2005 08-04 Special
Meridian Plannina and Zonina SDecial Meetina
Auaust 4, 2005
The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 4,
2005, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm,
Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
Commissioner Keith Borup (arrived at 6:10 P.M.)
Others Present: Anna Canning and Brad Hawkins-Clark
Zaremba: Good evening everybody. Let us open this special meeting workshop with
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, August 4, 2005 and we
will have a roll call of attendance.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
0 Keith Borup X David Moe
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
X Chairman David Zaremba
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Adoption of the agenda. We have one item, so we will assume it's adopted
as is and that Item is a Review of the North Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and we will begin with a presentation from the staff.
Item 3:
Review of the North Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Application:
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Commission and as last time, I don't have as
much of a presentation as it is dialogue with you, I would hope because I am really
hoping to get your feedback and input. Last time we met you had asked us to come
back with some of the more specifics or at least I said we are going to be come back
with some of the more specific policies on our State Highway 16 Preservation Corridor.
I don't think you probably got it resubmitted, but we had these colored maps in your
packets last time, so if you don't have it with you, I don't think we had any more made,
right, Tara? So, generally do you want one to refer to up there tonight or --?
Zaremba: I have it pretty well implanted, I don't know about anyone else.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah, we have a large map here too, so whatever works for you. But,
generally we are talking about the area between a half-mile either side of McDermott
Road. That area over there. So, a couple of updates for you that have happened since
the July meeting. One is regarding that area north of rim. As you recall, there were a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 2 of 14
couple of folks who asked to be included in the area of city impact below the rim. I went
to Mayor De Weerd the next day and said that the Commission wanted us to kind of go
that direction. Her main concern was not so much that that is or is not in the area of city
impact, it was the timing, you know because we have not done any sewer studies, nor
have we budgeted any funding to do sewer studies down below the bench there.
Should we do that or should the Council, the Commission instruct staff to proceed with
that it could potentially push this particular application back you know several months.
They are doing a study on the four square miles over on the west side of McDermott
and they have already done the sewer study on the bench on the top, but they have not
done it below. So, her concern again was the timing on that and we would need to have
something to give to Ada County when we apply to amend the area of city impact that
says here is how we are going to serve it. So, her recommendation is to keep moving
the way it is and maybe we can come back and revisit this at another time. I did have a
phone conversation with Ms. Ewing who was one of the people here that night and it's
her parents that actually have that 400 acres down there. She was disappointed, but
kind of understood that there is that timeframe and you know, Eagle of course, is the
main other factor here - whether or not they do or do not get their area of city impact
approved by Ada County. That is just one update.
Rohm: I have a question in regard to that. Has 100 percent of the existing area of
impact been studied from the sewer perspective? Everything that currently is within the
area of impact?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We have a master facility plan that the Public Works Department
has adopted and that's what they refer to.
Rohm: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: I guess I - to see the looks on your face and going to see well, this is
the direction you gave us and I also feel a little bit questioning, well how do we
proceed? I guess we could always keep it in here. You can include in your motion on
this application to the City Council that it be included. I mean I think that's one option, if
you want us to proceed that way. You know, not necessarily moving ahead.
Moe: My biggest concern then is what happens when Eagle does look at that -or Ada
County does give that to Eagle in their area of impact and then we were pretty much all
in agreement, you know, at that first meeting that we definitely wanted to pursue that for
the City of Meridian and it's kind of disappointing that it's kind of going that way, that the
Mayor kind of wants to hold that up.
Rohm: Yeah, there are specific reasons listed as in fire protection, zip code, telephone
service, school district and all of the above leaned towards Meridian as the people that
live in that area consider themselves part of Meridian, or the greater Meridian area and
this is - we would have preferred that it be considered, but-
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 3 of 14
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. No, I understood and I like I say at the public hearing I expect
that maybe we will hear from the Ewing's and other property owners again and if that is
a part of your recommendation to the Council then maybe it will swing the other way
should they testify at both hearings, you know, something like that.
Zaremba: I wonder if there is a way to put it that it's our consensus that it will
eventually, naturally become a part of Meridian and that even if we don't specifically
identify it today as part of our area of impact at least we make the statement that we
expect it to move that direction, so that we are reserving some right to claim it later. I
don't know if there is a way to put that or a better way to put it. I would not like to see it
just disappear from whatever we recommend to the City Council. I would like to, one,
not hold it up as you say, but, two, at least make sure the subject is there. Director
Canning?
Canning: Maybe the most efficient thing to do might be to direct staff to include a policy
that says something about consider annexation of properties in that area at the owner's
request and include them in an eventual area of city impact. You also are kind of our
bosses some times, you know it's enough having five bosses, but when you get up to
nine it's a bit much. But, you can direct staff also to prepare another amendment that
includes the request of the Ewing's. The advantage of keeping them separate, there is
a distinct advantage there because if it's all lumped together, it'll end up going to the
Committee of Nine and it'll all get held up. So, there is a real advantage of keeping it
separate at this point. But, we could include a policy and you could ask us to do a
follow up amendment.
Rohm: Let me ask another question, then. If city limits actually goes to the edge of
area of impact as in to the rim, they have development and a party below the rim makes
application to be annexed into the city, even though they are outside of the area of
impact, but adjacent to property within the city, can that application be considered?
Canning: Yes.
Rohm: Thank you.
Canning: There is nothing in state law that prohibits the annexation by one city into
another city or cities area of impact. It tends to raise a few political hackles.
Zaremba: Did you say it is or is not the state law?
Canning: There is nothing in state law to prohibit that.
Rohm: That would be kind of like the east line of Meridian's area of impact and the west
line of Boise's and sometimes there is a swap there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 4 of 14
Canning: Correct. There is actually nothing to prohibit from two areas from having an
area of city impact. The state law regarding these areas of impact is fairly loose, so you
could have overlapping areas of impact. You could both plan for it in the
Comprehensive Plan, but have different areas of city impact. Boundaries, there are all
sorts of iterations of what you could do to still plan for growth in that area. Did I confuse
you all even more?
Rohm: No. Actually, I like that.
Zaremba: Let me just think through of the items that would be considered for whether
we could service an area or not. It already has our zip code. It's already part of our
Rural Fire Department. Probably served by the Sheriff, but I am sure the Police
Department could make that adjustment. Of all the questions we could be asked by the
County about how you conserve it, how many can't we answer? Water and sewer?
Any others?
Canning: I think water we could handle, it's just sewer that - the big things are that we
don't have studies for water and sewer. It's obviously possible. With a lift station
anything is possible, right? It would just be that we don't have the technical backup for
it at this point.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Canning: I am stealing Brad's show.
Hawkins-Clark: I guess the other piece to add to that that I guess I would feel better
about having it as a separate application is that we will have more information, once
Ada County acts on the City of Eagle's application. They haven't had a public hearing
yet because that Committee of Nine, between Eagle and Star and Ada County is
ongoing still. My understanding is they are going wrap that up in the next month and
probably set a public hearing and give us a better idea of where Ada County
Commissioners stand and anybody can go and testify at that Ada County meeting and
provide input on that, but I think that at least we will have a better idea there. In
addition, Eagle City's study for that area between the river and the bench is supposed to
be done in the next two or three weeks. So, that will also be something that our Public
Works Department could look at and it seems like all of that would kind of help to make
that a discreet area that could be analyzed. That is just my thought right off the bat, but
at your public hearing on this matter, you give us direction and we will take whatever
direction you send us in.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 5 of 14
Newton-Huckabay: I wasn't here for the special meeting, as you all know. So, is this
the open item that is holding this up? Or is it just this one piece of property?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, no. I am sorry. No, I was just providing an update as to
the two conversations that had gone on between the last workshop and this one. But,
no for tonight the reason was primarily to discuss the State Highway 16 Preservation
Corridor Policies, but I was just giving you a quick update.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, if I may give you my opinion, I think that it would be
negligent at this point to be this far in the process to hold this up from public hearings
when out of the public hearing process may come more changes to it and, you know,
we have a lot of area out there and I think it's really important to get a plan in place as
soon as we can and I think that holding it up for what sounds like could be a fairly
lengthy process - that could come to nothing if the City of Eagle already is in process of
putting that into - I am not sure what we would gain by delaying the public hearing
process. That would be my question. What do we gain? I mean the property owner
can still apply to the city to be annexed, whether they are in the area of impact or not is
what I am getting from this conversation. Is that true? We are only talking about one
property owner it sounds like verses however many hundreds of thousands of property
owners that would really like to get an opportunity to see the north Meridian plan in
place.
Zaremba: One of the outcomes of this workshop is to schedule that public hearing, so
be thinking about that before us and I would have the record show that Commissioner
Borup has joined us. He apparently has been here for a while and I didn't notice that.
But, add him to the attendance please.
Hawkins-Clark: Another quick update for you. We have, the City Council did last week
or maybe two weeks ago approved a $16,000 contract with Washington Group
International to do an update to the traffic study for north Meridian. So, they are working
on that. They told me today was probably just another seven to ten days and they will
have that complete. So, that will be information that we will certainly get to you so that
you can have that in your hands before the hearing. Our reason for doing it was so that
you could see the cumulative impacts of the traffic in north Meridian, particularly at the
intersections with all of the preliminary plats that have been approved to date. So, we
think that it is going to be helpful information and then they will give us five year
increments, so that 2010, 2015, 2020, etc. as to when certain intersections in north
Meridian hit level of services that we think are unacceptable. So, we will get that
information to you, but that is underway. The other contract-
Zaremba: You are meaning the ones that have not already done so?
Hawkins-Clark: Not already gone over?
Zaremba: Yeah.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 6 of 14
Borup: They are doing projections on future development on the 10, 15 and 20 that you
were talking about? They are anticipating build out in those areas, you mean? That's
how -- ?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: I mean not just limited to developed plats at this point, they are anticipating that
the bare ground will redevelop?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, right. They are using the COMPASS model, which was recently
changed for the Blue Print for Good Growth process, so it does include more updated
numbers. The other contract that is smaller, but that will also have in the next couple of
weeks is a market absorption analysis that Thornton, Oliver and Keller is doing that is
looking at basically how much office, commercial land should we, in their estimation,
designate within the north Meridian area given the population and spending habits,
discretionary income, etc. So, the main benefit for that will hopefully be just how much
land do we already have zoned today commercial and where does that fit? How much
more do we need to add figuring mixed-use and all those other future designations as
well as the existing zoning?
Zaremba: Will we get those reports as part of the public hearing process? I mean, at
some time we will have knowledge transferred to Commissioners?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, you bet. No, we are going to hide the information. It will be
probably just included in the application packet. I guess we haven't really worked that
out, yet. I haven't talked with Anna.
Newton-Huckabay: Now, how come all this is coming behind the process of putting the
changes to the map? We put some suggested changes on the map.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Don't we have the cart before the horse?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, it is, I guess a little bit. Another way to look at it is that either you
haven't made any decisions on the map yet and the decisions that you make on the
map will be informed by these studies.
Newton-Huckabay: Is that (inaudible ------)? I personally am concerned about the
amount of light office you know in north Meridian because there seems to be a lot of it.
Zaremba: You are saying throughout the city there is already vacant light office and -
Newton-Huckabay: Yes I am particularly interested to see what they have to say
because I think -
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 7 of 14
Rohm: We are all over zealous in our desire to expand office area in that area?
Newton-Huckabay: That is my concern. You know I mean you would hate to see that
you build up a bunch of light office or designate it because I think down the road that
that leads to development problems when somebody moves into a subdivision and they
think that the land is vacant is going to be light office and then it sits empty for four
years and nobody comes in there. So somebody comes in and is going to want to put a
gas station or multi-family housing - and that's one of those, oh, we really didn't do that
very well.
Zaremba: That is some of what we get from Thornton, Oliver and Keller.
Hawkins-Clark: That is our hope.
Zaremba: Have they been given opinions about the area around the sewage treatment
plant? I am sure they pay attention to that as well and how much that can stand?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they have been basically updated on where, obviously, our
adopted comprehensive map land use map, which shows that area already. But, also
it's some of the direction that you gave us at your last workshop. So, yeah, in terms of-
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is yeah the process, again, we are - if there is
feedback you want to give us on the timing on this, please do so. I guess our thinking is
that the way that they will synchronize will work out and of course when you hold your
public hearing if you feel that you don't have enough information to make a good
recommendation at City Council, you can always request more information at that point
too.
Newton-Huckabay: I will feel comfortable if we have these two studies, particularly.
The traffic study, I think, I don't think that is going to come as huge surprise you know
that the infrastructure is probably going to be weak out there, but the other one I don't
know what it it's - I don't even have the guess on what that is going to say, so I would
just want to review that.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, unless you have any further discussions on that shall I proceed to
talk about the handout?
Zaremba: I think we are ready for that.
Newton-Huckabay: Do you have copies?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah, there are copies sitting here on the edge of the table. So, what
this is actually I just took out a piece of the transportation policies. There is many other
changes that I didn't think really warranted discussion at your workshop, so this is just
taken out a piece of that. The purpose and the intent for this area, I think, we covered
pretty well last time and that's to support ITD's plan for extending it from Highway 44 to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 8 of 14
1-84 and that's a way, I think of communicating to both ITD and the public where the City
of Meridian's preferred alignment is for that extension. The third paragraph notes that
the intent is to limit annexations and new development within the area until a plan is
approved, it specifies the right-of-way location. Currently, it's drafted that we envision
that the policies will be effective for at least three to five years. I will just tell you why we
put that in there. As you mayor may not know, the STIP, the State Transportation
Improvement Program, which is the Idaho Transportation Department's sort of long-
range planning document for when transportations go through, that is going through
public hearings right now and in that document they have currently budgeted $1.9
million for 2006 to begin their studies for this corridor. That continues into 2007 with
$4.4 million in their STIP and then ends in 2008 with $2.5 million. Again, these are
numbers that have not been approved by ITD's Board, but that's what is currently in the
draft. So, they have designated quite a bit of money and they have projected it out to
2008 to have the main studies complete so that the most aggressive timeframe would
be three years. Three to five, I guess, is just putting a cushion on it and saying there is
a whole lot of other factors that may come up as a part of the study that nobody can
foresee right now. Let's see, to just include a few more reasons and background in
there. Item No.2 is some policies that are in the COMPASS's long-range transportation
plan that support corridor preservation, you know, generally. The reasons that we think
the McDermott Road alignment is important is we thought that would be a good,
basically, background to put into here as to why did you designate this corridor where
you did? Why didn't you - it actually has been shown on previous plans and maps as
after it crosses the Boise River, actually having an option to go either Ten Mile or Black
Cat. If you have seen some of those maps, none of them have actually shown
McDermott, so it is a different alignment than what has been put out to the public for the
last few years and so these four bullet points on the back of this handout kind of provide
some of that and if you have other thoughts or are you comfortable with this? I know
you are just getting a chance to read this, but please do give us your feedback on that.
Then the implementation policies and this is kind of obviously the meat and potatoes of
how this would be implemented. As we receive interests and inquiries from landowners
and developers who actually have land that falls within this overlay or for lack of a better
word. So, the first one there kind of reiterates what the purpose is. The desired effect
of it is to prohibit the construction or expansion of permanent structures in the Highway
16 right-of-way and within right-of-way of any frontage or back-age roads that parallel
State Highway 16. The second bullet the City of Meridian services. We mayor may not
need to include those that are in the parenthesis there, but those are the big ones,
sewer, water and parks will not be extended into the corridor until one of the following
occurs. Either the FHWA adopts the preferred alignment and preliminary construction
drawings for the highways and interchanges are complete or we receive something in
writing from ITD that says guess what this isn't going to work. This is not the right
alignment and we are going somewhere else. So, there may be other things that we
could build on that, but it's basically something that is in the City of Meridian's control to
extend or not extend our services and for urban and suburban type scale development,
you know, they need the way that Ada County's rules are written. They generally are
going to need the city's municipal services or set up their own special districts to do this.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 9 of 14
This is probably the strongest incentive, you know, I mean if they know they are not
going to get urban services then I think that is pretty strong. The latter bullets here then
assume that well maybe someone chooses to go ahead and apply to Ada County for a
development that is in our area of city impact and they are not proposing to annex and
they are not asking for services. So, that next bullet basically states that it will be
Meridian's policy that services would not be extended for any new development under
the jurisdiction of Ada County. So, they presumably would approach the city and will
you or will you not provide services and this policy we would look to and we say well no.
The next one there for new development within the corridor, the city encourages Ada
County Commission to limit residential densities to (inaudible) per 40 acres and to not
allow cluster subdivisions. The intent there is you know they have the option under Ada
County Code to propose subdivisions where even though they may only have one
dwelling unit per 10 acres allowed or one dwelling unit per 5 acres allowed that they can
submit an application and say well we want a cluster all this and put them all in a corner
of our property and we get as many houses as we would be allowed to, but we are
putting them all in one place and generally thinking about it from right-of-way
preservation when in the future the Idaho Transportation Department has to send right-
of-way agents out to begin negotiating the purchase of right-of-way in order for them to
deal with a cluster of houses as compared to dealing with one every 10 acres as the
assumption is going to be - simpler and less of headache. Probably more discussion
needs to occur on that. The last two there. If in some cases and we do have a couple
of parcels out there that are divided, several of them that are divided by that
preservation corridor overlay, where it is under single ownership, but part of it is in and
part of it is out. That's the intent of this second to last bullet is to kind of help give
guidance to those properties and if they can meet all the other obligations and
requirements of an application, it's essentially allowing them to still develop the portion
that is not in that area as long as no permanent structure is placed in the reserved
portion. The last bullet and actually I should state that Anna has raised questions
whether or not this is feasible, but they are necessary, but the point is that there is more
legal teeth if you will in an ordinance than in a comprehensive plan policy in Idaho.
There are some very good models of ordinances that have been implemented where it
gets into a lot more detail about how to preserve the corridor than what a
comprehensive plan policy can do. That is kind of what that is intended to get at. It
may be overkill, but if ITD moves along in the process that is currently in their STIP and
maybe this thing is all nailed down in 2008 and you know it's not going to be that much
of an issue, but should there be other reasons? This policy just says maybe Meridian
will look at adopting an ordinance that goes into more detail about preserving the right-
of-way. So, this will stop there. That is kind of the quick and dirty overview of it. Is
there certain ones that you want to talk about or give us direction on?
Borup: Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 10 of 14
Borup: I like the whole concept. It makes a lot of sense and it's logical. I think that the
only thing that you said that I have problems with is three years and seven plus million
dollars just to study it. I never understand studies dragged on that long for something
that makes sense. I do have one question on and I don't know if this is feasible, but
that's on the development if someone chose to go to the county, I'd like to see that a
little stronger even. I don't know how much influence - maybe you need to let us know
on that how much influence we can have, but something to the effect that the city
(inaudible) Ada County to not allow any development within a corridor - the same as we
got and then go on to say but if they choose to do so then limit it to forty acres.
Zaremba: Well and wouldn't that same idea have more teeth if we actually had an
ordinance about this. Can we --?
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Borup we could not have an ordinance
that would affect Ada County properties. They would have to adopt a new ordinance.
But, that's a possibility and actually when I raise questions about the latter one it was
who is adopting this? Is this just additional standards to the ones that we have
proposed in the UDC, would this be with Ada County? But, that is something that you
can word and that other one is to encourage Ada County to adopt such in the ordinance
to basically prohibit development in that area. You could certainly suggest that. It will
be interesting because it is - the one per forty's is a significant down zone from the one
per five that is allowed now on the east side of McDermott and the one per ten that is
allowed on the west side of McDermott.
Borup: I understand that, but we are trying to not have any development as far as in the
city. It would make sense that it would have the county do the same thing. I realize we
can't - I mean all it is a request and encouragement, but might as well - my thinking is
that we might as well make it that strong saying you know we don't want any, if you do
one per forty and if someone is really insistent then you know the one per forty may be
more likely to be approved rather than saying well - rather than saying one per forty, we
will give you ten.
Canning: I think that the more specific she gets Ada County, the better it will be
because they - I am going to stop. I think, yeah, if you provide them more specifics and
then we can see what we can get in the area of city of impact agreement. But there is
nothing to keep you from being very clear about what you want. So, I would assume
Brad is making those notes to add that as we speak.
Borup: That was the only comments that I had.
Zaremba: Further comments from other Commissioners?
Moe: I would just basically step up to say that going through this I think the changes are
great and I think this is perfect. I think the wording and this is perfect and I liked Keith's
idea as well to make those changes. The only other thing in regards to this entire
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 11 of14
evening's discussion is I do want to go back to the possible separate application for the
area to the north as well.
Zaremba: I probably said it but I support both of those ideas. On the corridor
presentation in particular, I don't think we can say too strongly to too many people this is
what we need to have happen as firmly as we can say it and to as many people as we
can say it and with as much teeth as it can be said.
Hawkins-Clark: One thing to point out on that is once you hit south of Ustick, there is
that lovely county line that McDermott has so the draft map of course, currently it just
designates the corridor on the Ada County side. As I mentioned at the last workshop
we did meet with the City of Nampa, their Public Works Director and some others and
they are generally in support of this idea. Their bigger concern is when you get south,
assuming that McDermott is a future interchange on 1-84, they have more concerns
about managing traffic down at that end; less about whether it's McDermott or Star or
Black Cat. So, how do we - I guess we could include on this map ask Nampa if you
want us to have more conversations with them because it does look a bit odd to just
suddenly have the corridor area half the width for two miles on the south while it's up
there. But, whether or not we move ahead with kind of more discussions with Nampa or
just maybe including something in the text. I mean, we have regional cooperation
statements in there about working with our neighboring jurisdictions to plan for the long-
range. So, that is in there, but in terms of it actually on the map, if you have any
thoughts on that?
Zaremba: Well, I think it would useful to have a statement from Nampa that supports
the use there. I think the thing that worries me, if we make the assumption that both
Ten Mile and Black Cat are developing in the manner that they will not be options at
some time. If we don't preserve McDermott, we totally shoot ourselves in the foot. We
can't let McDermott go by saying, oh well maybe it could be Ten Mile or Black Cat
because it really can't be. We are almost too far now and we know there is applications
coming that would put them too far, so I have already said Meridian needs to take a
strong stand, but I think it would be very helpful to have Nampa participate in that stand.
Certainly they would like to have more access to the Idaho Center and the BSU West
Campus than just the Garrity access and along that line I would probably include in the
corridor - we just kind of touched on it last time, if the access at Ustick is an
Interchange type access and the choices are Chinden, Ustick and the Interstate for
getting on and off of State Highway 16, Ustick becomes an important corridor that could
access light industrial around the sewer treatment plant. In which case we may need to
have that included in this part of the corridor. Maybe that mile of Ustick needs to be
planned as a seven-lane road or certainly something that would anticipate truck traffic
going to service non-residential building around the sewage treatment plant and make
that more attractive to development for non-residential uses.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner right now on this draft map that, I think it's most of what
you don't have what you saw last week. At that Ustick, McDermott intersection, if you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 12 of 14
head east from there we actually still have all of that designated residential. It presents
a challenge with Birchstone. The fact that Birchstone Subdivision is already built today
at the intersection of Black Cat and Ustick and there is a future school site that the
school district actually already has title to and things like that right there. But, would you
like us to put more industrial, commercial in that area maybe east of Black Cat, in light
of what you just stated about the potential for the interchange?
Zaremba: My feeling is that the subject should come up for public hearing and public
discussion. There may be great opposition to it and I am just blowing in the wind, but I
certainly would not want to be the one to make that decision all by myself, but I think the
subject should be offered for discussion. Let me put it that way.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Zaremba: So that it does come up at the public hearing.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Well, what we will do is make the amendments to the map that
you talked about last time and just to kind of recap on that, we did talk about looking at
more mixed-use along Chinden, particularly at the Black Cat where Paramount - oh I
am sorry, where Bainbridge Subdivision was approved there, Black Cat and Chinden.
So adding some mixed-use there. You also - let's see, well of course we talked about
tonight already the area of north of the rim there, separate application - we'll be adding
maybe a neighborhood center designation on a couple of those mixed-use areas so that
we still can encourage the design of the neighborhood center that is in our comp plan
now even though it doesn't have the half moon shape on it. We will change some of the
text policies and then some of these changes that you talked about tonight. The other
piece that we haven't talked about really yet tonight is the collector map. Fortunately,
we haven't finished it at staff level to get it to you yet, but in our current comp plan there
is future collectors that are designated generally at every half mile and if you have a
square mile that has very little development, we generally said we want collectors to at
least start about the half mile and then go into that section a little ways and we have
designated where we think some good locations are for those future collectors. So, we
have another figure that will be proposed to be added into the comp plan that will kind of
bring more detail into the north Meridian area on that. Then the draft application hasn't
changed too much, but I gave that to you at the last meeting, so basically, add these
changes in and then I think we are ready to notice this, if you are comfortable. I did
check with the Clerk's Office today as far as the availability of this room, assuming that
there is going to be an off that you want it to be -
(Turn over tape)
Hawkins-Clark: -- is available - it's the fourth Thursday in September. We do have two
other comprehensive plan amendment applications that would be on that same night
along with this one.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 13 of 14
Zaremba: I can see the sense in making it a separate night from our regular hearings,
although that sometimes is difficult for the other people. Anybody have an opinion
about the 22nd of September?
Rohm: Works for me.
Borup: That is fine for me. I don't think there is any way to include it on the regular
night.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe?
Moe: I am not sure right now. Yes, I could have a conflict. I am not definite as of yet.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay?
second the half of the month.
Recently, you have been away the
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, I actually will be - I get back in town the 19th. So, I will be
there the 22nd. Are we going to do the 7:00 public hearing?
Hawkins-Clark: We could start earlier.
Newton-Huckabay: I have no preference. I wouldn't want to start before six.
Borup: Six is okay, but that is about as early.
Zaremba: I am comfortable either way. I have been happy with the 7:00 meetings, but I
can make 6:00. Anybody that simply doesn't want 6:00?
Rohm: I prefer six myself.
Zaremba: That would hopefully get us over a little earlier. So, we have consensus for
September 22nd at 6:00, I think.
Hawkins-Clark: Good, well we get those three comp plan applications to you and we
will include those studies so you can see that. If we get those done ahead of time, we
will get them in your boxes as soon as we can.
Zaremba: Great. That would be good. Anything anybody needs to add to this subject?
Anything to do with north Meridian? Okay. Any further comments from staff? Okay.
Chair would entertain a motion to adjourn the special meeting.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn this special meeting for the north Meridian
area comprehensive plan amendment.
Rohm: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
August 4, 2005
Page 14 of 14
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank
you very much we are adjourned.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
~A'~~~-
DAVI ZÃRE. - CHAIRMAN
I I
DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK