2001 10-18 SpecialMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2001
Special Meeting
The Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Thursday, October 18, 2001, by Chairman Keith
Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, Keven
Shreeve.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Larry Moore, Tara Green.
Item 1. Continued Public Hearing from September 27, 2001: CPA 01-
01 Request for Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment by
City of Meridian:
Borup: Good evening (inaudible) Special Meeting. This is a Special Meeting
from the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. This is our second workshop
type meeting after we’ve taken the public testimony. Do we need to – all the
Commissioners remember kind of where we left off last time we went into – in
fact we did make a motion on the Urban Service Planning Area and we left off
discussion on the Neighborhood Centers. Did – was everything discussed on
the Neighborhood Centers that we wanted to? Do we – was there some things –
does anyone feel there are some things we still may need to cover a little bit?
Nary: Mr. Chairman you mean more testimony or information?
Borup: No just more maybe more discussion. The discussion at the last meeting
was – I didn’t hear any positive comments is I guess what I’m seeing. I didn’t
know if there had been any other thought.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Yes correct me if I’m wrong –
Borup: -- I don’t believe we made a motion we just kind of ended the discussion.
Centers: Right and correct me if I’m wrong I think that the consensus was that
it’s probably a good idea, however not at this time and the number of
Neighborhood Centers to dictate that number location was a bad idea. However,
if a developer came to the city – I think we left off with it would be nice to offer
some kind of incentive to reduce them to go with that concept.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 2
Borup: Yes, I have trouble remembering all of that but we didn’t have any
conclusions on what would be a good incentive. Maybe leave that up to staff or
someone that has some ideas?
Centers: I think that was it yes.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I was going to add I guess that, one of the things that’s a little bit
concerning to me about the way it’s at least proposed at this time is there’s no
other alternative land use of any type of commercial in the – almost the entire
impact area except for Neighborhood Centers. There’s no mixed use, there’s no
commercial, there’s no nothing. It’s just Neighborhood Centers all the way
through the North Corridor, all of the way on the western boundary and all of the
way on that sort of angled off (inaudible) southern boundary. There’s no other
alternative and I think that’s a little difficult because you’re basically restricting
virtually any development at all in the those areas for the next five years or
unless you come back every six months and amend the plan. The other thing is
the Bridgetower project was approved by this Commission and I believe by the
City Council and it’s basically in the sort of – I guess it would be the northwest
quadrant of the impact area -- or when it gets annexed it has to be part of the
city. It has a commercial development on the corner. My concern would be is
that if we simply concurred with this proposal you’re really defeating the rest of
that corridor area to have the same – to have (inaudible) and Neighborhood
Center developments. One of them is about a mile from essentially a regional
grocery store of some sort or a larger grocery store type of chain in that corner
right on the corner there of I’m going to have to look at what street it is -- on the
corner of Black Cat and McMillan. Again it seems like it’s not very practical and
it’s not very good from the market’s perspective of trying to restrict that to one
type of development. I think I proposed the last time that we keep the concept
and we use it as somewhat of an overlay and even in the entire area. I think it’s
more feasible on the western boundary. I think Commissioner Norton brought up
last time that with BSU West or BSU Nampa Campus or whatever it’s called –
Norton: -- BSU West.
Nary: BSU West – you’re going to maybe have more attractiveness to having
that type of commercial development in those areas and maybe attracting that
type of business. We’re wanting people to invest into our community we’re
certainly going to want to provide something that they’re going to want to invest
in. But to have the whole area basically outlined with only that type of
commercial use I don’t think it’s probably very practical that we need to use it
simply as I said an overlay that they can’t put that in but we need to really look
more at both some mixed-use, some residential and a variety of other uses
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 3
besides just Neighborhood Centers all of the way – that ring around that city.
Basically the ring around the city that looks kind of like a c I don’t think it’s real
positive for the city.
Borup: So that – would that be something we want to handle on the Land Use
Map, some designations there? Something needs to be in there to
accommodate the commercial uses I agree. Your comment on Bridgetower was
actually a mile lower, it’s within a half mile of the other proposed – it’s right –
Nary: -- it’s a mile from one and a half mile from the other one.
Borup: Right.
Nary: You’re right.
Borup: The other thing I neglected to do is mention or state that all of the five
Commissioners are here in attendance at this meeting. I did not do a roll call. I
let the record reflect that.
Nary: Mr. Chairman I’m trying to look real quickly to see how it’s broken out in
the draft proposal because maybe you’re right. Maybe the right way to deal with
it is actually in the Land Use Map.
Borup: Well there and maybe in – make mention of it in the other areas too. Any
question from any of the staff on – Steve on what would be visualized for future
commercial development? I mean I assume the Neighborhood Centers was
intended to cover that but how about other areas maybe a development of a
different type or as was stated maybe we’ll want to look at something bordering
the county line or something to overflow from development in East Nampa.
