2001 06-28 SpecialMeridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting June 28, 2001
The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning special meeting was called to order at
6:30 P.M. on Thursday, June 28, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Jerry Centers, Bill Nary and Keven
Shreeve.
Others Present: Steve Siddoway, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Will Berg and Ken
Bowers.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
__X__ Sally Norton __X__ Jerry Centers
__X__ Bill Nary __X__ Keven Shreeve
__X__ Chairman Keith Borup
Item 3. Public Hearing: CPA 01-01 Request for Meridian
Comprehensive Plan Amendment by City of Meridian:
Borup: Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to thank you for being here tonight
and welcome you to our meeting. I’d also like to thank the School District for the
use of their facilities and those individuals with the school that helped with the
setup we appreciate it. Before we open the meeting, we just want to go a little bit
into the procedures. You should have noticed when you came in that we have
sign up sheets. Those are listed by topic. We tried to go through what we
thought really the topics that were included in the draft and will be included in the
Comprehensive Plan. With the intention that people want to speak and give
input on any of those areas, rather than having someone come up and try to hit
them all. We thought we could keep things organized and keep our thoughts all
on the same thing if we hit one topic at a time. That’s the way we’ll proceed.
That’s why there’s several sign up sheets out there. Some of you that wanted to
talk on some of the different areas need to sign up under each of those topics.
We’ll be taking input tonight. This is a little bit of an informational. If there’s
some time we may be able to answer some questions. Our intention is to gain
and gather information from the public on those things that would either making
changes or additions or whatever would be pertinent for the plan. As all Public
Hearings, our job as Planning and Zoning Commissioners is to gather the input,
make the decision and we make the recommendation to the City Council. The
recommendations that we make are again passed on to the City Council and
they’re the ones that will make the final decision and the Ordinance in that area.
Again, before we start, maybe would like to start with a little bit of introduction.
We have here on this table, the Planning and Zoning Commissioners of the City
of Meridian. My name is Keith Borup, to my right is Commissioner Sally Norton,
Commissioner Bill Nary, Commissioner Jerry Centers and Commissioner Keven
Shreeve. We have full attendance by all our Commissioners here this evening.
Also representing the City of Meridian, we have our City Clerk, Will Berg. On the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 2
Planning and Zoning staff, we have Steve Siddoway and also have Brad
Hawkins-Clark here this evening. I think he’s probably outside helping with those
coming in. We would like to open this Public Hearing for the new
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. As a way of introduction, we have
Sheri Freemuth here. She’s the Senior Product Manager for SAIC. She’s the
consultant on this project. She’s going to come forward and give a presentation
of course to us as Commissioners but also for you as a public to give you an idea
of some of the process they’ve gone through and a little bit about where we are
on this Comprehensive Plan. Sheri?
Freemuth: Thank you. Good evening Chairman Borup and members of the
Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to present the new Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. I understand that you have before you a copy of the June
2000 document as well as a June 1, 2001 staff report and I believe another staff
report dated June 20, 2001. I will be summarizing these documents and trying to
cover some of the key points for you as well as for the public that’s present. As
you know Meridian began its planning process in June of 1999 with planning
staff. SAIC initiated a series of public meetings. These meetings were really
more like workshops or sheretts (sic), if you will that were held throughout the fall
and summer of 1999. While these –
Borup: Excuse me Sheri can everyone hear okay? Okay thank you. No, they’re
fine.
Freemuth: While these meetings were going on technical staff was preparing the
text and citizens were meeting regularly to develop goals, objectives and action
items. We worked through flip charts and maps and basically came up with a
preliminary draft document for the citizens committee to review in the spring of
2000. We took comments during that citizen committee round and developed
the draft document that was presented at a public workshop in June 2000.
Incidentally, Pages 10 and 11 of your Comprehensive Plan present the names of
the different individuals that participated in the process, that sit on the Steering
Committee that kind of met during the interim point as well as the groups that
met regularly in these workshop sessions. The public workshop as I said was
held in June 2000 and public comments were received. It turns out that we had
quite a few public comments and during the past year, planning staff has been
working to resolve some of the issues that came up during that comment period.
The comments themselves are summarized in part in Attachment A of the June
1, 2001 staff report. The Steering Committee has met several times during the
past year and discussed possible methods of resolution. This evening, I’m
requesting on their behalf that you consider recommending adoption to the City
Council by the City Council of the Draft Plan, the June 2000 plan as well as the
changes that are presented in Attachment B of the staff report. Before I review
the contents of the plan let me emphasize that Idaho Code requires all
communities have a current Comprehensive Plan that includes a series of
components. They specify what those components are and how the process will
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 3
be engaged. I’d like to assure you first off that this plan that’s before you meets
the requirements of the Idaho Code. The purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to
integrate the concerns and expressions of a community into a document that
recommends how a community will grow and develop. The plan is not an
Ordinance it does not regulate. The plan will guide community decision-making.
In order to make the plan a reality, a series of action items have been developed
and these action items must be implemented. One of the most important and
recognizable action items is development and adoption of a Zoning Ordinance
and a map. When the Comp Plan is adopted by the City Council, staff will begin
work on implementation items and the Zoning Ordinance and map will require a
separate set of Public Hearings. I would also like to note at this point that a
complete set of action items for this plan are included at the close of the staff
report. They are also presented in the Draft Plan but they have undergone quite
a bit of modifications. For a current list of all action items, you’ll find that at the
close of the June 1, 2001 staff report. The plan uses maps and narratives to
describe the City, provides a vision of its desired future and recommends specific
measures to reach that future. I might point out that the vision for the City of
Meridian was developed in the year prior to this planning process and that vision
is again stated in the plan. It was a part of a Chamber of Commerce effort, I
understand. We use that as kind of a guiding force throughout our planning
process. The plan also recommends some specific measures to reach that
vision. The plan is organized into 9 chapters. The first three are introductory
chapters followed by five chapters that encompass the 13 components of Idaho
Code. If you’d like to quickly scan the table of contents, you’ll see that we group
like topics to address each of these topics more comprehensively. This is a little
bit different than the routine Comprehensive Plan but we felt that Meridian was
sophisticated enough it had enough issues that crossed over components so we
decided to group them this way. I would also like to point out that the private
property rights section which is required by the local planning act is addressed in
Chapter 1 of this document. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan has been
prepared to protect private property rights and values. No goals, objectives or
action items were developed to create unnecessary regulation which is the
primary concern stated by the Idaho Legislature. This plan strives to balance the
general needs of the community as well as the individual interests. Most of the
key elements of the plan are illustrated on the Land Use Map. Now, Steve, if you
could maybe help me out here and maybe point to some of the key areas.
Residents -- what was I saying? That the key elements of the plan are illustrated
in the Land Use Map. The key issues that are presented in public comments
and amendments, I think I can cover if we go over the plan kind of as a group.
Residents in Meridian are generally pleased with their community. This was an
overriding sentiment and comment that we received throughout the public
comment process. So, we, based the future Land Use Map, largely on existing
development pattern. Steve maybe you can point out some of the key roads.
Siddoway: Just to orient you with the roads a little bit on the map. The line
running right through the center is the railroad tracks. Then Fairview and Cherry
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 4
Lane would be running through the right through the center. Eagle Road would
be on this side followed by Locust Grove, Meridian Road, Linder, Ten Mile, Black
Cat and McDermott. Thank you. (Inaudible)
Freemuth: The center of town is –
Siddoway: Yes the center of the map is Fairview and Cherry Lane, McMillan,
Ustick and Franklin. The freeway cuts through right down here followed by
Overland and Victory and Amity.
Freemuth: Thank you.
Siddoway: The existing land use patterns, you can see the red is commercial,
existing commercial along Fairview and the interchange at Meridian and around
Eagle. You see a lot of the existing residential areas continue to remain
residential.
Freemuth: Thank you. The citizen’s groups were interested in allowing new
growth in order to finance additional public services and expansion of those
services. Also to allow for the in flux of new high quality development that might
help to further diversify the community. The citizen groups were very interested
in expanding the commercial and industrial opportunities. You’ll note on the map
the red and sort of brownish colored tones indicate commercial areas. As Steve
pointed out many of those are your traditional existing commercial areas. Also,
allowing for the potential for future growth of those areas. The groups also
wanted to encourage a diversity of housing types. To that end we looked at
coming up with different residential levels of residential densities to provide not
only opportunities for higher densities than four dwelling units per acre but also
opportunities for lower densities. Those are shown in the yellow toned colors of
the map. For those of you that are having trouble seeing from this distance,
there are some strategically placed paper copies of the map as well as copies
available in the June 1, 2001 staff report. The groups also wanted to ensure
adequate public services for residents and properties within the existing City
limits as well as adequate public services that might accompany any new growth.
The Urban Service Planning Area boundaries are an attempt to address that
concern. Again, Steve, I’ll need your help because that’s very faint from here.
The Urban Service Planning Area is a planning tool that’s been applied
elsewhere in the Treasure Valley. In deed, you have had an Urban Service
Planning Area here in Meridian for some time but it’s been co-incident with your
area of City impact boundary. By drawing the Urban Service Planning Area
boundary in to reflect the area that might more immediately be served by public
services you’ll have an opportunity to ensure that public services keep pace with
your development. That public services exist and are prepared in a measured
way. That’s not to say that development would not occur outside the Urban
Service Planning Area. Should an applicant demonstrate that they could provide
adequate Urban Services, the Urban Service Planning Area may be amended.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 5
Attachment B presents the changes recommended by the Steering Committee. I
will point that many of these changes address minor edits to the document that
were uncovered during the public review process. Some of these are like I said
quite minor. Others are factual updates that were necessary in light of the year’s
span since the plan was submitted as well as errors that may have occurred
during its original production. In addition we’ve had some notable recommended
changes that are again are also presented on the land use. Future Land Use
Map and I’d like to go over those. I’d like to highlight at least three of them. The
first is the concept of neighborhood centers. (Inaudible). Neighborhood centers
allow for a concentration of a variety of activities. This is accomplished not only
by providing an opportunity for a convenient commercial destination but it also
provides and opportunity for some higher density residential. As you heard me
say earlier, this was one of the underlying tones of the planning process. We
wanted to have a diversity of residential and commercial types. This effectively
accomplishes that and does so in such a way that these neighborhood centers
occur in your -- basically in your suburban areas, forming the outer ring of your
community. This combination of higher density residential and convenience
commercial and most importantly perhaps the public service area that’s present
here and that would be the school site and the park site. This allows for
amenities that lead to communities that are vital and permanent. This is
something that has been demonstrated in other areas and that the City of
Meridian is interested in pursuing as presented in the plan. The other major
concept that’s different from what was presented in the draft is the concept of a
mixed-use area. Although the mixed-use areas are something that’s familiar to
the City of Meridian because you have that in your current Comprehensive Plan.
In the earlier draft of this plan, we looked at areas that might be designated
simply as commercial. There was some concern that these areas were quite
vast. I think that Steve can illustrate here that the brownish shaded areas, the
Eagle Road corridor south of the interstate and over in the Ten Mile, proposed
Ten Mile interchange area. These areas are quite large. There was a concern
that a simple commercial use designation was too broad and that in fact that it
would be very exciting and interesting for Meridian to have a mix of uses in these
areas. However, it’s difficult to prepare for that so this designation enables the
development community to step forward and provide their own input as to how
they might achieve the mixed-use concept. Some basic guidelines are outlined
in the plan. It’s the intent that future Ordinances would provide even more
guidelines and standards. Finally the plan illustrates on the future land use map,
although there were transportation elements certainly in the draft plan. There
seemed to be some concern that it was not adequately depicted. The inter-
relationship between the transportation corridors and those corridors include all
roads not just your highways but your pathways and bikeways and so forth, bus
stations, and future transit areas. This figure depicted the auto circulation and
future collector streets. Here’s the future off street multiple use pathways, on
street bikeways. Those have functionally been merged and presented on the
future Land Use Map so that there’s a linkage between not only land use but
transportation. The appropriate action items for the neighborhood centers and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 6
the mixed-use concept and the transportation components have also been
added to the list of action items. In summary, on behalf of the Steering
Committee I request that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to
the City Council that the draft plan be adopted with the changes presented in
attachment B of the June 1 staff report. I look forward to working with the
planning staff and answering any questions that you or the public might have this
evening and also collecting further public testimony on this most worthwhile plan.
Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do any of the Commissioners have any questions for Miss
Freemuth? Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I saw it in writing too, so I think it could be addressed now. You
mentioned neighborhood centers and their use in other areas. What other areas
were they similar in size to Meridian?
Freemuth: Well, this has been done in a number of communities. The planning
staff I know derived a lot of their inspiration, if you will, from the work that’s been
done by the Treasure Valley Futures Group and they have lots of sources for
this. Specifically though, I know that the community of Merced California, again
was an inspiration for this for the City of Meridian. I think that within our own
base of information, there’s the community of Hidden Springs I know is based on
basically this concept. Although they don’t necessarily at present have the high-
density component. Then of course the more traditional neighborhoods that
we’re familiar with in the City of Twin Falls, Pocatello and here in Boise our
neighboring community where we have the commercial within walking distances
of the residential. In some instances high density is simply more than four
dwelling units per acre. It’s not necessarily intensive apartment buildings it’s a
model based on traditional development patterns that exist in other older
communities. Your Old Town, for one is actually a neighborhood right there
except that it’s the center of your town.
Centers: Merced California was the primary one?
Freemuth: I think so and I’ll defer to Steve here since this is I know a topic of
interest to him.
Centers: Thank you.
Siddoway: Gentlemen, she’s exactly right. The Merced Plan is one that is very
good in detailing the idea of neighborhood centers. They’re actually done all
over the nation. Like she said, it’s the traditional development pattern. If you
look at the older communities throughout Idaho it’s that older development
pattern with a mix of uses, commercial, residential, smaller block sizes, things
like that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 7
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: We would like to go ahead and start with public testimony. Before we do,
we do want to make mention of comments that we have received in writing.
Those are part of the file and part of the testimony. We might just mention the
BCA letter dated June 28th
. ACHD also on June 28th
and Briggs Engineering on
June 26th
. Ada County Associates in Realtors June 28th
letter and W.H. Moore
June 28th
. (Inaudible). COMPASS got a letter in of their comments on June 22nd
and so did the County Association of Realtors also on June 22nd
. Those again,
are part of our record. To try to expedite we, as I mentioned earlier will be
handling this by topics. Sometimes it’s kind of hard to anticipate the turn out and
response. We are anticipating that we’re not going to be able to complete all of
our input and everything tonight. I guess we can wait and see but if another
meeting is necessary, we are looking at the 23rd
of August, would be the next.
That is Thursday. Is that a Thursday? (Inaudible) we may have to take a look at
that at the break. There will be a break half way through. We’re trying to find a
date that fit in with everybody and that’s kind of hard this time of year. Our
normal procedure on a Public Hearing again so we have an opportunity to hear
all those that we want to is a 3-minute time limit. If there is someone speaking in
behalf of a group or association, they are allowed extra time for those people.
We had talked about three minutes for each person they are speaking on behalf
of up to a 15-minute limit. The other thing, I think again so we can move it along
we do need to get everyone’s testimony. This is a small enough room, we could
probably be heard but we won’t be able to get that on tape, which we need to do
for the record. We’re going to ask everyone that wants to speak to come on up,
which is essentially the same procedure that we have at the City Hall building.
To move things long a little bit, I’ll try to mention names ahead so that the person
coming up next so that person can be up front and ready to go. So that we can
move along timely. We’d like to start with, first of all talk about the transportation
area and then public services. Under transportation, Mr. Ralph Patey. Did I
pronounce that right? Do you want to come on up? Then we’ll get to public
services, John Wardle and John Eaton. At that point I’ll shoot ahead.
Patey: Commissioners and others.
Borup: I’m sorry I forgot to explain. When you come up, we would like if you
would give your name and address so we’ll also have that on the record.
Patey: My name is Ralph Patey. I live at 3762 West Stanwich Drive, Meridian.
