The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 08-30 Comp PlanMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 30, 2001 The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Thursday, August 30, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Keven Shreeve, Bill Nary, and Jerry Centers. Others Present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, Larry Moore, and Will Berg. Item 3. Continued Public Hearing from June 28, 2001: CPA 01-01 Request for Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment by City of Meridian: Borup: Okay. We would like to thank everybody for their patience. We had a little technical difficulties to get started here. This is the second Public Hearing for Meridian’s new Comprehensive Plan. I’d, again like to thank the school district for allowing the facilities use here. I don’t know if there are people here new. With us this time that were not here last time. Assuming such I’d like to maybe reiterate some of the things we went over the last time as far as the procedures we’ll be following. At the previous meeting we covered all of the subjects except for the land use, future land use map. That’s what we’ll start this evening with taking testimony on that. This is the Planning and Zoning Commission that you see before you here this evening. Our responsibility is to take public testimony and using that information to make some type of recommendation to the City Council. That’s what we’ll eventually be doing is making a recommendation to City Council. They will also be receiving public testimony and acting on that and hopefully on our recommendation. I would like to begin with a little bit of an introduction. My name is Keith Borup. Then you see before you here the other members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sally Norton and Keven Shreeve, Bill Nary and Jerry Centers down on the end. From the City we have our City Clerk, Will Berg and from Planning and Zoning Department Brad Hawkins-Clark and Steve Siddoway. From our City Attorney’s Office Larry Moore. This is a Continued Public Hearing. I would like to open it this evening. We do, as we’ve mentioned in the past, want to be able to hear all the testimony we can. In able for us to do that we do have a, in most situations, a three-minute time limit and we try to stay at that. The Commissioners may have additional questions or ask for additional testimony on some items so it may be extended in those situations. We would hope that testimony would be pertinent and especially if there are several from one subject or one area that would be interested on items that are new and different, not just a repeat of the same thing that we’ve already heard. So, we would like to begin and we only had testimony on three people at our last meeting. I’m not sure how many of those that had signed up last time are still here but we said we would proceed in Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 2 the same order. Let me go ahead and start with that. I would ask you to come on up. We have a microphone up here at the podium so we can get everyone’s testimony on tape. As I read your name, and like I say, I’m not sure if everyone’s here tonight that was here last time. So, when I read your name just raise it real quick and then we’ll come on up in that order. Chris Turner, Rodger Smith, John Eaton, okay. Then after John Eaton was Tresha Griffith, Madonna Rudder. Okay, Mr. Eaton. Eaton: Thank you Mr. Commissioner. My name is John Eaton Building Contractor’s Association. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Oh, there we go. Eaton: Yes it is. It’s not very loud. Just real quick. I’ll speak quickly. You have our testimony that we provided previously on the comments on the Comprehensive Plan. We did have a chance to have Mr. Hawkins-Clark and Mr. Siddoway come out and talk to the Building Contractor’s Association. Still have several concerns with the underlying plan. I was provided tonight with copies of these two memos from the Planning and Zoning Department. We will review those and have further comments but at this point, we stand on the comments we made previously. Borup: Did any Commissioners have any additional questions from Mr. Eaton? Okay. Oh, yes. Griffith: Tresha Griffith and Madonna Rudder and Dale Lindly are deferring our time to two speakers in our subdivision along with other residents. Borup: Lets try to get that microphone a little bit closer to you. Griffith: Do you want me to repeat that? Borup: You said you were speaking in behalf of your neighborhood, essentially? Griffith: No, I’m deferring my time along with Madonna Rudder, Dale Lindly, and the other residents of MontView Subdivision to two residents in our subdivision, Wes Hoaslt and Rick Willis. I’ll have one of them come up and speak. Borup: Okay. It’s not necessarily a minute for minute but you will have some extra time. Hoalst: Thank you Planning and Zoning Commission for this opportunity. I’m Wesley Hoalst and I’m a resident at 385 MontView Drive. The MontView Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 3 community along with Rick Willis has asked me to be a spokesman for the community. Borup: Mr. Hoalst, I’m not sure if that’s picking up. Can you move the stand just around to the side. Maybe that would get it a little bit closer? That may work a – Hoalst: Will that do? Is that better? Borup: That’s better. Thank you. Hoalst: The MontView community along with Rick Willis has asked me to be a spokesman for the community. I hope that will allow us the extra time since we are representing 23 people in our community. Just to give a little background, Rosie and I, who is my wife, have been residing in MontView Drive since 1969. When we built our home in the country, so to speak, we are now within the boundaries of Meridian City. Demographics has changed since the Eagle Road interchange was built on the interstate highway. The high visibility attracted St. Luke’s Hospital. It’s attracted gas stations, furniture stores, motels, Blue Cross, and many other businesses along this state highway. We at MontView Drive have 10 top reasons why we are here to present out position for making the 34 acres at the southeast corner of Eagle and Franklin being designated commercial on the Meridian Comprehensive Zoning Maps. Number 1, all residents of MontView Drive are unanimous in our request to be zoned commercial. Number 2, single-family residents is no longer compatible with surrounding uses. It is commercial to the south being St. Luke’s. It is commercial to the southwest. There are service stations, convenience stores, a bank, a credit union, motel, and medical offices. It is commercial to the north with R. C. Willey a furniture store. It is to be commercial to the east. That’s Touchmark with its assisted living and the nursing home. We are surrounded by commercial. Number 3, St. Luke’s set the tone building phase 1 with a large medical office and then phase 2 a duplicate addition to the south of phase 1. Phase 3 is now to open in November as a full fledge 7-story hospital 24-hour operation, a helicopter pad, and emergency services. St. Luke’s officials in 1992 stated that phase 3 would not be built until at least until 2015. That was their projections. Obviously, we were mislead by the St. Luke’s administrators. Even now phase 4 is the planned construction stage to begin a duplicate 7-story hospital addition. Number 4, in the August 2000 zoning map, our subdivision was proposed to be commercial. Shortly there after the zoning staff received a letter from an official from the St. Luke’s requesting MontView to be zoned at mixed use. It is our contingent that St. Luke’s should not be dictating how our personally owned property should be zoned. Number 5, a mixed-use designation allows for a multi residential development and it would not be compatible or realistic for this highly visible property at this intersection. Number 6, we have had several real estate developers who have agreed we should have a commercial designation. The commercial designation being the higher development use of the property can come down to mixed use designation but it Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 4 would be nearly impossible to go up to commercial. Zoning staff does not feel that mixed use would be that restrictive but developers feel quite the contrary. I have here two letters from commercial developers and one of them stated in his letter what we did not want to see happen was that the 30-acre plot sold to several different types of users. This would most likely result in hodge podge of office buildings apartments and small retail risers mixed in with existing residential homes. In my opinion many of the lots in the middle and the east side of the subdivision would lose both residential and commercial value and the growth would be difficult to manage. This would most likely happen with mixed- use zoning. This is from Arthur Berry and Company. From Thornton Oliver, the most logical long-term use for this property is as a planned commercial development. The property sits on one of the busiest intersections in the state of Idaho and lies on the main north south corridor for western Idaho. So, it is being recognized by the commercial developers that the entire 34 acres should be in a commercial use designation. Number 7, frontage roads are sorely needed and could be the answer to relieving the congestion with this ever increasing traffic flow on Eagle Road. The long range planning has not ventured into this arena. St. Luke’s officials have been allowed to dictate traffic lights on a state highway with the everlasting argument for a private driveway which has frustrated planning officials. Number 8, St Luke’s hospital is a not for profit charitable organization. Now, a hospital is important and essential to the people of our community. However, the hard line of manipulations to control arterial development, control of zoning, control of land use has angered we, who are neighbors to this establishment. We feel this influence should not have priority in decisions over our real estate. Number 9, because many patients and residents of St. Luke’s hospital and Touchmark, the Touchmark assisted living slash nursing home would have relatives coming to visit where their loved ones are confined, we visualize a large hotel complex would be compatible commercial zoning. Those visiting relatives would be within walking distance and have the comfort of a first class hospital. Medical services are no doubt part of the landscape that would be interested in being nearer the hospital and the nursing home. Number 10, no roll of the drums please. Because of these previous reasons, our residential community strongly believes our entire MontView Subdivision should be designated commercial for future development on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. I thank you very much for your time. If there’s any questions I would glad to answer them. Borup: Okay. First of all, Mr. Hoalst, it appears that you had your testimony in writing. Would you care to turn that in so it can be incorporated in the record a little easier. Hoalst: I certainly will. Borup: Okay. That would be great. Do we have some question from the Commissioners? Commissioner Norton. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 5 Norton: Mr. Hoalst? Hoalst: Yes? Norton: I have a question. How many entrances and exits do you have out of your subdivision at this time? Hoalst: We have one entrance, ingress, egress. Norton: Where is that entrance? Hoalst: That goes out on Eagle Road. Norton: Is it hard to get out on Eagle Road? Hoalst: Very difficult. Norton: And St. Luke’s wont let you go through their property, is that correct? Hoalst: No, that’s been the contentious argument is that they were allowed a private driveway and they’re very much wanting to keep it as a private driveway. So, for entry, they did come to one agreement of which they said well, we will provide $100,000 to allow you to drive into our driveway. But there were some hooks that went along with that. One was that there could be no increase of private traffic entrance into their private driveway and that they would have to have the agreement for any buildings or businesses that would come into our subdivision. Norton: Okay. Then I have another question. I believe that when Touchmark went through they said that they would give you an exit out through their area. Is that still true? Hoalst: That is in the Certificate of Planning. In the CUP, I guess you call it, that there shall be at the first building to be built, or any structures that there shall be a road that will go out the eastside of our MontView Subdivision and would go out to Franklin Road. Norton: Okay. Then just one other question. You represent all homeowners in the MontView? Hoalst: Yes. Norton: All homeowners want it zoned commercial? Hoalst: All homeowners have agreed that it should be commercial. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 6 Norton: Okay, thank you. Hoalst: Would all of them please stand up? So, you see, we’re pretty well represented. Borup: You said that was 23 total in there? Is that what you had mentioned? Hoalst: There are 23 homeowners. Norton: Thank you. Hoalst: All right, thank you. Borup: Any other? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Yes. Nary: Mr. Hoalst? Hoalst: Yes. Nary: At least in the staff report that we were given, it appears that all of the uses that you and your homeowner’s association would like to see done in your area could be done under the mixed use plan. Is it really your primary concern is the potential opposition from the surrounding business, primarily St. Luke’s is the reason you don’t want it to be mixed use? Is that why? Hoalst: That’s correct. Nary: The remainder of the area where St. Luke’s is and where Touchmark is, is that mixed use already? Hoalst: The – Nary: They have a commercial facility there but is that a mixed-use zone? Hoalst: I could not answer that. Our biggest problem would be of the mixed use part is that, as I understand staff that they would be able to agree to a commercial development but it would be very difficult to change the zoning comprehensive plan after it has already been established. Nary: I think, I guess, (inaudible) maybe I’m mistaken (inaudible) but it appears the same uses that are allowed in the commercial use zone can be done in a mixed-use zone. The issue really is, is whether or not it requires a Conditional Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 7 Use Permit or whether it may simply be an allowed use. I guess that’s the only thing --. I guess I’m not sure of either way, is all the uses of development, a single developer, a planned development which you talked about can all be done under this zoning designation. The only difference is a Conditional Use Permit. Just because St. Luke’s may come and say we don’t want that, that doesn’t mean we’re not going to allow it. Hoalst: Well, historically, what is happened, it seems that they have more clout than we do as individual citizens. The real estate people, they have come and talked with us. They said if we could hold all of this together as one unit that the commercial use would be much better in trying to find someone to develop the area than it would be in a mixed-use arrangement. That’s why we have been asking for that to be commercial use. Nary: Have those people put their money where their mouth is, Mr. Hoalst? I mean, its one thing to tell you folks, all of you in that subdivision that we’ll come and buy it but has anybody really made any real advances towards doing that? Hoalst: There are these two developers that I gave you the letters on. They both have expended, spent some money, in trying to put that together. So, they have put the money. They haven’t come out and said we will buy it. We had a recent commercial developer who came and tried to make an offer for purchase of all properties but we couldn’t agree with his offers at the time. They have the designs of what they can do with it if we can continue to keep it commercial. Nary: They don’t believe they would be interested any longer if it was a mixed- use development. Is that what they’ve been telling you? Hoalst: As I mentioned in my testimony here, it’s easier to come down than it is to go up. That’s why we would like to maintain it as a commercial rather than a mixed use. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Mr. Hoalst, I think that was zoned commercial. I think you alluded to it just a little bit earlier. If that was zoned commercial, would all 23 people sign a sales agreement to sell it and close escrow three months from now? Hoalst: It has been in our meetings that – Centers: I think you just referred to you had a proposal but you couldn’t come to an agreement. Hoalst: Yes, we did have proposals. It was more on price, not the fact that we couldn’t come to an agreement. If the commercial developer comes with an offer that we can agree for a sale, yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 8 Centers: It just seems strange to me that 23 owners would be willing to move all at once for nothing. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Hoalst: Jerry, my wife and I live in a very comfortable home. Centers: Yes. Hoalst: We don’t need to move but if a commercial development were to come and could offer enough that we could afford to move, yes we would move. We enjoy our home but it’s not a necessity. Centers: Good point. You get 23 homeowners to agree on whether its price or whatever it is. Hoalst: We all agree, we all agree and I don’t think there’s a distinction in any of it that we would all agree that it should be zoned commercial. That’s our agreement at this time. Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Hoalst, we did have a brief staff report on meeting that - - let me review this. I guess you were not at that meeting but – Hoalst: I was here but I did not testify. Borup: Okay, but several neighbors attended a meeting with staff July 18th . Hoalst: Yes, I was at that meeting. My name was not on there as I came in a little bit late. Borup: Okay. One of the points that they made, and that’s the other thing maybe I wanted to emphasize, the land use planning map, future land uses, I mean this is a conceptual plan. Its not zoning. You’ve made several reference to zoning. It would not be zoned. The zoning doesn’t take place until the property would be annexed and an appropriate zone put on it at that time. The mixed use would not prevent it from being annexed and commercial at the time. That can still be done. Either way, no matter what its designated, the process would essentially be the same. The argument would need to be made for commercial zoning. The project would be looked at. The same thing that would happen on a mixed use. I think some of staff’s concern was that a straight commercial zoning, there is no control. There’s no oversight on what type of project would go in. What type of commercial. If it was zoned strictly commercial with no conditional use, it would be anything that’s in the approved list on a commercial would be approved at that time. Of course, I think most developers want that because then they don’t have to be accountable to anybody. You know, depending on the area, the city Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 9 has found that most of the residents want the developers to have some accountability. That’s one way to do that. I think speaking personally and probably most Commissioners here would feel that the appropriate development of that site would be a single development. It doesn’t make sense in my mind to do it piece meal. That’s something that I would want to look at on anything proposed is the overall, something for the whole project. As you stated, doing it piece meal just would not be conducive at all. I think the (inaudible) probably agree with that. That’s why I wanted to do some clarification on --. The map does not designate a specific zoning. Its looking at what was felt is appropriate use. Hoalst: May I ask you a question? Borup: Sure. Hoalst: When you say that you have mixed use, you have control, but when you have commercial, you also should still have control. Borup: Not if its just a straight commercial zone with no conditional use. The only control is it be limited to the use that’s on the specific -- that’s quite a list. Hoalst: I would think that there’s still control in that the city still controls whether they’re going to hook up to the sewer and water, right? Borup: Well, that would be decided at the time of annexation. If it’s annexed and approved commercial then no, it’s already decided. Is there anything that needs to be added to that from the staff? Hoalst: You still have to get a permit to hook up to city water. Borup: That’s done when the development’s done. Once the development’s done, you’ve got the proper zoning you just need a building permit. You don’t have to go through anybody to have any approvals. Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Hoalst, what do you think of the development that’s across Eagle Road where the gas station is and the offices and motels? What do you think of that? Hoalst: What do I think of it? Nary: Yes. Do you think it looks pretty good? Do you think that’s a good development over there? Hoalst: Well, it wouldn’t be for our subdivision to be that’s mix mash of different businesses in my personal opinion. As I stated here that if it were in the one large complex of the, really, a hotel that would be, would allow for convention centers, for people to come in because, when this 4th phase is going to be built at the hospital and when Touchmark Living Centers is there, people are not going Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 10 to go and live with the residents in those areas. They’re going to come to a hotel and they’re going to be wanting to visit the residents. So, that is what I visualize personally as a commercial use for that purpose, which would be, they take a large area for which to develop. As Rosie and I have traveled quite a little bit and we see hotels that are very visible from the interstates or from the 4 lane highways. They are filled all the time. So, that to me – visibility is very, very important for a large complex of that kind. Nary: The reason I ask the question is because the area, at least looking on this land use map that’s right up there. That area that’s across the street is a commercial zone. That’s what I think (inaudible) is talking about was that the concern is that the city would like, at least at this juncture before developments comes be able to say we’re going to maintain some control over what’s going to go on there. What it’s going to look like. How big it’s going to be. What type of business is going to be there? If its designated commercial at this juncture, there are uses that are set out in our city code that says what you can have and we don’t have the same level of control over what’s going to be there. So, although I wholeheartedly agree with what you say that for the benefit of the MontView residents, that a commercial zone would clearly be a better deal than a mixed use, it would be for virtually any residential subdivision. They could sell their property for more. It would raise their property value. There’s no doubt about that. What we’re faced with is saying what’s the best for the city, for the whole city? What’s that whole map got to look like when we’re done? That way we can balance where the commercial and other uses where we want to have some more control over what gets developed versus saying this is an area that we’re comfortable with whatever uses are already defined in the city code. That’s what we’re trying to do. So, I understand exactly what you’re saying but I guess what I want you and the rest of your neighbors to understand is that we have to balance both of those things. The things that you’re asking for, whether it’s a hotel or a single planned unit development can all be done on a mixed use. All of that can be done exactly (inaudible). The only difference is the city has the ability to control to some degree what’s it going to look like? How high are the buildings going to be? What the buildings are going to be like. Where’s the configuration? That’s what we’re trying to balance is which of those things is more important to the city as a whole? Hoalst: May I ask Mr. Nary, did you have no control of that that was across the street, that was commercial? Nary: Significantly less control because of what’s an allowed use in a commercial zone. That’s why. But behind that --. I mean, they asked to build a hotel behind it and this Commission turned it down and so did the City Council. They asked to build a hotel there but because it was by the residences. I agree with what you’re saying that location on the other corner is probably more conducive to a hotel because its not right next to a bunch of homes, if you could purchase that whole piece of property. Again, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. I guess I just Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 11 want you to understand and your neighbors to understand we’re trying to balance a whole map of what the whole city looks like. Even though I may wholeheartedly agree personally that that’s a better use or a better designation for the individual owners, is that a better designation in comparison to the rest of that corridor where a majority of that property, including where St. Luke’s is at, is a mixed use. Hoalst: Would it be part of record then that this board would agree, this Commission that it should be commercial, if it were on the comprehensive map as mixed use? Nary: I guess, is your question that we would leave it as it is but we would agree that if somebody came forward that we would rezone it? Is that what you’re asking? Hoalst: Yes. Would it be part of record that you could make it, that you would make it commercial? See, our concern is that once its mixed use, now we would come before you as a complete plan and have a dickens of a time trying to convince that it would go to commercial. For us to present this to a commercial developer, our thoughts, and that’s why we’re unified on this. That if we can go to a commercial developer as they are saying in their letter that if its commercial, we can make it work. That’s the reason that we are asking that it should be commercial as listed on the comprehensive plan. Nary: I don’t want to anger any of the developers who are sitting in here. But part of the reason they say that Mr. Hoalst is because the hoops to jump through to have a conditional use and to meet the conditions and requirements that the City may require in building location, building type, entrances, types of business, whatever that may be, is a hassle the developer would prefer not to do because all impediments cost money. So, that’s the reason they say if it was commercial we would buy it up in a heartbeat because they don’t have to do that. That’s why. That does make it more convenient for them. That doesn’t mean that’s in the best interest of the city. That’s what we have to do. No, we cant commit to we promise we’ll make it commercial. We cant do that. Mixed use does allow it to be commercial. We would evaluate that as to what was being proposed just like we do every other one. But, I don’t foresee somebody coming and wanting to build apartments, multi use family dwelling sin that location. It’s just not conducive to that. If they did and they wanted to buy your property, I don’t know that you would care what they built on it no matter what it is if they were going to buy your property (inaudible). But, I don’t see that happening and I certainly anything that a commercial developer’s telling you that they would be willing to buy it for and your neighbors and all of you that they can still do. Its just a little more work to have to do that. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t get it done. It just means it’s a little more time which means its maybe a little more cost. That’s what they’re really trying to avoid, Now, I could be wrong and I’m sure someone else will tell me I’m wrong if that’s a wrong analysis. That’s the reason. It isn’t just because Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 12 there’s no way they could build it. Its that they would have to work a little bit more trying to please some people and meet some criteria that they may not want to. Borup: Any other questions? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I just want to clear up --. I have some written material here. How many acres in the subdivision? Hoalst: 34. Centers: Okay. There’s definitely 34? Because what I have doesn’t equal that. How many lots in the subdivision? Hoalst: There’s 23 homeowners, I believe. Isn’t that right, Gus? Centers: There’s none vacant? Hoalst: There was 2, or just one that is in the process of being foreclosed. Centers: Okay, but all the lots are built out? Hoalst: Oh, yes. Centers: That’s all right, thank you. Hoalst: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Did I already mention your name? Willis: My name is Rick Willis. I live at 3555 MontView Drive. I represent the MontView homeowners and would like to say we appreciate the opportunity of talking with you folks this evening. We’ve been doing this for about 5 or 6 years now. If you sense some frustration in this, in our attitude its because we are very, very frustrated. But I would like to that we think you’re on the right track with your plan. I think you have a good plan. If you follow it, I think you have a good document that will follow through with the development of Meridian in an orderly manner. But we do feel that it needs to be tweaked a little bit. Also, I think that there’s some areas that need a little bit more consideration. You have some good things in your plan. Some basic planning principles that should be included in every plan. Hopefully, even though you don’t have the plan in place in front of you today, any development that comes before you, you will consider those basic planning principles that are important for every development. Quite frankly I can Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 13 tell you that that has not always happened, particularly in the case of the MontView subdivision. We’ve been severely beat up, we feel by the various councils, commissions and even the court system and our large developer to the south of us has pretty much dictated our actions in the last 5 years. Every decision of consequence that has been made before the various councils and commissions has gone in favor of the developer. All the bad things that happen to small neighborhoods when large developments come in next door have happened to us. Quality of life issues, you get tired of hearing them. Everybody that comes before you talks about them. Noise pollution, light pollution, dust pollution, loss of privacy, now I have a 7 story building in my backyard. Not much you can do in the backyard that we use to do back there. Terrible traffic problems and access problems. Some of the basic principles that you’ve included in your plan, such things as in any development you should consider the impact that that new development will have on the adjoining property owners. That obviously wasn’t done in MontView. Your plan talks about connectivity. It talks about cross access. It talks about buffer zones. It talks about transition zones. It talks about the importance of properties dedicated for public right-of-way and none of those things were enforced upon the developer that built up next door to us. So, if we sound like we’re frustrated, we are frustrated. Does that mean I’ve got 30 seconds? I just started. I thought you said I had 10 minutes. Can I have his time? Borup: That already happened. Willis: Let me just give you then a brief history of the development of the use in MontView because I think there’s something you’re missing here. When you came out with your comprehensive plan, the draft comprehensive plan the MontView subdivision was listed as low density residential. Imagine our surprise when you rated us as high density residential. We were concerned about that and we came and we talked to staff and guess what they told us, and it’s a quote, MontView was overlooked in the planning process. At that time staff agreed that MontView, the best use, future use of the MontView subdivision and property would be a commercial use. When the plan came out you changed us to commercial. So, imagine our surprise when your final plan came out and now you have us back to mixed use. Borup: We need to wrap that up. We do not have a final plan. That’s why we’re having public testimony. That’s what we’re trying to come up. Willis: I understand that. Borup: The items that came up before came out of public testimony for the last year and a half from the many public meetings they have. So there is no final plan. They’re all still a draft plan and that’s why we’re trying to get the input tonight. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 14 Willis: The only point I wish it to make was at the time we went and talked to planning, at that time they told us that commercial was the best use for that particular piece of property. The staff report you received just this week that was done 2 weeks ago indicates that commercial will be probably the best use for that land. They further affirm to you in the report all the bad things that I just talked to you about happened to MontView. I mean it’s not just the MontView residents talking about this, its staff agrees. The property needs to be developed and it will be developed commercial. It’s not suitable as a subdivision. Just a couple more things and I’ll be quite because I know I’m way over time. I think that, you know, we’ve been asked many, many times about potential uses of the MontView property. You know when you have a piece of property with a close proximity to the interstate highway, borders on 2 sides by the busiest intersection in the state, what commercial development would not want to relocate there. Anybody that wants to attract traffic would want to be on that corner. One final thing, one thing I think is woefully lacking in your report is any discussion of traffic and traffic patterns and what’s happening out there. For example, I think light rail would be a wonderful thing for the City of Meridian and the City of Boise and the whole valley. If you had light rail in this valley with a light rail stop at Eagle Road, another one in downtown Meridian and you had a large commercial development such as a hotel, convention center on that corner, think what an asset that would to the City of Meridian if you had a hotel convention center there. Any visitor with a 5-minute walk would have access to any place in the valley. It’s bordered by 2 sides by health care providers as Mr. Hoalst said. Borup: Thank you. You’re starting to repeat yourself again, Mr. Willis. Willis: I’ll try to shorten it up. Borup: We need to move on. We appreciate you --. Thank you. Willis: Just one thing and I will be quiet. I lied to you up front. I told you that every decision, major decision that has been made has gone contrary to the wishes of MontView, except for one. That decision was made by you folks and you recommended that MontView Subdivision be given public access through St. Luke’s property, a public right-of-way out to a public light and the City Council of Meridian overruled your determination. That’s the only decision that was ever made in our favor and obviously you were overruled. Hopefully when it comes up again, you folks will remember that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did I already call your name? Unidentified Speaker: Can I testify? I’ve never been here before. Borup: Did you sign up yet? Unidentified Speaker: No I did not. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 15 Borup: As I mentioned at the beginning, we’re going to go through and take those in order of the people that had signed up. Unidentified Speaker: Where do I sign up? Borup: I’ll give you some time at the end. Shreeve: This is from the last meeting. Borup: Right, we’re still trying to catch the ones that signed up last time. Then we’ll hit on the ones from tonight. Some of them signed up on both. Walt Warner, I believe was the next in line. Warner: My name is Walt Warner. I live at 425 River ridge way in Boise. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I would like to address – Berg: Sir, can you speak into the mike. It’s hard to pick it up and it’s hard for these people to hear. Warner: Okay. Borup: Yes, we apologize for the – ***End of Side One*** Warner: The northwest corner about 25 acres. In your plan you show it as medium density residential. We’re requesting that be changed to mixed use. There are a couple of existing conditions that kind of preclude a medium density residential. One is a major gas substation and the other is that you have the American Paving, gravel extraction process plant on the opposite corner at the southeast corner. So, residential would not be a very good use for that corner. We think that a mixed use that would incorporate some commercial, some other uses would be much more appropriate. I’ve got a little drawing here that I kind of created that I’d like to give to you. That kind of has some proposals or outlines. Nary: Mr. Warner, what corner was it again? Warner: It’s the corner of State Highway 69, Meridian Kuna Highway and Amity Road. The northwest corner. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: For Commissioners, Mr. Warner --. Wasn’t that the same property that the baseball academy or whatever it was --? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 16 Warner: That’s correct. That’s the same property. Borup: I cant remember how many Commissioners were on the Commission at that time. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: I guess none of these Commissioners were there then. Warren: Well, with that gas substation there and the gravel extraction plant, then immediately across the road on the east is another large storage area, so we think that if we could do this a mixed use and do compatible uses on the corner. Then do some residential away from the corner it may be a more appropriate use than just medium density residential. Borup: Okay. Any questions from any Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: I don’t think that mics working. Nary: I can talk pretty loud. Borup: Its just there for effect. Nary: Is it Mr. Warner? Warner: Mr. Warner. Nary: Now, there is a neighborhood center on this current map at the half mile. Warner: Right. Nary: What you’re wanting is it to be right there on that corner? Warner: Yes, there’s about 25 acres there in the corner, yes. Nary: Do you own that 25 acres? Warner: Yes. Nary: That half-mile, you don’t own that area there? Warner: No. Nary: So, that would really be beneficial to you if it was there? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 17 Warner: If this corner was zoned mixed use? Nary: Right. Warner: Yes. Nary: The neighborhood center a half-mile away doesn’t benefit you at all? Warner: No. I have no vested interest in those properties. I don’t even know who those property owners are. Nary: I’m looking at this map and there’s no other, other than that neighborhood center on the half mile away from you, all the rest of that doesn’t have mixed use. It’s all residential. The map’s right there. Warner: Well, -- Nary: Other than the neighborhood center, there’s no (inaudible). Warner: The property across Kuna Road is zoned, I don’t know what the zoning is, but it’s currently a large storage area. Then the property on the southeast corner is American Paving. I mean it’s a huge gravel extraction processing plant. That’s not residential. Nary: I’m just looking at the map. It seems like there’s nothing but residential around that area except that neighborhood center that’s at the half mile. Correct? Warner: That’s correct. To the north and to the west that’s correct. Agricultural use to the west and there is some residential on Victory Road to the north. Nary: That’s currently no tin the city limits, correct? Warner: No. Nary: All right, thank you. Warner: But see, this with that gas substation there. I mean that, it doesn’t seem like a compatible use to have that and residential around that substation. Same thing with the American Paving plant to have the residential as a compatible use. Nary: I guess, then to follow that up Mr. Warner, would a compatible use be more of an industrial use for that particular area rather than a commercial use? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 18 Warner: I don’t think so because you have residential to the north and you have agricultural to the west. So, we’re thinking that a mixed use would be a more appropriate use than just a commercial or an industrial. Nary: Mixed use of residential and commercial? Warner: Residential, commercial, office, warehouse combinations. Nary: Okay, thank you. Warner: Any other questions for me? Borup: Any other questions. Did the Commissioners understand what he was mentioning with the round that is the chicken coop storage buildings that’s directly to the east and the gravel company? That’s what they use to be, I’m sorry. It was a chicken farm, sorry. Centers: I have a new pointer here Mr. Warner, bear with me. Warner: Pardon? Centers: See there? Now that’s, you’re saying to the south you have a what? Warner: On the southeast corner of Kuna Meridian Highway and Amity Road is American Paving, right there. Borup: Thank you. I think some of these – Russ Liddell was he from the other group. Okay W.H. Fawcett is he here this evening. Then after him Dennis Hunting if he’s here this evening. Fawcett: W.H. Fawcett 2090 South Meridian Road. I live on that section of Meridian Road between Victory and Overland. As a matter of fact I live on the deceleration lane of that road. At night when the big trucks come up to I-84 from the Iowa Beef Producers or the Triple Bottom A Trucks or whatever they hit their jake brakes right about at my bedroom window. It sounds like a 50 caliber machine gun going off all night. I think that’s one of the reasons why the corridor roads do get mined with businesses because the businesses act as a buffer against that kind of noise for the homes directly behind it. I’ve spoken with – I can’t represent 23 people because on the east side of Meridian Road there are no longer 23 homes in there, there are only 3 that are currently lived in. I’ve talked to Mr. Minniger and he agreed with me that a multiple mixed use for that side at least of Meridian Road. I have 10 acres and I have – by the way Planning and Zoning landlocked an acre and a half of my land on the other side of Ten Mile Creek during the planning of the Running River Estates. I’m kind of the cork in the bottle between Running River, those estates there and Meridian Greens which borders on the back of my property. I think that developers Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 19 coming in would welcome a chance to work with Planning and Zoning to create a buffer zone followed up by homes in those areas. We’re going to list our home as soon as we find out what you’re eventual decision is going to be. I would (inaudible) labor it or anything else. What’s done is done and but what can be, will be, and I think it would be in the best interest in the City of Meridian to allow that to happen. Especially two-story buildings – not apartments necessarily but office buildings and what not will act as a buffer against that noise going towards Meridian Greens. Borup: Mr. Fawcett you’re saying you will be – you’re advocating some type of commercial development along Meridian Road and you’re talking essentially the mile between Overland and Victory? Fawcett: That’s correct. There are a number of – we have already submitted a letter to Planning and Zoning along with photographs of that east side all of the way from – there’s an agricultural lot now that has been zoned commercial you can see it’s kind of a triangular shape along Ten Mile Creek. Then of course Victory Gardens at the other end is also commercial. There’s a large commercial hay producing company that’s in there along with the Veterinary Medicine and then our three homes. The rest of it is empty lots. I think in the interest of noise barrier if nothing else I’ve tried putting up fences, I have berms under the fences and I have enough trees to start a lumber company. Trust me it doesn’t work it’s noisy with all of the emergency vehicles that use the corridor roads because it’s the fastest way to get to an emergency. That’s the way it should be. You should provide fire, police, and EMT service through those corridor roads but to restrict the people who own the land along those corridors to simply a medium density is really putting a handicap on the value of that property. I would certainly request that you consider it a little different a mixed use zoning for that property. It would seem reasonable – a reasonable request. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Would Dennis Hunting – okay. Liddell: I’m Russ Liddell you called my name? Borup: Oh yes I thought – go ahead. Liddell: Thank you. I live at 1777 East Victory Road which is approximately eight acres on the southeast corner of the intersection of South Locust Grove and Victory Roads. For all the reasons just stated by the gentleman ahead of me the current latest of three designations in the last two years is medium residential. Along that cross-section would now at Locust Grove south of the interstate and Victory which your Page 4 of amendments states Victory Road between McDermott and Eagle Road will now be a major collector. I think that realizes the realities. However, it does increase the need to directly flow traffic to as you approve more subdivisions and there’s a 151 acre one going in less than 1,000 yards south of us and there will be more over west and east both along the Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 20 Meridian Kuna Highway Corridor as was just spoken up and when the new priority overpass which is the number one construction priority in the state as you know by the Transportation Department goes over I-84 and the new high schools, ice rink and the new everything goes on Overland. Traffic is going to increase. Victory is a major corridor to get to the future Ten Mile, the Meridian Kuna Road and the Eagle Road onramps I-84 and off of I-84 which just happen to be the magic three miles on that intersection from commercial developments where people can get groceries, go to shops at Five Mile and Cloverdale and over at WinCo and Shopko in downtown Meridian districts. As traffic increases why would somebody want to live on a corner of the major lines of communication east west and north and south right in between the two major north south Meridian Kuna Road and Eagle Road. What we’re requesting it’s not secret we’ve requested it for a long time is a change back to what Forey did originally almost 15 or 20 years ago. We’ve owned the property since 76 it’s always been rural transitional. It’s gone from mixed use and commercial kind of designation to then some office designation and then everybody agreed that we didn’t need 47 acres in that – on all four corners of that for office buildings. Then there was talk of commercial and all of the residents requested commercial now we’re requesting mixed use it’s that simple. All four corners or at least the three with property owners express their request to you is that you change it back the way it is and go with mixed – the way it was mixed use on that corner. Also for you own statements in this new plan is that there be some conceptual siting of these planned centers these service centers other than where they are now. Thank you. Borup: Thank you Mr. Hunting? Hunting: My name is Dennis Hunting my address 601 South Meridian Road. I’m actually here on behalf of my brother David and his wife who are the owners of the northeast corner of Locust Grove and McMillan. In the update for the Comprehensive Plan the attachment A you will find his comments are number 17. My brother David is no longer with us he actually passed away since he started this process so I’m going to speak on behalf of his wife. The reason that we’re here is to of course as Attachment A says to look for different zoning for that corner. The reason we say that is we, during the Comprehensive planning process we have been involved with the workshops early on and the statement that keeps coming back to me is as a City the comment was made – the statement was made as kind of the leading statement for the reason for the Comprehensive Plan was to make the best use of the eland available. On that corner you have an electrical substation that this last year has doubled in size. There are plans to double it again. Kitty corner to the electrical substation is a sewage lift station and I understand from the maps you’re looking at having the commercial properties in the center of the blocks. I think you’ve heard from enough people that think it should be the other way. I’m just simply asking that that be under consideration. Right now with the line of pearls that actually does separate the piece of property from any residential so between the electrical Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 21 substation, the sewage lift station, the bike path it is separated from residential as it is so I don’t think that it would impact any residential around there and in fact like I said the property value as a residential due to the development of the City has really diminished. Long and short I just ask again that you take a look at that. You’ll do what you think is right but it’s pretty obvious to developer so that’s something to look at. While I’ve got the floor I wanted to make on other statement and that is in the designation of properties the comment has been made that you don’t have much say as to what goes in a place. We just bought a piece of property actually about two years ago – these guys are smiling. We bought a piece of property that we went to Planning and Zoning and asked as a company because we own a business in the city limits, asked what zoning we are. They told us what we are zoned as a business. We asked where we had permitted use. We don’t want to go through Conditional Use Permits where can we go as a permitted us? As a company we bought a piece of property that was zoned appropriately that we were told we are a permitted use. We went to build that building and build our business and then we were then told that we had to have a Conditional Use Permit. Not for the building and not to run our business so that people could see our business. There’s quite a few things that are going on that – as I’ve gotten involved in the political process which I have no desire to do there’s lots and lots of layers that you could stop a process depending on the zoning. We have no development plan for it but I just think that would be a good use for that piece of property so if you would just take it under advisement if you would. Borup: Mr. Hunting could clarify which corner – did you say you were the northeast? Hunting: The northeast corner and like I said I don’t know if it in occurrence with Attachment A – we were actually told by the Planning and Zoning Department early on in this process that the best thing we could do to get that done was to first of all get in writing to the City what we wanted done. Also we had a petition signed by all of the neighbors because the next closest nine neighbors all have in home businesses. We did get all of the neighbors that own property within I think legally I think it’s 300 feet but anyhow the next nine closest neighbors all signed a petition saying that that’s what their desire was, was for that to happen. We have nobody saying that that shouldn’t happen. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Hunting are you saying you don’t have the neighborhood center concept that’s proposed in that north corridor. Do you have a problem with that or do you just think it should be – Hunting: -- well I don’t personally have a problem with it. I’ve sat through enough meetings where there’s enough opposition to that so I’ll leave that all by itself. Although, in theory what you’ve been hearing from everybody else is Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 22 commercial works at corners, residential works in the center of blocks. We’re trying to, in essence reinvent the wheel and that’s up to you guys to decide what you want to do I’m just saying as a piece of property it is an island already because of the electrical substations and sewage lift stations it’s actually cut off by the bike path. I would say there’s no development plans for it it’s just going back to the original statement it’s the best use of the property available. That’s all we’re looking at. Borup: Thank you sir. Mark Estess is he here this evening. Might make a note we do have in our packets a very lengthy analysis. I believe Mr. Estess is representing the Ada County Realtors so I hope you had a chance to review those and review that letter. Anna Powell. Powell: Chairman Borup, Planning Commissioners my name is Anna Powell. I work for B & A Engineers 5505 West Franklin in Boise 83705. I am here representing Kowallis and Machey. They purchased a piece of property at the intersection of Locust Grove and Franklin the southwest right along there in along Five Mile Creek. With the understanding that the Comprehensive Plan designation was mixed use which is the existing designation. We are asking that you maintain that mixed use designation on the property. The property is approximately 8 acres in size and has numerous challenges to development. The Five Mile Creek runs through the property and blocks the access to Franklin road and provides only limited access to Locust Grove. There are also steep slopes on the property and about a third of it is in the flood plain for Five Mile Creek. Five Mile Creek goes underneath Locust Grove and then underneath Franklin. Right here where it goes underneath Franklin the pipe is not of an adequate size so it backs up all the way onto our property basically or Kawallis and Machey’s property excuse me. There is a significant flood plain given the size of the creek it still has a huge flood plain as it goes through the property. To put a medium density residential designation on it will essentially make it un- developable under those circumstances. There’s really – you could get maybe one or two houses but to get a public road down in there would take almost all of the developable area at least half of what’s there. It’s as I said severely constrained so we’re asking for the mixed use. We’ve been working with the owners to try and come up with a layout that meets their needs. They originally thought they wanted to do some storage on it but then they – for their own use but then they moved to offices and no longer have the need for that storage area so they’re trying to work out something for their own use but have not yet come up with that. They’ve tried to sell it. Some thoughts were towards apartments. Those are difficult as well to get the parking required for an apartment underneath there. We are working on it we are not there yet but we need the flexibility that’s supported by mixed use. We don’t mind coming back to you all for a Conditional Use Permit but we just need that flexibility for mixed use. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 23 Borup: Did you say that was at the southwest corner? Powell: You know I do that every time. It’s the southeast corner I’m sorry. Borup: I wasn’t sure if I heard you right. Powell: No, I’m notorious for that mistake I try and think about and I always get it wrong. Borup: Okay the southeast corner. Powell: It’s right there so you’ve got the cemetery there and the apartment – Lee Centers apartment complex there and then the industrial. You’ve got some more just some houses stretched along here you’ve got commercial there that’s the new – Borup: -- but on the southeast corner of Locust Grove and Franklin. Powell: Franklin and – Borup: -- so it’s current and our draft plan now has it. Powell: Medium density residential. Borup: Okay that’s what – and your preference is on mixed use. Powell: Mixed use. It is a – there is a mix of uses in the area and there’s also a church application coming into you all next week that would be on a portion of the – right there. Borup: A portion of the property that’s marked mixed use? Powell: Yes. Borup: Did you have a question Commissioner Norton? Any other Commissioners? Thank you. Powell: Can I ask when you’ll be developing a new map or how should I follow up on these things. I wasn’t quite sure what the next procedures are. Borup: I don’t know that we know either. We’re just a little bit of discussion probably – we’re not going to be making that decision this evening so we need to decide on our next move if we get through the public testimony tonight we would probably like to have some discussion and maybe lay down some areas that we want to cover. We’re anticipating we’re going to need another meeting from this commission to work out some of those details. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 24 Powell: Would it be advisable to stay in case there are questions or is it likely that it will just be discussion amongst yourselves? Borup: I don’t know that – Commissioner Norton stated she didn’t think there would be a lot of questions. Again as I mentioned earlier that there’s still the opportunity at City Council. We would like to present them with something that’s worked through to the information we’ve got so they don’t have to start from scratch again hopefully. Powell: Thank you Chairman Borup for entertaining this (inaudible). Borup: Elaine Clegg. Clegg: Can you hear me? My name is Elaine Clegg and I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. I’m the Co-director of an organization called Idaho Smart Growth. I reside at 1011 North 12th Street in Boise. I’m here tonight – I know that specifically you were talking about neighborhood centers at your last hearing and I was unable to be here. One of the issues with the neighborhood centers is the location on the map of them so I would like to talk about neighborhood centers briefly. Idaho Smart Growth is very much in favor of the concept of neighborhood centers. I think the memo you received today indicating that in fact they are conceptual and that the location on the map at this point is to be refined as various build out and as perhaps sub area plans get written and master plans get written I think is a very good idea. I would urge you to go ahead and accept the neighborhood centers on the map with the understanding that they can be refined. That in fact the location of them likely will be refined depending on a number of factors. I personally support the idea that you should pull them off with the intersections. We’ve heard a lot of testimony tonight about the intersections being placed where the traffic is and of course that’s a difficult place to live and I agree with that but it’s also a place that if you loaded up with commercial and a lot of driveways and a lot of other things becomes then not a corridor that can handle traffic. We’ve seen that all over the valley and when that happens as soon as the traffic gets too bad that gets abandoned and they move to the next corner that isn’t yet built out until that gets too bad and they move to the next one and we end up with a lot of abandoned commercial buildings as is happening in the inner ring suburbs in Boise right now. Over the long term I don’t think that’s healthy for the community. It’s better to locate commercial places in places where they can stay and where hopefully they won’t be abandoned. The Treasure Valley certainly isn’t the only place in the state or in the country where this is happening. I just heard about a Wal-Mart in Idaho Falls that was built less than eight years ago that’s going to be closed and they can move (inaudible) miles down the road to another one. Be careful of what you do on those arterial corridors because if you do load them up with commercial uses and traffic then they become unusable and in the end it doesn’t work for anyone. The concept of neighborhood commercial is certainly Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 25 something we support and we wanted you to know that. One other point I would like to make. Around the neighborhood centers the density falls off and unless I’ve missed it and maybe I have I don’t see any incentives for clustering of development in those less dense areas. It would probably be advantageous to try to cluster the less dense development so that you actually get the open space between developments that you seem to be looking for so that you have centers and it gets less and less. Perhaps you have some open space and then it goes back to a center. Clustering development by offering incentives of a little bit denser development in the cluster as long as there’s a certain amount of open space I think might be really advantageous in those areas. Borup: Mrs. Clegg – I don’t know if any of the Commissioners have any other questions. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Ms. Clegg now one of the issues that came up the last time some of the testimony was not really opposed to the concept incentive but it was opposed to the way it was designated on the map. What was suggested instead was that area, that northern corridor area be simply designate. Whether it be a specific zone for the neighborhood center or there be (inaudible) overlay or (inaudible) to allow the marketplace to determine where those (inaudible) be so that the developer wouldn’t be stuck with this map that says it has to be there but not there. What do you think of that? Clegg: Well in fact our organization has been involved in the discussions about the 12 school mile area and we support the concept of developing a sub area plan. I think the City would be well served though to adopt a plan that recognizes the neighborhood center concept in that area and if you want to designate it on the map good. The locations are conceptual and can be further refined as a sub area plan is written. I think that might be advantageous. I think adopting the – in my opinion, adopting the plan with the concept of neighborhood centers would give more impetus and more incentive to that sub area plan to actually come up with ways to make that work. I think there’s also as I understand a market study that may be going forward on how to located those plans and I think that market study should certainly also report into whatever ends up actually getting built there and refine it further. I guess I would be cautious to just adopt a blanket mixed use zone because I’m not sure that that would give you or give the residents of Meridian incentive to the folks who are interested in developing there to actually peruse this idea of doing it around neighborhood centers. Nary: What about a needless incentive though? Something that would be more defined – like I said I think most of the information that I was hearing was the Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 26 concern of putting those dots on those spots in those locations no matter (inaudible) conceptual tag next to the knot. So what about simply creating the zone as a neighborhood center zone and thus again encouraging that type of development or designating that area for that type of development but not necessarily tying it to those individual half miles because some places may be more sensible to have it on the corners and some places may be more sensible to not have it on the corners. That would allow the flexibility of market place in the citify at that particular time when those requests were made to give that flexibility. What do you think? Clegg: It’s an idea that may have some merit. I Think if you were going to pursue it, it would – merit taking the time to actually make sure that that zoning designation was well defined and included some kind of guarantees that you would get that mix of use and not just the highest or least of the uses that might be allowed in it. If you were going to pursue that if I were your position I would want to make sure that the document that defined that neighborhood center zone was well thought out and well written. I would want to have that in my hand before I would agree to do something like that. Nary: Thank you. Borup: I had one. I was interested in your statement that you felt neighborhood centers was not appropriate on intersections. I’m not disagreeing with that but what do you feel would be appropriate use for intersections then? Clegg: It’s a good question. Borup: I mean as already testified this evening there’s definitely a lot of resistance for straight residential on an intersection. I’m not sure what the leaves left. Clegg: I haven’t thought it through myself terribly in a really detailed fashion. To be honest this is – it’s one thing to talk about it conceptual and it‘s another thing to apply it in a real detailed fashion. Borup: But that’s what we’re faced with. Clegg: I understand that you are faced with that. To be honest with you what I would prefer to do rather than answer you is go back to my office tomorrow and do some research. Borup: I would appreciate that. Clegg: I can do that and I can get back to you if that will be acceptable. Borup: Yes that would be great. Thank you. Any questions? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 27 Clegg: Thank you very much. Borup: Is it Sherry McKibben did I pronounce that right? Then we have Nancy Taylor next. McKibben: I’m Sherry McKibben I’m the director of the University of Idaho’s Idaho Urban Research and Design Center. We have obviously our main campus in Moscow but we also have a center in Boise on 775 West Foulton Street. Our research center does research into exactly this kind of neighborhood center concept and planning and zoning ask that I come in as noted in one of the memos to discuss these with the developer who was questioning a lot of things that have been brought up today. The neighborhood center concept is a concept but it has definite place making possibilities and they need to be obviously specified in a planning document. The most critical thing is that they not be located at an arterial intersection because the neighborhood center serves the neighborhood. It is specific uses that are not regional and community commercial uses. They are serving the weekly needs of the neighborhood and locating them on the collector which the ACHD is looking to locate somewhere in the middle of that mile is a way to have the neighborhood in that square mile be able to access that neighborhood center commercial without having to go out on the arterials by car, by foot or by bicycle. In fact you’re reducing the traffic and congestion on an arterial by locating the centers in that location. Neighborhood centers are only well served if they’re connected in multiple ways and in the guidelines that the staff has developed they are asking for block sizes of 300 feet or less. That produces many, many ways to get around that square mile and also to destinations within the mile. It presumes that if you’re doing specialized shopping that you’re actually driving or taking transit to another area. We do note that you have quite a bit of commercial on your map right now quite a bit of mixed use so that the neighborhood center idea was to have here we have an opportunity to make neighborhoods and special places in Meridian that offer a variety of transportation choices nearby and offer housing choices nearby so that you could for instance live n a beloved neighborhood all of your life. You could live in an apartment as a young, unmarried person you could then live in a small home a little bit further away from the center or close in. You can live in an apartment or condominium as you age and don’t want to take care of a large piece of property. It doesn’t preclude large pieces of property but one of the major benefits is this mitigation of traffic congestion. My response to the question of what should be at the arterial intersection is actually low or, preferably low density housing so that the house can be separated by a berm which you specify and ACHD specifies are on arterials and you see them on Chinden for instance. That the lot of the house can be away from the arterial, that there can be you know all kinds of fencing and trees, et cetera on that corner but also you’re hoping to lessen traffic by offering other choices. Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 28 Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Mckibben, is there a local example of this type of neighborhood center? See, California was (inaudible) was talked about before. So, is this something local? Is it like the --? McKibben: In the built up areas of Boise and particularly in the era in the 30s and 40s a lot of neighborhood commercial was developed in nodes. They developed wherever they developed. They tended not to develop on the major streets because those streets did have a lot of traffic. They haven’t been developed. Right now we have a situation where developers are very specialized. They do either commercial or high-density housing or low typical suburban development. They do not do mixed type of developments. There are only a few that do that and its very difficult to get loans to do mixed use types of development. So, in the past development has happened because someone took charge of a large piece of property and did one single use on it, excluded it from any other uses next to it. There was no connectivity and we have a pattern of development that is not supportive of neighbors, children walking, the elderly, a lot of things that a good mixed-use development could really support. Nary: What’s your thought (inaudible) what I talked about to Mrs. Clegg, was designating that area to allow, to encourage that level of development and that nature, the type of developing but not necessarily designating where it would have to be but letting the market location, the other development that may occur drive where that is? McKibben: I think, excuse me, the market will say that commercial development should be on the highest visibility corners with the most traffic. You can see that the conflict is the most traffic creates congestion and you can’t have any free flow of traffic. You know, so there’s a conflict there. As planning and zoning you have to see the greater benefits for the city. We have to move traffic. We have to engage neighbors in an effort to create community and to be able to be safe within their community. Nary: But, if the market doesn’t drive it, then no one will develop it. So, then it would still be bare ground or agriculture ground 5 years from now or 10 years from now if we are that restrictive of where these have to be, wouldn’t you say? McKibben: I agree there should be some flexibility and that’s why I think that I would definitely support this larger planning effort and particularly the market analysis for it. Right now you have, I would say, over built your commercial in the area. Meridian is the center of the valley you know so you’re not just an island. You actually can support more commercial than a town of your size that is isolated but there are a lot of factors there. What I’m in support of though are neighborhood centers, that the neighborhood doesn’t get over run by commercial development that is serving only the rest of the valley. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 29 (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: (inaudible) if you build Wal-Mart, that’s a regional shopping store. You build Rite-Aid – McKibben: That’s right. Nary: -- that’s not a regional shopping store. McKibben: That’s right. That’s a neighborhood use. Nary: So, is it driven by where its located or is it driven by the size of the development that the plan calls for that can be built in those areas? McKibben: It’s actually both. It is actually both. Rite Aid would locate, would try to co-locate with other uses you know because people like to do several things when they’re making a trip by car or by bike or by foot. Those are neighborhood uses and their demographic area is households. Then how many households are in that density. So, you can have one Rite Aid serving a very high density which is small or you can have a Rite Aid serving a larger area of low-density development. So, I would think that they would be very much in support of having higher density near the neighborhood commercial center because they could have more Rite Aids all over town. Nary: Would you think though then the city should then provide some incentive to the market place because it appears from what you’re saying is there is no market today for this – McKibben: Well, there’s no market because – Nary: -- the development community isn’t interested in this today. They might be tomorrow but they’re not today. McKibben: Yes, that’s true. Nary: Should the city then provide some sort of incentive to get those things built. If they want to encourage a neighborhood they may have to provide some incentive to give the developer a reason to want to build it. McKibben: One incentive definitely is the higher density housing zone right next to it. The other thing is that we’ve been talking to some of the larger in terms of corporation tenants, Primary Health, and Albertson’s. Albertson’s in particular is willing to come to a workshop setting to see what would make or break a deal. Their demographics probably at this time are at such that in that north 12 miles, they might only have 2 stores. So, that leaves a lot of other smaller type offices Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 30 and retail and health clinics who would love to locate as they do now in the middle of arterial intersections in strip development. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Is it Tippen? McKibben: McKibben. *** End of Side Two*** McKibben: I wouldn’t be able to tell you what the market would say that could locate there. Centers: Well, each location would have to have a grocery store or it wouldn’t be functional, would it? Because that’s a primary retail service. McKibben: That’s right. There is the thought that you’re creating some choices there. Right now there is no choice but to go out on the arterial to do anything. Centers: But, if you look on the map. If I had a neighborhood center there with a grocery store and this one didn’t, this one wouldn’t be too functional. McKibben: Why wouldn’t it function for other uses? Centers: Because I would have to drive to the other one to get my groceries. McKibben: Most people do drive to the grocery store anyway. Centers: So, you’re saying that if a grocery store is at every other one or every third one it would still be functional? McKibben: The intermediate ones? Centers: Yes. McKibben: Sure. There are lots of uses that would go in there. For instance, here’s a perfect example. Albertson’s now is locating their big stores every 2 miles. They are now locating their Sav-On’s in between every 2 miles. A Sav-On is a Rite Aid with food and videos. Borup: Every 2 miles, or every 3 miles? McKibben: Well, it depends on the zoning, the residential, zoning. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 31 Borup: I was interested on, you talked about having the centers on the collectors rather than the arterials? McKibben: Well, it’s on an arterial with a collector connection. Borup: Okay. I misunderstood that. I think Commissioner Centers probably talked a bit about, you said you weren’t really sure what might --. I was interested what type of businesses would be appropriate. McKibben: I do know which would be appropriate. Borup: Pardon? McKibben: I do know which would be appropriate. Borup: Okay, and feasible? McKibben: And I think feasible. Yes. Borup: Okay. McKibben: We do need the market study to tend to that. But the urban land institute which is a very large collection of developers has defined what neighborhood commercial uses are and what regional commercial uses are. Also, the sort of size. That’s based on their market studies nationally. Neighborhood commercial is, could be 10 to 20 acres. That’s where we’re advocating that there be some flexibility in the planning. Borup: Okay, so, but what type of stores? What type of businesses? McKibben: They would be – Borup: It sounds like a grocery store is probably not going to be one of them. McKibben: Yes, it certainly could be. But, I don’t think that you can say that at every neighborhood center we will only allow this, you know – Borup: Okay. McKibben: -- these 5 things. There is a range and I think that if you go, you know back historically to the neighborhood types of centers, particularly the ones that were connected by trolleys or the inner urban system. One neighborhood center might have a dry cleaners and the other one might not. You take the trolley to the next stop actually for some of that stuff. So there’s a balance. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 32 Borup: But, those can go in depending on the population of the area. So, it sounds like that type of service businesses – McKibben: Yes. Borup: -- the doctor’s office is mentioned all the time. I don’t know how many doctor’s and dentists office we can have on every mile. McKibben: A lot of insurance agents. Borup: Yes. But, what type of commercial? What type of retail, I guess is what I’m also wondering? McKibben: For instances dry cleaners. This would be services, dry cleaners, video stores might locate there. We definitely have moved into the era of the big box, but a Sav-On has a video component to it. There certainly would be the smaller commercial like bicycle shops that serve neighborhoods, card stores, you know the drug store type thing. Borup: And usually a convenience store in there too? McKibben: Convenience store, if you can configure it appropriately to the neighborhood. Borup: Okay. McKibben: TCBY, ice cream shops. Blimpie’s, you know there are actually quite a few uses. One indication of you’re driving around is to see how many Blimpie’s you see around. You know, they’re really all over the place. They’re small and they have a demographic region that isn’t so large. Borup: I thought that was coffee shops, coffee stores. Thank you. McKibben: Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. Nancy Taylor. Taylor: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I’m Nancy Taylor, 250 South Beechwood in Boise. I’m here this evening as a member of the livable communities group. Really I would just like to add to, add a little bit to the discussion that Sherry just led on the retail centers. The neighborhood centers are an excellent concept and we are in full support of those on the arterials, on the half-mile. I think what we would like to really strongly reinforce is the importance of the neighborhood over the retail that the neighborhood concept is very important and is becoming in our world the livable area is critical to our towns and our communities. I have a few little statistics here that I would like to Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 33 use to reinforce how important this neighborhood concept is. The single-family dwelling is not for everyone. In fact we are no longer a country of nuclear families. Only 25 percent of American households are now married couples with kids and less than one half of them subsist on one income. Since 1950, the percentage of women working has tripled. I think that we have found that in the new suburbs and the subdivisions we have lost our day to day interactions with people. We communicate over the internet but we don’t stop and meet our neighbors. I think that this neighborhood center concept is what we’re looking at nationally. I mean this is not just California, we’re looking at it all the way across the country as a way to enhance living opportunities for a variety of people. From lower income people to people that would like to have less lawn to mow and less house to maintain. We have this big bubble of baby boomers that are going to be passing through that would really just ask people you know about getting out of maintaining a large yard. So, what we’re trying to do is offer a variety of living opportunities that is walkable. So, we would like to support this concept on the half mile where the collectors meet the arterials. It’s an excellent idea. I would like to just conclude by saying that what we’re trying to do is bring back that cherished American icon, the compact close knit community. I think this is an excellent place to start. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Taylor, what I look at on this map is there’s 14 of these proposed centers that are platted on here. In your research with this group or the (inaudible) the other folks, is that an adequate number? Is that too many? Is that too little for the size of Meridian and the growth Meridian has experienced? Taylor: I thought it seemed like a very reasonable number to have these neighborhoods. Nary: These discussions that you had, I know -- . Has there been discussion with developers and – I mean, I don’t disagree with the concept. I don’t want anybody to think I don’t disagree. I think it’s a great concept. I really truly do but if no one will build it it’s just a concept. Have you, or your group, or the other people you’re associated with met with developers to try to find out if that’s something very realistic in our market. I think having that old town feeling is very nice but is that realistic in this day and age? I don’t know that it is not because I’m not a developer. Taylor: I think that there does need to be incentives. I think there are a couple things. There need to be incentives, perhaps densities but its been noted there are densities higher in these neighborhood centers than allowed other places in the city. I think also that developers get use to building the same thing. I think one of the conundrums we’re in is there’s just the same product. We don’t have anything else offered. So, I think that the city really, in this case needs to not particularly, well, --. I will say this, that working with the developers is absolutely Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 34 essential but then I think we have to realize what is beneficial for the community. I think developers will very often build if it becomes, if it becomes popular. The new traditional is becoming accepted and we are seeing that growth. It usually takes one or 2 developers with incentives from the city to break new ground. Yes, change is always difficult. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Miss Taylor I live in an older part of Meridian where we have a convenience store gas station right on the corner and we get a lot of people walking to you know, buy beer, cigarettes, milk, bread, actually I don’t think they have bread now. They use to have bread. And gas and they take their bicycles up to do their tires, air up their tires. Cant a convenience store on a corner do the same thing what you’re talking about? Taylor: Can it sell those same things? Certainly but what we’re trying to do, what we’re suggesting is that this --. We’re not giving retail the priority. We’re giving the neighborhood the priority and that these are uses that support the neighborhood. What we’re trying to do is create an environment for people, a better environment where people interact. Where they get out and walk. Where they go have coffee and they go perhaps to a post office, you know a small office. Where there’s a youth center. Maybe there is you know a convenience store but the important part is that it’s a, that we’re creating a neighborhood that has a school that has density where people get out and meet each other and look after each other. Where different income levels interact which is very important and different people of different age groups interact. The retail is important but I don’t think it’s the top priority issue in these neighborhood centers. Borup: Thank you. Taylor: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Oh, Commissioner Centers. Centers: Just one question Miss Taylor. Were you at the previous meeting and signed up? Taylor: No. Centers: And the previous lady, you weren’t signed up at the previous meeting either? Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 35 Borup: Mr. Steve Benner. Benner: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Steve Benner. I live at 2808 South Colorado in Boise. My interest in coming here tonight is I really wanted to compliment you on looking at some new concepts and moving away from the status quo with your comprehensive plan. Back in 1987 myself and the other members of the livable community group got together and created a plan that looks a lot like this for the City of Boise. We called it a vision map. That was eventually adopted into the comprehensive plan for Boise. We used the same concept of, we called them mixed use centers but it’s the same idea where you bring together medium and high density housing complimentary retail and commercial uses, offices into close proximity and then develop a pedestrian oriented center that is located on a node, a transit node like an arterial or a collector street. I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of putting these nodes not on the corner but where a collector meets an arterial and I’m thinking about how --. I experienced some of the places in Boise where they have a lot of development on that corners of arterials and really how difficult it is to make one of those types of places pedestrian oriented. There’s really no alternative to use those areas other than driving your car because there are no connections, no connecting roads other than the arterials. There aren’t any pedestrian pathways other than sidewalks along the arterials which are very difficult and un-friendly to use. So, I applaud you on looking at some new ideas and I certainly support that. Some of the previous speakers brought up some interesting points. As far as the actual mix of the neighborhood center, I see these becoming unique. Each one would be unique with a unique mixture of uses. Obviously they can’t all have grocery stores. They can’t all have dry cleaners but I would think that they could develop in unique ways and become part of the neighborhood. There’s been some talk about incentives and how can you get developers to do these things. I think one incentive that a developer would really be interested in is having to go through a conditional use process. Maybe if they chose to do a neighborhood center where its indicated on the map, to streamline that process and make it a lot easier and give them a definite schedule of things, when they’re going to happen, when approvals will be made. I think that would be very attractive to developers. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is your husband still coming back? He was going to be next. Larry Durkin. Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Parkcenter Boulevard Boise, Idaho. I’m not –I’m going to be specific with a couple of points on the map as it relates to some specific properties that I’m here representing tonight. Then if the 3-minute allows, I’ll drift off into some other things here. I have a comment regarding the boundary line that we are referring to. I would recommend to you as a planning and zoning commission that you include the land where developments are now pending. I’m speaking specifically of the Ten Mile and I-84 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 36 area. There are a fair number of developments depending there yet that area isn’t within the allowable boundaries and the plan states that that can be changed once a year. As I testified at the last meeting I don’t think that’s a wise use of your time, the development communities time, and I don’t see how it serves a public good. I think when there’s an area that, where there’s a sewer plan and sewer work under way right now, and you’re aware and staff’s aware of things happening, I think now is the time to adjust that line and not later. I want to just reiterate tonight a concern and maybe ask you a question relating to the bicycle and pedestrian paths. I’m an avid bicyclist, not much of a pedestrian. But, I’m also a real estate developer, a shopping center developer. I’m hoping that there’s some language in the plan that gives some flexibility as to where and how the paths would go. I’ll give you an example, just if I could draw your attention to the north, get my directions right here tonight. We’re going to go to the southwest corner of where Ten Mile crosses the railroad tracks. Think of that. There’s a transit station drawn at that area. There’s an existing mini storage facility that occupies that property. The property is now zoned for storage. How would the staff envision a pedestrian walkway going through a storage or a mixed use facility or could that be rerouted around it. I think that’s something that you --. As long as, my understanding now, the City of Meridian doesn’t have funding in place for this. They don’t have a maintenance plan in place for it. It may not in the future, I think the plan should have some flexibility as to how and where those paths go. A comment regarding the land use designation, mixed use. If you look at the staff’s June 1 memorandum, I think there might be more than one page 9 but the concern I have with that mixed-use language is really simple and I’ve talked to staff about it. The language calls for if a property is over 5 acres, it must have more than one use. I don’t think that’s always a good idea. In fact, the mini storage is an example. If the mini storage people have 10 acres what would be a good compatible co-use with that if,--. Would they have to put an office building in there. One of our clients has asked me to talk about the corner of Ustick and Eagle Road. They have 18 acres, its designated in the plan as mixed use which they’re in favor of. There’s a bike path going through it. That raised one of my concerns. But what if there was a K-Mart store to go there and occupy the whole property? Would the applicant be required to put an office building in with that or another use. I think that if you’re going to have that requirement I think you’d better give us some further guidelines to that. I think that the commercial designation, the city has a lot of protection--. Bill you were talking earlier about having control. Almost all of the uses that I would develop in the City of Meridian require a Conditional Use Permit and require us to come in front of you again and again and requires a Council action. I think the problem has been that various different Planning and Zoning commissions and Council haven’t had the firm hand that’s been really in place in Meridian in the last few years and there’s been a lot of changing of the guard and sure, lets let this go this time and we’ll worry about it next time. You seem to be getting the discipline and I applaud you for that, this commission, and the previous one (inaudible). I think the commercial designation allows the city and the residents and the neighbors plenty of protection. I’m pretty familiar with that ordinance. Although Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 37 mixed use is a good idea I just think there needs to be some guidance because it’s a new rule for Meridian. I’d like to talk a little bit about the neighborhood centers. I have really very much appreciated the couple of meetings we’ve had with the staff and with Shari. Actually Elaine and I had a meeting about this once before. I’m a big box retail developer. I build Fred Meyer stores Wal-Mart stores. I built the Wal-Mart store in, or developed that area in Idaho Falls. That’s what I do and I try to do a good job and I like it. I’ve never done a neighborhood center but I might some day. I’ve learned a lot about it. I’ve researched it some more. I’ve talked to some friends that live in the areas that, where these neighborhood centers are successful, specifically in Eden Prairie and in some of the Minneapolis suburbs. I think there’s merit to the discussion. I might need just another minute here because I think I’m going to offer something that hasn’t been brought up last night, or last meeting or tonight. The flaw is the discussion I heard earlier tonight. I was hoping to get up and say I’m a big fan of these and I’m in favor of it. I think I could become one. I think where you’re going to have a problem, if you’re going to designate areas designate them and you stick to it and put the language in there to encourage the people that follow you and this Commission to stick to it. If you throw it out there and say well let’s give it a whirl for a couple of years, the economy’s low for a couple of years and then it goes up for a couple of years this has to be something that you’re going to stick with and go with for a long time or it’s not going to work. It might work for a couple of years and then another traditional development would compete with it down on the corner and it’s going to fail but people are going to say, see I told you that wasn’t going to work. If you’re going to do it – and I support it but you better do it and stick with it or don’t do it – try it as an experiment somewhere else some other time. It takes a really high level of commitment from you as a Commission, from the staff and from the Council if it’s going to work. If I could just encourage the speakers that were talking earlier tonight about what a great idea it is I think it could be. I think the education needs to be directed to the City and Steve and Brad have done a lot of it – have given me a lot of education on it. the developers certainly need some education on it but also the end users and that would be the residents need education on it. The three recent developments, recent in the last 10 years that I’ve done in this area would be the Fred Meyer Development at Locust Grove and Fairview Avenue. I think Keith might have been around during that I’m not sure if anyone else was but there was a tremendous outcry from the adjoining property owners. We don’t want any connectivity. There’s a pathway that goes through there that would be a great connection and people said, no we don’t want that. We developed the Crossroads Shopping Center at Fairview and Eagle Road. It would have been perfect to have connections into the subdivision. There were even some areas that were set aside, easement areas for that to occur but I think some of you recall we had hundreds of people come to the meeting, absolutely not, absolutely not and absolutely not. It wasn’t my idea as a developer not to have connection it was the residents didn’t want any connection. I think that if you’re going to make these neighborhood centers work it’s going to take some education. Last one was in southeast Boise there’s an Albertson’s, K-Mart Center at Apple and Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 38 Park Center. There’s no connection with any of the adjoining neighborhoods. They had the neighborhoods desires at their wish. Even requests were made to make the fences taller and do whatever you can to guarantee forever no connection. I think there’s a lot of education that has to go all the way around it isn’t just with the developers. At the end of the day we do what our tenants want, what our end users want and what the neighbors want so that concludes my testimony. One more thing on that. Neighborhood centers I think that you need to clearly define the size of the commercial property. That’s where my interests lie. I like the definitions in the Merced plan the urban land institutes definitions are a little bit big but the Merced plan definitions I think are real viable. That the extent of my comments and congratulations on everything you’ve done so far. Borup: Mr. Durkin clarification on – your first comment was on (inaudible) pending. You mentioned clear through Ten Mile and I84 which looks – sometimes these colors are hard to tell. It looks like commercial and mixed-use is designated on the current draft. Is that your understanding also is – are you seeing something different than – Durkin: -- actually the land use – I don’t have an objection to. Borup: You’re talking about the urban service boundary area. Durkin: I could point out one thing. Borup: Is that what you were referring to is the boundary? Durkin: Yes. You do have an occupied subdivision, single-family, residential subdivision here designated for commercial at that intersection on the southwest corner of that intersection. Borup: Yes it is. Durkin: Just to point that out. I heard that earlier subdivision people testify on that. Something was overlooked. Borup: Thank you anyone else? Norton: Mr. Durkin when you testified June 28th you’d mentioned that the pathway behind Fred Meyer and Chevron goes nowhere. Does it still go nowhere and neighborhoods can’t use it but it was required by the City to put that pathway in. Durkin: It was. There was a pathway plan in the City of Meridian when we developed that area that the area west of Locust Grove was going to have a pathway and the area east of the development was going to have a pathway. When we built that there’s a private road that goes around the back of the center Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 39 and there’s’ about a (inaudible) 18 foot wide pathway that it goes from Locust Grove wraps around the back and it stubs out into a fence behind the Chevron station. Norton: And that’s it? Durkin: That’s it. Norton: Okay. As long as we’re on that corner, why are they messing up the street over there? Durkin: They’re widening Locust Grove. Norton: Oh, they’re wide – Durkin: My understanding they’re taking it from a – Norton: Then my next question is, Ustick and McMillan, do you want a bike path there with K-Mart and whatever? Durkin; I’m not a real fan of mixing that within a development. I just pointed that out that there is one shown on the --. It’s actually at Eagle and Ustick. There’s a, --. I need new glasses. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Norton: Okay, so there’s a bike path there but you have a developer that might want to go commercial there? Durkin: The property that we represent there is designated for mixed use. Norton: Right. Durkin: My comment on that specific property is that if, the property is 18 acres. If there’s a single user that want to go in on the 18 acres or 15 of those acres. For example if a Fred Meyer was going to go there and they took 15 acres, would you be able to put retail in addition to that? Or is that not a mixed use? Would you have to put an office building or a house or --? Norton: Okay. Durkin: -- or a duplex? I think the definition of your mixed use and the guidelines for having more than one use need to be clarified a little bit. Norton: Okay, thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 40 (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Okay, thank you. Come on up sir. Moss: I apologize for not being on the signed up list but I have never done this before and as we were coming in here tonight I didn’t see the sign. Borup: That’s fine., you’ve got your opportunity. Moss: My name’s Tony Moss and I’m here with my wife Vicky. We live at 2400 West McMillan, which is between Linder and Ten Mile on McMillan Road. We have lived there for the past 10 years and putting a lot of effort and a lot of sweat equity into developing the piece of property that we have. It’s on an acre and a half. Over the last 10 years, we’ve seen a lot of things change, a lot of farmers go by the wayside, sales of property, this type of thing. A re-designation, if I read the maps correctly, of our area from --. We would like to actually recommend that our area be low density and it’s a middle density area right now. Borup: Didn’t you say you’re at – Moss: 2400 – Borup: McMillan and Linder or Ten Mile? Moss: Between Linder and Ten Mile – Borup: Okay, between. Moss: We’re one of the few houses that’s left out in that particular section. About 2 months ago we received a notification from this Farwest Development Corporation LLC that they were going to develop the turf farm that surrounds our house and some other adjacent properties that were sold within the last year to the tune of somewhere between 4500 and 5000 houses in a future use plan that doesn’t even incorporate, at this point in time, Meridian water and sewer. In talking to some other people that we have discussed this matter with, possible sewer lagoons or something along the lines of being able to accommodate the particular development until sewer and water from the City of Meridian arrives out in our area. I’m not saying that this is an impossible situation but I’m saying that from what I’ve seen from ground water contamination, number of wells, this type of thing. It isn’t something that we want to be associated with. I guess I’m up here just expressing my desire that the density level of this particular area be changed from medium to low density. In the area that we’re talking about here on the other side of 20/ 26, Spurwing Country Club, down to the west of us there’s 2 more developments that are on larger acreages. Probably the only landowner of a single-family housing development of that size in this particular area and I feel that this should be accommodated, or looked at more extensively. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 41 Borup: You’re on the north side of McMillan? Moss: The north side. Borup: Right in the middle of that neighborhood center? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you Mr. Moss. Moss: Just one comment about the (inaudible) if I could make it please. I was (inaudible) retail grocery industry and the grocery industry in its entirety in a lot of areas, I cant believe that I’m going to see a store built that’s less than 45,000 square feet by a grocery chain in this country anymore. Grocery stores are now becoming convenience stores and convenience stores are becoming larger grocery stores, so that what it’s going to be. That’s what I think we’re going to get if we go that direction. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. R. A. McMillan. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) McMillan: My name is Rick McMillan. I live at 870 South Locust Grove. The reason I’m here tonight is to see if I can maybe get included in the comprehensive plan into a commercial area. There’s 4 of us lives on 1-acre parcels there on the east side of Locust Grove. Borup: What’s the nearest intersection? McMillan: East Central and Locust Grove or Bentley and Locust Grove. East central comes down to Locust Grove past Jabil manufacturing. Borup: Okay. McMillan: But we’re on the east side of the road. On the west side now you’ve already had that designated as commercial, across the road from us. The subdivision has been developed to the north of the 4 acres that we all live on. The overpass will come back in approximately, I don’t know the measures, I would say within 300 feet of where our property’s at now. When they widen the road out, they’ll take 40 feet of right-of-way which is half my front yard and I think my only salvation is probably to get this changed from low density residential to commercial. I don’t know what your future plans are for that area or what. Right on --. Borup: You’re on the east side of the road there? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 42 McMillan: We’re on the east side of the road. Borup: Are you part of the subdivision? McMillan: No, we’re separate from that. We developed those 4, those 4 places were built before the Locust (inaudible) subdivision ever went in. If they take and widen that road out, we’re loosing half our front yards and everything. Nobody in their right mind would want to buy residential property with traffic within about 20 feet of your front door. Norton: Isn’t that (inaudible) McMillan: This is our only salvation probably is to get it changed to commercial or light office space or something before we can have a chance to get rid of it and be able to find some place else to live. Borup: That’s different than I’ve got here. McMillan: Did you find it? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Does your property back up to the residential subdivision then? McMillan: It backs up to the Locust View Heights Subdivision, yes. Borup: Okay. McMillan: By the time they get the overpass in there, there’s some talk about changing, maybe changing Bentley where it comes out on Locust Grove it’ll be so close to the overpass I don’t know what they’re going to do on that area. We’re gradually being squeezed out of there as far as a residential area. Borup: So, you and your 4 neighbors prefer, what did you say, a mixed use? McMillan: Just some kind of commercial area where we can sell it commercial. We can’t realize our value out of it on a residential, trying to sell a residential. I don’t know of anybody that would want to buy it and have the traffic around your front door, you know on a residential. Borup: Any other questions? Thank you sir. McMillan: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 43 Borup: Okay. That’s the list we had of those that have signed up. You know as we stated at the beginning we want to hear from everybody who wants the opportunity. I also thought we might and even though a lot of the people did that anyway, the topic tonight was suppose to have been on the land use plan. We got a lot on the neighborhood centers which I was going to do after we finished the land use testimony. But this also would be a good time for a break I think. So, we’d like to take a short break at this time. When we come back we can take some additional testimony and then --. Yes, and we will be adjourning at 10:30. I don’t know if I mentioned that at the beginning of the meeting but that was what we did last time. That’s what our intentions are tonight also. About 5 minutes or so. RECONVENE AT 9:00 P.M. Borup: I had mentioned that we would take additional testimony but I do apologize. We did have some that had signed up on a second page from last week that was on a second page and didn’t get seen. So, we will want to cover those individuals first. I don’t believe Scott Beecham is here but Thora Willis I know is here, she would like to testify. And Reese Walter, is he here? Okay. Miss Willis. Willis: It seems like this all needs to be – Borup: You’ve got to get real close to the (inaudible). Willis: I’m Thora Willis. The address is 3555 North MontView Drive. I’m not talking about MontView. As I’ve sat though these few sessions of this comprehensive plan there’s some thoughts that have come to my mind that I would like to share. One is in a commercial designation that was described in one of the drafts it said the commercial designation would involve the interstate and the major arterial interchange. With the idea that it would pull traffic off of the interstate and into the community. As I’ve looked at the comprehensive plan, there’s nice red around Meridian Road but not around Ten Mile or Eagle Road and I would hope that there would be more red on the final draft so that we could pull people off of the interstate. My second point was to the neighborhood concept. As I’ve sat through planning and zoning meetings, the neighborhood concept states that commercial development would be one-quarter mile from residential. As I’ve sat through planning and zoning meetings, most residents don’t want commercial property that close. The MontView Subdivision was opposed to St. Luke’s. The neighborhood around WalGreen’s and Fred Meyer’s were opposed to that development. Greenhill was opposed to Texaco and Chevron, Ameritel. The Crossroads Subdivision was opposed to that subdivision. I think most neighbors want to feel more rural and not urban when they’re getting the neighborhood. But on the other hand, I’ve lived in an area where they did have part of this neighborhood concept. It was called town and country village and it was on a Spanish design. There were about 25 shops in that center, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 44 shops were in the middle. The parking was on the outside. It involved a neighborhood but it was just in a quarter of this street that went back. Included in those shops, --. I’ll give you an idea and they were small shops. There were 2 grocery stores. One was a specialty grocery store and the other one was a big chain grocery store. But there were probably 3 dress shops, 2 toy stores, a couple of restaurants, 2 or 3 ice cream stores, a post office was also there. A couple of shoe stores, delis. There was a service station, a needlework shop, a shoe repair. So, there were small shops there that had a following that drew the neighborhood to that area. I think as Touchmark goes in, it is going to be somewhat of a neighborhood center concept. They’re having doctor’s office. They’re having some small retail shops but I can see that if something is developed across Franklin Road, it would certainly cater to that neighborhood and could very easily become a neighborhood concept type of area. It seems like somehow we need to reverse the process in that a neighborhood is built up, then a commercial development comes in around it. It would be nice to see commercial development come in first and then see how neighborhoods would develop around that commercial area, fill in around it. ***End of Side Three*** Willis: One minute? Borup: If needed. Willis: Okay. Mixed use, the City of Meridian is trying to get more traffic to come down into the City of Meridian, more traffic and develop that old town concept there. I think the biggest problem that we have in the city is that we don’t have parking to cater to those businesses. I think we have mixed use in the City of Meridian but it’s not a planned mixed use. I think that’s a real big deterrent for our city. I know I probably come into the city to go to 3 places. One’s the Cottage Expressions, ones the post office and I go to WinCo. The post office does have adequate parking. Cottage Expressions does not. If somehow we had some type of good parking that enabled the residents to walk, to park their car and to walk to those various places I think we might get more traffic coming into the City of Meridian. Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Thank you. Willis: Okay, thanks. Borup: Okay, did we have anyone else who would like to --? Mr. Cafferty and then you sir? Cafferty: Commission Chairman, fellow Commissioners. My name is Danny Cafferty and my address is 410 South Orchard, Boise Idaho. I’m here this evening representing Mr. Craig Gibson who owns American Paving, which you Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 45 heard about previously this evening from Mr. Walt Warner. This is across the road from the property he spoke about. Mr. Gibson has American Paving and there’s an existing gravel pit in operation there. A lot of it has been reclaimed. He’s in the process of reclaiming a lot of it now. In your plan, you have it scheduled to be residential. I just don’t feel that that is a sound decision at all. With the traffic, a new highway, the traffic light. You know everyone talked tonight about residential on the corner. I want you to get a real estate license and go sell residential real estate lots on a corner intersection in the County of Ada. It’s a little tough to do folks and I’ll tell you that from experience. People don’t want to live there. It’s just like the man tonight that spoke and talked about the jake brakes and things like that. You know, there’s a reason that the commercial development that we have is located on the corners now. Its because of the fact that the retailers, the food industry, the retail industry, the clothing, the grocery, everyone --. You take them a property site on a neighborhood location versus an intersection, 95 percent of the time where are they going to go? You know it and I know it. They’re going to go to the corner. The first places to lease up in a big box development are the end caps. Why? Because of the locale, the visibility the exposure. That’s what sells. The other thing is you cannot run a retail location with 6 or 7 cars in there a day. You know when they’re talking about these neighborhood subdivision, what’s the populace density in those locations in California and Minneapolis and so forth? We don’t even have anything in Ada County that has a density that they’re talking about in those locations. Meridian has wanted commercial for years. 5 years ago I got called up by some of the people that sat on the City Council in Meridian. They wanted to know how I could help them get more commercial development in the City of Meridian because of the fact, the residential and commercial was way out of balance from a tax standpoint. You’re going to put it back out of balance if you go with your neighborhood centers like you’re talking. It’s not going to work. Look at the majority of all your locations where the commercial properties are. One thing I want ot mention is closing here, less than 5 percent of the populas uses bicycles for transportation. I sat in the last Ada County comprehensive plan and unfortunately I was involved the Curtis Road problem. You know you can say well that’s in Boise or whatever. That’s Ada County, That’s Ada County Highway District jurisdiction. That cost all of us in this room hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lets not make another mistake like that. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Cafferty? Mr. Cafferty, -- Nary: Is it Caffersome? Cafferty: Cafferty. Nary: Cafferty. It sounds to me what you’re saying Mr. Cafferty is that we should govern this developed comprehensive plan based on whats already there, though it already exists out there without any innovation or (inaudible)? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 46 Cafferty: No, I’m not saying that at all but I’m saying there’s a reason that some of the things that are there, are there. The reason being because they are successful. You can’t take and put commercial into an area that you don’t have the populas or the traffic or the accessability. Its not going to work. People aren’t going to spend the money to do it. Nary: One of the comments you made was that its not feasbile to build residential development on corners of arterials. Is that right? Cafferty: That’s correct. Nary: Is Banbury built on an arterial corner? Cafferty: Yes it is. Nary: Is that a fairly successful residential subdivision? Cafferty: Not particularly. How long does it take to sell out? Nary: I don’t know how long it takes to sell out. Cafferty: What kind of money is the developer made? Nary: (inaudible) the golf course. I guess I don’t see it as failing. Cafferty: It hasn’t been as successful as some of the others I know from experience. I know the developers. Nary: Hobblecreek is in the same area. Cafferty: Hobblecreek is not on a corner though. Nary: I mean, whatever can sell, people will build. Correct? Cafferty: That’s correct. Nary: Okay. Now these neighborhood centers, they’re not intended to be WinCo or a WalMart or a regional shopping center. So, don’t those smaller types of neighborhood centers, cant they work to some degree? What I was hearing you saying was that we should pretty much throw the whole idea out. Cafferty: No, I’m not saying throw the whole idea out but I don’t think you need 12 or 15 of them. I definitely think that you need to take those major arterial corners like on Amity Road and Kuna/Meridian Highway and make them commercial. Those are much better commercial locales than the other properties that you have. You know theres no way you’ll ever convince me that we should Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 47 have a low density residential subdivision on the corner of Amity and Kuna/Meridian Road. Nary: And I wouldn’t disagree with you but the north corridor area is not Kuna/Meridian Road. Its not a major highway at this juncture. So, that would (inaudible) slow the idea down by building those types of things. We’re not necessarily going to have 50,000 homes out there (inaudible). Cafferty: Okay, I concur with that. But you have--. You know, you can see right here in the south, you’ve got 3 of them on what is it? Is that Amity Road? I believe that goes across from the top there. (inaudible disdcussion aomgst Commission) Nary: Amity’s on the southern boundary. Cafferty: Amity’s on the southern boundary, right. You’ve got one there. Then on the north on – is it McMillan? You’ve got 3 of them there. Do you know how long its going to take to in fill those? You don’t even have any developments out there existing yet. I sold the majority of the property that’s been sold in the vicinity where those are located. Nobody’s going to develop those, versus if you would put those on the corner, they would come immediatley and they’re going to be utilized. Nary: I know your satire tonight sir. You’ve heard us talk a little bit about trying to have some flexibility to allow – Cafferty: Right. Right. Nary: -- that type of development. That is out--. I mena right now that’s at least on the map its outside of what can be served by the sewer and water at this juncture. So, its not necessarily going to be developed in the next 2 years anyway. It may be the next 5 or 10 and that’s kind of where the growth map of this plan is suppose to go. Cafferty: Right. Nary: I guess I’m not sure --. I didn’t hear you say (inaudible). Cafferty: In the Ada County comp plan--. In the Ada County comp plan we had areas we said would 7 years. Guess what, two and a half years later they were developed. The services were brought to them and so forth because of the fact the demand was there for the growth. You can’t, everything’s hypothetical, I realize that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 48 Nary: But, we can plan as a draft (inaudible). I mean it gives a tremendous amount of residential growth with those centers in some way to sort of provide the services to keep the people from having to drive everywhere --. Cafferty: Where’s your major tax base come from? From your service commercial, right? Nary: Certainly. Cafferty: Okay. So, I think you’ve really got to pay attention to it. You know you’ve got to look at what works. You don’t want to reinvent the wheel. I don’t think you’ve got the money in the City of Meridian to reinvent the wheel at this stage in commercial properties. Nary: I don’t disagree with what you’re saying sir. What I --. I guess what I’m concerned with is that what you’re telling me makes it sound like what we should look at on McMillan is a very more dense commercial growth than a little bit of a mixed use of residential and commercial growth. That we should look at more dense commercial growth. Is that what you’re saying? Cafferty: On certain locations of it yes. On your corners and you intersections, I think you have to look at more density. Nary: How many people talked to this commission or the Boise Planning and Zoning or the Ada County Commission to say that we don’t want Fairview Avenue anymore. That what I think we get. Cafferty: And how many people shop at Fairview Avenue that come to these meetings? Nary: (inaudible) Cafferty: We’ve got to provide them the goods and services. They can complain all they want but they all go there and shop or they wouldn’t be there would they? They get utilized. Nary: I don’t think you’re going to get a lot of support of people saying lets build a Fairview Avenue on McMillan Road. Cafferty: No, and I don’t want to build Fairview Avenue on McMillan Road. I’m not saying that. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 49 Cafferty: But I am saying that you need to really look at your corners because that’s where people are going to be successful. People arent going to build if they’re not successful. Nary: Do you think we end up with the same sort of conundrum all the time that was spoken about where you have to build a residential to attract the stores. Yet, once you build that residential, when you want to build the stores they don’t want to have any connectivity to that center. So, now we don’t --. Because its on the corner, because its attracted so many people nobody wants to have that right by their house and the houses had to be built first to attract the commercial to come there. So, that corner – Cafferty: So, you zone it commercial on the front side so they know whats coming there. You let them know whats coming there. They buy their houses – Nary: (inaudible) I don’t think its whats coming that concerns them its having people coming into their neighborhood, driving there from everywhere else because its attracted --. What you put on that corner –(inaudible) Cafferty: People don’t have the right to get upset if you disclose and divulge to them whats going to happen in the proximity of where they’re located. You tell them theres going to be an Albertson’s or Fred Meyer or something o fthis nature or that theres going to be a box retailer there, they have no right to --. You know, no one forced them to buy there. Nary: Well, I understand that but I think you heard Mr. Durkin say that the Crossroads Subdivision, I don’t think anybody bought a house there not knowing that they were going to build a shopping center in front of it. They just didn’t want any connectivity into their neighborhood so they could keep it separated – Cafferty: Yes. Nary:-- from the shopping. So, to me when you put it on that corner, you’re attracting more regional groups. Therefore you’re going to lose any connectivity between the neighborhood and a smaller, at all. No one’s going to want that. That defeats the purpose of trying to have more neighborhood friendly kind of environment. What I think I was hearing you say is that’s the way it is too bad. Nobody’s going to use it other wise. Cafferty: Well, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t want someone telling me I’ve got to talk to my next door neighbor. We’ve got too much government out there. I don’t need someone telling me how to live, where I’ve got to spend my extra time. That I’ve got to go to such and such or go to where. You know that’s the reason I live in Idaho. We’ve always been sort of a bunch of outcasts with the rest of the nation. We’re 95 percent republican and so forth and so on. We do things a little different here. I’m a native of this state and I’m proud to say that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 50 We do things different here and its been successful. We’re one of the fastest growing states and we’ve had more success financially than most of the states in the United States. I’m damn proud to be an Idahoan. I’m not saying I do everything right all the time but you know I want to see people succeed. People need to succeed. Thank you. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Mr. Cafferty. Norton: Mr. Cafferty. Cafferty: Yes? Norton: You do know that none of us are real estate agents so, -- Cafferty: Correct. Norton: You know, we’re volunteers – Cafferty: I realize that. Norton: We’re here on the interest of the city. Cafferty: Sure. Norton: The neighbor, Walt Warner – Cafferty: Walt Warner. Norton: -- wanted this area mixed use. Now you’re talking about commercial. Cafferty: I’m – commercial, mixed use. I feel that the corner definitely should be commercial but the remainder of the parcel should be a mixed use nature. Norton: Thank you. Cafferty: Thank you. Borup: Okay, sir do you want to come up? Wardle: My name is John Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue in Boise. If I could split this into 2 parts, I’ve kind of got 2 hats on tonight. I’m here on behalf of Mike Wardle who is not able to be here. He had another commitment. So, I’m going to go through his issues. Then I just want to address just some of the neighborhood centers. I talked about it a little bit but I just have some other ideas that may be Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 51 helpful. Wardle and Associates has been working with the North Meridian developers. Also with Ada County Highway District, Ada County and the City of Meridian to come up with some sort of plan on how that area will develop. We hope to have something, a consensus plan by January of 2002, so just after the first of the year. We realize that the city has been going through this comprehensive plan process for some time., I had an opportunity to read the draft, or a memo that was put out today. What we suggest is in conflict with what staff recommends but we’re going to request it anyway. The way that the comp plan map, proposed comp plan map is shown right now, it just shows a patch work, what Mike calls his patchwork quilt. A lot of different land uses that, -- you have low density here, high density here and these little neighborhood centers in between. I think by bringing all of the developers together and working with the city and the other governmental agencies that we can come up with a plan that will probably really reflect what will happen as that area develops. So, we have 2 requests, that the planning and zoning commission acknowledge that theres a public private partnership going on right now. Hopefully that will result in a plan that works. First if the Commission recommends adoption to modify comp plan prior to completion of the north Meridian area plan, we ask that that area be excluded, or what is on the plan today remain.That actually will retain existing land use designations and policies as the interim plan is developed. The second part there is that any comp plan modification include a specific provision for adoption of a north Meridian plan overlay. Meaning, identifying or realizing that a plan may come along that’s going to have buy in on each level. The City’s involved. ACHD’s involved. The developers are involved. If that plan comes to consensus, that it be adopted and that there be a provision in the existing comp plan where the comp plan that’s going to be adopted stating that something may come along and that if this plan reaches consensus that it could be adopted in an expedited manner because at that point, everybody would have had a voice in the process. If I can shift gears for a second, the neighborhood centers. I think something lacking, and the plan’s not up right now but I think if Steve or Brad--. Or did it go down? You look at the north area between Ustick and Chinden. Yes, the neighborhood centers are there but theres no regional shopping or community shopping which means everybody is going to go back to Cherry Lane and Eagle Road. There needs to be some sort of designation in that area for a regional or community shopping center or we’re going to be putting all those trips back on those arterials that we’re trying not to crowd and forcing them back to Cherry Lane and Fairview and Eagle Road. We really need to consider a regional shopping center or some sort of community center besides these neighborhood centers. I’m going to be really interested to see the results of the market study. I’m a proponent of the neo traditional neighborhoods. We’re doing one out in southeast Boise. We have a small commercial area but the type of uses that are going to be there will really be driven by the major tenants. No one wants to be in a shopping center that potentially will die because theres going to be a bigger use somewhere down the street. The market study needs to be analyzed before these centers are implemented and identified on a plan. I think it’s a key step that needs to take place before this concept is put in motoin. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 52 densities that we have here in Ada County are much different than what’s down in California and I guess the other example that was given tonight is Minnesota. I’m not trying to be negative about the concept. I think it has merit. Like I said, we’re doing a neo traditional neighborhood in southeast Boise that has been successful. But at the same time it is very cost prohibitive to do on a mass scale. Doing neighborhoods with alleys, with detached sidewalks, with a high amenity value are expensive. I know that theres an article attached to this related to the neighborhood centers on costs. I don’t think those costs reflects Boise Idaho. There was one development in there that said they paid 1.3 million for the land. They’re going to put 130 homes on it. That means about $10,000 per unit and the development costs were somewhere around $8,000. The costs in this community are much more than that and its because land prices are higher. To go through and do something that’s new or innovative takes a long time in the process. In the City of Boise, it took us a long time. I havent seen anybody propose a neo traditional neighborhood in Meridian. I imagine when you get that, the first one, it will take a lot of time for the Planning and Zoning Commission to go through. You really need to look at, and Ona mentioned this to me and it was something that I had mentioned to the smart growth people earlier. If we really want to identify incentives to do these neighborhoods, you need to come up with a one page blue print that says if you do this, this, and this, basically we’re going to stamp your project and you can go through because this is something that we know works. If you’re forced to go through the planned development process, that its going to take you anywhere from 3 months to a year if the project is difficult to understand or if its new and neighbors don’t understand it. You may not get many of these projects, just based on my own experience. Neo traditional neighborhoods just to reioterate are expensive to do. Its not a cheap thing to do, especially with block lengths of less than 300 feet. You’ve got a lot of curb, gutter, pavement. You have alleyways, detached sidewalks. Does it bring value to the community? Yes, it will. But I think the values that are reflected in that news article really, the values are received after that builders gone, after the developers gone and after that home has switched ownership at least once maybe twice. I don’t think that those values are recieved or understood at the very beginning. I’ll stand for any questions related to those issues if you have those. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Wardle? Commissioner Centers. Centers: Yes. One question. Do you really feel that you have to have somewhat of a major tenant anchor? Wardle: Honestly, really do. I think that the Mom and Pop’s – Centers: Such as --? Wardle: You know, it could be like a SavOn concept in these small areas but I’ll tell you, the credit tenants, they’re going to look for traffic. They want to be on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 53 corners. They’re going to look for roof tops. If you put these in mid block and not --. I just have a concern that in mid block you may have some areas that are designated to be zoned commercial but you may not be able to draw those big, the credit tenants. Like a SavOn, they’re about 13,000 square feet which would be very compatible to be in a neighborhood center. I’m not sure that that would be their ideal or first location if they knew that a corner was available. You may want to go and look at one project that’s done very well, and John Eaton reminded me of this. But the way they’ve integrated with the neighborhood. Look at the Albertson’s that’s on the corner of McMillan and Eagle Road. They provided access to the neighborhood. Theres roadways going into the neighborhood on the east side and on the south side. They’re going to have pads out on Eagle Road. Theres really a good circulation there. It’s a big box. Its on the corner but they provided both vehicular and pedestrian accesses to access that. I think it serves as a good model of how it can occur instead of forcing everybody. The thing that we hear is the neighbors don’t want the connectivity into, you know they don’t want the cut through. But the thing is if they cant get to those neighborhood centers, they’re going to be out on those arterials. Then they are going to go back and come back in. I think theres a way that you could create the neighborhood connectivity, even on a corner. Albertson’s is a case and point. I think its doing fairly well. But it took a long time for that Albertson’s to be ddeveloped because the roof tops werent there. Roof tops drive commercial, unfortunately. I know of only one company in the entire United States who’s been able to go in and put the commercial in before the residential occurred in a neo traditional neighborhood. That was the Disney company in Celebration. They put millions of dollars into putting the commercial in. I don’t think you will find anybody in Ada County that will do that or will be able to pull that off. Its just, -- its impossible to do here. I’m not trying to be negative, I’m just, its just realistically with what we have in the Ada County market, its just not likely to happen. Borup: Any one else? Thank you. Wardle: Thank you for your time. We do appreciate the effort. 2 years at least on this project right? Its huge to get your arms around and we’ve tried to be as helpful as possible. We’re not saying that it shouldn’t go forward. We just think that theres some things that need to be considered before this plan is implemented completely. Thank you. Cavins: My name is Mike Cavins, Boise Idaho 6874 Fairview Avenue. I just wanted to address a couple of points. On the neighborhood commercial centers, I guess I have my personal thoughts about that. But what my main question is, you have those but where are the community commercial centers on the plan? I think we do need to provide for some areas for that. Looking on this map, I don’t see where those are. We do need the space for the big box users that will take 20, 30 acres. In the mixed use plan that’s going to take an extra step because of the 5 acre requirement for different uses. My concern is yes, you have the Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 54 neighborhood centers but where is the community commercial. I guess, in looking at the map and as Mr. Durkin kind of pointed out on his property at Eagle and Ustick, I also own the property across the street from him on the northeast corner. Just from the calls that I am already receiving I can already tell you there’s probably a big box user going to go there. As Mr. Durkin implied that on his 18 acres is probably going to be something fairly large, Kmart or who knows what. With the mixed use, that might be a location there that you would do community commercial. I know you don’t have a definite community commercial but you do have commercial. So, I would request that that be changed to commercial development there. My concerns on the neighborhood communities is that they may work in these other communities that have been spoken about they do work. But the densities in those square miles where those are located are by far higher than what has been allowed around these neighborhood. You’ve heard about roof tops drive commercial development. With the densities that you have around these neighborhood centers, there is not enough roof tops to convince commercial users to locate in those areas. I think if you look at these and you do go with the concept of the neighborhood centers you need to very much consider the amount of density that you’re allowing in those square miles where those are located. Because whats here now is not enough roof tops. I am a real estate broker and I mainly develop residential subdivision but I do land deals with commercial. All the commercial people want to go in Boise, Idaho, Ada County on the corners because we do not allow a high enough density to locate other than by a high trafficed area by automobiles because we don’t have enough roof tops with people to walk. Some of this plan, I would think you will need to up the density in the residential roof tops or these people are going to go to the corners and get the cars. So, like I say I’ve been in commercial development, or just sales of bare ground for 15 years. That’s why in this area you see them on the corners is because that’s the only place they’re getting bodies to come in because of the lack of the density provided by the different cities. Just a comment, down on another piece of property at Meridian/ Kuna Road and Victory Road. Just in this whole area, you’ve got 4 of those commercial centers in that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, about a 9 square mile and you’ve got 4 neighborhood community centers and you’ve got one little triangle out there that’s the nursery as commercial. I would suggest that you might get some mixed use out there. Get a few more centers out there. If these things are for people to walk to and you’ve got 4 of them in 9 square miles, not too many people are going to be walking to those centers because theres a lack of them. If you’re going to do them, you’re going to have to provide the rooftops and you’re going to do more of them. Otherwise you’re going to have to keep the commercial on the corners to make it work. So, there’s your trade off, higher densities, or corner projects. What you’ve got on the map here does not show the density to suffice to support these community centers. If theres any questions – Borup: Any questions for Mr. Cavins? Thank you sir. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 55 Walther: My name is Reece Walther. I live at 1148 North Lightning Place. The property that I want to bring to your attention is at the corner of Pine and Ten Mile. The northeast section there. A project was just brought to City Council and the last 2 years, this project tried to get through. The neighborhood is completely against anything such as apartments there and I’ll tell you why. Its plan and I completely agree with Mr. Nary on his analysis of what residential individuals want. They do not want feeding streets into commercial areas, especially commercial areas on a corner. Especially commercial areas on a corner next to a high school. We already have extreme problems because of high school students cutting through our neighborhood. A dog was just ran over in our neighborhood a couple months ago. Kids go screaming down the streets at 50 miles an hour because they use it as a cut through. If you put something there on the corner that is going to increase traffic flow there on the corner, it is also going to inevitably going to increase people coming through there screaming, screaming right in front of our houses. But heres the big problem that I see. I was, my wife and I were involved over at Chaperral Elementary school about a year and a half ago in a comprehensive plan meeting where a ton of people came from the community. At that meeting this property was going to be zoned medium density. After that, Shari Stiles told us that there is no longer any more input into the comprehensive plan. No more than one month went by and 2 letters were submitted by the property owner and by the want to be developer. Because of those 2 letters, the property was zoned mixed. I just want to quote what you just, what I read in this what you have out here. Comprehensive plan includes generalized land use map. Comprehensive plan amendments exist for this process for refinement to take place. The specific locations of the neighborhood centers can be moved. Some can be deleted or added, however modifying them should be based on market research in specific area plans not just because a developer, and I hope not just landowners, doesn’t want to develop that way. Are there any questions? Borup: Maybe just a comment. Were you talking about Valeri Heights? Walther: That’s correct. Borup: That property has already been annexed. That happened. Walther: It has been annexed on the condition that Valri Heights – Borup: Theres a lot of conditions and such. Walther: And Valeri Heights is no longer. Borup: Right. Walther: So, its not annexed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 56 (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: The development agreement was never signed? Okay. Walther: As far as I understand. Borup: (inaudible) Walther: That’s what was, that’s what was – Borup: I knew it didn’t go through but I --. So, the annexation was dependant on the development agreement. Is that correct? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: The annexation was not valid without a development agreement being signed? Okay, so it is not. Walther: That’s correct. Borup: So, you’re saying you do not want to see the mixed use that is proposed on this land use plan? Walther: That is correct. You asked for the community input on the whole comprehensive plan – Borup: Right. What would be your preference for land use? Walther: Medium density was what the comprehensive plan said after all of this input was given at Chaperral Elementary school. Due to the input that you got form the community. Borup: Okay, thank you. Walther: Thank you. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Oh, excuse me. Norton: Mr. Walther could you tell me the date of that meeting at Chaperral? Borup: That was, there was several of them. That was all the planning things for the comp plan. Walther: That was at least a year and a half ago. I think it was June – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 57 Borup: (inaudible) then your previous – Walther: My wife could tell you. That was about June of 99, in that area. Norton: Thanks. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Walther: Can I ask a question on that Valeri Heights project? How long do they have to sign the agreement? How long is given to them to sign that agreement? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Walther: There is no time limit? Okay. Borup: Do we have anyone else that --. Come on up. He spoke once. Liddel: I know its late and I thank you for your volunteer work and all the Planning Brad and Steve especially, the education they’ve given me during this process. Borup: Please state your name again for the record. Liddel: Russ Liddell, 1777 East Victory, near the intersection of South Locust Grove and Victory. My comments regarding these urban service areas. Its more an observation and not, I don’t know the answers. I think as you try to balance the pros and the cons of commercial development --. I don’t know how many of you are in the people business but I hear neighborhood which to me is a neo traditional. Then I hear a lot of people talking about money and development. I would urge you for the same reasons you got involved to think about the people. Meridian is a pretty unique community as I mentioned to Brad. The national statistics, national growth, one out of 4 kids born in America, now, per the latest census actually survives to become a kid. Theres a high level abortion. Most kids don’t, just a quarter of them have a 2 parent household. Meridian probably has an excess of 90 percent of that. Its very family oriented. We don’t like pavement. I’m not a big fan of asphalt. But we all know that human development in urban areas and urbanization happens for a reason. First thing went with communications of waterways. Then there was trails. Then there were railroads. Then theres airports. We tend to cluster on the roads that we need to get around in. Out west, as you know we like our space. Mr. Cafferty talked about the uniqueness of Idaho. I was glad to come home 10 years ago after being 10 years in bigger areas. When I came back, I met and knew 5 people that were over a hundred years old, right in downtown Meridian and one out near Mr. Smith, out near where our pasture land is on Locust Grove and Victory. Hundred and two, living alone and you know, now theres 151 acre subdivision right there where his Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 58 old (inaudible). The only point is, as you balance these --. I think its great as a concept but these urban services centers are going to have some impact, not on the commercial but really on the people and we’re a high family area. We like the quality of life. People like to protect their kids and dogs. They like the traffic out where you can control it, where the known dangers are. That’s pretty unique, I would say. I just urge you to consider people’s lives and lifestyles as you grapple with those competing interests. My only suggestion. I don’t know the solution. My only suggestion would be don’t freeze the map the way you’ve got it now. Take these pink circles and half circles off, define the concept as some of these pros have told you to do so that you can put it in with the flexibility. But, maybe just not planted where they’re pinpointed. Let the market and some of the developers and pros kind of decide. I don’t know how to do that but good luck. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. I didn’t see anyone else. Is that true? All right, thank you. Commissioners, the audience is a lot smaller but we’re still here. Norton: (inaudible) Borup: Actually we have almost a half hour from what we said we’d want to be. I don’t know if we want to be here that long but I would like to get some --. I would like to have a little bit of directions that we would want to go and some discussion. I anticipate we may want some more input from staff, maybe some areas that we feel we as a Commission needs to spend some more study on. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: That was the next thing I was going to ask. Whats you’re feeling? I don’t know that we do. I don’t think we’re --. I don’t think we need a lot of other public testimony whether we might want to call someone forward I don’t know. I guess in that case we could open it again if we had somebody specifically. Commissioner Nary, you had a comment? Nary: I was going to say, I guess to me, we certainly could close the public hearing at this juncture. If theres a lot of discussion or a lot of change or a lot of suggestive, you know if there’s, as we discuss where to go and whether its on sections or pieces of how we do this. If we feel like there is a need because whats been put out there to the public might change significantly to some degree, theres an opportunity to have a hearing then. At least at this juncture there doesn’t seem like theres a need to continue to leave the public hearing open. But, there was something earlier where some follks were maybe going to submit some more things. We could maybe leave it open just for written comments rather than a public --. Borup: I think that would work. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 59 Nary: Something like that so if somebody has something written they want to supply. I don’t know, Mr. Moore’s shaking his head at me. Moore: Its just that you run into some complications there. If you close the public hearing now, then you’re going to have to go through a new notification process to re open it. Because wasn’t like Elaine Clegg was on that was going to – Nary: Right. Norton: Oh, yes, she was going – Nary: We could leave the public hearing open but only accept further written comment from this point? I mean, I don’t know. We can continue this hearing but I don’t necessarily, at least at this juncture, without us making a lot of significant changes want to sit in a 3 hour testimony. Borup: I do not either. Nary: (inaudible) they like the neighborhood center or they don’t. Borup: Right. Nary: I mean, I think we got it. So, I don’t know that we need a whole lot more testimony about that unless we make some significant changes from whats already been done. Borup: If we do make changes, I mean I think that’s our --. That’s what we’re being asked to do, is to make a proposal based on what we’ve heard. I mean, if not, I mean if tis staying like it is and if we;’re not going to make any changes, theres no sense in going through this whole process. That would make sense to me and whether --. Yes, I think we do want to leave it open to get other testimony whether its just written only or – Moore: Did you close the public hearing? Nothing forbids you as a body from calling people in and getting opinions and testimony so that you can make a more informed decision – Borup: So, we can do that if we want to call a specific person? Centers: And accepting the written information later. Moore: Exactly. As long as you do it in a public forum, no problem. (inaudible) in a regular meeting. Borup: I think that was a concern and that’s --. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 60 Moore: That’s for your information and you’re allowed to do that. Borup: I don’t know that we were aware of that. Moore: (inaudible) public hearing – Borup: Right. Moore: -- as far people coming and testifying, its specific testimony that you need to make an informed decision and you can do this. Borup: Okay. Centers; Do we have to call them or do they call us and we say okay come in? Moore: You have to call them. This is information that you’re seeking specifically, not a general public information. Nary: As to written comments though, Mr. Moore, can we leave the public for that (inaudible). I think Commissioner Shreeve said Miss Clegg said that there was some information that she was going to gather. Moore: Right. Nary: So, it wouldn’t be a problem to you if we left it open – Moore: (inaudible) leave it open simply for written comments --. Nary: For written comments. Moore: -- to a certain date, theres no problem. Nary: From the general public? Moore: Yes. Nary: From anybody that wanted to provide that? Moore: Yes. Nary: Okay. Moore: How are you going to provide notice for this? Nary: That’s what we’re here for. That’s what we’re asking you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 61 Borup: Wouldn’t just announcing at this meeting be the notice? I realize everyone’s left but that’s their --. But that would be their problem –and I think we mentioned that earlier that we’d still take written and shes going to do that. So, if the people here were paying attention they would have caught that. Shreeve: Couldn’t we close the public hearing and then just ask Elaine Clegg? Moore: That’s what I said. If you want specific information from a certain person, you’ve got no problems. But if you’re going to leave it open for anyone from the public to give you written, then you’ve got to have notification. Nary: Maybe what can be done. What I would anticipate is that whether, obviously we don’t have enough time tonight to go through this plan to that level of detail. Whether we have a portion of our second meeting of the month of September or a workshop to do that and it takes one or 2 of those to do that, we certainly could publish notice that the public hearing for testimony is closed but we will accept written comments until September 30th or whatever. Moore: As long as you publish it, you’ve got no problem. Nary: Then we don’t have to have a big room to do that. Its still available to the public to do that. You know, say we use the end of the month of September as an example. We would anticipate maybe doing a workshop in September and maybe a workshop in October to both have the opportunity to discuss and sort of hone whatever comments we have – ***End of Side Four*** Norton: With Nampa, with Kuna, but nothing with Meridian. I don’t know why we’re not getting anything in the newspaper or on the television. I would think the people here tonight are the developers and the people who have property where they want it rezoned. Its not the general people. If they listen to the news, they listen to the radio and they read the newspaper., I mean, sure you have a public notice. How many people read the public notices in the newspaper. I would like to keep the public hearing open and ask our staff or the City Clerk to advertise it. Yes, make an effort to let people know. This thing was developed by lots of people. This was in the paper all the time when these mettings are. I’ve gone to them. These 2 public hearings that we have just heard have not been advertised, as far as I’m concerned very well. Borup: Any other comments? I agree that it hasn’t been. I think that that was discussed a little bit last time. I’m not sure what --. I think the Statesman representative just has not had much interest in Meridian. Norton: But theres radio and theres television. The Statesman is not everything. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 62 Borup: You’re talking about paid advertising or community service. Norton: No, Keith, I’m not talking about paid advertising. Borup: Just communtiy service announcements? Nortton: All you have to do is a press release. Its very simple. Moore: If you fax those things to the TV and radio stations, they’ll read them or mention them. If you can fax it, (inaudible). Norton: That’s right. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: I’ve got some concerns on dragging this on longer than its already going to be. Norton: I don’t want to drag it on but I just think that people should know about it. Shreeve: Let me just ask a question on what John Wardle mentioned about dragging it out even further. Is that even a thought, waiting for the north Meridian are planning to do their thing until January? I don’t think so either. I agree but I just thought I would bring that up for discussion. Nary: Another option, -- Berg: You may not have a choice Steve because of the City Council thing. Nary: (inaudible) what about the second option though that they proposed about leaving that area open. I mean, if the City Council and the Mayor and everybody else is involved in this plan for the north Meridian area, it would seem a little silly to include that area as is without someway to make sure that we’re not going to wait 6 months after it was passed. I mean, the City Council’s going to do that. If they’re involved in this committee, they’re going to want to leave that flexibility open to them to not have to wait 6 months or a year to go ahead and amend this plan to include whatever they come up with. Otherwise, they’re going to think they’re wasting their time. So, I don’t know that we need to wait until they’re done because that seems kind of, you know this is the government, for God’s sake it could take forever. But, we need to be able to leave some way to open that to make sure it isnt something that’s just going to sit by the wayside for 6 or 8 months down the road after they make a decision as to how they wanted that done. I just think there needs to be some – Borup: I think that just makes common sense – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 63 Nary: At least that’s what I think the second request is. I think that what it means. Shreeve: Even if we give an approval or recommendation to the Council, they don’t have to formally approve it until – (inaudible discussison amongst Commission) Borup: I know some of the City Council is anxious. I mean, they --. I got a statement, they expected us to be done with this last month. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: I guess the other thing I would also add. I do agree with Commissioner Norton. There certainly has not been a tremendous amount of public information or notice about this subject. We’ve had some nice turn out but its really not significant when you think how big the city is and how significant this can be. For whatever reason, the statesman doesn’t seem to have a big concern about printing anything about planning and zoning anymore because I never see it on Meridian. But it hasn’t been for quite a few months. I don’t know whether or not the Council --. If the Council is going to spend their time and effort both from Mr. Berg’s office or any staff time to get that word out again, they may want to do that when its going to be for them rather than for us and making a recommendation. That may be part of what derives that. Borup: Mr. Berg, did you have a comment? Berg: No. Borup: Are you sure? Berg: Yes. Nary: So, now what? Borup: I would almost rather see it go that direction. I don’t know. I guess I’m thinking would we get any new information that we havent already heard or is it just going to be more of the same thoughts? It sounds like we’ve got the option -- . Well, we leave it open or we close it. we can close it and still have it open for written testimony – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Berg: For what? Cetners: For another public hearing on the comp plan? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 64 Berg: It has to be published notice, 15 days prior to the meeting. Centers: How many? Borup: 15. Berg: 15, you have to have 2 notices in for a public hearing like this. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: We could have another meeting the end of September. A public hearing and have it at our headquarters. If its standing room only, so be it because we’ve had 2 meetings here with a lot of seats and they havent been full. Norton: We can discuss, you know, just continue it and discuss what we think. If anybody wants to speak, you know --. Centers: It would have to be an extra meeting but I would go along with that. Moore: Would the intent be on that third meeting, the next meeting – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: No, we would have to have a workshop after. Borup: I think (inaudible) Berg: You’re going to need more than just a workshop. You’re going to make a deliberation hopefully and so you’re going to have the regular meetings, a special meeting with a set agenda and you’re going to deliberate and make a recommendation. Is that what you really want to do. Norton: And get this, and move it on, right. So what day do we have open. Centers; It doesn’t have to be Thursday. Shreeve: We can go with the fourth Thursday, the 27th . (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: That’s what I was just going to ask. Shreeve: It seems like the last couple of Thursday – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 65 Berg: You don’t know what that second Thursday is until after the first Thursday. Borup: Right. Berg: You wont know until the 6th what you pass on to the – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: No, we have not moved them to the same month. We’ve moved them to the second meeting of the next month. Borup: Not very often but we, yes. Berg: We have. Borup: But its just been simple things hasn’t it. Nary: (inaudible) Borup: That we needed more information or something. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Berg: I can look back on the records, but we haven’t had very many Thursday meetings that havent had a few things on there. One month that Bill took that we had one item. Nary: We got done at 9:30. Berg: I just think that if you’re going to deliberate on this I think your mind should be focused on this. Norton: Not too far in the future because we’ll forget everything. Berg: Maybe it should be the second Thursday? Shreeve: They’re having some kind of a workshop on the 24th on the (inaudible) Borup: Well, yes. We’re just invited to that. Information will be coming. That was, --. I cant remember but that was one of (inaudible) that testified this evening mentioned that. Shreeve: Has September 20th been scheduled with --? Borup: That’s a regular, that’s our second meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 66 Norton: Theres a lot. Theres not as much on the 6th I don’t think. Does somebody have their --? Shreeve: That’s kind – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: So, is it the desire than to maybe look at that (inaudible) September after the public hearing schedule, see what we get? Norton: Just deliberate but have the public in case somebody wants to say something and advertise it. Nary: Advertise it as a public hearing? Norton: Right. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Norton: To the radio and – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Norton: No, they don’t. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: So, have we reached any conclusions? Norton: Yes. Centers: Leave the public hearing open and add another one on September 27th . Nary: But at the City Hall. Borup: For a full public hearing on – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: If they don’t show up then we’ll have our deliberation too Keith. Shreeve: Can you be discretionatory and say you’ve already done your turn. Nary: How about if we advertise for new testimony? Moore: There you go. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 67 Nary: New or written testimony. Borup: We’ve tried that before. (inaudible discussion amngst Commission) Berg: You can have in your motion whatever you want to continue the hearing for a specific reason or – Nary: I truly believe – Borup: People havent been here before wont know whats new and what isnt. Shreeve: But you do and you’re the chair. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: To me if we want to conitnue the public hearing, and I don’t mean to sound negative or anything but I think we’ve heard a lot from people about what they think . If somebody new who hasn’t testified wants to testify, then that’s fine. I think they should have the opportunity to do that. But if its somebody who has already testified, I don’t think theres any need to have the same person testify yet again. That you can control because you can ask them, have you already testified in this or not. If you have we’re not going to continue to hear the same thing again. Borup: Then can we continue the public hearing just for testimony from new individuals? Nary: New testimony, -- Borup: Or new individuals? Nary: New individuals, written testimony. I think all of those things are perfectly legitimate to do and you can control that. I think we can also include in the motion as Commissioner Norton was saying that they advertise this hearing. I don’t care who’s responsible to do it but that they advertise this hearing whether it’s the planning department, the City Clerk or whatever. That they advertise it through the media. If nobody comes, they don’t come. That’s fine. It doesn’t cost anything to fax something to a radio station or a TV station or the newspaper. It doesn’t cost anything to fax. If it doesn’t bring people, then it doesn’t bring them. If they don’t print it and run it, then we cant control that. But it may not have been done very much and I don’t think its going to hurt anything to do that. At least we tried to make sure people have had the opportunity – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 68 Berg: We weren’t obligated to do anything with this continued hearing but I did publish it in the Statesman and I did publish it in the Valley Times. Nary: I recognize that we don’t – Berg: We don’t have a specific reporter for the Statesman anymore. So, we don’t get some of those things. Centers: (inaudible) you can fax it to them Will? The business section. Nary: I don’t know, to be really honest, I don’t know that this is --., The City Clerk’s obligation is to comply with the legal requirements of the state code. Sometimes beyond that because again, trying to provide information to the public. I certainly don’t see any reason that the planning department cant assist in that and provide that information to the newspapers and the television stations and anthing else. Borup: Did you guys hear that? Nary: (inaudible) not just the City Clerk to make sure legal compliances are satisfied but that the public participation – Shreeve: That’s the thing. The planning department ought to be in the public where the clerk is just simply the legal. Making sure the legal is met but the planning – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: (inaudible) 99 percent of the people here tonight didn’t get here because of the notice. They got here because of a phone call. Borup: Most of them were here last time. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: (inaudible) Berg: The notices I give, are faxed to every department to post plus businesses around the city. I mean, the golf gets a notice they post on their bulletin board. I mean, I cant ask for much more than can --. Idaho Athletic Club, how many people go there? So, I mean, you cant make (inaudible) Norton: You fax those to all the businesses? All the notices? Berg: I fax it to a few places that are public. The library gets a notice. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 69 Norton: oh, okay. Berg: That I feel that can at least hit a certain population somehow. I don’t do it to the bars. Its kind of dark in there for them to read but you know I could. I would be more than happy to do that and I’ll work with the P&Z and make sure we try to get it to somebody. Norton: The bars? Berg: Yes, the bars. Shreeve: You know sometimes good advertisement can be done with music too so why don’t you put a little song – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Norton: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion. Borup: Okay. Norton: I’d like to make a motion to continue the public hearing until Thursday September the 27th to include all new testimony or any new individuals and also ask the planning department to advertise the hearing through the media. Also to include written testimony. Borup: Does everyone have their schedule for the 27th ? Does anybody have a conflict besides me. Centers: What time? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Shreeve: I’ll make a second of that, clarification of 6:30 though. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Shreeve: At the City Hall. Norton: 6:30 to 10:30 then? Okay and closing it at 10:30. But also not only for public hearing but for deliberation. Mainly for deliberation. Shreeve: I’ll second that motion. Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 70 Borup: Is there anything specific information we would like staff to prepare or any other input ? We got a couple new memos from them tonight. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Maybe I’d encourage between now and this meeting, if there’s some information we’d like, we’d have an opportunity to mention that to them in some of the other meetings and they could still prepare. Nary: I really appreciate the memos that we’ve received and the synopsis from the other meeting and opinion memos that we’ve received on the different ones that have obviously been contentious with the public. But I don’t know that we need something else. I mean, I didn’t hear anything tonight that was just brand new. I think that you know the balance that we have of what we’ve heard and some of the things the staff has provided. I don’t think there’s a need for them to prepare another --. I don’t know. I didn’t hear something tonight that’s --. Borup: Is there any information from staff, you think that would be pertinent --? Hawkins-Clark: Steve, Dave and Shari will all be gone the 27th . Siddoway: Brad’s the only one that --. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Well, the 27th , I’ve got a real conflict I’ve got to try to get worked out for that night. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: I’m afraid that the agenda may be too much. Borup: On the 20th ? Nary: Because honestly, I think we realistically dont want to start discussing and deliberating at 10:00. Borup: No. Nary: I mean, I don’t know that we’re going to get done. I mean, last time we had a quick meeting for us and that was 9:30. Borup: That’s true. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 71 Siddoway: Its Kentucky Fried Chicken – Norton: For the 20th or the 6th ? Siddoway: The 20th . Norton: Okay. Siddoway: (inaudible) (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Those are the 2 from the last meeting. Okay, so nothing new has been put on then? Okay. Did you hear that commissioners? Norton: You’re gone when? Borup: He’s gone the 20th . Norton: We’re looking for the advance agenda here. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Its Autumn Faire and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Nary: Commissioner Centers is gone the 20th and you might have to be gone the 27th . Do we want to do this without everyone here? Borup: I don’t think we want to wait until the following month. I can work the 27th out. I’ve just got to get someone to --. Nary: I don’t know that we’re going to resolve it all in one meeting either. Borup: I don’t think we are that’s why I don’t want to keep putting it off because I don’t think we are going to do it in one meeting, especially if we’re going to be taking testimony. We need some time for some real discussion and go through some of these things point by point and deciding you know --. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: A lot of my notes was on the map. Then, I guess some other areas too. Norton: You know I don’t think we’ll have a whole lot of public testimony but I do feel its fair to advertise and I expect we’re probably do most of the deliberating on the 27th . I don’t think theres going to be a whole lot of testimony. I also would Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 72 ask of staff, --. I like memos and I like the one that you did before so we have a little synopsis of what everybody. We have all of our own notes and also some kind of a little map of what everydbody wanted. I have a startof a map of what people wanted it changed from what. You guys heard the same thing. Something similar to that that we can get to the meat really fast. Borup: I don’t think she’s saying to change the map, just --. Norton: What people want. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Norton: Exactly. What they’re talking about because some of it made a lot of sense. Shreeve: Quite frankly we may want to make the map – Norton: An overlay. Shreeve: -- bigger (inaudible) Borup: Do it in sections. Maybe do it in quarters. In fact that would help to do it --. Shreeve: Because I think this is too small to start pointing to little individual parcels. Because we’ve got to take the individual parcels into account. Norton: Right. Then we can really get some place quickly. So, Brad, you’re the one that’s going to be there right? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Norton: Is a month enough time, Steve can work on that? Borup: You may want to check. Sally’s got some good notes right on her map. My notes are all on my notepad. Norton: Do you want it? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: (inaudible) are we going to change that now? Borup: I guess, no. Lets stay with that. Oh, wait a minute. That’s true. The other option is to do both (inaudible). Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 73 Nary: It doesn’t matter to me. We already did that so we probably need to undo that. We can certainly move to reconsider that. Norton: What are we doing, anyway? Nary: We (inaudible) Borup: We just decided we only have 2 short things for the 20th . Nary: Okay, so we’re not doing anything --? Norton: I think we have more than 2 things on the 20th but who knows. Will knows more than I do. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: She’s willing to bet a hundred dollars. Nary: Jerry’s got 2 right here. Cedar Springs and – Borup: On the 20th ? Nary: -- then there’s an accessory use which obviously has some objection. Borup: Okay. We only had 2 continued on the 20th . (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: All right lets stick with that. We’ll stay on the 27th . So, do we have one more motion? Norton: Somebody adjourn. Shreeve: Move to adjourn. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion’s second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:31 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 30, 2001 Page 74 / / KEITH BORUP, PRESIDENT DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK