Loading...
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