That’s in the Ten Mile and Cherry Lane Subdivision. I’m a biker. I’ll be 81 years
old this coming September and I ride 40 miles a week five miles each week day
and 10 miles on Sundays. I’ve been doing this for years and have well over
25,000 miles on my odometer. The first thing I’d like to talk about is the narrow,
unsafe shoulders provided for bicycles on our outlying streets. I’m talking about
Ustick, Black Cat, and McDermott. All those outlying streets that I use regularly
and cover mileage. It’s scary. You’ve got less than 12 inches of bike path
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 8
marked by white lines. I would hope that the planners would incorporate into the
final document that’s approved something that provides for any street within the
impact area that’s on the map there to provide at least 36 inches. Something
that a biker doesn’t feel like he’s going to get blown off the road when one of
these great big tandem cement wagons goes by. Believe me, I’ve had some
experiences. That’s my first point. My second point that I’d like to cover in
transportation is the vital urgent need for the Ten Mile interchange. The
development of our City is, we all know is westerly, and northerly. We also know
that we’re now west of Black Cat with two subdivisions. I noticed that the map
doesn’t contain the second one. There’ll be at least 50, 75 houses in that new
subdivision. That Ten Mile interchange is not something we should wait for 2015
to have. It’s needed today. Thank you.
Borup: Sir, maybe just a quick question I would have for you. That’s on the bike
lane. I think everybody agrees with you on the interchange. How has it been on
some of the roads that have been built out? Like Cherry Lane closer into town
where it has a full build out with sidewalks?
Patey: I just avoid them. I’m a sidewalk man when I get into an urban area.
Borup: That’s what I mean. Cherry Lane where it’s got the sidewalks.
Patey: I will not ride on Cherry Lane. It’s scary enough just to try the sidewalk
along Cherry Lane on that north sidewalk with the traffic and so forth. No, I don’t
get out there very often. Once in a while I’ll ride down through one of the
shopping centers or something but –
Borup: So, that road’s not much better for you as far as bike lanes then where
it’s got the sidewalks?
Patey: No way because traffic – in the first place traffic isn’t paying that much
attention to bikers. That’s the main problem. A bike is not that important to their
eye.
Borup: Would you rather see wider bike lanes or wider sidewalks?
Patey: You’ve got wide enough lanes there on your main thoroughfares for
bikers physically. Measuring, yes, but to get out there on a bike and I see a lot of
people do, especially the young kids who are coming from middle school and it
scares me because as a biker -- and I’ve had a few flops and bumps in my day
but I haven’t had any collision with an automobile. I don’t want one.
Borup: Okay thank you. Mr. Wardle. We’re on the subject of public services,
schools, parks, wastewater plants, et cetera.
Wardle: Before I start can I make a comment related to transportation?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 9
Borup: Okay, quickly.
Wardle: For the record my name is John Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue. I have
a letter here from David Turnbull and I just want to highlight a couple of issues
that were in the draft related to transportation. On Page 66 of the draft it talked
about large developments and the impact that they have on the system, which its
easy to identify a large development. At the same time there are a lot of smaller
developments that have an impact on the system that may not be calculated. I
think instead of just targeting larger developments because it’s easier to grasp
those, maybe a broader look at all transportation instead of saying this impact
whereas there may have been four or five smaller developments that too had
impact on those same streets. Just a comment quickly about cul-de-sacs. It was
mentioned there that cul-de-sac, you know -- there are advantages to every type
of street. A cul-de-sac has an advantage and disadvantage. From the Fire
Department’s perspective, there’s only one way in but there are other
advantages because the traffic is lighter in those cul-de-sacs. You don’t have the
cut through whereas with a grid either you put a stop sign every single corner.
There are ways to connect a cul-de-sac in terms of pedestrian connectivity. Just
like there are ways to connect other types of streets. Let’s not throw out cul-de-
sac as being a very bad thing. They have their place. I think it would be very
hard to go and do a grid system throughout the whole community and say we
can’t do another cul-de-sac. We need to take a broader look at that perspective.
I can go on to the next topic which was public services, correct?
Borup: Yes.
Wardle: On that, it included parks? Can you give me the topics, because my –
Borup: Schools, parks, water, wastewater, power.
Wardle: Okay if I can start with parks. As I was reading through the Comp Plan
update, it identified the string of pearls, which I think is part of the Park’s Plan
now. There is no description provided in the update that I received. As I saw it
on the plan, it showed a whole bunch -- not a whole bunch but these big
asterisks every other section or so.
Borup: As far as park location?
Wardle: Correct. My understanding is those represent a regional or community
park. I was curious what size of park that was. Does anybody -- I just couldn’t
identify what the string of pearls was in the Comp Plan or in the update.
Borup: You might correct me. That would not be regional park that would often
be more a neighborhood park and we’re talking how many acres?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 10
Siddoway: I think it’s in the 15 to 25 range.
Borup: That’s what I –
Wardle: For the community park?
Borup: Yes.
Siddoway: Community park. Some of them could be regional but the level of
detail that we have at this point, it’s not that well defined. We need the park’s
master plan.
Borup: And a Comp Plan doesn’t go to that level of detail. We’re just saying
somewhere in that general area the City feels we need to have some park
ground.
Wardle: Let me advance that point just a little bit further. As I was reading
through there it said that the Comp Plan, the residents wanted a variety of parks.
They wanted to co-locate those parks with schools. In very few of those
locations, and I understand you can’t go out and say we want a park here
because you haven’t talked with that landowner. There are very few locations
where those schools and those park sites are in common. I think there’s an
advantage to be made by negotiating with the schools. You know, they’re going
to need land. There’s also the possibility to integrate parks into those school
sites. I don’t want to go and say the City of Boise does it one way but the City of
Meridian and the City of Boise Parks and the Boise Research Center did exactly
that. They were able to integrate a school site with a park site. I think there’s an
advantage to the citizens and residents of Meridian by doing that. Just to identify
that a variety of parks and sizes are needed within the community we just can’t
put all of our eggs in one basket with 15 to 25 acres here and there. If you do
that, those neighbor are going to have to get in their vehicles to use those parks.
It’s important to locate parks within close proximity whether it’s a neighborhood
park or a small tot lot of some sort. A variety of parks are needed within the
community. I just wanted to know if there was an update on the point of sewer.
Update on the north slough and the Black Cat trunk lines. It’s my understanding
that when the white drain trunk is under way or finished the process will be
expedited to those other areas. (Inaudible). I think for the most part that takes
care of my comments. Like I said, my format tonight, I went through the Comp
Plan, looked at each section, as did David Turnbull and those are represented
here in these comments that I’m going to give to the Clerk. So, any thing we
weren’t able to address they can be carried later.
Borup: Okay thank you might just comment on the sewer. We do not have
anyone from Public Works here so I think your statement would be correct.
Once the white and the south slough are completed then they’d be looking at
which other area would be next in line. I think the two you mentioned would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 11
definitely be the next area. That’s already been in discussion. That’s I think one
of the reasons we’re trying to get this into parks on your parks comments
combined with the schools. That’s why we need it in here is so that it can be
planned for. You’re right, very few have happened in the past. That is one thing
we won’t be able to change by realizing yes, we need those in that area. It can
be combined with schools on those areas that --
Wardle: It’s a prime opportunity for both agencies as the area develops in all
parts of Meridian to work together and get that accomplished.
Borup: I think one reason that hasn’t happened in the past is because it hasn’t
been stated as a goal and it hasn’t been (inaudible).
Wardle: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Eaton.
Eaton: Thank you. For the record my name is John Eaton, representing The
Building Contractor’s Association. We’re at 6206 North Discovery Way. You do
have a letter from us dated today. So I will keep my comments very short. Since
we have so many people here I don’t want to take too much time. I did want to
address the public utility issues but I think that I will say more of an overall basis
so I don’t keep getting off on any one of these points. We do, you guys have
gone to great lengths to try to find some means, excuse me. We do think that
you have gone to great lengths to try to find some means of putting together a
Comp Plan. It’s a good start. We have some concerns that you will see outlined
in the letter that we sent. Those concerns are ongoing. We have others that we
will reveal in our next developer’s Council meeting. We’d like a little bit more of
an opportunity to see that. I would also like to see -- Miss Freeman mentioned a
June 20th
letter that was sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission. We
haven’t seen that yet. We just got the June 1st
letter. We’d like to see those
changes that are made, if that’s possible. If Miss Freeman is available it would
be nice to have her come, maybe talk to our developer’s Council. Give us a little
bit more insight as to where some of these ideas originated because they have
some serious concerns about these neighborhood centers and those issues that
were raised with the developers that actually are going to build these parks and
areas. Going on, I think probably we do have a number of comments on the
Section B that you guys were given in the June 1st
draft, you’ll see those. The
action items that were in there, we didn’t get all of the comments finished that we
wanted so we will have those probably by the end of next week for you guys to
review, as soon as we possibly can. This was just given to us, I’m sorry, by our
attorney a couple weeks ago. We haven’t had as much time as we’d like to see
it. Finally, as I said before we look forward to working with you guys. We think
this is a positive process. You’ve done some good things. The commercial
addition in this draft over the first draft is very positive, we think. Keeping people
closer to their homes is a good goal and very laudable. Finally, we do look
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 12
forward to working with you. Anything else that we can answer, we’d be happy to
do now, or later in writing.
Borup: Thank you any questions? I think someone from staff otherwise would
be able to meet (inaudible) your Council.
Wardle: That would be the third Monday of next month.
Borup: Either call then or someone can call over there and coordinate that.
Wardle: No problem. Thank you very much.
Borup: Thank you. The other area we wanted to go into next -- before I
proceed, I’d like to -- did you not sign up?
Butler: Right.
Borup: That’s what I was going to just explain. There are still sign up sheets out
there. The large letterhead was just on the first page so the ones that are out
there, up in the top left corner have a small little note of the subject. Anyone that
came in late and did not get an opportunity to sign up, you can still go out there.
We can check just a little bit ago and there weren’t any other signatures. What
subject did you -- the first two subjects that, and you I think had missed the
explanation but we’re covering one topic at a time. First, we’ve done
transportation and public services. Were you looking at either one of those two?
Okay do you want to come on up?
Butler: Thank you just so the Commission knows, some of the sign up sheets up
in the front, I could see one that was clearly marked for public safety but the rest
didn’t seem to indicate a topic.
Borup: It was real small up in the top.
Butler: You may want to ask if anybody else –
Borup: Yes that’s what I thought I just did. So, if there’s anyone else that’s not
signed up that wishes to testify. We probably will not be doing this again, without
the sheets. Well, I should say, unless we have time at the end of the meeting.
Then we could do that at that time too.
Butler: Chairman, transportation is the first subject? Okay I’ll address the
transportation. Joann Butler, 101 South Capital Boulevard, here representing
The Building Contractor’s Association, several landowners and people that,
developers of property both within the City of Meridian City limits and outside of
those City limits but within the area of impact. The transportation issues that I’ll
raise just briefly are, there is a – I’m referencing now you did receive comments
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 13
from us last July on the actual plan draft. So, my comments are on reference to
the plan update. From the people that I just indicated, the Building Contractor’s
Association, developers and landowners both within the City of Meridian and also
within the area of impact but outside of the City limits. Correct. On
transportation, there’s a concept within the update requiring Cross Access
Agreements between two private property owners before a Public Zoning Permit
is obtained. It appears that Meridian may be promoting this concept which
ACHD did promote for many years to reduce the number of access points along
ACHD and state highways. This is a laudable goal but it is a concept that ACHD
acknowledges that it does not have the legal right to require, and this may be
something that Meridian is unaware of. Before you consider this further I would
just suggest that maybe that be addressed with your City Attorney and ACHD.
That raises a point about, from the reader’s perspective it was unclear whether
or not ACHD had reviewed the draft and –
***End Of Side One***
Butler: -- half section-lined roads were appropriate. Although the Steering
Committee and the draft update indicates that ACHD is the final arbiter of street
standards, there are a number of standards contained in that update that
Meridian seems to be proposing as it’s own standards. I think there may be
some conflict between ACHD and Meridian’s jurisdiction. I would say that that
has to be worked out so it’s compatible. It’s also unclear from the reading,
whether or not the recent publication by Commission by ACHD by the
Washington Group on Meridian’s north end traffic is incorporated into this plan, is
meant to promote this plan. If it is, then that document I would say should be
made available so that the public can read it in connection with the plan. I think
those, and I’ll just check, are the only two traffic issues that I had. In connection
with -- I think public services was the next topic, make sure I -- the
Comprehensive Plan update indicates, has a – seems to define Urban Services
as only those services owned and operated by the municipal government or
another quasi-governmental entity. Clearly the City recognizes that the only
utilities or infrastructure it provides are water and sewer. Many of the services
are provided by private companies such as Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas and
other non-governmental or private entities. Also in connection with the Urban
Service Planning Area, and I’ll come back to that. Excuse me I’m a little out of
order here. There are several sections in the draft update that indicate that
development cannot take place in the City or within your area of impact unless
that development is served by City owned services. I’m going to take that as City
owned water and sewer but of course, there’s no authority in either our
constitution or in our statutes that would give any City, not just Meridian, any City
the right to so restrict competition. The fact that our state gives the City the right
to provide utility service does not give the City the right to deprive individuals
from using private utilities, whether it be that individual septic, an individual well
or some service provided by a larger private entity either for water or for
wastewater. I encourage you to work with your City Attorney on that concept
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 14
because I think that it should be stricken from the plan. With regard to the Urban
Service –
Borup: I just might interject. I may be wrong but I think in that definition of
services doesn’t that also include police and fire?
Butler: It does and I’m making a distinction between one definition within the
plan that talks about various services such as fire and things like that. It also
indicates that it has to be City -- there are some sections that indicate City owned
or government owned such as some of the Fire Districts. I think that needs to be
cleared up. With regard to the Urban Service Planning Area, the boundary that
has been set. I just ask that –
Borup: -- we’ll be hitting that on another topic.
Butler: Oh, another topic? Is it on land use?
Borup: Yes.
Butler: Okay thank you. Then those are my comments on those two topics.
Borup: Okay any questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you Miss
Butler.
Butler: Thank you.
Borup: Okay I think as I mentioned earlier, we had kind of a general area that
was for anything that didn’t fit into one of the specific topics. That’s what we
want to hit next is the other miscellaneous topics. Mr. Fuller is on the list first.
Fuller: My name’s Dave Fuller, long time life resident and landowner in the
Meridian area which has now been kind of annexed into the City. I want to
commend everybody that has worked on the plan real hard. I have a few
questions that Brad said I should maybe throw up at the Council to kind of verify
a little bit. I have a piece of property that’s currently for sale. It’s in a mixed-use
category on your map and we worked on that pretty hard and it was in the old
plan as mixed use. Brad has informed me that there’s a 5-acre limit on
commercial in that mixed-use category. I would just like this panel to kind of
think about that and not necessarily limit to 5-acre commercial in that mixed use
policy because of the fact that I may have a developer that wants to use the
whole acreage for commercial rather than just 5-acres of it. It may limit my ability
to market the property. It’s in a very good location, close to Cherry Lane
Albertson’s store that has neighborhood commercial right now. I would like to
have that neighborhood commercial category or at least some leniency on the
mixed use so that we don’t have a problem marketing and developing the
property for the good use of the City and all the people in the area. There are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 15
several folks on the corners right around me there that aren’t here tonight. I’d
just like to say on their behalf that they’re also interested in commercial or a
mixed-use type of development. They would not like to be limited by the 5-acre
restriction. That’s all I have to say on that. Could you get back with me on that
5-acre restriction?
Borup: Okay did you have anything specific that you would recommend on the
change there then?
Fuller: Well, just language that if you know it goes before the Planning and
Zoning and the developer has a program that fits into the area good that he can
use the whole thing for commercial, not just 5 acres of it. Yes, I’d like some
flexibility in the 5-acre restriction.
Borup: And the proposed plan you don’t feel gives you that flexibility? The way
it’s worded?
Fuller: That’s what I understand. It didn’t give the flexibility in the proposed plan.
Borup: I think what would help, maybe then, maybe just some proposed wording
or something that we can take a look at.
Fuller: Right some flexibility with the City or the Commissioners if we come
before them –
Borup: I was hoping maybe you could present that in writing.
Fuller: Well, I probably can.
Borup: Okay I think that would be easier for us to take a look at too and help to
incorporate that in and reference a specific place in the draft plan where that
refers to and maybe you know, alternate wording.
Fuller: How much time do I have to prepare that?
Borup: It doesn’t need to be tonight.
Fuller: Okay I’d just like the neighbors that are involved with it to also be –
Borup: Like I said, we’re anticipating our next – well, we’ll see how it goes
tonight, in our meeting next month.
Fuller: Okay thank you.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Fuller. The next individual –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 16
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
Siddoway: If I may, just for clarification, the wording that’s proposed in the
current draft related to mixed use and 5 acres does not say that the maximum
size of commercial is 5 acres. What it does say is that parcels over 5 acres in
size must have a mix of uses. If it’s a 15-acre site, you can have you know 10
acres of commercial and 5 acres of something. The intent of it is these are areas
where they are, we know there’s going to be some demand for commercial use
but they’re also abutting existing residential in a lot of cases. There needs to be
a transition not just putting the higher intensity uses right up against existing
residents. We would intend in those situations to require a mix of uses that
would transition from existing use to a more intensive use.
Borup: That sounds like that does allow a lot of flexibility right there. I mean,
there’s nothing real specific on the mixed-use designation anyway. Those would
be looked at as a project is submitted. So then is there really even a need for
Mr. Fuller -- it sounds like the wording is there and adequate to cover most uses
the way it’s worded now.
Siddoway: If his lot is more than 5 acres and he only wants one use then it
would be a conflict so that’s something that we’d have to look at.
Borup: Okay that’s what we’re saying is if its over 5 acres and one use only
that’s where -- is it Mr. Gershdorf? Did I pronounce that -- okay, it sounds like
that’s been covered. Larry Durkin.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Park Center
Boulevard Boise, Idaho. Mr. Chairman, we’re just talking about some of the
miscellaneous items right now?
Borup: Yes.
Durkin: Because I’m going to have a number of other items to address. I was
confused briefly when I was looking through the sign up sheets. My intent was to
address the pathway system, would this be an appropriate place to do so?
Borup: I don’t know if that got listed under transportation. We’re trying to decide
where to get that. Right now, we have you under neighborhood centers and
Urban Service Planning.
Durkin: Specifically related to the pathway system that is -- well, before I say
that, I want to compliment the staff for their hard work on this. I want to
compliment the Commission and the public that participated. This is a really
difficult process and it’s hard to make everyone happy at the end of the day. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 17
think everyone’s intentions have been great and their efforts have been strong.
The pathway system – I have two different clients that are effected by the plan
that is submitted tonight. I was looking for an explanation as to how that
pathway system came to be. I was also concerned about the long-term plan. If
we adopt this plan now, if you recommend it to Council to be adopted and they
adopt it and then we go forward with a pathway plan or park plan or something
else, would development be held up on these different parcels while that plan
was developed. An example I have, when we developed the Fred Meyer
shopping center at Fairview and Locust Grove, Meridian had a pathway plan at
that time. We happily developed an 18-foot wide paved pathway behind the
store that now starts at Locust Grove and it ends behind the Chevron station and
it goes no further, nor can it. I’m a little concerned that once we adopt this plan,
then we go into the Ordinance and further planning of the pathway plan, you’re
going to end up with chopped up plans throughout the City. My suggestion is
relating to the pathway is that while it might be a recommendation in this plan, it
wouldn’t hold up any other developments until there was an adequate long term
plan approved by Council, funded for the implementation of it. Those are my
comments related to the miscellaneous items and I look forward to addressing
some of the other items later.
Borup: Okay Larry, maybe just clarification and Steve may have a comment. I
believe the pathway plan that’s in the draft copy, most of that was pretty much
taken from the Parks Department. Would you like to comment on that?
Siddoway: The pathway plan was taken straight form the Park’s Department
draft park master plan that was developed through it’s own period of Public
Hearings, public meetings. It’s going through its final stages right now in its
hearing process, shortly although I don’t know a date. This is what was
developed through that. Also, all of the pathways along the drains, Ten Mile,
Five Mile, (inaudible) Five Mile South Slough. These were all taken off the
original 93 plan as well as the one along the railroad corridor. What is certainly
new is the loop surrounding the, making the ring around Meridian connecting
what they’re calling the string of pearls parks concept. It was taken from the
Parks Department . It’s not something we made up on our own.
Durkin: Steve, I’m a fan of the pathway plan so I’m not speaking in opposition to
it in any way. My concern in reading the documents that you might be
recommending approval and in fact the Council might approve something without
an implementation procedure for the entire system. So, you’ll end up with a
chopped plan around -- there’s no explanation how you’re going to acquire the
property. Is the City going to buy it? Is the Parks Department going to buy it? Is
the developer going to donate it? That was not clear to me in the document. In
fact in the action items something that you’re going to do immediately after
adoption would be to come up with a plan. I’m just cautioning you that if you
adopt a plan without the follow up procedure it could in fact stop some of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 18
developments or result in an immediate request to modify the newly approved
Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: I think that’s the reason to have it in. So that it can be anticipated to plan
for that. I know that was a problem in the past. We had the concepts but Parks
Department had a plan to implement. I guess it would be the intention of the
Parks master plan would be completed with this at the same time. As far as all
the details in implementation, I don’t know that were ever going to know the best
way to do that. If it’s on paper, it’s easier for a developer coming in to know that
hey that effects my property. Or if they want to avoid it then they you know can
stay away from those areas. Mr. Centers, you had a question?
Centers: I see where you’re coming from. You make a very good point. If you
have a plan, how are you going to get to the end of the plan? Who’s going to
pay for it? I hear what you’re saying but in relationship to the previous individual
that testified regarding his commercial property how many acres do (inaudible)
sit on there? That’s a single use?
Durkin: It’s a multi use. They sit on 18 acres.
Centers: How many acres does Albertson’s occupy on Ten Mile?
Durkin: I’m going to estimate that its about 8 acres.
Centers: I thought that would be relevant for you (inaudible). Thank you.
Borup: Okay the next area that we had was neighborhood centers. This is a
new concept and a little bit new. After John Wardle, we had John Eaton and
Larry Durkin next in line. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Thank you. John Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue in Boise. You’re right
this is a new concept. It appeared in the 2001 draft of this month. I guess I got a
little explanation on how or where these concepts were developed. As far as I
can understand, it was in Merced California. I was just unsure of where that
came from. You know looking at the different locations on the future Land Use
Map I saw a couple of locations up on Chinden Boulevard. This is going to be
problematic, probably in any of these areas because they’re all identified at the
half section line. Specifically on Chinden Boulevard where you’re going to have
a small component of commercial and I understand that these are supposed to
be related to those neighborhoods themselves. Up on Chinden Boulevard if you
have any sort of component outside of where the arterial intersects Chinden,
you’re going to have people asking for stoplights. I highly doubt that ITD is going
to want stoplights at the half-mile sections at those locations. Specifically,
between Black Cat and Ten Mile and I think the other one is between Meridian
and Locust Grove. Specifically the one at Black Cat because Black Cat and Ten
Mile, it would be my recommendation that that area, identifying the commercial
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 19
component be moved to the intersection and I realize that you’re trying to move
these away from the arterial. Specifically, that location needs to occur wherever
the (inaudible) highway connects with Ten Mile and Chinden. That’s going to be
a focal point and it’s important that that happen at that area. Otherwise, you’re
going to have traffic backed up in multiple locations disrupting the flow of traffic. I
think its important maybe an additional analysis, I don’t know if ACHD and ITD
have had an opportunity to analyze these where you’re going to have multiple
curb cuts along a major road. I understand the concept of a grid. We’ve done a
grid project in Boise Idaho and it’s been successful but, you can’t expect to be
able to do all of these, you know the block length of 300 feet or multiple curb
cuts. I think this perhaps could cause some transportation problems. It would be
ideal if everybody in those neighborhoods used these centers. For commercial
to be viable, it draws from areas outside of neighborhoods. I think it’s important
that the concept be analyzed to look back at locating those at arterials. I
understand the concept. You don’t want to create more traffic problems at the
arterials. If you push these to the collectors, your collectors perhaps are going to
be overwhelmed. The level of service over a period of time may be even worse
than what you anticipated by moving them away from arterials where you’re
going to have signal lights at intersections. I think its something that needs to be
analyzed even more. Like I said, it was something that with this draft. I think it
needs additional analysis before just implementing it. That’s all my comments.
Borup: Okay just on your comment on Chinden and frankly, I have the same
concern on the neighborhood centers. That street was the only one I really did.
I think ITD is talking about signals nor more than on third mile intervals. Really
my question would be if you’re talking about grouping them on the intersections,
are you talking anticipating not any other commercial further down the mile than
just at the intersection? Or would you foresee where it could spread on down to
the half mile?
Wardle: Honestly, by locating all the commercial at the half mile?
Borup: I mean, a continuous commercial project or several projects that would
move on down.
Wardle: You know on some of these streets you’re not going to see that.
Borup: I’m talking about Chinden. Just Chinden that you had brought that up.
Wardle: I think it’s more appropriate at the corners.
Borup: Well, no and I don’t disagree with you –
Wardle: Whether it’s going to be continuous from –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 20
Borup: So, you’re saying not allow no commercial on the interior? I mean further
down in the half-mile area or quarter mile area.
Wardle: Perhaps but not at the exclusion of the other corners. I think its –
Borup: Would you anticipate then, your statement about no curb cuts, no other
traffic lights, its probably going to be a frontage?
Wardle: Pardon me?
Borup: A frontage road then?
Wardle: Well, I don’t know. We’d look at what they’re talking about on Eagle
Road. Who knows long term what’s going to happen? That’s a state highway
and that effects a part of Meridian. The same thing if -- I don’t have the answers.
From my own perspective based on locating the, specifically on Chinden,
locating at the half mile I think will be problematic. I think it’s more appropriate at
the arterials where the intersections and the streetlights are going to be
guaranteed.
Borup: I understand what you’re saying but, how does that allow for future
commercial growth on Chinden then? I mean the first one’s going to come in on
the intersection. Then what about the next project next to it? Do you turn that
one down or do we plan for it now so that there can be more?
Wardle: Well --
Borup: -- if we’re worried about curb cuts and stuff then it looks to me like maybe
the initial plan maybe needs to allow for frontage streets. Say if you’re going to
develop in this area, it’s going to be part of your design. Is that practical? Or,
what would you say there?
Wardle: I don’t know the answer. I know that if you attempt to do this grid on
Chinden Boulevard, I don’t think that it will be successful. I don’t think based on
what I saw in the –
Borup: -- what won’t be successful?
Wardle: I don’t think ITD will allow, based on this grid concept this many cuts
into their state highway.
Borup: So, if you have commercial development a long there, how do you
access it then?
Wardle: I think you have a number of collector roads leading into the
development. You can look at –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 21
Borup: -- collector roads coming from Chinden or a street other than Chinden?
Wardle: It could connect form Chinden over to like Ten Mile. It could be a loop
of some sort. Similar to what was done at the Boise Research Center on the
corner of Cloverdale and Chinden. There’s a loop that goes through that
development from one side to the next. That may be one opportunity, bring the
circulation interior the project instead of having everybody come right out on the
road like we have on Fairview and Cherry Lane in some locations. I think there’s
a way to move that traffic inside the development instead of –
Borup: The difference there would be whether it’s a large enough project or
whether it’s more of a strip development and depending on the depth of it.
Wardle: Correct.
Borup: I think I agree with you, it needs to be planned for. I guess the difference
would be the size of the project. Your recommendation is something that’s going
to avoid a lot of access points on Chinden. Is that essentially what you were just
commenting on?
Wardle: Based on past experience with ITD on Chinden, yes.
Borup: Mr. Eaton then followed by Mr. Durkin. Okay, then Becky Bowcutt after
him.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Park Center
Boulevard Boise, Idaho. This is an area of concern that I have the biggest
concern on the entire Comp Plan. I’ll do my best to limit myself to three minutes.
I am speaking on behalf of quite a few different effected owners here. They had
asked me to be here tonight. The discussion earlier that this plan, or this
concept came from Merced, California. There are a lot of good ideas that come
out of California and I’m sure a lot of them come out of Merced. I really think that
before you can even recommend an adoption of something like this that we
should see plans and copies of plans where this is viable. I don’t believe that
this meets with the ACHD’s plans as far access points, where to put commercial.
I don’t believe that the commercial designation in the grid pattern -- Steve can I
ask you to put one of those up? That is not going to offer a viable commercial
center in the market as I know it. That amount of commercial wouldn’t
accommodate, for example a grocery store. It won’t accommodate the drug
stores that we would have. It wouldn’t accommodate the needs and
requirements of most national tenants. I think the result will be a number of
commercial developments with high vacancy factors and high turn over factors.
I’m really concerned about this. I would make a recommendation that you have
in your action items that you’re going to work with developers and designers to
come up with a test for the north part of Meridian and the south part of Meridian.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 22
If the test fails or if the design can’t be reached, you’ve got a plan here that is
really -- this is a significant component of this plan and if it can’t be reached,
you’re going to have to change the whole plan. My suggestion on this area, both
for the residential component and the commercial component is to come up with
a plan first before you put it into this plan, before you put it into the Comp Plan.
Otherwise, you might try it for two years and if it fails, you’ve got I think 10 or 11
of these on the plan. You’ve got pathways going to them. Everything is -- I see
this as really one of the cores of the whole plan. I look at two similar
developments in Ada County. One is the Hidden Springs Development and one
is part of the Harris Ranch Development. From my observation, I’m not a
residential developer, but I believe the development that would be in those areas
would be not viable in this many locations in the City of Meridian. I’d ask for
another minute and a half and I’ll wrap it.
Borup: Okay.
Durkin: Then I’ll answer questions if you have any. I also agree with Mr. Wardle
that to put the commercial mid-block, if by any stroke of luck you were to have a
successful development, you’re going to have a traffic problem. By having it on a
corner that would likely be signaled or is signaled sooner, you’re going to control
the traffic better but to have this many areas for a neighborhood grocery store or
a neighborhood bakery, I just -- I’ve done market research all over the United
States and in many parts of the world, I just don’t see it happening in this area. I
think that staff and consultants should provide a lot more information on this. I’ll
happily answer any questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Durkin?
Nary: Mr. Durkin, we have a letter here from Ada County Highway District that
was dated today. One of the comments in here says neighborhood center
commercial on one side only of an arterial and that a (inaudible) mid section line
is a good plan. We support it. I guess, one of your concerns would be ACHD
not being supportive of this concept. It appears, at least initially --
Durkin: Who’s the letter from?
Nary: It’s from Diane Cushlin, right-of-way development.
Durkin: Yes, I think that some members of staff might be supportive of it just like
some members of your staff would be supportive of it. I don’t think that’s
consistent with the Commissioners’ position in the past. Even on action items
that they’re addressing today I think that it would be a really good idea to get a
couple of different Commissioners’ input on that. Also look at ACHD’s plan.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 23
Nary: I understand she may not be speaking for the entire Commission at this
juncture but at least their initial look at it from the staff level is that it’s viable with
their current way of doing things.
Durkin: Bill, I don’t think that that’s accurate. I would just say to you that I don’t
know when the letter was dated. I don’t know when she looked at the
information but it may have been a hasty review. It is not consistent with other
policies and procedures that they have acted on. I go to almost every meeting
and I’m there. That’s totally inconsistent with everything else they do.
Nary: If there’s a build out, Mr. Durkin, exactly like this plan. It may not end up
being exactly like this plan. Obviously there are always changes, market
changes and things like that. If there’s a build out like this though, under the
current ACHD planning process, they can put signals at every one of those
neighborhood centers, couldn’t they? I think 300 feet is their only requirement.
Durkin: I’m more comfortable. This is not a good arrangement for me. A
stoplight costs $177,000. We just priced out two of them this week that we’re
paying part of with ACHD. If you were successful with this concept and ACHD
was faced with the decision should we put a stoplight at the primary intersection?
Should we put it at the mid block, or the half-mile point? There’s probably going
to be continuing into the future forever and ever, budgetary concerns for ACHD.
Where do you think that lights going to go? I just think that that’s a real obvious
decision.
Nary: The developer, as long as its 300 feet from the corner, the developer can
pay for the stoplight as well.
Durkin: They can pay for part of it. They can pay for all of it, but to put a light at
the half-mile when you don’t have one at the mile marker, its not going to be
consistent with Ada County Highway District’s Plan and you’re going to have -- I
don’t know if there are any Traffic Engineers here tonight that are going to testify,
but ACHD’s term called pods of autos and its going to throw off, from my
experience of traffic studies and traffic designs. It’s not going to be viable with
their existing systems and their existing plans to have lights haphazardly thrown
around the valley.
Nary: So that I understand, Mr. Durkin, on your concern. Is it that the
neighborhood concept as whole needs more work and more thought? Or is the
number of neighborhood commercial centers that are identified on this plan, is
that what makes it problematic? Is it the individual development or the
development of all the sites as identified?
Durkin: I guess the answer to that would be both. I think that if you were to
design one and get a group of people together that came up with a good plan
that was viable where you had a viable commercial section. A viable school site,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 24
viable parks and viable residential that you could accomplish all of that with a
minimum density of 8 units per acre. I think that would be the greatest thing that
ever happened. If that was achievable and the people were in the market to buy
or rent the apartments or whatever was developed there and the commercial
was viable I think you don’t have enough -- with 25 years experience in
developing a variety of types of centers including some neighborhood
commercial centers. I look at Meridian today, I look at the 2015, 2020 forecast. I
look at the tenants and the residential areas of the City. I think that you have too
many of them right now on an untested area. So, I would caution you that you’re
taking a landowner and saying this is what you have to do on this area. You
have to follow the Comp Plan and you have to do this type of development.
They have to get ACHD’s approval. They have to get the Idaho Department of
Transportation’s approval, which I don’t believe is going to be readily available.
Then they have to develop something that’s untested, untried, or at least
unsuccessful in this valley. I think that you’re reducing the land value. You’re
reducing the possibility for an even smooth development throughout the valley.
You’re going to have pockets of these that won’t develop and they’ll require
frequent changes to the Comp Plan. I think when we started this whole Comp
Plan update, I think one of the driving forces was that there were so many
applications in the City to change the Comp Plan that City officials and a lot of
the residents said well, why do we have a plan if we have to change it all the
time? So, the intent was to come up with a plan that wouldn’t require as many
changes. Yet with the pathway system, with the access matters that Miss Butler
talked about with the neighborhood commercial, there are some things in here
that I think are automatically going to trigger requirements to change this plan as
frequently or more frequently than its now being changed.
Nary: I guess my last comment and maybe you can comment Mr. Durkin. It
sounds to me like we’re still sort of (inaudible) a chicken and an egg thing. We
don’t include it in the Concept Plan and we wait until somebody actually wants to
build one then amend the plan to include all of them. No one’s going to build one
because no one’s giving them any incentive or direction that that’s what the City
really wants. I guess I don’t conceptually have a problem with the idea. I don’t
necessarily disagree with you wholeheartedly. Maybe there are a lot of them on
there that maybe, if it were to build it out that way, it may not realistically happen
like that. If we just ignore it and wait until somebody else builds it, no one’s going
to build it.
Durkin: I agree but I think that there are other ways to accomplish it than to
mandate, I haven’t counted, I think there’s 15 of these on the plan. To mandate
that 15 of these occur at various places throughout the City. I think that there are
a number of ways we can do it but I don’t think there’s anything in the Comp Plan
that would preclude one of these types of developments from occurring in an
area that isn’t now designated for that use.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 25
Nary: Nothing would preclude amending the Comp Plan at some date in the
future when someone that actually wanted to build something that wouldn’t fit
that, no different than a rezone is for an area that’s already zoned by Ordinance.
We evaluate whether a rezone is appropriate. I guess I don’t see that as an
impediment to a builder because conceptually it’s in the plan.
Durkin: Let me try to clarify what I’m saying. Right now with all of the mixed-use
designations that you have, it would be my reading of this that you could take
any of those mixed use areas and develop a neighborhood center residential or
a neighborhood center commercial. Its not like you’re out of land for this to be
done anywhere in Meridian. I think that there are a lot of different ways for the
city to have -- you can designate an area with the property owner’s approval and
support and even offer an incentive to a developer to do one. If it works change
the Comp Plan, add fifteen more of them. I don’t think its wise to add fifteen of
these in here, or 17 when it’s totally untested in this valley. I guess it’s been
tested at Harris Ranch and Hidden Springs. I just don’t know if that’s been real
successful. I just have a real big concern that you’re putting these throughout
the valley and they’re totally untested in this market. I think you can offer an
incentive to someone to do one. Reduce the densities maybe reduce some
other things. If its successful, lay it on, make everyone do it. I think that would
be great.
Centers: Mr. Durkin, you referred to it earlier. Would there be the possibility to
get a mid sized anchor tenant in one of these neighborhood centers?
Durkin: It’s pretty simple math. If you take any grocery store I’ll try to keep this
brief. The smallest grocery store that’s going into the Boise market today is
55,000 square feet. With the Landscape Ordinance that Meridian has, which I
am proud of, I’ve been a supporter of and I’m not asking you to reduce that in
any way. You’re going to have a land coverage ratio of about 4.25 to 1. If you
have a 55,000 square foot building, multiply it times 4.25 and that’s how much
land that grocery store is going to need. A drug store at 13,000 square-feet
that’s what they’re going to need to meet all of the other setbacks and
landscaping requirements. The commercial area that you have here won’t
accommodate a grocery store. There would be one grocery store in this valley
that would be able to go into there. That would be the new City Market, which
there’s one of. It’s being tested in this valley and I shop there all the time. I think
its great. I don’t think it’s likely that you’re going to see one. You’re not going to
see 17 of them in Meridian. That wouldn’t accommodate the drug stores. It
wouldn’t accommodate the grocery stores that you have.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Durkin, I think my question is related to Commissioner Centers. That
again was, you had made a statement earlier that the commercial areas aren’t
large enough to have a (inaudible) successful. Are you talking about the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 26
commercial area like on this concept design here, the drawing? My question is
then what size of an area would be necessary for a viable commercial project?
What drawing area would it need to be?
Durkin: A lot of it depends on what you hope to accomplish in that commercial
area.
Borup: My understanding on the neighborhood center is I think to draw within
essentially the mile section and maybe a circle around it. You know a lot more
pedestrian. I think that’s the type of input that we’re looking for is, what type of
stores would go in there that could be successful? What kind of geographical
area do they need to draw from? I guess you already mentioned the minimum
sized stores.
Durkin: A traditional, if it’s traditional -- if it’s not traditional it’s a long answer. I
know of no retailer that could survive on the population within a mile radius in
today’s market. There are people that try it. There’s none that I know of that can
rely on their business surviving with the traffic within a mile and half. If you go to
Hyde Park for example, they do very well with the traffic within a mile and a half
but people drive to that area from all over the valley to buy the Goodie’s Ice
Cream and the Kayaks and the different things that are unique to that area. I
think it’s fair to assume that that would happen if you were to develop something
like that here. I know of no tenant that would go in and try to survive with a
population base within a mile and a half.
Borup: What size of a project would be necessary, taking into consideration an
anchor store and then the others would develop around the anchor? Again, is it
even feasible to get small stores, small retail outlets without an anchor?
Durkin: A suggestion I might have, if you look in the future, would be to take the
four corners of commercial that you end up with these neighborhood centers and
put those on the corner of the grid versus the center of the grid. That way it’s
viable for the people that live within the immediate area and its viable for the
traffic going on two different streets. That’s not consistent with the whole theory
behind this type of center.
Borup: The thing about the theory is then the intersections get real congested.
Is it practical to think we’ll get any retail in without an anchor?
Durkin: I don’t think you’re going to get long term, a viable retailer. I think you’ll
get some people that would try it but I think you’re going to end up with the kind
of centers that you see throughout the valley where people are coming and
going. It’s not a long term. I don’t think it’s a financeable development. I guess
I’d really like to see something, blueprints from Merced, California where this has
worked. I know its worked in Seattle. I know its worked in Portland where you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 27
have the population density to support. I’m not familiar with it ever working in a
market like this.
Borup: It sounds like you’re saying probably a two-mile radius is where –
Durkin: Actually three, kind of the lucky number that people look for.
Borup: How many acres would you need to accommodate something --
Durkin: -- well, if you were to put it at a corner and you had like 5 acres on each
corner or 5 to 8 acres on each corner of land, that would probably be viable but
to put it in the middle like this –
Borup: You’re saying 20 to 30 acres then if it’s situated right?
Durkin: I think that wouldn’t be on every single corner. You know if I look at
Ustick Road for example, you have Commercial at Eagle and Ustick. Then your
only other commercial is in the neighborhood center commercial which there are
a tremendous number of people that are going to be in that area. I think it would
be a lot smarter to move it to one of the corners so that it’s close to the pathway.
You can ride your bike to it and have a meandering pathway through it but,
you’re trying to, in the plan, you’re trying to put a commercial in a mid block
location on a small site –
***End Of Side Two***
Durkin: Most of the retailer that would go are going to rely on the drive by traffic.
If they go away –
Borup: So, you’re saying at an intersection you double your drive by traffic?
Durkin: I don’t think that you’re going to be increasing the traffic. The people
that happen to be driving by there to and from work or other activities are going
to be able to utilize it rather than turning off, going a mile down the street to it. I
think that for the retailer or the bank or the doctor’s office to be successful,
they’re going to have to have people drive to them. They can clean enough
teeth within a mile radius to survive. I think as you sit here as a Commission, just
ask yourself what your (inaudible) are today and how far do you drive to get your
teeth cleaned? Where do you buy your groceries? Do you go to WinCo? Do
you go to Fred Meyer? Can you carry all that home? Can your children carry it
all home? You’re going to drive for these services I think and I don’t believe
that’s going to change. I think this is a good idea to try an experiment some
place and make some kind of incentive for someone to try it or show someone
plans, specifications and a successful story on where it’s worked. I don’t know of
one and I just think that’s such a key point to this entire plan and everything
you’re doing that I think you should proceed very carefully here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 28
Borup: Thank you Miss Bowcutt.
Durkin: I think I broke this.
Borup: We’ll send you a bill.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 12715 West Edna Court. I just moved (inaudible)
Boise. A lot of my comments are pretty much in line with Mr. Durkin’s. I have a
real concern about incorporating something this specific into the Comprehensive
Plan. It may have been tried and tested in Merced, California but many of those
California areas, those cities, and their populations exceed that of our entire
state. I don’t necessarily believe that we’re representative of that. From a
planning perspective as far as new concepts are concerned, there will be people
who will hold up examples of success stories with something new, something
leading edge and creative. But, you’ll also find many other stories where that
particular creative or new concept has failed. We find that a lot. If you do
research on a particular new concepts, there’s always a few shining examples
but there’s always a lot of failures where the particular developer that tried it went
broke. Where it just didn’t function as they thought it was planned. I think more
appropriate tools in order to promote some type of a transitioning of uses and
densities would be to come in with some goals. I don’t think we should lose sight
of the purpose of this document. This is a guiding document, setting goals not
setting specifics. Goals such as encouraging creative mixed-use designs,
shared accesses, frontage roads, transitional uses and densities,
interconnectivity, implementing new urbanism design ideas. Also promoting and
protecting intersections. Ada County Highway District for example add a
signalized intersection at full build out like to have the first approach offset from
440 foot from edge to edge of the driveway to the edge of the existing roadway.
That seems to function well and it meets a lot of the other Traffic Engineering
design standards and ITD manuals. I think Commissioner Borup asked a
question about intersection capacity. If we take a concept similar to this but
apply it at the intersections, like Mr. Durkin stated, we can still protect those
intersections by providing collector roadways that link these office, commercial,
neighborhood commercial, multi family as it transitions back. It can still fan back
to the single-family. These collector roadways, a good example of them is the
road that runs behind R.C. Willey that goes from Franklin to Eagle Road. Those
types of designs of those roadways enhance intersection capacity. They
increase the capacity because it provides an alternative outlet around the
intersection such as Franklin and Eagle Road. Utilizing some standards like that
I think would be better. I just want you guys to keep in mind and I’ll wrap it up. I
know my time’s up.
Borup: Were you speaking for any other parties?
Bowcutt: No sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 29
Borup: Okay go ahead.
Bowcutt: This document should give us direction, not mandate us, not put us in
a box and say you can have a block no longer than 300 feet. We have to be
concerned with real world conditions. We exist in real world conditions. We’ve
got to keep that in mind. I just want you to make sure that you don’t put us
planners and engineers and architects into just a little tiny box where everything
looks the same and we start creating things that aren’t economically viable like
Mr. Durkin mentioned. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. We have Mr. Russ
Liddell also signed up.
Liddell: Commissioners, I hadn’t planned on talking about –
Borup: State your name for the record please.
Liddell: Russ Liddell and I’m at 1777 East Victory which is at the southeast
corner of Victory and Locust Grove. This is my first chance to see your map. I
really wanted to talk about the designation on that 4-corner zone. I think Mr.
Durkin and the lady who just spoke defined it real well. This is too exotic for
Meridian. I don’t know if, -- I’d like to poll each one of you Commissioners, if I
could. I know you’re probably volunteers -- I think this is a heck of a good plan.
We’ve been for growth. We’ve been for businesses in Meridian for years. We’ve
been for good communities, good schools. Who’s supporting this concept, of
you Commissioners? I mean I get the feeling, you’re defensive about this, like
it’s your idea and you’re pitching it to all the rest of us citizens. It is too
restrictive. It does take private property rights away. Can I just see a hand –
Borup: Let me just add that we’re not pitching anything specifically here. We’re
here to gather information.
Liddell: That’s what I thought.
Borup: Right. If we wanted to do this, we could have had this meeting at 9:00
this morning and spent 30 minutes on it –
Liddell: Yes, had nobody here.
Borup: That’s not what we’re doing. We’re here to get all the information we
can. Once we get that, we’ll be taking a look at it and discussing it and go from
there.
Liddell: I guess, being involved in a neighborhood group out there to prevent it
through the County Commissioners, because we’re in the County. We’re not in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 30
the City. We got a neighborhood association together of several hundred
residents who are impacted by these very issues you’re talking about, by
property use. Essentially, we didn’t want a substation planted on the Greenbelt
like your pathways have. We’ve got a live stream on Ten Mile drain and some of
the others. You’ve got bike paths planned. It’s a great idea. We’ve come to
understand also that the major lines of communication, if you look at your map.
Everything’s going off Cherry Lane and Eagle north. Everything’s going off
Meridian Road south of Kuna. We’re 5 years behind on this plan. It has taken
two years just to get to this hearing stage. In the last two years I can think of 6
square miles that’s already been built in, in the time that we were talking about a
plan because we’re right in the impact area just like a lot of other neighbors.
What’s so good about government planning, because this is going to be
regulatory when you get done with it? What’s so good about that instead of
leaving it mixed-use and letting private property owners and private industry
expand just like you have? You’ve developed a heck of a good core system
infrastructure is now being developed. This whole planning zone, why is it
shaped off to the southeast and northwest? Why doesn’t it just go along the
normal gridline because 10, 15 years ago we started with an impact zone and
now we’re leapfrogging -- growth is tremendous as you know and the
infrastructure can’t keep up. Just the bottom-line, last point. For information,
Idaho Power has now taken our alternate plan design and is building with it so
they’re building major power substations away from people’s houses, away from
the green belt and away from the parks. They’re putting it on Stoddard, off of
Overland. Overland as you know between I-84 is all going to be commercial. It’s
industrial and commercial. Cherry Lane and Overland are the major arterials
going east west with the freeway. I would just ask you to consider what, at least
for my property and those in the corner and just as the people said on the
corners. Let development take it the way it has been. Keep it mixed-use like it
has been for 20 years out on our section of farm ground. The Mortener’s, just
down the road from us, they don’t want this dang concept going in on their place.
Neither do any of the rest of us. It makes sense you turn in at a corner. We like
parks, we like restaurants and we like non-commercial. We don’t want a gas
station on every corner. Let the market decide that and people have some
flexibility, I ask you please? Thank you.
Borup: Thank you that concluded everyone that was signed up for those
subjects that we’ve handled up to this point. I think this might be a good time to
take about a 10-minute break and reconvene in about 10 minutes.
Commissioners, maybe we can stay just a couple of minutes to find a date.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Okay we’d like to reconvene our Public Hearing this evening. Maybe,
just to make sure that we’ve covered everything. The next section we’d like to go
on to is the Urban Service Planning Area but, before we do is there anyone on
any of the previous subjects that didn’t get a chance to testify? We did not find
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 31
any others on the sheets. Okay we’d like to proceed ahead with that then? A
couple things we might mention at this point. One is we do have penciled in our
next hearing on this Comp plan for August 30th
. That’s again, a Thursday night,
same time at 6:30. We’re anticipating we’re not going to get through. Even if we
did get through all the public testimony, we’d want some time as Commissioners
to digest and go through testimony for this evening. We are planning next on
going into testimony on Urban Service Planning Area. Then, it looks like we’ll
probably have time to get into some of the comments on the future Land Use
Map, just looking at it probably anticipating not being able to get through
everyone’s testimony. Our original intention is we probably would not even get to
the Land Use Map tonight. It looks like there may be time so we thought it might
make sense to go ahead and start through that with the understanding that about
10:15, we’ll be ending. Then continue that testimony on the 30th
which, also any
opportunity for any others that may want to come. I’d like to start with that. The
first person on the list is Mike Wardle followed by John Wardle.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Thank you John.
Wardle: John Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue in Boise. If I could make just one
specific comment that relates to the Urban Service Planning boundary area on
Ten Mile Road north of Pine, south of Park Creekside. There’s a lateral that
goes through there and the school site backs up. One of our clients has a piece
of property right there that fronts on Ten Mile. The services in terms of sewer
and water are either at the property boundary or run in Ten Mile. We just ask
that the Urban Service boundary be extended down tot he creek. I can’t even tell
you what the name of that creek is. I could point it out to you on the map if you’d
like me to.
Borup: Have you discussed that with the Public Works Department?
Wardle: Have not.
Borup: My understanding, the present Urban Service boundary was essentially
designed by them indicating -- it indicated those areas that the present trunk
lines could serve. I don’t believe it would be the intention of having an existing
trunk line that could service an area. I mean, the existing trunk lines would
service –
Wardle: I know that there’s a 10-inch water line I believe in Ten Mile that fronts
the property as well as an 8-inch sewer line.
Borup: I think the sewer is really more the problem than the water.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 32
Wardle: I guess if you just follow the line, it takes a dramatic jog around it then
back down.
Borup: Right those boundaries should have been determined by what is
serviceable by the existing trunk lines. You know, it’s not an arbitrary line that
was put on there. I would suggest maybe get with the Public Works Department
and see why that was excluded. My guess would be is that the depth or the
topography of the area. I don’t know specifically.
Wardle: I’ll talk to Public Works about that issue. I’ll let the more educated
people related to the Urban Service Planning Area discuss the issue.
Borup: I think they’re -- I don’t want to speak for that department but in the past,
you know if there’s some other engineering that shows something different than
what they have information on, they’re always open to it.
Wardle: Okay thank you.
Borup: That was your only comment on the Urban Service Planning Area?
Okay Mr. John Eaton. How about Monte Janicek?
Janicek: My name is Monte Janicek address is 2256 North McDermott Road.
(Inaudible) this proposed urban boundary services came up I took and sent a
letter here last July back to City Council. Then tonight I just picked up a draft of
your plan here and I see where you already have comments about my
requirements there so, I’m just going to make this brief here. I farm out there in
section 4 out there. The City annexed a quarter of a mile over into the section
there and drew (sic) the line there. I’m farming one side and the City’s on the
other side. I really feel these boundaries should be drawn on the County roads
as a natural boundary when they’re drawn in the middle of a section there. We
have you know kids and dogs and whatever have you that goes over into the
farm’s ground there and puts a burden on the farm there. We have to start
assuming liabilities then at that time. It creates us some problems there. We
have a subdivision that’s in the middle of a section there. It’s hard to get a plane
to come in there to fly and pesticide there. They just won’t fly next to a
subdivision there. If you use the road as your boundaries, why that gives your
boundary form and they can fly there. I just think its poor planning when you
take and draw your lines through the middle of a section instead of the natural
boundaries of the road. Another thing too is our irrigation water. A lot of your
irrigation water runs through sections there to get to your various fields. A lot of
trash and stuff comes off of these developments and gets into our water and
causes us problems. I just feel like whenever you move into a section and start
to development, I think you know that you need to include the whole section and
not just parts of a section. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 33
Borup: Maybe just one comment Mr. Janicek. Those boundaries on the most
part are determined by the trunk lines of the sewer. They’re saying that’s how far
that trunk line can service. You know the depth of the sewer line and the
topography of the land dictates that very strongly. I think in your section, to
increase that boundary, it needs another trunk line through there. That’s why it is
drawn not always on the road sections. Its drawn by what those trunk lines can
service.
Janicek: On the other hand there I would like you to consider the farmer there
that has to farm next to the city there.
Borup: Right.
Janicek: It really, you know –
Borup: It sounds like, in your case it would be good to get that other trunk line in
and move this area over, is what you’re saying?
Janicek: Move it over to McDermott Road. We’ve already started in that section
now. I would move it over to McDermott Road and include the whole section.
Borup: Okay thank you. Jonathon Seel.
Seel: Jonathon Seel 600 North Steelhead Boise, Idaho. I represent W. H.
Moore Company. I just have a specific comment. I know you received the letter
today. We have approximately 40 acres of land over there just directly east of
Linder Road and directly north of I-84. Currently it is bordered by the City limits
and also by the Urban Service Planning Area. We’re currently having (inaudible)
do some analysis to determine whether the existing sewer there on Linder will
serve it. We’re simply asking if in fact we do find out that there is capacity there
that this land could be included in with the Urban Planning Area. We’re in the
process of doing that right now. That’s simply the only request.
Borup: It sounds like you’re essentially kind of saying the same comment as Mr.
Wardle. That specific area that is not in the boundary –
Seel: Yes we have met with the Planning and Zoning and also Public Works and
they have recommended there is adequate relief there. We are determining
whether or not there is capacity. They’re doing the analysis right now. I think
we’re just going on record with the new Comp Plan that in the event that we can
find it that that would be included.
Borup: So, that was at Linder and the freeway?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 34
Seel: Yes sir it’s just directly north of I-84 and directly east of Linder Road right
there. You’ll see 40 acres, which is currently under the Comp Plan, or the future
Comp Plan it would be medium density residential.
Borup: I see that little section there got excluded?
Seel: Yes, that’s it.
Borup: So your analysis shows that as far as sewer grade its okay?
Seel: As far as relief goes the topography has been determined and we met with
Gary and also Brad Watson that there is adequate relief for that.
Borup: Which trunk line is that?
Seel: That would be the one coming down Linder, heading in a northerly
direction, I believe that’s the Ten Mile. So, its just a question now, if there is
capacity by way of the existing sewer system or modifying the lift station up there
or in that case if we can tie to it. We’re in the process of ascertaining that. We’re
simply trying to (inaudible) –
Borup: If there’s capacity in the line?
Seel: Yes if there is capacity to go ahead and modify that boundary line.
Borup: Okay so I assume that you’ll be in more discussion with Public Works?
Seel: Yes, we will Commissioner.
Borup: That information will get back to Planning and Zoning staff?
Seel: Yes Brad Watson has already submitted it to Chuck Christianson at
Quadrant and he’s doing the analysis right now. I would anticipate here within
the next week. Obviously our goal is, if in fact we find its favorable then we want
to get it in before the comp plan is –
Borup: So you would have that information probably before our next meeting, it
sounds like.
Seel: Yes.
Borup: Okay Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I think I can quote Bruce from our workshop. The Urban Service
Planning Area as he quoted would be more like a priority Urban Service Planning
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 35
Area. Correct if services were available that are close like this it would not reject
them just because they weren’t in the Urban Service Planning Area. Correct?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I believe that as we’ve currently worded it, it
would in fact preclude them from submitting an application. They would need to
submit an Urban Service Planning Area boundary adjustment application to
change it in order to be served or to be requested to be annexed. It does, I think
in effect represent a priority area but as it’s drawn it’s more restrictive than that.
Seel: That is my understanding too Commissioner. That’s why we’re trying to
get it on the record now.
Borup: Okay.
Seel: Thank you very much.
Borup: There might be some discussion on how to change that wording. The
question I have maybe I was wrong, my understanding is those boundaries are
suppose to represent what could be served by current trunk lines. Is that
correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, it does reflect current trunk lines but we’re also
looking at police, fire, libraries, parks and you know, often roads. Even thought
that’s out of our jurisdiction. The purpose of it is not just to represent the sewer
facility plan. It’s representing all urban services.
Borup: I mean the two examples that were given to us are surrounded by other
areas, which you know the other services behind that. It’s not putting something
in an outlying area where public safety services would be any different. My
question is then, do we need to get some wording in there along the line that if it
can be shown that those areas can be served by sewer, water and likewise that
other public services are adequately available? There can be an adjustment in
that boundary without going through a long wait and see boundary adjustment?
What other options are there?
Hawkins-Clark: Certainly if you wanted to add that in there I think that might be
something to consider because right now the only option is to go through the full
amendment, USPA amendment process. There’s no in between. If there is in fill
situations like what Mr. Seel’s referring to where it’s only one or two services.
Maybe that’s something to consider where there's only a couple of services that
are excluding it form the USPA. Then it could be a briefer process to amend.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 36
Borup: I think Commissioners I would like to maybe at some time discuss that
because it seems logical to me to be able to include areas like that in there
without going through the whole process.
Nary: Brad, when you’re talking about an amendment, what standards were you
talking about? Is it the Comp Plan Amendment so we can only do it every six
months or are you talking about something less than that? Because that type of
amendment would be pretty onerous for an in fill project or a small project. Is
that what the type of amendment that you’re talking about?
Hawkins-Clark: As the June 1 amendment reads, it’s a separate process from
the Comp Plan Amendment but it is still just one time a year.
Nary: So it’s actually more (inaudible) than the Comp Plan since it can be
amended every six months.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Seel: If I can say one thing, I think when the initial presentation was put up here
I made some notes. I think the explanation on the Urban Service Planning Area
was that if you can demonstrate that there are services that could be provided to
that particular area. If it is not in that area at that particular time that it can be
modified. That’s not the exact language but I believe that was the (inaudible) of
it. I think it implies that if there is service and that’s simply all we’re saying here
is if there is service available then we think its reasonable to request that
boundary be adjusted. Right now we don’t have that answer. We’re simply
putting out there if it is in the process of the Comp Plan, we would like to
basically I guess, piggy back along in that process. I guess that’s understanding
its every six months or every year that we’re allowed to do that. We think this is
a logical time. It’s either going to work or its not going to work.
Borup: Maybe, on those, like your specific case, that can be incorporated in the
new plan. I’m looking ahead I mean I’m thinking of other individuals with similar
circumstances.
Seel: You probably have several.
Borup: Yes so that’s something that maybe staff would want to draft some
language to how to handle those type of, you know have a modification process
that’s different than, easier to handle than a once a year boundary change. I
guess maybe we need to see if that’s the direction the Commission would like
maybe like to look into. Are other Commissioners in agreement with that?
Maybe put some language that we can maybe look at in the future that they
could draft up? Okay it sounds like we’re in agreement. Staff, we’d like to
maybe have some language drafted that could address these types of situations.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 37
Hawkins-Clark: You’re asking for that proposed language to be ready prior to
your August 30th
meeting?
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Borup: Is that all right? Thank you. I don’t know if you finished. I think we
interrupted you before you finished.
Seel: No I was finished before. I just came back up here. I’ve done what I can
thank you very much.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Seel. Jonathan Eaton, did you still wish to -- okay. Mr.
Durkin.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Park Center
Boulevard Boise, Idaho. I’ve worked with a lot of Comp Plans. I would say that
the language, I would encourage all of you to read it. Page 84, the language on
how to go about changing that Urban Service area is really strict. It’s the strictest
language of any language that the City of Meridian has in any of the other
Ordinances, applications or rezones that I’ve ever seen. I go back to my earlier
testimony, the whole idea I think to this Comp Plan was to have a plan for the
City that would be wise and just. That also would limit, or hopefully reduce the
number of applications that would come in for changes. This is allowing changes
to this once a year. I suspect that you’re going to have so many special hearings
during that period of time just to accomplish all of the applications that you’re
going to be overwhelmed. I think that there could be a lot of easier ways to
accomplish this. The other thing, the June 1st
document that I have has an
exhibit that shows a different Urban Service Area than the color plan that we
have. I’m not sure if that – it’s the J-U-B drawing it has some other things on it
and then it has the Urban Service Area which is significantly different than the
colored map that you have. The other comment on the Urban Service Area, I
think you can make it friendly to adjust but the other thing I think you should have
the line appear pretty much with things that you know are happening right now.
Otherwise, the minute you pass this plan, you’re going to be swamped. We have
a project at Ten Mile and I-84. It’s about 180-acre development. The City
Council has authorized J-U-B to do some studies on how the utilities are going to
work there. That’s supposed to be finished by the end of July, I believe by J-U-B.
The Council will be looking at extending that trunk line in that area but if this plan
were to pass and be approved by Council in September, we’d have to wait. My
reading of this, we’d have to wait a year to adjust that. I think that line should be
adjusted now to service what you know is on the board throughout the City.
Because remember your Annexation Ordinances and your Rezone Ordinances.
You can’t annex property into the City of Meridian unless it’s contiguous to
another City property and unless there are adequate facilities and utilities to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 38
service that property. I’m not really quite sure what the Urban Service Area it
might be setting a priority but we wouldn’t be able to annex a piece of property or
rezone a piece of property. We’d have to wait a year because of the Urban
Service Area change. I’m a little concerned about the whole idea. I’d like to just
make one brief comment about my earlier testimony regarding the I had it written
down on a piece of property what we call these but the –
Borup: Neighborhood centers?
Durkin: Neighborhood commercial centers and neighborhood centers
commercial. I’d like to tell you that the first time I really got information on this
was this month. Although I think the idea has some merit, the information I have
is on an 8 and a half by 11 piece of paper reduced and it’s very difficult to do a
detailed analysis. I would tell you on the record tonight that if I could have the
time with staff to look at it, look at that whole concept and maybe have some of
the other members of the public available to look at it. If I thought it was viable
with the adequate information, I would get up here at your next hearing and be a
big advocate. I’m speaking on limited amount of information. I would ask you to
ask staff to make themselves available just for that. They offered to do it and I’m
enthused about it.
Borup: I think staff has already indicated that they would be more than happy to
get with you. Are you suggesting maybe a workshop beyond just a meeting with
the staff?
Durkin: I just think that if staff could make themselves available for a workshop
for maybe a couple –
Borup: A workshop, I think by definition includes others would be able to come
to that too. It would be more of a public thing. Maybe, others of the same
interest? Is that feasible? I’m anticipating something that you can still hold in the
offices or at City Hall, not something we would need a large area for.
Hawkins-Clark: You know, as City staff, anyone’s able to make an appointment
with us and talk about these issues. The Building Contractor’s Association has
requested that I come and talk about this in July.
Borup: Maybe rather than a workshop, Mr. Durkin and any others that wanted to
discuss the same thing just get together at a mutual appointed time and –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Hawkins-Clark: Sure.
Borup: Maybe if any others have the same interest might want to get with Mr.
Durkin and coordinate that meeting. I think it would make sense and respect
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 39
staff’s time to do all that at the same meeting if it’s on the same subject rather
than have two or three people meeting separately. Okay any other questions for
Mr. Durkin from any Commissioners? Thank you Mrs. Janicek, did you still wish
to? Okay her husband covered that I guess. Brian McCall.
McCall: Thank you my name is Brian McCall and I live at 3647 West -- is it not
on – 3647 West Valley High, Eagle, Idaho. I’m here on behalf of Far West
Developers and I would concur what Mr. Durkin said with respect to how the
Urban Service Planning Area ought to reflect what we already know. In particular
I would like to direct my comments to the six, or maybe eight square miles to the
north. It’s bounded on the north by Chinden, the south by Ustick, the Locust
Grove over there in the east and in the west by Ten mile. What we already know
is there are two trunk lines. There is the white trunk line that is below the Urban
Service Planning Area and there’s the north slough that is above the Urban
Service Planning Area. We know those trunk lines are going to go in and we’ve
heard the City commit that as soon as they complete the construction of the
white trunk, which they hope to begin starting in October and then getting it done
April of this year. They will proceed immediately to the construction of the north
slough. The difficulty that we have with the location of that Urban Service
Planning Area is that it does appear to be somewhat regulatory and somewhat
restrictive. If you look at the area north and compare it to the area to the south,
there really isn’t much difference. The plan on Page 84 state that land uses
inside the area of impact and outside the USPA boundary should maintain their
rural character until adjacent to Meridian City limits when all services are
available. How is this characterization any different than the land that is both
inside (inaudible) the impact area and outside of the Urban Service Planning
Area that is not contiguous? In other words, they both have services planned
and they both are subject to your already existing restriction of not annexing it
until there is contiguousness with existing property. Again, looking at both those
areas, if the planning area is to truly incorporate mixed-uses in the undeveloped
areas neighborhood centers on the half section line. I don’t think they’re going to
do the job unless this area is intended to be a vast bedroom community with only
the neighborhood centers. You’re not going to have any of the logical
commercial development that should go upon Chinden Boulevard. In particular, I
think that if you’re going to plan reasonable mixed-use and commercial
development, you’ve got to look at the are today that is outside of your Urban
Service Planning Area and provide more commercial opportunities along
Chinden which is just an obvious. I’d just like to end with one other comment.
Fairly recently, the developers have met with the City, have met with Ada County
and they met with ACHD. All those agencies have encouraged the developers to
take the initiative –
***End Of Side Three***
McCall: Developers have met on two occasions already and considered hiring a
consultant. If you put this Urban Services Planning Area right in the middle of it,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 40
it will take the wind out of the initiative of the developers to proceed in that
fashion. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you any questions for Mr. McCall? Tim Fernsite is that correct?
Fernsite: Thank you Tim Fernsite. My address is 277 North Sixth Street in
Boise. I’m with (inaudible). I represent Caven Incorporated Michael Caven is
here tonight also. Caven Incorporated is the owner of 40 acres of real property
on the Northeast corner of Eagle Road and Ustick. Its outside the City limits
within the area of impact right on the edge. The property is contiguous with the
City of Boise to the north and to the east and has been stubbed for the Boise
sewer and also has water available contiguously from the neighboring properties.
Now, just a little bit of background on what we’re here for tonight. The reason
that the property is within the area of impact relates back to the last amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan which was in 1993. Prior to those amendments,
several landowners up here in the fringe area of the impact area were concerned
about being included in the impact area at that time. There were some
negotiations held and the owners, certain of the owners including my client’s
predecessor (inaudible) entered into basically an understanding with the City and
with the County Commissioners. Where that their objections were noted and
letters were written and other representations made to the effect, when and if
they decide later on at any point that they do not want to be in the Meridian area
of impact for whatever reason, that there would be no objections to their petition
to remove themselves from that area of impact. Now, that happened. Several
other owners apparently did not negotiate that type of understanding and they
litigated. They did under take that agreement in good faith at that time.
However, unfortunately since then, their concerns about being included in the
area of impact have not been alleviated. The services that they were counting
on have never been provided to date. That’s not to point blame at anybody but
they just haven’t made it for a variety of reasons. Our client has expressed the
desire to get himself out of the area of impact in various ways, forms. Mostly,
informally in an effort to try to resolve his particular issue amicably. In a nutshell,
our client wants to be out of the area of impact. This is a good time for us to
bring it up. It’s been brought up before. Unfortunately we haven’t been able to
get it resolved. We want to make sure that this board is aware of our client’s
position and his interest. Right now he’s got property that’s undevelopable. He
can’t develop it and he’s waiting and waiting. The market is turning on and if I
could just have a brief moment to finish up what I was saying. He has been very
patient but he would like to be outside of the area. If we’d wait until after this
plan is in effect and we don’t try to preserve our position now or get on the
record, it could just be more years until we have another opportunity, potentially
to get this done. At least quite a long time. We wanted to formally request that if
it is in within this body’s authority to make this happen, to make it happen. If it’s
not within this body’s authority then at least recommend to the City that they
consider taking this action. Or alternatively consider approving this plan while
recognizing the pre-amendment obligations, commitments and representations
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 41
that were entered into with landowners such as our client, so we wanted to raise
those objections, get them on the record here tonight and also to let you know
that these issues are out there. They’re probably going to be continued to be
addressed by us and our client in the future. We’re hoping that we can address
them on the front end now rather than on the tail end later.
Borup: Okay any questions for Mr. Fernsite? Your property, you said in the
northeast section or the northeast corner?
Fernsite: Correct.
Borup: The new Comp Plan is that these colors are kind of hard to tell, is that
designated mixed-use?
Fernsite: Yes it is.
Borup: To your understanding?
Fernsite: In fact, Chairman, that’s actually a concern of ours. Apparently the
draft of about a year ago was commercial zone and now it’s a mixed-use zone.
Our client is hoping to get out of the area of impact but if he is in the area of
impact he certainly would like to be able to develop it exclusively commercial, if
that opportunity arises.
Borup: Does that property border up to Heather Meadows? Does your property
go clear to that subdivision?
Fernsite: I’m going to have to defer – yes. Apparently it does.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Which is in Boise’s area?
Fernsite: To the north and east. I understand to the south and to the west is
Meridian impact.
Borup: I would be interested a little more in your reasoning for being excluded.
Are you concerned about services to that area? Is that the gist of what you’re
saying?
Fernsite: I think that’s primarily the concern. Right now, we have potentially the
ability to – the services are already there from Boise City if the approval –
Borup: So, I assume you’re talking about –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 42
Fernsite: -- right now, we’ve been waiting for several years to try to get the
services out there. I understand there have been efforts to try to make that
happen but it hasn’t happened yet.
Borup: Well, that was my next question. That would be part of the south slough
extension I believe that would service that area. Have you discussed with Public
Works on their latest update on that? I know that’s been a big matter of
discussion. Other than one little roadblock on some of the right-of-way, I think
they’re supposed to have been ready to proceed with that. There was one
property owner that I know of wasn’t being cooperative. Discussion was whether
it was going to have to go to condemnation proceedings or otherwise proceed
ahead with that. That is that -- and the white trunk are the two priorities as far as
sewer trunk lines. The City is ready to proceed right along on the trunk line. It
sounded like that was your main concern is sewer service to that area?
Fernsite: My understanding is that the concern has been that for some time and
again without trying to cast any (inaudible) –
Borup: That was the other question I had. You said you had a signed
agreement about being able to get –
Fernsite: It’s not a formal agreement, Chairman. It’s a letter agreement
essentially. The legal effect of it is probably debatable. Frankly, we haven’t even
begun to take –
Borup: Do you still have copies of that letter?
Fernsite: I do. There are two letters and I’ve got several copies with me tonight.
Borup: Is that something that you’d like to put on the record?
Fernsite: I was prepared to and I’d be happy to do that.
Borup: Okay you need to get that to the Clerk then (inaudible). I don’t think I
have any other questions. Do any of the Commissioners have any?
Fernsite: I should just note that the first letter is a letter from the County
Commissioners. The second letter is a letter from the Mayor, the preceding
Mayor. I believe also the third page is a map. The property that we’re referring
to on that map goes back to the prior amendment. It’s referred to as the
Schmitzger 40 I believe was the prior owner.
Borup: Okay.
Fernsite: Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 43
Borup: I didn’t have any other names down except Miss Butler who keeps
forgetting to sign up.
Butler: Joann Butler, 101 South Capital. Maybe I’m going to throw a wrench into
this –
Borup: Could you go ahead and state your name again?
Butler: I’m sorry, Joann Butler, 101 South Capital Boulevard. I may throw a
wrench in to this discussion but I appreciate Mr. Borup’s comments that we need
to discuss this concept further. I also appreciate the fact that many people in the
audience have a concern about this concept of the Urban Service Planning Area.
They have a good reason. There is no legal authority to enable a City to set
such a boundary. There is no legal authority for any City to establish some kind
of process to have individuals unconnected to establishing services within a
municipality to make application to amend that boundary.
Borup: Could you repeat that last sentence again?
Butler: I was saying that there was no legal authority to establish an Urban
Service Planning boundary. There is no legal authority for any City to establish
some process to amend some boundary as it’s outlined in the draft
Comprehensive Plan. Going back to, not the update but the actual plan draft
that was produced last year. It states that the boundary provides one tool to help
the city provide services efficiently. However, the boundary is certainly not a tool
to provide services efficiently. It is an unauthorized boundary which quite frankly
I think you can hear from the comments from the public, no one, and even the
Commission and staff, no one knows what that line on the map means. Is it the
line within which services can presently be provided? Is it to which you aspire to
provide services within a year, two years? This is really important. Its
incumbent, I think there is a duty placed on a City to plan. Under that duty, under
the enabling legislation you have to plan for public services throughout your area
of jurisdiction including your area of impact. You’re allowed to show how you’re
going to provide those services over a reasonable period of time and that’s under
agreement with Ada County. That reasonable period of time is defined as 10
years. You’ve been through the planning, you have a master Sewer Plan for
example and you have Parks Plans. The element that is missing at this point is
the phasing. I’m going to take, thank you, and I’m going to take Mr. Yorgenson’s
time too. He’s one of the people that I’m representing. I’ll make this as brief as
possible because you’ve done that planning. It is now necessary to set the
phasing schedule for that planning so that you can show the public how you
intend to extend those services whether they be park, fire, sewer or water over
time. Its incumbent that, that be done now so that the public can see that and
assess what does that mean for them and the property that they own or they use
today and when it will be developed. The issue is not to come in and meet with
Public Works individually and find out what that phasing might be. It really is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 44
important for the public to understand that now. That really basically summarizes
it. I have to say that I think that this concept needs to be discussed very
thoroughly with your planning staff and with your attorney. It’s the boundary
that’s been set there, appears to be just that, a boundary. Something that is an
attempt, not an attempt to plan but almost an attempt to stop planning. It’s here
we stop but no further until something happens. We need to understand how the
City intends to serve this area over the next 10 years time as you’ve outlined in
your area of impact agreement with the County. I would encourage a lot of talk
between now and the 30th
on this particular concept. Quite frankly I don’t think
there is much work that needs to be done by your planning staff and your Public
Works staff to identify the phasing throughout the area of impact since you’ve
done, or your consultants have done the planning for example with the sewer
master plan. If you have any questions --
Borup: -- any questions?
Nary: Miss Butler. It was almost like you were at our workshop last week
because one of the things that we talked about was phasing, which is what
you’re saying. One statement that you made up at the beginning though is that
there’s no legal authority to create such a thing. Is there a legal prohibition that
prohibits the City from creating that if it was a phasing, if it was a transition plan
showing exactly what you’re talking about?
Butler: I think that’s the key. Showing exactly what you’re talking about. I don’t
think the public understands what that boundary is. I know I don’t. If that
boundary is just a line to as I said to demarcate where the services can be
provided today, that’s one thing but I think by putting that boundary on the map
without defining it without telling people what it is and where its going to go and
over what time. I think it sets up all sorts of ideas in people’s minds whether it be
staff and the City or people in the audience as to what it means. I think you do
need to define that and add the phasing to it.
Nary: But, is there a legal prohibition?
Butler: To set the boundary?
Nary: If we didn’t recommend that, if we left it the way it was you’ve said there's
no legal authority to create such a thing. Is there a legal prohibition that prohibits
the City from doing that?
Butler: I’m going to back into that not knowing what it means. I do know this,
that you do have this duty and requirement. You have the duty to plan
throughout your area. You have the contractual obligation to serve that area
within 10 years time. I think because of those requirements, you have to do that.
I don’t think there’s a prohibition from drawing any line on a map but I think it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 45
should be consistent with your enabling legislation and your contractual
agreement.
Nary: Okay.
Centers: I thought Commissioner Nary would cover it but I guess I’m going to
back you up here. You were very emphatic about we’re not legal for establishing
a boundary. Where do you get your information?
Butler: I got my information from searching the, all of our enabling –
Centers: The Idaho Code?
Butler: -- The Idaho Code, all cases, the phrase Urban Service Planning Area
doesn’t appear in any printed written material that has ever been adopted or
decided by a court. Not one.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: I think those are some of the same questions I had. I was very
interested in any specific case but I think you’ve answered that. Then the
question I would have -- well, one may be a comment, you talked about the
phasing and the 10-year, and maybe why this new boundary was drawn. Not
speaking entirely for staff, but my understanding was that was one of the reasons
it was brought it a little bit is because it was realized that the City could not
service the whole impact area within 10 years. I mean, just the rate of growth
tells us that. Whether the new boundary is, I don’t know whether the new
boundary is necessarily everything within a 10-year plan but that is I think at least
part of that rational there. The question I’d have though is, maybe it’s a matter of
definition. Maybe we’re using the wrong terminology. Its something like, you
said boundaries can be established, with maybe a boundary for priority areas be
a more appropriate wording?
Butler: It may be that the City does want to set -- I know that very often in
hearings the City talks about growing from the center outward. In a sense it
creates priority areas about encouraging development from the center and going
outward. If that is what the City staff wants to present to the public as the
concept for the goal, for the Comprehensive Plan I think you can certainly set
that goal. Then in connection with that goal, I think you have to identify for the
public so that they understand and so that they can make their decisions on
purchasing land, optioning land, using land. I think that its incumbent upon the
City to say in connection with that goal, this is how we will phase over time
throughout the area of impact to ensure that those services reach that area
within that reasonable period of time. Then I think that you do comply with your
contractual arrangement and your enabling authority under State Code.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 46
Borup: It sounds like you’re saying that if the City puts down those boundaries
and those priorities then again it would be the City’s responsibility to bring the
services there?
Butler: If the City sets kind of progressive boundaries all the way reaching to the
area of impact, this is where we will serve by 2003. This is where our goal is to
serve by 2004, 5 and 7. If you set those goals, the services would be provided
by either the Fire District or anybody that now presently services or could service
if its outside of where you can presently serve and you haven’t annexed it. Then
obviously private utilities could also serve in those areas as well. I’m not sure I’m
answering your question.
Borup: And I probably didn’t word it very well. Probably the direction I’m going, if
there’s an area that maybe meets the other requirements as far as other services
and contiguous to the City, a developer wants to develop that. The City is not in
a position to bring the sewer and water services in there at the present time.
How would that area be looked at?
Butler: This is speculation depending on, sometimes it’s a case by case basis.
Borup: Right.
Butler: Imagine that you had, there are a couple of different ways it can be
accomplished. If you have land that the City does not want to annex because all
of the sewer and water isn’t out there for example and you’re not going to service
it, so you’re not going to annex it. You might, and it may be so close that maybe
a developer will come in and help provide those services with the idea that they
would get reimbursed for the cost over and above what it takes to serve their
development through an arrangement with the City. That they would collect from
other developers or other landowners that hook onto that. That’s one way.
Borup: Which is currently being done basically I think.
Butler: That’s one way to accomplish it. If it’s an area outside of the City limits
and you’re not going to annex it and again we’ll use water and sewer is there.
People right now can privately service those properties with an individual septic,
with an individual well. That’s one way to do it. You often have Homeowners
Association or Community Associations with a well and a community water
system. You know that in Eagle and elsewhere there are private companies that
provide for larger Wastewater Treatment. I mean that can happen outside of the
City’s boundaries if you have not serviced them yet. There are a number of
different ways to assist the City reach its goal of servicing this area within the 10-
year time.
Borup: It sounds like you thought the maybe the terminology of having a specific
boundaries for priority service areas with some type of phasing. I think I see
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 47
what you’re saying on phasing. The concern I have, in a large part something
like that is consumer driven. Personally I -- well, I was going to see I hate to see
the City dictating completely but in some aspects it needs to, to orderly plan for
growth. We may have specific priority areas that we’d like to see develop and
phase in a specific way that may or may not happen in the market place.
Butler: I think that with the public input that you have, it actually if the City had a
rationale for priority areas, for example I think the City has a priority of in fill
development within the City limits. Hopefully the City will encourage
development maybe through incentives and what not to allow that to happen. I
mean, that is a priority area. If the City does want to establish priority areas, it
needs to set that out in front of people so that they can see it and explain why
they may or may not want that to be a priority or why it makes more sense. I
think getting that in front of the group as a whole in public sessions would make
a lot of sense. You’d get a lot of good input and it would take away what almost
looks like, what I think Mr. Wardle may talk about at some point, where this looks
like kind of granting particular people a possible benefit and taking away from
others. I think, there’s not a real rationale for the way it has been set up on the
plan. I think only with that phasing and setting those priority areas and
discussing them in public could that become apparent. I hope that makes some
sense.
Borup: It sounds like you’re saying really, from what I gather do away with the
whole Urban Service boundary? Well, you’ve pretty much stated that. Then that
be replaced by priority area boundaries?
Butler: Perhaps in a phasing boundary. Again it comes down to what you mean
by that line.
Borup: My understanding basically is that the biggest dictator is going to be
trunk lines. You know, the other services, water, fire, police and other things not
dictated by the boundary so much as the sewer services are. That might be the
way that those areas would be drawn out, which we essentially have trunk line
service areas now. (Inaudible) expanding that I think Commissioner Nary had a
comment or question.
Nary: I guess my only comment and question Miss Butler I think you brought up
some really good points. I guess a lot of the testimony that we’ve heard tonight,
including from yourself is that some of the plan is too specific and that it’s too
dictatorial in some aspects of restrictions and prohibitions and the like. I guess I
looked at the Service Urban Planning, and I know a lot of development is driven
by the sewer and how we can serve it. It appeared to me that part of the concept
that they’re trying to do in this is taking all Urban Services. Sometimes, your
comments especially and I wanted the other folks to understand, the Urban
Services is trying to deal with all the of the Urban Services including police and
fire because that sometimes gets left behind. Developers are real quick, if they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 48
want to develop to pay to get the trunk line there but they’re not paying for Police
Officers and they’re not paying for fire trucks and they’re not paying for personnel
to operate those. Those are the things that I guess conceptually, again maybe
its too generic and too general here but I think that was the intent of what the
urban service planning is. It’s not just a boundary line for when sewer service
will be available. It’s a line and I agree with what you’re saying that phasing and
those kind of things make a little more sense. Maybe they’re also a little easier
concept for people to buy into and understand. Those types of things are not
just to deal with the sewer. They’re to deal with the fire and police and other
services that can’t be provided. I guess it sounded a lot like if we agreed with the
idea that conceptual phasing is a better way to explain it and if we as a
Commission felt that there needs to be at least some flexibility in allowing some
amendment to that. Especially things that are on the border like a couple of folks
have talked about, that are right on the edge. It seems kind of silly to wait a year
to me if you’re right next to the Urban Service Planning Area and we can serve it
with police, fire, sewer, to wait a whole year just because you haven’t (inaudible).
Those things all considered, the whole idea isn’t a bad idea. Would you agree?
It doesn’t seem to be conceptually bad but it needs to be more broadly based.
Butler: I guess I would say that I do think it’s a bad idea, in this regard. In that it
is set a line against which we don’t cross but for unusual circumstances, lets say,
or amendment which I really don’t think are appropriate in this case. I think you
need to when you’re annexing and you’re servicing, there is a criteria that has to
be shown. That is that the property can be served by all Urban Services. That
demonstration, somebody mentioned that tonight. That demonstration has to be
made in connection with any application anyway so, consequently, and what that
means is that when an application comes in, yes, a developer or the landowner
may extend the sewer but they may also, if we’re outside of your ISO rating and
its going to force the City’s premiums on fire maybe it means cooperation on a
station (inaudible). Those kind of things do come into play on a case-by-case
basis with an application. With that, the application and the particulars there
under those circumstances are different than the guiding or the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. Then what the Comprehensive Plan should show the
public is this is where we as a City want to phase our sewers over time. This is
where we as a City want to establish parks over time. This is where we as a City
want to establish our police service over time in terms of substations or whatever.
I think all of those have to be phased, not just sewer. Sewer is fairly linear and
we can see that a little better. Fire it might be, where are the circles and where
do they overlap so that the ISO ratings are maintained. I think, for example,
given the Fire Stations that you have now, you can identify where you need to
be. That helps by knowing what that phasing is. I think it would be much easier
to establish your priority areas as well. Then that information can come back to
the public and they can impose -- you will have imposed a pattern on all that
mass of information that’s out there and so will the public be able to see it and
provide more meaningful input that yes it makes sense that the priority areas in
this way or that way.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 49
Nary: So, basically, the bottom line is your (inaudible) of your comment is we
really don’t need that Urban Service Planning Area. (Inaudible) transition and
phasing.
Butler: Right I think it only confuses people because I think the concept of what
you’re trying to attain has to occur anyway and the line itself confuses people.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Butler: Yes.
Nary: Thank you.
Norton: (Inaudible). I just have one comment. Could staff comment on the
Urban Service Planning Area, the boundary? How was it established and why is
it in the plan?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I don’t know that I can completely answer that. I
can tell you number one, we already have one. It has been in the 1993 plan. I
can’t speak before that it’s there.
Borup: An Urban Service Planning Map?
Hawkins-Clark: An Urban Service Planning Area is on the existing
Comprehensive Plan and future Land Use Map.
Borup: But it was the same (inaudible) as the impact area wasn’t it?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s primarily the same as the impact area right. There’s one
small area where it’s different.
Borup: That area in the southwest?
Hawkins-Clark: In the southwest, right.
Borup: I think Commissioner Norton is maybe asking, correct me if I’m wrong.
The rationale for having a different boundary than previously.
Hawkins-Clark: Right Steve can add in. I think mainly it came up with -- it was
largely driven by the sewer but it expanded beyond that when the Fire District
has had funding issues. The Parks Department has been criticized by some for
not having the appropriate ratio of parkland to population. When development
applications have continued to come before the City at what point -- I think in
some ways it was a failure for us because I think its been pointed out the
annexation application process does give us the ability but it doesn’t point out
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 50
where the city’s focus is. I think this was an attempt to designate that growing
from the inside out. How far out do we, and what is the City budget supporting.
It was an attempt to demarcate that on the map. Whereas the annexation
findings, even though they have many of the same requirements, it doesn’t say
that this is the area. Anybody can submit an annexation application as long as
they’re contiguous.
Borup: Any other additional comment Mr. Siddoway?
Siddoway: I would just say that the Urban Service Planning Area was drawn to
show some priority in those areas that are currently serviceable or in the case of
the white drain trunk area already have a set schedule within you know one to
two year time frame as being serviceable in the immediate future. While that line
is heavily reliant on sewer, the idea was is that we would allow those areas to
build out and then require the areas outside that line to show that the full gamut
of Urban Services is available so that parks for example would be brought up to
the same level on the playing field as sewer. So that they need to show that
water, sewer, fire, police, parks and the road systems, I may be forgetting some
others. That those types of Urban Services are available. The City is still
committed to developing out the entire impact area within the time frame, the 10-
year time frame that was talked about. Before they are developed we want it to
be shown that the Urban Services are available. The process may be the main
theme question in terms of how onerous it is to get in the you know if Urban
Services area available today and last month someone else amended the
boundary, I now have to wait 11 months to make my application to amend it.
That may be the onerous part of this. It was orderly growth, you know growing
from the inside out. Setting those areas that are currently serviceable and then
expanding out from there as services become available.
Borup: Can you maybe, I realize that its not the Public Works Department, but I
see three trunk lines that would need to be installed for the current boundaries or
more than that. I’m looking at the white trunk, the extension of the south slough
and then the one in the south area. Is that Ten Mile that would go into the
southern area is that correct?
Siddoway: Ten Mile is not needed to service the –
Borup: What is the one that services that boundary south of the freeway then or
is that already in place?
Siddoway: Oh, that is Ten Mile. Yes it is the Ten Mile drain.
Borup: That is the Ten Mile? So those three are the three new ones that would
need to be --
Siddoway: Well, the Ten Mile is there it’s just needing to be extended.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 51
Borup: That’s what I meant. So those three would I mean just as far as sewer
only, not the other services but those three would service the current boundary?
Siddoway: I don’t know specifically about the one in the south. I do know that
yes, the white drain and the south slough extension are the ones that are heavily
planned and far into the process.
Borup: Does the Black Cat effect that area too?
Siddoway: The Black Cat is outside of the Urban Service Planning Area.
Borup: Okay, so that doesn’t get to the area to the south? These small maps
are kind of hard to follow and read. All right thank you. Do we have anyone else
on the Service Planning Area? We’ll give you one chance.
Brown: Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland. Very quickly, I’d be kind of curious
why maybe instead of showing the Urban Service boundary on the map, maybe
do it as a text. A similar thing was done on the Boise Comprehensive Plan.
They put incentives to make the southeast part of Boise grow around where
Triangle Dairy and Lakewood and those places went in. They did put a priority
on the western expansion. When it’s a text type of a change, then you have the
ability to make those changes more quickly as things within your community
change. What you’re talking about is setting a boundary that becomes hard and
fast. How often can a map be changed? How often is the map changed?
You’re allowed to do it how often, Steve?
Siddoway: (Inaudible.)
Brown: But with a text change you’re allowed to change it I would think more
rapidly and speak to the priorities in a text type of way. We can speak about the
time frames that you have that assures the development community that you’re
going to meet those time frames. I mean we’ve been messing around with the
white trunk forever. How do we know that same thing isn’t going to happen with
the north trunk? If you mess around with the people that own the land, you know
they might not be willing to give you the easements that you need to be able to
provide service to those other people. I don’t mean that in a threatening way but
that’s what happens when you talk about your orderly growth but when things
are changing I would say on a rapid basis and your priorities change. We were
looking three years ago I think you would have been saying that you would be
working on the north slough at this time. You wouldn’t have anticipated spending
as long as you have on the white trunk. When you put that hard and fast line on
the map, I believe that limits you. I’d like to speak to Mr. Caven’s property real
quickly. It seems kind of interesting to me from a logistical standpoint. We just
talked about services and providing those services. Here you have, we’ll call it
the Mason Dixon line between Boise and Meridian. You go down Eagle Road,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 52
which is a major corridor. The City of Meridian wants to hold onto 40 acres on
the northeast corner when they have nothing else in that entire mile section. You
talk about police protection and providing police coverage for an area and fire
protection. I know that there are mutual aide agreements and those kind of
things but why does it make any sense from a standpoint of just services now
when Boise services are there. Boise services area all around there for the
police and fire protection and the City of Meridian isn’t and yet you want to keep
that little 40 acres. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense. Maybe you want to keep
the southwest part of that from then on because you go all the way to the quarter
mile of Cloverdale and you want to keep the other side. To keep that little 40
acres doesn’t make a lot of sense from a services standpoint. You know, you’re
going to have police responding to a, we’ll say a theft or even a car wreck. Well,
who do they send? They don’t know who to send because you’ve got services
on different sides of the road. Those are my comments.
Borup: Okay any questions for Mr. -- question on, I’m just interested in your
comment on having the text rather than a boundary map. Can you tell me, those
that have had a text type procedure, how were they modified and what method
was used to modify them?
Brown: The text spoke to like incentives. The City is saying that they don’t want
to grow in the north slough between there or in the north slough trunk line but yet
they’re trying to grow the mile south of there. Any time –
Borup: -- that would be stated in a text –
Brown: Right you’d put that in the text but what’s interesting is when the City
goes out and puts sewer in an area, they’re promoting growth in that area. What
happened in the southeast part of Boise is they put in their Comprehensive Plan
from a text standpoint that we’re going to be extending sewers and we’ll work
with developers to extend sewers in certain areas where developers are going to
have to do it all themselves in some place else. It is a low priority from a sewer
standpoint in those areas. It’s a higher priority in other points.
Borup: So, the text really doesn’t even need to be modified then. It just making
some priority statements.
Brown: It can state the priority statements but it is something that more quickly
from a text standpoint can be modified as things change within your
infrastructure. I mean, you put in a Fire Station in the Ustick area and you only --
lets say that you put a Fire Station in at Locust Grove and Ustick area. Their
coverage area is three miles or a mile and a half. All of a sudden then you would
have a higher priority after you have that Fire Station to cover the area to the
north of you but yet you’ve got a hard line and yet after that station goes in, you
could make a text modification on a quicker basis basically on an annual basis.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 53
Not an annual basis but on a periodical basis more quickly after something else
takes place.
Borup: When you say a Fire Station, do you mean the physical station or just
designate that as an area?
Brown: Lets say that that physical station goes in. Then something has
changed that quickens the growth that takes place in a certain area.
Borup: But a station’s not going to go in without a need. I think that’s a pretty
safe statement. Thank you that answers that. I assume there was no one else?
Excuse me, just a few minutes. Okay that brings us up a little bit how to handle
this last. The last section, last topic was on the future Land Use Map.
Theoretically, its possible to get everyone’s testimony on this tonight. To do so,
we would need to limit, strictly limit everyone’s comment to three minutes with no
questions. I don’t know if that’s productive to proceed in that method. Would the
other Commissioners agree with me? Does that audience agree with that too?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Yes, definitely. Well, actually, we feel at the next meeting we would also
allow new people to sign up too. We’re not limiting the next meeting strictly to
those that signed up tonight. As we stated our purpose is to gather information.
If we limit something on that basis I don’t think would be accomplishing what we
want to do.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman perhaps if anyone knows they are not available to
come that night, they could be allowed to testify tonight?
Borup: Yes we would move them up on the schedule. We would like to go
ahead and start testimony, unless Commissioners feel different. We do not have
a lot of time but we’d like to perhaps start the testimony on that. I think Mr.
Siddoway’s comment was real pertinent. Someone who would not be able to be
here on the 30th
, we would like to give them priority on this subject.
***End Of Side Four***
Borup: -- question comments on those things that are pertinent rather than limit
everybody to three minutes and move on. Lets go ahead and proceed with that
then. The two people – your name sir? There we go. Well, if that would be all
right we would like to start with those two individuals then I guess after that I’ll
just go down in the order that people signed up. We’ll go as far as we can and
continue next time. (Inaudible) start Mr. Bensinger.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 54
Bensinger: I would like to thank the Commission for this opportunity. The
business I work for is going to be moving in the month of August and I don’t
know what my schedule is.
Borup: Okay you need to start with your name.
Bensinger: My name is Ron Bensinger. I reside at 3250 Montview Drive.
Montview Subdivision is the property immediately north of St. Luke’s complex.
I’d like to state that as you exit the freeway and you begin driving north on Eagle
Road, what I’ve heard referred to as Eagle corridor. I think the map might be a
little deceiving when I see the green square that says public. There’s a big brick
complex there that’s -- my point is, as you drive north on Eagle, you see anything
but residential. I think that my residents is the only residents that borders Eagle
Road in the two miles between Overland and Fairview on the east side of Eagle
Road. I have ambulances go through that intersection a dozen times a day.
Borup: You mean Overland and Franklin?
Bensinger: I’m sorry. Well, between Overland and Fairview on Eagle. My
residents are the only one on the east side of Eagle Road that borders Eagle
Road. Not only do they have sirens, they’ve added louder air horns to get
people’s attention. Now we have the Fire Station down Franklin Road
dispatching emergency vehicles up Franklin Road towards us. I looked at what
was happening in that area. Quite honestly I bought my property hoping I could
pursue a small business venture some day. It’s not been a secret to my
neighbors that I hope some day that property would be zoned commercial. As
we’ve watched the development in the area, our property values as residential
property has declined continually. That’s been documented by our property
assessments. Our subdivision has unanimously in support of commercial
designation because that’s the only way we’re going to be able to salvage our
property values with what’s around us. I’m curious, why, if the board might be
able to give us some kind of a quick explanation why after we petitioned this
Commission that the designation has been switched back from commercial to
mixed use.
Borup: You’re saying all the testimony at the public workshops was for straight
commercial?
Bensinger: Yes we were switched to commercial. Now, we’ve been switched
back to multi-use.
Borup: I don’t know that we have an answer to that. That’s why we like your
input on this. Essentially, you’re saying you’d rather see full commercial?
Bensinger: Our neighborhood has –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 55
Borup: Mixed-use does not preclude all commercial. Maybe some of the
concern and I’d like to get a comment from staff but my personal –
Bensinger: If I could address that one point.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Bensinger: We have a lot of real complex issues with access in our
neighborhood and things. We need to be able to have somebody come in and
buy our subdivision for commercial development.
Borup: As a whole?
Bensinger: That can come in and develop access and the kinds of things that
they need.
Borup: My speculation would be why it says its mixed-use is because there is
some planned residential area to your east.
Bensinger: That’s a commercial residential though.
Borup: Commercial residential?
Bensinger: Well, it’s an assisted care facility.
Borup: No, I mean directly to the east of Montview. I believe that area was just
designated as apartments wasn’t it?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: The office building was there and not the apartments? Okay did the staff
have a comment on the rationale on the mixed use rather than all commercial?
Siddoway: Partly for flexibility. It allows for a mix of uses. Also because of the,
and I cant remember specifically, Touchmark’s site plan which is the property
you’re about just east of them, whether there was residential or commercial
office. I know the commercial office was up against that side.
Bensinger: They’re actually planning retail space in that (inaudible).
Borup: Adjoining Montview?
Bensinger: In the Touchmark Development.
Borup: Yes in the whole development. I guess I was referring to the area
bordering your subdivision.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 56
Siddoway: Mixed use was chosen because it allows for commercial and
because of its flexibility and its ability to transition between uses.
Borup: It sounds like staff is saying –
Siddoway: We’re not opposed to commercial uses.
Borup: Commercial use would still be there. Also looking at Doctor’s Offices you
know things that normally develop close to a hospital.
Bensinger: If you look at the commercial that’s around this. Our property values
are at stake here and I beg you to consider that because its worth a lot more to
us as commercial than it is as –
Borup: What use in the commercial do you foresee that would be precluded in
the mixed-use?
Bensinger: I have to plead ignorance on that. I know that I’ve talked to some of
the most highly regarded commercial realtors and they told me –
Borup: Maybe you need to get a handle on what can go in mixed-use first. It
sounds like – not really have the information that you might need. I’d maybe talk
to them about that and see what can be allowed in there and whether that really
is a difference.
Bensinger: I’ll try and make sure that my neighbors have that information
available for your next meeting.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Cook.
Cook: Good evening. My name is Richard Cook. I’m with Briggs Engineering
1800 West Overland Road Boise. I’m here tonight representing one of our
clients. Before I get started I’d like to give you another a copy of the letter I
believe you’ve already received, that’s June 26th
. I’ve got an additional map on
here that details a gas pipeline that runs through the property that I don’t think
you have in your packet.
Borup: Well, he does but he’s not down here right now (inaudible). So this is
the same letter we’ve received with addition of –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 57
Cook: The parcel in question is approximately 25-acre parcel that lies on the
northwest corner of Amity and Meridian, Kuna Road and State Highway 69. It is
currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as mixed-use or
mixed plan use and public Quasi, public open space. It is being proposed by
staff to designate this parcel as a medium density residential land use. With the
widening of State Highway 69 to 5 lanes and the signalization of that intersection
with Amity Road, this property is not really going to be suitable for a medium
density residential use only. As the area grows, this particular road is going to
become a very important high capacity transportation corridor form south to
north. The increase in traffic and associated noise and what have you that goes
with it is not the only consideration that we have in wanting to see this land use
designation changed to a mixed-use. We feel that a mixed-use land use
designation would give us the flexibility that would allow development of this
particular parcel in a very responsible manner. There is also an underground
gas pipeline that dissects the property diagonally form the northwest corner to
the southeast. There are two underground 36-inch natural gas pipelines there
even though the map says Northwest Pipeline Company, it is I believe William’s
Pipeline now. The Intermountain Gas Company has a facility there that borders
on Meridian Road. It’s a small facility but it’s an above ground facility and it’s --
thank you. It’s an area that has a constant emission of gas odors. These kind of
odors would be very unpleasant for the constant consumption by people who
might live on there. We’d like to develop the entire parcel as a mixed-use
development that would include office and multi family residential uses.
Intersecting arterial streets and high capacity transportation corridors are ideally
suited for establishing higher intensity uses.
Borup: Mr. Cook, your time is up. Would Mr. Warner like to give his time to you
right now? I guess not. I just wondered if you’d like him to take your time at this
time. Would that help? Okay.
Cook: Thank you. As outlined in the staff report, they speak about mixed use
with the Comprehensive Plan amendment on Page 9 Attachment B. They
outline some of the things that would be appropriate as far as standards and
guidelines are concerned. They state too that the purpose of this designation is
to identify key areas which are either in fill in nature or situated in highly visible or
transitioning areas of the city for innovative and flexible design opportunities are
encouraged. While this area is well outside the city limits, it’s also outside of the
Urban Service Planning Area at this time. You know, it is within the area of
impact. We feel that the medium density designation on this would be a very
restrictive land use designation that is simply not viable. I can’t really see the
sense in giving that designation to something that we already know probably will
not work. That’s all I have. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 58
Nary: Mr. Cook, so that I understand what your concern is in reading your letter,
what you were saying is that the property had previously been designated as
something else and I think the (inaudible) mixed plan use, public quasi, public
open space. Is that what it currently was in the current Comprehensive Plan?
Cook: Correct.
Nary: So, your concern is that this change, you’re developing the property with
that designation in mind so this is a significant change to then change it over to
residential development.
Cook: Commissioner Nary, that’s true. When the previous plan was amended,
the land use map was amended giving it the current land use designation that it
has, two acres of the site was restricted to commercial type development and the
remaining portion of the site was designated to be parks. The Idaho Baseball
Academy was going to go in there. That was the whole idea. That has since
gone away. We feel that the change from that to medium density residential is
simply not viable.
Nary: Is it correct that the Meridian Kuna Highway, this area will eventually be
like a 5-lane roadway type?
Cook: That’s correct.
Nary: Similar to Eagle Road?
Cook: Similar to Eagle Road, yes.
Nary: It seems like we’ve already heard from somebody else that having a
residence right next to Eagle Road isn’t a real viable way to go.
Cook: The other thing too they talked about in your plan about where feasible
multi family residential would be encouraged especially for projects with the
potential to serve as employment destination centers. When the project is
adjacent to State Highway 20/26, 55 or 69 if you look at your Land Use Map,
there is not a single area designated for mixed-use along Highway 69 nowhere.
I think this is a piece of ground that would really work well with that kind of land-
use designation.
Nary: Mr. Cook, let me ask you something on the other side of that. One of the
criticisms that we as a Commission hear a lot of the time is we don’t want
another Fairview. Don’t turn it into another Eagle Road. It ends up being
commercial industrial all the way up and down the street. Here’s an attempt to
try to do that. To try to prevent another Eagle Road and another Fairview. Yet, I
think what you’re saying, I agree with and I understand it but it also is the same
criticism that everybody has. It’s just another commercial development along this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 59
main roadway. The same thing we see all the time. If that develops then right
next to it, no one wants to live there so lets put another commercial in there. We
do that all the way down Meridian Kuna Highway until we get to the houses that
are already there. Again, to me it’s that chicken and egg. This thing is suppose
to be the egg that’s suppose to be there so people have some idea ahead of
time that’s what we’re trying to do is to get away from that routine same old thing.
What you’re asking kind of sounds like the same old thing.
Cook: That’s I guess kind of a yes and no. We feel that the mixed plan use,
which would require a Conditional Use Permit gives the City a lot of control on
what is eventually developed on the site. It also calls for a minimum of two
different uses on a site that is over five acres. This is a 24.9-acre site. It’s not
something where the entire site would be taken up with commercial use or strip
commercial. That’s something that our client does not want to see. I agree. I
don’t want to see Meridian Road turned into another Overland or Fairview or
whatever where you have strip commercial from one end of the City to the other.
I think there’s still enough control in the hands of the City that can prevent that
kind of development. You can put in some service commercial along with office
and higher density residential uses on this site with open space around the
pipeline area.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: I think that answered a lot of my questions. I had kind of the same
feeling and concerns of Commissioner Nary of not wanting to duplicate some of
the things. I guess I also feel comfortable that the mixed-use can control that.
It’s a big difference form that to a straight commercial designation. I appreciate
your input. I think your comment was you’d like to see it mixed-use which was
closer to what was approved a while back on the baseball academy. Not exactly
but a little bit closer. T hat’s what you’re saying?
Cook: Right.
Borup: At this point you’d like to see it mixed-use is the simple answer?
Cook: Yes thank you.
Borup: Thank you we do have time for a few others. Mike Wardle is first on the
list.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner members Mike Wardle 50 Broadway
Avenue in Boise. Jonathon is handing out prepared comments. I’m not going to
go through in great detail but most of what I prepared really deals with the Land
Use Map designation. My first and perhaps the most belabored point relates to
the intersection, excuse me, the area in section 15 at the future Ten Mile
interchange -- Interesting land use pattern in that you have commercial
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 60
immediately north on the west side of Ten Mile. You’ve got mixed-use all the way
up and around the intersections. High density just to the north and then you’ve
got industrial north and south. You’ve got kind of the same situation that Mr.
Cook just talked about. The reality, this is an entryway corridor. It’s also a future
connection to Highway 16. Having that type of residential density with literally
totally surrounded by industrial, commercial and mixed-use is really an impact on
that property. I've given you some rationale and some comparisons between the
Meridian interchange uses and those at Eagle Road and have made a specific
suggestion with the graphic that is attached as the 4th
page. I won’t go into
greater detail on that particular issue. I find the land use patterns proposed in
the north area quite interesting. You’ve got very low density along Chinden
Boulevard. You’ve got low density. You’ve got a mixture of medium density.
Essentially it becomes a reward and punishment kind of land use pattern. I
honestly cannot figure out a rationale for having those types of uses, particularly
where you’re going to have sewer and other services extended your low and
very low-density areas to serve some of the medium density. It becomes quite a
differential in terms of cost to those. I think there's a real question about the land
use patterns to the north. I had some comments and there is a brief one about
the neighborhood centers but there are two other elements that relate to that
area that are of concern to me that I also spoke to briefly. One is that there is a
designation on this corner for a tech park. I don’t know that a specific location
ought to be identified but there’s also another significant omission in that entire
northerly section and that’s there is no major shopping component proposed and
there’s no land use including even the mixed density configuration that would
allow such to be assembled under this plan. So, you’ve got virtually all of your
major shopping center facilities at the center core and to the south but nothing to
the north. I want to just conclude by indicated that I have been retained by the
development community to commence and to organize the planning program for
that entire quadrant. This is the activity that has been essentially approved by
the Meridian City political leaders, by the Ada County Commission and by the
Ada County Highway District. One thing that hit me this evening as I was sitting
and I've done a great deal of travel. I've got an extensive library on the new
urbanism concept. I've been to Mr. Duwany’s projects throughout the Country.
I've attended sessions where Mr. Duwany, Calthorpe, Cats and others have
expounded on their concepts. I came to a conclusion this evening that I had not
conceived before. That is there is no physical way that you can take a standard
land use plan like this and accomplish the objective that even staff has pointed
out on this neighborhood center concept. I mean, what they’ve really shown you
is something much broader than just a little core here. It basically fits into that
section. You can’t do that under this plan. If the City wants to break the mold
and go into a concept that really creates opportunities for new urbanism
implementation you need to forget this plan and you need to apply mixed-use
designations on virtually all of those areas. Now, you can set up different
densities based on peripheral, working toward the center but by putting these
types of designations for a neighborhood center here and there and so forth and
then the mixture of the patchwork quilt of low and very low and medium density.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 61
You will have basically a repetition of what you have seen to date throughout the
balance of Meridian’s development in the future. If you want to break that mold,
if you want to encourage the new urbanism concepts to come forward, put a
mixed-use zone, or designation on those areas and let the market come back.
They won’t put commercial on every corner. There won’t be commercial in every
section necessarily but the market will determine where the service areas can
support. Will start then to get rid of these developments that we've seen just kind
of spread out from the communities. I think that’s the solution to the challenges
that you’ve heard this evening. Put a mixed-use designation on and then
develop a performance standard type of Zoning Ordinance that encourages the
mixed-use incorporation of services into community. It will factor in the parks and
other elements. This is a great opportunity and if you’re going through the
process right now, you really need to think about that before you adopt
something that I believe has a great deal of limitation to it. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate you letting me get on my soapbox there for a moment. I will conclude
and answer your questions.
Borup: I guess I was giving you the time for others that you were representing
though. Any questions for Mr. Wardle. Do you have any type of time frame on
your concept plan for that northern area?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman we are just basically, it was a week ago tomorrow that we
met and I was tasked with that responsibility. This week, we have contacted all
of the political leaders and elected officials and asked them to provide all of the
background information and their official designees for setting up the stakeholder
lists. One of the things that we’re doing is we’re taking the Treasure Valley’s
Futures concept that’s tool number four from that document that talks about and
its referred to in your draft plan. That’s the specific area plan. Were going to use
that concept as the means to do this. Its something simply by the very nature of
having to get buy in not only the development community but also the Ada
County Highway District, the City, the parks, all of the elements in terms of
infrastructure. Its not going to happen quickly but we expect to set up a schedule
and start through this process with a reasonably expeditious time frame, do not
have it tonight but we are in the process of moving aggressively forward to get
that organized.
Borup: I guess what I was wondering, would there be any type of preliminary
information by the August 30th
meeting? Is that a little too optimistic?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, there will be some information. We expect to have all of
the functional agency requirements identified by then. I think the process though
to get conclusion, it definitely needs to be factored into your Comprehensive
Plan. August 30th
, nothing moves that quickly –
Borup: Well, I understand that that’s why I asked. I assume any new
information, you’ll be prepared to present?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 62
Wardle: Absolutely, anything we have at that point will be factored in. I would
sure encourage a skull session. I know staff is interested because they’ve come
up with some of the concepts in this latest version that really speak to a new
urbanism concepts but I think the only way to do that is to get rid of the
patchwork quilt and to go to a mixed-use and allow people the innovative
opportunity to put those projects together and not just a piece by piece. You’ll
see elements coming together in larger areas because of the interest of some to
do services and others to do more unique types of housing great opportunity that
I think you have at this point in time. Thank you very much.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Wardle, is this the same group of developers that you’re talking
about that Brian McCall talked about earlier? Are you all working together?
Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner that is correct. This is the same
group, the same area that has been identified most recently by the City Council
and the County Commission and the Ada County Highway District as being you
know kind of the Shaw factor of the potential for what could happen out there
quite quickly.
Norton: Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else?
Wardle: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Wardle. Our time is up this evening. A good point to end.
I’d like to again emphasize or reiterate our meeting is the same time -- maybe a
question for Mr. Berg. Are we okay at this location for November 30th
? Does
that need to be verified? August 30th
?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: That’s what I –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Okay if it is any different that’ll be stated in the public notice in the paper.
We would hope that we can get a little more information in other parts of the
paper too. Yes, we did discuss that during the break. Next time, we’ll start with
again continue with the future Land Use Map. We’ll go down in the order that
people signed up here tonight. There will be a new sign up sheet out also for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 63
anyone new, others that are here and not signed up. We’ll have that opportunity.
We felt that there was enough comments on the neighborhood centers that we
thought we’d also like to hit that area again. If there’s enough time we also
would go back through any of the other topics that we covered. That would be at
the end of the session. We would start with the land use planning map.
Anything else, Commissioners that we needed to add?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Pardon.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Oh, yes written comments, we definitely encourage anyone that would
like to do that. Sometimes it’s difficult to get everything in that you want to say in
that period. As you noticed, several others have come up and have also
submitted a written comments. Do we have some written comments form
tonight? Okay those are definitely invited to get them in. That’s what I was
wondering with the group that was here tonight and assuming that some of those
that are already commented would not be here because they’ve got their
comments into City Hall. (Inaudible)
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: I like this I like this room. I think it’s a good room for what we’re needing
to do. If we can still get it, even though, the concern was it’s close to school
time. If we can get it that’s where it will be.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Here Okay it looks like they’re doing -- we’ll find out on that. We thank
everyone for being here. We appreciate your comments and we hope you’ll be
back at our next hearing. With that, we’d like to close this Public Hearing for this
evening. It would be continued to August 30th
. Thank you.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 28, 2001
Page 64
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK