1993 08-16~ ORIG~IAL
EFECIRL f'tEETINU QF C~IERIUTAN PLANNING B ZONING RUGUST__16, 1953
The Special Meeting of ttre Mer^idian Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at i,:00
F'. M. :
Members Present: Jim Shearer, Moe Glzd.jani, Tim Hepper, Charlie
Ro!mtree:
Gther-s F'r-esent: Wayne Cr^ookston, Wayne Forrey, Will Rer^g:
Johnson: The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a workshop,
we will not be taking any public testimony tonight. The public
rs welcome to attend and listen b!rt there will be no public
testimony taken. We called this meeting 6eca!rse then^e was some
concerns on the part of the Commissioners that perhaps more work
was needed, more input was needed and we needed to digest the
comments that we took at nur last. meeting on August 10th. Ther^e
ar°e some specific ar^eas of cancer-n that we need to addr°ess. I'd
like a comment first from our attorney as to guidelines, if any,
we need to set here. One thing we have to bear in mind as we do
this is that if what we determine tonight in the way of changes
becomes significant then we may have to, as I understand it, ga
back and star^t new.
Wayne Crookston: The Local Planning Rct indicates that if you
make material and/or substantial changes in the Comprehensive
Flan after one public hearing has been held, if they^e are
substantial changes then there has to be another p!rblic hearing
then it's submitted it onto the City Council. That's not to
indicate that if you feel that there needs to 6e substantial
changes, don't feel ashamed or bashf!r] abort saying "let's change
this." At this junct!ere this is the Planning and Zoning
Commissions document and yolr need to do whatever fine tuning it
needs, if any.
Ro!rntr^ee: I world like to start off Gy dealing with the
testimony we took initially. I know we did have comments
specific to mixed use areas, specific to the comp. plan's impact
on areas o!rt of the City boundaries but within the limits of the
Comp. Plan, those areas that weren't specifically covered by City
Ordinance but world be covered by the Planning Document. The
particular question about the amount of acreage and the location
of acreage in the southeast with respect to mixed use and not
having a balancing amount in other parts of the urban boundary
was another issue that was brought !r p. I guess ]'d just like to
hear some disc!rssion from Wayne Forrey on his analysis of that.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
RAGE 2
Wayne Forrey: This wavy area you see along Interstate 84 {shown
on ^ap) and in the plan it talks about through this entire
corridor along Overland Road, it's not designated here, this is
existing urban zoning pattern, but out into here is mixed use.
In the plan in the land use chapter it talks about a variety of
compatible, well planned uses that blend together. In the plan
it also talks about the visual appearance because these are the
entrances to the City, along the Interstate, Franklin and
Overland Road. So that was based on the input fro^ citizens at
those two weeks of open houses that we had, that appeared to
solve a lot of their concerns that we allow some significant
development along the interstate but it be subject to almost
design review, but fro^ a planning standpoint, a use
compatibility. No-one really talked about that same level of
^ixed uses on the north side except for Raleigh Hawe and in fact
when he spoke the other night it came back clear as a bell and I
thought that's right, ] forgot to do that because his input was
right behind Rlbertsons.
Johnson: Did he participate in earlier work sessions?
Forrey: Yes he did and I have his notes. He did talk about
behind Albertsons he thought there should be some high density
residential. I remember saying perhaps maybe a ^ixed use because
of the commercial there and interface to the other residential
subdivisions on N. Meridian Road, he said, yes that would
probably work. When he spoke the other night I remesbered
thinking he did mention that at one of the workshops.
Johnson: Da you think that it warrants consideration there
north?
Forrey: I do. Well this would be a commercial designation here
with the mixed use around it. (Ten Mile 8 McMillan and McMillan
and N. Meridian Rd.>
Shearer: That area your talking about between Fairview and
Ustick, Meridian Road and Locust Grove is already zoned and 90X
subdivided, isn't it?
Forrey: Yes.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 3
Shearer: We've got the commercial to the back of the parking at
Cherry Plaza, behind it there's a child care center, shortly
behind it is the apartment complex, I don't know if the other
apartment complex is going to go, and then just beyond it we're
into the R-8 subdivisions. I just wonder if what we're talking
about isn't already done in that area.
Forrey: Well fro^ a land use planning standpoint I don't see any
problem of designating more mixed use at all on the north side.
At the meeting the other night I kept thinking yeah I missed
that.
Rlid.jani: Isn't it true that in 94 or 96 it's going to be a five
lane on N. Meridian Road going all the way to Eagle?
Forrey: That ] don't know.
Shearer°: The way I read that it expands to three lanes in 1999.
Johnson: Rre there any other areas Wayne you can think of that
might fall in the ^ixed use?
Forrey: Yes, I can. This area (Eagle and Overland), it was ^y
intent to have some ^ixed use around that Interchange.
Johnson: We had testimony fro^ Mr. Lewis and also some written
testimony fro^ another gentleman addressing specifically that
area.
Forrey: Yes and somewhere in here there ought to be ^ore of a
^ixed use transition around that commercial center and an
interface between the residential. I agree with that.
Johnson: That makes sense to ^e_
Forrey: There was a letter that we received this afternoon that
addressed the area of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove. This future
designation of cowmercial and mixed development around that as a
buffer. The property owner at Lake Hazel and S. Meridian Road
feels that this should just be picked up and moved over one mile
to Meridian Road because of the mount of traffic.
Johnson: What is there now?
Shearer: As far as I know Jim it's all farms right there Jim.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST t6, 1993
PAGE 4
Forrey: The other change that ]'^ aware of is - and I thinN it's
just a cartography situation but right here is the Idaho Foreign
Trade Zone, the Treasure Business Center, this is the Cross-Roads
residential subdivision that's been approved with the cowwercial
around it and this wixed use are here really should blend into
this area but there's a park sywbol right theT^e .just designating
the need for a park in that area. The owner of this parcel right
here has wt^itten a letter and indicated that they don't object to
a park sywbol being an their pi^operty, but she would appreciate
it if the sywbology of this map could show mixed use on her
property rather than .just the way it's shown here as existing
City. The policies in the plan talk about that, that this area
should have wixed use and pi^otect the Foreign Trade Zone.
Rountree: Well isn't that an error that's going to occur in any
kind of mapping you do because basically their just showing areas
where these features should be considered, not necessarily site
specific situations.
Johnson: Right, it's ,just a general guideline.
Forrey: There is one specific - well there are several specific
things in the water master plan that CH2M Hill prepared for the
City, they indicated actual sites for water storage reservoirs
based on hydrology, so they indicate this area tpointed out on
wap for storage areas). The other site specific thing is I did
designate the Saint Lukes Hospital area and it's shown here.
Shearer: When I was reviewing this thing and went through it
pretty thoroughly then after a few days I got to thinking about
it and one of the things that waybe you can answer Wayne, on Old
Town it seewed like that I read in there that Old Town according
to this Cowp. Plan extends from Franklin to Fairview, is what it
says in this. Is that correct? South of Cherry Lane, north of
Franklin, okay Dld Town on the old Cowp. plan only went to like
Carlton I believe. Now as the Ordinance currently stands we have
a requirewent for a conditional use perwit in Dld Town. If we
don't correct that listing of putting Old Town in where old town
still is we're going to end up with a situation where down on
Cherry Lane and soave of those other areas if sowebody goes to
build in there they will have to get a conditional use perwit and
I don't think we want to change that. I thinN old town should be
the save as old town on the old map unless we make soave changes
in the ordinances.
SPECIAL MEETING
(AUGUST 16, 1993
PgGE 5
Rlidjani: But if you do that though, I believe that was put in
there in order to pr^otect soave of our older residents hooves to
stay as an old resident.
Shearer^: That's right. R11 of the^ on First Street o n the east
side of the road have been zoned cowwer cially. On the west side
I think ^ost of thew are zoned or have a conditional use perwit
for a cowwercial thing right now.
Johnson: You were around when they drafted the original cow p.
plan weren't you?
Crookston: Yes.
Johnson: It's wy understanding that the thrust of the old town
designation was for pr^iwaril y, this is a settled area that is a
terrible exawple of lack of planning. We put a conditional use
on there, we the planners, so that we'd have an opportunity waybe
to get rid of soave of those grandfather type situations and
therefore require each new applicant to pass the conditional use
test in that area.
Crookston: That's definitely one of the reasons. That area was
put to so wany different uses that the City wanted to have Bowe
control over future uses that might iwpede the existing uses or
tend to get rid of those uses entirely.
Johnson: That's wy understanding.
Crookston: The idea was that the conditional use was required so
that the City could say well that's a gaod deal or that's a bad
deal.
Shearer: What would you have zoned it at that tiwe? Would you
have zoned it residential, cowwer^cial?
Shearer: I don't really think that that has anything to do with
the property north of the old town designation, I think those
properties are zoned, the ones that are zoned cowwercial, if
somebody's howe is next to it and they had an objection, they
should have objected at the tiwe it was being rezoned.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 6
Shearer^: On our properties along the Interstate, otir mixed use
properties. You know we talk about this design review thing and
someone made comments an that at the last meeting and indicated
,just because you've got four or five people that are business
people or^ something of that nature is no sign that your going to
^ake that area look real good. Now private industry in the
buildings that are already built along the freeway in that mixed
trse area, referring to Western Equipment, Rrnold Equipment, Coca-
Cola, these people with the help of professional architects have
put together some pretty decent buildings out there and some
fairly decent looking buildings. The only way that a group could
improve on the type of thing that their^ doing in private industry
out there right now would be to put extremely stringent design
restrictions on them so that they have to design buildings that
basically look alike ar^ are real compatible. Pasically your
already starting with a base of three buildings that are nice
looking buildings that fit in that ar^e not of a particular type.
I think we're kidding ourselves if we think a design review board
is going to do anything for the appearance of that. I really
think that we're just throwing road blocks and bureaucracies if
we ptrt it in.
Alid.jani: I guess we .jumped fr^oe zoning of the mixed use to the
design review, is that correct?
Shearer^: Well I was trying to keep in the same ones we were
talking about.
Alid.jani: I'd rather we go an one at a time, get them solved and
then go to the next subject.
Johnson: Is there anything to add to the mixed use discussion we
had initially then? Is everybody satisfied with the comments
being made and Wayne's suggestions then^e.
Shearer: Yes I think they make a lot of sense myself.
Rountree: Do we need some kind of a motion or^ direction far
Wayne sa he can ^ake those changes?
Johnson: I think we need to do
vote on everything but if there's
The only thing I'^ foggy about
for me specifically to the north
that. I don't think we need to
disagreement let's hear it now.
is if you would point out again
where your talking about.
Forrey: Painted out on map.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PgGE 7
Johnson: Directly north of Albertsons and .just slightly to the
east.
Shearer: If we change like down on Eagle Raad and add that
eixed use designation and this other one, would these be
considered substantial changes? If they are, could we leave it
like is and ^ake recomwendations separate fro^ this to the
Council.
Crookston: Yoti could do that. Your dealing with two areas, your
dealing with a change in the current plan and your dealing with a
change in the map as it exists now that's been proposed, it's
really hard to tell what is substantial and what isn't. It's
relatively easy to say, if youi^ going to expand the area of
impact that's substantial. If there is a typographical error
it's not a substantial change.
Johnson: Right I understand that but if we designate an
additional area, do you think that is substantial?
Alidjani: I believe it is substantial because we already have
advertised that, we alr^eady have put the legal on it, we already
had the meeting on it, we already had the hearing on it and your
changing some designated area fro^ one zoning to another.
Crookston: I would say that it's also an area of how many
changes are you going to do.
Johnson: Let's approach it this way so we can move on. Let's
^ake o~_,r changes as we think their ,justified and warranted with
the input and then aftei^ that is done in summary, let's decide
whether what we've done is substantial. Dkay if we need to take
those one at a time on the mixed use, let's do it. I would like
somebody's cosment on the Lake Hazel/Locust Grove, Lake
Hazel/Meridian suggestion so that we can resolve that one.
Rountr^ee: I think my comments about the map just being an
indication of where those things should be in the vicinity should
suffice for that.
Johnson: So then one mile is vicinity enough far you.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 8
Rountree: One mile if somebody cones in with a proposed
development at Meridian Road and Lake Hazel as opposed to the
timing of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, their essentially the same
transportation capacities other than Meridian Raad has a closer
access to the interstate. The other thing is that part of that
area is not within our designated boundaries.
Johnson: Yes pat^ticularly to the west.
Rountree: I think the indication of the ^ap is in that southeast
area of our planning there should 6e some kind of a
residentiallcommercial ^ixed use to serve the population that at
some point and time will be out there.
Johnson: Sa the way 1 summarize that is there's no need to move.
Rountree: I don't see any specific need to ^ove it.
Johnson: Then ] think the thing that we have maybe overlooked if
we want to is just designate that one area to the north and
immediately north of Rlbertsons.
Rountr^ee: And to Eagle Road.
Shearer: And the Eagle Road mixed use.
Johnson: I thought he already had and it just hadn't gone far
enough east. Isn't that it?
Forrey: Yes but it's south. It's here tshown on map) and it
should have come down south of Overland Road..
Johnson: Well it makes sense to do it because in effect that's
what happening there anyway. We could .just extend that and I
don't see that*s a big deal. Okay. Is everyone satisfied with
^ixed use?
Crookston: The thing that you do have to keep in mind, I think
that the public uses that map for more purposes than it's
intended for. 7 think they ~~se it and they look at it and say
well here's where the ^ixed use is going to be so they look at
the map and say well here is residential, well we can't put a
commercial outlet into this area even though it's what I would
call adjacent to the ^ixed use, say well that's going to be
t^esidential. You know they look at it very definitively.
i
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 9
Johnson: Put they are always going to do that. These ar^e .just
guidelines, nothing is in concrete. These are not or^dinances,
these are not law. This is just how we would like to see the
City grow. It is a plan, it's not set in concrete.
Rountree: Maybe on the ^ap itself it could specify what this sap
is. ]t's not a way to find your way home, it's a generalized
plan of what we would like to see happen in general areas.
Hepper: We want to make sure that we don't deter future growth
.just because the plan says that something is planned that way.
Rountree: Really a lot of people the only thing they see,
r^ecognize or can relate to in terms of the coop. plan is that
^ap, they ar^e not going to read the text of the document.
Johnson: I think when you use words like "ultimate" people get
to thinking that's final. We have "Generalized Ultimate Land Use
Flan" up there. Is ever^yone agreed with the mixed use then. Do
we want to talk about design and review now?
Rountree: As Lang as we've got the map up there, we had some
comments during the testimony about changing the impact area
boundaries in the corner of Eagle Road and Ustick. R couple of
them made real good sense, in fact I think it was indicated that
we'd certainly consider that.
Forrey: Pointed out on map.
Shearer: I'd sure be in
sense to go with the pr^ope
Johnson: It was done that
the map and try to make it
Cr^ookston: I think the key
Shear^er^: Is the?^e a drain
Forrey: Yes, there is.
favor of that because that ,just sakes
rty lines.
way just to keep the .jagged edges off
as sgtrar^e as you could make it.
in that area is the sewer.
at that location?
Shear^er^: Put if that's a drain I see no problem with leaving it
then^e because if somebody goes to develop that gr^ound they may or
they may not take that other little corner into their plan and if
they do you know we can change it at that time, or does that
become a pr^oblew in changing later? If we don't have that in our
area of impact then we have to make a special deal don't we?
i
SPECIRL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 1@
For^rey: I don't see a pr^oblem with following that.
Shear^er: I think we shosrld follow that squar^e.
Crookston: I think we need to ascertain the area that we can
service with sewer' and sake that the baundar^y. I don't think it
necessarily has to be in section line or quarter section lines or^
whatever.
Shearer: That's a proper^ty line then^e we're talking about.
Crookston: There are provisions that allow for' changes because
of property and ownership. if the property is within 300' of the
boundary and your cutting a persons property ownership and the
larger parcel is in the Poise Urban Service Planning Rrea of the
Aoise Rrea of Impact. If their larger parcel is in that then we
have to let the smaller parcel go, brit we don't know that at this
,juncture.
Forrey: The sewer facility plan, which looked at the entire area
and everything that's shaded with the exception of that piece
right there (shown on ^ap) can be sewered but it's based on the
USGS Quad Maps. The only way to really pin that down would be an
accurate civil survey. So just based on those quad maps that JUB
used there's a lateral through there. There's some high ground,
high enough that the south of it flows this way and north of it
flows back that way, so I couldn't tell you exactly where the
line should 6e but somewher^e a~.it there there's going to be a
natural engineering boundary. Maybe your solution is correct, if
the majority of that ownership in is the Meridian Sewer Service
Rrea the whale ownership would go into ours.
Johnson: That's the way the law reads now.
Rountree: So let's not consider that change then.
Crookston: That was one of the r^easons when we battled with
Boise over the northern referral area cause we had indications
that we could service that ar^ea. There are owners of land along
Ustick that basically abut up against Ustick on the south and
they would like to see that whole section in the lower northeast
corner there in Boise's area of Impact. Maybe some of it should
be if it can be properly sewered by Boise and some of it should
not be if it can 6e proper^ly sewered by Meridian.
Shearer^: Let's move on then.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 11
Johnson: Let's work on the design review item. We had at least
for people testify that they did not think we needed that
stringent of a pr^opasal.
Shearer^: My personal opinion on the design review is that the
best thing that we could do would 6e eliminate it completely,
which would eliminate putting together a new boar^d and turn the
planned unit development which is a way basically of not meeting
the exact lot sizes, etc. by having a unit development of an
over^all thing and having that reviewed by somebody else. Either
the City Planner^ or this Zoning group and that way we could
completely eliminate that design review thing. I wouldn't have a
real pr^oble^ with a design r^eview reviewing PUD's but if we could
have somebody else do it then we wouldn't even have to deal with
that. I'm really against having design r°eview on every
commercial building that's being built in the City of Meridian.
Johnson: Is then^e anyone who would like to speak in favor of
keeping the design review as part of the Comprehensive Plan?
Rountree: Well one item that I think Ji^ probably would agree on
is that particularly in the mixed use areas then^e needs to be
some type of design review criteria established, either^ by P 8 Z
or something to judge those areas against. I tend to agree with
his specific comments about individ~.~al buildings and that sort of
thing. I think our public process maw handles those quite well.
Johnson: I'd like to throw something out because I might just
totally misunderstand what design and review is supposed to be
and it's function. At what level da we as a body or the City
r^eview a proposed plan to see that that plan in effect is carried
out in accordance with what was submitted and with what we agreed
would happen out there, the conditions that we put on it, etc.?
Rnd to follow that up a little fur^ther^, what do we do if it
doesn't meet the approved criteria? Rr^e we handling that through
the building permit process? Or is this not part of design and
review?
Shearer^: I don't think that's part of design review. Design and
Review is in the planning stage. tExample given -see tape?
Johnson: Where do we kick in a review of some sort to make sure
that what's been approved is actually done?
Shearer°: I think that's going to have to be a staff level type
thing.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 12
Crookston: To answer your question, it's not done at this
.juncture.
Johnson: Even if it is done at this juncture, I don't know what
the penalties are because I think that's been a staff type
function.
Shearer: When the building depart went still has the occupancy
before the occupancy is given and that's basically what Boise
City does, they vet^ify design review and sign off on the
occupancy permit that the building inspector^ takes ar^ound.
That's the same way this should war^k. We really don't have
anybody ver^ifying that these types of things are being done.
Johnson: Is the comwunication in place for that to happen right
now?
Shearer^: It's in the Ordinance but Daunt and his people are
looking strictly at Uniform Building Code, their not looking at
basic ordinance stuff.
Johnson: That's wy point.
Shearer^: That's something that needs to cove down at City Staff
level.
Johnson: We need to improve that comwunication line.
Rountree: Rgain I don't know if that's a Conp. Plan awendwent or
subdivision and development ordinance.
Johnson: You've convinced we that doesn't necessarily fall under
design and review.
Forrey: We operate on the trust systew and that's about all we
can do. tEuamples given - see tapel One thing I think we need
to solve and that's the zoning certificate. The Ordinance
actually specifies that when a conditional Llse is granted or when
an anne>,ation is processed ar when a zoning action is taken and
approved ultimately by the City Council and something is
published in the paper to affect that the Adwinistr^ator^ would
issue a certificate. I don't know how far down into the
ordinances it goes but at soave point then^e is actually a
certificate from the City of Meridian.
SPECIRI_ MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 13
Crookston: Yo!~ sho!rld have a zoning certificate before you get a
building permit so that the building inspector knows that that
pr^operty is zoned for that lase and then yo!i have an occupancy
permit that sho!ild be designed so that the verifications are made
as to whether or not you have completed not only the building
code requirements but any other conditions before you get an
occupancy permit and that pertains to houses, industrial,
commercial.
Forrey: Since I've been here I think I've iss!ied one zoning
certificate and I need to issue more. That particular one was
the project on Overland in the light industrial zone. That took
a lot of resear°ch and verification and it was a good process
beca!ise there was tr^ust broke down in that particular issue and
it took the zoning review, neighborhood analysis and Ordinance
eval!iation to finally get to a paint when^e the City could iss!ie a
zoning certificate. I think the answer is to use the process
that's already in place.
Johnson: We've had indications that the tr^ust systes does not
work. I'm trying to establish how da you corr^ect something that
has fallen o!it of trust.
Shearer^: Administrative item that the F~lanner^ will take care of.
Forrey: On Page 70 under the community design and at the top of
the page, policy kl there, this is the policy r°ight o!~t of the
7978 Comprehensive Plan and it is the or^iginal policy. The goal
was and the policy was there to have a design review ordinance.
Then of course we've added to that with additional policies. The
proposal that yo!~ have before yo!i was taken fro^ Roise City.
Shearer^: This policy is exactly the one that I'm trying to do
away with. Rs I said befor^e, what we end up with is several
people with no formal design education dictating to designers and
architects that have had five year^s or more of formal design
education and that basically doesn't make much sense.
Johnson: Where has it been a problem, even with Boise's
functioning design and review, does anybody know how effective
that is in effect?
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST ib, 1993
PAGE 14
Shearer^: I don't think I know of any cases where it's really
been affective. What ends up happening as near as I can tell is
that they have a planning staff in Poise. The Planning Staff
reviews the s!~bmittal, they make recommendations to the design
r^eview boar^d and that board basically follows most of the time
what the Planning Staff recommends. Rlmost all of the^ that I've
been associated with have been strictly landscaping. They look
very str^ong at landscaping, at dr^iveway entrances and things like
that for^ safety purposes and that's one of the places they are
effective, but far the most part these things ar^e done at staff
level to begin with and that 45 oe^ 60 day delay to go before a
design r^eview board is a waste of time as far as I'm concer^ned.
If we put this in here and yo!i awn a piece of property in the
City of Meridian and go to b!~ild a cammer^cial building on it
you'll have to completely complete the plans, s!ibmit them to that
board and since that board only meets once a •onth it has to be
submitted far enough in advance that the staff can review it so
you have to have a cut off date to give the staff two or three
weeks to review it. When you get it all plugged in together your
bumping 45 to 60 days to get approval to b!rild yo!ir building on
that piece of pr^operty. I've often wondered what wo!ild happen if
the design review completely rejected your b!~ilding. If they did
you co!ild have tho!~sands of dollars in architect!iral fees to
redesign the building beca!ise yo!ir drawings are already complete
at that phase. To my knowledge that hasn't been a problem in
Poise as far as the major changes that cost a lot to change. I
don't know of any cases where that has been a problem, but I d^
know that every time we da a building in Roise it's 45 to 6N
days, it costs me to do any kind of building in Boise whatsoever
a very minimum of S1,0N4r.00 for nothing b!it design review.
SExplained - see tape)
Johnson: What we're back to is a policy that's been enforced
since 1978 that apparently we've never acted on it. There again
th15 is not, this is a suggestion. If your talking about not
doing it then I would say policy IIR needs to be alter^e d, changed
or eliminated.
Shearer: I agr^e e.
Rountree: Well to the extent of not doing design review I think
this whole comm!inity design chapter needs to be reviewed thro!igh
the whale camp. plan.
Johnson: Wayne, are we stepping way o!it of other^ comm!~nity
standards?
i
SPECIRL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 15
•
Forrey: The Idaho Locai F~lanning Act does mandate and it lists
the r^equired chapters in the Compr^ehensive Plan and one of them
is community design. It talks about the vis~_ial enhancement of
the community, the standards and policies that yo~_i adopt to
enhance the visual appear^ance of the comm~_inity, the physical
layout of the community and so design review is the logical
extension of that. I think the difficulty I hear is how far da
you go? Design review at this level with conditions that say if
Mr. Hepper comes in and wants a duplex project in old town, you
say well we need some landscaping and he agrees to it, well
that's design review. Boise takes it a much deeper into the
process with a separate commission, a separate staff and I'm
hearing that's not necessar^y or^ appr^opriate in this community. I
do think it's appropriate to have goals and policies that talk
about attractive development or^ making sure that new development
does not detract in any way fro^ the existing character of a
neighborhood. That's a goal that citizens at every council
meeting talk about.
Johnson: But to this point has it been a problem in Meridian?
Forrey: Actually I don't believe it has. Where it came to my
focused attention was when this commission put a condition upon
the Rountree Chevrolet and said subject to design review and two
or three days later the architect called and said when do I go
before design r^eview in Meridian.
Johnson: We were probably using small letters there and not
capitalized letters when we made that comment.
Forrey: And the ar^chitect from Boise assumed that we had a
separate design review commission much like Boise and there we
hit an impasse.
Crookston: I think ther-
commission and the City ar^e
and say well maybe we needed
project. It may be that
comprehensive plan but the
requir^eeent on a project I
determine that on a case by
e are cer^tainly projects that the
going to assess. You may look back
a tittle war^e watchful eye over this
that doesn't need to be in the
ability to be able to assess that
think is a viable thing. Rut to
case base.
SRECLAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, L493
RAGE 16
~i
Johnson: What I hear is that we don't want something mandated so
that each and ever^y application has to go befor^e design and
review and automatically put it back on the calendar a month or^
two plus cost the developer more money just because of the
existence of a committee. I guess I lean towards that argument
of why do we need to mandate something if we don't have the
prohle^ now.
Rountree: When design and aesthetic issues came before F' 8 Z and
the City Council my recollection is the developer or the
architect ar the r^e pr^esentee of the proposal was walking out the
door^ with those people who wee^e opposed to it based on a
pet^ceived design flaw and a lot of times they had it worked out
as they left the meeting. When it came before the public again
into City Council, not in all cases, but gener^ally the design
r°eview issues had been worked out in terms of scale, landscaping,
buffering and that sort of thing. Getting back to what Jim was
saying though, 1 think the weakness we have is Waking sure that
those conditions and those agreed to situations are followed
through with. I see that as an Ordinance and the staff
enforcement activity spoken to in the Comp. F']an that this is
something we want staff to do as opposed to establishing a
specific design r^eview additional step.
Shearer-: That's carried out in Hoise by staff and it's got to be
because we're nat going to go around looking at every building
after it's built to make sure they meet what we've said.
Johnson: In practice the smart developer has done exactly what
Char^lie says because he knows that the City Council has the ear
of the public and if there*s a lot of opposition to it they
better work something out. That's actually the way it wor^k s,
otherwise it's tabled until something is resolved.
Rountree: That's correct, it's deferred until it's resolved.
Johnson: That's usually on the sho+.rlders of the developer to
keep it from being tabled by doing something about it.
Shearer°: Right. Charlie's earlier^ comments are really right
too. We need somebody, which I think should be either staff or
us to review F+UD's. fFur°t her explanation on PUD's - see tape)
i
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 17
•
Johnson: So what I'm hearing is in effect we have a system in
place that accomplishes that objective but we don't have the
enforcement vehicle. Is that basically a summary of what we've
said here?
Shear^er^: I think that cover^s the entire ordinance.
Hepper: Rs Jim Shearer^ was saying, in most cases for r^ezone and
annexation wet^e it goes before the Planning and Zoning and then
onto the City Council, the two act as a design r^eview because of
the public hearing process and ever^ything else. Where we don't
have a design review is where a piece of pr^operty has already
been zoned commercial and a per°san desires to go in there and
build a commercial building, he can go down and pick up a
building permit and start construction. In this case it doesn't
go before Planning and Zoning or City Council, nobody gets a look
at that building.
Johnson: That's another prospective.
Shear^er^: That's the way I'd like to keep it.
Hepper: That's the only place that the City doesn't get to look
at the building, any other thing comes before the Commission or^
Council.
Johnson: Well the logical spot for the review at that point has
to be staff then because their the ones that ar°e issuing the
permits and following up on inspections and that sort of thing.
7o me that's the place to do it, not cr^eate another body to do
that.
Alidjani: I agree with Mr. Hepper's comments. Isn't it true
that in the files we have all the maps of all the areas that are
zoned and annexed so that if somebody comes in with the land
acreage or whatever^ they have we have files on those?
Forrey: It's not up to date.
Alidjani: If my assumption is correct and this body approves
this design review for the commercial or industrial or whatever
the zoning might be has been already zoned later now somebody
what's to develop that and not meet those conditions. Is it
possible to put those conditions on the map we have in the file?
Forrey: Yes it is.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 18
Alidjani: Well then that would salve the problem.
Fort^ey: The difficulty would be getting a good nap and finding
the conditions and getting that into the thinking of people.
Rlid.jani: Gave examples of Sunburst Subdivision and Par^kside
Creek.
Shearer: That's not design r^eview.
Discussion - see tape.
.Iohnson: What your asking Moe really I think is that the City
invest in those computer programs that are already available and
in place in other city's where they can immediately pull up the
zoning on a specific piece of property and the conditions will be
listed right there. That's the ideal situation and how far we
are away fr^om that I have no clue.
Disc~.ission on design review - see tape.
Johnson: I think we've uncovered a pr^oblem that exists but not
necessarily per^tinent to our discussion tonight.
Shearer-: For instance a gentleman came in for a rezone, he Sald
that he would build landscape screen and fencing to the Ordinance
on his property and so we give hie the zoning and he just put
that fence in last year. It's been three years or^ better.
For^rey: This may or may not help, after .lack passed away and I
got in the middle of a bunch of development activity boy we were
pushing notices right and left and trying to figur°e out which
agenda to get this on and Moe you were right in the middle of
that with School Plaza get tr^ipped up sever^al tines, it became
apparent we needed a system of tr^acking and follow up. We
invested some time and money in a computer- firm here in the
Meridian Ar^ea and we now have and soon we'll be able to give you
a demonstration of what we call a development tracking system.
If any of you cone in now and apply, Tammy or^ myself does a
single entry into the computer and turn some basic information
and then it will tell you when you scheduled for the initial
public hearing of P R Z, the second Findings of Fact if it's an
or^dinance related, the date of the City Co~_incil Hearing. It will
print ot~t a legal description that will go into the public
hearing notice, it will print out the public hearing notice,
SPECIAL HEARING
RUGUST t6, 1993
RAGE 19
whenever we want it will
the future or now. It's
this information and co
but we could put I guess
maybe the landscape was
.,p,
print out
a wonderf
upled with
red flags
an issue,
the agenda for any meeting in
ul tool to keep track of all of
that, we haven't done it yet
or caution flags in there that
etc. to help the staff follow
Shearer: Anytime we rezone the property that could be put in
there tinder that property as part of the rezone.
.Iohnson: Let's get back to the issue. What are we going to do if
anything with the refer^ences and the paragraph and the specifics
in the draft you have in front of you with respect to design
review, if any?
Alid.jani: I personally do not like a design review committee
beyond and above what we already have. I believe in order to
compensate somewhat with what Mr. Hepper^ was saying regarding the
str^ip commercial, it has happened the past, in o7^der to control
those type of commercial what we can do is what we have done on
those three - four lots on N. Meridian Rd., west side of
Albertsons, is if the individual does come in het^e and request an
annexation or zoning of commercial or industrial without a plan
then we can just deny that request. If there in no plan there is
nothing concr^ete to see we don't have to go on with it.
Johnson: Pasically
Hepper: Yes, but
explained earlier.
staff or^ maybe have
show us what they
is already zoned.
oper^ate the way we've been operating.
that still doesn't address the problem I
F~erhaps we could have a person on the City
them come before Planning and Zoning .just to
plan on doing on their piece of property that
Johnson: Certainly in terms of time it would be much better if
it was a member of the staff, wouldn't it?
Hepper^: Yes
Shearer^: Are you going to dictate their design or are you .just
looking to make sure that they comply with the landscaping
ordinances and the driveway ordinances?
Hepper: I think that there sho~_ild be same guidelines that a City
staff person could follow. If somebody will pick it up and
enforce it and make sure that it is done.
SPECIRL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1443
PAGE 2@
Shearer^: But see those landscaping things ar^e in the ordinance,
they ar^e a requir^ed thing and whoever is the planner or somebody
on staff should go thro~.rgh that ,just like they go through the
timiform b~_~ilding code and it should be picked up there and done.
Rountree: I think getting to the issue that Tim's talking about
again he goes back to enforcement and ordinance kinds of things.
The solution I would offer is to take a look at the ordinances
and pr^ovide specific design criteria or standar^ds in those
ordinances specific to landscaping, compatibility of the building
design for the City Staff to review those situations that are
already zoned far commercial development.
Johnson: Which is something we'd take up at another time.
Rountree: Rs far as the Comp. Flan goes I think we're all in
agreement that we do want to have some impact on the visual
ex pr^ession of the City. To that end 1 think the community design
chapter ought to reflect that. Getting specific to design review
committees and specific in other sections where these things are
going to be handled with design r^eview I think at least what I'm
hearing is that this chapter and the remainder of the comp. plan
6e modified and do not specifically address design review
committee's and design review process and that that is going to
be handled through the public involvement process, the public
hearing pr^ocess and conditions will be placed based on testimony
and staff recommendations.
Johnson: Could we accomplish that then ratheT^ than eliminating
all the references and the chapter, would a definition of what
our intent there is satisfy that?
Ro~.rntree: I have no problem with that but there ar^e some pretty
specific policies and objections and goals in the comm~_~nity
development area that speak about design review committees.
Johnson: So that needs to be wodified and same deletions made.
Rountree: Right and I agree that a definition of what is meant
by design review included in the text -
Crookston: I think ,just in the community design area if you
r^emove 1. 1, remove 1.6 the bottom langtitage in the par^agraph in
the design r^eview ordinance and 2. 5U if you remove design review
and other, those are areas I've found specifically b~_rt that seems
to clean it up.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE ?1
Johnson: Wayne do you have a follow tip comment with respect to
what we've just talked about?
Forrey: The weakness ft^om a Zoning Administrator's standpoint is
we all have an idea of what good landscaping might be, but our
ordinance ,just says that for every fifteen hundred square feet of
asphalt you have one tree of 3" caliber. I think the weakness
here is maybe in the ordinance itself and giving some criteria
for the City Staff to help keep people honest. We really should
spend our energy on that Ordinance in a future work session.
Johnson: I think everyone agrees with that. What do we have to
do at this point Wayne?
Crookston: Yot~ could strike what I said and that leaves in tact
the goals and policies.
Johnson: We're in agreement, let's do that.
Rountree: Rnd add a definition of what the intent of design
review.
Johnson: I think that's impoi^t ant. What other at^eas do we need
to touch on?
Alid.jani: How about the portion regai^ding the schools.
Johnson: Rlright let's talk about that. Should we have in our
Comprehensive Flan specific issues that we support or don't
support?
Rlidjani: I think it should be encouragement not fully support.
Forrey: For the benefit of the Commission, this is the one major
addition to the local land use planning act that was not in place
in 1978. (Page il) The Legislature amended the local land use
and planning act a little over a year ago and mandated that
City's have a discussion of school facilities and the capacity of
school facilities as part of the community comprehensive planning
process.
Rountree: I would suggest that we limit it to that. Reading
this chapter^ on school facilities not knowing the situation and
as a person reading it, it would sound to me like the City of
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 22
Meridian has a way to impact acquisition of school sites or^
actually acquire school sites, imposition of curriculum, and
those kinds of things and in effect I don't think that's
something that we can do let alone something we should be doing.
I think we ought to be frank in the document, what we can do
r^elative to school facilities and what Moe said is r^ight, we can
encourage and identify needed school facilities and sites. We
can't dictate to the tax payer that they have to build more
schools, we can't generate funds for the schools.
Shearer^: The School Board does the planning.
Rountree: We can encourage the cooperative effort with the
school boar^d.
Johnson: Pack to your r^eference to the new addition here because
of the amendment of the land use planning act. Eliminating those
specifics would not change any of that requirement, right?
Forrey: Would nut .jeopardize our compliance with the local
planning act and the reason they wet^e then^e was based on the
neighborhood summit week where we specifically invited PTR & PTA
groups and this was the input from their testimony.
Shearer: If I was on the school board I would be a little upset
that yot~ were telling me to expand tech programs, expand bi-
lingual programs, etc.. I mean that's their .job, we're kind of
overstepping ot~r^ bounds telling them those types of things.
Johnson: We're just getting to specific, aren't we. All agreed.
Are we in agreement that we .just need to revise some wording and
eliminate the specific r^eference to the school bond in September
of 1443. Let's just do that.
Crookston: I think there's some things that yot~ can leave in
her^e because I think they are required by the local planning act.
Johnson: We're not talking about removing the entir^e thing,
we're talking about deleting some specifics and cleaning up the
language.
Forr^ey: A str°ict interpretation of that change in the local
planning act, my reading of that is that if the school district
says, we're overcrowded please do not approve a particular
subdivision, then the City Council is not supposed to approve it.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 23
Rlid.jani: What's yo~.ir legal opinion Counselor?
Crookston: I think that's correct.
Shearer: So then every time we get a letter from the school
board we got to reject the pr^o,ject?
Crookston: It's the problem that the City's and the Schools are
not under the governance of one body and the Legislature is
sufficiently short sided not to give one enough control over° the
whole ar°ea.
Johnson: That's a matter of view point there.
Crookston: I'm not saying it should be with us or with the
school district. The Legislature has .just said you guys do this
and then you g~_iys do this and maybe the two will meet somewhere
along the line b~.it we're not going to tell you how.
Johnson: We'll let's ,just go back to the point about the
specifics in here are going to be obsolete in a year. In 1994
we're supposed to have four new schools in place, if their not in
place or even if they ar°e in place it's obsolete that part.
Rountree: We're now inconsistent with our^ Comp. Plan.
Shearer: We already are b~.rt we have no control over it.
Johnson: The ,just of tl-ie thing is we don't have any control to
implement any of this.
Rountr^ee: 1 guess that's what I'm saying is that we need to be
frank in the discussion about that as just how we do f~.mction
with r^espect to the schools.
Crookston: I don't know about the exact n~_~mber^ of students or
stuff like that Gut there are pr^ovisions that we're supposed to
work with the schools, like on a school site.
Shearer: Then let's put it in that way.
Johnson: I just don't know why we want all this in o~.ir comp.
plan that's going to put us out of compliance immediately when we
get the specific - I don't see the purpose of that. I don't
think that's what they had in mind. We've got a listing down
here on overcrowding. You know table 2 all these overcrowded
schools, well those fig~.ires already ar°e wr^ong.
SPECIAL MEETING
RUGUST 16, 1993
PRGE :?4
i
For^rey: Yet on the other hand the local planning act says that
we have to address the capacity issue.
Johnson: Do we have to address them that specifically Do we
have to put down the number now and the number it will be and how
^uch over-, do we have to do that? Or do we do it in a general
statement that doesn't need to be r^evised every year^. We can
only change this comp. plan twice a year so we're going to
operate ^ost of the time out of compliance in this area.
Forrey: Then I g~.~ess we co~.rld make an ass~.imption that the
Meridian School District will thr^o ugh the planning period her^e of
the next ten years, it will always be over-crowded and develop
some goals and policies pertaining to that.
Johnson: I like statements like that much better than getting so
specific on it.
Rountree: Yes and I think that's a r^eality. I work with plans
when^e people made assumptions fifteen year^s ago about p~.iblic
tr^ansit, they haven't happened and they will never- happen. I
think par^tic~.ilar^ly in this area I think we need to be real with
what the sense of the community is and what we anticipate is
going to happen.
Johnson: We're talking about a re-wr^ite and condensing some of
this and being mor^e general.
Ro~.~ntree: Yes and in six months
little more specific knowing that
and some new schools ar^e going
condensation, gener^ality and goa
we foresee happening and how we
plan into those reality's.
I'd r^ather re-write it to be a
maybe some bond issues did pass
to be on line. Which means
is and policies related to what
can plan and factor the comp.
Rlidjani: That's exactly what my point is. I believe we should
be general.
Johnson: Rnything to add Tim?
Hepper: ~.~U has still got me wor^r^ied. Rre we going to
eliminate that all together?
Johnson: That's pr^etty vague in itself beca~.~se appropriate i~.
r^estrained by what you can do and what you can't do.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE ~S
Hepper: I guess the question would be whether a moratorium would
be appropriate if the school district asked for its
Shearer: Then what are you going to do when the Highway District
doesn't have a road, are you going to put a moratorium on that
section. The people have to come first and then the facilities.
Johnson: That can be re-written unto where we are cognizant of
the problem and do what we can do, something like that. Okay we
need to re-wr^ite this.
Crookston: I think you need to keep in mind what the Legislature
has done too. I'm not necessarily disagr^eeing with all that your
saying b~.it if the amendment to the local planning act says this
is what we got to do then that is what we have to look at.
Johnson: Well we're not talking about eliminating it all
together, we're talking about putting enough verbiage in there to
satisfy that requirement without getting specific and digging a
hole for w.irselves. Far^ example, there are people on this hoard
and in this City that may not support the bond issue in 1993. I
think with Mr. Farr^ey's g~.iidance and your guidance we aught to be
able to satisfy the requirement without getting to specific and I
think that's what we've agr^eed on her^e so let's go on to
something else. What's the next subject you want to talk about?
Rountree: Dne comment that I remember^ from the hearing related
to recr^eation and specifically the Recreation Distr^ict. I
tho~.ight it was pretty clear in here that the policy was to move
towards consolidation of recreation activities within the control
of the City and my assumption when I read those policies was that
the Western Rda Recreation District itself would be absolved.
Johnson: The problem being is they have some things going
outside the City, is that -
Rountree: No that's not a problem because at this point and time
that's in fact when^e all their activities are in the City. I
don't know if it's clear in here that that was the intent.
Johnson: The lady that testified was concerned as I recall
because she was saying those recreational facilities all put
under the City of Meridian and some of the areas that need to be
addressed are outside the City. In other words how can the City
have control over areas outside the City where there's also a
need far recreatiana3 facilities.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 26
Rountree: That's one viewpoint but I think probably the other^
view point was that the r^ecreation district is supported on a tax
basis and the assumption was that the recreation district would
still be there collecting taxes but those taxes would be utilized
by the City of Meridian. I think the intent is to do away with
the Recreation District and that fr'action of property tax and
that the City of Meridian take on the responsibility of
r^ecreation.
Johnson: So what's yo!~r^ sol~_~tion to that?
Rountr^ee: I guess it was clear' to me the way it was written but
it wasn't necessarily clear to the public. What was the intent
Wayne?
Fort^ey: The assumption used in that chapter that pertains to the
recreation district was that at some point in the fut~_ir^e within
this ten year horizon, Western Ada Recreation District would
absolve and the City would take over operation and maintenance of
the Swimming Pool, Fuller Park and the other small park that the
District owns. The City would 6e the single recreation entity in
the commrinity.
Johnson: Dkay, so that in effect would change nothing. It reads
okay to you but in your opinion fit was misunder'stood.
Rountree: Yes it read okay to me.
3ohnson: The question might be
my tax dollar if I live o~.~tside
and that's really something that
shouldn't. Were boundaries ever-
District?
something like, what happens to
the City in terms of recreation
we don't address and probably
established for Rda Recreation
Ro~.intree: Boundaries are established, yes.
Johnson: What are the boundaries roughly?
Rountree: Real rough but on the order of the south channel of
the Aoise River to appr^oximately McDermott, down McDermott to
Lake Hazel, Lake Hazel over to the vicinity of Cloverdale and
north back ~.rp to the south channel of the Boise River^. There are
same jogs in there.
SOECIRL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PRGE 27
Johnson: Then it's probably appropriate to say that you could
have developed parks in those ar^eas outside the City limits
within the 6oarndaries you just described but the board never
chose to do so.
Rountree: Financially it was not possible to meet the
commitments of maintaining what was there and develop additional
recreational areas.
Johnson: When Fuller park was initially developed and put under
your .jurisdiction was it in the City at that time?
Rountree: I don't believe it was. It was donated to the
recr^eation district.
Johnson: So it's not right to say that you never did anything
outside the city limits.
Rountree: That's correct.
Johnson: I have a better understanding of what the district does
and why the people living outside the City ar^e taxed now. Aart I
can understand the people that ar^e living outside the City that
are really getting nothing for their dollar^. I think that's
basically where the complaint was. I don't think we need to do
anything on that, that's a matter of inter^pretation. Rny other°
specific testimony that we should br°ing arp?
Rountree: The issue of weeds I heard several times. Rnd again
we have an or^dinance within the City to address weeds. I guess
maybe we could have something in the community design section
that would encourage Rda County to do better weed control in the
outlying areas that are in oarr^ impact area.
Johnson: If it is a concern we could address it but I'm not to
Sarre that the Camp. plan is the place for that.
For^rey: On page 70 - Items c. 4U R 2.6U
Roarntr^ee: So it's a new policy.
Johnson: So yogi had put those in there.
Forrey: Correct.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PRGE 2B
Ro~_mtree: Taken care of as best we can.
Johnson: Is then^e anything else from the testimony or outside of
the testimony that we should address?
Hepper: I've got a question on Page 29, 610U it says New Urban
Density Development most provide perimeter fencing to contain
construction debris on site. That almost sounds like an
Ordinance. I wonder^ if it sho~.~ldn't be "encourages perimeter
fencing." Rre we going to make it a mandator^y thing that all new
subdivisions have to provide per^i meter fencing aro~.~nd them?
Johnson: We're not making anything mandatory with this documents
anyway.
Shearer: If we do it should be in the Ordinance anyway.
Hepper: This almost so~.inds like an Ordinance because it states
"must provide perimeter fencing."
Johnson: I think "must" is to strong of a word.
Hepper: That almost sounds like it's a law.
Johnson: It does, there's no gteestion about it. Good point.
Rny other comments that need to be addressed?
For^rey: In the testimony at the p~_iblic hearing there were some
comments on the transition between urban development and the
r^ur^al residential developments that exist in the county and the
inter^f ace between those two. There are some policies on Page 29
that address that b~.~t there were some comments given about that.
Johnson: Let's talk about it.
Hepper: On it67U what I see as part of the potential problem
there is if you have increased setbacks to protect the rural land
use, in a lot of cases three months later^ that corn field is now
subdivision and you've got bigger^ densities than what the City
code requires. We're growing so fast and I can see that the
agricultural part needs to be protected but we ar^e growing so
fast if we change the set hacks it's now fifteen feet - if we
change it to 40 or 50 feet within .just months it seems like some
of these are subdivisions and all of a sudden we've totally
changed the ordinance with the setbacks for the City.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE ~9
Shearer: Time after time we*ve had one subdivision submitted one
month and the following month adjacent to it is another°. If we
put a large buffer space in there we'll end up with subdivision,
a buffer a s~_~bdivision a buffer and so on.
Hepper: That's basically what I'm getting at.
Johnson: Maybe here again it's to specific and we should .just
end it after the word techniques or- re-wr^ite the paragraph.
Shearer^: That would do it.
Johnson: If we end the sentence there that would accomplish the
same thing without again digging a hole for yourself.
Rountree: Py the sane token if they ar^en't they can still have
input in the public hearing process that they in fact want saved
as agricultural and that can determine what techniq~.ie is going to
be used to buffer.
Shear^er: Good point.
Johnson: Let's end the paragraph after techniques then and go on
to something else. Anything else from the testimony? - Let's
take a five minute break. - Meeting called back to order.
Where do we want to go from here?
Crookston: I think the first question is have you met everything
that you wanted to discuss.
Johnson: S~_ire. Is there anything else?
Rountree: I think the testimony on the significant issues that I
had concern with have been discussed.
All Agreed -
Johnson: Let's talk about those s~_iggestions we've made:
Design and Review - basically eliminating the need for a
committee or recommeridatian that we have a specific design
and review committee because we can accomplish the same
thing elsewhere without creating another level.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 3@
The school section whet^e we took
out of there and to re-write.
specific recommendations
The other thing we did was talk about mixed use and
identified an additional ac^ea to the north and a spreading
area to the east near Eagle Road.
Crookston: You made an addition also at^o~_~nd Overland and Eagle
Road, so~.ith of Overland.
Johnson: Right. What else?
Fort^ey: Dkay my first one is mixed use areas north of the City
near Albertsons, in the vicinity of Raleigh Hawe property.
Second would 6e to extend the mixed use area south of Overland
Road near Eagle Road. Third, the commercial mixed use at^ea at
Lake Hazel and Locust Grove as acceptable and not 6e changed.
Fourth, on the map indicate that it's a generalized policy map,
not a fixed definitive map, it's a guideline fot^ future land use
decisions and the fifth thing would be to strike the word
"ultimate" off of that map, sixth, Staff needs to enforce
ordinances better in the design review area. All site specific
conditions need to be monitored and checked and issue zoning
certificates and use that pt^ocess for monitoring, seventh, don't
have a separate design review committee, establish better firm
design criteria in the subdivision and zoning ordinance. Provide
a definition of what is meant by design review in the community
design chapter and clean up on pages 7@ and 71 ref et^ences to
design review. Eighth note I have is regarding the School
chapter^. It's to specific as written and indicate what the
limitations at^e that the City has in the school at^ea. Rddress
the assumption that schools will remain overcrowded, that bonds
will have to be passed, alternate financing may be available in
the futtime. Condense and make it more generalized.
Johnson: Okay was thec^e anything else that we talked about that
was listed? We talked about weeds and some other areas that we
think are handled already by the ordinances. We talked about
the impact area and decided to leave it as it was.
Crookston: I .just have one question, does this area of impact go
along with what we approached the Co~mty on?
Forrey: When the City, when Jack was alive and we approached
the Co~.mty.
Crookstan: Right.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST L6, 1993
PAGE 31
Forrey: No it's larger.
Crookston: The reason I asked is it sticks in my mind that it's
smaller.
Forrey: Well this is a referral area.
Crookston: The referral area ran from Linder Road east to a
quarter^ mile west of Cloverdale.
Johnson: It was proposed to go all the way to the County line.
Shearer: I think that's the area of impact we ended up with.
Forrey: Well it is on the north and it is on the south but it's
not right here Sshown on map), this has been added.
Crookston: Okay I just wanted to make s~.~re they were basically
the same. The County has adopted, not clear to Chinden, have not
adopted clear to the Canyon County line but I still think it's
actually larger than they even show.
For^rey: It is.
Johnson: Okay then let"s go to the next obvious question, have
we made significant changes that would in your opinion require a
new Planning and Zoning Hear^ing?
Crookston: I think you have. Specifically I'm referring to the
mixed use review area, the change in the design review and the
school chapters.
Johnson: Well we want to do this right.
Rountree: I'd have to agr^ee, if Counsel thinks there is
significant changes he would have to defend otherwise if we so
decided and I think they^e have been significant change.
Johnson: Wouldn"t it be wise to incorporate those changes we've
made tonight in a rough dr°aft form, pr^oduce another document and
then have the public hearing?
Rountree: Da we have to produce a complete document or can we
,just re-hear those sections that we feel have significant
changes?
Crookston: Yo~.i have a public hearing on all of it.
C~
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 32
Johnson: Do we need a complete new document or can we .just make
revisions at this point^
Crookston: You can make proposed changes to the proposal.
Rlidjani: Can we technically have testimony only on the changes
we have made?
Crookston: No you have
Johnson: If we highlig
that we've talked about
Crookston: Right.
Johnson: It's going to
want to have everything
to have it on the entir^e
-rted in some manner those
doing tonight that would
change our time table a
in place plus notice for
document.
areas of change
be okay.
E this point. We
the new meeting.
Forrey: First thing in the mot^ning we will pull the announcement
in the Valley News advertising the public heat°ing at the City
Council Meeting for September 7th and we'll remove that and in
it's place advertise a second public hearing with the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission at your September^ 14th meeting and
adver^tise that there's an addendum or an updated set available on
a certain date.
Johnson: What I don't want to do is put this Commission in the
position of being here until one o'clock in the morning if we
have a heavy agenda already for that date.
Forrey: You do not right now.
Johnson: I want to keep that agenda as light as possible so we
can focus on what we're trying to do with the Comp. F~lan_
Forrey: The mor^atorium is scheduled to be lifited on the 10th of
September so there might be instances when^e yotr would have to
table or delay action on something pending adoption of a
comprehensive plan.
Johnson: That's what's going to happen but that's .just the way
the cards ar^e going to fall. In other words we can take care of
the revision pr^ocess without any problem.
Forrey: Yes.
! •
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1993
PAGE 33
Ro~.mtree: How long du those have to be available for public
review prior to the hearing?
For^r^ey: Fi#teen days.
Hepper: I assume that we've gat a back log of s~.~bdivisians that
are waiting for this maratori~_im to be lifted?
Farrey: I da sense in the development community that there's
some people out they^e waiting for the moratorium to lift and I've
been encatiraging them all along please apply now. In fact we
have a box and we've n~.~mbered it and there's only five projects
in they^e.
The Motion was made 6y Rountree and seconded by Hepper to adjourn
the meeting at 8:33 P. M.:
Motion Carried: R11 Yea:
tTAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
AF~F~ROVED:
~, ~ °~---. c _
J L M J~IHNSON C I RMAN
ATTEST:
~/' //f/vf ,~Z ~
WILL BERG, CL CLERK
clt