2001 11-01 SpecialMeridian City Planning and Zoning Commission November 1, 2001
Comprehensive Plan Hearing
The special meeting of the Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Thursday November 1, 2001 by Chairman Keith
Borup.
Members Present: Keith Bird, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, and Jerry Centers.
Members Absent: Keven Shreeve.
Others Present: Larry Moore, Steve Siddoway, and Will Berg.
Item 3. Continued from October 18, 2001 Special Meeting – Proposed
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of
Meridian:
Borup: We would like to begin our meeting this evening. This is --. Yes. Do you
want me to read the notice? This is a special meeting on the Meridian
comprehensive plan. The clerk wants me to read the notice. This is just a notice
for special meeting Thursday November 1st
, discussing recommendation,
proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan of the City of Meridian. This is
the third discussion meeting that we’ve had on the comprehensive plan. We have
closed the public testimony portion. Maybe, mention those in attendance,
Commissioner Borup, Commissioner Norton, Commissioner Nary, and
Commissioner Centers. Commissioner Shreeve called and said he would not be
able to attend this evening.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I just wanted to welcome the high school students that are here tonight.
Borup: Thank you.
Norton: I noticed that you cant see very well because we have all these things in
front of us, but we’re discussing the comp plan all night tonight. We usually don’t
eat, but coming from our other jobs we hardly have any time. City of Meridian is
providing sandwiches.
Borup: Okay, our first 2 discussions we talked about the urban service planning
area. Last time, most of it was on the neighborhood centers. Commissioners we
could either start where we left off there, unless we want to --. Do we want to do
that, get back on the neighborhood center? I’m seeing some yes. Commissioner
Centers, I might let you take the lead on that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 2
Centers: Where did we leave off on, though?
Borup: Well, as we left it was decided that a group would get together and write
and come up with some proposed language --.
Centers: We left something else hanging and it was the --. Help me here?
Borup: Beside the neighborhood centers?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Well, we haven’t done the map yet, was the other big issue. Then any
other language changed that we feel we need to make on the draft copy of the
plan. Was there something else that someone else remembers?
Centers: Well, we’ll get to it.
Norton: Oh, the boundary.
Borup: Are you talking about the north planning area, maybe? Is that what you --
?
Centers: It will come to me in a minute.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think where we ended up was that certain
developers and the BCA and the Ada County Association of Realtors
volunteered to assist us and write some comments and their feelings about the
neighborhood centers. I contacted them earlier and then much to my surprise
and I was pleased that they had already started that. They finalized it, I believe
yesterday. I received a fax and then of course the City got theirs. We have it
distributed here. Their letter, or memo to us and its from Larry Durkin, John
Eaton and Mark Estes. I was thinking that others were included, Stanfield and –
Borup: That was it.
Centers: Did they have input? Didn’t get in on the conference call? Okay. I
conveyed and I guess for public record I’ll tell you that I conveyed that it was the
Commission’s feelings, as Commissioner Nary put it in the minutes, how did you
put it Commissioner Nary? That regarding neighborhood centers, where --. Lets
say per say the developer could pick the location. I conveyed that to this
committee that as a Commission and correct me if I’m wrong, you know I want to
stand to be corrected that we really felt they should not be dictated on the map
and that some kind of incentive should be provided. That ties in with some notes
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 3
I made, thinking a lot about the comp plan, step in any of you if you disagree,
including staff. I look at it as a road map, or a goal for the City of Meridian. Would
we all agree with that?
Norton: Yes.
Nary: Yes.
Centers: When you have a goal, you must have objectives and a plan to meet
that goal. Would you all agree with that?
Norton: Yes.
Centers: I don’t see any objectives and a plan to meet that goal in the comp plan.
I really don’t. Now the memo from the committee that we’re talking about is a
start because it provides a plan and objectives. Objectives being incentives
offered if you develop a neighborhood center. But you can’t push a goal on
someone without having a plan to get to that goal. I guess most of you know me.
Otherwise most of what I see is an attempt to stall the growth and make life
difficult for the developer. The one thing that’s kind of off the track as far as
neighborhood centers, but the one year requirement to change any part of the
comp plan, I just cant see that. Its telling the developer if you want to change any
part of the comp plan, if you want a certain zone for that, for your use, its going
to take over a year to get that changed.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, may I?
Borup: Yes.
Siddoway: Commissioner Centers. You offered that staff could jump in, if we
disagreed didn’t you?
Centers: Yes. Please do.
Siddoway: I disagree. The one-year was part of the urban services planning
area. Changing the comp plan can be every 6 months by state law.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: It can be done no more often than that by state law. We have no way
to allow it more frequently.
Centers: So, by us eliminating the urban service planning area line that
eliminated the one-year?
Siddoway: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 4
Centers: Okay. If the Council adopts that.
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Right. I guess 6 months is a lot better than one year but I still think 6
months is too long.
Borup: That’s what it’s been all along.
Centers: I guess that’s state law and we can’t do anything about it? Okay.
Anyway, I’m on record, of record I think 6 months is ridiculous. Fine.
Siddoway: I would also point out that there are objectives to get to the goal if
you’re talking about the goal as neighborhood centers.
Centers: I want to hear them.
Siddoway: Well, we have action items for specific area plans that would target
these areas and focus on one in the north and one in the south for some in-depth
specific area planning. The goal of that would be to come up with a detailed plan
that if a developer then followed would be able to give them –
Centers: Do they offer incentive? When you say action items, I can remember
reading part of those. Do they offer incentives? Or how you’re going to get the
developer? I mean, lets face it, the comp plan, or the zoning and what have you
is all development related.
Siddoway: There are some incentives mentioned. But, it certainly could be
beefed up. I have no problem with providing incentives for doing these.
Centers: Okay. You know, to continue on, when a developer decides he wants to
develop a piece of land and he knows he’s going to have to get a zone change
or get a CUP, he options it or he signs a sales agreement subject to obtaining
proper zoning or a CUP to fit his needs. That was along my lines of where I think
6 months is still way too long. Because most owners of land won’t wait forever on
an option agreement or take their property off the market with a subject to.
Borup: In defense of the 6 months, that’s something that’s known in advance. Its
not something that’s –
Centers: That’s true.
Borup: So, they’re not going into it blind. If it’s a project that needs to have a
zoning change, not necessarily but you know it maybe of large enough size that
it’s going to take a long time in the planning stage anyway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 5
Centers: Then we’ll get into other issues on it, numerous, the Mont View sub and
those types of areas.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: But development and growth stimulate our economy and without it we
dry up. Having a, and I call it, I’m sorry but having a daisy Ville on paper doesn’t
stimulate our economy. Don’t get me wrong, developments, proposed
developments need to be reviewed and looked at and the various matters that
may be detriment to our community and specific neighborhood. Bottom line,
growth will continue to provide jobs. That’s for everyone. I moved to the valley in
81, but I don’t know the number of staff members with the City of Meridian or the
City of Boise for that matter in the planning and in the Public Works but I would
suspect there were considerably fewer. I guess you know where I’m coming
from. Chairman Borup, I guess I want to take your lead, do we want to --. Has
everyone read the memorandum?
Norton: Which one? We have 2.
Centers: With the Ada County Association of Realtors letterhead.
Norton: Yes.
Centers: Then of course, the planning department’s response, has everyone
read that? Then, I’ll turn it back to the Chairman.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess to be fair, there are some issues it appears that are diametrically
opposed between the 2 memorandums. I think maybe it would be reasonable at
least, since we asked for the memo, although we have read it, to at least allow
both the planning staff and at least one of the people from the other group or all
3, I don’t care, to give us. I mean, just shore it. I mean, lets not spend an hour
just killing us with this report. But, at least giving us a little bit about where they’re
coming from in both of these. There are some differences.
Centers: I agree.
Nary: Maybe we could hear a little bit from both sides.
Borup: I think that would be a good way to --.
Centers: Good idea.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 6
Borup: Do we have someone from the group of 3 that would want to represent?
Durkin: I can do that.
Borup: Okay. Do you have a name for your committee?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Durkin: I’m Larry Durkin and I guess we had 2 meetings. We met over at a
restaurant. Then came back to your meeting, but your agenda was full and we
had a several hour conference call with all the parties. Jerry, I can’t remember
the name you just said, Stanfield?
Centers: Yes, Scott.
Durkin: I did leave a message with him with a number so that he could have
called and got –
Centers: Earl and Associates, correct?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: Right.
Borup: That’s fine.
Durkin: He just didn’t get in on the conference call. You know, I think to say I’m
representing the 3 of us here would be --. I don’t think that we all agreed 100
percent on every issue. The 3 of us spent a lot of time with Steve Siddoway and I
think, maybe Brad. Was Brad in on it, also? It was at least a 2 and a half hour
call. I think everyone was straight with each other. They laid every issue on the
table. There’s just absolutely some differences between the development group,
if you will and the staff. I have asked the people I work with John and Mark to
please make compromises in an effort to come closer to the middle. I’ve also
talked to staff and said, you know I really, the concept is not a bad concept. The
way its being implemented could probably be better. We’ll probably all get
smarter over the next few years. Lets come up with someway to have a
compromise. I guess. This represents the best of the ability for the 3 of us to get
together and make a compromise. I definitely think that things could have been
done differently. I don’t how to present our side. I really don’t like the whole side
issue. It was sincerely an effort to work together as we have throughout the
whole process from day one.
Borup: I think that’s what we asked for at the last meeting, a way to get some
input and something down on paper that we could examine.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 7
Durkin: If I could just comment on a couple of points on staff’s memo real quickly.
The concern I had and I expressed to you before, and we shared, the 3 of us
together. The Commissioners have said on the record that there’s a group of
people gathering regularly developing a plan for north Meridian. Staff has told us
that. I know from talking to the Mayor and a couple of the Council people that
that’s going on. I know from talking to Ada County Highway District that that
committee is going forward. I have nothing to do with that committee. I don’t
have any interest in that area other than my desire to see Meridian grow wisely.
But, I know, I’m told by a lot of people that there is a north Meridian plan that’s
going to come on line. I’ve heard dates of 6 to 8 months and that’s probably
reasonable that that would occur. One of my recommendations, strong
recommendations is to take a new idea and put it in the north Meridian area.
Then come in with a plan that you’re going to start all over and go quickly on and
possibly remove these neighborhood centers again from that area. It would be
wiser not to put them in, in the first place. If we’re all generally agreed that
whatever you come up with now for the north end area is going to be changed in
6 months or 8 months, we really felt that it would be better everything north of
Ustick to just leave it the way it is right now. Otherwise you’re going to have a
change and then a change again. That was a strong recommendation. That
would have required removing a significant number of these from the map. We
discussed at length some of the other neighborhood centers that are far out to
the south that you know, everyone’s been surprised at the growth rate in
Meridian but I think its fair to assume to that those are over 8 years away. Maybe
8 or 9 years away from development. This is the second or third time we’ve been
through this process in the last 10 years in the City. Its fair to assume that over
the next 10 years, in fact I think the statute requires updating and modifications
anyway that we’ll be going through this process again. It was another
recommendation that we not have them in that area. Then we talked at length
about the whole idea of maybe designating them in an area on the map but
having it be the mixed use. We really felt that that was viable. As a developer, I’m
the commercial guy. I’m the guy that builds shopping centers. I’ve testified before
you a number of times. I think that that is a viable concept. When you say well,
gee are 15 of them viable? Well, 15 of them aren’t going to get built today and in
the area that we’re talking about, that’s 15 years of development. If you were to
say lets back up, 15 years ago was the corner of Fairview and Eagle going to be
a half a million square foot shopping center? You would have probably thought
that I was nuts to propose that.
Borup: No. I wouldn’t have because it –
Durkin: Many people would.
Borup: It was designated by the City Council the regional shopping mall.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 8
Durkin: I think that if you look at it and say, gee there’s going to be a lot of
changes, we were trying to think ahead and look back and really tried our best to
come up with a compromise. I guess that’s the extent of --.
Borup: Okay.
Durkin: I’ll happily answer any questions you may have.
Borup: That’s what I was going to say. Any questions or discussion from the
Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Durkin, I don’t disagree with what you said. What do you think about on
the west end of the impact area? Since you talked about the north and the south
and this sort of is a big c.
Durkin: My thinking, just from a land and studying Meridian pretty hard over the
last 10 years and doing a lot of stuff here. I suspect that west area will grow
much more rapidly than the area far to the south. With the new campus going in
out in Canyon County, the Idaho Center and some other things, I suspect that
you’ll see that happen quite a bit sooner than we would all even be able to
forecast right now. I would predict that you’ll see things happen faster there. So, I
think that they would be possibly on the whole map, those might be the first
areas where the whole neighborhood center issue will come to play.
Nary: How do you think it will play or impact would be if we, I guess, part of my
concept that I’ve touted a little bit at these meetings is that I don’t dislike the idea.
I think it can be a very workable idea but to me we need to do a couple of, we
need to do it either in a couple of different ways. One is proposed in the memo
from Steve from November 1st
. It talks about this floating dot idea. It sounds a
little similar to what I talked about in having some sort of overlay. Some
alternative type of zones. That way you have a zone that’s on the map, clearly
defined. You also have some other zone that’s defined as well but it’s allowed in
a variety of different zones. That way you have the ability of a variety of places to
build this if you want to build that. But, if you don’t you have the opportunity to do
something differently. I guess I’m totally throwing that out but saying that’s at
least one way to do this. Another way that we’ve talked about as a Commission
is having basically a smaller designated area. I guess my concern has always
been that the areas that are designated for neighborhood centers doesn’t allow
really any other type of development of any commercial development at all
except for neighborhood centers and in a fairly sweeping area of the area of
impact. Virtually, I don’t know percentage wise, but a huge percentage of what's
left out there only leaves this type of development as a potential. My thought was
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 9
another alternative with a smaller area, a target area and say here’s an area
we’d really like to try this and we’re going to allow it in a small part of the area of
impact. That way, again providing that same incentive and that’s what we would
like to see but recognizing we’re not going to get this built out in 10 years in all of
these areas. What do you think of that? I mean, having something like that, is
that just going to be too stifling or if we can pick a small enough area that we can
at least try to see that provide some opportunity to get that built. Obviously if
we’re going to do that we want to still have the ability to do this somewhere else.
My thought was the west end exactly like you’re saying. It’s probably going to
develop quicker. It’s probably going to happen but I certainly don’t want to
discourage someone if they want to build it somewhere else to not allow that. I
think that’s fine. Anyway, what are your thoughts about that?
Durkin: Bill, I’ll answer it in 4 different points. I think Keith’s probably heard this
line before and it’s a true statement. My mother is an attorney, my father’s an
attorney, 6 of my brothers and sisters are attorneys and 3 of my siblings are
married to attorneys. I’m one of the lucky ones. I think you’re an attorney and I
know you are. If you start the floating dots, overlays and maps in the plural form -
-. My job as a developer is to develop projects wisely. I think we do a pretty good
job. One of the things we do is we look really carefully at the comp plans in
different municipalities where we develop. If we are in disagreement with them,
the first thing that I look at is, is it valid? Does it meet the test and the statutes? I
personally, I’m not an attorney; I’ve just been around this business for a long
time. I don’t believe that the floating issue is going to meet the test. I don’t
believe that an overlay is going to meet the test. I’m concerned with having
multiple maps, although I did read that statute after I commented to you and the
statute does say maps. I think that there’s a land use map required and the plural
in the maps are for other issues. I think, I don’t know if you’re --. That would be a
good question to ask Larry Moore. I think that that floating issue is a dodge that’s
not going to work. That’s my own non-lawyer opinion. I don’t like more than one
maps or overlays. I do like the specific area issue but I think one thing that Jerry
was talking about briefly. Staff’s mentioned. We’ve kind of talked about it. As a
developer, I can’t stress to you how important the time incentive is to a
developer. You know, we talked with Steve and I said Steve, if I walked in on
cutoff date for November and filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit
and everything was great. It was a sunny day, the wind at my back and the
neighbors were happy and everyone was thrilled, when would that be on the
agenda? I think we were looking at the end of February, is that about right?
Siddoway: The first of February.
Durkin: The first of February? First or end?
Siddoway: The first Thursday.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 10
Durkin: The first Thursday, okay. The first Thursday in February. So, its
November first, I bring it in. Everything’s completely filled out perfect, no problem.
I set it down and I come back here in February. You take a look at it, your
agenda’s full. Its 11:30 at night, everyone’s tired. You go we’re going to defer
this. I mean this in no way or shape or form as criticism to you. It just happens
here. It happens in Eagle. It happens in Boise. It happens everywhere. We’re
going to defer this until another time because it’s late and we’re tired and we
don’t want to make an important decision like this right now, good-bye. So, it can
be delayed. You make the decision or you hear the testimony. There might be
more information to get and its another 2 weeks, 3 weeks. After that’s all
finished, then it goes to Council. So, lets just say we’re out of here by March 15th
,
the end of March with a full complete application submitted properly. Then we go
to Council a month later, right? We go to Council a month later if we’re lucky and
hopefully we don’t get the same thing with the full agenda or we have a quorum
and we have the issues that every City has. This is no criticism to Meridian, but
its fair to assume you’re going to have a 30-day delay there. So, now we’re in
May. We walk out of there with Council approval. Now we begin the process of
doing the design and starting to run the plans through. If you could, in your plan
and in your ordinance, put a specific incentive on a neighborhood center saying if
I walk in and hand a full application to Steve, its going to be on the next available
Planning and Zoning Commission. There’s nothing, I’m aware of in the statutes
or ordinance that would prohibit you from doing this. You do your legal notice; it’s
going to be on the next hearing. Unless its appealed to Council, P&Z has the
final say. That will cut off,--. If we did that now, we would be at the December
meeting possibly. Maybe January but --. Maybe December but for certain
January. We’re number one on the agenda and we’re special. Remember that
comment, is anyone getting special treatment? You bet you bring a
neighborhood center project to the City of Meridian, its step right up. You’re
number one. If that message is in the document and that message is in the
development community, I’m confident that you’ll have a tremendous amount of
excitement and interest. Because if we, again the full and complete application is
turned in, you walk out of there in February, hopefully with your approval. Then
you go through the process. In the example that I just gave you, you would be in
spring and summer construction and life would be good. The way it is right now,
you would be in next winter before you would be under any kind of construction.
So, it’s an enormous incentive to a developer to put that in there.
Centers: Let me ask you Mr. Durkin, do you agree with the half-mile in between
the section lines?
Durkin: Jerry, I just don’t think that’s as big of a deal as other people have
testified. I personally think 2 things. I don’t disagree with it. I just don’t think it
matters that much. It will work that way in my opinion. It has worked that way in
other areas. Kind of keep in mind, if the whole area was built out, a developer
would do anything to get a project in, in the half mile if they could. I just don’t
think it’s as bad an idea --. We just built the family center at Federal Way. It’s not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 11
on a mile marker. Its kind of a mid section area. The Wal-mart isn’t on the mile,
it’s on the half mile. They didn’t complain a bit. I don’t think this is as big of a deal
from a developer’s standpoint or from a tenant, the ultimate user’s standpoint,
the people that (inaudible).
Centers: I agree with the timing, the time frame. A lot of money lost.
Borup: Those are items that you had mentioned on the second page of the letter.
I guess, some input from somebody, maybe the legal department. How much of
this can be handled as ordinance and how much would need to be policy?
Maybe suggest, what’s the best way that you see as incorporating those
incentives?
Durkin: As you said when you started your meeting, the comprehensive plan and
recent Supreme Court cases have ruled this over and over again; it’s a guide to
the City. The process needs to move forward. I think that you put that language
in the text and (inaudible).
Borup: The same 3 things you mentioned, well 2 of them you had mentioned.
Durkin: If you put them in the text of the agreement and if you get to the --. You’re
going to have to have a new ordinance. You’re going to have to have several
new ordinances anyway as it relates to this comp plan. Make that the – that’s the
first one on your list. I know it’s a big deal to staff. I know it’s a big deal to a
number of people in the community. I think it has the potential to delay this whole
process for a year; the whole comprehensive plan process or you can push it
forward into an ordinance and clear it up. I would put it in the text. I would
support the idea of labeling the areas that you prefer mixed use with an incentive
for neighborhood commercial. I’m certain with the adequate incentives; they’ll go
forward quickly. But the text of the document as a guide and then following it with
an ordinance. Would that work legally, Larry?
Moore: It would work legally, but obviously you’re going to have to have those
ordinances going through City Council and they’re going to have to approve
everything to get that to happen.
Borup: In the incentives section, I was just, one that it not be reviewed by City
Council unless appealed and the other was as Mr. Durkin mentioned that it could
be at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. The third item that was
mentioned was requiring Public Works department to expedite the construction
drawing review, which to me would be the hardest of the 3 probably. I don’t know.
Durkin: I don’t think a requirement but I think, --
Centers: Encouragement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 12
Durkin: -- encouragement would be a better word.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Something a little more specific could be done there. I mean, same thing,
you move it to the top of the pile.
Durkin: I remember submitting for a large, a permit for the City of Boise and I
went into the building department and said, you know I haven’t heard from you
guys in a month. What’s going on? When you say pile, there was a pile this big
of rolled up plans. He goes, you’re in there somewhere and when you’re at the
top, we’ll call you. See you later. If you bring a neighborhood center in, use pink
paper or something that is on top, you know.
Nary: Mr. Sherman, one thing I guess my thought was that on both of those
types of conditions, whether or not we should put it as the next meeting, or at
least a time period. The land use planning act, used a lot of (inaudible) language.
Most people don’t use it or (inaudible). It has language about expediting things
and it has language about time limits and setting reasonable time limits. In one of
the recent ordinances for Boise, in regards to adult businesses, we set time limits
in it as to when they had to be reviewed. Those were partly because of
constitutional reasons, but there’s nothing prohibiting that in the land use
planning act. There’s no reason that we can’t do that. Again, it still gives
incentives, whether we say next meeting or within 45 days or within 30 days or
whatever the number is in an ordinance. You can do that. I mean, its not --. I
mean it becomes a staffing issue. That’s something that the Council of course
has to wrestle with because you can say we’ll put it at the top of the pile but that
does make everyone wait and people can only get so much things done in so
much time. Sometimes it may become a staffing issue but that’s the Council’s
call.
Centers: Item C, and excuse me Mr. Nary. You could say you could have 7 days
maximum or whatever.
Nary: Or 10 days or whatever.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: As long as staff knew that, they would have to meet that.
Nary: Something reasonable and the Council could decide that in the ordinance
portion. I mean, its not--, there’s certainly nothing that prohibits that in the state
code.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 13
Nary: I think it’s encouraged in the state code.
Borup: That makes sense so that they say, okay, we’ve got a week or a week
and a half to do this. We either hurry or we move it to the top of the pile. Its up to
them to decide how they want to arrange their workload.
Nary: Sometimes I think what the concern is, and I know we’ve had that issue as
well, the perception sometimes is oh, my gosh if we get a whole bunch of these
we’ll never get them done. Well, it’s not realistic that you’re going to have 5 of
these at once. So that you’re going to have to rush all 5 of them through. That’s
just not very realistic. I mean, realistically, you’re going to have one and maybe 2.
Borup: I think staff would be okay if they had 5 at once.
Nary: I mean, realistically the time period, although there probably is always a
little squeamishness about putting sort of real restrictive language like that for
processing, I don’t see anything wrong it. I think that’s fine.
Durkin: Mr. Nary, if I could just comment on that. I think that with the right
language up front, you’d be really surprised that I bet you’ll have an application in
on this fairly quickly. Without this language, if you were fortunate enough to get
one in rather quickly, then someone says, gee I can either do something like that
and have it take a year or I can do something normal and have it take a year. I
think I’ll go the normal way.
Nary: Sure.
Durkin: I think that’s a critical component of this is to put –
Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, see the other thing, I think that sort of the checks and
balance in the language you’re proposing is actually an A because if you’re the
developer of this neighborhood center project and you don’t cross all those T’s
and dot all those I’s and get those neighbors to buy into the concept or at least --.
If you’re building this in some of the areas that we’re looking at, there’s not a lot
of neighbors probably to convince but, if you’re going to do all that homework to
show why this is a good project, someone’s going to appeal it. Then it may get
delayed. So, the incentive, I guess the balance, the other side from the
development community is you’re going to have to make sure you talk to those
folks and make sure everybody has some buy in. I think you’re preaching to the
choir saying let us make the final decision and let the Council not bother with it. If
nobody has a problem with it why have another hearing on it? I know that we’ve
said that on many projects, that that makes sense to us. That seems like a good
idea. I think there is a balance there. Steve hasn’t had a chance to give his
version or concerns on their side. I guess I can’t see a down side from the City’s
perspectives.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 14
Durkin: The only time that’s ever not made sense to me is when you guys turned
down my application.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Durkin? Thank you Larry.
Durkin: Thank you.
Borup: You do have some input Mr. Siddoway? Okay, I guess you can do it from
either place.
Siddoway: I think I’ll come up here tonight. I feel kind of silly sitting over there in
the corner with this small group. Well, first of all, let me say amen to Larry’s
discussion of incentives. I think that it can only help getting these neighborhood
centers.
Borup: Did you agree with the 3 that they proposed?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: And thought those would all be workable?
Siddoway: Yes. How the, you know how much the Public Works department can
expedite is a question.
Borup: But, as far as the other --?
Siddoway: The Commission final approval unless appealed. If we have some
specific design guidelines in place that the Council has bought off on and
approved and if we have a project that comes in and complies with that, they
meet before the Commission for a public hearing and get approved, unless its
appealed I don’t know why it would have to go on. That, of course is up to the
Council. You know, they need to make that decision themselves. I know that
Boise has several, most applications go through that process, the P&Z, they
make the decision unless it is appealed to the City Council. I see that as a
possibility. Giving them priority in the hearings process, I see that as doable. It
will have to be, if it’s a large project and there’s already a full agenda, someone
may have to get bumped or you know, we may just have to talk with the
Chairman and see if they want to just have an extra long meeting that night or
what. Again, it’s fully in the realm of possibility.
Borup: You’d mentioned have some specific design guidelines, so that’s
something you see as more work that needs to be done?
Siddoway: It’s already in the comp plan as an action item. In the draft comp plan.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 15
Borup: That’s something to just be referred to in the comp plan. Then the details
can be worked out?
Siddoway: Yes, it would have to be adopted as an ordinance. You know, I don’t
think we’re as far apart as you might think. You know, when we talked on the
phone for 3 hours, there was a lot of agreement as far as what made sense with
these concepts. We went through a lot of the confusion as to what some of the
key concepts meant. We came to agreement. I don’t even remember anything
that we, on the key concepts that we disagreed on as viable concepts. The main
issue is whether they belong on the map or not. You know, Jerry, at the
beginning you said, if you have a goal but you don’t have a plan, then it’s not
much of a goal.
Centers: Now, let me interrupt you.
Siddoway: Sure.
Centers: If you’re going to have a goal to have 17 on the map, what’s the plan to
get all 17 developed? There is none.
Siddoway: These incentives would go towards that.
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: The specific area planning would go towards that.
Centers: There’s goals and there’s unrealistic goals. I think the 17 is unrealistic.
Siddoway: That’s –
Centers: That’s my opinion.
Siddoway: That’s for the Commission to decide.
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: I give that to you.
Centers: That’s why we have disagreements.
Siddoway: I think that if it doesn’t show up on the plan, then in my view it’s not
much of a goal. If it’s nowhere on the plan and only in the text, it’s really not
something that we’re striving for. I believe they belong on the map. Whether they
show up as they’re shown now or they show up as dots, that can float, I don’t
mind --. The issue there seems to be flexibility. I’ve no qualms about trying to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 16
give these things flexibility within the mile section but I do think that they are
important.
Centers: I hope you don’t mind the interruption.
Siddoway: Go ahead.
Centers: If a developer came and wanted to put one there instead of there, its
not going to fit the plan. It’s going to take 6 months to change it. Correct? I’m
right, I think.
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Or if they want to put it over here.
Siddoway: That would be –
Centers: That’s my problem with being dictative on where they go. I love the
concept. I’ve said that from day one. Its just, I don’t think we can be dictative as
to where they’re going to go or the exact specific size because an anchor of
55,000 feet may want to go in there but we don’t have room for it.
Siddoway: Maybe this isn’t clear. We’re not trying to dictate the specific size. We
recognize that some of these are going to be –
Centers: I know –
Siddoway: -- of varying scales.
Centers: -- that’s why some sites --. In paragraph one, the missing link is the
economic analysis.
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Then you refer to that again. I would feel more comfortable removing
them after an economic analysis.
Siddoway: Right.
Centers: Now, isn’t that going to be supply and demand? That’s my interpretation
of what you’re saying there.
Siddoway: Yes, but it also is a front end planning issue to make sure that if its
something you want that you have the densities to support it, transportation
networks that support it –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 17
Centers: Right, supply and demand.
Siddoway: Things like that.
Centers: Yes. The developers that told us at 4 or 5 public hearings that there isn’t
the demand to supply it at this time –
Siddoway: I don’t know that they have.
Centers: One testimony earlier that maybe the south designations could be 9
years away, you know, if then. But, you get where I’m coming from.
Siddoway: Yes. You know, the dot if its, if Larry deems that that’s legal as far as
Larry Durkin’s testimony went, that could provide some of that flexibility and keep
it on the map. I just offered that up as a compromise.
Centers: Allowing the dot to float within a mile radius though?
Siddoway: Yes. That would be my proposal.
Centers: Then we’re back to my point; we don’t have that one-mile radius
covered if the guy wants to go there because he doesn’t like your dot.
Nary: Mr. Chairman. I guess the only other thing I was curious in your memo, is
you say, if we were to make this market analysis, or have this opportunity to have
this economist and all that –
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: That, that might make more sense in taking the dots off?
Siddoway: Or adding some, but the general –
Nary: Wouldn’t that presuppose that we use that market analysis to put the dots
on? I didn’t think we really did. I think we used the market analysis to say that
these ideas or concepts will work but I don’t think --. If we didn’t use the analysis
to put them on the map, I’m not sure why we have to have the analysis to take
them off.
Siddoway: We used the planning research, the planning literature to put them on.
The planning research and literature suggest that they can work as proposed.
There is this question that keeps coming up, is can they work here? I think that to
answer that we need some local market analysis to do that. The best research
we have to date suggests that by what the big planners nationwide say,
something like this can work. At least that’s my interpretation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 18
Centers: Yes.
Siddoway: To get it down to where the rubber meets the road, and say here, you
know, a local market analysis will answer some of that. We have the opportunity
–
Centers: Excuse me again. That local market analysis person is going to go out
and talk to the developers that if they’ve got a sense and the realtors and the
builders. This is what we’re --. Right? They’ve got to.
Siddoway: They also have statistics –
Centers: And we’ve heard from them.
Siddoway: -- and things that --. But, we haven’t Jerry.
Centers: No, the developers and the realtors and the builders.
Siddoway: Okay.
Centers: Okay.
Moore: Chairman Borup. If I may address for a second.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Moore.
Moore: Commissioner Centers, you have to understand that the more flexible
you make these centers, the wider the door opens that the developer’s going to
take you to court to either throw it out completely or put it wherever he wants. As
your comprehensive plan now sits, --
*** End of Side One ***
Moore: -- only go in a medium density area. If you make it flexible, then why can’t
somebody come in and put it anywhere they want to, in the high density area, in
the mixed use area or wherever. If you open the door and make those dots
flexible that’s what you’re opening the door for, legally. As they sit now and as
they are designated on this map, they’re only in the medium density area and
you’re defining that’s where they have to go. Then you don’t have that door wide
open for a developer to come in and say, I don’t like it there. I want it this place,
even though it’s designated as a high-density area or a mixed-use area.
Centers: I guess my rebuttal to that would be that you designate an area in the
impact area that might be outside certain zones or certain areas. Do you follow
me?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 19
Moore: I follow you, but you better be very –
Centers: Because that’s all medium density.
Moore: You’d better be very specific when you define what a neighborhood is
and where it can go.
Centers: Yes.
Moore: Okay.
Centers: My contention is very obvious. I don’t like to dictate that it has to go on
that half-mile marker at that location period.
Siddoway: The land use patterns that were better shown, really do respond to
this idea of radiating patterns of density. The neighborhood centers themselves
are high density, 8 units per acre. They transition to medium density, so you’ll
see density always adjacent to the neighborhood center. Then that transitions
down to low density. If you look in every mile section, in that impact area, you’ll
see that pattern. It wouldn’t make sense to put one in the middle of low density
because the idea is to –
Centers: Have the draw.
Siddoway: Yes, be able to draw people to support these centers. So, something
to think about. I would like to leave them on based on, the planning literature that
we have to date. Modify them as necessary with the more specific information
that is to come. That’s really my position.
Nary: Steve, did you have any comment, and I know this is actually a secondary
issue that we’ve been talking about in the comprehensive plan process, but on
that north Meridian corridor area?
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: I think what Mr. Durkin talked about was saying; you know we’ve got this
committee. We don’t exactly know what that committee’s going to come up with
and I know we’ve had that question posed in the whole comprehensive plan
issue. Do we leave that alone? Take it out? (inaudible)
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: What’s your thoughts about that particular area?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 20
Borup: Also, maybe just clarification, the information we’ve got, most of that plan
has been for transportation. Are they doing beyond the transportation aspect of
it?
Siddoway: Oh, yes. They’re doing far beyond. They’re looking at land use and
everything.
Borup: So, the whole –
Siddoway: Larry and I talked about this on the phone yesterday. The point that
we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on is the fact, is I think that if the
north corridor plan 8 months from now is adopted and replaces whatever is
adopted tonight, that’s not a reason not to do neighborhood centers there
because no matter what you put there, is going to be overlaid with that no matter
what. We would like to show that there is interest in having them in the north
corridor plan. If they’re not supported through our process, why would they
support them through theirs?
Centers: Excuse me, Steve.
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Were some of these people showing up –
Borup: We’re going to need to continue this meeting and go into our regular one
in just a couple minutes. Excuse me Steve.
Siddoway: Okay. So, I say keep them on. If they get modified, they get modified.
If they don’t, they don’t. That’s how I feel about it.
Centers: Okay. Thanks Steve.
Siddoway: You bet.
Borup: This would probably be a good chance to recess our comp plan hearings.
I would like to do that at this time and go ahead and open --. Okay. We’re
recessing.
RECONVENED AT 7:28 P.M.
Borup: We’re coming out of our recess. We are coming out of our recess from
our special meeting on the comprehensive plan amendment. Okay, we want to I
guess, start where we left off. That was the neighborhood center wording.
Commissioners, I guess, try and break it down simple. I mean, we’re going to
need some additional wording on how we want to do it but first of all maybe we
need to discuss, the 2 simple choices is leave them on or take them off. Then
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 21
whatever that decision is, I guess then we would go from there. Does that make
sense to start at that point?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Do we want any other testimony?
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers?
Centers: I had a good suggestion and I think its common sense that I don’t think
that we really need to develop the language for the ordinance or for the comp
plan because it goes to the Council. I think we need to tell them where we’re
coming from and tell them its our understanding that an ordinance will be needed
if –
Borup: And it should include these points?
Centers: Right because anything like that, you know the gentleman on my right
would have to be involved anyway. So, do we concur on that?
Borup: Yes. I didn’t think it was intended for us to develop any ordinances or –
Centers: But I think we need to be specific on our thoughts and suggestions.
Borup: (inaudible) specific language on what we’re proposing.
Centers: I agree with you. I think the first item of agenda, do we remove them,
leave them, or do we give an option to move some within a mile radius?
Borup: Well –
Centers: That’s another thought that was given to me. I have a question though
while we’re on it. Another comment was made, well you know that this is
presently being developed. That’s not so, correct?
Borup: Well, that one-mile there is Bridgetower.
Centers: Okay. That’s Bridgetower right there isn’t it?
Borup: Well, that whole, just about the whole mile.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: The next mile over had a proposal to us.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 22
Centers: That’s medium density right there.
Borup: Right.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Well, okay. Let me clarify that because I asked that during the break.
Bridgetower did come out as low density, was it low density? That was because it
was calculated on the gross area. They had a lot of open space. They had a
couple of canals going through there so they had a lot of opens. Taking that into
consideration –
Centers: Based on the PU.
Borup: Yes, it was calculated on a net area, it would have come out medium. The
medium is the 3 to 8, which is every subdivision we’ve approved, pretty much. I
mean, that’s a standard subdivision anyway. R-4 and R-8.
Centers: So, the proposed densities, none of this is being developed out in here,
none of that. Correct?
Borup: Right.
Centers: Those proposed densities in order to be changed would take the 6-
month comp plan amendment.
Borup: But the proposed densities are consistent with our standard subdivisions
are anyway.
Centers: Okay. In talking to Steve during the recess, which was beneficial, if a
developer came and --. You know, I still think they should have the option of
maybe putting it here. So, if we said, you know, within a mile radius.
Borup: So, you’re saying a way to let it float one way or the other?
Centers: Yes, like Commissioner Nary said earlier, then if you limit it to one mile
because I agree with our attorney that you can’t go wherever. Like down in here,
that wouldn’t fly, or right there. (inaudible) there’s development there that would
prohibit that.
Borup: By definition it’s got to be in an undeveloped area.
Centers: Yes, right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 23
Borup: I mean to be feasible. Not very many projects go in like the Costco place
and tear down 100 homes.
Centers: Right. I guess we have to address your first item.
Borup: I did want to get one other bit of information from Mr. Durkin. He had one
other short item he wanted to mention.
Durkin: This will just take a second. In the memo that we sent you, in the
paragraph No. 2, I think you have to pick some designation for the land and this
was just a recommendation on how you could take those areas and designate it
something. But, I want to remind you; I’ve been to every public hearing on this
that the City has ever had. I’ve gotten here early and stayed late and you have
too. I think, I’m positive when I say this, not one landowner has ever come here
and said I don’t want this designation on my property, that I’m aware of ever.
Borup: Which designation?
Durkin: Either the neighborhood commercial or the mixed use.
Borup: Oh, right.
Durkin: Okay? They’ve come and said I want a Chevron over here. Can you
change this to this but, the way its been presented to the public and no one has
ever come and said my name is Sally Smith and you’ve got this designation on
my property and I don’t want it. No one has ever come and said I’m here
representing Sally Smith and she doesn’t want it. I think if you were to designate
it mixed use, it would still give us that flexibility but you have to designate it
something. (inaudible) and say I don’t want it this, I want it that.
Borup: So, you’re saying the neighborhood center blob area would be mixed
use?
Centers: South of Ustick?
Durkin: South of Ustick.
Borup: Right.
Centers: North of Ustick you’re recommending medium density?
Durkin: Yes.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 24
Norton: As I look at my notes from the last 3 public hearings, most of the
homeowners or owners of property, they want mixed use. Most of them have
said they want mixed use. So, it makes sense if we did mixed use.
Borup: Most of them have been in a commercial growth path.
Norton: Yes, right.
Borup: Also, haven’t they?
Norton: Yes.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess, I’m still sold on the idea that we need to --. I certainly would like to
have the flexibility to allow this type of use in a variety of areas, someone wants
to do that, if someone wants to come and do that. I am still not firmly convinced
to leave them on the map. We have to designate something. I recognize the text
for the comp plan is a guide and actually what we’re talking about is 2 different
issues. One is what’s the comp plan suppose to say? The second is what’s the
land use map suppose to say? I think Mr. Durkin is correct when he says as a
developer, as a property owner they have the right to come in and look at our
map to see what it is we’re proposing be there. Then they can go to the comp
plan and say what is that suppose to mean? So, when it says medium density
residential, or if it says mixed use or whatever that is, we can look at our comp
plan and say what are we really talking about? Then they go to the ordinance
and the ordinance says this is what you get. This is what’s allowed. These are
allowed uses. These are prohibited uses. These are conditional uses. That’s how
it’s supposed to work in theory. That’s how I think it does work for most of the
people. So, I guess, you know, in summation, I guess I like a little bit of all of it. I
think it has to be in the text. I mean, there obviously has to be something that
designates this. I think we need to recognize that this is a concept that we would
like as a City and that we would like to see happen and that we would like to
encourage to happen. We can find ways to make it very encouraging to happen.
I think in the text we want to make sure that’s included so that when we write
ordinances, then we write ordinances with those in mind. So that our guidebook
matches up with our rulebook. But, when we come to the land use map, we have
to figure out how do we do this? That way a person can reasonably look at it and
be able to determine what exactly are they meaning. We either have to do it one
of 2 ways. We either have to define it specifically if we’re going to have some sort
of floating zone of some sort. I guess, I’ve been convinced over the last month
that that may be very difficult to do for the City, for our legal staff to prepare
something that’s going to withstand scrutiny by the district court or the Supreme
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 25
Court that it has to be clear. It has to be understandable by people that what’s
allowed in certain areas. I guess I’m just not sure that we can do that but I know
we can do it if we define it at least in some place. That way, that we can hopefully
have our cake and eat it too. I think at the minimum, what we should be
recommending to the City Council is some area on this map, that we would like
to see this develop, using the concepts like Mr. Durkin had proposed, that we try
to target an area that we say is reasonably going to develop in the period of time
this comp plan exists. At least in my opinion, that’s the west end of the impact
area. With the growth on the Nampa Caldwell border, with the growth of Boise
State and the other --. Nampa’s coming that way. If you can’t see that, you’re not
looking because I think it's pretty clear it's coming that direction to some degree.
This type of development is very attractive to what’s going to be there. You know,
this type of mixed use commercial high density residential spreading out to
medium density residential can work, I guess in my opinion. I’m not a marketer or
developer but with high density residential is ideal for student population. That’s
what the west end could carry and that type of smaller mixed use commercial is
very appealing to that type of community. That can create those identities that we
would like to happen. To me, that’s a way to get this incentive forward. To find a
spot to say that’s where we would like it to go. That’s where we think as a City
we would like to see that happen. It doesn’t mean we can’t do it elsewhere. We
can include it in the areas for medium density residential north of McMillan, or
excuse me north of Ustick so that someone else can come in and say I wouldn’t
pick those spots. I would rather build it up there rather than the west end and
we’re going to find ways to get that to happen if they want to do that and provide
those incentives. If we’re going to pick a spot, I’d pick the west spot because I
think it's more likely to develop sooner than the south and I think the north area --
. The north area has a lot of potential for a variety of things and the one thing to
me that impacts neighborhood centers negatively is large regional shopping
centers because it sort of detracts a little bit and it makes it a little harder to find
some anchor to be able to do that. That north area is geared a little more
towards having a larger on the corner type of development. With Bridgetower
they already have a corner, I think it's a grocery store on one of those corners.
That seems to be somewhat inconsistent to have that and then say about a mile
away, we’re going to build a little neighborhood. It doesn’t seem like those things
are going to work. But, again, we can allow it. We can use that through the
process of the ordinance in creating that into the zone and again giving the same
incentives. But, if we’re going to designate it on the map in specific spots, maybe
we can do it that way and we can give Mr. Moore all the ability that he has to
write the other part so that it makes sense and seems reasonable and seems
pretty clearly defined. I don’t think we want to have disincentive to have it but I
think we want to at least say, here’s what we really want to see. If those can
make it work, we can look at amending our comp plan to include the north end or
the southern part or wherever. I don’t think those ends are --. I mean, it's not like
we’re going to miss the boat. If we don’t include this in the southern part of the
impact area right now, it doesn’t mean somebody’s going to come build Costco
there. I mean, it doesn’t necessarily mean that. Nothing else may happen of any
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 26
other sort of development or we can allow it. But I think we need to at least find a
spot and say lets put it here. Lets designate this area where we would like to see
this as the development type for this area. If it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen.
But, it doesn’t lock up 90 percent of the impact area.
Borup: When you say south, you’re talking, at least on the map, the area south of
Victory?
Nary: Yes, south of Victory.
Borup: That’s the only place they are other than the one there in the west.
Nary: Right.
Centers: So, you’re saying south and west?
Nary: No, I’m saying just the west.
Centers: Okay, that’s what I thought you said.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: -- looking at the map, what’s designated on the map, it's everything south
of the freeway.
Nary: The only reason I’m saying south is I don’t want to leave the perception
that we think that if we don’t designate the south that something else is going to
go that we’re not going to like. No, we can put in the zone that we think goes
there. We can make it mixed use. We can make it medium density residential.
We can put those things in there. We can still allow this type of --. Through the
comp plan, we can put language to encourage this development in those other
areas. We can put in the ordinance which we can change easier, abilities to do
this so that we don’t have to amend the comp plan every single time someone
wants to come in the north or the south and develop this kind of project. We can
find ways to do that I think if we make all those things clear to the City Council,
then we’ve maybe taken the best of both worlds here that everybody would like
to see and found a way to do that so that maybe everybody gets a little piece of
what we’re wanting to get and we still get something real nice that we’d like to
see out there.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. I picked up another good idea when we were on break. It
was a valuable break. See what you think of this stuff Mr. Nary. I mean, you may
think that I’m backing off here and backing up. But, I’ve always contended that I
have an open mind and that I like to operate with common sense. The thought
was and I wrote this down. Neighborhood centers have been identified at certain
locations and will be considered at other locations if within one mile of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 27
specified areas. That allows the guy to put one there or there and move it from
there, there, there, that’s one mile, there. If these aren’t utilized, in 5 years,
someone’s going to come and say I want to build just houses there. I’m not going
to build a K-Mart or an Albertson’s. He’s going to go for a comp plan change and
it will take him 6 months; unfortunately we can’t change that state law. Correct?
So, what do you think of that idea?
Norton: Read it again.
Centers: neighborhood centers have been identified at certain locations period
and will be considered at other locations if within one mile of the specified areas.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: Larry gave me the idea.
Borup: You know, looking on the map we’ve got now, --. Looking at the north
area, Jerry, taking your concept of moving in that mile radius, it could be
anywhere in those 10 square miles.
Centers; Yes, if you leave them –
Borup: I think it looks like there’s something close enough that moving one mile
could get on any half mile and –
Centers: This is something that you couldn’t --. I don’t know what that is. What’s
that dark brown, Steve? School?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: So, you can’t go there, but you could go --. And you can’t go there, but
you could go here and you could go there, here. So, you’re right Commissioner,
or Chairman Borup. It gives all the flexibility that I want the developers to have.
Borup: So, you’re saying, leave them on the map. They have to be there unless
someone come up with moving one somewhere within the mile. Then that would
be –
Centers: And will be considered at other locations if within one mile of specified
area.
Borup: So, if one goes within one mile then that means that that designation
could be changed on the one that --?
Centers: Yes. And –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 28
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Here’s what I would also add. I would have to think about the verbiage.
But, if they selected this one, this one would then be dropped.
Borup: That’s what I was getting at. How do you determine that?
Centers: Then that would be medium density or whatever.
Borup: It would be dropped or it would not have to have one there. I mean,
maybe they would want to do both.
Centers: So that the comp plan wouldn’t have to be amended. Can we do that?
Nary: I don’t know that you can it though.
Siddoway: I like what you’re saying if the map looks like this. If the map is
changed to look as Mr. Nary is talking about, with them just along the west and
then someone up in the north corridor wants to do one and then can’t because
it's not within a mile of one on the west side. I just wanted to bring that up
because I didn’t know if you were (inaudible).
Centers: I tend to agree with Commissioner Nary that the west probably will be
the area but there’s no guarantee, none what so ever. Eagle and Meridian might
be like Nampa and Caldwell in 10 years. That would be the north area.
Nary: I guess Commissioner Centers from what you said to me, I guess it's just
as much to not have them on the map because if you’re saying in those 10
square miles you can build a neighborhood center –
Centers: Anywhere.
Nary: -- anywhere. But, why would we have to make it in reference to the points
we already picked if we’re saying those points don’t really matter. You can put it
anywhere anyway, as long as it's within a mile of that.
Borup: Because that’s saying you have to do one though. No, he’s saying that it's
got to be on those points, unless someone moves it.
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: We’re not dictating to the developer then.
Nary: Well, we are dictating because we’re not going to allow any other
development but that. I guess that’s what I thought the whole debate has been
over.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 29
Centers: That was my contention too, I agree.
Nary: The whole debate has been is that the only type of development that we
want to allow in those areas, even if it's within the mile, still that’s all they can
build. If somebody came in and said I don’t want to build a neighborhood center.
I’d like to build to a regional shopping center on the corner in between where
those 2 dots are currently in the north corridor.
Centers: They would be considered.
Nary: No, because what you just said was they still only could build this. The way
this is written we can only build this. We can put it on this corner or that half-mile
–
Centers: No, within one mile.
Nary: Right, but we still --. I understand that but that’s a neighborhood center.
That’s a smaller size development, smaller size store, smaller footprint. If
somebody said instead I want to build K-mart right here. I want to build k-mart on
the corner and I want it to be as big as Wal-mart is down here off of Eagle Road.
If we leave those on the map the way that is, they can’t do it without amending
the comp plan. I thought what we had been talking about is if we leave this here
that’s all they can do, is this or amend it. What I’ve been saying is lets not leave
these here. lets allow the market place to bear. If somebody wants to build this,
we’re going to let them build it. But, we put the dots on when somebody comes
forward and wants to do it. If somebody doesn’t want to do this and wants to
build something else, lets let them do something else and lets target this area
and say this is the only development we want here on the west end. That’s what
we’d like to see and we want to create on this side of the community but not
necessarily up here north or down in the south. See, that’s what I’m afraid is
what you’re doing is still going to say this is it, that’s all you get.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Steve, what’s the largest retail store business that would fit in the
neighborhood center concept? I mean, we’ve said it can down to a convenience
store and a doctor’s office on the bottom end. But, what are we looking at, at the
upper end?
Siddoway: I don’t have square footages for you but I can tell you acreage --.
Square footages of buildings, of footprints but in terms of acreages, of the actual
commercial area, if it were one of the smallest which I would call a convenience
center that would be like 3 to 10 acres.
Borup: A little coffee shop or something?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 30
Siddoway: Yes, that would be just some small convenience mini markets, some
ancillary retail. A step up from that, the Merced plan calls those neighborhood
centers, but the middle size would have a super market with an additional anchor
store, some major ancillary retail and professional offices, typically 10 to 20
acres. The community center is larger than that. The concept would have a
super market and drug store with ancillary retail, professional offices, and
additional anchors such as junior department stores, cinemas, health clubs, 20 to
60 acres. That’s big.
Borup: So, that wouldn’t --. Mr. Nary’s comment on the K-mart or Shopko or
something would fit in with that then?
Siddoway: With the largest one yes.
Borup: The only thing that would be any larger would be a full regional shopping
center almost wouldn’t it? The only (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Something like that a 6-month time period wouldn’t, it's a long-term
project.
Nary: So, give me some idea of how big that is because I really don’t know.
Borup: How big is the Target on Chinden and Eagle? Does anybody know how
many acres that is?
Siddoway: How many acres is Crossroads?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Durkin: That Target store at Chinden and Eagle is 114,000 square feet.
Borup: How many acres?
Durkin: It's on about 10.2 acres.
Borup: And you’re saying up to 20 to 30 acres for the biggest ones?
Siddoway: Those would not be in the mile.
Borup: No.
Durkin: The Fred Meyer at Locust Grove and Fairview, within the loop road area
not including the mini storage area, that’s 18 and a half acres.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 31
Borup: Okay. See, that’s a good size project.
Centers: For the most part how many acres are you talking here Steve? These
little squares, the commercial, and some are designated office.
Borup: A 20-acre project is fairly major. I think what you said is right. Hopefully
something like that is going to happen in that north area to track that business
around.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: I’m guessing the square we have showing is probably in the 10-acre
range.
Nary: So, what you’re saying Steve –
Siddoway: We just tried to pick a middle ground.
Nary: Then what you’re saying Steve, is what the text would reflect is that dot
could be up to 60 acres, 30 acres?
Siddoway: Yes, 30 acres. Well, the high end of the community center said 60 in
what I just read.
Borup: Fred Meyer is 20, 18, you know that’s a big project for –
Siddoway: The issue is not so much the size as the design, the connectivity, the
way it relates to the neighborhood. We’re not just trying to restrict these to mom
and pop and the little dentist office. Probably the majority of them would have
smaller. We’re dictating that that’s all they can be. We have this range of scale in
mind. The issue is how they develop and how that relates to the quality of life
issues that we’re trying to purport.
Nary: But, then in theory, this first one that you have on the map here along
McMillan, in theory could be 30 acres, correct?
Siddoway: Yes. The reason why we didn’t show them at the maximum size was
because we just didn’t want people to say well, I’ve got this whole area as
commercial. It's a conceptual diagram, if you will. It's got the quarter mile radius. I
mean, it is to scale for probably the majority of what you will see. We’re not
restricting it to that.
Nary: What you’re telling us is that if Dakota Development came in and said I
bought this property right here and I want to put a 30 acre shopping center,
neighborhood center, connectivity, all of that in this location right there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 32
Siddoway: If they met the design guidelines for how that was to be designed that
would be yes.
Nary: If Hawkins-Smith Development, I think they do shopping centers too and
they came and said in this block, this square mile block, I want to put one over
here. That will be okay. They’re another 30-acre development. We’re not going to
tell them no just because it's close to this one. We’re going to say as long as
you’re in this mile that’s fine. It's your marketing risk on whether or not you’re
going to attract people to it. We’re not going to say no you can’t do it.
Siddoway: Based on our concept we would like it to be at the half mile of the
arterial intersections and things like that that come up. It can work. Yes, if they
want to move it there –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: If they want to move it there based on their market research I don’t
have a problem with that.
Norton: Can I step in here?
Borup: Yes, please do.
Norton: Thank you. You know, I have been referring to the comments on --. I’ve
sort of done a little research as we’ve all been talking regarding the letter we
received from Larry Durkin, John Eaton and Mark Estes. They refer, if you look at
number 3 on the first page, they suggest the proposed language on page 9 of
the June 1st
memo.
Centers: I couldn’t find it.
Norton: I’ve got it.
Centers: Good.
Borup: It's the loose thing. There was a whole bunch of –
Norton: I’ve been looking at this and I think this makes a lot of sense. For my 2
cents worth, is these experts, our Planning and Zoning and the experts in the
community have come up with a compromise which we have in front of us. Why
re-hash this whole thing? I have compared what they have suggested and if you
want this --. Do you have this Jerry?
Centers: I just found it. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 33
Norton: Okay. It explains, you know keep the mixed-use in the neighborhood
centers. I’ve done some little research on those with the Boise State public
administration department. They teach urbanization and planning. Their
particular professor lives on approximately the corner of Linder and Franklin in an
older neighborhood and he said personally he would like to see a little
neighborhood center there because it's an established residents area. People
have been there a long time. He would like to just walk up to a neighborhood
corner and get some milk rather than get in his car and drive to a grocery store
and I don’t see a neighborhood center right there.
Borup: Hark’s Corner.
Norton: Anyway, I don’t see the reason why we need little dots on our future
map. I think before we were discussing on the 27th
of September regarding a
vision statement like the City of Meridian embraces the concept of the
neighborhood centers and provide these incentives and let the market place
these where they should place. Steve, I can understand what you want about the
concept and how it relates to the quality of life and relate to the houses in the
area and the design. With the incentives on the second page of this letter, where
they go to the top of the pile, you know they’re going to design something that
they would like to see pushed through. How do you feel about this letter? I mean,
we have your answer. This is the way I’m leaning, Steve.
Siddoway: You started off talking about item No. 3 on their letter where it
references page 9 of the June 1 –
Norton: Well, I’ve read the other ones.
Siddoway: Yes.
Norton: I was simply commenting on that one.
Siddoway: That deals specifically with the mixed-use, the taking off the bullets
points –
Norton: Yes.
Siddoway: Yes that deals with should 2 uses be required, 5-acre minimums?
Certainly some of those things seem like they may or may not work. I don’t have
a lot of –
Borup: We’ve had some discussion on that already. I think that was something
that we’ve got to address also.
Norton: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 34
Siddoway: I’m not too concerned there. On item 4, where they talk about the
deleting the, what I call the key concepts, the bullet points underneath the
paragraph and just adding the sentence. It's not that --. I don’t have a problem
with the sentence. I believe that the key concept should remain. I think their point
is that they belong in an ordinance and I agree with that. This would have to be
backed up by an ordinance but I don’t think there’s a problem with having them
in both to give the guidance and the direction that hey this is what we’ve been
talking about. This is what we intend these to look like and then adopt the
ordinances to back that up. I just don’t see --.
Norton: What would be if we just did everything and just left those off the map?
Siddoway: Left what off the map?
Norton: The dots. Leave the neighborhood centers off the map and just had a
concept --?
Siddoway: I don't think we should do that. That gets back to what I was saying
earlier about if you have a goal and it's not on the land use map, I don’t think it's
much of a goal. I think you can, you know you might get one. I’m not saying you
wouldn’t but if it truly is a goal and if it truly is embraced then it should show up
on the map. It either shows up and provides some flexibility or it's targeted with a
specific area. I just don’t think it should come off.
Norton: How realistic --. Just 2 more questions Jerry.
Centers: Go ahead.
Norton: How realistic that we’ll get one of these neighborhood centers in the next
10 years?
Siddoway: I think it's likely in the next 2.
Norton: If we do this?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: The incentives.
Nary: If we do these.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: I think it's got to be both. It's got to have the incentives and it's got to
be on the map or –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 35
Norton: Supposedly by law we need to amend the comp plan map every 10
years?
Siddoway: I don’t know.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: Every 5 years? Every 5 years. Okay, so we have to amend this --. Is it
every 5 years? Do we have to come up with a new one or just amend it?
Nary: You have to review it.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: So, in 5 years we could --. I’m leaning against the dots on the map. I just
thought I would say that.
Centers: Steve?
Siddoway: Yes?
Centers: You know, common ground and all that and I can see where
Commissioner Norton is coming from and I’ve leaned that way too. You know
taking them all off and give incentives to put some on. I can see your point where
you want them there as a goal to show this is our goal. We want to get there.
But, what if took all but four or five off, maybe we left one here and then we
expand the radius that I was talking about to within 2 miles. We leave one, one,
one, maybe we leave 5 on there, which signifies to the public that this is our goal.
Then we expand the area that within a 2-mile radius they will be considered at
other areas other than just those.
Siddoway: My response is that I think that each mile deserves at least a
convenience center scale of one of these.
Borup: But, that’s not on there now that way.
Siddoway: They are wherever they could be accommodated. We looked at
existing land use patterns, existing subdivisions, stuff like that in placing these.
Borup: Okay. I was looking at the section there on McMillan’s got 2 miles
between them.
Centers: You went on to say that we would consider more within a mile radius.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 36
Nary: I guess I would much more excited to be sitting here and having the
neighbors coming come in and say we want this in our neighborhood. We want
to have this. We don’t want someone to build Costco in this north corridor. We
don’t want a big regional shopping center in our neighborhood. Come and make
this a part of the land use map for us. I mean, I recognize, as Mr. Durkin said,
nobody came and said take these off either. I recognize that no one came in here
and said we don’t want this at all. No one that lives there came in and said that
they don’t want this at all. I guess I would be much more interested if the
neighbors were coming in and saying yes, we buy that concept. We want a
neighborhood --. That’s exactly how we want to build it.
Borup: But, we don’t have any neighbors yet. It's all undeveloped area.
Nary: Realistically I still think it's still the whole market idea. I guess, you know, it
sounds to me like we’re still kicking around compromises of some sort. Again, I
don’t want to throw the whole baby out. I think it's an idea that has merit and I
agree with what you’re saying in part Steve that if we think it has merit then we
should have it there somewhere. It has to be there in some form if we really think
it has merit because we think mixed-use has merit and we put colors on the map
for mixed-use and we think commercial has merit so we put the colors on the
map for that. So, why can’t we put the colors on the map for this? I don’t
disagree with you. I just disagree with the number. I just think it's still too many. I
would have more of a desire on the number in a smaller target or as
Commissioner Centers is talking about is saying look we’ll pick one here, one
here, and one here and if you want to put them anywhere within that boundary.
Again, I’m just really concerned that define that clearly from a legal standpoint
may be tough. I know that’s, at least that’s the perception that the development
community talked to us about was that dot really --. You may not be the person
there when they come in the door and someone’s going to say that dot means
that dot is where it goes. Like it or not and they’re going to say no here’s what
your book says. We’re going to say yes, but it's a dot on our map and that’s what
we do. That’s no different than the other dots on the map. We don’t say those are
flexible mixed-use areas or flexible or flexible commercial zones. They all mean
that’s where it is and if it's on that side of it, you’ve got to amend it. I think that’s
the problem in trying to make it too fuzzy wuzzy is that what will happen is no
one’s going to look at it that way. They’re going to say that dot means that dot or
amend the comp plan period.
Centers: I agree with you.
Borup: But, I think we’re getting to realize that the lines are fuzzy.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: It's taken a long time for Meridian to realize that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 37
Nary: In the comprehensive plan they’re suppose to be fuzzy and flowery and
conceptual and all that. But, the land use map is a little different. You know, that’s
what’s posted on your wall and someone come in and says I live here. What is it
supposed to be? Do I want to build that or do I want to build something else. I
think that’s the problem is --. I think we all agree on the concept. I don’t see a lot
of disagreement on the concept. I think where we have the problem is once we
put it on that map is that going to require us to change it when –
Siddoway: I think you would be able to reduce that chance of someone pointing
to the map and saying that is where it must be period, if it were clearly stated in
the text that deals with neighborhood centers that this has a zone of tolerance
and if you wanted to go even further, you could add it to the map, neighborhood
centers have a zone of tolerance of 1 mile, half mile, 2 miles, whatever you’re
saying. Put it on the map. Then when you look at it –
Nary: Do we have any case in Idaho that uses that term, zone of tolerance?
Siddoway: I don’t know. That’s my own word.
Borup: I like it.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: I like the sound of it. I don’t know that the supreme court’s going to like that
because somebody gets to look at that map and say what do I get to build here?
Borup: You define that term.
Nary: That term’s going to have a big circle around it that’s this big.
Siddoway: But, it means something. It means it's where it is unless someone
moves it. It's almost like it's here –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: (inaudible) this one. I don’t think we can make that work. I mean, I like the
idea but that’s –
Siddoway: Larry you came up with the idea of this zone so,
Moore: I understand that –
Siddoway: You tell me. How do you word it?
Moore: It has to be researched (inaudible) –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 38
Siddoway: But, it can be, don’t you think?
Moore: It certainly can be put into language that can be put into the
comprehensive plan. Whether it can be put on that map or not is another
question.
Siddoway: Okay.
Borup: I think the key, and it's already been stated, the key to the whole thing, I
really believe is the incentives. You said something could happen in 2 years. I
don’t think it's going to happen in 2 years just because it's on the map and if they
have to spend a year doing it.
Siddoway: Right.
Borup: I don’t know how to do this either. I’d almost like to see, almost a trial type
thing. If the incentives are in place and whether they work or not --. The biggest
thing that’s going to determine that is how the staff handles that application. Staff
is really feeling strong about this. If it will fast track through and you guys got the
ability to do that, it's going to be successful. If a couple developers try it and it
doesn’t happen –
Siddoway: We’ve shot ourselves in the foot.
Borup: Yes.
Siddoway: I agree –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: (inaudible) of forcing that on future. I don’t know how that changes once
it's in there. I guess you would amend the comp plan again.
Nary: That’s actually, Mr. Chairman, it sounds like if we put it on the map and we
put it in a target –
Borup: Well, but is –
Nary: That’s what it sounded like to me.
Borup: Well, the 2 target areas are going to be, right now the north end has
already been targeted by the developers. I mean, they’re paying for a study –
*** End of Side Two ***
Siddoway: -- it's a lack of serviceability.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 39
Nary: We’re creating a whole new –
Borup: Even if the developer is providing service.
Nary: We’re creating a whole new idea to do this. I mean, we’re building a
neighborhood from the ground up. It can be done. Harris Ranch says it can be
done. Hidden Springs says you can do this. I mean, you can do these in small or
big scale. I mean, you can do it but I think, Mr. Chairman, I think you’re right. I
mean, it's still a mind set change from the Council’s perspective.
Borup: The thing that we’re fighting on the west end is Canyon County, right now
is going 5 acre lots because that’s on their far borders.
Nary: But, if they see this happen, they may also think that’s a great idea.
Borup: They should be thinking that with the campus going in there.
Nary: Sure.
Borup: I don’t know what they’re looking at –
Nary: It's a completely new concept on the west end because even when they’ve
come forward, they’ve always had the same kind of idea and size of lots and all
that. This provides that mixed-use and there’s open ground to do it on. I don’t
know.
Moore: You guys get the idea we’ve been here before?
Norton: Yes.
Moore: I mean, you’re going in a big circle.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would second a motion. I would second a motion.
Nary: Would you propose one?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: Whereby the motioner asks the planning staff to pick 5 locations north
south and west and only 5 and also include the verbiage that if a developer didn’t
want that specific location he could move it within whatever mile radius that you
feel is reasonable, one to two. I’m flexible on that. Then when they’ve selected
that site, if it was different than the one that was there, lets say that one was
there, then that zone reverts to what’s around it, which in that case would be
what Steve?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 40
Siddoway: Medium density residential.
Centers: It would revert to medium density residential immediately if that would
go with the law. You wouldn’t have to go with a comp change.
Moore: Whatever concept we come up with and you put into words, believe me,
if it's going to be challenged it will be challenged.
Centers: Yes, always will. So, you’d maybe have one down here and one or 2
here and one or 2 here. I would second a motion of that type.
Norton: As long as we’re discussing this Commissioner Centers. You know, one
individual brought up the fact, perhaps trying a neighborhood center next to a
City Park where there’s already medium density may be a good try. I still --. As
much as I think that you have a good idea about trying to do 5, why put it on the
map? When you have incentives, they’ll put it where they think it will work.
Nary: If we make, as suggested on this memo, if we made the area between
Ustick, was a suggested, north of Ustick medium density residential and south of
Ustick mixed-use. Isn’t this McMillan right here?
Norton: Yes.
Nary: Whichever one of these we want to use.
Borup: I’m assuming they said Ustick because north of Ustick is where you’ve
got open space.
Nary: Okay.
Borup: South of Ustick is pretty filled in.
Nary: If we made this medium density residential and included in the medium
density residential that in the comp plan it says neighborhood centers are
encouraged in medium density residential and we have incentives for
neighborhood centers and we don’t have these dots on the map. Cannot
someone come in and say I want to build a 30-acre neighborhood center right
there and we would work with them –
Norton: Move it down to the City Park. Right there.
Nary: But, if someone wants to build it, whether we have a dot, if we don’t have
any dots here, and someone wants to build it and we have incentives to build it,
won’t they be able to build it? Whether it's medium density or mixed-use, won’t
they be able to build that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 41
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: He’s asking why you’re so hung up on having the dots?
Nary: I understand what you said, I think the reason that you’re hung up on it is
because we find places to mark these everywhere else, other zones. That’s why
I guess, no one else wanted to second a target area or anything. It seems to me
that there is no harm in making this conceptually, --. Because I think the
Chairman’s right, the incentives are what’s going to make this work. If you allow
this without these dots, we take the dots off completely, you allow it but you have
incentives that will make it or break it regardless of where these dots are
because people will do it if they can make it, make it quickly, get the return on
their investment quicker, they’ll do it. They just don’t want to be tied to is it here
or is it there? Is it anywhere, is really what I think we’ve been hearing from the
development community.
Norton: Right.
Nary: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying anywhere is fine. No one
wants a target area. I think this is a good target area. Nobody wants to deal with
that, that’s fine too. I don’t care. I was just trying to preserve it because I don’t
disagree with what you’re saying Steve. I don’t want to pick this area and say
within 2 miles of it because I don’t know that this is any better than that one. So, I
would rather say lets put 2 right here, lets create out of this, or here and there,
lets create a neighborhood here like you’re talking about if we want to do that.
But, anywhere in here, in this whole north corridor or anywhere in the south you
want to build one, here’s your incentive. If you want to build it then mixed-use
development or medium density residential, that’s what you get because that’s
what everybody else gets. But, if you want to build, we’ll build it anywhere. You
just come in with the plan and we’ll expedite it through and you can builds it
anywhere that there’s medium density, anywhere there’s mixed-use zones. We’ll
build it anywhere you want.
Norton: Commissioner Nary, are you proposing to actually have 3 dots on the
map on the west side?
Nary: No, I really --. These just seemed a little close. I mean, if you’re looking at
really a neighborhood –
Norton: You’re saying no dots?
Nary: Well, nobody else wanted the dots but I was thinking that at the most we
would have 2 at the most on this west end. But, if we don’t want to have any of
them, that’s fine. I think the Chairman’s right, if you’ve got an incentive they’ll do
it if they’re going to do it at all, they’re going to do it because of that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 42
Borup: But, it's got to be a strong incentive. My concern is, I mean, I feel really
strong about the market place –
Norton: Yes.
Nary: Yes.
Borup: -- dictating what happens. But, I’ve also got a concern that if there’s not
something on the map, is it going to happen? The only way that it will is those
incentives have to be really emphasized and –
Nary: The only reason I talked about the target is because there’s a notice, we
want to hear and someone else can look at that map and say can I build that
brown dot up there in that north end? Yes, absolutely. What have you got?
Where do you want to build it? We’ll work with you on it. We’ll do it. It's there,
there’s the notice and we’re going to tell you in the text we’ll let you build it
elsewhere as well, as long as it fits in the other requirements. But, to me that’s
the most we really can get.
Centers: Couldn’t you put a notation on the map?
Borup: That’s what I was just wondering.
Centers: About neighborhood centers?
Borup: Right on the map, not just in the text. I mean, the text also but right on the
map also.
Centers: Yes. Right here.
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: The issue is defined. Is it defined?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: -- or you just put a color and you say the color means the whole thing. I
mean that’s the problem, I think.
Siddoway: Can I say this? I can see a way that it would work and I can see a way
that it wouldn’t work. I think it would work if you colored those medium density
residential and then lets say someone wants to come in along McMillan and do,
they want to do commercial and they want to do strip commercial, okay? Just
hypothetically. This could work in my mind, they either have 2 choices at that
point, they can go through a comp plan amendment to change it to commercial
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 43
to allow them to do the strip, or they can do a neighborhood center and not mess
with the comp plan amendment at all.
Centers: There you go.
Siddoway: You know, if the only way to get commercial without a comp plan
amendment is by doing the neighborhood center concept, then I see that as a
real incentive because then if by goodness if I want commercial I can skip 6
months of hassle and design it this way or I can go through the comp plan
amendment process and try and change it to a commercial designation.
Centers: I have another idea.
Nary: Before you throw another idea out on the table, we have heard a whole lot
from Steve. I didn’t know if the other gentleman wanted to add in a little bit more
since we’ve had a lot of discussion since they’ve had an opportunity to speak. I
know we haven't prevented them from talking but if they have some other input
that they want to throw in. we’ve sort of batted it around.
Borup: You mean, the others on the group of 3?
Nary: Right.
Unidentified Speaker: I don’t think I can necessarily add anything –
Nary: He has to talk up here. I was just asking in case there was something.
Since we’ve kind of heard Steve’s side and we’ve talked about it a lot. I didn’t
know if you folks wanted to add something.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: It sounds to me, like just what you said Chairman Borup, that if you’re
going to have incentives, we need to have a staff that will get those through fast
and make it work. I think it goes, the example of the first one that comes through
needs to be the example.
Siddoway: We have to get ordinances in place to put those, make those
incentives real.
Norton: Right. How long do those ordinances take? They come through Planning
and Zoning.
Siddoway: How long are you going to take to write it?
Norton: You write it, we’ll pass it. How’s that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 44
Borup: I don’t know that we need to write it. We can tell them what we want to be
written and then –
Norton: Right.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Larry had a good thought. We take them all off, and I
would like the notation on the map down here.
Norton: Yes.
Centers: So, we have a notation. Then we put hash marks in these areas where
you know in certain sections this area, not designated but very open to the
concept of neighborhood centers. See page No. such and such of the comp plan
and inquire to the planning department.
Moore: The suggestion is there because it makes it legally a lot easier if you
cross hashed that section and designated even the number of neighborhood
centers to be installed in those areas.
Borup: What would be the difference between –
Moore: Then it's on your map but they can put them anywhere they want within
that crosshatch.
Borup: You’re saying crosshatch the whole 10-mile area or something?
Moore: Whatever you want. You’re talking about north and west.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: (inaudible) or taking these semi-circles and hatching those?
Norton: Right.
Nary: What would be the difference in making it mixed-use?
Centers: Then it's more –
Borup: You’ve got something on the map that people are looking at.
Centers: Yes, that’s what we’re looking at.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: Right now, they’re looking at medium density residential, so why not make
it all mixed-use. I do recall that we did some testimony to that effect that why
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 45
don’t you just make that whole north corridor mixed-use? Then that allows
residential. It allows commercial and you can have either one and you can just
do all that and still take the dots off. People can still bring whatever they want.
Durkin: You guys are doing a great job. You know, you’re going around and
around.
Borup: I think what we’re down to now is –
Nary: That’s because it's drawn in a circle.
Borup: Incentives are important. Do the dots need to be on the map or not? If
they’re not on the map, are developers going to come in and do it?
Durkin: Let me just step out of this part of the discussion. I just want to remind
you of something that you hear every week except for tonight. Since there’s no
one here saying it tonight, I think I’ll fill in the gap. My realtor told me when I
bought my house I came in and looked at the map and I didn’t see anything like
that. Imagine, me coming in and trying to do something and trying to do it quickly
and all of a sudden I’ve got people saying what in the heck? I didn’t understand
that. That wasn’t clear. No one told me that. When I called and asked about it,
they didn’t understand it. I really draw you back to that mixed-use designation.
Like the attorney said, number them if you want and say that a neighborhood
center design would be encouraged in that area and certainly be allowed in that
area. The question, you as a Commission might want to ask Steve, if Dakota
Company came in and applied for one in the area that he hadn’t selected on this
map, would they do back flips and you know, expedite it through. I think that they
probably, I bet his answer would be yes that they would try to race it through. I
think that in order for you to do your job with every other kind of application,
you’ve got to come up with a map that’s crystal clear. Otherwise, you’re going to
hear, we never knew a neighborhood center was going in there. We thought that
was going to be a single family residential. We looked at the map and it wasn’t
clear. You hear it every week. I thought I would remind you.
Centers: So, you’re saying the hash mark idea is a bad one?
Durkin: Well, it's just not --. If it's mixed-use, they look at it and go, mixed-use.
They can say what’s mixed-use?
Norton: Right.
Durkin: Mixed-use is a neighborhood center. Mixed use is office. Here it is 2
paragraphs in the ordinance. This is what mixed use is. Okay. Any of those
things can happen. If it's tan, with hash marks –
Centers: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 46
Norton: The same thing as circles.
Durkin: There’s no tan hash mark section in your ordinance –
Nary: I think having all those lawyers in his family, Mr. Durkin makes a very good
point that –
Durkin: I just drive back to the simplicity of it. How many times --? There was a
sign for 10 years on the corner of Fairview and Eagle saying regional shopping
center coming soon. When it came, people were saying gee I thought there was
going to be a dental office --. You were here Steve, you heard it. It couldn’t have
been more simple. I was at the Eagle City Council the other night and there was
a guy trying to get a subdivision approved. It's near mine. I heard my neighbors,
they’re doctors, lawyers, you know they’re smart people. One right after another
got up and said I was promised that was always going to be a horse ranch.
Before I bought my house, I walked into City Hall and looked at the map, that
was my research and I walked out and made an offer on my house and bought it.
I knew what I was doing and it was real easy for me to see. You’re job is to do
that for everyone else.
Nary: To supplement that too, what Mr. Durkin says, that map is not only
interpreted by us. It's interpreted by title companies, and mortgage companies
and the planning staff –
Borup: Real Estate agents.
Nary: -- and county clerks and everybody else that can look at the map and say
oh, I think that’s what it means because that’s what those people tell us. I asked
our realtor and that’s what he told me.
Norton: Okay, Nary, come up with a motion, okay? We all agree. Just come up
with a motion.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: Good try. Nary.
Centers: I think that if they’re eliminated and we have a good write up right down
there at the bottom under legend –
Norton: Yes.
Centers: -- that they’re encouraged and considered, et cetera, et cetera and
incentives are provided because Larry makes a good point. What I would be
concerned about too –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 47
Borup: Yes, but his point was that it needs to be on there.
Norton: Just written.
Nary: Why do we only have to have one mixed-use type of zone? I mean, can’t
we have a mixed-use neighborhood center zone? Can’t we have a mixed-use
zone that’s different? I mean, we can have 2. I don’t think there’s a problem with
that. I mean, if we want neighborhood centers as one of the options included --.
In Boise, we have design review areas and we have historic district areas. If we
want to say we want --. We have mixed-use that allows all the variety of
commercial office and residential uses that you could have and we want to have
an area that’s mixed-use that also includes neighborhood centers as a potential
use for it. I don’t have a problem with that. That still gives you flexibility. It doesn’t
say that’s all that can be there. It just says that part of the City is a mixed-use, it's
in mixed-use N-C zone and that area when you look at it that includes
neighborhood centers. I know that if I have a mixed-use along Franklin, where
it's, --. I hate those colors. – a mixed-use area that’s along Franklin that’s in that
sort of maroonish color or whatever, that’s mixed-use. I know that area is not a
neighborhood center mixed-use area but if I’ve got a mixed-use zone that’s north
of Ustick, west of black Cat and that’s a mixed-use neighborhood center zone,
that means I get all the mixed-uses plus the neighborhood center. The other
mixed-uses, neighborhood centers just isn’t one of them. That’s the only one
that’s not there. That still gives all the flexibility to have them. It's still on your
map. It just isn’t the only thing on your map.
Borup: So, you’re saying leave the semi-circles?
Nary: No. I’m saying that we create a mixed-use –If we’re going to do this at all, if
we’re going to leave something, if we want to split that baby here then we have a
mixed-use neighborhood center zone and it has all the mixed-uses including
neighborhood centers as a possible use in that area. The other mixed-use zones
don’t have that. Can we do that legally Mr. Moore?
Moore: I’m sure you can do it legally. What are you going to do, take out the
semi-circles and just leave a little box in there that says mixed-use?
Borup: No, create a whole new zone.
Nary: Create a zone. The whole zone –
Moore: Between those areas?
Borup: For the whole 10-12 miles.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 48
Nary: If Steve wants to leave them on the map --. That’s the only way for me that
I could feel comfortable in leaving them on the map is that the whole zone is
defined as mixed-use with a neighborhood center as an option. So that someone
could look at that map and say if I buy my house in that north mile above
McMillan between Linder and Ten Mile, that is a mixed-use neighborhood center
zone. What could be in that zone besides my house? It could be an office. It
could be a shopping center. It could be a neighborhood center. I know it's going
to be something and I can look at that map and I can tell. I’m afraid that cross
hatching and all that, it's going to leave it so open to interpretation by every other
person around that’s a realtor, a mortgage company, a title company or whatever.
No one’s going to know what those things mean, so it's clear. I hate that the
colors all are so similar because I’m getting old enough I can’t see the difference
between them very well any more. If we want to leave them, to me that’s the only
way we can leave it, is that it's just another component of use which is all we’ve
talked about over, and over again. We can build it. I just don’t want it to be the
only thing. Then there is no need to have circles. That whole area that has
circles on it now. It's just a slightly different color of maroon or brown that says M-
U, N-C. Then I think we have sort of split the baby but at least we’ve made it
clear that’s what we intended because that’s all we’ve talked about. It's okay to
do it and it's okay with mixed-uses and it's okay to have it. It's just one of the
types of concepts that we can build and it's designated separately, different than
the other mixed use, so that it's not being left by the side of the road, so people
know we still like it. We still want it. We’re leaving a pretty big open area for it but
we’re letting the market place decide what goes there.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I believe that mixed-use already covers that because we’re already
adding a new land use category called mixed-use. That’s going to be brand new
and it states all that. Planned developments will be required for a conditional use
permit. I think it's already covered.
Nary: Okay.
Norton: I think I’m going to make a motion.
Borup: Are you talking already covered in our existing ordinance?
Norton: No, in the comp plan wording.
Borup: Draft proposal.
Norton: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 49
Borup: The page 9?
Norton: Yes, page 9 because that’s already a new category. Mixed-use is a new
category and I believe it's already covered.
Borup: Well, but, the neighborhood center is kind of an additional concept on
that. All those bullet points I think would –
Norton: They may be too –
Borup: --would go along with the neighborhood center, though. Whereas it may
not --. I mean there’s been some problem with that in some of the other mixed-
use category.
Norton: It might be too specific too, the bullet points.
Borup: Combining what you’re saying is the same thing Bill was saying.
Norton: Right.
Borup: It's kind of --. We’ve got a mixed-use and we’ve got –
Norton: It's already covered.
Borup: -- a mixed-use neighborhood center.
Norton: It's already covered right here. I think.
Nary: What you’re saying is folding in some of the information contained on –
Borup: I like the idea of the 2 zoning myself because those other areas of the
City we want to have mixed-use. The bullet points talk more about mixed-use as
a neighborhood center concept where you’ve got more than one use. That
automatically takes care of that. Other areas may want mixed-use without having
to add 2 different uses in there. We’ve already had testimony stating that they felt
that was a problem. How do you reconcile those?
Norton: Are you asking me?
Borup: Anybody. Without having 2 zonings like Commissioner Nary was talking.
Moore: Chairman Borup. Your mixed-use designates that you have to have at
least 2 different uses within that area and that it has to be a transitional area
designated between medium and low density residential. What you’re doing is
creating an area which designates it differently from your medium and low
density residential. I think you’re trying to say that if they want to put residential
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 50
in there they can, even in the mixed-use, aren’t you? That isn’t what this says.
This says there has to be a barrier somewhere between your mixed-use area
and residential areas. You’re trying to develop something that you can walk out
of residential into that area which was then designated a neighborhood center.
Borup: So, we need another zoning designation?
Moore: Absolutely, if you’re going to do it that way. You can’t just designate it
mixed-use and come out with anything that’s going to work.
Borup: Okay that’s what I was trying to get to, not very well.
Centers: That’s another topic. The mixed-use also requires 2 users if 5 acres or
more. That’s another topic for discussion.
Borup: Right, I think we still want to handle –
Norton: Another topic—
Borup: I guess what I’m saying back to Commissioner Norton’s comment, I see
some problems with just having one designation. Mr. Moore is that what you
were saying?
Moore: Exactly, yes. You’re going to have trouble if you designate a mixed-use
out there for an entire area and then try to say that that’s for neighborhood
centers. It's not going to work.
Borup: Okay. So, we’re back to either having the neighborhood centers or having
two mixed-use categories. A mixed-use and a mixed-use N-C.
Moore: I would suggest that you come up with a different name than mixed-use.
Centers: So, Commissioner Nary, back to your idea. Are you saying that those
semi-circles would be M-U, N-C, just those areas?
Nary: No.
Centers: The whole area?
Nary: Yes. I mean, the only way I can –-
Centers: That I would buy off on.
Nary: I can’t buy off on the dots. I just can’t because to me the only thing we can
do is if we want to say something on this map that tells people we want, we
would like to see neighborhood centers. We want to encourage neighborhood
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 51
centers or whatever, then we need to either have it as a zone or we include it as
a use in the zone that’s already there. But the dots, I’m sorry, I just can’t go with
it. I just think we have to take them off.
Centers: So, make a motion.
Nary: How come I’m always making the motions?
Centers: Because you came up with the idea. I can buy off on that.
Nary: Steve wants to say something.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commissioner)
Norton: What is medium density residential?
Siddoway: 3 to 8 units per acre.
Nary: Right.
Norton: You can have community centers, neighborhood centers in that? Can’t
you have neighborhood centers in that?
Siddoway: Only if you –
Norton: In medium density residential?
Siddoway: Only if you state that. It's not written that way right now.
Borup: You mean presently, is that what you meant Commissioner?
Siddoway: Let me –
Norton: No, we’re talking about the comp plan, I mean the new comp plan.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: See, I think we’ve actually moved beyond comp plan. I think we all sort of
agree to a degree as that the comp plan we want to include neighborhood
centers, we want to define what they are. We want to encourage them. We want
to provide incentives for them. I don’t think anybody disagrees about that. I think
what we disagree with it how –
Borup: How –
Norton: How—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 52
Nary: -- how do we make it noticeable to people. What Steve has said over and
over, if we just take it off, it would appear that we aren’t surely supportive of the
idea. My view is that if we create ordinances that say you get the fast road
through the City if you want to build that, that’s plenty of notice. We just need to
figure out on the map how to make when I buy my house in that half-mile that I
have some idea that it might have a shopping center of some size next to my
house at some point in the future.
Borup: If it's next to your house, it's going to be part of a neighborhood center
and you’re going to know that because the plan is developed that way.
Nary: That’s true.
Borup: It's the ones that area cross the street.
Nary: That’s true. It's when they’re across the street that’s going to say I didn’t
realize that they were going to build that there because when I looked at that
map, it said medium density residential or it said mixed-use. Like Mr. Moore
said, mixed-use maybe isn’t defined to include these. So, do we include it in
mixed-use, that this is another, this is a sub-set of mixed-use, so a person can
know that? Or do we create a completely different zone that says in those areas,
maybe as large as what’s proposed there for the centers but in those areas that’s
a mixed-use or that’s a neighborhood center zone that allows for -- . we would
include medium density residential. We would include a mixed-use as well or a
neighborhood center. I mean, I don’t know. That seems like at some point, it gets
very confusing to people, what is that suppose to be there?
Borup: People need to be on notice that, that’s a possibility.
Norton: Medium use residential is R-8. You can have an R-8 which is everything
we’re talking about in neighborhood centers, so what’s the problem? Everything
we’re talking about in neighborhood centers you can have in R-8.
Siddoway: No you cannot. You cannot have townhouses. You cannot have zero
lot line patio homes. You cannot have apartments. You cannot have commercial.
Norton: You can have hospitals. You can have group homes. You can have
entertainment centers. You can have dry cleaners.
Borup: With conditional use, most –
Norton: With conditional use. You can have clubs and lodges.
Siddoway: But you can’t have any retail and you can’t have any –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 53
Norton: Isn’t a dry cleaner a retail?
Siddoway: No. it's a service.
Norton: You can have boarding houses or lodge houses. Libraries, mobile home
parks and subdivisions. Planned residential development, aren’t those
apartments?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: Single family homes, 3 family dwelling and 2 family –
Siddoway: The way the planned development ordinance is written, it only allows
up to 10 percent density bonus which doesn’t get to the densities we’re trying to
achieve. I am very uncomfortable with the mixed-use designation and I’ll tell you
why. You can decide. Here’s my two cents. We have a mixed-use designation on
the comp plan, today. I can tell you what we get. It's strip commercial and
segregated land uses. Usually we don’t even get a residential component. We
have language in this draft that says that we could encourage that. Usually what
we get is strip commercial with segregated residential behind it. There’s no
integration and that’s not what I think that we want to encourage. It is what I think
would happen with that designation. I think it needs to be specific towards the
neighborhood centers if that’s what we intend. I would be more comfortable just
making it medium density residential. Then allowing them.
Norton: Yes.
Siddoway: That doesn’t get to the specificity issue which has been brought up.
I’m more comfortable with that. Then if someone wants to do commercial they
either do it as a neighborhood center and get a fast track or they go through an
amendment process. Showing them as mixed-use with no direction towards the
design of those uses, the way that we are trying to do with this neighborhood
center concept to me is going to just become commercial along the front with
segregated stuff behind it. It just will. That’s the cheapest thing to build. That’s
what will happen if we allow it. I think we want to disincentive that and then
incentivize the good stuff.
Norton: Isn’t where we’re discussing, most of these are already in medium
density residential?
Siddoway: They themselves, are high density. They are all surrounded by
medium density residential.
Norton: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 54
Siddoway: The whole concept is based on these radiating densities of density.
They would go from high density to medium to low.
Norton: (inaudible) in medium density residential we would encourage
neighborhood centers and put that on the map, in that says it all with your
incentives? How come we have to be so --. I mean, why is this so complicated?
What I see, right now looking at the circles on the map. They are all in medium
density residential. This is what you said, you’re more comfortable with.
Siddoway: Yes. My top choice is –
Norton: But, you’re not negotiating one bit. I don’t see you changing one way or
the other, Steve. I mean, we’re all trying to negotiate. They’re trying to negotiate.
You want this and this is it.
Siddoway: No, I’m saying they can –
Norton: I don’t see any movement.
Siddoway: -- like Jerry’s idea of allowing the flexibility. I don’t think the concept
has a lot of flexibility in terms of whether I think we should give on the
interconnectivity, the design issues that are surrounding these. I see giving lots of
flexibility to –
Borup: Location
Siddoway: -- locational issues. It's design issue for me.
Borup: The design is saying it's got commercial followed by, as you said high
density and on out.
Siddoway: Yes, very high.
Borup: How it's designed –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: The concept is still the same, that it would radiate out. I would still like --. I
think the same thing can be done on a corner, on an intersection corner.
Centers: Yes, I agree. Not to interrupt but I know Mr. Durkin may have an idea for
us. Is that true?
Borup: Not yet.
Centers: He got my attention anyway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 55
Durkin: Yes, I have a (inaudible)
Centers: Okay.
Norton: A motion from (inaudible)
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Durkin: This isn’t going to make Steve happy.
Borup: It's not?
Norton: Sit down Steve.
Durkin: I wrote this down. I’m certain this would work legally. I’m certain it would
work to the extent it works now with neighbors coming in and having a general
clue what’s going on.
Borup: That’s the concern.
Durkin: If you take the circle areas on the map and color them with the same
color that you now have for mixed-use and you insert the letters on there N-C.
Okay? In the text, you define that colored area with the letters N-C as an area
that will allow neighborhood commercial.
Centers: Neighborhood centers.
Durkin: Neighborhood center, I’m sorry, which could be commercial or office,
right? In the ordinance, or in the draft right now, mixed-use requires a planned
unit development. It requires a conditional use so that’s already in there. But you
would have the additional language there that would say in an N-C designated
mixed-use area, whatever development occurs must meet the criteria with
connectivity, density, open space, and pathways. Let me just read what I wrote.
Centers: They’ve got verbiage in the plan regarding the neighborhood centers.
Nary: We could massage some of the verbiage that’s on this section 87, or
whatever it is.
Durkin: In the text, neighborhood commercial means that, or N-C means that
neighborhood centers, neighborhood centers, right? Are allowed but whatever
development occurs must have connectivity, density, open space and pathways.
Norton: It could be anything in mixed-use?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 56
Durkin: It could be whatever’s allowed in mixed-use.
Norton: Allowed in mixed-use
Durkin: But it's not separated. There aren’t block walls dividing it. Whatever you
build there has to have those criteria that are important with or without a
neighborhood center.
Borup: Doesn’t that work, Steve?
Siddoway: I have absolutely no problem with that.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: It sounds to me like it's neighborhood center. It's just changing the
color to me.
Borup: So, it's leaving everything on the map, changing –
Siddoway: -- it must have the things that we’re pushing for. So, I don’t really see
the difference.
Norton: It doesn’t have to be a neighborhood center.
Siddoway: What is the difference frankly?
Borup: How about the flexibility idea of being able to move it?
Nary: What’s the difference from (inaudible)
Siddoway: It doesn’t have –
Durkin: No, it's an option. You can either do --. My suggestion was you can either
do the mixed-use plan, whatever is allowed in mixed-use –
Borup: Or just go with the medium density?
Durkin: Or you can do the medium density but whatever you build on an area
with that designation has to have the components that are important to staff and
are important to the future with connectivity, density, open space, pathways.
Nary: So, what you’re saying is –
Durkin: Those are defined in the text now, those components.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 57
Nary: So, what you’re saying is you can build like you would in a mixed-use zone
but those areas have more specific, more stringent requirements as to what, that
are what are the neighborhood center concept that’s being pushed?
Durkin: You will guarantee yourself that they can still the mixed-use –
Nary: Which part is the option?
Durkin: They can go forward with mixed-use, just a regular mixed-use
development which may –
Nary: Separated residential from commercial, that kind of thing?
Durkin: However, they have to have connectivity, open space, density, and
pathways. Where they don’t have to have that in other areas of mixed-use. For
example the corner of Ustick and Eagle Road is designated here as mixed-use.
There’s nothing in your comp plan now that says that has to have connectivity,
open space, pathway, but if you’re taking these neighborhood areas, that’s going
to continue to encourage the neighborhood center type of developments but it
will allow other mixed-use development that wouldn’t be the neighborhood
center.
Centers: With the fast track verbiage that we’ve been talking all night too?
Durkin: But, if you came in with a neighborhood center in there as we now are
encouraging, you’re on the fast track.
Centers: We have the verbiage to fast track the neighborhood center through the
planning department, blah, blah.
Durkin: Right.
Centers: Speed it up by 6 months.
Durkin: It would be an option. You wouldn’t have to do a neighborhood center.
You would have the other things that you can do in a normal mixed-use
development. If you do a normal mixed-use development that wouldn’t be the
neoclassic neighborhood commercial and neighborhood center that is proposed,
you still have to have some of those components. Does that get you there?
Moore: It really does. You’re going to leave it just like it is, just a different color
with N-C in it.
Durkin: Right. Put the letters N-C on it. In other cities, Boise for example, has the
D designation. The general public knows what that means. If they don’t know
they can find out and they can call anyone at the City and say what --. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 58
appraisers doing an appraisal on a property for someone’s house and they’re
trying to get the surrounding land use, they can pick up the phone and say what
does N-C mean on this. Anyone that picks up the phone at the City of Meridian
will be able to answer it correctly. It's simple.
Nary: I’m not trying to belabor it because it sounds like we’re a little closer than
what we were 3 hours ago. What would a mixed-use not a neighborhood center
look like? What would that be then? Because I’m trying to figure out why is what
you just said and what you wrote on here different than what they’ve already
been saying other than the color –
Borup: Everything except the commercial development.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Durkin: You have the benefit of the book in front of you but in the comp plan
book, I believe there’s a chart that says what is allowed in mixed-use.
Nary: There is. A minimum of 2 different uses, is that what you’re talking about?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: CUP, 2 different uses, must be over 5 acres. Is that the one? It's the one
that’s on page 9 of the attachment B. I’m just trying to figure out why that’s
different. It doesn’t sound very different.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Eaton: Excuse me, John Eaton. They’re on the map. They’re allowed as a mixed-
use, but t you don’t have to do a neighborhood center. That’s the compromise on
your end. You don’t have to do it but if you do it, you’re going to be fast tracked.
You can do the
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Eaton: You can do a mixed-use development but even if you do a mixed-use
development, you’re going to be processed through the long process, you’d still
have to do the connectivity (inaudible).
Nary: So, that has the connectivity and all that --.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: Conceptually, what would that look different? I mean, what would you
(inaudible)?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 59
Durkin: For example, you wouldn’t necessarily have 300-foot blocks. You might
have an area with a group of office buildings –
Nary: Or you wouldn’t have to have any residential?
Durkin: You might not have the residential.
Nary: Where a neighborhood center you would have to have the residential
because that’s the concept? Right? That would be the difference. That I can see.
Eaton: And you wouldn’t have to have a transitional.
Borup: And you wouldn’t have to have the commercial either would you?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Durkin: -- for a mixed-use no matter what you do.
Borup: Yes.
Durkin: Then you’re planning a development ordinance. Your PUD ordinance is
going to trigger it. (inaudible).
Borup: If you didn’t do the neighborhood centers, then you don’t necessarily
have –
Nary: If you to simply do a commercial use –
Borup: No, if you did a residential only?
Nary: Yes, you could do a residential only or you can do a commercial only but
you’re not going to get fast tracked.
Borup: Right.
Nary: But, if you’re going to do the both and try to create the neighborhood
center concept then we’ll get you through the process faster. That’s the
conceptual difference in what those 2 things are. Is that right?
Durkin: Yes.
Nary: That I understand.
Borup: I like having it on the map so the neighbors know. The only question is,
any verbiage in there about flexibility of location?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 60
Centers: -- compromise.
Borup: Or do we need to worry about that?
Nary: Flexibility of location.
Norton: Yes, I was wondering about that too.
Borup: The one-mile radius.
Nary: Oh, we were so close. I don’t think there was probably --. There wasn’t any
heartburn from the staff on the flexibility and I can’t see any heartburn form the
other perspective of flexibility of location. I don’t think it matters. I mean, I don’t
think anybody cares. If we’re going to leave them dots and you want to put it
within a mile of –
Norton: Flexibility, yes.
Nary: I don’t think that matters to anybody. That seems okay.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: That’s true.
Norton: Does anybody else –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: Maybe somebody else might want to discuss the flexibility of the dots.
Borup: Anybody else from --. Steve we were just talking about and it sounds like
we about got somewhere about the location flexibility. Any problem still having
that in there?
Centers: I like that.
Siddoway: Not from me.
Nary: I mean, Mr. Moore raises a good point that the concern is, is that if you
want to buy a house, you just look at that map and say that semi-circle only goes
this big. I want to buy a house a mile away and you can move it actually right
next to me. Then I might have some problem with that. Do we have to draw
bigger circles so that it's clear that this actually covers a fairly bigger area than
what’s there?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 61
Nary: Why don’t you guys come sit up here for the rest of this meeting.
Norton: Just do it.
Centers: I like that concept.
Durkin: (inaudible). I like Joann. I like her, she’s a nice lady but she will knock it
out of the box, --
Borup: What? The moving it?
Durkin: --out of the ballpark. With the roaming because she’s a good land use
lawyer and she would love that. Some guy with, --
Borup: It depends on who’s retaining here and what they want.
Durkin: Some guy with 400 acres that wants something different and he wants to
nullify the comprehensive plan for the City of Meridian. that would be a significant
incentive to knock it out of the box. I really believe that it would.
Borup: You know, I really believe --. If something comes up, I mean, if it doesn’t
work and things come up we’ll make the changes. Whether it's a year, 2 years
from now or whatever.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. I disagree. Joann Butler nor anyone else has knocked
out 93 comp plan out of the box for the fact that the parks float, the schools float,
the well sites float. We have lots of floating elements on our comp plan and we
haven't had a problem with it.
Borup: (inaudible) isn’t it a little different?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Durkin: The statutes are different. Those are public services and the statutes
categorize them differently Steve. She reads it and she knows it. It's a different
statute for –
Siddoway: I mean, I can be wrong but I --.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: -- different than a school or a park.
Durkin: It's a different state law regarding public parks, wells, city sewer and
water and those types of things than private property right land is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 62
Borup: Schools fire stations, all that’s in there.
Nary: Well, lets not come this far and then end up shooting ourselves in the foot
by creating such –
*** End of Side Three ***
Nary: -- that it ends up being shot down. If someone wants to do that, let the City
Council be the one to do it.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: At this point, we leave it like it is? Change the color to all the same,
medium density and just label it.
Norton: Medium density or mixed-use?
Nary: No, I think what was proposed is that we change the --. What we would be
recommending and I guess I can make this in the form of a motion. I guess what
we would move, is we would recommend to the City Council that on the land use
map. That we would --. Well, what we would do is we first would -- . We would
recommend in the text to define this concept of neighborhood center mixed-use
and what that is. What we do is incorporate some of the concepts that are
already contained in the text of the June 2001 memo which talks about page 87
of the June 2000 –
Norton: Page 9.
Nary: Oh. Well, page 8 talks about neighborhood center and page 9 talks about
mixed-use. That we would basically create a category called, recommend
something to the effect of our mixed-use neighborhood center and change the
color on the map to reflect that. To leave them on the half miles at this point. That
we would include that in the text and recommend that they have ordinances that
include for neighborhood centers to fast track processing of neighborhood
centers if that was the concept that someone wants to build with a suggested
fast tracking methods proposed in this memo of October 31st from Larry Durkin,
John Eaton, and Mark Estes which includes 3 items. One is a that the item would
be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and would only be heard by
the Council on appeal. That secondarily an ordinance would be adopted that
would set a time limit --. I was talking slow so you --. That we would set a time
limit of when the matter had to be heard before the next Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, I guess mine is the suggestion would be that we set it as
short as reasonable which is probably 45 days. That we also include an
ordinance –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 63
Borup: That’s about what it is now.
Nary: (inaudible) 30 days or immediately next meeting, I guess because if it
comes in one day and we cancel a meeting then obviously it would be the very
next one. We wouldn’t want to move it closer. We would have to move it --. Either
the very next meeting or within 30 days.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: That way we can still meet the 15-day requirement and that also as No. C,
or letter C says adopt an ordinance requiring that they expedite the plan review
and that this must be completed --. I don’t have any concept without anybody
here from that department as to what would be reasonable. I’m assuming what
would be reasonable is 30 days or less. I don’t know what that number is. I
guess the Council (inaudible). That this mixed-use neighborhood center zone
that we’re creating would be defined as allowing 2 different types of
development. One would either be mixed-use consistent with the other
designation of mixed-use that’s already in the plan, that can be found on page 9
of the June 2001 memo which actually refers to page 87 of the draft plan or in
the alternative, --
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: If mixed-use is done consistent with that it would still require connectivity,
density, open space, and pathways with the surrounding area and that the
neighborhood center would be the alternative use in that would be consistent
with the definition of neighborhood uses. Then we can still leave the dots, they
would just be a different color on the land use map and we would have a
designation on the land use map on those dots as N-C that we could clearly
define that on the legend as an area that’s different than the regular mixed-use
zone. Did I miss anything? We’ve covered the map. We’ve covered the text of
the comprehensive plan. We’ve covered the ordinances that are required for fast
track as well. We’ve covered alternatives uses of either mixed-use under the one
definition or the mixed-use neighborhood centers under a secondary definition
but with an additional requirement for mixed-uses on these N-Cs to have
connectivity, open space, density, and pathways with the rest of the
neighborhood. Is that everything?
Centers: Of course you would identify it under the legend.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: Is that a motion?
Nary: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 64
Centers: Did you get that?
Moore: No. That’s all right. I’ll get a copy of the tape.
Centers: I second that motion.
Borup: Any other discussion? The thought had occurred to me while this was
going on, I hope that the effort that we put in on this does not go to waste when it
hits City Council.
Nary: Tuesday, you can make that decision yourself.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: We have a motion and a second.
Borup: Yes. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: This is off the subject a little bit but pathways should not go through mini
storage warehouses.
Norton: Nor, behind Fred Meyer’s.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: Thank you for helping draft – helping us get through this. I think we’re all
happy.
Nary: And your patience.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Do we have any, --. Is everything along this line that we would like staff to
draft some language that –
Norton: Yes, staff can you draft some ordinances for us?
Borup: Or some language that we would like to see in the ordinance, maybe
would be better.
Nary: Are we putting the cart before the horse to do that before the Council
reviews it?
Centers: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 65
Nary: Because all we’re recommending to Council is the comp plan –
Centers: But, Steve you’ve got to admit that’s a very good compromise.
Siddoway: Just for clarification, the motion was mixed-use like the other mixed-
use zone but requiring the 4 –
Nary: With 4 additional requirements or neighborhood centers.
Siddoway: Or neighborhood centers?
Norton: But, --
Centers: Then if they go neighborhood center, they’re fast track –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: And it's going to include those 4 things anyway because that’s what the
neighborhood center concept is anyway.
Norton: But, Steve, those colors change to the mixed-use color with an N-C in
them.
Siddoway: That’s fine. I don’t think I see –
Moore: Why do those have to be half circles? Why can’t they be squares?
Siddoway: The reason is that a quarter mile radius is determined in all the
planning literature as the distance that people will walk for services. Having said
that, I’ll show you we don’t anticipate that it will look like a perfect half circle. We
look at that as an average distance from the services for that to be --. It can be a
rectangle.
Moore: I’m looking on page 89 in your comprehensive plan and it's not a half
circle. I mean, it's –
Nary: It's a block.
Moore: It's a block.
Borup: The physical site is going to have constraints –
Siddoway: This is the half circle.
Borup: You know, a canal through their property, ownership, all that stuff.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 66
Siddoway: It meets the --. This is
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: I think it's fine the way it is.
Nary: I don’t know about anybody else but I don’t know that we want to keep
going tonight.
Borup: Well, I wouldn’t mind maybe hitting some points.
Norton: Yes, I think we should go on. I think we should go to 10:30 and get
through some of this stuff.
Borup: Okay.
Durkin: I have assured you that I’ll stay as long as you want anytime and if –
Borup: I think we’re --. We really appreciate what you’ve done –
Centers: Do you live in Meridian Larry or Boise?
Norton: Eagle.
Centers: Eagle, that’s right you said that.
Borup: We’re probably only going to be looking at the land use map and then
probably a couple of other points. So, we’ve got through the tough --.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: We’ve got through the tough issues. This is the one we needed help in.
we appreciate it very much.
Norton: The one issue I still have I think is the frontage road north side of I-84,
Meridian to Star. This is what I have as other issues on my list, bike paths,
overlay, north Meridian planned, M-U –
(inaudible discussion amongst audience)
Norton: Somebody said eliminate the minimum of 2 different uses, need flexibility
in mixed-use.
Centers: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 67
Norton: Frontage road on north side I-84 Meridian to Star. We should make that
all commercial and not have to put up fences for residential and future land use.
Those are the things that I still have on my list. So, do you have any comments?
Borup: Maybe the I-84 thing you might –
Durkin: I’m a little confused on that.
Borup: Someone had suggested that have a frontage road along I-84 and not
have the residential right up to the freeway.
Norton: It's prime commercial use because of the I-84. I mean, just look at
Meridian Ford, Cisco, all that stuff. Then you go on further up and people, you
know that big vinyl fence along the freeway. Somebody had suggested to do like
a frontage road along I-84, like Overland but between Meridian and Star because
that’s where you know the BSU West campus is going to be. Someone said
that’s prime commercial. You can see it all the way on the freeway.
Borup: But right now, we’re looking probably from Linder west.
Norton: Linder west, yes.
Borup: Because Linder east is already filled in.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: So, it would be Linder to Ten Mile would be the first stretch.
Durkin: I think there’s a lot of support for that. In fact I know a developer that’s
submitted plans just with a frontage road between Ten Mile and Linder along the
freeway.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: So you would support –
Durkin: However, you do have some problems there because there’s an
occupied subdivision right at Linder, right up to the freeway. So, it really would
start –
Borup: East of Linder.
Durkin: No. West of Linder.
Norton: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 68
Berg: There’s a county subdivision –
Durkin: There’s a school on Linder.
Norton: Yes.
Durkin: Are you with me?
Borup: Yes.
Durkin: Then between the school and the freeway, south and west of there is an
occupied subdivision. There's an aerial on the other side.
Borup: Oh, right there.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: You’re upside down, aren’t you?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Durkin: This is an occupied subdivision.
Norton: See, and that’s an old one too.
Borup: What's that, acre lots?
Durkin: There are some one-acre lots, some smaller, some (inaudible). These
are (inaudible).
Norton: But from there on over, we could do commercial.
Borup: But it doesn’t go anywhere though.
Durkin: There's going to be a frontage road going right there.
Borup: Okay, that accomplishes the same principal.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: What do we say?
Nary: You can make that go to the further west.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 69
Norton: This way, can’t we do that commercial? They could all be commercial.
Borup: Oh, you’re saying change the zoning designation along the freeway?
Norton: Right, to say –
Borup: Yes, this is low density right here.
Norton: Yes, to save --. I mean, why put houses and a big fence when business
can get exposures from that freeway and they like that?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: So, that would be my --. You know that makes sense to me.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: That’s why we’ve got to start planning now.
Norton: Yes.
Nary: I think that the other –
Borup: On the south side it is.
Norton: The south side, yes. But we’re talking north side.
Nary: I think the other –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Well, but Overland is close enough to act as a frontage road right now.
Nary: The other side of the coin though on that freeway density is that you know
that’s probably you’re most visible corridor into your city, is the freeway.
Borup: Oh, not get too ugly.
Nary: Then all of a sudden you have essentially, big giant strip commercial
development all along your freeway that you drive down and you see 40 foot
signs. Then a 35-foot sign and then a 55-foot sign. Everybody wants a sign you
can see all the way to Ontario. So that you have this whole strip all the way down
there that that’s all you see. one thing after another. It's sort of Fairview Avenue
exploded. I mean, it's on your freeway. That’s all people see, your whole corridor
as they pass through the City of Meridian. Their assumption is, is well, their
whole town must look like that. I think that’s the other side of the coin, is that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 70
necessarily the only kind of development. I would agree with what was talked
about is that it's probably not the greatest place to out houses right there next to
the freeway. It's noisy. It's dusty. It's dirty.
Borup: It's going to be lower end houses because no one’s going to go high-end
houses there.
Centers: There's a nice development –
Nary: Right, no one’s going to build a $300,000 house next to the freeway, I
agree.
Centers: There's $250,000 houses just to the east of Eagle Road and north of
the freeway, Edgeview. With proper landscaping and berm and fence it can be
done. And they have a school right in the middle of the development.
Borup: Well, but, --
Nary: But it's not on the freeway.
Borup: The ones on the freeway –
Centers: No, you have a good setback.
Borup: They had to lower the price of those lots by 10 or 15,000 and allow and
change the covenants for smaller homes.
Centers: I don’t doubt it Keith but it's totally built out and it was built out in no
time.
Borup: That’s the only way they got the freeway ones to do it.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: I did one of them.
Eaton: You know there's a big difference. I live on the north side of the street, my
backyard, no south. If you go on the other side of the street and get in their
backyard, it sounds like the ocean is coming at you constantly.
Centers: Prevailing wind –
Nary: I mean, you look at what they had to do in Boise along the freeway up by
Edward’s. you know they had to build a big giant stonewall to be able to buffer
some of that sound. I don’t know what it's like. Maybe that cuts it all down, I have
no idea. That’s just the thought that if we --. Isn’t great for residential but it isn’t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 71
necessarily the total look that you want to have, is just one large light industrial
type of look. I mean, it wasn’t that long ago when you drove into Meridian and
the first thing you saw was the –
Centers: Watertower.
Nary: No, it was the truck, or the farming truck implement place –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: Yes and that’s what you saw.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: So, I don’t know. You know that’s --. Like I said I’m not against it. I’m just
saying that isn’t that a concern that we’d have is that all we do is encourage just
that all the way down there. It's going to look like Fairview. Nobody thinks that
looks great.
Borup: So, I guess we’re on the land use?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: These are all the specific requests, correct Steve?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: If I recall –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: The same thing. Correct me if I’m wrong, most of these requests were
one individual.
Norton: Yes.
Borup: In most cases the landowner. This one right here was Walt Warner, you
know I want, I think he said mixed-use.
Nary: Yes.
Borup: I guess, the way I’m leaning I don’t think we can just pick and choose and
dot that map up with all of these requests for mixed-use or what have you. But, I
will go along with MontView. We saw every resident that lives there that wants
commercial zone and I am highly in favor of giving them what they want, totally. I
don’t think there's any choice. Now, you can do what you want to do with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 72
other specific individual small requests. But, that subdivision, I mean, they came
out in full force and let them have their commercial. I mean, we all know where it
borders. It's right across from RC Willey. It backs up to St Lukes. It's across from
another professional office building. Commercial zone would fit and I think Steve
would agree with that. The use there would fit and if they wanted something
commercial, they would get it. I think we said that.
Centers: If it's designated mixed-use on this map, does that prevent it from being
annexed and zoned commercial?
Borup: No.
Centers: Right.
Borup: But if it makes those residents happy –
Norton: I agree.
Borup: -- to give them commercial coming in with the comp map, then give it to
them.
Norton: Yes, what's it going to hurt? What's it going to hurt if we just give them
the commercial?
Siddoway: The only difference would be the conditional use permit requirement.
Borup: We can add that –
Siddoway: And –
Borup: Well, that would be done at the time of annexation, wouldn’t it?
Siddoway: You could add that as a requirement at the time of annexation.
Borup: The City has always done that. Do you mean add it to the comp plan or
just do it when the –
Siddoway: No.
Borup: -- application comes in?
Siddoway: It's always an option.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: I think we would want to do that is my feeling.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 73
Norton: Sure.
Nary: My only real concern on the conditional use on that particular property has
always been that there's that apartment residential type of facility immediately to
the east of that facility.
Norton: Yes.
Nary: I would certainly want to have that ability under the conditional use to have
some determination what goes in there because there are going to be residents
right next to it. There isn’t any residents anywhere else that are going to impact
it, but that one is. So, at least whatever method that we could use to make sure
we had some say what went in there would be fine to me. I think that was, at
least what I recall from the staff report at the time, that was what the concern was
from the staff, was that we just want to have some control over what it is.
Siddoway: Yes, that is the main issue. You know, the Commission was
discussing the mixed-use category and whether 2 uses should be required or
whether 5 acres was the right size and maybe not. That would be the only other
difference in my mind is if that language stayed and then they were required to
do 2 uses if they developed in all under one. If you were to take that language
out, I see no difference at all between designating it mixed-use with no
requirement for 2 uses or doing it as commercial with a requirement for a CUP
when it's annexed.
Borup: Maybe we ought to discuss that first?
Norton: I’ll make that motion because I –
Borup: The mixed-use?
Norton: No, commercial designated –
Centers: With CUP.
Norton: -- CUP when it's annexed.
Centers: They wouldn’t object to that.
Nary: No, because I wouldn’t care if there's only one use there. I just want to
know what it is.
Norton: I wouldn’t either.
Centers: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 74
Borup: Me. Too.
Nary: Because if it's St Al’s type of, I mean, obviously they’re not going to build it
right next to the hospital but that doc in a box that St Al’s is going to build over on
Cherry Lane. It closes at 10:00. it doesn’t open until 7:00 in the morning. They
can orient the building away from the --. No big deal.
Norton: Can we get this out of the way because this would be great if we could
move on it?
Nary: Sure.
Norton: Jerry?
Centers: Well, my motion would be just in general terms here. My motion would
be to leave the rest of the requests alone.
Norton: Right.
Borup: Do you mean, not even address them?
Norton: No, I think there are some particular ones that I would like to look at but
this one I think we all agree on this particular one.
Centers: Oh, well.
Borup: Can we combine everything all at once?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: No we can’t.
Centers: You know, I would move that the MontView, is that correct, subdivision,
that portion that is presently designated mixed-use be designated commercial
on the new land use map with the condition of a CUP at that time.
Norton: (inaudible)
Centers: At the time of annexation, correct.
Norton: I second.
Nary: Would it be at the time of annexation or be the time of any development?
Because you can annex it without having a concept of what you’re going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 75
build. There wouldn’t be much point in getting a CUP at the time of annexation if
they don’t have (inaudible) --.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: At whatever time that they’re going to have a concept of plan of they’re
going to build.
Siddoway: Making CUP a condition of annexation, I think is what you’re saying.
Centers: How do you do that?
Borup: Is that a note on the map?
Siddoway: That’s the thing that I was going to ask is, I don’t how you –
Borup: How do you guarantee that?
Siddoway: -- I don’t know how you designate that on the map.
Centers: The CUP?
Borup: Yes. What if 5 years from now –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Nobody in this room is here and no one remembers?
Centers: Didn’t you say earlier that, you know, and I’ve seen it when we get an
annexation request, we have the option to require the CUP. We have the option.
Siddoway: Yes, the question is whether you want the comprehensive plan to
state that this property will require a CUP when it's annexed?
Centers: No.
Siddoway: Okay.
Centers: Because we have that option now anyway. We’re just bringing it in. the
motion would be with commercial zone –
Siddoway: Just making it public record.
Centers: -- and that’s it.
Nary: We just want it part of the record.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 76
Borup: It's up to you to remember that when it comes in.
Nary: You can’t leave.
Norton: So, what is the motion again, finally?
Centers: Designate Mont View Subdivision commercial on the land use map.
Norton: Period?
Centers: Period.
Norton: I second that. Lets vote.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: A question I’ve got on the rest of the special requests, are any of those,
do we have any problems on any of them?
Norton: I think there was one.
Borup: I wonder if we can make a motion to approve them all as staff has done
except for and eliminate the ones that we don’t agree with?
Norton: Let me look –
Borup: Maybe add a few more.
Siddoway: I have a problem with most of them but I could point out a couple to
you that I don’t.
Centers: That’s what I would like to hear.
Borup: Which is easier? Which is the shorter list?
Siddoway: The ones that I don’t have a problem with.
Norton: The ones you don’t have a problem with?
Siddoway: Yes.
Norton: Okay, shoot.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 77
Centers: Was that one of them?
Siddoway: That’s one of them.
Norton: Okay, shoot.
Siddoway: The corner of Franklin and Locust Grove, there's a request to go from
single family residential to mixed-use. That property –
Borup: Franklin, Locust Grove, you say?
Siddoway: Franklin and Locust Grove. It is north of Woodbridge and next to the
proposed mini storage, Franklin Mini Storage.
Borup: You’re saying that’s one you’re okay with?
Siddoway: That is one that I’m okay with. It's got the Five Mile Creek running
through it. It's a difficult property to develop under single-family residential
requirements.
Centers: This little (inaudible)
Siddoway: Mixed-use would give them some flexibility.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
nary: It's designated, change from (inaudible)?
Borup: The next one?
Siddoway: Just go down and right a little bit. There's one on the north side of the
freeway, next to Locust View Heights. It says to consider changing that from
commercial to limited office. That was one that, if you look at the land use map, -
-
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: We already have designated limited office adjacent to Green Hill
Estates Subdivision. It's just proposing to continue that south adjacent to Locust
View Heights.
Unidentified Speaker: Which gives a buffer between that and the residential?
Siddoway: Yes, it gives a buffer between the commercial and the existing
residential.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 78
Borup: The property owner proposed this?
Siddoway: No, that is not a property owner. That one is from staff.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: We can be clear about that. Most of these are property owner but that
one is staff.
Borup: Basically as a buffer?
Siddoway: Yes, the reason would be the same reason the –
Nary: If we agree with that and we send this forward to the City Council, will they
re-send notice to that property owner so that he knows that is no longer in a
mixed-use and now it's an office? Generally they don’t care but will he get a
notice?
Siddoway: Generally not.
Nary: That would be the only thing to me is the concern is that if that person saw
this map the way it is –
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: -- and now we change it because staff has brought that forward, is
somebody going to tell him?
Borup: You’re saying that that’s what the purple is already?
Nary: Is office.
Siddoway: The purple is already office. We’re just saying bump it down.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Doing them the same courtesy that the other 2 subdivisions have?
Siddoway: That’s correct.
Nary: But the person who owns the piece that we changing from mixed-use to
office does not going a notice that we changed the map. The adjacent property
owner isn’t going to get a notice and the property owner hat we’re changing it?
That would be my only concern is that he’s going to say, hey you know I came to
those meetings and the last time that I came, it was mixed-use and now I show
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 79
up and it's all purple. I was going to put a gas station there or I was going to put
another fast food there.
Borup: Yes.
Nary: That would be my only concern. I agree with the reason. I think the reason
makes sense. I just want to make sure the person has the opportunity, even
(inaudible) the Council to say wait a minute. I don’t know how to assure that.
Siddoway: Make a motion to have Will send him a letter.
Berg: Make a motion for P&Z staff to notify him the reason why they did that.
Siddoway: That’s fine.
Nary: Did the City Clerk’s office ask for this change?
Berg: No.
Nary: Then I think that Planning and Zoning staff should probably send this
gentleman a letter to let him know that we requested this change.
Siddoway: Do you mean I can’t slough that off?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: -- get points for trying, sure.
Nary: Just so they have notice. I mean most people don’t care. I’m going to
guess that the people that could develop that office is not going to be a
problematic use. I mean, probably, I just don’t want someone coming in saying
hey wait a minute it used to be red and now it's purple.
Siddoway: Okay.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: So, just give notice. What was the other --?
Berg: You could send a letter explaining the reason why and I don’t think that
would be a problem.
Siddoway: Yes.
Unidentified Speaker: It looks like there's 3 parcels there. This doesn’t show
parcels but – I think –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 80
Borup: This one looked like it was 3 parcels.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: It is 3 parcels.
Berg: Even though there might only be 1 house on that and one owner because
they’ve subdivided it.
Nary: They don’t have to compare it. I mean, they can go to Council and they
can say now I don’t want that. That’s why I’m concerned. Is that the only ones
you didn’t have problems with? Your list was very short.
Unidentified Speaker: What's with the deal up there at the top right?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: The only thing we talked about was changing this particular piece from
commercial to office because office, -- you look on the map, it's purple. On the
proposed map, it's basically taking this piece and extending it all the way there.
What we said was that if we decided to do that, that we would give notice to the
property owners that we’re changing it because my concern is that they came
and saw this map and they don’t get a notice that we changed it because the
staff is the one that’s requesting it not the property owners.
Centers: Was there any testimony on that parcel?
Nary: Probably not.
Centers: At the public hearing?
Nary: No.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: Staff was just concerned that extending it down would make it a little more
buffered and make sense. It does make sense. I just didn’t want a property
owner to come in and say hey I didn’t even know that you changed. I saw that
map --
Siddoway: It gives Locust View Heights the same treatment that we gave
(inaudible).
Nary: The other one we changed was on Franklin and Locust Grove.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 81
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: -- from medium density residential mixed-use because right there that
location is not a good spot for medium density residential. This is the storage
units we went through (inaudible).
Siddoway: Approved apartments across the street, commercial on the other side
of the street. It's got a large flood plain. It's going to be difficult to do a single
family residential in.
Nary: That was all that Steve didn’t have a problem with.
Norton: Those were the only ones he did not have a problem with?
Borup: Didn’t you have one more?
Siddoway: That’s it.
Norton: What if –
Borup: Oh, really?
Norton: Steve, what about, there's 4 neighbors about right where the overpass is,
they want commercial.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Locust Grove?
Norton: Yes, right here. They want commercial.
Borup: These guys?
Norton: These guys.
Borup: On the north side here?
Norton: Yes, there are 4 of them. Well, they can’t hear you anyway. Whoever’s
transcribing this is going to have a heck of a time.
Borup: Well, how about going mixed-use then?
Siddoway: No.
Norton: Where is that? Is it very low density now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 82
Borup: Well, it's existing housing now. It's acre lots. It's residential housing I
believe.
Nary: That’s going to have an overpass to the freeway.
Borup: Yes. They’re right across the street from Jabil.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Meridian has to buy that.
Siddoway: So, do you buy residential or do you buy --?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: They can come in and request a rezone when the overpass gets built and
it's no longer viable for residents. They can always come and (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Lets worry about it then.
Norton: Okay.
Nary: Just for the record too, I mean, my general view on those other individual
concerns which may be different than everybody else is bring a project, ask for a
rezone, that’s how you do it. If we start playing pick and choose because
someone came in, all we’ve done is invite the other neighbor to come in and say
wait a minute, that guy came in and asked for commercial now I want it to be
residential.
Centers: That was my point.
Nary: Yes. So I would rather say, bring the project, come ask for a rezone at that
time. That’s the appropriate time to look at it.
Centers: that right.
Borup: (inaudible) there's a couple others I would like to get some input on.
Norton: Yes.
Borup: One would be the people that want to be just taken out of the area.
Norton: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 83
Nary: That doesn’t need to be part of this because that happens through the
county process.
Centers: Yes, we did take him out.
Nary: I thought we didn’t. I thought we (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: -- urban service planning area.
Siddoway: He’s still in the impact area.
Nary: But that process is done through negotiation with the City Council and the
county and the City of Boise.
Borup: So, we don’t have to worry about that then?
Nary: I don’t think we need to worry about it because I think that happens outside
of this process.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: -- a little premature for this stuff up here on McMillan too, isn’t it?
Siddoway: We already allow for mixed-use in all those centers.
Borup: That takes, actually that handles about half of these requests, the mixed-
use.
Centers: This guy wanted out too.
Norton: Yes.
Nary: But it's the same issue. In that little corner piece up here.
Berg: That’s being dealt with.
Nary: Those issues, those will get taken care of –
Borup: The only ones I may elect to address is this thing down here, the chicken
coops and the –
Nary: Walt Warner?
Centers: They’re storage.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 84
Borup: And the gas station and all that stuff.
Nary: They’re not chicken coops any more they’re storage.
Borup: Right.
Centers: Yes, Walt’s piece.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: On the other corner is the chicken coop storage buildings. They’re
designated as, they are currently medium density residential.
Norton: That should be mixed-use, don’t you think?
Centers: Give him mixed-use.
Norton: Lets see, wait a minute.
Nary: If that’s right along the highway –
Norton: The (inaudible) mixed-use, American Paving wants commercial.
Borup: Or mixed-use.
Centers: You can do commercial with mixed-use anyway.
Borup: Well the staff put commercial or mixed-use. This is going mixed-use. So,
essentially this whole --. Well, this guy is outside anyway. So, these 3 mixed-use
is what they’re asking for.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: The only thing with the difference with this and what the staff wanted was
putting another commercial there on the corner but it doesn’t seem like it's very
good for residential.
Siddoway: It's not.
Nary: Because this is the highway right? This is the Meridian Kuna highway.
Borup: He’s almost proposing a small neighborhood center there isn’t he?
Commercial on the corner –
Nary: He’s even got a dot.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 85
Norton: Okay, so we’re going to go mixed-use (inaudible)?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: It is with me.
Borup: Our one other one (inaudible).
Nary: I’m not making this motion. You guys can do it.
Borup: The USPA, see all that we eliminated that.
Norton: We took all that out.
Borup: So, we took care of that.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: Designating Sally’s motion (inaudible)
Borup: This area I was wondering, I don’t know.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: It's already commercial isn’t it? Wait a minute –
Norton: Here’s Ten Mile and Franklin, south of Franklin.
Borup: This little piece right here. no, this little sliver. Oh, yes clear up to the
corner is residential.
Nary: Well, we’ve already allowed this as mixed-use with the neighborhood
center, right?
Norton: Yes.
Borup: But, we’ve got commercial across the street.
Centers: That’s the one they’re fighting.
Borup: And south of it.
Norton: It's medium density residential right here. The guy wants what (inaudible)
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 86
Borup: So, he can still come in and ask for –
Nary: Once we’ve left the –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: Once we’ve left the mixed-use residential –
Borup: Or he can come in and ask for a zoning change too.
Norton: Okay. All right, so we wont deal with that one.
Borup: So, is that everything?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: Along Meridian Road between Victory and Overland. He wanted mixed-
use.
Borup: This?
Centers: Between Victory and Overland.
Borup: This whole section here. No we haven't discussed that one.
Centers: What do we have that as now?
Norton: Right here, Jerry.
Siddoway: There's some commercial and some residential and some public,
quasi-public.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Oh, down here at Victory Greens, then the nursery is here.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: That’s already got a gas station there.
Siddoway: This is already developed as single family residential.
Borup: This is a church.
Siddoway: There's an application here. There's a church. There's very little left
to –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 87
Borup: So, it's mainly on the west side?
Berg: No, there's a trucking place right here.
Borup: Oh, yes, there's already some commercial in here too.
Nary: Bring a project and ask for a rezone.
Centers: I agree with that on Meridian Road.
Nary: Because otherwise we’re just picking and we’re just shooting into the dark.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: It looks like the only thing we’re going to change (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: You can do almost anything, right?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: This is talking about doing this (inaudible) getting this interchange built.
Norton: Why can’t we do mixed-use, this?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: Yes, that one time I said (inaudible), it said inaudible.
Borup: That’s what this guy is asking for.
Norton: This guy is asking for mixed-use.
Borup: This guy is asking for commercial. I think his --. Is this the –
Norton: Oh, he’s asking for commercial.
Borup: Is this a trunk line or a canal?
Norton: It looks like a sewage.
Nary: Since we left that mixed-use neighborhood centers in that area, it doesn’t
make sense to change that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 88
Norton: No, we’d just do it all mixed-use.
Borup: What's this line? I can’t read that. Is that a trunk line or a canal?
Siddoway: It's both.
Nary: But if you change this to –
Norton: This is a drain.
Borup: Okay, well, that’s probably a natural boundary then. Maybe it would make
sense to make this south of the drain commercial.
Nary: If you change this to mixed-use, haven't we defeated the concept of
leaving this as a mixed-use neighborhood center because you wouldn’t be able
to have residential around because you’d end up with this area having
residential.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: So, what did we end up with Amity and south --?
Borup: I show that we got –
Centers: Give Walt Warner and the boys --?
Borup: Yes, those guys, the stuff there by the magic view –
Centers: Yes?
Norton: We want 3 (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: The one up there by Woodbridge area. So, that’s one are, 2 areas, -- 3
areas, 4 areas.
Nary: Where else are you --?
Borup: 4 areas, 6 properties.
Centers: Lets hear a motion Sally.
Norton: Okay, I’m coming.
Borup: Is that all of them?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 89
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: I’m with Bill, you can’t –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: No, you left off one. No, I’m sorry that’s it.
Unidentified Speaker: 1, 2, 3.
Borup: It's really 5, kind of 5 people, 3 areas.
Unidentified Speaker: Okay.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: The Jerry centers survey.
Norton: Jerry Centers polling --. All right are we ready?
Nary: I guess.
Borup: So, we just --. It looks like we’ve got 3 areas, 5 basically 5 properties.
Centers: Are they all wanting mixed-use or different?
Borup: Yes. Well, no the one we’re talking office –
Centers: Okay.
Borup: -- and the others are mixed-use.
Norton: Okay, we’re here –
Borup: The office is a separate motion?
Centers: No.
Norton: Okay. this, this, --
Borup: What? No we already did that one.
Norton: We did that one?
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 90
Norton: Okay.
Borup: So, we’re saying here for office.
Norton: Okay. Not in a motion. That’s an office –
Borup: Mixed-use.
Norton: -- mixed-use –
Borup: And mixed-use.
Norton: Okay, mixed-use, these 2?
Borup: And here.
Norton: Okay, 1, 2, 3, 4?
Borup: Right.
Norton: And we’re going to leave this alone?
Borup: It looks like we’re okay. I’m a little concerned about this guy south of the
canal. But they can come in and ask for something at the time.
Norton: Okay. For the record I’m going to make a motion. I move that we change
the following locations to mixed-use; and you’ll have to refer to the map, Larry
knows.
Moore: Yes.
Norton: Okay. I’m just going to go locations, Victory Road and Locust Grove, the
corner as designated by the map. Never mind. Forget that. I’m looking at the
map –
Borup: I don’t think we talked about that one.
Norton: I’m looking at the map dated 9-20 prepared by Steve Siddoway and Brad
Hawkins. Okay, now I’m going to start the motion. These 3? Okay. The corner of
Amity Road and Meridian Road where it is all, change that all to mixed-use.
There’s 3 different portions. Then on the corner of Franklin and Locust Grove,
what is red. Change all that to mixed-use, the red. We got MontView Subdivision.
That’s going to be changed to commercial. We already made that motion.
Where’s the other mixed-use?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 91
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: Okay. North of the freeway, Magic View?
Borup: Yes, I think Magic View Subdivision.
Norton: Oh, Magic View. Next to Magic View Subdivision –
Borup: That’s in Magic View next to Locust View Heights.
Norton: Next to Locust View Heights, east of Locust View Heights, change to –
Borup: Office.
Norton: -- change to office use. That’s it.
Centers: Did we get the Walt Warner property?
Borup: Yes.
Nary: Yes we did.
Centers: Amity Road and –
Nary: Amity and Meridian Road.
Borup: Yes, we did all 3 corners.
Nary: Right.
Centers: Did you get that right?
Moore: Yes.
Centers: Okay. Excuse me.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion second. Any other discussion, additions? Seeing none, all in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Then everything else left as is on the current draft?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 92
Nary: (inaudible) to bring it forward and ask for a rezone. That’s the opportune
time to look at that.
Borup: I think that will work. The only one I was even concerned about is the one
on Ten Mile. But, the same thing. They can come in and ask for a rezone.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: I could repeat it.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Yes. Well, there was 3 locations. Right. Do we want to discuss the mixed-
use?
Centers: 5 acres or more?
Borup: Yes. That whole bullet point thing?
Centers: I think that’s the last item.
Borup: That’s one we’ve got --. The last one probably need much discussion on
maybe.
Norton: I don’t really care about bike paths but that was brought up. For other
issues in my notes. Then the overlay, mixed-use, and frontage road. Then we’re
done.
Centers: Overlay, that got shot down.
Nary: No. overlay about the north Meridian corridor area.
Norton: North Meridian planning.
Nary: Do we –
Norton: Over our plan.
Nary: Do we leave it open? Do we just leave it for the Council to make that
decision?
Borup: Oh, because when that comes in it could have a whole different –
Nary: It may not have neighborhood centers. It might not have medium density. It
may be totally different.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 93
Centers: Well, we’re not going to have any choice.
Borup: One of the proposals was to eliminate the bullet points under the mixed-
use designation. Any discussion on that? We’re looking on page 9, on the staff
draft. I don’t know what it's called.
Norton: The June –
Borup: It was the revisions. Revisions to the June 2000.
Norton: Page 9?
Borup: Yes. This one.
Norton: Okay.
Borup: Most of the testimony, well I don’t know –
*** End of Side Four ***
Siddoway: -- simply would support and give some specific direction to the
ordinance that we come down the road.
Centers; I definitely like the fact that you’re willing to eliminate the 2 different
uses on 5 acres or more. That was a big stumbling block with me.
Borup: Maybe, if the bullet points are going to stay, I would like to see maybe
making a few other things less specific. Like, I’m looking at the last one; develop
to low or medium density residential uses, transitional use must be provided.
Siddoway: To should. Just change must to should.
Borup: Something like that. I mean, we’ve seen somewhere they’re next to an
acre or 5 acre thing and they want to have --. Their intention is as soon as this
thing passes, they want to go --. Two years from now, they want to go
commercial too. Provide that transitional use when a couple years down the
road, it's fairly obviously that the use is going to change anyway. If it says should,
then you’ve got to do it no matter what. I mean, if it says must.
Nary: It just appears to me that some of those things because we’re trying to
soften them to make them more a guide. When you create them in that sort of
format, that bullet point format, that’s almost like a little checklist.
Siddoway: Why don’t we just make them a paragraph?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 94
Nary: To me, the text, --. Text, you know can include that kind of language that
mixed use includes these types of things. Again, it just has that guide quality
about it. I just think when you put those bullet points in there like that, that
specific, that’s what people look at. They’re just checking the box to see if you’ve
got that. I think just explaining it as Mr. Eaton said, we can just simply include
that. Some of those language things, simply to be consistent. Again, it's still
guideline words, those kind of things; shoulds and may and that kind of stuff.
Then it's fine.
Borup: So, you’re saying --?
Nary: I’m saying try to incorporate --. Soften the language. Incorporate the bullet
point language of those things into the more softer shoulds and may kind of
language so it's clearly just a guideline of what types of things there are. I think,
you know if you want to get really specific, some of those specific things are truly
not something for a comprehensive plan.
Borup: Right.
Nary: Such as, all development within this designation will occur only under
conditional use permit process. You can certainly incorporate in there that
conditional use permits are encouraged for these types of developments or
something like that. You can include that in the text and be fine. If we’re going to
eliminate the 2 uses for 5 acres, we’re going to say what are we including
instead? What do we like it to look like? What's our concept? Our ordinances
have to support it. Like I said, I think, maybe I’m wrong, but I think the reason it
was written this way is because we didn’t do it the last time. This is a way to get
us to make sure we do it and what we were intending when we wrote it? I guess I
don’t see that as a big problem. I think I’d rather just soften the text. Make it
textual. Make it look consistent with the rest of the document. Just give that
same guidance.
Borup: But, still leave the bullet points?
Nary: No. it would just be part of a text of a paragraph.
Borup: Okay. All this, but the same comments in here?
Nary: Softer language.
Norton: What about the 5 acres? Can’t we take out that 5 acres?
Centers: We eliminated that.
Borup: We’ve eliminated that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 95
Norton: Okay, good.
Nary: I was thinking we had eliminated that.
Borup: I would propose maybe then under --. You said that first one that
designation will occur only on a Conditional Use. How about normally will occur?
Nary: Something like that. I mean, you know they can wordsmith up that
language. I think what we want to do is recommend to the staff that the bullet
point format be eliminated, that the textual language of the definitions include the
concepts of what they’re seeking with language that is more in line with
discretionary; should, may, can. Those types of things so that it's clear that this is
simply a guide as to what those things are. That we recognize that the
ordinances that support these are where the absolutes are going to come in.
Centers: Yes. In the last 2 bullet points, they have the word must twice.
Borup: Change those to should.
Nary: Like I said, I guess I’m not trying to wordsmith the whole thing.
Centers: Sure.
Nary: I’m just saying, here's the concept you want to have. Just create a
paragraph, create a definition that’s consistent with the rest of the document. The
way that document is, is using very broad based language like should, may, can,
could, those types of things rather than definitions that are so specific that they
really become, they look like an ordinance. We don’t want that.
Moore: So, we’re eliminating the 2 different uses within 5?
Nary: Yes. Then eliminate the specific reference of there shall be 2 uses –
Norton: Is this something that Steve or staff could come up with a paragraph that
we could all look at the next time we discuss this?
Borup: Right. That’s why I was going to --. Before we leave I’d like to have some
time to give specific things that we want at our next one. What is it we’re going to
be sending to City Council? I’m not sure. I mean, how much detail do we need to
give to them?
Norton: I think we need to give detail of what --. So, we’re sure –
Borup: That means we need time for this. I mean, are we talking about re-writing
the whole draft? Re-doing another memo saying these would be the changes?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 96
Norton: A memo. I think a memo but everything in writing. I think that, I would like
to see it before it goes to them.
Borup: I think we need to –
Norton: Look at it all together?
Borup: Yes.
Norton: Okay.
Borup: I would assume that anyway.
Centers: I tend to disagree. I mean, you know I go along with Commissioner
Nary. If we give the direction to soften this language, refrain from using the word
must –
Borup: Well, that’s in this, but how about the –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: Eliminate that one line. We send that direction. It's very clear in the
minutes and in the record.
Borup: I’m fine with that. On this, okay but we’ve got the whole comp plan to
send to them.
Centers: Right.
Nary: I guess what I’m sort of hearing too, Mr. Chairman, is that something we
had discussed informally previously was making a presentation from the
Commission to the Council as to why we came to those decisions. Not just
leaving it for staff comment but simply presenting that to the council by –
Norton: I like that idea.
Nary: -- by one of us.
Borup: Right.
Nary: I don’t have a problem with that. I think that’s a very good way to do that.
But, before we get to that, then we would want to see a document as to what
we’re presenting so that we’re all clear as a Commission that that’s what we
meant. That’s what we said.
Norton: Yes. That’s what I meant.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 97
Centers: Yes, each item.
Nary: So, we’re kind of giving them both things. We’re going to get a document
that we’re proposing to the City Council with what these changes are. Then we’re
going make a presentation however we want to do it, collectively, one person,
whatever. It doesn’t matter, however we want to present it to them so that they
know it isn’t just a cold document. It's a group or an individual representative of
the group as to why did we reach those decisions? What was that and we even
put that on the record so that they can weigh that in relation to all the public
testimony that they’ll receive in addition.
Borup: Right. Did we have any other items on your list?
Centers: Totally, because we can’t write it and re-write the –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: -- the 2000 and insert the verbiage. I mean, that’s got to be done by
lawyers.
Nary: I think we’re getting –
Centers: Tell them our recommendation.
Nary: I know we want to get a little closer. Can we say how about in November,
at one of our meetings in November, we sort of finalize some of these issues. At
our meeting in December, we get some sort of documentation together so that
when we, if we can forward it to the City Council, then we have something to
present to them. Something that we’re going to be working off of in a
presentation to them. That we could get in either, probably in December. Then
we would be able to send that on to City Council so they can notice it up and
start hearing it in January or February, or whatever?
Moore: Lets try to make his job easier.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: I totally agree. That’s been my thought all along. We can’t give the
verbiage.
Nary: Right.
Centers: But, we can give our basic thoughts and recommendations and present
it and make sure that it's clear.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 98
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: Just go with each item.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: So, where are we at?
Siddoway: We’ll just stand on the recommendations of the draft.
Borup: Commissioner Norton was just mentioning that a lot of the things on her
list are things that are –
Norton: On this list that was distributed tonight that we haven't covered yet.
Borup: Right. But, what other --? Do you want to go through the items you still
had Commissioner Norton?
Norton: Okay. One item is bypass. I’ve got to go figure out why I put that on
there. But, I notice that it was on this list here. It said pathways. I know why. The
bypass because that one older gentlemen liked the bike paths and we have a big
pathway behind Fred Meyer that nobody uses that cost the developer a lot of
money. That doesn’t go anywhere.
Borup: Yes.
Centers; Well, I think we need to point that out to the Council, that those things
have to be looked at.
Norton: Yes, I agree.
Centers: That was my comment to Larry.
Norton: Oh, expand from the current 5 feet wide to 12 feet wide..
Borup: I had a concern on the width there too. Whether that was necessary. The
only reason I can see for the wide one was for maintenance vehicles.
Siddoway: That’s true.
Norton: Okay.
Borup: Other than that, they serve no purpose at all I can see.
Norton: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 99
Borup: A bigger cost to the City to maintain it and landscape it, or a bigger cost
to somebody.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: That's different. Our micro paths are 5 feet.
Borup: Okay. So, the micro path would be 5, that’s between subdivisions though?
Siddoway: Yes. These are major pathways.
Borup: Like along the waterways and stuff like that?
Siddoway: You know, national standards would have them up to 15. I don’t like
speaking for the parks department because I don’t work for them. I believe that
their standards currently for multi use pathways are 10 foot improved asphalt
section with –
Borup: 10-foot asphalt?
Siddoway: Yes. They’ve been getting that again and again and again. That’s
been consistent. 5 feet on each side as a shoulder.
Borup: What's Boise’s greenbelt?
Siddoway: So, an overall width of 20 feet. 10 feet improved. 5 on each side.
Borup: What's the paved area on Boise greenbelt?
Nary: It's not 20. it might be 10 feet.
Borup: That’s what Steve was saying that the parks want is 10.
Siddoway: I think it's more than 10.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: It varies because of the bridges. Some of the bridges, the topography of
the land, it's not wide enough. Certainly areas that are totally developed out are
probably at least 10 to 12 feet wide.
Borup: Okay, so that’s being consistent with the greenbelt type path?
Siddoway: Yes. I think theirs might even be wider but I haven't measured it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 100
Nary: Like I said, I’m sure there are spots that are fairly wide depending on what
the land.
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: You could always say a minimum of.
Borup: 10?
Nary: Yes.
Borup: Is that what you’re saying is parks department would like 10?
Siddoway: That’s my understanding, yes.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: Micro paths we allow to be 5 feet. Those are smaller. They’re local
only. They’re not these multiple use pathways. They’re separate animals. Micro
paths, 5 feet. Multiple use pathways, 10 feet.
Borup: Is that in the current draft, saying 12? That’s our notes here.
Nary: So, what this memo is saying that we received tonight is –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: -- it adds significant to go from 5 to 12. what you’re saying Steve is that
parks department’s preference is for pathways to be at least 10 feet wide with a
5-foot buffer on each side. So, essentially 20 feet of pathway. So, that’s even
bigger than what they were talking about. They were only talking about 12.
they’re saying 12 adds cost. I’m going to guess 20 adds even more. I’m just
guessing out loud. I guess that that’s a pretty significant path. If you’re saying
that’s not the pathways they’re talking about –
Borup: (inaudible)
Siddoway: I don’t know if the 5-foot has been a requirement. I know they have
got that on at least one –
Borup: 5 foot of paved?
Siddoway: No, of the shoulder. They’ve gotten 10 foot paved consistently.
Borup: What areas would that --? Are we talking a specific designated pathways?
The ones that are in the current comp plan now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 101
Siddoway: The ones that are shown on the comp plan.
Borup: The ones that are in the current comp plan?
Siddoway: Yes. The one that’s built along the Five Mile Creek.
Borup: Right. Okay. Well, there's not that many of those. Those are pretty major.
I mean, those are all on the waterway pathways.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: Oh, yes. The one at English Gardens, it was 10 feet. The one that’s
being built out at Penn Station is 10 feet.
Borup: That’s not a large --. It may be a lot of miles but that’s been in the current
comp plan. I don’t see --. At least designate them as pathways. Maybe
designating the width of the pavement, is adding some –
Nary: I guess I was just a little concerned when you were talking 10 and then 5
and 5.
Borup: On how much they’re talking?
Nary: I guess maybe I’m just sort of losing focus because we’ve been kicking so
many of these around tonight. On street pathway and multiple use pathways –
Siddoway: That’s where I’m looking. Here we go, maybe.
Nary: I don’t have a problem with pathways. My concern is if we are simply just
adding additional cost onto the developer –
Borup: Does anybody know where that --?
Nary: -- that we’re trying to get back and how are we going to provide for that?
Borup: Where is that at in the current comp plan drafts? Do we know?
Nary: If we’re not sure, do we want to try to make a decision about it?
Centers: Steve, have you read this 3-page memo? What I would like –
Siddoway: I’ve looked at it. I looked at the first page.
Centers: Yes, that’s what I thought. I’d like you and the staff, this would be my
recommendation, to read it and respond to it and we bring this up at our next
meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 102
Norton: Good idea.
Centers: We’re looking at the last page and commenting on pathways. We
skipped over the first 2 pages. Lets address this in a more sensible way. After the
staff has looked at it.
Nary: After we review the minutes of this meeting.
Borup: The minutes of this meeting are going to be very interesting. The other
concern I’ve got on time is, well, actually we made up for it. We lost our second
meeting in November. We covered a lot of territory tonight.
Centers: We got the biggy behind us.
Norton: We sure did.
Borup: So, the time that we’re going to have in the future is going to be very
short on the comp plan.
Centers: Then we’ll address these few things after we hear what the staff has to
say.
Borup: We’re probably still looking at an hour before meetings until we can send
this to City Council, aren’t we?
Centers: Yes, I agree.
Nary: So, we want to meet again at 6:00 on the 15th
?
Centers: Each meeting until the end of the year.
Nary: So, the (inaudible)
Borup: Or until we can --.
Nary: Our target is to try to get this to the City Council by the end of the year.
Borup: Definitely. I would sure like to.
Norton: Well, I only see –
Borup: We need to.
Norton: I only see –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 103
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: I’m not here December 20th
.
Borup: The overlay?
Norton: The overlay and the frontage road. That’s all I have.
Borup: Well, lets hit the frontage road right now.
Norton: All right. Lets go the frontage road.
Borup: We’re just talking frontage road along the freeway. All we’ve got to do is
say yes, we want to encourage it, don’t we?
Norton: Yes.
Borup: Or no we don’t.
Centers: Was this a landowner request?
Norton: Yes.
Centers: Or a developer proposal?
Norton: Well, it was a request by Greg Johnson.
Centers: Oh, the developer?
Norton: A developer.
Borup: But, he doesn’t have a project on the freeway.
Norton: No, but he was just --. It was a suggestion that it would make more
sense and cost people a lot less money if we just made it commercial along the
freeway. That way businesses could get exposure form the freeway and
homeowners wouldn’t complain that it was too much noise. We wouldn’t have to
build big walls. When you got o McCall and you go from Eagle bypass to Beacon
Light, there are huge walls on either side. It's like you’re in a tunnel. I would
rather have commercial where you say oh, there's Roaring Springs. Oh, lets go
play miniature golf next time we have a minute because you see that stuff. I
would encourage that.
Borup: The equipment thing --. Some of the stuff that’s on there from Meridian
Road east, to me are not offensive.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 104
Norton: Yes, not at all.
Borup: They’re fairly large. They’re spread out.
Nary: Maybe doing that, like you said, my earlier comment was just a concern.
Borup: Me too.
Nary: (inaudible) a strip mall along the freeway.
Borup: Yes, I was thinking of some stuff I’ve seen. It seems like a lot of those are
where a freeway goes in an existing area.
Nary; I was thinking more like if you –
Borup: Rather than the other way around.
Nary: Again, it's not really the same idea but a little bit, when you drive along I-84
past the airport.
Borup: Right.
Nary: Between Vista and Broadway.
Borup: A lot of that was there before the freeway went in.
Nary: That is true.
Borup: That’s the problem.
Nary: It is hotel after hotel after hotel all along there.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: I think there's one trailer park there. It's pretty unsightly. There's a pretty
high wall too. If there's at least some ability to have again, some control by the
City. I just don’t want to see 75 foot signs with 100 foot sign behind it because I
can’t see my 75 foot unless my sign is bigger. Then I have to have a 50-foot sign
so I can be under it. It's just going to look really, really crummy.
Borup: Conditional use can handle that again.
Norton: The only part I see, it's already commercial or general office all the way
to Black Cat. My suggestion would be just to make it –
Borup: The rest of the to the west?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 105
Norton: The rest of the way to McDermott Road. That’s the end of our map.
That’s from Black Cat to McDermott Road, what about medium density or –
Borup: Mixed-use?
Norton: -- or mixed-use? What do you suggest? Steve what do you think?
Siddoway: Sorry, I’m on a different wavelength. I know you’re talking about a
strip along the freeway.
Norton: Between Black Cat and McDermott.
Nary: The request was to create a frontage road along the freeway.
Norton: Oh, yes, that’s right.
Nary: So that you could access. Create a commercial type zones along the
freeway and then create a frontage road to access those commercial zones.
Borup: Pretty much what Overland is now south of the freeway.
Nary: But, the frontage road for Overland doesn’t run along the edge of the
freeway. It runs behind the freeway with the stuff in between.
Borup: I think that’s what the proposal was.
Norton: Yes, that would be just fine. I think that would be just great.
Siddoway: I’m confused. A frontage road along here?
Norton: No. come here.
Berg: Between Franklin and the freeway.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Just extend that on.
Norton: Extend on up. Is this a road right here?
Nary: All we would be doing in this process would simply recommend that we
create on the north side of the freeway, either, --. Is that light industrial too?
Norton: Yes, there's a light industrial. No, general industrial.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 106
Nary: -- general industrial or commercial use along the freeway corridor with a
recommendation that a frontage road be created, either, because we don’t have
the power to create roads, unless Harley Brown becomes our mayor. We don’t
have the power to create a road. We would have to either recommend that a
road be made frontage along the freeway or north of the freeway to allow access
for those types of –
Borup: Probably north. It would look similar to what we’ve got south of the
freeway?
Norton: Yes.
Nary: All we would be doing is recommending that we would create along the
freeway corridor –
Norton: Make that a road, perfect, excellent. That’s what we’re looking for.
Nary: Along the freeway corridor, either light industrial or commercial or mixed-
use zones along there. Discourage the residential.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Norton: Which one? mixed-use, light industrial, commercial, industrial? Most of
those are general industrial.
Nary: I wish you could do all of the above.
Siddoway: (inaudible)
Norton: Okay.
Siddoway: In fact, I would probably change all of this to mixed-use.
Norton: All right, that sounds good to me.
Nary: So, if we made a motion that said we would recommend that the
comprehensive plan reflect that on the north side of interstate 84 that we would
changing the land use map to create mixed-use zones along that corridor and to
encourage development similar to the southern side of interstate 84 and that a
frontage road be encouraged either adjacent to the freeway or north of the
mixed-use zones to allow access.
Borup: Aren’t we really only talking about between Black Cat and McDermott?
Everything else is already –
Nary: The area between Black Cat –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 107
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: The other is already designated. That’s already designated there.
Siddoway: There's no frontage road.
Nary: We would simply be recommending that a frontage be created, either north
of those properties or adjacent to the freeway, just to allow access to them.
Borup: I think part of the problem is definition of frontage road. I don’t think we’re
talking a true frontage road here.
Nary: A parallel road. Or a road, --. An access road –
Norton: To the businesses.
Nary: Either adjacent to the freeway or north of the properties.
Siddoway: If you do that, why restrict this to industrial? Couldn’t it be mixed-use?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Okay. Someone is already planning on something there. As long as it's
not going to restrict them.
Nary: The only other thing I would include in the motion is that we also, though in
the ordinances create some signage restrictions to at least not have any signs
any bigger than what's already there.
Borup: We’ve already got a sign ordinance.
Nary: Is it going to include those areas as well? I’m just thinking –
Borup: We’ve got a freeway sign and it covers freeway signs too.
Nary: I’m just thinking however tall the Boondocks or Roaring Spring sign --. We
just don’t want somebody else coming in with 100 foot signs.
Borup: I don’t remember what it is. What are they? 75 feet?
Norton: 75 feet on the freeway.
Borup: I think they’re only 75 feet.
Siddoway: I think the road would be obvious.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 108
Nary: Then we would allow that --. We would recommend those kinds of uses
and a road to allow access to them. Basically the language would talk about
encouraging the development similar to south of the freeway so that it's clear that
we’re talking about similar types of uses.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. I guess I’ll just talk. The comp plan, basically is
proposing that frontage road. It doesn’t call it a frontage road. It calls it a
collector. But, if you look on figure 6-8, future collector streets.
Borup: You’ve already got it in the –
Siddoway: We’re showing a future collector there.
Nary: Okay. So, all we’re doing then is really recommending –
Borup: Changing the zoning.
Nary: -- that we change the zoning along the interstate corridor to reflect mixed
development.
Norton: From Black Cat –
Nary: From Black Cat to McMillan, or Black Cat to Ten Mile. Or just say in the
language there that we encourage along the interstate –
Siddoway: Between Ten Mile and McMillan. Between the future collector and the
freeway, mixed-use.
Norton: Ten Mile and McDermott.
Siddoway: McDermott. Thank you. Not McMillan. Thank you.
Nary: Yes, that we recommend between Ten Mile and McDermott, that –
Norton: Do you want to make that a motion?
Borup: Yes, lets do that.
Nary: I don’t care if the language just says along the interstate corridor we would
recommend mixed-use development along the whole corridor.
Borup: That would be an easier motion, wouldn’t it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 109
Nary: Then you can cover the whole area between the county line and Eagle
Road for all I care, if we’re going to do that. What difference would it make?
Borup: Most of it already is already.
Nary: Most of it is or already bought out to be that at some point. But, that we
would just recommend that whole corridor area be --.
Borup: In fact on this map it's all the way except for –
Nary: Like I said, if we want to make it clear what our intent is that we would
simply discourage further residential development along the interstate corridor.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: --the one that’s outside the urban service planning area.
Nary: So that we don’t have anybody else trying to develop residential along that
corridor where it's just not real compatible.
Borup: (inaudible)
Nary: How’s that?
Centers: Make a motion. It makes sense.
Norton: Yes.
Nary: My motion would be that we recommend the change to the Comprehensive
Plan that the area along the north and south of interstate 84 be mixed-use
development and that we would discourage any additional residential
development in that area between the county line and I guess Eagle is where the
City ends on the interstate.
Borup: No, it’s a little past Eagle.
Nary: Well, throughout the whole interstate corridor. That the remaining property
be a mixed-use development and that we would discourage any additional
residential development along that corridor.
Siddoway: So, you’re not proposing changing the ones that are existing?
Nary: Right. We’re not going to encourage any other additional residential but
the remainder that we would recommend simply that rest of what’s left be mixed-
use.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 110
Borup: If they want it changed, then those residential people can come in and –
Sally and I were just talking about it.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: Oh, that’s okay but we’re going to leave those. All we’re recommending –
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Yes, that little chunk right there.
Nary: It isn’t already?
Borup: No.
Nary: Okay.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: Why don’t we leave the motion to the original little strip?
Nary: Okay. Just the strip that’s undeveloped? All right.
Siddoway: Ten Mile to McDermott between I-84 and the future collector.
Nary: Okay.
Centers: Mixed-use?
Borup: What if Locust View Heights decided they want to become a commercial
development?
Siddoway: Come in and do a change. That probably will happen some time in
the near future.
Nary: So, as Commissioner Siddoway said, we would move that we would
recommend that the land use map the change that the zone along the interstate
84 north to the proposed future collector from McDermott to Black Cat be a
mixed-use zone. McDermott to Ten Mile be a mixed-use zone.
Moore: How about Ten Mile to McDermott?
Nary: Ten Mile and McDermott as Commissioner Moore would like it to read.
Norton: I second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 111
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Next time we’ll be talking about the overlay in the north area. How we
want to handle that.
Nary: The rest of the memo that (inaudible).
Centers: Staff is going to respond to the memo from the BCA. I assume it’s from
the BCA. They didn’t put a to and from.
Borup: Is that the BCA or the group of 3?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Centers: That’s why staff needs to review it.
Siddoway: I would also point out to the Commissioners that you have a memo
from Brad and I dated September 25th
about all the outstanding draft comp plan
policy issues that are not land use map issues. I would encourage you to read
through that and consider those as well.
Borup: The policy issue ones? That was on the draft of what date?
Siddoway: September 25th
. I did the future land use map requested changes.
Brad took the lead on the policy issue, requested changes. This is the laundry list
of requested changes. It’s not a staff recommendation. Just like the map wasn’t a
staff recommendation but it summarizes for you all of the requested policy
changes.
Borup: Does anybody have their finger on it better than I do? Nobody’s got it any
better than I do?
Norton: I don’t have it.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: Is that (inaudible) and stuff that we should be reviewing that we didn’t
mention?
Siddoway: Yes. September 25th
.
Borup: How many pages was it?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
November 1, 2001
Page 112
Borup: We all remember seeing it but we don’t have it handy.
Norton: Here we go.
Borup: Sally’s got it.
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: Are we meeting at 6:00 on November 15th
and do this again?
Borup: Was this handed out? Did that come in our box?
Centers: Do we need a motion to adjourn this special meeting? So moved.
Nary: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:29 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK