Loading...
2001 09-27 SpecialMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission September 27, 2001 Special Meeting The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Thursday September 27, 2001 by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, and Keven Shreeve. Others Present: Item 3. Continued Public Hearing from August 30, 2001: CPA 01-01 Request for Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment by City of Meridian: Borup: Good evening. This is the – our Planning and Zoning public hearing for the City of Meridian comprehensive plan. This is the third (inaudible) public hearing that we have held. We anticipate tonight, no we don’t anticipate tonight. We’ll conclude the public testimony and from that point will be essentially discussion among the Commissioners. We anticipate to be more of a workshop type of discussion probably. We have left the option open that we may want to --. Well, we’ll have discussion with staff and we may also have the option of having additional information from others that have testified during these hearings. Anticipating it will probably take at least another one so we would have the opportunity to maybe call those people up at that time if we feel that would be warranted. That being said, we’d like to open this hearing for Thursday September 27th . We do have – I might mention all 5 Commissioners are in attendance. We didn’t have the formal sign up sheets as we’ve had in the past on the different categories. We did have a temporary one back here. We do have the opportunity for anybody here this evening that will be able to testify. We would like to go ahead and start. Does staff have any opening comments? Or are we ready just to go ahead with public testimony? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup. I guess the only thing I would point out is there are copies of the full 2000, June 2000 draft on the back. There are copies in the lobby of the larger maps if anybody needs to look at them. 2 days ago you should have all received a copy of a 4-page memo that summarizes all of the outstanding issues. Mainly policy type issues in the comp plan from the very beginning of the process through just the last meeting, Staff, we do apologize for the late tardiness of getting that to you. Mainly, its just kind of a reference so that you can refer to those issues that are still outstanding that you may or may not want to address in full detail. But certainly we wanted you to know as staff that they’ve been presented in some fashion to the city and as a part of public record. That’s mainly a bullet point type format for you to go down. That’s used in combination with the map that was distributed a couple of weeks ago that points out the specific property changes. I think that’s all that --. We have not received anything with the exception of I guess tonight there was a BCA memo distributed along with a 2 page memo. That I believe is the only additional information that we have received unless the City Clerk has received something else. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 2 Borup: There has --. We do have a letter from Miss Agnew and also from Givens Pursely concerning property. So, each of the Commissioners have that. I think there was one other that had just come in. Yes, and another short letter from Kowallis and Mackey. Hawkins-Clark: From Kowallis and Mackey, okay, right. Borup: Yes. So, those are all part of the record also. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I just have a question for staff. At our last meeting, Elaine Clegg from smart growth said she would do some research and get back with you. I have not seen anything in my materials from her. Has she gotten back with you with her research? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Norton. I contacted here twice since the August 30 meeting, but have not received anything. Norton: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions, comments from any of the Commissioners? Okay. I’d like to go ahead and we’ll start first with those who have signed up. First, Mrs. Agnew. Agnew: What I want to say is this -- Borup: You need to go ahead -- . Yes. Agnew: That’ll do it? Borup: Yes and then state your name and address for the record please. Agnew: Its Margrita Agnew, 1560 East victory Road in Meridian. Borup: Okay, thank you. Agnew: What I’m here about is in the map that I saw at the August meeting, my property was switched from --. Well, it started out mixed planned. Then it was office space. Then it was low density this last time. I don’t see that being feasible as far as I’m concerned because I do have a piece of property right on the corner of Locust Grove and Victory. I’d like very much to have it a mixed use so that I can --. My hands aren’t tied as to what I could actually do with the property. Borup: Okay. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 3 Agnew: Did I make myself clear? Borup: Yes. Are you on the – Agnew: I wanted the mixed use. Borup: Which corner of the intersection? Which side of Franklin? Wait a minute. Let me – Oh, Victory, I’m sorry, Victory. Agnew: Victory Road. Now, as you’re coming off Kuna Meridian Road – Borup: Okay, right. Agnew: -- I would be on the left hand side. If you were turning from the Meridian Kuna Road into Victory Road, I would be on the left hand side. I’m the only one with a property on the corner that was low density. I couldn’t figure out why. I was planning on – Borup: I was just trying to determine --. So, are you on the northwest corner? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Borup: Okay. Agnew: My sense of direction is really nil. I wouldn’t go so far as to commit myself there. Borup: Okay. Agnew: But I had been planning on you know annexing into the city when they built up the old McDermott farm, but the man that lived beyond me on Locust Grove did not want to be annexed in so at that time, you had to have a straight line. So, my hands were tied there. I don’t know now. I was told that if I annexed into the city, I was informed, perhaps I could get the mixed use. I don’t know whether this is true or not. Borup: Okay, that would be the time that it would be --. Mixed use is not a --. At the time of the annexation is when the zoning designation would take place. Agnew: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Valerie Steinbach? Steinbach: I’m Valerie Steinbach, 319 East Third Street in Meridian. This is public safety issue. I have an alley on the south side of my house. It runs from East Third to the Second Street. I’ve lived there for 14 years. I have dealt with people speeding down that alley. It is insane. I’ve dealt with the police, city planners, everybody. The police did Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 4 not know that the speed limit if its not posted is 25 miles an hour. So, every alley in this city if its not posted is 25 miles an hour. Nobody stops going out of the alley except for me and one other person onto east Third Street. Everybody is suppose to stop before you cross a sidewalk. There have been so many kids almost hit in my area. I’m amazed that a kid hasn’t been killed yet or severally maimed. I have 2 four-plexes behind me. My property line is right on the edge of the alley. My fence is right on the edge of the alley. The people pull out from behind my house in one fourplex and just whip right out into that alley. Borup: Ma’am? Steinbach: Don’t even slow down. Borup: You say you have talked with the police about this? Steinbach: I’ve talked to everybody about this. I have been dealing with John Watts at the ACHD. Borup: Okay. Really, they’re the ones that are going to have to --. We’re here to talk about the comprehensive plan. Steinbach: Okay, it said in the paper this morning, public safety. They tolds me to talk to you guys. That’s the – Borup: Who told you that? Steinbach: The police told me that. The people – Borup: The Meridian City Police said to talk to us? Steinbach: The people at the highway department, ACHD told me to talk to you guys. I don’t know what to do any more. They told me to come talk to you guys. So that’s why I’m here. Centers: What was you address again? Steinbach: 319 East Third Street. John Watson has talked to somebody. I have been trying to get a hold of him and cant. Somebody in Meridian, that came down and looked at the situation and she said that this is an on going problem a nd they have people that go out and hoe, dig trenches across their alleys to try to get people to slow down. Centers: Is that probably the remedy. Is the speed bumps? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 5 Steinbach: You know something, he said and the police have all said to make it one way. Some of the alleys arent even used. Mine, make it one way with a speed limit with a stop sign at the end because at the end of the alley off Third, on Second Street, you’ve got the same problem, a sidewalk with a fence right there. Any child walking across that sidewalk or riding a bicycle. Borup: Is that what you would like to see is a stop sign? Steinbach: Speed limit and stop sign would be nice. I know, I’m not the only one that’s got the complaint. I just don’t know who the other people are. The police have just told me their hands are tied. They cant do anything. They told me to go out and video tape it. Borup: I don’t know if they’re saying --. Their hands aren’t tied. They just have to see it to do anything. Steinbach: They told me they cant do anything. The speed limit’s 25 miles an hour. Its dangerous – Borup: Oh, you’re saying it needs to be – you want it lower than 25? Steinbach: They said that its got to be --. They said that 5 should be what it should be. Borup: Okay. Steinbach: You know, that’s what they said. Borup: We can get that information on. Again this is not what this meeting is about but, we can talk to (inaudible) through another committee. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary? Nary: Ma’am, did they tell you to talk to the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council? Steinbach: They told me the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, everybody. Nary: Because the city ordinance that you’re talking about, about speed limits on roadways that don’t have a speed limit sign, is a city ordinance and that can be changed by the City Council. They can make alleys – Steinbach: They told me everybody. You guys, everybody. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 6 Nary: That designates people in school districts. They can designate speed limits for school zones and they can do that. Steinbach: So I need to talk to – Nary: City Council has some authority to do that. It is predominately the Highway District that has to deal with that whether its speed bumps, to put obstructions in the alley or speed bumps and those kinds of things, or stop signs, the Highway District has to do that. Steinbach: The Highway District told me that they cant do it without Meridian doing it. Nary: City Council. Steinbach: Well, okay. Nary: It would be nice if we had that much authority, like they’re telling you but we just don’t. Steinbach: Yes, they just told me to talk to you both. Nary: But the City Council can do that so you might want to talk to them. Norton: And you are on record. We record and we have written minutes. So you are on record of coming to Planning and Zoning. Steinbach: Okay, all right. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. I’m not sure – Marian Bertel. Is that correct? Bertel: My name is Marian Bertel. I live at 2534 South Velvet Falls Meridian. I actually hadnt expected so soon. I was hoping to hear some things. But I do want to say thank you to the Planning and Zoning. I think the efforts they have made in putting the berms and the trees and grass whereever development has taken place is really aesthetically pleasing as well as good for our ecological balance and I think they’re doing a wonderful job in that. I did see some letters that were turned in opposing the mixed use between Locust Grove and Eagle Road and Overland, up to the subdivsions. I agree with Planning and Zoning that should remain mixed and we do need open space and we do need walkable areas. My personal feeling is this small park that is already proposed, I would like to see larger and I would like to see a bike path and walking path both from Eagle Road and from Locust Grove so its accessible to the entire community of that area, not just one subdivision when theres many thousands of homes in that area who are paying taxes also there. That’s my main concern. I don’t want high density commercial in that area. I live there, plan to live there forever and would like to see it remain a nice neighborhood area. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 7 Borup: Thank you. Okay, the last one we had signed up was John Eaton. Then we’ll be having anyone else come up that would like to after that. Eaton: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is John Eaton with the Building Contractors’ Association. We are at 6206 North Discovery Way in Boise. A couple of things that I wanted to bring up that have come up since our last meeting that we had with you all. In reference to the memo dated August 30th from staff, r e neighborhood centers. Second page, there’s a section there that says, talking about the neighborhood centers, modifying them should be based on market research and specific area plans, not just because the developer doesn’t want to develop that way. The point that we wanted to make on that, and I didn’t make it in my memo and I should have, was that these sites were not picked with a market study. But your staff is suggesting that in order to move them we have to have a market study to do that. I think that that is something that maybe needs to be taken into account. We can get onto good and bad neighborhood centers but that’s a point that we wanted to bring up. The second thing on this memo is, right below that paragraph is a paragraph that states that attached is one article showing research on related projects showing returns of 25 to 45 percent to developers. Respectfully we would like to state that that’s not really in any way realistic in the world here in Meridian. Those kind of figures were long gone from the days, you know you would buy your lots for $10,000. Some of those still may be out there and people will make a pretty good killing on them but, lots now are not at that price and we don’t hink that’s reflective of our local area here. Third point is on your land use planning map, related to parks. We noticed that all of the parks that are planned are outside of your urban service planning area but as part of the plan in order to get annexed into the urban service planning area, if you will. You have to have enough parks in the city to allow annexation to occur into that area. We think that may be a problem that you’re trying to get the cart before the horse a little bit there. If you leave it like it is, you’re going to have significant problems having those parks built before theres any houses out there. The developer will probably be required to help build those parks and they’re not going to do that until they’re ready to develop. The fourth thing I’d like to go over is this letter we sent in today. I apologize for bringing this in at the last minute. We had planned to do this a little bit later but decided to accelerate our efforts. We will continue to provide comment as we move forward with this. As we re-read some of these issues, and went over some of the things that had come up in the last month or two with some of our members. We sat down and talked about these issues. We looked at some of the concerns that have been raised by other associations, by other realtors, and by us and came up with five areas that we thought were probably the top priority areas. Its not to say the other things that we raised were not important but we think that these are probably the most important things that are detrimental to building and development in this community if they go forward in this plan. That is, you’ll see them here. I’m not going to read them. I’m just going to say the bullet points here are the urban service planning area, the city owned services required, the neighborhood centers, the mixed use category and the way that that is defined, and the designation of the northern Meridian planning area. You guys can go ahead and take a look at that for yourselves but I think we wanted to make sure that we had those on the record before you began your deliberations. So, if there’s any questions. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 8 Borup: Any question from any of the Commissioners? Eaton: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify before the Commission? Lambardi: Good evening. I’m David Lambardi. I’m with Givens Pursley, 277 North Sixth Street Boise Idaho. You already have a letter from me and my partner Gary Allen, concerning our comments to the comprehensive plan and our representation of Mr. James Griffin who owns a parcel at the corner of Eagle and Overland. My purpose tonight is simply to breifly comment upon the memeo from the stafff dated September 25, 2001. on the second page, under land use, item 4 our comments regarding the summary of issues regarding the multiple use designation. I’d like to suggest that really there is more than simply a further explanation required for the multiple use designation, rather and in addition the effect and implementation of them designation with specific standards for measurement during the proposed Conditional Use Permit process, if that is followed, is something which is going to be extremely important to the process. As proposed, its indefinite and it invites varying applications around the city which will reduce predictability and essentially renders planning in these kinds of areas to an ad hock process rather than a process that you all and the City Council have planned out in advance. The substance of our comments is contained in our letter. We’ll be happy to work with staff and you as time goes on. Thank you. Borup: Any questions from any Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lambardi, in reading the comment No. 1 that you just recited. Isnt that what the process of the ordinance that goes to supplement what the plan leaves as a guideline, isnt that what the process of the ordinance is suppose to do? To define those specific areas of compatibility, lay that out in the land use table as to whats compatible. Isnt that what that part of the process is so it doesn’t belong in this section then? Lambardi: Well, the designation on the Comprehensive Plan proposal, we believe, is so broad that it really doesn’t give any guidance. It doesn’t say for example, what are compatible uses. It doesn’t say whether the compatibility might vary from neighborhood to neighborhood so that it really leaves it so broad open as to be virtually undefined. We’re suggesting that at least some standards against which an ordinance and ultimate action can be measured are appropriate to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Nary: Again, I guess, you know, part of compatibility is a fairly subjective decision because whats compatible with the neighborhood on the northwest portion of this city may not be compatible next to a thousand home subdivision but it may be compatible to a commercial office area of the city. So, I mean, it is still somewhat subjective and that’s what the intent of the ordinance is and also that’s what the intent of the public hearing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 9 is, is to give this Commission and the Council a better understanding of whether or not that proposed use is reasonable in the particular area they’re asking to do that. So, I guess, I mean, I understand what you’re saying in having some guidelines but also I guess I want to understand, recognize obviously that there is always some subjectivity to compatible use. Lambardi: That’s true but for example, theres no designation of the elements of the considerations that would be weighed one against the other. You might have traffic flow. You might have density. You might have uses in the neighborhood such Municipal uses or education uses. The existance are non-existance of those. Theres not even a list of items that should be considered in determinign compatibility. That’s what – Nary: Those are already contained in our city ordinance., Our city code already lays out that laundry list of exactly those things, traffic, density, you know, compatibility again, like buffer zones, transition zones. Those are already laid out in the city ordinance. Again, I guess I’m not --. I think what we’ve been wrestling with a lot in all of these public hearings is whats this document suppose to be? Its suppose to be a guideline, a map, sometimes maybe the legislative intent when we pass ordinances down the pipe to implement these provisions that are the concepts in here. So, again, I guess, I think we’ve already done that. That already exists. Lambardi: I guess part of our concern, and to be honest, I’ve got to defer to Mr. Allen, who’s more familiar on this than I am. Nary: Sure. Lambardi: But, part of our concern is knowing what are the ordinances going to be that implement this and we don’t have a guideline on that at this point. So its difficult for us to conclude that the ordinances which exist presently are going to operate under this plan. Instead we anticipate there will be new ordinances and believe that some guidance from the plan for this particular designation would helpful. Nary: All right, thank you. Lambardi: Thank you. Borup: I think someone else --. Did you have a question Commissioner Norton? Norton: Mr. Chairman. I’m not an attorney but i have a question for this attorney. In other words, to put it in simplified terms, you want more of a definition of what mixed use means? Lambardi: At a minimum a definition of the issues that are considered in determining what are compatible land uses. What elements are going to be considered? Norton: What are compatible land uses, okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 10 Borup: Have you looked at the definition our current Comprehensive Plan and ordinance? Lambardi: Mr. Allen has. I have not. Borup: Because it talks some about compatibility. Okay. Other than that, you’re okay with the mixed use designation for that property? Lambardi: Actually, we have 5 points discussed in Mr. Allen and my letter to you on September 26th . Borup: Okay. Lambardi: It goes into a little more detail of the concerns, including Mr. Allen’s suggestion of performance zoning as a way of dealing with this issue. Borup: Okay, thank you. Lambardi: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Anyone else? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members. Mike Wardle 50 broadway Avenue in Boise. I wanted to be certain I read staff’s August 30th summary of public testimony comments. It notes a discussion in my absence by Johnathon Wardle but it doesn’t note that the request that I made in writing --. I just wanted to be certain that the Commission did receive a memo from me dated that date asking for one of two actions, as you consider --. Let me grab my --. You’ll find those if you don’t have them. But basically it relates to the north Meridian plan. Yes, you do have it. okay, I just wanted to be certain that that was in the record and that consideration was given. I’m not suggesting that you not take any action but if you do take an action that there is a specific escape clause to allow the overlay to be implemented upon completion. We are on target and on track with a process that has been reveiwed with the City Council and the other political entities. Hopefully we will have a good defined effort completed early next year. To several other points. One challenge that I think that everybody has and I would believe that the Commission is that you started with a 2000 document prepared SAIC. There have been updates that just site certain references by staff subsequently. I think somewhere along the line before adoption of this plan is actually undertaken, we need to see a document that actually brings these things together so that we really know, both you and us, the total context of what this plan is. I think even in that regard, the – I’m assuming that there’s been some movement away from that June 2000 original draft because a similar situation has occurred with regard to the map. I’m on record previously of noting concerns for a patchwork quilt and I think that’s also included in some of the comments so I wont repeat that. I would note, I think theres been some progress made in the discussion of staff in a memo that they presented to you on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 11 August 30th at the last hearing that talks about the urban service planning areas and then it gets into a CUSA, a current urban services area. I wont take much longer. I think there needs to be one more step taken. If, by law, I believe that your urban, your area of impact has an implied assumption that there will be urban services provided. I think therefor instead of having a line that simply says that this is the urban service planning area that there needs to be a definition, and staff I think has taken a step perhaps needs a little bit more work to determine a definition of the service areas. I’m not sure how that needs to be formulated or stated, but I don’t think we can go through the process of assuming that the urban service planning area is something less than the entire area that the city proposes to serve at some point in the future. The last comment that I would make was alluded to somewhat by Mr. Eaton, concerning the neighborhood centers. My concern, reading again the other staff memo that was presented to you on August 30th concerning neighborhood centers gives the impression on the second page when it talks about specific locations of the centers can be moved. Some can be deleted or added. However, modifying them should be based on market research and so forth. I’m concerned that it not be and I hadnt even thought of what Mr. Eaton pointed out, but the location is certainly not based on such an analysis. I would hope that its not a long laborious process that requires a great deal of economic study to justify a different location than what the map shows that was not based on such analysis. So, I just want to piggy back that particular statement. My last comment, I noted that staff also provided to you an article that, I had occasion to participate in a workshop this week on neotraditional projects and new urbanism. I’ve needed a fair amount of study. I just want to point out that theres a statement in that article that was provided to you , I believe that it says development costs for neotraditional developments can be as much as 24 percent less per home than conventional subdivisions. What really is true is that the values in particularly the resale market are higher in a neotradtional neighborhood but development costs are not less. I do not know of any defined study, and I’ve got probably one of the best libraries in the neighborhood on this issue. Neotraditional development is not less expensive than standard development. It costs more to actually construct. It requires more land, infrastructure elements sometimes get a little bit more challenging. But the benefits are there. I’m a strong proponent of the benefit. I just want to be sure that nobody comes into this process thinking this is an opportunity for everybody to get rich doing neotraditional development. Its not the case. Values are certainly there for the consumer. Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Yes. Mr. Wardle I think we’ve probably got some questions. Mr. Centers. Centers: Mr. Wardle, you referred to a final draft of the 2000 comp plan after the amendments which probably would be hard to do. I guess I concur with that and just want to go on record that I think the public should be able to see the 2000 comp plan Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 12 with proposed changes or amendments from Commission before it goes to the Council. That would be satisfactory to you and most of the public, don’t you think? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers. I agree. If its not done before it certainly has --. The product that goes to the Council cannot be this combination of papers that we all have to sort through. Centers: Right. Wardle: That might be a reasonable solution. Centers: It would be difficult to do the final one because the City Council does the final one. Wardle: I understand that. But it would be, certainly if the Council cant --. I just wouldn’t expect the Council to be able to really deal with all of these things and then try to sort through it. Borup: That’s our intent. We intend to send something to the Council with the changes and rewording or whatever we come up with that will hopefully be --. I was going to say easy to follow but, that’s as easy to follow as the current one. Wardle: I appreciate that. Borup: Anybody else have any other questions for Mr. Wardle? I’ve got a couple, your comment on another designation or better way, on the urban service planning area. I think one of the things that I believe staff had mentioned is maybe call it a priority area. Is that something that would be along the line that you’re talking about. Have a boundary saying this will be our first priority that the service would go into? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, that probably comes close because its my understanding working with staff on the public works side that they have identified the priorities with regard to the basic services. Frankly, all of this, the water is easily provided. It’s the sewer that drives these service areas. I think the city has established, essentially a priority area and something of that type needs to be identified so that theres no mistake that these areas are serviceable. There are certain steps that need to be taken to provide that service. That may well be a good way to do that. Borup: The other question I had was, you had mentioned that you’ve done a lot of study on neotraditional. I don’t know if you’ve looked into the neighborhood center concept to any extent and if you’re aware of any that have been developed, especially that have been developed unsuccessfully around the country, especially in the west. I guess specifically in the west is what I would be interested in. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 13 Wardle: Mr. Chairman. I, unfortunately most of my research has been done east of the Mississippi River. But its because that’s where the neotraditional effort commenced. Several projects specifically. Borup: I’m looking more – Wardle: I understand. Borup: More the concept like we’re doing – Wardle: I understand. But, I want to point out that the first of the, and perhaps the premier project that has been developed in this country called, Kentlands initiated by a development company in about 1987 or 88, went to the banks because they were unable to put the commercial elements together that would support and sustain the program. That project went forward because the community --. This is Gavisburg Maryland. Had actually placed a requirement, essentially a zoning standard that was unique to that project and they would not allow deviation. But the original developer failed because the commercial elements were not realized. There was another project done by that same developer that also went to the same process that had –-. It was more of a blue collar new urbanism project that had a little neighborhood store, convenience facility that failed. So, I honestly don’t know of any in the west. Borup: Are there any in the east that havent failed? Wardle: Well, there are projects that --. As they have matured and have gone forward, for instance, Kentlands now does have the commercial elements but it came – Borup: After the developer defaulted to the – Wardle: And it was picked up and carried on but it came later in the project as the adjacent land also developed that created enough of a demand. That’s really the challenge that we’re faced with. I believe in the concept frankly. I think that these things will happen. I’m just not certain that putting the location on the map is going to guarantee that they will. I think what will happen is that a developer that wants to put together a mixed use project with a type of service that is supportable and sustainable - -. Our good friends of the smart growth community always talk about sustainability. A concept has to be sustainable or it will fail. I think that those centers, that type of thing will happen. I’m not certain that it will happen in the location that staff proposes. I think its going to take innovative development and somebody that wants to do a mixed use type project with densities and varied housing types in that process. I believe in the concept. I’m just concerned that I would rather see it placed in the mixed use categories. I’ve told this Commission before and allow the innovation to bring those to fruition. I wish we all had a lot of experience in that but clearly we have not. Borup: Then if its not designated specifically on the map and left up to the mixed use, wouldn’t it need something else in there to give some real emphasis, some Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 14 encouragement to try to get it to move that way? What type of thing would be appropriate to --? Wardle: I struggle with the same question. Again, restating, I believe that neighborhood centers will materialize. Borup: they’re going to happen – if they’re left on their own? Isnt it going to take some encouragement? Probably from the city and from this Commission or the City Council to make it happen, whether its in the way of some incentives or whatever? Wardel: Mr. Chairman, I think that perhaps the way that the encouragement comes is, and this is kind of I guess an indictment against the entire type of process that we all have to go through as we do any development anywhere in any community. Its always a challenge to do things that are not whats been done on the other side of the fence. So, the incentive perhaps need to be a process that through a definition of what a center should be and the types of uses that would be expected if somebody brings that kind of a concept in, they ought to get almost a free ride, and against you know even the neighborhood opposition that will be there if they can accomplish it. But, I’m concerned about the specific locations. The concept will happen over time. The number, I don’t have any clue on whether the number that staff is proposing out there, even if you shuffled them around would be the number. I’m sorry to wax somewhat philosophical because I don’t know that any of us have a precise answer except if we can find a way to make the process easier for somebody who wants to try and put those centers together in the context of a development. I think they ought to be encouraged. That’s the best I can help you with. Borup: All right, thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you Mr. Wardle. Do we have anyone else? Seele: Jonathan Seele, W H Moore company. I’ll just be very brief on this. I know that in Brad’s memo he talked about in the mixed use that they would eliminate the 2 different uses. I would just lioke to emphasis that I think in particular projects, say slightly over 5 acres, could be 10, 15 acres that theres often times opportunities out there for one type of use. For example, in Boise, we just finished last year, 170,000 square feet for Hewlett Packard over on Emerald. If it was in the mixed use, as I read it here, we would not be allowed that. So, I think we should be allowed the flexibility that it could be one use. Again, I would just emphasis whats included in the memo here, that I think that’s a good idea. That’s my only comment. Borup: Did your comment, on acreage, for anything over – Seele: If I recall, it seemed to me it was over 5 acres, that it had to be 2 uses I believe. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 15 Borup: Okay. Seele: I guess my point is just, with the mixed use, to say that it has to be a minimum of 2, in some cases may make it difficult because there is large, for example call centers. We’re seeing a lot of call centers within this community that are coming in at 60, 80. in fact H.P., one of the buildings, just one of the individual buildings is 92,000 square feet. So, for example the land that we’re currently working on at Overland and Eagle Road, which is 85 acres. Yes, its probably unrealistic to assume you’re going to get one user to take all that, although that would be fairly nice. But, we also, own all the land for example over at Ustick and Eagle. There is a possibility over there on smaller acreages that you may have one user that comes in and it will be an excellent project. You know if you start to say its got to be a minimum 2, then all of a sudden you’ve got a fight. I think again, all I’m just trying to emphasis, I think the importance of eliminating that minimum of 2 requirements keeping in mind there is that potential to attract those kind of users in here that I think the City of Meridian would like and would allow people to come in. I think many of the mixed use areas you have are prime locations for those type of uses. So, that’s my point. Borup: So, you’re saying just eliminate the 2 uses entirely? Seele: 2 uses, and again, like I say, I know that the groundwork has already been set in here. I just want to kind of underline it and bold it. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Steele: Would you be comfortable with, to allow that type of single use instead of a mixed use and propose that there be some trade off then from the developer, some other benefit or incentive. Something the city is going to gain by allowing that, no different than we do in a landscaping requirement, we may allow a little less landscaping but some trade off in some other manner. Would that be acceptable? Seele: I guess I look at that you already receive a benefit, again you know, we’re talking hypothetical here but lets say a Hewlett Packard, Albertson’s or something like that comes in and wants to build a 90 or 100,000 square foot facility which you know is going to be a class facility, I think you’re going to get a benefit of taxes, the people coming into your community, the benefit of them. I think you’re already getting that benefit. I think what you’re allowing to do is to get the benefit that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to achieve. In other words those kind of companies are going to go some place else, such as Boise, or Caldwell, or Nampa, or other locations. I think you’re getting the benefit already. I’m not sure that the developer or the tenant, in this case would necessarily have to offer more. I think you’re Christmas has already come. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 16 Nary: If that be the case, then we wouldn’t have --. I mean, then there wouldn’t be any use to have any of those restrictions. Then the city, again, is stuck with these maybe in areas that we don’t want big giant box sorts of developments like that they call centers, in areas that we really would prefer to have other types of uses. But we would be willing to trade that off in relation to something else. So, I ,mean, yes I agree. You’re certainly wanting to bring a concept that could be beneficial to the city. Again, still I think it would not be unreasonable for the city to have some criteria that would allow that like we do with lots of ordinances. Seele: No, I don’t think its unreasonable. Again, we’re talking very broad here – Nary: Sure. Seele: We’re not sure what they are but I understand where you’re going. I think that yes, that’s certainly something to look to. But at the same time, realizing from the city standpoint theres potential benefit of being able to attract those kind because you’ve got, most of your mixed uses in some very prime areas. You know, you’re looking along the Eagle corridor for example which to me, is going to be one of the premier corridors in Ada and Canyon County. Its midway between almost everything so you want to be able to attract those kind of businesses. They’re out there and they’re going to be looking. They are looking at these type of areas. Yes, I think there can be. You know. Like anything, I mean, it’s a give and take type of things. Anyway, like I say, I just wanted to just simply underscore – ***End of Side One*** Seele: -- examples in Boise of that. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup:Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Seele, I have a question regarding Eagle Road and Franklin. Seele: Yes. Norton: Montview Subdivision. Is that caused by this mixed use, They want to go to commercial. If the mixed use was more flexible where theres not a minimum of 2 different entities, do you think that would eleviate their problem? Seele: That’s a good question. I don’t know. I think its going to be tough with the amount of homes around there and stuff but yes, I think it could. I don’t see it as a detriment, going with 1 because again, you’ve got your ordinances, you’ve got your zoning ordinances, things where you can start to control some of those things. Again, I think backing off the 2 -- . you know, yes, I think mixed use is a good concept. I think it’s a good idea where you can apply it. I think in many cases such as Overland and Eagle Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 17 Road which we are currently looking at as you’re probably well aware. That will almost unvariably be a mixed use project. I cant imagine it being all exclusively offices or anything else. But where there is places that are suitbble for development, whether it -- . it doesn’t even have to be office. It might be warehouse and distribution or other things that you can put in there, maybe sometimes that one particular item or use will work better than trying to mix it with something else. Norton: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you Mr. Seele. Seele: Thank you very much. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Forey: Thank you Commissioners. My name is Wayne Forey. I’m here to ask a few questions and a clarification on the urban service planning area. Norton: We need an address. Forey: Yes, 1952 South Wildcreek Way Boise, 83709. I’m working with Falcon Creek Associates and they are a major industrial park developer, several industrial parks here in the valley. They’re currently evaluating a 37 acre industrial park. Its right south and east of the Meridian Waste treatment plant. We definitely support the general industrial that you’ve shown on the property. If I could, could I just point it out on the map? This area right here. That site is completely surrounded by sewer, deep sewers, trunk sewers, 36 inch sewers. 12 inch sewer, 8 inch sewer, 10 inch water mains, 12 inch water mains. Yet, we’ve got an urban service planning area designation bisecting right through a single ownership of 37 acres. So, I echo some of the other comments in terms of what analysis has gone into this urban service planning area boundary because that’s a major component of any Comprehensive Plan. Heres one piece of property that’s probably got more sewer than it needs, and yet its half of it in the boundary and half of it out. So, I would ask you to take a good look at that through the entire area, but in that particular piece if we could move that to the west, at least follow the drain, the Eight Mile or Nine Mile Drain there. There’s probably many other areas, some of the other folks here that work with commercial developers and residential and industrial developers could probably look at on a case by case basis and see some of the same type of situations. I would hope, as this moves forward to the Council we have a good analysis of that urban service planning area boundary and maybe even a tried analysis of current, immediate, proposed and near future boundary. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Borup: Okay, any questions from any Commissioners? Okay, thank you. Forey: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 18 Borup: Do we have anyone else? Seeing none, -- Oh. Turnball: My name’s David Turnball, president of Brighton Corporation. My address is 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I would like to ask, I guess I have a letter that I submitted to Shari Stiles on June 28th of this year. I don’t know if you have that in your packets. It’s a 7 page letter. If you don’t, I can hand out copies. I did note that in the memo that came from staff dated September 25th that some of my comments were included in there. Sometimes you wonder if a written response has been analyzed. There are some of my comments that were included there for consideration, some not. I want to begin with a summary of my letter and point out that I applaud the staff for the change of mindset and direction approach that Meridian has taken to planning. Mixed use, including integration of variety of housing options and planning development and subdivision. Subdivision ordinances are all progressive ideas that I think we welcome. Turning to the beginning of my letter. This document obviously is lengthy and I prepared a 7 page response to it. some items are duplicated in the Comprehensive Plan and also in my letter. I don’t want to dwell on all of those but I would like to read just a few paragraphs for your consideration. The first one regards the discussion of urban sprawl. It states in the Comprehensive Plan that one of the objectives is to protect existing agricultural land from unnecessary infringement. Then I point out that it is farmers in general that wish to sell their land for development purposes. Furthermore and honest discussion needs to be advanced as to what urban sprawl is. To most who speak of urban sprawl it means that someone has developed or built on the other side of them. The city, and I think this is true, the city has a fairly compact area of impact with most areas within a mile or 2 of existing city limits and the city should not impose unecessary or artificial restrictions on developments that act to drive up the price of land and the cost of developing the land. That hurts the consumer and makes quality development less and not more attainable. What I’m saying is if you constrict the areas that you will allow development, only those few selected parcels that can be developed, the price of the land will go up. The ability to develop it economically will be deminished. Your prices will go up. The consumer will get hurt and you will get fewer, not more amenities. The urban service planning area, I would like to discuss a little bit. On page 6 of my letter, I think I’ve discussed this. The proposed creation of a USPA is probably the most troubling section of the draft Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. It is an act of bad faith on the city’s part. The creation of the USPA is a retrenchment from previous Comprehensive Plans and infringes on the reasonable investment base expectations of land owners. It seems to be setting up a scenario where the city will say, if you want to develop your land, you’re going to have to buy your way into the city. I don’t believe this action should be part of that process. The neighborhood center, I would like to discuss just briefly. I’ve asked in my memo that staff provide some examples of where neighborhood centers have been developed successfully. I think we’ve had subsequent conversations with staff at the BCA where they have informed us that this concept came from Merced. I believe in just a recent panel discussion it was noted that even in Merced, they have not yet built their neighborhood centers. They’re just beginning to develop neighborhood centers. So, it seems to be something that’s casting concrete in this plan that is yet to be tested in the market place. If its not proven in the market Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 19 place, you can put it on the plan all you want but it wont get built, if its not feasible. I know my time is short, so I’ll leave my comments at that and stand for any questions. Borup: Okay, Commissioner Norton? Norton: I have a question. What are you president of? I didn’t catch that. Turnball: Brighton Corporation. Norton: Thank you. Turnball: We’re a real estate development company. Borup: Anyone else have anything for Mr. Turnball? Okay, thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward before we --? Martin: Commissioners, my name is Justin Martin, 5606 Ten Mile Road here in Meridian. I guess, I’m just going to echo some of the other comments we heard earlier to do with the urban service planning area. I guess I don’t see the reason for restricting that land, for pulling that in. I, as well, see it as a way to possibly get developers to buy in to get into the city. There was a memo that talked about expanding the urban service planning area, will require developers to have fully committed services. I guess its just pretty vague yet in what that would mean. I would hope that it stayed in the place where its at now on the map. That there would be further discussion about what the term fully committed was. So, it didn’t turn out sounding more like buying your way in. My other 2 things. One other thing is the north Meridian overlay area that the City Council is working on along with the developers. I feel pretty strong that – or I do feel strong that we should have a way to add that in quickly to the Comprehensive Plan if the Comprehensive Plan is approved and the overlay area is ready there soon after, so we don’t have to wait 6 months to add that in. I’m sure that theres a means to put that into place or something we can do there. As far as the neighborhood centers, I guess I’m not sure. I think it’s a good concept. I am unsure if they will work in conceptual wise. I read the Merced plan. It sounds good but that’s about all I can say. I don’t have any solid proof that they will work. I think that the larger grocery stores that we get on the corners would definitely hinder those sorts of opportunities for a neighborhood center to work. There are definitely several around. That’s about it. I guess I would like to see some idea of a working example in the west as well as the neighborhood centers that worked out well. That’s it. Borup: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 20 Nary: Mr. Martin, since its been brought up a couple of times, I guess I’m putting you on the spot on this issue. Martin: Okay. Nary: On the idea that developers are buying their way into the city with the urban service planning area as proposed, how is that any different than the Highway District saying we’re nto going to build an interchange at this location for 5 years, then the developer saying I’ll pay for that interchange if you build it now? Like at the mall. Like at Micron. Are they buying their way into that development? No, its beneficial to their projects, their development and that’s why they’d like to have it. So, I guess I’m unclear why is that a problem? Martin: I think the problem with, in my view is theres a few larger developments outside the urban service planning areas, or I shouldn’t say larger, stakeholders that own larger sums of land. Its not going to be the guy with, the developer with 60 acres who provides a 25 acre regional park. Its going to be the larger developer. I guess it just doesn’t seem, it doesn’t seem quite right with the requirement on one developer as opposed to all of the developers splitting for those costs equally. So, I guess, I cant say that I’m against the developers helping in those areas but I am against it when it gets stuck on, as the way I would see it coming up, is being stuck to one developer in the mile sections to bring those in and then all the smaller developers with 80 acres, 60 acres, 40 acres would come in free and clear, just to piggy back, basically on their development. I don’t see that as being – Nary: I guess, I would think that’s sort of the nature of the beast. Maybe Mr. Wardle could tell us how that works over there at Harris Ranch but I think theres a lot of off shoot development that gets the benefit of the services that get brought to an area because one developer wants to be able to be the first in the door. I don’t know how the city through an ordinance is going to be able to share that cost down the road. If someone wants that service out to them, assuming the city can provide it, they’re going to have to pay for it to get it there. If that benefits the other smaller land owners at some point in the future, I’m not sure how the city can (inaudible). Martin: So, theres ways like --. Theres ways with sewer and water, as far as latecomer agreements that the developer can be paid back for those expenses. If you go spend a million dollars to pull sewer line there are ways to get paid back over time. I see that as a fair way of doing it. Borup: That’s happening now. Martin: Whats that? Borup: That’s happening now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 21 Martin: Right and I do see that and I see that’s working out good. But I don’t see that sort of issue working out with like a park. You have regional parks spread across the map, you know approximately every 3 miles outside that urban service planning area and I think that there’s nothing in place now that would help the developer get paid back for that. That’s just particularly the issue outside there that I think would hold up most of the area. Borup: That’s assuming that the developer would put the park in at his expense. You’re saying that? Martin: I guess is what I’m saying is that if there was some means – Borup: Maybe a designated area for that particular park and like a latecomer type fee – Martin: I’m saying if it was more flexible. The park had more options to the developer that were left open. Some of the wording to move the USP line. If it were to stay where it is shown on the map today, would be a little bit more friendly to the developers, would feel less like buying your way in, I guess. Even though you were paying up front you would see other developers, and maybe if its every 3 miles, you can get park impact fees for so many lots up to a point, then those fees go back to the park once the developer’s paid back. You know, a 10 year payment schedule --. I just think that theres a lot of other options out there to explore with parks in particular where you mention they’re already there for sewer and they’re already there for water. That would be it. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you Mr. Martin. Martin: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Parkcenter Boulevard Boise, Idaho. I just was reviewing that staff memo regarding the urban service boundary. I think, I just want to restate my position on 2 points. If you know something is happening right now and adopt a plan with such severe restrictions on how that line can be modified, I think you’re going to be overloading youselves and your staff with applications. I’m opposed to having the restriction be more restrictive than a comp plan restriction at the very least. In addition I think that line should be looked at very carefully. There are areas that are included in that boundary now without services and there are areas that are not included in that boundary that have services. I think that you have to be very, very careful with that line. So I would really encourage you to closely study that. My second point has to do with the mixed use plan. I just want to reiterate some comments I made a couple meetings ago. I think if you have say a 7 acre parcel on Franklin and you have a giant stretch designated mixed use and someone wants to come in and build an office there, they would have to build an office building and a circle K to meet your mixed use requirements. Or they would have to build an office building and a duplex. I don’t think that those 2 are necessarily compatible or to the best interest Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 22 of the city. I do think that you should look closely at putting some language in there that for single use, for a single user, no matter what the size. That you would, --. The mixed use requirement could be waived. I’m not suggesting that the other language in that be waived, the Conditional Use, the plans, whatever else has to come before you for approval, but to require someone to go out and change the Comprehensive Plan because of the mixed use designation, you’re going to add years to a project. You may very well, as a city miss a valuable opportunity. Centers: Mr. Durkin. Durkin: Yes? Centers: Excuse me. Could be waived on a case by case basis? Would that be --? Because I agree with you. I happen to agree that that’s too restrictive. But the requirement for 2 uses, over 5 acres could be waived on a case by case basis. Durkin: I’m not an attorney. My interpretation of it is now that it would require a Comprehensive Plan, either a map or a text change, which statute limits you to not doing that more frequently than once every 6 months. For example, a call center, a good office complexion, a St. Al’s hospital, something could go in on one of these mixed use and you would have to say, gee St. Al’s I think that’s great but you have to put Chevron with you to meet that requirement. I think you’re better off to have a recommendation that the developers try to do that and take that into consideration as you look through the Conditional Use Permit that’s also required on that, whether in fact there would be another option. That’s just a suggestion. Nary: Mr. Chairman. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: Mr. Durkin. Did you hear Mr. Wardle’s comments regarding neighborhood centers? Durkin: I did. Cneters: The way I heard his comments was we shouldn’t be placing them on the map and be casting them in concrete and be --. If you want them, fine, allow some incentives to put them where they possibly could develop but not be dictating about the locations. Do you agree with those comments? Durkin: I’m going to try to keep my answer short but you’re asking me a question with a long answer. I want to say that when this comp plan first came out and the definition of the neighborhood centers came out, I was not real enthused. I did have a chance to meet with staff and meet with a number of advocates of the neighborhood center concept. Our development company is really research based and I called on a number of people that I know in the industry that had the resources to do the field research for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 23 me in a number of areas in the country. I was convinced that with the proper definition of a neighborhood center, in other words if it was adequate size commercial property that they could be successful. Where they’re located on this map, they’re consistantly mid, -- what I call mid block or the mid mile marker. If that consistancy stays, I think that they’ll have a higher level of success. But if you say I’m going to put one here, one that’s on a major arterial and one that isn’t. The one that isn’t will fail. It wont happen. That’s my strong feeling. I drifted off from my thoughts. My concern in the beginning, and I have that concern tonight is the number of them that you have designated. I think that it will be many, many years, I counted once and I think there are 17. Is that about right? Theres 15 of them on the map. I think that that will be --. I think we’ll be on our 9th draft of the comp plan before that many are developed. So it might be an idea to not committ yourself so far out into the future areas of the city that are going to develop and keep it in mind and watch the success. I have a suggestion on an incentive that may work. I don’t know if its something you cover in your comp plan or in an ordinance. But theres clearly a benefit to the Ada County Highway District for a neighborhood center, especially for one to happen now, and especially for one to be successful. I do think that, -- . I had actually talked to a couple of the people there. I do think theres a provision in the impact fee ordinance that an impact fee could be waived on one. The city, you have the ability, many cities have an ordinance for fast tracking developments. As a developer, speed is really important. Who gets in first. But if there could be a coordination that where the city could have a fast track program, if you’re the first one in with one of these, we will fast track it immediately. That would be a benefit. If Ada County Highway District would waive all or some of the impact fees associated with it and if there could be other benefits for the first one or two that were built with densities or some other flexibilities in the description, I think that it would fly. Centers: Okay. That’s fine. You didn’t give me a yes or no but that’s fine. It sounded like Mr. Nary. You sited studies and what areas of the country have they been successful in and whats the population of those areas? Durkin: Mike is correct. They’ve been most often successful in the east but they’ve been there in the east longer than in the west. It’s a little tricky on what the population is. I think if you look at a major metro area, there are many small towns around the Minneapolis St. Paul area where these are successful but you have 2 and a half 3 million people in a metro area. Centers: Were they running out of land otherwise? Durkin: No. Centers: Some areas back east there’s no land available. Durkin: No, they weren’t. They weren’t in Minneapolis. In the Minneapolis area, I went and looked at them. They’re best buy, consumer electronic stores in these built in a new urbanism style. Its right next to hundreds of acres of corn. But, -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 24 Centers: But the population (inaudible) Durkin: (inaudible) yes, you have three and a half million people versus what we have here. Centers: How about location on the arterial? Were they --? Durkin: They are on the (inaudible) Centers: The intersections? Durkin: Yes, at the intersections., that would be another suggestion. You may want to designate one on a major arterial and I think probably one there that --. Theres a lot of ways you can get one, get an incentive to get one started. I want you to know that there was an area in the west, to my surprise. I don’t have the data on it yet, but there is an area in the west where a number of these have been built recently. That’s in Colorado. I’m told of them. I’ve asked for packages just last week so I can look at them. In Colorado Springs Colorado and I don’t really know the metropolitan population there. (inaudible) there are a number of them there that have been successful and also in the Denver metropolitan area. There area actually a fair number of them in California but that’s been a land supply issue more than anything else. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question Mr. Durkin. I think we’ve been wrestling constantly on this issue on these neighborhood centers, on what has been proposed on the draft map which I think a lot of people have tied to these specific development areas by those little dots on the map versus something softer than that. I think Mr. Wardle’s told us a couple of times about allowing the market palce to sort of bear that out, see what happens. Allow that type of use or encourage it, incentive front and center for that type of growth but not necessarily designate any specific area. I guess, my concept of that is something sort of like an overlay district of some sort. Again, providing incentive, designating some broader bases of area that that type of development can occur with some incentives. Otherwise it would be a mixed use if you didn’t choose to do that. Do you think either one of those is better? Or do you have some third proposal you think that would work even better than that? Durkin: I guess I go back to my comment that the number that you have shown on this map and the areas that you have shown, and when those would ever develop out, I think is unrealistic. I think the general public that’s looking at this plan, or attending Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 25 these meetings, are thinking awe this is going to be great. We’re going to have 15 of these things. You’re not. You may have 15 but they’re not going to be here in the number of years that its going to take for those to occur, you could be eliminating someone’s other opportunity. So I think the idea of having it be mixed use or a neighborhood center is a real good solution to that. That would be a great idea. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Durkin, in regard to the ISPA, the City of Meridian has entered into agreement with the Ada County that a certain area of impact will be serviced by the city by 2007. do you feel that we need another layer of rules with the USPA on top of this area of impact agreement? Durkin: Let me just say that I think that the USPA is a very bad idea. I don’t think you need that at all. I don’t believe as a developer, that should be part of the Comprehensive Plan in any way, shape, or form. I think it should be, if you have to have something like that, theres other areas in the city’s ordinances that you can have those type of limitations. But it shouldn’t be a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Norton: Just another layer of bureaucracy. Durkin: I think it’s a very bad idea. I think you’re going to be in litigation over it with half the people in this room. I think that you’re going to delay the implementation of a new Comprehensive Plan for a long, long, long time with that. If it were up --. You cant guess atit. You’re never going to make everyone happy and I just think it’s a --. You have a lot of other ways to implement that without putting it in the Comprehensive Plan. I think it should not be part of it. Norton: I have 2 more questions. The city of Pueblo has a fast track program, trying to get businesses and its been extremely wonderful because they have a one stop shopping. You get all of your license in one area. They give developers --. It is a fast track . I think it sounds like a good idea. I have another question. I’m going to be real blunt about it. there is a certain hospital in town. Do you think that hospital is putting undue unfluence on the planning department on getting what they want at the expense at other people? Durkin: I’m not familiar with them. I’m familiar with 2 hopsitals in the city but I’m not familiar with any – Norton: Are there any developers that are given better deals than other people? Durkin: I think that we get a great deal from you. But we give a lot. Norton: You do give a lot. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 26 Durkin: I think that people that give the city good developments should get special treatments. So, I’m glad to be part of that group. I’m not aware of anyone that gets anything that’s inappropriate. I’m not aware of anyone with any undue, unusual influence. Norton: Thank you. Then, just my last question. That is, the way the city is driven growth wise, do you think the city is being driven by technology such as where the water and sewer is going to be or --? I look at this big plan and I look at where the development is. Its not in the quote urban service district, thing. I know that we were told at a workshop that they wanted, Meridian wanted to be growing to the northeast to block off Boise from coming in. but the sewer is not there. It looks like we’re being driven by the sewer and water. They’re very good developments like Danbury that went in in what 1990 that have their own water system and sewer system. Is it possible for a good development to put in their own water and sewer? Durkin: Commissioner Norton. You know, we do primarily commercial developments. So that’s really where my experience is. I’m not familiar with commercial developments having a private or a smaller system. As the demands of the developments that we do would be too great for that. So, I just really don’t have the experience to draw on. Norton: You want water and sewer? Durkin: Yes, we would. Our projects would have to have the municipal services. Norton: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: One more question. I own a piece of property at the corner of, excuse me, the southeast corner of Franklin and Eagle Road. I have 2 choices and you’re a developer looking at it. You don’t know the zoning, but I tell you its commercial. Is that more favorable than mixed use for that corner? Durkin: No, I don’t think so. Centers: Or a single use? Durkin: As a developer, you know we – Centers: Either way? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 27 Durkin: -- come in and if I see a sign that says commercial, I’ll go do my homework. I don’t rely on that information, no offense to any real estate people in the room tonight but I’ll go and do my research. If it said mixed use, I’m going to go do my research. Centers: But the question, Mr. Durkin, is – Durkin: But, from a value standpoint, is that what you’re talking about? Centers: Value and development. Is it more preferential that it have a commercial zone or a mixed use zone? Durkin: I think that would depend on property but I am familiar with the hypothetical case that you threw out. I don’t believe that that would, in my opinion have any greater dollar value with a commercial designation than a mixed use. Centers: I appreciate your opinion. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: To get back to Commissioner Norton’s comment about the USPA. You mentioned that there maybe other things. Would you expand on maybe what in place of USPA what are some of the other --? Durkin: Well, right now, Meridian has in your ordinances that prior to annexing the property, prior to rezoning the property you have to have adequate sewer and water and services. Some of the language in the comp plan, you talk about parks, you talk about a transportation plan. You talk about things that are really out of the immediate control of a developer. So, you may have some of those things available and not all of them available and you’re going to end up in a comp plan, putting a gun to developer’s heads saying you pay for the bus system to come out here. You put in the high speed rail. You do all of this to the benefit of everyone else or you cant be on the other side of the line. I think that that’s not correct. But in the ordinances right now, there are, and the ordinances can be modified and amended. That’s the place to have it but I don’t believe --. At the end of the day, the courts have ruled on this over, and over, and over again, that the book that we’re talking about tonight is a guide. It isnt the rule book. It’s the guide. So, for the staff or the Commissioner or the Council to suggest or approve a guide that is written like the law, you’re going to get into trouble when you go and compare that to the law, what’s right. I think if you remember that what you’re developing here is a guide and leave the statutory rulings with the Council, with your ordinances that you I think that you’d be ahead of the game. I don’t know if you agree with that. You seem more familiar with these ordinances than I am. Nary: Mr. Chairman. I guess, Mr. Durkin, from what I hear and maybe somebody can kind of sum up this issue. It appears to me from what you said and from what most of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 28 the rest of the development community has said is that particular USPA concept that’s in here appears to be written as if it’s a stop sign to development. What I’ve been hearing I think from everybody is that what your preference would be, or what your testimony has been is that at best, it needs to be a yield sign, to use very simplistic analogy. But its simply as a guide, a direction to a developer that we currently don’t have as complete urban services in those areas outside that line. That doesn’t mean you cant come and develop it. that may mean we may not annex you today. That may mean we wont be able to, we are giving you some notice that we’re not going to have adequate services for the type of project that you may have. If your project, I know you do commercial development, but if you were a residential developer and we feel to have significant growth of residential development in that particular area of this area of impact that a park is necessary to provide some recreation for residences in that area and the city doesn’t have the funds to do that at this time. We may not choose to annex you. That doesn’t mean you can’t come and ask us. That just gives you some fair warning when you’re making decisions where you’re going to spend your development to do things. Is that essentially what we’re -- Durkin: It’s just a fundamental disagreement that I had. I think that a lot of the people in this room have. That concept is not a bad idea, but it doesn’t belong in this book. You have the – the city is structured now to have a number of places to put those yield signs and you have places to put stop signs but it doesn’t belong in the guide book. At the best, you could say caution but to have any language in there that says we’re not going to do this, we’re not going to do that and you have to do this and you have to do that, I think is really flawed. I think that should be -- . I just don’t think that line has a place on that map. Nary: I’m not necessarily trying to put you on the spot but would it be your --? Durkin: I’m comfortable there. Nary: Would it be your opinion, at least, I think you’ve already said that some or most of the developers in this room or others certainly may consider some source of litigation. Would it also be your opinion that they may just simply develop somewhere else? Durkin: No, I think, and let me say that it isn’t -- . Larry Durkin and the Dakota Company is not threatening any litigation with the city. Nary: I didn’t think you were. That isn’t the spot I was trying to put you on. Durkin: I believe that there’s a drastic need for the City of Meridian to get a new Comprehensive Plan and I think when you have a Comprehensive Plan there’s a compromise between you and us. This particular component of the plan is not going to be something that most of the people behind me are going to be able to compromise on. I think its going to be such a divisive issue that we’ll be talking about this 3 years from now at the cost of adequate reasonable smart planning for the city. I think that it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 29 might be wise for you to consider taking that component out of the plan at this time and revisiting it, maybe on the next draft or on another plan and another day. Centers: One more, okay? Durkin: Get comfortable, huh? Centers: Do you agree with this statement about the Comprehensive Plan? The purpose of the City of Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan is to integrate the concerns and expressions of the community into a document that recommends how the city should grow and develop. How can you disagree? Durkin: Yes, how can you disagree with it? Centers: Yes, but isnt that what you’re saying, a guide? The key word there is recommends. Durkin: it is a guide but the language on that particular component, on that particular issue is such that I think you’re going to be --. If you approve it and the Council approves it, the Council is going to be wrangling for years to come up with the right ordinances on it. During that period of time, your plan isn’t going to be able to be implemented. Centers: Thanks, Mr. Durkin. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to come forward because we close the public testimony? You need to come on up. We’re ready. Johnson: My name is Greg Johnson. I live at 2433 CanAda Road in Melba Idaho. I do have a business that operates here in Meridian and we have several landholder’s holdings within the City of Meridian. The first thing I’d like to discuss a little bit is the recommendation of the proposed comp plan for very low density residential up against Chinden Boulevard. I think it’s a huge mistake to limit that area up against Chinden Boulevard to residential. It’s a great opportunity for the City of Meridian to add commercial, to add high tech manufacturing, to use a corridor that links meridian with Caldwell that I think some day should be a limited access highway with a frontage road. I would highly recommend that you consider, even putting that restriction and the frontage road be built somewhere within the eighth mile south of Chinden Boulevard and that land separated between Chinden and the frontage road be used for those type of uses, similar to Hewlett Packard and the Boise Research Center. There’s some nice subdivisions built along it but if you notice the berms are about 20 foot high to try and cut down the noise. Its not an appropriate place for low density single family development. The same would be recommended in the areas north of I-84. Probably between Meridian Road and Linder, its too late but from Linder west a frontage road could be, a corridor could be designated just north of the freeway. Overland Road happens to be in a perfect frontage road location. If you’ll notice the development Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 30 between it and the freeway is very compatible to freeway noise, usage. It takes advantage of the advertising that’s there, the car dealerships, the caterpillar western equipment. Ideal uses for there. Currently between Linder and Meridian Road, we already have one subdivision that goes all the way to the freeway. Maybe we can’t correct that but at least we could keep it from happening again. You know, we’re all taxpayers and every time we expand the freeway, we spend a lot of money building sound walls. Yet, there are businesses that would love to have that exposure and would thrive very much on that. I would make those two recommendations highly. The only other thing that I’d like to is the, I don’t know what to call them. But the higher densities in the mid sections with the walk to shopping and that type of thing. Borup: We call it neighborhood centers on the map. Johnson: neighborhood centers. I would like to see the city try one of those if they would like to but not designate them all over the area. Maybe, you know, as I’ve studied it, maybe a good location to try it is those two sections there by the city park on Meridian Road. The park covers about 80 acres there or so and maybe up against that to the west if an appropriate place to try it. in the areas that I’ve seen it work, its much higher density than we’re use to here, 8 to 12 units to the acre or even higher to make that feasibly work. I’m not sure Idaho’s ready for that on the rest of Meridian. It would be I think an advisable thing to try it, see if it works. Then maybe you would want to do that in more areas. That’s all I have to say. Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Johnson? Commissioner Centers. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson. Johnson: Yes. Centers: I was looking on my map and not paying too good attention when you were referring to Overland Road. What was your concern about Overland Road? Johnson; I just feel like its ideally located as a frontage road on the south side of the freeway. It just happened to be there when they built the freeway but it works. We could create a similar situation on the north side of the freeway by designating a corridor and appropriate zoning for those types of industries along there. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Johnson. Johnson: Yes. Borup: You had mentioned just right at the end that you had seen – ***End of Side Two*** Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 31 Johnson: -- Seaside is similar to that. San Luis Obispo in California. It’s a downtown area. Borup: So, are those developed and existing urban areas? Was it a renewal type project then or is that something that was built as original new development? Do you know? Johnson: I don’t know for sure. I think the ones in Florida were actually developed as new projects. They’re very walking friendly neighborhoods. They encourage pedestrian traffic, biking traffic and the shopping areas themselves, they have things like the little park downtown here that, Generations Park. They have landscaping like that and you have something like that every block so that you could get an ice cream cone, sit down and enjoy it. Borup: Were those in the middle of an existing urban area? Or they had other urban services that were also close that they could walk to? Or were they out in a self- contained area? Johnson: Seaside is a newer, well, it was new when it was developed and was developed kind of off by itself. Its worked very well but it is kind of a resort type community. San Luis Obispo, I’m not sure but I think some of it is redevelopment of a downtown area. Borup: Thank you. I think we had one other comment back here? Do you just want to come up here? Crane: My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3610 West Ustick Road. I’m a homeowner. I’m not a developer. I just learned about the meeting recently. I had a couple of questions about the timeframe for the new Comprehensive Plan. Do you guys have like a timeline when you would like to implement this? I mean, are we looking at years or within weeks? Borup: City Council hopes its not years. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Its not going to be weeks. The answer, simply is no there’s not a specific timeline. We would hope that by the end of this year. We anticipate probably a couple more meetings from this group. Then it would be sent to City Council because we feel that the better document we send to them, the less time they’re going to spend. That may or may not true. I don’t know but that’s our intentions. Crane: I became aware of the meeting when I received the public notice because the neighboring property is applying for rezone to industrial. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 32 Borup: That would have been a notice for another meeting, not for this meeting. Crane: For that but when I was in finding out the details about that meeting, I heard they were having the Comprehensive Plan. I was concerned. I notice there’s a lot of developers and people but I don’t see too many other homeowners. Borup: This is the third hearing we’ve had. Crane: Okay. Borup: There is a lot less homeowners here than have been in the previous. Crane: So, is there any plans for involvement of more homeowners? My feeling is most of Meridian are people that just live in subdivisions and have houses. There are businesses here but I think the majority of Meridian are just plain homeowners. Borup: Yes we had about a year of workshops that had homeowners from all walks of life that participated in. Then and they were notified for the other previous meetings we’ve had for the last couple of months. Crane: And one thing, the other thing that surprised me was some of the drastic changes in the new plan. In the old Comprehensive Plan, the particular place I’m at there’s a big green dot that – Borup: -- Ustick between – Crane: I’ll show it on the map here. Borup: Okay I think someone else was referring to that same area over here. Crane: On the original Comprehensive Plan that was designated as agricultural for the big green dot for a park and was one of the planned park areas in that area. Now it seems to be a pretty drastic change from changing it from a park to light industrial if they’re planning on having a recycling center for cans, bottles, paper, garbage truck, sanitation trucks, and school busses. It seems like it’s a drastic change from the old Comp Plan to the new Comp Plan. I was wandering if maybe there should be a more gradual change (inaudible) of areas. Borup: Can that – that’s one of the reasons for this hearing to see – to get the input. Probably the reason it was changed is how many uses want to be around a sewer plant. Probably not residential. Crane: Actually it is all residential. Borup: Around the sewer plant? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 33 Crane: Yes, the entire area around that one-mile period is platted subdivisions that are in the process of being either built or developed. The normal density I think is like R-4. Borup: Adjoining the sewer plant? Crane: No to that gray area there. It’s proposed an industrial area. Borup: Right but not abutting the sewer plant? Crane: Right there’s this buffer zone of horse pastures between the sewer plant and the residential. Borup: And do you have a recommendation you would feel would be a more appropriate designation for the area? Crane: Well actually a nice park would be – it is surrounded by lots of subdivisions that don’t have a lot of parks in them. There is a golf course but they don’t allow children or any park type activities so some use say as a park or is low residential – I know the city seems to be kind of against people that have horses or farmers but it would be nice to have some variety in town instead of just all subdivisions to have a few small little one acre, two acre horse pastures out once in awhile. It kind of is our heritage around here and we seem to be trying to burying it all under with concrete and pavement. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you sir. Crane: Thanks. Borup: Okay unless there’s – oh, we’ve got some latecomers come on up. Ballantyne: My name is Mike Ballantyne I live at – or my business address 250 South Fifth Suite 200, Boise, 83702. Just a couple of comments real quick. Chairman Borup and Commission, regarding any neighborhood centers I think that there’s consensus that you’ve heard tonight that the concept is very good. Rather than regulating or forcing certain areas to be part of the neighborhood center we should incentivize developers to develop neighborhood centers whether it be by fast tracking, by coming up with a specific designation in the ordinance that addresses neighborhood similar to a planned development planned use and take the designations off the map, the specific locations. I’m a little bit concerned that the Comprehensive Plan as a whole does not show enough commercial and industrial development. There’s a general tendency to be concerned about getting out of commercial and industrial development because of the difficulties of making that mesh sometimes with residential use. Meridian has historically been a bedroom community but Meridian has seen a great deal of growth on the commercial side with the addition of J-Bill Circuit, Western Electronics and et cetera. We’ve seen that one of the challenges Boise has had is that they’ve restricted their industrial and commercial so much that the city has really had to go out and be aggressive about purchasing land. I would hate to see the City of Meridian go out and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 34 have to purchase land to have to create jobs. We all know that commercial industrial users pay a lot more taxes than residential users. To reiterate another point the density on the multi-family residential the commercial in the office that – on those neighborhood centers that really needs to meet demand. We don’t want to say that one quarter will be this or that certain areas will be only office. There may be instances where an intersection is better than a mid-block where you have an area where you have fairly, not very dense residential population and you have a need for a center. By putting it mid-block you’re only able to serve that half mile either way where really you need to be able to serve us four miles every direction. One of the questions I had in looking at this neighborhood center concept is how the road system would fit with the existing road system you know the cul-de-sac system as we call it or – if you try to force, set that into – Norton: -- Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ballantyne has been late. We’ve already sat through two and a half hours of testimony. We’ve heard all of this. Thank you. Ballantyne: I apologize for wasting your time. I guess my only other comment would be not to over plan and not to over regulate in – I’ve had instances to do site selection other communities. Especially in California some of these communities that we’ve discussed and I did site selection for assisted living facilities. The assisted living facility ten years ago didn’t exist and their Comprehensive Plan and their zoning ordinance didn’t’ have any provision for that and therefore they weren’t able to meet the needs of their seniors by having this type of designation. The Comprehensive Plan I’m concerned maybe with community centers or neighborhood centers etc. maybe to restrictive in some cases and we need to look at that. Final comment, in the past I felt that the Commission and the City Council didn’t trust their ordinance, didn’t trust their Comprehensive Plan and therefore had to micromanage often times with additional Conditional Use Permit requirements and that type of thing. The question you really want to ask yourself (inaudible) as you work through this are we going to be able to trust our ordinance so we don’t have to have all of those Conditional Use Permits and 1:30 in the morning meetings and that type of thing. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Ballantyne. One on your comment on more commercial and industrial. Essentially now those areas are on a corridor, the freeway and the railroad tracks are there some other areas – that and the sewer plant. Are there other areas you think would be pertinent areas? Ballantyne: No I think those do need to be on the main arteries along the freeway that type of thing. Nowhere specific that I would point out I haven’t really put a lot of thought into that. My only concern with the industrial around the sewer plant would be access. Industrial usually requires fairly – Borup: -- you had made the comment that you didn’t – that you thought we needed more. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 35 Ballantyne: Not necessarily. I didn’t say that you needed more. Everyone likes the neighborhood commercial – Borup: -- I mean as far as industrial and large commercial I assume you were referring to – Ballantyne: -- yes I wasn’t saying necessarily that you needed more I just think that that is an issue that needs to be addressed or something that needs to be looked at fairly closely in the long term. If you – it’s a lot easier to down designate areas than it is to up designate in terms of taking a residential area and designating it five years from now to be industrial commercial. Borup: Thank you. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I don’t need to be rude but we opened this Public Hearing for neighborhood neighbors to come in and talk. We’re seeing new faces with the same thing we’ve heard before. There are people showing up late that we’ve only heard the same thing since 6:30. Unless there’s something new I would like to close the Public Hearing. So far we’ve seen these new faces with the same stuff. Borup: I think we’ll get an opportunity – if you remember Commissioner Norton we were ready to close it last time and you were the one that wanted to have one more Public Hearing. Norton: I remember it was for the neighbors and I think we had it in writing. It was for new testimony. Isn’t that right Brad it was – could you repeat what we asked for this Public Hearing to be since it seems to be an issue? Nary: The notice is right here it was provided – what it says in the paper is accept only new public comments and testimony orally or written. Centers: Commissioner Norton has a good point it was advertised that way. I guess I would say how many more do we have let’s see if – Borup: -- I think we were down to Mr. Yorgenson --- I think was – Centers: -- let’s hear the last. Yes that would be my – Borup: -- and he’s got something new right? Come on up. Yorgenson: My name is Dave Yorgenson the address is 6200 North Meeker Place in Boise. We’re a land owner for a 10 acre parcel in the northeast corner of your area of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 36 impact on Chinden. I believe this is a new item for you. Though most of the city staff, City Council and I assume most of the P & Z knows it is not reflected in your current plan – Centers: -- northeast corner of this map as you see it. It is on Chinden. Norton: What’s the cross street approximately. Yorgenson: It’s a half-mile east – thank you right here. A half-mile east of Locust Grove. It backs up to the Bristol Heights Subdivision which is one of our developments. There has been a lot of discussion for the last year and a half approximately to remove this parcel of ground from your area of impact. We’re very near and close to an agreement. I don’t know if it was today or tomorrow but at some point your legal staff will get a document ready for City Council to sign. My request and highness to remove this parcel of ground where they show that reflection in your change of area of impact remove that parcel from it. it will take place shortly. I do believe it would be appropriate to have the map reflect the change that is coming shortly. I believe that’s a new item. Borup: Okay any questions? Yorgenson: Thank you. Centers: Excuse me is it that right there? Yorgenson: No a little further east right on your eastern boundary there. Centers: Right here? Yorgenson: West of that it’s in yellow. Borup: Right there. Yorgenson: In green yes. Centers: So what’s your problem you don’t want it included? Yorgenson: It cannot be sewered with the Meridian Sewer System. You can ask your staff. We don’t need to get into it at this time but rather than bringing a lot of details at this time it’s more appropriate to be in the City of Boise and the two cities and county have already agreed to that. It’s just a formality that’s in the process currently. Nary: Mr. Chairman, basically Mr. Yorgenson they’ll make a map that’s applicable to the City so if that changes they’ll have to change the map anyway once it gets to Council. Yorgenson: Sure and I agree. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 37 Nary: Thank you. Yorgenson: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. I would be – well two things one it’s probably a good time for a break and the other a motion to close the public testimony portion of this hearing. Any other comment or discussion on that. We discussed last time we do want to keep it as a Public Hearing so that we would have the option of calling forward any other testimony we would like for any other discussion but just close it to public testimony. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would move at this time that we at least close the public testimony portion of this hearing subject obviously like you just stated that we certainly may reopen if there’s new evidence that’s necessary or new information because that would still allow us to have some continued public discussion on this particular topic just not any additional testimony or written comment unless specifically requested. Borup: Is that in the form of a motion? Nary: Yes. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Any discussion? Borup: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Would we like a short break at this time, Commissioners? Nary: Yes. Borup: All right, we’ll go ahead and take a short break at this time. RECONVENED AT 8:46 P.M. Borup: Okay, we’ve got the tape on now. We reconvened tonight’s hearing. Commissioners, I think what we probably need to determine is, how we would like to proceed. I would be interested in some input. We’ve already discussed we would like to go into a workshop type of discussion and hit the specifics. I think we can either, --. First of all, maybe we need a general outline of how we would like to proceed. The other thought I had , we can either hit the hard ones or the easy ones first. We need to hit Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 38 each section and, whether we want to hit some discussion on the controversial ones or get through the easy ones. Any comment? Nary: Mr. Chairman. I guess, if I could, I’ll start it off. I think it would be --. I don’t think obviously its realistic that we can complete all of our comments and suggestions in one night anyway. Borup: No. Nary: So, I really would like to be able to say that we could end this meeting tonight at 10:00. Borup: That’s been the intention. Nary: That’s a reasonable hour for everybody. So to me, whether we talk about a little bit of the going forward, how we’re going to do this and sort of give some agenda of how this is going to work, that’s fine. That’ll probably take some time. It would seem to me to make the most sense to see if there are areas that we can all agree on that maybe don’t require a tremendous amount of discussion and at least get those out of the way. I would see a work session, a workshop type of session that we’re going to have, certainly a tremendous amount of discussion on the urban service planning area concept and we’re going to have a tremendous amount of discussion on the neighborhood concept. So, I don’t know whether or not we can do both of those in one meeting but we’re certainly going to have a tremendous amount of discussion on that. We’ve had a whole lot of testimony on the land use map, both large concepts, like the MontView Subdivision folks and small concepts like people on the corner who are listed currently as residential and want it to be mixed use or vice versa. It may take a chunk of a work session as well. Borup: Those are the 3 items that I see us spending the most time on. Nary: Certainly. Borup: USPA,, neighborhood centers and the map. Nary: You know, one thing, and you were just briefly discussing before we started the public meeting and there has been 2 folks and Commissioner Centers was good to make note of. We’ve had 2 folks that have come forward and said, I think Mr. Yorgenson who stated that our area, his particular piece of property is not going to be in the city area of impact shortly. Well, I don’t know that we need to do a whole lot with that. They’re going to have to draw the map to conform to the area of impact anyway. So, I don’t know that we need to make any recommendation for that. They’re going to have to comply with that anyway, if they have an area of impact agreement change. There was another one --. I cant recall, maybe Commissioner Centers does, but there was that little tiny brown blob that’s right on the northwest, or northeast corner of – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 39 Borup: Ustick and Eagle. Nary: -- Ustick and Eagle. Right there. That was another one with a person I think was requesting that. But again I don’t know that we really conceptually for this concept plan that we are really are going to make those types of recommendations. They’re either in the (inaudible) or they’re not. If they want to not be in the area of impact, there’s a process to go through. So, I don’t know whether or not there’s a lot for us to do with those two particular pieces of property. Again, I’m pretty open to the rest of the discussion. If we want to go through the chapters, sections, if we want to talk about broader concepts, there certainly has been a lot of discussion on specific type of language that the Comprehensive Plan seems to have versus some very general guidance language that some of the testimony has preferred that it has. There probably is some need for conceptual discussion about that. Whether we think it should be where’s the balance between very specific and very broad language that’s being requested on both sides. Some of the areas of the plan probably don’t require a tremendous amount of input from us because they’re more analytical, pretty broad based, historical and (inaudible) types of evidence of where we’ve gone to, to this point., whether or not we want to look at those chapters and say we’re okay with all that, that’s fine. It doesn’t matter. Borup: Any other comment? My first thought was to almost hit like we did in the public testimony which we took testimony on it as you had mentioned, the less controversial ones. Those are the ones we go through pretty fast. But in thinking about it, that probably doesn’t really make the best sense. These others, I mean, we’ll go through fast, that can be done at the end. Maybe the ones that we ought to hit first are the ones that we’re going to want a little more input from. Maybe that’s all the more reason to get into some of that tonight. If we’re looking at additional testimony at a later meeting, we would know about it tonight, rather than too late to call on those people. That being said, any other comment from any other Commissioners? I think what we’re looking at then, from what I heard Commissioner Nary saying and what I said, either we can hit it chapter by chapter, or maybe tonight go into either one of those 3 areas, USPA, neighborhood centers, or the land use map. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I think I would tend to agree with yourself, that probably hit the more complex ones now so that there is time for additional testimonies or opinions in the future per the chance that is needed, as opposed to at the very end and saying boy I wish we would have had more time. Borup: I guess, speaking for myself again, I kind of need the discussion and the input from others. I haven’t, I mean, I know I don’t have my mind made up on a lot of these issues. It changes as you get more public testimony but it think a discussion among ourselves is going to help me (inaudible) some of that too. Nary: Mr. Chairman, another thing too, there’s a tremendous amount of value sometimes in trying to tackle those larger items first because we’ll have a lot more energy to do that. You know, we have 3 more meetings to have a workshop, to ad Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 40 nausea and talk this over and over again. We’re not going to be as excited at the end of that as up front. So, maybe it is – . So, I guess you could pick one. That’s why you’re the chair. Borup: Lets talk about the urban service planning area. That may or may not be a long discussion anyway. I know, I kind of changed a lot of my feelings on from when we started. Anybody else want to go first on that? We may want some staff input as we get into some of the reasoning. My feeling at this point is, it is probably not a necessary designation. It seems a little redundant already with the area of impact. That’s the same thing the area of impact is saying, that service is being provided to those areas. You know, we’ve had testimony to that effect. In my mind, maybe what we look at is some type of priority, what area is going to be serviced first. I don’t know if that’s too far off from what staff was trying to accomplish anyway. Nary: Mr. Chairman. I guess, I’ll add to that as well. I think, honestly I don’t think we’ve had any public testimony supportive of the whole concept of the urban service planning area. That’s not the reason for my comments. I do believe that this plan is a guide. It is simply a road map of where we’re going to be or what we would like the city to be. The language that’s contained in here for the urban service planning area isn’t a guide. It is a restriction. It is a very, very restrictive growth tool because the ability to amend it and to move that line and do all of the things to allow growth to happen if it can, isn’t going to get allowed if we leave the (inaudible) the way it is. To me, I don’t have a problem, as I stated to Mr. Durkin and some of the others, if its used as a guide. If the language in this document is just an intent to give notice to developers and notice others as to where we currently serve. I think the memo that we received from Steve Hawkins-Clark and Brad Hawkins-Clark on August 30th wanted to redefine it as current urban services area. That’s great. That’s a guide. That just gives somebody some idea of what we currently can provide in a variety of different areas, sewer, water, fire, police, parks. It just gives people some idea. If that’s all we were using it for, I think that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that but it isn’t written that way. Its written in a very restrictive way. We cant amend that growth area except yearly. Conceptually it hasn’t changed. If you are 100 feet west of that land when we can actually serve it with urban services and its one month after that year, too bad. You’ve got to wait 11 more months to get there. That’s not what this document is suppose to be for. It is suppose to be a very general overview concept of what our city should be, what we would like it to be, what went out with some minimal changes, we’re going to be choosing to accomplish. I don’t think that the urban services accomplishes that goal at all. I think it just puts a stop sign on growth. It tells people that we’ve already made a decision. When we created this area of impact that growth can happen. That’s why you have it. you have an area of impact for that reason. What’s left is what’s going to happen to it. but this urban services creates a second imaginary line that does a restriction that doesn’t have any substance in ordinance or statute that I know of to really back that up. So, I don’t know whether --. Like I said, I don’t have a problem with softening the language but it appears to me from the staff reports that, that would defeat the purpose of having. If that’s the case, I guess I would be more in favor of just taking it out because if the staff wanted it for that type of use, I don’t think it should be and I don’t think it can be. So, maybe we shouldn’t have it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 41 Centers: Good job. I totally agree. I couldn’t have said it better myself, Bill. I like the wording priority area and it was mentioned earlier. The fact that, the verbiage I quoted earlier, we’re to listen to public testimony and to integrate the concerns and expressions of the community into the document that recommends how the city should grow. Recommends, I mean, we use it for a guide. Most of the testimony, as Commissioner Nary pointed out, I didn’t hear anyone in favor of the urban services planning area. So, ditto. That’s all I have to say. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Ditto as well. I agree absolutely with the previous two. However, certainly a discussion that may be a part of this now, or I believe it certainly is an appendage to it is obviously for those who lay on the fringes if we’re looking at abolishing this USPA. But those who lay on the fringes of course who don’t have the services. Again, maybe now or certainly an appendage to this conversation is what do we do with those who want water and sewer. There’s been talk about the private industry. I think that’s something that --. Certainly the concept of controlling growth, you know, inward, outward. I think the USPA attempted to try to do that and I can appreciate that but I wasn’t perfectly happy with exactly how it was going as well, but there is some growth limitations for services such as water, sewer, of course are typically the big 2 but you’ve got parks, you’ve got police, you’ve got fire. So, certainly I think some addressing in those languages need to be – in those areas need to be addressed. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we wouldn’t annex then. Correct? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: If water and sewer wasn’t available. Shreeve: That’s (inaudible). But the point is, is what is the stance on the city. I guess in talking with Mr. Watson, for example on sewer. You know a lot of people are petitioning to try to get in the private sector, to try to put in their own private wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate or to allow them to propose annexation even though – Borup: I think the ones that are talking about doing that are the ones that are not being annexed. They’re staying outside the city to do that. Borup: I’d like a little clarification from staff, probably from both of you. If there’s any comment you’d like to add on what we just made on the USPA. But also statements made at one of the previous meetings that, and maybe its talking about the current urban service area designation. It says that services have been fully committed, by that we mean, public services, public facility service area are funded and efforts are underway to construct them. Is that assuming that that area would be constructed and funded by the city? Mr. Watson would be the one to answer that first. Or does that necessarily leave out developer participation in that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 42 Watson: Chairman Borup, Commissioners. I don’t have the piece of paper that you’re looking at exactly. I met with Steve and Brad several weeks ago. From what I understand priority areas is defined in that, the fully committed that they were either fully funded, as in they were budgeted line items in the budget approved by City Council or that a developer had stepped forward and we were working with them – Borup: Okay. Watson: -- to get that extended. We have 2 projects, 2 major projects where we are funding the project, one major project that’s a developer driven project. Those are included in the – Borup: Whatever we want to call it, the priority area. Watson: (inaudible) Borup: That would be the South Slough and the White Trunk. Is that correct? Watson: Commissioner Borup, that’s true. Those are the 2 city projects. The Five Mile extension to Overland, Eagle Road is the developer driven project. Borup: Okay. Okay, any other comment Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup. I guess the only other thing that I would also add is that we, and certainly like you and I think like many of the developers, its been a progressive you know, learning process to think about what its use. I mean, we have an urban service planning area designated on the 1993 Comprehensive Plan map. So, in terms of just the name and the line on the map, its nothing new. Of course the big difference being that its been drawing in. it was more or less equivalent to the area of impact boundary. It was a topic that was initially tossed out during meetings between City of Meridian staff and Ada County staff in the discussions about how they process applications that are submitted to them within our area of impact. For them, they do have some language in the Ada County ordinances that, you know, speak to the urban service planning area. So, its not just a Meridian term. Certainly its also in Ada County’s ordinances and comp plan. I guess I just throw that out there as a little background that its not sort of just brought up. The way the initial idea was presented and it certainly has changed. Borup: So, would they look more favorably on a project that was outside of the urban service planning area, that the city was not interested in annexing then? They would look more favorable on approving a county project then? Hawkins-Clark: No, they would be less favorable. Borup: If its outside of the urban service planning area? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 43 Hawkins-Clark: I don’t have, actually their ordinance in front of me, but as I recall, the terminology in their code grants them a little more ability to, you know, for instance, rezone a property down to, you know, from an R-3 to an R-1 if its within an urban service planning area. If its outside, then it stays the rural urban transition zone which is the majority of the land within our urban service planning area. So, its 5 acre minimums. Its an issue of when they would allow developers to provide their own private services. If its outside they sort of okay, then --. Their view has been that that’s a stop sign to them to approve anything there, just leave it as it is. Borup: If its outside what? Hawkins-Clark: The urban service planning area as marked. Borup: Well, that’s all the rest of the area to the area of impact then which is the only thing that we’re concerned about them approving anyway. I guess, I don’t understand the difference there on how having an urban service planning area would effect their decisions. Hawkins-Clark: Like I said, I don’t have it in front of me. Its been a while but I think as it progressed --. I can certainly get that. But I think as we stated in our August 30 memo, one of the concerns and goals for us is to raise some sort of point in the approval process where we consider all growth, all the services that are provided and certainly the point about somebody buying their way into the city was never, from staff, an issue or something that was consider. I mean, the whole point has been for us, on a comprehensive scale to look at – Borup: (inaudible) We need to look at more than just sewer and water. Hawkins-Clark: Right. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Correct. I guess, it looks to me like, if we want to keep control of our area of impact, by having a boundary where we tell the county we’re not planning on providing services outside that boundary, it would more likely open up for development through the county. I know that’s one of my concerns. I would rather see it in the city or under the city control, one way or another. Anyone else have questions for staff? Nary: Mr. Chairman,. I mean, to follow up on that, I mean, I guess the risk to me Brad is that we may not always have the same County Commissioners sitting up there. With that urban service line inside the area of impact and, at least the statement that we cannot or are not going to provide this level of urban services to those particular areas in the immediate future, doesn’t that also leave the city open to area of impact adjustments because people are going to say they’re not going to serve this, County Commissioners, you need to readjust this area of impact line. Move it back to that urban Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 44 service line because that’s all they’re going to do . Our project now is in the county and we want you to approve it. you know, it doesn’t take much to switch 3 people’s votes up there to do that. I mean, that seems to me a pretty big risk by having 2 different lines with one of them saying we’re not necessarily coming out there right away. I mean, what do you think? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Nary. I think if you view the line as a control mechanism, that’s probably true. If you don’t see it as just a planning boundary, I mean, I think its --. The intent is never to designate where we’re planning services. We’ve always planned services for the full area of impact and still do. The public works department has an adopted facilities plan that shows that, the full area of impact. If the county is seeing it as a line that says well, they’re not planning services for the full area of impact, then that would be a concern. I don’t think that – Nary: That goes back to my original comment. There’s no need to have language saying we’re not going to amend that except yearly. We should amend it whenever we can provide it. if we can provide it in a month, we can amend it because if there’s no --. The line should be there for fluid so that way it keeps up with our development internally rather than setting arbitrary deadlines that have no reality base to them. If we cant provide services for a year and a half, then we don’t have to move it, to me, then it just needs to be fluid so its clear to everyone that it has nothing to do with if you’re outside that line we’re not going to look at you. All we’re saying is outside that line, we aren’t there yet. We may be but we’re not there yet. If you want to help us get you there faster because that’s where you own property and that’s where you want to build, great. We’d love it, that’s fine. We don’t have a problem with that. But then its clear. I think the way its written with that arbitrary one year deadline, I think that’s where, at least that’s what I think the testimony was saying that’s where we think its become a stop sign. Because if I don’t meet that time period and I miss my one year readjustment time and its 2 months later and we still could provide the service and I still have to wait 10 more months, that’s a stop sign. I don’t have a problem conceptually saying, I just want to tell people where its at and that we consider --. Because I like the other concepts in it. I like that urban service is not just sewer and water. I think that’s a good idea. I think that’s a good concept. There is more to development than sewer and water and I like that parks is a consideration to that. I think that’s a good concept. I just think that the problem is that by creating that other one year time table to it that maybe not intentionally but its become a stop sign that maybe we don’t really need to have. Hawkins-Clark: If I could, one major advantage that we see is it does force the city on an annual basis or however often you want to take a hard look at where those priority areas to grow are. If it just happens on a case-by-case basis, essentially we’ve got the same situation we’re in where its, you know, we don’t really have priority growth areas. Maybe that’s okay. I’m not saying that isn’t. If we’re saying that, which in a sense the capital improvement program through the public works and fire and police are already doing, every year, start looking okay where are we seeing requests come into us. You know, where do we want to put city money this next fiscal year. That’s an advantage to having a, you know, a specific time throughout the year where we say, okay well we’ve Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 45 got this many applications coming in to amend the boundary in this area. This is where the sewer capacity is. This is where the new fire substation is. You can sort of comprehensively look at all the services and where they’re at in terms of adequacy at that point in time throughout the year and then choose to say okay, well, we’re going to push this boundary out in this 2 square mile area. Nary: Who’s burden is it Brad to ask to amend the boundary, currently in the draft? Hawkins-Clark: The urban service planning area? Nary: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: There is no need to do that because its equivalent to the area of impact. Nary: I mean, in this draft one, the draft 2001, the one we’re talking about. Hawkins-Clark: This one. Well, it would be the developer. Nary: Right. Why shouldn’t it be the city? If the city’s making that analysis based on our capitol improvement budget, or any other concept, we’re ready to go this way, that way, whatever, why isn’t the city the one to do that then? The city should be the one saying we’re ready to extend that boundary out. We’re there. We’re ready. We’re on that edge of this part. We’re ready to deal with the next part. Why is the burden on the developer to come and ask us to move it when really it’s the services the city is providing, they should be the ones asking – not asking simply just doing it. and moving it as we grow and as we provide those services. When the developer wants something that’s further out then that, that’s fine. But to me, it should not be --. The rigid time line I just cant buy. Secondarily, only when its further out but I think the city has the same responsibility to the development community to say as we grow, as we’re able to provide that service, we’re going to move these lines out there because we’ve already decided you can build something there, we just want to know what it is. Borup: I don’t think, what you just said, I don’t think its much different than what is being proposed now because the city is not going --. I mean, they’re planning far enough ahead that its not going to be changed on more than an annual base probably. Its not going to be that fluid if the city is the one that’s making the decision. Nary: I’m just saying both. I mean, I don’t like the arbitrary one year anyway but I’m just saying both. The city needs to have the same responsibility. Borup: I interpret that that’s the intention when the services are developed in an area that you’ve got now, then it is going to move to something else. I don’t think we’ve looked that far ahead. I guess the sewer plan has looked that far ahead. But was that your concept? When services are provided to the current USPA boundary, then you look – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 46 ***End of Side Three*** Borup: Is that not right? Hawkins-Clark: It is a combination private public partnership, certainly. I mean it would involve both and it would help force the city to do that which at this point, I think really the public works department and maybe fire and police are the only other ones doing that. I think parks and you know – Centers: Well, you don’t have to have a line a map to do that. Borup: And the line on the map is what concerns us. Centers: You don’t have to have that to do everything Brad was talking about. Borup: I’d be more in favor of something that could accomplish along the same thing with a different designation. The priority area, you know or short term plan area instead of (inaudible). Probably a priority is probably the best (inaudible) This is where the city’s priorities would be. This is where the city has committed. The city will be funding some of it. there may be some developer driven. We realize there’s other areas that we can service. The city just is not prepared to do that right now. If a developer wants to go ahead and it can feasibly be done then maybe that’s fine. They would realize that its going to need to be – that expense would be funded by the development. Most of our expansion has been developer driven anyway. If that could be done and the other services could be met, I don’t know why it needs to be limited to any area at all. If its in line with what we visualize that we want the city co develop. Centers: I think most public testimony boils down to don’t be too restrictive. I think that’s what it boils down to. Borup: It probably needs some language that there’s no question on, that development needs to happen out in those areas that there’s going to need to be some money put up by the developer. Not that we’re forcing it or, you know its their choice. If they want to be in those areas without that, then they’re just going to need to wait for the city to get there as has been stated. I mean, something along that line, which is essentially what we’ve been doing all along anyway. Nary: I think a lot of the testimony that we hear --. I don’t think we’d have as much consurmation (sic) on the part of the development community on this particular subject, but they felt comfortable that the city was not going to use that line as a stop line. I think if they felt like there was that fluid flexibility that we’re talking about, they wouldn’t have lined up here as deep as it has been to say that we don’t need. Borup: I’d like to see that line a real fuzzy line too. I think you’ve got a problem if you get too specific on, you know it cuts right through this exact property line or parcel or whatever. It needs to be determined by if the service is working. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 47 Nary: It sounds to me that everything we’re saying is that we believe that line is a conceptual idea and that’s all it is. Its not a line on a map. Its not a line in the sand. Its simply a conceptual idea. This is what we can do. This is where we’re at. This is the services that we think we can provide right now and we don’t need a line to tell us that. You know, you can look out the window and see that. So, there’s no need to have that. Borup: So, would it be appropriate with another designation? Whether its priority area or whatever? Shreeve: Well, I guess, if I could just interject, play the devil’s advocate. But the question is, you know of course the intent was to try to get the inward out. I agree with getting rid of this line but is that the philosophy that the city truly wants to try to go inward out or just as we may get services, just kind of do it as it occurs? I mean, ultimately it comes down to that philosophy. Borup: It depends on where you’re going inward and outward. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Shreeve: Which is what we’re doing now. Borup: If we’re going outward from the sewer plant, all the development would be up there in the northwest. That’s where the trunk lines originating from. Nary: Well, and the control of inward out growth, the control of that type of growth when you have the area of impact where its at now the control is annexation. That’s what you’re control is. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: Exactly. Nary: You run the risk that the county can allow that level in your area of impact, right in your border. That’s the risk when the decision was made. None of us were a part of that decision to make that area of impact --. Well, maybe, I don’t know if Chairman Borup was here then, but. To make the area of impact where it was, we weren’t a part of that decision. That decision says we’re going to provide service within the immediate future to allow development to occur. They made that decision. Now you have to decide what do we do now? We either annex or don’t. that our control. Shreeve: I guess the reason why I mentioned that is just further on in explaining or whether we need to do that in this document or not is just simply say --. You know, I guess I’m under the impression we don’t need any line at all, any USPA, fuzzy or not. There’s almost no sense in putting any kind of a line there, other than maybe some verbiage that it is the philosophy, intent of the city to go onward out. You know, so be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 48 aware you folks on the fringes, however, if you want to propose something go for it. but that’s our philosophy I guess. I mean, that’s kind of a forewarning for lack of a better word for those on the fringes. They can take their chances with convincing us otherwise I guess. Borup: Maybe the statement needs to be that these are the sewer trunk lines that will be developed next. Let me ask that for staff. The boundary that’s up there, is that essentially the same as the current sewer boundary with the addition of the Five Mile, White and the South Slough? Watson: Chairman Borup, Commissioners. Yes it is. It pretty much follows those planned and funded projects almost exactly with a few minor tweaks. Borup: Okay. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I’m in agreement with Commissioner Shreeve about, I don’t feel there needs to be a line what so ever. I think we’re opening the city up to a takings challenge whereas people who are outside the service area could sue the city with a takings if they’re refused services. Maybe the, lets see, David are you familiar with the takings? I think we’re opening ourselves up to real problems and I dint see a necessity to having a line there. Do you think there would be problems with the takings challenge? Swartley: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Norton. Could you explain that again? I mean, it doesn’t sound to me like an actual taking as we would legally describe it. could you give me an example of what you might mean? I guess I don’t follow you. Norton: If somebody is outside that area and the city refuses to give them services or refuses to do anything, apparently there’s a year, you know you only look at that once - -. The city only looks at it once a year. Swartley: No, I wouldn’t describe that as a taking. Norton: How would you define a takings? Swartley: That would be the --. The removal, or I guess the --. You would be taking the property away from, the real property away from a person without due process of law. Borup: Doesn’t denying use fall under that same thing? Or like – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: -- down zoning? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 49 Shreeve: Let me just read one thing. Could you just interject so Dave’s got --. This is from Mark Estees, just a quick thing that I think needs to be looked at in his August 20th . If a regulation denied a property owner the right to develop a property for any use because city owned water and sewer was not available and the city refused to make it available or to allow the property owner to install private water and sewer systems, the court could, depending on the facts, find a taking. I guess, that gave you an example of – Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: The other question or concern that was also addressed in some of the documents is a different issue in the same vein of taking as an exaction. That’s even a bigger risk to the city because that’s a concern that I’ve seen in some of the memos where you’re basically wanting the developer to buy your park or buy your, buy some ways into the city to gain an annexation or some approval. Not that I think this does that because I really don’t think this concept in itself does that. I think that’s the risk that could happen. That’s what’s been brought is that that type of thing becomes very fuzzy sometimes over whether that’s something a court’s going to have a problem with but it is a problem. Sometimes these things again, when you make hard and fast rules, sometimes it ends up where somebody ends up getting sued and costs somebody a lot of money. Again, I think the whole idea of a Comprehensive Plan is a concept. Its suppose to be a guide book. Its not suppose to be the rule book. At least that’s what I think this particular (inaudible) as drafted sort of mixes in from concept and guide to rules. Its not suppose to be that way. Centers: Yes, we have our area of impact and we will move outward as services become available. We cant leapfrog and annex. We don’t. We’ve had requests. Its going to be a gradual growth out as we have services available and adjacent to existing city properties. Borup: Sometimes the thing that that can prevent is some of these larger projects. Someone wants to come in with a large hundred acre or 200 acre – Centers: Speaking of – Borup: Well, we’ve had several – Centers: -- What’s the name of that --? Borup: We’ve had several that’s been planned. I mean, Bridgetower is the most recent that’s got approval. We’ve had some others that’s been before us. If they’re, you know, if those projects wouldn’t be approved until everything between them and the existing city was developed, you know, you’ve got a lot of little 5, 10, 20 acre parcels that have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 50 to develop before you can ever get out there. Which is a real mish mash of projects. I think there’s some benefit to some of these big projects. Centers: Bridgetower was contiguous. Borup: Right. No, I’m not saying leapfrog. I mean. I don’t think we’ve got any choice on that. That’s already been, that’s state law. Centers: Right. Borup: There’s nothing we can do about that. I’m just looking more at the concept that its not always necessarily good to fill everything in solid if you have a lot of small parcels that cant be developed readily or even in a fashion that we would want it to be. You cant have the amenities on those little small projects that you can have on the big ones. We’ve seen that with the parks and the school sites and fire stations, some of those things that have come with the larger sites. Centers: The city of Boise is still developing the 5, 10 acre small in fill places. Borup: That’s going to happen. Centers: Yes, its going to happen. I mean, that takes years. Borup: So, are we looking --. It sounds much like we’re pretty much consensus on not even having that boundary. Are we --? Some wording in there on a priority area or saying that these specific trunk lines, you know, realize they’ll be developed first? Or is that something that should even be in the comp plan? Shreeve: Yes, you’d want to put that because its going to change year to year. I mean, theres no reason really documenting it by a map. Centers: They’re going to come to us as they have in the past. Borup: So, maybe some statement – Centers: Do you have water? Do you have sewer? Borup: -- some statement that those areas that are currently serviced by sewer or in the city’s plan to develop would be the priority and not need to say anything stronger than that? Or is that too much? Shreeve: Like I said, maybe to indicate, you know, again its our philosophy, its our direction. We’re going to try to go inward out type of thing, I mean, so again – Borup: I think, and maybe saying (inaudible) first. Then anything outside those areas, the services would need to be there before it could be annexed. Maybe not even say it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 51 needs to be done by the developer. Just say the services need to be there and the city will do it when they’ve got the money to get there and leave it up to the developer to make a proposal that would get it there sooner. Nary: I think, there certainly is some value to some broader concept that the City of Meridian is concerned about our urban services as the city grows and that urban services will include all the essentials. Parks is not always been a traditional --. Its not traditionally thought of as an urban service. So, I think its helpful to have that concept in the plan. That as we look at any growth, whether its annexation or development within the city as it exists today that those are the concepts that we’re going to be looking at all of that growth in relation to. But, again, its not a line in the sand saying if we don’t have it you cant develop. Its just that we’re going to use that type of guideline, no different than the way the zoning ordinances read in regard to annexation. We’re looking at compatibility, I mean, the same type of ideas that can be then turned into an ordinance saying these are your considerations for annexation or these are considerations in certain areas of zoning. Whether its residential, commercial, or mixed use or whatever it is. I think the concept is fine. I just think the line is not. I think some language talking about what matters to the city and the urban services that we want to have. Another urban service that we havent talked about at all and no one has even brought up. But another urban service as we grow, if you look at this map and you say the City of Meridian might be the city limits of that area of impact within 10 years conceptually. The other urban service that we don’t have in that is library. Centers: Yes. Nary: We have one library and a small branch library. As the city grows in that expansive area, I’d hate to be those poor folks at Thousand Springs that have to drive all the way to the library. That’s a long way. Where are they going to go? They’re going to go to the Boise libraries, the branch libraries. Why cant the City of Meridian include that as their urban services that they think are important to the growth of the city? Why isnt a library a part of that, branch libraries, stuff like that. Again, we may not have those things. It may be something to again, give incentive to the developer. You’re outside the current city limits. You’re in the area of impact. You’d like to develop out there. These are the things we’re looking at. You don’t have to do it. We don’t have to annex you. You don’t have to do it but these are things that matter to us conceptually for the city (inaudible) that gives Mr. Turnball the ability to say, you know what you guys want this. I’m going to build a branch library out here that can be used by this section of the community. These are the trade offs that I want to have. That’s how development happens, is there’s a trade off. We’ve heard a lot of testimony about that. That’s what happens is people say I want this you want that. I want to be annexed because I want this service. I’ll provide you something else because I think that will benefit me, will benefit the development that I’m going to do. Those concepts I think should be there. I just don’t think the lines needs to be there. I wouldn’t have a problem in adding library as a part of those services because I think as this city grows out to those boundaries, people will want those things. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 52 Borup: I think so. A library is something that’s easier to add later. I mean, it doesn’t seem like that many years ago there was only one library in the whole county anyway. Boise only had one when I was going to school. Nary: The City of Boise is going to build some branch libraries eventually and those things – Borup: Those are easy --. Like, they’ve got one in the mall. All you’ve got to have is a building to put it in. So, that can be filled in. That would be something that – Nary: You can still take that general concept of this is what’s important to us. Just not create it in such a rigid fashion that we’re going to say you cant do anything unless you do that. That’s not what we want to do. We want to just say these are things that are important. Borup: So, library would be one of the et ceteras? Shreeve: May I just add, you know this map that we have here, of course except for potentially (inaudible) concept but it shows the pathways. It shows the parks. It shows the idea of where we’re targeting whether its right there at that spot. I don’t think that’s the important thing but it shows the idea. That’s just simply graphical representation of what Commissioner Nary has been talking about. Centers: I don’t know that we would have the exact wording but do we have some sample wording or the concept that we would like to convey – Shreeve: We’ll leave that up to the attorney. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Then we need to put down what our intention is. Centers: I think its clear. We just need --. Nary: I guess, I’ll just take a stab at it. What I think that we should have in this document is, eliminate the use of this terminology of urban service planning area. That we define conceptually what urban services are for the City of Meridian as it grows out to the area of impact. Those areas would include whats already been detailed in here, the sewer, water, fire, police, parks, and transportation is another area that’s included. That’s not only the City of Meridian to be a part of but transportation I think is included in here in some fashion. Centers: Yes. Nary: I think library should be included. I think that concept --. Again, I’m not trying to fashion all the wording tonight, but that concept should be a part of this document. That Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 53 concept should be used as a tool as growth occurs that that’s what we’re looking to do whether it’s the city providing those services or the private sector providing those types of services and the city providing some incentive and encouragement for those types of things. That’s normal. That’s what cities do. They cant build everything. They can do everything. So sometimes that happens. That’s how the west Y gets built. That’s how parks get developed. That’s how lots of those types of things happen. Again, using those as your guideline of every time we’re looking at growth, these are the things that matter to us. How does this fit into that? But, again, its not a stop line. Its simply a guide. Norton: Just to add to that. I would like to specifically ask that the lien be taken off the map. Centers: I think if you re-ran that tape. That could be a motion that I would second. Nary: I would so move then if Commissioner Centers will – Borup: Motion is second. Any other discussion? (inaudible) the motion, essentially it was no line, no boundary? Do away with the term? And define what the services are, which were sewer, water, fire, police, transportation and add libraries. Nary: Just as part of that, again, we don’t necessarily have to come up with the term tonight of what that term is suppose to be. I know urban sometimes gives people a very chilling feeling. Urban sounds like lots of cement and real tall buildings. That’s not what we’re talking. We’re just talking about municipal services, city services, whatever term we want to use. But we’re just talking about the things that the city finds important for the city to give – Borup: It’ll have in the community. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: Yes, something. Centers: Carries a lot of weight. Borup: Okay. Do we want to make any reference to a priority area? Or planned sewer service are? Is that even necessary? Nary: Yes, I think that’s just part of your sewer comp plans and your capitol project plans. I mean, that’s just part -- . Borup: That would already be just saying that the services need to be available. Centers: That’s a given. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 54 Shreeve: I mean, if you wanted to put something in there, say please go to the public works for their anticipated 5 year plan. Borup: I think that’s more --. If it says the services need to be there, everyone should realize and these are the services that we’re talking about. If the city doesn’t have it in their plan for the next x number of years then --. Nary: It obviously like I said. I mean, the whole intent overall is flexibility. I mean, if you’re not going to say or you cant develop that in the northwest quadrant there because there’s no library. I mean, we’re trying to at least encourage the kind of growth we’d like to have. We make trade offs all the time. This body recommends annexation to the Council all the time that the Council, again, has to make some trade offs. Does this fit? Does it not? Is it too big? Is it too small? Is it too dense? Is there enough park space or whatever? I think, we just, again, it’s a conceptual idea of these things that matter to us as a city that we think need to be there to be provided to our citizenry. This is what we will have to evaluate as we grow. Borup: Okay, I guess this was the discussion. We had a motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: This was a motion. All right. The 2 other areas we talked about was neighborhood centers or the land use map. Depending on how we hit it, we could possibly get to the land use map. I don’t know that we would through the neighborhood centers but, do you have a preference which one you want --? Nary: (inaudible) the land use map as something you do at the end. Centers: I don’t think the neighborhood centers will take that long. Borup: Okay. We’ve got 20 minutes. Lets start on the neighborhood centers, see how much we can get done in 20 minutes. Centers: I’ll start it. I think its very obvious that most of the testimony we heard was that people like the concept of neighborhood centers, but then will they work? We’ve had a lot of opposition by numerous people that live or derive their income from the City of Meridian and (inaudible). The only proponents that I really heard were people at the last meeting that just seemed to show up. I’ve never heard of them before and I don’t believe they live in the City of Meridian or derive their income from the City of Meridian. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: I think that its very clear that everyone likes the concept but don’t dictate where they must be and 15, god, you’ve got to agree with like Mr. Durkin years before you’d see them develop. I like the concept. I think, you know, like we’ve talked at break Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 55 if a developer wanted to do a neighborhood center concept and maybe receive some incentives to do that at the mid point of a section line. Then, great but I just don’t think that we can dictate that that’s where they’ve got to be. Borup: I don’t think staff intended that they’re all the same size either. Some are going to be larger and smaller than others. Not saying those are the locations where they need to be. I don’t that it was intended that they’re all going to be the same draw. Centers: Well, they may not be – end up being that size, but I think its very dictating that that’s where they want them to be or they wouldn’t have put them on the map there. Nary: It ends up a lot like the urban service line. I mean, because I agree. I think that the staff, at a couple of our meetings said that wasn’t what was meant but those little dots on the map mean a whole lot to the people that came and testified. Because that’s what it appears to be. Again, its an issue of trust. There's a concern that that’s whats going to happen, they’re going to say, the dot is there, not where you’re asking so we don’t want it. you know, the one thing I would like to at least clear up a little bit is the --. There's a lot of stuff. I was looking at this map again, from the current Comprehensive Plan. there's a lot things on here that didn’t happen either. So, you know those things happen. Its what you would like it to be. It may not happen. I guess I would throw out for discussion the concept that I raised tonight. I don’t have a problem with the concept. I think it’s a nice idea. One area that wasn’t talked about very much that really is a neighborhood center similar to what we have been talking about to this concept is Hyde Park in North Boise. That’s a neighborhood center. It’s a small, small area of shops, restaurants, ice cream shops, stores, walking distance. There's some high density around it. There are single family homes predominantly but it’s the idea that we were talking about. It’s like that. Its something like that. Borup: That’s the real neo-traditional neighborhood. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: I don’t believe they have a grocery store in there at all. So, its all just the other little shops. Nary: Its everything else but the grocery store. Yet those things seem to, most of them seem to survive. Norton: They use to have a grocery store in there. Nary: I think it’s a decent concept but I guess, again, I would throw out as I did earlier. To me, its an overlay district idea. Its an idea to say look in the areas of the city that we would like this level of growth, we’re going to create an overlay district in our ordinance that says if you want to build that, we’re going to either provide some incentive, whether its --. Again, I don’t know, fast tracking in the government means it takes 9 months instead of 12. I mean, I don’t know what fast tracking really means in this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 56 business but something that the city can think of that really makes it worth their while. Someone is going to have to spend some money and make a decision to develop something like this with the hope that its going to work. Some people will take those steps. Harris Ranch is partly, the original idea of that partly was like that. Will people want something like this? We’re going to take a chance and spend a lot of money and it will probably work. But not everyone wants to take those steps. So, if you create an overlay type of district so that way there's incentive in the areas you’d like it to be at. If its on that fringe area of the city, that’s fine. Again, it allows the market place to dictate what goes there. You can create some of those areas as mixed use development because otherwise everything else is residential but for those centers. It may not be, that may not be the best way for the city to grow because if no one builds those centers, then all you’re going to have is residences all the way form Ustick to Chinden with nothing in between. That’s probably not the best. One of the things we heard in testimony was, you know there's some real need to have maybe some sort of regional development, you know, a, not necessarily Wal-Mart but that type of development, or a WinCo or something like that in the north area, the north Meridian, strip there. There's nothing right now that allows that. To me, having some mixed use, having this overlay to give that incentive to have it, if it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen, but at least encouraging that and providing something. Again, I don’t know what that something is today, gets the city a little bit more of what they want but its reasonable. The way its currently written, it seems like it’s a door shut in your face. If you don’t want that, if you don’t want to build that, then we don’t want you. So they’re going to go somewhere else. I think we’d like something to happen up there in that north area. I just don’t know if the way its currently written is real encouraging to want to develop much of anything. The second thing, and I’ll stop for a moment anyway. The second thing is the issue that was brought up by the north Meridian planning committee or whatever. What do we do with that? Do we provide some out? Do we either opt it out at this juncture or provide language in this plan that opt it out? People are devoting a lot of time and effort to making those decisions for that are with a lot of different entities a part of it, including the City of Meridian. We may not want to lock that up today and then leave it to a comp plan amendment 6 months down the road or a year from now, whatever it ends up being. We may need to also come up with some concept or language as to how do we deal with that whole north meridian planning area? Borup: I think that’s probably a pertinent comment. It needs to be addressed. A lot of time and effort is being put forth there. Another thing for discussion is the purpose, the reason behind the neighborhood centers. Maybe, I’m a little simplistic but the 2 main things I saw was, one was traffic, concern on traffic on the intersections and the other was pedestrian access. There maybe some designs that can accomplish the same thing that may not necessarily be on the mid mile. A short bypass road on the intersections that could bring them into the commercial areas. Well, frontage or a bypass type thing that would go from one road to the other and bypass the intersection for people that want to go shopping would turn in there and not even make it to the signal light and still have, --. On that same mile still have pedestrian access to it coming from everybody. I mean, you still got the problem with the pedestrians crossing at an intersection but, depending on the size of the road that’s not necessarily a problem. I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 57 don’t know. Something like that may be more compatible to the market place and still accomplish some of things that we’re trying to do with doing that. To me, that seemed to be the 2 main things, traffic and pedestrian access. You know, part of that bypass road, can do the same thing, limit the access points within so many hundred feet from the intersection, whether its 1000 or eighth of a mile or whatever we’re talking about. Centers: Was it ever made clear as to the stage of that development on a neighborhood center? I think one individual felt that the commercial would have to come first. Then the residential around it, but if you did it the opposite, you built that residential, is the city going to allow that? On the whim, or the promise that I put a Sav-On in there? I don’t think so. So, -- (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: You’re not. Borup: If you have the land zoned or designated that it cant be residential, what else is going to go there? Centers: I’m not going to go in there with my money and build some shops and stores in hope that houses sell around me that will walk and shop with me. Its just that simple. Nary: Mr. Chairman. I guess the issue here is really what that center plan means is really you’re only going to be able to come in with some sort of Cherry Crossing idea. Where you’ve got the whole thing all done. You’ve got the --. Of course they’re not building that anyway but, you’ve got the residents. You’ve got the commercial. You’ve got it all in one package. Centers: Hidden Springs. Nary: Again, that’s a big risk for a developer to build out a whole concept and then have someone build one a mile down the road. I’m glad its not my money. I’m not sure that that’s very marketable to a lot of people. But, again, if you want to have that, that’s fine. but again, I think you need to provide some incentive, some way --. Someone has to take a risk. Its not the city taking a risk. Its somebody else. The city can trade off some things and maybe that’s what needs to be defined. Whether we help define that. Whether the Council defines that. Whether that’s part of the process in drafting the ordinance that we define and all we stick with right now is what conceptually we think that some incentive needs to be provided. But, again, it allows the market place to bear it. It allows the developers like that we’ve heard before us. If they want to take that risk, then, they might be willing to do it if they’re gaining something to make their investment worthwhile. If its just a you build it and we hope you make, you know we don’t care if you make money or not. It doesn’t matter to us. We only want this here. I don’t think they’re going to do it. Then what happens with that north corridor? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 58 Nary: They’ll just come in and ask us to amend this comp plan and rezone it because nothings going to get built there. Borup: I think the statement was made that if we have hopes of getting a first mid mile, its going to need to be on one of the major arterials. That’s probably going to be the only feasible way that the first one is going to go in. I don’t know how you encourage that. I still think there may be other ways to accomplish the same thing we’re trying to. But, you’re right, the houses have to be there first. I mean, Harris Ranch has been mentioned and they’ve been going 2 years. I don’t think they’ve got any commercial out there yet. Its on the plan and you know they’ve got areas designated but they’re waiting for the rooftops to be there. Centers: Bridgetower had some office and professional if you recall. Borup: On the intersection. They were down to the mid mile. Centers: Yes, some of the office. Do you think that they would have proposed commerical retail outlets if they thought it would have improved their chances? Because some commercial in that project probably wouldn’t hurt. Nary: There's some commercial. Centers: Was there? At Bridgetower? Nary: Across McMillan there was (inaudible) Borup: Right. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: the other thing with this whole discussion with this and it will apply to the rest of the commercial that’s being asked about in the mixed use and all that. One thing in our current ordinances, we have a couple different residential zones but we really only have one commercial zone. It’s a one size fits all for commercial. One of the things we’ve heard about it, and it applies to both this discussion as I said and Montview as well as some of the others, we don’t have to have only one commercial zone. I mean, we can have commercial 1, commercial 2, commercial 3, you can vary the commercial zones. You can vary the size of the buildings. You can vary the size of the development. It doesn’t have to be just one. BoruP: Like residential? Nary: Yes, just like resdential. We can vary those things. Borup: We have 2 now? Oh, 3? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 59 Centers: I guess we do have 3, yes. Borup: C-N, C-G, and – Nary: neighborhood commercial. But even on the larger areas of commercial like along the Eagle corridor, you know it seems like a lot of them, some of the issues that we end up with those other zones is the conditional use requirements and such. Again, its something, again, to look at conceptually. You know when we’ve had people talk about we want commerical, we want mixed use. Sometimes we may just need a different kind of commerical. Maybe mixed use instead of the end all, maybe there's a way to meet the same needs. Borup: I just added that to the list. I think mixed use is another thing we need to spend some time on. But back to the neighborhood centers. Any other comments from any of the Commissioners? Nary: It doesn’t sound like we’ve finished this one tonight. Borup: No, I don’t know if we’ve reached any kind of – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Or even started to reach conclusions. Norton: I think we’re getting real close to saying no neighborhood centers. Centers: Well, yes, I think that’s the feeling. Borup: None at all? Not even encourage it? Shreeve: I guess I would like to add that generally speaking no neighborhood centers. You know, rather than deliberating here with additional comment. But to provide potentially some incentive because I like the idea as well. What that incentive might be - -. I guess that would take some thought on what that is. Borup: But, we all like it -- . its going to take more than just saying we like it. Its going to need some encouragement and some hard encouragement. Shreeve: But, yet to illustrate it and to dictate and whatever. I don’t know if you can do that. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Well, I think the statement was made --. Well, it talking about beign able to move, to change the location with a study, market study. Its true, the location, I don’t Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 60 know that they were picked with a market study. I don’t think there's any major business going to come in and put something in without doing a market study anyway, other than --. A lot of them are just rubber stamping the same thing they’ve always done anyway though. Sometimes to get them to think of something new, you need to prod them a little bit. Nary: Maybe the rest of this is of a mind set. Again, I don’t see a problem in including it as a type of overlay zone. Again, there's nothing wrong with building this kind of concept and finding some way to encourage it. But it does think you can go much beyond that. I mean, I don’t think you can go much beyond creating some sort of overlay for it. Creating a zone, again, maybe varying commercial sizes just because I was looking at it to make sure I wasn’t totally out of my mind. Most of the other ones, the business commercial and the neighborhood commercials and things like that. Again, we’re talking some varying sizes. We may want to look at that again in that Eagle corridor, varying sizes of commercial. Other than having this neighborhood center as some sort of overlay since it’s a mixture of residential and commercial in a very large area that we’re talking about. I don’t think doing anymore than that is really what would make any sense for us. Maybe everyone else doesn’t want that. At the most, I think that’s about the most we really can or should encourage in this document. Borup: How about, would we want to go on discouraging corner locations for retail commercial and --. I don’t say, denying it, but have some restrictions on access points and --. Shreeve: Well, if you discourage it, whats the alternative? Then you put residential. I know there's been some issues that, would you want to live on the intersection of a big busy street? Borup: No. Shreeve: I sure wouldn’t. So, whats left? Borup: I don’t have a problem with it located, I mean I think they need the visibility. But, again, you know to have 10 access points in a quarter mile on the ontersections is not what we want either. Nary: I think that discourage it on the corners is probably not – Borup: That’s probably not right. Shreeve: Yes, because it depends on which corner. Nary: If you’re at Ustick and Black Cat, that’s probably a little bit better place to have it on the corner. You may not want it on the corner, looking at this, at McMillan and Linder because of the way the growth pattern is and the more residential in that area. But, you know, again, I think you can encourage types of things, I hate to use the document to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 61 discourage things. That ends up being all people look at. We wrote in this document,5 years ago, we don’t want that so go away. That’s not what we’re trying to do. We want to encourage growth that’s smart and makes sense and that benefits the City of Meridian. If all we do is discourage growth, they’ll just go somewhere else. Then we’ll get something that we don’t like that we’re stuck with. I would rather just encourage the kind of growth that we would like to see. Borup: Yes. Either that or nothing’s going to happen at all. I’ve used those examples before. We, you know for 20 or 25 years the City of Boise siad their mall had to be downtown period. It was not going to be anywhere else. So, it didn’t go anywhere else. Nothing happened. You cant force – Nary: Unless you want to build it. Unless you want to spend your own money. You cant make people do stuff that they’re not wanting to do. Norton: Just for future discussion is, on these neighborhood centers, you know, cant developers do that on their own? Then BSU, west campus is going to be bigger than the BSU campus downtown and we’re going to need places – Borup: Acreage you mean? Norton: Acreage and buildings and students. There's going to be places for students that are going to need something to eat and shop and you know maybe a neighborhood center way out in the corner somewhere, close to the campus might be an idea. You know, I just think that, cant developers do that on their own? If there's an incentive, if the city comes up with incentives like one stop shopping for all your licenses and no impact fees, cant they just do that where they want to? Come to us, say can we do this? Borup: I don’t think its been encouraged in the past. The outlying areas have been residential, 100 percent residential. Now that they know about it, you know things may change. That’s an option and we want to encourage it. Centers: Then I think it could be a mission statement. If the city embraces the concept of neighborhood centers – Norton: Good idea. Centers: -- and let them take it from there. Ask staff what do you mean by this? Are we going to get a lot more leeway, I don’t know if I like that word or flexibility here if we embrace your concept and put out money behind it. So, just a mission statement that the City of Meridian embraces the concept of neighborhood centers. Maybe some developers will say what the heck do you mean by neighborhood center. Well, they’ll come in and ask about it. Word spreads like wild fire. Nary: Then if you create a zone for it, you have some underlying ordinance support. Somebody comes in and says what does that mean, you say heres what that concept Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 62 means. We allow it in a lot of different area, different than just the little blocks of colors on the map. We’ll allow those types of things but this is what we’re looking for. I think Commissioner Norton brings up a great point because one of the things that hasn’t been talking about in testimony, is this west end of the map where, we’re going to hopefully maybe serving some of that over flow from the canyon county campus of BSU. That is a good area there that could be developed. If you have a zone or something for it, you have the ordinance support for it, so you can point to something and say heres what it is. Centers: Neighborhood center zone. There are a lot of benefits for a developer, you know the R-8 and – Borup: Maybe it needs to be, as Commissioner Nary said, an overlay or just it doesn’t need to be restricted to anywhere. Essentially now, it’s the whole area, it’s the whole area of impact. Centers: No, let the developer pick the spot. Nary: That’s what I really mean by an overlay is that you’re going to allow it because you’re going to have a mixture of, you’re going to have a mixture of commercial, high density, stretching out to lower density around a center, office or commercial. You can use the same area that those 15 dots are currently located. It just doesn’t have to be in those dots – ***End of Side Four*** Shreeve: It would appear this would be the first item on the next. Centers: Do we want to do the regular meeting, an hour each time? Before or after? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: -- next agenda. I didn’t bring mine. Oh, you brought them? Whats the agenda for the 4th ? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Yes, the 4th was filled up pretty good I think . (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: So, if we did it on the 18th as part of our agenda – Borup: Or we could slip it in the Thursday between the 2. Norton: Oh, man, (inaudible). Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 63 (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: City Council is ready for this last month. Norton: We’ve been meeting 3 Thursdays and one Tuesday – Centers: For free. Norton: -- for free. Borup: I was going to say, I thought that’s why we got the bucks. Centers; I vote to include it in our regular meeting – Norton: I second. Centers: -- because we have to advertise it anyway. Borup: Right. Cneters: Will can just include some additional verbiage. Borup: I think the 18th is definitely, except for we continued 2 items. Centers: So, lets start it earlier. Can you all be here at 6:00? I can. Shreeve: Yes, I can. Centers: Okay. Then (inaudible) Norton: If the City of Meridian provides dinner I can. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Norton: Pizza. Centers: We’ll set a maximum of 3 :00 in the morning. Shreeve: That’s a new budget year, Mr. Berg. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Shreeve: If we’ve got a couple of items on the 18th , you know so be it, but that’s it. I mean, lets – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 64 Borup: We’ve continued 2. Shreeve: Right. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Before that it was a real short agenda. Norton: We only have 5 items. Shreeve: Oh, on the 18th ? Berg: That’s the continued meeting. Borup: Actually there's only 4. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: Would we want to have this start at 6:00? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: It can spill over into 7:00. I mean, we can run the other ones --. I mean, they’re not – Borup: We can start it at 6:00 and spill over a little bit but I think we’d want to start the regular agenda – Nary: Sure. Borup: -- then if there's time at the end we could come back to it. Nary: Sure. Borup: Is that what you’re thinking? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: And might continue after our regular meeting (inaudible). Borup: The 18th would be the first one. We’re not doing that on the 3rd ? Norton: 6:00 on the 18th ? Borup: 6:00 on the 18th . Norton: Do you want to do it on the 4th ? 6:00 on the 4th also? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 65 Nary: No because that looks like a long meeting. After today, I (inaudible). (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: But if we do it on the 18th and then we see where we’re at. I mean, I don’t think we’re far off on the neighborhood centers with at least coming up with a proposal – Centers: Right. Nary: Then we would be looking at the land use map, pathways, transportation, those kind of things. Some of the things that I think havent been as controversial. Borup: There would be 6 applications on the 4th . Nary: I think it just makes for a really – Borup: Ones of them is a full residential subdivision. The other ones are commercial. Then a couple of , a drive thru. Nary: We know how long those can be. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, just a question on clarification. Of course we’re talking about the big items now. Obviously there is a couple of smaller items, I guess those will just kind of be hit as we start wrapping things up., I’m sure each of you might have individual little things that you want to talk about. I know I do. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Is there anything that you want to bring up now. Shreeve: No, not tonight. No, not necessarily. There are a couple of other issues. They were smaller compared to what we’re talking about now that certainly I would like to address at some point and time. Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion to continue this to the 18th at 6:00. Centers: I would so move that we continue our workshop for the – Borup: Its still a special meeting. Cneters: We closed the public hearing. Borup: Well, we closed the public testimony portion but I believe its still a public meeting. I’m sorry, go ahead. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting September 27, 2001 Pg. 66 Centers: I would move that we continue our meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan which would be without public testimony unless called by the Commission to our October 18th meeting at 6:00 P.M. Norton: I second. Borup: Any discussion? Motion second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Cetners: You need a motion to adjourn? So moved. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:09 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, PRESIDENT DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK