, because they haven't identified any and, then, we would wait and see the results of their study and, then, they could request them based on that. Zaremba: I see by what you have up on the display that I'm looking at an old copy. Canning: No. Zaremba: I was about to say there is an A-3 that's a duplicate of A-2, but it's different from the one you have. Canning: The one I have up is not the right one, though, so I will close it, because it's confusing. Newton-Huckabay: We are taking out 3-A-3? Canning: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And moved on to B. Canning: I would think that that's a good thing to do on -- B, again, there is not much issue with 1-84. Those already establish the interchange locations would be as approved by ITD, obviously. The Highway 16 extension would, basically, say nothing along there -- you know, no access to McDermott at all until they determine where they want it. And it could very well be that they don't ever add anything. Zaremba: Do we want to say under B this includes McDermott? Or just -- Canning: Well, I think we caught it up above. Zaremba: Yeah. As long as you explain we are preserving it for a freeway. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. That's fine. Canning: And, Commissioner Zaremba, maybe you can ask for legal advice on this issue, because I'm getting -- Zaremba: Well, I guess the question is what right do we have to preserve something that we anticipate happening in the future. That's part of our reason for setbacks along section line roads and stuff. This is just a bigger chunk. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, are you wanting me to, I guess, address the concern Mr. Turnbull raised in regards to whether this is a taking by including this in our ordinance or are you just talking about more in a very general Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 14 of 64 context of -- all you're doing is making a recommendation to the City Council about some -- I guess areas to preserve these particular standards. They are consistent, I think, as Mrs. Canning has stated, some of this, especially along Chinden, are consistent with the -- the Comprehensive Plan. The only issue left is the preservation along McDermott. From a legal standpoint I guess I don't -- I think it's a stretch to consider that to be a taking, because I think you had already outlined why it probably -- it wouldn't be like a taking, it's merely just a planning tool. They'd still have to be purchased anyway for right of way and the like. But I don't see a problem, if that's the preference of this Commission, to make those recommendations to the Council about the preservation of those corridors. Did I miss the question? I guess I thought that's what you were talking about. Okay. Zaremba: Not only was it an answer to the question, but it was an answer that I wanted to hear. I mean you seem to be -- Nary: I don't see any problem making that recommendation from this Commission, because, again, I think all you're doing is making a recommendation for preservation of particular corridors for future planning purposes and if someone tells us we are wrong, I guess we will deal with that further, but at this point -- at this point in the discussion I certainly don't see a problem with that. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Borup: I think that's right in line with what we are supposed to be doing. How many times do we hear: Where was the planning commission 20 years ago or 30 years ago? Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: In this case we are looking 20 years ahead and I don't -- I don't know that -- Zaremba: I don't fault the Planning Commission that was in a city of 9,000 people for not anticipating what's happened since, but now we know and we can anticipate. Borup: And I don't know that this would necessarily restrict Chinden to residential development. I mean I can see some stretches along there where commercial, to me, would be very appropriate, as long as -- all it's saying is it can only have the access at the half mile. You know, we may want to change zoning in some areas and they can do a frontage road or a back-age road or whatever -- whatever is appropriate, as long as we are not adding new access points. Zaremba: And I think as we go through this proposed part of the ordinance that it enables exactly that, the frontage and back-age roads and other collectors that would -- Borup: Oh, I definitely agree with limiting the access. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 15 of 64 Zaremba: Yeah. Well -- and we can see along Eagle Road the pain of not having been able to do that in the past. Borup: Yes. That was my next point. It's too late to change Eagle, but -- Moe: Right. Borup: -- we can prevent that happening again, maybe. Zaremba: Well -- and I know it's hard to visualize now, but as Nampa and Meridian grow to be indistinguishable from each either, Chinden and McDermott are going to be Eagle Road again. Borup: It's not that hard. When I was in high school one of my teachers said some day it will be all houses between Boise and Meridian and everybody thought that was the silliest thing. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess to supplement the discussion, I think Mrs. Canning really did hit it on the head when -- right now the purpose of this function that the Commission is going through was to take the Comprehensive Plan that was approved in 2002 and bring these ordinances in line with all of those policies and preferences and directions that the Comp Plan had. That's all this discussion, I think, about Chinden and McDermott, all that is still the same, still in the same context of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan were to change, which can happen and there is a process in which to do that, and if developers and the like want to do that, they can certainly do that. In those piecemeal circumstances as they develop those Comprehensive Plan amendments, if there are ordinances necessary to change. For example, if in this one if this Commission were to recommend these types of developments and restrictions along those corridors, they would, then, change those -- they would direct to change those ordinances accordingly, because once you change the Camp Plan now, you may have to again bring your ordinances in line. But by leaving that discussion for the future day, makes the most sense. Right now you're trying to match up these ordinances with what currently exists, not what say a developer in a year or five or ten may think is more practical or usable along those particular areas. When that discussion comes, we will change if we need to. Zaremba: Well -- and I appreciate that and agree with it. The advantage of that is we do the planning and that puts the burden on the developer to change what we have said ought to be in the plan and that's certainly an option for a developer at anytime, but it's -- I think it would be easier for us to get it into the plan now and force them to change it if they need to, than for us to be trying to get it into the plan five or ten years from now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 16of64 Nary: I concur from a legal standpoint that's exactly the order that you want that to occur. You want to have those ordinances in place that match up with what you anticipate that growth will be and if there is something that changes it and they bring something that's better than what you anticipated, then, that's the opportunity to change it then. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. This is an aside, but I have meant to say this other times. Before the City of Meridian chose to have its own in-house attorney and appointed Mr. Nary to that position, we, of course, had contract attorneys and I was on this Commission long enough to be able to ask them questions and it was like pulling teeth sometimes to get them to do anything but cover their own rear end and, actually, make a decision. Sometimes the answer was: I'm not comfortable making a decision on that and sometimes the answer was, well, I don't really know and maybe ten percent of the time they gave us a couple of choices and all I have to say is it is refreshing to have Mr. Nary not only be willing, but proactive about giving us excellent suggestions within the legal framework and I have got to say the difference is remarkable and very much appreciated. Borup: Yes, I agree. Nary: Thank you very much. My rear end is the same as the city's, so that's why -- it's not separation. Moe: I would also concur. Borup: Yes. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, are we still talking about the following standards shall also apply to development along McDermott Road? Zaremba: Director Canning? Canning: I believe we are at C-1 now. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: This section -- let me summarize it and maybe that will help. This was just what would trigger when you could no longer use an existing approach, so -- and it is basically if it's there and it's legally there, then, you get to use it. If you don't change it -- for example, go from a residential to a commercial use, then, it gets to stay and if the intensity of the use does not increase. For example, if you had five dwelling units or you had one house on the property to begin with and now you have 200, that's, obviously, a change in the intensity of the use. So, then, it wouldn't -- your access would no longer be allowed to continue. Zaremba: Works for me. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 17 of 64 Canning: So, at that point, then, that's when you go down to number two, which is if the applicant proposes to change or increase in the intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to his street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach to the state highway shall cease and the approach shall be abandoned and removed. No new approaches directly accessing a state highway shall be allowed and, then, public street connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at the half-mile between section line roads. Zaremba: Well, I had a question on B. The public street connections to the state highway should be allowed at both the section line road and the halfway between; right? Canning: Yes. They are currently at the section line road. Do you want to make that clear? Zaremba: Yes. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: I just -- this, actually, would exclude allowing access to the section line road if we left that out. Canning: Okay. Borup: Well, it mentions that later. Zaremba: Yeah. Well -- and it comes at a whole bunch of places, but I'm just saying each place where one of them is mentioned, I think they both ought to be mentioned. And I'll mention that several more times as we go through. Canning: Okay. We can do that. Now, from Sue Sullivan's standpoint at ITD, the big question she had here was whether or not to talk about the appropriateness of right-in, right-out only and I told her, you know, we will support whatever ITO staff feels is best and she just didn't now which way to go. So, it may very well be that ITO recommends also having a right in, right-out only at an eighth of a mile or a quarter mile. Do you want to have -- if that changes, do you have an opinion about it that you could express now or do you just want go with ITO's recommendation on it? Zaremba: The difficulty with allowing a right in, right-out at the quarter mile is that it -- it kind of conflicts with the idea of encouraging frontage or back-age roads. I think we should encourage one or the other. That's a personal opinion again. But I can see the reasoning for wanting quarter mile right in, right-outs, but, then, that kind of takes the steam out of the frontage and back-age roads. Borup: The only other thought I may have on that -- if there is -- if there is an acceleration lane, that's in addition to the highway -- present highway right of way, that it Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 1Bof64 -- you know, that may be okay. You wouldn't be conflicting with an existing lane of highway immediately. You know, you have an acceleration period to -- so that would come at the expense of the developer to make that extra lane if they felt they wanted one that bad. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? Zaremba: Please do. Newton-Huckabay: Is there someplace here in the valley that has a frontage or a back- age road that -- I'm not -- nothing's really coming to mind and I'm trying to picture how that would all come together. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, if I might. Do you remember Bainbridge Subdivision that came the other night? This was the one where -- Newton-Huckabay: Was that last Thursday? Canning: No. It was about a month ago. This was the one where they didn't have any sewer, but they were moving forward. It was the one where Mr. Turnbull and I agree to disagree. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, yes. Canning: That collector street that loops from about the quarter mile to the halfway is a perfect example of a back-age road. Newton-Huckabay: That's a back-age road. Borup: I think she's -- Commissioner was talking about something in existence now. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Zaremba: There is a roadway -- well, it goes along the airport in Boise between Orchard and -- Borup: Oh, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Zaremba: -- and Vista and it also continues on -~ I think it goes all the way to Broadway, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. No. It stops at -- yeah. Zaremba: -- I would call that a frontage kind of a road. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 1 g of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Probably. Nary: It's Wright Street, Mr. Chairman. Newton-Huckabay: Wright Street. Zaremba: Wright Street. Yeah. Borup: You see it in other cities quite often. Zaremba: Oh, yeah. Canning: Another example of a frontage road that's very close to the existing roadway would be where they put the Curtis Avenue -- Curtis Street extension where the school is and they have a concrete block wall and, then, there is a street just on the other side of the concrete block wall. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I think it seems to be kind of a paradigm shift that people aren't used to. I kind of like that idea better than a lot of right-in, right-outs. Zaremba: Well, I could support Commissioner Borup's idea that if the right in, right-outs actually had their own separate acceleration and deceleration lanes, that takes them out of the travel lane. Borup: For a while. Zaremba: You know, for some distance -- for some transitioning distance. Borup: And the idea is to prevent that slow down of traffic on the state highway, I assume, and not have that interference and, you know, to some extent the right-in, right-out is going to do that and that's why, you know, a separate lane would lessen that impact. Whether it's enough, I don't know. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think that she was unclear at this point as to what she wanted to recommend, so I don't know if they won't have a stand on it. I think that just as staff she was feeling a bit timid on the issue and the -- and one final comment just to get all the viewpoints out there, I think at this point Mr. Turnbull would say if you don't allow right-in, right-out, you will not get major commercial development at those corners and he said he would be advocating for right- in, right-outs, particularly as you get right by the intersection, so -- and we had a discussion with a grocery store today that was looking at locating on Chinden and I told them that this issue was not resolved and that was a big concern to them. They didn't actually have access to Chinden. So, I think when Mr. Turnbull in his e-mail says that Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 20 of 64 you're limiting the city to residential development along that corridor, he means in the sense that a commercial business will not want to -- Zaremba: Won't choose to go there. Canning: -- locate there. Zaremba: Well, is it possible for us to give an option, that upon developing the property they will either access the frontage or back-age road or if they choose on the quarter mile to have a right-in, right-out, they have to supply an extra acceleration, deceleration lane of sufficient length -- I mean what if their property is only 200 feet wide? They are still going to have to supply that lane of sufficient length to be useful. Moe: I think that would be great. Borup: I don't think ITD -- I don't think they are real strong on sticking to their policies. They didn't do it at Crossroads. They had the first Eagle Road study already done and didn't follow it. I mean look at all the access points we have at Crossroads? Newton-Huckabay: But they are not on Eagle Road. There is only-- Canning: There is only three. Borup: Plus the light. Zaremba: Well, there is a driveway to the Krispy Kreme on the -- Borup: Well, they are doing it on the other side, too, so -- Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I would recommend not giving it as an or. I think you want the frontage road regardless. I think that you could have it -- I would suggest having it as a -- they can propose a right-in, right-out if they are able to show -- if they are able to provide an acceleration and deceleration lane for that turning movement. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Zaremba: I agree. Mae: I agree. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: Works for me. Canning: Okay. Moving on. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 21 of 64 Borup: So, what section would that be on? Is that -- Zaremba: That isn't, actually, where we were talking, that's someplace else I think. Canning: Well, it would be under two. Zaremba: It would? Canning: Because it's talking about no new approaches -- I'd have to modify that to be no full access approaches, no new full access and that you could consider a right-in, right-out access to the state highway. Zaremba: With appropriate separate acceleration-deceleration lanes. Additional lane for acceleration-deceleration. Okay. That works. Canning: And maybe that would only be if they already had access, they could convert one of those access points to right-in, right-out. There was a discussion, I just didn't know if I needed to be involved. Okay. Going on to number -- Zaremba: Three. Canning: Three. Are we ready? Construct a collector street to provide future connectivity. The applicant would be responsible for constructing that portion of the collector road that was on their property, not the whole road. Needs to meet the collector road standards and, then, it would connect to the section line or arterial street within 660 to 800 feet from the interstate -- section with the state highway. Zaremba: I had a comment about B and it's -- it's semantics, but to me, within 660 feet to 800 feet, reads the same as within 800 feet. So, I think -- one, I think we need to say at a distance that is between 660 feet and 800 feet, because within was the distance from the arterial, so -- Borup: Isn't that what that's trying to convey, you can't be greater than 800? Zaremba: It can't be closer than 660 or farther than 800. Is that what the point is? Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The within would allow it to be closer and that's just semantics to me. Canning: Okay. I'm fine with the wording being recommended. It's more clear. Zaremba: But, then, actually, before that -- this is B still. The street shall be connected at the section line for a half-mile road, as opposed to an arterial street? There is only two places, a section line and half mile; right? Arterial street was confusing. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 22 of 64 Canning: Oh. This new street shall connect to the section line or half mile roads at a distance between 660 to 800 feet from the intersection. Is that the intent? Canning: No, not really. Zaremba: Well, that's why I asked, because I may be interpreting it differently than you intended. Canning: B talks about -- no, I think it's not clear right now and it's a problem. B talks about the connection at the half mile. Three was really just focusing on the connection to the arterial or the section line road, but now we have called section line or arterial road and that's why you thought we meant the half mile. But I think that to be more precise, what I need to do is clarify that the section line roads also refer to those that are arterial roads and, then, to add half mile here. Zaremba: No, I wasn't understanding. Okay. Canning: If you think of that -- Zaremba: The reference to arterial street in here still meant the section line, meaning that there may be section lines that are not arterials. Canning: Correct. And so it would allow for either a collector road going straight across at basically the quarter, but we have also said that it's okay if it connects up the half mile on Chinden. Presuppose that we are talking about Chinden. So, go from like a quarter mile off of Linder and it could either just go straight and end or you could loop it up to a half mile along Chinden. But, you're right, it's not clearly written. I can work on that. Zaremba: Well, I would go back to my suggestion, whether the section line is an arterial or not doesn't change what we want them to do. Canning: Correct. Zaremba: So, I would go back to suggesting the street should connect to the section line or half mile road at a distance between 668 to 800. Borup: Just eliminate the arterial. Canning: But you don't -- Zaremba: If you take the word arterial out -- that's what confused me. Canning: But the half-mile is not 660, that's a quarter mile. So, you can't say it connects to the half mile at a quarter mile. Those numbers won't work. So, I need to rework that a little bit. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 23 of 64 Zaremba: Okay. All right. Well, you know if I can misinterpret it, some developer is going to misinterpret it. Canning: Well -- and I think what we need to say is that the collector street may connect up with the state highway at the half-mile or it may just continue along the -- at the quarter mile, either way. There may be an instance where if somebody wants to build a collector road going straight down from the half mile and somebody else wants to build one going a quarter mile -- east-west road. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Canning: Just at the quarter mile. Borup: So, there could conceivably be a collector street every quarter mile. Is that what this is saying? Zaremba: Yeah. Not accessing the highway, though. Borup: Right. I mean in the case of Chinden, it -- the collector street should run east- west. Zaremba: Yeah. Canning: You would have one at the one quarter and then -- Borup: At the half and, then, the three quarter. Zaremba: No. Canning: This is only along -- only mandating along state highways, so it would just be at the quarters. Borup: Oh, just at the quarter only. Canning: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: No. We've already said that there won't be access to the state highway at the quarter mile. Canning: No. Going east -- a parallel road to Chinden at a quarter mile is what we are talking about. Borup: And, then, anything beyond that would be up to however it develops. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 24 of 64 Canning: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. So, there would still only be access to Chinden on the section line and the half-mile. Canning: Correct. Zaremba: And this collector road would take vehicles to that section line or the half- mile. Canning: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: And I, obviously, need to rework -- work on this a little bit. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Now, this -- couldn't -- this collector needs to intersect the section lines within those parameters, but it could -- as it leaps through the property it could be 1,000, 1,200 feet from -- Zaremba: Interior it could be anywhere. It's just-- Borup: Once it hits the section line -- Zaremba: The only thing that matters is it has to hit the section line that distance from the highway. Borup: As long as it's built to collector standards within the development. Okay. I'm understanding now. Canning: And, Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the 800 feet was just to give an outside range, because I think staff didn't want it to be further -- in this case south than that. You don't have to put that -- the highway -- ITO does not want it closer than 660 feet. So, if you don't want to put the limitation of the 800 feet, we can remove that limitation. It's just they don't want it any closer to than 660 feet. Zaremba: Well, I'm comfortable with that as a range. As Commissioner Borup said, interior to the project, within the section square mile, the road could go anywhere. It could meander, it could do whatever it wants. It's just when it intersects the section line road or the half mile road, it needs to be in that range, anywhere from 660 to 800. That's comfortable for me. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 25 of 64 Borup: Is there a reason to have it no more than 800? Because you want the traffic to be closer to the state highway or -- you know, I mean is there a -- Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Commissioner Borup, the assumption was that they would want it closer, but -- for commercial development. Borup: Right. And I would think that would the case. Canning: Correct. But if it's only going to be residential, as I'm sitting here thinking, there could be an instance where they might want to take it in at the half mile and, then, loop it around, as was discussed before. So, I don't know that there is any need to keep the 800 number and it was just a -- it was just grabbed out of the hat, so -- Zaremba: But still retain distance greater than 660? Canning: Correct. That's a minimum standard -- separate standard for them. Zaremba: Okay. And is that measured center line to center line or -- Canning: It is. Zaremba: -- back of curb to back of curb or -- Canning: It's measured center-line to center line. Zaremba: I probably would state that, too. Borup: Is that already standard, that -- the definition they have? Canning: I think it's over in D. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: So, we are talking about -- so, we are eliminating the 800 feet? Canning: Yes. And I will add the centerline to the centerline. Borup: And I would anticipate that most of them probably would be in that -- probably in that range, but there may be something and no sense restricting it if there may be other ways. Canning: The third item -- we were definitely moving toward what we call the back-age street and that was the back-age street, but, then, the third item states -- C is frontage streets or private streets may be approved by the director through alternative compliance procedures set forth in Chapter 5. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 26 of 64 Zaremba: Okay. Canning: So, you would still meet those standards for the separation. You still got to bring it down to 660 feet, but it may be closer to the freeway in some places and, then, just drop down or you could have a private street, which might be -- like if a commercial development went in and they just wanted to have a separated drive aisle kind of street, they could do that. I'm -- Commissioner Zaremba, can you call a quick break? I'm sorry. Five minutes if you please. Zaremba: Let's take ten minutes. (Recess.) Zaremba: We will reconvene our meeting and let the record show that all Commissioners that were present before the break are present again. Canning: Thank you, Commissioners. Zaremba: Director Canning, you were speaking. Canning: I think we are at Item D now. That was basically design and construction standards. First one says you need to have a permit. The second one -- this is where -- we have briefly talked about this before. It says future right of way dedications and/or reservations shall be as set forth below or as required by ITD, whichever setback is greater. All future rights of way shall be measured from the center-line on existing highways right of way. On 20-26 they would preserve 85 feet, except as they got nearer to an arterial intersection, they would provide an additional 15 feet, for a total of 100 feet. And that would be 500 feet from the section line roads and/or half-mile collector roads going backwards. Does that make sense? Zaremba: Yes. And I would modify the first part of that sentence, though, to agree with that. I probably would take out the word major, but as the state highway nears intersections of section line and/or half mile roads. I think it's confusing to throw arterial in there. We are talking about the section lines or half miles, arterial or not. Same discussion we had earlier. Personal opinion. Borup: I agree. Zaremba: And, actually, in B there is the same semantic in the sentence. As the state highway nears I would take out major intersection of section lines or half-mile roads. Newton-Huckabay: I'm okay with that, too. Moe: Yeah. Zaremba: And while we are at it ~~ no. Actually, that's the last one of those. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 27 of 64 Canning: And I will make sure that we don't need to call out arterial roads. I think the ACHD classification has arterial roads listed separately from section line roads, but maybe for the purposes of this section I might put something that says for the purposes of this section, section line roads shall include -- and I might just go ahead and -- Zaremba: Mayor may not be arterial roads. Canning: Yeah. Or -- either name them or just say they mayor may not be arterial roads, with your permission anyway. Zaremba: You have my permission. Canning: Okay. Borup: Do we have any section line roads within the city that aren't? Zaremba: I thought they were all either major or minor arterials or designated to be in the future. Canning: I'm not sure that Victory Road is or Amity. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, where they cross Highway 69 we'd still want them treated the same way. Canning: Exactly. I'm just not sure that they are listed as arterial roads. Zaremba: All right. Borup: That answered my question. Canning: I just want to make sure that -- I mean I know what you all mean by section line road, so I just want to make sure that somebody doesn't challenge us and say Ustick is -- or McMillan is a minor arterial, it's not a section line road, therefore, this doesn't apply. I don't want that problem to come up. Zaremba: Okay. So, I would say a section line road mayor may not be an arterial road. Canning: Yeah. Zaremba: May not be -- mayor may not be designated arterial by the transportation authority. Canning: I will make sure the definitions are clear. Okay. Highway -- State Highway 55. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 28 of 64 Zaremba: Number three you're on now? Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Uh-huh. All right. Canning: The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the ten-foot multi-use pathway and installing streetlights and landscaping consistent with the Eagle Road corridor study. Should be, A, ten foot, instead of B. Borup: So, do we have the section in the city where 55 is not the same as 69? Canning: 69 is Kuna Road going south. Meridian Road going south toward Kuna. Borup: Oh, then, when it hits -- it changes to 55? Canning: 55 is Eagle Road going north. Borup: Of? Canning: Freeway. Borup: Okay. Change that to freeway. Canning: Right. Borup: Okay. Canning: State Highway was 69 and U.S. 20-26, the applicant shall construct a minimum ten foot wide asphalt multi-use pathway outside the public road and approximately parallel to the state highway. The pathway on U.S. 20-26 shall be set back a minimum of 85 feet from the existing centerline of U.S. 20-26. Portions of the pathway may be constructed within the right of way with the license agreement from lTD. This is the one where maybe ten feet is excessive, except maybe as you get closer to a transit stop or -- as was discussed before. Ten feet would allow for bicycles on it-- Zaremba: I did not hear that. Would you say that last sentence again? Canning: This is the one where Mr. Turnbull had raised the issue of the ten feet being appropriate or inappropriate, his opinion was, and I can see some value in that. There is -- the idea is to provide someplace to walk if you're stuck out on the highway, not to really encourage people to walk along the highway. So, a lesser standard, like five feet, may be appropriate. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 29 of 64 Borup: So, it would need to say minimum five feet or -- I had been down five to ten feet, but maybe just a minimum would be a better way to put it, if -- whatever that would be. Zaremba: I could agree with the five feet along most of it. Somehow I want to preserve the ability to have a wider sidewalk or -- or passenger pooling area near where we might have transit stops, but that's nebulous at the moment that I don't know how to incorporate that. Canning: The other thing to consider is when they are doing those transit stops, they are probably doing some other improvements while they are there, adding -- this was -- we only suggested asphalt here, not concrete. It isn't all that expensive to add -- when they are doing the transit stop to add some asphalt areas, but -- or concrete areas, if you're going to put a shelter up. Newton-Huckabay: I would think that a pathway that's ten feet wide, you might encourage, you know, bicycle commuters. Is that not what we want? Mae: I'm not sure you want that along the highway. Borup: It's separated, though. Newton-Huckabay: That's what I'm saying, isn't it separated like a -- Canning: One -- Commissioner -- or Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, one of the concerns that Mr. Turnbull raised -- which I didn't call Sue Sullivan to check on, but I believe that the state highways have bike lanes on them. Zaremba: I have had no discussions with ITO on bike lanes, but I have been to a couple of ACHD's bike and pathway revitalization meetings or whatever -- I'm not sure what they are. Steve's going to them now, but it's a serious issue that you have, essentially, a vehicle that moves at a different speed than the motorized vehicles and a different speed than pedestrians. So, putting it on the sidewalk isn't that good and putting it in the roadway isn't that good. So, unless you can actually have dedicated bike lanes, it's dangerous to somebody for them to be anywhere else. Borup: I have no desires, me or anyone that I know of, to be in a bike lane that's right a part of the highway. I mean especially the safety -- the safety aspects of that just seem kind of ridiculous. I mean from maybe -- if we are really talking about bike lanes, it needs to be -- maybe it does need to be ten foot and eliminate the bike lanes along the state highway and incorporate them in the pathway. Newton-Huckabay: Where is the bike lane on Chinden? Borup: You say there is one on Chinden? Newton-Huckabay: I thought -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 30 of 64 Canning: No. What I stated was that I didn't have time to check with Ms. Sullivan on the issue that Mr. Turnbull said that that -- that the highways already had bike lanes. Now, he has done a fair amount of development along Chinden and may be accurate. Newton-Huckabay: Because I drive on Chinden at least three or four days a week from Linder to Cloverdale -- Canning: Is there one from Eagle to Cloverdale? Zaremba: Yeah. And the part I'm trying to visualize is between Eagle and Cloverdale while they have done the widening that they are going to do and I'm not sure there is a bike lane -- not an identified bike lane there. There is a little extra -- what I would call a marked shoulder, but I wouldn't call it a bike lane. Newton-Huckabay: Right. And, then, there is sidewalks all along there. There is a five foot curving sidewalk practically from the corner of Eagle and Chinden all the way down to Cloverdale. Canning: Constructed by Mr. Turnbull, apparently, at his -- against his will. Zaremba: Well-- Newton-Huckabay: So, it will probably be easier the second time. Zaremba: Yeah. My instinct, probably, would be to say let's leave this ten feet and, again, he will have the opportunity to make his case before City Council before this gets etched in stone and he will have his opportunity when he brings his proposals in to discuss alternate compliance. Borup: Where did the ten feet come from? Canning: Just -- it was the number that was used on the Eagle Road corridor study. Borup: Okay. Canning: I will check with Sue Sullivan on the -- whether or not there are bike lanes required as part of the right of way and I think what I'm hearing is that if there are, you would rather that -- that this ten foot multi-use pathway serve as that bike lane, rather than having a designated bike lane; is that correct? Newton-Huckabay: I'd rather have the multi-use pathway. Zaremba: The issue that comes up with -- in this pathway and bikeway discussion is a lot of the sidewalks are used by less than able people, either blind or deaf or in a wheelchair and the difference between the speed at which they travel and their Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 31 of 64 awareness of bicycles makes it very difficult for them. The disabled community -- or less than abled community has been very well represented at these meetings and they make a very serious point about the danger to them from -- I mean bicycles -- I used to commute by bicycle and I, typically, could sustain 35 miles an hour if I was in an adequate roadway. But a pedestrian doesn't do that. Newton-Huckabay: In a pedestrian-bicycle accident, two people are more likely to walk away than they are from a vehicle-bicycle accident -- Zaremba: That's true. Newton-Huckabay: -- on a major state highway. Zaremba: That's true. Particularly if the speed limit stays 55. Newton-Huckabay: You know, unless it's 7:00 o'clock in the morning and, then, the bike is going to be moving faster than the car. Zaremba: I'd leave it ten feet for now and -- Canning: I'll leave it ten feet for now, but do you want me to talk to Sue about -- if we are going to go this route, of having the multi-use pathway, as not -- feeling it's not necessary to have a dedicated bike lane on the -- on the highway? Borup: That's -- that's what I was just going to ask, is right now the 85 foot -- 85 foot right of way allows for a bike lane, is that -- Canning: I'm not sure. That's what I'm saying is I'm not sure -- Borup: Okay. If it does, if that does allow for a bike lane, to me it would make more sense to maybe give up -- give up some of that right of way and have a developer put in an ten foot pathway, but it wouldn't have to -- part of it could be on the highway right of way. They wouldn't have to give up so much of their property to do that. Or it would be all within the -- be within the setback anyway, maybe that doesn't make any difference. Canning: Well, the way that the code is currently written it allows for it to go in either with a license agreement, but that's what I was asking, if I find that -- that the 85 foot minimum right of way that they have suggested includes a bike lane, do you want me to recommend to City Councilor ITD or whenever this issue comes up, that it not include a bike lane, that it only be 75 feet with no bike lane, because we want the feet to be separated, a multi-use pathway. Newton-Huckabay: That would be my preference. Moe: I would concur as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 32 of 64 Borup: It's going to be a usable -- well, for most people a usable bike lane, a separated pathway from a major highway to me makes a lot more sense. Canning: Okay. I have got -- Borup: Assume a 75 or an 85 or what works out there, but I -- you know, it's always seemed ridiculous to me to have a -- just because it's a stripped bike lane and cars are going by at 60, who, in their right mind, are really going to be using that? Moe: Well, unless there is nowhere else to go, that's what they are going to do. Borup: Yeah. Moe: And I, for one, would like to see them up out of the roadway. I, unfortunately, have had the pleasure of having a relative be run over on a roadway that -- at 55 miles an hour, so I can see what happens. Borup: You're not going to have a lot of pedestrian traffic on a state highway until it gets into the population areas. So, I mean I guess there will be in some sections, but if you're trying to get from one place to the other, walking -- along a state highway -- Moe: I would argue that point, because I know quite a few recreational bikers, as well as even competitive, but that ride all over this valley, all over these roads everywhere. Borup: Well, that's what I mean. It can be used -- 1 could see it be used a lot on bicycles, but not necessarily walking, unless -- Moe: Oh, I see. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I think we all agree. Canning: I saw three out of four nods anyway. Moving onto E. Zaremba: I would use a bike like in the street, but I can see everybody else's point. Canning: Noise abatement. For resident uses along state highways and freeways. So, the freeways -- we have just been talking about highways, now we are back to highways and freeways. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: The applicant shall provide traffic noise abatement by constructing a berm and/or berm and wall combination approximately parallel to the highway or freeway. The top of the berm or berm and wall in combination shall be a minimum of ten feet higher than the elevation at the center-line of the state highway. If a wall is proposed, the walling materials shall be impervious concrete or stucco, unless otherwise approved by Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 33 of 64 ITO, as a sound attenuating material. Intermittent breaks in the berm or berm and all combination will degrade the function and shall not be allowed. I did want to point out that one -- what we are saying is don't cut it for pedestrian paths, you're only, really, going to have access to that at the half mile where you have those roads connecting in. Because, otherwise, it -- the sound all just comes creeping in around there and it defeats the purpose. Newton-Huckabay: Isn't that what they did on the Highway 55 over by Hill Road? Isn't that what they have there on that -- by the Home Depot out by Eagle? You have a half mile of concrete surrounding a development. Canning: I haven't been on that stretch, so I don't know, but it's similar to what you see on Eagle Road going north of Chinden, you see a lot -- those are like probably 15 feet. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Zaremba: Heavily landscaped and -- Canning: Well -- and, again, the landscape doesn't attenuate noise, but they are very attractive. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: The only comment I was going to add on number three is if we are envisioning a wall that could be as long as a half mile, I was going to suggest an additional sentence as part of number three that says: The color and/or texture of the wall material shall be varied at X hundred number of feet. I don't know. One hundred is probably too often and 500 may not be often enough, but say 300 feet. Borup: And they can meander that wall or have some -- Zaremba: Some visual relief. Borup: Well, I just -- a couple of weeks ago -- where was it at? Oh, Salt Lake. This is kind of -- I mean it was more of a commercial area, but they had a long wall that was a quarter mile long and, you know, every 500 feet or so they would jog the wall in four feet or something and, then, continue that for awhile and, then, come on back out and so it wasn't a straight line. Is that kind of what you're getting at? Zaremba: Yeah. The reason for that is the monotony of the drivers, they can actually get hypnotized by -- I mean I have read some study 20 years ago about a continuous wall along a right of way, that was, for some reason, causing a lot of accidents, because the drivers were just getting hypnotized by it. So, there needs to be some variety in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 34 of 64 materials at some interval and whether it's a setback variety -- setback variety or materials variety or color wise -- Borup: Well, that can, actually, be handled with the landscaping. Zaremba: Yeah. Or -- Canning: Chairman Zaremba, I did want to point out this is like Highway 20-26 and also Highway 69 are both entryway corridors, so they did have a 35-foot landscape buffer that they are required to landscape there, so there would be trees, there will be bushes, there will be grass in front of the berm. Zaremba: So, a half-mile wall would be broken up by other things visually? Canning: Well, I still think it's worthy, considering some texture -- the setback, because they are already doing 35, they may not be willing to go much more by the time they get all this, so I suspect you won't see them vary the location of that very much. So, you're more likely to get a change in materials. Or they could stop -- they could raise the berm and stop the wall at certain locations, too. That would be a little tricky, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Along the one on Highway 55 there is, actually, sculptured art on the wall. Zaremba: There is. Borup: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: And it's just a concrete block wall. Floating Feather is where it starts and, then, it ends at the bypass. Zaremba: And that can be attractive if it's done. I mean do we want to say there can be murals or -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, can't you just put something there that's -- Zaremba: -- large graphics or -- Newton-Huckabay: -- going to be -- Borup: I don't know why we need to say anything. Zaremba: We could allow it. What we would disallow are things defining to signs. Canning: You could clarify that artwork would be considered a difference in texture. Zaremba: Murals. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 35 of 64 Canning: A mural would be considered a difference in color, like in -- Zaremba: Works for me. Canning: I can work on that. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I have a -- maybe a problem with number four. And that's the break in the wall. I'm just -- it's going to depend on the development. If you have got -- you know, if it's a commercial development or maybe with -- pedestrian access would be appropriate or even a residential development with perhaps some open space or, you know, part of a neighborhood park or something in that area? It seems like it would be appropriate -- Newton-Huckabay: That would be a reason not to have a break in the wall. Borup: Why? Newton-Huckabay: highway. Because you don't want somebody running out into the state Borup: Well-- Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission -- Borup: Excuse me. Canning: It's only for residential uses as listed right now. Borup: Okay. But you can do a break without -- I mean I have seen that along freeways, too, where they did a break in the wall and, then, they have another wall in front of it. I don't know how -- how much difference that makes on sound, but you still have access, but you don't have a visual break. Newton-Huckabay: Well, they could apply for all three compliance -- Borup: Well, it's -- as long as there is some -- some options. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: That would fit under an alternate compliance? Canning: I certainly think it would. You're having two walls, basically, instead of one at some point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 36 of 64 Borup: Right. Then that's it. Zaremba: That's pretty much it for that subject. Canning: Shall we move onto the next one? Zaremba: Uh-huh. And we are agreeing to incorporate that in and move it along with the rest of the -- Canning: The only outstanding question would be there is a number of changes you have proposed, unless you want me to bring them back to you, like on a Thursday night, so you can see them before they go on or you can -- Zaremba: Well, since you have raised that question, let me discuss a little bit ahead the whole process. In preparing for this hearing you have been very efficient in publishing on demand only the number of copies that were requested by anybody and that leads me to the suggestion that what I would like to see go forward to the City Council is a new clean copy. Canning: Oh, of course. Zaremba: As opposed to a markup of what we got on April 4th, so that they have -- if they want to market it up and ask for their revisions to be in a strike out, that's no problem for me, but I -- I would have you and Diane Kushlan incorporate what we have discussed and, then, provide them with a brand new clean draft. Canning: I had fully intended to do that. Zaremba: Ah. Thank you. Canning: And I think I mentioned this last week, but I'll go ahead and mention it again. I did hire an editor to go through and read this for consistency. I had not brought up every comma and inaccurate use of the word -- there is one word that we use wrong all the time. Oh, compliment instead of complement. So, you know, I -- those kind of editorial changes I have not brought forward to you, because I don't consider them outstanding issues, but I do have the marked up copy that she went through, if anybody would really like to see it. I enjoyed it, but that's me. Newton-Huckabay: I think it's safe to say you're very attached to this. Canning: I felt so much more comfortable after I got it back from her, because I knew there was a kind of a mess here and I just didn't have the time -- it took her 18 hours and that's about what it would have taken me to go through and find all of those as well. So, I feel much more comfortable preparing that clean copy, knowing it's going to be quite clean. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 37 of 64 Zaremba: Yeah. Well, now that being said, do we care to see this one paragraph again or -- Newton-Huckabay: I do not. Zaremba: -- is it just one among many that we trust the changes are going to be made the way we expect them to be made? Borup: Well, I have full confidence in the director. Moe: So do I. Borup: I mean if we wanted to glance at it on our regular meeting, that could be okay, but I don't want another meeting to do it. Zaremba: Yeah. I agree. I wouldn't -- I would not want to continue this to a special date. I don't feel the need to do that. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, it will probably take me a week to do all those edits anyway. If you wanted to see this cleaned up at your next P&Z hearing, I can go ahead and do that and have the rest of the clean copy ready for you. Zaremba: I guess my question to Mr. Nary would be is it our responsibility to the City Council to see the final clean copy or are we allowed to trust staff to do the rest? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you're allowed to trust the staff to make the corrections as you have suggested and as you have approved and I don't foresee a problem from a legal standpoint in forwarding, based on all the comments that you have made, all the recommendations that you have agreed to. I think Mrs. Canning has tried to note when there has been an attempt to make sure that there is consensus that she's made note on the record that -- that Dean -- Mr. Willis were to get, that shows that three or four of you concurred with that and so I don't think there is a problem in her taking all those final edits and getting that all accomplished. She can certainly forward it back to you simultaneously when that's completed. If there is some issue you have raised, you can certainly raise it at a meeting that you feel something I have missed or you can simply contact Mrs. Canning if there is an issue that there is some discrepancy in the minutes between your recollection of what was supposed to be corrected there and I'm looking at you, Chairman Zaremba, because I know how meticulous you are on those things and you're pretty good at that. If there is some discrepancy between what your recollection was that was discussed and agreed to and what Mrs. Canning's was and the edit doesn't reflect that, she has the opportunity to either review the minute to do that or you can certainly raise that again in a future meeting, but you don't have to have it all come back to you one more time before you forward it. Zaremba: Thank you. I was hoping that's what you would say. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 38 of 64 Nary: That was the short answer. Zaremba: Yes. Thank you. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I would be happy to forward you an e-mail copy, Chairman. Zaremba: Knowing that I don't have any e-mail. Newton-Huckabay: That's what I think we should do. Zaremba: Yeah. Force me to get e-mail. Okay. Did you have more on your agenda or -- Canning: On -- yes. Zaremba: -- should I mention -- okay. Let's finish with what you're doing. Canning: You asked me to come back with a background area limit for commercial subdivision identification signs. Mr. Hawkins-Clark suggested that -- that the background area be the same as what are allowed for a center sign that's approved as part of a planned sign program. So, I think it's 50 square feet for some of the lesser commercial districts and, then, it goes up to 65, and, then, 200, I think, for C-G -- or 100 for C-C and 200 for C-G. So, some of them get quite large. He said, however, he does think that if there is a center sign approved, which generally has a subdivision name on it, that there should be a reduction by -- he suggested 20 percent of just the subdivision sign. Now, it says -- most of the sub -- the subdivision signs we have seen go in have been at the office park stuff thus far. We have got that huge Silverstone one and the arch, which, actually, isn't all that much square footage, probably. In EI Dorado you have got, similarly, a large subdivision sign. But they haven't done center signs -- you know, they haven't done a Crossroads sign that says Silverstone at the top of it. So, I think his thought was you get -- you get the subdivision sign and the same with the planned sign program. My only concern is that usually the subdivision sign goes in first, so if you do a subdivision sign and it's the full sign, then, what do you do when the planned sign program goes in? Do you reduce it there? Borup: I just -- after this meeting -- some of those -- I can't remember which one now, Silverstone or EI Dorado, had the big gateway, so they didn't even have any letters on them, I don't believe. I think they were trying to make a statement, you know. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, Silverstone I think you're talking about. There is not a sign -- Borup: Right. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: -- over the top. There is that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 39 of 64 Borup: Yeah. The big gateway. They were trying to make a statement and it looks really nice, but I don't -- so you had a concern? I mean we probably don't have anything where -- this wording now probably wouldn't restrict anybody on anything they would want to do, would it? Canning: No, probably not. We just need to make it clear that on those subdivision signs no business signs are allowed. You could have someone doing a 200 square foot sign -- I mean that would be a pretty big sign, just having the subdivision name, but we haven't seen that thus far. Is there a possibility for abuse? Yes. Newton-Huckabay: We, you have to think of that from a business standpoint, how value adding is an investment in a 35,000 dollar sign or whatever they cost. I mean that's why you're not going to see a huge abuse, because there is not -- you just want to mark it clearly, so people can find it. Zaremba: And -- yeah. I was going to propose the suggestion that we consider it the other way around. If the subdivision sign is in, we would -- in the planned sign portion we say the existence of a subdivision sign will be considered in allowing the square footage on the subdivision -- on the planned program. Canning: Yeah. It's more likely to go that way. The subdivision sign will come first. Borup: And I just mention, again, the planned sign program, that that will be taken into consideration among the allowable signs, but I like the other -- the first standards that you suggested, making them similar to something else that already exists makes sense to me. Canning: Okay. So, I will take the numbers from the planned sign program for a center sign, I will apply them for subdivision signs in those districts, and, then, I will put a statement in two statements. One is that no business names are allowed on the subdivision sign and the other one is that the center signs approved, as part of a planned sign program will be reduced for when there is a subdivision sign on that subdivision. Now, here is the tricky part. So, it's EI Dorado Subdivision -- or Bonito Subdivision and, then, they come in with EI Dorado in the middle of it for two lots -- to make two lots into five. Does the subdivision sign for EI Dorado guide the whole thing and, therefore, the planned sign program would be reduced by 20 percent? Is the -- are the lots that are part of the new subdivision entitled to an equally large 200 square foot subdivision sign? Newton-Huckabay: No. Borup: I agree. Zaremba: But how do you accomplish that? Canning: You could base square footage on acreage. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 40 of 64 Zaremba: Okay. Canning: Right now we do it on frontage or we could base it on frontage. Actually, the center signs are based on frontage. I was just looking at their caps, but they are, actually, based on frontage. So, that may be an appropriate way to do it. Zaremba: That would be consistent. Canning: That would be consistent. Zaremba: That is the easiest thing to administer and enforce. Canning: Okay. So, regarding whether -- if it's a -- if it's a re-subdivision, does the first subdivision reduce it? I think the 20 percent reduction is going to be a nightmare to try and enforce. I think we are going to lose track. Newton-Huckabay: Well, can you do it also based on then -- just the calculation based on frontage? Canning: Just leave it frontage? Newton-Huckabay: If that works well, it's easy to administer and it results in, you know, a preferred outcome, why change it? Canning: Okay. Okay. I understand Brad's point in thinking that we are going to get an awful lot of commercial signs out there, but -- Borup: Maybe. Canning: The 20 percent reduction, I think, will be just a nightmare for enforcement, because the person who does the subdivision is never the person that wants to do the planned sign program. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: Well, the last outcome you want from this development code is to have to hire ten more people to help administer it. Canning: Especially the sign code. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Which is a nightmare no matter what you do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 41 of 64 Canning: All right. I think I -- I think I know what to do. If not, I'll e-mail Chairman Zaremba. Zaremba: Thank you so much. And I'll respond. Canning: Regarding the separation for adult entertainment facilities -- Newton-Huckabay: I thought we decided on that last time? Canning: Well, we were supposed to do a map. I was supposed to have a map for you today. I told Mr. Guenther I needed a map by 7:00 o'clock today. Apparently, I was not clear that it was 7:00 o'clock today today, it was some other today. He didn't get it done. Right now we have a thousand feet and we have 2,500 feet. I'm pretty sure the 2,500 feet is going to be too far. I think that I -- it's been suggested by first amendment attorneys to me that 1,000 feet is all the further you can go without getting into a lot of trouble. I'm not sure why it's put at 2,500 feet in there, unless I just felt like getting in trouble, but that could be. Zaremba: I didn't remember the map issue. I thought what we were going to discuss was what is supported by state law and there was some research to -- Canning: State law says 2,500, but that was -- that's where it came from. But I think that the only -- it's been a few years since I went to a conference topic on sexually oriented businesses, but the last time I went the only one that -- the separation standard that seemed to be the norm as far as the first separation you could require, was 1,000 feet. I don't know if there has been new legislation that went further that's been upheld in the courts or not. I was supposed to come back with a map to make sure that we had properties that could still be have a business. You can't set separation standards such that they couldn't locate anywhere. That's what I need to have a map to indicate. And, then, the question -- remaining question -- I'm sorry -- it was whether or not it was 1,000 feet from a church and a bar or if it was only 300 feet to the bar. That was the other one. So, we were going to check on all those separation standards. And the one that's missing is that it can't be within 1,000 feet of another adult entertainment facility and I think you had already decided upon that one. That was the one you had decided upon. Newton-Huckabay: I think we should just parallel whatever state law is on this. I think we can all agree that this topic was probably debated quite heavily. Canning: And the state says 300 feet from a church or school and, then, 1,000 feet from an adult entertainment. I believe. Or, no, it might say 2,500 feet from an adult entertainment. Zaremba: Well, I agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. I would be comfortable with whatever the state says. Even if attorneys in general don't agree with it, we, at least, are taking our lead from something that's already in print. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25. 2005 Page 42 of 64 Canning: Can you -- are you able to look that up, Bill? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm looking at -- I know we had this extensive discussion in the city of Boise and they have a nudity ordinance you may have heard about -- Zaremba: Unless it's artistic, right? Nary: I think as Mrs. Canning has stated, I mean most of the case law that I'm familiar with, 1,000 feet is probably going to be fine, unless you're a city so small, like Star, that you would, essentially, eliminate that completely within the city and not -- that's the other thing that Mrs. Canning was stating in trying to figure out the appropriate distances to separate these businesses and that's the other analysis that her staff has to look at is 1,000 feet is fine, as long as there are areas that this could actually occur someplace, that there is an availability somewhere. It doesn't have to be a lot, but it has to be at least somewhere to at least as the first level of constitutional review. You can certainly make a case for 2,500 if you have a city that's fairly large in size, so that there are other opportunities -- as long as there are opportunities, you can make the amount as much as you want, but if you make it 2,500 and when they do the math it doesn't compute that anybody can actually open one, then, it's probably -- then, it's not going to work. It's not going to pass that constitutional review. I did playoff the provision here that Mrs. Canning is referring to, it is state code 67-6533. It says -- and it's location of store selling sexual material restricted in certain areas and this is selling sexual material, it says within 2,500 feet of any school, church, place of worship, measured in a straight line from the nearest entrance to the premise. This is an owner operated store, shop, or business which sells or rents any material. So, this wouldn't be -- this would be an adult bookstore or an adult paraphernalia, maybe -- something that sells sex as a product. Okay. But, you know, the ones that are the -- I guess the more commercial that we see the sexually oriented businesses that have dancers and they, generally, don't sell a product. So, this 2,500 really wasn't addressing that type of business, it was addressing more a store and it does allow the 2,500 for separation under the state code. So, you could follow in those types of zoning issues and be comfortable under the state code. But, again, the Constitutional provision is still going to say it's 2,500 feet, so is there still somewhere in your town that somebody can put that. If you draw a circle around 2,500 feet around all of these schools and churches and other places, is there anyplace that it can locate at all. I think that's the constitutional concern that we have to look at it. Zaremba: Well -- and, then, the other question is are we covering both kinds, the adult retail facility and the adult dancer facility? Nary: And those adult sexually oriented businesses like we are talking about aren't covered in this section of the local land use planning act and I don't recall if they are anymore specifically -- I ran 2,500 to see which one covered it. This is the only section that comes up with 2,500, so -- Canning: Chairman Zaremba, I might have -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 43 of 64 Zaremba: Director Canning. Canning: -- the reference. Hold on. Zaremba: My own personal instinct, not my own -- not only my own personal feeling, but just my assessment of the kind of community Meridian is, I think most citizens would probably support the highest number that we could plug in there. Nary: That's -- the court's don't go by that, unless they would probably have like five miles between most of them and if that was the standard, but that's why the courts don't really use that, they are looking more at is there availability for these types of businesses and trying to balance whether or not the government has that level of restriction capability on all businesses. That's why they are looking at separation of businesses. And, like I said, you couldn't just make them so gigantic that you really would just completely zone them out completely, have to be able to artfully be able to show that they are available somewhere. Our city is large enough in land size that it at least is possible to be able to locate. I think the only issue, then, becomes in the zones that are allowed, because I think there is a restriction on the type of zones they are even allowed in our -- isn't that right; Mrs. Canning? Canning: It's only allowed in the I-L currently and we have an awful lot of churches in our community that once you throw it around the quarter mile or half mile around all churches, I'm not sure any of the I-L is going to be left. Again, I really apologize that -- Mr. Guenther will hear about this tomorrow. Nary: The 1,OOO-foot is probably going to be okay. I mean you could certainly make that recommendation. Like I said, if you want to recommend 2,500-foot if supported by that research from Mrs. Canning's staff, you could certainly make that recommendation as well. If you want her to bring that particular point back to you, rather than hold up the whole thing, you may certainly make that sort of either/or recommendation and still continue to move it forward or if you want to, again, have it at your first meeting in May so you're not very far out, I mean you're not going to get it to Council anyway within ten days from now. So, that might be another way to do that particular point and, then, you will have the map to look at and, then, you can clearly have that discussion over the differences in the distances. Newton-Huckabay: I'm comfortable with moving it on the exception. If that map bears out that 2,500 feet is too -- not an appropriate distance, then, go with 1,000 -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. And I'm comfortable with the director making that decision and plugging it into the ordinance. Canning: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 44 of 64 Canning: We will proceed that way, then. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: Oh -- and I really apologize for this next one. I made you, at a late hour, discuss accessory structures and the size and what should be exempted and Diane was trying to get my attention the whole time -- she had talked me out of putting accessory structures and listing them as an accessory use. So, currently, we don't even list accessory use structures as an accessory us. So, I do not have a tool for implementing the 200 square feet exemption, unless you want me to go back in and add accessory structures to the document. I made you make a decision on something that didn't exist last week and I do apologize for that. Newton-Huckabay: I just wish you would strike it. Canning: Okay. Basically what she talked me into before -- and I still kind of agree with it and -- was that you have got your building envelope on a piece of property and you can build in that building envelope. It doesn't matter if it's a detached garage or an attached garage; it's still part of your build-able area. In Ada County where the properties are larger, you see a lot of issues related to accessory structures, so -- I mean some of them are 5,000 square feet. I mean they are huge accessory structures. We are just not going to have that issue here. So, I do think it's okay to just leave it the way it is, with your permission. Zaremba: Not even have this sentence in there-- Canning: No. Zaremba: -- is that what you're saying? Canning: No. It's just gone. Zaremba: But is there some trigger that -- at what point do you need a building permit anyhow? A hundred square feet or -- Canning: Two hundred square feet. Zaremba: Two hundred? Borup: Two hundred? Canning: I believe that's it. Borup: It used to be 120. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 45 of 64 Canning: One hundred twenty? That might -- Zaremba: 10 by 12. I would be comfortable with that covering it. Canning: Okay. The current code has a bunch of stuff like you can put structures in the required yard, as long as they don't take up 40 percent of the yard and, then, you have got these like not required yards and it's very confusing the way it's written now. We never have anybody come in for these things, you know, I think three in the entire time I have been -- in the last two years, so it's really not a big issue. Okay. So, with your permission, I'll just ignore that last conversation. Zaremba: It never happened. Canning: It never happened. And that was the only items I had tonight. Zaremba: Okay. I don't know if we need discussion of this or not, but I just wanted to comment on -- I agree with moving the enforcement into the police code, because that's where enforcement has to happen, but I do suggest that somewhere in here we at least mention that there is such a code and that uses and buildings are subject to enforcement. I do know there is a couple of places where we have said something could happen and it would be declared a nuisance and we haven't identified what the penalty related to that is. And maybe there is three times, but I can't pinpoint where they are. But I'm just saying there should be some place, maybe in administration or some place else be a comment that there is an enforcement code administered by the police department. Does that make sense? Canning: Uh-huh. And I will also look to put specific reference to nuisance and the enforcement code provisions in the UDC for the abatement of nuisances. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: If that's not already there. And I did have one other -- I'm sorry, I did have one figure to show you. This is one showing the new fence provisions. Right now we -- right now we require that this would be a corner lot, this one in front. We require that they keep their feet -- their fence back 20 feet, unless they get a fenced area, and the whole fence variance procedure is going away. Yippy. Yahoo. And, instead, we are allowing them to go ten feet, but, then, it has to taper back here where it meets the front of the fence of the -- the front yard of the adjoining property. So, I'm going to have Josh color in the fence, so that it's a little bit more clear. I'll just have him put a wash over it, so you can see it. But this shows that 45-degree chamfer and that angled edge there. I think that's the only -- Borup: Is that -- has that design ever even come up or -- where it's on the adjacent lot, rather than the corner? Canning: Yeah. This house would be facing this street. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 46 of 64 Borup: Right. Canning: And this house would be facing this one or it could be facing the one behind it. Borup: Well, I mean I -- and I was on the -- Canning: But it does happen. Borup: I was on the fence compliance committee for a number of years and -- Canning: Oh, you poor man. Borup: I know. That's when that changed. But I have never seen an application like that. Canning: I have had three or four. Newton-Huckabay: I have one of those in my neighborhood and one guy just didn't even bother to set up a fence. I think the logistics of it just -- by the time you put up a fence, a lot of his yard would have been gone. Borup: And the majority of the variances are on corner lots and it was always on the street side. But never did see anybody that I can remember try to do a variance on the adjoining interior lot. Canning: I had one just in Meridian Greens not too long ago -- or Observation Point, actually. Borup: So, that's going to be allowed like that, then? Canning: Yes. Okay. Borup: And this is on a corner lot? I mean where does it stop? Canning: Where does what stop? Borup: Well-- Canning: Just this property it stops. He's got a 20-foot setback here. Borup: Oh. Canning: And 20-foot setback there. It's just from this property line -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 47 of 64 Borup: So, you're not allowing the reduction on the street side, then? Is that what you're saying? Canning: Yeah. It's -- there is a street here, this is -- this is a corner lot, this is the front of it, though, and this is the side. Borup: Right. Canning: Street side. So, we are allowing a reduction from 20 to ten, but, then, you have to kind of angle it back to meet the 20 feet at the rear of the property. Borup: It's 20 to 10 on both streets. Ten feet on both streets. Canning: I don't understand your question. Borup: Well, you're allowing a reduction to ten feet along both streets, both -- Moe: On the front, as well as on the side. Canning: Only on the street side. There is street fronts and street sides. Borup: Okay. Canning: So, in this case this would be the front. Newton-Huckabay: May I make a suggestion? Put a door on your graph. Canning: On this one? Newton-Huckabay: A front door. Canning: I think we need to put a curb and gutter out in the street on here. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think that would make it a lot more clear. Canning: And color the fence so you can see it a little better. Zaremba: And some furniture in the backyards and a barbecue and -- Moe: With smoke coming out the fireplace. Some real good ambiance here. Borup: Yeah. I take back what I said earlier. We did see a lot of them that way. I was confused on the drawing a little bit. Canning: And, Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Borup, sometimes what you see is this -- this would be a backyard, but he's already got his feet up at the -- or his fence up Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 48 of 64 at the 20 feet, so it has to angle back to that. But in this case they would be allowed to do the ten feet, so they will probably take advantage of it anyway. Mae: Actually, he's got a big gate right there for his RV to park in. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: We will work on that. So, I'm adding a front door and street. And I think you have seen all the other ones, but let me -- Zaremba: We saw those -- Canning: We already saw that one. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Canning: This one we change. There was a wall there before and we moved it, so that the large -- it wasn't hitting the wall, just to make it a little more clear. I don't think you have seen this one. This shows the types of streets and, then, just where the front yards are, where the side yards are, where through property is. This is kind of part of the definitions section. Zaremba: Oh, that's handy. Canning: Just to make it clear, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: How is he doing -- is he freehand drawing that? Canning: No. I had done these -- I had done these, except the fence one, for Ada county, but the drawings -- the version of Word changed and so we weren't able to modify them, so he's taking my line drawn ones and done them by hand. He just copied them. He kind of thought they were added -- it was kind of nice to have the freehand in there. I'm taking -- I'm getting the feeling that you wished they were a little more -- Rohm: No. 'like them. Canning: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: No,' don't. Canning: You think they should be more formal? Okay. Well -- Newton-Huckabay: Can you have somebody do them in like Autocad or something? Canning: The problem is we don't have in-house software to do that and, then, we have got to incorporate them into Word. What I had done before was -- well, I guess we could Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 49 of 64 -- well, I will take direction from the Commission on the item. If you'd like -- Newton-Huckabay: I may be the only one. Canning: If you'd like to see us put them in a drawing program and, then, we could save them as -- as PDF files or something and then -- Moe: I guess " myself, I'd like to see them a little bit more professionally done as well. That's two. Borup: And do you have the dimensions on these or any type of a scale? Canning: Yeah. I mean they are not -- Borup: Well, I'll talk to you afterwards. Maybe I could help on that. Newton-Huckabay: That one there that looks professionally drawn is nice, but I would think that one there -- it looks like it's hand drawn. Moe: Well, let me just ask the question. Since we do know quite a few civil engineers around here, is there in your budget monies to hire them to maybe take care of these drawings with one of their programs, since it probably wouldn't take them very long to do all of that? Borup: I think that could be -- Moe: Then, I think you need to talk to Commissioner Borup here. Zaremba: Well, just looking at what you're showing now, the only thing that I would like to see improved is probably the outline of the street drawn with a ruler. The rest of it looks pretty professional. It's just that that line is a little bit wavy that -- you know. Borup: Well, that's straighter than this. Newton-Huckabay: That one is -- that one is nice. Zaremba: Yeah. Moe: I think a little bit of time with Commissioner Borup it will get straightened out. Zaremba: That works for me. Newton-Huckabay: I concur. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25. 2005 Page 50 of 64 Zaremba: I guess a question for all of these drawings -- and like we are going to come to the interchange overlays and stuff like that. How do they get incorporated into a planning published document if Word won't do that? Borup: Oh, that's -- Zaremba: Is that a hand assembly job for every -- Borup: Well, if that's converted to a jpeg or something else, will that -- Canning: Yes. I think what seemed to work best -- at Ada County I had done them in Word files, which over time didn't prove to be -- work out too well. I think that there is some little sketches in there now that were just done as jpeg files that are little EPS files and I think those have worked better, just little scanned images that have been placed in there. Sterling Codifier seems to be able to handle them and Sterling's not sterling at accommodating text or tables or anything other than text. So, I have actually talked a little bit about using somebody other than Sterling that might be -- or just publishing them in-house, but it's been a -- a battle I have decided to fight a little bit, given all other things to do. Newton-Huckabay: I would think with the desktop publishing market the way it is, that you should be able to get something that would incorporate it all into a document that's also organic enough to maintain the two. We use all kinds of desktop publishing at our corporation. Canning: If we were going to maintain it on site, I would definitely invest that, but if we are just going to send it off to Sterling, there is no reason to invest in a publishing software, because they just pull it apart and put it as text anyway. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry, but I don't know -- is that somebody you contract with? Canning: Yes. We contract with Sterling Codifiers. They do -- codify the codes for a couple states and most of the cities in Idaho and their website -- if you have ever gone and looked at our city code on their website, that's who maintains our city code for a fee. And I'm not sure how long the contract is. I don't know when it runs out. These were the issues that stopped me in my tracks. Zaremba: Well, I have commented before -- since we were talking about format and how it gets put together, Diane Kushlan has mentioned that when Sterling Codifiers gets it, all the page numbers and all that will get filed and I just sort of want to bring that up again, that -- in the footer there is -- to me, there should be an effective date, so that in the beginning the whole document is going to have the same effective date, but if revisions are made, then, there will be a page that has a different date on it and that way you can always tell if somebody's looking at the right version of a document and to me the two things that should be at the bottom of the page are the effective date or revision date, whichever is appropriate, and if not a consecutive page number, then, Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 51 of 64 probably the paragraph number. For instance, when you look at a phone book, you have got Adams to -- you know, AD to AF at the top of the page and if you were looking for a subject, you would look in the table of contents to find out what that chapter and paragraph number is. You should be able to look at the bottom of the page, open it at random, and know whether you need to index to the right or left to find the one that you're looking for. Canning: And Sterling does do that. Zaremba: Do they do that? Canning: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: They do do both those things. Zaremba: Okay. I thought that was the answer that I had gotten, but since I don't see it in this version, I just wanted to bring it up again. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a stupid question? Canning: There are no stupid questions. Newton-Huckabay: Isn't a project of this magnitude to something large enough that the city would do like an RFO or an RFP or something to put it together and maintain it and -- Canning: I think they charge two dollars a sheet to re-codify. Something like that. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I mean I think it's probably a discussion - - a different discussion than this. I mean I think the points as to how the formatting should be I think are very valuable to have this further. The city clerk is charged with maintaining the city codes as part of the -- as part of their responsibilities in regards to all city documents. That's who manages the contract. I did have a discussion with Mrs. Canning about, from a legal perspective, how valuable is the actual tool -- is the actual website for the city code that's managed by Sterling and in my opinion it's quite poor and I have brought it up to Mr. Berg a number of times that the quality of the work that we get for our contracted service at Sterling is very poor, because it's not updated very well. That's problematic. I don't recall, because I just turned my computer off, that there is a very good search capability. I don't recall that there is any real search method. So, again, finding it -- you know, your comments, Commissioner -- or Chairman Zaremba, are valid in saying if you had a tool on the page it would help you find it, but that helps if you're looking at a written document, not a searchable document on a computer screen. If you don't have a good search tool, then, you can't find it no matter what -- no matter what the page looks like, you can't find it anyway. Those are the things that maybe we Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 52 of 64 will have to have further discussions, because of the cost between Mr. Berg and his office and the Council and the Mayor's office and Mrs. Canning and myself, because we don't want to go through all this exercise, I'm sure all of you would agree, and, then, we have a document that people can't actually search it and use it and, you know, the intent of creating this development code is to make it easier, not harder, and, in my opinion, the Sterling service we get won't satisfy that with this particular code. It works fine with certain ones that are much simpler -- when you're looking at something very simple. Our criminal codes are very easy to find in the Sterling service, because you're very limited in the number that you have. But, you know, the only city I can think of in the surrounding area that -- when we have looked at it, that codifies it themselves and maintains it, is the city of Boise. It is expensive to do, to get keep your code up to date and to make sure -- if it's the initial one when you're putting it on, you can put in a PDF, you can scan it, you can put it on your page and but every time you update it you can't update the PDF, you got to rescan it all. Once you take the numbers out -- the page numbers out of sequence, because you changed the way the formatting looks, you have to redo it. So, I think we will have those discussions. I'm trying to get this in the best format. I just don't know that we are going to get much beyond that today, other than your comments as to what would make it easier to use it. Zaremba: Well, I personally -- and perhaps a consensus of the Commission would support you in carrying that thought forward and for all the city ordinances, not just this one, so -- Nary: Yeah. We have spent a lot of time in this in the few months I have been here and going back to the city code and there is two different methods to find city ordinances. Currently we have a webpage that has an access by the public. We have another webpage that we have access through the clerk's office and they aren't always the same. Our ordinances aren't always the same. Sterling doesn't always get them updated very quickly or they have updated some, because I have asked them to be updated and they have taken care of that. They should have been updated long ago, but they got it updated and there are other ones that I haven't asked them yet to do that they haven't updated. So, they are not really consistent in getting it done. Again, they have a lot of cities to cover, but I think we are going to have to have that discussion further with the Clerk and the Mayor and the Council as to how we get this done in an efficient way and a cost effective way. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Well, surely there is competition. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you know, there really isn't a lot of competition. I mean there isn't a lot of people that do that that I know of. I mean, you know, like I said, the city of Boise maintains it themself. When I look at either of the local Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 53 of 64 jurisdictions, Garden City, Nampa, Caldwell, Kuna, they don't -- they all use Sterling. Most of them Use it, because there aren't a lot of services for that, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I was just thinking in this information age, I mean who maintains Atlanta's? , mean in the information technology age they don't need to be local, do they? Zaremba: I'd find out who publishes the phone book. That kind of publishing software is what we need, Nary: I think we will get it -- you know, we are going to get it done. I mean, obviously, this is a worthwhile exercise to have that discussion, it's an expensive undertaking to try to get it through the current contract. I haven't seen the current contract. I think that's part of the discussion. I don't know where there is some exclusive right for Sterling to have that option. I would assume they don't, but I don't know that. I don't know if the contract gives us that opportunity to maintain it ourself. Currently, Our IT functions are managed by two people in the city. This code won't be a tremendous amount to maintain in the short run, if this gets approved within the next couple three months, it's not going to change really, likely, very quickly, so that's -- one we can get it, you know, in a publishable form, it's probably going to stay that way for a little while. But right now with only two people for us to maintain it even on our website, to make sure it's current and accurate, that's why we use another service. Now, as we have gotten larger, obviously, we are going in our budget period with the city, that may be worthy of discussion of how do we do this long term. Is that the best way or is there something else. Zaremba: Good. Thank you. I have in my notes probably a dozen or so surely typographical things, which I think' can get together with the director out of the context of a public hearing and discuss and I think probably should be discussed. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: And if nobody else has things they want to put ahead of me, I will do mine. I am at 11-3D-3, which in the sign ordinance, and 11-30-3 is prohibited signs. It begins on what is identified as page three, but over on page four at the top, paragraph J, off- premise signs, and what it means is off-premise signs are prohibited, except as identified in three sections that are identified. My question is what seems to be missing to me is in the sign ordinance committee we had discussion about these little blue signs that really are off-premise, but they -- they are informational and they say city park two block or XYZ church half a mile with an arrow. Borup: And Main Street, formerly -- Zaremba: Yeah. Main Street, formerly -- and we have some that that's, actually, an off- premise sign and we had some discussion about how do we enable that and I'm not finding the results of that. So, that's a question that doesn't necessarily need to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 54 of 64 answered, except that I think it should be covered somehow and what I would do is add where ever that is one more section here as an accepted permit. Or, actually, maybe there is a question, but whose signs are those? Are those ACHD's signs put in the right of way? I mean -- maybe the answer is we don't have anything to do with them. Does anybody know that? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the previous ordinance did have information signs listed separately. I'm looking for it. It should be listed as a sign not requiring a permit. Nary: Mr. Chairman, most of the time those blue signs are put up at the request of the city. I wouldn't say all of them are, but many of them are. Certainly, the Main Street, formerly East 1 st signs, were put up at the request of the city. The ones that are directional to, for example, the Boys and Girl's Club along Main Street was put up at the request of the city. Zaremba: A couple of City Park ones I think are. Nary: So, most of the ones that are public information types of signs -- and that's probably the most appropriate place for them, but they are put at the request of the city most often. The other ones I can think of, the ones that have park signs that look like, you know, children on teeter-totters and those type of things, those are usually put up at the request -- or they are put up in conjunction with a copy of the highway district sign program, because they are put up on their poles, they generally put them up, they are, generally, the ones that prepare them, the city doesn't make signs, normally they make them, so that's usually how they get there, but probably the -- you know, some section of signs without a permit would be the most appropriate, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, it's in 11-3D- 7 -A and C and I can reference those in the except as permitted section. Zaremba: Okay. Yeah. Perfect. Yeah. I think I would just reference it in the off-premise. Canning: I'll do that. I don't even know if I need to do -- reference C. Probably just A. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you for that one. And that was good to learn that they are asked for by the city, usually, and, apparently, it's ACHD that puts them up. Okay. I didn't know that. Okay. Canning: Directional -- excuse me, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, directional signs can also be on individual property, you know, that say enter, exit, things like that, we have allowed. And we have even allowed like St. Luke's to have a Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 55 of 64 sign on the entrance to Touchmark as a directional sign, because it met the four square feet parameters. Zaremba: Emergency straight ahead and -- Canning: That was the stretching -- stretching it a little bit for St. Luke's, but it is a hospital, so it is important for people to know where the hospital is, so -- Zaremba: Good point. Let's see if I can tell what section I'm in. I'm in Chapter 5. Administration. Article A. General provisions. Canning: I'm sorry, could you read that again? Zaremba: Yeah. Chapter 5. Administration. Article A. General provisions. Paragraph F. Public Hearing. And it's at page eight -- the page number at the bottom is an eight. Newton-Huckabay: 11-5A-5? Is that what you're on? Zaremba: Let me see where the last time is, if there was a reference. Yes. 11-5A-5, Public Hearing process. That's indicated on the page five. If you keep going to that page eight, under F where it actually talks about the Public Hearing, the first sentence says the City Council and/or Planning Commission shall conduct public hearings in accordance with the provisions set forth in Title 1 of Meridian City Code. My question is is that where things like Resolution 206 that establish how long people can talk or is that separate from Title 1 and also -- I guess my first thought was shouldn't we have in this document those timings, but if they are in Title 1 and we are referring to it, then, that answers my question. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission -- Zaremba: And, then, we have amended hearing procedures and Some other stuff -- I'm sorry. Director Canning. Canning: Those currently are not codified. They are currently just under resolution, rather than law. Zaremba: So, can we make them law by referring to Resolution 206 or is that -- is that allowed? Borup: Probably is, but it's a lot easier to make changes if it's a resolution and policy, rather than -- Canning: Otherwise, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, otherwise, every time you want to change your hearing procedures you have to go through and do a zoning ordinance amendment. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 56 of 64 Zaremba: So -- okay. Then, that leaves me with a question. Should we add here a reference to the -- what I want to do is be supported. If somebody argues with me about their three minutes and uses up some of their three minutes to do it, I would like to have some reference to where that comes from. Borup: It's right there. Zaremba: There is a big sign and it's also usually on the -- Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, Mr. Nary may have to help me out, because it's been awhile since I worked on it, but I believe what I did when I worked on those changes, was to take everything from the resolution and put in Chapter 1, the Administration. I think it was a change to the administration title, rather than -- or was it a new resolution? I can't remember. Even if you put it in Chapter 1 versus -- or Title 1 versus Title 11, then, the amendment procedures are much less onerous to amend other portions of the code. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission -- and I would agree, especially with that last comment, if you want to -- we have had a discussion and we have had it sort of -- kind of on the shelf for awhile, that we were looking at amending the Public Hearing ordinance under Title 1 of the City Code, so that it would apply both to the Council and the Commission that do public hearings and that they would be uniform, so that the -- and, then, as Mrs. Canning stated, if you wanted to -- if there was a need to amend the ordinance, we wouldn't have to go through the Planning and Zoning process to do it, it can be done at the City Council level, and the intent was to provide some consistency. Because of workload and time and this process of this going through, we didn't really want to gum it up. The number one thing the Council wanted us to take the actual swearing in part of the Council testimony out of the code, so we did that, we just took it out, because it -- and we said if there is more to do, we can do it later. I think if you want to have a uniform code, that's a way to do it, would be to put it in Chapter 1. You make that recommendation to the City Council and we can go back to the draft that we had been working on -- I started working on it when I started and my other deputy attorney Mr. Baird has looked at it, we just haven't really finished it, because of other needs, but that would make the most sense. The reasoning that we were using, which I think I'm kind of hearing from this Commission, is it makes some sense to have some uniformity as to how you conduct public hearings, so that the public isn't surprised that the Planning and Zoning is one way and the Council is another way and it makes it very confusing. It makes it much easier if it's systematic and uniform and that was the intent, but that's probably where it doesn't need to be part of this code, but it could certainly be an additional recommendation from this Commission that there be a uniform hearing procedure that could be incorporated in the city code. Zaremba: So, I think if I'm understanding, then, the first sentence here that already references Title 1 if at some time Title 1 is adjusted to include all that, my question has been answered. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 57 of 64 Nary: Yes. Zaremba: So, as a consensus of this Commission, perhaps we encourage you to move forward with amendments to Title 1 and I would not make any further reference here, if that's what's going to happen. Nary: We could certainly do that and I do believe that that's the desire of the Council's as well, to have a uniform system. And so we will do that and we will get that done and, hopefully, around the same time we can get this done and -- Canning: So, Chairman Zaremba and Members of the Commission, I saw two definite nods and one delayed nod. Is that three nods of agreement there? Zaremba: I'm nodding. Canning: Okay. Okay. Then, I will include that as a separate recommendation. Zaremba: Delete this sentence the way it is, but recommend that Title 1 be -- incorporates that. Canning: I will include that. I think your other recommendation is for the enforcement one, so I'll -- I think those are two separate recommendations, so -- Zaremba: Well -- and the only thing -- the other thing -- yeah, to include some reference to the enforcement and maybe in your staff report to the City Council mention what's happening to the enforcement section. Canning: Yes. Of course. Yeah. Zaremba: Since that's a change from -- Canning: They will be reviewing the enforcement section on their own. Zaremba: Oh, good. Okay. All right. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I suspect we have come to the time to actually take some action. Anybody have any further comments to make or add or subtract? Borup: I didn't until -- until I just noticed that we have added in requiring neighborhood meetings on all public meetings; is that correct? Canning: Yes, sir. Borup: I missed that. Canning: It was a recommendation of the PIG group. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 58 of 64 Zaremba: They actually supported that? I thought that was -- Borup: All public hearings of any size or type? Zaremba: Would that include like AUP's. accessory use permits, and stuff? Is that what your question is? Borup: Well, just -- I don't know. I mean I just can see that 90 percent of the time there ;s no one going to show up. Is that a little bit burdensome? Our last meeting, for example, we had -- I don't remember how many public hearings we had, but 3/4th of them had -- didn't even have any public testimony. Of COurse, maybe that's because they had such a good neighborhood meeting. Zaremba: Yeah. Would we want to define it to only apply to subdivisions and planned developments and not other things like accessory use permits and -- Borup: I don't know. I'm -- Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, currently the short plat as we have it defined, does not require a neighborhood meeting. That would be new commercial or industrial that's four or less -- let me lack up. The other administration stuff. J think the - I think the intent was right now, because we don1 require them - J think -- Borup: What's considered the application -- or submittal of an application? Canning: When it's submitted to us. Borup: The initial submittal, not a complete - it doesn't have to be a complete application? Canning: Well, we won1 term 1/ -- Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, if one of the application requirements is that it - they have the neighborhood meeting notes or some proof of a neighborhood meeting, we won't accept it, so they could submit it, but it will just sit in Christy's office for awhile. Borup: Well, one of the comments in the past has been the applications are incomplete. I mean they submit it, but they are missing all kinds of items and so is it considered -- Canning: It would not be deemed complete without it, if we required it. Borup: Well, without the neighborhood meeting, but how about with a lot of the other items, too, that -- maybe that doesn't happen anymore. Canning: No, it still happens. We kick them back if they are too incomplete. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 59 of 64 Borup: So, it wouldn't be considered submitted, then? Canning: Right. Borup: Okay. Canning: Commission Borup, can you tell me where you saw that? I'm having a hard time finding the neighborhood meeting. Borup: 11-5A-5. Canning: Okay. Borup: That's H-5 if you get to that section. Mae: That's pretty much an across-the-board statement on that of all applications. Borup: Well, you know, if the PIG committee didn't have concerns, I guess maybe it's not a -- but I can -- you know, it's a few more hours out of someone's day. Most of those aren't going to have any response. They will send the letters out and they will have a time and I guess they don't need to wait more than a half hour and they can leave, if no one shows up. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, Members -- Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, if you wanted to, one way -- one thing to consider may be that if -- if there are adjoining residences, existing residences that -- that that's when that requirement would kick in. So, if there were no adjoining residences or no residences within 300 feet, then, they wouldn't have to do one. But you're not likely to have many that will fit that criteria that wouldn't also fit the criteria for a short plat. Borup: So, you're saying if it's commercial property within 300 feet you wouldn't need one? Zaremba: I'd make the exclusion. If it's into the property -- this see, south of Franklin and west of Meridian, it was a commercial property where they wanted to put in -- or applied and I guess was approved to put in the RV park, the other commercial members of that business owners association would have -- wanted to have a neighborhood meeting, which they did, Borup: Boise's done it for a number of years and do they apply it to every public hearing? Canning: They must, because I have had to do it on the most simple and benign of them that I can think of, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 60 of 64 Borup: Okay. Well, that's What I was WOndering, whether it's worth doing On those type of things, but it's hard to - so how do yOU determine what is and what isn't? Probably easier just to say everything, uh? Canning: And, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I mean I have talked to a lot of people outside PIG about this, too, and they will go - I mean people always comes in, so is a neighborhood meeting required and we'd say, no, not now, but probably will be in the future and they are just like -- that's fine, just let us know. I mean that's all. They just want to know when they have to get it done and if they have to get it done, so I don1 think that it's -- they don1 object to ff, they just want to know that everybody is plaYing on the same field. Borup: Okay. Moe: I'd keep it the way it is. Newton-HuCkabay: Yeah. Me, too. I agree. Canning: And the intent was to require it prior to this submittal, because, otherwise, it's rather disingenuous I feel. Borup: But that could be months before the Public Hearing. Canning: It could be. Borup: Of course, maybe that's good for the applicant. People forget about it by then. Zaremba: Well, it's a good way to identify it, if there is going to be anything contentious or not on the part of the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: I'm sorry, Mr. Nary, did yOU -- Nary: Just a question -- and maybe I missed this. So, Mrs. Canning, on those ones, is that accessory USe permits, too, did YOU say or just the preservation of the plat and a conditional use permit? Canning: It's only - it's only on applications reqUiring a Public Hearing. Nary: Oh. Okay. Because I knew We already sent notices to, essentially. your adjacent property owners anyway, so it seemed sort of a double whammy to - Zaremba: An AUP only requires a public hearing if somebody objects; right? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25,2005 Page 61 of 64 Borup: And they send the additional notice initially to get that, to see if there is an objection. If there isn't -- so, I just missed out. So, thank you for the clarification. Canning: If you look on the table labeled 11-5A-1, toward the beginning of that administration chapter, it would just be those that are listed a PH is the process column. Newton-Huckabay: Can we move to adjourn? Zaremba: Okay. The procedure would be, if you're so inclined, to close the Public Hearing first and, first, let me say that we have given opportunity to everybody in the audience to testify. The point is there is nobody in the audience at this point, so that opportunity has been given and everybody who came at the beginning at the Public Hearing last week availed themselves of that privilege and seemed to be satisfied that they did not return -- need to return for this portion of it, so we are not ignoring anybody who cares to testify. So, I would say the first thing is to close the Public Hearing and, then, we will discuss what to do next. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we close the Public Hearing. Do I have to -- Zaremba: No. We only have one Public Hearing open, so that's probably a sufficient motion. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Mae: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES. Zaremba: My suggestion is that the actual motion -- assuming that we are ready to move this folWard. I think we have had the discussions, that the director knows the things that need to be modified and we have had consensus on those and have said that what will eventually be produced is a clean new copy for the City Council. If I have a sense that we are intending to move this folWard recommending approval, what we actually need to do is use the verbiage that I think was in the notice and that is to repeal Title 11, Zoning Organizations, and -- I'm sorry. Title 11, Zoning Regulations, and Title 12, Subdivision Development of the Meridian City Code and to replace it with a new Title 11, Unified Development Code. I'm guessing that's what the motion needs to be. Anybody want to just repeat the circled area, assuming that's our consensus of whatJNe---- wish to do? ---- -- Newton-Huckabay: Ready? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 62 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we repeal Title 11, Zoning Regulations, and Title 12, Subdivision Development of the Meridian City Code and replace it with the new Title 11, Unified Development Code, as will be amended by the director. Zaremba: With agreed amendments. Newton-Huckabay: With agreed amendments by the planning director. End of motion. Moe: Second. Nary: And Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Nary? Nary: Just for the sake of clarity, I think what Commissioner Huckabay would be recommending is recommending to City Council that they repeal Chapters 11 and 12. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, didn't I say that? Nary: You said you repeal it, but should I -- Borup: She meant that. Mae: I knew you meant that. Newton-Huckabay: The collective City Council you. Nary: Not you. That they repeal Chapters 11 and 12. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Canning: Chairman Zaremba? Zaremba: Director Canning. Canning: I assume that also could include some grammar and punctuation edits as may be deemed fit? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. -_/-- Zaremba: Not only the five or six that I'm about to give you, but you have mentioned your hiring an editor and that's on the record, so -- .--_. .. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 63 of 64 Canning: And also including your recommendation that the City Council consider hearing procedures be incorporated into the city code. Zaremba: Title 1. Canning: And that there be amendments to the police enforcement -- code enforcement provisions. I assume you meant to include those in your motion. Zaremba: The maker agrees. I think all votes are incorporated into the motion, first the maker? Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Zaremba: And the second? Moe: I would second that. Zaremba: The second supports the inclusion of those. Newton-Huckabay: A fine interpretation of my implied meaning. Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Mae: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Can I get a second or an amen or something? We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We are adjourned at 9:45. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M. /-- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 64 of 64 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ATTESTED: ...- -- - --- ---~ - ---_/ ------- ------- ---- -,------ --,,- ---------- ---