Loading...
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