Siddoway: In that North Corridor area the Neighborhood Centers were intended
to fill the bulk of that need at least in the day-to-day shopping sense. We thought
most of the big box type commercial areas would locate along Eagle Road and
along the freeway interchanges which if you look there you’ll see a lot of
commercial/mixed-use areas that allow for commercial use. I’m more concerned
that there’s too much commercial on the map as a whole than there’s not
enough. Having said that well we also see a need in that north area for some
commercial. If you read the text of the Comp Plan it designates that we see a
need for a regional shopping center of some sort, maybe a high-tech campus. In
the North Corridor possibly near the intersection of Ten Mile and McMillan and
we put that in there as text as opposed to a specific land use because we
wanted it to be able to float a little bit. We certainly see the need for some kind
of significant commercial use in that area.
Borup: So what would be the process then if we don’t have it designated on the
map and the developer wanted to come in and develop something in that area?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 4
Siddoway: Well I think –
Borup: -- I mean if it was designated I guess as mixed-use could it handle it? If
it was residential then they’re talking – it could be a lengthy process.
Siddoway: I would say perhaps but not necessarily as we learned through Van
Hees’ project. The Land Use Map is a guide and if there was specific text
language in this case that targeted an area and it maybe – the specific spot was
shown as residential but because of the way the development patterns have
played out and whatever else it makes sense to locate the shopping center in
that area. I don’t know that it would necessarily require a Comp Plan change if
you had that type of specific text in the plan to support it. If it was obviously in
violation of the Comp Plan policies then yes it should require a Comp Plan
change. The Land Use Map is intended as a guide to direct the future
development and the text is to support that. In this case we didn’t know exactly
where to put that regional shopping center we added in the text and wanted it to
be able to float. The Neighborhood Centers were intended to supply the day-to-
day shopping needs. We don’t want – we don’t see the need for every arterial
road to be full of big box stores.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Nary were you still looking for –
Nary: -- well I guess I’m just so – I’m struggling a little bit with – because I guess
what we’ve heard over and over Steve from people was their concerns of the
map. I guess my impression has always been is from the testimony was that
people were concerned that the way the map looks is what – it just seemed like a
lot of the testimony that we would keep hearing from folks is that the concern
was is the way the map is drawn, the way the map is presented that there was a
concern that when they would come in with a project that didn’t fit the map that
they weren’t going to be perceived very well. That it wasn’t going to be
something encourage because it didn’t fit the map. I guess my perspective is,
from what you just said, we don’t need to have Neighborhood Centers little dots
on the map. We need to have it in the text but that’s the language, that’s the
type of development we would like to see in certain areas. We can provide
encouragement by allowing it as an allowed use in certain areas versus a CUP
or something else – a PUD that might be easier to work through the staff level
and not have to have every neighbor – there may not be a lot of neighbors in
some of those areas that may not have to do that. Those are things that allow
the development to encourage them to want to build that because it’s a faster
process as time and money. But from what I heard you say just a second ago it
doesn’t sound to me like they need to be on the map they just need to be in the
text.
Siddoway: If I could respond. It’s a matter of inertia to me. I think that it could
theoretically work as just an allowed use as text but with current building patterns
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 5
the way they are and without forcing a change somehow it’s likely to continue
with the same disconnected, super large block, segregated land use
development styles that we continue to see. We were trying to push this issue
it’s one that we see is vital. If it were simply allowed in text I could see someone
coming to do a commercial project on their own much – of a shopping center
fashion more than stepping up with the Neighborhood Centers. We were just
trying to push it harder.
Nary: Well I guess even following that you would agree in looking at this map it
really does cover the entire area of impact.
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: No other uses have any commercial flavor to the area of impact except
this right?
Siddoway: No there’s lots of commercial and mixed-use all over.
Nary: In the area of impact?
Borup: No outside the city limits.
Centers: Yes we’re talking north primarily.
Nary: Outside the city limits there is a (inaudible) except right here by the
freeway.
Siddoway: None of this is in the city limits.
Nary: Okay.
Siddoway: None of – this one piece is but none of this is in the city limits. The –
much of this is not in the city limits yet. None of this at all is in the city limits so
all of – there’s a great deal of commercial mixed-use designations that are not
yet city limits that are focused around the interchanges and Eagle Road. Other
than that you are correct, the commercial bleeds into the neighborhood style
centers.
Nary: So right around the freeway there’s some further commercial along Eagle.
Realistically a pretty large section of what’s left of any developable land the only
commercial of any type on this map and in the text is the Neighborhood Centers?
Siddoway: That’s correct.
Nary: Now again I guess I understand where you’re coming from. I guess I’m
concerned as saying in trying to force something that the city isn’t going to pay
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 6
for – enforcing other people to do that to me has as much chance of having no
development of any kind versus this. Where as if you allow the Neighborhood
Centers concept anywhere, not just in the designated spots but anywhere in
there and provide that incentive. I heard what you said about the text and the
map and all of that stuff but your ordinance is all that really you can guide
yourself. The book isn’t something the courts going to look at. The book looks
at does your ordinance support that and is that what the project but you’ve still
got to have an ordinance. Whether or not – no matter what the text says or
whether it’s on the map your ordinance is really what’s going to matter.
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: So I guess to me I still have a hard time reconciling that we can’t again
encourage the Neighborhood Centers. We can put in anywhere that somebody
wants to build it in relation but it doesn’t simply restrict the whole development or
market idea of trying to allow any development. I understand – I guess my
bottom line statement is I understand what you’re saying but it seems to be so
restrictive that all that’s going to end up is we’re either going to be back here
every six months amending the Comp Plan or we’re just not going to get
anybody wanting to build anything. Not this many in five years I mean you really
think any – they’ll develop that many in five years before we’ll want to revisit the
Comp Plan entirely?
Siddoway: I don’t know. What I would say – to be fair if you look at the memo –
let me grab it real quick – that I had written on the Neighborhood Centers on
August 30, 2001. About half way down on Page 2 I’m talking about the fact that
we realize that these Neighborhood Centers need some refinement. We need –
future market studies are what will determine the size of these. We’re not saying
that every one of these is identical in terms of size and scope. We’re not trying
to overlay our Concept Plan specifically on every one of these as the only way it
can be done. Those – and to facilitate that refinement process, staff’s not object
to adding a note on the Land Use Map that states the location of the
Neighborhood Centers is conceptual and may be refined by future site specific
analysis and market studies. The important thing to us is not necessarily their
exact location nor the exact number but the idea that’s behind them of the
interconnections and the integration of the uses. That’s more important than
specifically where they show up.
Nary: Okay then tell me why what I’m saying you know having it as an overlay
that’s allowed in all of those areas. Everywhere you’ve got it but again it’s that
conceptual idea of you’re going to have them bring us this project we’re going to
work together to build that. Why is that different than what you’re saying? That’s
not what the map says but why is what I’m saying any different than what you
just said?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 7
Siddoway: What you’re saying is just to take it off the map and have it in the
text?
Nary: Have it in the text. Not have it on the map because the map no matter
what you do you won’t always be there – the folks may not always be there.
Someone’s going to look at that map and at least that’s the impression I got from
this testimony is you’re going to look at that map and say you want it on that half
mile, no we want it on the other one. That may not be what anybody really
intended. What I’m hearing you say is that’s not what you’re really intending.
You’re really intending to provide a different level of flexibility to allow a different
type of development. That’s fine I don’t have a problem with that. Why I’m
concerned is by having it on the map and defined it – you heard the same people
that we did say over and over again there’s 18 of them they’re in these locations
that’s not the location that may or may not work. It may be better here it may be
better there. I guess I want to be sure that the flexibility that you’re talking about
is really the flexibility that becomes the reality in the ordinance. I’m afraid if
leaving it on the map the way it is won’t seem very flexible to anybody. We can
still push the concept and we can still find ways – there are many, many ways to
encourage and entice and attract certain types of development that we can do
within the law that’s fine that works. We can still get what you’d like to see but
we don’t necessarily have to put all of the dots on the map to make people think
it has to be there.
Siddoway: I agree but what I would like to say is that if they did come off – while
the important thing to me is not the location of the commercial center, what I
don’t want to lose is the fact that we do wish to require the – some smaller block
sizes, some interconnectivity –
Nary: -- high density that’s closer to the shopping, larger and bigger densities
farther away.
Siddoway: Yes. We want to be able to require that and if we can keep that as a
concept and say this is how development will play out then the exact locations
should be determined.
Nary: My concept when you’re talking about an overlay and maybe this is just
elementary to everyone else is that you would have this map and I don’t – and
again if we did it this way I don’t know what the rest – if we took those off the
map what the rest would look like. Whether or not leaving it simply as a
residential zone the rest of the way is the right way to go. I don’t know but my
perception is that it would be just as simple as a sheet of plastic that was overlaid
on top of that map that had a different color that allowed the Neighborhood
Centers in any area around the city in the same area you could draw a circle
around it the same as it’s on there. That’s the notice of the developer. You come
in and you want to build this and unless you’re going to build these
Neighborhood Centers because you can build them anywhere you want then
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 8
here’s how we’re going to help you do that and here’s how we’re working for you
to get that accomplished. If you don’t want to do that then our alternative is
something else. Our alternative is – again I’m not saying it has to be a mixed-
use but alternative is mixed-use or residential or whatever. If you want to build
this thing you want to build apartments and shopping and all of that and try to
create this neighborhood environment you can build it anywhere you want
(inaudible). Anywhere you think you can build and fund it and invest your money
you can do it. We’re going to help you do it anywhere else on the map. That’s
my concept of what it should look like because that tells the developer look you
have option one or option two. Option two we’re going to provide a whole lot of
incentive for you to do that. We’re not going to make you do it because we can’t
unless we’re going to help spend your money with you or you can take option
one and option one is whatever else the city thinks it would look like without
those things. What I’m afraid is the way it is now it seems very static I think all
we’ll get is nothing. In most of those places I think we’ll just get nothing. I guess
I’m going to look at let’s find some choices and provide a lot of help on one and a
different perspective on another. One’s more traditional – some of the areas if
we want whether it’s a bigger block residential, whether it’s higher density or
whatever. That’s I guess kind of on the drawing board of my mind. That doesn’t
seem way out there to me that just seems to say look here’s two different things.
We really like this but we’re not going to make you build it. We’re going to say
here’s your other option and we can live with these things and it’s still in the
impact – if it’s in the impact area the control the city has is to say we’re not going
to annex you we don’t like it. If we don’t want what you’re building we’re won’t
annex you anyway. We’ll work through that and deal with those issues of not
annex it. That doesn’t seem way out there to me maybe it does to you I don’t
know.
Siddoway: It doesn’t as long as we can keep those concepts in place. Like you
said the ordinances are what matters ultimately. If we lose the idea from the
Comp Plan entirely we can’t – then it would be difficult for us to alter the
ordinances to support such things.
Nary: See to me the way the process works is you bring us the concept, we
decide on whether that concept works and then Mr. Moore over there gets to
write the ordinance to make it work.
Moore: Thanks.
Nary: Then that’s the connection to me that provides both what you’re saying
that conceptually the city would like to see which I think is a good idea but the
legal support for it (inaudible) allows it in a lot of places and gives choices to
people. As you can tell say the southern end of the map here in five years that
still may not be very marketable due to any of that kind of stuff. That may not be
a very good developable area or it might be tremendously developed area. It
may be the best thing to build into that area because of the growth of Thousand
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 9
Springs and some of the other developments. That might be the best way to
attract some business and there are people who want to do that. We just don’t
know but if we make it only this we make it nothing. We may only get – we may
just have empty ground there for the next ten years.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Nary: I’m sorry Mr. Chairman.
Centers: I guess I concur with most of that but I don’t think we should be
restrictive to put the Neighborhood Centers at the half mile of a section line. I
can see the concept still working even if it were at a corner couldn’t you Steve?
Siddoway: Partially but the part that doesn’t work to me is the – it’s not
integrated as well. If it’s all four corners than the idea is to allow people to get to
daily shopping needs without having to get off onto an arterial –
Centers: -- I didn’t say all four corners. Just at a corner at a half moon there on
the corner of Linder and McMillan. A half moon right there instead of in the –
because then and I think we agreed at a previous meeting you’ve got to get the
commercial developer first.
Siddoway: No the rooftops are going to have to be in place before the
commercial developer will come in I think.
Centers: Yes or a commitment but I don’t think you –
Borup: -- Commissioner Centers?
Centers: Just a minute because I don’t want to forget this excuse me Mr.
Chairman. If someone were to come based on the present verbiage of the
Comprehensive Plan and wanted to develop the corner of Linder and McMillan
for an Albertson’s or whatever, what is the present verbiage of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan say to them?
Siddoway: No.
Centers: It says no. I’m not going to go for that because they should have the
opportunity to approach the Commission. When you talk about zone and let’s
call this mixed-use and this commercial in the impact area I’m not going to sit
here and say I want that commercial, I want that mixed-use I can’t do that. I
think a developer should have the opportunity to come to the city and make
application if it’s reasonable because of the population base in that certain area
that will allow for a commercial developer to make a living.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 10
Siddoway: I don’t disagree with you. The Comprehensive Plan in my view was
never meant to be static.
Centers: Do we also have – one comment that comes to mind at the first Public
Hearing it would take a year to change?
Siddoway: That was the Urban Services Planning Area.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: It’s six months to change the Land Use Map.
Centers: I guess I just wouldn’t want to sit here and have that kind of language
in the plan that would restrict a developer. I just can’t buy into that. Mr.
Chairman.
Borup: Steve, can there be some type of restriction on maybe limiting it to one
corner or two corners? As Commissioner Centers said it doesn’t need to be on
all four. The traffic seems to be the other thing maybe some guidelines or
stronger than guidelines could be in affect on entrances and things like that.
That has been done on other areas of the country where –
Siddoway: -- driving locations?
Borup: Yes where they’ve got the commercial right in on the corner and then the
office building and the high density and just basically the same concept as the
Neighborhood Centers but being done on a corner with some bypass streets
going through the project so that people can bypass the intersections if they’re
using (inaudible).
Siddoway: I don’t deny it could be done and that it could be connected
effectively –
Borup: -- that’s (inaudible) some strong language – get in there and say okay if
you want it to be on a corner than these are some of the things you’re going to
need to comply with. There’s not going to be four driveways in a quarter mile or
whatever – it makes it difficult and needed to have some other things. Otherwise
it’s going to have a hard time.
Siddoway: I think that if they went on a corner that that would certainly help.
Nary: And Mr. Chairman in addition to that you can limit the size of buildings,
you can limit in the zone the size of buildings that can be built and those types of
things so again you’ll still provide some of that concept. As I understand you
don’t necessarily want a large big box development on every corner or
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 11
something but you can still factor all of that stuff in like Chairman Borup said
(inaudible) factor in sizes and (inaudible) and uses.
Borup: Someone needs to put that down.
Nary: Correct.
Borup: Like somebody from staff probably.
Siddoway: Tell me what you want me to write.
Borup: That’s what I hope we can –
Centers: -- Commissioner Nary mentioned incentives for the Neighborhood
Centers and that’s a broad term. Are we going to define them? We’ve
mentioned that before but unless you’re ready to list them I don’t know how
you’re going to put a handle on that one unless you have a suggestion
Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Well I guess my suggestion would – well I guess my jumping off
suggestion would be is if you’re going to allow Neighborhood Centers you’re
going to allow them as an allowed use in a very large area. By an allowed use
you’re going to have to define what the concept is to some degree. Obviously
there’s got to be some place (inaudible) to some degree. If it’s on a corner it has
these limitations if it’s not on a corner it has different limitations. If it’s on a
corner the size of buildings may be different if it’s not on a corner then the size of
buildings may be different as well. You may have different uses but it’s allowed.
The difference with the allowed use –
Borup: -- you see no Public Hearings to go through.
Nary: It’s faster.
Centers: And maybe higher density, higher density –
Nary: -- yes but the whole concept package is the way we like it but if it’s an
allowed use in any of those areas with only a staff level approval I’m not a
developer but I think that’s some incentive, that’s a pretty positive incentive
because it’s quicker. Things happen faster. If you want to build it, if you want to
have to go through the Public Hearing process come see us three times and go
see the City Council twice. That may take a long time to build a shopping center
if that’s what you want to build. If you’re willing to do that it might take you a year
or two to do it but if you want to build a Neighborhood Centers and you want to
provide those things the city wants to do we’re going to allow that. Therefore my
concept is, is that’s going to happen a whole lot quicker. If it’s – time is money
that’s a pretty big incentive. It still gets us what we would like, it doesn’t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 12
necessarily restrict it allows the market to (inaudible) because then they’ll come
and say you know what I’m willing – I’m going to wait for years I would rather wait
because I really want to have this big box or this style or whatever. The other
one says – a different developer says I think I can make money and I can make
this go with this type of density, the departments, the whole bit and all of that.
They’ll say I’ll take the chance and I’ll get my money quicker and I’ll turn it around
faster that’s a pretty good incentive to me.
Borup: So Steve do you think that’s a concept that could work as far as the cities
concerned or P & Z staff is concerned? In my mind it’s something that’s got a
bigger possibility of actually happening.
Siddoway: I’ve given some thought to incentives and –
Borup: -- particularly the overlay zone concept I’m aware it would be an allowed
use in any of those areas. Or are there some problems with that? No the
concept of the overlay zone where it would have been an allowed use in pretty
much all of that area or is there some problems with that?
Siddoway: I don’t know I would have to give that some thought. In terms of
incentives though the – a decreased timeline is one of the big ones the
developers like. Another one is if they can get increased density and they’ve –
we’ve tried to build that in already. A third one would be decreased fees that
some cities –
Nary: -- no we don’t want to do that.
Siddoway: -- but our fees aren’t all that high anyway.
Nary: I think I’d rather let them do it faster.
Siddoway: Faster than cheaper. In order to do the faster version then the
Commission and the Council have to feel comfortable with letting one of these
fairly major developments come through at staff level. I’m not sure if they would.
It might if we had the specific design guidelines in place and those went through
the hearings and were adopted. It’s not impossible in my mind. It could happen
that way if we had some strong enough incentives. Even without – even if went
the way with the overlay and the incentives for actually doing the centers and
thereby clearly allowing them the float I still think we need to move in the
direction of increased connectivity and things like that regardless of the
Neighborhood Centers themselves. I don’t want to lose that as a required item.
Borup: We should be looking at connectivity always shouldn’t we? I mean that’s
the ACHD policy and maybe that needs to be emphasized more.
Siddoway: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 13
Borup: Again that’s what’s hard to do with a lot of these little smaller
developments. That’s what I’ve always liked about the big ones you’re able to do
that. You can have a planned community as a whole where you do a bunch of
20 acres subdivisions and it’s really difficult.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Okay, well I don’t know if we need any more time on this I –
Nary: -- where do we go from here?
Borup: That’s what I was just going to say. We need to get our ideas down on
paper somehow. Steve do you remember which page – you said in the Comp
Plan in the text it talked about commercial development. Do you know what
page that was on?
Nary: I couldn’t find it but I was looking for it.
Borup: Me too but I couldn’t find it right off either and maybe in that area is an
area where a lot of that could be stated. I like the idea of the overlay I guess the
concern be some things would have to be specific and then the thing that Steve
mentioned there at the last is whether City Council is going to be comfortable
enough to have that handled on the staff level. I don’t know either.
Nary: Well Mr. Chairman I also agree with Steve that I think the Council’s
comfort level is going to come with how defined it is. If they’re fine with the
definition then they’ll be much more comfortable with allowing it to be a staff level
approval to do something like that. If they’re not fine with the definition probably
not but that’s – the ordinance is what (inaudible) eventually anyway and that’s
something the Council will have the input on as to how that ordinance is
combined. If there’s a lot of things that are allowed uses that you just have to
trust that staff is going to do it right. That’s just the way it is. This just happens
to be a bigger concept to allow it. This is more than just the sign or something
like that. I guess my bottom line is –
Borup: -- I would like to see some time – some mandatory timeframe well maybe
not mandatory but some type of timeframe in there too or this – the time
incentive could quickly be gone if –
Nary: -- if it’s just a Smith’s Food King and gets half way built?
Borup: No the thing – no I mean from the staff level you know spending six
months of time working with the staff they haven’t accomplished anything.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 14
Nary: Right and that’s not (inaudible) in the ordinance to build in those type of
deadlines and things like that but those things can happen. Again you know
more than anything I guess Steve and I agree in the sense that I think the
concept is doable. I would like to be able to make it so it’s actually going to get
done rather than –
Borup: -- and the only way it’s going to get done is going to be market driven.
Nary: Sure and I think by doing it this way it’s much more marketable to be able
to do it.
Borup: I think that’s – goes without saying there’s no other way it’s going to get
done if it’s not market driven.
Nary: Right.
Borup: Okay so at this point are we wanting maybe to try to get some of those
things down into text? Maybe a whole section on maybe on the overlay and –
Centers: -- is Steve looking for that section in the –
Borup: -- yes he’s still looking.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Maybe let’s come back to that, we’ve got about 15 minutes before our
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting. I think the next thing – that is I think the
next thing we wanted to get into was the Land Use Map didn’t we? Staff has
prepared a Land Use Map with every requested change from the public
testimony. How do we want to approach that Commissioners?
Nary: Whatever the Chairman would like to do.
Borup: Maybe we need to get that up closer. I guess my thought was to take a
look at what’s on there and see if there’s anything we had any problem with if we
agreed with what is proposed or –
Nary: -- Mr. Chairman. Maybe one of the things we could talk about – I guess
just so people know where I’m coming from. Some of the ones where there were
individual pieces of property that someone wanted to change, my only concern in
doing that – and I’m not saying I’m opposed to that buy my concern in that is that
other landowner will come back that we changed it from and say no I want you to
change mine back the other way. That’s a very difficult thing for this Commission
or the Council to deal with is these individual types of things. Again it’s that – I
recognize there’s supposed to be some flexibility and all of those things – and
I’m not saying that those folks are wrong for asking I’m just concerned that every
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 15
time we change one the next door neighbors going to come and say wait a
minute I don’t want that next to my property now. When you had it before –
we’re going to have a lot more hearings and we’ll get the same testimony.
Borup: This is the time to do it.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: -- that’s why I say if we agree with what’s being proposed and I don’t
know that I do on everything.
Nary: Right. The one maybe that we can talk about is we had – with the
Montevue Subdivision we had the entire subdivision 23 or 28 homes or whatever
was the entire subdivision saying we want a different zone. That one to me is
much better for us to handle, at least to discuss because we have every single
person saying we don’t want mixed-use we want it to be commercial.
Borup: Let’s discuss that right now then. I think the testimony we had from staff
at that time was that the mixed-use designation would not prevent any
commercial use going in anyway as far as any development that would happen.
It may not have been quite as attractive to the developer but the same projects
could go in. In addition to that the zoning designation would be (inaudible) the
time of the application the time of annexation. I don’t know that mixed-use
zoning concluded granting the commercial zoning designations does it? I mean
you have a mixed-use on the Planning Map (inaudible) commercial.
Nary: Mr. Chairman it’s my recollection and I think the concern the neighbors
expressed was that there was two impediments to developing their property if the
mixed-use zone was left. One was the requirement of two uses depending on
the size of the property. That may restrict some developers to want to do that in
that location. That wasn’t a good location necessarily to have that type of zone.
Then again it was a couple of months ago but at least that was one of the things
we were concerned about. The secondary one was the commercial zone is
more attractive to a lot of developers because a lot of the uses are allowed uses
and they don’t have to have a Conditional Use Permit and therefore you don’t –
in that area if you’re going to buy the entire piece you’re not dealing with a
tremendous amount of neighbors in that area except for St. Luke’s Hospital then
the concern was having to deal with Conditional Use Permit requirements in the
Public Hearing. That being said, my other concern though isn’t the property on
the east side of this subdivision an assisted living facility? Isn’t that what’s there?
Borup: Well part of it. Part of it – the last thing we saw and it might have
changed it had office buildings on the east. At one time it had apartments and
then it changed to office I think or vice versa.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 16
Nary: And the main reason you want to have a CUP type of zone in those areas
are because you have residences living there. Even if – if it’s an assisted living
facility there are residents in it if it’s apartments it’s the same thing. I guess
there’s good (inaudible) so I mean I’m not saying which one we should do I just
think if there is a valid reason they’ll want to leave it as a mixed-use because the
city then has a little more control over the type of buildings and type of
development – there is some opportunity for Public Hearing (inaudible) our
residences that are pretty close nearby. I think there’s a valid reason for it as
well.
Borup: Those would be my feelings if it didn’t stay as a mixed-use if it was
commercial personally I would like to see it with a CUP. If it’s a straight allowed
use we don’t know what’s going to happen there and that’s a pretty visual entry
to our city.
Norton: Mr. Chairman could staff read – because I know we have several
updates to our Comp Plan and you have mine. Could you read on the glossary
terms of what commercial means and what mixed-use means the latest and
greatest update?
Siddoway: Neither commercial nor mixed-use is defined in the glossary. They
are discussed within the text however.
***End Of Side One***
Norton: Well I just see a little bit on the summary. It says mixed planned use
develop is now simply called mixed-use section 4 of this memo provides more
detail on this category. This short version is that it requires mix of uses on all
parcels larger than five acres developed as planned development.
Borup: That was one of the concerns on the testimony is the two uses. That
may not be practical for a large commercial development.
Norton: Do you have to have two uses?
Siddoway: The way it’s written now you would. If it were larger than five acres in
size, if it’s designated mixed-use it would require a minimum of two uses. If that
site was adjacent to existing single-family residential we would recommend that
one of the two uses be a high-density residential type use to transition from
commercial to existing residential.
Norton: How is the commercial different? What’s the definition for commercial?
Siddoway: Well commercial does not require a mix of uses it’s just simply
commercial. It would be designated as a commercial zone and there – under
mixed-use everything would have to be developed as a planned development
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 17
through a Conditional Use Permit and under commercial there – most
commercial uses, retail type uses are simply permitted and would never come
before this body or the Council.
Borup: Can we do – can there be a commercial designation with requiring a
Conditional Use Permit?
Siddoway: You can designate something like that in the –
Borup: -- has that been – we haven’t done that. Well let me take that back
we’ve always done it when it’s been annexed.
Siddoway: If something’s annexed without a use general practice has been to
require a Conditional Use Permit for any use.
Borup: But once it’s annexed it could also be designated at the time of the
zoning also couldn’t it? Commissioners that may be the best way to handle
something like that.
Norton: What?
Siddoway: I found that section if you wanted me to read it.
Norton: Yes please.
Siddoway: Okay there would be a new category called mixed-use. This
designation will provide for a combination of compatible land uses with that are
typically developed under a master or conceptual plan. The purpose of this
designation is to identify key areas which are either in (inaudible) nature or
situated and highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and
flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The intent of this designation is to
offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility. Developments
proposed in these areas will require approval as planned developments and will
require a Conditional Use Permit application process. As the following guidelines
there are five of them. One, all developments will occur under a Conditional Use
Permit process, two a minimum of two uses must be provided for all of the
parcels over five acres in size where feasible multi-family residential will be
encourage especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment
destination centers and when the project is adjacent to state highways –
Norton: -- thanks I think we all have it now.
Borup: We found it too.
Siddoway: Oh yes Page 9.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 18
Norton: Okay so that’s mixed-use. Back to commercial when I look at our
zoning regulations it looks like you have to have a permitted use for certain
things and then a – people are concerned about Conditional Use Permits. They
would have to have a Conditional Use Permit for odd amount – for a service
station, a bar, a radio station, child care center, churches, clubs and lodges,
construction buildings, temporary construction buildings and drive-in theatres or
drive-in establishments. Then you just need a permitted use – everything else is
a permitted use is that right?
Siddoway: For the most part yes there may be some other Conditional Uses but
there’s – certainly retail is a permitted use, professional offices et cetera are
permitted uses. Those types of standard commercial projects would not be
required to go through a Public Hearing.
Norton: So motels you can’t have a motel according to our regulations?
Siddoway: Right.
Norton: In a commercial.
Siddoway: Without a Conditional Use Permit.
Norton: It doesn’t say you need one.
Borup: But you can have a hotel.
Norton: Motels it says you can’t have one.
Siddoway: Oh is it blank?
Norton: Yes.
Siddoway: Motels are prohibited.
Borup: But hotels a permitted use.
Norton: But you can have a hotel?
Siddoway: Yes just call it a hotel and you’re fine.
Norton: Planned Unit Development.
Borup: That probably could use some correcting couldn’t it?
Siddoway: There are several things in there like that. For example – well I’m not
going to get into examples.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 19
Norton: This says Planned Unit Development general you would have to have a
Conditional Use anyway. Oh but we’re talking about mixed-use.
Siddoway: No you’re talking about commercial.
Norton: I’m talking commercial now trying to see what the difference between
your mixed-use and your Planned Unit Development because you would need a
Conditional Use Permit for either one.
Siddoway: Right. The difference is, is that everything you see that has a P
under it, it would be permitted and would not come before this body and would
just be handled at staff level. There would be no requirement for a mix of uses.
Norton: So you would have to – so either we trust commercial people to put in
there what the market wants or we want them to come here we decide to leave it
as a mixed-use because that was – at first it was commercial and then it was
changed to mixed-use right?
Siddoway: The other difference in my mind would be the Planned Development
and the requirement for amenities and things like that through our Planned
Development Ordinance. Those requirements wouldn’t kick in such as open
space.
Norton: For what?
Siddoway: For just commercial designations. It would kick in if it were a Planned
Development.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I have a question for any member of the audience. How many acres is
the Wal-Mart project built on?
Borup: Mr. Durkin could probably answer that.
Durkin: I developed it and it’s 29 acres on that. That’s east of Records Drive
and south of Fairview Avenue.
Centers: So the present verbiage anything over five acres must have two uses?
Durkin: There are three other (inaudible).
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 20
Centers: Yes if it’s a mixed-use. Those people in the Montevue Subdivision
couldn’t put a Wal-Mart or sell to a Wal-Mart developer or the like with a mixed-
use zone correct?
Siddoway: Not with the requirement for two uses.
Borup: They would have to add some apartments or something and the two
uses would not be two –
Centers: -- if I recall that was 20 –
Borup: -- it wouldn’t be two commercial uses it’s got to be a commercial and
another use.
Centers: Right. That was 32 acres? 32 acres I think, 32 homeowners and –
okay thank you.
Borup: We need to go onto the next meeting. Has everybody got – I would like
to maybe at the end if we get through the other (inaudible) some of these things
on the map.
Centers: I think we ought to complete the Neighborhood Centers. We spent 45
minutes on it and we didn’t complete it.
Borup: Okay let’s hit that. I thought we wanted to get some verbiage. I guess
the question is who’s going to write that up?
Nary: After November 6 I certainly might have more opportunities to help with
that but I don’t have anything right now.
Borup: I think we can give some direction too and ask for staff. So we just
maybe need a motion to say what we want to put it in.
Nary: Well why don’t we do this since we do have a lot of folks in the audience.
If we’re going to continue discussing this at the end of the meeting there maybe
some folks here who only came to listen to this part of it then they need to know
whether or not to stay till the end of the meeting (inaudible) continue this to
another meeting other than the fact at the end we may do a motion to give some
direction as (inaudible) and that kind of stuff. Just so they don’t have to stay
(inaudible).
Borup: That was our motion last time we would cover this until seven and then
depending on the time at the end so at this point we don’t know what the time at
the end will be.
Nary: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 21
Centers: I would be (inaudible) an hour early –
Borup: -- it sounds like the direction would be is some – a motion on the line of
(inaudible) overlay on the Neighborhood Centers with some specific incentive
would probably be what we’re looking at on that.
Nary: That’s what I would think.
Norton: Could we have some input from the audience? Some people have
volunteered to help write that. What’s wrong with having some people from the
audience helping write that?
Borup: I think that –
Norton: -- have a committee of citizens and staff get together and write
something.
Centers: I agree with that.
Norton: It would save us time.
Borup: And I didn’t – how does that sound Steve?
Siddoway: If the Public Hearings closed it sounds like new –
Norton: -- the Public Hearings not closed.
Centers: We didn’t have a Public Hearing.
Borup: We closed the hearing to public testimony and we left the hearing open
so that we can take specific testimony as long as we ask for. We were specific
on that to include that. Were there some? All I saw were the posters. Did you
say there were some in the audience that was –
Norton: -- yes there’s quite – there’s a few.
Centers: Mr. Durkin had volunteered.
Borup: Did you know that Larry? I got Larry Durkin and John Eaton?
Norton: And there’s another gentlemen.
Centers: And I think we can talk to them after our –
Norton: -- and there’s another gentlemen. There’s quite a few.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 22
Centers: Let’s talk to them after our regularly scheduled meeting as to our
thoughts because it wasn’t a Public Hearing.
Nary: Mr. Chairman would it be appropriate that we simply move to continue our
special meeting to the end of this public meeting our regular agenda to discuss
just that particular issue and then set another time –
Borup: -- well we’re not going to get through every thing tonight.
Nary: Right and set another time for the next one?
Borup: Yes and then again if we have time I wouldn’t mind getting into the map if
we could maybe get that out of the way. The names I’ve gotten are Durkin,
Eaten, Estess, and Stanfield.
Nary: So I guess that’s a motion that to just simply continue our special meeting
to the end of our regular meeting. We’ll continue all of the discussion regarding
Neighborhood Centers and the Land Use Map and then possibly setting another
time for the Commission to continue on with further discussion –
Borup: -- and then we’ll get with those four people and if you want to start
putting ideas down right now that would be fine.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Centers: If we’re done before nine we’ll wait.
Borup: Yes if we’re done before nine we’re going to stay here. Our intention –
maybe Commissioners we want to be –
Norton: -- 10:30.
Borup: 10:30 we’ll be gone so whenever this meeting’s over until 10:30 is what
(inaudible).
(Recess)
Borup: Since the regularly scheduled meeting has lasted too long we will
adjourn our Special Meeting and discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendments
at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 1, 2001.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:30 A.M.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
October 18, 2001
Pg. 23
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK